As you know I'm a Southside guy....if they were lucky in 2005 so be it
| Chicago Fanatics Message Board https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/ |
|
| 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" https://mail.chicagofanatics.com/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=102583 |
Page 1 of 5 |
| Author: | badrogue17 [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:56 pm ] |
| Post subject: | 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Senor educatin' the masses on variance |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 4:58 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
2005! |
|
| Author: | Drake LaRrieta [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Pierzynski. |
|
| Author: | Walt Williams Neck [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:08 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
As you know I'm a Southside guy....if they were lucky in 2005 so be it
|
|
| Author: | Brick [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
2005 |
|
| Author: | Drake LaRrieta [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
If "variance" is such a factor why not make a bye for the teams with the best record in each league? |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:15 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
A World Series championship is a World Series championship. But any outcome you don't like is always due to "luck." BernSTINE is jealously showing his typical Cubs fan ass. Get this guy off theair. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:19 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
I wasndown on Bernstein for awhile, but I gotta say he's really making a mid-career surge lately. |
|
| Author: | Juice's Lecture Notes [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
badrogue17 wrote: Senor educatin' the masses on variance I haven't heard it, but from listening to him prattle on from Joe Sheehan's newsletter regularly, I can almost guarantee you he doesn't understand what variance actually is, and is misusing it terribly. Sheehan barely has a working understanding of the concept. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Juice's Lecture Notes wrote: badrogue17 wrote: Senor educatin' the masses on variance I haven't heard it, but from listening to him prattle on from Joe Sheehan's newsletter regularly, I can almost guarantee you he doesn't understand what variance actually is, and is misusing it terribly. Sheehan barely has a working understanding of the concept. It's typical Bernstein. He takes everything to the extreme. While he correctly points out that there is major variance in small sample sizes in baseball, he has to take it to the extreme and basically say that baseball playoffs are 100% random even when his co-host tells him how idiotic it is. There is no middle ground with him. |
|
| Author: | good dolphin [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 5:55 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
The piggery is about as decidedly non Bernstein as a restaurant could be |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:13 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:21 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
312player wrote: They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing. The team was in 1st place wire to wire. |
|
| Author: | Walt Williams Neck [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:30 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
SomeGuy wrote: 312player wrote: They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing. The team was in 1st place wire to wire. this is lucky 
|
|
| Author: | Chus [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 6:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Last year, he was crying that it wasn't fair that the Cubs had to play a play-in game after a 97 win season. This year, it's not fair that the Giants get to start Bumgarner in game three. They should be punished for being a wild card team. Pick a lane, guys. |
|
| Author: | 312player [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:25 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
SomeGuy wrote: 312player wrote: They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing. The team was in 1st place wire to wire. Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle. |
|
| Author: | pittmike [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:33 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Hell of a lucky run through those 2005 playoffs. How many losses? |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
312player wrote: SomeGuy wrote: 312player wrote: They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing. The team was in 1st place wire to wire. Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle. Why Dante, whatever do you mean? They won 90 games the next season despite uneven defense and an abysmal bullpen. |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:37 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
SomeGuy wrote: 312player wrote: SomeGuy wrote: 312player wrote: They were " lucky" I don't listen to that horseshit show but if that's his premise...he's correct, lightning in a bottle n won't be replicated anytime soon Lucky....define that for me in the context of what we are discussing. The team was in 1st place wire to wire. Never said they weren't a very good team for that season...can't deny that, but it was wasn't built got any sustainability.. It was lightning in a bottle. Why Dante, whatever do you mean? They won 90 games the next season despite uneven defense and an abysmal bullpen. And Brian Anderson. Chicago--nay, the Midwest entire--did not deserve that. That season still pissed me off. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
If he really said they were "lucky," he's an idiot. It wouldn't even matter if you thought that... when a team wins a title, the ends always justify the means. At the end of the day, they still have a WS title. I agree with his philosophy moving forward, but there is no criticism to be had of a team that wins the World Series, especially a team who was as dominant as the Sox were. Now excuse me while I throw up... |
|
| Author: | Terry's Peeps [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:52 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
2004: 83 wins 2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series) 2006: 90 wins 2007: 72 wins 2008: 88 wins (Won Division) That's not a bad 5 year run. |
|
| Author: | leashyourkids [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:54 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Terry's Peeps wrote: 2004: 83 wins 2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series) 2006: 90 wins 2007: 72 wins 2008: 88 wins (Won Division) That's not a bad 5 year run. If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS. |
|
| Author: | SomeGuy [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 7:57 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
leashyourkids wrote: Terry's Peeps wrote: 2004: 83 wins 2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series) 2006: 90 wins 2007: 72 wins 2008: 88 wins (Won Division) That's not a bad 5 year run. If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS. What's more important than winning the title is how you win the title. |
|
| Author: | Franky T [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:42 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
There is no such thing as "clutch", because you can't quantify it. But, there is such a thing as "luck" according to Danny. I wonder how "luck" is quantified? Variance I guess. |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:47 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
SomeGuy wrote: leashyourkids wrote: Terry's Peeps wrote: 2004: 83 wins 2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series) 2006: 90 wins 2007: 72 wins 2008: 88 wins (Won Division) That's not a bad 5 year run. If you win a WS, there's nothing to justify. You won a WS. What's more important than winning the title is how you win the title. I might agree. Winning in seven games like having a threesome and bragging about it--but then revealing that one (or more) of the others was a guy. Yeah, great, you had a threesome, but.... |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Terry's Peeps wrote: 2004: 83 wins 2005: 99 wins (Won a World Series) 2006: 90 wins 2007: 72 wins 2008: 88 wins (Won Division) That's not a bad 5 year run. and they won 88 in 2010. That was the year they had those long winning streaks midseason but faded.... |
|
| Author: | Kirkwood [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:49 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
 Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square. |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 8:51 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Kirkwood wrote: Nothing wrong with a die hard Sox fan having a different view on 2005. Everyone enjoys their championships differently. He chooses to reflect quietly by himself and credit luck. It's all fair and square. He looks Latino |
|
| Author: | Curious Hair [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:32 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
It's because of his teenstache and your internalized association with "Señor." Dan has admitted to crying when the White Sox won the World Series. I'd prefer he not cry for us. |
|
| Author: | formerlyknownas [ Thu Oct 06, 2016 9:34 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: 10/6 2005 White Sox were "lucky" |
Curious Hair wrote: It's because of his teenstache  Curious Hair wrote: and your internalized association with "Señor." Que? |
|
| Page 1 of 5 | All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|