I never had high hopes for this team. Even when things were going well, I was not optomistic about the future as our 1,2 and 3 pitchers were very unclear and still are.

Good playoff teams send guys to the mound that dominate.

Now I see this team on the verge of a breakdown. With the exception of moving Alexi to SS next year, I am not sure where the improvement is going to come from and we still have to pay Paulie.

_________________
""I am now done at the Score."
Mike North, June 24, 2008

Where is the Sox version of PANIC, PANIC, PANIC

_________________
"He is a loathsome, offensive brute
--yet I can't look away."

Of course we're not the best team in the AL. Rays, Angels and Red Sox are better. Just win the Central. Twins aren't perfect. That's all we have to do. I realize the Sox losing in the playoffs is very likely. But it's fuckin' baseball. We can win 3 out of 5 or 4 out of 7 against any team in baseball. That's the way it works. It's not impossible. The best team doesn't always win in a playoff series.

Beardown is absolutely right. The White Sox are NOT the best team in baseball, but you just never know come playoff time. The Seattle Mariners a few years ago won a record amount of games in a 162-game season, but it meant absolutely nothing once the New York Yankees sent the M's home empty handed in the A.L. Championship Series. Come playoff time, you just never know...What the Anaheim Angels are doing right now could be a distant memory if they lose 3 out of 5 in the Divisional Playoffs & 4 out of 7 in the Championship Series and/or the World Series.

The 1990 Reds were HUGE underdogs to the A's in the World Series that year. The Reds swept them.

1984 Cubs were better than the Padres.

2003 Cubs were better than the Marlins.

2005 White Sox were the best team in baseball that year. Oh...wait. That one worked out correctly.

Pick a team, any team, in 2006, and you could have a solid argument that they were better than the Cardinals...

I'm pretty good with my baseball history.

The 1960 Pirates were huge underdogs to the great Yankees. They beat the Yanks that year. Mazarowski's famous game 7 homer won it.

Plus, there are other factors. Maybe the team the Sox play in the first round can't set up their rotation the way the want. Maybe they have to use their ace in game 162 to get in. Who knows?

Now, the Angels are gonna get in easy this year. They'll have their rotation set. Here's the good news: The Angels will be the top seed. That's pretty clear. That means they will play the wild card team in the first round. That will either be the Red Sox, Yankees, or Rays.

The Sox will get the winner of the East in for the first round. Red Sox, Yankees or Rays obviously.

So, let's just say we handle our first round series and the Angels have to go 5 in theirs and have to pitch their ace to get out of the first round. That's good news for us. He won't be able to go in game one. Maybe can't go in game two.

I'm just glad that the Sox will avoid the Angels in the first round. I think that's clear. If the Sox win the division I don't see the Twins getting the Wild Card. That's the only way we'll have to face the Angels in round 1. Wild Card is coming out of the East. So we will avoid the Angels in round one.

How about this? Maybe the Angels get upset by the Wild Card and we don't have to face them in the ALCS.

A lot of factors go into playoff baseball. Don't forget that guys.

I completely agree with your overall argument, Beardown, but I disagree with the observation that the 2003 Cubs were better than the Marlins.

_________________

That's fine. Maybe you're right about the 2003 Marlins. But when you consider they had Wood and Prior going, both with a chance to clinch it, it's hard to say the Cubs weren't the favorites at that point. Let's not forget how dominate Wood and Prior were late in the year and how great they were against the Braves in the 1st round.

So in game 6, you believe it was the dominance of the Marlins to come back and win that game, rather than the absolute blunder of A-Gon to make a routine double play and end the 8th inning.

Umm, I didn't say anything about Game 6 at all. If you read Beardown's posts, you'd know that his premise is that the best team doesn't always win in the playoffs. The fact that the Cubs were on the verge of winning that series is, I would say, a classic instance of that observation. But fate intervened, the better team won-even if they appeared not to deserve it--and the rest is history.

But I don't get your point about the Gonzalez error, anyway. He was a member of the Cubs, right? His mistake doesn't somehow count against the Cubs and their level of play?

_________________

Like I said, if the Sox get in and get bounced by the Angels I'll say "Yep, that's about right."

I also think of that Brave Heart speech by William Wallace. I'll paraphrase it.

Yeah, you can run and you will live - for a while. If you stay and fight you might die. But don't you want that one chance!!! Just one chance!!! For Freedom!!!!! Every man dies. But not every man truely lives!!!

Yeah, I know. That Scotish struggle was more important than a damn playoff race in baseball. But you get my point.

Good stuff.

_________________

Well if you're saying the 2003 Marlins were better overall, then you would have to include all the games of the NLCS as well. Don't try me with the "if you would have read" crap TM, I know what Beardown was saying. But you're saying the 2003 Marlins were better than the Cubs, and it was only because ultimately the meltdown of the Cubs that the Marlins went on to win the NLCS and the World Series. Yeah, forget about momentum. That's minutia right?

So if the Cubs won the NLCS, and beat the Yankees, you would say the Marlins were the one of those "best teams that didn't win the World Series"? Would you really use that weak ass argument?

and that speech was by Randall Wallace, technically.

I know that movie was full of flaws. Hollywood will do that for the drama. But are you telling me they didn't even get Wallace's name right?

I never thought that the Princess could have been that hot in that time period.

I'm not really following your point, if you even have one. So what if the Cubs melted down? Their mistakes in Game 6 and their inability to win Game 7 with one of their best pitchers on the mound aren't an indicator of their weakness? Their self-destruction doesn't signify their overall quality as a baseball team? Dusty Baker getting absolutely pantsed by McKeon doesn't count?

The Marlins had the best record in baseball from the time McKeon took over as manager to the end of the season. The Cubs choked under pressure and proved themselves to be unworthy of a championship whereas the Marlins took advantage of the opportunities presented to them. They were the better team.

_________________

The only reason that I could see an argument that the Marlins were, at least, the Cubs equals was Josh Beckett. We didn't know he was "The great Josh Beckett" until after that series. He went on to prove his greatness in the next series against the Yankees and again last year with the Red Sox.

I'll take the Marlins lineup--with IRod, Derrek Lee, Mike Lowell, Alex Gonzalez, Luis Castillo, Miguel Cabrera, Juan Pierre, Encarnacion, etc--over the Cubs lineup of Karros, Sosa, Miller, Grudzielanek, Lofton, Alou, etc--every time. The Marlins were a much better hitting team, weren't they? The Cubs had two guys with more than 80 RBI whereas the Marlins had four and another guy who was close.

_________________

Heh, no I'm just saying there's no record of William Wallace saying it. Randall Wallace was the screenwriter of the film. So technically that speech belongs to him.

It was full of flaws but doesn't take away the strength of it. It was well written, acted and directed. Great spectacle.

Jesus Christ, TM...So what if the Cubs melted down? That's my whole goddamn point from the beginning. If they didn't melt down they would have won game 6 and gone on to the World Series! Would you still say the Marlins were the best team of 2003?

So what if the Marlins had statistically a better "hitting" team. The Cubs had a proven veteran roster and a good pitching staff. If they would have kept their heads in the game they would have won it. Were you honestly thinking after game 5 that the Marlins were still the better team? The Cubs had them by the balls and they choked. It wasn't because the Marlins intimidated them it's because the Cubs are the fugging Cubs, they find ways to lose.

Trust me I am an expert on losing team traditions.

Oh right. I would have guessed that some of those speeches weren't accurate. How the hell would a movie writer know every word? The real Wallace couldn't have been that brilliant.

I actually read up on Wallace. That shit with the Princess never hapened. He never got that close to her. I don't even think his wife was killed in the fashion that they described. I don't even think Wallace had such a love affair and a secret marriage like the movie described.

Hey, it's the movies. You gotta work in some bitches and some sexual tension.

Cubs line up was good. Lofton came on great for the Cubs late. Sosa was still decent. ARAM was good. I'll just say they were fairly even teams.

Still not sure what your point is. You're saying that the Cubs' mistakes and psychological implosion aren't an indicator of their overall quality? If so, I disagree. The Cubs choked in 2003 and again in 2004. Their mental weakness was a serious, persistent flaw, not a fluke.

I thought the Marlins were better than the Cubs before the series started and was surprised that they took the series lead. At no time during the series did I think the Cubs were better than the Marlins, particularly because of Dusty Baker, who I anticipated would be a serious handicap for the team, as he was for the Giants.

_________________

Gentlemen,....wrong section

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

What you say is true but the Marlins were the "piranhas" of that season. With Pierre, Castillo and IRod at the top of the lineup, they worked the pitch count and kept coming and coming and coming.

_________________

...and in all fairness Josh Beckett wasn't "JOSH BECKETT", yet.

But Kid K and Mr. Perfect Form were already the anointed ones

_________________
There are only two examples of infinity: The universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the universe.

In truth, the 2003 season, was the only season that Kid K and Mr. Perfect were "Kid K" and "Mr. Perfect."

Prior won 18 games that year. Wood should have won 20 that year but he had absolutly no run support when he pitched. I think he only won 14.

Exactly. This is why I say that the Cubs belief that the series was "stolen" from them is an example of Cub fan hubris. Their fans rather believe that they are historically jinxed than that the Marlins were simply better than them. It is an example of yuppie provincialism, really.

_________________