Buster Olney ranks Cubs infield as the best in baseball

[brett05]

The question involved making the playoffs. 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991. The only year they missed the playoffs in that stretch was 1989. They finished 1st in their division every one of those seasons, except for 1991 in which they finished 2nd. The 85 Bears are the opposite of what Dantown suggested.

I can see that view as well.

 

[brett05]

That maybe a team with one of the greatest athletes to play, like the back-to-back Blue Jays champions of the early 90's, would be a better example of a top 5 all-time team than the 2005 White Sox?

The BlueJays would be a better example of a potential franchise. Multiple years have no weight in judging a single season.

 

[brett05]

Thought it was a simple question...when you said "wire to wire", are you talking about the White Sox leading the AL Central in a 3-division format, or are you talking about the White Sox leading the entire American League? Because I don't think they were "wire to wire" in leading the entire American League. So, for a second time, what do you mean when you say "wire to wire winners"?

And for a second time it means a team was never out of first place and ends up winning it all.

EDIT:
In case you need more:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glossary_of_baseball_(W)#wire-to-wire

I believe there have been four teams to do this feat.

 

[brett05]

Thought it was a simple question...when you said "wire to wire", are you talking about the White Sox leading the AL Central in a 3-division format, or are you talking about the White Sox leading the entire American League? Because I don't think they were "wire to wire" in leading the entire American League. So, for a third time, what do you mean when you say "wire to wire winners"?

If you mean only the AL Central, then its a bit disingenuous to say "that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire", when the majority of baseball teams in history did not have the luxury of playing in a crappy division in a 3-division format. That's all I am trying to say. I see the difficulty in even attempting to discuss baseball on this forum hasn't changed. Probably for the best, though.

I do not know if they led all of the AL the entire season, but no one speaks of that when speaking of wire to wire winners in a sport.

 

[brett05]

 

[Parade_Rain]

The baseball discussion in this thread is unbeatable! 2005 White Sox are a top 5 all-time MLB team...its not even worth discussing!

Let me know when you want to talk baseball. I am interested in knowing your thoughts.

Since I am trying to have a baseball discussion (gasp!) and don't want to get into the typical semantic circle jerk that usually takes place on the CCS baseball forums, would you please address my comment of:

If you mean only the AL Central, then its a bit disingenuous to say "that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire", when the majority of baseball teams in history did not have the luxury of playing in a crappy division in a 3-division format.

Who let you out of banned poster hell? They should put you back in, if this is going to be your continued posting style.

 

[ijustposthere]

LOL at the 05 White Sox being a top 5 all-time team. They're pretty much an afterthought.

 

[ijustposthere]

Maybe it IS me...I'm not understanding why its so hard to discuss baseball here. Thought these "all time" topics would get the baseball banter rolling...I guess not.

Trying to discuss anything with Brett is insanely difficult.

 

[brett05]

Trying to discuss anything with Brett is insanely difficult.

:dontsay:

 

[Parade_Rain]

Do you agree that its a bit disingenuous to say "that 2005 team did what very few baseball teams have done and that is lead wire to wire", when the majority of baseball teams in history did not have the luxury of playing in a crappy division in a 3-division format? Just trying to discuss whether or not the 2005 White Sox are a top 5 all-time team. Maybe it IS me...I'm not understanding why its so hard to discuss baseball here. Thought these "all time" topics would get the baseball banter rolling...I guess not.

My comment had nothing to do with the 2005 White Sox and was regarding your general attitude that the baseball forum sucks. There are some exceptional people posting on this forum who deserve better than "The baseball discussion in this thread is unbeatable!" and "Since I am trying to have a baseball discussion (gasp!) and don't want to get into the typical semantic circle jerk that usually takes place on the CCS baseball forums". Brett is difficult to deal with. Leave the rest of us out of it. Thanks.

 

[Diehardfan]

I must have gotten lost. I thought this was the Cubs Forum.

Who the **** cares about the 2005 White Sox.....those who do, head over to the tumbleweed blowing around in the Sox Forum.

 

[FirstTimer]

In fairness, the 2005 team was a ton more than winning the lottery. They are probably a top 5 all time season in baseball

LOL.

The '05 White Sox might not even be a top 5 team of the last 10 seasons.

 

[SilenceS]

Yea, they are no where near a top 5 team to me. Ill give and say they had a prolific post season run. I remember they faltered for a bit and then got super hot. Its what I keep trying to explain to certain posters. The post season is all about who gets hot.

 

[ijustposthere]

27 Yankees, 75 Reds, 05 White Sox. Sounds about right.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Yea, they are no where near a top 5 team to me. Ill give and say they had a prolific post season run. I remember they faltered for a bit and then got super hot. Its what I keep trying to explain to certain posters. The post season is all about who gets hot.

Uh, that 2005 Sox team was a machine. They were the most dominant team in the league up until August (lost 8 games). They still ended up with 99 wins that year, and went 11-1 in the playoffs (including a sweep of the World Series).

It may not have been significant to you being a Cubs fan, but there was nothing "lucky" about that team at all.

Then again, it's better to be lucky than sucky. :bowrofl::cubspalm:

 

[SilenceS]

Uh, that 2005 Sox team was a machine. They were the most dominant team in the league up until August (lost 8 games). They still ended up with 99 wins that year, and went 11-1 in the playoffs (including a sweep of the World Series).

It may not have been significant to you being a Cubs fan, but there was nothing "lucky" about that team at all.

Then again, it's better to be lucky than sucky. :bowrofl::cubspalm:

Excellent post.

 

[ijustposthere]

Uh, that 2005 Sox team was a machine. They were the most dominant team in the league up until August (lost 8 games). They still ended up with 99 wins that year, and went 11-1 in the playoffs (including a sweep of the World Series).

It may not have been significant to you being a Cubs fan, but there was nothing "lucky" about that team at all.

Then again, it's better to be lucky than sucky. :bowrofl::cubspalm:

Considering the lack of success they had prior and since, not to mention the lack of success most of their players had prior to and after, they were lucky in regards to a lot of mediocre players having career years at the same time.

 

[brett05]

Brett is difficult to deal with.

So are you.

 

[brett05]

I'm just going to drop it. I made a casual mention of the team and too many Cubs posters went off the deep end. Let's just move along.

 

[Icculus]

The question involved making the playoffs. 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1990, 1991. The only year they missed the playoffs in that stretch was 1989. They finished 1st in their division every one of those seasons, except for 1991 in which they finished 2nd. The 85 Bears are the opposite of what Dantown suggested.

It's at least a little easier to make the playoffs consecutive years in football than it is in baseball unless you're talking about the Bears.