Buster Olney ranks Cubs infield as the best in baseball

[Parade_Rain]

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.

It's easier in any sport provided the ownership is dedicated to winning, the FO/GM and coaching staff are competent and the roster is filled with good players.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Of course it didn't, because then you would actually be discussing baseball!



No argument here. You are truly an 'exceptional' person based on your postings in this thread.

The post wasn't regarding myself being exceptional. There are some exceptional posters here. They deserve better than your usual garbage. You should go back to the cave you came from and keep jerking your meat instead of slobbering all over a keyboard, if this is the best you can do.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

Of course it didn't, because then you would actually be discussing baseball!

Ok, let's talk baseball. What do ya got? Take a look at other pages in this thread, or the GM thread and you'll see a lot of baseball discussed with real numbers and insight. So far I haven't seen that from you but I have an open mind so let's have a baseball discussion. Do you want to talk pitching, hitting or what? I posted a great piece yesterday in the GM thread about how the Cubs are better prepared against power pitching. That's a good discussion, want in? Or pick one, lots of knowledge around here. So far though I don't see you doing that.

 

[DanTown]

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.

For the record, their post-season run was fairly spectacular but that was mostly due their record (11-1). I mean, they were a solid regular season team but nothing that doesn't happen every year (unless "wire to wire" is of some radical importance in team evaluation but it absolutely isn't). They had the pythagorean of a low 90s win team, won more than that, and then had a great WS where they had a +6 run differential in four games.

99 Yankees (not even 98 yankees)
Days in first (any day) - 148
Run differential - +159
Pythagorean - 96-66
Playoff record - 11-1
Playoff run differential - +25 (with a -12)

2005 White Sox
Days in first - 183
Run differential - +96
Pythagorean - 91-71
Playoff Record - 11-1
Playoff run differential - +33 (with a +12)

The 05 White Sox team happens probably every 10ish years in terms of playoff/WS run but the regular season was fairly mundane.

 

[SilenceS]

While its still remarkable, their playoff run can somewhat be explained by the quality of opponent. The White Sox faced 2 wild card teams in their 3 postseason series, and the Astros were frankly one of the worst teams to ever appear in a World Series.

I am one to say the White Sox didn't have a top 5 team and they probably wouldn't be anywhere near that for me, but you just keep saying things. Provide the facts behind it.

The Stro's won 89 games that year, but they crushed the Braves and beat a very good Cardinals team. Even the world series, the White Sox didn't walk over them. It was tight games except one.

 

[TC in Mississippi]

My head is about to explode here. Are you somehow unable to see my postings in this thread? Am I being unclear, or is it a comprehension issue?

Here is what I've attempted to discuss in this thread, sometimes more than once....I'd be interested in knowing what you think and get the 'real insight':

1) Do you consider the 2005 White Sox to be one of the top 5 teams in MLB history?

2) Does a team going "wire to wire" have relevance in the best ever discussion?

3) Can a team without great players (like the 05 White Sox) be considered a top 5 team?

4) Would it make sense to consider multi-year champions like the 92-93 Blue Jays moreso than one-time champs like the 05 White Sox?

5)Is it 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.

6) Did you expect the 05 White Sox to win the World Series and only lose 1 game in the postseason?


Again, I can't wait to talk baseball with some of you guys. The build up has been tremendous.

Ok, I'll play:

1) No, one of the 5 best all time? Absolutely not. One of the best stories of the last 20 years? Yes. They were a fun team to watch, had some performances from some unexpected places and went through three closers before settling on Jenks who excelled. That's fun baseball to me.

2) Going wire to wire is an accomplishment. Does it make you one of the best in baseball? No, but I'm not sure how that's relevant here.

3) Yes, I think they can be considered a great team. I'm just going to the skip top 5 thing because only one poster, Brett, made that claim. A great team does not have to be comprised of great players and that team was by all measures greater than the sum of their parts. I don't have time right now but it would be fascinating to see how close their combined WAR totals were to their actual wins or Pythagorean totals to actual wins. I would guess they exceeded both.

4) This is a strawman. Except Brett nobody is calling the 2005 White Sox an all time team and even he isn't calling them the 1927 Yankees.

5) You can't pick your opponents in baseball. Who they played has no relevance in the discussion. they won the World Series that year and that is the ulitmate goal. They succeeded at it. The 2006 Cardinals won 83 games and proceeded to the World Series crown. They were the champions. It made me effing crazy but it is what it is. Should they have an asterisk?

6) I'm not even sure I understand the question. Who expects anything going into a playoff series, especially as it pertains to W-L record? We all make some often wrong projections but expectations of a nearly perfect run? Yeah, I don't get the point.

So there you go. All of your questions answered and I'm not sure I understand how this is baseball. Brett made an off hand, homer based remark that most people let go and you've carried on that people don't talk baseball. I like baseball. I like the numbers of baseball and I like to watch it. Talking about the 2005 White Sox, who had a remarkable run and were kind of fun to watch if you didn't hate them, isn't really talking baseball is it?

 

[Parade_Rain]

My head is about to explode here. Are you somehow unable to see my postings in this thread? Am I being unclear, or is it a comprehension issue?

You likely have the comprehension issue

Here is what I've attempted to discuss in this thread, sometimes more than once....I'd be interested in knowing what you think and get the 'real insight':

Insight? More like a bunch of conjecture and opinion.

1) Do you consider the 2005 White Sox to be one of the top 5 teams in MLB history?

No.

2) Does a team going "wire to wire" have relevance in the best ever discussion?

Sure, but that would just be one criteria of many. If that’s a primary reason for consideration, then it lacks teeth.

3) Can a team without great players (like the 05 White Sox) be considered a top 5 team?

The undefeated Miami Dolphins had a bunch of no-names. Except for Griese, Morris and Csonka on offense (and old Earl Morrall actually started 9 games that season), does anyone remember “great players” on that team. I get it. Langer, Little, Warfield, Buoniconti, too. The Sox did have several great players. Did they have a lot of AS and future HoFers? No, but as the Yankees and Dodgers have found out, you just can’t throw money at a bunch of named players and get wins. It’s about team chemistry and catching fire at the right time. That doesn’t make a team “great” in the annals of history, but it does them “great” as a WS champion.

4) Would it make sense to consider multi-year champions like the 92-93 Blue Jays moreso than one-time champs like the 05 White Sox?

Do you think the 88-89 49ers were better than the 85 Bears?

5)Is it 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.

“Crappy” is also a subjective term, so while you’re acting like a dick toward Brett05 about his personal opinion, your “crappy” would also be personal opinion. The NFC North has been mostly crap. The Packers have taken advantage of it. Therefore, the Packers are crap. That’s what your conclusion is regarding the Sox.

6) Did you expect the 05 White Sox to win the World Series and only lose 1 game in the postseason?

Yes. Call me Nostradamus.

Again, I can't wait to talk baseball with some of you guys. The build up has been tremendous.

If you can talk baseball, feel free to hang out here. I haven’t seen you be able to do that though. You might try the Sox forum. I hear they are easy to deal with and friendly.

 

[SilenceS]

Not really following your "prove the facts behind it" statement, nor do I understand what you mean by I "just keep saying things". The 2005 Red Sox were the AL wild card, the 2005 Astros were the NL wild card. The White Sox played both of these teams. I thought it was factually correct to say the White Sox faced 2 wild card teams in their 3 postseason series...was that wrong?

As for the Astros, their record was factually one of the worst to play in the World Series. Your characterization that they "crushed" the Braves is a bit odd...the 5-game series went 4 games and the Astros outscored the Braves only 25-21. They beat the Cardinals in a 6 game series. The White Sox outscored the Astros 20-14 in the World Series....so the White Sox didn't walk over the Astros by sweeping them with a +6 run margin, but the Astros crushed the Braves by going 3-1 with a +4 run margin.

Got it.

How many wild card teams have won the series in the past decade? You seem to be downplaying wild card teams like they should never be in a championship game which is laughable in itself. Secondly, I loved +run margin as your answer because you are trying to hide the facts. The Astros and the Braves played one close game in the 4 game series. Game 1- Astros 10 Braves 5, Game 2- Astros 1, Brave-7, Game 3-Astros 7, Braves- 3, Games 4- Astros 7, Braves 6 went 18. They handled them pretty easily if I must say considering the Braves were the home team. You are correct they beat the Cardinals in 6 games. I said they beat a very good Cardinals team. Don't know where your argument is there. Then, here comes the world series. White Sox won 5-3 in the first game. Second game Astros scored 2 in the top of the ninth to tie the game. The White Sox walked off in the bottom of ninth. Third game- Astros and White Sox go 14 innings. White Sox score two in the top of the 14th. Game 4- Astros lose 1-0 to the White Sox. The Astros were close in every game. They weren't shelled for a couple of games. Oh, and tell the 06 Cardinals that they were the worst team to win the World Series. 83 wins and a world championship later. They don't care.

 

[SilenceS]

I don't have the exact number off the top of my head...but I know the answer can't include the 2005 Red Sox or 2005 Astros!



Not sure how the Braves blowout of the Astros in Game 2 counts against the Braves because it wasn't a "close game". Game 4 went 18 innings and Game 5 would have been in Atlanta. I don't understand how stating the run margin constitutes "hiding facts"...I thought run margin was in itself a "fact".



It wasn't meant to be argumentative. You asked me to "prove the facts behind it". I included it as a factual statement.




I appreciate the baseball discourse and agree with what you are saying, but its like you are illustrating both sides of the argument. So were the White Sox a top 5 great team because they went 11-1 in the postseason and swept the WS, or were the Astros a top quality opponent because all the WS games were close?

The white sox had probably one of the better post season runs in history but overall I don't think they are anywhere near a top 5 team.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Parade_Rain]

Or, it could be that instead of talking baseball, you just like to insult people.

If you bring a smarmy attitude in here (which you have), that's what you're going to get back. You must be related to The Hawk.

The 1972 Miami Dolphins had 7 HOFers...Shula, Griese, Warfield, Csonka, Langer, Little, Buoniconti. That's more than 99.9% of the teams in NFL history. Ironically, they are considered one of the top 5 NFL teams in history. NFL Films named them as the #1 team of all time in their America's Game segment. I don't see how they are REMOTELY comparable to the 2005 White Sox.

Shula? Let me know what his stats were in that season. Did he trip someone running down the sideline?

1988 was kind of a down year for the Niners even though they won the Super Bowl. I would say the 1989 Niners were better than the 1985 Bears without hesitation.

14-2 is not as good as 15-1. The defense was also not as good as the Bears, IIRC. The offense was admittedly better.

No, its not subjective. Its objective. Its easier to lead "wire to wire" in a 5 or 6 team division than a 13 team league, because you have to be ahead of fewer teams.

Objective stats are concrete. "Crappy" lacks a specific definition.

Thanks. I can't imagine them being less friendly than you.

Let us know when you've been friendly.

 

[Parade_Rain]

What if...I was The Hawk??

You're not. You can be entertaining every now and then.

I would guess that Shula did have a part in the success of the 1972 Dolphins. His stats for that season was 17 games coached, 17 wins. Let me know when Ozzie Guillen gets his plaque in Cooperstown...I will definitely make the trip out to rural New York. It kind of glosses over the fact that your comparison of the 2005 White Sox to the 1972 Dolphins was horrendous.

I'm sure Shula did, just like every other manager/HC of every professional championship team.

Thanks for the quick math lesson. 1985 was definitely the Bears' year, but the Niners usually could handle the Bears.

1984: Niners 23, Bears 0
1985: Bears 26, Niners 10
1987: Niners 41, Bears 0
1988: Bears 10, Niners 9
1988: Niners 28, Bears 3
1989: Niners 26, Bears 0

The Bears were a great team in 1985, but the Niners were a more well-rounded team in 1989. I think Montana vs. McMahon is a big difference, as is Rice vs. Gault.

Could be. Montana was possibly the best ever. I'm not sure outside of the Dolphins, though, that may people think of another team other than the 85 Bears though. The point of why I posted it originally was your comment about the Blue Jays over the White Sux. 2 years vs 1 year. The 14-2 9ers may have been better, but 15-1 > 14-2 avery day and twice on Sunday.

 

[SilenceS]

Get it all out fellas because when Pitchers and Catchers report. This is turning into a strictly baseball forum or I will smite thee.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Get it all out fellas because when Pitchers and Catchers report. This is turning into a strictly baseball forum or I will smite thee.

Why you gotta go and treat us like tardigrade, S?

 

[SilenceS]

Why you gotta go and treat us like tardigrade, S?

Why you gotta be so rude. Don't you know that I am human too

 

[Parade_Rain]

Why you gotta be so rude. Don't you know that I am human too

I must've missed that line in the mega-complaint thread by 3 or 4 butthurt forumites. :facepalm: at self.

 

[FirstTimer]

Could be. Montana was possibly the best ever. I'm not sure outside of the Dolphins, though, that may people think of another team other than the 85 Bears though. The point of why I posted it originally was your comment about the Blue Jays over the White Sux. 2 years vs 1 year. The 14-2 9ers may have been better, but 15-1 > 14-2 avery day and twice on Sunday.

Then you really don't follow football discussion much.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Then you really don't follow football discussion much.

I follow football history very well. The 42 Bears rate higher than 85, but I won't be engaging you in your bullshit.

 

[FirstTimer]

I follow football history very well. The 42 Bears rate higher than 85, but I won't be engaging you in your bullshit.

Then you would know many times some of the 70's Steelers teams have been placed over the Bears. The '89 Niners have been mentioned as well.

 

[Parade_Rain]

Then you would know many times some of the 70's Steelers teams have been placed over the Bears. The '89 Niners have been mentioned as well.

I would know about the Steelers. That's why I didn't mention 78-79.

 

[FirstTimer]

I would know about the Steelers. That's why I didn't mention 78-79.

So when you said this: "I'm not sure outside of the Dolphins, though, that may people think of another team other than the 85 Bears though." you were completely wrong? (again)