Im not understanding what is so lucky about them? They lead in almost every single game and win most of them. That arguement is very old and dated.
nobody cares about the white sox. they could win 150 games and only ken harrelson and his extended family would give a shit.
I dont give a shit if people give dont give a shit, but dont say that there lucky with 40 games left in the season, thats just stupid.
no it isn't. they're not the best team in baseball, yet they have the best record. whatever explains that has to have at least something to do with luck.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:36 pm Posts: 3271 Location: Chicago
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
_________________ strobe lights and blown speakers.
they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
this sentence is like rain on my wedding day
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
how about this:
they're +6 over their expected won lost record, the biggest differential in the american league. they're good. they're also lucky bastards. case closed.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
pnjguy wrote:
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:36 pm Posts: 3271 Location: Chicago
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
pnjguy wrote:
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
how about this:
they're +6 over their expected won lost record, the biggest differential in the american league. they're good. they're also lucky bastards. case closed.
They also have 12 new players, its a different team, to say their 6 over their expected won lost record, you try to expect a team's win loss record with half of its players being new. So who so-called expected their win loss record. If your goin on that you need to start watching some of their games and put down the computer.
_________________ strobe lights and blown speakers.
All i know is that pitching wins, and nobody has a better staff than the white sox, maybe just as good, but not better. And they dont have a hitter batting over .280, so im not sure where luck fits into it.
how about this:
they're +6 over their expected won lost record, the biggest differential in the american league. they're good. they're also lucky bastards. case closed.
They also have 12 new players, its a different team, to say their 6 over their expected won lost record, you try to expect a team's win loss record with half of its players being new. So who so-called expected their win loss record. If your goin on that you need to start watching some of their games and put down the computer.
what are you talking about?
their expected won/lost record as figured by their runs scored/runs against. the fuck does new players have to do with anything?
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 7:36 pm Posts: 3271 Location: Chicago
I thought you meant from last year to this year, but still, if you watch their games, there's no luck involved whatsover. They lead baseball in quality starts, stolen bases, sac flies, sac bunts, and era. Luck wears off over a season such as the Orioles, Rangers, Nationals ect.
_________________ strobe lights and blown speakers.
this thread makes me want to put on a wifebeater and beat the crap out of an elderly first base coach on two for one beer night
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 12:59 am Posts: 18643 Location: Raleigh, NC Gender: Male
pnjguy wrote:
I thought you meant from last year to this year, but still, if you watch their games, there's no luck involved whatsover. They lead baseball in quality starts, stolen bases, sac flies, sac bunts, and era. Luck wears off over a season such as the Orioles, Rangers, Nationals ect.
They don't lead baseball in ERA.
Can you show anything to support that leading baseball in sacrifices equates to wins? I mean, they don't lead baseball in sac flies anyway..Detroit does..and they're not very good. San Francisco is 2nd in sac hits, and whew do they stink. Colorado is 4th.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
