-
2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
You're going to hear a lot of talk in the next couple of weeks about the 2004 Red Sox or the 2009 Yankees being the "Team of the Decade." But in looking back through the notes our department compiled, and comparing some of the numbers from the championship teams of the 2000s, the 2005 White Sox are a very legitimate candidate.
Consider the following pieces of information, gleaned from our resources, with some help from the Elias Sports Bureau:
The White Sox tied with the 2002 Angels for second-best record by a World Series champ this decade (99-63).
The White Sox ended a longer drought without a World Series title than the Red Sox did (having last won the World Series in 1917, a year prior to Boston).
The White Sox went wire-to-wire in first place and won the World Series. They're one of only five teams to do that in major league history (1990 Reds, 1984 Tigers, 1955 Dodgers, 1927 Yankees), not to mention the only one to do so during the decade.
They went 11-1 in the postseason, good to be tied for the second-best win percentage in a single postseason since 1969.
They went unbeaten on the road in the postseason, and were the first team to clinch all three of their postseason series on their opponents' home field.
Their 52 road wins in the regular season were the most of any World Series champion in the decade.
Their 3.61 ERA was the best of any World Series champion in the decade.
They won 99 games. Bill James designed a method (Pythagorean projection) to assess how many wins a team should get in a season, based on their runs scored and runs allowed. The White Sox exceeded their Pythagorean projection of 91 wins by eight wins & the most any World Series winner exceeded their Pythagorean projection in the decade.
They hit 200 home runs, not ucommon for a champion during this decade, but they also stole 137 bases, the second-most of any World Series champion in the 2000s.
So you can hook onto the 2004 Red Sox for sentimentality, or the 2009 Yankees for statistical dominance, but if you're looking for a team with an appropriate combination of both, the 2005 White Sox are a good way to go.
http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/news/story?id=4765669
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Carbon.
The White Sox exceeded their Pythagorean projection of 91 wins by eight wins & the most any World Series winner exceeded their Pythagorean projection in the decade.
So the White Sox got lucky and won more games than they probably should have - and that makes them the team of the decade? I'm not saying that they aren't - I really don't put much stock in this kind of story - but this is not very supportive evidence.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
The World Series drought is, also, entirely irrelevant. As is the whole "wire to wire" thing. Who cares if the Yankees weren't in first place on April 16th or whatever? I'm not quite sure what this means:
Quote:
So you can hook onto the 2004 Red Sox for sentimentality, or the 2009 Yankees for statistical dominance, but if you're looking for a team with an appropriate combination of both, the 2005 White Sox are a good way to go.
If you're looking for the "best" team of the decade, sentimentality shouldn't be a factor whatsoever.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Ugh, mindless MSM drivel. I work for ESPN Chicago, therefore the 2005 White Sox were the team of the decade. Huh? :confused:
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
2004 Yankees were the team of the decade. Thanks Yanks ;)
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
metsguy234
2007 Mets beechez
Just the thought of them being the best team chokes me.
BOOM!
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Not to mention that they were 17th in the majors in wOBA and wRC and 10th in FIP and xFIP. They weren't even very close to being the best team in the league. It'd actually be laughable to call them the best team of the decade. The 2004 Red Sox was first in wOBA and third in pitching. The 2007 Red Sox were third in hitting, fifth in pitching and seventh in fielding. Both were better teams than the 2005 White Sox.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Francoeurstein
Just the thought of them being the best team chokes me.
BOOM!
'Mets' and 'choke' used in the same sentance, how many times have we heard that this decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Who is the best team of the decade, then? What would you guys use to judge? Wasn't their a Seattle team this decade that set a record for wins, then lost in the 1st round??
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
yomamaimontv
Who is the best team of the decade, then? What would you guys use to judge? Wasn't their a Seattle team this decade that set a record for wins, then lost in the 1st round??
I think that when you get to comparing the very best teams of the decade, it's too close to really say which team was better than which.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Uh, 2007 Rockies.
kthxbye
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
1983 Baltimore Orioles, FTW!
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Cal Ripken, Jr.
1983 Baltimore Orioles, FTW!
:rolleyes: here we go again
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Hmm, well if we are going by Playoff performance we would be. I personally would go with the 2009 Yankees just on a sight test, they certainly were the scariest team of the decade. I'd put the 2004 Red Sox second since their postseason was a little more in doubt being so close to elimination...ChiSox third for the playoff run.. I didn't really look at stats here, just my off the top of the head opinion.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
If you're looking for the "best" team of the decade, sentimentality shouldn't be a factor whatsoever.
It depends entirely upon how one is evaluating. Unlike "greatest hitter" which in reference to baseball unambiguously evaluates who is the greatest at hitting a baseball...when asked which is the best team, leaves it entirely ambiguous. Does the "best team" mean the one that provided the most offense, defense, excitement, wins, drama, championships? :p
I can assume he means which was the most talented team, or the most dominant team, and both could lead to good discussion. But those assumptions could be wrong, he could mean by saying "best" that the 05 White Sox provided the most assortment of all the evaluation methods, or the most dramatic, or exciting. All in this instance would be correct because unlike the question, "who is the greatest hitter", "which team is the best" does not provide a clear evaluator.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
It depends entirely upon how one is evaluating. Unlike "greatest hitter" which in reference to baseball unambiguously evaluates who is the greatest at hitting a baseball...when asked which is the best team, leaves it entirely ambiguous. Does the "best team" mean the one that provided the most offense, defense, excitement, wins, drama, championships? :p
I can assume he means which was the most talented team, or the most dominant team, and both could lead to good discussion. But those assumptions could be wrong, he could mean by saying "best" that the 05 White Sox provided the most assortment of all the evaluation methods, or the most dramatic, or exciting. All in this instance would be correct because unlike the question, "who is the greatest hitter", "which team is the best" does not provide a clear evaluator.
:rolleyes:
Unlike you, I don't see much of a difference between "greatest" and "best." They both can be interpreted in different ways. Neither is 100% unambiguous.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
:rolleyes:
Unlike you, I don't see much of a difference between "greatest" and "best." They both can be interpreted in different ways. Neither is 100% unambiguous.
don't put words into my mouth. I don't see any difference between the word "greatest" and "best". I do not however refuse to make different definitions for the term "hitter" which is very unambiguous. I can do this too :rolleyes:
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
dickay
don't put words into my mouth. I don't see any difference between the word "greatest" and "best". I do not however refuse to make different definitions for the term "hitter" which is very unambiguous. I can do this too :rolleyes:
"Hitter" is not unambiguous. Once again, it can mean "ability/talent at hitting" or "value from hitting."
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Seriously the 2001 Diamondbacks is the team I would take in this discussion. You had an MVP candidate in Luis Gonzalez, and I would take Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling together anyday of the week. That was the scariest 1,2.
Its pretty tough to statistically compare everything, but this is the team I would go with out of all of them.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
2001 Baltimore Orioles. After that, it's all went downhill.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
"Hitter" is not unambiguous. Once again, it can mean "ability/talent at hitting" or "value from hitting."
Actually, I believe it is defined as "Ripken, Jr., Calvin Edwin".
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
"Hitter" is not unambiguous. Once again, it can mean "ability/talent at hitting" or "value from hitting."
agree to disagree. Greatest hitter is the one who is the best at hitting a baseball (and not just contact..can't believe i have to say that). Value from hitting is irrelevant as the best hitter will provide the most value. Of course, value from hitting is relevant to the others in the leagues performance and value. Thus Babe Ruth was the best hitter of his time, and Bonds was the best of his time, which so happens to be a time where hitters are far more advanced/talented/etc. Bonds is the better hitter. Ruth was the more dominant hitter as his competition at the time was more inferior. He was the most dominant offensive player of all time, the most dominant hitter of alltime. Not the greatest hitter of alltime, by a long shot.
-
Re: 2005 Chicago White Sox = Team of the decade?
You love arguing semantics, don't you? If the best hitter will provide the most value, and greatest and best mean the same thing, than wouldn't the greatest hitter provide the most value? :rolleyes: lol. You're twisting yourself in circles to disagree with me instead of just accepting the fact that there are multiple ways to evaluate players and it depends on what you're measuring (talent or value) and just because you prefer one way doesn't mean it's the only possible way... and you're even dragging it into other threads now. Incredible.
