Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The Tigers just beat up on the White Sox leaving them at 31 and 101. It's made me wonder: Could the WhiteSox top the '03 Tigers in loss total? The 2003 Tigers, at 132 games played, were at 33 and 99... so a robust 2 games over the White Sox right now.

To not top the 03 Tigers the White Sox need to win 12 more games out of the remaining 30... this would give them 43-119, same as the Tigers. Here's their remaining schedule:

vs. Texas (3) - Probably out of the race
vs. Mets (3) - 3 Games Back in Wild Card
@ Baltimore (3) - Probably in the playoffs, but fighting for position
@ Boston (3) - Probably out of the race
vs. Cleveland (3) - Fight with Royals for lead of Central
vs. Oakland (3) - Way out of it.
@ Angels (3) - Even more way out of it.
@ Padres (3) - Probably a WC team, fighting for position.
vs. Angels (3) - Still way out of it.
@ Tigers (3)

I do find it interesting that we might be the ones to push them over the limit in that last series. Only 4 of the series look like they are against playoff bound teams, but none of those teams look like they've locked up positioning so they won't be coasting. It'll be interesting to see what happens over the next month.

Posted
2 hours ago, theroundsquare said:

But are the Tigers way out of it or even more way out of it?

Compared to the Angels and Athletics? Much less "out of it."

Games behind the division leader:
Tigers: 9
Athletics: 14
Angels: 16

Games behind the final WC slots:
Tigers: 6.5
Athletics: 16
Angels: 18

If you're noticing that those two teams are further behind the WC vs. division leader just be aware that is NOT a typo. The AL West kinda sucks this year. The Central has three teams that have a better record than the best team in the West. The Tigers would be only 4.5 games out of first place in the West.

Shoot, if we could just not consider the White Sox, the Central's winning percentage is .543. Even with the White Sox the central is at .481. The West? 0.465. The Central has a team with over 100 losses already and yet we still have a combined better winning percentage than the west.

Posted

Another bit of useless data... If the WhiteSox won out the rest of the season... if they won every one of their remaining games they'd end up 61 and 101. There are only 5 teams right now who could end up with a worse record than that.

In order to ensure that the WhiteSox don't pass them, these teams need to win things many more games:

Nationals: 2 games
Athletics: 5 games
Angels: 7 games
Rockies: 12 games
Marlins: 14 games

Posted
36 minutes ago, casimir said:

2003 Nate Cornejo.  194 2/3 IP.  46 SO.  58 BB.  You kids out there, I am not lying.

I so, so, so wanted Cornejo to work out. I was rooting for him big time. I had been a Tigers fan a bit in the 80s, but sort of stopped following them in the 90s. I really got back into it around 2000. It took my young son to see the Tigers Caravan one summer and he had a little interaction with Cornejo so I instantly became a fan. I remember him being talked up so much as the next great pitcher for the Tigers.

  • Like 1
Posted
22 hours ago, casimir said:

2003 Nate Cornejo.  194 2/3 IP.  46 SO.  58 BB.  You kids out there, I am not lying.

That’s wild. He was the king of chuck and duck. I think he was used too much at a young age and they ruined his arm. 

Posted

The fact that the Wox have lost this many games with Crochet and Fedde on their staff is wild to me.  The 03 Tigers didn’t have anything even close to a pitcher who would’ve been in a major league rotation on a winning team.

Posted

Update: 

24 White Sox = 31-103
03 Tigers = 34-100

The nationals can no long finish with a worse record than the White Sox. Leaving 4 teams mathematically still "in danger" of sucking more than the White Sox this year:

Marlins (48 wins... need a combo of 11 games, either Marlin wins or White Sox losses to be safe)
Rockies (50 wins... need 9)
Angles (54, need 5)
Athletics (58, need just 1)

Posted

Mathematically and reality are different things.  No way any of those teams even come remotely close to the white Sox.

No one sane thinks the White Sox are going to make up 19 games on the Marlins.

Posted
On 8/28/2024 at 1:37 PM, Tigerbomb13 said:

That’s wild. He was the king of chuck and duck. I think he was used too much at a young age and they ruined his arm. 

Imagine the razzing you would get from your teammates if he struck you out.  Like the nun in the wheelchair striking out Javier Baez.

Posted

Update: 

24 White Sox = 31-108
03 Tigers = 37-102

The Tigers just finished a 3 game winning streak. They would go on to lose the next 6 games meaning if the White Sox win the next 6 games they'd be tried with the 2003 Tigers.

Teams now need 54 wins to guarantee that they don't finish with a worse record the the White Sox this year. The Angels and Athletics have both passed that mark meaning only the Marlins and Rockies (both at 51 wins) are still in the danger zone.

Posted

they need to go 12-11 in their remaining games to not break the mets' record for 120 losses in a season.

theyre more likely to lose 130 games.

this has been the best white sox season i can remember in a very long time.

  • Like 1
Posted

The White Sox picked up a win on Wednesday making them 32-109. The '03 Tigers after game 141 were 37-104. From here through game 156 the Tigers only picked up one more win so now is the time for the White Sox to try and gain some ground. The Tigers finished the last 7 games with 5 wins though so the Sox will need to gain some ground and finish strong if they want to get ahead of the '03 Tigers.

The absolute best the White Sox can finish right now is 53 wins. Right now there are only two teams with fewer than 53 wins beside the Sox: Marlins and the Rockies, both with 52 wins. If those two team collect one more win or the Sox lose one more game it will be impossible for the White Sox not to have the worst record in MLB and we're not even though the first full week of September.

Posted
On 8/27/2024 at 2:18 PM, casimir said:

2003 Nate Cornejo.  194 2/3 IP.  46 SO.  58 BB.  You kids out there, I am not lying.

Nate had the 11th lowest K/9 rate for any pitchers with 150 or more innings in a season not just during the 21st Century, not just during the wild card era, not just during the divisional or expansion eras, but during the integration era. He is surrounded on this list by pitchers from the 1940s and 50s

IMG_0841.thumb.png.61e3639685f75769de068730fd9f6f08.png

Posted
6 minutes ago, chasfh said:

Nate had the 11th lowest K/9 rate for any pitchers with 150 or more innings in a season not just during the 21st Century, not just during the wild card era, not just during the divisional or expansion eras, but during the integration era. He is surrounded on this list by pitchers from the 1940s and 50s

IMG_0841.thumb.png.61e3639685f75769de068730fd9f6f08.png

Interestingly, about half those pitchers had ERA+ above 100.  Low strikeout rates didn't matter in the 40s.  It's a lot harder (if not impossible) to get away with that today.  

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...