View Single Post
Old 11-05-2012, 02:24 PM
TDog TDog is offline
WSI Prelate
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Modesto, California
Posts: 17,832

Originally Posted by aryzner View Post
I agree that the Tigers underachieved for most of (if not all of) the regular season. I am admittedly concerned about the Sox' chances in 2013. The Tigers have some pretty solid starting pitching and I am assuming right now that Victor Martinez will return and be very good for their lineup.

I am somewhat satisfied with the Sox' rotation in 2013, but the lineup holes are glaring. I am hoping that Sale and Quintana's experience this season will help them go deep into next year without the obvious tired arms they were showing in 2012. Hopefully Peavy can continue this year's success and if Danks can return to form, the White Sox will have quite a formidable rotation.

It's the hitting I'm worried about.

But, it's only November. You never know what can happen and what players the Sox will end up with to start the season.
The Tigers may have been underachievers in the division, but Cabrera had a career year. Fielder had a great year. Verlander had a great year. Scherzer had the best season of his career after getting off to a slow start. Young was probably every bit the player he was expected to be.

Meanhwile, the White Sox dealt with Konerko playing hurt for the seocnd half of the year, an offensive black hole hitting third and a jerry-rigged solution to an offensive black hole from third base. The opening day starter missed most of the season. Giving up on this team because Rios and Pierzyski may have had career years and still finished three games behind the Tigers is failing to look at the years Cabrera, Fielder and Verlander had for the Tigers while they could only finish three games ahead of the White Sox.

I would like to see the White Sox improve their offense and tweak their pitching. But with all the challenges the White Sox faced last year, they weren't that far behind a Tigers team that couldn't be said to have phoned the season in.
Reply With Quote