The problem with a lot of the Prime 9 shows is this (as well as the "40 greatest....."--fill in the blank-- shows).
Because this is a visual medium they seem to decide that the only teams / players / historical moments that can make the list is that which they have TV video of.
Not saying the 2005 Sox shouldn't make this list by the way, just saying that in reality a lot of these lists are bogus because they basically are only including the ones they have video on and even then for example they often by pass events by if all they have is film.
Example, Jim Rivera's spectacular catch in Game #5 of the 1959 World Series is never mentioned on any of the applicable lists on that network.
Rivera's catch saved the 1-0 win and was unbelievable because he literally was just inserted into the game a few pitches before for defensive purposes, he had to run a mile from right field into deep right center in the L.A. Coliseum, he caught the ball over his shoulder like an NFL receiver and he had to somehow find the ball with a murderous background of sun and white shirts, which is what was being worn to games in those days.
Also the MLB network has never explained to my knowledge who exactly 'votes' on these things and what their credentials are.
At least the MLB Network knows that the 2005 White Sox existed. ESPN doesn't realize that a team won the World Series in 2005, they were still celebrating 2004.
March 16, 2005 - Another happy Sox fan joins the party!
July 6, 2012 - 7 years later he's still part of it...
The Whitesox have had alot of good staffs. I think some of these are better than 2005.
15-14w/l 106era+ Gave Rich Gossage his Goose nickname
0-1w/l 73era+ had 4 game starts.
It seems the Whitesox go 10-20 years for a lights out pitching staff so maybe Chris Sale will be the next anchor of a lights out staff in a few years.
I hate to leave the 59 Sox off but 1954 staff was just better. Also apologys to the 1967 and 1920 staff.
1972 staff was a interesting staff with only 4 starting pitchers. Wilbur Wood, Stan Bahnsen and Tom Bradley started 130 games for the Sox. It reminds me of a staff from the 1880's.
The 1937 staff really wasn't all that great but I wanted a staff with Lyons on it. Plus that staff had Stratton and Lee too.
Last edited by chicagowhitesox1; 12-24-2012 at 10:29 PM.
Yes I like your list of white sox top rotations.
When I think back on the 1917 staff, Rebbert could have easily
gone 18-2 as 3 of those losses the team did not offer much run
support and one was cut short by rain IIRC.
Also tanks reminding us Garland was really a stud in 05 that
sinker led to lots of lo-score outings too bad his arm fell off could
use him now.
It's so tough to compare the years. Just off the top of my head, the following impact the staffs numbers immensely:
Height of the mound
The DH (except for ours)
Training and diet (both in season and off season)
The field conditions
It's all so subjective, but out me in the camp of the 2005 guys. Not because so recent, but because 99 wins, 11-1 when it counted, and the fact our bullpen barely met the angels, and the idea that MB got the save in game three 2(.5ish) days later is unreal to me. When El Duque was our #5 starter and "pulled magic out the hat" in Boston, I've got them #1. They were the most clutch staff IMO when it mattered. If you don't win it all, I don't see how you're anything but a failure. I loved the 83 and 93 sox, but in the end they failed. Give me guys who perform when the pressure and bright lights are on any day of the week.
2015: hoping we traded a donkey for a stud at DH. If departure patterns hold true, playoffs are in the future. GO SOX!
|Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)|