With 87 losses, they will have a losing record no matter how many games they win the rest of the season. They have 48 games left; if they win them all, they’ll finish 75-87.
They’re 27-87. If they’d won twice as many, they’d be 54-60.
OK, I see your point. I misunderstood what you were saying. Apologies.
Wellllll…
Flexen lasted 1 2/3 innings. 7 hits, 8 runs, 6 earned runs, 3 walks, 3 strikeouts. He gets the loss, and his season ERA is now 5.53.
The White Sox have now become the first team since 1988 to lose 20 games in a row.
Yep, that’s when the Orioles lost their first 21 games. They ended up winning 54.
That was just five years after winning the World Series.
The White Sox have to go 23-25 jusst to reach 50 wins, which seems a stretch.
Reports are that manager Pedro Grifol may soon be fired, though what the point of that would be NOW is a bit unclear.
Well you know the old saying, “Somebody has to do something!”
Usually when nobody knows what to do, and that’s usually followed by something that makes it worse.
As you had noted last week, with regards to players being brought up to the Sox from AAA, in the wake of the trade-deadline deals, maybe there’s the thought that a change could bring a bit of a spark to the team. But, at this juncture, with only 48 games left, and with what is clearly an awful roster, there doesn’t seem to be much point, no.
Oh no worries - it was a tortured stat to start with.
I have to say I’m surprised that Grifol has done so poorly. He has nothing to work with, but even when he did last year he seemed out of his depth. The Royals organization LOVED him, and many on the team were bummed when he wasn’t named the manager.
The White Sox next venture to Oakland, where you figure they have to break their losing streak against the team with the second worst record in the AL.
“Undecided” is scheduled to pitch for Chicago in Monday night’s game. Attendance is bound to break a record.
Not surprisingly, Oakland is at the very bottom of attendance, averaging 8,700 a game. For a set of weekday games, against another awful team? Unless people decide they may have the chance to see a strange bit of history, no attendance number would surprise me as being too low.
Sports history doesn’t seem to support that. Look how many times L.A., for example, got teams to replace teams that left their market. Look at how the Ravens replaced the Colts when they left Baltimore. Look how Houston got a replacement for the Oilers. Despite the dismal failure of the old Washington Senators, D.C. has the Nationals.
What do most of those examples have to do with it? Those cities did not have ANY teams when they got new ones. They went from 0 to 1, not from 1 to 2. If the Sox left Chicago, they’d still have a team.
If BOTH the Sox and the Cubs were somehow to leave Chicago, yes, MLB would almost certainly make sure a team was in place. But just one, leaving the other in the city? Nah, they’re not going to put a 2nd team in there over an untapped market.
In modern history? To replace a 2nd team? Hasn’t happened yet, either.
The nearest example is LA getting 2 NFL franchises at the same time.
While this has worked out pretty well for the Rams (who had a previous history with the city), it’s been a poor short term move for the Chargers (who actually also had a previous history with the city, but c’mon). It’s to be seen if there’s any long term benefit to this move.
L.A. got the Chargers, and the Rams were already there.
After just 1 year? Nah, that was a last minute decision because the San Diego voters did not approve money for the new stadium. The NFL thought “ok, well, we got to put them somewhere” and so off they went. This was the same period when Oakland was also trying to get a new stadium, lost leverage when they sent a 2nd team to LA and ended up in Vegas instead.
LA itself (and the Rams) weren’t happy about the move, and Chargers’ attendance has been highly variable ever since.
It was absolutely not about giving LA a second franchise but about negotiating expensive new stadiums in other cities at public expense.
If Chicago was interested in building new, expensive facilities in the first place, the team leaving the city wouldn’t be a potential issue at all, as it was in the case of the Chargers.
ETA: Oh, and unlike the NFL, two MLB teams time-sharing an expensive stadium complex is not an option
Yes, but that “somewhere” was an established market, L.A., not some place like Nashville, or Omaha, or Memphis, or whatever. The statement to which I responded basically said that Chicago would never get another team to replace the White Sox because the Cubs are here. My response was that sports history indicates that this simply isn’t true. The White Sox have their own separate market from the Cubs and have had that market over a huge expanse of time, so the fact that the Cubs are already here is a non factor. Sox fans, feeling betrayed, would embrace a replacement.
As above, they had a brand new stadium handy, not one that would take a few years to build. Otherwise, they would have had to cobble together a temporary solution in San Diego while they played the will-they/won’t-they game.
As it was, the Rams weren’t thrilled. And MLB teams can’t share stadiums.
That wasn’t a well-considered move to give LA 2 teams. It was a last minute act born out of desperation. If Chicago already has that ready-built new stadium to welcome a new team, the Sox wouldn’t be considering leaving in the first place.
You might want to double-check this factoid. Both the Raiders and Rams left after the 1994 season. Until the Rams returned for the 2016 season, there was no pro football in LA. That’s 20 years without an NFL franchise.
Both of these were expansion franchises. It wasn’t like an established team left their current home to move to these cities.
Well, we’ll just have to “agree to disagree” at this point because I feel like I’m on a Merry-Go-Round. As hard as I ride this horse, I’m just going in circles. Besides, unless the Sox leave Chicago, we’ll never have any concrete proof as to who is right in this discussion.