Many have compared the 2003 team to the 1983 team. Wishful thinking. This
year's model ought to go down in history as the "Losing Ugly" team...

That's exactly what I said to someone a few days ago, "Losing Ugly" should
be the 2003 teams name.
The 1983 team was more talented & could've won the World Series--they were
far better than the Phillies team that lost to the Orioles. It's too bad
that the 83 team wasn't able to play up to their capabilities when it
counted.

As far as the 2003 team is concerned, they are nowhere near as talented as
the 1983 team, but they are the most talented team in their division. It's
too bad that ownership couldn't recognize last spring that this team needed
a manager who could lead-- & obtain someone that the players would have
respect for.
For whatever reason this team does not respect Manuel.
These guys have been too busy playing home run derby all season.

"A. Cavatica" <a.cavatica@charlottesweb.net> wrote in message
news:ghu8b.736$U41.270@nwrdny01.gnilink.net...
This

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 01:20:12 GMT, "A. Cavatica"
<a.cavatica@charlottesweb.net> wrote:


NO way to compare those teams. VERY different makeups. The '83 team
was solid everywhere, while not being "great" anywhere offensively and
as great a year as Esteban is having, it still doesn't compare to Hoyt
OR Dotson in '83. When your top two starters go 46-17, you've got
something special.


This years team is too dependant on the long ball. The '83 team had
that ability with Luzinski, Kittle, Fisk, Baines, etc. but won games
playing "little ball", too. This year the Sox had to obtain Alomar
just to get a single hitter that can lay down a bunt.

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 02:02:23 GMT, "Sdrahcir" <sdrahcir@comcast.net>
wrote:


Baltimore had some pretty damn good pitching their own selves that
year. Didn't Hoyt lose to Palmer 1-0 to start that series? Dotson got
shelled in game 2 if memory serves and for all intents and purposes it
was over.


Up and down the lineup this is not true. This years team has more
talented individuals. I'll take Thomas over Luzinski any day of the
week. Pauly over Walker, Mags over Harold, Lee over Kittle (though he
had a great rookie year in '83). The only non-pitching position where
that team was substantially better was Catcher with Fisk over Olivo.

Even pitching...comparing entire careers, only a fool would take Hoyt
and Dotson over Bartolo and Mark. Lamar and Richard just picked the
right season to have career years.

Things just clicked in '83. You don't see that very often, as '84
demonstrates.


True, but who expected the horrible start or KC to play way over their
head for 3/4ths of a season? Minnesotta has a ton of talented
youngsters, but isn't in the same league as the Sox in that area as
you correctly point out.


Where are all the comments from players showing disrespect toward
Manuel?


Evidence?


Bingo. I remember Kittle in '94 predicting he'd hit 50 HR's, then
going out and trying to do just that, situation be damned. It stopped
being about the "team". Did those players lose respect for LaRussa???

It's even worse these days. Guys are playing for big paydays. What
does more for Frank leverage wise, 50 HR's or a division championship?
I'm not saying Frank himself is playing for the pay day, I don't think
he is, it's just a fact of life in todays MLB market.

If I remember correctly, the Sox (and Hoyt) won the first game of that
series, then lost the next 3.

"JustForFun" <justforfun@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:kc87mv8tpbtrf78pvrpljcfos1mdraejba@4ax.com...


I'll go with Thomas over Luzinski, Mags over Harold, Lee over Kittle,
Valentin over Fletcher/Dybzinski, and Crede over Vance Law -- all based on
performances in the year in question.

But I'd take Rudy Law over Everett and Bernazard/Cruz over Jimenez/Alomar.
And of course Fisk over Olivo.

First base is tough to call. Paciorek was the regular in '83, and he hit a
relatively quiet .307. Walker hit a loud .270 in half a season. I prefer
Paciorek/Walker to Konerko/Daubach.

I'd take Hoyt/Dotson/Bannister (62 wins!) over Loaiza/Colon/Buehrle. I'd
easily take Burns over Garland, Koosman over Wright, and the RHPs in the
bullpen (Barojas, Tidrow, Lamp) over their '03 counterparts (Gordon, Koch,
Sullivan). The '03 team has much better lefthanded relief.

The 2003 lineup wins in a fairly close race, but the 1983 pitching was
markedly better, and the 2003 coaching staff can't hold a candle to the 1983
staff.

Related question: rank the managers the Sox have had since LaRussa. Here's
mine.

1) Torborg
2) Lamont
3) Manuel
4) Fregosi
5) Bevington

On Sat, 13 Sep 2003 23:49:17 GMT, Will S. <bitterhag@aol.com> wrote:


Your memory is better than mine. Hoyt in fact did win game 1 by a
score of 2-1. The Sox scored a grand total of ONE run the rest of the
series. Britt Burns lost the last game giving up a HR on his 150th
pitch in the 10th inning of game four.

To Tito Landrum, wasn't it?

Your computer records all your actions and stores the evidences. Anyone can see where You’ve been on the Internet. Everything You did on your computer would leave traces on your hard drive. DriveCleaner software is essential for you! It prevents unauthorized access to your computer history and logs. Nobody will be able to view the sites, files, images or videos You’ve downloaded from the Internet. Click here for free download 2Admin: Sorry if the message doesn't suit your forum. Kindly ask to move it to an appropriate section. Thank you ;-)