Chicago White Sox

On Jan. 1, 1927, Charles "Swede" Risberg testified that in 1917, the Chicago White Sox "bought" four games from the Detroit Tigers for $1,100.

As repayment for their cooperation, the White Sox "sloughed" a series in 1919 to the Tigers in an attempt to help the Bengals finish in third place.

On Jan. 5, 1927, the players accused of involvement had their chance to respond to the charges. Twenty-nine players denied the charges before Commissioner Kenesaw M. Landis.

On Jan. 1, 1927, former Chicago White Sox shortstop Charles "Swede" Risberg told baseball Commissioner Judge Kenesaw Mountain Landis, in a semi-open hearing, that in 1917, his Chicago White Sox "bought' four games from the Detroit Tigers.

The Chicago White Sox are having early season troubles. They sit at 5-9 and are already five games behind the Minnesota Twins and tied for last in the division.

After such high expectations, it's easy to wonder what the causes are for their early season struggles?

There's no leadoff hitter.

Juan Pierre: .192 avg, 5 R, 1 RBI, .263 OBP, 6 SB/1 CS
Scott Podsednik: .468 avg, 6 R, 6 RBI, .537 OBP, 7 SB/0 CS

It seems like the White Sox made a mistake.

If you look at the box score for Wednesday night's game in Toronto, the White Sox starting nine, plus a few pinch hitters, are batting .227 as a team.

While I know that seems low, to me it shows promise.

In Saturday's loss to the Minnesota Twins the team was only batting .186, a good 40 points lower.

Of course mere hours after I glorified the White Sox lineup for their work two nights ago, Chicago goes out and gets one-hit by Ricky Romero of the Blue Jays in a 4-2 loss. All this after I had bashed the lineup just days before.

What I'm trying to get at is that the lineup is inconsistent.

The impressive pitching performance by Ricky Romero who walked two, gave up one hit, a two-run home run by Alex Rios in the eighth, and struck out 11, was not the story.

Of course, mere hours after writing an article bashing the White Sox lineup, the team puts together a perfect mixture of baserunning, power, and scoring in an 8-7 win on the road over the Toronto Blue Jays.

The White Sox put together 14 hits, three of which were home runs, scored eight runs in 11 innings, and stole four bases with four different runners without getting caught.

The team also didn't put down one sacrifice bunt.

This is what the White Sox lineup can do, but whether it will do it on a daily basis or not is yet to be seen.

So, I was Jonesing (get it?) for some Sox news and decided to make my way to BleacherReport. 

And by the looks of things, there is pandemonium, chaos, and a lost season on the South Side. 

All of you in panic mode are fools, and I'm going to show you why.

The Hitters

Much has been said about the production—or lack thereof—from the Sox lineup. Let me sprinkle some reality into your lives.

"Good pitching beats good hitting."

Thanks for the insight, Grandpa, but times have changed.

An updated version of that old baseball motto should read, "Good pitching with no hitting, will get you nowhere."

A perfect example of this is the 2010 Chicago White Sox.

They have a rotation that rivals any team in baseball and a lineup that rivals any team that has ever lost 90 games in a season.

The baseball season has begun in earnest on the South Side of Chicago, and like every team that has not sprung ahead to a division lead in the five or six games since the season started, the White Sox have been met with criticism for their seemingly lackluster start to the 2010 season.

Admittedly, I am one of those prone to being critical of the Sox, sometimes undeservedly so.

Bunting is meant for bad hitters or to get a man from second to third when one run will make or break a game.

Sacrifice bunting a man to second base should only happen when you have a player who has a best-case scenario of a strikeout or groundout double play.

This is why pitchers bunt. Professional hitters should not have to bunt a man to second.