How Unconcerned Should We Be?

[hogan873]

The pitching is winning games for the Sox.  That's a good thing, and it's exciting to see guys like Foster and Ruiz step up, Velasquez have a few good starts, and Cease be an absolute beast.  But, the offense needs to step it up.  Can't expect the pitching to go out and not give up more than 2-3 runs per game and hope to keep winning.

Moncada's return will help.  His return will help a lot if he's Yoan from 2019.  His return will still help a good bit if he's 2021 Yoan.  Abreu is starting to hit better.  Robert will have a monster year.  Even Leury is looking better...mainly because he's actually being used properly.  There are still plenty of holes, but I'm definitely feeling better about this team.

[CentralChamps21]

8 minutes ago, caulfield12 said:

They were not one of the consensus picks for Top 5 postseasons.

Cubs, Giants, Tigers, Mariners, Rangers, Blue Jays and Dodgers were all up there.

LOL who was picking the Cubs to be a postseason team?

[caulfield12]

16 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

LOL who was picking the Cubs to be a postseason team?

I meant offseason additions/improvements.

[35thstreetswarm]

28 minutes ago, Squirmin' for Yermin said:

Can you identify who praised the Red Sox offseason?

Was about to search my history for you, but I guess see the posts immediately surrounding yours for one of them ?

[southsider2k5]

25 minutes ago, CentralChamps21 said:

LOL who was picking the Cubs to be a postseason team?

The argument seems to be that Sox fans would have rather had a bad team with a good offseason than a good team with a bad offseason.

[southsider2k5]

 

[wegner]

14 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

The argument seems to be that Sox fans would have rather had a bad team with a good offseason than a good team with a bad offseason.

Those couple of years where our Sox "won" the offseason were so much fun.  RIght up there with the time my alma mater won a "simulated" NCAA March Madness championship the year covid canceled the tournament.  Ah, good times.

[wegner]

3 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

That full count avg is quite awful.  My guess is that is a result of chasing pitches out of the zone.

[Texsox]

7 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Where can we find MLB averages? 

[MiddleCoastBias]

8 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

 

Am I reading this right that we've only had one 3-0 count as a team all season? I know we have some aggressive hitters but... wow.

[Texsox]

Just now, MiddleCoastBias said:

Am I reading this right that we've only had one 3-0 count as a team all season? I know we have some aggressive hitters but... wow.

It can't be. We've had more than 111 batters to the plate for a 0-0

[Harry Chappas]

5 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Am I reading this right that we've only had one 3-0 count as a team all season? I know we have some aggressive hitters but... wow.

Only swung once and put into play on 3-0 all season.  Converts to a walk or 3-1 then proceeds.  3-0 caleld strike is now 3-1, then maybe 3-2

This diagram shows the count at which time the at-bat ends. 

[Texsox]

Oddly on a 2-0 count a swing and a miss at a ball well outside the zone for 2-1 count sets the team up better than taking for a 3-0 count? 

 

[Texsox]

6 minutes ago, Harry Chappas said:

Only swung once and put into play on 3-0 all season.  Converts to a walk or 3-1 then proceeds.  3-0 caleld strike is now 3-1, then maybe 3-2

This diagram shows the count at which time the at-bat ends. 

Thank you. 

[chw42]

29 minutes ago, MiddleCoastBias said:

Am I reading this right that we've only had one 3-0 count as a team all season? I know we have some aggressive hitters but... wow.

The one time someone swung on 3-0 was Gavin Sheets and I think he popped out lol

[FoxForce2]

19 minutes ago, Texsox said:

It can't be. We've had more than 111 batters to the plate for a 0-0

In considering AB vs PA the graph is counter-intuitive to the point of not making sense. Every PA begins at 0-0. A more sensible number would indicate and include all first pitch results.

[Kyyle23]

*holds hands a decent amount apart*
 

this much 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

10 minutes ago, FoxForce2 said:

In considering AB vs PA the graph is counter-intuitive to the point of not making sense. Every PA begins at 0-0. A more sensible number would indicate and include all first pitch results.

Every plate appearance does start at 0-0 . However the results are counting what happens when a ball is put into play on a 0-0 count, meaning either an out or a hit. That is how it is 111.

[ptatc]

12 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Every plate appearance does start at 0-0 . However the results are counting what happens when a ball is put into play on a 0-0 count, meaning either an out or a hit. That is how it is 111.

That's the way I read it. It when the at bat ends on the next pitch so you could add sac fly/bunt and hit by pitch as well.

[Tony]

2 hours ago, tray said:

A few posters here routinely castigate  the WSox organization from top to bottom claiming inferior ownership and management and a  failed franchise.

Meanwhile, the last  series instant the Cubs and BoSox provided a  few counterpoints for those willing to notice.

 

 

 

 

Which are what, exactly? The World Series hopeful Chicago White Sox won a string of close games against two AWFUL teams. 

[FoxForce2]

1 minute ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

Every plate appearance does start at 0-0 . However the results are counting what happens when a ball is put into play on a 0-0 count, meaning either an out or a hit. That is how it is 111.

Yes I see that, but without defining that parameter the resulting number is a very narrow representation of what occurs by the pitch-count. By limiting the results to batted ball in play the results simply don't represent the full outcome of each pitch that a batter faces. 

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

1 minute ago, ptatc said:

That's the way I read it. It when the at bat ends on the next pitch so you could add sac fly/bunt and hit by pitch as well.

You are probably right but those do not count as official AB's so if you go 3 for 10 and 1 sac bunt on 0-0 , it's still going to be a .300 batting average with 10 results counted because the ball was either an out or a hit in an official AB.

[Jack Parkman]

I think we should still be concerned. They feel like Cleveland last year. This looks to me like a .500 team. Whether that means 84 wins or 78 I have no idea, but I think they're going to be in that range. 

I don't think they're going to score enough runs to make the playoffs in the AL. 

The pitching will have to carry them. 

Edited May 9, 2022 by Jack Parkman

[ptatc]

8 minutes ago, CaliSoxFanViaSWside said:

You are probably right but those do not count as official AB's so if you go 3 for 10 and 1 sac bunt on 0-0 , it's still going to be a .300 batting average with 10 results counted because the ball was either an out or a hit in an official AB.

Ah, that's true they only list average. So it probably only is truly the batted ball.

Edited May 9, 2022 by ptatc

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

3 minutes ago, FoxForce2 said:

Yes I see that, but without defining that parameter the resulting number is a very narrow representation of what occurs by the pitch-count. By limiting the results to batted ball in play the results simply don't represent the full outcome of each pitch that a batter faces. 

He did it based on Batting average . If you want OBP guess you would have to do that yourself. I mean you could get a walk on any 3 ball count or sac flys and bunts or an error made on all counts but that wouldn't change the batting average. I thought he did define the parameter as batting average which doesn't count those other things.