The 2005 White Sox vs ALC

Pitching wise the team that's best keeping up with us is Cleveland. But they to have a struggling lineup. The biggest difference is that our lineup has come alive in the late innings & their's has remained asleep.

Looking back on 2004:

Inn <7:

WSx .274A .337O .466S .803OPS vs Opp .285A .347O .474S .821OPS : -.018OPS

Inn 7+:

WSx .255A .324O .438S .762OPS vs Opp .246A .320O .406S .726OPS : +.036OPS

WSx 05 vs WSx 04 Inn <7: +.062OPS

WSx 05 vs WSx 04 Inn 7+: +.067OPS

Looking ahead:

There's no reason to believe the WSx are going to worsen for Inn 7+. Even the national media agrees that the WSx have improved their bullpen. So I think it's realistic to believe they can maintain close to a .070OPS gain in the late innings over last yr's team. As for the starter innings it's anybody's guess. But it's certainly not going to be as bad as the Roys & should be good enough to match Cle & Det.

Which leaves Minny. They are not getting it done pitching wise in the late innings. Santana rarely pitches more than 6 innings so that's not going to help them. They are struggling to get hits in the late innings as well. That could mean they are feasting on weak starters but struggling against good ones & good bullpens. That's not a good sign for them.

With the links I'll keep track of this thread on a weekly basis & make comments.

It's going to be a fun season & tracking it will make it more so.

:gosox1: :gosox2: :gosox3: :gosox4: :gosoxretro: :usa

Gene Honda Civic · April 26, 2005

16-4

/that is all.

UofIChiSox · April 26, 2005

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 10:11 PM)

16-4

/that is all.

yours is a lot easier to read.

ChWRoCk2 · April 26, 2005

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 04:11 PM)

16-4

/that is all.

true, who needs stats, all that matters is the w, as seen in a white sox ad

UHOHBYEBYE · April 26, 2005

you need a hobby man

bye bye

Kalapse · April 26, 2005

QUOTE(UHOHBYEBYE @ Apr 26, 2005 -> 05:17 PM)

you need a hobby man

bye bye

Oh god no.

Goober · April 26, 2005

jeez, he went to all that hard work and you don't even thank him. i say good work juggernaut.

Wedge · April 26, 2005

I'd say Juggs's work indicates what at least I feel instinctively... this is a better team than last year and has some staying power for the whole season.

JUGGERNAUT · May 2, 2005

Inn 7+:

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Minny .244A .344O .360S .703OPS vs Opp .232A .283O .325S .608OPS : +.095OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tribe .206A .288O .362S .650OPS vs Opp .204A .257O .318S .575OPS : +.075OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

WSx .272A .318O .384S .702OPS vs Opp .228A .301O .371S .673OPS : +.025OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tiggs .241A .304O .353S .657OPS vs Opp .213A .315O .365S .680OPS : -.023OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Roys .204A .274O .344S .619OPS vs Opp .297A .379O .420S .799OPS : -.180OPS

Inn <7:

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tigs .303A .358O .471S .829OPS vs Opp .273A .332O .433S .765OPS : +.064OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

WSx .246A .315O .370S .685OPS vs Opp .230A .305O .336S .641OPS : +.044 OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Minny .288A .354O .434S .788OPS vs Opp .274A .297O .459S .756OPS : +.032OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tribe .239A .296O .383S .678OPS vs Opp .254A .315O .376S .691OPS : -.013OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Roys .255A .310O .380S .690OPS vs Opp .261A .325O .402S .728OPS : -.038OPS

:gosox1: :gosox2: :gosox3: :gosox4: :gosoxretro: :usa

The WSx fell from 1st to 3rd in Late work which explains their 3-3 record over the last 6. But Minny fell from 1st to 3rd is Starters work which bodes well for the Tribe

which showed continued strength in Late work. The Tribe faces Minny 10 times in May. As for Det their Starters work is offset by thier weakness Late. That's not good for a team that has one of the toughest May schedules in the league.

The Roys are getting to the point where they'll probably be dropped from this thread.

Edited May 2, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

santo=dorf · May 2, 2005

SoxFan1 · May 2, 2005

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 1, 2005 -> 09:18 PM)

Inn 7+:

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Minny .244A .344O .360S .703OPS vs Opp .232A .283O .325S .608OPS : +.095OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tribe .206A .288O .362S .650OPS vs Opp .204A .257O .318S .575OPS : +.075OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

WSx .272A .318O .384S .702OPS vs Opp .228A .301O .371S .673OPS : +.025OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tiggs .241A .304O .353S .657OPS vs Opp .213A .315O .365S .680OPS : -.023OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Roys .204A .274O .344S .619OPS vs Opp .297A .379O .420S .799OPS : -.180OPS

Inn

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tigs .303A .358O .471S .829OPS vs Opp .273A .332O .433S .765OPS : +.064OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

WSx .246A .315O .370S .685OPS vs Opp .230A .305O .336S .641OPS : +.044 OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Minny .288A .354O .434S .788OPS vs Opp .274A .297O .459S .756OPS : +.032OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Tribe .239A .296O .383S .678OPS vs Opp .254A .315O .376S .691OPS : -.013OPS

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Roys .255A .310O .380S .690OPS vs Opp .261A .325O .402S .728OPS : -.038OPS

:gosox1: :gosox2: :gosox3: :gosox4: :gosoxretro: :usa

The WSx fell from 1st to 3rd in Late work which explains their 3-3 record over the last 6. But Minny fell from 1st to 3rd is Starters work which bodes well for the Tribe

which showed continued strength in Late work. The Tribe faces Minny 10 times in May. As for Det their Starters work is offset by thier weakness Late. That's not good for a team that has one of the toughest May schedules in the league.

The Roys are getting to the point where they'll probably be dropped from this thread.

T R U · May 2, 2005

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ May 1, 2005 -> 07:30 PM)

those are some ugly boobies :huh:

SoxFan1 · May 2, 2005

Juggs....do you have a girlfriend?

Punch and Judy Garland · May 2, 2005

I know it's an old post but I'm a bit puzzled by the Johan rarely goes past 6 innings part. Not really true.

JUGGERNAUT · May 2, 2005

I know it's an old post but I'm a bit puzzled by the Johan rarely goes past 6 innings part. Not really true.

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

Look it up. It is too true. You have to look at ALL of his starts or you can just look at his IP/start average. It's below 6. It's only recently that he's pushing that average but then again that might come at a greater risk of injury.

Updating the numbers takes minutes. I have a VB macro that pulls the data in & formats it. All I have to do is cut & paste. I'll be updating it weekly. The love of my life is always impressed by my programming talents. She just wishes they were more geared toward money making than hobbies

JUGGERNAUT · May 9, 2005

New rule: If your > 9GB you don't count. Goodbye DET, CLE, & KC. Hello BOS, BAL, LAA. The splits aren't available. That F'd up my VB.

Overall:

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

WSx 145R .258 .323 .399 .722 vs Opp 102R .228 .296 .352 .648 : +.074OPS, +43R

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

Minny 153R, .281A, .356O, .427S, .783OPS vs Opp 112R, .250A, .283O, .408S, .691OPS : +.088OPS, +41R

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

BAL 167R .292 .349 .486 .836 vs Opp 135R .255 .331 .379 .710 : +.126OPS, +32R

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

BOS 167R, .277 .357 .438 .796 vs Opp 135R .273 .331 .427 .758 : +.038OPS, +32R

http://baseball.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batt...Type=2&type=reg

LAA 133R .243 .298 .391 .689 vs Opp 123R .257 .319 .398 .718 : -.029OPS, +10R

The name of the game is outscoring your opponents & no team does it better than the Chicago White Sox. However the 2nd best team is the loathesome Twinkees. It's become apparent now that these two teams are separated only by H2H play. The Sox are leading the division because they took 4/5 from Minny. Can we keep up with them? Opp have a .283OBP vs them. That's even better than the WSx who up until this last series had been pitching out of their minds.

It looks like this is the year the WC comes from the ALC.

:gosox1: :gosox2: :gosox3: :gosox4: :gosoxretro: :usa

Gene Honda Civic · May 9, 2005

Explain away this one... Last season the Sox were last in the AL in RISP AB's. They made up for it by hitting 58 multi-run HRs (2nd most in baseball) and having an OPS of .859 (second best in baseball) in that situation.

Currently, the Sox find themselves in much the same boat. They have the fewest ABs w/RISP in all of baseball, yet this time, they're not hitting, with anOPS of just .638 (2nd worst in baseball).

That doesn't sound like recipe for winning to me.

JUGGERNAUT · May 9, 2005

Explain away this one... Last season the Sox were last in the AL in RISP AB's. They made up for it by hitting 58 multi-run HRs (2nd most in baseball) and having an OPS of .859 (second best in baseball) in that situation.

Currently, the Sox find themselves in much the same boat. They have the fewest ABs w/RISP in all of baseball, yet this time, they're not hitting, with anOPS of just .638 (2nd worst in baseball).

That doesn't sound like recipe for winning to me.

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

We knew coming into this season that we were trading offense for improved pitching.

Some felt that would lead to a worse White Sox team than 2004. Others felt it would be an improvement but not enough to overcome Minny. And yet others like myself felt overall the offense would pick up with runners on (mainly because of Pods & Iggy) and that plus improved pitching would propell the White Sox to 90+ wins.

Yes, the White Sox overall have one of the worst OBP's in the majors. But they also have one of the best OBP's with runners on. Which means more when it comes to scoring runs? The team's RON stats are why it's padding it's new ML record of taking the lead into the 9th inning in all 31 games played.

But I caution the optimism because those damn Twinkees look even better.

They are among the best in OBP with runner's on & they are keeping the opposition of the base pads even better than we are.

But are biggest hope lies in the return of the Big Hurt. His presence in the lineup is what ails us & what can make us much better.

We actually don't look that much worse offensively than the 2004 team now.

We're on pace for 757R scored & 533R given up.

We were a +34 in R in 2004 & we are on pace to be +200R in 2005.

BA: .258(05) to .268(04) - Thomas will probably give us the edge over the 04 team.

OB: .323(05) to .333(04) - Again Thomas will probably give us the edge over the 04 team.

SL: .399(05) to .457(04) - We will probably trail the 04 team here.

But then look at how poorly the opposition is doing against us in 05:

BA: .228(05) to .272(04) - Major improvement

OB: .296(05) to .338(04) - Major improvement

SL: .352(05) to .453(04) - Major improvement

We are reaching base more often than our opponents, we are out-hitting are opponents, & we are out-slugging our opponents. That's a recipe for continued success.

JUGGERNAUT · May 9, 2005

RON 2004 vs 2005:

WSx 2004 726R .279A .348O .471S .819OPS vs Opp 584R .280A .351O .460S .811OPS : All we did was out-slug the opposition.

WSx 2005 130R .271A .332O .449S .781OPS vs Opp 72R .222A .303O .302S .605OPS : We are getting on more often, out-hitting & grossly out-slugging the opposition.

But then so is Minny

Min 2005 132R .336A .422O .508S .931 vs Opp 53R .265A .304O .455S .759OPS : They are as likely to keep up a RON 931 OPS as we are of giving up a RON 605 OPS. I can't stand the Twinkees!

DonkeyKongerko · May 9, 2005

As a Sox fan, I hate the Twinkies.

As a baseball fan, it's hard to not like the Twinkies.

RockRaines · May 9, 2005

so many numbers, and it makes so little sense.

JUGGERNAUT · May 9, 2005

There was a nice article in the SunTimes today that talked about the major improvement defensively in the 2005 White Sox OF. The added speed of Pods in LF, & Dye in RF has led to less 2B's & more DP opps for the White Sox.

Other interesting numbers:

Sox HR's: 34, Sox SB's: 34 (tops in the majors), Sox DP's: 29 (4th)

Sox SV's: 15 (tops in AL), HD's: 16 (tops in the AL), ERA: 3.28*(6th in the AL)

* - drops to lower than 2.28 if you remove the April 7th 11-5 debacle.

Minny is NOT amongst the league leaders in the fielding stats.

Edited May 9, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

Gene Honda Civic · May 9, 2005

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ May 9, 2005 -> 02:35 PM)

Minny is NOT amongst the league leaders in the fielding stats.

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/def_eff2005.php

JUGGERNAUT · May 9, 2005

http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/def_eff2005.php

<{PO S T_S NAPBAC K }>

That's not a fielding stat. That's a calculation based on fielding stats & pitching.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/stats/teamso...y/MLB/FLD/BASIC

TC: CHW - 6th, MIN 17th

ER: CHW - 15th, MIN 25th : Min has 22 errors, White Sox 20

PO: CHW - 5th, MIN 20th

AS: CHW - 6th, MIN 11th : Both teams have 4 OFA.

DP: CHW - 5th, MIN 19th

Of couse we do have weaknesses as well.

SBA%: CHW - 74%, MIN - 48%

That's a little scary when you consider offensively.

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/stats/teamso...EXT?&_1:col_1=3

SB%: CHW 34/49 (70%), MIN 20/29 (69%) : CHW #1 in SB, MIN #9

When both teams run their success rate is about the same. But Minny is much better at defending against the SB than we are. That could tip the scales in H2H.

Edited May 9, 2005 by JUGGERNAUT

Gene Honda Civic · May 9, 2005

So what you're saying is that Pitching is independent of defense? -- Your first defense is pitching.

Isn't a universal defensive stat like a measure of what percentage of balls in play are converted into outs more telling than fielding percentage, or errors made? It certainly gives a better feel for the teams defensive prowess than a collection of arbitrary fielding stats.

From THT re: Vizquel

Shortstops make hundreds of plays per season, so whether or not someone is credited with 10 "errors" or 20 "errors" is almost meaningless. Not only is 10 plays a very small percentage of the balls they are asked to field, it doesn't show what sort of range a player has (plus, it is highly subjective and put entirely in the hands of the home team's official scorer). In other words, if a player gets to more balls defensively than another player, he can afford to make more errors. And no one got to as many balls as Ozzie. Saying Vizquel is a Hall of Famer because his fielding percentage is the same as Smith's is like saying B.J. Surhoff is a Hall of Famer because his career batting average is the same as Carl Yastrzemski's.

This can be applied to the whole team. OH NO!?! they haven't turned as many double plays. Who cares? Did you ever stop to think that might have something to do with them issuing less than half as many walks as the Sox. They're handing out free passes at a historically low rate.

You cite Total Chances but don't normalize them when you compare the two teams. The Sox are 6th in Total Chances, but 15th in Errors, That's bad! The other "stats" are right in line with their Total Chances. Minnesota has less Total Chances, get this it's a novel concept, because they have played fewer games. Their other stats are right in line with their Total Chances.

The 2005 White Sox vs ALC

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members