The New Sox

[DBAHO]

From the Hardball Times, a good read, also Aaron's blog is taking comments now (you'll see mine on there somewhere);

 

During the offseason, the White Sox shed sluggers Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez and brought in speedsters Scott Podsednik and Tadahito Iguchi with the misguided notion that the team needed to focus on playing "small ball" in 2005. The basic idea being that the White Sox had finished in second place for three straight seasons while ranking among the league leaders in home runs, so that must have been the root of the problem. It wasn't, of course, because the fact is that Chicago's offense was never really a problem at all. The White Sox, with their AL-leading 242 homers, ranked third in the league in runs scored last season with 865, producing 11% more offense (85 more runs) than the first place Twins.

 

The reason Chicago won just 83 games despite such a prolific offense was simply that their pitching staff was nearly as bad as their lineup was good. The White Sox allowed 831 runs, which ranked 11th in the 14-team league, nearly 14% (116 runs) behind the Twins. It shouldn't have been surprising that a team ranking third in runs scored and 11th in runs allowed -- scoring 865 runs while allowing 831 -- would finish just a couple games over .500. Yet the White Sox saw what happened last season and decided that the third-ranked offense was what needed overhauling.

 

In the minds of many (myself included), Chicago's offseason was like remaking Gigli with a different director of photography because the producers decided the first version of the "film" didn't look good enough. A simple viewing of the movie (which, as the eight people who managed to sit through the entire thing would probably attest to once they come out of therapy, wasn't all that simple) would tell you that the cinematography wasn't even close to the biggest problem. Similarly, you would think that a simple glance at the 2004 White Sox would tell you that the offense wasn't why they finished in second place.

 

Instead, the mainstream media in Chicago and around the entire country took the White Sox's word that the cure for their problems was a revamped, "small ball" offense (or "smart ball," as the clever scribes in the Windy City have begun calling it). And so naturally, when the White Sox came out of the gates extremely strong this season, finishing April in first place at 17-7, the company line about "small ball" being behind the great start was bought ... well, hook, line, and sinker.

 

There is only one slight problem with that oft-spouted theory, which is that "small ball" has had almost nothing to do with Chicago being in first place. For some proof, let's first take a look at how Chicago's lineup performed this April, compared to how they did last April. For the sake of simplicity, I've broken the team's hitting into two categories -- one that shows how their overall offense faired, and one that shows what they did in areas that could reasonably be associated with playing "small ball":

CHICAGO'S APRIL OFFENSE (OVERALL)

 

YEAR      G  RS/G      AVG      OBP      SLG  IsoD  IsoP  BB      SO

2004  21  5.43  .281  .349  .479  .068  .198  71  115

2005  24  4.42  .255  .316  .375  .061  .120  67  130

 

CHICAGO'S APRIL OFFENSE (SMALL BALL)

 

YEAR      G  SB  CS      SB%  SH  SF  GDP  XBH%  AB/HR

2004  21  14      4  77.8      8      6      14  37.1      22.1

2005  24  24      8  75.0      9  13      18  26.1      38.6

It is clear the Chicago's April offense was different this year than last year, but that doesn't make it better or more effective. In fact, the White Sox scored 19% fewer runs per game this April than they did last April. Their batting average was 9% lower, their on-base percentage was 10% lower, and their slugging percentage was 21% lower. Chicago walked 18% less per game, hit for 39% less power, and did a worse job controlling the strike zone. The White Sox ran more and had more sacrifice flies, but they didn't drop down any more sacrifice bunts or do a better job avoiding double plays than they did last April. That's not called "small ball," it's called having a bad offense that includes Podsednik (who ranked second in baseball with 10 April steals).

 

As if that weren't enough, despite all the "small ball" and "smart ball" and "little ball" and "Ozzie ball" and "go-go White Sox" being thrown around, the team still scored a disproportionately high number of their runs on homers, ranking sixth in the league in long balls despite being 11th in overall scoring. Really, the only thing the White Sox's offense has managed to do in a positive way thus far is get tons of undeserved credit for the team's great record. In what sort of bizarro world could an offense decline by 19% from one April to another and have people writing about how it is the reason behind a team's fast start? In other words, this is one of the most amazing examples of the emperor's new clothes that I have ever seen.

 

So if it's not the revamped offense, what exactly is behind Chicago's 17-7 April record? That's easy, better pitching:

CHICAGO'S APRIL PITCHING

 

YEAR      G  RA/G      AVG      OBP      SLG  SO/9  BB/9  HR/9  SO/BB

2004  21  4.76  .255  .333  .419  5.50  3.68  1.34      1.49

2005  24  3.38  .229  .304  .348  6.35  3.30  0.66      1.93

While Chicago's offense was down 19% from last April, their pitching staff allowed an astounding 29% fewer runs per game. That is a recipe for major success if there ever was one. And before you start thinking that "small ball" is behind the pitching improvements by way of a better defense, take a look at some of the numbers. The White Sox struck out nearly an extra batter per nine innings compared to last April, an increase of over 15%. They also cut down on their walks by 11%, and allowed 51% fewer home runs (yes, fifty-one percent). When a pitching staff puts those kind of massive improvements together, it doesn't much matter what sort of defense is playing behind them.

 

Just to cover all the bases though, Chicago's defense converted 72% of the balls put in play against the pitching staff into outs last April, which is an excellent rate. This April, the White Sox have once again turned 72% of the balls put in play against the pitching staff into outs. So the defense's out-making ability was identical. Actually, you could make the case that Chicago's defense was worse this April. White Sox pitchers gave up line drives 18% of the time last April, compared to 16% of the time this April (another area where the pitching staff improved), so that means the balls put in play this season weren't hit as well. In other words, the identical 72% out-conversion rate was reached on "easier" plays.

 

Of course, the funny thing about all the hype Chicago's hot start has received is that they have gotten off to good starts in each of the previous three seasons too. They went 13-8 for a .619 winning percentage last April, and were a combined 43-30 in April for a .589 winning percentage from 2002-2004. The big question this time around is whether or not they can keep playing winning baseball for the remaining six months of the season. They couldn't last year, going 70-71 after April to finish 83-79, nine games behind Minnesota. Another .500 finish will put them at just 86 wins, which is the same total they had in 2003 when they finished four games behind Minnesota.

 

So can the White Sox do this season what they haven't been able to do after April in years past? Well, their defense is solid once again and their struggling offense almost can't help but improve significantly from here on out, particularly if they can get a couple hundred at-bats from a relatively healthy Frank Thomas at some point. On the other hand, their pitching staff, and particularly the starting rotation, looks due for a major dropoff.

 

Take a look at their starters' current ERAs, along with their respective ERAs from 2002-2004:

STARTER          2005  02-04

Jon Garland      1.38      4.67

Orlando Hernandez 2.70      3.51

Freddy Garcia    2.83      4.24

Jose Contreras      3.04      4.85

Mark Buehrle        3.89      3.87

Not only are Jon Garland, Orlando Hernandez, Freddy Garcia, and Jose Contreras sporting ERAs that are better than what they've had over the past three years, their ERAs are lower than they've had in any one season over that span. For instance, Garland's combined ERA from 2002-2004 was 4.67, which is nearly three and a half times higher than his current 1.38 ERA, and the lowest single-season ERA he's had since 2002 is 4.51 in 2003. Buehrle is the only one in the bunch who isn't performing significantly better than he has in the past. The only other starter who is even close to his 2002-2004 numbers is Hernandez, but he also has some durability concerns to contend with.

 

In short, if the White Sox's "small ball" offense continues to struggle to score runs and the starting pitching comes back down to earth like their established levels of performance suggest they will, Chicago could be in some trouble. They traded away an awful lot of offense this offseason and at some point that's going to become an issue when the pitchers aren't giving up three runs per game. Assuming Chicago's entire starting rotation didn't make the same deal with the devil that Esteban Loaiza negotiated when he was with the White Sox in 2003, that is.

[tonyho7476]

We are now a more sound team...speed at the top of the lineup...better pitching(starting and bullpen)....more ability to manufacture runs...and still able to blast the ball out of the park. That is what I know...and I think we're going to be fine.

[KWs OK for Me]

Another good article, although not as theoretically sound as that, is on the cover of the sports page in todays USA today. It's nice getting some national praise, the guy who wrote the article I thought did a pretty accurate job of describing the sox.

[southsider2k5]

There is some stuff I don't like at all in there. He totally discounts the double play ball for our pitchers, and on offense he doesn't mention sacrifice flies, and hitting behind a runner to move them over, which the offense has done a great job of this season.

[Guest JimH]

hitting behind a runner to move them over, which the offense has done a great job of this season.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I have noticed both Podsednik and Iguchi have really done a good job with this.

 

Podsednik has given himself up at least a half a dozen times that I recall.

[RockRaines]

Once again, another guy who hasnt seen any games, knows nothing about the team, and derives all of his opinion from looking up a few stats comparing years. Personally, last year, with no injuries, I think we would have won the division. Our team was killing people in April, so I am glad that we are producing close to that total. Small sample size and no insight=this article.

[southsider2k5]

I have noticed both Podsednik and Iguchi have really done a good job with this.

 

Podsednik has given himself up at least a half a dozen times that I recall.

 

I was really thinking of Scott when I said that. If he had been laying down bunts his average would still be showing around .300, and the net result would have been the same. I have to confess I was worried about his average when we got him, but I hadn't watched him play too much. After seeing him for a month, with the way he takes pitches, and his baseball IQ of knowing exactly what to do in any situation, I love this deal even more. He just flat out gets the job done. Which really should be the theme thus far for 2005

 

Flat out getting the job done.

[KWs OK for Me]

I was really thinking of Scott when I said that.  If he had been laying down bunts his average would still be showing around .300, and the net result would have been the same.  I have to confess I was worried about his average when we got him, but I hadn't watched him play too much.  After seeing him for a month, with the way he takes pitches, and his baseball IQ of knowing exactly what to do in any situation, I love this deal even more.  He just flat out gets the job done.  Which really should be the theme thus far for 2005

 

Flat out getting the job done.

I have to add in the fact that Carlos Lee is batting a whopping .214 with 3 HRs

[agame]

I find it very frustrating that everyone focuses on our losing our power hitters but rarely do people point out why. We looked for value on offense and focused on pitching.

Obviously our pitching is better, and a big reason for that is that we invested money that was saved from the power hitters into pitching. As much as small/smart ball is talked about I think the main focus of the offseason was pitching, adding El Duque, Hermanson, and Vizcaino along with the acquisitions of Freddy and Contreras last year.

[Jake]

He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example:

 

5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly.

 

5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day.

 

 

Or another example, just days later.

 

5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance.

 

5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance.

 

5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games.

 

 

 

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

[longshot7]

I find it very frustrating that everyone focuses on our losing our power hitters but rarely do people point out why.  We looked for value on offense and focused on pitching. 

Obviously our pitching is better, and a big reason for that is that we invested money that was saved from the power hitters into pitching.  As much as small/smart ball is talked about I think the main focus of the offseason was pitching, adding El Duque, Hermanson, and Vizcaino along with the acquisitions of Freddy and Contreras last year.

 

This is a good point - and the one that I've been waiting for most writers to get. We didn't have the money to keep Lee and focus on pitching (signing Garcia, Hernandez, Vizcaino, Hermanson.) As a result of losing Lee - we have a more balanced team - with the signings of Pierzynski & Iguchi. Would we be better with a healthy happy Maggs, Frank, & Carlos, along with our new pitching staff - I think so, but that's not reality. Besides, we're a better TEAM now.

[Balta1701]

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Also take note of what the run scored averages would be over all - the USA Today guy would find that we had a much higher average runs scored than we have had over any other stretch this season, but we'd still win more games now.

 

What the USA Today guy isn't remembering is that last year, in 4 guys, the Sox had 40% of their total salary tied up: Konerko, Valentin, Lee, and Ordonez. No team in baseball dumped such a high percentage of its salary into only 4 guys. Not one - and that doesn't even count Thomas's dollars either.

 

By letting those guys go, we were able to spread those dollars around. So yeah, we might not have 2 MVP candidates at the center of our lineup, but now we've got 5 actual starters, an improved bullpen, a deeper bench, and fewer holes in our lineup overall. We've spread the money around more, and it's working.

 

Also - let's keep in mind...those 4 run per game numbers are with people like Jermaine Dye hitting .170, and I still dont' th ink he'll do that poorly the whole season. And Konerko hitting .230.

[southsider2k5]

He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example:

 

5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly.

 

5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day.

Or another example, just days later.

 

5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance.

 

5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance.

 

5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

Good post. That is something the pythagarin theory numbers don't take into account at all. 5, 5, and 5 runs is much better than 12, 2, and 1 in reality, but for the statistics the two games together look the same in the long run. Number lie yet again.

[tonyho7476]

He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example:

 

5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly.

 

5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day.

Or another example, just days later.

 

5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance.

 

5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance.

 

5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

 

I second Southsider...very good post. We are not this team anymore.

[CWSGuy406]

We are now a more sound team...speed at the top of the lineup...better pitching(starting and bullpen)....more ability to manufacture runs...and still able to blast the ball out of the park.  That is what I know...and I think we're going to be fine.

 

How exactly has manufacturing runs helped us in April? We've gotten lucky that our pitching has been so good -- which, was a good job by Kenny (and not really noted enough in the article, IMO).

 

Other than the fact that he mentions the pitching staff coming back to earth, yet doesn't mention the offense getting it back together (after an awful April), I have no problems with the article. We were off to a hot start last year, and nothing came of it. I will say, though, I'm ten times more confident in this year's team than in last year's team.

[RockRaines]

How exactly has manufacturing runs helped us in April?  We've gotten lucky that our pitching has been so good -- which, was a good job by Kenny (and not really noted enough in the article, IMO).

 

 

See-our record in 1 run games.

[upnorthsox]

There is some stuff I don't like at all in there.  He totally discounts the double play ball for our pitchers, and on offense he doesn't mention sacrifice flies, and hitting behind a runner to move them over, which the offense has done a great job of this season.

 

How many more DP's do we have this yr over April of last yr, if any?

 

He did mention sac flies.

 

Has this ability to hit behind runners translated into more runs scored? No.

 

I think he's spot on with his assessment that pitching is why we are where we are right now and people have been way to quick to give credit to an offense that has been mediocre to woefully pitiful and constantly bailed out by unbelievable starting pitching. He does however miss the mark by blaming the local media here for this O hype when this has been an org propaganda campaign from the start. He is also spot on in saying that the D is basically the same as last yr which as he points out was quite good.

 

He also falls into the same mode as Neyer by using career avg's as an indicator of how the starters will fare from here on out when only a minority of pitchers good or bad will hit their career avg in any given yr. Even so, you only have to go back to the 2003 Dodgers to find a team that led in pitching all season with 4 of 5 guys pitching better than career avg's.

 

Some other points, he didn't mention that in Freddy's '01 season he had a 3.05 era which is only a .22 more than this yr and while he might consider that to long ago Freddy did have a 3.21 era in the 1st half last yr before being traded which would've ranked 2nd in the AL for the full season(he was still 6th). To assume that Garland is going to resort back to his career numbers after the start he's had is just as assinine as anyone assuming he'll continue at the same pace he's at now. El Duque's health has been from the start and will continue to be until Oct. 31st a ? but I don't think you can base a prediction on it. Contreras won't keep up his current pace as he's currently pitching, that's a given, however we've already gotten one good month out of him and if we can get another in May we'll be way ahead of the curve with him. He made no mention of HR's at home which has been touted as Coor's East yet there were only 20 hit there for the month(13 by Sox and 7 by Opps) and 8 of those 20 were from the arm of Shingo(4) and the bat of Kong(4). In fact, take away Shingo's 3 in one inning and Sox pitchers gave up only 4 HR's in 102.1 IP at home in April.

 

There's nothing really good to say about the O at this point, and as he says, that could be trouble but if we can build up a sizable enough lead this month we just might be able to ride it out.

[southsider2k5]

Has this ability to hit behind runners translated into more runs scored? No.

 

The point wasn't more runs total. The point was more consistancy, and less varience between preformances. Scoring 5 runs each in three games will win you a lot more games than score 12, 2, and 1 runs in back to back games like we did a lot since 2001. Choosing to move runners over while giving up an out, contributes to the fewer big innings, but makes our production more stable.

[Jake]

Here are some interesting numbers from 2004(give or take a couple on each):

 

Games with:

 

0 runs : 8

 

1-2 runs : 41

 

3-4 runs : 35

 

5-6 runs : 26

 

7-8 runs : 19

 

9-10 runs : 17

 

More than 10 runs : 16

 

See what was wrong? We were at extremes way too much. Games with 7+ runs = 52. Games with 5+ runs = 78. Games with 2 or less runs = 49. We were only at our average (5.34 runs per game) 26 times. We were within 2-3 runs of it 80 times. Less than half. That's how the numbers lie.

 

This year:

 

0 runs : 0

 

1-2 : 6

 

3-4 : 7

 

5-6 : 7

 

7-8 : 4

 

9-10 : 1

 

More than 10 : 0

 

Our average runs per game this year is 4.56. We are within 2 runs of this 14 games, over half the time (56% to be exact). We are within 3 runs 20 games. (80%) This is our consistency and staying away from extremes. These numbers don't lie.

[NUKE_CLEVELAND]

How exactly has manufacturing runs helped us in April?  We've gotten lucky that our pitching has been so good -- which, was a good job by Kenny (and not really noted enough in the article, IMO).

 

Other than the fact that he mentions the pitching staff coming back to earth, yet doesn't mention the offense getting it back together (after an awful April), I have no problems with the article.  We were off to a hot start last year, and nothing came of it.  I will say, though, I'm ten times more confident in this year's team than in last year's team.

 

 

You're forgetting something though. If you put aside the last 2 games of the 3 game losing streak we just snapped we have had timely hitting and have been able to get a run or 2 when we needed to. Even in the 1st loss to Oakland we had 2 leads of 3 runs or greater but the pitching just wasn't there and the Umps hosed us a couple of times.

 

This, of course, is early in the season. I look forward to much better production out of the offense once the weather warms up.

[sox-r-us]

I still wish though that we had actually traded Maggs last year before he got injured (I know it was difficult given we were still in it when he got injured) .... we could have got a hell of a prospect for him and still done what we did

 

No problems though....

[Wedge]

Here are some interesting numbers from 2004(give or take a couple on each):

 

Games with:

 

0 runs : 8

 

1-2 runs : 41

 

3-4 runs : 35

 

5-6 runs : 26

 

7-8 runs : 19

 

9-10 runs : 17

 

More than 10 runs : 16

 

See what was wrong? We were at extremes way too much. Games with 7+ runs = 52. Games with 5+ runs = 78. Games with 2 or less runs = 49. We were only at our average (5.34 runs per game) 26 times. We were within 2-3 runs of it 80 times. Less than half. That's how the numbers lie.

 

This year:

 

0 runs : 0

 

1-2 : 6

 

3-4 : 7

 

5-6 : 7

 

7-8 : 4

 

9-10 : 1

 

More than 10 : 0

 

Our average runs per game this year is 4.56. We are within 2 runs of this 14 games, over half the time (56% to be exact). We are within 3 runs 20 games. (80%) This is our consistency and staying away from extremes. These numbers don't lie.

 

That's very good information. If I could track down a list of the number of runs we scored last year, I could calculate the standard deviation, which is a measurement of the consistency of a statistic. Our runs/game for last season might be higher, but there was a high level of variance (the bimodal syndrome: score 16 one day, then score 0, 2, 0, 1 ,6, 4 for the rest of the week) that I think most people sense instinctively.

 

Something more telling might be this: in 2004 and 2005 we scored 5+ runs in a game at roughly the same rate (just a tad under 50% in both cases). I'm pretty sure there's a pretty high relation of scoring 5 runs and winning games (I'd guess offhand if you score 5+ runs, you are 60% likely to win a game) .

[jackie hayes]

He fails to mention the inconsistency of last year's offense. We scored a lot of runs yes, but we might pack in 10-15 in one game. And if we win 15-3, 9 of those runs aren't needed. They're needed when we lose the next game, 3-1 or 2-0 or something like that. Here's an example:

 

5/11/04 - White Sox win 15-0. Buehrle pitches brilliantly.

 

5/13/04 (the next game) - White Sox lose 0-1. Garland pitches brilliantly, but is offered NO run support. None. Not a single run. 14 of the runs the day prior were not needed that day but were most definitely needed this day.

Or another example, just days later.

 

5/14/04 - White Sox lose, 2-3. No run support for a good pitching performance.

 

5/15/04 - White Sox lose, 1-4. No run support for a decent pitching performance.

 

5/16/04 - White Sox win, 11-0. Mark Buehrle is awarded 11 runs of support when he only technically needs 1. Those extra 10 could have been used to win those other games.

That's exactly what I'm talking about.

Nice method, cherry pick a couple days. Are you claiming that we will not once, this whole season, score a bunch to win in one game, then lose close ones around that day?

 

Why does it matter that they're consecutive? Hell, we won by 8 runs yesterday, we could have "used" those runs against Oakland and in the first game of the Detroit series.

 

This is not meaningful, because you can't save runs. If what you're saying was a rule, then we would must have been blowing everyone out of the water in our wins last April, right? Well, the average margin of victory is about 2.4 this April, compared with 2.6 last April -- while our average runs scored was a full run higher last April. So there's something clearly wrong with that story.

 

Pitching, pitching, pitching is what's keeping the Sox going. I think Gleeman is 100% right about what's gone right so far for the Sox. And he does say that the offense will get better, so that we don't have to expect magic from our starters all year. I think Jon, at least, has been flukey bad. And Duque is a big improvement if his health holds up. But if our starters revert to their career average numbers -- we're in big trouble.

[Rowand44]

How exactly has manufacturing runs helped us in April?  We've gotten lucky that our pitching has been so good -- which, was a good job by Kenny (and not really noted enough in the article, IMO).

 

Other than the fact that he mentions the pitching staff coming back to earth, yet doesn't mention the offense getting it back together (after an awful April), I have no problems with the article.  We were off to a hot start last year, and nothing came of it.  I will say, though, I'm ten times more confident in this year's team than in last year's team.

It's helped us a ton.

[CWSGuy406]

See-our record in 1 run games.

 

Record in April, 2004, in one-run games (unless I counted wrong) -- 7-1.

 

I guess that was "smart-ball" too, huh?