The New Sox

[Wedge]

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?

 

I think that he was showing a case of how inconsistent our offense was last season and used what appeared to be a pretty good example.where in a 5 game stretch we outscored our opponent 29-8 and yet went 2-3 despite 5 good pitching efforts. I think he was trying to make more of a case that our offense is more consistent this year than last season.

 

Our pitching is definitely improved and nobody can really argue with that, but given the same 5 pitching efforts he cited, don't you like our chances of winning those games more with the 2005 offense than the 2004?

[CWSGuy406]

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.

 

Bingo.

 

I can't see how anyone can actually defend our offensive production at this point, because in simple terms, it has sucked.

 

I can see, however, someone defending that we improve upon that number, because too many guys were hitting well below what they should be hitting.

[upnorthsox]

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) .

 

In April 2005 when we scored more than 5 runs(8) we were 5-3(.625)

 

In April 2004 when we scored more than 5 runs(11) we were 8-3(.720)

 

In the same vein, when we've given up more than 5 runs(and thus need more offense)

 

In April 2005 when we gave up more than 5 runs(3) we were 0-3(.000)

 

In April 2004 when we gave up more than 5 runs(5) we were 2-3(.400)

 

Also:

 

In games we've scored 3 or less runs and thus need pitching to win:

 

In April 2005 - 8 times - 5-3

 

In April 2004 - 4 times - 1-3

[jackie hayes]

I think that he was showing a case of how inconsistent our offense was last season and used what appeared to be a pretty good example.where in a 5 game stretch we outscored our opponent 29-8 and yet went 2-3 despite 5 good pitching efforts.  I think he was trying to make more of a case that our offense is more consistent this year than last season.

 

Our pitching is definitely improved and nobody can really argue with that, but given the same 5 pitching efforts he cited, don't you like our chances of winning those games more with the 2005 offense than the 2004?

No, not really. All the stuff about 'inconsistency' last year is anecdotal. Some people here have looked at that and asked if the Sox scored fewer than X runs (3, say) more often than other teams -- and found that there were no big differences. And this year we'll score 8, 9, 11 runs one day, and 1 or 2 on others.

[Rowand44]

Bingo.

 

I can't see how anyone can actually defend our offensive production at this point, because in simple terms, it has sucked. 

 

I can see, however, someone defending that we improve upon that number, because too many guys were hitting well below what they should be hitting.

I'll defend it. They aren't putting up astronomical numbers but for the most part they've come up with every single clutch hit they've had to. You'll win a ton of games like that, that's what the twins have done for years. Good pitching and timely hitting. The individual stats will improve but as long as the timely hittings there the offense will be fine.

[CWSGuy406]

I'll defend it.  They aren't putting up astronomical numbers but for the most part they've come up with every single clutch hit they've had to.  You'll win a ton of games like that, that's what the twins have done for years.  Good pitching and timely hitting.  The individual stats will improve but as long as the timely hittings there the offense will be fine.

 

So, if we hit like this the rest of the year, we'll be fine?

 

I don't know... It just seems like if our pitching wasn't so good, we'd be in one real big hole right now. Luckily (I shouldn't say luckily like it came out of the blue -- it's one of the better staff's in the AL), it's been beyond excellent.

[jackie hayes]

I'll defend it.  They aren't putting up astronomical numbers but for the most part they've come up with every single clutch hit they've had to.  You'll win a ton of games like that, that's what the twins have done for years.  Good pitching and timely hitting.  The individual stats will improve but as long as the timely hittings there the offense will be fine.

Not if the good pitching isn't there any more.

 

"Timely hitting" -- when is this time when you're not supposed to be hitting?

[WHarris1]

Logic would say our pitching will come down to Earth.

If our pitching will come down whose to say the offense won't come up to where it should be?

 

We will be fine. Just enjoy the ride.

[Rowand44]

Not if the good pitching isn't there any more.

 

"Timely hitting" -- when is this time when you're not supposed to be hitting?

Riiight, my bad I forgot there was no such thing as clutch hitting. :banghead

[jackie hayes]

Riiight, my bad I forgot there was no such thing as clutch hitting. :banghead

Well -- why is it these clutch guys only turn it on at certain times? Something I've always wondered.

[Rowand44]

Well -- why is it these clutch guys only turn it on at certain times?  Something I've always wondered.

Big spot, you get lucked in, adrenaline rush, some guys can keep there nerves in check some can't, a different and better approach in different situations. There are many different reasons.

[CWSGuy406]

Well -- why is it these clutch guys only turn it on at certain times?  Something I've always wondered.

 

I'd certainly -- at least, for the purpose of this thread -- like a definition of clutch.

 

Because if it's getting a hit with a RISP, then I don't think we've been doing that well (though I could be wrong -- I can't find a collective team stat-page of how we've hit with RISP, bases loaded, etc etc). Not to mention, what 0 for twenty-something with the bases loaded?

 

I'm really not trying to bring down what the Sox have done. I'm happy as hell. I'm just saying, you can't defend the hitting thus far -- IMO. The pitching has been awesome, and is the reason that we're 18-7. Not because of 'smallball', 'smartball', or whatever... And if the hitting were to stay the same as it has for April over the whole season -- which I'm not suggesting it will -- then we won't keep winning.

Edited May 2, 2005 by CWSGuy406

[Wedge]

No, not really.  All the stuff about 'inconsistency' last year is anecdotal.  Some people here have looked at that and asked if the Sox scored fewer than X runs (3, say) more often than other teams -- and found that there were no big differences.  And this year we'll score 8, 9, 11 runs one day, and 1 or 2 on others.

 

Not to turn into Juggs here, but I did a rough a dirty calculation of our runs/game standard deviation. My data was a bit suspect, I was only going off of the info in Jake's post (i.e. I weighted games in the 9-10 category as 9.5 runs scored and 10+ became 12 runs). Despite this, the numbers should illustrate a good trend. Standard deviation (also known as variance) is a measure of how spread out a distribution is (thus a lower number means more consistent data). In 2004, this figure was roughly 3.5. This year so far, our figure is 2.5, ergo statistically we are much more consistent in terms of run scoring.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Well I disagree emphatically with his assertion that you put any defense behind this staff & they'll do just as good. He's completely ignored what is meant by a "timely out".

 

The secret to the 2005 White Sox success is pretty simple: timely outs + timely hits. Not all hits are alike or carry the same value & neither do the outs. The team might suck at RISP, but it's doing quite well with RON.

The offense might suck during starter's innings but it's doing quite well during relief innings.

 

On the defense side the White Sox are 10-3 in 1 run games. A big part of that is the tough out & turning the DP to get out of jams. Uribe has been a major part of that. You replace him with Harris over those games & the Sox are not likely 10-3 in those games. I've pointed this out before but in Jon's April starts he waited for Uribe at every break in an inning because he know Juan might have been the difference between a big inning or a scoreless one. In my opinion that's what small ball really means: executing the run saving plays & the run scoring plays. We've been suberb in one area & we've managed to get by in the other.

 

To put the explanation point on the timely outs + timely hitting formula

the White Sox have lead in all 25 of their games this year. That ties a ML record. The KC series is sure to break that record.

[jackie hayes]

Big spot, you get lucked in, adrenaline rush, some guys can keep there nerves in check some can't, a different and better approach in different situations.  There are many different reasons.

"nerves in check" would mean that people fall apart in the clutch -- not someone who doesn't play well otherwise (Timo, for instance). And if they only apply the "better approach" in certain situations, I don't know why you'd want them on your team. Which leaves adrenaline, which I don't buy, but it's a theory.

 

As I'm sure you can guess, no, I don't think much of clutch. But that argument's been beaten to death, I don't think having the debate again will be helpful...

[jackie hayes]

Not to turn into Juggs here, but I did a rough a dirty calculation of our runs/game standard deviation.  My data was a bit suspect, I was only going off of the info in Jake's post (i.e. I weighted games in the 9-10 category as 9.5 runs scored and 10+ became 12 runs).  Despite this, the numbers should illustrate a good trend.  Standard deviation (also known as variance) is a measure of how spread out a distribution is (thus a lower number means more consistent data).  In 2004, this figure was roughly 3.5.  This year so far, our figure is 2.5, ergo statistically we are much more consistent in terms of run scoring.

It's not a good measure here -- runs are nonnegative, and the distribution is nonsymmetric. Take the same distribution, do nothing except scale it down a little, and you'll get a lower standard deviation.

 

If you're curious:

 

April 2004

Mean scored: 5.4

Std dev: 3.2

Mean allowed: 4.8

Std dev: 3.1

 

April 2005

Mean scored: 4.4

Std dev: 2.2

Mean allowed: 3.4

Std dev: 2.8

[Rowand44]

So, if we hit like this the rest of the year, we'll be fine? 

 

Yes, I think so. Now, I think the offense is going to get better but we'll be fine either way. The sox are averaging 4.6 runs per game as of right now, the twins last year averaged 4.8 runs per game. This is a team that is playing more and more like Minny this year and can win games in ways the twins did last year.

[CWSGuy406]

Yes, I think so.  Now, I think the offense is going to get better but we'll be fine either way.  The sox are averaging 4.6 runs per game as of right now, the twins last year averaged 4.8 runs per game.  This is a team that is playing more and more like Minny this year and can win games in ways the twins did last year.

 

Hmm, well, I think we'd struggle to play .500 ball from here on out if we were to hit like this for the rest of the season, but I guess that's just a difference of opinions.

[Wedge]

It's not a good measure here -- runs are nonnegative, and the distribution is nonsymmetric.  Take the same distribution, do nothing except scale it down a little, and you'll get a lower standard deviation.

 

That's not really true, standard deviation is good for nonnegative ranges. It definitely holds true for things like the distribution of height. You're right though, for the nonsymmetric distribution, it might not be the ideal statistic, but it does paint a decent picture, I think.

[JUGGERNAUT]

There is a stat that best measure the timely outs + timely hits theory.

RON .272A .331O .417S .748S vs Opp .223A .310O .297S .607OPS : +. 101OPS

 

compare with Minny:

RON .331A .417O .510S .928OPS vs Opp .268A .304O .463S .768OPS : +.160OPS

 

Losing Rincon will hurt a litte. I doubt they can maintain that pace offensively. I more impressed with the White Sox defense vs RON than Minny's offense with RON.

[jackie hayes]

That's not really true, standard deviation is good for nonnegative ranges.  It definitely holds true for things like the distribution of height.  You're right though, for the nonsymmetric distribution, it might not be the ideal statistic, but it does paint a decent picture, I think.

You're right about the nonnegative ranges in general -- I meant that most distributions with nonnegative ranges are asymmetric. (Certainly the distribution of runs/game is.)

 

I don't know if it's a "decent picture". At least in principle, the std dev could vary quite a bit with the mean. I don't have a good idea what the 'usual' is.

[YASNY]

All these statistics are impressive as hell, but I know this much. The '01-'04 versions of the White Sox could not "manufacture" a run if their lives depended on it. When you are in tight games against good teams, those "manufactured" runs are, in most cases, difference makers.

 

The past few seasons, we would get shut down by a good pitcher then pad our offensive stats against mediocre and lesser pitchers. We'd hit Kansas City's 4 and 5 starters for a ton of runs, then face Radke the next game and score 1. This team could not have won a playoff series even if it got there. You know, those are series against good teams with good pitchers.

 

Someone called the '03 team a World Series caliber team in another thread. I say 3 and out if we would have made it.

Edited May 3, 2005 by YASNY

[mrzo2733]

I agree with most of you in that I like this team a lot more and in the end I think the record will support that. But I definitely agree with what the writer said about why have our record. I think our pitching is extremely responsible for our record. I really think that the hitting will pick up but I have to agree that if our offense continues like this we are going to struggle to play .500 ball.

[YASNY]

I agree with most of you in that I like this team a lot more and in the end I think the record will support that. But I definitely agree with what the writer said about why have our record. I think our pitching is extremely responsible for our record. I really think that the hitting will pick up but I have to agree that if our offense continues like this we are going to struggle to play .500 ball.

 

I think those points are each a "given". The pitching has carried us. The hitting should (it better!) pick up. If it doesn't this will be a long year.