Thoughts on the White Sox

[SHAFTR]

I just read this at Beyond the Box Score (a site that I enjoy quite a lot).

 

here is the link:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/7/25/195312/129

 

------

Thoughts on the White Sox

 

The White Sox have played like two different teams in and out of the division.

 

Record v. AL Central: 31-7

Record v. Others: 33-26

 

I dug deeper and tested a hypothesis of mine:

 

RS/Game v. AL Central: 4.76

RS/Game v. Others: 4.81

 

RA/Game v. AL Central: 3.24

RA/Game v. Others: 4.39

 

There is very little difference between the runs scored between divisional matchups, but the pitching is completely different, completely average, in non-divisional games.

 

I think it's a fairly safe bet to put the White Sox in the playoffs at this point, but hold off on the World Series tickets. A lot of their great pitching is the product of a very weak offensive division, with 3 of the 4 lowest-scoring teams in the AL as frequent opponents (the Royals, Twins, and Indians haven't been too great offensively, and the Tigers are in the middle of the pack). And their offense has taken a step back from last year; 97 games into the season last year, the Sox had scored 526 runs. Currently, they have 465. Part of that is because it seems that offensive numbers as a whole in the AL are a bit down, but that's not the whole story and that doesn't account for a loss of 61 runs so far and a projected loss of 88 runs for the full season.

 

Offensively, the White Sox are merely average, thus far, averaging close to 4.8 R/G, in total, which is near the American League average.

 

A few other things:

 

- One of the reasons for their success is how well they've done against the Indians... they're 10-3, even after having only outscored the Indians by 10 runs in those 13 games. If you were to flip that record around (say the White Sox went 3-10 in those games), you'd see major differences in the standings.

 

 

W L GB

Cleveland 58 41 --

Chicago 57 40 --

Minnesota 53 45 4.5

Detroit 49 49 8.5

Kansas City 36 62 21.5

Unbalanced schedule at work.

 

The Sox have only played 5 games against the Twins, meaning that there's plenty of time for a pennant race. So far, the White Sox have the upper hand and the Twins can't hit. But it should make for an interesting pennant race.

 

Clutch? So far, so good for the White Sox.

 

TOTAL RISP

White Sox .261/.322/.421 .264/.337/.419

Opponents .248/.313/.393 .225/.318/.350

 

Finally, a look at run distribution, as per Dave Studeman over at The Hardball Times.

 

Based on their run distribution now, the White Sox are projected to have won 63 games (assuming I've done the math correctly). Their standard Pythagorean projection is at 58 wins, and 1st-order Pythagenport has them at 57 wins. So run distribution maintains that the White Sox have done much better than the average, especially in games in which they score or allow 1 run (they've been held to 1 run 2 fewer times than expected and have given up only 1 run 5 more times than expected), and in games which they score or allow 5 runs.

Run distribution values have the caveat that I haven't quite perfected the "Above Average" methodology I'm using...

[Balta1701]

How would we look outside the Central if we excluded Oakland?

 

We caught Texas when they were on fire, caught Baltimore when they were on fire. We've only seen a little bit of Seattle. Some of those points have to hurt.

 

If nothing else, we did end up 12-6 in Interleague play.

[Dam8610]

How would we look outside the Central if we excluded Oakland?

 

31-19

[YASNY]

The point about the Cenral's weak hitting can be a result of the overall strong pitching within the division, as these teams play each other 18 or 19 times. Or ...

is the pitching that good because of the weak hitting?

[DBAHO]

The point about the Cenral's weak hitting can be a result of the overall strong pitching within the division, as these teams play each other 18 or 19 times.  Or ...

is the pitching that good because of the weak hitting?

I think we're seeing teams in the Central starting to heat up with the bats as well. Detroit gets Maggs back, that changes their whole line-up, and they also put Curtis Granderson in CF instead of Nook Logan. Cleveland turned it around, although they've been scuffling a little lately. The Sox bats are starting to score more runs consistently, we're seeing our team put up 5 or 6 runs a game more than the 2 or 3 we had at the start of the year. But make no mistake, this division has some damn good pitching. The Indians, White Sox and Twins all have good rotations, Detroit has Bonderman, Robertson and Johnson who have pitched well, while the Royals ahhhh..... not so good.

[YASNY]

The Tigers are a longshot to snare the wildcare this year, but look out for them in '06. They're gonna tough as it is, and they will throw some money at their problems.

[witesoxfan]

The point about the Cenral's weak hitting can be a result of the overall strong pitching within the division, as these teams play each other 18 or 19 times.  Or ...

is the pitching that good because of the weak hitting?

 

So, basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

[YASNY]

So, basically, which came first, the chicken or the egg?

 

Hey! The 'cliche' thread is in SL&P.

[daa84]

I just read this at Beyond the Box Score (a site that I enjoy quite a lot).

 

here is the link:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/7/25/195312/129

 

------

Thoughts on the White Sox

 

The White Sox have played like two different teams in and out of the division.

 

Record v. AL Central: 31-7

Record v. Others: 33-26

 

I dug deeper and tested a hypothesis of mine:

 

RS/Game v. AL Central: 4.76

RS/Game v. Others: 4.81

 

RA/Game v. AL Central: 3.24

RA/Game v. Others: 4.39

 

There is very little difference between the runs scored between divisional matchups, but the pitching is completely different, completely average, in non-divisional games.

 

I think it's a fairly safe bet to put the White Sox in the playoffs at this point, but hold off on the World Series tickets. A lot of their great pitching is the product of a very weak offensive division, with 3 of the 4 lowest-scoring teams in the AL as frequent opponents (the Royals, Twins, and Indians haven't been too great offensively, and the Tigers are in the middle of the pack). And their offense has taken a step back from last year; 97 games into the season last year, the Sox had scored 526 runs. Currently, they have 465. Part of that is because it seems that offensive numbers as a whole in the AL are a bit down, but that's not the whole story and that doesn't account for a loss of 61 runs so far and a projected loss of 88 runs for the full season.

 

Offensively, the White Sox are merely average, thus far, averaging close to 4.8 R/G, in total, which is near the American League average.

 

A few other things:

 

- One of the reasons for their success is how well they've done against the Indians... they're 10-3, even after having only outscored the Indians by 10 runs in those 13 games. If you were to flip that record around (say the White Sox went 3-10 in those games), you'd see major differences in the standings.

                W    L    GB

Cleveland      58 41    --

Chicago        57 40    --

Minnesota      53 45 4.5

Detroit        49 49 8.5

Kansas City    36 62  21.5

Unbalanced schedule at work.

 

The Sox have only played 5 games against the Twins, meaning that there's plenty of time for a pennant race. So far, the White Sox have the upper hand and the Twins can't hit. But it should make for an interesting pennant race.

 

Clutch? So far, so good for the White Sox.

 

            TOTAL        RISP

White Sox  .261/.322/.421 .264/.337/.419

Opponents  .248/.313/.393 .225/.318/.350

 

Finally, a look at run distribution, as per Dave Studeman over at The Hardball Times.

 

Based on their run distribution now, the White Sox are projected to have won 63 games (assuming I've done the math correctly). Their standard Pythagorean projection is at 58 wins, and 1st-order Pythagenport has them at 57 wins. So run distribution maintains that the White Sox have done much better than the average, especially in games in which they score or allow 1 run (they've been held to 1 run 2 fewer times than expected and have given up only 1 run 5 more times than expected), and in games which they score or allow 5 runs.

Run distribution values have the caveat that I haven't quite perfected the "Above Average" methodology I'm using...

sabermetric statistics are always gonna have a tough time explaining this teams success, because, well, sabermetrics place 0 value in the way the sox try to win games. close games are won becuase of defense, pitching and small ball. the sox arent gonna outslug the opponents, this is widely known, so they are gonna win alot of 3-2 ball games, thus the run diff isnt gonna be that much higher. yes ill admit the sox got lucky in winning some games, but didnt other teams too? so far we have lost 2 games on a jermaine dye dropped routine fly, and a crede dropped routine pop up. ill agree that teh white sox arent quite as good as their record would indicate (109 wins at this pace places them in top 20 all time). i know this because i watch the white sox. the biggest problem i have with statheads is taht i watch a game and will say that one guy has great range, or one guy has patience at teh place and that leads to not only walks, but the guy waiting for and crushing mistakes. statheads meanwhile, tell me the same thing, only somehow, they are smarter because they use numbers. i dont need to see VORP or winshares to knwo that barry bonds is the best player in the league. and if they came up witha list of top 20 most productive players, and i did, ill bet the list would differ by no more than 3 players. again, they just have a way of quantifying what a scout or a fan would see.

[YASNY]

sabermetric statistics are always gonna have a tough time explaining this teams success, because, well, sabermetrics place 0 value in the way the sox try to win games. close games are won becuase of defense, pitching and small ball. the sox arent gonna outslug the opponents, this is widely known, so they are gonna win alot of 3-2 ball games, thus the run diff isnt gonna be that much higher. yes ill admit the sox got lucky in winning some games, but didnt other teams too? so far we have lost 2 games on a jermaine dye dropped routine fly, and a crede dropped routine pop up. ill agree that teh white sox arent quite as good as their record would indicate (109 wins at this pace places them in top 20 all time). i know this because i watch the white sox. the biggest problem i have with statheads is taht i watch a game and will say that one guy has great range, or one guy has patience at teh place and that leads to not only walks, but the guy waiting for and crushing mistakes. statheads meanwhile, tell me the same thing, only somehow, they are smarter because they use numbers. i dont need to see VORP or winshares to knwo that barry bonds is the best player in the league. and if they came up witha list of top 20 most productive players, and i did, ill bet the list would differ by no more than 3 players. again, they just have a way of quantifying what a scout or a fan would see.

 

If you let stats rule your thinking, and don't use your eyes, you are limiting yourself. Baseball is a game of so many nuances that can never be adequately measured by stats. To me, stats are something I check to verify what my eyes are telling me, or make me take a closer look.

Edited July 26, 2005 by YASNY

[Texsox]

There are still some unanswered questions with this team. I believe teams that have a tradition of being in the playoffs have an advantage, even if the individual players have not been there before.

 

Teams feels it. I remember my college cross country team won 10 of 11 conference titles. You bet when we went to the conference meets, even the Freshman carried themselves with a swagger. It's infectious.

 

I questioned early how small ball would work when we lost our two best averages from last year. We do not have a .300 hitter. When was the last time a team won a playoff series w/o a .300 hitter? I don't know if it's important, but it seems strange.

[southsider2k5]

Let me sink the "Sox can't pitch" ship rightaway with this note in today's Trib

 

Sox starting pitchers limited Boston to three earned runs or fewer in each of their four games last weekend. The last time a team had four pitchers limit Boston to three earned runs or fewer occurred in 2000, when Oakland's Barry Zito, Mark Mulder, Kevin Appier and Gil Heredia accomplished the feat.

 

I guess Boston sucks offensively, huh.

[maggliopipe]

Let me sink the "Sox can't pitch" ship rightaway with this note in today's Trib

I guess Boston sucks offensively, huh.

 

helps that there's a limited number of 4 game series through the course of a season. i'm sure it's been done plenty of times in 3 game series. impressive nonetheless.

[daa84]

If you let stats rule your thinking, and don't use your eyes, you are limiting yourself.  Baseball is a game of so many nuances that can never be adequately measured by stats.  To me, stats are something I check to verify what my eyes are telling me, or make me take a closer look.

exactly you need a little of each

[daa84]

Let me sink the "Sox can't pitch" ship rightaway with this note in today's Trib

I guess Boston sucks offensively, huh.

haha thankfully gil heredia sucked in spring training for us in 2003, otherwise if he was good we may have never found esty, never had contreras.

[Yossarian]

I just read this at Beyond the Box Score (a site that I enjoy quite a lot).

 

here is the link:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2005/7/25/195312/129

 

------

Thoughts on the White Sox

 

The White Sox have played like two different teams in and out of the division.

 

Record v. AL Central: 31-7

Record v. Others: 33-26

 

I dug deeper and tested a hypothesis of mine:

 

RS/Game v. AL Central: 4.76

RS/Game v. Others: 4.81

 

RA/Game v. AL Central: 3.24

RA/Game v. Others: 4.39

 

There is very little difference between the runs scored between divisional matchups, but the pitching is completely different, completely average, in non-divisional games.

 

I think it's a fairly safe bet to put the White Sox in the playoffs at this point, but hold off on the World Series tickets. A lot of their great pitching is the product of a very weak offensive division, with 3 of the 4 lowest-scoring teams in the AL as frequent opponents (the Royals, Twins, and Indians haven't been too great offensively, and the Tigers are in the middle of the pack). And their offense has taken a step back from last year; 97 games into the season last year, the Sox had scored 526 runs. Currently, they have 465. Part of that is because it seems that offensive numbers as a whole in the AL are a bit down, but that's not the whole story and that doesn't account for a loss of 61 runs so far and a projected loss of 88 runs for the full season.

 

Offensively, the White Sox are merely average, thus far, averaging close to 4.8 R/G, in total, which is near the American League average.

 

A few other things:

 

- One of the reasons for their success is how well they've done against the Indians... they're 10-3, even after having only outscored the Indians by 10 runs in those 13 games. If you were to flip that record around (say the White Sox went 3-10 in those games), you'd see major differences in the standings.

                W    L    GB

Cleveland      58 41    --

Chicago        57 40    --

Minnesota      53 45 4.5

Detroit        49 49 8.5

Kansas City    36 62  21.5

Unbalanced schedule at work.

 

The Sox have only played 5 games against the Twins, meaning that there's plenty of time for a pennant race. So far, the White Sox have the upper hand and the Twins can't hit. But it should make for an interesting pennant race.

 

Clutch? So far, so good for the White Sox.

 

            TOTAL        RISP

White Sox  .261/.322/.421 .264/.337/.419

Opponents  .248/.313/.393 .225/.318/.350

 

Finally, a look at run distribution, as per Dave Studeman over at The Hardball Times.

 

Based on their run distribution now, the White Sox are projected to have won 63 games (assuming I've done the math correctly). Their standard Pythagorean projection is at 58 wins, and 1st-order Pythagenport has them at 57 wins. So run distribution maintains that the White Sox have done much better than the average, especially in games in which they score or allow 1 run (they've been held to 1 run 2 fewer times than expected and have given up only 1 run 5 more times than expected), and in games which they score or allow 5 runs.

Run distribution values have the caveat that I haven't quite perfected the "Above Average" methodology I'm using...

What a way to ruin the enjoyment of the greatest game in the world. Do you have a statue of Billy Bean in your den? Go play with your stats. I'll take real wins over "1st order Pythagenport" wins, or whatever the you know what that is. You ruined my lunch.

[SHAFTR]

What a way to ruin the enjoyment of the greatest game in the world. Do you have a statue of Billy Bean in your den? Go play with your stats. I'll take real wins over "1st order Pythagenport"  wins, or whatever the you know what that is. You ruined my lunch.

 

 

It's spelled Billy Beane. Also, FYI, he didn't write Moneyball (if you thought he did). Also, do you realize that HR, Hits, Batting Average & even Win/Loss are stats. A statistic is a quantity within a sample. All of those qualify for stats. Now, if you want to play ignorant and ignore any stat that wasn't created over 90 years ago, go ahead.

[witesoxfan]

I questioned early how small ball would work when we lost our two best averages from last year. We do not have a .300 hitter. When was the last time a team won a playoff series w/o a .300 hitter? I don't know if it's important, but it seems strange.

 

An FYI, Rowand is hitting in the .290s and climbing seemingly everyday, and Podsednik is at .302.

 

And to get close to answering your little tidbit, the 2002 Minnesota Twins did not have a player hit over .300...but had 2 that hit exactly .300, AJ Pierzynski, and Jacque Jones. Interesting note about that team was that they did not have a 30 homer guy or a 100 RBI guy on that team.

[CWSGuy406]

An FYI, Rowand is hitting in the .290s and climbing seemingly everyday, and Podsednik is at .302. 

 

And to get close to answering your little tidbit, the 2002 Minnesota Twins did not have a player hit over .300...but had 2 that hit exactly .300, AJ Pierzynski, and Jacque Jones.  Interesting note about that team was that they did not have a 30 homer guy or a 100 RBI guy on that team.

 

Well, off the top of my head, the Sox should have two 30 HR guys by the end of the year -- Dye and Konerko. And, the DH spot of Everett/Thomas should produce 30 HRs by the end of the year too.

[Balta1701]

The Twinkies haven't had a 30 homer guy since the 80's.

[the People's Champ]

QUOTE(SHAFTR @ Jul 25, 2005 -> 11:41 PM)

Record v. AL Central: 31-7

Record v. Others: 33-26

 

 

Well the way I look at it. To win the World Series you only have to play .579 ball (11-8 if you take every team to the distance). Which is only slightly better than what the Sox have played against the combo of the other divisions to this point. But overall we are playing at a .663 clip. So as far as Im concerned this goofball can take his article and pound it up his 2-hole

[PWSox87]

Well the way I look at it.  To win the World Series you only have to play .579 ball (11-8 if you take every team to the distance).  Which is only slightly better than what the Sox have played against the combo of the other divisions to this point.  But overall we are playing at a .663 clip.  So as far as Im concerned this goofball can take his article and pound it up his 2-hole

 

Exactly, all you have to do is play 1 game over .500 each series. The whitesox split, and easily could have taken tghe series against last years champs. Besides anything can happen once u get there

[The Ginger Kid]

It's spelled Billy Beane.  Also, FYI, he didn't write Moneyball (if you thought he did).  Also, do you realize that HR, Hits, Batting Average & even Win/Loss are stats.  A statistic is a quantity within a sample.  All of those qualify for stats.  Now, if you want to play ignorant and ignore any stat that wasn't created over 90 years ago, go ahead.

 

The Royals swept the Yankees this year...does not compute! does not compute! does not compute! does not compute! Error! Error! Error!

 

alert! System failure! Program will now shut down. Should you experience any other malfunctions of bogus statistical analysis, please contact your local MLB provider for service. It is highly recommended that you first digest one or more malt liquor beverages prior to attending the game. Thank you for choosing baseball.

[the People's Champ]

QUOTE(Texsox @ Jul 26, 2005 -> 08:35 AM)

We do not have a .300 hitter. When was the last time a team won a playoff series w/o a .300 hitter?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

ANSWER: 1997 World Champion Florida Marlins. No one in the starting lineup batted over .297, and only Gregg Zaun hit .301 in a meager 143 ABs

 

And their team batting avg. for the year was only .259

 

 

 

NOTE: The 1995 World Series Champion Alanta Braves only batted a mere .250 as a team as compared to the Cleveland Indians, the team they beat, who batted .291, and had 6 starters who batted over .300.

Edited July 27, 2005 by the People's Champ

[SHAFTR]

Another Article, this time from the NY Sun.

 

How To Win the Pennant Without a Decent Offense

 

BY TIM MARCHMAN

July 26, 2005

 

The Chicago White Sox, arguably the worst offensive team in the American League, are on pace right now to win 107 games. If they play .500 ball the rest of the season, they'll win 95 games. That's more than impressive - it's pretty much unprecedented. Every winning team claims to be driven by pitching and defense, but the White Sox actually are.

 

A claim that the White Sox are a terrible offensive club should, rightly, be met with skepticism. The team is, after all, sixth in the league in runs scored, first in stolen bases, and on pace to win 107 games, this last number being the best evidence against the Sox being notably bad at the plate. There are a few mitigating factors, though. The most important among them is that they play in U.S. Cellular Field, which is one of the better hitter's parks in baseball. The team's last place ranking in runs scored on the road is more telling than that sixth-place ranking in total runs scored.

 

Another factor obscuring their offensive weakness is that their underlying statistics don't quite match up with the number of runs they've scored. The Sox are second from last in the league in batting average, third from last in on base average, and eighth in slugging average. They are fourth in the league in home runs, but since its renovation prior to the 2003 season, U.S. Cellular has been a better home run park than even Coors Field in Colorado.

 

Last, it should be noted that the Sox play in an especially weak offensive division, something that happens to match up quite well to their strength in pitching. Playing teams like the Twins, Royals, Indians, and Tigers as much as the Sox do, you don't have to have a great offense to win, especially if you have starters and relievers as good as Chicago's.

 

All this being so, the Sox are a lot worse than you'd think at the plate. Measuring by Equivalent Average, a Baseball Prospectus statistic that measures total offense, adjusted for park and league effects, on a scale approximating batting average - .260 is average, .300 is excellent - the White Sox have the worst mark in the American League, at .248. (The Yankees, to give a yardstick, are tied with the Florida Marlins for the best mark in the game at .275.)

 

Running up and down Chicago's lineup, it's not hard to see why. First baseman Paul Konerko - the team's best hitter - has a fairly unimpressive batting line of .258 BA/.355 OBA/.487 SLG - respectable, but not what you'd expect from the best hitter on the best team in the league. Most of the team's other starters fit the same profile; Jermaine Dye, Aaron Rowand, A.J.Pierzynski, and Scott Podsednik are perfectly solid bats but not much more. Some, like third baseman Joe Crede (.250/.303/.435), approach outright ineptitude.

 

None of this is to say that the White Sox are a fluke, or don't deserve their record, or anything of the sort. The team's pitching has been genuinely extraordinary this year in every regard, the best seen in the majors in many years. The Sox have gotten timely hits, key steals, and superb defense from the same cast of players who have put up the hitting lines so easily derided as subpar - clearly, as three-dimensional players, everyone from Konerko to Crede is contributing to the team's success. A team on pace to win 90 games might be written off as lucky; a team on pace to win 107 cannot be as simply dismissed.

 

Still, it's beyond unusual for a team this good to be so light on offense. In the wild-card era, only four 100-win teams have been remotely close to being this weak at the plate. Using Equivalent Average as a point of comparison, the 2003 Giants came in at .266, the 2002 and 1999 Braves came in at .261, and the 1995 Braves (who were on pace to win 100 in a strike-shortened season) came in at .253. The Giants were well above average, and anyway no team featuring Barry Bonds at the height of his powers can realistically be called weak offensively.

 

Those Braves teams, of course, are what the current Sox team was modeled on, and they featured a pitching staff of a quality never before seen in major league history. Still, two of those teams were league-average offensively; the 1995 Braves are the only recent 100-win team that was downright weak at the plate, and they ended that season with the only World Series title in the team's 14-year run of dominance in the National League East.

 

Going back a bit further, it's still incredibly rare for a team without a strong offense to win 100.The 1985 Cardinals, who famously featured seven leadoff hitters and Jack Clark, come to mind, but their .273 Equivalent Average was the best in the league.(The seven leadoff hitters were all actually pretty good.) The 1962 Dodgers also come to mind, but their .277 mark was second-best in the league. Like the Cardinals, that team garnered a lasting reputation as a no-hit squad largely due to a misunderstanding of park effects and a lack of eye-popping raw power numbers, but was actually quite impressive in context.

 

The only 100-win team of the post-integration era that approaches the current White Sox for plate futility is, of all teams, the 1969 Mets, whose .249 Equivalent Average was second-worst in the National League. On that team, no one save Tommie Agee and Cleon Jones could hit worth a lick, and their formula was very close to that of the current White Sox - pitching, defense, pitching, timely hits and steals, a healthy dose of the simply inexplicable, and a lot more pitching.

 

Just as the other precedents for the current Sox team are, this is an encouraging one - like the 2003 Giants and the 1999 and 1995 Braves, the Mets won the pennant, and like the 1995 Braves, they won the World Series. All of this, however, should be taken with a few grains of salt. Statistics like Equivalent Average have their flaws, and one of the biggest ones is their inability to account for things like shrewd managing and timing. Chicago's gross totals of steals, walks, and so forth aren't particularly impressive, but the timing of them is.

 

In close and late situations - the seventh inning or later, with the game tied or one team leading by a run or with the tying run on base, at the plate, or on deck - the Sox are one off the league lead in runs scored, first in steals, and second in OPS. If there's any secret to their manufacturing of runs, it's that they've been good in the clutch, and that can make up for a fair amount of crummy hitting.

 

The Sox' curse - they haven't won a World Series since their 1919 edition shamefully handed one away - is for whatever reason by far the least glamorous in baseball, but judging from the past, they have a great shot this year at putting it to bed forever, no matter how little they hit.