Uribe hitting in the 2 hole thoughts

[RockRaines]

Ok, so first move he makes you disagree with I want an explanation.  It can involve the sun and moon, but I need something.

How is 260 at bats not enough to judge someone? Thats about half a season.

[RockRaines]

Unfortunately, Uribe's OBP is more important than his ability to make productive outs when it comes to scoring runs.

Why is that Jabroni? Wouldnt a ground out to move the runner from 2nd to third be a productive out that must be achieved by your #2 hitter? Why is his OBP so important? Gooch's wasnt that great for a #2 hitter, but he was one of the best we have seen on the sox.

[Balta1701]

Why is that Jabroni?  Wouldnt a ground out to move the runner from 2nd to third be a productive out that must be achieved by your #2 hitter?  Why is his OBP so important?  Gooch's wasnt that great for a #2 hitter, but he was one of the best we have seen on the sox.

Well, when you're hitting directly in front of 3 guys who may very well hit 120+ home runs between the 3 of them this season, it does raise the importance.

[RockRaines]

Well, when you're hitting directly in front of 3 guys who may very well hit 120+ home runs between the 3 of them this season, it does raise the importance.

Well, according to our manager, the #2 hitter should be able to sacrafice himself to get our leadoff hitter into scoring position. At that point, in that situation, you arent playing for a HR, you are playing for a sac fly.

[chitownsportsfan]

Well, according to our manager, the #2 hitter should be able to sacrafice himself to get our leadoff hitter into scoring position. At that point, in that situation, you arent playing for a HR, you are playing for a sac fly.

 

Well, I don't care much about sacrifices, not unless they come in the late innings of a tight game. Playing for 1 run will get you 1 run.

[Rowand44]

Well, I don't care much about sacrifices, not unless they come in the late innings of a tight game.  Playing for 1 run will get you 1 run.

So? Playing for the big inning will a lot of times get you nothing. We did win a lot of 1 run ball games last year.

[RockRaines]

Well, I don't care much about sacrifices, not unless they come in the late innings of a tight game.  Playing for 1 run will get you 1 run.

Get in your time machine, go back to 2002-2004 and have a nice day.

 

One run ball games and wins is what got us a world championship last year.

[chitownsportsfan]

Get in your time machine, go back to 2002-2004 and have a nice day.

 

One run ball games and wins is what got us a world championship last year.

 

Ok, I've gone into my time machine and have pulled the following out of the past:

Year W L RS RA

2005 99 63 741 645

2004 83 79 865 831

2003 86 76 791 715

2002 81 81 856 798

 

Yep, "wins" did get us a world championship last year--can't argue that. But gee, you think a little good old fashioned run prevention didn't help? That was the main difference between 2005 and 2002-2004, not some myth like "Ozzieball".

 

Please don't say that I don't realize the importance of being able to move the runner over and play for one run. I realize playing for 1 run helps win close games. Having a shovel helps dig a hole, but not as much as a bulldozer. Get it?

[SSH2005]

So?  Playing for the big inning will a lot of times get you nothing.  We did win a lot of 1 run ball games last year.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is that our pitching staff was the main reason we won those 1-run games. If they don't all have amazing years again, we won't win the majority of those 1-run games like we did last season. We may need more of a cushion this season if the pitching staff regresses a bit.

 

And the reason we didn't win anything from 2002-2004 wasn't because of our offense. It was mostly because of our crappy pitching.

Edited February 15, 2006 by SSH2005

[Balta1701]

Ok, I've gone into my time machine and have pulled the following out of the past:

Year    W      L        RS      RA

2005  99  63  741  645

2004  83  79  865  831

2003  86  76  791  715

2002  81  81  856  798

 

Yep, "wins" did get us a world championship last year--can't argue that.  But gee, you think a little good old fashioned run prevention didn't help?  That was the main difference between 2005 and 2002-2004, not some myth like "Ozzieball".

 

Please don't say that I don't realize the importance of being able to move the runner over and play for one run.  I realize playing for 1 run helps win close games.  Having a shovel helps dig a hole, but not as much as a bulldozer.  Get it?

Actually there was something fairly significant last year about "Ozzieball"...whether or not it won a lot of games is worth asking, but I did a bit of work on this sometime around the All Star Break. Last year, the average number of runs we were scoring per game had gone down, but also, the variation in number of runs scored per game declined.

 

In 2004, we scored 5.34 plus or minus 3.72 runs per game. In the first 1/2 of 2005, we scored 4.84 plus or minus 2.70 runs per game. I think this is actually a fairly important statistic. The higher your standard deviation is, the more games you have where you score much higher or much lower than the average. The lower your St. Dev. is, the more your scores cluster. Our scores in 2005 clustered far more than in 2004. What this means is that yes, we had fewer 10 run outbursts, but at the same time, we also had fewer 0-1 run games...everything clustered more tightly around 5. That is the Ozzie-ball impact...we're sacrificing some of the big innings that would have given us 10 run wins in exchange for additional numbers of 4-5 run games, which makes sense if you're likely to win games once you get to 4-5 runs because of your pitching staff.

 

It's also worth noting that in 2004, the St. Dev. of our offense's per game output was much higher than that of our opponent, while in 2005 we were actually lower.

 

This is not going to be the most important stat, it is no where near as important as the decrease in runs allowed per game from 04-05, but I'll bet there are some additional wins in that stat.

[chitownsportsfan]

This is not going to be the most important stat, it is no where near as important as the decrease in runs allowed per game from 04-05, but I'll bet there are some additional wins in that stat.

 

Yea, I read a few things about this on THT's and SSS. It's a point well taken, and there are certainly a few wins in being able to score 4-5 runs more consistently--especially with the staff the Sox have.

 

I agree though, it's not nearly the most important stat in terms of why the Sox were good last year. The run prevention is. It's still something to consider though. Ozzie's intuation (nudged by a huge dose of KW giving him a stud staff) might just be right on this one.

[CWSGuy406]

Actually there was something fairly significant last year about "Ozzieball"...whether or not it won a lot of games is worth asking, but I did a bit of work on this sometime around the All Star Break.  Last year, the average number of runs we were scoring per game had gone down, but also, the variation in number of runs scored per game declined.

 

http://www.southsidesox.com/story/2006/2/1.../759#commenttop

 

[/snip]

 

What's interesting is that while the Sox scored 4 runs or less in the same number of games in '05 as '04, they were able to dramatically increase the number of times they scored 5 and 6 runs in a game.

 

What I want to find out is if this is a repeatable task.