Ozzie's best observation of the year...

[Wanne]

Guillen credited manager Jim Leyland's arrival with helping turn the Tigers around. "He gave them the best chance to win games and did some good things for their clubhouse," he said. Guillen, though, said Detroit's talent was the biggest difference-maker and poked fun at any manager's contribution. "I've seen a lot of bad managers win the World Series," he said. "You are talking to one."

[greg775]

That was one of the best quotes of the year.

I still say players win games.

Our pitching staff really truly was horses***.

 

Do you all think it'll get better on its own or are we hosed for next year as well?

I mean we could trot out Jon, Mark B, Jose, (Vas or Fred) and BMac and

they could get lit up from Day One and we could be the new Royals.

 

Do we need 2 new starters just in case this staff is the real Sox staff??

[klaus kinski]

We need to evaluate which pitchers do the best against the teams in our division-since we play so many against them. Then keep the 3 most effective AGAINST THE DIVISION.

[Hangar18]

We need to evaluate which pitchers do the best against the teams in our division-since we play so many against them. Then keep the 3 most effective AGAINST THE DIVISION.

 

 

Thats not a bad game-plan. Didnt Kenny use a philosophy like this in the offseason before 05?

[redandwhite]

That's a stupid game plan.

[kapkomet]

That's a stupid game plan.

How insightful.

[LVSoxFan]

Here's what I'd like to know after watching last night's massacre for about two minutes:

 

How many times have we been shut out this season? Or held to 1-2 runs?

 

There's an interesting piece in the Sun-Times today about what the Sox need to do to fix things and the overall gist was that we completely abandoned smallball for slugging (besides our pitching woes).

 

When you couple that with the fact that we had super-underproducing hitters around our core of sluggers (Uribe, Anderson, Pods and sorry... I love the dude, but Gooch too), it's no wonder we sucked ass this year.

 

I hate to say this because of the outcome but it's true: we won last year because we rebuilt ourselves in the image of the Minnesota Twins. This year, with the addition of Thome, we fell in love with the big bombs and COMPLETELY abandoned what got us to the dance last year.

 

The fact that they're in and we're not... well, do we need any more reminders?

[fathom]

I hate to say this because of the outcome but it's true: we won last year because we rebuilt ourselves in the image of the Minnesota Twins. This year, with the addition of Thome, we fell in love with the big bombs and COMPLETELY abandoned what got us to the dance last year.

 

Ugh.....I simply can't believe how people think that the problem with the Sox this year was their lack of smallball. The Sox offense in 2005 sucked, and the only reason is seemed like smallball was working was that our pitching staff made every run we score seem so important. When we have a lineup with guys like Pierre and Lugo next season, I can't wait for people to complain that we don't have enough power consistent through the lineup. Our starting and relief pitching got us to the dance last year...end of story.

[NorthSideSox72]

Ugh.....I simply can't believe how people think that the problem with the Sox this year was their lack of smallball. The Sox offense in 2005 sucked, and the only reason is seemed like smallball was working was that our pitching staff made every run we score seem so important. When we have a lineup with guys like Pierre and Lugo next season, I can't wait for people to complain that we don't have enough power consistent through the lineup. Our starting and relief pitching got us to the dance last year...end of story.

Not exactly. The extremists on the board yelling "SMALL BALL RULES" or "SMALL BALL WAS AN ILLUSION" are missing the point. The offense was effective last year because of a combination of home runs, timely hitting and yes, small ball. It worked because it had all those things. No one of them was the magic bullet.

 

That all said, the offense this year was rockin', even without being good at execution of small ball when it would have come in handy (which, even on an offensive juggernaut, it still occasionally does). If people want to point at something that caused our problems this year, better to look at pitching and coaching. The offensive issues we did have (low OBP at 1, 2, 8 and 9, primarily) come after those.

[fathom]

It's kinda ironic that the best motivating Ozzie did all year was when he gave the Twins players the nickname "piranhas".

[Balta1701]

Not exactly. The extremists on the board yelling "SMALL BALL RULES" or "SMALL BALL WAS AN ILLUSION" are missing the point. The offense was effective last year because of a combination of home runs, timely hitting and yes, small ball. It worked because it had all those things. No one of them was the magic bullet.

 

That all said, the offense this year was rockin', even without being good at execution of small ball when it would have come in handy (which, even on an offensive juggernaut, it still occasionally does). If people want to point at something that caused our problems this year, better to look at pitching and coaching. The offensive issues we did have (low OBP at 1, 2, 8 and 9, primarily) come after those.

Unfortunately, I don't think the numbers in terms of our offense agree with your conclusion that the offense was effective last year.

 

I haven't yet added the last 2 weeks to my database, and I'm not sure it's worth it because the team has clearly quit and that's a bit of a statistical anomaly...but I've been keeping a database of the final scores of each game for the last 3 seasons in order to look at the offensive performance...and you know what I've found?

 

At least until this week...under any way that I sort the numbers....this year's offense was significantly better. It's not just a matter of them averaging more runs because they score more in a few games but have more shutouts or anything like that...this year's offense was better all around.

 

Last year, we scored 0-1 runs 7 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 0-1 runs 3 times. The 2005 Sox scored 3 runs or less 42 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 3 runs or less only 17 times. That's 20 games through the first 133 games of the season where the White Sox scored less than 4 runs...as compared to nearly 50 in 2005. The 2005 Sox scored 4 runs or more 81 times. The 2006 Sox scored 4 runs or more 113 times in that first 133 games.

 

The offense was not just better this year. Under every means of sorting I can find...under every way of grouping I can find, the offense was better and more consistent the entire year until they finally gave up this last week or so. I looked through again and again to see if I could find some trend that would make 2005 look more favorable under any circumstances...and it's just not there. The offense gave more runs per game, gave fewer games with very little runs, and did so consistently throughout the entire year.

[NorthSideSox72]

Unfortunately, I don't think the numbers in terms of our offense agree with your conclusion that the offense was effective last year.

 

I haven't yet added the last 2 weeks to my database, and I'm not sure it's worth it because the team has clearly quit and that's a bit of a statistical anomaly...but I've been keeping a database of the final scores of each game for the last 3 seasons in order to look at the offensive performance...and you know what I've found?

 

At least until this week...under any way that I sort the numbers....this year's offense was significantly better. It's not just a matter of them averaging more runs because they score more in a few games but have more shutouts or anything like that...this year's offense was better all around.

 

Last year, we scored 0-1 runs 7 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 0-1 runs 3 times. The 2005 Sox scored 3 runs or less 42 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 3 runs or less only 17 times. That's 20 games through the first 133 games of the season where the White Sox scored less than 4 runs...as compared to nearly 50 in 2005. The 2005 Sox scored 4 runs or more 81 times. The 2006 Sox scored 4 runs or more 113 times in that first 133 games.

 

The offense was not just better this year. Under every means of sorting I can find...under every way of grouping I can find, the offense was better and more consistent the entire year until they finally gave up this last week or so. I looked through again and again to see if I could find some trend that would make 2005 look more favorable under any circumstances...and it's just not there. The offense gave more runs per game, gave fewer games with very little runs, and did so consistently throughout the entire year.

I'm struggling to see what you are disagreeing with. I said, last year's offensive was effective, and that this year's is rockin' - as in, better than last year.

 

I'm also amazed you are keeping your own database of stats.

[Balta1701]

I'm struggling to see what you are disagreeing with. I said, last year's offensive was effective, and that this year's is rockin' - as in, better than last year.

 

I'm also amazed you are keeping your own database of stats.

Eh...you were the last post at the time...I just hit reply on the last poster.

[santo=dorf]

I thought Ozzie said there's no such thing as a good manager.

[LVSoxFan]

I'm not gonna argue with people who say that the way we played last year--smallball, Ozzieball, smartball, whatever--had nothing to do with it.

 

Bull-sheeet!

 

Back then we had timely hitting, stealing, bunting, comeback ability, you name it. So WHAT if we had all the big bombs this year--that's freakin 2004 Redux.

 

This year we had 20 run games, then shutouts. Strikeout after strikeout after strikeout. Bunts? AWOL. Opposite field hits? AWOL. Did we even attempt ONE suicide squeeze this year? I can't remember one. Tons of guys left on base. Double-play after double-play with one or zero outs. Oh, and did I mention strikeouts?

 

Our offense last year may have been MINIMAL (the "hitless wonder" tag was being tossed around) but it usually did what it had to do.

 

Do not TELL me that last year there were tons of games where the other team would go up 3-0 and we knew the game was over. Last night was just like a repeat of the entire second half story this year: we know you'll never come back because if you don't score 11 runs, you score zero.

 

And ANY suggestion that last year's model wasn't what got us to where we won... well, all I have to say is: see you in 88 years. 'Cause it'll probably be that long again if you want to continue to field the 2004 White Sox, which is EXACTLY what these guys were this year.

[NorthSideSox72]

Eh...you were the last post at the time...I just hit reply on the last poster.

hey, if you have all those scores, here is a test I'd like to see run... I'd like to see a standard deviation model on scores this year versus last year. I'd be it would be higher this year - more volatility. That doesn't necessarily mean its bad or good, but it would be reflective of consistency (or lack of) in the offense.

[Balta1701]

LV...the big difference in 2005-2006 is not the offense. It's the pitching. The offense was more potent, more consistent, and more effective the entire way through.

 

The reason we knew a game was over when we went down 3-0 in 2006 was that when you looked back 2 innings later, it was going to be 8-3, not because we couldn't score that many. There were a ton of games in 06 where the offense did come back. But there was just no reason to believe the pitching was going to hold that lead.

 

By the way, your numbers are incorrect. Thus far, in all of 2006, including the last few games where we've completley given up, the White Sox have had 16 games where they scored 0-1 runs, not 20. In 2005, the team had 20 of those games.

 

The numbers don't lie here. They just don't.

[santo=dorf]

If smartball or smallball is all about putting together 1 or 2 runs like you mentioned, how would that help us if we are down 3-0?

 

This year team has left more guys on base despite leading the league in BA with RISP because WE ARE GETTING ON BASE MORE OFTEN.

 

With RISP: Sox have a .310 BA 15 points better than the second team in the AL

Sox have a 34 point advantage over the Yankees in OPS.

 

Sox lead the AL in sac flies with 56.

 

Sox are third in AL in sac bunts with 44 (1 behind Detroit and 6 behind KC)

[Balta1701]

hey, if you have all those scores, here is a test I'd like to see run... I'd like to see a standard deviation model on scores this year versus last year. I'd be it would be higher this year - more volatility. That doesn't necessarily mean its bad or good, but it would be reflective of consistency (or lack of) in the offense.

In 2005, the White Sox averaged 4.574074074 runs per game, plus or minus 2.880229364

 

In 2006, the White Sox averaged 5.35443038 runs per game, plus or minus 3.397406184.

 

So, in 2006, the StDev was higher than in 2005. However, as I tried to point out earlier...the reason this is higher is due entirely to the high-end games and the added variance by adding in more of those. When you look at any particular way of sorting, especially on the low-scoring games, the White sox in 2006 were shut down fewer times than in 2005 by a factor of around 2.5.

 

For comparison, the 2004 White Sox averaged 5.339506173 runs per game, plus or minus 3.721956976. In other words, the 2004 White Sox scored almost as many runs, but were significantly more inconsistent in their output of runs per game. The histogram results bear this out...in 2004, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 45 times. In 2005, with a much lower Runs/game number, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 49 times. However, in 2006, the White Sox have been held to 2 runs or less only 31 times.

[Pants Rowland]

Unfortunately, I don't think the numbers in terms of our offense agree with your conclusion that the offense was effective last year.

 

I haven't yet added the last 2 weeks to my database, and I'm not sure it's worth it because the team has clearly quit and that's a bit of a statistical anomaly...but I've been keeping a database of the final scores of each game for the last 3 seasons in order to look at the offensive performance...and you know what I've found?

 

At least until this week...under any way that I sort the numbers....this year's offense was significantly better. It's not just a matter of them averaging more runs because they score more in a few games but have more shutouts or anything like that...this year's offense was better all around.

 

Last year, we scored 0-1 runs 7 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 0-1 runs 3 times. The 2005 Sox scored 3 runs or less 42 times. Through the end of August 2006, the Sox scored 3 runs or less only 17 times. That's 20 games through the first 133 games of the season where the White Sox scored less than 4 runs...as compared to nearly 50 in 2005. The 2005 Sox scored 4 runs or more 81 times. The 2006 Sox scored 4 runs or more 113 times in that first 133 games.

 

The offense was not just better this year. Under every means of sorting I can find...under every way of grouping I can find, the offense was better and more consistent the entire year until they finally gave up this last week or so. I looked through again and again to see if I could find some trend that would make 2005 look more favorable under any circumstances...and it's just not there. The offense gave more runs per game, gave fewer games with very little runs, and did so consistently throughout the entire year.

 

Have you tracked plays that should have been made but did not show up on the stat sheet as errors?

 

To me, that is the most telling non-statistic of 2006. I do believe the 2006 pitching staff from top to bottom was inferior to the 2005 staff. However, poor defense, particulary in the outfield, played a significant part in the inflated ERA.

 

From your breakdown, it is evident Sox have enough offense to trade for defensive and bullpen help. The Twins not only have one of the best organizations at teaching fundamentals from the ground up, but they also know that they will never be the most talented team on the field. Thus, they emphasize defense and balance through the lineup and it has resulted in a consistency rivaled by only a few elite organizations in baaseball.

[LVSoxFan]

Yes, I'm quite aware that the pitching allowed us to win one-run ballgames.

 

The point was that the offense last year, whether it be one-run or multiple runs, was clutch. And here's the key point multi-dimensional. As somebody pointed out, we could kill you with homers or we could kill you with a walked-in final run. Either way, we could get the job done.

 

BTW I never posted any numbers about how many games we were shut out--that was somebody else.

 

Now, to shoot down the myth that it's all the pitching. Really? Because for the last month and a half at least I've seen killer starts by Contreras, Garland and yes, Javy--more than a few--completely wasted because the offense couldn't score either enough runs or any at all.

 

Even Buehrle in his second half woes would only give up 3, 4 runs in some games and we'd STILL lose. So while the pitching certainly was not 2005, there were MORE than a few times second half where they did their job but were left out to dry by our impotent, feast-or-famine offense. Granted, the bullpen got into the act of blowing it all in the last months as well, but again: our offense this year was ONE DIMENSIONAL.

 

Sluggers in the heart of the order surrounded by weak hitters. As Bill Melton pointed out last night, quite astutely, our offense was getting killed by pitchers who had good offspeed stuff or just throwing "junk" because with out kind of pull, full-body slugger-type hitters, they couldn't hit crap. Whereas Minnesota (his words not mine) has dangerous "slap" type hitters up and down their lineup.

 

Which brings us back to the point: slap hitting. Smallball. MIA in 2006.

[NorthSideSox72]

In 2005, the White Sox averaged 4.574074074 runs per game, plus or minus 2.880229364

 

In 2006, the White Sox averaged 5.35443038 runs per game, plus or minus 3.397406184.

 

So, in 2006, the StDev was higher than in 2005. However, as I tried to point out earlier...the reason this is higher is due entirely to the high-end games and the added variance by adding in more of those. When you look at any particular way of sorting, especially on the low-scoring games, the White sox in 2006 were shut down fewer times than in 2005 by a factor of around 2.5.

 

For comparison, the 2004 White Sox averaged 5.339506173 runs per game, plus or minus 3.721956976. In other words, the 2004 White Sox scored almost as many runs, but were significantly more inconsistent in their output of runs per game. The histogram results bear this out...in 2004, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 45 times. In 2005, with a much lower Runs/game number, the White Sox were held to 2 runs or less 49 times. However, in 2006, the White Sox have been held to 2 runs or less only 31 times.

That is definitely interesting. For one, people's fears about this team being too much like 2004, seem unfounded. We have scored a lot of runs, but more consistently, in 2006.

 

Also interesting is how low the SD was in 2005. But as you said, the many high totals will skew that result. One way to neutralize the skew to some extent is create an artificial ceiling based on spread. For example... if the Sox averaged 5.35 runs in 2006, that allows 5.35 runs on the low side. Create a ceiling at 5.35 on the high side, which would be 10.7 runs. Anything over that, make it 10.7. That won't entirely remove the skew, but it will mitigate much of its effect, in theory.

[santo=dorf]

LV, please answer this.

 

How is the 2006 team not clutch?

They are first in BA, OBP, SLG% and sac flies in the American league.

 

Seriously, they have a .310 batting average with RISP.

[fathom]

I'm not gonna argue with people who say that the way we played last year--smallball, Ozzieball, smartball, whatever--had nothing to do with it.

 

Bull-sheeet!

 

Back then we had timely hitting, stealing, bunting, comeback ability, you name it. So WHAT if we had all the big bombs this year--that's freakin 2004 Redux.

 

This year we had 20 run games, then shutouts. Strikeout after strikeout after strikeout. Bunts? AWOL. Opposite field hits? AWOL. Did we even attempt ONE suicide squeeze this year? I can't remember one. Tons of guys left on base. Double-play after double-play with one or zero outs. Oh, and did I mention strikeouts?

 

Our offense last year may have been MINIMAL (the "hitless wonder" tag was being tossed around) but it usually did what it had to do.

 

Do not TELL me that last year there were tons of games where the other team would go up 3-0 and we knew the game was over. Last night was just like a repeat of the entire second half story this year: we know you'll never come back because if you don't score 11 runs, you score zero.

 

And ANY suggestion that last year's model wasn't what got us to where we won... well, all I have to say is: see you in 88 years. 'Cause it'll probably be that long again if you want to continue to field the 2004 White Sox, which is EXACTLY what these guys were this year.

 

We went over a 2 month stretch in the 2nd half last season where we didn't overcome a 2 run lead

[LVSoxFan]

I appreciate the statistical homework, but please.

 

Everybody can throw out as many stats as they want.

 

Here's the stat that matters: "W". Take a nice long look at that one. Because for all the decimals and stats and figures, etc., it sure didn't amount to much, did it, compared to 2005?

 

Who cares if we scored a lot of runs, if it didn't mean a win? Yeah, we scored a lot of runs, all right: and then would score zero the next day.

 

Pull out all the stats you want, but I've seen this team before. In 2004. Only then instead of Thome, Konerko and Dye it was Maggs, Frank, Konerko and C. Lee.