Ozzie's best observation of the year...

[Pants Rowland]

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.

 

 

In one word....BALANCE. This team did not have it all year, including when they were pounding the world in the first half.

[LVSoxFan]

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

 

File under: missing the point

[SleepyWhiteSox]

PITCHING

[fathom]

File under: missing the point

 

Yep...how dare I bring up that the team last year lacked the fire power to come back during the 2nd half of last season. I'm all for making this team more balanced next season, as I'd like to see a new LF, SS, and possibly CF. We need some more speed throughout the lineup, and we have to find a way to make our top and bottom of the order better.

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

This team will end up with about 90 wins. 2004, they went 83-79.

 

And your "W" comment is absolutely correct. But your conclusion that the difference was the offense (despite the fact that 2006's offense kicks 2005's butts in nearly every respect, while our pitching is the opposite), is illogical and unsupported by fact.

[Balta1701]

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.

I performed that analysis on the 2006 results. Here are the transformed numbers.

 

2006: mean 5.182278481, stdev 2.982550505

 

When you perform a similar analysis on the 2005 results, you also get a decrease in both:

2005: mean 4.420987654, stdev 2.515009159

 

There is still a difference in variation between the 2, but that's going to wind up in almost any way you do this, because of the data we're looking at. In 2006, the White Sox scored 7 or more runs 54 times. In 2005, they scored 7 or more runs only 32 times. There's going to be a skew because there are more numbers at a higher distance from the mean in 2006, regardless of how we process the thing, which is why I keep coming back to the histogram. In 2005 the numbers were more closely packed, solely because they didn't have the ability to score a lot of runs in a game. In 2006 the numbers are more spread out, but they're consistently higher at every level.

[NorthSideSox72]

I performed that analysis on the 2006 results. Here are the transformed numbers.

 

2006: mean 5.182278481, stdev 2.982550505

 

When you perform a similar analysis on the 2005 results, you also get a decrease in both:

2005: mean 4.420987654, stdev 2.515009159

 

There is still a difference in variation between the 2, but that's going to wind up in almost any way you do this, because of the data we're looking at. In 2006, the White Sox scored 7 or more runs 54 times. In 2005, they scored 7 or more runs only 32 times. There's going to be a skew because there are more numbers at a higher distance from the mean in 2006, regardless of how we process the thing, which is why I keep coming back to the histogram. In 2005 the numbers were more closely packed, solely because they didn't have the ability to score a lot of runs in a game. In 2006 the numbers are more spread out, but they're consistently higher at every level.

Interestingly, the difference in deviation is almost the same with the ceiling applied. Also, considering the mean is different by .7 and the deviation different by .5, I'd say the 2006 offense was only slightly more inconsistent than 2005.

[santo=dorf]

QUOTE(LVSoxFan @ Sep 27, 2006 -> 11:17 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

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.

Translation=you'll just keep throwing sheeeet at the wall waiting for it to stick.

 

Have fun. The problem with the 2006 team has already been mentioned several times in this thread, and it's not "clutchness" or "smallball."

[Balta1701]

Interestingly, the difference in deviation is almost the same with the ceiling applied. Also, considering the mean is different by .7 and the deviation different by .5, I'd say the 2006 offense was only slightly more inconsistent than 2005.

And when you say inconsistent...it's again more inconsistent at the top end than at the bottom. We're bouncing between about 4 and 9 runs per game this year, last year it was something like 2-6.

[Balance]

In one word....BALANCE. This team did not have it all year, including when they were pounding the world in the first half.

Word.

[LVSoxFan]

Uh my "conclusion" was never that it was offense alone. As we've all beat to death here, this year's team was a failure almost across the board.

 

But I am not backing down from my statement that the offense is too dependent on big bats and has abandoned the small ball approach a la Minnesota.

 

Everybody can pile on the stats all they want but I watched damn near every game this year and saw it with my own eyes.

 

Of COURSE we have issues all over but I was simply addressing this one. Because it's the most noticeable difference between us and the 2005 team besides the pitching not being as good.

 

Let me put it more directly: I'll take Ichiro over Thome, thanks (in a pefect world). We already have enough home run hitters from the 2005 team. Everybody in the lineup this year had home run power. So when, in the first half or near the ASB, players interviewed were talking about how key Thome is to the offense, I thought: "Uh oh."

 

In 2005 there wasn't a "key" individual. It was any man at any given moment.

 

In 2006 teams realized if they could shut down the heart of the order, we were toast. But hey, don't take my word for it--Bill Melton said the same thing.

[fathom]

In 2006 teams realized if they could shut down the heart of the order, we were toast. But hey, don't take my word for it--Bill Melton said the same thing.

 

The problem there is that our home run hitters were the core of our offense. It was the guys who were supposed to be good at "smallball", like Pods, Iguchi, etc., that ended up stalling our offense during the 2nd half (Iguchi's been better over the last month). If you're going to play smallball, you better hope that you have players that know how to execute.

[Pants Rowland]

Word.

 

I am here for you, brother.

[Mplssoxfan]

PITCHING

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The 1,8 and 9 hitters were horrid (and the 2 hitter was spotty), but realistically? This is all you have to say.

[RockRaines]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

The 1,8 and 9 hitters were horrid (and the 2 hitter was spotty), but realistically? This is all you have to say.

I think the pen is being overlooked here as well. With a shut down type pen like in 05, we would have 5-7 more wins under our belt IMO.

[Balta1701]

I think the pen is being overlooked here as well. With a shut down type pen like in 05, we would have 5-7 more wins under our belt IMO.

I'll still say that the biggest single difference this team could have made in the win column this season would have been to not play Rob Mackowiak in CF. His defense, to my eyes, cost us likely in the 5-10 win range this season, compared to where we would have been had we played Anderson 14/15 games or so.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'll still say that the biggest single difference this team could have made in the win column this season would have been to not play Rob Mackowiak in CF. His defense, to my eyes, cost us likely in the 5-10 win range this season, compared to where we would have been had we played Anderson 14/15 games or so.

In the second half, when Brian remembered how to hit, I agreed we should have played him 95% instead of 66%. But this 5 to 10 game difference from ANY one position player defensively (since offensively, Mack was better than Anderson) is a huge stretch.

[Balta1701]

In the second half, when Brian remembered how to hit, I agreed we should have played him 95% instead of 66%. But this 5 to 10 game difference from ANY one position player defensively (since offensively, Mack was better than Anderson) is a huge stretch.

I'm afraid I don't have the evidence on this one, but I'm basing it entirely on what my eyes told me defensively.

 

Every single time I saw Mackowiak out there, I knew it was going to cost us a run, if not more. Every single time. A lot of those were close games. Just tallying in the back of my head from the 2nd half alone I got to somewhere in the 7-10 range of games that having him out there made balls drop that lead directly to important runs...let alone the added pitches that our guys on the mound had to throw. And that's just in the 2nd half of the season when I really started paying attention and harping on it (After, of course, Ozzie said that Anderson was his starting CF.)

 

Secondly...and here's the real beautiful part...Rob Mackowiak was not better than Anderson with the bat in the 2nd half. Post all star, Mack put up a .244 .292 .658. And Anderson put up a .270 .316 .730. And that's not even mentionning the fact that Anderson was better against righties than lefties all season, so his numbers could have been even better.

[LVSoxFan]

I think we can sum it all up like this, because we're really saying the same thing: the starters need to either step up or be replaced. The pen needs to be bolstered.

 

HAVING DONE THAT, we need to have a starting lineup of "grinders" (remember that term?!) who can slap the ball rather than a core of heavy hitters surrounded by low-percentage, non-clutch hitters.

 

See? We can all agree on something.

 

In the end: fix the pitching first, because without it we're nothing. After that though, this offense cannot remain as-is. Unless you want another 2006.

[Balta1701]

I have no problem of this core of heavy hitters if there is pitching attached to it and we actually put our good defensive guys on the field every day.