Who's the #2 hitter

[ptatc]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti....php?cid=204022

 

the only stats available there are individual stats. It doesn't really tell you the situational stats.

 

The only way to do it without having a high covariance coefficient is to analyze individual in tandem and in trio probably using a linaer stepwise regression. hitter 1 followed by resluts of #2 and #3.

 

[caulfield12]

And those "average" statistics for such situations don't take into account the tremendous amount of GIDP's lurking in the middle of the White Sox order when there is a runner at first vis a vis a runner at second that might be advanced by a ground ball instead of being doubled up.

 

How many GIDP's do the White Sox have as a team in this decade, or just 2006-2008, compared to the rest of the American League?

[ThunderBolt]

True, although 811 was still 3rd in the division. The Twins scored more runs and hit less than half as many homeruns as us.

I imagine we would have scored more if we had full seasons of at-bats from Konerko and Q, and league-average production from CF.

[ptatc]

I imagine we would have scored more if we had full seasons of at-bats from Konerko and Q, and league-average production from CF.

 

Probably. However, it was the inconsistency that drove me crazy. Win 13-1 one day, lose the next two 2-1.

 

I want an offense less dependant on power. I know we still need power due to the park but we still play 81 games on the road and we struggle against the Rays and Min.

Edited December 15, 2008 by ptatc

[SkokieSox]

Currently, this is how I see the lineup.

 

Lillibridge/Owens CF

Rameriz SS

Quentin LF

Thome DH

Dye RF

Konerko 1B

AJ C

Fields 3rd

Getz 2nd

 

I'm just guessing, but I can see Lillibridge winning some time in CF and taking on lefties.

[bigruss]

Currently, this is how I see the lineup.

 

Lillibridge/Owens CF

Rameriz SS

Quentin LF

Thome DH

Dye RF

Konerko 1B

AJ C

Fields 3rd

Getz 2nd

 

I'm just guessing, but I can see Lillibridge winning some time in CF and taking on lefties.

I see Ramirez as a 6/7 guy next year still, his OBP is awful and is too much of a free swinger for the second spot. Look for Getz to win that spot.

[Hatchetman]

Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out.

 

in a bunt situation you may only need one run. your data doesn't tell you which strategy has the highest probability of scoring exactly one run.

[bigruss]

in a bunt situation you may only need one run. your data doesn't tell you which strategy has the highest probability of scoring exactly one run.

So in the first inning you already know that you need only one run?

[ThunderBolt]

"if you play for one run, that's all your gonna get"-Earl Weaver. There is never any excuse for bunting in the 1st inning, never.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Thunderbolt

[Felix]

in a bunt situation you may only need one run. your data doesn't tell you which strategy has the highest probability of scoring exactly one run.

I'm not saying that bunting is always a bad situation. However, bunting before the 7th inning or later is just a stupid play. There's absolutely no reason for it.

[santo=dorf]

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing a batter drop a bunt (make an out, not even try to be productive) and take the bat out of the hands of a big bopper right behind him.

[ptatc]

"if you play for one run, that's all your gonna get"-Earl Weaver. There is never any excuse for bunting in the 1st inning, never.

 

Sure there is in a cerain match up of pitchers. Scoring early puts pressure on the pitcher. Can lead to an early exit of the pitcher etc.

 

I don't expect you to agree. There are two camps. We will never see Eye to eye. But the discussions are fun.

 

[SouthsideDon48]

Nothing pisses me off more than seeing a batter drop a bunt (make an out, not even try to be productive) and take the bat out of the hands of a big bopper right behind him.

How does dropping a bunt take the bat out of the big bopper behind the bunter?????? If the bunter had swung the bat and grounded out to a double-play instead, thus leaving no baserunners on the bases, then THAT takes the bat out of hands of the big bopper. The big bopper will always have his bat in his hands if there's a runner on the bases.

[caulfield12]

Lead off hitter gets on. Hitter two decides to sacrifice himself to move the runner to 2nd. Now you have a runner on 2nd, with 1 out. Hitter 3, usually the teams best hitter, is now up to plate, with 1st base open.

 

 

You have now taken the bat out of your 2nd and 3rd place hitters, as well as giving up an out in the process. All attempting to score 1 run.

 

 

But the other team doesn't want to give up a big inning....so they walk David Ortiz in the first to face Manny Ramirez with runners on first and second?

 

Not wisel

[witesoxfan]

That would be a great theory if the Sox weren't a team requiring four base hits to score a run. With a team this slow and prone to the rally killing double play, it's incredibly valuable to move the runners up a base. I'm a purist and think every player on the team should be able to bunt, but that's just me.

 

The Sox were actually the best team in the majors last year - by a wide margin - at scoring atleast one run with one hit.

 

This offense needs some more versatility in that it wouldn't be a terrible idea to have a guy or two that can steal a base, having a guy or two that can lay down a bunt, but by far the most important part of any lineup is the ability to get on base and then drive the runner home, no matter how you do it. Acquiring a .400 OBP bat will result in more runs scored than getting a fast player who gets on at a .330 clip or can bunt or whatever.

 

That's also part of the reason I think KW wants to deal Dye and sign Abreu. He probably feels that this team has enough power and he would like to get a guy on the team that will get on base a ton in front of everyone, setting everyone else up to bring some runs home.

[soxfan3530]

i think bobby abreau will end up being the sox #2 hitter.

[ILMOU]

i think bobby abreau will end up being the sox #2 hitter.

 

I hope you're right.

[BaseballNick]

The Sox were actually the best team in the majors last year - by a wide margin - at scoring atleast one run with one hit.

 

That's why I said base hit. PK, Thome, JD, AJ, Crede, and maybe Juan were no guarantee to score from second on a single. My point was that the Sox are too station to station.

[sircaffey]

But the other team doesn't want to give up a big inning....so they walk David Ortiz in the first to face Manny Ramirez with runners on first and second?

 

Not wisel

 

First, we don't have Manny Ramirez hitting behind Carlos. Second, maybe they don't "intentionally" walk Carlos, but you can be damn sure he's being pitched to differently with a base open and no stolen base threat on 1B.

[witesoxfan]

That's why I said base hit. PK, Thome, JD, AJ, Crede, and maybe Juan were no guarantee to score from second on a single. My point was that the Sox are too station to station.

 

last I checked, a home run is still a base hit. I'm splitting hairs, but it's true.

 

Besides that, Crede, Griffey, and Uribe are all gone and it's apparent that Williams has tried to trade Dye too. Thome's a free agent after this season and Konerko's (probably) gone after 2010. Just so you are aware.

 

I just hope that KW does not go to the small ball offense of 2005. As cute as it was, it was one of the reasons that the Sox almost missed the playoffs. What we all saw in the playoffs was the all-or-nothing approach but with a team that could get a bunt down when they needed it. That's all this team should be, and depending upon bunting would be an absolutely terrible idea.

[MO2005]

My 2 hitter will be Konerko! J/K I am going to say Lillibridge or Getz