July White Sox Catch-All Thread

[southsider2k5]

Is it not fair to say that Jenks has been a reason this team is 52-42 right now instead of 54-40?

 

So if that's the case, this team should be two games better right now.

 

Its also fair to say that that Tigers should be two games better if they don't blow extra innings games to a last place team.

[chw42]

Its also fair to say that that Tigers should be two games better if they don't blow extra innings games to a last place team.

 

This is just going to go around in circles, but the White Sox had much higher win expectancies in the games Jenks blew than the losses the Tigers had against the Indians, I'm pretty sure of that. The Sox had a 82% chance of winning yesterday's game when Jenks came in. They had a 95% chance to win on Sunday going into the bottom of the 9th.

 

Our losses hurt a lot more because they were very, very probable wins.

Edited July 22, 2010 by chw42

[greg775]

The Tigers wet the bed against a bad Indians team. We won two of three versus Seattle which isn't bad.

Hopefully the Sox will play better against the teams in the Central which will be the key to winning the division. The series in Minnesota really sucked; we've done better against KC of late; we usually do OK to good vs. Detroit and suck vs. Cleve.

[jenksycat]

Is it not fair to say that Jenks has been a reason this team is 52-42 right now instead of 54-40?

 

So if that's the case, this team should be two games better right now.

 

Nope, can't do that BS. You can blame so many losses on "what if..." plays. What if PK or Rios drives in the runner on 3rd the other night? What if Raaaaaaaandy doesn't give up those runs in the 7th when we made that huge comeback a few weeks ago. What if SOMEONE gets a hit off Marmol with the bases loaded.

 

All bulls***

[southsider2k5]

This is just going to go around in circles, but the White Sox had much higher win expectancies in the games Jenks blew than the losses the Tigers had against the Indians, I'm pretty sure of that. The Sox had a 82% chance of winning yesterday's game when Jenks came in. They had a 95% chance to win on Sunday going into the bottom of the 9th.

Our losses hurt a lot more because they were very, very probable wins.

 

So there won't be any complaining if we lose 5 straight to Cleveland?

[greg775]

I agree with Jenksy Cat. The what if game is not reliable.

[chw42]

So there won't be any complaining if we lose 5 straight to Cleveland?

 

Depends on why we lost. But I definitely wouldn't be happy.

[chw42]

Nope, can't do that BS. You can blame so many losses on "what if..." plays. What if PK or Rios drives in the runner on 3rd the other night? What if Raaaaaaaandy doesn't give up those runs in the 7th when we made that huge comeback a few weeks ago. What if SOMEONE gets a hit off Marmol with the bases loaded.

 

All bulls***

 

I'm not even going to bother.

[jenksycat]

Depends on why we lost. But I definitely wouldn't be happy.

 

If we lose by a couple games at the end of the year, I'll be much more pissed at the 100 losses to Cleveland/KC that we had this year than the 2 horrible ones this week.

[jenksycat]

I'm not even going to bother.

 

Because you realize its complete bulls***?

[chw42]

If we lose by a couple games at the end of the year, I'll be much more pissed at the 100 losses to Cleveland/KC that we had this year than the 2 horrible ones this week.

 

Seattle's on track to lose close to 100 games this year.

[chw42]

Because you realize its complete bulls***?

 

Because I know you'll try to defend Jenks like there is no tomorrow and engaging in a conversation with you about him isn't going to do anybody any good.

Edited July 22, 2010 by chw42

[jenksycat]

Because I know you'll try to defend Jenks like there is no tomorrow and engaging in a conversation with you about him isn't going to do anybody any good.

 

Not defending Jenks, just showing how stupid it is to say "these 2 games will cost us" when there are probably 15 others you could say the exact same thing for.

 

 

You could have said that any number of years about any player who had a bad stretch. Doesn't matter who the player is, blaming an entire season on one guy is retarded, sorry.

[fathom]

When your closer blows a 3 run lead in the 9th, that loss is directly on him, and no one else. That's about the only time you can single-handedly blame a particular player on a team for a loss, besides for a crucial error that costs the team a game (ie: Soto dropping the game-ending throw at home on Saturday).

[chw42]

Not defending Jenks, just showing how stupid it is to say "these 2 games will cost us" when there are probably 15 others you could say the exact same thing for.

 

 

You could have said that any number of years about any player who had a bad stretch. Doesn't matter who the player is, blaming an entire season on one guy is retarded, sorry.

 

They could cost us, do you remember that this division has come down to a play-in game the past two years? You can't afford to blow games you had a 95% chance of winning. Especially not against a division rival who is going to be right there with you for the entire season.

[greg775]

They could cost us, do you remember that this division has come down to a play-in game the past two years? You can't afford to blow games you had a 95% chance of winning. Especially not against a division rival who is going to be right there with you for the entire season.

 

Come on. What about all those games Jenks saved during our hot streak and his hot streak?

How do you know Putz or Thornton wouldn't have blown the save if they were our regular closer. Jenks has a batch of saves. If somebody else had closed those games, would they have blown some of the ones he saved??? I say, of course. You probably say, no they would be automatic saves.

 

How bout all the weak outs in April and May with runners on base in games by Kotsay and the boys? And Gordon?

I love Gordon but a naysayer could have been all over his ass and blamed several losses on him.

Or Teahen, Mr. Invisible Glove at third and automatic out early on. And CQ and all his early-season outs and the plays you thought he should make in right.

 

The Jenks criticism is fine. But I think some of the haters should admit they just don't like overweight, goatee-riddled Bobby.

Edited July 23, 2010 by greg775

[Quin]

Guys.

 

One year ago, was a Perfect game.

 

Today, Mark Buehrle pitches.

 

Edit: Finally, Bruce Levine is not covering the Sox on espnchicago

http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/white-sox/...n-quentin-trade

Edited July 23, 2010 by Quinarvy

[greg775]

Good memory. Mark Buehrle is all that is right about baseball.

[southsider2k5]

They could cost us, do you remember that this division has come down to a play-in game the past two years? You can't afford to blow games you had a 95% chance of winning. Especially not against a division rival who is going to be right there with you for the entire season.

 

It happens to every team, every year. Each team in the division probably could pick out at least five of those kind of games. Think about it for a second, if there is a 95% chance of victory, that still means one in twenty games you will lose. That means if you got to a 95% chance in say 60 games a year, you are statistically going to lose three of them, on average.

[chw42]

It happens to every team, every year. Each team in the division probably could pick out at least five of those kind of games. Think about it for a second, if there is a 95% chance of victory, that still means one in twenty games you will lose. That means if you got to a 95% chance in say 60 games a year, you are statistically going to lose three of them, on average.

 

We're talking about one game and the win expectancy of the game going into the bottom of the 9th. In that game, you had a 95% chance of winning. If you were to play that game from the bottom of the 9th and on 20 times, you should win 19 times.

 

I understand what you're trying to say though.

[southsider2k5]

We're talking about one game and the win expectancy of the game going into the bottom of the 9th. In that game, you had a 95% chance of winning. If you were to play that game from the bottom of the 9th and on 20 times, you should win 19 times.

 

I understand what you're trying to say though.

 

In other words, we are going to lose a statisitical amount of those sort of games, every single year, and you really shouldn't be freaking out if you believe in those type of stats that much.

[chw42]

In other words, we are going to lose a statisitical amount of those sort of games, every single year, and you really shouldn't be freaking out if you believe in those type of stats that much.

 

That's if they play 20 games like that every year, which they are not on pace for. So far, Jenks has entered a situation like the one we are talking about 7 times, including the one he blew. In this case, they are on pace for 12 of these situations this year. Since this is an estimate, we can give or take two or three games. If you want to be liberal about it, 5 games even. Even in that case, it will not be 20 games and you really can't lose partial games.

Edited July 23, 2010 by chw42

[southsider2k5]

That's if they play 20 games like that every year, which they are not on pace for. So far, Jenks has entered a situation like the one we are talking about 7 times, including the one he blew. In this case, they are on pace for 12 of these situations this year. Since this is an estimate, we can give or take two or three games. If you want to be liberal about it, 5 games even. Even in that case, it will not be 20 games and you really can't lose partial games.

 

How many times a year to we get to the point where we have a 95% chance of winning a game? It has to be a fairly big number. If you look the closers save%'s it almost has to be. They always come into situations where they are winning in the last inning by at least a run, if not two or three, which kicks the odds way up. Looking at just the # of opportunities there are tells me that it has to be most games at the very least.

[Cali]

This is the most stressed out I've ever been about a 1st place White Sox team haha.

 

I know they're good, but are they good enough to hold off Minny/Detroit?

 

I think a trade and shifting of the roster is what's gotta be in order to make me less stressed out. And I have to think that s*** is on soon, with Sale in the minors Teahen coming back eventually, the trade deadline a mere week away....

[chw42]

How many times a year to we get to the point where we have a 95% chance of winning a game? It has to be a fairly big number. If you look the closers save%'s it almost has to be. They always come into situations where they are winning in the last inning by at least a run, if not two or three, which kicks the odds way up. Looking at just the # of opportunities there are tells me that it has to be most games at the very least.

 

If you only take into account the win expectancy when the closer comes in at the top or bottom of the 9th inning with nobody out, the only time where win expectancy is at 95% is when there is a 3 run lead.

 

When there is a 2 run lead in a similar situation, the win expectancy is 93.6%.

 

When there is a 1 run lead in a similar situation, the win expectancy is 80%.