Records vs Rivals

[clyons]

As coach of the Chicago Bears, Dave Wannstedt went 1 -11 against the Green Bay Packers in six years. This was cited as a major reason for his dismissal.

 

As coach of The Ohio State Buckeyes, John Cooper went 2-10-1 against Michigan in 13. This was also cited as a major reason for his dismissal.

 

Just this year alone, the Chicago White Sox are 0-5 against a fourth place, sub-five hundred Minnesota Twins team. Their intra-divisional record is a feeble 7 -14. I'm too lazy to look up records in other years, but I'm pretty sure its not good either.

 

It seems to me that baseball, like most sports, is a game where you have some ability to field a team specifically tailored to beat other teams; i.e., if the top teams you compete against are loaded with left handed hitting, you can go after a particular LOOGY or lefty starter; if an opponent relies on speed, you can emphasize holding runners close, make sure your catcher and right fielders have good arms, etc.

 

You can't win championships if you can't beat your primary and closest divisional/conference/league rivals. It seems pretty apparent that the White Sox, as constructed by Kenny Williams and managed by Ozzie Guillen, cannot.

 

This can't be a fluke or just a mental thing. I love Ozzie, but have never thought of him as a great manager. In contrast, I've always loved Kenny and his balls to the wall attitude, but this team sucks within the AL Central. Its got to be more than just the players not playing well or Ozzie mismanaging games because of the color of a particular opponent's uniforms.

 

I have determined that Kenny must go. Not because of the Teahan contract, not because of Dunn, not because of Rios, and not because of the two Swisher trades. As awful as those recent moves have been, he still probably has more hits than misses. He has to go because the roster he has built seems incapable of beating the teams it must in order to succeed.

 

That should mean Ozzie goes too, because a new GM has to be able to hire his own guy. I'd be ok with that, but I think most of the blame for this debacle has to lie with Kenny.

 

I hope the Sox get hot and Kenny makes a key deadline acquistion that puts the team over the top as we demolish the Tigers, Royals and Twins in the second half (we've done well against the Tribe so far, I know). I just don't see that happening, and sadly, don't see that anything will be done about it if it doesn't.

[LittleHurt05]

I have determined that Kenny must go. Not because of the Teahan contract, not because of Dunn, not because of Rios, and not because of the two Swisher trades. As awful as those recent moves have been, he still probably has more hits than misses. He has to go because the roster he has built seems incapable of beating the teams it must in order to succeed.

 

Teahen

[BigSqwert]

I agree. Our record against our division is embarrassing and unacceptable. Heads need to roll at this point. No need to wait until the end of the season.

[Greg Hibbard]

Ozzie Guillen is .537 vs. the Central in his career, and has an overall winning percentage of .525. He's been bad since 09, but he crushed the Central the first 5 years he managed.

 

The Twins will not be described as a sub-.500 team for much longer.

 

EDIT: miscalculated.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[caulfield12]

Greg, the Twins would be 14 games under .500 if we'd just played them decently, considering they're without.....let's see, only Jason Kubel, Justin Morneau, Denard Span and Delmon Young.

 

The only reason they're going to make a run at DET and CLE is because of us.

 

If you remove 2005 and 2006 from Ozzie's managerial career, all those numbers will be well below .500 against the Central or Twins or Gardenhire.

 

Do you really consider that successful when we've had the highest or second highest payroll in the division for a decade now (either us or Detroit)???

 

It's like the University of Illinois basketball team losing 20 out of 25 times to the Iowa Hawkeyes. It just shouldn't happen. You can't even make the argument that the Twins are more talented/dominant in 2011. Last year, it was clear. This year, they've used over half their AAA Rochester roster.

 

Greg, let's say you are looking for someone to manage your retirement accounts. The manager was one of the top quintile or quartile for 4 out of 5 years (2007 the exception). But he's been very very average the last 3 years and all your peers are getting 15-25% rates of return and you're barely keeping up with inflation. Do you go into your broker's office and applaud him for doing a solid job half a decade ago or are you more concerned about his recent performance, especially when many of his peers are outperforming him?

 

 

 

Edited July 8, 2011 by caulfield12

[Greg Hibbard]

Caulfield,

 

Do you really think the Twins are as bad as their record?

Do you really think the Tribe are as good as their record?

 

Ozzie was over .500 against the central in 2007, despite being 18 games under .500 overall. He also beat the Central in 08, and was 4 under in 09 when the team was....4 under overall. They'd cut payroll and were expected to be mediocre that season.

 

The original poster made comments likening Wannstedt's performance against the packers to Guillen's OVERALL performance. Other than '10 and '11 thus far, Guillen's been right where you'd expect him to be record-wise against his very competitive, usually quite good, fiercest division rival during his tenure as White Sox manager.

[Greg Hibbard]

btw, removing 05 and 06, Guillen is still 6 games over .500 against the Central. Surprised?

[caulfield12]

Greg, it doesn't matter what we "think," it only matters what happens on the playing field.

 

For MOST of the past decade, there was ZERO argument from most Sox fans that we were the more talented team than the Twins, collectively. Sure, they had their superstars in Hunter, Morneau, Mauer, Santana, Nathan...but, top to bottom, 1-25, we had the better overall talent and depth.

 

Until last season.

 

I could pull the list of all the players who've suited up for the Twins this year and half of the roto geeks out there wouldn't recognize the majority of those names.

 

Baseball is a game of momentum. The Tribe just hasn't won all those games in the last couple of innings (and numerous walkoffs) by accident. They believe in themselves now, that whole "team of destiny" thing. These aren't the 2003 Royals that are doing it with smoke and mirrors. They have a number of players like Sizemore, Choo and Santana that haven't even come close to putting up the overall numbers expected of them, and yet they're still in first and growing more and more confident by the day. It did look like DET would overtake them, but now I'm not so sure.

Edited July 8, 2011 by caulfield12

[jenksycat]

Why do you get to "remove" those years? That makes no sense.

[Greg Hibbard]

My main point is that the White Sox, as constructed by Kenny Williams and as managed by Ozzie Guillen, have beaten the Twins at times, something Wannstedt nor Cooper never consistently did against their rivals. If you think "lately" is a good enough sample size, I salute you. I think it's a bad stretch of 17 games (they went 3-3 first six games of '10. The bad stretch is 2-10 the rest of the way, now 0-5), which happens to every franchise against their rival at some point. Yes, it will probably cost one or both their jobs. It does not speak to their overall performance.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[clyons]

My original point wasn't that Ozzie was (or recently became) a bad manager against the AL Central, but that KW has failed in recent years to give Ozzie a roster that "matches up" well and can win against AL Central opponents. I don't see Ozzie doing anything radically different in divisional games than other games that would explain the poor record against the Central in recent years. I'm therefore sorta blaming Kenny by process of elimination.

[caulfield12]

20 games?

 

It's 9-27 since May 20th, 2009.

 

I'm not even questioning whether Guillen was a good manager in those years (2004-2008).

 

The question has now turned to what has happened to him as a manager since then, and what can (or can't) be done about it. Not only Guillen, but also Williams and the entire minor league system.

 

 

[clyons]

Since winning the division in 2008, the White Sox record against AL Central teams is:

 

2009 34 - 38 .472

2010 32 - 40 .444

2011 7 - 14 .333

 

 

That's a very negative trend.

Edited July 8, 2011 by PlaySumFnJurny

[Greg Hibbard]

20 games?

 

It's 9-27 since May 20th, 2009.

 

I'm not even questioning whether Guillen was a good manager in those years (2004-2008).

 

The question has now turned to what has happened to him as a manager since then, and what can (or can't) be done about it. Not only Guillen, but also Williams and the entire minor league system.

 

If we look at Detroit's record against the Sox from 2006-2008, we see a team with a .538 average winning percentage over those three seasons (87 win average) go 20-35 (.364) against the White Sox. What happened to their manager over those three years?

[Greg Hibbard]

Since winning the division in 2008, the White Sox record against AL Central teams is:

 

2009 34 - 38 .472

2010 32 - 40 .444

2011 7 - 14 .333

 

 

That's a very negative trend.

 

In 09 a just under .500 team went just under .500 against its division.

'10 and '11 are atrocious, but also a relatively small sample size, in my opinion.

[BigSqwert]

'10 and '11 are atrocious, but also a relatively small sample size, in my opinion.

I personally don't think 93 games is a small sample size.

[Greg Hibbard]

I personally don't think 93 games is a small sample size.

 

When an 8-game swing over two years moves it from being "totally unacceptable" to "totally acceptable", it is. If the Sox go 36-36 in 10 (4 games better), and 11-10 in 11 (4 games better) we aren't even having this conversation.

 

Also a 93-game segment put into context of 432 other games against the division is relatively small.

Edited July 8, 2011 by Greg Hibbard

[Milkman delivers]

What is all of debating about? Someone just post the record against our main conpetition, the Twins, over the last few years. That should be enough for anyone.

[Dick Allen]

If we look at Detroit's record against the Sox from 2006-2008, we see a team with a .538 average winning percentage over those three seasons (87 win average) go 20-35 (.364) against the White Sox. What happened to their manager over those three years?

Hasn't Detroit beaten the White Sox in 13 of the last 15 or something like that?

 

The bottom line, whether its the manager's, players', owner's, GM's, fans' fault is if you can't beat your division opponents, you aren't going to have a successful year.

[Real]

I'll explain why I believe the Twins have had this recent surge of asswhipping our Sox, and it's primarily two reasons. Before I give those reasons though, let's look at a few things. The twins roster last year was pretty good. Most of their 25-man was healthy sans Morneau and Nathan. They beat the Sox 13 of 18 times. This year, however, their roster is ravaged with injuries to key players, Span, Kubel, Young, Morneau, and Slowey (SP). Yet, they're 6-0 so far

 

1. Superior scouting and coaching. The twins organization has seemingly found major flaws in our hitters and can exploit these flaws with mediocre pitching, which is why Carl Pavano, Brian Duensing, Nick Blackburn, etc. give our hitters fits. This exploited flaw: Overly aggressive hitters. We currently have one selective hitter in our lineup, and the rest are a collective of free swingers, period. This is a major flaw than can easily be exploited by mediocre pitching, because a pitcher only has to get to a certain count and then put the appropriate pitch (determined with scouting) in a "zone", versus a location if the pitcher were facing a more patient hitter. Examples being "up and in", with two strikes on Gordon Beckham or Adam Dunn, or (this year), changeups "low and in" to Alexei Ramirez. Hitters that sport mediocre OBP can seemingly be attacked easily against Twins pitching who, while not having devastating "stuff", throw strikes and can locate and command their primary and secondary pitches (something Sox pitching has struggled with: command of secondary pitches. "Floyd/Danks needs to go to plan B because (pitch X/Y) isn't working tonight" is a common theme during Sox broadcasts). The Twins have done their homework with our pitching staff (starting pitching) as well, particularly Floyd and Danks. Mauer has an 8 game hitting streak against Gavin as of last night, and we seem to struggle mightily against the Twins minor league lineup because of how poorly these two particular starters execute their secondary/off speed pitches. It's harder for a hitter to "be more patient", and have it lead to success when you're only sporting a .215-.220 average, but hitters like Revere, Tolbert, Valencia, etc. have bought in and is a reason why we can never seem to get their guys out.

 

2. Mindset/"Confidence". I won't spend too much time on this one, but in a nutshell the Twins (IMO) believe, from coaching down to the players, they can beat the Sox ass any given night, and they're definitely inside the Sox players heads. You've never seen so many failed attempts with RISP, or 2out RBIs until you've watched a Sox/Twins series circa 2010-2011. It's truly bizarre

 

just my $.02

[caulfield12]

And you can add Jackson to the "secondary pitches" not working list for a good 6-7 weeks.

 

Perhaps even moreso than Gavin.

 

The Twins always preach getting ahead in counts and throwing strikes. Our hitters are seemingly always down 0-2 or 1-2 (thinking of Dunn and Lillibridge, but almost the entire line-up recently) because they're guessing too much and getting the opposite of what they expect on the 1st and 2nd pitches). Even when down in the count, they're not adjusting their approach to just make contact. For whatever reason, our hitters don't adjust well to the game situation or count. It's a collective or group mindset that needs to be addressed SOMEHOW, by SOMEONE.

[ILMOU]

What is all of debating about? Someone just post the record against our main conpetition, the Twins, over the last few years. That should be enough for anyone.

 

Should be, yes, but that wouldn't allow the cherry-picking that fuels these inane debates.

[greg775]

Greg, the Twins would be 14 games under .500 if we'd just played them decently, considering they're without.....let's see, only Jason Kubel, Justin Morneau, Denard Span and Delmon Young.

 

The only reason they're going to make a run at DET and CLE is because of us.

 

If you remove 2005 and 2006 from Ozzie's managerial career, all those numbers will be well below .500 against the Central or Twins or Gardenhire.

 

Do you really consider that successful when we've had the highest or second highest payroll in the division for a decade now (either us or Detroit)???

 

It's like the University of Illinois basketball team losing 20 out of 25 times to the Iowa Hawkeyes. It just shouldn't happen. You can't even make the argument that the Twins are more talented/dominant in 2011. Last year, it was clear. This year, they've used over half their AAA Rochester roster.

 

Greg, let's say you are looking for someone to manage your retirement accounts. The manager was one of the top quintile or quartile for 4 out of 5 years (2007 the exception). But he's been very very average the last 3 years and all your peers are getting 15-25% rates of return and you're barely keeping up with inflation. Do you go into your broker's office and applaud him for doing a solid job half a decade ago or are you more concerned about his recent performance, especially when many of his peers are outperforming him?

 

That is true that the Twins would be buried without the White Sox and KC this year.

The only time they've resembled a halfway decent team is against Chicago and KC.

[Greg Hibbard]

Should be, yes, but that wouldn't allow the cherry-picking that fuels these inane debates.

 

"few years" means since may 20th 2009, and somehow taking a relatively small portion of total games against an opponent instead of the total isn't "cherry picking"? A lot of people use the sample size argument when it's convenient to them.

Edited July 9, 2011 by Greg Hibbard