So what type of 3rd baseman do we need?

[southsider2k5]

Dunn/Reynolds/Flowers in the same lineup?

 

 

hide me.

 

It would be an interesting experiment in advanced statistics to get as much of a team like that, and see how the offense produced over the course of a season.

[oldsox]

It would be an interesting experiment in advanced statistics to get as much of a team like that, and see how the offense produced over the course of a season.

.....as interesting as a last place team could be.

[Steve9347]

A-Roid having hip surgery, so the Yanks are surely in the market for a 3B.

[witesoxfan]

.....as interesting as a last place team could be.

 

Most strikeouts, top 9, MLB

 

1) Oakland, 94 wins, PLAYOFFS

2) Houston, 55 wins

3) Pittsburgh, 79 wins

4) Washington, 98 wins, PLAYOFFS

5) Tampa Bay, 90 wins

6) Baltimore, 93 wins, PLAYOFFS

7) Atlanta, 94 wins, PLAYOFFS

8) Arizona, 81 wins

9) Cincinnati, 97 wins, PLAYOFFS

 

 

Fewest strikeouts, top 5, MLB

 

1) Kansas City, 72 wins

2) Minnesota, 66 wins

3) Cleveland, 68 wins

4) Philadelphia, 81 wins

5) San Francisco, 94 wins

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Most strikeouts, top 9, MLB

 

1) Oakland, 94 wins, PLAYOFFS

2) Houston, 55 wins

3) Pittsburgh, 79 wins

4) Washington, 98 wins, PLAYOFFS

5) Tampa Bay, 90 wins

6) Baltimore, 93 wins, PLAYOFFS

7) Atlanta, 94 wins, PLAYOFFS

8) Arizona, 81 wins

9) Cincinnati, 97 wins, PLAYOFFS

 

 

Fewest strikeouts, top 5, MLB

 

1) Kansas City, 72 wins

2) Minnesota, 66 wins

3) Cleveland, 68 wins

4) Philadelphia, 81 wins

5) San Francisco, 94 wins

Obviously, pitching and defense have something to do with winning. If the Sox had 3 guys producing about 600 strikeouts between them, their offense would be very inconsistent at best, and they would need a lights out pitching staff to have much of a record beyond average.

[cabiness42]

I just ran a correlation between strikeouts and runs scored for MLB teams in 2012 and it came up as -0.258, meaning that there is pretty much no correlation between striking out and scoring runs.

[southsider2k5]

I just ran a correlation between strikeouts and runs scored for MLB teams in 2012 and it came up as -0.258, meaning that there is pretty much no correlation between striking out and scoring runs.

 

I think a distribution of runs scored in games would be more interesting. From a purely feeling basis, I'll bet a team like this would have many higher individual runs scored in games, but I think they would also be shutout much more often. I'll be their deviation in runs scored would be huge. There might not be a difference in total runs over a season, but an uneven distribution could costs W's.

[cabiness42]

I think a distribution of runs scored in games would be more interesting. From a purely feeling basis, I'll bet a team like this would have many higher individual runs scored in games, but I think they would also be shutout much more often. I'll be their deviation in runs scored would be huge. There might not be a difference in total runs over a season, but an uneven distribution could costs W's.

 

You could very well be right, but I don't have that kind of time.

[witesoxfan]

That would be my guess as well

[Dick Allen]

I think a distribution of runs scored in games would be more interesting. From a purely feeling basis, I'll bet a team like this would have many higher individual runs scored in games, but I think they would also be shutout much more often. I'll be their deviation in runs scored would be huge. There might not be a difference in total runs over a season, but an uneven distribution could costs W's.

That was my point. 0,1, or 2 runs scored would most likely happen more often than the average team. That translates into losses and moans from message boards about the hitting coach.

[Chicago White Sox]

I think a distribution of runs scored in games would be more interesting. From a purely feeling basis, I'll bet a team like this would have many higher individual runs scored in games, but I think they would also be shutout much more often. I'll be their deviation in runs scored would be huge. There might not be a difference in total runs over a season, but an uneven distribution could costs W's.

Great post, been saying this to friends for years.

 

This is why batting average and contact are underrated. They lead to more consistent run scoring, which over the course of a season are more valuable than just the sum of the individual runs.

[cabiness42]

I think a distribution of runs scored in games would be more interesting. From a purely feeling basis, I'll bet a team like this would have many higher individual runs scored in games, but I think they would also be shutout much more often. I'll be their deviation in runs scored would be huge. There might not be a difference in total runs over a season, but an uneven distribution could costs W's.

 

The more I think about it, I think that feature would be more likely due to having a low OBP with high SLG, and not necessarily because of a high strikeout total.

 

[iamshack]

Great post, been saying this to friends for years.

 

This is why batting average and contact are underrated. They lead to more consistent run scoring, which over the course of a season are more valuable than just the sum of the individual runs.

This is a big reason why your 2005 White Sox won 99 games, IMO. Sure, you need to have some great pitching, but they seemed to score 3-4 runs at least very often which led to a lot of 1-run games they won. They didn't put up 7 or 8 very often but they didn't seem to get shutout much either.

Edited December 3, 2012 by iamshack

[cabiness42]

This is a big reason why your 2005 White Sox won 99 games, IMO. Sure, you need to have some great pitching, but they seemed to score 3-4 runs at least very often which led to a lot of 1-run games they won. They didn't put up 7 or 8 very often but they didn't seem to get shutout much either.

 

Are we talking about the 2005 White Sox that were 6th in the AL in strikeouts, 12th in average, and 9th in runs scored, or is this a different 2005 White Sox?

[Dick Allen]

The other problem with signing Reynolds and putting him at 3B is he misses as many balls over there as he does at the plate.

[iamshack]

Are we talking about the 2005 White Sox that were 6th in the AL in strikeouts, 12th in average, and 9th in runs scored, or is this a different 2005 White Sox?

How many times did they get shutout versus the 2012 team? How many times did they score 3 or more runs versus the 2012 team. I don't know the answer, I am just guessing.

 

And by the way, just because I don't like Notre Dame doesn't mean you have to act like a salty little girl in every thread I post in.

 

Edit: Upon further review, my memories are clearly not necessarily what the numbers would suggest. The 2005 team was shutout 7 times, 4 less than the 2012 team, but nothing too significant. The 2005 team scored 3 runs or more 112 times, and a total of 741 runs. The 2012 team scored 3 runs or more 115 times, and a total of 767 runs. Again, nothing significant.

 

Clearly I was wrong.

Edited December 3, 2012 by iamshack

[cabiness42]

The 2005 team was shutout 6 times and scored 1-2 runs 40 other times.

The 2012 team was shutout 11 times and scored 1-2 runs 34 other times.

 

The 2005 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 12th in average.

The 2012 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 8th in average.

 

The relative successes of the 2005 and 2012 Sox had absolutely zero to do with strikeout totals or batting average.

[iamshack]

The 2005 team was shutout 6 times and scored 1-2 runs 40 other times.

The 2012 team was shutout 11 times and scored 1-2 runs 34 other times.

 

The 2005 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 12th in average.

The 2012 team was 6th in the AL in strikeouts and 8th in average.

 

The relative successes of the 2005 and 2012 Sox had absolutely zero to do with strikeout totals or batting average.

I wasn't really talking about the strikeouts so much as the ability to score runs consistently as opposed to putting up big crooked numbers quite a bit, but also being shutout quite a bit more.

 

 

[cabiness42]

I wasn't really talking about the strikeouts so much as the ability to score runs consistently as opposed to putting up big crooked numbers quite a bit, but also being shutout quite a bit more.

 

2012 team was shut out five more times, but essentially the same number of 0-2 run games.

 

The problem with the 2012 offense was not having enough consistent OBP. Whether you do it with average or with a lot of walks, the Sox need more consistent OBP. Even Dunn's OBP, which was good compared to the rest of the Sox, was terrible by his standards.

 

[Dick Allen]

2012 team was shut out five more times, but essentially the same number of 0-2 run games.

 

The problem with the 2012 offense was not having enough consistent OBP. Whether you do it with average or with a lot of walks, the Sox need more consistent OBP. Even Dunn's OBP, which was good compared to the rest of the Sox, was terrible by his standards.

I do know the 2005 team won at least 2 regular season games 1-0, and won the clinching WS game 1-0. They had top of the line pitching. OBP obviously needs to improve, but if you had 3 guys combining for 600 strikeouts, there would be a heck of a lot of LOB.

[cabiness42]

I do know the 2005 team won at least 2 regular season games 1-0, and won the clinching WS game 1-0. They had top of the line pitching. OBP obviously needs to improve, but if you had 3 guys combining for 600 strikeouts, there would be a heck of a lot of LOB.

 

I've said I don't think having 3 Adam Dunn's would be a good thing, that you need balance. But having one of him is fine and maybe even two if you can space them out in the order. And a heck of a lot of LOB isn't any worse than all the GIDP we had to sit through in 2012.

 

Also, the Sox aren't in a position to be picky about how they get their OBP. If it's a .300 hitter, that's great, but if it's a .240 hitter who walks and strikes out a ton, that's still far better than not improving the OBP at all. You can't continue to run out a bottom half of the order with OBPs of .326, .300, .287, and .296 and expect to win anything.

[shakes]

Great post, been saying this to friends for years.

 

This is why batting average and contact are underrated. They lead to more consistent run scoring, which over the course of a season are more valuable than just the sum of the individual runs.

 

So you think run consistency would be more important than total runs? How would you define that?

 

KC the last five years, or so, is always near the top in batting average and has been top three least amount of strikeouts, and they are in the lower third in runs. It certainly isn't translating to wins. Minnesota has been very similar the last few years, with poor results.

 

The Sox had the least amount of K's in 2010, with the 7th best batting average, and they were 21st overall in runs.

 

OBP has a much higher correlation with runs scored than batting average or strikeouts. SLG% is a better indicator than both, as well.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

So you think run consistency would be more important than total runs? How would you define that?

 

KC the last five years, or so, is always near the top in batting average and has been top three least amount of strikeouts, and they are in the lower third in runs. It certainly isn't translating to wins. Minnesota has been very similar the last few years, with poor results.

 

The Sox had the least amount of K's in 2010, with the 7th best batting average, and they were 21st overall in runs.

 

OBP has a much higher correlation with runs scored than batting average or strikeouts. SLG% is a better indicator than both, as well.

The argument isn't total runs, it's the game to game consistency of runs scored. If the Sox had a 3 game series and were going to score 12 runs, I'd much rather it be 4,4,4 than 10,1,1. Obviously, the more you score, the better chance you win. It seems though that the magic number, at least where the Sox are concerned, is 4. That is where they start winning more than losing.

Edited December 3, 2012 by Dick Allen

[cabiness42]

The argument isn't total runs, it's the game to game consistency of runs scored. If the Sox had a 3 game series and were going to score 12 runs, I'd much rather it be 4,4,4 than 10,1,1. Obviously, the more you score, the better chance you win. It seems though that the magic number, at least where the Sox are concerned, is 4. That is where they start winning more than losing.

 

And while I don't have anywhere near the time to prove it statistically, I would think that a high OBP would do more to create more consistency than a high AVG or low strikeout totals. I really think a lot of the Sox' offensive shortcomings that you are attributing to high strikeout totals and low batting average are really due to low OBP.

 

[Dick Allen]

And while I don't have anywhere near the time to prove it statistically, I would think that a high OBP would do more to create more consistency than a high AVG or low strikeout totals. I really think a lot of the Sox' offensive shortcomings that you are attributing to high strikeout totals and low batting average are really due to low OBP.

In the past, yes, they really had not had the really high k guys except for Thome, before Dunn. I'm just saying if the Sox signed Reynolds and had Flowers playing every day with Dunn, that it would be even worse. They would leave a very high percentage of guys on base. I do agree, the OBP has to get higher, but if 3 guys combined for 600 ks, I'd venture to guess, the OBP could improve, but the amount of times scoring 4 or more may not.