5 Questions: White Sox

[Chicago White Sox]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...white-sox-2013/

 

Very good write-up on the team's chances this year.

[Cali]

So the offense is gonna struggle in 2013 because last year it was inflated by the home park they're, what, going to somehow not play in anymore?

 

What a dumb argument.

[chw42]

So the offense is gonna struggle in 2013 because last year it was inflated by the home park they're, what, going to somehow not play in anymore?

 

What a dumb argument.

 

I think his point was that the fact that the Sox scored the 4th most runs in the AL last year might have been inflated by our home park.

[everafan]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...white-sox-2013/

 

Very good write-up on the team's chances this year.

 

Meh - as usual, lazy and superficial analysis. Nobody really wants to do any original work on the White Sox.

 

Also, "First, their run scoring was inflated by their park." So does that mean the pitching was affected by the park? And it's even better than the numbers they put up last year?

Edited March 5, 2013 by everafan

[ScottyDo]

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/...white-sox-2013/

 

Very good write-up on the team's chances this year.

Yeah, I don't really like his analysis of the offense. He did not make a good case for there being a significant dropoff between AJ and Flowers:

 

Flowers has more power than Pierzynski— he has 12 homers in 273 career at-bats—but he’s a lifetime .205 hitter. He should do better with regular playing time, but then again, he just turned 27 and is barely over the Mendoza line lifetime.

(emphasis added to highlight flaws)

 

Then, later, he tepidly acknowledges that 3B is an improvement over last year. I guess 3B and C are a wash for this guy. So, then, the argument that the offense will be worse hinges on regression from Rios, Konerko and Dunn. Sure, it's certainly possible that they regress while Viciedo and De Aza stagnate, but betting against Konerko's production in old age has failed people for years now. Nobody really had a true outlier season offensively, so there's no reason to assume failure.

 

I feel like a fair analysis has this year's Sox offense about equal to last year's.

[Cali]

I think his point was that the fact that the Sox scored the 4th most runs in the AL last year might have been inflated by our home park.

 

I still say that's more of an advantage than anything. It's not like the league adjusts your record based on Park Factors.

 

Who cares if the park helped the offesive numbers? Good. Hope it helps again.

[ScottyDo]

I still say that's more of an advantage than anything. It's not like the league adjusts your record based on Park Factors.

 

Who cares if the park helped the offesive numbers? Good. Hope it helps again.

Yeah, I felt like that was a particularly silly point too. Park factors help when comparing players to one another, not teams to themselves over time. Last time I checked, the Sox will still be in US Cellular in 2013.

Edited March 5, 2013 by ScottyDo

[Chicago White Sox]

Yeah, I felt like that was a particularly silly point too. Park factors help when comparing players to one another, not teams to themselves over time. Last time I checked, the Sox will still be in US Cellular in 2013.

Yeah, but opposing teams will be playing 81 games at US Cellular as well. I think the point is more than legit. I've pointed out before that our offense wasn't bad last year because we were 4th in runs, but it definitely wasn't the 4th best offense. I'm not sure how you can deem the park factor as silly.

[Chicago White Sox]

Meh - as usual, lazy and superficial analysis. Nobody really wants to do any original work on the White Sox.

 

Also, "First, their run scoring was inflated by their park." So does that mean the pitching was affected by the park? And it's even better than the numbers they put up last year?

I think it would have been lazy to assume we had the 4th best offense and completely overlook the park factor.

 

And yes, that means the pitching is effected by the park factor and is better than the pure numbers indicate.

[ScottyDo]

Yeah, but opposing teams will be playing 81 games at US Cellular as well. I think the point is more than legit. I've pointed out before that our offense wasn't bad last year because we were 4th in runs, but it definitely wasn't the 4th best offense. I'm not sure how you can deem the park factor as silly.

Because the heading it's under is "Will the Sox finish 4th in runs again?" Park factors are irrelevant to that question.

[Jerksticks]

Glad he straight up called Bacon a bust. Sure is.

[Chicago White Sox]

Because the heading it's under is "Will the Sox finish 4th in runs again?" Park factors are irrelevant to that question.

I agree that the heading was stupid, but the point remains the same. The offensive wasn't great last year despite being 4th in runs. IMO, the offense should be about the same, but I'm expecting Viciedo to have a big season. If he doesn't or if Konerko suddenly ages or if Rios doesn't have another crazy year, then the offense could easily be worse than last year.

[LittleHurt05]

I agree that the heading was stupid, but the point remains the same. The offensive wasn't great last year despite being 4th in runs. IMO, the offense should be about the same, but I'm expecting Viciedo to have a big season. If he doesn't or if Konerko suddenly ages or if Rios doesn't have another crazy year, then the offense could easily be worse than last year.

 

So if the offense is the same as last year, wouldn't they finish 4th in runs again?

[Chicago White Sox]

So if the offense is the same as last year, wouldn't they finish 4th in runs again?

Possibly, but that's not the point. How did opposing offenses perform at the Cell last year? Is it really that hard to believe that both us and our competition are affected by the park? That was point he was trying to make. Being 4th in runs doesn't necessarily mean we had a good offense last year.

[caulfield12]

Possibly, but that's not the point. How did opposing offenses perform at the Cell last year? Is it really that hard to believe that both us and our competition are affected by the park? That was point he was trying to make. Being 4th in runs doesn't necessarily mean we had a good offense last year.

 

 

But then, conversely, our pitching always has to be deemed better than it shows statistically, too.

[Chicago White Sox]

I think it would have been lazy to assume we had the 4th best offense and completely overlook the park factor.

 

And yes, that means the pitching is effected by the park factor and is better than the pure numbers indicate.

 

 

But then, conversely, our pitching always has to be deemed better than it shows statistically, too.

As you can see, that's exactly what I said earlier.

 

And that's really the key point of the article. The pitching was the strength of the team last year and will need to be again this year to have any real chance of winning the division. That means Sale & Peavy need to be healthy and dominant, Danks & Floyd need to be above-average mid-rotation starters and eat a lot of innings, and Quintana or someone else has to be a reasonably effective as our #5 starter. There is some room for error but not much, because I don't see how the offense can be that much better than it was last year.

[witesoxfan]

As you can see, that's exactly what I said earlier.

 

And that's really the key point of the article. The pitching was the strength of the team last year and will need to be again this year to have any real chance of winning the division. That means Sale & Peavy need to be healthy and dominant, Danks & Floyd need to be above-average mid-rotation starters and eat a lot of innings, and Quintana or someone else has to be a reasonably effective as our #5 starter. There is some room for error but not much, because I don't see how the offense can be that much better than it was last year.

 

No, I agree completely. I think expecting about the same quality of offense - not necessarily the 4th best, but scoring quite a few runs - is certainly likely, but that it will probably come from slightly different sources. I expect Rios to regress a bit but I don't think he is going to flat out suck like he has in odd years in the past. I think you'll see some improvement from Viciedo and 3B in general, but it's hard to know exactly what the Sox will get at C, and it's hard to say anyone else will really get better or worse.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the 3 biggest factors on this team are Peavy, Sale, and Danks. If Peavy and Sale rock like they did last year (with an increase in innings from Sale) and Danks can come back and be a sub 4 ERA pitcher, this team has an incredibly good shot at winning the division. If they don't, then it's going to be a .500ish team.

 

The other factor that plays a role - especially in 1-run games - is Addison Reed, who I assume will be closing. If he can be effective, it's going to make a lot of those tight games a lot easier. He has great stuff and mechanics, so hopefully he can miss more the middle part of bats more often this year. There's really no reason why he isn't a sub 3 ERA reliever with his stuff.

[southsider2k5]

No, I agree completely. I think expecting about the same quality of offense - not necessarily the 4th best, but scoring quite a few runs - is certainly likely, but that it will probably come from slightly different sources. I expect Rios to regress a bit but I don't think he is going to flat out suck like he has in odd years in the past. I think you'll see some improvement from Viciedo and 3B in general, but it's hard to know exactly what the Sox will get at C, and it's hard to say anyone else will really get better or worse.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the 3 biggest factors on this team are Peavy, Sale, and Danks. If Peavy and Sale rock like they did last year (with an increase in innings from Sale) and Danks can come back and be a sub 4 ERA pitcher, this team has an incredibly good shot at winning the division. If they don't, then it's going to be a .500ish team.

 

The other factor that plays a role - especially in 1-run games - is Addison Reed, who I assume will be closing. If he can be effective, it's going to make a lot of those tight games a lot easier. He has great stuff and mechanics, so hopefully he can miss more the middle part of bats more often this year. There's really no reason why he isn't a sub 3 ERA reliever with his stuff.

 

The Sox problem for years hasn't been scoring runs, it has been distribution of runs coming from a line up loaded with boom or bust players. If the Sox have a chance this year, they need to balance those runs out.

[elrockinMT]

I think his point was that the fact that the Sox scored the 4th most runs in the AL last year might have been inflated by our home park.

 

I understand that too but the fact remains we still play 81 games there. What changes? Anyway when you read these articles they are written fairly well but still have their own biases. For every argument there is a counter. I like the ones that say we are great and hate those that don't

[LittleHurt05]

Possibly, but that's not the point. How did opposing offenses perform at the Cell last year? Is it really that hard to believe that both us and our competition are affected by the park? That was point he was trying to make. Being 4th in runs doesn't necessarily mean we had a good offense last year.

 

By the same thinking, he should talk about how our pitching staff is underrated because of the Cell. They are to forced to pitch 81 games there, despite being 20th in ERA, they are much better than that.