Cespedes Re-signs with the Mets

[OmarComing25]

That's assuming they get to the playoffs of course as many Sox teams have showed in the new century, "home run or nothing" often gets you exactly that come October...nothing...because with all the droughts during the regular season you lose to many games to qualify for the post season.

 

Not saying at all that home run are bad, U.S. Cellular is a hitters park but it is significant to me that the best success this franchise has had in decades came in a year when they had great balance and could beat you offensively in a number of ways.

 

Mark

Here's the White Sox offenses from 2008-2015

 

2015: 32%

2014: 38%

2013: 36%

2012: 46%

2011: 37%

2010: 37%

2009: 41%

2008: 48%

 

Funny enough, the season where the offense was by far the most "HR or nothing" was the last season the Sox made the playoffs, and 2012 was the closest we've come to the playoffs since then, and the offense was also heavily-reliant on homeruns then too. The two seasons where we had our most "balanced" offenses were also easily the two worst offensive outputs.

 

Balance is nice to have in the offense of course, but I think you're overrating it. Just give me the better players. I don't think you can have too much power. 2005 was great and all but the pitching had a lot more do with the championship than the offense. The Sox led the AL in ERA that year, but were 9th in the AL in runs scored. In the playoffs the Sox bashed 18 homeruns in 12 games for 32 runs, or almost 48% of the total output. A balanced attack is not what won us the World Series.

Edited December 21, 2015 by OmarComing25

[OmarComing25]

That's assuming they get to the playoffs of course as many Sox teams have showed in the new century, "home run or nothing" often gets you exactly that come October...nothing...because with all the droughts during the regular season you lose to many games to qualify for the post season.

 

Not saying at all that home run are bad, U.S. Cellular is a hitters park but it is significant to me that the best success this franchise has had in decades came in a year when they had great balance and could beat you offensively in a number of ways.

 

Mark

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=17470

 

The Yankees, you see, hit a lot of home runs. And because they hit a lot of home runs, they score a high percentage of their runs when they hit them. A few years ago, Joe Sheehan dubbed the percentage of team runs scored via the homer the “Guillen Number,” in honor of Ozzie Guillen’s slugging White Sox. The Yankees’ Guillen Number before last night was 52.3 percent, over seven percent above the next-closest team’s (the Orioles, at 44.9 percent). That hasn’t prevented the team from posting the second-best record in baseball. Nor has it prevented some pundits from predicting their downfall.

 

This phenomenon is nothing new. Jay Jaffe wrote about it at the Pinstriped Bible over a year ago, when the Yankees were scoring a similar percentage of their runs via the homer and generating a similar amount of hand-wringing:

 

Never mind the fact that balls in play are subject to luck and defense, or that the one-run strategies are so often self-defeating ("If you play for one run, that’s all you’ll get,” as the great Earl Weaver liked to say). To eschew either at the expense of the longball is somehow a moral failure and a predictor of future doom in the eyes of some wags.

 

According to the traditionalists, the best lineups manufacture runs. They don’t just have them handed to them with a single swing. They’re made up of a bunch of blue-collar batters who aren’t afraid to get their uniforms dirty. They steal and hit-and-run and sacrifice and squeeze and hit the ball to the right side to get the runner over.

 

Home runs aren’t hard-nosed. They make teams seem passive—people say that the Yankees “sit back and wait for a home run,” as if their offense were on welfare or about to go bankrupt if not for a bailout. As a species, we like to be in control, or at least to have the illusion of control. That’s why some travelers feel better about driving than they do about flying, even though planes are demonstrably safer. We like our teams to be in control, too, and teams that rely heavily on the homer are rarely a managerial move away from pushing a run across. They live and die by big swings, and when the big swing doesn’t come, they can’t do much to change their fate. So instead of praising their skill at scoring via the homer, people lament their struggles to score by other means.

 

Shulman: The Yankees lead the major leagues in home runs with 112. And they need them to score.

 

Francona: You know, they’ve become a little bit one dimensional, especially with [brett] Gardner not in the lineup.

 

Shulman: They’re just 1-13 this year when they don’t hit a home run… There are those who feel, ‘Hey, it’s great, they’ve got this weapon, it’s all good.’ And there are those who feel once October comes, assuming the Yankees are playing in October, and you’re dealing with the better pitching teams, and the ball is not going to fly out of the ballpark as much—and then, Terry, can the Yankees manufacture a run here and there if they need to?

 

Francona: I know Joe Girardi gets tired of talking about it, because he gets asked about it and asked about it, but I think it’s a pertinent question, and one we’re not going to know. Because we know they’re most likely going to make the playoffs, but can they survive like this? It’s hard.

 

This is what’s known as a narrative. Narratives require no evidence. They just have to sound convincing, and this one does, if you don’t think about it too hard. After all, home runs are harder to come by in October. If you can’t score without them, how are you going to score?

 

Let’s see whether the numbers fit the narrative. Since the advent of the wild card in 1995, 132 teams have made the playoffs. Those 132 teams scored an average of 5.1 runs per game during the regular season, and they scored 36.5 percent of their runs on home runs.

 

Over the same period, 372 teams failed to make the playoffs. Those teams scored an average of 4.6 runs per game—about half a run less than the playoff teams. They scored 34.7 percent of those runs on home runs. So there’s our first factoid: from 1995-2011, playoff teams scored a higher percentage of their runs on home runs than non-playoff teams.

 

Okay, but Francona didn’t say that scoring a lot of runs on homers could keep a team out of the playoffs. He suggested that it might hurt a team that’s already made it to October. So what if we compare playoff teams to playoff teams?

 

Remember those 132 playoff teams I mentioned, the ones that scored 5.1 runs per game during the regular season? In the playoffs, they scored only 3.9, a decrease of about 23 percent. That’s not surprising: they were facing better pitchers, better defenders, and colder temperatures than they had during most of the regular season, so we’d expect them to score less often. What we want to know is whether the ones that were more reliant on home runs took a bigger hit.

 

So let’s split those 132 teams into the 66 that were most reliant on homers and the 66 that were least reliant on homers. When we do that, this is what we find:

 

The teams that were more reliant on home runs saw their scoring decrease by about 50 percent less than the others. Relying on the home run hasn’t made teams more vulnerable in October. If anything, it’s made them more October proof.

 

When you think about it, it makes sense that having a homer-hitting team would help. A home run is the only kind of hit that isn’t playable. A better defensive team converts more balls in play into outs, but home runs aren’t in play. In the playoffs, a team faces better fielders, and those fielders allow fewer balls to fall for singles, doubles, and triples. But almost all home runs are out of the reach of even the best outfieldes, so the opposing defense doesn’t matter. And while playoff pitchers are less prone to coughing up homers than the average arm, they’re also less likely to allow every other kind of hit. As hard as it might be to take them deep compared to the difficulty of doing that against an average pitcher, it’s even harder to string together enough hits of other kinds to score on them without going yard.

 

It’s true that the Yankees have a higher Guillen Number than any team that’s ever made the playoffs— the 2008 White Sox, at 47.5 percent, had the highest to date—but I can’t come up with a good reason why that would be worrisome. For one thing, their percentage is bound to come down. Only one team—the 2010 Blue Jays—has ever finished a season with a Guillen Number that high, and odds are New York’s Number is about to regress. The Yankees have the AL’s lowest batting average with runners in scoring position, which isn’t going to last. Once their luck in the clutch turns, they’ll score more of their runs on non-homer hits.

The 2008 White Sox were the 5th-most HR-dependent playoff team ever, with only the 2012 Yankees, the 2014 Orioles, and the 2015 Astros and Yankees ahead of them. I'll take the "HR or nothing" offenses any day over the crap we've seen the last three years.

[Lip Man 1]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=17470

 

 

 

 

The 2008 White Sox were the 5th-most HR-dependent playoff team ever, with only the 2012 Yankees, the 2014 Orioles, and the 2015 Astros and Yankees ahead of them. I'll take the "HR or nothing" offenses any day over the crap we've seen the last three years.

 

So who says we are just talking about the last three seasons?

 

Ah yes BP, the "bible" of stat-geeks everywhere. LOL. The same magazine who after badly mis-predicting the Sox 2005 season received a flood of letters from upset Sox fans letting them know where they could take their sabermetrics. Sheehan then angerly denounced those same fans in a letter / column as I recall and started to backtrack with some of the numbers by offering "excuses." He got it wrong, period then because he was pissed off that he was called out for it reacted like a child with a tantrum. With respect, stats are fine and useful but they are not the be all-end all BP thinks they are. Billions and billions of variables go into a team and a season many of which simply can not be categorized (i.e. weather, injuries, fluke plays and bad umpire calls.) But I digress and I apologize.

 

Just curious how long it took you to write up this doctorate to prove your point? And that's not a criticism by the way, I admire your dedication. To me this is just baseball, not a life or death struggle to prove something.

 

All I know is that if I can have different ways of scoring runs not just the home run (which as I stated is not a bad thing) I expect my chances to win games will be greater. Home run hitters go into slumps, low average hitters by definition don't get a lot of hits period, hence the low average. Give me some balance...home run hitters and guys who hit for high average and guys who can run and put pressure on a defense and I'll take my chances.

 

Mark

Edited December 21, 2015 by Lip Man 1

[caulfield12]

Obviously the idea of line-up balance 1-9, high contact (not three outcome hitters) hitters who can foul off lots of pitches (adding to pitch counts, frustrated starting pitchers) and then the right personnel late in games to steal bases at will without having to give up outs via sacrifices. That team will much more consistently score 3-5 runs per game than the 2000-2004 White Sox offense/s.

 

And that's how you win without having quality (and deep) starting pitching OR a great offense.

 

Speed, defense, bullpen, fundamentals, etc.

 

That 2005 White Sox team, like the Twins from 2001-2010 or KC more recently...they absolutely, 100% believed they were destined to win any tie game in the late innings, and especially games where they got a 1-2 run lead past the sixth inning.

 

 

 

Another important note about 2005 is that with Pods and Iguchi at the top of the line-up, in the first 3-4 months of the season (before the injury), they did have the capability of manufacturing runs quite effectively.

 

White Sox line-ups since 2008 have had "balance" (albeit not high quality) and certainly you'd say the only way they could manufacture runs would be giving up outs rather than having basestealers who could sweep bags at will and give their teams additional ways of generating a run from 3rd and less than 2 outs.

Edited December 21, 2015 by caulfield12

[Frank_Thomas]

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/160087068/yo...y-landing-spots

 

[WBWSF]

Without Cespedes the Mets would of never reached the World Series. They probably would of never reached the Playoffs without him. That being said, I can't help but wonder, why aren't the Mets going to bring him back ? Am I missing something here.? If the White Sox are going to bid on him, why aren't the Mets even bidding on him? Is he a clubhouse cancer? He has been on 4 teams already. Do these 4 teams know something about him that we don't?

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

It'll be interesting to see how long it takes for some of these OFer's to sign and for how much. It's a buyers market now but someone will blink and I'm guessing it'll be the Orioles unless Chris Davis suddenly says yes to their offer . Boras is comfortable playing the waiting game.

 

If nothing happens for another month or teams start throwing out low ball offers like KC did for Gordon, I wouldn't be surprised to hear agents start throwing around the word "collusion" again. Did all these teams all of a sudden realize paying for declining years is a waste of resources and that the scales have tilted too far in the players direction ? Or is it simply the glut of OFer's on the market ?

 

Good news is all these things add to the Sox chances of landing one of the big 3 . Instead of $150M, maybe it drops down to the $100-130M range. Of course all this gnashing of teeth about a payroll of $130-135M is silly. Create a buzz. It happened last year for a bunch of guys who turned out to be stiffs, Frazier and a guy like Cespedes/Upton should be potentially even more enticing to fans.

 

Don't wait too long Sox or the boat might leave the dock without you.

[Kyyle23]

Without Cespedes the Mets would of never reached the World Series. They probably would of never reached the Playoffs without him. That being said, I can't help but wonder, why aren't the Mets going to bring him back ? Am I missing something here.? If the White Sox are going to bid on him, why aren't the Mets even bidding on him? Is he a clubhouse cancer? He has been on 4 teams already. Do these 4 teams know something about him that we don't?

 

 

IIRC the mets still have severe money issues

[Hatchetman]

Without Cespedes the Mets would of never reached the World Series. They probably would of never reached the Playoffs without him. That being said, I can't help but wonder, why aren't the Mets going to bring him back ? Am I missing something here.? If the White Sox are going to bid on him, why aren't the Mets even bidding on him? Is he a clubhouse cancer? He has been on 4 teams already. Do these 4 teams know something about him that we don't?

 

 

They have Conforto and Granderson in the corners and they don't want to put Cespedes in CF because he would be terrible. So the ovbious move is for the Mets to trade Granderson to the Sox.

[OmarComing25]

So who says we are just talking about the last three seasons?

 

Ah yes BP, the "bible" of stat-geeks everywhere. LOL. The same magazine who after badly mis-predicting the Sox 2005 season received a flood of letters from upset Sox fans letting them know where they could take their sabermetrics. Sheehan then angerly denounced those same fans in a letter / column as I recall and started to backtrack with some of the numbers by offering "excuses." He got it wrong, period then because he was pissed off that he was called out for it reacted like a child with a tantrum. With respect, stats are fine and useful but they are not the be all-end all BP thinks they are. Billions and billions of variables go into a team and a season many of which simply can not be categorized (i.e. weather, injuries, fluke plays and bad umpire calls.) But I digress and I apologize.

 

Just curious how long it took you to write up this doctorate to prove your point? And that's not a criticism by the way, I admire your dedication. To me this is just baseball, not a life or death struggle to prove something.

 

All I know is that if I can have different ways of scoring runs not just the home run (which as I stated is not a bad thing) I expect my chances to win games will be greater. Home run hitters go into slumps, low average hitters by definition don't get a lot of hits period, hence the low average. Give me some balance...home run hitters and guys who hit for high average and guys who can run and put pressure on a defense and I'll take my chances.

 

Mark

Your assertion was that home or nothing offenses were a big reason why the Sox haven't made the playoffs consistently, yet I just showed you that our last playoff appearance was off the back of one of the most homerun or nothing offenses in baseball history. You can hate on BP and stats all you want, but the data shows that HR-dependent offenses are more likely to make the playoffs than the more balanced offenses. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th most homerun-dependent offense in baseball that year, the idea that the balanced offense won us the championship is a myth. You say home run hitters go into slumps, which implies that non-homerun hitters don't. Every hitter goes into slumps. Do you have any proof that homerun-dependent offenses go into prolonged slumps more often? And again, I never said balance in an offense was a bad thing, I said I just wanted the better players, whoever they are. If the choice is between Player A and Player B, and Player A adds more "balance" to the offense but is clearly the inferior player, then give me Player B every time. If a guy like Cespedes means a return to the homerun or nothing offenses of the past, I don't care as long as that means we're scoring runs.

Edited December 21, 2015 by OmarComing25

[CaliSoxFanViaSWside]

IIRC the mets still have severe money issues

 

The Mets would love to have him back but they are like the rest of the teams out there waiting for the price to drop, He might be seeking 6 years and that is a lot. If a team can sign him for 5 years /$110-115M he would probably be off the market already.

[Lip Man 1]

Your assertion was that home or nothing offenses were a big reason why the Sox haven't made the playoffs consistently, yet I just showed you that our last playoff appearance was off the back of one of the most homerun or nothing offenses in baseball history. You can hate on BP and stats all you want, but the data shows that HR-dependent offenses are more likely to make the playoffs than the more balanced offenses. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th most homerun-dependent offense in baseball that year, the idea that the balanced offense won us the championship is a myth. You say home run hitters go into slumps, which implies that non-homerun hitters don't. Every hitter goes into slumps. Do you have any proof that homerun-dependent offenses go into prolonged slumps more often? And again, I never said balance in an offense was a bad thing, I said I just wanted the better players, whoever they are. If the choice is between Player A and Player B, and Player A adds more "balance" to the offense but is clearly the inferior player, then give me Player B every time. If a guy like Cespedes means a return to the homerun or nothing offenses of the past, I don't care as long as that means we're scoring runs.

 

Omar:

 

The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion.

 

I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..."

 

Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...)

 

Mark

 

[LDF]

Omar:

 

The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion.

 

I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..."

 

Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...)

 

Mark

 

and i would like to add, that was the whole reason on bringing the fences, so to fix the lack of defense and go for the power and hit hr. that was to make the fans like the game more. instead of drafting better and getting better player.

 

they went for the window dressings, the hrs the nice firework display, the show.

 

[GreenSox]

Without Cespedes the Mets would of never reached the World Series. They probably would of never reached the Playoffs without him. That being said, I can't help but wonder, why aren't the Mets going to bring him back ? Am I missing something here.? If the White Sox are going to bid on him, why aren't the Mets even bidding on him? Is he a clubhouse cancer? He has been on 4 teams already. Do these 4 teams know something about him that we don't?

Good questions.

Why did Oak get rid of him for a pitcher they didn't really need?

Why did Boston trade him for a 3/4 starter?

 

He's goofy; there were reports he didn't want to play this position or that position.

And last year was far and away his best season. Outside of 2015 and his rookie year, there really isn't much special about him. Could be paying a mighty premium for a career year.

But if 2015 is his reality, he's worth it.

 

[bighurt574]

I'll believe we're willing to give out a nine-figure deal when I see it. For any of these OFs.

Edited December 21, 2015 by bighurt574

[Kyyle23]

Omar:

 

The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion.

 

I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..."

 

Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...)

 

Mark

 

Your proof is a four year stretch of home run numbers for one team in the middle of the steroid era?

[Bigsoxhurt35]

Did you hear about the offer to Tanaka?

Exactly. I don't know why people say were unwilling to do it. A lot of us followed the Tanaka saga closely. I don't know what they're offer was but I'm sure it was at least $100 million. I don't know what sharks offer was but I'm sure it was at least $80 million right?

[Dick Allen]

Omar:

 

The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion.

 

I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..."

 

Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...)

 

Mark

The 2005 White Sox won 21 games in the regular season scoring 3 runs or less. The difference wasn't a balanced offense, thy still were one of the most homer dependent offenses in baseball.i It was a pitching staff,with a bullpen that didn't give up leads. They scored 124 runs less than the 2004 team, but gave up about 190 less.

Edited December 21, 2015 by Dick Allen

[OmarComing25]

Omar:

 

The proof I have is to look at the scores from 2000 through 2004. How often did you see the Sox score seven, nine runs in a game then get two or none the next few days? I also remember many of those games came (and still do) against garbage, mediocre, soft tossing pitchers who make the Sox hitters look like complete buffoons (Bruce Chen immediately comes to mind...) "Home Run or Nothing" attitude, philosophy leads to those swings in my opinion.

 

I actually still remember focusing in on that after a particularly strong rant from Bill Melton on the post game show after the Sox were handled in Texas by a particularly bad pitcher, I think it was in 2003. Melton blistered Sox hitters for making no adjustments against a soft tossing guy instead simply trying to hit "eight run home runs..."

 

Like you say home runs are needed, I agree but to me the Sox have yet to recapture the balance that helped lead them to a World Series title. More "adjustments" to that attitude are needed including for God's sake getting some guys who can actually catch a baseball and execute fundamentals (which falls directly on the manager and his staff in my mind, that's what spring training is for...)

 

Mark

I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much.

Edited December 21, 2015 by OmarComing25

[Chisoxfn]

I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much.

Biggest problem for those white sox teams was the fact that they had absurd stretches of atrocious pitching out of their #5 spot in the rotation (and often times the #4 spot). Didn't they go something like 2 years without a win from the 5 spot (or something absurd). Felix Diaz, Arnie Munoz, etc. Injuries also played a part (Thomas / Maggs going down that one year). If they even got a few wins from the 5 spot in the rotation, none of it would have mattered in a ton of those years.

[Y2Jimmy0]

Robert Brender ‏@robertbrender 47m47 minutes ago

The Yoenis Cespedes market is picking up according to Richard Justice and Jerry Crasnick.Giants, O's, White Sox and Angels are possibilities

[ChiSoxFanMike]

Robert Brender ‏@robertbrender 47m47 minutes ago

The Yoenis Cespedes market is picking up according to Richard Justice and Jerry Crasnick.Giants, O's, White Sox and Angels are possibilities

Come on Ricky, get 'er done!!!

[Lip Man 1]

I did just look at the scores from 2000 to 2004. What I found was that for the most part the offense wasn't the problem. In 2000 they led the league in runs, in 2002 and 2004 they were third in the AL in runs scored. The offense wasn't the problem. Yeah there were several instances of scoring a lot of runs and then seeing a drop-off the next day, but guess what? The same thing happens with every team. The 2005 White Sox included. Go look at the scores from 2005, in the second half of the season the offense went on several prolonged slumps where they did exactly what you're claiming the 2000-2004 offenses did wrong. And again, the 2005 White Sox were the 4th-most HR-dependent offense in baseball that year and one of the most HR-dependent offenses the White Sox have ever had, so your favorite example is actually disproving your point. The pitching was the reason we won the championship. If the '05 team had the same pitching as the '04 team you wouldn't be giving any praise to the '05 White Sox offense, and instead you'd probably be lumping them in with the '00-'04 "softball" offenses that you seem to hate so much.

 

Anything you say Omar. Wishing you and all the other sabermetrical mathematical savants all the best for the holiday season.

 

Mark

Edited December 22, 2015 by Lip Man 1

[Bigsoxhurt35]

I expect these guys to sign by Thursday. We'll see if that happens

[Jose Abreu]

I expect these guys to sign by Thursday. We'll see if that happens

Maybe the Sox sign Cespedes on Christmas morning