The Offense

[SCCWS]

Latos, Albers and Lawrie are the only ones better than advertised (so far)...perhaps Rodon if you really want to push the definition.

 

You forgot David Robertson and Chris Sale. Sale is 3-0 and Robertson is 5-5 saves and has been literally perfect. Both are advertised as good and have been great.

 

[Kyyle23]

You forgot David Robertson and Chris Sale. Sale is 3-0 and Robertson is 5-5 saves and has been literally perfect. Both are advertised as good and have been great.

 

This Sale guy is merely good? 3-0 is surprising?

[cabiness42]

This Sale guy is merely good? 3-0 is surprising?

 

Sale's ERA and FIP are a touch worse than his 2014 numbers and his K/9 is below both of the past two seasons. His 1-hit shutout stands out but he really isn't any better than expected.

 

I will grant that Robertson's 0.00 ERA and 0.20 WHIP are probably unsustainable.

[Kyyle23]

Sale's ERA and FIP are a touch worse than his 2014 numbers and his K/9 is below both of the past two seasons. His 1-hit shutout stands out but he really isn't any better than expected.

 

I will grant that Robertson's 0.00 ERA and 0.20 WHIP are probably unsustainable.

 

 

iirc he started off the exact same way last season

[BaconOnAStick]

Nobody knows how good Rodon is, or can be. He could feasibly be better than Sale. I doubt that he will be but there's no reason to expect him to fall back to his "real self" like there is with Latos. Rodon's real self could be a first ballot HoFer, we just don't know yet.

[ChiliIrishHammock24]

I want to say Robertson struck out something like 10 of the first 19 batters he faced last season.

 

EDIT: In April, he struck out 17 of the 29 batters he faced in 8 IP.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Chilihead90

[Lillian]

2005 Sox were 11th in a 14-team AL in OBP.

 

I don't think that is a valid comparison. Yes, they were 11TH out of 14 A.L. teams. However, their OBP in 2005 was .322 which was just .007 points from being tied with two other teams, for 6TH. Moreover, the team slugging percentage was .425 which tied them for 7TH. It was a productive offense and was good enough, with the great

pitching, that year. If our pitching holds up, and this team can be similarly productive, they'll be fine.

 

Last year's numbers were no where near the 2005 offense, and most of us are counting on a substantial improvement, this season. But then that is the big question, isn't it? It's very early, but so far, not so good. We'll see.

[southsider2k5]

I don't think that is a valid comparison. Yes, they were 11TH out of 14 A.L. teams. However, their OBP in 2005 was .322 which was just .007 points from being tied with two other teams, for 6TH. Moreover, the team slugging percentage was .425 which tied them for 7TH. It was a productive offense and was good enough, with the great

pitching, that year. If our pitching holds up, and this team can be similarly productive, they'll be fine.

 

Last year's numbers were no where near the 2005 offense, and most of us are counting on a substantial improvement, this season. But then that is the big question, isn't it? It's very early, but so far, not so good. We'll see.

 

Ugh. Fun with numbers. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.

 

#1 steroid era, vs now. Offense is completely different. You have to compare equalized numbers.

#2 Full season numbers versus 12 game numbers. Because of the small sample size of a season we have so far, we have WAY more outliers, and numbers haven't normalized yet. Once the season happens, numbers will cluster towards the middle, and the crazier outliers on both ends will moderate.

#3, no one is really counting on a big improvement. People are counting on career normal-ish years from guys who are established hitters. Guys like Jose Abreu and Todd Frazier aren't going to hit like this all year long. Abreu is almost 200 OPS points under his career average. Todd Frazier is about 275 OPS under his career average. Those are the biggest two bats in the line up.

[Lillian]

Ugh. Fun with numbers. You are trying to compare apples and oranges here.

 

#1 steroid era, vs now. Offense is completely different. You have to compare equalized numbers.

#2 Full season numbers versus 12 game numbers. Because of the small sample size of a season we have so far, we have WAY more outliers, and numbers haven't normalized yet. Once the season happens, numbers will cluster towards the middle, and the crazier outliers on both ends will moderate.

#3, no one is really counting on a big improvement. People are counting on career normal-ish years from guys who are established hitters. Guys like Jose Abreu and Todd Frazier aren't going to hit like this all year long. Abreu is almost 200 OPS points under his career average. Todd Frazier is about 275 OPS under his career average. Those are the biggest two bats in the line up.

 

No, I'm not comparing "apples to oranges". I made a specific relative comparison to the rest of the League, which minimizes the disparities, to which you allude.

If they can be League average, they will be fine with their pitching. In 2005, they were in the middle of the pack, on most offensive numbers.

 

You are absolutely correct in your assertion that established hitters like Abreu and Frazier will hit much better, as the season wears on. I don't know why this is so controversial. The fact is that our offense has not been good, for a while now. None of us should be worried about Eaton, Cabrera, and Abreu. Those guys have a good enough track record and are still young. However, we have lots of question marks:

Is Rollins washed up, or could Saladino adequately contribute, in his place?

Is Lawrie ready to finally fulfill his promise?

Ditto for Avi

Can Jackson get back to his career numbers, after a couple of sub par seasons?

Was Frazier's second half last year, an aberration and will he finally be a National Leaguer, who hits with the Sox?

Is Avila capable of producing somewhere near his earlier career stats?

Every team has question marks, and the Sox are no different. Given those doubts, again I simply say, so far, not very encouraging, but I agree it's early.

To reiterate; "We'll see".

 

Some just love to argue. That is not my intent. Isn't it always more constructive to try to reach some consensus on such topics? Here is on what we can probably agree:

1) The offense will be better than it has been, so far.

2) It should be better than last year's.

3) There are still several significant question marks.

4) If the offense does not markedly improve, the Sox are in trouble.

Edited April 18, 2016 by Lillian

[harkness99]

Some more offensive fireworks so far tonight.

[harkness99]

Just remember though.. it's no ones fault. Just cosmic axioms.

[Harry Chappas]

Well first were ten were fun. I guess average offense was just too much to ask. This is as bad as ever.

[Thad Bosley]

I love how you refer to posters complaining when the Sox are winning as "thoughtful". Just remember, the one exciting season you claim the White Sox have had probably in 100 years, included 15 regular season wins scoring 2 runs or less. This year there has been 1.

 

I just wonder when margin of victory become so important in MLB.

LOL - ohhhhhh, Dick Allen. You are something else, you know that? I wasn't referring to posters who complain. If I was, I would be referring to you, because nobody but nobody moans and groans about pretty much everything on this site more than you. It's gotten to the point of just being comical watching you carry on, accusing others of complaining when nobody wears the complaining badge better than you.

 

Meanwhile, the "thoughtful" posters I was referring to are people like Lillian, for example. She is clearly an astute follower of White Sox baseball, always optimistic in her outlook for the team, but not afraid to articulate a legitimate concern about the team. In this thread, that concern is about an offense that is currently last in the league, picking up where it left off from last season. Her critique is fair - she rightfully acknowledges the uptick we can all expect once Abreu and Frazier get their acts together. But outside of those two and Eaton, you look up and down our lineup and, well as Lillian concludes, "we'll see".

[Texsox]

No, I'm not comparing "apples to oranges". I made a specific relative comparison to the rest of the League, which minimizes the disparities, to which you allude.

If they can be League average, they will be fine with their pitching. In 2005, they were in the middle of the pack, on most offensive numbers.

 

You are absolutely correct in your assertion that established hitters like Abreu and Frazier will hit much better, as the season wears on. I don't know why this is so controversial. The fact is that our offense has not been good, for a while now. None of us should be worried about Eaton, Cabrera, and Abreu. Those guys have a good enough track record and are still young. However, we have lots of question marks:

Is Rollins washed up, or could Saladino adequately contribute, in his place?

Is Lawrie ready to finally fulfill his promise?

Ditto for Avi

Can Jackson get back to his career numbers, after a couple of sub par seasons?

Was Frazier's second half last year, an aberration and will he finally be a National Leaguer, who hits with the Sox?

Is Avila capable of producing somewhere near his earlier career stats?

Every team has question marks, and the Sox are no different. Given those doubts, again I simply say, so far, not very encouraging, but I agree it's early.

To reiterate; "We'll see".

 

Some just love to argue. That is not my intent. Isn't it always more constructive to try to reach some consensus on such topics? Here is on what we can probably agree:

1) The offense will be better than it has been, so far.

2) It should be better than last year's.

3) There are still several significant question marks.

4) If the offense does not markedly improve, the Sox are in trouble.

 

What the final word in this great post lacks in hyperbole it more than makes up in understatement.

 

[southsider2k5]

LOL - ohhhhhh, Dick Allen. You are something else, you know that? I wasn't referring to posters who complain. If I was, I would be referring to you, because nobody but nobody moans and groans about pretty much everything on this site more than you. It's gotten to the point of just being comical watching you carry on, accusing others of complaining when nobody wears the complaining badge better than you.

 

Meanwhile, the "thoughtful" posters I was referring to are people like Lillian, for example. She is clearly an astute follower of White Sox baseball, always optimistic in her outlook for the team, but not afraid to articulate a legitimate concern about the team. In this thread, that concern is about an offense that is currently last in the league, picking up where it left off from last season. Her critique is fair - she rightfully acknowledges the uptick we can all expect once Abreu and Frazier get their acts together. But outside of those two and Eaton, you look up and down our lineup and, well as Lillian concludes, "we'll see".

 

I wouldn't call it as much complaining as I would trolling the complainers.

[harkness99]

What's amusing... and it can be found in many places in life -but message boards are great for seeing this in action.

 

Optimism somehow equates to rational thought (this is why pyramid scams work- by catering to this false logic).

 

Rational thought exists in pessimism and optimism - but most importantly in realism.

 

Also this "mature" act of belittling those who question or complain is really often nothing more than a passive aggressive act of venting ones own frustration about losing.

Edited April 19, 2016 by harkness

[Lillian]

A year or two ago, someone on this forum cited an article, which refuted the conventional wisdom regarding the importance of "protection" for the best hitters in a lineup. The assertion was that having a good hitter, following a given run producer had little effect on the performance of that hitter. The article provided statistical data

to back up the assertion that the entire notion of "protection" for hitters is fallacious. I remember reacting with skepticism. On the one hand the data seemed to prove the hypothesis, but it just didn't make any sense. How could a lineup consisting of just one really dangerous hitter not be adversely affected? Why would opposing teams

give that one good hitter anything to hit, when they could easily go around him, and elect to take their chances with the rest of the relatively easy outs, in the lineup?

 

The makeup of this current Sox offense would seem to be a case in point. Why would you give Abreu anything to hit, when you can go around him to face Frazier?

If Jose chases bad pitches, which he appears to be doing, you might get him out. If he takes his walk, isn't it better to gamble on getting out the likes of Frazier, Cabrera and Garcia? Melky has been hot, recently but he is not a big home run threat.

 

Until Frazier and, or someone else gets hot, and garners some respect, the best Abreu might be able to do is get on base with a walk, only to be stranded there, as a result of the ineptitude of this pathetic offense. The front office counted on Frazier to be the clean up hitter, to provide protection to Abreu, as well as being a big run producer, in his own right. If he doesn't figure it out soon, this team is going to struggle mightily to score runs.

[Kyyle23]

A year or two ago, someone on this forum cited an article, which refuted the conventional wisdom regarding the importance of "protection" for the best hitters in a lineup. The assertion was that having a good hitter, following a given run producer had little effect on the performance of that hitter. The article provided statistical data

to back up the assertion that the entire notion of "protection" for hitters is fallacious. I remember reacting with skepticism. On the one hand the data seemed to prove the hypothesis, but it just didn't make any sense. How could a lineup consisting of just one really dangerous hitter not be adversely affected? Why would opposing teams

give that one good hitter anything to hit, when they could easily go around him, and elect to take their chances with the rest of the relatively easy outs, in the lineup?

 

The makeup of this current Sox offense would seem to be a case in point. Why would you give Abreu anything to hit, when you can go around him to face Frazier?

If Jose chases bad pitches, which he appears to be doing, you might get him out. If he takes his walk, isn't it better to gamble on getting out the likes of Frazier, Cabrera and Garcia? Melky has been hot, recently but he is not a big home run threat.

 

Until Frazier and, or someone else gets hot, and garners some respect, the best Abreu might be able to do is get on base with a walk, only to be stranded there, as a result of the ineptitude of this pathetic offense. The front office counted on Frazier to be the clean up hitter, to provide protection to Abreu, as well as being a big run producer, in his own right. If he doesn't figure it out soon, this team is going to struggle mightily to score runs.

 

Nobody is denying that if Frazier has a Dunn/Laroche-esque season that the Sox are in trouble. They are only saying its been two weeks so lets stop saying the Sox are in trouble if Frazier has a Dunn/Laroche-esque season over and over.

 

 

We know

 

[Bigsoxhurt35]

There's just some crazy chronic issues with this club and hitting. I'm not going to bash Steverson yet because some of these guys are just pressing and having awful ABs. I want to see some good grinding ABs tonight. What this team needs is accountability. I'm sorry but Avi would've been benched after his horrendous first AB. Todd needs a day off. Start really shuffling the lineup around.

[Lillian]

Nobody is denying that if Frazier has a Dunn/Laroche-esque season that the Sox are in trouble. They are only saying its been two weeks so lets stop saying the Sox are in trouble if Frazier has a Dunn/Laroche-esque season over and over.

 

 

We know

 

Perhaps I didn't articulate my point very well. Of course, not having Frazier produce would be disastrous. I was trying to revisit the old discussion about "protection" in a lineup, in the context of this team's current struggles. It is not simply the lack of production from Frazier, but the impact it has on Abreu, hitting in front of him.

Do you give much credence to the entire notion that it is important for Abreu to have someone batting behind him, whom the opposition respects enough that they won't pitch around him?

 

The assertion made by the article, which I referenced, was that it's irrelevant. For my part, I reject that assertion, and I was citing Abreu's current struggles as an example of how the lack of protection does indeed seem to be very relevant. The poster, who cited the article was very convinced that the author had provided enough statistical evidence to corroborate his hypothesis. It just never seemed logical to me. I recognize that it's a small sample size and that the cause and effect correlation is difficult to determine, but doesn't this seem like an example of the kind of impact that the lack of protection can have on an otherwise good hitter?

Edited April 19, 2016 by Lillian

[Big Hurtin]

The offensive problems are pretty obvious. There are only 2 run producers in the lineup and they are both slumping. They don't have a 20 HR guy in the entire outfield nor at DH. The warm weather will really expose their warts.

[shysocks]

Perhaps I didn't articulate my point very well. Of course, not having Frazier produce would be disastrous. I was trying to revisit the old discussion about "protection" in a lineup, in the context of this team's current struggles. It is not simply the lack of production from Frazier, but the impact it has on Abreu, hitting in front of him.

Do you give much credence to the entire notion that it is important for Abreu to have someone batting behind him, whom the opposition respects enough that they won't pitch around him?

 

The assertion made by the article, which I referenced, was that it's irrelevant. For my part, I reject that assertion, and I was citing Abreu's current struggles as an example of how the lack of protection does indeed seem to be very relevant. The poster, who cited the article was very convinced that the author had provided enough statistical evidence to corroborate his hypothesis. It just never seemed logical to me. I recognize that it's a small sample size and that the cause and effect correlation is difficult to determine, but doesn't this seem like an example of the kind of impact that the lack of protection can have on an otherwise good hitter?

It seems like an example if you want it to be. You acknowledge the small-sample nature, but I'm not sure you fully appreciate it. This is two weeks of games. That's it. All kinds of variance happens to hitters over the course of two weeks.

 

Here's a good piece on protection that uses statistical studies and interviews of people in the game. You can come up with examples to support the idea of protection, either over the course of a season or in one at-bat, and that's fine. I'm sure the on-deck hitter has affected the outcome of a plate appearance thousands of times. But the collective data shows it doesn't much matter. You can even see it in the specific data for Abreu.

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2015/5/19...-reality-exists

 

Lineup protection exists—it also doesn't. Baseball players are aware of lineup protection and modify their approach because of it, even though their managers might have a different idea entirely of what lineup protection means. Batters think about protection, too, and part of successful hitting is the ability to think with the game as it’s happening. However, modified approaches don’t alter results in any meaningful way, as analysts such as Tom Tango and Jeff Sullivan show.

 

EDIT: Realized I left that "specific data for Abreu" remark hanging out there with no explanation. His PITCHf/x data shows that pitchers are throwing in the zone to him about the same percentage of the time this year as ever.

Edited April 19, 2016 by shysocks

[Lillian]

Thanks "Shysocks".

[harkness99]

If we don't start scoring (which we never really did last year) then we will keep falling towards 500 and eventually be under it.

 

 

[bmags]

still believe in 66% of these players to be competent. Only 33% are now.