PDA

View Full Version : Weird 2009 White Sox Stat


captain54
10-02-2009, 12:05 AM
Just running through some stats as the year comes to a close

Seattle has the top ERA in the AL, followed by the White Sox

Seattle and the White Sox have the lowest batting average in the AL, with the Sox having the fewest hits in the AL..

Bizarre

Noneck
10-02-2009, 12:25 AM
And since Seattle was coming off of a 100+ losing season, These stats were good enough for them to have a productive season.

On the other hand, coming off a division winning season, these similar stats produced a disappointing season for the Sox.

Soxfest
10-02-2009, 12:38 AM
Just running through some stats as the year comes to a close

Seattle has the top ERA in the AL, followed by the White Sox

Seattle and the White Sox have the lowest batting average in the AL, with the Sox having the fewest hits in the AL..

Bizarre

Wow and Walker survives again!:angry:

Boondock Saint
10-02-2009, 01:05 AM
Wow and Walker survives again!:angry:

:facepalm:

hawkjt
10-02-2009, 01:16 AM
Belies the old adage that pitching wins...you gotta hit the ball also. The teams that hit, Yanks,Red Sox and Angels, were the best teams.

DSpivack
10-02-2009, 01:27 AM
Belies the old adage that pitching wins...you gotta hit the ball also. The teams that hit, Yanks,Red Sox and Angels, were the best teams.

The Giants stand out as the all-pitch, no-hit team.

oeo
10-02-2009, 01:48 AM
Belies the old adage that pitching wins...you gotta hit the ball also. The teams that hit, Yanks,Red Sox and Angels, were the best teams.

It's really just out-of-the-ordinary. The pitching in the AL has been pretty ****ty this year overall.

captain54
10-02-2009, 02:13 AM
It's really just out-of-the-ordinary. The pitching in the AL has been pretty ****ty this year overall.

true...last year the Sox had a better ERA, but were 6th or 7th in the AL.

captain54
10-02-2009, 02:15 AM
The Giants stand out as the all-pitch, no-hit team.

yup....the Giants are 2nd in ERA in the NL and about 11 or 12th in BA

captain54
10-02-2009, 02:18 AM
Belies the old adage that pitching wins...you gotta hit the ball also. The teams that hit, Yanks,Red Sox and Angels, were the best teams.

case in point....The Twins and Angels are near the top in BA in the AL, but below average in ERA....The Angels are in the postseason, the Twins knocking on the door

then again you have the Mets.....2nd in BA in the NL, and 12th or 13th in ERA

chisox616
10-02-2009, 10:22 AM
Well... to be fair, isn't the adage "Pitching and defense win championships"?

We had the first part, not exactly the second.

FielderJones
10-02-2009, 10:39 AM
Well... to be fair, isn't the adage "Pitching and defense win championships"?

We had the first part, not exactly the second.

Yeah, we had that ERA stat but unfortunately those unearned runs still count in games. I'd like to see how many games the Sox lost due to unearned runs this year.

hawkjt
10-02-2009, 11:26 AM
Well... to be fair, isn't the adage "Pitching and defense win championships"?

We had the first part, not exactly the second.


I left out the defense part, just to bolster my arguement.:D:

To me, our defense actually improved the second half,but we were winning more games the first half when we hit better and had worse defense. I would say in order of responsiblity for this season from worse to best:

Hitting
Defense
bullpen
starters

The first three were all subpar overall...but hitting and bullpen were passable the first half..

fram40
10-02-2009, 01:28 PM
Despite the horrible defense for most of the season, the Sox finished fourth in the AL by allowing 4.57 runs per game (league average 4.74).

I thought the defense improved the second half. And I thought the infield defense has been pretty good for the last month or so. Sure there are still the physical errors - but it seems it has been some time since we have had a brain cramp from an infielder. TCM has gotten much better on his throws as well.

captain54
10-02-2009, 02:31 PM
Despite the horrible defense for most of the season, the Sox finished fourth in the AL by allowing 4.57 runs per game (league average 4.74).


Here's a breakdown of the teams in the AL with highest numbers of unearned runs allowed: (the second column is total runs vs earned runs)

Kansas City 814-738....76 unearned runs
Oakland 747-676....71 unearned runs
White Sox 726-659....67 unearned runs
Seattle 681-616....65 unearned runs

On a related note, I looked back over the past 10 years at the defensive numbers for the White Sox, and the years with the least amount of errors were 05 and 06, which coincidentally were two of the winningest years in the last decade.

Surprisingly, the year with the highest number of errors was 2000, when the Sox won the Central, @ 133 errors (as opposed to this year, 112 errors)

Of course, the Sox hit .286 as a team that year

Jurr
10-02-2009, 02:43 PM
Our starting pitchers all deserve a big "atta boy" for this season.
When an offense cannot score runs via the sacrifice/get 'em over and in
philosophy, a pitcher is left out on an island. Every pitch increases in stress.
You have to keep grinding and hope your offense can scrape together one or two homers to get something of a pad.

When you don't get the offense, the pitcher leaves the game in the hands of the bullpen, which by definition is a stable of flawed pitchers (otherwise they'd be starters in the league).

If the Sox roll this group of starters out next year along with an offense that can pressure an opposing pitcher and manufacture runs, this team will be way beyond deadly.

Get to work, Kenny.

captain54
10-02-2009, 03:24 PM
A typical scenario for the 2009 White Sox would be:

Ozzie pulls starter in 6th or 7th with game tied, one or two run lead, or a run or two behind.

Bullpen has no margin for error, tries to make perfect pitch, blows leads, or increases deficit to 4 runs or more.

Offense never recovers and goes to sleep for the next three innings.

If Kenny thinks offensively, the Sox need a few minor tweaks, he's in for a rude awakening.

Foulke You
10-02-2009, 06:37 PM
Surprisingly, the year with the highest number of errors was 2000, when the Sox won the Central, @ 133 errors (as opposed to this year, 112 errors)

Of course, the Sox hit .286 as a team that year
The 2000 club had a solid pitching staff, a lights out bullpen anchored by Lowe, Howry, and Foulke, and as you pointed out, a "shock and awe" type of offense. These qualities more than made up for the leaky defense. If memory serves, Jose Valentin accounted for 36 of those 112 errors but he more than made up for it with his bat by hitting 25HRs and driving in 92 runs.

TDog
10-02-2009, 09:39 PM
The 2000 club had a solid pitching staff, a lights out bullpen anchored by Lowe, Howry, and Foulke, and as you pointed out, a "shock and awe" type of offense. These qualities more than made up for the leaky defense. If memory serves, Jose Valentin accounted for 36 of those 112 errors but he more than made up for it with his bat by hitting 25HRs and driving in 92 runs.

Jerry Manuel used to say that in the American League on the dawn of the 21st century, he would rather find strong pitching and strong hitting and live with the shaky defense than have to deal with strong pitching, a strong defense and no hitting. It worked for five months, but by the time the Sox got to the postseason in 2000, they had no hitting a weak defense and their starting pitching was a mess.

If the White Sox had two of the three components this season, they would be in the postseason. As it was, starting pitchers didn't consistently go deep enough in close games, wearing down the bullpen, while the defense gave up runs. It wasn't just the unearned runs, of course, but the runs that were earned because of hits that should have been fielded. There also seemed an attitude among some pitchers that unearned runs didn't count.

The Sox didn't necessarily need better hitting, although that would have helped tremendously. They needed better defense. They needed more complete games from their starters. (People here seem to be looking forward to improving the bullpen by trading Jenks in the offseason, but doing so will only diminish the Sox bullpen depth while giving Thornton exposure as a closer would have him blowing as many close games Jenks did this year).

Of course, it wouldn't have taken an appreciably higher team batting average this year to score a lot more runs than the White Sox did. But baseball people continue to exaggerate the importance of on-base percentage while neglecting the importance of hitters who know how to drive in runs.

captain54
10-02-2009, 10:37 PM
But baseball people continue to exaggerate the importance of on-base percentage while neglecting the importance of hitters who know how to drive in runs.

this doesn't make any sense.....if you don't have a high percentage of guys getting on base, then you have nothing for hitters to drive in.

Ranger
10-03-2009, 08:01 PM
Belies the old adage that pitching wins...you gotta hit the ball also. The teams that hit, Yanks,Red Sox and Angels, were the best teams.

case in point....The Twins and Angels are near the top in BA in the AL, but below average in ERA....The Angels are in the postseason, the Twins knocking on the door

then again you have the Mets.....2nd in BA in the NL, and 12th or 13th in ERA


You don't need to be the top of the league those categories, but you can't really afford to be bottom of the league. If your pitching/offense is good, the other needs to be mediocre in order to win, usually.

captain54
10-05-2009, 01:12 PM
You don't need to be the top of the league those categories, but you can't really afford to be bottom of the league. If your pitching/offense is good, the other needs to be mediocre in order to win, usually.

In the AL, the 05 White Sox were 12th of 14th in BA, .006 point higher BA then worst in hitting, Seattle, 7th or 8th in runs scored, 12th in hits, 5th in HR's..

The 05 White Sox were notorious for scoring 10 + runs one game, then falling asleep the next two or three games so those runs scored stats are deceiving.

The 09 White Sox were dead last in BA, tied with Seattle, with the least amount of hits. 12th of 14th in runs scored, and 6th in HR's..

I would agree with your premise, however the key word there is "usually"..

DSpivack
10-06-2009, 01:07 AM
In the AL, the 05 White Sox were 12th of 14th in BA, .006 point higher BA then worst in hitting, Seattle, 7th or 8th in runs scored, 12th in hits, 5th in HR's..

The 05 White Sox were notorious for scoring 10 + runs one game, then falling asleep the next two or three games so those runs scored stats are deceiving.

The 09 White Sox were dead last in BA, tied with Seattle, with the least amount of hits. 12th of 14th in runs scored, and 6th in HR's..

I would agree with your premise, however the key word there is "usually"..

The 2005 White Sox scored 4.57 runs/game, 6th from the bottom in the AL. They gave up 3.98 runs/game, 3rd from the top.

The 2009 White Sox scored 4.47 runs/game, 3rd from the bottom in the Al. They gave up 4.52 runs/game, 2nd from the top.

As for the offense in 2010, Jim Thome is already gone and Jermaine Dye is likely to go. We should give up even fewer runs/game with a full season of Jake Peavy [and assuming the rotation is healthy], but we need to replace those two middle of the order bats to even be as mediocre as we were this season offensively, let alone to improve. This offseason certainly will be an interesting one.