PDA

View Full Version : By the Numbers...


Lip Man 1
10-03-2010, 05:21 PM
By the Numbers…

Submitted for your examination, edification (as Rod Serling used to intone on The Twilight Zone) and for discussion.

The New Century Has Been Pretty Good:

In the 11 seasons since the new century started (2000) the Sox have now had eight winning seasons (00, 01, 03, 04, 05, 06, 08, 10), one .500 season (02) and two losing ones (07, 09). They also have three playoff appearances (00, 05, 08) and a World Series title (05). Not Yankee like I grant you but we also aren't talking the Royals or Pirates either.

The Sox record since opening day 2000 is now 945 -838, 107 games above the .500 mark.

The Sox average record in that time frame is 86-76.

Oh Yes They Call It The Streak:

It may have been the streakiest, craziest White Sox season in years…maybe the oddest of all-time from an up and down standpoint. To wit:

April 5 – May 20: 16-24
May 21 – June 8: 8-9
June 9 – July 15: 26-5
July 16 – August 5: 12-8
August 6 – August 22: 5-11
August 24 – September 6: 10-3
September 7 – September 21: 2-12
September 22 – October 3: 9-2

The Sox also had two, four game win streaks, a five game win streak, a seven game win streak, a nine game win streak and an 11 game win streak (Total “streak” wins: 40)

They also had three four game losing streaks and an eight game losing streak (Total “streak” losses: 20)

Attendance Trends:

The Sox finished the year with an attendance of 2,194,378. That’s down from last year’s total of 2,284,163. It also marks the 4th straight season the Sox have lost attendance from the previous year.

2006: 2,957,414
2007: 2,684,395
2008: 2,284,163
2009: 2,194,378

2010 Season Numbers And Factoids:

* Final Record: 88-74
* Record in One Run Games:28-21 (The Sox were 17-9 in this category at
the All Star Break)
* Extra Inning Games: 6-10
* Games Where The Sox Scored Three Runs Or Less: 63 (39% of the season)

* Games Lost When Holding Opponent To Three Runs Or Less: 17

* Games Won When Trailing In The 7th Inning Or Later: 16 (Texas 3 times,
Boston 2, Cleveland 2, Kansas City 2, Seattle 2, Baltimore, Detroit,
Yankees, Oakland, Toronto)

* Games Lost When Leading In The7th Inning Or Later: 16 (If you are
looking for a reason the Sox didn’t win the division this year, this is a
good place to start… look at who they lost games to when leading
late!) Detroit 5 times, Minnesota 5, Cleveland 2, Toronto 2, Kansas City,
Seattle.

* Division Record: 32-40. Cleveland 9-9, Detroit 8-10 (after starting off 6-2),
Kansas City 10-8, Minnesota 5-13 (after starting off 2-2)

* Record Against The Four Worst A.L. Teams: 31-22. (Baltimore 3-4,
Cleveland 9-9, Kansas City 10-8, Seattle 9-1)

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
10-03-2010, 05:47 PM
* Games Lost When Leading In The7th Inning Or Later: 16 (If you are
looking for a reason the Sox didn’t win the division this year, this is a
good place to start… look at who they lost games to when leading
late!) Detroit 5 times, Minnesota 5, Cleveland 2, Toronto 2, Kansas City, Seattle.

Thank you for compiling these numbers, Lip.

The five games we lost to the Twins in which we had a lead in the seventh inning or later explain why the Twins won the division.

Win just three of those five games and we're tied right now, facing Game 163 up at Target Field tomorrow. Win just four of those games and we're hosting the Yankees on Wednesday.

DumpJerry
10-03-2010, 06:32 PM
Are you including games played in August and September from 2004-2010? I've heard we won a total of only about six games in those months.

khan
10-05-2010, 12:10 PM
Attendance Trends:

The Sox finished the year with an attendance of 2,194,378. That’s down from last year’s total of 2,284,163. It also marks the 4th straight season the Sox have lost attendance from the previous year.

2006: 2,957,414
2007: 2,684,395
2008: 2,284,163
2009: 2,194,378
What was the attendance total for 2010?

* Final Record: 88-74
* Record in One Run Games:28-21 (The Sox were 17-9 in this category at
the All Star Break)
* Extra Inning Games: 6-10
* Games Where The Sox Scored Three Runs Or Less: 63 (39% of the season)

* Games Lost When Holding Opponent To Three Runs Or Less: 17

* Games Won When Trailing In The 7th Inning Or Later: 16 (Texas 3 times,
Boston 2, Cleveland 2, Kansas City 2, Seattle 2, Baltimore, Detroit,
Yankees, Oakland, Toronto)

* Games Lost When Leading In The7th Inning Or Later: 16 (If you are
looking for a reason the Sox didn’t win the division this year, this is a
good place to start… look at who they lost games to when leading
late!) Detroit 5 times, Minnesota 5, Cleveland 2, Toronto 2, Kansas City,
Seattle.
To me, the bolded/red numbers indicate an inconsistent offense that fails to CONTINUE to pour the runs on throughout a game. It also suggests to me a team that was incomplete for most of the season.

I also couple these data to the relatively-high number of "quality starts, and see a bullpen that was [once again] overrated, and underperforming. Granted, there were a lot of injuries in the 2nd half, but there is also a pronounced lack of depth to overcome injury issues.


* Division Record: 32-40. Cleveland 9-9, Detroit 8-10 (after starting off 6-2),
Kansas City 10-8, Minnesota 5-13 (after starting off 2-2)

* Record Against The Four Worst A.L. Teams: 31-22. (Baltimore 3-4,
Cleveland 9-9, Kansas City 10-8, Seattle 9-1)

Lip

These numbers suggest a lack of leadership at some level, IMO. [Be it managerial, coaching, or among the veterans.] When playing teams that are familiar to yours, leaders know how to take an appropriate approach, and use your familiarity to your advantage. When playing lesser teams than yours, leaders keep their teams focused, and help them to avoid "playing down to their competition."

DirtySox
10-05-2010, 12:15 PM
what was the attendance total for 2010?

2010: 2,194,378
2009: 2,284,164

LoveYourSuit
10-05-2010, 12:18 PM
I don't rate "winning seasons" as high as I once did because with interleague play and un-balanced schedules it's not even close as it once was.

LoveYourSuit
10-05-2010, 12:21 PM
2010: 2,194,378
2009: 2,284,164


Renewals will be down once again next year.

The Sox will have to feast on single game tickets as they did in the past, might be a good motivation to field a team that will play good early to create fan interest.

Gavin
10-07-2010, 05:54 PM
Amazing we had even lower attendance compared to a ****tier season last year AND much, much better weather than last year. Cripes.

guillensdisciple
10-07-2010, 06:35 PM
That Twins stat is amazing, and goes to show how weak our Bullpen is in pressure situations. Seems like Jenks and Thornton did a good job giving games up late.

SI1020
10-07-2010, 09:21 PM
Are you including games played in August and September from 2004-2010? I've heard we won a total of only about six games in those months. The record for Ozzie's teams in August, September and October (regular season) is 198-207.

Frater Perdurabo
10-07-2010, 10:04 PM
The record for Ozzie's teams in August, September and October (regular season) is 198-207.

Libel! Smear campaign! You're not a real Sox fan! How dare you say that! Hate! Hate! Hate!

TommyJohn
10-08-2010, 12:25 AM
Are you including games played in August and September from 2004-2010? I've heard we won a total of only about six games in those months.

The record for Ozzie's teams in August, September and October (regular season) is 198-207.

Libel! Smear campaign! You're not a real Sox fan! How dare you say that! Hate! Hate! Hate!


Pop Quiz! What do these sets of numbers represent:

85-83
182-155

They are the August-September/October records of Terry Bevington and Jerry Manuel. Clearly, the Sox should not fired either one of these stalwart geniuses, as they knew how to win in those months.

(I quoted DumpJerry only because I like his sarcasm, I think it is right on the money.)

SI1020
10-08-2010, 08:34 AM
Pop Quiz! What do these sets of numbers represent:

85-83
182-155

They are the August-September/October records of Terry Bevington and Jerry Manuel. Clearly, the Sox should not fired either one of these stalwart geniuses, as they knew how to win in those months.

(I quoted DumpJerry only because I like his sarcasm, I think it is right on the money.) You don't, or at least you shouldn't hire or fire someone for an important job based on one issue alone. Ozzie's supporters can get so sensitive and defensive.

StillMissOzzie
10-09-2010, 12:40 AM
By the NumbersÖ

2010 Season Numbers And Factoids:


* Division Record: 32-40. Cleveland 9-9, Detroit 8-10 (after starting off 6-2),
Kansas City 10-8, Minnesota 5-13 (after starting off 2-2)

* Record Against The Four Worst A.L. Teams: 31-22. (Baltimore 3-4,
Cleveland 9-9, Kansas City 10-8, Seattle 9-1)

Lip
The Sox will clearly need to be able to beat the Twinkies better than 5-13, or all other points are moot. However, looking at the records against the sad sacks, let's push Seattle aside for a moment (as the Sox and pretty much everyone else did this year), the Sox are a combined 22-21 vs the Balt/Clev/KC triumvirate. That record should be MUCH better, more like 32-11, if the Sox are going to be contenders. And 19-17 vs the inter division doormats? That alone is a disgrace, the Sox should have been 27-9 or better just looking at these weak sisters. I remember that at one point in the season the Tribe had something like 25% of their W's against the Sox.

SMO
:gulp:

Dan H
10-09-2010, 06:16 AM
It has been a good decade. Compare it to the '90's when the Sox won one division, and to the 80's when they won one division and the '70's, when they won none, this has been very good.

However, sometimes it hasn't felt that good. In September '03, the Sox lost five straight to Minnesota, and there went the division. This year they imploded again losing 10 out of their last 13 to the Twins. Division lost again. It was maddening to see playoff chances end with just a handful of games.

Attendance is disappointing this year, but the figures are a little misleading. It was obvious that '06 was going to be great. '07 was still very good despite the fact the team lost 90. In relative terms, attendance is doing okay especially since the team didn't break the 2 million mark from 1995-2004.

The other disappointing thing about the Sox is that they don't contend until the end with the exception of their division winning years. This year they were eliminated with 12 games left in the year. From '01-'04, and in '06, '07, and '09, the team was pretty much out of it when September rolled along.

The trouble is that the Sox don't sustain their success. Look at the years right after a division title. 1984 was a disaster, 1994 was the strike, '01 they barely finished over .500, in '06 they won 90 but the second half was awful, and '09 just plain stunk. The team always seems to be on the verge of something great when they take a huge step backward.

Lip Man 1
10-09-2010, 10:41 AM
Dan:

From my piece "Sox and the Media":

One other factor often overlooked by the media when they discuss attendance, that badly hurts the Sox is this. Of all the original 16 pre expansion major league clubs, the White Sox are the only one to have never made the postseason in consecutive seasons.

Many times they come literally out of nowhere to have a good season and when they are expected to win in the future, in order to build trust with the fan base and keep the momentum going, they fail.

Many times badly.

Think of 1968, 1973, 1984, 1995, 2001 and 2006. Of those six years for example, only twice did they even have a winning season. Many Sox fans to this day canít figure out (and neither can the media) how the White Sox with their market-size, payroll advantages, higher valued radio / TV / internet deals and advertising opportunities have never been able to dominate the division much like the Yankees and Red Sox do in the A.L. East. Cleveland did it in the 1990ís in the Central, Minnesota did it in the 2000ís in the Central but that goal has eluded managementís best efforts.

Sox fans are a skeptical bunch and only making the postseason every so often isnít helping matters to say nothing of only two World Series appearances since 1919.

Lip

khan
10-09-2010, 02:02 PM
One other factor often overlooked by the media when they discuss attendance, that badly hurts the Sox is this. Of all the original 16 pre expansion major league clubs, the White Sox are the only one to have never made the postseason in consecutive seasons.

Many times they come literally out of nowhere to have a good season and when they are expected to win in the future, in order to build trust with the fan base and keep the momentum going, they fail.

Many times badly.

Think of 1968, 1973, 1984, 1995, 2001 and 2006. Of those six years for example, only twice did they even have a winning season. Many Sox fans to this day canít figure out (and neither can the media) how the White Sox with their market-size, payroll advantages, higher valued radio / TV / internet deals and advertising opportunities have never been able to dominate the division much like the Yankees and Red Sox do in the A.L. East. Cleveland did it in the 1990ís in the Central, Minnesota did it in the 2000ís in the Central but that goal has eluded managementís best efforts.

Sox fans are a skeptical bunch and only making the postseason every so often isnít helping matters to say nothing of only two World Series appearances since 1919.

Lip
Lip, I agree wholeheartedly with all of this, especially with the bolded parts. I'm amazed that many SOX fans are content with merely being above .500, when we could/should hope for more, IMO.


Having said that, KW may play up to the dimwits in the media and the shortsighted fan with his "going for it THIS year" approach. But, IMO, a GM has to see the bigger picture. (S)he has to see what can lead to sustained success, as well as the present. (S)he has to see the where a team is, and to take advantage of present opportunities, while leaving enough on the table for tomorrow.

The 2010 WHITE SOX were never going to win the WS as they were comprised, partially due to KW's/OG's choices. Here's hoping that KW can field a more complete team for 2011, while preparing the organization for success in 2012 and beyond as well.

Dan H
10-10-2010, 09:29 AM
Lip:

The media doesn't get it because it doesn't want to get it. The media is no fan advocate. If there is friction between the Sox and their fans, the media will side with the team and against the fans every time. Many call Reinsdorf the greatest Chicago sports owner (and in some ways he is) but they don't want to look further into why the White Sox can't build a team that can put four or five consecutive real good seasons together. Instead it is our fault because we don't go out enough.

Actually I was disappointed in attendance this year and I usually don't worry about that. But I was truly disappointed in the fact that the White Sox have not been able to build a solid winning tradition. Maybe they just don't know how.

LITTLE NELL
10-10-2010, 09:58 AM
I don't rate "winning seasons" as high as I once did because with interleague play and un-balanced schedules it's not even close as it once was.

It sure beats having "losing seasons''.

TommyJohn
10-10-2010, 11:43 AM
It sure beats having "losing seasons''.
Oh, yeah? Well, what do you know, you...you....you...old person! Just because you went through 1968-70 and 1978-80 doesn't mean you know anything. Their 88-74 record this year is like going 64-98 any other year. So there.

LITTLE NELL
10-10-2010, 11:46 AM
Oh, yeah? Well, what do you know, you...you....you...old person! Just because you went through 1968-70 and 1978-80 doesn't mean you know anything. Their 88-74 record this year is like going 64-98 any other year. So there.

:rolling:

russ99
10-10-2010, 02:17 PM
Lip:

The media doesn't get it because it doesn't want to get it. The media is no fan advocate. If there is friction between the Sox and their fans, the media will side with the team and against the fans every time. Many call Reinsdorf the greatest Chicago sports owner (and in some ways he is) but they don't want to look further into why the White Sox can't build a team that can put four or five consecutive real good seasons together. Instead it is our fault because we don't go out enough.

Actually I was disappointed in attendance this year and I usually don't worry about that. But I was truly disappointed in the fact that the White Sox have not been able to build a solid winning tradition. Maybe they just don't know how.

Interesting points.

My issue is that Jerry is constantly manipulating the payroll budget from year to year, based on preconceived ideas on what expected revenue might be, instead of investing to try to build value/market share in his franchise... Is that a ploy to maximize year-end profits? I don't know. It's sure obvious after the salary added at the last 2 trade deadlines that they have more resources than they claim.

We don't have a winning tradition because our owner doesn't invest in one, both on the big-league level and drafting/player development.

But look at Arte Moreno in LA for example. The Angels had a very disappointing season and lower attendance than other years. Is he "pulling a Jerry" and cutting payroll because revenue is lower and could be next season?

No. He's doing the opposite. He realized that any slippage in his market and they're an afterthought to the Dodgers again.

Why can't Jerry do that? Why can't we challenge the Cubs in our market like the Angels do in theirs?

Lip Man 1
10-10-2010, 04:43 PM
Russ:

Two reasons in my opinion.

1. That's not the operating business philosophy for better or worse. I agree with you and I don't understand it myself but that's the way the organization operates. They simply do not believe in extending themselves even in the short term, financially. Perhaps they think the risk is to great. (i.e. what if we spend 140 million and six guys get hurt? What if the weather is unseasonably bad?? etc...)

2. From the moment ownership took over in 1981 their philosophy vis a vis the Cubs has been, "we are Chicago's American League team..." As I went into in detail in my story, "Sox and the Media" that showed a basic misunderstanding of the way fans in Chicago operate. It's impossible to change the way things are now without something very revolutionary for the franchise, such as making the postseason say, five years in a row.

The Sox had a chance when ownership took over to take on the Cubs and take back their own city (the Cubs were garbage in the late 70's / early 80's). But they chose not to for whatever reason or reasons. With everything that then happened in the 1980's (SportsVision, collusion, threatening to move the team) they never had a better chance as it turned out. They had a small window after 2005 but that didn't work out either.

Lip

khan
10-11-2010, 11:59 AM
Their 88-74 record this year is like going 64-98 any other year.

In terms of playoff games, you're absolutely correct.

By the way, what was the SOX's playoff record in the awesomely-memorable 2010 season? Was it better than the playoff record in 1979? Or in 1985?

I honestly forgot.