PDA

View Full Version : WSJ: Sox could soon be toast


comet2k
05-20-2011, 08:52 AM
Wall Street Journal article says hopes of making playoffs for Sox and other losing teams could be over by June 1:


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703421204576331173575453598.html?m od=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsTop

LongLiveFisk
05-20-2011, 08:54 AM
Pffft......whatever. :rolleyes:

GoSox2K3
05-20-2011, 09:05 AM
:rolleyes: x 10.

I'm not happy with the Sox play this year either, but come on. 4.5 games back of the wild card with 117 games to go? Yep, it's just about all over.....sheesh.

I'm pretty pissed about being 8 games out of 1st, but there's 117 games to go.

LITTLE NELL
05-20-2011, 09:05 AM
My own personal feeling is that this next road trip playing 3 tough teams (Texas, Toronto and Boston) just might be the make or break point of the season. I think if we can take 2 out of 3 with LA and go 5-5 on the road trip we still can contend what with all the home games we have coming up in June, July and August.

Zakath
05-20-2011, 09:22 AM
I do love how an East Coast paper has to mention the Red Sox as an exception to the rule.

This is why the WSJ should stick to what it knows best.

pmck003
05-20-2011, 09:29 AM
If any team in recent history is the exception its the Rockies.

The Rockies were 15-24 on this date in 2009, and they would go on to capture the wild-card with over 90 wins.

The 2007 Rockies were 18-26 and they also won the wild card.

LITTLE NELL
05-20-2011, 09:33 AM
If any team in recent history is the exception its the Rockies.

The Rockies were 15-24 on this date in 2009, and they would go on to capture the wild-card with over 90 wins.

The 2007 Rockies were 18-26 and they also won the wild card.

Don't forget our 83 Sox; 16-24 on May 26th and finished 99-63 and won the West by 20 games.

miker
05-20-2011, 09:34 AM
If we all "played" baseball by analyzing past statistics and determining probabilities, we could close the league down by Memorial Day and then be bored the rest of the summer.

Fortunately the game is played on the field...

comet2k
05-20-2011, 09:36 AM
The Journal loves to do stories that challenge conventional sports wisdom by delving deeper into statistics.

Last year they did one about the effects of NFL teams calling timeouts just before the opposing team attempts a game winning or tying field goal. The stats they cited said the FGs made actually went up slightly if the other team called a time out.

I'd say they're a little early with this story. Maybe July 1 for some teams, but right now every MLB team is within 12 games of first place. A lot of teams can make up 12 games in the last four months of the season.

Hartman
05-20-2011, 09:39 AM
I get all my baseball analysis from the Wall Street Journal :rolleyes:

russ99
05-20-2011, 09:39 AM
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=2741773&postcount=17

doublem23
05-20-2011, 09:52 AM
There's a lot more truth to these statistics than people here want to give them credit, that's fine. Generally speaking, past performance and past trends are decent projections for future results, especially with a sample size as large as this. Generally speaking, yes, ****ty teams who are ****ty 50 games into the season are somehow, magically ****ty the remaining 112. The reason we can name the notable, recent exceptions to this rule is because they're exceptions. You remember them because they're accomplishments are notable, quick, anyone remember all the teams that were were 8+ GB 1st place at the end of May and how did they finish? Nobody can answer that off the top of their head because that's the general standard.

I would say that the biggest thing we have in our court is that it looks like another general year of AL Central mediocrity, this division is seriously the worst, most pathetic division in baseball, and so there's going to be a void at the top again that someone has to fill by default. But yeah, if we were chasing good teams like the Rays or Phillies, I think you could go ahead an wrap a bow on the 2011 season.

Chez
05-20-2011, 10:10 AM
I read that the world is going to end tomorrow anyways, so let's win tonight and deal with the post-apocalyptic AL Central on Sunday.

comet2k
05-20-2011, 10:11 AM
The story says that losing teams can turn it around, but since 1996 only 9 percent of teams with losing records on June 1 won 90 games, the number it usually takes to make the playoffs. It doesn't say how many made the playoffs.

Nine percent is pretty low, so the odds are against losing teams. But with the way most divisions seem to be shaping up, I think it's too early to call on June 1 this year.

miker
05-20-2011, 10:13 AM
Your Mommy's all right,
Your Daddy's all right,
They just seem a little weird.
Surrender!
Surrender!
But don't give yourself away...

BringHomeDaBacon
05-20-2011, 10:25 AM
There's a lot more truth to these statistics than people here want to give them credit, that's fine. Generally speaking, past performance and past trends are decent projections for future results, especially with a sample size as large as this. Generally speaking, yes, ****ty teams who are ****ty 50 games into the season are somehow, magically ****ty the remaining 112. The reason we can name the notable, recent exceptions to this rule is because they're exceptions. You remember them because they're accomplishments are notable, quick, anyone remember all the teams that were were 8+ GB 1st place at the end of May and how did they finish? Nobody can answer that off the top of their head because that's the general standard.

I would say that the biggest thing we have in our court is that it looks like another general year of AL Central mediocrity, this division is seriously the worst, most pathetic division in baseball, and so there's going to be a void at the top again that someone has to fill by default. But yeah, if we were chasing good teams like the Rays or Phillies, I think you could go ahead an wrap a bow on the 2011 season.

People fail to realize that by naming teams like the 07 Rockies, all they are doing is naming one of the 9% referred to in the article. Teams that have losing records by June 1 don't make it not because they don't have a chance, but because most likely they just aren't good enough. How dare the Wall Street Journal point that out.

kittle42
05-20-2011, 11:08 AM
There's a lot more truth to these statistics than people here want to give them credit, that's fine. Generally speaking, past performance and past trends are decent projections for future results, especially with a sample size as large as this. Generally speaking, yes, ****ty teams who are ****ty 50 games into the season are somehow, magically ****ty the remaining 112. The reason we can name the notable, recent exceptions to this rule is because they're exceptions. You remember them because they're accomplishments are notable, quick, anyone remember all the teams that were were 8+ GB 1st place at the end of May and how did they finish? Nobody can answer that off the top of their head because that's the general standard.

I would say that the biggest thing we have in our court is that it looks like another general year of AL Central mediocrity, this division is seriously the worst, most pathetic division in baseball, and so there's going to be a void at the top again that someone has to fill by default. But yeah, if we were chasing good teams like the Rays or Phillies, I think you could go ahead an wrap a bow on the 2011 season.

Great post. I grow weary of people dismissing the validity of stats as future predictors simply by pointing out memorable exceptions.

Example: Hawks down 3-0 to Vancouver; most people calling the series all but over; people pull out what the Flyers did last season even though it was, what, only the 3rd time EVER that a 3-0 hole had been crawled out of? Yes, it does happen on rare occasion, and thus NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE, but stats showed it was VERY HIGHLY UNLIKELY that the Hawks could win the series at that point. And in the end, while they came close, they did not.

Tragg
05-20-2011, 11:13 AM
My view of this team is that the strength is the starting pitching, the hitting will always be inconsistent in the boom/bust category, so we better put the best defensive team we can out there, because we'll need a lot of 3-2 wins and cannot let them turn into 3-4 losses.

rcescato
05-20-2011, 11:14 AM
:rolleyes: x 10.

I'm not happy with the Sox play this year either, but come on. 4.5 games back of the wild card with 117 games to go? Yep, it's just about all over.....sheesh.

I'm pretty pissed about being 8 games out of 1st, but there's 117 games to go.


With that being said. Now is the time the Sox start winning. They wait til they play the NL to start winning. Its getting old year after year. They still hAVE A CHANCE TO BE ABOVE .500 BY jUNE 1ST.

Tragg
05-20-2011, 11:19 AM
But the 9% is probably good teams that are playing badly for the first 50 games; not bad teams that get lucky for the next 110.
Also, so if the Sox are a good team, the odds are much better than 9% because most of the teams that are below 500 after 50 games are bad. (did that make any sense?).

Also to consider is that it likely will not take 90 wins to win this division. The 9% is thus understated.

Just saying that things are more hopeful than the article suggests.

miker
05-20-2011, 11:21 AM
Great post. I grow weary of people dismissing the validity of stats as future predictors simply by pointing out memorable exceptions.

So, (and this is a general question for the whole class -- don't take it personally) what is the more egregious sin as a fan? Hoping for the unlikely comeback or giving up on the team even though there is a chance.

kittle42
05-20-2011, 11:27 AM
So, (and this is a general question for the whole class -- don't take it personally) what is the more egregious sin as a fan? Hoping for the unlikely comeback or giving up on the team even though there is a chance.

A recognition of the significance of statistics is wholly separate from passionate and hopeful fandom. If I'm playing poker, and I have one card to come on the river that could win the hand for me, I am basically a 98% underdog, but I'm still sitting there desperately hoping that card will come. But just because, on average, that card WILL come once every 50 times doesn't mean that I **** all over the 98% probability it won't if it indeed does come out that first time.

kellykid
05-20-2011, 11:28 AM
I'll remain hopeful. Atleast I want to watch this team now. There is alot of baseball left to play and I'll be rooting for my team all the way.

russ99
05-20-2011, 11:34 AM
So, (and this is a general question for the whole class -- don't take it personally) what is the more egregious sin as a fan? Hoping for the unlikely comeback or giving up on the team even though there is a chance.

I'm leaning towards hopeful, since this summer will be much more fun if the Sox are competitive.

I'll be much more hopeful if the Sox can kick butt this weekend and on the following tough road trip to Texas/Toronto/Boston and get back up to .500.

sullythered
05-20-2011, 11:35 AM
Why can't we be over .500 by June 1st?

Gavin
05-20-2011, 11:36 AM
For what it's worth, the White Sox were 19-26 at this point last year and actually held first place for a while after that.

:shrug:

Moses_Scurry
05-20-2011, 11:41 AM
The problem I have with these particular statistics is that they change every single day. Today's 9% becomes irrelevant next week. If the Sox sweep the Dodgers, they will then be 2 games under .500 on May 22. I bet the 9% probability rises pretty significantly then. Even if the Sox only take 2 of 3, it will still probably significantly rise.

The Red Sox lost thier first 6 games of the season and were 6 under .500 on April 7. I bet the numbers were much worse than 9% for teams that were 6 under .500 by April 7.

How does the "Gavin Chart" that he posted a couple weeks ago that showed the Sox having a 1% chance or whatever of being over .500 on the season look today?

sox1970
05-20-2011, 11:42 AM
Why can't we be over .500 by June 1st?

9-4 the next 13 is doable, but I'll take .500 by the time they play the main lump of interleague games. That means 16-10 the next 26, to get them 36-35. Then they play 15 interleague games, and hopefully they go 9-6 or better, and then they're right back in the race.

rdivaldi
05-20-2011, 11:42 AM
So, (and this is a general question for the whole class -- don't take it personally) what is the more egregious sin as a fan? Hoping for the unlikely comeback or giving up on the team even though there is a chance.

Giving up on the team. This is baseball, anything can happen.

HangWiffum
05-20-2011, 11:43 AM
For what it's worth, the White Sox were 19-26 at this point last year and actually held first place for a while after that.

:shrug:

Yes, and they went on one of the best streaks in the teams 100+ year history. CAN that happen again? Anything's possible. WILL it happen this year? Extremely unlikely.

miker
05-20-2011, 11:45 AM
A recognition of the significance of statistics is wholly separate from passionate and hopeful fandom. If I'm playing poker, and I have one card to come on the river that could win the hand for me, I am basically a 98% underdog, but I'm still sitting there desperately hoping that card will come. But just because, on average, that card WILL come once every 50 times doesn't mean that I **** all over the 98% probability it won't if it indeed does come out that first time.

I see your point...but I don't bet on baseball.

Moses_Scurry
05-20-2011, 11:46 AM
Yes, and they went on one of the best streaks in the teams 100+ year history. CAN that happen again? Anything's possible. WILL it happen this year? Extremely unlikely.

It doesn't have to be as good of a streak if they can keep from fading in the second half and against divisional teams. Plus, so far the hole isn't as deep as it was last year when they started their run. If they do a run like that this year they'll have a much better winning % than last year.

Gavin
05-20-2011, 11:47 AM
Yes, and they went on one of the best streaks in the teams 100+ year history. CAN that happen again? Anything's possible. WILL it happen this year? Extremely unlikely.

18-9 in June, 18-8 in July.. yes, the team was hot. But they came crashing back to earth going 30-29 from August on. My point is you don't need to have a tremendous streak to make that kind of turnaround. You just need to win consistently enough.

jdm2662
05-20-2011, 12:06 PM
18-9 in June, 18-8 in July.. yes, the team was hot. But they came crashing back to earth going 30-29 from August on. My point is you don't need to have a tremendous streak to make that kind of turnaround. You just need to win consistently enough.

Yes. We saw the same thing in 2009 and 2010. Team gets off to a crappy start. Then, they go on a nice streak in June and July. Then, they fade down the stretch big time. A nice hot streak will be nice (hell, every team has one through out a season), but it woiuld be even nicer if they continue to take series like they have been.

Chez
05-20-2011, 12:21 PM
But the 9% is probably good teams that are playing badly for the first 50 games; not bad teams that get lucky for the next 110.
Also, so if the Sox are a good team, the odds are much better than 9% because most of the teams that are below 500 after 50 games are bad. (did that make any sense?).


Yes. And I completely agree with you. Plus the fact that we are ahead of the Twins and within spitting distance of the Tigers makes me more optimistic.

Gavin
05-20-2011, 12:28 PM
I'm a little hesitant to grant this years' White Sox some sort exceptionalism in regards to them being a "good team off to a bad start". The White Sox have absolutely looked like a horrible team (no-hit by Liriano, dropped fly balls, blown saves) at many points this season. Sure, it's nice they won three in a row, but they still have a lot more to prove if they want to be exempt from being a team with a bad record because they are bad.

Hitmen77
05-20-2011, 12:33 PM
But the 9% is probably good teams that are playing badly for the first 50 games; not bad teams that get lucky for the next 110.
Also, so if the Sox are a good team, the odds are much better than 9% because most of the teams that are below 500 after 50 games are bad. (did that make any sense?).

Also to consider is that it likely will not take 90 wins to win this division. The 9% is thus understated.

Just saying that things are more hopeful than the article suggests.

Excellent post.

That 9% number is so low because it includes all the bottom feeder teams (KC, Pittsburgh, Washington) who just flat out have little talent, weren't expected to do much going into the season, and are expected to continue to suck. Of course these teams are extremely unlikely to turn a slow start into a 90-win season.

IMO, the 2011 Sox are NOT below .500 now because they simply have no talent. Sure, their talent is most likely not up to the "ALL IN!" hype of the preseason, but I don't expect Dunn and Rios to hit .200 all year. Very few players are playing above expectation right now.

My point is that, regardless of what stats people like to spit out, I really believe that being 5 games below .500 on May 19 is a bit premature to write off this team (warts and all).

kittle42
05-20-2011, 12:40 PM
That 9% number is so low because it includes all the bottom feeder teams (KC, Pittsburgh, Washington) who just flat out have little talent, weren't expected to do much going into the season, and are expected to continue to suck. Of course these teams are extremely unlikely to turn a slow start into a 90-win season.

But what about teams like Cleveland and KC THIS season? It works both ways.

rdivaldi
05-20-2011, 12:40 PM
The White Sox have absolutely looked like a horrible team (no-hit by Liriano, dropped fly balls, blown saves) at many points this season. Sure, it's nice they won three in a row, but they still have a lot more to prove if they want to be exempt from being a team with a bad record because they are bad.

The no-hit game by Liriano was just one game, so I don't think that should be a concern. As for the other two, the closer situation seems to have been solved and the dropped fly balls in the outfield were fluky at best.

There are a couple of key hitters on this team performing below their career averages, which leads me to to believe that we could have some pretty hot hitters come June. This is not a bad team by any stretch of the imagination, they just slumped when the magnifying glass was right on them. The turnaround has begun, it just remains to be seen if they can play consistently for the rest of the season instead of just 3 out of 4 months (see 2010).

Hitmen77
05-20-2011, 12:53 PM
But what about teams like Cleveland and KC THIS season? It works both ways.

What about them? Do you mean that people shouldn't assume that they can't have a successful season because they're above .500 now? I didn't say they should.

Like I said in my previous post, IMO being 5 games below .500 on May 19 is a bit premature to write off this team (even with their obvious faults).

Gavin
05-20-2011, 12:58 PM
The no-hit game by Liriano was just one game, so I don't think that should be a concern. As for the other two, the closer situation seems to have been solved and the dropped fly balls in the outfield were fluky at best.

There are a couple of key hitters on this team performing below their career averages, which leads me to to believe that we could have some pretty hot hitters come June. This is not a bad team by any stretch of the imagination, they just slumped when the magnifying glass was right on them. The turnaround has begun, it just remains to be seen if they can play consistently for the rest of the season instead of just 3 out of 4 months (see 2010).

You are incredibly forgiving, but I do tend to think the Sox HAVE to improve their hitting (they are fourth lowest in BABIP at 0.271). I'm just not yet convinced, though, that they are simply "not a bad team by any stretch".

asindc
05-20-2011, 01:03 PM
But what about teams like Cleveland and KC THIS season? It works both ways.

Yes, it does work both ways. In this instance, that would mean that Cle and KC are statistically unlikely, given their overall talent, to maintain their current paces, just as it is unlikely the Sox will finish this poorly given their overall talent. That is the main reason the stats in the article are taken with a grain of salt. The stats don't make any meaningful (and necessary) distinction between good teams off to a bad start and bad teams playing to their level.

asindc
05-20-2011, 01:06 PM
You are incredibly forgiving, but I do tend to think the Sox HAVE to improve their hitting (they are fourth lowest in BABIP at 0.271). I'm just not yet convinced, though, that they are simply "not a bad team by any stretch".

So you are not convinced that Rios, Dunn, and Thornton will play better going forward than they have so far? Do you really have to be "forgiving" to expect that?

FielderJones
05-20-2011, 01:08 PM
You are incredibly forgiving, but I do tend to think the Sox HAVE to improve their hitting (they are fourth lowest in BABIP at 0.271). I'm just not yet convinced, though, that they are simply "not a bad team by any stretch".

So, you think Dunn is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out? You think Rios is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out? You think Beckham is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out?

That's how I'm interpreting the statement that this is a "bad team" -- a team that has a significant number of bad players on it. Am I reading this correctly, that you think the guys mentioned above, plus AJ, Pierre, Quentin, and Morel are just bad players at the down-slope of their major league careers and that the only legitimate player on the team is a 35-year-old Paul Konerko?

Gavin
05-20-2011, 01:17 PM
So, you think Dunn is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out? You think Rios is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out? You think Beckham is washed up and really is a .200 hitter from here on out?

I think they some of the guys are playing pretty poorly and often look completely lost at the plate. I certainly don't think they are "bad players" but a lot of them really are playing pretty ****ty. There's no rule that declares if a player is hitting way below that their average they're due for a rebound. Believing this is a "wishful thinking" interpretation of statistics.

They could be hitting way below their average because they're unlucky (my take on Rios). Or they could be hitting way below their average because they lost it. I hope for the former but you can't tell me the latter hasn't happened before. Really.. why is Adam Dunn striking out nearly 40% of the time? Back-to-back years of his SO% going up is indicative.

ShooterMcGavin
05-20-2011, 01:20 PM
But what about teams like Cleveland and KC THIS season? It works both ways.

I think what he means is that not every team with a losing record on May 1 has a 9% of winning 90 games. While the group probability is 9%, some teams have much higher chances of winning 90 than others.

thomas35forever
05-20-2011, 01:25 PM
Ah, stat geeks no one likes. Just who I like to hear from.

asindc
05-20-2011, 01:27 PM
I think they some of the guys are playing pretty poorly and often look completely lost at the plate. I certainly don't think they are "bad players" but a lot of them really are playing pretty ****ty. There's no rule that if a player is hitting way below that their average they're due for a rebound. Believing this is a "wishful thinking" interpretation of statistics.

They could be hitting way below their average because they're unlucky (my take on Rios). Or they could be hitting way below their average because they lost it. I hope for the former but you can't tell me the latter hasn't happened before. Really.. why is Adam Dunn striking out nearly 40% of the time? Back-to-back years of his SO% going up is indicative.

Actually, putting more stock in their stats for this season to this point than their career stats is backwards statistical analysis. The larger sample size has more meaning.

Gavin
05-20-2011, 01:29 PM
Actually, putting more stock in their stats for this season to this point than their career stats is backwards statistical analysis. The larger sample size has more meaning.

Actually...

The stats for this season are a better example of how they are playing this season.

FielderJones
05-20-2011, 01:38 PM
I think they some of the guys are playing pretty poorly and often look completely lost at the plate. I certainly don't think they are "bad players" but a lot of them really are playing pretty ****ty. There's no rule that declares if a player is hitting way below that their average they're due for a rebound. Believing this is a "wishful thinking" interpretation of statistics.

They could be hitting way below their average because they're unlucky (my take on Rios). Or they could be hitting way below their average because they lost it. I hope for the former but you can't tell me the latter hasn't happened before. Really.. why is Adam Dunn striking out nearly 40% of the time? Back-to-back years of his SO% going up is indicative.

Actually...

The stats for this season are a better example of how they are playing this season.

At the end of this season, do you think Dunn, Rios, and Beckham will be within twenty points of .200? If not, how high do you think they will raise their averages by the end of the season?

Gavin
05-20-2011, 01:44 PM
At the end of this season, do you think Dunn, Rios, and Beckham will be within twenty points of .200? If not, how high do you think they will raise their averages by the end of the season?

I really don't know since I can't predict the future. Based on BABIP this season, Rios should raise his significantly. Beckham would be next. Dunn would be last. Dunn has a lot of problems right now and there's not a stat out there, aside from his career numbers, that can show he's not doing horrible at the plate. It's interesting to see how high his BABIP was in the last two years. Interesting in a bad way.

BABIP:
http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/319_9015_2090_OF_cseason_full_7_20110519.png

http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs/319_9015_2090_OF_cseason_full_7_20110519.png

kufram
05-20-2011, 01:47 PM
I think there is reason to believe that the veteran players hitting far below lifetime averages (Dunn, Rios, Pierre for example) have not simply had their capabilities fall of the table forever. I'm not a stat geek in any way, but there is a good chance that by the end of the season the averages will be in the neighbourhood of career averages. That means that they will hit above their career average some of the time. A .270 hitter doesn't hit .270 every week of the year.

This isn't science, it is an opinion. Dunn, for example, has an incredible post steroid HR stat line. He is no way way my favourite kind of player but if I was a betting man I'd bet that before the end of the season he has a hot streak when everything he hits goes out. It may be for a week or two weeks or a month, but I'll be surprised if a guy that hits over 30 HRs so consistently doesn't hit over 20 at least.

asindc
05-20-2011, 01:47 PM
Actually...

The stats for this season are a better example of how they are playing this season.

Ok, then we should think it is more likely that Dunn, Rios, Thornton, Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez, Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, and Fausto Carmona (against the Sox) will continue to play this poorly the remainder of the season (and conversely, Pauly, Jake Arrieta, Granderson, Jeff Franceur, Farnsworth, and Carmona( against the rest of the AL) to play this well the remainder of the season), than not?

Well, let's just engrave the MVP trophy now with Granderson's name now in anticipation of his 56-HR season. Why wait?

Gavin
05-20-2011, 01:49 PM
Ok, then we should think it is more likely that Dunn, Rios, Thornton, Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez, Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, and Fausto Carmona (against the Sox) will continue to play this poorly the remainder of the season (and conversely, Pauly, Jake Arrieta, Granderson, Jeff Franceur, Farnsworth, and Carmona( against the rest of the AL) to play this well the remainder of the season), than not?

Well, let's just engrave the MVP trophy now with Granderson's name now in anticipation of his 56-HR season. Why wait?

Why don't we hand it to Adam Dunn, instead, since everyone knows he's going to rebound because there's no possible way a hitter can have a bad season at the plate.

asindc
05-20-2011, 01:53 PM
Why don't we hand it to Adam Dunn, instead, since everyone knows he's going to rebound because there's no possible way a hitter can have a bad season at the plate. Because I said so. On the internet.

Why don't we just bench Dunn now, instead, since everyone knows he's going to continue to play this badly because there is no possible way a hitter can rebound during the season and hit close to career norms. Because I said so. On the Internet.

kittle42
05-20-2011, 01:55 PM
Ok, then we should think it is more likely that Dunn, Rios, Thornton, Crawford, Adrian Gonzalez, Pujols, Hanley Ramirez, and Fausto Carmona (against the Sox) will continue to play this poorly the remainder of the season (and conversely, Pauly, Jake Arrieta, Granderson, Jeff Franceur, Farnsworth, and Carmona( against the rest of the AL) to play this well the remainder of the season), than not?

Well, let's just engrave the MVP trophy now with Granderson's name now in anticipation of his 56-HR season. Why wait?


I'm still wondering when Chris Shelton's 2006 HR record is going to make the record books.

Gavin
05-20-2011, 01:56 PM
Why don't we just bench Dunn now, instead, since everyone knows he's going to continue to play this badly because there is no possible way a hitter can rebound during the season and hit close to career norms. Because I said so. On the Internet.

Well, Ozzie could start by benching him against lefties. Even if he does rebound to his career stats, he hasn't hit above an .800 OPS against lefties since 2006. 2006! One might think he's not very good against left-handed pitchers.

You know what's odd? He's hitting .252/.369/.458 against righties this season. Not great, but a hell of a lot more tolerable. This is one of the few adjustments a coach can actually make and it's not being done. Fire Ozzie, etc, etc.

kittle42
05-20-2011, 01:58 PM
Why don't we hand it to Adam Dunn, instead, since everyone knows he's going to rebound because there's no possible way a hitter can have a bad season at the plate.

Dunn's numbers, at the end of the season, have been remarkably consistent over the past years. His not rebounding would be much more surprising than a rebound. Could it not happen? Yes - he could end up having the worst season of his career, no question. But historic trends make it more likely that it won't be the case. Dunn is widely considered one of those "you know what you're paying for" type performers. We can only hope at this point that a return to the mean occurs.

Ranger
05-20-2011, 02:09 PM
But the 9% is probably good teams that are playing badly for the first 50 games; not bad teams that get lucky for the next 110.
Also, so if the Sox are a good team, the odds are much better than 9% because most of the teams that are below 500 after 50 games are bad. (did that make any sense?).

Also to consider is that it likely will not take 90 wins to win this division. The 9% is thus understated.

Just saying that things are more hopeful than the article suggests.

This, I think, is more along the lines of being accurate. Of course, when taking in all of the numbers historically, the majority of teams that are in poor position at this point of the season do not make a playoff run. However, the difference, in this case, is that most good teams don't start off this poorly. I still think this Sox team is a good one and have only started to play closer to the level I assumed they would play at the beginning of the year.

Basically, wouldn't you rather be the 20-25 White Sox than the 20-23 Pirates or Nationals? The numbers will most definitely prove to be true for Pittsburgh and Washington, but don't you believe the situation is a little different for the Sox?

Ultimately, we'll see if they keep playing good ball and if the Indians begin their regression (which I still believe will happen). Cleveland just might win the Central, but I would still be surprised if they did. If anything, Detroit is the team to beat, at this point.

rdivaldi
05-20-2011, 03:50 PM
You are incredibly forgiving, but I do tend to think the Sox HAVE to improve their hitting (they are fourth lowest in BABIP at 0.271). I'm just not yet convinced, though, that they are simply "not a bad team by any stretch".

Forgiving? Maybe. I just tend to look at a player's complete body of work and go from there. I will admit that occasionally players have seasons that are complete anomalies, but veterans tend to fall or rise to their career averages by the end of the season. I like our chances against the division for the full 162 games.

BringHomeDaBacon
05-20-2011, 04:19 PM
Rios has now hit .258 from 2009-2011. Dunn is a lifetime .249 hitter learning a new league. Gordon Beckham is now a .253 lifetime hitter. Juan Pierre hit a career worst .275 last year and is now a 33 year old player that relied on speed showing obvious signs of decline. Third base appears to be a black hole.

While I expect the offense to rebound, I worry that the rebound may not be dramatic enough to compensate for the deficit that has been created. (I agree that Rios' and Pierre's stats have been cherry picked from recent annual performances to demonstrate worst case possibilities.)

TDog
05-20-2011, 04:30 PM
Actually...

The stats for this season are a better example of how they are playing this season.

... so far.

There are players who are having down years because they are playing with injuries, have slowed down due to age or wear-and-tear, but overall, a player's stats though mid-May are not a good predictor of what his stats will be in late September.

Look at the players who have at least as many home runs as Adam Dunn. Does anyone believe Alexei Ramirez will hit more home runs than Adam Dunn this year? Even Nate Shierholtz has just one less home run than Adam Dunn.

BringHomeDaBacon
05-20-2011, 05:15 PM
This, I think, is more along the lines of being accurate. Of course, when taking in all of the numbers historically, the majority of teams that are in poor position at this point of the season do not make a playoff run. However, the difference, in this case, is that most good teams don't start off this poorly. I still think this Sox team is a good one and have only started to play closer to the level I assumed they would play at the beginning of the year.

Basically, wouldn't you rather be the 20-25 White Sox than the 20-23 Pirates or Nationals? The numbers will most definitely prove to be true for Pittsburgh and Washington, but don't you believe the situation is a little different for the Sox?

Ultimately, we'll see if they keep playing good ball and if the Indians begin their regression (which I still believe will happen). Cleveland just might win the Central, but I would still be surprised if they did. If anything, Detroit is the team to beat, at this point.

Hafner to the DL for 3-4 weeks. It seems the regression may have begun even before the first pitch was tossed today. Detroit has the best two starters in the division and the best player but the rest of the team is far from formidable. Giddyup!

johnny bench
05-20-2011, 05:17 PM
I get all my baseball analysis from the Wall Street Journal :rolleyes:

**** the WSJ. I get my insight from the Lex column in Financial Times.

Nelfox02
05-20-2011, 10:16 PM
I just look at it this way----does cleveland win the Central? If they do, well I would say the Sox chances are virtually nil, not impossible but it will be a challenge....but if the answer is no, then who does? I think 95% of us would say KC is not doing it this year....Twins? uh, maybe.....but I dont think even second half Twin magic saves them this season......so that leaves the Kitties....who we are what 3 games behind going into tonight? if the we hang out to win we are 2 back of them.......thats nothing

Gavin
05-20-2011, 10:50 PM
I just look at it this way----does cleveland win the Central? If they do, well I would say the Sox chances are virtually nil, not impossible but it will be a challenge....but if the answer is no, then who does? I think 95% of us would say KC is not doing it this year....Twins? uh, maybe.....but I dont think even second half Twin magic saves them this season......so that leaves the Kitties....who we are what 3 games behind going into tonight? if the we hang out to win we are 2 back of them.......thats nothing

Seriously, this makes little to no sense. The White Sox are in fourth place. They should be concerned about every single team ahead of them.

RadioheadRocks
05-22-2011, 02:37 AM
If any team in recent history is the exception its the Rockies.

The Rockies were 15-24 on this date in 2009, and they would go on to capture the wild-card with over 90 wins.

The 2007 Rockies were 18-26 and they also won the wild card.

Lest we forget our opponents in the World Series, who were 15-30 at one point in '05.

captain54
05-22-2011, 02:48 AM
Lest we forget our opponents in the World Series, who were 15-30 at one point in '05.

I wonder if it's ever going to be possible, to one year, SOME year, as Sox fans, to abandon this "miracle comeback" talk, and revel in the fact that our team dominates its opponents from April thru October.

This franchise needs an overhaul. It's time, gang. Any thoughts of mounting a miracle comeback and pulling an 83' Sox run is just delaying
the realization that this is an organization with a bad farm system, a horrible hitting coach, bad fundamental players, and a general manager who has no problem overpaying for mediocre players.

RadioheadRocks
05-22-2011, 02:54 AM
If any team in recent history is the exception its the Rockies.

The Rockies were 15-24 on this date in 2009, and they would go on to capture the wild-card with over 90 wins.

The 2007 Rockies were 18-26 and they also won the wild card.

I wonder if it's ever going to be possible, to one year, SOME year, as Sox fans, to abandon this "miracle comeback" talk, and revel in the fact that our team dominates its opponents from April thru October.

This franchise needs an overhaul. It's time, gang. Any thoughts of mounting a miracle comeback and pulling an 83' Sox run is just delaying
the realization that this is an organization with a bad farm system, a horrible hitting coach, bad fundamental players, and a general manager who has no problem overpaying for mediocre players.


Wasn't talking about a "miracle comeback"... merely pointing out another example that flies in the face of what the WSJ is reporting.

Dan H
05-22-2011, 03:12 AM
One thing the White Sox have going for them is that there is no real dominant team in the AL this year. The Red Sox started off slow, too, the Yankees have been up and down and the Rangers are hanging around .500. They need to go 5-5 on this road trip, and then they will have a chance to salvage this season. But comparisons to other teams or years don't mean much. It is up to the Sox to stop beating themselves and play some consistent baseball. It is too early to write them off, but it isn't too early to be concerned. They have played some really bad baseball.

TheVulture
05-22-2011, 03:21 AM
I wonder if it's ever going to be possible, to one year, SOME year, as Sox fans, to abandon this "miracle comeback" talk, and revel in the fact that our team dominates its opponents from April thru October.


I hate to revel in the past, but does 2005 ring a bell?

Let's hope it happens again soon!:gulp:

I wouldn't consider the Sox coming back to make the playoffs at this point miraculous, either. You never know, 83-85 wins might win the division.

captain54
05-22-2011, 03:23 AM
Wasn't talking about a "miracle comeback"... merely pointing out another example that flies in the face of what the WSJ is reporting.

I was using your post as more or less an example of what we're used to with the Sox the last few years.. trying to recover from some really bad stretches of baseball.

captain54
05-22-2011, 03:28 AM
I hate to revel in the past, but does 2005 ring a bell?

.

it does ring a bell, but that was 6 seasons ago. 2005 is not gonna put fans in the seats at the Cell if the Sox can't right the ship and show they're worthy of playoff baseball.

ode to veeck
05-22-2011, 08:59 AM
Don't forget our 83 Sox; 16-24 on May 26th and finished 99-63 and won the West by 20 games.

The '83 Sox ended up with the best regular season record in MLB "Winning Ugly".

kufram
05-22-2011, 09:22 AM
Seriously, this makes little to no sense. The White Sox are in fourth place. They should be concerned about every single team ahead of them.


I don't think the White Sox should be concerned about any team other than the White Sox.

balke
05-22-2011, 09:42 AM
My own personal feeling is that this next road trip playing 3 tough teams (Texas, Toronto and Boston) just might be the make or break point of the season. I think if we can take 2 out of 3 with LA and go 5-5 on the road trip we still can contend what with all the home games we have coming up in June, July and August.


June's schedule is extremely easy looking. July right after the break - there's a ton of games with the Tigers (whom I believe will be in 1st place at that time).

Things are starting to look up. This should be the time right now where Dunn hits .260 with 16 homeruns for the next month - which could help.

ZombieRob
05-22-2011, 09:46 AM
June's schedule is extremely easy looking. July right after the break - there's a ton of games with the Tigers (whom I believe will be in 1st place at that time).

Things are starting to look up. This should be the time right now where Dunn hits .260 with 16 homeruns for the next month - which could help.
Bad thing is the Sox could be completely out of it by June. This last stretch before June is going to be horrible. We stink against Texas in Texas, We stink against the Jays, especially up there, Boston will be tough.

StillMissOzzie
05-22-2011, 09:25 PM
This is why the WSJ should stick to what it knows best.

I get all my baseball analysis from the Wall Street Journal :rolleyes:

Yes, Wall Street and the WSJ should stick to what they know best, such as wild speculative investments, government bailouts, and ****ing up the American economy. Leave baseball to the experts like us here at WSI.

I still think that the AL Central is winnable, and I sure as hell don't think that the Tribe will continue to flirt with a 0.700 pace for the rest of the season.

SMO
:gulp:

asindc
05-23-2011, 09:20 AM
I wonder if it's ever going to be possible, to one year, SOME year, as Sox fans, to abandon this "miracle comeback" talk, and revel in the fact that our team dominates its opponents from April thru October.

This franchise needs an overhaul. It's time, gang. Any thoughts of mounting a miracle comeback and pulling an 83' Sox run is just delaying
the realization that this is an organization with a bad farm system, a horrible hitting coach, bad fundamental players, and a general manager who has no problem overpaying for mediocre players.

Do you think the overhaul should start now?

captain54
05-23-2011, 11:23 AM
Do you think the overhaul should start now?

I wouldn't have any problem playing out the string at least until the All-Star Break to see if the Sox can get to .500. All of this depends on how hot Cleveland stays.

sox1970
05-23-2011, 11:29 AM
I wouldn't have any problem playing out the string at least until the All-Star Break to see if the Sox can get to .500. All of this depends on how hot Cleveland stays.

You do know they're 22-26, right?

This team could be at .500 by the end of this trip, and certainly by the time they play the bulk of interleague play, starting June 17.

14-9 the next 23 games would be good enough, and then hopefully 9-6 the rest of interleague play, and 5-2 at home vs KC and Min the final week before the break will put them at 50-43 at the break. They'll be right there by then.