PDA

View Full Version : *Official* July 4 Fireworks upstaged by Adam Bomb, Sox 5-4 balkoff winner postgamer


Frater Perdurabo
07-04-2011, 09:47 PM
It's about time!

soltrain21
07-04-2011, 09:48 PM
Dunn will end this.

Booya.

russ99
07-04-2011, 09:48 PM
Balk off!! :D:

Soxfest
07-04-2011, 09:48 PM
Never seen a Sox game end on a balk before. .500 again.

WhiteSox5187
07-04-2011, 09:49 PM
Well, that was a weird way to end a game, but a win is a win. I also loved that Dunn tipped his cap after that single, I am glad to see he kept his sense of humor. I HOPE that that went a long way to buying him some good will. That home run should help too.

mark2olson
07-04-2011, 09:50 PM
Back to .500 on a balk, I'll take it.

PalehosePlanet
07-04-2011, 09:51 PM
Never seen a Sox game end on a balk before. .500 again.

Me neither, just glad this game didn't go extras.

Another frustrating night for the most part, but a win is win is a win.

Domeshot17
07-04-2011, 09:53 PM
What spooked Dunn during the post game?

Great to see him smiling. This guy's slump was so mental, a story came out about him seeing a team psychologist. Hopefully this was a breakout game for him.

Blueprint1
07-04-2011, 09:54 PM
I hope this was the break out game for Dunn.

LITTLE NELL
07-04-2011, 09:56 PM
Way to come back, 5 or 6 wins on the homestand would be great heading into the break.

Navarro's Talent
07-04-2011, 09:57 PM
I hope Dunn keeps on hitting. The one thing this team's been missing has been great offense, and Dunn can help stop that.

October26
07-04-2011, 09:57 PM
I loved it when DJ yelled "BALK!" on the radio broadcast! Great call & great Sox win! :bandance:

EMachine10
07-04-2011, 09:58 PM
What spooked Dunn during the post game?

Great to see him smiling. This guy's slump was so mental, a story came out about him seeing a team psychologist. Hopefully this was a breakout game for him.
I assumed it was a shaving cream attack, but it didn't really appear so.

34rancher
07-04-2011, 10:03 PM
Congrats on a great heartfelt win on the fourth.

Adam, congrats on a much better game. Best game for him in over a month. I've been more critical of him than anyone, but great job today.

I don't know if I've ever seen a sox balk off. That was surreal. Gotta imagine the fireworks show tonight will be great for the people in attendance.

soxfanreggie
07-04-2011, 10:16 PM
I loved it when DJ yelled "BALK!" on the radio broadcast! Great call & great Sox win! :bandance:

I have to watch the games on TV, DJ is terrible. At least Farmer's voice doesn't give me headaches anymore.

chisox77
07-04-2011, 10:17 PM
Looked like a pretty good crowd. Great win for the White Sox.

balke
07-04-2011, 10:24 PM
That's the Royals team I know so well.

Lip Man 1
07-04-2011, 10:29 PM
You take a win anyway you can get it.

Lip

johnnyg83
07-04-2011, 10:30 PM
Silver cloud: Good win. Good crowd. If Dunn can get even a whisper of his bang back, we could be dangerous.

Dark cloud: 1 for 10 w/ RISP.

TDog
07-04-2011, 10:31 PM
Never seen a Sox game end on a balk before. .500 again.

This is the third game in the majors this year to end with a balk, which is more than I've ever seen before. Maybe it's because pitchers are being rushed to the majors. Maybe not. Certainly not a good night for Aaron Crow, who really deserved to lose this game. Sergio Santos didn't particularly deserve to win it. Nonetheless, the White Sox won, and it was glorious. Because MLB showed the bottom of the ninth live, I didn't have to pick up the dirty version on the street.

The first time I saw a game end with a balk was a little sad. I was watching the Red Sox and Angels play on KTLA in 1986. It was a great July game. The Angels scored three in the top of the 12th to take a 7-4 lead. The Red Sox came back to tie the game in the bottom of the inning on a one-out Jim Rice homer and a Rich Gedman single following an error and a walk. Another Angels error sent the winning run to third. Gene Mauch went to the bullpen for rookie Todd Fischer. Before Fischer threw a pitch, home plate umpire Joe Brinkman waved his arms and the game was over. Fischer was sent back down to Edmonton and never returned to the majors.

I have been to games that ended with bases-loaded walks. But there is something odd about getting ready to see a pitch that could end the game and instead seeing the umpire wave his arms and simply end the game. I saw the Sox tie a game on a Jason Isringhausen ninth-inning balk in 2000 (I cut my hand on the upper-deck roof cheering that play), but what made that game special was Jose Valentin scoring the winning run in the 10th on a Frank Thomas double.

This is a game that the White Sox should have won in nine. Perhaps the balk robbed Adam Dunn of his most glorious White Sox night to date. He gave the Sox the lead in the eighth and was in a position to win it in the ninth. Instead, the umpire just seemed to concede the game to the Sox as a golfer in a friendly game might concede a putt. Crow clearly balked, of course. Perhaps facing Dunn after allowing the home run messed up his rhythm, especially with Paul Konerko on deck.

Santos dodged a bullet. He blew a save that didn't cost the Sox a loss. Dunn had no chance to diminish his heroism to put the Sox in the lead. The Sox didn't hit with runners in scoring position. Of course, it isn't necessary to hit with runners in scoring position to win games. The Royals were leading the league in hitting with runners in scoring position a week ago, and they are in last place. The Twins recently won a game going 0-for-10 with runners in scoring position. Wins and losses are all that matter. More glaring was Mark Teahen failing to get the winning run home from third with one out. It will be forgotten by most, although it might be discussed at great length in this thread. The bottom line is that the White Sox should have won this game in nine after Dunn's home run, and they won this game in nine. No problem.

An interesting side note to this game. The White Sox and Royals have now played three games. In those three games, the two teams have combined for five blown saves.

Dan H
07-04-2011, 10:43 PM
It was a frustrating thing to watch at times but the Sox also did some things real well, especially on defense. Buehrle was his usual reliable self. Nice to see Dunn enjoy himself but this team needs to execute with men on base. Also nice to see another come from behind win. Those have been rare.

hawkjt
07-04-2011, 10:45 PM
6 of the Sox last 8 games with KC have been one run affairs. Sox are 3-3 in those games. KC is just a better offensive team than the Sox and despite having the worst ERA in the AL, it seems like they pitch the Sox tough anyway. Lookout,because the Royals have another soft-tossing lefty,Chen, going on Wednesday...not good for the Sox.

I was immediately wishing that Ozzie had considered going with Sale in the 9th,considering the Royals had a bunch of lefties coming up in the 9th.
They were just seeing Sergio very well,and hit him very hard. Got lucky to only give up one. I swear,last year, Alex flags down that homer,but he is a step slower in centerfield this year,and completely lost at the plate again.
He is just as inexplicable as Dunn to me.

Dunn is getting closer,as both of his hits were still not really squared up,but at least he is hitting it.
Carlos,Alex and Alexei are in a deep,total pull swing funk right now. The frustration of Hawk after PK leads off the inning with a double,only to have Carlos swinging from the heels,certain to pull a grounder,cept he struck out...just like Alexei...PK is about the only guy who takes a different approach vs a soft-tossing lefty....drives me nuts.

Hey, not all bad,tho. AJ did a great job pinch-hitting with and 0-2 count and making contact,then good base running. Juan was disciplined enough not to swing and miss on a 3-2 count on a pitch that Teahen could not lay off of...and then the balk....thankfully.

Tribe is playing the Yanks and had a nice comeback win tonite,but Yanks can still get a couple...big week can still be had for the Sox..Bluejays come into Cleveland next,and the Tigers are losing to the Angels tonite.
Sox need to start hitting NOW!!

captain54
07-04-2011, 10:45 PM
The Sox didn't hit with runners in scoring position. Of course, it isn't necessary to hit with runners in scoring position to win games.

.

the reason the Royals are in last place is because they are last in the AL in pitching and 29th out of 30 in MLB. They give up almost 5 runs a game. So sure, it doesn't matter that they can hit with RISP.

if you think that the Sox can continue to fail with RISP, especially with man on third with less than two, and be at the top of the divison when all is said and done, you are sadly mistaken.

Tragg
07-04-2011, 10:48 PM
Santos just needs a couple of days off, I'd think; 4 games in 5 days.

spongyfungy
07-04-2011, 11:07 PM
Dunn was the first one to notice it and then told the ump who quickly called it. It might have been a simultaneous recognition. Who knows, who cares. I bet that homer he gave up to him earlier was on his mind thouhg.

Dunn nodded in approval as AJ walks in. I love it.

cws05champ
07-04-2011, 11:07 PM
A win is a win....hopefully this gets Adam going.

A really weird day, Cubs lose on a walk off wild pitch, and Sox win on a walk off balk.

tacosalbarojas
07-04-2011, 11:09 PM
The Isringhausen game was awesome. Maybe my favorite that I attended in 2000.

sunofgold
07-04-2011, 11:11 PM
White Sox winner. We hit 2 bombs! That is nice. See what a difference Dunn can make.

This is the first time that I remember winning a game b/c Dunn was the 'difference maker'. I think that Dunn will break out his slump.

Right now I am more worried about Rios. Don't remember him being a 'difference maker' in a game this season.

Nelfox02
07-04-2011, 11:14 PM
fun win.....and a win is a win. lots of good tonight---Mark was solid, Dunn with the out of nowhere crucial bomb.....crazy finish with the balk.....Quentin even had a nice catch out there.....


but again a lot of just terrible at bats and lack of execution with men in scoring position.....Rios, I dont know if it is his expressions, approach, results, or all of the about but man does that guy just give off the I dont give a **** vibe.....it just seems like he gives away at bats. first half last year it seemed he was GREAT at getting men in, smoking balls on the ground past short for hits.....now? awful

Santos not sharp.....I thought for sure he would give up a few more (Mitch came oh so close to a back breaking bomb).......but all is well that ends well

one of my biggest complaints for a long time was this team just did not come back, sixth inning or later, even if down by 1 or 2 runs, we just died. Recently we have bucked that trend, even with the hitting woes....nice to see

go get em tomorrow Peavy.....ice this series

Brian26
07-04-2011, 11:15 PM
I have been to games that ended with bases-loaded walks. But there is something odd about getting ready to see a pitch that could end the game and instead seeing the umpire wave his arms and simply end the game. I saw the Sox tie a game on a Jason Isringhausen ninth-inning balk in 2000 (I cut my hand on the upper-deck roof cheering that play), but what made that game special was Jose Valentin scoring the winning run in the 10th on a Frank Thomas double.

I remember that game. Valentin had one of the great slides of all time into homeplate. He beat the tag, popped up and then fell backwards down to the ground. That was a big win.

Nelfox02
07-04-2011, 11:15 PM
oh yeah----forgot Castro....it wont get much discussion but he had a big HR tonight. great back up catcher.....has a solid arm, calls a good game, and always seems to come up with an RBI hit of some kind when he plays.

TDog
07-04-2011, 11:17 PM
the reason the Royals are in last place is because they are last in the AL in pitching and 29th out of 30 in MLB. They give up almost 5 runs a game. So sure, it doesn't matter that they can hit with RISP.

if you think that the Sox can continue to fail with RISP, especially with man on third with less than two, and be at the top of the divison when all is said and done, you are sadly mistaken.

Hitting with runners in scoring position isn't nearly as relevant as people believe it is. Last season, the Giants were more than 10 points below the league average, and they won the World Series.

It is not a predictive statistic. If a team comes into the game hitting .286 with runners in scoring position, that would be great, at least relative to the rest of the league. But that doesn't predict that given seven at bats with runners in scoring position with get two hits to maintain the .286 average.

Just about ever fan base bemoans their team's inability to hit with runners in scoring position, in part because even a team with a great batting average with runners in scoring position will come through less than one third of the time. Get two or three of those hits in an inning and fans may think that's the way it should be done all the time. Go 0-for-4 after that, and you're back down to a robust .286. Every team is hitting in the .200s, and the averages are built on great innings and games around what would appear to be droughts.

HomeFish
07-04-2011, 11:25 PM
My favorite thing about balks is that the umpire's signal for it is just literally pointing and yelling at the pitcher.

NLaloosh
07-04-2011, 11:33 PM
Woo hoo! Dunn drove in 2 ! Keep it goin!

ElevenUp
07-04-2011, 11:38 PM
Just got back from the game. Awesome to see Dunn hit a bomb. I've been to 3 games this year and Dunn has homered in 2 of them. It was great that they scored in the bottom of the 9th because the Royals were all over Santos tonight. The fireworks show at the end of the game was outstanding!

doublem23
07-04-2011, 11:38 PM
Just got home. Lots were a mess on the way out, but hey, I'm floating on Cloud 9.

SephClone89
07-04-2011, 11:45 PM
Went to the game with my whole family...first time all five of us had been to the park together since Clinton was president in 2000.

What an absolutely crazy game. Adam Dunn with a scrappy fly hit? Adam Dunn with a moonshot go-ahead homer in the seventh? Lillibridge, who'd been having a good night at the plate and in the field, being pinch hit for Juan Pierre?

A single, a sacrifice and a wild pitch to get the winning run on third with one out? Then a balk-off win with Adam Dunn at the plate!? :o:

It was ****ing awesome. :D:

PeteWard
07-04-2011, 11:56 PM
Not to take anything away from an exciting win, but my heart really would appreciate a blow out victory. How about tomorrow?

FielderJones
07-05-2011, 12:00 AM
Another happy customer -- got home shortly after 10:00 but had to battle for the computer. I turned to FJ Jr when Dunn came up in the 8th and told him the place would explode if he hit a homer here. It turned out all right.

So, in honor of a guy getting the Sox fans back on his side --

3khH9ih2XJg

soxnut1018
07-05-2011, 12:04 AM
That was the most fun I've had at a Sox game in a long. The standing ovation after Dunn got a hit was awesome. Hopefully tonight gets him going.

tstrike2000
07-05-2011, 12:04 AM
Watching him hit that, no wonder people thought Dunn was good for 50 homers before the season. That ball had no business going out of the park with him getting underneath it off the end of the bat, but when you're that strong, stuff happens.

slavko
07-05-2011, 12:07 AM
Rios has to get that HR ball. He just coasted back and was in no position to jump from a firm base, then whiffed on the catch. I missed the top 9th and saw the play on the highlights. What was Santos throwing? Has he lost the release point on his slider again?

Dunn saying that after working with Walker (finally) he feels in balance for the first time this year. Was his chew tobacco moved from one back pocket to the other? Talk's cheap, AD, let's see this continue.

Zakath
07-05-2011, 12:08 AM
Just got back from the game. Awesome to see Dunn hit a bomb. I've been to 3 games this year and Dunn has homered in 2 of them. It was great that they scored in the bottom of the 9th because the Royals were all over Santos tonight. The fireworks show at the end of the game was outstanding!

I think you need to start going to more games...

ElevenUp
07-05-2011, 12:13 AM
Rios has to get that HR ball. He just coasted back and was in no position to jump from a firm base, then whiffed on the catch. I missed the top 9th and saw the play on the highlights. What was Santos throwing? Has he lost the release point on his slider again?

Dunn saying that after working with Walker (finally) he feels in balance for the first time this year. Was his chew tobacco moved from one back pocket to the other? Talk's cheap, AD, let's see this continue.

Rios looked lazy all night. His at bats were horrible. I wouldn't mind if Ozzie sat his ass on the bench for a week or two just to light a fire.

hi im skot
07-05-2011, 12:22 AM
Rios looked lazy all night. His at bats were horrible. I wouldn't mind if Ozzie sat his ass on the bench for a week or two just to light a fire.

Yep. Rios was useless tonight. As my dad pointed out, he often seems like he'd rather be anywhere but at the ballpark.

hawkjt
07-05-2011, 12:34 AM
Rios was in a no-doubles defense positioning in the 9th,right? I thought he could have gotten to the wall quicker and been in better position to snag that ball. I think Lilly would have gotten it. I would not mind having Lilly play center tomorrow nite,to send a bit of a message to Alex. Melton hinted at his body language tonite in the postgame,like he was not giving great effort. Toronto sure made out by keeping Bautista,and letting Wells and Rios go...I thought Rios was going to be like Bautista. I watched him today vs the Red Sox and that guy squares up at least three balls a nite,Alex might have 3 in the last month. Even his hits are weak.
He is 3 of his last 25...came out of it briefly a few weeks ago,but is now disappearing back into the funk ....arrrgh.:angry:

soxfan1965
07-05-2011, 12:43 AM
Looking at Dunn bat against the Cubs the other day (against Garza) he got often got behind in the count for his usual strikeouts. If pitchers are going to give Dunn strikes early, maybe he needs to change his tendancy to go deep into the count and go for the early pitches if they are strikes. As long as the bases are clear for the double play, what does he have to lose at this point?

Glad to see Dunn getting his much needed 2 run bomb on a 1-1 pitch. Great game Dunn, keep it up.

voodoochile
07-05-2011, 12:58 AM
Wow nice win. Nice to see Donkey doing his thing Dunn is definitely key for the Sox to have a big second half.

Others have already said everything else and by now the late games are over so...

.500! (again) 3.5 games back...

:soxwin:

:)

:supernana:

DumpJerry
07-05-2011, 01:09 AM
Another happy customer -- got home shortly after 10:00 but had to battle for the computer. I turned to FJ Jr when Dunn came up in the 8th and told him the place would explode if he hit a homer here. It turned out all right.

So, in honor of a guy getting the Sox fans back on his side --
It was good running into you before the game. The Cleveland people who were with me had a great time.

If I had started this thread, my title would have been "Balk this way."

captain54
07-05-2011, 01:11 AM
Just about ever fan base bemoans their team's inability to hit with runners in scoring position, and the averages are built on great innings and games around what would appear to be droughts.

I watch about every game and those 1-9's, 1-10's, 2-10' w/RISP seem to appear rather frequently.

TDog
07-05-2011, 01:50 AM
I watch about every game and those 1-9's, 1-10's, 2-10' w/RISP seem to appear rather frequently.

And yet, the Sox aren't hitting .100 or .111 as a team, so there are other occasions when they are doing appreciably better. The White Sox, like most teams in baseball, are within 10 points of .250.

Today the White Sox went 1-for-10 (.100) with runners in scoring position, and that hit only moved a runner from second to third. No RBIs with runners in scoring position, and yet they won the game. Even without the balk (Dunn had already homered off Crow and Konerko was up next, and was hitting over .300 this year with runners in scoring position as well as hitting over .300 overall, so there was an excellent chance the run would have scored), they scored as many runs in nine innings as the Royals who went 2-for-5 (.400) with runners in scoring position.

Hitting with runners in scoring position defines MVPs. Sunday's loss to the Cubs was the only loss in more than a week where the White Sox failed to outhit their opponent with runners in scoring position. If you watch a lot of other teams play baseball this year, you are going to see a lot of 1-for-10 and 2-for-10 nights.

If you win, it isn't a problem.

captain54
07-05-2011, 02:07 AM
If you win, it isn't a problem.

That's a big "IF"... and right now, the Sox are not a winning ballclub. Struggling to be average. So based on the way things are at this point in the season, I would say it is a problem.

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2011, 02:08 AM
It isn't just about BA with RISP. How many times have they failed to even launch a sac fly or a grounder to the right side with a runner at third and fewer than two outs? It seems to always be strikeouts and popups.

SephClone89
07-05-2011, 02:24 AM
My favorite thing about balks is that the umpire's signal for it is just literally pointing and yelling at the pitcher.

:cool:

I have to say, RE: Dunn's night...there are few things more satisfying in sports than seeing the goat come good. We saw it with Dunn, you see it when a struggling running back explodes for a 100-yard game, or when a striker in a mediocre season scores the winning goal. It is just so compelling for me.

captain54
07-05-2011, 02:54 AM
It isn't just about BA with RISP. How many times have they failed to even launch a sac fly or a grounder to the right side with a runner at third and fewer than two outs? It seems to always be strikeouts and popups.

I would say that the Sox DO NOT bring the runner home from third with less than two more often than they do. I'll go even further to say that if this team could've brought home the guy from 3rd with less than two even 1/2 the time, they'd be in first place..easily

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2011, 06:31 AM
Hitting with runners in scoring position isn't nearly as relevant as people believe it is. Last season, the Giants were more than 10 points below the league average, and they won the World Series.

It is not a predictive statistic. If a team comes into the game hitting .286 with runners in scoring position, that would be great, at least relative to the rest of the league. But that doesn't predict that given seven at bats with runners in scoring position with get two hits to maintain the .286 average.

Just about ever fan base bemoans their team's inability to hit with runners in scoring position, in part because even a team with a great batting average with runners in scoring position will come through less than one third of the time. Get two or three of those hits in an inning and fans may think that's the way it should be done all the time. Go 0-for-4 after that, and you're back down to a robust .286. Every team is hitting in the .200s, and the averages are built on great innings and games around what would appear to be droughts.

It's not necessarily the low batting average with RISP, but rather the GIDP rate and the failure even to hit sac flies.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2011, 06:35 AM
It was good running into you before the game. The Cleveland people who were with me had a great time.

If I had started this thread, my title would have been "Balk this way."

Are you balking at my thread title? :)

cws05champ
07-05-2011, 07:49 AM
Dunn's hat tipping reaction to the crowd after his single was priceless. Everyone is frustrated as hell with Dunn, but he gets it. He knows that he sucks right now but hopefully this bit of levity gets his head straight and will be Adam Dunn again.

DumpJerry
07-05-2011, 07:58 AM
It isn't just about BA with RISP. How many times have they failed to even launch a sac fly or a grounder to the right side with a runner at third and fewer than two outs? It seems to always be strikeouts and popups.

Come on, Nellie, don't you know the pleasure of baseball comes from reading the stats and not the suspense that precedes each pitch?

Are you balking at my thread title? :)
Ummm.....well........uh.......

kufram
07-05-2011, 08:25 AM
Dunn's hat tipping reaction to the crowd after his single was priceless. Everyone is frustrated as hell with Dunn, but he gets it. He knows that he sucks right now but hopefully this bit of levity gets his head straight and will be Adam Dunn again.


I'm going to watch the archive of this game when I get home tonight (this afternoon to most of you). I checked on my phone at about 2:00am to see 2nd and 3rd, 2 out and Dunn up. I saw that he'd had a hit and I thought to myself "maybe this is where he gets some fans on his side". Then suddenly the inning was over and I assumed it was going to extras. I couldn't believe it when I saw the score had changed, the game was over, but there was no hit!

I watched the balk this morning and I couldn't see it but I don't care, a win is a win. sometimes I think balks are just called to remind people that they exist. I hope Dunn won some fans over with the hat tip. I'm sure he wants to succeed as much or more than any fan wants him to. Hitting a baseball is very hard to do at the best of times but when you don't think you can hit it, it's bloody impossible.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 08:59 AM
It isn't just about BA with RISP. How many times have they failed to even launch a sac fly or a grounder to the right side with a runner at third and fewer than two outs? It seems to always be strikeouts and popups.

The Sox are tied for 4th in the AL in Sac flies.

I would say that the Sox DO NOT bring the runner home from third with less than two more often than they do. I'll go even further to say that if this team could've brought home the guy from 3rd with less than two even 1/2 the time, they'd be in first place..easily

Maybe they do, maybe they don't, obviously though, what's important is their performance against the league average. Sure, we'd all love the Sox to score runners from 3rd 90% of the time, but if the league average is only say, 33% (and I have no idea if that is accurate or not, I don't feel like looking that up right now), then if the Sox are only doing it 35% of the time, OK that doesn't mean your arbitrary standard of what's good and what's not, but when you actually base ratings on reality, hey, that's not looking so bad any more.

It's the same **** with the BA with RISP, everyone complains and bitches like the Sox are the only team in the league who struggle to hit in those situations, makes a total fool of themselves, and all it takes is about 15 seconds on the internet to see that the Sox are actually right in the middle of the road compared to how the rest of the league is doing.

Carolina Kenny
07-05-2011, 09:17 AM
Rios has to get that HR ball. He just coasted back and was in no position to jump from a firm base, then whiffed on the catch. I missed the top 9th and saw the play on the highlights. What was Santos throwing? Has he lost the release point on his slider again?

Dunn saying that after working with Walker (finally) he feels in balance for the first time this year. Was his chew tobacco moved from one back pocket to the other? Talk's cheap, AD, let's see this continue.

I also thought he got to the wall late. With his height and reach, he could have made the play. It would have been great catch. Maybe Lilli would have gotten it? Certainly, DeWayne Wise would have caught it.

I am liking Rios, less and less. He seems awkward sometimes.

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 09:27 AM
It's not necessarily the low batting average with RISP, but rather the GIDP rate and the failure even to hit sac flies.

This (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2011-batting.shtml) (page down to "Team PH /HR/Situ Hitting") indicates the Sox have had 596 opportunities for a GIDP, and done so 73 times (12 percent, compared to 11 percent league-wide).

They have had 279 chances for a productive out (e.g., advancing a runner with none out, driving in a baserunner with a second out) and taken advantage of 87 of them (31 percent, compared to 33 percent league-wide).

Finally, they have had 168 plate appearances with a runner on third with less than two out, and scored the runner 76 times (45 percent, compared to league-wide average of 52 percent).

They strike me (to date--maybe things will improve) as a mediocre team doing mediocre things . . . no more, no less . . .

Moses_Scurry
07-05-2011, 09:42 AM
It isn't just about BA with RISP. How many times have they failed to even launch a sac fly or a grounder to the right side with a runner at third and fewer than two outs? It seems to always be strikeouts and popups.

I have a BINGO!.....do you say it in these way?

Moses_Scurry
07-05-2011, 09:43 AM
It's not necessarily the low batting average with RISP, but rather the GIDP rate and the failure even to hit sac flies.

They hit a lot of potential sac flies. The problem is that they can't do it when there is a runner on 3rd with less than 2 outs.

Chez
07-05-2011, 10:54 AM
Let's get this one tonight. Chen (who throws Wednesday afternoon) is a good pitcher. Looking ahead, it looks like the Sox will miss Liriano when the Twins come to town.

kittle42
07-05-2011, 12:32 PM
I have a BINGO!.....do you say it in these way?

I have wanted to use this line here for a while.

TDog
07-05-2011, 01:28 PM
...
Maybe they do, maybe they don't, obviously though, what's important is their performance against the league average. Sure, we'd all love the Sox to score runners from 3rd 90% of the time, but if the league average is only say, 33% (and I have no idea if that is accurate or not, I don't feel like looking that up right now), then if the Sox are only doing it 35% of the time, OK that doesn't mean your arbitrary standard of what's good and what's not, but when you actually base ratings on reality, hey, that's not looking so bad any more.

It's the same **** with the BA with RISP, everyone complains and bitches like the Sox are the only team in the league who struggle to hit in those situations, makes a total fool of themselves, and all it takes is about 15 seconds on the internet to see that the Sox are actually right in the middle of the road compared to how the rest of the league is doing.

This is what I am saying. Every fan base has higher standards of hitting with runners in scoring position than is realistic for major league baseball. A bigger pet peeve of mine is bringing in runners from third with less than two outs and not moving men to third with none out, which is why I don't like the fact that the Sox offense was built to have so many strikeouts. Being in the middle of the pack in such things isn't being mediocre. It's doing what is expected and being competitive.

I was listening to KNBR, the Giants flagship station, while running errands recently, and someone called in and suggested teams playing the Giants just put a runner on third base at the beginning of every inning to guarantee they won't hit the ball out of the infield. In the two close games the Sox won in Colorado, the Rockies failed in every chance to bring in runners from third base with less than two outs. Earlier this year, I saw the Yankees load the bases with none out in the first inning against the Indians. The Yankees lost that game 1-0. If Alex Rodriguez had hit into a doubleplay, they might have won that game.

The fact is, the Sox have played 11 games above .500 since May 6 because they have done a better job of pitching out of jams with runners in scoring position and runners on third with less than two outs. Against Humber, opposing teams are hitting .160 with runners in scoring position and .143 with runners on third with less than two outs. Even accounting for the two sacrifice flies he's allowed, he is striking out half a third of the hitters who come up against him in that situation. And he's not a strikeout pitcher.

asindc
07-05-2011, 01:43 PM
This is what I am saying. Every fan base has higher standards of hitting with runners in scoring position than is realistic for major league baseball. A bigger pet peeve of mine is bringing in runners from third with less than two outs and not moving men to third with none out, which is why I don't like the fact that the Sox offense was built to have so many strikeouts. Being in the middle of the pack in such things isn't being mediocre. It's doing what is expected and being competitive.

I was listening to KNBR, the Giants flagship station, while running errands recently, and someone called in and suggested teams playing the Giants just put a runner on third base at the beginning of every inning to guarantee they won't hit the ball out of the infield. In the two close games the Sox won in Colorado, the Rockies failed in every chance to bring in runners from third base with less than two outs. Earlier this year, I saw the Yankees load the bases with none out in the first inning against the Indians. The Yankees lost that game 1-0. If Alex Rodriguez had hit into a doubleplay, they might have won that game.

The fact is, the Sox have played 11 games above .500 since May 6 because they have done a better job of pitching out of jams with runners in scoring position and runners on third with less than two outs. Against Humber, opposing teams are hitting .160 with runners in scoring position and .143 with runners on third with less than two outs. Even accounting for the two sacrifice flies he's allowed, he is striking out half a third of the hitters who come up against him in that situation. And he's not a strikeout pitcher.

I agree, which is why I have always, and will always, say that strikeouts are a sign of a less-skillful batter than some seem to think. If a runner draws a walk and then steals 2nd base with no one out, a team's lineup should be skillful enough to score that runner from 2nd without having to get a base hit. It is maddening to me that more players don't take this approach when they have two strikes on them.

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 01:49 PM
This is what I am saying. Every fan base has higher standards of hitting with runners in scoring position than is realistic for major league baseball. A bigger pet peeve of mine is bringing in runners from third with less than two outs and not moving men to third with none out, which is why I don't like the fact that the Sox offense was built to have so many strikeouts. Being in the middle of the pack in such things isn't being mediocre. It's doing what is expected and being competitive.

I was listening to KNBR, the Giants flagship station, while running errands recently, and someone called in and suggested teams playing the Giants just put a runner on third base at the beginning of every inning to guarantee they won't hit the ball out of the infield. In the two close games the Sox won in Colorado, the Rockies failed in every chance to bring in runners from third base with less than two outs. Earlier this year, I saw the Yankees load the bases with none out in the first inning against the Indians. The Yankees lost that game 1-0. If Alex Rodriguez had hit into a doubleplay, they might have won that game.

The fact is, the Sox have played 11 games above .500 since May 6 because they have done a better job of pitching out of jams with runners in scoring position and runners on third with less than two outs. Against Humber, opposing teams are hitting .160 with runners in scoring position and .143 with runners on third with less than two outs. Even accounting for the two sacrifice flies he's allowed, he is striking out half a third of the hitters who come up against him in that situation. And he's not a strikeout pitcher.

My dictionary defines "mediocre" as being of moderate or low quality. I meant "moderate" more than "low." Maybe I should have chosen a different word, but I don't see how anyone can consider a 45 percent rate of advancing a runner from third with less than two outs as being above "moderate" quality given their standard is other MLB teams.

That said, I would agree if the Sox were at the league average of 52 percent, it probably wouldn't make much difference (all else being equal). A quick-and-dirty calculation would indicate it would lead to ten or eleven runs over the course of the 84 games they've played to date, which really isn't that many. (Taking this further, it would lead to 337 rather than the 326 they've scored to date, compared to the 328 they've allowed. Plugging that into the Pythagorean win formula--and I know there are mixed views on that, but it's at hand--that might have led to an extra win to date. Or a record of 43-41 rather than 42-42.) I see no evidence if they were able to advance runners from third as well as other teams do that they'd be in first place.

russ99
07-05-2011, 01:56 PM
This is what I am saying. Every fan base has higher standards of hitting with runners in scoring position than is realistic for major league baseball. A bigger pet peeve of mine is bringing in runners from third with less than two outs and not moving men to third with none out, which is why I don't like the fact that the Sox offense was built to have so many strikeouts. Being in the middle of the pack in such things isn't being mediocre. It's doing what is expected and being competitive.

I was listening to KNBR, the Giants flagship station, while running errands recently, and someone called in and suggested teams playing the Giants just put a runner on third base at the beginning of every inning to guarantee they won't hit the ball out of the infield. In the two close games the Sox won in Colorado, the Rockies failed in every chance to bring in runners from third base with less than two outs. Earlier this year, I saw the Yankees load the bases with none out in the first inning against the Indians. The Yankees lost that game 1-0. If Alex Rodriguez had hit into a doubleplay, they might have won that game.

The fact is, the Sox have played 11 games above .500 since May 6 because they have done a better job of pitching out of jams with runners in scoring position and runners on third with less than two outs. Against Humber, opposing teams are hitting .160 with runners in scoring position and .143 with runners on third with less than two outs. Even accounting for the two sacrifice flies he's allowed, he is striking out half a third of the hitters who come up against him in that situation. And he's not a strikeout pitcher.

Agree completely.

In keeping is this assumption that because the Sox are in the top 10 in payroll, that we should have all-star quality players at each position.

Nobody has that, except maybe the Yankees - and they're short an outfielder or two. Everyone has question marks, and every team has injuries and hot/cold players. In baseball there are no absolutes, they have to play the games.

At this point, we're .500 which is nice considering the bad start. The key to the season will be beating the Twins and Tigers. We'll get to see how the Sox measure up currently before and after the break.

captain54
07-05-2011, 02:05 PM
Finally, they have had 168 plate appearances with a runner on third with less than two out, and scored the runner 76 times (45 percent, compared to league-wide average of 52 percent).



this is exactly my point.. if you do the math, in order for the Sox to be successful 50% of the time with scoring man from 3rd with less than 2 out, they would have scored the runner 84 times as opposed to 76 times, or 8 more times. So that's exactly 50% of the time and STILL less than the league wide average.

Futhermore, take those 8 more times they would have scored the guy and I guarantee you, that translates into at LEAST 5 more wins. Which puts us in first place.

Moses_Scurry
07-05-2011, 02:21 PM
this is exactly my point.. if you do the math, in order for the Sox to be successful 50% of the time with scoring man from 3rd with less than 2 out, they would have scored the runner 84 times as opposed to 76 times, or 8 more times. So that's exactly 50% of the time and STILL less than the league wide average.

Futhermore, take those 8 more times they would have scored the guy and I guarantee you, that translates into at LEAST 5 more wins. Which puts us in first place.

That couldn't possibly be true, could it? That would mean that of those 8 more times, at least 5 of them would have to be in game tying or game winning situations. Since they are at .500, elementary statistics would state that 4 of the 8 times likely happened in games that they won anyway. Then any games that were lost by 2 or more runs would require multiple from those 8 times or else the extra run wouldn't matter.

It sounds like the poster who said that it would be worth maybe 1 more win is correct.

I just feel like even 52% (league average) is pretty crappy. I'd rather they be decidedly above average in this department, which would mean maybe 3-4 more wins and a tighter divisional race.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 02:28 PM
this is exactly my point.. if you do the math, in order for the Sox to be successful 50% of the time with scoring man from 3rd with less than 2 out, they would have scored the runner 84 times as opposed to 76 times, or 8 more times. So that's exactly 50% of the time and STILL less than the league wide average.

Futhermore, take those 8 more times they would have scored the guy and I guarantee you, that translates into at LEAST 5 more wins. Which puts us in first place.

Well that's a facile argument if I've ever seen one.

captain54
07-05-2011, 02:34 PM
Well that's a facile argument if I've ever seen one.

Not really. If you paid closer attention to the games, you'd see that there have been games where the Sox lost by a run, or the game went into extras because the Sox couldn't bring the guy home from third. A 5 game differential is probably a conservative estimate.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 02:40 PM
Not really. If you paid closer attention to the games, you'd see that there have been games where the Sox lost by a run, or the game went into extras because the Sox couldn't bring the guy home from third. A 5 game differential is probably a conservative estimate.

Actually yes, if you look up just 2-3 posts you'd see what happens if you'd bother to "think" about this nonsensical garbage you're posting. Moses_Scurry's analysis isn't even that in depth yet he easily proves that you're "5-game" swing is nothing but emotionally charged bull****.

Hey, if I cherry picked all the situations I'd want the Sox to score runs, by my math, they'd be undefeated, AMIRITE?!?!?

Anybody who has actually watched this White Sox team at all to this point would not be surprised one bit to discover that they are hovering around .500 because that's about as well as they've played - league average. Whether or not that's how the remainder of the season will play out, we'll see.

Moses_Scurry
07-05-2011, 02:44 PM
Actually yes, if you look up just 2-3 posts you'd see what happens if you'd bother to "think" about this nonsensical garbage you're posting. Moses_Scurry's analysis isn't even that in depth yet he easily proves that you're "5-game" swing is nothing but emotionally charged bull****.

Hey, if I cherry picked all the situations I'd want the Sox to score runs, by my math, they'd be undefeated, AMIRITE?!?!?

Anybody who has actually watched this White Sox team at all to this point would not be surprised one bit to discover that they are hovering around .500 because that's about as well as they've played - league average. Whether or not that's how the remainder of the season will play out, we'll see.

The next time I post something in depth will be the first.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 02:45 PM
The next time I post something in depth will be the first.

:cool:

Hey, you're still in the top 1 percentile of this thread, so you got that going for you.

captain54
07-05-2011, 02:50 PM
Moses_Scurry's analysis isn't even that in depth yet he easily proves that you're "5-game" swing is nothing but emotionally charged bull****.

.

I'm not emotionally charged about anything, pal. You're the guy with the snotty, condescending, insulting, over-the-top emotional attitude.

and to think, you posted something a week ago or so and I said you were my "new hero" .. oh well, whatever

It takes absolutely no in depth statistical analysis whatsoever to grasp that during the course of this season, the Sox blew critical opportunities to win a ball game by not driving the runner home from third. All you have to do is watch the games.

voodoochile
07-05-2011, 02:55 PM
I'm not emotionally charged about anything, pal. You're the guy with the snotty, condescending, insulting, over-the-top emotional attitude.

and to think, you posted something a week ago or so and I said you were my "new hero" .. oh well, whatever

It takes absolutely no in depth statistical analysis whatsoever to grasp that during the course of this season, the Sox blew critical opportunities to win a ball game by not driving the runner home from third. All you have to do is watch the games.

Well, duh... BUT (and like my very own, it's HUGE)... You cannot assume that if the Sox were somehow actually hitting league average at this particular stat that the extra runs scored would come at the exact moments we need them and that's the main issue with your supposition...

doublem23
07-05-2011, 03:16 PM
It takes absolutely no in depth statistical analysis whatsoever to grasp that during the course of this season, the Sox blew critical opportunities to win a ball game by not driving the runner home from third. All you have to do is watch the games.

It also takes basically, an elementary understanding of baseball to know how small 8 runs over the course of 80+ games is. The argument here isn't whether or not the Sox have left plenty of chances on the table, the argument here is that A) the Sox actually aren't quite so terrible at getting runners in from 3rd as some of the Debbie Downers would like us to believe and B) even if they were league average, they'd still basically be in the same place.

Now, I'm certain if you cherry picked through the box scores and game recaps, you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox failed to deliver and that had a direct consequence on them losing a ballgame. I'd also be willing to bet that you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox could have driven home a run and there'd have been no effect on the final score. 8 runs over 80 games is simply nothing. Your blind assumption that the only runs the Sox are leaving out there occur in 1 or 2-run losses is where your argument loses all credibility. Anybody who has watched this team play at all cannot possibly argue that the Sox should be anything other than a .500 team right now.

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 03:19 PM
It also takes basically, an elementary understanding of baseball to know how small 8 runs over the course of 80+ games is. The argument here isn't whether or not the Sox have left plenty of chances on the table, the argument here is that A) the Sox actually aren't quite so terrible at getting runners in from 3rd as some of the Debbie Downers would like us to believe and B) even if they were league average, they'd still basically be in the same place.

Now, I'm certain if you cherry picked through the box scores and game recaps, you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox failed to deliver and that had a direct consequence on them losing a ballgame. I'd also be willing to bet that you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox could have driven home a run and there'd have been no effect on the final score. 8 runs over 80 games is simply nothing. Your blind assumption that the only runs the Sox are leaving out there occur in 1 or 2-run losses is where your argument loses all credibility. Anybody who has watched this team play at all cannot possibly argue that the Sox should be anything other than a .500 team right now.

Can I hire you as my editor?

SephClone89
07-05-2011, 03:22 PM
It also takes basically, an elementary understanding of baseball to know how small 8 runs over the course of 80+ games is. The argument here isn't whether or not the Sox have left plenty of chances on the table, the argument here is that A) the Sox actually aren't quite so terrible at getting runners in from 3rd as some of the Debbie Downers would like us to believe and B) even if they were league average, they'd still basically be in the same place.

Now, I'm certain if you cherry picked through the box scores and game recaps, you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox failed to deliver and that had a direct consequence on them losing a ballgame. I'd also be willing to bet that you could find 8 scenarios where the Sox could have driven home a run and there'd have been no effect on the final score. 8 runs over 80 games is simply nothing. Your blind assumption that the only runs the Sox are leaving out there occur in 1 or 2-run losses is where your argument loses all credibility. Anybody who has watched this team play at all cannot possibly argue that the Sox should be anything other than a .500 team right now.

Bravo, sir.

kittle42
07-05-2011, 03:24 PM
It also takes basically, an elementary understanding of baseball to know how small 8 runs over the course of 80+ games is. The argument here isn't whether or not the Sox have left plenty of chances on the table, the argument here is that A) the Sox actually aren't quite so terrible at getting runners in from 3rd as some of the Debbie Downers would like us to believe and B) even if they were league average, they'd still basically be in the same place.

It's all selective memory. People don't really remember when the Sox come through (or, better yet, when the opponent does NOT come through) in these opportunities, and choose only to remember the failures.

TDog
07-05-2011, 03:30 PM
My dictionary defines "mediocre" as being of moderate or low quality. I meant "moderate" more than "low." Maybe I should have chosen a different word, but I don't see how anyone can consider a 45 percent rate of advancing a runner from third with less than two outs as being above "moderate" quality given their standard is other MLB teams.

That said, I would agree if the Sox were at the league average of 52 percent, it probably wouldn't make much difference (all else being equal). A quick-and-dirty calculation would indicate it would lead to ten or eleven runs over the course of the 84 games they've played to date, which really isn't that many. (Taking this further, it would lead to 337 rather than the 326 they've scored to date, compared to the 328 they've allowed. Plugging that into the Pythagorean win formula--and I know there are mixed views on that, but it's at hand--that might have led to an extra win to date. Or a record of 43-41 rather than 42-42.) I see no evidence if they were able to advance runners from third as well as other teams do that they'd be in first place.

Mediocre is a pejorative. Saying the White Sox are mediocre with runners in scoring position carries a connotation that would be wrong to convey. Just about every team is mediocre in the sorts of situational hitting discussed. The Royals are (or were the last time I looked) second in the American League in hitting with runners in scoring position, and yet they are a last place team. Watch games broadcast on MLB with the local announcers, and you will hear just about every local broadcasting team complaining that failing to bring in runners from third with less than two outs has been a problem this season. I've heard the Yankees announcers complain about it.

You can look at averages, but they are out of context and can be deceiving. In the first inning of the first game of the season, Pierre lined a single to center and Beckham doubled down the leftfield line sending Pierre to third. When Dunn struck out, I wrote in the game thread that this was a problem. Konerko singled, scoring Pierre and sending Beckham to third, and people expressed disagreement with my assessment, one or two triggering the language filter. Rios struck out, but Quentin got a two out single to score Beckham. Two strikeouts with runners on third and less than two outs, but the runners scored anyway. The conclusion in the game thread was that strikeouts with runners on base aren't a big deal. I still believe I was right.

The inning was a success because Konerko shortened his swing with two strikes and a runner on third and poked a single to the opposite field. It was a success from a hitting-with-runners-in-scoring-position standpoint. It was a failure in bringing in the runner from third with less than two outs. Fundamentally, the Sox didn't need to get any hits after the Beckham double to score two runs. Dunn need only ground out to second, driving in Pierre and sending Beckham to third where he can score on a Konerko sacrifice fly. Either way, the Sox score two runs.

The averages don't tell you what's going on. The feeling that your team isn't bringing home enough runners from third with less than two outs is pervasive throughout baseball.

captain54
07-05-2011, 03:35 PM
It also takes basically, an elementary understanding of baseball to know how small 8 runs over the course of 80+ games is.


I've played the game from almost the time I could walk, into High School, and have religiously followed the Sox since 1959, so I'm pretty sure I have an elementary understanding of the game. And 8 runs is huge over the course of 80+ games, when you consider how the pitching has had to remain near perfect coupled with our brand of patented WalkerBall AND the fact that we are 3 1/2 games out.


Your blind assumption that the only runs the Sox are leaving out there occur in 1 or 2-run losses is where your argument loses all credibility.

I never said that. There have been 3 or 4 run losses in extras, where the game should have never gone into extras had they scored the guy from third.

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2011, 03:39 PM
The Sox are tied for 4th in the AL in Sac flies.That's ALL sac flies, not just RBI sac flies. Advancing a runner to second or third is nice, but not what I was talking about.

...they have had 168 plate appearances with a runner on third with less than two out, and scored the runner 76 times (45 percent, compared to league-wide average of 52 percent).That is a pretty significant difference. I'd also like to see the percentages when the run would be the tying or go-ahead run.

TDog
07-05-2011, 03:40 PM
I never said that. There have been 3 or 4 run losses in extras, where the game should have never gone into extras had they scored the guy from third.

Similar things could be said by White Sox opponents just for the last two weeks.

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 03:42 PM
Mediocre is a pejorative. Saying the White Sox are mediocre with runners in scoring position carries a connotation that would be wrong to convey. Just about every team is mediocre in the sorts of situational hitting discussed. The Royals are (or were the last time I looked) second in the American League in hitting with runners in scoring position, and yet they are a last place team. Watch games broadcast on MLB with the local announcers, and you will hear just about every local broadcasting team complaining that failing to bring in runners from third with less than two outs has been a problem this season. I've heard the Yankees announcers complain about it.

You can look at averages, but they are out of context and can be deceiving. In the first inning of the first game of the season, Pierre lined a single to center and Beckham doubled down the leftfield line sending Pierre to third. When Dunn struck out, I wrote in the game thread that this was a problem. Konerko singled, scoring Pierre and sending Beckham to third, and people expressed disagreement with my assessment, one or two triggering the language filter. Rios struck out, but Quentin got a two out single to score Beckham. Two strikeouts with runners on third and less than two outs, but the runners scored anyway. The conclusion in the game thread was that strikeouts with runners on base aren't a big deal. I still believe I was right.

The inning was a success because Konerko shortened his swing with two strikes and a runner on third and poked a single to the opposite field. It was a success from a hitting-with-runners-in-scoring-position standpoint. It was a failure in bringing in the runner from third with less than two outs. Fundamentally, the Sox didn't need to get any hits after the Beckham double to score two runs. Dunn need only ground out to second, driving in Pierre and sending Beckham to third where he can score on a Konerko sacrifice fly. Either way, the Sox score two runs.

The averages don't tell you what's going on. The feeling that your team isn't bringing home enough runners from third with less than two outs is pervasive throughout baseball.

I've already said 'Maybe I should have chosen a different word, but I don't see how anyone can consider a 45 percent rate of advancing a runner from third with less than two outs as being above "moderate" quality given their standard is other MLB teams.' Are you saying they've been above "moderate" quality in this?

doublem23 succinctly summarized above what the numbers appear to show. I agree averages can be deceiving, but if you have a better way to address the point that the Sox would "easily" be in first place if their average in scoring runners from third was closer to the league average, then I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise, I don't see your point to me here.

TDog
07-05-2011, 03:43 PM
That's ALL sac flies, not just RBI sac flies. Advancing a runner to second or third is nice, but not what I was talking about. ...

Fly balls that advance runners from second to third, just as swinging ground balls that advance runners to third or second, are not counted as sacrifice flies. A sacrifice fly, by definition, carries an RBI.

kittle42
07-05-2011, 03:45 PM
That's ALL sac flies, not just RBI sac flies. Advancing a runner to second or third is nice, but not what I was talking about.

Rule 10.08 of the official MLB rules states that a sacrifice fly MUST score a runner.

When a batter hits a fly ball and a runner tags from 1B to 2B or from 2B to 3B, it is an at-bat, and not a sacrifice fly.

Frater Perdurabo
07-05-2011, 03:47 PM
This (http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/2011-batting.shtml) (page down to "Team PH /HR/Situ Hitting") indicates the Sox have had 596 opportunities for a GIDP, and done so 73 times (12 percent, compared to 11 percent league-wide).

They have had 279 chances for a productive out (e.g., advancing a runner with none out, driving in a baserunner with a second out) and taken advantage of 87 of them (31 percent, compared to 33 percent league-wide).

Finally, they have had 168 plate appearances with a runner on third with less than two out, and scored the runner 76 times (45 percent, compared to league-wide average of 52 percent).

They strike me (to date--maybe things will improve) as a mediocre team doing mediocre things . . . no more, no less . . .

Thank you for sharing these stats with us. They show the Sox GIDP slightly more than average, make a productive out slightly less than average, and score the runner from third with less than two out less than average. Combine that with the fact that Sox hitters combined have the fewest strikeouts of any team, and we can conclude that the Sox put the ball in play more than most teams, but do so in an unproductive way (popouts, groundouts to the right side, lineouts).

This is confirmed by the fact that the Sox regularly are among the worst teams in BABIP. In fact, they are dead last in the AL since 2003.

Other than Dunn, who always has struck out a lot even in his good seasons, the Sox make more bad contact than other teams.

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2011, 03:48 PM
Okay, I stand corrected on that point. I don't think that used to be the case. Anyway, their percentage of "productive outs" is not the same as their percentage of scoring the runner from third with fewer than two outs, so there is a fundamental difference that I was getting at.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 03:48 PM
Fly balls that advance runners from second to third, just as swinging ground balls that advance runners to third or second, are not counted as sacrifice flies. A sacrifice fly, by definition, carries an RBI.

Good, that's what I thought.

TDog
07-05-2011, 03:51 PM
I've already said 'Maybe I should have chosen a different word, but I don't see how anyone can consider a 45 percent rate of advancing a runner from third with less than two outs as being above "moderate" quality given their standard is other MLB teams.' Are you saying they've been above "moderate" quality in this?

doublem23 succinctly summarized above what the numbers appear to show. I agree averages can be deceiving, but if you have a better way to address the point that the Sox would "easily" be in first place if their average in scoring runners from third was closer to the league average, then I'd like to hear it.

Otherwise, I don't see your point to me here.

If other teams, especially against the White Sox, were bringing home runners from third with less than two outs at the rate you believe should be expected from the White Sox, the White Sox would not easily be in first place. If Alex Rodriguez had grounded into a double play instead of popping out with the bases loaded and none out int he first inning of a 1-0 loss to the Indians, the White Sox likely would be only 2.5 games behind the Indians. But the Indians and Tigers fans believe they would have more wins. And the Rockies fans believed they would have swept the White Sox last week.

It's a frustration, but it's a frustration everywhere. And the averages are skewed by blowouts and games where that addition run scored or not would not matter.

FielderJones
07-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Okay, I stand corrected on that point. I don't think that used to be the case.

Sacrifice fly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_fly) has always scored a run.

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 03:53 PM
If other teams, especially against the White Sox, were bringing home runners from third with less than two outs at the rate you believe should be expected from the White Sox, the White Sox would not easily be in first place. If Alex Rodriguez had grounded into a double play instead of popping out with the bases loaded and none out int he first inning of a 1-0 loss to the Indians, the White Sox likely would be only 2.5 games behind the Indians. But the Indians and Tigers fans believe they would have more wins. And the Rockies fans believed they would have swept the White Sox last week.

It's a frustration, but it's a frustration everywhere. And the averages are skewed by blowouts and games where that addition run scored or not would not matter.

Where did I say this? I only said the Sox were slightly below league average in bringing home runners, and that if they were at league average they might have one additional victory. I was addressing (in part) an earlier poster's that if the Sox better scored runs they would "easily" be in first place.

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2011, 04:08 PM
Sacrifice fly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_fly) has always scored a run.I don't trust Wikipedia for much of anything, but you may be right. I thought I remembered any fly advancing a runner counting as a sac when I was a kid, but maybe not.

How in hell do you get three sacrifice flies in one inning? That's what this Wiki article says is the record. Shouldn't the third one immediately end the inning and no run scored?

kittle42
07-05-2011, 04:12 PM
How in hell do you get three sacrifice flies in one inning? That's what this Wiki article says is the record. Shouldn't the third one immediately end the inning and no run scored?

The same way you get four strikeouts in an inning - an error. If the official scorer thinks the runner would have still scored had the ball been caught, the batter gets an RBI and a SF and not an 0-fer and no RBI, even though an error occurred. This way, you could have a sac fly with no one out, another with no one out, and then one with one out.

doublem23
07-05-2011, 04:18 PM
I don't trust Wikipedia for much of anything, but you may be right. I thought I remembered any fly advancing a runner counting as a sac when I was a kid, but maybe not.

How in hell do you get three sacrifice flies in one inning? That's what this Wiki article says is the record. Shouldn't the third one immediately end the inning and no run scored?

The same way you get four strikeouts in an inning - an error. If the official scorer thinks the runner would have still scored had the ball been caught, the batter gets an RBI and a SF and not an 0-fer and no RBI, even though an error occurred. This way, you could have a sac fly with no one out, another with no one out, and then one with one out.

Yes the Sox set the record (that has since been tied) on July 1, 1962 against the Indians in the 5th inning when Juan Pizarro, Nellie Fox, and Al Smith all recorded sac flies. Funny thing was, Smith was the only one who made an out, both Pizarro and Fox reached base on an E9. Inning could have kept going had Mike Hershberger not hit into an inning-ending double play. Even back then, they were playing Walkerball.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA196207012.shtml

Johnny Mostil
07-05-2011, 04:29 PM
I don't trust Wikipedia for much of anything,

You're (still) right not to do so. One of my son's teachers called it, at best, a glorified search engine. Though it did help me find the game doublem23 has already noted in which the Sox set the record, as well as further information about the two times the record was tied (cf. "fast facts" at the bottom of http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/sacrifice_flies_records.shtml).

Nellie_Fox
07-05-2011, 04:30 PM
The same way you get four strikeouts in an inning - an error. If the official scorer thinks the runner would have still scored had the ball been caught, the batter gets an RBI and a SF and not an 0-fer and no RBI, even though an error occurred. This way, you could have a sac fly with no one out, another with no one out, and then one with one out.

Yes the Sox set the record (that has since been tied) on July 1, 1962 against the Indians in the 5th inning when Juan Pizarro, Nellie Fox, and Al Smith all recorded sac flies. Funny thing was, Smith was the only one who made an out, both Pizarro and Fox reached base on an E9. Inning could have kept going had Mike Hershberger not hit into an inning-ending double play. Even back then, they were playing Walkerball.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHA/CHA196207012.shtmlThanks guys. I just couldn't picture how that would work. I'm just wading in baseball stupidity on the topic of sac flies, aren't I?

slavko
07-05-2011, 08:25 PM
Verrry interesting. From 1926 to 1930, any fly advancing a runner was a Sacrifice Fly and the batter was not charged an at bat. After 1930 the Sac Fly rule was repealed. In 1953 it was reinstated for only run-scoring advances. That's where we are today. Some of us, me included, have long but obscure memories. Be nice to each other.

http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-fly

Nellie_Fox
07-06-2011, 01:23 AM
Verrry interesting. From 1926 to 1930, any fly advancing a runner was a Sacrifice Fly and the batter was not charged an at bat. After 1930 the Sac Fly rule was repealed. In 1953 it was reinstated for only run-scoring advances. That's where we are today. Some of us, me included, have long but obscure memories. Be nice to each other.

http://research.sabr.org/journals/sacrifice-flySee? I probably remembered if from a former life. :tongue: