PDA

View Full Version : Ten runs make a world of difference


Frater Perdurabo
07-31-2011, 03:57 PM
The Sox have lost five one-run games to the fourth and fifth place teams in the worst division in baseball. This is part of a larger trend of being awful (4-12) against the Royals (3-5), and Twins (1-7).

April 5: 7-6 loss @ KC
Dunn goes hitless; Sox fail to score after the 6th, Pena loses game in 12th.

May 3: 1-0 loss v. MIN
No hits v. Liriano, who BBs six and Ks two. Walkerball in full effect.

May 4: 3-2 loss v. MIN
Another Walkerball masterpiece helps Cy Blackburn. Danks is the victim.

June 16: 1-0 loss @ MIN
See above. Buehrle gives up one run and three hits in seven innings.

July 20: 2-1 loss @ KC
Seven scoreless innings from Danks wasted as Walkerball helps Cy Chen.

How much different would things be if the Sox had just scored two more runs in each of these five games? It's the difference between third and first place, and pending today's game, between being one game under .500 and nine games over .500 (57-48). It's the difference between arguing over dumping salary and rebuilding and arguing over who to acquire to help for the stretch run.

blandman
07-31-2011, 04:29 PM
The Sox have lost five one-run games to the fourth and fifth place teams in the worst division in baseball. This is part of a larger trend of being awful (4-12) against the Royals (3-5), and Twins (1-7).

April 5: 7-6 loss @ KC
Dunn goes hitless; Sox fail to score after the 6th, Pena loses game in 12th.

May 3: 1-0 loss v. MIN
No hits v. Liriano, who BBs six and Ks two. Walkerball in full effect.

May 4: 3-2 loss v. MIN
Another Walkerball masterpiece helps Cy Blackburn. Danks is the victim.

June 16: 1-0 loss @ MIN
See above. Buehrle gives up one run and three hits in seven innings.

July 20: 2-1 loss @ KC
Seven scoreless innings from Danks wasted as Walkerball helps Cy Chen.

How much different would things be if the Sox had just scored two more runs in each of these five games? It's the difference between third and first place, and pending today's game, between being one game under .500 and nine games over .500 (57-48). It's the difference between arguing over dumping salary and rebuilding and arguing over who to acquire to help for the stretch run.

Would you give back our one run wins?

Good teams win the one run games for a lot of reasons. Good bullpens, starting pitching, defense, and timely hitting. If you don't have all of those things, you don't belong in the contender discussion. This team certainly doesn't.

DSpivack
07-31-2011, 04:51 PM
Would you give back our one run wins?

Good teams win the one run games for a lot of reasons. Good bullpens, starting pitching, defense, and timely hitting. If you don't have all of those things, you don't belong in the contender discussion. This team certainly doesn't.

http://giants.baseballfans.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/San-Francisco-Giants-Logo.gif

:yoohoo:

blandman
07-31-2011, 05:12 PM
http://giants.baseballfans.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/San-Francisco-Giants-Logo.gif

:yoohoo:

Or ridiculous pitching, fine. But we'll never have that, short of bringing up 5 or more aces arms from our farm system or buying them in the free agent market at $30 million a year each. Neither of which will ever happen.

DSpivack
07-31-2011, 05:22 PM
Or ridiculous pitching, fine. But we'll never have that, short of bringing up 5 or more aces arms from our farm system or buying them in the free agent market at $30 million a year each. Neither of which will ever happen.

I was agreeing with you.

blandman
07-31-2011, 05:29 PM
I was agreeing with you.

Ah. Cool beans. :tongue:

Frater Perdurabo
07-31-2011, 05:50 PM
Would you give back our one run wins?

Good teams win the one run games for a lot of reasons. Good bullpens, starting pitching, defense, and timely hitting. If you don't have all of those things, you don't belong in the contender discussion. This team certainly doesn't.

I listed five one-run losses to TERRIBLE teams in our own division. You know, those are the teams that division contenders SHOULD BEAT. Instead we are 4-12 against the dregs of the AL. That Liriano no-hitter? We should have beaten the Twins 5-1. We should pound pitchers like Chen and Blackburn.

HaroMaster87
07-31-2011, 06:20 PM
I listed five one-run losses to TERRIBLE teams in our own division. You know, those are the teams that division contenders SHOULD BEAT. Instead we are 4-12 against the dregs of the AL. That Liriano no-hitter? We should have beaten the Twins 5-1. We should pound pitchers like Chen and Blackburn.

How in the hell did you possibly make it through two posts, discussing lack of scoring and not mention firing Walker???

I'm so proud of you!!! :)

blandman
07-31-2011, 06:23 PM
I listed five one-run losses to TERRIBLE teams in our own division. You know, those are the teams that division contenders SHOULD BEAT. Instead we are 4-12 against the dregs of the AL. That Liriano no-hitter? We should have beaten the Twins 5-1. We should pound pitchers like Chen and Blackburn.

No, you lose those games when you're bad. And this argument is kind of ridiculous. There are teams we won games against that are clearly better than us. Better take those victories away.

You don't win every game in baseball you should and you don't lose every game you should. You can maximize your ability to win by having all of the things I listed above.

As for losing to pitchers like Chen, Blackburn, and getting no-hit by Liriano - you are confusing having a good staff and decent pen with having a good offense. We lost those games because our offense is terrible. And when you're offense is terrible, you will lose a lot of those games.

Lip Man 1
07-31-2011, 07:57 PM
13 losses (so far) this year when allowing the opponent three runs or less.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
07-31-2011, 08:18 PM
No, you lose those games when you're bad. And this argument is kind of ridiculous. There are teams we won games against that are clearly better than us. Better take those victories away.

You don't win every game in baseball you should and you don't lose every game you should. You can maximize your ability to win by having all of the things I listed above.

As for losing to pitchers like Chen, Blackburn, and getting no-hit by Liriano - you are confusing having a good staff and decent pen with having a good offense. We lost those games because our offense is terrible. And when you're offense is terrible, you will lose a lot of those games.


Admirably, the Sox often play "up" against strong competition.

Unfortunately, they often crap the bed against inferior teams.

4-12 against the Twins and Royals is indefensible and disgusting and an indictment of our manager and hitting coach.

blandman
07-31-2011, 08:47 PM
Admirably, the Sox often play "up" against strong competition.

Unfortunately, they often crap the bed against inferior teams.

4-12 against the Twins and Royals is indefensible and disgusting and an indictment of our manager and hitting coach.

I don't think it's an indictment of anything except the talent level on this team. We belong categorized with those teams. What about this team screams "compare us to the Yankees and Red Sox"? The Twins seem a more likely comparison. And look, they have a closer record to ours, too!

Frater Perdurabo
07-31-2011, 09:38 PM
I don't think it's an indictment of anything except the talent level on this team. We belong categorized with those teams. What about this team screams "compare us to the Yankees and Red Sox"? The Twins seem a more likely comparison. And look, they have a closer record to ours, too!

If we have similar talent to KC and MIN, we generally should be .500 against them. That we are not shows that their managers outmanage Ozzie, and their objectively mediocre pitchers make our hitters look incompetent.

voodoochile
07-31-2011, 10:33 PM
Or Not...

Apr 3 Sox lose to toons 7-1

Apr 16 Sox lose to Angels 7-3

Apr 22 Sox lose to kittens 9-2

Apr 23 Sox lose to Kittens 9-0

Apr 24 Sox lose to Kittens 3-0

Want me to continue with May?

This thread I mean seriously... :rolleyes:

TommyJohn
08-01-2011, 12:12 AM
Or Not...

Apr 3 Sox lose to toons 7-1

Apr 16 Sox lose to Angels 7-3

Apr 22 Sox lose to kittens 9-2

Apr 23 Sox lose to Kittens 9-0

Apr 24 Sox lose to Kittens 3-0

Want me to continue with May?

This thread I mean seriously... :rolleyes:

Must you piss on everybody's pity party?

JB98
08-01-2011, 12:19 AM
I opened this thread thinking someone was arguing if the Sox scored 10 runs in a game every now and then, it would make a difference. Indeed it would.

Someone mentioned the Sox have lost 10 games where they had a lead seventh inning or later. I guess that's an indictment of the bullpen, but it's damn hard to protect one- or two-run leads all the time.

Sure wish we could have a 10-2 laugher every now and then to take the pressure off guys like Crain, who is starting to crack a little bit from overuse the last couple weeks.

Overused, overstressed bullpens start to falter in August.

Dan H
08-01-2011, 07:10 AM
Frater has a point here. In the '50's and '60's, those great Yankee teams used to pound teams like the Kansas City Athletics and Washington Senators. Then they hold their hold their own against any comers and that all added up to one pennant after another.

In the last week of the 1967 season, the White Sox were within a game of first with five to go. They lost all five. Who did they lose those games to? The Kansas City Athletics and Washington Senators.

You have to beat the bottom of the league teams. If you don't, you're not a playoff caliber team.

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2011, 08:41 AM
13 losses (so far) this year when allowing the opponent three runs or less.

That speaks volumes doesn't it?

Lip

Eh, maybe just another hallmark of a not-very-good team. There are nine teams that have lost more games this year when allowing the opponent three runs or fewer (link (http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.cgi?from=2011&to=2011&0=2&rsgtlt=gt&rs=5&1=5&ragtlt=lt&ra=3&2=6&trgtlt=gt&tr=10&3=8&mvgtlt=gt&mv=10&4=10&owlsgtlt=gt&owls=.500&sortby=WP&teams=team&years=each&submit=Run+Situation)). And there are twelve teams with worse winning percentages when allowing the opponent three runs or fewer. Yeah, it's frustrating, but so is the Sox overall record.

asindc
08-01-2011, 09:50 AM
Eh, maybe just another hallmark of a not-very-good team. There are nine teams that have lost more games this year when allowing the opponent three runs or fewer (link (http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/situational.cgi?from=2011&to=2011&0=2&rsgtlt=gt&rs=5&1=5&ragtlt=lt&ra=3&2=6&trgtlt=gt&tr=10&3=8&mvgtlt=gt&mv=10&4=10&owlsgtlt=gt&owls=.500&sortby=WP&teams=team&years=each&submit=Run+Situation)). And there are twelve teams with worse winning percentages when allowing the opponent three runs or fewer. Yeah, it's frustrating, but so is the Sox overall record.

Among the teams that have lost 10 games or more when allowing three or fewer runs are the following:

Milwaukee (10)
Boston (10)
Texas (11)
Cleveland (13)
San. Fran. (14)
LAAAAAAA (14)

Make of it what will.

Johnny Mostil
08-01-2011, 10:28 AM
Frater has a point here. In the '50's and '60's, those great Yankee teams used to pound teams like the Kansas City Athletics and Washington Senators. Then they hold their hold their own against any comers and that all added up to one pennant after another.

In the last week of the 1967 season, the White Sox were within a game of first with five to go. They lost all five. Who did they lose those games to? The Kansas City Athletics and Washington Senators.

You have to beat the bottom of the league teams. If you don't, you're not a playoff caliber team.

True, but those teams beat the hell out of everybody. From 1949 to 1964, when the Yanks won 14 of 16 pennants, they won 62.5 percent of all their games (http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.cgi?teams=NYY&from=1949&to=1964&submit=Submit). Their worst head-to-head record was .554 against the Tigers.

I don't disagree with the ultimate point: you have to beat the bottom of the league teams, and this Sox team ain't doing it. But as noted earlier, nothing about this team screams this year's Yankees or Red Sox, much less the Yankee teams of the 1950s.

Lip Man 1
08-01-2011, 12:18 PM
JB:

I was the one who put out that number. If you break it down, only one time did a Sox starter cough it up (Humber).

The other nine are the "fault" of the bullpen:

Sale: 2
Thornton: 4
Santos: 2
Crain: 2

I know the number adds up to 10 but it one game two relief pitchers cost the team.

Lip

Dan H
08-01-2011, 01:53 PM
True, but those teams beat the hell out of everybody. From 1949 to 1964, when the Yanks won 14 of 16 pennants, they won 62.5 percent of all their games (http://www.baseball-reference.com/games/head2head.cgi?teams=NYY&from=1949&to=1964&submit=Submit). Their worst head-to-head record was .554 against the Tigers.

I don't disagree with the ultimate point: you have to beat the bottom of the league teams, and this Sox team ain't doing it. But as noted earlier, nothing about this team screams this year's Yankees or Red Sox, much less the Yankee teams of the 1950s.


You are right. This team isn't in the class of this year's Yankees or Red Sox. Their inability to beat the bad teams is an indication of that. Regardless, this season has been more frustrating than any other I can remember.

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2011, 08:39 PM
Or Not...

Apr 3 Sox lose to toons 7-1

Apr 16 Sox lose to Angels 7-3

Apr 22 Sox lose to kittens 9-2

Apr 23 Sox lose to Kittens 9-0

Apr 24 Sox lose to Kittens 3-0

Want me to continue with May?

This thread I mean seriously... :rolleyes:

The difference is that these were losses to teams that are, you know, GOOD.

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2011, 08:43 PM
My point remains that not only have the Sox been woefully inept against the two worst teams in their own division, but five of those losses have been one-run games. If they had pulled out those five games, they would be in first place.

voodoochile
08-01-2011, 08:58 PM
The difference is that these were losses to teams that are, you know, GOOD.

Doesn't matter. You can pick and choose and diddle around and in the end it's not worth ****. You can do this stuff with every team in the majors. It's simply meaningless...

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2011, 09:07 PM
Doesn't matter. You can pick and choose and diddle around and in the end it's not worth ****. You can do this stuff with every team in the majors. It's simply meaningless...

With all due respect, it does mean something. Losing so many games, and among them so many one-run games, to the two worst teams in your own division is yet another symptom of a team that is mentally weak and has poor leadership. It means that the Royals and Twins know how to play well against the Sox, and the Sox don't know how to play well against those two clearly inferior teams.

blandman
08-01-2011, 09:29 PM
With all due respect, it does mean something. Losing so many games, and among them so many one-run games, to the two worst teams in your own division is yet another symptom of a team that is mentally weak and has poor leadership. It means that the Royals and Twins know how to play well against the Sox, and the Sox don't know how to play well against those two clearly inferior teams.

Frater you are failing to see the truth of the situation. This team didn't score those runs because they are incapable. They lost those games because they were supposed to. When you have a terrible offense, you are going to lose more than your share of close ballgames. It's because we're bad. Your argument isn't just "what if we scored those runs". Your argument is "what if we were marginally better". And in that instance, yes, if we were marginally better then we'd be in first place. But we're not marginally better, and incapable of coming up with big hits more often than not.

edit: and I don't think the Twins are "clearly inferior." I'd wager you whatever you're betting they wind up ahead of us in the standings before year end.

gosox41
08-01-2011, 09:41 PM
Frater you are failing to see the truth of the situation. This team didn't score those runs because they are incapable. They lost those games because they were supposed to. When you have a terrible offense, you are going to lose more than your share of close ballgames. It's because we're bad. Your argument isn't just "what if we scored those runs". Your argument is "what if we were marginally better". And in that instance, yes, if we were marginally better then we'd be in first place. But we're not marginally better, and incapable of coming up with big hits more often than not.

edit: and I don't think the Twins are "clearly inferior." I'd wager you whatever you're betting they wind up ahead of us in the standings before year end.

They probably will because we play them 10 more games. I still have the over/under of victories against the Twins at 4.


Bob

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2011, 09:49 PM
They probably will because we play them 10 more games. I still have the over/under of victories against the Twins at 4.


Bob

Exactly

Frater Perdurabo
08-01-2011, 09:54 PM
Frater you are failing to see the truth of the situation. This team didn't score those runs because they are incapable. They lost those games because they were supposed to. When you have a terrible offense, you are going to lose more than your share of close ballgames. It's because we're bad. Your argument isn't just "what if we scored those runs". Your argument is "what if we were marginally better". And in that instance, yes, if we were marginally better then we'd be in first place. But we're not marginally better, and incapable of coming up with big hits more often than not.

edit: and I don't think the Twins are "clearly inferior." I'd wager you whatever you're betting they wind up ahead of us in the standings before year end.

On paper, the Sox have more talent than the Twins. On the field, the Twins kick the Sox butts because Gardenhire knows how to utilize this limited talent to beat the crap out of the Sox, and because Ozzie doesn't know how to, and/or is too lazy to figure out how properly to, maximize the superior talent on his team. Part of that involves a poor offensive approach at the plate and his decision to retain an obviously hard-working hitting coach who for whatever reason routinely fails to communicate effectively with his hitters other than Konerko. Another part is the frequently clueless base running and fielding/throwing fundamentals. What isn't among the Sox problems is their pitching, which is not a surprise, because Cooper has a long track record of being effective at communicating a message to his players, and they listen and follow his approach.

blandman
08-01-2011, 10:26 PM
On paper, the Sox have more talent than the Twins. On the field, the Twins kick the Sox butts because Gardenhire knows how to utilize this limited talent to beat the crap out of the Sox, and because Ozzie doesn't know how to, and/or is too lazy to figure out how properly to, maximize the superior talent on his team. Part of that involves a poor offensive approach at the plate and his decision to retain an obviously hard-working hitting coach who for whatever reason routinely fails to communicate effectively with his hitters other than Konerko. Another part is the frequently clueless base running and fielding/throwing fundamentals. What isn't among the Sox problems is their pitching, which is not a surprise, because Cooper has a long track record of being effective at communicating a message to his players, and they listen and follow his approach.

It infuriates me that we say this year after year. It's simply not true.

Our roster almost every year is full of one dimensional sluggers. That doesn't make us better on paper.

Bob Roarman
08-01-2011, 10:30 PM
Copy that. It's funny because everything that shows that to be true (like the divisional series) people like to throw out like it means nothing.

asindc
08-01-2011, 10:44 PM
It infuriates me that we say this year after year. It's simply not true.

Our roster almost every year is full of one dimensional sluggers. That doesn't make us better on paper.

Pierre
Alexei
Beckham
Rios
Pauly
AJ

are not one-dimensional sluggers.

We have better pitching talent than they do, and have had that since they traded Santana. Talent is not the same thing as performance. If it was, Boston would be 6-0 against us this year instead of 2-4.

blandman
08-01-2011, 11:40 PM
Pierre
Alexei
Beckham
Rios
Pauly
AJ

are not one-dimensional sluggers.

We have better pitching talent than they do, and have had that since they traded Santana. Talent is not the same thing as performance. If it was, Boston would be 6-0 against us this year instead of 2-4.

Beckham, Rios, and AJ are among the five worst hitters at their positions in baseball. Pierre is the worst. But you're right, they're not one dimensional. They'd have to add a dimension to their offensive game first. Like the ability to get a hit.

But yeah, we're clearly more talented.

As for pitching, they also usually have a better pen than us.

Also, they deal with injury better, because they are talented outside of their 25 man roster.

asindc
08-02-2011, 09:20 AM
Beckham, Rios, and AJ are among the five worst hitters at their positions in baseball. Pierre is the worst. But you're right, they're not one dimensional. They'd have to add a dimension to their offensive game first. Like the ability to get a hit.

But yeah, we're clearly more talented.

As for pitching, they also usually have a better pen than us.

Also, they deal with injury better, because they are talented outside of their 25 man roster.


Again, you are confusing "talent" with "results." No one, not even Sox fans who did not like either of the Beckham or Rios acquisitions projected that these players would perform so badly. In Beckham's case, you might have an argument that he is merely demonstrating his true talent level. With Rios? Please.

By the way, if you prefer Alexi Casilla's talent to Gordon Beckham's talent, be my guest.