PDA

View Full Version : Hahn addresses TWTW vs. Stat-Geeks...


Lip Man 1
04-26-2013, 10:14 PM
Wants a balanced approach between the two (which sounds reasonable to me...) Says Hawk's comments are "entertaining":

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130426&content_id=45864224&notebook_id=45873124&vkey=notebook_cws&c_id=cws

Lip

SephClone89
04-26-2013, 10:49 PM
Virtually everybody who actually works in baseball believes in a balance between statistical analysis and traditional scouting. How many times do we have to go over this?

doublem23
04-26-2013, 11:10 PM
Virtually everybody who actually works in baseball believes in a balance between statistical analysis and traditional scouting. How many times do we have to go over this?

Uh, yeah, but uh Stat-Geeks, and uh, Will to Win, and uh, bareknuckle boxing...

CoopaLoop
04-27-2013, 12:16 AM
The thing I love most about that MLB interview is Brian Kenny got to start talking maybe 4 minutes in. There was never going to be a debate, just Hawks spouting off nonsense about what wins baseball games.

TaylorStSox
04-27-2013, 12:22 AM
I'm as anti-Hawk as they come. I was pretty adamant about refusing to watch Sox broadcasts if he ran Stone off the air. With that said, did anybody get the feeling that they were trying to pick on the old guy? I really don't have a dog in the SABR fight. I see value in traditional and new age evaluation, but trying to upstage a guy as old as Hawk is bush IMO.

Shoeless
04-27-2013, 12:36 AM
Wants a balanced approach between the two (which sounds reasonable to me...) Says Hawk's comments are "entertaining":

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130426&content_id=45864224&notebook_id=45873124&vkey=notebook_cws&c_id=cws

Lip

He can say whatever he wants, but Rick Hahn didn't get to be such a sought after gm candidate by any of the nonsense Hawk talks about.

spongyfungy
04-27-2013, 12:57 AM
This is beyond embarrassing. although I do like the fact that twtw will make Bernstein's head explode

Milw
04-27-2013, 08:26 AM
The thing I love most about that MLB interview is Brian Kenny got to start talking maybe 4 minutes in. There was never going to be a debate, just Hawks spouting off nonsense about what wins baseball games.

Brian Kenney has an hour a day five days a week to spout his opinions. Giving his invited guest the floor for four minutes is what's commonly known as "courtesy."

Stanley
04-27-2013, 08:58 AM
I don't feel sorry for Hawk for getting some rough treatment by Kenny, and I don't think Hawk gives a flip either because he acknowledged that he's aware that Kenny and others have come down hard on him over the SABR debate.

But even if they were a little edgy with him, the way Hawk presents himself and his argument on the SABR stuff (like a bare knuckle street boxer?) means that it's only fair if it's given back to him a little bit.

There's a good article on Espn about Konerko. This is one snippet: "Because the question Konerko's late-career development challenges us with is this: How much of what a player does is within his own control? As Paul Konerko reminds us, all of it. Even when it defies what we think we know."

wassagstdu
04-27-2013, 09:20 AM
TWTW? I can see that among many of the pitchers (Peavy, Sale, Quintana, Axelrod, Reed), but I see more FOF (fear of failure) and FOMPN (focus on my power numbers) among the position players.

shingo10
04-27-2013, 02:16 PM
Balance is key in anything you do.

If you watch the Hawk/Kenny debate you'll notice that Hawk mentions multiple times that there will be a time and place for sabermetrics in baseball but only when more categories can be quantified.

Yes I know that they are already here to stay but I never thought anything Hawk said was so extreme or radical. Just an old school approach.

I think we could look at it like this: Kenny Williams used TWTW approach to help bring us a world series trophy by getting rid of guys like Carlos Lee and bringing in guys like Carl Everett. "Grinders" as they were called back then. Nothing novel about it, just a clever name given to it by Hawk.

skobabe8
04-27-2013, 05:10 PM
I think we could look at it like this: Kenny Williams used TWTW approach to help bring us a world series trophy by getting rid of guys like Carlos Lee and bringing in guys like Carl Everett. "Grinders" as they were called back then. Nothing novel about it, just a clever name given to it by Hawk.

Interesting point.

I'd like to see the key SABR values of the 2005 team.

Brewski
04-27-2013, 05:39 PM
Interesting point.

I'd like to see the key SABR values of the 2005 team.

Same as the anti-Beane argument. 2005 was all about the pitching catching fire. Moneyball depended on three great starting pitchers.

This Was The Week That Was once was a Friday night TV show. An adaptation of a British show, IIRC.

34rancher
04-27-2013, 06:24 PM
Same as the anti-Beane argument. 2005 was all about the pitching catching fire. Moneyball depended on three great starting pitchers.
And yet still did not win. Seph said it and I agree, balance is the key. Everyone knows that. Stats don't matter squat in the bottom of the 9th and your need a hit to win. A .100 hitter (God, we hope) and a .400 hitter could both get that hit or strikeout. It's all about wins though in the end. If we don't win, none of the states matter , except to make excuses why we didn't in hindsight.

Bob Roarman
04-27-2013, 08:07 PM
And yet still did not win. Seph said it and I agree, balance is the key. Everyone knows that. Stats don't matter squat in the bottom of the 9th and your need a hit to win. A .100 hitter (God, we hope) and a .400 hitter could both get that hit or strikeout. It's all about wins though in the end. If we don't win, none of the states matter , except to make excuses why we didn't in hindsight.

The A's idea behind this was to be as competitive as they could be with a limited budget, not build a dynasty. This continually gets overlooked when these debates arise.

34rancher
04-27-2013, 08:17 PM
The A's idea behind this was to be as competitive as they could be with a limited budget, not build a dynasty. This continually gets overlooked when these debates arise.

So they aimed to be tallest midget? if you're not playing to win, then it doesn't mean anything. If you're just trying to compete then you shouldn't be a major league team. When you've won 1 playoff series in last 20 years, you're not really competitive either.

Bob Roarman
04-27-2013, 08:26 PM
No it's just called being realistic.

asindc
04-27-2013, 08:39 PM
The A's idea behind this was to be as competitive as they could be with a limited budget, not build a dynasty. This continually gets overlooked when these debates arise.

And for the most part during Beane's tenure, they've failed at even that.

DumpJerry
04-27-2013, 08:48 PM
Baseball stats tell us what has happened in the past and cannot predict the future because conditions are 100% dynamic. Stats can tell us what will happen if conditions are static. How many times have we heard about a stud player having a "bad game"? Did the stats predict when he will have a bad game? Of course not.

Stats give us a general picture of a player's current situation, but I would not rely on them too much to predict the future.

shingo10
04-27-2013, 09:43 PM
So they aimed to be tallest midget? if you're not playing to win, then it doesn't mean anything. If you're just trying to compete then you shouldn't be a major league team. When you've won 1 playoff series in last 20 years, you're not really competitive either.


Spot on.

If we were judging "genius" on being competitive well then hell the Sox have a perennial also ran for many years. Maybe we should get a movie too. Except for the fact that we actually have won something.

doublem23
04-27-2013, 11:38 PM
I think we could look at it like this: Kenny Williams used TWTW approach to help bring us a world series trophy by getting rid of guys like Carlos Lee and bringing in guys like Carl Everett. "Grinders" as they were called back then. Nothing novel about it, just a clever name given to it by Hawk.

Can we please stop giving this grinderball BS all the credit for the '05 team and appropriately credit the INCREDIBLE pitching staff the Sox had for the majority of the reason they won the World Series?

Lip Man 1
04-28-2013, 12:29 AM
Pitching had a lot to do with it but so did over 200 home runs and finishing in the top quarter of the league in stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

Balance.

Lip

doublem23
04-28-2013, 12:35 AM
Pitching had a lot to do with it but so did over 200 home runs and finishing in the top quarter of the league in stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

Balance.

Lip

The Sox won because of their pitching. The offense was yes, "balanced," but it was also "not very good." The 4.57 RPG they scored in 2005 was good enough for 9th in the AL. Very rare for teams to finish the season with a below league average RPG and win the pennant. The offense was good enough to win because their pitching was incredible, but the pitching staff is what carried that team from Game 1 to 173.

CoopaLoop
04-28-2013, 12:59 AM
Pitching had a lot to do with it but so did over 200 home runs and finishing in the top quarter of the league in stolen bases, sacrifice bunts, sacrifice flys and infield hits.

Balance.

Lip

Pitching had pretty much everything to do with it.

Lol at being in the top of the league in sac bunts meaning anything.

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 11:26 AM
The Sox won because of their pitching. The offense was yes, "balanced," but it was also "not very good." The 4.57 RPG they scored in 2005 was good enough for 9th in the AL. Very rare for teams to finish the season with a below league average RPG and win the pennant. The offense was good enough to win because their pitching was incredible, but the pitching staff is what carried that team from Game 1 to 173.

Pitching is what carries every team that has success. Even Ozzie said "You can't win the Kentucky Derby riding a donkey." The pitching was undoubtedly the biggest factor in the 2005 White Sox success, but second to the pitching was the defense. The only real weak spot on the White Sox defense was left field and it's not like Pods killed you out there. That focus on defense was a 180 from the teams that Kenny used to run out there with Jose Valentine, Carl Everett and D'angelo Jimenez up the middle (I think that was also the year Kenny was quoted as saying he thought the offense would over come any defensive shortcomings).

The balance of the offense that year was the icing on the cake, they were able to execute so when we couldn't hit home runs we could still win games. The ability to move guys over (either by stealing bases, hit and runs or bunting) was what enabled the Sox to win so many one and two run games. We have seen the White Sox lose enough 1 and 2 run games of the past few years to demonstrate the value that the 2005 team's offense had.

soltrain21
04-28-2013, 11:33 AM
So they aimed to be tallest midget? if you're not playing to win, then it doesn't mean anything. If you're just trying to compete then you shouldn't be a major league team. When you've won 1 playoff series in last 20 years, you're not really competitive either.

They are the Oakland A's with a very small payroll. They actually were trying to be the tallest midget. What else could they do?

Lip Man 1
04-28-2013, 11:42 AM
Pitching had pretty much everything to do with it.

Lol at being in the top of the league in sac bunts meaning anything.

Coopa:

It meant something because when the Sox weren't hitting home runs they were finding ways to get runs across anyway and bunting and infield hits, stolen bases and sac flys was part of that.

The best pitching in history doesn't win you anything if you can't score runs...the Sox could beat you in 2005 with a blast, a bloop or a bunt...so yes it does mean something.

Balance. (Compared to say this year's team...)

Lip

asindc
04-28-2013, 11:53 AM
Coopa:

It meant something because when the Sox weren't hitting home runs they were finding ways to get runs across anyway and bunting and infield hits, stolen bases and sac flys was part of that.

The best pitching in history doesn't win you anything if you can't score runs...the Sox could beat you in 2005 with a blast, a bloop or a bunt...so yes it does mean something.

Balance. (Compared to say this year's team...)

Lip

I find it odd ( to say the very least) that you would have to explain that.

MISoxfan
04-28-2013, 12:16 PM
Coopa:

It meant something because when the Sox weren't hitting home runs they were finding ways to get runs across anyway and bunting and infield hits, stolen bases and sac flys was part of that.

The best pitching in history doesn't win you anything if you can't score runs...the Sox could beat you in 2005 with a blast, a bloop or a bunt...so yes it does mean something.

Balance. (Compared to say this year's team...)

Lip

The problem with this years offense isn't balance. They aren't really doing anything well at all. Sure they are 4th in the league in HR, but they are one bad game away from being 7th.

Do you think combining 2006 offense with the 2005 pitching results in a better or worse team than either team alone?

Milw
04-28-2013, 12:16 PM
I find it odd ( to say the very least) that you would have to explain that.
This is what the sabrmetrics revolution has done: It has created a generation of basaeball "experts" who look at the game in strictly data-driven terms, without regard for (or, in some cases, basic understanding of) the game's nuance.

I have the utmost respect for the numbers guys who say (and actually believe) that stats are a tool in the toolbox--that they help you see the game in a more three-dimensional-way. But nerds, understand this: When you laugh off things like sacrifice bunts, you sound just as moronic as the guys who think advanced stats are stupid.

MISoxfan
04-28-2013, 12:20 PM
This is what the sabrmetrics revolution has done: It has created a generation of basaeball "experts" who look at the game in strictly data-driven terms, without regard for (or, in some cases, basic understanding of) the game's nuance.

I have the utmost respect for the numbers guys who say (and actually believe) that stats are a tool in the toolbox--that they help you see the game in a more three-dimensional-way. But nerds, understand this: When you laugh off things like sacrifice bunts, you sound just as moronic as the guys who think advanced stats are stupid.

:rolleyes:

Lip Man 1
04-28-2013, 12:27 PM
MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 12:39 PM
The problem with this years offense isn't balance. They aren't really doing anything well at all. Sure they are 4th in the league in HR, but they are one bad game away from being 7th.

Do you think combining 2006 offense with the 2005 pitching results in a better or worse team than either team alone?

In the second half of 2006 when Podsednik started to struggle, the team became dependent on the home run, otherwise they couldn't score which meant we lost a lot of one run ball games. Had Pods been able to continue to get on base at a .350 clip and steal as many bases as he did in 2005, they might have been able to win a few more games because they could manufacture more runs. Now, obviously the problem with the 2006 White Sox was that the pitching was just gassed in the second half, but maybe had Pods been as productive as he was in 2005 and Uribe didn't always swing for the fences, they might have been able to win a few more games. But it probably wouldn't have mattered.

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 12:44 PM
MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip

I know that people like to point to the Thome trade and say that that was the White Sox moving away from the balanced approach from 2005, I disagree with that though. The hope was that Anderson would be able to step up and be able to replace some of the production by Rowand, so Thome was really more or less replacing Carl Everett. Had Anderson been able to hit just .250, it would have worked perfectly. The problem was that Anderson was hitting under .200 for most of the year and when the pitching went south, the White Sox had to rely on an offense first approach, you couldn't afford to have any black holes in the lineup.

MISoxfan
04-28-2013, 12:57 PM
MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip

I'll agree that the 2005 team did do a few things better than the 2006 team offensively.

I thought the 2005 team was a better team with Thomas in the lineup than Everett. I also think the team had a better winning percentage during that period, but I'm not sure. I just have a hard time seeing how the 2005 team with Thomas is very different from the 2006 team with Thome.

In 2005 we had a more balanced lineup, but not just because we did better on the small things. The 2005 Rowand, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik were better than the 2006 Anderson, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik. I don't think that had anything to do with Thome or a changing philosophy. I think doing worse in the small ball parts of the game is just due to worse production from the parts of the order that you expect to do those things.

MISoxfan
04-28-2013, 01:02 PM
In the second half of 2006 when Podsednik started to struggle, the team became dependent on the home run, otherwise they couldn't score which meant we lost a lot of one run ball games. Had Pods been able to continue to get on base at a .350 clip and steal as many bases as he did in 2005, they might have been able to win a few more games because they could manufacture more runs. Now, obviously the problem with the 2006 White Sox was that the pitching was just gassed in the second half, but maybe had Pods been as productive as he was in 2005 and Uribe didn't always swing for the fences, they might have been able to win a few more games. But it probably wouldn't have mattered.

I think that was a factor, but I just looked at the runs against in our losses in the second half of 2006 and it was pretty shocking.

7, 8, 6, 3, 7, 6, 7, 4, 4, 3, 9, 7, 4, 9, 5, 3, 5, 1, 9, 7, 8, 9, 4, 6, 10, 6, 10, 7, 5, 7, 8, 4, 4, 3

It's hard to look at those runs given up and point the finger at the offense.

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 01:41 PM
I'll agree that the 2005 team did do a few things better than the 2006 team offensively.

I thought the 2005 team was a better team with Thomas in the lineup than Everett. I also think the team had a better winning percentage during that period, but I'm not sure. I just have a hard time seeing how the 2005 team with Thomas is very than the 2006 team with Thome.

In 2005 we had a more balanced lineup, but not just because we did better on the small things. The 2005 Rowand, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik were better than the 2006 Anderson, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik. I don't think that had anything to do with Thome or a changing philosophy. I think doing worse in the small ball parts of the game is just due to worse production from the parts of the order that you expect to do those things.

2006 Crede was better than 2005 Crede. 2006 Podsednik fell apart in the second half and I don't think he was completely healed from that groin injury in 2005, it seemed to me that Uribe started always swinging from his heels in 2006 too.

WhiteSox5187
04-28-2013, 01:44 PM
I think that was a factor, but I just looked at the runs against in our losses in the second half of 2006 and it was pretty shocking.

7, 8, 6, 3, 7, 6, 7, 4, 4, 3, 9, 7, 4, 9, 5, 3, 5, 1, 9, 7, 8, 9, 4, 6, 10, 6, 10, 7, 5, 7, 8, 4, 4, 3

It's hard to look at those runs given up and point the finger at the offense.

Oh absolutely the finger has to be pointed at the pitching. You only go as far as your pitching will take you and our pitching fell apart, my point was had we had a more balanced approach or if guys like Podsednik and Uribe had performed at their 2005 levels we might have been able to win some more of those games that we lost 7-6 or 8-7. I am not sure we would have made the playoffs even if that were the case and I certainly don't think we would have done anything in the playoffs.

doublem23
04-29-2013, 01:31 AM
This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.

russ99
04-29-2013, 09:09 AM
It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.

That goes way beyond the numbers. How many times did the Sox score in the first inning that year? A ton. All pitchers pitch better with a lead.

Also, the hitting fell off the second half of the season, I'm sure the Sox were much closer to the top for the first 81 games.

BTW - the Giants were 6th in the league and 11th overall in runs scored last year, you don't need the best offense in the league to win, and the Giants didn't have overwhelming pitching, with two 16 game winners and subpar seasons from Lincecolm and Zito.

shingo10
04-29-2013, 09:34 AM
It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.


A very good leadoff hitter with great speed.
A number 2 hitter who was phenomenal with bunting, hit and run, working with Pods so he could steal, then moving him to 3rd. Had some nice pop too.
A real solid middle of the order. 40 hr from Konerko. Everett and Dye were above average hitters as well.
AJ had around 18 homeruns I think
Bottom of the order had some real pop with Crede and Uribe. Rowand was more than adequate at his spot (usually around 7th)

That was an extremely dangerous lineup that seems to me is exactly the kind of offense to be using as a mold. Yes the pitching was outstanding but it is foolish to overlook the fact that this team came up with a big score seemingly at will.

Lip Man 1
04-29-2013, 10:56 AM
Shingo / Russ:

Both of your posts were well stated. The Sox won in 05 because of outstanding pitching and a balanced offense....which they haven't had since.

Don't understand why there's even a debate about this but to each his own.

Lip

doublem23
04-29-2013, 11:50 AM
That was an extremely dangerous lineup that seems to me is exactly the kind of offense to be using as a mold. Yes the pitching was outstanding but it is foolish to overlook the fact that this team came up with a big score seemingly at will.

This is the exact kind of misconception that is out there. There was nothing dangerous about the '05 Sox offense. They were only dangerous because they were so heavily buoyed by the pitching staff, but if the pitching on that team was only "very good" or "excellent," it's hard to see how they could have won the division or even made the playoffs. You're looking at a team that won 8 games more than it's Expected W-L, had a .650 winning percentage in 1-run games (that's INSANE).

That team did not have an offense built to win. They were lucky enough to have a pitching staff that could win despite their clear, obvious, and numerous flaws. And they got lucky repeatedly. Most great teams do though, so it's all good. Finally it was the Sox's year to do so.

asindc
04-29-2013, 11:57 AM
This is the exact kind of misconception that is out there. There was nothing dangerous about the '05 Sox offense. They were only dangerous because they were so heavily buoyed by the pitching staff, but if the pitching on that team was only "very good" or "excellent," it's hard to see how they could have won the division or even made the playoffs. You're looking at a team that won 8 games more than it's Expected W-L, had a .650 winning percentage in 1-run games (that's INSANE).

That team did not have an offense built to win. They were lucky enough to have a pitching staff that could win despite their clear, obvious, and numerous flaws. And they got lucky repeatedly. Most great teams do though, so it's all good. Finally it was the Sox's year to do so.

It really shouldn't be a surprise that a team that won 99 games overall (.611 winning %) was .650 in one-run games.

doublem23
04-29-2013, 12:27 PM
It really shouldn't be a surprise that a team that won 99 games overall (.611 winning %) was .650 in one-run games.

Well that's kind of a chicken and egg argument; did the Sox win 65% of their 1-run games because they were a 99-win team or were they a 99-win team because they won 65% of their one-run games?

1-run game win percentage has proven to be EXTREMELY volitale figure. A 65% WP (which, FWIW, is a 105-57 record over a 162-game season) is an insanely high winning percentage. You can't rely on or expect a team to repeat that kind of performance year in and year out. Generally speaking, a team's "blow out" win percentage is a much more reliable indicator of their level of talent. The '05 Sox were 21-16 in "blowout games," a .568 winning percantage which would have been a 92-70 record in a 162-game season.

Frater Perdurabo
04-29-2013, 06:31 PM
The 2005 Sox got outstanding starting pitching and magnificent relief work, in many cases from pitchers who had career years in 2005.

The pitching was helped by excellent fielding.

The 2005 offense generally scored just enough runs to win, because when the homers weren't flying they could still manufacture a run.

After 2005, KW made all the right moves in an effort to repeat. He added a durable quality starter, a LH slugging DH, and a versatile bench bat who had started elsewhere. At mid-season, he added a reliever who pitched great down the stretch. These moves just didn't work out.

Tragg
04-29-2013, 06:53 PM
The 2005 Sox got outstanding starting pitching and magnificent relief work, in many cases from pitchers who had career years in 2005.

The pitching was helped by excellent fielding.

The 2005 offense generally scored just enough runs to win, because when the homers weren't flying they could still manufacture a run.

After 2005, KW made all the right moves in an effort to repeat. He added a durable quality starter, a LH slugging DH, and a versatile bench bat who had started elsewhere. At mid-season, he added a reliever who pitched great down the stretch. These moves just didn't work out.
Most of the moves before and during the 2006 season were solid. (But I will point out that Chris Young was one of the top prospects in all of baseball, and you simply don't see anyone else trading that level of prospect for solid, but not great veteran starers like Vasquez). We probably would have been worse in 2006 without them.. But in 2007 they really clowned it up (he started listening to Guillen who wanted a "move those runners up" offense) with Erstad, and Jerry Owens; and when things disintegrated, they didn't take the opportunity test our young prospects (Sweeney had 45 at bats; Owens had 356. Gio didn't pitch at all) and they traded for an awful Richar (with friendly Arizona). And then Williams got rid of the better prospects in the ill-fated Swisher trade. Fortunately, the Quentin trade #1 was fantastic. But since that time, he's made some good small moves, but most of his real trades have been particularly poor.

WhiteSox5187
04-29-2013, 08:37 PM
Most of the moves before and during the 2006 season were solid. (But I will point out that Chris Young was one of the top prospects in all of baseball, and you simply don't see anyone else trading that level of prospect for solid, but not great veteran starers like Vasquez). We probably would have been worse in 2006 without them.. But in 2007 they really clowned it up (he started listening to Guillen who wanted a "move those runners up" offense) with Erstad, and Jerry Owens; and when things disintegrated, they didn't take the opportunity test our young prospects (Sweeney had 45 at bats; Owens had 356. Gio didn't pitch at all) and they traded for an awful Richar (with friendly Arizona). And then Williams got rid of the better prospects in the ill-fated Swisher trade. Fortunately, the Quentin trade #1 was fantastic. But since that time, he's made some good small moves, but most of his real trades have been particularly poor.

Owens got so many at bats because Erstad, who was supposed to be the starting center fielder, got hurt. Owens was not suuposed to be anywhere near the 2007 team until everyone started getting hurt. The real problem with the 2007 team was the bullpen, which was Kenny's "pet project" that year.

Lip Man 1
04-29-2013, 11:38 PM
Yep...guys who all threw 95 and straight as a string, that is, when they could get the ball over the plate.

Lip

wassagstdu
04-30-2013, 06:12 AM
Most of the moves before and during the 2006 season were solid. ... But in 2007 they really clowned it up (he started listening to Guillen ... But since that time, he's made some good small moves, but most of his real trades have been particularly poor.

2007 is when KW stopped listening to Ozzie.

doublem23
04-30-2013, 08:12 AM
(But I will point out that Chris Young was one of the top prospects in all of baseball, and you simply don't see anyone else trading that level of prospect for solid, but not great veteran starers like Vasquez).

Uh, yes you do.

doublem23
04-30-2013, 08:14 AM
2007 is when KW stopped listening to Ozzie.

Oh for God's sake, nobody here has any insight into the dynamics of the Sox front office.

Tragg
04-30-2013, 12:04 PM
Uh, yes you do.
Name them. Let's see them.
Hope you can though....we should get 2 for Peavy if that's the case.

doublem23
04-30-2013, 02:40 PM
Name them. Let's see them.

The Royals traded Wil Myers, whose 10x the prospect Young ever was, along with some other good looking parts, to Tampa for James Shields, who is a solid but not great veteran pitcher this offseason...

Here's Vazquez and Shields, their last 3 seasons combined before they were traded. Each player started 99 games so these are their average numbers per season... Guess which is which:

PLAYER A - 227 IP, 102 ERA+, 216 H, 105 R, 95 ER, 58 BB, 212 K, 1.210 WHIP, 1.1 HR/9 IP, 2.3 BB/9 IP, 8.4 K/9 IP, 3.65 K/BB - 6.4 total WAR
PLAYER B - 215 IP, 108 ERA+, 205 H, 106 R, 99 ER, 54 BB, 194 K, 1.209 WHIP, 1.3 HR/9 IP, 2.3 BB/9 IP, 8.1 K/9 IP, 3.58 K/BB - 10.7 total WAR

asindc
04-30-2013, 03:33 PM
Name them. Let's see them.
Hope you can though....we should get 2 for Peavy if that's the case.

Wasn't Melky Cabrera traded to acquire Javier Vazquez, the pitcher you claim no one would trade anyone of significance for?

jdm2662
04-30-2013, 03:38 PM
Wasn't Melky Cabrera traded to acquire Javier Vazquez, the pitcher you claim no one would trade anyone of significance for?

Yes, and this was AFTER Vazquez bombed in NY already.