PDA

View Full Version : The meaning of seven games


Dadawg_77
09-30-2002, 09:22 PM
That is the difference between us and the Twins this year, seven games. If the Sox win seven games instead of losing them, we would of won the Div. Can anyone think of seven games we should of won but lost? If Sox add a good number 2/1 starter next year, could he add seven to our total?

How many games did we lose in the final three innings vs how many we won in the final three. I can't find that stat.

Sox 15-21 in one run games, the Twins are 29-16. Vs LHP the Sox are 17-24. The Sox finished second in the AL with most runs scored per game (5.5), third in HR (217), a bullpen that ranked 5 in the AL. I guess the Sox need to find the secret to win seven more games.

Oh and why does a spellchecker on White Sox site not realize that Sox is spelled correctly? :D:

ma-gaga
09-30-2002, 10:19 PM
7 games puts the Sox at 88-74.

Twins record was 94-67. You're still 6 games back. Are you talking about head to head games against the Twins?

Here we go Sox vs Twins:

6/24 L 4-5
6/25 W 15-7
6/26 L 5-6
6/27 W 7-4

7/22 L 6-11
7/23 W 8-7
7/24 L 1-8

7/30 W 3-0
7/31 L 1-2
8/1 L 0-6

8/19 L 3-7
8/20 L 0-5
8/21 W 10-1

9/20 W 10-2
9/21 W 14-4
9/22 W 8-2

9/27 L 1-3
9/28 L 2-3
9/29 L 1-3

Twins won the series 11-8. Sox outscore the Twins 99-86. Those one run games killed the Sox. The Twins had 4 and the Sox had 1. The two styles of teams are apparent enough to me. When the sox are clicking, they'll outscore their opponent 10-4, but they can get shut down and lose a lot of 3-1 games.

But this year there was no Baggydome meltdown. There was no throw to the plate, hitting a bat in foul territory. There was no memorable games between these two teams. 6 of these games came after the division was clinched.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again all offseason. The Sox need pitching. The Twins don't have a hitter near as dangerous as Maggs or Konerko, but they have a better ALL around team. Their #8 hitter was an all-star this year (AJ Pierzynski). Even their weak hitting first baseman got on base at a 0.365 clip.

Pitching. Pitching. Pitching.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2002, 01:28 AM
Here's the only stat you need to know (please see my new column on the main page...)

The Sox lost 12 games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later. End of story...(what was that about the Sox having a "solid" bullpen?)

Lip

duke of dorwood
10-01-2002, 08:37 AM
Any 7 games that Ritchie started

PaleHoseGeorge
10-01-2002, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Here's the only stat you need to know (please see my new column on the main page...)

The Sox lost 12 games where they took a lead into the 7th inning or later. End of story...(what was that about the Sox having a "solid" bullpen?)

Lip

We lost those games because our offense shutdown after the sixth inning. It's as if the Sox were giving the other team nine extra outs to beat us. For our part, we didn't have a comeback victory until August, LOL!

Blaming the Sox bullpen for this situation is like blaming a hangover on beer nuts.

hold2dibber
10-01-2002, 12:05 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
We lost those games because our offense shutdown after the sixth inning. It's as if the Sox were giving the other team nine extra outs to beat us. For our part, we didn't have a comeback victory until August, LOL!

Blaming the Sox bullpen for this situation is like blaming a hangover on beer nuts.

Well, those beer nuts can make you really, really, really thirsty. The next thing you know, you wake up in your underwear on your neighbor's patio with their dog sniffing all over you. Damn beer nuts.

But seriously, I think the late inning losses cannot be attributed solely to the bullpen or the offense. The bullpen gave up leads in those games, but once they did, you just knew the offense wouldn't be able to overcome it (unlike 2000, when it seemed like they were never out of the game). I wonder, though, are 12 games lost after leading going into the 7th a lot, comparatively speaking? It doesn't seem like it to me - I'm guessing that the league average is pretty close to that number.

The reason the Sox didn't get it done this year is starting pitching. They had a good no. 1 and decent nos. 4 and 5 starters (Garland and Wright). But they didn't have anyone to fill in those no. 2 and no. 3 slots in the rotation. Those holes have to be addressed if they're going to contend next year.

Iwritecode
10-01-2002, 01:16 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
We lost those games because our offense shutdown after the sixth inning. It's as if the Sox were giving the other team nine extra outs to beat us. For our part, we didn't have a comeback victory until August, LOL!

Blaming the Sox bullpen for this situation is like blaming a hangover on beer nuts.

Can we blame the Sox bullpen on mound visits from this guy?

:nardi
Just throw strikes!

maurice
10-01-2002, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
The Sox need pitching. The Twins don't have a hitter near as dangerous as Maggs or Konerko.

I agree 100% with 2/3rds of what you've said.

1. Starting pitching is the key. Despite a number of injuries, Twins' starters posted a 4.38 ERA in 2002, while Sox' starters combined for a miserable 4.94 ERA.

2. Maggs is head and shoulders above any hitter on the Twins.

3. OTOH, Paulie is not in Maggs' league either. He actually was comparable to a couple of Twins in 2002.

Player / OPS
Maggs / .978
T. Hunter / .859
Paulie / .857
J. Jones / .852

Yes, I know Paulie is a nice guy and maybe his foot hurts, but an .850-ish OPS is pretty standard for him. Hurt, CLee, or even Crede potentially can meet or exceed Paulie's 2002 numbers next season, and I understand that the Twins have some pretty hot hitting prospects of their own.

ScottyTheSoxFan
10-01-2002, 04:05 PM
well if it is just 7 games out of the season... i say

all of ritchie's starts in july

and parques bad starts plus the 19-0 loss to angels.

Nellie_Fox
10-01-2002, 05:14 PM
The whole discussion is moot. As pointed out by ma-gaga, the Sox would have needed 14 more wins, not seven (minus one for each additional win that was over the Twins.) PHG is dead on, any time the Sox were behind after 6 innings, you could just pack it in. They also were terrible in one run games, and not just agains the Twins. Teams that don't come from behind and don't win the close ones are destined to fail. Trying to identify individual games that made a difference is futile.

I don't know why spellcheck doesn't recognize "Sox," but I wish it knew that it is "would have and should have, not would of and should of.