PDA

View Full Version : All Or Nothing At All?


Lip Man 1
05-13-2004, 11:47 PM
The point was raised about how the Sox do in games after they score ten runs or more. It's an interesting question so I did some research. Here are the numbers since the 2000 season. I have no idea what they mean...if anything. I'll leave that for your folks to figure out. Also I didn't break things down to see how many of the losses were aginst 'no name,''rookie,' 'garbage' pitchers. In addition I checked out the Sox 1-0 games to see if they won or lost them...

Here you go:

In 2000 the Sox had 28 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 21-7 ! They had an amazing 9 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 8 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 11 games where they scored 3-5 runs and zero games where they scored two runs or less. In 1-0 games that year they were 1-1.


In 2001 the Sox had 10 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 5-5 They had only 1 game where they scored 9 runs or more, 3 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 4 games where they scored 3-5 runs and two games where they scored two runs or less. They had no 1-0 games that season.


In 2002 the Sox had 25 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 13-12 They had 5 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 7 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 5 games where they scored 3-5 runs and eight games where they scored two runs or less! They went 0-1 in 1-0 games that season.

In 2003 the Sox had 15 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 9-6 They had 2 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 3 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 6 games where they scored 3-5 runs and four games where they scored two runs or less. They went 1-3 in 1-0 games that season.

My own rough opinion is that the numbers show how much the 2000 season was a complete fluke. Not only did they have 28 games in double figures but the next game they then went out and 9 games where they scored 9 runs or more. That's preety unheard of...of course that whole season was pretty unheard of.

Anyway take the numbers for what they are worth.

Lip

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1

My own rough opinion is that the numbers show how much the 2000 season was a complete fluke. Not only did they have 28 games in double figures but the next game they then went out and 9 games where they scored 9 runs or more. That's preety unheard of...of course that whole season was pretty unheard of.

Anyway take the numbers for what they are worth.

Lip

What precisely do you mean by calling the 2000 season a fluke?

TDog
05-14-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
What precisely do you mean by calling the 2000 season a fluke?

In this line of reasoning, could the 1984 Tigers be written off as a complete fluke? Fans have fond memories of how they pulled together for a solid season.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 02:07 PM
Because the Sox never hit like that again in any of the following three seasons.

They never made it back to the playoffs and had records right around the .500 mark the following seasons.

They went from what 79 wins in 1999, to 95 wins in 2000, to 83 wins in 2001 to 81 wins in 2002.

79,95,83,81. Sounds pretty 'fluky' to me.

Lip

idseer
05-14-2004, 03:18 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
What precisely do you mean by calling the 2000 season a fluke?

is this even argued anymore?

it's obvious 2000 was a fluke.

they were so 'not' that good, as was apparent by playing .500 ball the second half and getting blown away by the mariners in the playoffs, then following it up with 2 more average years.

i know sox fans would like to think they were really special that year .... but they weren't!

... not that it wasn't a heck of a ride tho! especially that cleveland/new york weekend. :smile:

Blueprint1
05-14-2004, 04:54 PM
having every single starting pitcher on that team go down with an injury didnt help. you forget that we lost eldred for the second half of that season. We also had injuries to every other starter on that team thats what caused the second half swoon.

thecell
05-14-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
The point was raised about how the Sox do in games after they score ten runs or more. It's an interesting question so I did some research. Here are the numbers since the 2000 season. I have no idea what they mean...if anything. I'll leave that for your folks to figure out. Also I didn't break things down to see how many of the losses were aginst 'no name,''rookie,' 'garbage' pitchers. In addition I checked out the Sox 1-0 games to see if they won or lost them...

Here you go:

In 2000 the Sox had 28 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 21-7 ! They had an amazing 9 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 8 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 11 games where they scored 3-5 runs and zero games where they scored two runs or less. In 1-0 games that year they were 1-1.


In 2001 the Sox had 10 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 5-5 They had only 1 game where they scored 9 runs or more, 3 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 4 games where they scored 3-5 runs and two games where they scored two runs or less. They had no 1-0 games that season.


In 2002 the Sox had 25 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 13-12 They had 5 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 7 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 5 games where they scored 3-5 runs and eight games where they scored two runs or less! They went 0-1 in 1-0 games that season.

In 2003 the Sox had 15 games where they scored ten runs or more. In the next immediate game they went 9-6 They had 2 games where they scored 9 runs or more, 3 games where they scored 6-8 runs, 6 games where they scored 3-5 runs and four games where they scored two runs or less. They went 1-3 in 1-0 games that season.

My own rough opinion is that the numbers show how much the 2000 season was a complete fluke. Not only did they have 28 games in double figures but the next game they then went out and 9 games where they scored 9 runs or more. That's preety unheard of...of course that whole season was pretty unheard of.

Anyway take the numbers for what they are worth.

Lip

I'd like to see the stats for every ML team to see if it is typical to have a let down after a big offensive game or just a phenomenon or our White Sox.

Brian26
05-14-2004, 05:46 PM
Originally posted by TDog
In this line of reasoning, could the 1984 Tigers be written off as a complete fluke? Fans have fond memories of how they pulled together for a solid season.

For that matter, any number of teams from the past 20 years could be a fluke. The '84 and '89 Cubs fall into that category pretty nicely. The '97 Marlins do, as well.

Voice of Reason
05-14-2004, 06:21 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Because the Sox never hit like that again in any of the following three seasons.

They never made it back to the playoffs and had records right around the .500 mark the following seasons.

They went from what 79 wins in 1999, to 95 wins in 2000, to 83 wins in 2001 to 81 wins in 2002.

79,95,83,81. Sounds pretty 'fluky' to me.

Lip

Well if you look at it that simplistically it is a "fluke". However I would think of it as the Sox have a solid group of core players which Kenny Williams has failed to compliment well with other talent. It takes some talent to make it to .500, we have just had a failure to collect enough talent to take the team further.

hold2dibber
05-14-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by Voice of Reason
Well if you look at it that simplistically it is a "fluke". However I would think of it as the Sox have a solid group of core players which Kenny Williams has failed to compliment well with other talent. It takes some talent to make it to .500, we have just had a failure to collect enough talent to take the team further.

I suppose that's true, but you also have to take into consideration the fact that the success in 2000 was in large part the result of a starting staff that completely, utterly disintigrated after that year. In essense, KW has had to completely rebuild the pitching staff from that team. Not ONE of Eldred, Baldwin, Sirotka and Parque, the mainstays of the 2000 rotation, was ever an effective starting pitcher again after that year. I don't care how "good" you think the '00 core was on offense, having to start from scratch in terms of the pitching staff makes it pretty tough. KW has done a decent (though far from perfect) job in that regard.

bigdommer
05-14-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by idseer
is this even argued anymore?

it's obvious 2000 was a fluke.

they were so 'not' that good, as was apparent by playing .500 ball the second half and getting blown away by the mariners in the playoffs, then following it up with 2 more average years.

i know sox fans would like to think they were really special that year .... but they weren't!

... not that it wasn't a heck of a ride tho! especially that cleveland/new york weekend. :smile:

I consider a fluke getting lucky one day. Or maybe having a wierd string of good fortune. Or possibly having bad events turn good.

Entire seasons are not flukes. Maybe they overacheived for a season. Maybe 2001-2003 we underacheived. But you don't get lucky for 162 games. That doesn't just happen.

A lot of people will probably tell you that Esteban Loaiza was a fluke last year. I thought that after his first start, and maybe after his second. But after the guy kept shoving it night in and night out against the best in the league, including the all-star game, I realized that this guys was just dialed in and throwing well. Was he playing above his potential? Probably. Was he getting lucky because his cutter routinely jammed lefties and sat down righties? I doubt it.

Lip Man 1
05-14-2004, 11:48 PM
Blueprint:

You are right. Which makes Ron Schueler refusing to trade any of our ' can't miss kids,' for pitchers like Mike Mussina even more perplexing. (I'm just using him as an example by the way, I know he was a free agent and was on the block. But it could have been anybody else except Schilling who refuses to ever play for the Sox as long as Uncle Jerry is the owner...)

Lip

TDog
05-15-2004, 07:09 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
For that matter, any number of teams from the past 20 years could be a fluke. The '84 and '89 Cubs fall into that category pretty nicely. The '97 Marlins do, as well.

By this logic, any World Series champion that isn't the Yankees in recent years, even though Yankees haven't won it in the last few years, is a fluke. And for that matter, it would be a fluke that the Yankees haven't won in the last few years, considering their payroll.

An inside-the-park home run bouncing in front of Harold Baines in the Metrodome in the ninth inning for a Twins win is a fluke. Calling the 2000 White Sox a fluke is like calling the 1983 White Sox or the 1959 White Sox flukes. It diminishes the achievements of men who worked hard to achieve success in a difficult and competitive profession.

Lip Man 1
05-15-2004, 10:17 PM
and then they fell right on their asses in 2001 and 2002 being mediocre.

That says my friend that 2000 was a fluke. They got the bounces, had career years in many cases (which hasn't been mentioned yet) and took advantages of the breaks.

Lip