PDA

View Full Version : Sox Power Shortage?


1917
01-18-2005, 05:37 PM
I hate hearing about the so called "power shortage"...We got 7 guys in our lineup who can and probably will hit over 20 home runs .....Paulie, Dye, Frank, Crede, Rowand, Everett (when Healthy throw away last year) and Uribe...Pods and AJ can hit 15 easy in the Cell....How many other teams can say that they have that kind of power capabilty? I see no shortage on any power. We just added players who don't rely on only HR's and long doubles.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2005, 05:39 PM
When you play in a park where any Tom, Dick or Harry can hit 20 dingers, why do you need to load up on sluggers? Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

1917
01-18-2005, 05:52 PM
When you play in a park where any Tom, Dick or Harry can hit 20 dingers, why do you need to load up on sluggers? Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

I'm a big fan of our line up....but I don't believe the critics out there who think the Sox are going to have a power shortage, because there won't be

FightingBillini
01-18-2005, 05:54 PM
When you play in a park where any Tom, Dick or Harry can hit 20 dingers, why do you need to load up on sluggers? Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

I've had just about enough of you making sense. NO! We need power hitters. Power power power. We suck because we lost Maggs and Lee. Frank sucks and isn't healthy. I want more solo home runs!

NSSoxFan
01-18-2005, 05:55 PM
I am a huge fan of our line-up. Listen, KW could have played dumb and not learned from the previous four season and still play the longball game. This line-up can produce runs against frontline pitcher, IMO. Remember all those games in the previous years that we just went into games knowing that if we weren't hitting home runs, we were going to lose. This is a great change.

NonetheLoaiza
01-18-2005, 05:59 PM
When you play in a park where any Tom, Dick or Harry can hit 20 dingers, why do you need to load up on sluggers? Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

I was thinking this exact same thing when several questions were brought up at Soxfest about how our ballpark is condusive to powere hitters, so why not get power hitters? I was thinking, if the ball jumps there, why do we need power hitters? We have guys who can get on base, and enough players with enough power to hit those 2 or 3 run homers when we need them. But, our lineup is also so diverse, that I think we can manufactur runs when we don't hit the ball out.

NonetheLoaiza
01-18-2005, 06:03 PM
I am a huge fan of our line-up. Listen, KW could have played dumb and not learned from the previous four season and still play the longball game. This line-up can produce runs against frontline pitcher, IMO. Remember all those games in the previous years that we just went into games knowing that if we weren't hitting home runs, we were going to lose. This is a great change.

When we lost Maggs and Frank last year to injury and went through those games where everyone swung for the fences, I wanted so bad for us to almost get a whole new lineup, because with all the hitters we had, we couldn't get anywhere. I got my wish, and I have to agree with you that I am a huge fan of the current lineup too. KW did a great job of recognizing a problem, getting the players to attempt to fix it, and going into next season with a clean slate.

Ol' No. 2
01-18-2005, 06:04 PM
I am a huge fan of our line-up. Listen, KW could have played dumb and not learned from the previous four season and still play the longball game. This line-up can produce runs against frontline pitcher, IMO. Remember all those games in the previous years that we just went into games knowing that if we weren't hitting home runs, we were going to lose. This is a great change.In my view, the lineup changes we're seeing have Ozzie's fingerprints on them. How many years did Kenny manage the team and every year it was the same old same old: sluggers galore, and holes in their starting rotation and bullpen? Last year Ozzie didn't really have a chance to put his mark on the team, but he's doing it now. You can't play Ozzieball without Ozzieball players, and that's what they're getting.

chisoxmike
01-18-2005, 06:04 PM
I still want to see if Podsednik is going to be this "anwser" to our leadoff problems. Yeah, he has great speed, but will he be able to draw walks and get some base hits to actually steal these 70 bases and score from the likes of Rowand, Konerko, Dye in 2005?

Don't start on Everett either, jury is still out on him. Great he's in shape, but you can't say anything on him until after the season starts.

The only proven consistant hitters we have in the lineup are Konerko, and Pierzinski, and Dye.

santo=dorf
01-18-2005, 06:11 PM
:threadrules:

We set a franchise record (242) last season with Maggs and Frank missing a combined 198 games. We'll be fine. :cool:

batmanZoSo
01-18-2005, 06:14 PM
When you play in a park where any Tom, Dick or Harry can hit 20 dingers, why do you need to load up on sluggers? Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

Totally agree with you. We still have legit AL calieber power. We just traded some of it for a better pitching staff. If healthy, this team will be fine. Probably a lot better than fine. A lack of power won't be among our problems. If Podsednik and Harris work out with great speed and steals at the top and the bottom of the order, I'll bet we score more runs than we did last year.

I don't like tailoring your lineup to your park too much because you're only there half the time. The moves we made were the right ones, IMO. I think we're built for success in any park.

NSSoxFan
01-18-2005, 06:15 PM
In my view, the lineup changes we're seeing have Ozzie's fingerprints on them. How many years did Kenny manage the team and every year it was the same old same old: sluggers galore, and holes in their starting rotation and bullpen? Last year Ozzie didn't really have a chance to put his mark on the team, but he's doing it now. You can't play Ozzieball without Ozzieball players, and that's what they're getting.

:hawk
"It's an attitude"

Man, I miss that.

CHI_SOX_4_LIFE
01-18-2005, 06:47 PM
i love our lineup now. last season we had a ridiculous amount of solo shots. it was an extremely aggrivating statistic. we have more guys now that can get on base and cut off a lot of those solo shots, especially at comiskey. :bandance:

johnny_mostil
01-18-2005, 06:51 PM
The only proven consistant hitters we have in the lineup are Konerko, and Pierzinski, and Dye.

There are no proven consistent hitters.

nccwsfan
01-18-2005, 07:23 PM
But the makeup of the team is such that we shouldn't have to worry about scoring 15 one night and getting shut out the next. Yes there are ifs, but every team has them, and I like the chances of this Sox team manufacturing runs with this starting rotation in place. A lot of us got tired of seeing this team live and die by the tater.

Great post 1917.

chisoxmike
01-18-2005, 09:13 PM
There are no proven consistent hitters.

Now that I think about it, 2004 was the only season where Konerko put two halfs together.

ssviland
01-18-2005, 10:30 PM
Here is the lineup, prior to Thomas' return, with each player's best season since 2000:
(AVG, HR, R,RBI,SB,OBA,SLG)

LF Posednik (03) .314 9 100 58 43 .379 .443
CF Rowand (04) .310 24 94 69 17 .361 .544
RF Dye (00) .321 33 107 118 0 .390 .561
1B Konerko (04) .277 41 84 117 1 .359 .535
DH Everett (00) .300 34 82 108 11 .373 .587
SS Uribe (04) .283 23 82 74 9 .327 .506
C Pierzinski (03) .312 11 63 74 3 .360 .464
3B Crede (03) .261 19 68 75 1 .308 .433
2B Harris (04) .262 2 68 27 19 .343 .323

If I have time maybe I'll average each player's last 5 full seasons.

Man Soo Lee
01-19-2005, 02:02 AM
Seems to me that what you want is some high OBP guys to turn those solo shots into 2- or 3-run homers.

I agree. Besides Pierzynski at catcher though, how have we upgraded our on-base ability?

California Sox
01-19-2005, 02:43 AM
Thomas, Everett, Dye, Konerko, Crede, Uribe, and Rowand are not all going to hit 20+ homers because if Frank is healthy, Carl has nowhere to play. (Hey, maybe he can play second.) That is, unless Carl plays LF and Pods becomes a fourth outfielder. If that happens, the Lee trade becomes inexcusable.

I agree with the people who say we have not improved OBP: Pods < Carlos; Dye < Maggs; Crazy Carl < Frank; Uribe = Valentin; A.J. > Olivo/Alomar/Davis/Burke; God I hope 2005 Crede > 2004 Crede and 2005 Rowand = 2004 Rowand or we might be in trouble.

SoxFan48
01-19-2005, 08:07 AM
[QUOTE=ssviland]Here is the lineup, prior to Thomas' return, with each player's best season since 2000:
(AVG, HR, R,RBI,SB,OBA,SLG)

LF Posednik (03) .314 9 100 58 43 .379 .443
CF Rowand (04) .310 24 94 69 17 .361 .544
RF Dye (00) .321 33 107 118 0 .390 .561
1B Konerko (04) .277 41 84 117 1 .359 .535
DH Everett (00) .300 34 82 108 11 .373 .587
SS Uribe (04) .283 23 82 74 9 .327 .506
C Pierzinski (03) .312 11 63 74 3 .360 .464
3B Crede (03) .261 19 68 75 1 .308 .433
2B Harris (04) .262 2 68 27 19 .343 .323

QUOTE]

Baseball Prospectus will out be shortly showing the trendline of each player and the 50% probability of what 2005 will look like. We should look at those numbers and then add up the homers.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 09:34 AM
I agree. Besides Pierzynski at catcher though, how have we upgraded our on-base ability?

We haven't. The Sox only had seven players with over 100AB with OBP over .350. Lee and Mags are gone, Thomas is hurt, Burke probally won't make the team, Rowand and Gload need to prove it wasn't an one year fluke. So that leaves Konerko as the only hitter who doesn't have many question surrounding him. The Sox will need career years from Dye, AJ, and Pods to come close to .350.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 09:42 AM
The Sox will need career years from Dye, AJ, and Pods to come close to .350.

Huh? I understand that all 3 of these guys were in the lower 300's last year, but "career years"? Dye was above .350 in 1999, 2000, and 2001, then got injured. Pierzynski was at .360 in 2003, and Pods was at .379 that same year. Methinks that statement was a bit exaggerated.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 09:45 AM
We haven't. The Sox only had seven players with over 100AB with OBP over .350. Lee and Mags are gone, Thomas is hurt, Burke probally won't make the team, Rowand and Gload need to proves it wasn't an one year thing. So that leave Konerko as the only hitter who doesn't have many question surrounding him. The Sox will need career years from Dye, AJ, and Pods to come close to .350.So if a player had a good year last year, it's just a fluke, but if a player had a below-average year, that's the norm. Let's just make this simple. Everyone we have will suck no matter what they've done in the past.

idseer
01-19-2005, 09:50 AM
We haven't. The Sox only had seven players with over 100AB with OBP over .350. Lee and Mags are gone, Thomas is hurt, Burke probally won't make the team, Rowand and Gload need to proves it wasn't an one year thing. So that leave Konerko as the only hitter who doesn't have many question surrounding him. The Sox will need career years from Dye, AJ, and Pods to come close to .350.

but thomas and magglio missed most of last season anyway. make comparisons with the way the team looked at the END of last season ... not the beginning.

i also believe that even tho the obp doesn't look much improved that there's something to be said about attitude. and the attitude of last year's team (and for years before that) STUNK! the idea of getting on base may be more infectious then it has been which could manifest itself in a higher obp this season. i also believe crede had his worst season last year obp-wise. he has GOT to improve. uribe should be better now that he's seen al pitchers abd he should feel more comfortable at ss too. carl has to be better than last year too. and fielding, i believe, has taken a leap forward.
i think the sox pitchers will be keeping them in every game also. this will have a positive effect on the hitters too.

it's not all just numbers. it's attitude.
i think they will be more exciting to watch, will generate larger crowds which in turn will invigorate the players, which will make them more exciting to watch, which will generate larger crowds, which will make them .......

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 10:00 AM
but thomas and magglio missed most of last season anyway. make comparisons with the way the team looked at the END of last season ... not the beginning.

i also believe that even tho the obp doesn't look much improved that there's something to be said about attitude. and the attitude of last year's team (and for years before that) STUNK! the idea of getting on base may be more infectious then it has been which could manifest itself in a higher obp this season. i also believe crede had his worst season last year obp-wise. he has GOT to improve. uribe should be better now that he's seen al pitchers abd he should feel more comfortable at ss too. carl has to be better than last year too. and fielding, i believe, has taken a leap forward.
i think the sox pitchers will be keeping them in every game also. this will have a positive effect on the hitters too.

it's not all just numbers. it's attitude.
i think they will be more exciting to watch, will generate larger crowds which in turn will invigorate the players, which will make them more exciting to watch, which will generate larger crowds, which will make them .......

The difference OBP-wise will come in a number of areas. Sure, we lost Lee, but I'd expect Pods to put up an OBP not toof ar off of Carlos' .366 OBP last year. The big change is that we ought to have significant upgrades at 3 other spots:
from Valentin (.287) to Harris(.343)/Iguchi
from Davis(.276) to AJP(career:.336 / 2004:.319)
from Borchard(.249)/Timo(.285) to Dye(career:.334 / 2004:.329).

Sure, we didn't add anyone who's dominant in OBP, but we had some pretty large black holes that we've now eliminated. And we still have enough power to put up around 200HR.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:04 AM
Huh? I understand that all 3 of these guys were in the lower 300's last year, but "career years"? Dye was above .350 in 1999, 2000, and 2001, then got injured. Pierzynski was at .360 in 2003, and Pods was at .379 that same year. Methinks that statement was a bit exaggerated.

Dye Career OBP is .334. He hasn't been the same since he broke his leg. It is incorrect to base your projections on those years. Also if you look at his numbers, his OBP from walks is about .065. Thus to have a .350 OBP, he would need to hit .290. .252, .172, .265 are his averages since 2002. In the decline stage of his career, hitting .290 will be a career year.

AJ, OPB from walks is about .045, it was .048 when he had .360 OBP. AJ career average is .294 and his career OBP is .336. So while maybe not a career year, he need one of his better years to have a .350 OBP.

Pods. .379 or .313. That is the question as those are his OBP when given over 500 at bats. When you look at his minor league numbers, .313 is closer to the real Pods then .379. Not too many 27 year old rookies have highly productive major league careers. Kenny traded for a AAAA who had one outstanding year. Now at 29, and leaving his peak years behind him, I doubt Pods will hit over .300 again.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 10:04 AM
And quite honestly, it's not our hitting that has set us back for the past 4 years, it's our PITCHING. I don't see how anyone could think that the staff on opening day 2005 isn't considerably better than the one we had on opening day 2004.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 10:09 AM
The difference OBP-wise will come in a number of areas. Sure, we lost Lee, but I'd expect Pods to put up an OBP not toof ar off of Carlos' .366 OBP last year. The big change is that we ought to have significant upgrades at 3 other spots:
from Valentin (.287) to Harris(.343)/Iguchi
from Davis(.276) to AJP(career:.336 / 2004:.319)
from Borchard(.249)/Timo(.285) to Dye(career:.334 / 2004:.329).

Sure, we didn't add anyone who's dominant in OBP, but we had some pretty large black holes that we've now eliminated. And we still have enough power to put up around 200HR.I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll reiterate it:

CLee: 310 TB + 11 SB = 321 "total" bases
Pods: 233 TB + 70 SB = 303 "total" bases

When you add in the SB, their "total" bases are not too different. And that's with a sub-par year for Podzilla (That name is destined to catch on).

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 10:10 AM
I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll reiterate it:

CLee: 310 TB + 11 SB = 321 "total" bases
Pods: 233 TB + 70 SB = 303 "total" bases

When you add in the SB, their "total" bases are not too different. And that's with a sub-par year for Podzilla (That name is destined to catch on).

To be fair, I think you'd probably have to subtract CS from those totals. So Lee (5CS) would beat out Pods (13CS) by 316 - 290. Still fairly close, it's less than an additional 1/2 base per game.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:11 AM
So if a player had a good year last year, it's just a fluke, but if a player had a below-average year, that's the norm. Let's just make this simple. Everyone we have will suck no matter what they've done in the past.

No but without a history it is hard to say if it was or not. Gload doesn't take many walks so high portion of his OBP is his average. Can he hit .320 again? Maybe so and maybe not, thus he is a question mark.

Rowand went from .327 to .361, was it real improvement? His OBP from walks went up .010 for .040 in 2003 to .050 last year. So can he hit over .300 this year when he has only done it twice in his pro career, last year and in low A ball. That is a question.

I am not saying Rowand or Gload suck, just I wouldn't count to heavily on repeat performances.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:17 AM
To be fair, I think you'd probably have to subtract CS from those totals. So Lee (5CS) would beat out Pods (13CS) by 316 - 290. Still fairly close, it's less than an additional 1/2 base per game.

Also Pods had 713 PA to Lees 658. So Pods had 55 additional chances to incease his numbers. To be fair your number should reflect that.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:17 AM
And quite honestly, it's not our hitting that has set us back for the past 4 years, it's our PITCHING. I don't see how anyone could think that the staff on opening day 2005 isn't considerably better than the one we had on opening day 2004.

Just too bad the hitting could set us back in 2005.

JRIG
01-19-2005, 10:19 AM
I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll reiterate it:

CLee: 310 TB + 11 SB = 321 "total" bases
Pods: 233 TB + 70 SB = 303 "total" bases

When you add in the SB, their "total" bases are not too different. And that's with a sub-par year for Podzilla (That name is destined to catch on).

But that has nothing to do with OBP. If anything, it's an upgrade to Pod's SLG. The ability to steal bases doesn't mean Podsednik will be on base any more often for what may have been solo home runs last year.

Plus, the big argument about the walk being overvalued is that is "not as good as a base hit." Well, Posednik's stolen bases are nice, but it tough to equate that with the value of Lee's doubles, which are more likely to drive in a run than one of Podsednik's singles. Yes, leading off that may not mean as much, but it's still important to point out.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:20 AM
I think this has been mentioned before, but I'll reiterate it:

CLee: 310 TB + 11 SB = 321 "total" bases
Pods: 233 TB + 70 SB = 303 "total" bases

When you add in the SB, their "total" bases are not too different. And that's with a sub-par year for Podzilla (That name is destined to catch on).

Why was last year sub-par for Podzilla?

owensmouth
01-19-2005, 10:22 AM
Our starting staff for 2005 is 80% the same as the one that stumbled through the last two months of 2004. Not much change.

Yeah, KW got rid of some free swingers that hit bases empty home runs. Unfortunately, he kept the people that failed to get on base for the big swingers.

The White Sox will still hit plenty of home runs, just not as many as their opposition.

The relief staff has been improved...

Is there anybody that can lay down a bunt with runners on first and second and successfully get them to second and third? How many times did that move fail last year?

mjharrison72
01-19-2005, 10:24 AM
i love our lineup now. last season we had a ridiculous amount of solo shots. it was an extremely aggrivating statistic. we have more guys now that can get on base and cut off a lot of those solo shots, especially at comiskey. :bandance:
And one C. Lee was the king of the solo shot (16 of 31 last year). It always seemed he could be counted on to hit a meaningless homer when the Sox were down three runs in the 8th or 9th.
-M

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 10:25 AM
No but without a history it is hard to say if it was or not. Gload doesn't take many walks so high portion of his OBP is his average. Can he hit .320 again? Maybe so and maybe not, thus he is a question mark.

Rowand went from .327 to .361, was it real improvement? His OBP from walks went up .010 for .040 in 2003 to .050 last year. So can he hit over .300 this year when he has only done it twice in his pro career, last year and in low A ball. That is a question.

I am not saying Rowand or Gload suck, just I wouldn't count to heavily on repeat performances.While it's true that players that had above average years are likely to do not as well (Rowand) it's just as true that players that had below average years are likely to do better (Crede). And some players that had average years last year will have above average (or below average) years in 2005. Overall, it tends to cancel out, and you're probably going to get something close to their 2004 numbers. There's no more basis for projecting that the holdover players will decline as a group than there is for projecting they'll improve as a group. The difference comes from the changes in the lineup. And as Flight pointed out, they're mostly in the positive direction.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 10:29 AM
Just too bad the hitting could set us back in 2005.

But really, does anyone think it will? This team managed to score 865 runs with Frank and Maggs missing 198 games. Even though our lineup from the middle of the season was patchwork, we still managed to score over 400 runs after the All Star Break.

mdep524
01-19-2005, 10:31 AM
And one C. Lee was the king of the solo shot (16 of 31 last year). It always seemed he could be counted on to hit a meaningless homer when the Sox were down three runs in the 8th or 9th.
-M

True, but let's not blame it ALL on CLee- when there's no one on base there's nothing you can do. I like the general direction of this '05 Sox team, but there is still probably a bit of a deficiency in OBP. If we can get that magical number 2 hitter (Iguchi, Polanco, Durham, Castillo, Rollins, whatever other rumors you want to throw out there), this team will be set to go.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:36 AM
While it's true that players that had above average years are likely to do not as well (Rowand) it's just as true that players that had below average years are likely to do better (Crede). And some players that had average years last year will have above average (or below average) years in 2005. Overall, it tends to cancel out, and you're probably going to get something close to their 2004 numbers. There's no more basis for projecting that the holdover players will decline as a group than there is for projecting they'll improve as a group. The difference comes from the changes in the lineup. And as Flight pointed out, they're mostly in the positive direction.

I think Flight is being overly optimistic in his projections for next year. The fact remains the Sox lineup lost two maybe three of its top producers from last half decade this off season and Kenny hasn't replace them fully. I think this team will generate 750 runs this year and that won't be enough to win the Central.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 10:37 AM
Why was last year sub-par for Podzilla?Podzilla had better hitters hitting behind him in 2003, which may explain some of the dropoff going into 2004. He's also admitted that he was swinging for the fences more. I think Ozzie will keep him in line on the latter a little better than Ned Yost. Plus, swinging for the fences is less tempting when you're not playing for a bottom-feeder team that's going nowhere anyway. And he's certainly going to have better hitters behind him than Junior Spivey. I think there's good reason to think he'll get his OBP up, but how far is anybody's guess. At the same time, I suspect he'll be running at least as often, so I don't see a corresponding reason to think his SB will drop off much.

Hangar18
01-19-2005, 10:40 AM
I am a huge fan of our line-up. Listen, KW could have played dumb and not learned from the previous four season and still play the longball game. This line-up can produce runs against frontline pitcher, IMO. Remember all those games in the previous years that we just went into games knowing that if we weren't hitting home runs, we were going to lose. This is a great change.

For a Team to WIN, you need a BALANCE. A Balance of PITCHING, BULLPEN, HITTING and BENCH help.
The White Sox were EXTREMELY lucky to have
had an abundance of Power, whereas all they needed to do was Compliment
it with Pitching, Bullpen, and Bench help. But they got Cheap and ignored
the holes in those 3 Variables. To compound this, they actually weakened
the Bullpen and Bench after the 03 Seasons. We didnt win because
the SOX Created Holes in their Pitching, Bullpen and Bench every year
since 2000, and the POWER alone wasnt going to save them (foolish of them to Think otherwise)
I'll give them some credit for filling some of the holes ....
But lets not forget .....They themselves CREATED these holes, and wasted 4 potentially Good Seasons being idiots and realizing 4 yrs too late that POWER alone wont win you a division.

But imagine if we had just gone out and
gotten the SPEED and ONBASE guys we needed at the top and bottom
of the lineup .........

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 10:41 AM
Podzilla had better hitters hitting behind him in 2003, which may explain some of the dropoff going into 2004. He's also admitted that he was swinging for the fences more. I think Ozzie will keep him in line on the latter a little better than Ned Yost. Plus, swinging for the fences is less tempting when you're not playing for a bottom-feeder team that's going nowhere anyway. And he's certainly going to have better hitters behind him than Junior Spivey. I think there's good reason to think he'll get his OBP up, but how far is anybody's guess. At the same time, I suspect he'll be running at least as often, so I don't see a corresponding reason to think his SB will drop off much.

Problem is there is nothing in his history to suggest 2003 was the norm. Everything suggest 2004 was the norm. No one is going to pitch around a punch and judy hitter unless they bat 8th in the NL. Thus better hitters behind arguement is weak. He was swinging for the fences and put up a .364 SLG and 12 homers!?!

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 10:47 AM
I think Flight is being overly optimistic in his projections for next year. The fact remains the Sox lineup lost two maybe three of its top producers from last half decade this off season and Kenny hasn't replace them fully. I think this team will generate 750 runs this year and that won't be enough to win the Central.I agree that 750 runs will not win the Central. That's basically a .500 team. But I don't see any good reason to be that pessimistic. They scored a lot more than that without two of its top producers from the last half decade for most of the season. The real net subtraction is Lee, but IMO, that's more than offset by the difference between Dye vs. Borchard/Perez, AJ vs. Alomar/Davis/Burke and Harris vs. Valentin. And for what it's worth, the Sox outscored the Twins last year by 865 to 780, and still finished 8 games back. The difference is they gave up 831 vs. 715 for the Twins. The upgrade to the starting rotation and especially to the bullpen will go a long way toward reducing that 831 runs allowed to a more reasonable number. They won't need to score 865 runs again.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 10:48 AM
Dye Career OBP is .334. He hasn't been the same since he broke his leg. It is incorrect to base your projections on those years. Also if you look at his numbers, his OBP from walks is about .065. Thus to have a .350 OBP, he would need to hit .290. .252, .172, .265 are his averages since 2002. In the decline stage of his career, hitting .290 will be a career year.

Quite a stretch to say Dye is in his "decline stage". You do realize that he's only 30 years old, and will be turning 31 in a couple of days. If he was 36, then I'd see your point, but I have to disagree here.

Pods. .379 or .313. That is the question as those are his OBP when given over 500 at bats. When you look at his minor league numbers, .313 is closer to the real Pods then .379. Not too many 27 year old rookies have highly productive major league careers. Kenny traded for a AAAA who had one outstanding year. Now at 29, and leaving his peak years behind him, I doubt Pods will hit over .300 again.

I've seen quite a few posts about Pods horrible minor league stats, but I think that the time has come to set the record straight. If you look closely at his minor league numbers, it would be pretty obvious that he really only posted an OBP below .340 ONCE when he played a full season (and calling his 269 at bats in 2001 a full season is a stretch). I fail to see why .313 is closer to the real Pods than .379, if anything they're the extreme end points of someone who has consistently been in the .340- .350 range since 1994.

Pods minor league numbers:

YEAR LEVEL G AB AVG OBP
2002 AAA 125 438 0.279 0.347
2001 AAA 66 269 0.290 0.327
2000 AA 49 169 0.249 0.361
1999 AA 37 116 0.155 0.190
1999 R 5 17 0.412 0.474
1998 AA 17 75 0.240 0.296
1998 A 81 302 0.285 0.369
1997 A 135 531 0.277 0.352
1996 A 108 383 0.261 0.343
1995 A 65 252 0.266 0.355
1994 R 60 211 0.227 0.357

A lot of incomplete seasons and shuffling around if you ask me.

SoxFanTillDeath
01-19-2005, 10:53 AM
I like the lineup changes that we've made. No one can really predict whether or not it will be successful, but this team needed a change of direction since the previous formula had obviously not worked.

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 10:53 AM
I think Flight is being overly optimistic in his projections for next year. The fact remains the Sox lineup lost two maybe three of its top producers from last half decade this off season and Kenny hasn't replace them fully. I think this team will generate 750 runs this year and that won't be enough to win the Central.

I didn't make any projections, I merely posted career and/or 2004 #s.

The fact remains, that the Sox in 2004 scored 865 runs, which was 3d in baseball. Of those, per Sportsline, 478 were in the first half (which included Frank but only about 6 weeks of Maggs), and 387 were in the 2d half - without Frank or maggs.

So DD77, your 750 runs estimate would say that the offense is actually going to get WORSE than it was in the 2d half of last year. That's with the move from Borchard to Dye, from Davis to AJP, and from Valentin to Harris improving OBP as well as the move from Lee to Pods which by your estimate will reduce OBP.

I think the net of all of those being negative would be difficult. You're relying on a lot of other players all declining in performance. Plus, when you factor in Frank being available for at least half the season even by the worst predictions, it seems likely that we'll score a lot more in 2d half 2005 than we did in 2d half 2003.

I'd guess the team will be in the low to mid 800s for runs scored, which will put them in the top 3d of MLB teams.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 10:54 AM
Problem is there is nothing in his history to suggest 2003 was the norm. Everything suggest 2004 was the norm.

No, everything would suggest that 2003 and 2004 were extreme cases. The numbers would suggest that Pods will settle down in the middle of those 2 seasons.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 11:01 AM
Quite a stretch to say Dye is in his "decline stage". You do realize that he's only 30 years old, and will be turning 31 in a couple of days. If he was 36, then I'd see your point, but I have to disagree here.

I've seen quite a few posts about Pods horrible minor league stats, but I think that the time has come to set the record straight. If you look closely at his minor league numbers, it would be pretty obvious that he really only posted an OBP below .340 ONCE when he played a full season (and calling his 269 at bats in 2001 a full season is a stretch). I fail to see why .313 is closer to the real Pods than .379, if anything they're the extreme end points of someone who has consistently been in the .340- .350 range since 1994.

Pods minor league numbers:

A lot of incomplete seasons and shuffling around if you ask me.

http://www.sports-wired.com/profiles/PO/tbc7586.asp

When looking at minor league stats, you need to take age into account. Pods always struggled when he was the right age for the level but did well when he was to old for it. If a 21 years old and 25 years old preform at the same level in the minors, you rather have the 21 year old. Also the PCL, where he played AAA, has a bunch of hitter friendly parks in it. He never hit over .300 in minor league ball, highest average of .290. His OBP from walks is about .065 thus he would have to hit .290 to get to .350. Which he has done twice in his pro career.

Historically players have started to decline at age 30, after peaking about age 27.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 11:04 AM
I didn't make any projections, I merely posted career and/or 2004 #s.

The fact remains, that the Sox in 2004 scored 865 runs, which was 3d in baseball. Of those, per Sportsline, 478 were in the first half (which included Frank but only about 6 weeks of Maggs), and 387 were in the 2d half - without Frank or maggs.

So DD77, your 750 runs estimate would say that the offense is actually going to get WORSE than it was in the 2d half of last year. That's with the move from Borchard to Dye, from Davis to AJP, and from Valentin to Harris improving OBP as well as the move from Lee to Pods which by your estimate will reduce OBP.

I think the net of all of those being negative would be difficult. You're relying on a lot of other players all declining in performance. Plus, when you factor in Frank being available for at least half the season even by the worst predictions, it seems likely that we'll score a lot more in 2d half 2005 than we did in 2d half 2003.

I'd guess the team will be in the low to mid 800s for runs scored, which will put them in the top 3d of MLB teams.

The Sox will have a tough time being in the top 3 in scoring in AL Central let alone MLB this year. Though Cell park factor could push it up from 750.

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 11:08 AM
The Sox will have a tough time being in the top 3 in scoring in AL Central let alone MLB this year. Though Cell park factor could push it up from 750.

So you stand by your rationale that a team featuring Pods-Dye-AJP-Harris will score FEWER runs than a team featuring Lee-Borchard-Davis-Valentin?

We'll likely have to agree to disagree. C'mon DD77 - you're a stats guys, how in heck can you score fewer runs when you upgrade 3 positions pretty significantly even if you downgrade one other one?

I'm happy to accept some sort of analysis contradicting my viewpoint, but eliminating 3 OBP sinkholes and replacing them with even below average guys has to constitute an improvement.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 11:20 AM
When looking at minor league stats, you need to take age into account. Pods always struggled when he was the right age for the level but did well when he was to old for it. If a 21 years old and 25 years old preform at the same level in the minors, you rather have the 21 year old. Also the PCL, where he played AAA, has a bunch of hitter friendly parks in it. He never hit over .300 in minor league ball, highest average of .290. His OBP from walks is about .065 thus he would have to hit .290 to get to .350. Which he has done twice in his pro career.

I am very aware of taking DOB into consideration in regards to prospects (thus my disdain for Phil Rogers ranking of Sean Tracy in BA's top 10); however considering Pods' can only produce at the level he is in, there's not much else to go by as he was shuffled around quite a bit. Either way, he still has not shown any evidence of being a sub .340 OBP hitter, except for a relatively small sample size in 1999 and 2001.

Historically players have started to decline at age 30, after peaking about age 27..

I find historical numbers to be meaningless in the age of steroids and advanced training techniques. The idea that because a player started declining at 30 in 1965 or whenever means they will start declining at age 30 in 2005 is ridiculous. Times change.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 11:31 AM
So you stand by your rationale that a team featuring Pods-Dye-AJP-Harris will score FEWER runs than a team featuring Lee-Borchard-Davis-Valentin?

We'll likely have to agree to disagree. C'mon DD77 - you're a stats guys, how in heck can you score fewer runs when you upgrade 3 positions pretty significantly even if you downgrade one other one?

I'm happy to accept some sort of analysis contradicting my viewpoint, but eliminating 3 OBP sinkholes and replacing them with even below average guys has to constitute an improvement.

The doubling the second half comes to 774 runs. Dye won't replace the production from Lee, and Pods will put up better numbers then Borchard but not enough to offset the difference between Lee and Dye. Valentin had tons of power but little OBP while Harris has a decent OBP but very little power. Jose OPS was over 100 points higher then Harris's. I think Valentin adds more runs to the team. AJ is a nice upgrade from Davis.

So the Sox have significantly improved one postion (C), upgraded at one OF spot, but downgraded at another OF spot. Slightly downgraded or stay the same at SS/2b, just trading one hole for another hole. I also am not sure which Uribe will show up next year but I expect him to decline a bit.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 11:33 AM
The doubling the second half comes to 774 runs. Dye won't replace the production from Lee, and Pods will put up better numbers then Borchard but not enough to offset the difference between Lee and Dye. Valentin had tons of power but little OBP while Harris has a decent OBP but very little power. Jose OPS was over 100 points higher then Harris's. I think Valentin adds more runs to the team. AJ is a nice upgrade from Davis.

So the Sox have significantly improved one postion (C), upgraded at one OF spot, but downgraded at another OF spot. Slightly downgraded or stay the same at SS/2b, just trading one hole for another hole. I also am not sure which Uribe will show up next year but I expect him to decline a bit.

Did they play 81 games after the AS break? Seems they normally only have about 70 left.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 11:36 AM
Did they play 81 games after the AS break? Seems they normally only have about 70 left.

Well Flight post the second half number so I am not sure if that is a 81 game breakout or after the ASG. If it is after the ASG, it will need to be pro rated for the extra games.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 11:38 AM
Well Flight post the second half number so I am not sure if that is a 81 game breakout or after the ASG. If it is after the ASG, it will need to be pro rated for the extra games.

Ah... I misread it... thanks for clarifying. People say second half and I assume they mean after the ASG.

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 12:18 PM
Well Flight post the second half number so I am not sure if that is a 81 game breakout or after the ASG. If it is after the ASG, it will need to be pro rated for the extra games.

ESPN has them playing 78 games post-break, which equates to 4.85Runs/game as compared to 5.8 runs/game (!) in the first half. 2d half pace of 4.85RPG = 786 runs on the season. For the record, that would have made the team 17th in baseball, so about average.

DD77 - I don't see how swapping .174/.249/.338 for even .244 / .313 / .364 isn't a HUGE upgrade. That's if you assume Podsednik doesn't improve at all from 2004. There's about a 100point spread between Pods & Borchard in OPS, which is about the same as the spread in Lee/Dye. And that assumes that Dye doens't improve just with the move from Oakland to USCF. Now factor in AJP over Davis/Alomar/Burke.

So you're assuming that Podsednik's .313 OBP is his true value and/or that a lot of other players have declining performance from 2003. That seems overly pessimistic to me. It's a lot more likely that Pods improves his OBP, resulting in an overall offense that's a lot closer to 825runs than 750 runs. Combined with improved pitchinig & D and better fundamentals, and that shouldequate to more wins.

maurice
01-19-2005, 01:35 PM
Also keep in mind the team's argument that their average runs and total runs were the result of a 15-run game followed by two shutouts, while the Twins would post three consecutive five-run games. I have no idea how you measure this dynamic or adjust your roster to fix the problem, but the team's position is they've done just that.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 01:44 PM
Also keep in mind the team's argument that their average runs and total runs were the result of a 15-run game followed by two shutouts, while the Twins would post three consecutive five-run games. I have no idea how you measure this dynamic or adjust your roster to fix the problem, but the team's position is they've done just that.

Kenny, Ozzie and some fans have no idea what they are talking about on this. The distribution of the team's run production last year was similar to other major league teams. All MLB offense get shut out once in a while.

Dadawg_77
01-19-2005, 01:50 PM
ESPN has them playing 78 games post-break, which equates to 4.85Runs/game as compared to 5.8 runs/game (!) in the first half. 2d half pace of 4.85RPG = 786 runs on the season. For the record, that would have made the team 17th in baseball, so about average.

DD77 - I don't see how swapping .174/.249/.338 for even .244 / .313 / .364 isn't a HUGE upgrade. That's if you assume Podsednik doesn't improve at all from 2004. There's about a 100point spread between Pods & Borchard in OPS, which is about the same as the spread in Lee/Dye. And that assumes that Dye doens't improve just with the move from Oakland to USCF. Now factor in AJP over Davis/Alomar/Burke.

So you're assuming that Podsednik's .313 OBP is his true value and/or that a lot of other players have declining performance from 2003. That seems overly pessimistic to me. It's a lot more likely that Pods improves his OBP, resulting in an overall offense that's a lot closer to 825runs than 750 runs. Combined with improved pitchinig & D and better fundamentals, and that shouldequate to more wins.

Boarchad to Pod is like going from eating literal crap to eating figurative crap, while Dye to Lee is like eating a Chicago Style Hot Dog to 12 once juicy steak. So I discount move from worse to bad, while not liking moves from pretty good to average.

I think Pods is 250-260 hitter which would put in .310 - 330 OBP. I don't think D has improves esp is Pods starts in center over Rowand. It might have even gone down when right field is taken in account.

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 01:52 PM
Boarchad to Pod is like going from eating literal crap to eating figurative crap, while Dye to Lee is like eating a Chicago Style Hot Dog to 12 once juicy steak. So I discount move from worse to bad, while not liking moves from pretty good to average.

I think Pods is 250-260 hitter which would put in .310 - 330 OBP. I don't think D has improves esp is Pods starts in center over Rowand. It might have even gone down when right field is taken in account.

Didn't he put up an OBP of .340+ last year hitting .240?

Why would you assume his average will go up, but his OBP will go down?

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 01:57 PM
Boarchad to Pod is like going from eating literal crap to eating figurative crap, while Dye to Lee is like eating a Chicago Style Hot Dog to 12 once juicy steak. So I discount move from worse to bad, while not liking moves from pretty good to average.

I think Pods is 250-260 hitter which would put in .310 - 330 OBP. I don't think D has improves esp is Pods starts in center over Rowand. It might have even gone down when right field is taken in account.

Well, we'll have toa gree to disagree, but I bet Dye will better his 2004 OPS in the move from Oakland to USCF. I also think that Pods will break .330 in OBP. I also think that when you go from absolutely horrible to decent or even below average it at least equals a move from pretty good to above average.

You also neglect the upgrade at C. Finally, D could be worse, but IMO it'll end up being better because I think ARow will stay in CF and Pods in LF will be an upgrade over Lee.

But as I say - we can agree to disagree.

ma-gaga
01-19-2005, 02:27 PM
But as I say - we can agree to disagree.

No. The debate must continue!

I agree with Dawg, I think the offense decreased quite a bit. The question is whether or not the pitching improved enough to cover the decreased offense. It might be good enough to win as is. I figure the offensive change is: A full season of Pods for Lee, a 1/2 season of AJ for 1/2 season of Burke (I get the feeling that they'll split Davis/AJ about 40/60 respectively) and a full season of Dye for 1/2 Maggs, 1/4 Borchard, 1/4 Timo, and whomever else.

That to me is a significant loss at LF, a net minor loss at RF, and a minor upgrade at C.

That's a pretty good drop in the offense, but the pitching got a hell of a lot better, so it may not matter. 800 runs scored and 700 runs allowed should win the division. Whether or not the pitching stays healthy enough to cover that is the question.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 02:39 PM
No. The debate must continue!

I agree with Dawg, I think the offense decreased quite a bit. The question is whether or not the pitching improved enough to cover the decreased offense. It might be good enough to win as is. I figure the offensive change is: A full season of Pods for Lee, a 1/2 season of AJ for 1/2 season of Burke (I get the feeling that they'll split Davis/AJ about 40/60 respectively) and a full season of Dye for 1/2 Maggs, 1/4 Borchard, 1/4 Timo, and whomever else.

That to me is a significant loss at LF, a net minor loss at RF, and a minor upgrade at C.

That's a pretty good drop in the offense, but the pitching got a hell of a lot better, so it may not matter. 800 runs scored and 700 runs allowed should win the division. Whether or not the pitching stays healthy enough to cover that is the question.Based on AB, it was more like 40% Timo, 30% Maggs and 30% Joe B. Combined they were 166/696 for a BA of .239. I'll take a whole season of Dye over that.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 02:56 PM
Kenny, Ozzie and some fans have no idea what they are talking about on this. The distribution of the team's run production last year was similar to other major league teams. All MLB offense get shut out once in a while.

I can't agree with that. There are too many instances of our offense being schitzophrenic to think that it was similar to other teams.

Here are 3 ten game strectches and 1 twenty game stretch which I think tell the tale of a wild, inconsistent offense:

5/7: 4 runs (L)
5/8: 2 runs (L)
5/9: 2 runs (L)
5/11: 15 runs (W)
5/13: 1 run (L)
5/14: 2 runs (L)
5/15: 1 run (L)
5/16: 11 runs (W)
5/17: 2 runs (L)
5/18: 4 runs (W)

6/27: 9 runs (W)
6/29: 6 runs (W)
6/30: 9 runs (W)
7/1: 2 runs (W)
7/2: 2 runs (L)
7/3: 2 runs (L)
7/4: 1 run (L)
7/6: 2 runs (L)
7/7: 0 runs (L)
7/8: 9 runs (W)

7/15: 2 runs (L)
7/16: 1 run (L)
7/17: 5 runs (W)
7/18: 3 runs (L)
7/19: 12 runs (W)
7/20: 4 runs (L)
7/21: 14 runs (W)
7/22: 3 runs (W)
7/23: 6 runs (W)
7/24: 7 runs (W)
7/25: 2 runs (L)
7/26: 2 runs (L)
7/27: 3 runs (L)
7/28: 4 runs (L)
7/29: 2 runs (L)
7/30: 4 runs (L)
7/31: 2 runs (L)
8/1: 6 runs (W)
8/3: 12 runs (W)
8/4: 0 runs (L)

8/6: 7 runs (W)
8/7: 3 runs (L)
8/8: 5 runs (W)
8/9: 7 runs (W)
8/10: 5 runs (L)
8/11: 13 runs (W)
8/12: 0 runs (L)
8/14: 2 runs (L)
8/15: 1 run (L)
8/16: 1 run (L)

idseer
01-19-2005, 03:13 PM
thanks rd. i think that puts that rumor to rest.

Ol' No. 2
01-19-2005, 03:21 PM
I can't agree with that. There are too many instances of our offense being schitzophrenic to think that it was similar to other teams.

Here are 3 ten game strectches and 1 twenty game stretch which I think tell the tale of a wild, inconsistent offense:

That really doesn't prove anything without a comparison with other teams. Anyone know of a site where I can download game-by-game run totals or that at least has them in a format suitable for cutting and pasting into a spreadsheet? I'm not gonna type all that stuff in.

ma-gaga
01-19-2005, 04:14 PM
Based on AB, it was more like 40% Timo, 30% Maggs and 30% Joe B. Combined they were 166/696 for a BA of .239. I'll take a whole season of Dye over that.

ESPN splits by position. Sure enough, you are closer than I was. Here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&season=2004&split=85&seasonType=2&type=reg

By approximate Plate Appearances:
JB: 202/662 = 30.5%
MO: 188/662 = 28.4%
TP: 175/662 = 26.4%
Gload/Rowand/Burke: 98/662 = 14.8% (apparently Burke played a little RF last year, who knew?!?)

The totals added up to: 0.256/0.315/0.414 for everyone. 0.254/0.308/0.414 for the primary 3. Dye had 581 PA at 0.265/0.329/0.474, so he beats the spread by 0.011/0.021/0.060. Multiply that by 580 Plate Appearances = 7 hits, 5 walks and 35 total bases of additional offense.

So, change it to, "decent UPGRADE at RF." (that 'total bases' add is pretty damn nice). I'll have to look at how much difference Pods/Lee is to get a good idea of what this means. But something called "work" beckons... :angry: Man Borchard blew last year.

Flight #24
01-19-2005, 04:17 PM
ESPN splits by position. Sure enough, you are closer than I was. Here's the link:
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/teams/batting?team=chw&season=2004&split=85&seasonType=2&type=reg

By approximate Plate Appearances:
JB: 202/662 = 30.5%
MO: 188/662 = 28.4%
TP: 175/662 = 26.4%
Gload/Rowand/Burke: 98/662 = 14.8% (apparently Burke played a little RF last year, who knew?!?)

The totals added up to: 0.256/0.315/0.414 for everyone. 0.254/0.308/0.414 for the primary 3. Dye had 581 PA at 0.265/0.329/0.474, so he beats the spread by 0.011/0.021/0.060. Multiply that by 580 Plate Appearances = 7 hits, 5 walks and 35 total bases of additional offense.

So, change it to, "decent UPGRADE at RF." (that 'total bases' add is pretty damn nice). I'll have to look at how much difference Pods/Lee is to get a good idea of what this means. But something called "work" beckons... :angry: Man Borchard blew last year.

Remember, that's comparing Dye's production in Oakland, it's likely to improve in USCF. Plus the Hermie factor should keep him healthier and hopefully, more productive.

The way I see it - Dye represents a slight downgrade to Lee, but Pods represents a huge upgrade over the JoeB/Timo/Gload experience. Then AJ>Davis/Burke (and I think AJ will catch 130 games), so overall the O gets better than it was in the 2d half last year, which should put us around 800-825runs. As you said - the pitching is improved enough taht with a top10 offense, this team wins a lot more games.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 04:18 PM
That really doesn't prove anything without a comparison with other teams. Anyone know of a site where I can download game-by-game run totals or that at least has them in a format suitable for cutting and pasting into a spreadsheet? I'm not gonna type all that stuff in.

Well, the best format I've found is Yahoo's list-style calendar. Unfortunately they only give it one month at a time, so you have to copy, paste for each month.

That being said (since I'm not busy at work) I decided to do a little study of our run production vs. the Texas Rangers. They are the closest to us in regards to runs scored, so I figured if our offense truly was schitzophrenic, it might show in a head-to-head comparison. I think it does.

Shut out: White Sox 8 times - Rangers 9 times
Scored 1 run: 13 - 12
2 runs: 24 - 14
3 runs: 12 - 16
4 runs: 24 - 19

Thus we scored 4 or fewer runs 81 times (That's half of our games BTW), while the Rangers only did it 70 times. That's not good IMO.

A quick check of the Cardinals shows more of the same. Just like the Rangers, the Cardinals only scored 4 or less runs 70 times, not to mention they were only shut out 4 times.

But here's the kicker, what about the Twinkies? They scored 780 runs last year to our 865, so you have to figure that they easily would have 15- 20 more games where they scored 4 runs or less compared to us. Well, the answer is no. The Twinkies scored 4 or less runs 85 times, and they were also only shut out 4 times.

The breakdown:

Shut out: White Sox 8 times - Twinkies 4 times
Scored 1 run: 13 - 14
2 runs: 24 - 19
3 runs: 12 - 25
4 runs: 24 - 23

Pretty unbelievable that we were held to 2 runs or less 8 more times than the Twinkies.

rdivaldi
01-19-2005, 05:06 PM
When you break down the White Sox run production for the season it comes out like this:

0 runs - 8 times
1 run - 13 times
2 runs - 24 times
3 runs - 12 times
4 runs - 24 times
5 runs - 14 times
6 runs - 14 times
7 runs - 12 times
8 runs - 6 times
9 runs - 12 times
10+ runs - 23 times

voodoochile
01-19-2005, 05:34 PM
When you break down the White Sox run production for the season it comes out like this:

0 runs - 8 times
1 run - 13 times
2 runs - 24 times
3 runs - 12 times
4 runs - 24 times
5 runs - 14 times
6 runs - 14 times
7 runs - 12 times
8 runs - 6 times
9 runs - 12 times
10+ runs - 23 times

Which comes out to 81 times < 5 runs
and 81 times >= 5 runs

5 is pretty much league average IIRC.

maurice
01-19-2005, 06:36 PM
I don't think the median adddresses the point. As I see it, the question pertains to the distribution of runs on either extreme, not in the chewy middle.

I guess one way of looking at it is to compare the number of times a comparable offense scored 2-or-fewer runs and 8-or-more runs. Let's compare the Sox (865 total runs) to Texas (860) and Cleveland (858). My quick (and possibly incorrect) calculations show . . .

Team, 2-, 8+
Sox, 45, 41
Rangers, 35, 38
Toons, 36, 40
Twins, 37, . . .<-- edit
Yanks, 34, . . . <-- edit

The 8+ results are comparable but -- compared to these two teams -- the Sox were involved in way more games where they scored two or fewer runs. When considered along with the Twinks data posted above, this lends some support to the team's "all-or-nothing offense" theory. Moreover, this definitely translates into W/L, since scoring 8+ runs usually ensures victory, while 2- makes victory highly unlikely in the AL.

I suppose a more thorough analysis would look at historical data and the number of 2- games for NYY, Boston, and St. Louis . . . but I'm going home. Talk at y'all tomorrow.

jerry myers
01-19-2005, 06:48 PM
I am happy with our team but am a little nervous we have lost lots of power , we got a great team if all gos well the twins have been our problem and they always get beat in the playoffs. we need those big hitters in the mix,if were going to compete with the big teams. I have high hopes with this team, but of course i always do, just trying to look at reality.....we need to be loaded!:D:

Nick@Nite
01-19-2005, 07:07 PM
I see this team hitting close to 200 homeruns, give or take.

I'm more worried about batting averages because other than Frank, this team doesn't get on base via BB. In particular, Crede, Uribe, Rowand, Pods, Dye strike out way too much as compared to their BB's, given the number of their AB's. Can't score if you can't get on base. Can't manufacture runs without timely hitting. If you don't walk, you got to put the ball in play.

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 09:50 AM
Which comes out to 81 times < 5 runs
and 81 times >= 5 runs

5 is pretty much league average IIRC.

I agree, and wouldn't you think that a team that was 3rd in runs scored would be above the 5 run mark more often than below it? The inconsistent offense theory holds water....

voodoochile
01-20-2005, 10:34 AM
I agree, and wouldn't you think that a team that was 3rd in runs scored would be above the 5 run mark more often than below it? The inconsistent offense theory holds water....

That is a very valid point as was the one about the 3 run differential comparison. Of the three teams sampled, the Sox were the only one who had more in the lower section. Their differential was -8 compared to Cleveland's.

Edit: Whoops, misread Toons as Twins...

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 11:19 AM
I agree, and wouldn't you think that a team that was 3rd in runs scored would be above the 5 run mark more often than below it? The inconsistent offense theory holds water....

First off you need to factor in park factors. The Cell produces runs, where as other parks don't. White Sox hit .276/.344/.491, opponents .281/.341/.470 at the Cell, on the road, Sox .260/.321/.424 and opponents .263/.336/.434. While some could see that as an inconsistent offence production, I see it has an offence which stays the same but inconsistent park factors which increase production at home.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 11:25 AM
Well time to bust out Excel and do some stat work to either prove or disprove this theory. Best way to see how consistent the Sox offense was, I think we need to look at the standard deviation of amount of runs scored.

Sox SD is 7.07, which is the second lowest in the majors. Yankees had the lowest. I think this strongly disproves the theory the Sox were the most inconsistent team in scoring runs in the AL last year.

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 11:42 AM
Runs scored White Sox vs. Yankees

Shut out: 8 - 7
1 run: 13 - 8
2 runs: 24 - 19
3 runs: 12 - 17
4 runs: 24 - 18

We scored 4 runs or less 81 times, the Yankees only did it 69 times.

We're nowhere near them in terms of consistency.

The White Sox might not have been the most inconsistent offense, but the numbers show that for the amount of runs we scored over the entire season, we had an abnormal amount of games where we scored 4 runs or less. Definitely an inconsistent offense.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 11:56 AM
Runs scored White Sox vs. Yankees

Shut out: 8 - 7
1 run: 13 - 8
2 runs: 24 - 19
3 runs: 12 - 17
4 runs: 24 - 18

We scored 4 runs or less 81 times, the Yankees only did it 69 times.

We're nowhere near them in terms of consistency.

The White Sox might not have been the most inconsistent offense, but the numbers show that for the amount of runs we scored over the entire season, we had an abnormal amount of games where we scored 4 runs or less. Definitely an inconsistent offense.

Sorry, but the numbers don't show it. Look at the standard deviation.

Also you left out five run games where the it was 14-21. Which means the Sox have 95 games of five runs or less and the Yankees had 90 games of five runs or less. Arbitrary end points can make your point look stronger but in reality have no meaning.

voodoochile
01-20-2005, 12:07 PM
Sorry, but the numbers don't show it. Look at the standard deviation.

7.07 is the standard deviation?

Maybe my stat skills are eroding but doesn't that put negative run totals inside a single standard deviation from the norm? :?:

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 12:58 PM
7.07 is the standard deviation?

Maybe my stat skills are eroding but doesn't that put negative run totals inside a single standard deviation from the norm? :?:

Yes it does. Game scores aren't a normal distribution but it is close. I could find the real SD but that is too much work for what it adds to the conversation since it shouldn't where teams fall in line shouldn't greatly change.

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 01:10 PM
Well time to bust out Excel and do some stat work to either prove or disprove this theory. Best way to see how consistent the Sox offense was, I think we need to look at the standard deviation of amount of runs scored.

Sox SD is 7.07, which is the second lowest in the majors. Yankees had the lowest. I think this strongly disproves the theory the Sox were the most inconsistent team in scoring runs in the AL last year.Doesn't sound right. It's possible for the SD to be higher than the mean, but there would have to be a very strange distribution. I'm getting a SD of 3.7, which is the highest in the major leagues (overall MLB SD=3.2).

voodoochile
01-20-2005, 01:17 PM
Doesn't sound right. It's possible for the SD to be higher than the mean, but there would have to be a very strange distribution. I'm getting a SD of 3.7, which is the highest in the major leagues (overall MLB SD=3.2).

That would then support the concept that the Sox had a highly erratic offense - most erratic in the majors, correct?

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 01:26 PM
That would then support the concept that the Sox had a highly erratic offense - most erratic in the majors, correct?

Absolutely...

maurice
01-20-2005, 01:28 PM
This has the makings of a pretty solid article (with five authors). :cool:

Here's an updated summary of the 2- data posted above:
Sox, 45
Twins, 37
Toons, 36
Rangers, 35
Yanks, 34
When compared to other high-powered offenses (and even one low-powered offense), the 45 posted by the Sox looks horrible. More data is needed for conclusive proof, but I'd say that this is pretty strong evidence in support of the "all-or-nothing offense" theory. The comparison to the twinks is particularly damning.

I agree that 2 is an arbitrary endpoint, but it doesn't look like the pattern changes significanlty if you pick a 3 or 1. I ruled out 4 and 5, because I figure it still gives you a good shot at winning the game.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 01:37 PM
Doesn't sound right. It's possible for the SD to be higher than the mean, but there would have to be a very strange distribution. I'm getting a SD of 3.7, which is the highest in the major leagues (overall MLB SD=3.2).

How are you doing that? I am using Excel data analyzer; descriptive statics, for all the teams.

The distbution is skewed since you can't score less then 0 but can score as much as you can. A mean of 5 and a SD 3.2 would have 105 games outside 2SD range and with mean of 5 and SD 7.8 you would only have one game outside of 2SD range.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 01:40 PM
here is the spreadsheet that I am using.

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 01:40 PM
This has the makings of a pretty solid article (with five authors). :cool:

Very true, I see some good points both for and against the idea. Just wish I could remember my college statistics class so I could better follow along. :redface:

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 01:50 PM
Also you left out five run games where the it was 14-21.

I left those out because the average runs scored by American League teams was 5.012 per game. So basically 5 runs is the cut-off between scoring enough runs to win (on average) or not.

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 02:05 PM
here is the spreadsheet that I am using.My raw data is the same. I'm not sure how you came by the statistics, but it looks like you may have calculated the standard deviations of the frequencies instead of the run totals. I did the calculations using a different statistical analysis software. I've attached my spreadsheet with the standard deviations calculated.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 02:11 PM
I left those out because the average runs scored by American League teams was 5.012 per game. So basically 5 runs is the cut-off between scoring enough runs to win (on average) or not.

True, but a 1/2 the difference between the Yankees and White Sox which your point was relying on, is in difference of 4 run games vs 5 run games. The line you drew made the Sox look worse then they really were.

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 02:17 PM
True, but a 1/2 the difference between the Yankees and White Sox which your point was relying on, is in difference of 4 run games vs 5 run games. The line you drew made the Sox look worse then they really were.

Well, I didn't do it to make them look bad, I just think it makes the most sense to make the cut-off the league average in runs. All the data seems to point towards a very inconsistent offense.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 02:23 PM
My raw data is the same. I'm not sure how you came by the statistics, but it looks like you may have calculated the standard deviations of the frequencies instead of the run totals. I did the calculations using a different statistical analysis software. I've attached my spreadsheet with the standard deviations calculated.

I used frequency since I thought runs scored would "punish" high scoring teams.

Ol' No. 2
01-20-2005, 02:30 PM
That would then support the concept that the Sox had a highly erratic offense - most erratic in the majors, correct?I've been playing with the data doing some additional statistical tests. Standard deviation is only one measure. It measures the "spread" in the distribution of the runs scored, and by that measure, the White Sox had the biggest standard deviation.

However, there are other measures. The distrution for MLB as a whole was more "skewed", i.e. larger percentage of very high scores. For example, the Sox never scored more than 17 runs and that was only once, while the rest of MLB scored more than 17 runs 11 times. However, the statistical significance of these comparatively rare events is easy to overstate. In reality, they probably don't mean much.

The short answer is, if you accept a bigger spread (larger standard deviation) as being indicative of more inconsistency, then yes, the Sox were the most inconsistent run-scoring team in the majors.

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 02:47 PM
I've been playing with the data doing some additional statistical tests. Standard deviation is only one measure. It measures the "spread" in the distribution of the runs scored, and by that measure, the White Sox had the biggest standard deviation.

However, there are other measures. The distrution for MLB as a whole was more "skewed", i.e. larger percentage of very high scores. For example, the Sox never scored more than 17 runs and that was only once, while the rest of MLB scored more than 17 runs 11 times. However, the statistical significance of these comparatively rare events is easy to overstate. In reality, they probably don't mean much.

The short answer is, if you accept a bigger spread (larger standard deviation) as being indicative of more inconsistency, then yes, the Sox were the most inconsistent run-scoring team in the majors.

It depends on what you chose as your data, if you chose runs scored, you will agree with Ol' No 2. If you chose frequency of run scored, you'll agree with me. So chose with method you like better.

WhiteSoxNation
01-20-2005, 03:42 PM
Speed Kills, Power thrills............Our team is balanced perfect couple of 30-40HR guys and atleast (4) 20SB guys

SoxxoS
01-20-2005, 03:44 PM
Speed Kills, Power thrills

I like that saying...that should be the official motto of the Sox...

rdivaldi
01-20-2005, 03:47 PM
Gotta give this one a tomato....

:tomatoaward

Dadawg_77
01-20-2005, 04:28 PM
I decided to take another crack at this using a different method. I broke the games into four different categories trying, 0-2 (26.26% of MLB games), 3-4 (25.99%), 5-7 (29.30%), 8 - 30 (18.45%). Then I calculated the percentage each team had in each "quarter" and the delta between team and MLB average.

In 6.86% of games, the Sox scored more the 8 runs, 3rd in MLB. What is notable is out of top 12 teams of games in the 8-30 range percent of games, the Sox are the only team to have their percentage of 0-2 games higher then the MLB average, albeit only 1.52%. This points to a inconsistent offense. There is one issue no one has brought up yet. We don't look at the team before and after Frank and Mags went down. Sox scored 5.5 runs a game before the break (Mags played only 45 games of), and scored 5.16 runs a game after. Missing Frank and Mags would caused the team to have more lower scoring games and skewing the results.

So while it appears I was wrong dismissing the claims consistency, they are explained by home vs road production of the team and the team missing their two best hitter for significant portions of the year last year. Not by team being so power driven that it was feast and famine, but that level randomness is experience by most other teams. So adding speed and playing more small ball wasn't the cure needed, but getting some better hitters was.

maurice
01-20-2005, 05:03 PM
Like I said earlier, I have no idea whether KW's moves address the "all-or-nothing offense" problem. We had a hard enough time trying to come up with ways to measure the problem in the first place. (IMHO, without historical data, it's still possible that the results could be caused by mere chance.) Finding a cause and solution for the "problem" must be nigh impossible.

Nonetheless, I'd say we're a far cry from proving that a move away from a HR-dependent offense is not the correct approach. On the contrary, the data arguably indicates that a non-HR-dependent offense like the twinks is more consistent. Anecdotal evidence (for what little its worth) suggests that HRs come in bunches with droughts in between.