PDA

View Full Version : Despite the success, one especially glaring bad sign


MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 07:16 PM
After nine games of play, there are a few things which really jump out at one when one looks at the stats. Out of thirty teams in baseball, the White Sox are dead last in walks with 13. On the contrary, the major league leader, San Diego, has already taken 54, the major league median is 28 and the next closest team to the White Sox is St. Louis with 19.

As a result of this, the White Sox team on base percentage so far this year is a putrid .276, obviously good for worst in the majors. The next closest again is St. Louis with a .294 mark.

I'm sorry, but those numbers are absolutely pathetic. I know Ozzie didnt draw a lot of walks when he was a player, but he shouldnt be telling Walker to be telling the players that they shouldnt be either. Walks are an important source of baserunners. If you don't have lots of high average hitters (I'm talking 4 with .300+) then you cannot afford to finish in the bottom third of the majors in walks and expect to win a division.

Let us hope that this is just an aberration of the first 9 games (we did face Santana, Westbrook, Bradke and lots of other guys who dont walk a whole lot of batters). I think the degree certainly is, but the trend is definitely not looking good and when you consider the personell that the Sox have, it would not be surprising to see this team finish in the lower third in walks.

I am happy with the success that has occurred thus far and it's good to see that the White Sox have been winning in spite of some things which havent been going perfectly, but this trend needs to reverse very soon or this team is going to finish near the bottom of the league in runs scored.

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 07:19 PM
The problems with walks will disappear once Frank returns. Remember, he almost led the team in walks despite playing only seventy four games in 2004.

DumpJerry
04-15-2005, 07:20 PM
The problems with walks will disappear once Frank returns. Remember, he almost led the team in walks despite playing only seventy four games in 2004.
You beat me to it. Also, you statheads know how to bring down a party......

PaleHoseGeorge
04-15-2005, 07:27 PM
Here's a bit of news to brighten this otherwise dreary thread topic. With Maggs gone, the White Sox' "GIDP Dynamic Duo" is now history. Konerko can't GIDP for Maggs, and Maggs can't GIDP for Konerko.

There. I feel better already.
:cool:

:maggs
"Can't you just imagine me running flat-out as fast as my stubby little legs will carry me, arriving two steps behind the relay throw, 6-4-3! Ah, those were the days!"

:fans
"Those days are over for us, Maggs. Judging by your hernia, they might be over for you, too."

mealfred13
04-15-2005, 07:28 PM
You beat me to it. Also, you statheads know how to bring down a party......

Heh. He DOES have a point though. For a team that's supposed to be based around "small-ball", having some runners on board with no outs would be nice.

CWSGuy406
04-15-2005, 07:33 PM
You beat me to it. Also, you statheads know how to bring down a party......

We need a good OBP from more than just Thomas, if we want to win the Central this year... (Looking at you, Scotty.)

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 07:34 PM
Heh. He DOES have a point though. For a team that's supposed to be based around "small-ball", having some runners on board with no outs would be nice.

Exactly. You can't bunt them over if no one's on and Tim Raines cannot steal second base, an active player has to get on base and do that. Small ball and walks are not incompatible, and in fact go hand in hand. It's my personal belief that the use of bunts and steals should be used wisely in a more limited manner than Ozzie Guillen has shown preference for, but for his offense to work, people have to get on base. For any offense to work, people have to get on base. The walk is a vital component of this and even when Frank does return, his walks alone will not be enough if this team continues to go down this path.

It seems that this is likely just an aberration, but that doesnt change the fact that things need to start changing.

After one week of play, there should not be one player (whose name is not Barry Bonds) whose walkt total is 1 less than the team total of the White Sox (that player is Brian Giles with 12). This is unacceptable to me and it should be to everyone else.

TDog
04-15-2005, 07:40 PM
Sox might have walked more against Santana last week, but he was throwing strikes.

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 07:44 PM
Sox might have walked more against Santana last week, but he was throwing strikes.

Like I stated earlier, the White Sox saw a fair amount of pretty good pitchers to open the season, so it's likely an aberration heavily due to this, but now is the time to correct this negative trend and if you don't see a correction, then you probably need to start worrying.

TaylorStSox
04-15-2005, 07:48 PM
I doubt it'll happen but I'd love to see us not walk that much and win a ton of games. Anything to piss off the Bill James worshipers.

pudge
04-15-2005, 07:49 PM
I think when we face pitchers like Elarton, as we did last night, we will get walks. Konerko's three-run bomb had two men on via base on balls.

Having said that, we do have lots of free swingers, such as Uribe, AJ and Crede.

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 07:54 PM
I doubt it'll happen but I'd love to see us not walk that much and win a ton of games. Anything to piss off the Bill James worshipers.

Hey, anything that leads to wins, but the reality of the situation is that teams that walk more, win more. This is the trend and there are exceptions. The most noticeble one being the 2002 Anaheim Angels, who won in spite of finishing 26th in the majors in walks. How did they do this? By finishing first in batting average with a .282 team mark and their OBP was still 6th in baseball as a result. Walks arent the whole story, but a high OBP is pretty crucial to an offense that scores a lot of runs. The White Sox aren't walking and their 27th in the majors team AVG of .241 wont do them any favors either.

JRIG
04-15-2005, 07:58 PM
I doubt it'll happen but I'd love to see us not walk that much and win a ton of games. Anything to piss off the Bill James worshipers.

He only won a World Series last year, so it's a good idea not to listen to what James has to say.

You can steal (or bunt anyone to) second base before getting on base first. This is a huge problem.

Jjav829
04-15-2005, 07:59 PM
I'm not a stathead, but walks are part of the game. It is disturbing that we don't have many guys who can get on base without swinging the bat. I'm not asking for them to all be Billy Beane guys, but we're probably going to finish near the bottom in walks. Just look at some of these guys in our lineup. Pierzynski, Rowand, Crede, Uribe - they are all free swingers who don't walk. Paulie was a little more patient last year, but isn't normally a big walks guy. Dye isn't either. Iguchi doesn't look like he'll be drawing many walks. Pods walks a good amount of times for a leadoff hitter. The point being, we don't have many players that will work the count well and make the pitcher put them on. Then again, the Twins haven't either in previous years and it worked for them. It's worth watching though.

santo=dorf
04-15-2005, 07:59 PM
The White Sox aren't walking and their 27th in the majors team AVG of .241 wont do them any favors either.

:hawk
"Don't tell me what you hit, tell me when you hit."

The only team numbers I am worried about are wins and losses.

jabrch
04-15-2005, 08:08 PM
:fans
"Those days are over for us, Maggs. Judging by your hernia, they might be over for you, too."

Am I to assume, PHG, based on your teal, that you believe Magglio has a hernia in his knee, not his stomach?

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 08:26 PM
The only team numbers I am worried about are wins and losses.

In the end those are the only stats that matter, but there are trends between wins and getting on base. Team that have high OBPs are much much more likely to make the playoffs than teams that do not. To win you must score runs. To score runs you must get on base. Therefore, to win you must get on base.

mealfred13
04-15-2005, 08:37 PM
Lots of walks today...heh.

Norberto7
04-15-2005, 08:53 PM
Lots of walks today...heh.

Yeah, I guess he's got Ozzie's phone number. :D:

jabrch
04-15-2005, 08:55 PM
In the end those are the only stats that matter, but there are trends between wins and getting on base. Team that have high OBPs are much much more likely to make the playoffs than teams that do not. To win you must score runs. To score runs you must get on base. Therefore, to win you must get on base.

In the end, you win by scoring 1 run more than your opponent. How many guys you have on base doesn't matter if you score 1 run more than your opponent.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-15-2005, 09:15 PM
Am I to assume, PHG, based on your teal, that you believe Magglio has a hernia in his knee, not his stomach?

Nah. I think his dizziness was caused by the hernia. That and a very large gas bubble. Maggs is just one good B.M. away from being healthy again.

:roflmao:

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 09:35 PM
Nah. I think his dizziness was caused by the hernia. That and a very large gas bubble. Maggs is just one good B.M. away from being healthy again.

:roflmao:

That probably shouldn't be in teal, becuase Maggs has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he really is full of ****.

SOXintheBURGH
04-15-2005, 09:59 PM
That probably shouldn't be in teal, becuase Maggs has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that he really is full of ****.

ZING!

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 10:52 PM
In the end, you win by scoring 1 run more than your opponent. How many guys you have on base doesn't matter if you score 1 run more than your opponent.

Yes but tell me this: Are you more likely to have one more run than your opponents if you have more baserunners or less baserunners?

Gammons Peter
04-15-2005, 11:00 PM
The problems with walks will disappear once Frank returns. Remember, he almost led the team in walks despite playing only seventy four games in 2004.

Frank wont be playing for a long time. That shot he just took is risky, anyone hear Buffone and Steve Stone talking about it today? Taking a shot in that location can lead to rupture, it was a desperate measure because he's not getting any better.

batmanZoSo
04-15-2005, 11:03 PM
This isn't really a problem right now, mostly because we're 7-3. The fact is, this isn't a high on-base team period, especially without Frank. No one besides him is gonna touch .400 in that category (or even .385 if I were to bet). Add to that this is a team that has started out very sluggishly overall in hitting and there's your answer. It would be nice to have another guy that could draw walks. Then again, every team could say that. The bottom line is you can't truly judge this team until Thomas comes back, it's just not the same. You can't underestimate his impact.

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 11:12 PM
Frank wont be playing for a long time. That shot he just took is risky, anyone hear Buffone and Steve Stone talking about it today? Taking a shot in that location can lead to rupture, it was a desperate measure because he's not getting any better.

I have read the same reports. Until I hear anything directly from Frank or the physician who has been monitoring his condition, I'm not going to believe a word. Frank will be back when he's ready. That's the only thing that can be considered true at this point. The rest is 100% pure bull****.

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 11:13 PM
Back to the main topic, 4 walks tonight. Me like.

Lip Man 1
04-15-2005, 11:17 PM
The only number that matters despite not walking, a low batting average and a shaky bullpen is this...7-3.

The 1964 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet won 98 games.

The 1967 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet stayed in the race till the last week.

Pitching and defense wins pennants (with just enough hitting to keep you above water...) I'll take my chances with this bunch rather then the all or nothing bash 250 solo home run clubs from 2001 through 2004.

and Peter the cortisone injection was NOT a desperate measure. That's what you get for listening to a linebacker talk about baseball. Frank can hit fine, he's putting his weight on the ankle. The issue is the scar tissure around the tendon that refuses to break free. That's why he can't run well. The shot was for tendinitis caused by him working his ass off trying to get the scar tissure to break so he can start running, so he can go to Charlotte.

If that tissue still hasn't broken loose by June 1st THEN you can start worrying.

Lip

PaleHoseGeorge
04-15-2005, 11:18 PM
...That shot he just took is risky, anyone hear Buffone and Steve Stone talking about it today?

Ahh... somebody getting their News of the World from sportsblab radio, eh? How did you know what Buffone meant between all the grunts and groans?

Glad to know Stone has a hard-on for more than just Jim Hendry these days, too. Look Steve! There's a whole 'nother baseball team on the South Side, too!!!

:cool:

Brian26
04-15-2005, 11:21 PM
The only number that matters despite not walking, a low batting average and a shaky bullpen is this...7-3.

The 1964 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet won 98 games.

The 1967 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet stayed in the race till the last week.

Don't forget the 94 wins by the 1990 White Sox. Did we even have one guy in the lineup with over 20 homers that season? Steve Lyons was batting 5th on some days.

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 11:21 PM
The only number that matters despite not walking, a low batting average and a shaky bullpen is this...7-3.

The 1964 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet won 98 games.

The 1967 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet stayed in the race till the last week.

Pitching and defense wins pennants (with just enough hitting to keep you above water...) I'll take my chances with this bunch rather then the all or nothing bash 250 solo home run clubs from 2001 through 2004.

and Peter the cortisone injection was NOT a desperate measure. That's what you get for listening to a linebacker talk about baseball. Frank can hit fine, he's putting his weight on the ankle. The issue is the scar tissure around the tendon that refuses to break free. That's why he can't run well. The shot was for tendinitis caused by him working his ass off trying to get the scar tissure to break so he can start running, so he can go to Charlotte.

If that tissue still hasn't broken loose by June 1st THEN you can start worrying.

Lip

Well said, Lip. People seem to think that Frank is permenently crippled. That's not the case at all. Theoretically, he could be playing right now. The problem is that he has not been able to run at full speed consistently, and won't be able to do so until the tissue has been broken through. Frank himself said that he wants to be able to take the extra base on a single. That's why he's still in rehab. His ability to drive the ball is not the problem. The morons at ESPN don't know this because they don't give a **** about anything Sox-related. End of story.

MRKARNO
04-15-2005, 11:26 PM
The only number that matters despite not walking, a low batting average and a shaky bullpen is this...7-3.

The 1964 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet won 98 games.

The 1967 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet stayed in the race till the last week.

Pitching and defense wins pennants (with just enough hitting to keep you above water...) I'll take my chances with this bunch rather then the all or nothing bash 250 solo home run clubs from 2001 through 2004.


For the record, the last AL team to represent the league in the World Series while scoring less than 800 runs was the Blue Jays in 1992.

I agree with your general line of thinking, however, but that's not to say that this team shouldnt be walking more. I doubt that you'd be opposed to a more patient, higher-run scoring and more home-run hitting offense than we've seen so far if it were possible while keeping the pitching and the defense intact.

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 11:29 PM
For the record, the last AL team to represent the league in the World Series while scoring less than 800 runs was the Blue Jays in 1992.

I agree with your general line of thinking, however, but that's not to say that this team shouldnt be walking more. I doubt that you'd be opposed to a more patient, higher-run scoring and more home-run hitting offense than we've seen so far if it were possible while keeping the pitching and the defense intact.

I have to say that I'm surprised the 1992 Blue Jays scored that few runs. They had a good offensive club that season, with Joe Carter, Dave Winfield, John Olerud, Candy Maldonado, Devon White, Roberto Alomar, Kelly Gruber, and Pat Borders.

Ol' No. 2
04-15-2005, 11:31 PM
Well said, Lip. People seem to think that Frank is permenently crippled. That's not the case at all. Theoretically, he could be playing right now. The problem is that he has not been able to run at full speed consistently, and won't be able to do so until the tissue has been broken through. Frank himself said that he wants to be able to take the extra base on a single. That's why he's still in rehab. His ability to drive the ball is not the problem. The morons at ESPN don't know this because they don't give a **** about anything Sox-related. End of story.Good Grief. Even the Cubune got the story right.

Linky (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050413soxbrite,1,3149499.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines)

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 11:35 PM
Good Grief. Even the Cubune got the story right.

Linky (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/whitesox/cs-050413soxbrite,1,3149499.story?coll=cs-whitesox-headlines)

Yes, they did. ESPN must really be slacking off if they can't beat out the Cubune for news reports.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-15-2005, 11:36 PM
Good Grief. Even the Cubune got the story right.

You mean The Baseball Prospeculator is less credible than the Cubune???

Say it ain't so!!!

:cool:

Ol' No. 2
04-15-2005, 11:38 PM
You mean The Baseball Prospeculator is less credible than the Cubune???

Say it ain't so!!!

:cool:Pretty pathetic, ain't it?

Daver
04-15-2005, 11:41 PM
Propellerheads are never wrong, just ask them.

KARNO can give you chapter and verse on why they are superior.

CWSGuy406
04-15-2005, 11:48 PM
Geez, Lip, you weren't kidding about the '67 team. Highest OBP of the starters on that team was .334.

But looks like that group could pitch -- on the starting staff, ERA+'s of 136, 125, 151, and 110. That's friggin' awesome.

RKMeibalane
04-15-2005, 11:53 PM
Don't forget the 94 wins by the 1990 White Sox. Did we even have one guy in the lineup with over 20 homers that season? Steve Lyons was batting 5th on some days.

No one on that team had twenty homers. Fisk led the team with eighteen, I believe. Frank had seven home runs in sixty games that year.

Lip Man 1
04-15-2005, 11:55 PM
Folks:

Brian, in 1990 the team leader in home runs was Fisk with 18 (I think) the team leader in RBI's was the late Ivan Calderon with 75. They won because they had a knack for getting the timely hit, taking advantage of every mistake by the opposition (a la the Yankees in their glory days) and because of an absolutely lights out bullpen.

CWS406, when you have guys like Peters, Horlen, John, Buzhardt, Wilhelm, Locker, Wood and McMahon on your staff you're going to win more then your share of games. Again another season when the Sox bullpen was lights out.

In 64 the Sox had a very good bullpen but the starting staff was the best in the A.L. and despite no Hall of Famers (besides Wilhelm) they led the league in ERA every season but one from 1964 through 1967. The year they didn't win, they lost to Baltimore by a tenth of a percentage point.

Pitching wins championships.

Lip

MRKARNO
04-16-2005, 12:19 AM
Propellerheads are never wrong, just ask them.

KARNO can give you chapter and verse on why they are superior.

I don't agree with everything that's written by Sabermetrics folks sometimes. I think they minimize the psychological aspects of the game to a large degree, but they work with what they have to come up with the best performance analysis and predictions that they can come up with. If they had the psychological reports that the team had, I'm sure they'd find a way to incorporate that as well. But they dont, so they cant explain a lot of what goes inside the hitter's or pitchers head during the course of a game. This is the major shortcoming of statistical performance analysis. Additionally, things such as defensive positioning cannot entirely be measured by statistical analysis. On the whole, it's a great tool which is often quite convinient, but it doesnt say everything.

Also, I think even the most adamant sabermetric people would admit that they're wrong a lot of the time due to chance. Chance is the name of the game in baseball and screws everything up.

crector
04-16-2005, 12:20 AM
After nine games of play, there are a few things which really jump out at one when one looks at the stats. Out of thirty teams in baseball, the White Sox are dead last in walks with 13. On the contrary, the major league leader, San Diego, has already taken 54, the major league median is 28 and the next closest team to the White Sox is St. Louis with 19.

As a result of this, the White Sox team on base percentage so far this year is a putrid .276, obviously good for worst in the majors. The next closest again is St. Louis with a .294 mark.

I'm sorry, but those numbers are absolutely pathetic. I know Ozzie didnt draw a lot of walks when he was a player, but he shouldnt be telling Walker to be telling the players that they shouldnt be either. Walks are an important source of baserunners. If you don't have lots of high average hitters (I'm talking 4 with .300+) then you cannot afford to finish in the bottom third of the majors in walks and expect to win a division.

Let us hope that this is just an aberration of the first 9 games (we did face Santana, Westbrook, Bradke and lots of other guys who dont walk a whole lot of batters). I think the degree certainly is, but the trend is definitely not looking good and when you consider the personell that the Sox have, it would not be surprising to see this team finish in the lower third in walks.

I am happy with the success that has occurred thus far and it's good to see that the White Sox have been winning in spite of some things which havent been going perfectly, but this trend needs to reverse very soon or this team is going to finish near the bottom of the league in runs scored.


Have you forgotten how in his very first SoxFest as manager, Guillen said that he "wasn't paid to take walks" as a player? This trend is what inevitably happens when you have a buffoon as a manager instead of someone who actually knows what he's doing.

RKMeibalane
04-16-2005, 12:26 AM
Have you forgotten how in his very first SoxFest as manager, Guillen said that he "wasn't paid to take walks" as a player? This trend is what inevitably happens when you have a buffoon as a manager instead of someone who actually knows what he's doing.

Bafoon? I think most people here would disagree with you, crector, Guillen's misuse of the 'pen nonwithstanding. The Sox are 7-3. That's all that matters.

Jerome
04-16-2005, 12:27 AM
Walks? Walks are for losers. This team is leading the league in heart, guts, determination, and grinding.

Seriously though, unless our pitching staff keeps this great quality start streak (minus 1 game) going, we're gonna have to do a little better on offense. I just don't see how it's possible for a team to have so few walks (over a whole season) and consistently win. When the bats aren't hot, you need baserunners. And a walk is just as good as a hit.

I think Ozzie would be remiss if he or Walker didn't at least try to address the problem.

As our bullpen has shown tonite, it is nothing special. We do not, IMO, have the arms to win all of our games 3-2. 4-1, etc.

SoxFan48
04-16-2005, 05:29 AM
I doubt it'll happen but I'd love to see us not walk that much and win a ton of games. Anything to piss off the Bill James worshipers.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3941

1. At our current walk rate, we will break the records for fewest walks in a season.
2. The 10 lowest walk teams over the past 30 years have a combined winning percentage of .430 (that is 70 wins) and one of those teams reached .500--barely.

You may want to piss off statheads. I want to win ball games. The so-called smart ball offense needs to include a lot of walks.

ma_deuce
04-16-2005, 07:30 AM
Sox might have walked more against Santana last week, but he was throwing strikes.

There, I fixed it. Thank God for teal! :wink:

SSN721
04-16-2005, 08:19 AM
I still think it is too early to worry about this, just looking at the beginning of the season, plenty of good hitters with horrid averages still. We are 10 games in, the numbers we see now are not going to stay the same all year. I say if we still have the same stat after a month and a half and after seeing a lot of mediocre pitching then we can worry. But it is true we have a lot of free swingers, if we are in the middle after awhile for getting walks we will be fine, I think we will have a few guys that will be hitting for pretty good averages that should take up the slack.

hose
04-16-2005, 08:42 AM
Back to the main topic, 4 walks tonight. Me like.


I think it's to early to be concerned about the Sox not taking walks.

Radke just doesn't walk batters , he has 1 walk in 19.1 innings so far this season.

Santana could be the games best pitcher right now. The guy has been in the zone for a while now. Johan didn't walk any Indians last night and has only 2 in 18 innings of work.

Millwood is another guy that throws strikes , he only has 3 walks in 13 innings.

Jake Eastbrook might not be the greatest pitcher but he sure seems to throw a good game against the Sox for some reason.

The 2 guys that I want to see working the pitcher into long counts is Podsednik and Iguichi. The Sox were very patient with Pinero last night and made him pay for his wildness.

A. Cavatica
04-16-2005, 09:34 AM
Have you forgotten how in his very first SoxFest as manager, Guillen said that he "wasn't paid to take walks" as a player? This trend is what inevitably happens when you have a buffoon as a manager instead of someone who actually knows what he's doing.

Guillen is correct that he wasn't paid to take walks as a player. Unfortunately, he's got the cause & effect wrong. If he'd taken more walks, he'd have been paid more.

Actually, what was Guillen paid for as a player? It certainly wasn't power hitting. It wasn't hitting for average. It wasn't baserunning. It's a darn good thing he was a vacuum cleaner at short -- well, at least until the injury -- or he'd have been paid for walking out to the mound, dragging the tarp behind him.

PaleHoseGeorge
04-16-2005, 09:39 AM
Have you forgotten how in his very first SoxFest as manager, Guillen said that he "wasn't paid to take walks" as a player? This trend is what inevitably happens when you have a buffoon as a manager instead of someone who actually knows what he's doing.

I can't believe anyone would make themselves look like a dope posting to this old thread on the very night the Sox take four walks and win another ballgame, their seventh after only ten have been played in the entire 2005 season.

Oh wait, it's crector. Nevermind...

:cool:

MRKARNO
04-16-2005, 11:24 AM
I think it's to early to be concerned about the Sox not taking walks.

Radke just doesn't walk batters , he has 1 walk in 19.1 innings so far this season.

Santana could be the games best pitcher right now. The guy has been in the zone for a while now. Johan didn't walk any Indians last night and has only 2 in 18 innings of work.

Millwood is another guy that throws strikes , he only has 3 walks in 13 innings.

Jake Eastbrook might not be the greatest pitcher but he sure seems to throw a good game against the Sox for some reason.

The 2 guys that I want to see working the pitcher into long counts is Podsednik and Iguichi. The Sox were very patient with Pinero last night and made him pay for his wildness.

I'm pretty sure that I had previously mentioned all of these as reasons why the White Sox have had problems drawing walks. My point was that it better not become a habit because this team is going nowhere if they continue heading in this direction. 4 walks is definitely a step in the right direction, including 3 in an inning which lead to one very important run in the game.

TheBull19
04-16-2005, 12:01 PM
The only number that matters despite not walking, a low batting average and a shaky bullpen is this...7-3.

The 1964 Sox couldn't hit worth a damn yet won 98 games.





That's a good point ... for the pro OBP arguers. Despite finishing near the bottom in nearly every offensive category, the exception was walks and obp 1964 the team was 1st in walks and 3rd in OBP.

TheBull19
04-16-2005, 12:07 PM
Don't forget the 94 wins by the 1990 White Sox. Did we even have one guy in the lineup with over 20 homers that season? Steve Lyons was batting 5th on some days.

What are you saying, Lyons wasn't a legitimate major league #5 hitter?

Ol' No. 2
04-16-2005, 04:45 PM
That's a good point ... for the pro OBP arguers. Despite finishing near the bottom in nearly every offensive category, the exception was walks and obp 1964 the team was 1st in walks and 3rd in OBP.Hello??? This was 1964. The era of the big strike zone and the 15" mound. Pitching was much more dominant than it is today. Comparing numbers from that era to today is nuts.

daveeym
04-16-2005, 05:19 PM
Like I stated earlier, the White Sox saw a fair amount of pretty good pitchers to open the season, so it's likely an aberration heavily due to this, but now is the time to correct this negative trend and if you don't see a correction, then you probably need to start worrying. Aint that the truth, pitchers have been getting ahead of sox batters all year so far and not necessarily from being over agressive at the plate. I think that's why it's even more impressive how well the sox are doing. The hitters haven't clicked, they've faced some very good pitchers, played in some horrible weather and a horrible dome.

jabrch
04-16-2005, 05:41 PM
I can't believe anyone would make themselves look like a dope posting to this old thread on the very night the Sox take four walks and win another ballgame, their seventh after only ten have been played in the entire 2005 season.

Oh wait, it's crector. Nevermind...

:cool:

You stil read Crector's posts?