PDA

View Full Version : One Run Games


IA_soxfan
04-22-2005, 02:55 AM
Thus far we are 7-1 on the season in one run games. Weren't we pretty abysmal in this category last year? Its nice to see our team finally holding on to these tight games. Losing a lot of games by 1 run can get a team down.

BaseballTonyght
04-22-2005, 08:35 AM
Sox were 28-18 in one-run games last year, not bad at all. Just enough solo home runs to get the job done :cool:

elrod
04-22-2005, 09:08 AM
Actually, we were GREAT in one-run games last year. We started off 10-1 and finished 28-18 in one-run games. Considering we finished the season only four games over .500, 28-18 is amazing.

JRIG
04-22-2005, 09:12 AM
Actually, we were GREAT in one-run games last year. We started off 10-1 and finished 28-18 in one-run games. Considering we finished the season only four games over .500, 28-18 is amazing.

I know I'll get blasted once again, but winning one-run games is a lot of luck.

The Sox have been outstanding in getting double play balls when the absolutely need them. But 2 feet to the left or right and those are seeing-eye singles.

No complaints, it's great while it lasts. But we will lose our share of one-run games this year as well. Things have a way of evening out. No doom and gloom though. A stronger bullpen put together by KW has been a big factor in keeping those one run games right where they are.

TDog
04-22-2005, 11:46 AM
I know I'll get blasted once again, but winning one-run games is a lot of luck. ...

Is this to say that luck was the difference between the 1968 White Sox, which lost 44 one-run games in a 95-loss season, and the 1968 World Series Champion Detroit Tigers, which finished 36 games ahead of them?

I might have believed that when I was 11 years old, but I don't believe that now. For that matter, I don't believe that luck separated the Twinks and Royals in their recent two-game series. The best teams win most of their one-run games. The teams at the bottom of the standings often come up one or two runs short.

That being said, eight one-run games in April doesn't predict success for another 20 or more one-run games this summer. It will be a long season, but I'm impressed with the ability the Sox have shown to win so far.

Rocky Soprano
04-22-2005, 11:49 AM
There is no such thing as luck.

A good pitcher has to throw the right pitch to try and get the batter to put the ball on the groud.

The Sox are playing great baseball, I guess you can say they are making their own "luck."

Ol' No. 2
04-22-2005, 11:50 AM
Is this to say that luck was the difference between the 1968 White Sox, which lost 44 one-run games in a 95-loss season, and the 1968 World Series Champion Detroit Tigers, which finished 36 games ahead of them?

I might have believed that when I was 11 years old, but I don't believe that now. For that matter, I don't believe that luck separated the Twinks and Royals in their recent two-game series. The best teams win most of their one-run games. The teams at the bottom of the standings often come up one or two runs short.

That being said, eight one-run games in April doesn't predict success for another 20 or more one-run games this summer. It will be a long season, but I'm impressed with the ability the Sox have shown to win so far.Good teams win a lot of games, one-run and otherwise. Bad teams, obviously, do the opposite. But if a disproportionately large share of your wins are by one run, that's mostly luck.

DaveIsHere
04-22-2005, 11:56 AM
Good teams win a lot of games, one-run and otherwise. Bad teams, obviously, do the opposite. But if a disproportionately large share of your wins are by one run, that's mostly luck.

I would have to disagree. Luck may play a part here and there, but great pitching, clutch defense, and putting the pressure on the other team helps to generate mistakes and get that last run in. If you want to go far in the playoffs, scrapping out wins by one run is a huge deal, in addition it gives the players confidence when they win a lot of games this way amd makes them more comfortable in these situation and not press. Sure you get a break here and there, but you need to play smart and make the plays when you need to. So far the Sox have been able to do that quite well.

Flight #24
04-22-2005, 11:56 AM
Anyone know the Twins record in 1-run games the past few years? IIRC they've generally played in a lot of close games, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's consistently good.

IMO the "strong pitching, good D, hustle/aggressive play" style is one designed to win close games. Often in these situations it's who does/doesn't make a mistake, and Ozzieball's designed to minimze those, and via aggressive play, keep pressure on the opponent and induce them to make mistakes. So while luck obviously plays a role, the style of play is a huge factor as well. If the Twins are consistently good in 1-run games the past few years, that would lend credence to the theory.

JRIG
04-22-2005, 12:11 PM
Anyone know the Twins record in 1-run games the past few years? IIRC they've generally played in a lot of close games, so I wouldn't be surprised if it's consistently good.

IMO the "strong pitching, good D, hustle/aggressive play" style is one designed to win close games. Often in these situations it's who does/doesn't make a mistake, and Ozzieball's designed to minimze those, and via aggressive play, keep pressure on the opponent and induce them to make mistakes. So while luck obviously plays a role, the style of play is a huge factor as well. If the Twins are consistently good in 1-run games the past few years, that would lend credence to the theory.

2004: 24-16
2003: 22-20
2002: 29-16
2001: 25-19

Although I'm not sure how much that means. The A's (the anti-Twins?) put up these marks:

2004: 33-19
2003: 25-20
2002: 32-14
2001: 21-19

HomeFish
04-22-2005, 12:14 PM
Much like this year, in 2004 the Sox started off incredible in one-run games, thanks mostly so many April games being won on walk-off hits that stayed in the park.

So, no, early season win/loss in one-run games is not an indicator of future success for a baseball team.

Flight #24
04-22-2005, 12:18 PM
2004: 24-16
2003: 22-20
2002: 29-16
2001: 25-19

Although I'm not sure how much that means. The A's (the anti-Twins?) put up these marks:

2004: 33-19
2003: 25-20
2002: 32-14
2001: 21-19

Seems to me like the Twins are consistently very good at winning 1-run games, as are the A's. These #s don't jive with the "performance in 1-run games is primarily driven by luck" argument. The teams may be doing it in different ways, but they seem to generate consistently good results.

Based on this, why can't the Sox maintain a strong 1-run record?

WhitingSox
04-22-2005, 12:48 PM
Here's a story on the subject from today -- if you can read the chart at the end, it's pretty interesting. It's easier to read in the paper, but basically Ozzie has a better record in one-run games than Torre, Cox, LaRussa, etc., etc. did when they first started.


http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/04/22/sports/top_sports/a574bf6ce97b663e86256fea007fb2da.prt

Ol' No. 2
04-22-2005, 01:10 PM
I would have to disagree. Luck may play a part here and there, but great pitching, clutch defense, and putting the pressure on the other team helps to generate mistakes and get that last run in. If you want to go far in the playoffs, scrapping out wins by one run is a huge deal, in addition it gives the players confidence when they win a lot of games this way amd makes them more comfortable in these situation and not press. Sure you get a break here and there, but you need to play smart and make the plays when you need to. So far the Sox have been able to do that quite well.I could just as easily argue that it's poor defense and pitching that turns 3-run games into 1-run games.

All those qualities you mentioned help you win games generally. Good teams win a lot of one-run games. They also win a lot of 2-run games and 3-run games. But there isn't any special ability to win one-run games.

nebraskasox
04-22-2005, 01:13 PM
Good teams win a lot of games, one-run and otherwise. Bad teams, obviously, do the opposite. But if a disproportionately large share of your wins are by one run, that's mostly luck.

Didn't the 59 team win a disproportionately large share of one and two run games? I don't think that was luck.

jabrch
04-22-2005, 01:20 PM
I imagine that good teams usually win 1 run games at a rate very similar to their non-one run winning percentages while bad teams tend to lose one run games at a rate similar to their normal losing percentages.

Flight #24
04-22-2005, 01:31 PM
Here's a story on the subject from today -- if you can read the chart at the end, it's pretty interesting. It's easier to read in the paper, but basically Ozzie has a better record in one-run games than Torre, Cox, LaRussa, etc., etc. did when they first started.


http://nwitimes.com/articles/2005/04/22/sports/top_sports/a574bf6ce97b663e86256fea007fb2da.prt

Interesting quote from the article:


Number-crunching baseball author Bill James has made a lucrative career pouring cold water over the overeager, undersubstantiated analysis of baseball insiders.

A few years ago James decided to study whether records in one-run games were useful in evaluating managers. After collecting a mountain of data he concluded that some managers had proven themselves to be poor performers in one-run games, though no one, over the course of a career, had proven himself exceptionally good.

Teams that were good in one-run games usually were good bunting, baserunning and relief pitching teams, though not by as large a margin as one might expect.

"One-run games involve a huge amount of luck," James wrote. "This may be the only safe statement that can be made about them."

Another key:
New York's Joe Torre and Atlanta's Bobby Cox are the two most accomplished managers in the game today. They both began their managerial careers in the late 1970s, guiding less-than-mediocre ball clubs to also-ran seasons.

But something telling was happening beneath the mounting losses. Through 54 one-run decisions, the same number Guillen has now, they were both over .500. Meanwhile, overall, their teams were well below .500.

When margins were wide, the talent deficit of their teams was evident -- they usually lost. But when games were tight the two young managers seemed to be able to exert their will on the outcome, be it via late-game strategic maneuvering, the force of their personalities on their players or, most likely, some combination thereof.

Ozzieball = 1-run success, you gotta love it!

Lip Man 1
04-22-2005, 01:34 PM
The Sox started off 11-1 last year in one run games and the 1959 Sox team, I think, won 35 or 38 one run games.

Lip

MRKARNO
04-22-2005, 04:58 PM
You can win a majority of one-run games with a good bullpen. A good bullpen is what seperates the teams that go to the playoffs and those that stay home IMO because the teams that possess it aren't blowing the leads that the starters and offense have made for them. It can enable a team to outperform its pythagorean record year in and year out. The lack of one can lead to constant underperformance.

Ol' No. 2
04-22-2005, 05:00 PM
You can win a majority of one-run games with a good bullpen. A good bullpen is what seperates the teams that go to the playoffs and those that stay home IMO because the teams that possess it aren't blowing the leads that the starters and offense have made for them. It can enable a team to outperform its pythagorean record year in and year out. The lack of one can lead to constant underperformance.You can also turn a lot of 3-run wins into 1-run wins with a bad bullpen (see Koch, Billy).

Paulwny
04-22-2005, 05:12 PM
Good starting pitching along with a good pen, never allowing the other team to have too big a lead.