PDA

View Full Version : Another, the Sox won't keep winning article.


DrCrawdad
05-02-2005, 05:50 PM
The New Sox
by Aaron Gleeman
May 02, 2005

During the offseason, the White Sox shed sluggers Carlos Lee and Magglio Ordonez and brought in speedsters Scott Podsednik and Tadahito Iguchi with the misguided notion that the team needed to focus on playing "small ball" in 2005. The basic idea being that the White Sox had finished in second place for three straight seasons while ranking among the league leaders in home runs, so that must have been the root of the problem. It wasn't, of course, because the fact is that Chicago's offense was never really a problem at all. The White Sox, with their AL-leading 242 homers, ranked third in the league in runs scored last season with 865, producing 11% more offense (85 more runs) than the first place Twins.

The rest of the article in Baseball Times article on the Sox. (http://www.hardballtimes.com/daily/article/the-new-sox/)

Ho, hum.

Rocky Soprano
05-02-2005, 05:51 PM
:whocares

MRKARNO
05-02-2005, 05:56 PM
Aaron Gleeman isnt going to admit the Sox are for real until they've essentially wrapped up the division.

na_na_na_na
05-02-2005, 05:59 PM
It's astounding that stat heads who try to talk about the trade of Lee and non signing of Ordonez always miss the most important number number $.

All the extra cash from not signing Ordonez and making the Lee deal sured up the bullpen and starting rotatation. I'll gladdly give up 3 runs on offense a game if I can keep 4 runs in defense.
Also it's very disengenious to compare our april 04/april 05 offense numbers and then compare our april 05 staff against itself lifetime instead of against the april 04 staff.

mweflen
05-02-2005, 06:01 PM
In short, if the White Sox's "small ball" offense continues to struggle to score runs and the starting pitching comes back down to earth like their established levels of performance suggest they will, Chicago could be in some trouble .

This statement can't be argued with. It's just pretty effin' obvious. The guy's just filling random column space.

"If the [[Insert Team Name]] 's pitching declines and their offense doesn't pick up, they're in trouble."


WELL, DUH.:?:

Chisox003
05-02-2005, 06:04 PM
Weve seen this, been over it, how many times in the last 5 months?

My count is 1,304,240 1/2

Anybody else have a different, possibly higher, amount of these articles written by these so called "journalists"

The only difference is this guy has the rocks to say it a month AFTER the season started...and we are 18-7! Ha ha ha...Foolish

Edit: I sent him an email...I like seeing if guys like this will ever email me back, which they never do..Because they're wrong!!

S05X

SOX ADDICT '73
05-02-2005, 06:08 PM
I wasn't aware that Jay Moronotti wrote using a pseudonym.

Seriously, what's with all the venom targeting the White Sox lately? It's one thing to be skeptical about our awesome start (heck, most of us are pretty skeptical ourselves), but some of these mediots are writing and saying (BBTN) pretty nasty things! It's like they can't stand the fact that it's the red-headed stepchild of Chicago baseball that's having all the success, instead of Big Blue.

Someone needs to tell this particular idiot that the only reason our pitching staff is better this year is because they unloaded some payroll through the Magg$ fiasco and CLee deal. They were able to pick up El Duque, bolster the bullpen, and sign AJ (who, along with Widge, deserves a lot of the credit for how they've handled the staff).

And those cumulative 2004 numbers he spouts, all the runs and homers? They mean nothing unless you break it down game-by-game. A team like the 2001-2004 White Sox that scores 14 runs in one game, 1 in the next, and gets shut out in the third game is going to average 5 runs per, and most likely go 1-2 in that series. That's a pretty sweet offense, wouldn't you say?

fquaye149
05-02-2005, 07:25 PM
anytime someone says the sox offense was never a problem is someone who only looked at the lines at the end of the year.

there is nothing in the statistics for CORPSEBALL.

MisterB
05-02-2005, 07:55 PM
Just a hint for you guys - I took the link to the guy's website, and on the left side of the page he has links to other sites broken down by category:

#1. Oh, The Places I Write
#2. Approved Columnists
and
#3. Minnesota Twins Stuff

That helps explain things :rolleyes:

Fredsox
05-02-2005, 08:27 PM
Just a hint for you guys - I took the link to the guy's website, and on the left side of the page he has links to other sites broken down by category:

#1. Oh, The Places I Write
#2. Approved Columnists
and
#3. Minnesota Twins Stuff

That helps explain things :rolleyes:


I guess this is the way he gets back at the Sox for slappin' his boys around.

OKCidiot
05-02-2005, 08:30 PM
I guess this is the way he gets back at the Sox for slappin' his boys around.

It's probably his way of emulating Eric Forman running out of burns on That 70s Show ("Oh yeah? Well... uh, NICE HAIR!!!")

tebman
05-02-2005, 08:40 PM
I wasn't aware that Jay Moronotti wrote using a pseudonym.

Seriously, what's with all the venom targeting the White Sox lately? It's one thing to be skeptical about our awesome start (heck, most of us are pretty skeptical ourselves), but some of these mediots are writing and saying (BBTN) pretty nasty things! It's like they can't stand the fact that it's the red-headed stepchild of Chicago baseball that's having all the success, instead of Big Blue.


MisterB pointed out that this guy is a Twins apologist, so that helps explain why he writes this kind of stuff. But as far as the overall venom toward the Sox, someone else pointed out that these writers/pundits/analysts/proctologists, or whatever they are, picked the Sox to finish third or fourth, and they don't want to be proved wrong. The Sox are showing them up.

A winning season can cure a lot of this.

kevingrt
05-02-2005, 08:54 PM
I don't even need to look at it or read... what's new?

batmanZoSo
05-02-2005, 09:05 PM
There are lies, damned lies and statistics never sounded more true.

12, 0, 2, 3, 10 does not a good offense make. I'll take our current 4, 4, 4, 4, 4 with an era under 3.

moron...

White Sox Josh
05-02-2005, 09:13 PM
Who cares what a Twins Fan thinks

NorthlakeTom
05-02-2005, 09:31 PM
What gets me about these idiots is that their logic is twisted, and they're just plain wrong.

Wanna talk home runs? Dye will hit 20+. Rowand and Uribe could likely repeat last year's performance. When Frank returns, he and Everett will combine for 30+. Pauly will hit 35+. Iguchi has power. Crede may repeat 20+.

These idiots discount speed. They ignore defense. Everyone assumes the pitching is a fluke.

I keep hearing of the dreadful OBP. Okay, but so what? The Sox have amassed the best record in baseball with that lowly OBP. Dye, Konerko and Rowand are not going to bat .200 for the season.

I liked Valentin, but what we lost in power is more than made up by Uribe's defense. Pods and Vizcaino for Lee? LMAO! That will turn out to be the steal of the year. Maggs is gone, and I'm thankful for that. Dye is no Ordonez, but at least Dye is playing.

Catching? The difference is night and day from last year. Bullpen? Ditto.

"Oh, but the rotation is sure to fail!"

Yeah, right. Give it up. You lose.

SluggersAway
05-02-2005, 09:37 PM
It must be great to be a stathead, you don't even have to watch any games.

SOX ADDICT '73
05-02-2005, 09:49 PM
What gets me about these idiots is that their logic is twisted, and they're just plain wrong.

Wanna talk home runs? Dye will hit 20+. Rowand and Uribe could likely repeat last year's performance. When Frank returns, he and Everett will combine for 30+. Pauly will hit 35+. Iguchi has power. Crede may repeat 20+.

These idiots discount speed. They ignore defense. Everyone assumes the pitching is a fluke.

I keep hearing of the dreadful OBP. Okay, but so what? The Sox have amassed the best record in baseball with that lowly OBP. Dye, Konerko and Rowand are not going to bat .200 for the season.

I liked Valentin, but what we lost in power is more than made up by Uribe's defense. Pods and Vizcaino for Lee? LMAO! That will turn out to be the steal of the year. Maggs is gone, and I'm thankful for that. Dye is no Ordonez, but at least Dye is playing.

Catching? The difference is night and day from last year. Bullpen? Ditto.

"Oh, but the rotation is sure to fail!"

Yeah, right. Give it up. You lose.
Quite a mouthful for a first post! Nicely done, and :welcome:!

NorthlakeTom
05-02-2005, 10:01 PM
Quite a mouthful for a first post! Nicely done, and :welcome:!

Thank you.

Actually, that mouthful has been runnin' around my brain, achin' to get out for several days now. I've given up on the media, especially the pathetic Chicago rags.

I'm grateful for this forum and all you guys. Screw the sCrUBS. Screw the media. Home is where the true fans are.

(If it wasn't for my pathological aversion to registration, I'd have joined you a few days ago. ;) )

White Sox Josh
05-02-2005, 10:39 PM
Just signed up here but :welcome: :cheers: :smile::smile::bandance:

Jurr
05-02-2005, 11:05 PM
He used to have a blog that focused on getting Johan Santana into the starting rotation for the Twins. The blog did well, and that's how he became a writer. Listen to his crap at your own discretion.

SOXPHILE
05-02-2005, 11:19 PM
You mean THE Aaron Gleeman ? Oh no ! Not him ! Well, that's it fellow Sox fans. Might as well kiss off the whole summer. Aaron Gleeman has spoken. No reason to watch the White Sox this year. I'm just gonna stop watching baseball and rooting for the Sox, and just wait for the Twins-Red Sox matchup in the ALCS and the Cubs-Giants NLCS.

ChiSoxBobette
05-03-2005, 07:22 AM
Ho, hum.
So if our offense was'nt the problem why did'nt we win all those years we were hitting HR's? I suppose this guy also thinks Pods plays CF.

ode to veeck
05-03-2005, 08:38 AM
the longer these idiots kep thinking this way, and more importantly, the other MLB teams do as well, the better off the Sox will be in their endeavors to knock the Twinks off the division throne and succeed in the playoffs

SoxWillWin
05-03-2005, 09:04 AM
If I may be long winded for a second, there is in fact no way to tell if the Sox can keep the .700 winning percentage. That said, however, there is no way to tell if they won't.

I think most Sox fans of us knew they were going to be better than last year, but IMO very few expected this kind of start to the season. So these statheads say the Sox will not continue winning. First off they say our pitching is going to drop off......I think the only pitcher of ours who is doing something out of the ordinary is Garland, the other four are just doing what they've always done which is battle hitters and keep the team in the game. So if Garland has a fall off in effectiveness I think it's not that big of a deal.

Next our "small ball, smart ball, all ball" offense is under achieving. I'll personally take an 18 - 7 record with an underachieving offense anyday over anything else. The offense will not be like this all year, in fact just as people who are currently hot begin to cool off I believe others will step up to carry the load.

There has been so much focus on hitting not being there and the potential for a loss of pitching effectiveness that the REAL worry is overlooked. INJURIES. If we can avoid injuries I believe the team will be all right. Even a couple injuries may be okay so long as they are not at the same time.

I have a headache, GO SOX.

The Wimperoo
05-03-2005, 09:05 AM
So if our offense was'nt the problem why did'nt we win all those years we were hitting HR's? I suppose this guy also thinks Pods plays CF.

Because the pitching was crap. The Sox didn't even have a 5th starter or a bullpen, that's why they haven't won anything the last few years.

LVSoxFan
05-03-2005, 10:46 AM
Well one thing I can explain is with regard to people saying "Why don't people believe in the Sox this year?"

Uh, for starters we have not won a World Series since 1917. We have not been to one since 1959. We lose to Minnesota in the division on a yearly basis. The last time we won, 2000--we got swept miserably in the first round. We've neva been a contendah. Not for a long time.

So of course people are going to be skeptical after one offseason. And you know what? That's fine. Under the radar. Let them all talk and speculate, but the reality is a start means nothing--it's how we finish.

First we must own the Twins. Then we have to overcome our West Coast curse (still somewhat intact this year). Then we have to beat teams like Boston and New York if we're going to get to the big dance.

The good news is that nobody thinks we can do it, so everything we do (well) this year will be a surprise. The bad news is that nobody thinks we can do it because we never do. But I'll take the underdog tag anytime. Everybody thought Boston was toast after game 3 last year--look what they did.

My fantasy scenario is that we can build a double-digit lead over the Twinkies by the All-Star break--that would be awesome, and a sure sign that things have changed.

Hangar18
05-03-2005, 02:37 PM
It's astounding that stat heads who try to talk about the trade of Lee and non signing of Ordonez always miss the most important number number $.

All the extra cash from not signing Ordonez and making the Lee deal sured up the bullpen and starting rotatation.

What I think is astounding is that Rein$dorf has sox fans believing that if
we hadnt traded LEE and let ORDONEZ go, we wouldnt have had the
All the extra cash to shore up the bullpen and starting rotation. Ive
always countered, our offense wasnt the problem, if our Rotation had been deep enough, and we hadnt cheapened our bullpen after the 2003 season,
we woudlve gone far in the playoffs.

This just happens to be the year, that those 2 players were due Huge Raises, and Uncle Jerry didnt want to pay. He used that $$$$$$$ to Fill Holes in the team ............
Holes the White SOX themselves created !!!!!!!!!! Dont get me wrong,
im very excited, this is what it feels like when you fill your holes and the team
starts playing well. But had the SOX just filled the holes back in 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, we'd be talking about the SOX are trying to win the
division for the 6th year in a row .........

doublem23
05-03-2005, 02:41 PM
Who the **** is Aaron Gleeman?

ondafarm
05-03-2005, 02:51 PM
It's astounding that stat heads who try to talk about the trade of Lee and non signing of Ordonez always miss the most important number number $.

All the extra cash from not signing Ordonez and making the Lee deal sured up the bullpen and starting rotatation. I'll gladdly give up 3 runs on offense a game if I can keep 4 runs in defense.
Also it's very disengenious to compare our april 04/april 05 offense numbers and then compare our april 05 staff against itself lifetime instead of against the april 04 staff.

Please don't dis all stat heads with one foul swoop. I think trading Lee and letting Ordonez go were both good ideas. Albeit I think Mags deserved a classier departure.

Last April, the team was playing with both Mags and Thomas who both left for a good portion of the rest of the year. As for the pitching numbers, they have improved but mostly by adding better starters and adding improved defense. I think Garland especially needed the pressure free situation of being a number 5 starter.

The article's author may have taken a stat head approach but stupid still is as stupid does.

fquaye149
05-03-2005, 03:17 PM
Because the pitching was crap. The Sox didn't even have a 5th starter or a bullpen, that's why they haven't won anything the last few years.

That's only part of it.

Let's ask E-Lo about his twin 1-0 losses to los Tigres (among others...)

DMarte708
05-03-2005, 04:52 PM
I'm surprised the reaction this article has received.

I expected psuedo-statisticians to approve of Gleeman's work, for no other reason than "BASEBALL PROSPECTUS" graises the heading. That's what irritating on occasions. Regardless of faulty content or apparent bias in reporting, all their work is justified because they're stat heads. Whether it's Rob Neyer on ESPN, or Baseball Prospectus and Hardball Times articles, these analysis pieces often discredit or completely ignore fascets of the team which contradicts their theory.

As someone pointed earlier in this thead (I'm too lazy to look back), Gleeman compares offensive production between last year/this year, while ignoring pitching numbers between the 04/05 staff. Wouldn't want to present evidenc which may damper his article, now would he.

It's rather simplistic, yet understandble, to suggest our team can't continue to win at their current winning % clip. But I'm wondering when the offensive juggernaut in the AL East, the Baltimore Orioles, will be the subject of debate. Haven't seen many articles questioning their run yet. Must be because they've faced the YANKEES, and any team atop the AL East earns immunity from criticism.

I don't discredit their work, but often find their tone condescending and above all else, fault proof. If we were to win, we'll hear how "lucky" we were. Personally, I find in depth statistics useful only for assessing an individual players worth, opposed to analyzing the trends of entire team.

johnny_mostil
05-05-2005, 08:01 PM
And those cumulative 2004 numbers he spouts, all the runs and homers? They mean nothing unless you break it down game-by-game. A team like the 2001-2004 White Sox that scores 14 runs in one game, 1 in the next, and gets shut out in the third game is going to average 5 runs per, and most likely go 1-2 in that series. That's a pretty sweet offense, wouldn't you say?

The problem with that is the 2004 White Sox were a normal team in terms of run scoring consistency. Almost all baseball teams do exactly this.

The 2005 White Sox are 21-7 because their staff ERA is 2.94. You can't lose when the other team doesn't score, and scoring 3 or 4 runs a game just isn't that hard when you know you don't need 8.

DSpivack
05-05-2005, 08:04 PM
Should be obvious that they won't keep winning at this % rate.

Unless they finish 121-41.

johnny_mostil
05-05-2005, 08:04 PM
It's rather simplistic, yet understandble, to suggest our team can't continue to win at their current winning % clip.

It's a very safe gamble. No team in the modern era has ever won 75% of its games. I predict Justin Morneau won't hit .396.

MRKARNO
05-05-2005, 08:09 PM
Aaron Gleeman responds:


<li>I'm sure this will come as a huge shock, but a lot of White Sox fans weren't very pleased (http://showthread.php?t=49294) with my "The New Sox" (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/the-new-sox/) article at The Hardball Times (http://www.hardballtimes.com/) earlier this week. A couple things: One, it's impossible to write an article saying a team's great start won't hold up without offending that team's fan base. Two, the number of White Sox-related sites that aren't fans of mine is huge, and that's just fine. In fact, I hope the same White Sox fans get angry at me next year, when I suggest that Chicago will finish behind the Twins for a sixth straight season.

My favorite comment from this particular group of angry White Sox fans (http://showthread.php?t=49294&page=1&pp=15)?It must be great to be a stathead, you don't even have to watch any games.If you can find a human being on earth who has watched more innings of baseball over the past few years than I have, I'd like to meet him.
Worry about this year first Aaron...

Other than that, his points of response are reasonable (not necessarily the points in the original article).

Tragg
05-05-2005, 11:31 PM
Articles like this are basically circular. They start the season with their statistical notions of what we should produce and how many games we should win. Thus, when the team exceeds expectations, it means that players exceeded their expectations - otherwise, how could the team have exceeded expectations? (unless we are extremely lucky and win every game by 1 and lose every game by 10; we've had some luck, like today, but it hasn't been that much). And they don't expect players to exceed their expectations over an entire season (they are machines, after all, and their computers are flawless), thus they predict a free-fall.

It's almost like the Billy Beane argument re the poor post-season success - that's because it isn't a post-season system. Well, then it's a flawed system.