PDA

View Full Version : By The Numbers


Lip Man 1
10-01-2006, 06:50 PM
Folks:

Just some numbers that may prove to be 'interesting' when looking back at the 2006 White Sox season and its place historically.

Should be good for a discussion or two (or three...)

Chicago White Sox 2006: 90-72 .555 (3rd place)

Ten year recap 1997-2006:
6 winning seasons (00,01,03,04,05,06),1 non losing season (02), 3 losing seasons (97,98,99)

Average season record 1997-2006: 85-77 .524

Two post season appearances, two divisional titles, one American League pennant, one World Series Championship.

2006:
One Run Games: 24-21
Two Run Games: 19-6
Extra Inning Games: 7-7 (lost last four straight extra inning games)
Record when scoring three runs or less: 6-47
Record when scoring four runs or more: 84-25
Number of games allowing ten or more runs: 16 games 1-15 record
Number of games scoring ten or more runs: 16 games 15-1 record

‘Blown’ Games (Games where the Sox took a lead into the 7th inning or later and lost): 12

Blown Game Information (date/opponent/inning/pitcher(s)) Teams that finished season with losing record are marked in red

4/5 Cleveland. 8th inning (Logan)
4/8 at Kansas City. 8th inning (Politte)
4/24 at Seattle. 7th inning (Garland)
5/5 Kansas City. 9th inning (Thornton / Jenks / Logan)
5/18 at Tampa Bay. 7th inning (Vazquez)
5/21 Cubs. 8th inning (Cotts)
6/1 at Cleveland. 7th inning (Thornton / McCarthy)
6/2 Texas. 7th inning (Nelson)
7/30 at Baltimore. 9th inning (Jenks)
8/31 Tampa Bay. 8th inning (Thornton)
9/4 at Boston.9th inning (Jenks)
9/16 at Oakland. 7th inning (Thornton / MacDougal / Logan)

‘Rally’ Games (Games where the Sox trailed going into the 7th inning or later and won): 16

5/3 (9th), 5/22(8th), 6/6 (8th), 6/9 (8th), 6/10 (8th), 6/17 (8th), 6/24 (7th), 6/28 (7th), 7/1 (7th), 7/9 (9th), 7/28 (9th), 8/8 (9th), 8/30 (8th), 9/2 (7th), 9/8 (9th), 9/23 (8th)

11 of those 16 'rally' wins came against teams that would have a 'losing' record in 2006.

2006 Record versus ‘winning’ teams: 44-36 .550
2006 Record versus ‘losing’ teams: 46-36 .560

Losses vs. ‘Losing’ Teams Breakdown:
vs. Baltimore 5-2
vs. Tampa Bay 3-3
vs. Cleveland 8-11
vs. Kansas City 11-8
vs. Seattle 5-4
vs. Pittsburgh 2-1
vs. Cubs 4-2
vs. Cincinnati 3-0
vs. Texas 5-5

Comparison with Detroit and Minnesota vs. ‘losing’ clubs.
White Sox vs. ‘losing’ teams: 46-36 .560
Minnesota vs. ‘losing’ teams: 55-28 .662
Detroit vs. ‘losing’ teams: 55-27 .670

Month by Month 2006:
April: 17-7
May: 16-12
June: 19-8
July: 10-15
August: 16-13
September/October: 12-17

First Half vs. Second Half Under Ozzie Guillen:

2004: 1st 81 games: 43-38 .530 2nd 81 games: 40-41 .493 -.033
2005: 1st 81 games: 55-26 .679 2nd 81 games: 44-37 .543 -.136
2006: 1st 81 games: 53-28 .654 2nd 81 games: 37-44 .456 -.198

and finally.....

While this season without question was a disappointment, it is not on the scale that some fans and media members are making it out to be. Just look at history a little bit to put the 2006 season in context.

Since 1968 which was the first year after the ‘Golden Age’ of Sox baseball (because the period from 1951-1967 saw the Sox post 17 consecutive winning seasons, 3rd longest in MLB history) the franchise has played 39 seasons. They have had 18 winning seasons. Of those 18 winning seasons only seven has seen the club win 90 games or more! (1977, 1983, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2006) Ranking those seven seasons by number of wins gives you the following:

1. 99 wins (1983, 2005)
3. 95 wins (2000)
4. 94 wins (1990, 1993)
6. 90 wins (1977, 2006)

So in the past 39 years, this is the 6th best season for the franchise. Not exactly a disaster season is it? (You want disaster? Try being a fan of the Royals, Cubs, Pirates, Devil Rays or Orioles!)

And three times in the past seven seasons the franchise has hit the 90 win mark or better. The last time period the White Sox did something like that was 1959-1965 when they did it four times (59, 63, 64, 65)

Perspective folks.

And really, really finally....Javier Vazquez has become only the 4th pitcher in MLB history to strike out over 50 batters in a single month and not have one win to show for it! The others were Kerry Wood, Randy Johnson and I think, Bob Feller.

Lip

caulfield12
10-01-2006, 07:00 PM
Record when scoring 3 runs or less sticks out, along with the bullpen.

What was our record last year when scoring 3 or less?

I guess the one run and extra inning record goes hand-in-hand, bad bullpen/lack of execution offensively and inability to manufacture runs.

Thanks for putting that together, I'm sure it will come up now and again during the offseason.

sox1970
10-01-2006, 07:05 PM
Some Final Pitching Stats:

Starters went 72-52, 4.65 ERA
Bullpen went 18-20, 4.54 ERA

81 quality starts. The Sox went 66-15.
81 non-quality starts. The Sox went 24-57.

The Sox had 95 Quality starts in 2005.

caulfield12
10-01-2006, 07:07 PM
Probably between Buehrle and Contreras alone...

Garcia was down a little, but those first two hurt the most.

Frater Perdurabo
10-01-2006, 07:09 PM
Lip, thanks for putting this all together for us. I'm sure your compilation represents many hours of tedious research. It would be great if this thread could be stuck, if for no other reason than to discourage others from posting pieces of the same information over and over again throughout the offseason.

DaleJRFan
10-01-2006, 07:09 PM
awesome post. thanks a lot, Lip.

esbrechtel
10-01-2006, 07:11 PM
I'm sure your compilation represents many hours of tedious research.

i bet he just took notes all year.....

Myrtle72
10-01-2006, 07:19 PM
Thanks for the numbers - I like the perspective.

Frater Perdurabo
10-01-2006, 07:21 PM
i bet he just took notes all year.....


I'm certain that's true; no teal needed. But it's still hours of tedious research.
:smile:

esbrechtel
10-01-2006, 07:33 PM
he took mental notes all year....

gbergman
10-01-2006, 07:33 PM
I was planning on doing the same thing. Thanks for saving me the time and effort!

Frater Perdurabo
10-01-2006, 07:34 PM
he took mental notes all year....

We have suspected all along that Lip is somewhat, ahem, mental... but we love and appreciate him and his research nonetheless!
:tongue:

gbergman
10-01-2006, 07:40 PM
We struck out 1026 times this year. That is 6.3333333333333 times a game. 24 percent of our outs this year were by way of strike out. That is almost 1 in every 4 at bats. That isn't very good.

slobes
10-01-2006, 07:41 PM
I think what says it all is our record vs. losing teams. That's the season right there.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2006, 07:44 PM
To me there are two points that standout above all others concerning 2006 (and one other on a related note)

The 2006 points are the Sox record vs. losing, garbage teams (especially compared to Minnesota and Detroit) and the number of games the bullpen DIRECTLY blew against those same garbage, losing teams.

When you have superior talent over other clubs, you still have to play as hard. The Sox too many times, did not against poor teams.

The players are responsible because they are paid to play hard for 162 games, not 125 or 140 or 154. Ozzie is responsible because as manager it's his job to correct things. Either in this case he didn't or wasn't able to so part of the blame goes on him.

How you lose as many games as the Sox did to that garbage is simply amazing. THAT cost them a post season spot, even more then the starting pitching regressing and the top and bottom of the order practically abandoning 'Ozzie-Ball.' If the bullpen holds on and wins five of those blown games against that trash, the Sox are making travel plans (and I don't mean on the golf course...)

The related stat (if you can call it that) that jumped out at me was how every year Ozzie has been manager the team has played worse in their final 81 games then in their first 81. And that difference has gotten worse every season!

It'll be an interesting off season.

Lip

Frater Perdurabo
10-01-2006, 07:52 PM
To me there are two points that standout above all others concerning 2006 (and one other on a related note)

The 2006 points are the Sox record vs. losing, garbage teams (especially compared to Minnesota and Detroit) and the number of games the bullpen DIRECTLY blew against those same garbage, losing teams.

When you have superior talent over other clubs, you still have to play as hard. The Sox too many times, did not against poor teams.

The players are responsible because they are paid to play hard for 162 games, not 125 or 140 or 154. Ozzie is responsible because as manager it's his job to correct things. Either in this case he didn't or wasn't able to so part of the blame goes on him.

How you lose as many games as the Sox did to that garbage is simply amazing. THAT cost them a post season spot, even more then the starting pitching regressing and the top and bottom of the order practically abandoning 'Ozzie-Ball.' If the bullpen holds on and wins five of those blown games against that trash, the Sox are making travel plans (and I don't mean on the golf course...)

The related stat (if you can call it that) that jumped out at me was how every year Ozzie has been manager the team has played worse in their final 81 games then in their first 81. And that difference has gotten worse every season!

It'll be an interesting off season.

Lip

This is the most complete analysis I've read anywhere.

The bullpen was so terrible that it blew nine late-game leads against bad teams (part of that is a function of some bad defense in spots, though), and the lineup was inexplicably incapable of scratching out late-game runs against bad teams' bad pitchers.

Also, there were other games that were tied late, or in which the Sox trailed by only a run or two, that the bullpen made far worse, resulting in losses against bad teams. Some of those might have been wins had the bullpen not poured gas on the fire, but then again I'm not sure the offense could have scored late by manufacturing needed runs.

SluggersAway
10-01-2006, 08:01 PM
The 2006 points are the Sox record vs. losing, garbage teams (especially compared to Minnesota and Detroit) and the number of games the bullpen DIRECTLY blew against those same garbage, losing teams.

When you have superior talent over other clubs, you still have to play as hard. The Sox too many times, did not against poor teams.

The players are responsible because they are paid to play hard for 162 games, not 125 or 140 or 154. Ozzie is responsible because as manager it's his job to correct things. Either in this case he didn't or wasn't able to so part of the blame goes on him.

How you lose as many games as the Sox did to that garbage is simply amazing. THAT cost them a post season spot, even more then the starting pitching regressing and the top and bottom of the order practically abandoning 'Ozzie-Ball.'

This sounds like champion syndrome where one gets too big for your britches and you begin to expect to win rather than going out and getting the job done day in and day out.

Lip Man 1
10-01-2006, 08:07 PM
Sluggers:

I think the club's 'attitude' had a lot to do with their record against garbage teams. You can't just throw the gloves out there and expect to win.

Lip

SluggersAway
10-01-2006, 08:18 PM
The only one it seems to have helped is Jermaine Dye, I guess being the World Series MVP really boosts your thoughts on what you think you can accomplish.

caulfield12
10-01-2006, 11:05 PM
Sluggers:

I think the club's 'attitude' had a lot to do with their record against garbage teams. You can't just throw the gloves out there are expect to win.

Lip

I think the White Sox weren't up for the "losing" teams. The second part of this is that the losing teams had their seasons made when they could win a series against the defending World Series champions. We always got their best shots, consistently.

I think KC reallly got up for playing us this season, and the Indians were motivated after we went 14-5 against them last season, which basically knocked them out.

Hitmen77
10-01-2006, 11:17 PM
Folks:

Just some numbers that may prove to be 'interesting' when looking back at the 2006 White Sox season and its place historically.

Should be good for a discussion or two (or three...)

Chicago White Sox 2006: 90-72 .555 (3rd place)

Ten year recap 1997-2006:
6 winning seasons (00,01,03,04,05,06),1 non losing season (02), 3 losing seasons (97,98,99)

Average season record 1997-2006: 85-77 .524

Two post season appearances, two divisional titles, one American League pennant, one World Series Championship.

.......
and finally.....

While this season without question was a disappointment, it is not on the scale that some fans and media members are making it out to be. Just look at history a little bit to put the 2006 season in context.

Since 1968 which was the first year after the ‘Golden Age’ of Sox baseball (because the period from 1951-1967 saw the Sox post 17 consecutive winning seasons, 3rd longest in MLB history) the franchise has played 39 seasons. They have had 18 winning seasons. Of those 18 winning seasons only seven has seen the club win 90 games or more! (1977, 1983, 1990, 1993, 2000, 2005, 2006) Ranking those seven seasons by number of wins gives you the following:

1. 99 wins (1983, 2005)
3. 95 wins (2000)
4. 94 wins (1990, 1993)
6. 90 wins (1977, 2006)

So in the past 39 years, this is the 6th best season for the franchise. Not exactly a disaster season is it? (You want disaster? Try being a fan of the Royals, Cubs, Pirates, Devil Rays or Orioles!)

And three times in the past seven seasons the franchise has hit the 90 win mark or better. The last time period the White Sox did something like that was 1959-1965 when they did it four times (59, 63, 64, 65)

Perspective folks.

And really, really finally....Javier Vazquez has become only the 4th pitcher in MLB history to strike out over 50 batters in a single month and not have one win to show for it! The others were Kerry Wood, Randy Johnson and I think, Bob Feller.

Lip

Hey, thanks for all the info Lip. I really look forward to your historical tidbits. Here's a list of the best Sox records (by winning pct.) since those last back-to-back 90 win seasons - going back to 1963. Here they are with playoff teams in bold.


2005 99 63 .611 -
1983 99 63 .611 -
1964 98 64 .605 1.0
1994 67 46 .593 -
2000 95 67 .586 -
1965 95 67 .586 7.0
1993 94 68 .580 -
1990 94 68 .580 9.0
1963 94 68 .580 10.5
1972 87 67 .565 5.5
2006 90 72 .556 6.0
1977 90 72 .556 12.0
1967 89 73 .549 3.0
1991 87 75 .537 8.0
1982 87 75 .537 6.0
2003 86 76 .531 4.0
1992 86 76 .531 10.0

PKalltheway
10-02-2006, 01:23 AM
I think the White Sox weren't up for the "losing" teams. The second part of this is that the losing teams had their seasons made when they could win a series against the defending World Series champions. We always got their best shots, consistently.

I think KC reallly got up for playing us this season, and the Indians were motivated after we went 14-5 against them last season, which basically knocked them out.
I agree. I'm not making excuses for the Sox, but when you're the defending World Champions, the bad teams usually play harder because they want the satisfaction of saying "we beat the defending World Champs in a series." Plus, I think KC and Cleveland made it a point this year not to get pounded nearly as bad by the Sox as they did in 2005.

johnr1note
10-02-2006, 09:39 AM
Great analysis lip. Another tellling statistic is head to head vs. Twins and Tigers.

While we had a 12-7 record vs. Detroit this year, we were 3-4 against them in the last 7 meetings.

More telling is our record vs. the Twins. We were 9-10 against them, but again, prior to the last 3 games (which really didn't count in the pennant race), we were 2-7 after the all star break. You have to at least play your closest competition at .500 if you are going to compete. Combine that with our record vs. "garbage teams," and we begin to see.

The frustration for me is if just one or two factors were different, we'd be where the Twins are now. If the Sox get the 2005 version of Buerle, we win 5-8 more games. If Contreras was the same pitcher he was in the first half, we do the same. If the bullpen flips its record around, we win 5-8 more games. In each scenario, we are in the hunt for the post season till the end. We win 95 to 99 games. This is not a team that needs overhauling, or a team that "sucks." We missed -- barely.

Next year, we fine tune things, and make up the ground we missed this year!

mrwag
10-02-2006, 09:54 AM
Now that I've had a week to come to grips with the fact we are done and had some time to reflect without the anger that I had a few weeks ago, I firmly believe that if our pitchers stay out of the WBC and have a full offseason to rest, the problem will be solved. Throw in a new lead-off hitter, and another bullpen arm we're golden.

I think Mark's season was a fluke, Freddy is back on track and has learned how to "pitch". Javy has turned the corner (no WBC!!!), and Garland is the real deal. The only pitcher that bothers me is Contreras. If we can find a way to move him and get some value in return, I'm for it and bringing in Brandon.

the gooch
10-02-2006, 10:27 AM
I've been meaning to look this up, but throughout the season I had a problem with the Sox being unable to 'complete the sweep', especially against bad teams. I would like to know how many sweeps we WON, and its pre and post All Star breakdown.

If we play a bad division opponent and never win more than two games per series, all it takes is losing one best-of-three series and the best we can do against them is 11-8 in the W-L column.

The Minnesota 34s have been using that 'win every series' approach that Manual forced down our throats in the past, and I don't like it. If you've got your opponent bleeding, you need to attack even harder. Finish the damn sweep.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2006, 10:43 AM
I've been meaning to look this up, but throughout the season I had a problem with the Sox being unable to 'complete the sweep', especially against bad teams. I would like to know how many sweeps we WON, and its pre and post All Star breakdown.

If we play a bad division opponent and never win more than two games per series, all it takes is losing one best-of-three series and the best we can do against them is 11-8 in the W-L column.

The Minnesota 34s have been using that 'win every series' approach that Manual forced down our throats in the past, and I don't like it. If you've got your opponent bleeding, you need to attack even harder. Finish the damn sweep.

The Sox failed to complete sweeps against the

- Cubs (May 19-21)
- Tigers (June 6-8)
- Indians (June 9-11)
- Rangers (June 12-14)
- Astros (June 23-25)
- Pirates (June 27-29)
- Cubs (June 30-July 2)
All-Star Break
- Orioles (July 28-30)
- Royals (July 31-August 2)
- Blue Jays (August 4-6)
- Devil Rays (August 29-31)

These are series where the Sox won the first two and then dropped the third. Draw your own conclusions...

johnr1note
10-02-2006, 11:30 AM
I also wonder what would have happened to the AL Central race had there been no interleague play. All three contenders for the crown (Twins, Tigers, Sox) beat up on the NL Central. If you subtract the 14 plus wins each team garnered against the NL, and have them play that schedule against the AL East and West (what we would have done anyway), I don't see any of these teams winning 90 games.

the gooch
10-02-2006, 11:51 AM
The Sox failed to complete sweeps against the

- Cubs (May 19-21)
- Tigers (June 6-8)
- Indians (June 9-11)
- Rangers (June 12-14)
- Astros (June 23-25)
- Pirates (June 27-29)
- Cubs (June 30-July 2)
All-Star Break
- Orioles (July 28-30)
- Royals (July 31-August 2)
- Blue Jays (August 4-6)
- Devil Rays (August 29-31)

These are series where the Sox won the first two and then dropped the third. Draw your own conclusions...
There isn't a good team on that list except for Detroit. yikes.

Now for the # of actual sweeps:
DET 4/10-4/13
KC 4/17-4/19
34s 4/21-4/23
LAAA 4/28-4/30
SEA 5/3-5/4 (2 games)
OAK 5/22-5/24
CIN 6/16-6/18
StL 6/20-6/22

All Star Break

DET 8/11-8/13 (then lost 2 of next 3 to KC at home)

There are a lot of playoff caliber teams in that bunch, and some would say this is evidence of the Sox not getting up for the bad teams. I don't.

I will retract any previous statements and just say the Sox won a lot in the first half and not in the 2nd half.

itsnotrequired
10-02-2006, 11:57 AM
I will retract any previous statements and just say the Sox won a lot in the first half and not in the 2nd half.

That statement is glaringly obvious.

Pre-All Star Break: 57-31 (.648)

Post-All Star Break: 33-41 (.446)

:(:

Clarkdog
10-02-2006, 12:35 PM
Great post Lip.

Clearly the bullpen blowing up against garbage teams was the overriding factor of the team's shortfall this year and clearly should be the greatest area of focus for the 07 offseason. But think the areas of focus should be on the Cotts/Riske/Logan etc. space.

8 of the 10 blown games came before the acquisition of Mike Macdougal. There is something to the bridge of Macdougal, Thorton and Jenks. Thorton still needs to learn how throw a change, IMO.

Also of note, that 11 of 16 "Rally" Games came against garbage teams. Which means that in these 11 games they were losing to teams they should have been already been putting away. Combined with the 10 "Blown" games to the same kinds of team - there is clearly a lack of focus when the Sox face inferior competition. Why? That's a question for Ozzie.

Couple that why Ozzie's teams tend to get off to terrific starts and then fade in the second half and you wind up with a recipe that lead to assesments of a team "underachieving".

That term is not a new one when associated with the White Sox. Don't get me wrong - the Sox organization is on the right track. These are tweaks that can be made, along with small adjustments in attitude. Things could be far worse.

Anyone want to trade places with the Cubs right now?

Lip Man 1
10-02-2006, 12:43 PM
''This was a typical series for us. We won the first two games and couldn't get the big hit when we needed it in the last game. We were inconsistent all year long.'' -- Ozzie Guillen to the Sun-Times Joe Cowley.

Lip

nasox
10-02-2006, 02:24 PM
Great post Lip.

Clearly the bullpen blowing up against garbage teams was the overriding factor of the team's shortfall this year and clearly should be the greatest area of focus for the 07 offseason. But think the areas of focus should be on the Cotts/Riske/Logan etc. space.

8 of the 10 blown games came before the acquisition of Mike Macdougal. There is something to the bridge of Macdougal, Thorton and Jenks. Thorton still needs to learn how throw a change, IMO.

Also of note, that 11 of 16 "Rally" Games came against garbage teams. Which means that in these 11 games they were losing to teams they should have been already been putting away. Combined with the 10 "Blown" games to the same kinds of team - there is clearly a lack of focus when the Sox face inferior competition. Why? That's a question for Ozzie.

Couple that why Ozzie's teams tend to get off to terrific starts and then fade in the second half and you wind up with a recipe that lead to assesments of a team "underachieving".

That term is not a new one when associated with the White Sox. Don't get me wrong - the Sox organization is on the right track. These are tweaks that can be made, along with small adjustments in attitude. Things could be far worse.

Anyone want to trade places with the Cubs right now?

I think it has to do with the Latin attitude and Latin Pride in the clubhouse. The comfort of Spanish speaking players and Latinos in our clubhouse is fantastic. I love it. We have one of the most diverse clubhouses in any sport.

But I think a lot of the Latino players have this pride that makes them think that they do not need to take inferior teams seriously. They think that taking bad teams seriously is not respecting yourself.

That would also explain the home run or nothing philosophy (although note that the 345 hitters are not latino). They have a pride that makes them want to be the hero. This contributes to a all or nothing outlook that causes them to swing for the fences.

spiffie
10-02-2006, 02:50 PM
We struck out 1026 times this year. That is 6.3333333333333 times a game. 24 percent of our outs this year were by way of strike out. That is almost 1 in every 4 at bats. That isn't very good.
Actually, it's 1,056 times.

By way of comparison:

Tigers - 1,133 K's
Padres - 1,104 K's
Mets - 1,071 K's
White Sox - 1,056 K's
Yankees - 1,053 K's
A's - 976 K's
Dodgers - 959 K's
Cardinals - 922 K's
Twins - 872 K's

We fall exactly in the middle among teams that made the playoffs. Striking out more or less has never been proven in the last 15-20 years to have any bearing on team success. Some teams win with a lot of K's. Some win with few K's. Our team last year had 1,002 K's.