White Sox Interactive Forums
Sox Clubhouse
 Soxogram: 
Congratulations on winning the AL ROTY award unanimously, Jose!

Welcome
Go Back   White Sox Interactive Forums > Baseball Discussions > Sox Clubhouse
Home Chat Stats Register Blogs FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 04-28-2013, 01:20 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milw View Post
This is what the sabrmetrics revolution has done: It has created a generation of basaeball "experts" who look at the game in strictly data-driven terms, without regard for (or, in some cases, basic understanding of) the game's nuance.

I have the utmost respect for the numbers guys who say (and actually believe) that stats are a tool in the toolbox--that they help you see the game in a more three-dimensional-way. But nerds, understand this: When you laugh off things like sacrifice bunts, you sound just as moronic as the guys who think advanced stats are stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 04-28-2013, 01:27 PM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 26,379
Default

MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 04-28-2013, 01:39 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
The problem with this years offense isn't balance. They aren't really doing anything well at all. Sure they are 4th in the league in HR, but they are one bad game away from being 7th.

Do you think combining 2006 offense with the 2005 pitching results in a better or worse team than either team alone?
In the second half of 2006 when Podsednik started to struggle, the team became dependent on the home run, otherwise they couldn't score which meant we lost a lot of one run ball games. Had Pods been able to continue to get on base at a .350 clip and steal as many bases as he did in 2005, they might have been able to win a few more games because they could manufacture more runs. Now, obviously the problem with the 2006 White Sox was that the pitching was just gassed in the second half, but maybe had Pods been as productive as he was in 2005 and Uribe didn't always swing for the fences, they might have been able to win a few more games. But it probably wouldn't have mattered.
__________________

Go Sox!!!
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 04-28-2013, 01:44 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip
I know that people like to point to the Thome trade and say that that was the White Sox moving away from the balanced approach from 2005, I disagree with that though. The hope was that Anderson would be able to step up and be able to replace some of the production by Rowand, so Thome was really more or less replacing Carl Everett. Had Anderson been able to hit just .250, it would have worked perfectly. The problem was that Anderson was hitting under .200 for most of the year and when the pitching went south, the White Sox had to rely on an offense first approach, you couldn't afford to have any black holes in the lineup.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 04-28-2013, 01:57 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
MI:

Interesting question you pose.

In 2006 the team fell apart in the second half because the pitching went south but also because the hitting stopped driving in runs with men on base and in key situations. I'd submit (and this is just my opinion) that the 2006 team "only" hit home runs, they lost that balance they had in 2005. Like subsequent Sox teams when they didn't hit home runs, coupled with less than stellar pitching in the second half, they lost games, period.

This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.

Kenny felt he was improving the team and again he gets credit for having the guts to make the move, it just didn't work out as well as what he did the year earlier.

Lip
I'll agree that the 2005 team did do a few things better than the 2006 team offensively.

I thought the 2005 team was a better team with Thomas in the lineup than Everett. I also think the team had a better winning percentage during that period, but I'm not sure. I just have a hard time seeing how the 2005 team with Thomas is very different from the 2006 team with Thome.

In 2005 we had a more balanced lineup, but not just because we did better on the small things. The 2005 Rowand, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik were better than the 2006 Anderson, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik. I don't think that had anything to do with Thome or a changing philosophy. I think doing worse in the small ball parts of the game is just due to worse production from the parts of the order that you expect to do those things.

Last edited by MISoxfan; 04-28-2013 at 02:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 04-28-2013, 02:02 PM
MISoxfan MISoxfan is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 897
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WhiteSox5187 View Post
In the second half of 2006 when Podsednik started to struggle, the team became dependent on the home run, otherwise they couldn't score which meant we lost a lot of one run ball games. Had Pods been able to continue to get on base at a .350 clip and steal as many bases as he did in 2005, they might have been able to win a few more games because they could manufacture more runs. Now, obviously the problem with the 2006 White Sox was that the pitching was just gassed in the second half, but maybe had Pods been as productive as he was in 2005 and Uribe didn't always swing for the fences, they might have been able to win a few more games. But it probably wouldn't have mattered.
I think that was a factor, but I just looked at the runs against in our losses in the second half of 2006 and it was pretty shocking.

7, 8, 6, 3, 7, 6, 7, 4, 4, 3, 9, 7, 4, 9, 5, 3, 5, 1, 9, 7, 8, 9, 4, 6, 10, 6, 10, 7, 5, 7, 8, 4, 4, 3

It's hard to look at those runs given up and point the finger at the offense.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 04-28-2013, 02:41 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
I'll agree that the 2005 team did do a few things better than the 2006 team offensively.

I thought the 2005 team was a better team with Thomas in the lineup than Everett. I also think the team had a better winning percentage during that period, but I'm not sure. I just have a hard time seeing how the 2005 team with Thomas is very than the 2006 team with Thome.

In 2005 we had a more balanced lineup, but not just because we did better on the small things. The 2005 Rowand, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik were better than the 2006 Anderson, Uribe, Crede, and Podsednik. I don't think that had anything to do with Thome or a changing philosophy. I think doing worse in the small ball parts of the game is just due to worse production from the parts of the order that you expect to do those things.
2006 Crede was better than 2005 Crede. 2006 Podsednik fell apart in the second half and I don't think he was completely healed from that groin injury in 2005, it seemed to me that Uribe started always swinging from his heels in 2006 too.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 04-28-2013, 02:44 PM
WhiteSox5187 WhiteSox5187 is offline
WSI Prelate
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Southside
Posts: 14,365
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MISoxfan View Post
I think that was a factor, but I just looked at the runs against in our losses in the second half of 2006 and it was pretty shocking.

7, 8, 6, 3, 7, 6, 7, 4, 4, 3, 9, 7, 4, 9, 5, 3, 5, 1, 9, 7, 8, 9, 4, 6, 10, 6, 10, 7, 5, 7, 8, 4, 4, 3

It's hard to look at those runs given up and point the finger at the offense.
Oh absolutely the finger has to be pointed at the pitching. You only go as far as your pitching will take you and our pitching fell apart, my point was had we had a more balanced approach or if guys like Podsednik and Uribe had performed at their 2005 levels we might have been able to win some more of those games that we lost 7-6 or 8-7. I am not sure we would have made the playoffs even if that were the case and I certainly don't think we would have done anything in the playoffs.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 04-29-2013, 02:31 AM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,244
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lip Man 1 View Post
This was the result of the Thome for Rowand deal which changed the overall dynamic of the club. (That's not saying ANYTHING bad towards Jim, a true professional by the way) The Sox became a softball-like, station to station team.

When you look back I'm surprised Kenny did this since it was his bold decision to change the dynamic of the team with the Lee / Posednik deal before 2005 that helped that club win a World Series.
It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 04-29-2013, 10:09 AM
russ99 russ99 is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,753
Blog Entries: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.
That goes way beyond the numbers. How many times did the Sox score in the first inning that year? A ton. All pitchers pitch better with a lead.

Also, the hitting fell off the second half of the season, I'm sure the Sox were much closer to the top for the first 81 games.

BTW - the Giants were 6th in the league and 11th overall in runs scored last year, you don't need the best offense in the league to win, and the Giants didn't have overwhelming pitching, with two 16 game winners and subpar seasons from Lincecolm and Zito.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 04-29-2013, 10:34 AM
shingo10 shingo10 is offline
WSI Personality
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 826
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
It's because Kenny, correctly, saw that the '05 team was carried by a once-in-a-decade type pitching staff and the team DESPERATELY needed help offensively. Did any of you even watch the '05 team? Did you not notice the amount of 3-2 and 4-3 games they won? I don't even have to look at the numbers to know how below average that team was offensively, they just had a lights out pitching staff.

You can cherry pick whatever numbers you want about sac bunts or stolen bases but you can't get away from 9th in the AL in runs scored. The 2005 White Sox did not have the kind of offense you should be using as a mold.

A very good leadoff hitter with great speed.
A number 2 hitter who was phenomenal with bunting, hit and run, working with Pods so he could steal, then moving him to 3rd. Had some nice pop too.
A real solid middle of the order. 40 hr from Konerko. Everett and Dye were above average hitters as well.
AJ had around 18 homeruns I think
Bottom of the order had some real pop with Crede and Uribe. Rowand was more than adequate at his spot (usually around 7th)

That was an extremely dangerous lineup that seems to me is exactly the kind of offense to be using as a mold. Yes the pitching was outstanding but it is foolish to overlook the fact that this team came up with a big score seemingly at will.
__________________
TWTW
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 04-29-2013, 11:56 AM
Lip Man 1 Lip Man 1 is offline
WSI Guru
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Chubbuck, Idaho
Posts: 26,379
Default

Shingo / Russ:

Both of your posts were well stated. The Sox won in 05 because of outstanding pitching and a balanced offense....which they haven't had since.

Don't understand why there's even a debate about this but to each his own.

Lip
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:50 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,244
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by shingo10 View Post
That was an extremely dangerous lineup that seems to me is exactly the kind of offense to be using as a mold. Yes the pitching was outstanding but it is foolish to overlook the fact that this team came up with a big score seemingly at will.
This is the exact kind of misconception that is out there. There was nothing dangerous about the '05 Sox offense. They were only dangerous because they were so heavily buoyed by the pitching staff, but if the pitching on that team was only "very good" or "excellent," it's hard to see how they could have won the division or even made the playoffs. You're looking at a team that won 8 games more than it's Expected W-L, had a .650 winning percentage in 1-run games (that's INSANE).

That team did not have an offense built to win. They were lucky enough to have a pitching staff that could win despite their clear, obvious, and numerous flaws. And they got lucky repeatedly. Most great teams do though, so it's all good. Finally it was the Sox's year to do so.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 04-29-2013, 12:57 PM
asindc's Avatar
asindc asindc is offline
WSI High Priest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Washington, DC area
Posts: 7,591
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by doublem23 View Post
This is the exact kind of misconception that is out there. There was nothing dangerous about the '05 Sox offense. They were only dangerous because they were so heavily buoyed by the pitching staff, but if the pitching on that team was only "very good" or "excellent," it's hard to see how they could have won the division or even made the playoffs. You're looking at a team that won 8 games more than it's Expected W-L, had a .650 winning percentage in 1-run games (that's INSANE).

That team did not have an offense built to win. They were lucky enough to have a pitching staff that could win despite their clear, obvious, and numerous flaws. And they got lucky repeatedly. Most great teams do though, so it's all good. Finally it was the Sox's year to do so.
It really shouldn't be a surprise that a team that won 99 games overall (.611 winning %) was .650 in one-run games.
__________________
"I have the ultimate respect for White Sox fans. They were as miserable as the Cubs and Red Sox fans ever were but always had the good decency to keep it to themselves. And when they finally won the World Series, they celebrated without annoying every other fan in the country." Jim Caple, ESPN (January 12, 2011)


"We have now sunk to a depth at which the restatement of the (bleeding) obvious is the first duty of intelligent men." George Orwell
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 04-29-2013, 01:27 PM
doublem23's Avatar
doublem23 doublem23 is offline
MMXXIII
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Roscoe Village
Posts: 54,244
Blog Entries: 5
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by asindc View Post
It really shouldn't be a surprise that a team that won 99 games overall (.611 winning %) was .650 in one-run games.
Well that's kind of a chicken and egg argument; did the Sox win 65% of their 1-run games because they were a 99-win team or were they a 99-win team because they won 65% of their one-run games?

1-run game win percentage has proven to be EXTREMELY volitale figure. A 65% WP (which, FWIW, is a 105-57 record over a 162-game season) is an insanely high winning percentage. You can't rely on or expect a team to repeat that kind of performance year in and year out. Generally speaking, a team's "blow out" win percentage is a much more reliable indicator of their level of talent. The '05 Sox were 21-16 in "blowout games," a .568 winning percantage which would have been a 92-70 record in a 162-game season.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Forum Jump




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:14 PM.




Design by: Michelle

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Site-specific editorial/photos Copyright ©2001 - 2008 White Sox Interactive. All rights reserved.