Jump to content

Sox It To Em

Members
  • Posts

    4,080
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Sox It To Em

  1. Damn it, I have a sinking feeling that is going to cost us...
  2. I love these late-night games because they give me an excuse to stay up late. Go Sox!
  3. We don't play at the House of Horrors in Oakland yet so we I think have a shot at going 6-4 or better over this ten game road trip. Or at least that's what I'm hoping.
  4. QUOTE (chitownsportsfan @ May 8, 2008 -> 06:56 PM) Back to the OP, this argument is dumb. The Sox have a team wide OBP of .319, (tied for 10th and below league average by 10 points) they aren't "doing a good job of getting on base". You can't talk about average and OBP in the same breath and not realize that most guys with a high OBP also hit for a decent average. Not 300 hitters necessarily, but not .240 guys either. I'm not happy about the slumping offense either, but blaming it on Moneyball and an emphasis this offseason on OBP is just dumb. I guarantee that if the Sox OBP was .369 like Boston's we'd be leading the league in RS like Boston. Nothing (of the simple rate stats) correlates better to RS than OBP, not average, that's for f***ing sure. ^^^ QFT. The Sox aren't doing an "alright" job of getting on base by any stretch of the imagination, especially within the last two weeks, so blaming our recent offensive struggles on KW's emphasis on OBP just doesn't fly. It's not a coincidence this team stopped hitting when they stopped walking and being patient.
  5. QUOTE (shipps @ May 5, 2008 -> 10:48 AM) Thats my point. Yes, but in '05 JG had an ERA almost a full run better than '06, so he "deserved" the 18 wins (and although our offense sucked, we had a fantastic bullpen). Even when Garland's ERA ballooned the following year, he still won 18 games because it coincided with the offense improving immensely.
  6. QUOTE (Gregory Pratt @ May 5, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) For a career, wins are good. For a year or two, they're not. I'll somewhat agree with this. It's nigh impossible for an average/poor pitcher to "luck" his way to a substantial amount of career wins. This is because factors such as run support and the quality of bullpens tend to even out over the course of career. But even when comparing career numbers, I can think of no possible reason why someone would consider wins before any of the more telling statistics. QUOTE (shipps @ May 5, 2008 -> 10:35 AM) Can someone tell me when wins dont reflect on how a pitcher has pitched when they have won 18 or more wins?Its always when they dont have that many wins,people throw the W-L doesnt matter out there. 2006 Jon Garland comes to mind. Had a 4.50+ ERA, but won 18 games because he received great run support.
  7. QUOTE (Molto @ May 5, 2008 -> 09:33 AM) W-L is still important (perhaps not as important as ERA and innings) because it shows the pitchers ability to win a game in some cases. If a pitcher shuts out a team for six innings, gets two runs of support in the top of the seventh and then gives up two runs in the bottom of the seventh, that says something. It doesn't mean the pitcher sucks, but he obviously couldn't run with a lead. Being able to finish off the opposition when given a lead is pretty important. ERA and BB/K ratio doesn't show that. All that tells me is that the pitcher gave up two runs in seven innings. That is a great game, it's not his fault the hitters on his team couldn't muster up more than two runs.
  8. QUOTE (shipps @ May 5, 2008 -> 07:34 AM) I agree that at times it can be decieving but it is going way to far to say it is useless and unimportant. Actually, it isn't. Pitcher W-L records are virtually meaningless because they depend on so many other factors besides, y'know, the pitcher's own performance.
  9. What a joke. I hope FJM has a field day with this one.
  10. Can't wait to see the Sox go down 1-2-3 against Sherril.
  11. We are going to lose this game because Ozzie is an idiot.
×
×
  • Create New...