Power Outage

[GASHWOUND]

I'm also hoping Crede breaks out with 40 homeruns this year..that out to make all the critics s*** up..there's your homeruns, b****es

 

Hey, a guy can dream

[Frank the Tank 35]

Don't get me wrong, I love watching a ball get hit out of the park, but the Marlins pretty much summed up what the underspending Sox need to do in order to beat teams like the Yankees with all their sluggers. Perhaps it's true that it also puts more pressure on hitters to hit when there are men on base but check out these numbers:

 

Player avg avg w/ runner on avg w/ runner in scoring pos

Crede .239 .234 (-5) .238 (-1)

Everett .260 .275 (+15) .306 (+46)

Konerko .277 .303 (+26) .314 (+37)

Rowand .310 .317 (+7) .290 (-20)

Uribe .283 .308 (+25) .323 (+40)

Thomas .271 .252 (-19) .273 (+2)

Timo .245 .303 (+58) .397 (+157)

Maggs .292 .347 (+55) .352 (+60)

CLee .305 .282 (-23) .299 (-6)

Jose .216 .221 (+5) .248 (+32)

Willie .262 .275 (+13) .273 (+11)

 

Pods .244 .221 (-23) .209 (-35)

Dye .265 .264 (-1) .240 (-25)

Pierz .272 .288 (+16) .307 (+35)

Gooch .333 .344 (+11)

 

As you can see, the prevailing tendency is for hitters to hit BETTER when there are other runners on base. (Hopefully Pods comes out of that sophomore slump! And Dye is fully recovered! ) Whether the reason be that the hitter concentrates more or the pitchers are more distracted by the baserunners makes no difference I suppose. The point is that by stringing together non-homerun hits, we should be able to score just as easily and readily as we did in the past... only with more consistency. In addition all of the speed on our team should make it that much more of a distraction for pitchers.

[Rowand44]

Hitting so many homeruns weren't the problem.

 

Hitting so many solo homeruns were the problem.

 

Homers aren't a bad thing.  It's just, when men are on base, it's a lot more productive for an offense.

I'm going to kind of disagree. Obviously homeruns aren't a bad thing, however when you have to hit homeruns to win games, then yes it's a bad thing. The entire team has been hung up with the long ball for far to logn now, having to many homerun hitters was part of the problem, imo.

[Gene Honda Civic]

Don't get me wrong, I love watching a ball get hit out of the park, but the Marlins pretty much summed up what the underspending Sox need to do in order to beat teams like the Yankees with all their sluggers.

The marlins have a line-up that Turns over -- They have a much better (non-pitching)OBP than the sox.

 

Their top of the Line-up is far superior to anything the sox have put together in recent years....

 

 

            2004

      Florida   Chisox

#1       .383     .349

#2       .366     .303
 

            2003

      Florida   Chisox

#1       .355     .333

#2       .379     .340

[Frank the Tank 35]

I agree Pods is currently the poor man's Juan Pierre, and I can only hope that Gooch hits like Castillo has at the MLB level. The potential is there, however, and I think KW has done the best he can to position the pieces to fall in the Sox' favor. With the Sox' payroll, it's hard to buy sure things. Pods can oust Pierre steals wise, and if he can get back some of his rookie hitting form, he could be just as effective. Harris obviously will never be the hitter that Castillo is, which is one of the reasons KW figured he had to take a stab with Gooch. The 2003 Marlins had many question marks as well. Burnett was out. Dontrelle Willis came out of nowhere. Pavano, Penny, and Redman all put up some of their best numbers ever (I'm looking towards Contreras, Garland, etc here). Cabrera stepped in to fill the void left when Lowell got hurt and produced big time. Hollandsworth, Alex Gonzalez, and Encarnacion weren't exactly premiere hitters, but they put up the numbers when they had to.

 

Although I realize that the Marlins had to deal with the pitchers hitting, you can't just rule it out. The pitchers do have to bat and it effects the lineup. The Sox had about the same OBP as the Marlins did last year and when comparing leagues, it lines up pretty much across the board (league leaders had about same OBP on down). Sox were 8th in their league and Marlins were 10th. Their total OBP from 2003 was the exact same as it was for the Sox last year. Additionally, there was no Frank or Maggs for most the year which definitely affected that stat. But obviously that's last year. I'm just saying that the Sox are trying to duplicate what the Marlins did. It obviously can't be exact science. Remember the A's teams of recent memory. Beane assembled high OBP teams, but they NEVER stole so there was hardly a threat of worry for the opposing pitcher. Sure, great pitching, took them to the playoffs along with that adequate offense. They couldn't beat the Yanks though.

 

Bottom line? If the chips fall right, Kenny has put us in a position to win. I don't mean to be one of those ridiculously optimistic Cub-like fans, but we obviously weren't going to outslug the Yankees. However, the Marlins beat them using the same tactics that the Sox are trying to use. I'm still thinking it's a longshot to actually win a WS in Chicago, but at least we're in better position to do it should we get so far.

[Pastime]

We've had a team that was among the league leaders in homers for the past 4 years, and what did that win us? NOTHING. The nice thing about the team now is that there is a great chance that guys will actually be on base for homers now. Don't fret or get your underwear in a bunch - this team will score runs. And hopefully we'll be rid of the horrible inconsistency on offense that we've come to know - score 9, 11, 15, 8, and 10 runs in a 5-game stretch, and then turn around and score 2, 1, 4, 1, and 2 runs in the next 5-game stretch.

 

From the "DUH- No s***, Sherlock" category ---- multi-run HRs > solo HRs

[WilliamTell]

Yeah I have no problem with going away from the power. We'll still have power numbers this year, not as much though. But we've only had 1 Division Crown in the last 10 years, the power thing isn't working. But Jose Valentin did have a decent average for his standards that year.

[GoodAsGould]

while homeruns wont win us divisions i still think they would help a ton, it seems to me like some people think we would be a better team if we only hit 100 HR's but while we shouldnt rely on them like the past 200 HR's is a very good thing.

[JUGGERNAUT]

The Sox had 34S last year. Min had 48S. I'd rather have the saves than the HR's. I will gladly exchange a +10S potential for a +20HR potential.

[witesoxfan]

We'll score more runs than last year and more importantly we'll score "the key run" we need more frequently.

 

I don't think we will score 866 runs or more with this lineup. It would take a hell of a lot of gelling to make that work.

 

You also have to consider with Florida in 2003 that they had a rotation of Beckett-Penny-Willis-Pavano-Redman. Looks better then ours to me.

[Texsox]

The Sox had 34S last year.  Min had 48S.  I'd rather have the saves than the HR's.  I will gladly exchange a +10S potential for a +20HR potential.

 

Are you looking at blown saves as well? Minny had more blown saves than the Sox and the Sox had more complete games. Minny also had more save opportunities. I think you're on to something here, pitching both from the #4 and #5 spot and relief have caused us a lot the past couple seasons. The losses in offense will be balanced not only by the speed but the pitching as well.

[CWSGuy406]

I'm going to kind of disagree.  Obviously homeruns aren't a bad thing, however when you have to hit homeruns to win games, then yes it's a bad thing.  The entire team has been hung up with the long ball for far to logn now, having to many homerun hitters was part of the problem, imo.

 

Again...

 

It goes back to the problem, as Cheat points out, we haven't had a good leadoff hitter/leadoff men since, when?

[witesoxfan]

Again...

 

It goes back to the problem, as Cheat points out, we haven't had a good leadoff hitter/leadoff men since, when?

 

2002

 

Durham - .390 OBP(for half a season or so with us)

 

Lofton was good when healthy too

[CWSGuy406]

2002

 

Durham - .390 OBP(for half a season or so with us)

 

Lofton was good when healthy too

 

wsf -- do you think it's a fair statement to say, if we had Durham for 2003, the whole season -- producing at or around a .380 OBP, we make the playoffs?

 

I honestly believe that a consistent leadoff hitter in 2003 gets us at least to the playoffs, if not beyond.

 

2003 -- The team that could have been...

[witesoxfan]

wsf -- do you think it's a fair statement to say, if we had Durham for 2003, the whole season -- producing at or around a .380 OBP, we make the playoffs?

 

I honestly believe that a consistent leadoff hitter in 2003 gets us at least to the playoffs, if not beyond.

 

2003 -- The team that could have been... 

 

Possibly.

 

The thing, to me, that killed us more than a consistent leadoff hitter was the lack of a #5 starter. Wright-Porzio-Stewart-Cotts was horrible. We have Jason Grilli in the 5th spot, and we could have won the division. We needed someone in that 5th spot to get us 7 or 8 wins, and keep us in games, so the offense could take over, and we would have won that division.

[Frank the Tank 35]

The 2003 Marlins did have a great rotation, but going into the season they had just as many question marks as we do now. Beckett was pretty much only in his second year plus he had that whole blister thing. Willis was a rookie who they got from the Cubs for Clement and had a ridiculous season. Pavano had shown flashes of dominance in his past, but on the flip side he had a couple seasons where he threw in the 6's for era plus he'd been pitching in the league for like 5 years already. Redman came out and had the best season he'd ever had... like .7 era better than his very best season (granted in the AL... but that only accounts for .3). Their "ace" Burnett was out for the season. Penny was just about the most solid thing they had going into the season. The commonality here is the potential. Unfortunately we don't have the potential of lots of young guys but rather we're sorta relying on the potential of a couple aging Cubans.

[witesoxfan]

The 2003 Marlins did have a great rotation, but going into the season they had just as many question marks as we do now.  Beckett was pretty much only in his second year plus he had that whole blister thing.  Willis was a rookie who they got from the Cubs for Clement and had a ridiculous season.  Pavano had shown flashes of dominance in his past, but on the flip side he had a couple seasons where he threw in the 6's for era plus he'd been pitching in the league for like 5 years already.  Redman came out and had the best season he'd ever had... like .7 era better than his very best season (granted in the AL... but that only accounts for .3).  Their "ace" Burnett was out for the season.  Penny was just about the most solid thing they had going into the season.  The commonality here is the potential.  Unfortunately we don't have the potential of lots of young guys but rather we're sorta relying on the potential of a couple aging Cubans.

 

Our rotation, for the most part, has reached its potential IMO. Buehrle will never pitch better then he has pitched over the past few years, Garcia is probably about a 4.00 ERA pitcher, Duque is very much on the decline as he gets up there in age, Contreras may or may not reach his potential(but at 32 or 43 or however old he is, that may be hard), and I honestly do not believe Garland will be much better then he has shown either.

 

They did have as many question marks...but their rotation had a higher ceiling then ours. You did nail it on the head.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Are you looking at blown saves as well? Minny had more blown saves than the Sox and the Sox had more complete games. Minny also had more save opportunities. I think you're on to something here, pitching both from the #4 and #5 spot and relief have caused us a lot the past couple seasons. The losses in offense will be balanced not only by the speed but the pitching as well.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm talking mostly SVO. I think I can get that from MLB. Hang on.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

MIN 9TH 68, DET 16TH 63, CLE 19TH 60, KCR 27TH 47, CWS 29TH 46 :puke

 

I need to go put a bag over my head after reading that. The shame.

 

The good news is a greatly improved rotation & pen should greatly improve that in 05.

 

I would gladly trade 1 HR for every additional SVO.

[GoodAsGould]

i think that statement is way off about our rotation. Buehrle i think is going to get better, Garland well at least the white sox organization would like us to believe he is going to be better and while i have given up on him being a number 1 or 2 for us ever i think he will improve. We are counting on Contreras to be better than when he was in New York and using the excuse that being out of the spotlight will help. El duque has peaked and is on decline ill give you that one and Garcia prob wont improve much but he could. So our rotation in my eyes has far from peaked unless your looking at El Duque and Garcia alone.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I'm talking mostly SVO.  I think I can get that from MLB.  Hang on.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

MIN 9TH 68, DET 16TH 63, CLE 19TH 60, KCR 27TH 47, CWS 29TH 46 :puke

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

KCR 7TH 64, MIN 8TH 64, CLE 16TH 59, CWS 21ST 53, DET 30TH 46

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

MIN 11TH 65, KCR 22ND 54, DET 23RD 53, CLE 24TH 53, CWS 29TH 46 :puke

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

CWS 3RD 71, MIN 11TH 64, CLE 17TH 57, DET 18TH 56, KCR 25 50

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/stats/ml...&sortByStat=SVO

CWS 6TH 67, DET 13TH 61, CLE 21ST 57, KCR 23RD 55, MIN 25TH 54

 

What in the hell happened in 2001?  We were 3rd in SV's & SVO.

We were 11th in R scored.  Ahead of MIN in all 3 categories! CLE was 3rd in R scored.  That's what happened. 

 

In 2001 CLE was 20th w 57 SVO, 14th w 42 SV, but 3rd in R 897.  99 more than us.

In 2002 CWS was 3rd in R 856, 2003 12th in R 791, 2004 3rd in R 865.

 

Winning formula:

You need to be in the top 15 in all 3: R, SVO, SV & you need be amongst the division leaders in all 3: R, SVO, SV.  If you do that you'll win your division.

 

Do we meet that for 05?  Yes.

R - We will probably fall behind CLE in R, but considering we are falling from 3rd in the AL it won't be a major fall.  We still should outscore the rest of the ALC.

 

SVO - I won't pull any punches here.  We have to produce 20 more opps in 05.

I think the improved rotation & pen can do that.  Last yr the rotation lost 65+ gms.  Leaving only 97 SVO for the pen.  The pen crushed over 1/2 of them.  The 05 starters should give the pen a +10-15 SVO.  With Shingo 19/20, Herm 17/20, Marte, & Vizc we should be solid in the 8th.  Politte was serviceable in the 7th & Adkins should do okay as the mop up.  There's no way this pen can blow 1/2 of them.

 

SV - Shingo 19/20, Herm 17/20.  We should be amongst the leaders in the AL & ALC in this dept. 

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Texsox]

Stats aren't my strongest suit but for it to be a SVO doesn't the following conditions need to be met?

 

A pitcher can earn a save by completing ALL three of the following items:

 

1. Finishes the game won by his team.

2. Does not receive the win.

3. Meets one of the following three items:

a: Enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning.

b: Enters the game with the tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck.

c: Pitches effectively for at least three innings.

 

Is it a SVO if the pitcher comes in the 8th inning with a 4 run lead? That would partially explain our lower SVO stat. With out feast of famine offense we had a lot of blow outs and complete games.

[JUGGERNAUT]

Stats aren't my strongest suit but for it to be a SVO doesn't the following conditions need to be met?

 

A pitcher can earn a save by completing ALL three of the following items:

 

      1. Finishes the game won by his team.

      2. Does not receive the win.

      3. Meets one of the following three items:

      a: Enters the game with a lead of no more than three runs and pitches at least one inning.

      b: Enters the game with the tying run either on base, at bat, or on deck.

      c: Pitches effectively for at least three innings.

 

Is it a SVO if the pitcher comes in the 8th inning with a 4 run lead? That would partially explain our lower SVO stat. With out feast of famine offense we had a lot of blow outs and complete games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Basically Close & Late & your team's ahead

This explains a little more why Min kicked our butts in that dept.

SOX 04 SP: 62W-58L, MIN 04 SP : 59W-46L

SOX 04 RP: 21W-21L, MIN 04 RP : 33W-24L

We lost 12 SVO's alone from SP L's. Min had 12 fewer bad starts than us.

 

If we had just 12 more winnable starts

SOX 04 SP: 62W-46L, RP 27W-27L : Total 89W-73L

 

If our rotation remains healthy we should get at least 12 more.

[YASNY]

The 2003 Marlins did have a great rotation, but going into the season they had just as many question marks as we do now.  Beckett was pretty much only in his second year plus he had that whole blister thing.  Willis was a rookie who they got from the Cubs for Clement and had a ridiculous season.  Pavano had shown flashes of dominance in his past, but on the flip side he had a couple seasons where he threw in the 6's for era plus he'd been pitching in the league for like 5 years already. Redman came out and had the best season he'd ever had... like .7 era better than his very best season (granted in the AL... but that only accounts for .3).  Their "ace" Burnett was out for the season.  Penny was just about the most solid thing they had going into the season.  The commonality here is the potential.  Unfortunately we don't have the potential of lots of young guys but rather we're sorta relying on the potential of a couple aging Cubans.

 

 

I see comments like the bold print above and wonder why so many people want to give up on Jon Garland. It just defies logic in my opinion.

[JUGGERNAUT]

I see comments like the bold print above and wonder why so many people want to give up on Jon Garland.  It just defies logic in my opinion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't count me amongst them. I go into every season believing that Garland could have a breakout season. It's not talent, skill, or mechanics that's holding him back.

Like Farnsworth he's a head case. I am hoping a tough-nosed no-nonsense C like AJ will be able to help him. I don't think he's going to tolerate him shaking off his calls & I know he won't tolerating him missing the calls.

 

If nothing else I expect both Contreras & Garland to reduce their walk totals. They certainly have the skill to do so.

[YASNY]

Don't count me amongst them.  I go into every season believing that Garland could have a breakout season.  It's not talent, skill, or mechanics that's holding him back.

Like Farnsworth he's a head case. I am hoping a tough-nosed no-nonsense C like AJ will be able to help him.  I don't think he's going to tolerate him shaking off his calls & I know he won't tolerating him missing the calls.

 

If nothing else I expect both Contreras & Garland to reduce their walk totals.  They certainly have the skill to do so.

 

I don't even think it's a case of Garland being a head case. I think it's just a matter of maturity. I believe he'll get to a "Pavano-like" status eventually.