I think this was in the Trib the other day, but haven't seen it mentioned here.

 

The Sox are 6-26 in games when they score 3 runs or less. There's a few interesting ways to look at this number.

 

First, we've scored 3 runs or less in 32 of 76 games. Not sure other teams have done, specially contending teams but this seems like a high percent. 42% of the games the Sox have played, they have scored 3 runs or less.

 

Second, the Sox have the best ERA in baseball. Is it safe for me to assume that other teams that have worse ERA's have a worse won/loss percentage when they score 3 runs or less. Winning 6 o 32 amounts to a .188 winning percetange.

 

Third, What is the Sox record when they give up 3 runs or less? Is it pretty close to being flip flopped? I doubt it.

 

I think these numbers are more telling then talking about how many runs per game we average. I believe that it is 4.98 for the record, but someone may want to check it. But to show how bad the offense is, if we assume the Sox scored exactly 3 runs in each of those 32 games (and we know that's not the case at all) then that means the Sox are averaging 6.4 runs in the other 44 games in which they scored more then 3 runs.

 

 

The offense is summed up in 1 word...LETHARGIC!!

I think this was in the Trib the other day, but haven't seen it mentioned here.

 

The Sox are 6-26 in games when they score 3 runs or less. There's a few interesting ways to look at this number.

 

First, we've scored 3 runs or less in 32 of 76 games. Not sure other teams have done, specially contending teams but this seems like a high percent. 42% of the games the Sox have played, they have scored 3 runs or less.

 

Second, the Sox have the best ERA in baseball. Is it safe for me to assume that other teams that have worse ERA's have a worse won/loss percentage when they score 3 runs or less. Winning 6 o 32 amounts to a .188 winning percetange.

 

Third, What is the Sox record when they give up 3 runs or less? Is it pretty close to being flip flopped? I doubt it.

 

I think these numbers are more telling then talking about how many runs per game we average. I believe that it is 4.98 for the record, but someone may want to check it. But to show how bad the offense is, if we assume the Sox scored exactly 3 runs in each of those 32 games (and we know that's not the case at all) then that means the Sox are averaging 6.4 runs in the other 44 games in which they scored more then 3 runs.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

Is it this simple?

We homer 2 or more times we probably win.

3 homers we win.

Any time we hit just one or none we got NO CHANCE.

The offense is summed up in 1 word...LETHARGIC!!

 

No, you're wrong

 

Inconsistent, frustrating, explosive, volatile...sure. Lethargic...no.

 

You know why you're wrong? Because the definition of lethargy (root word for lethargic)...

 

"–noun, plural -gies.

1. the quality or state of being drowsy and dull, listless and unenergetic, or indifferent and lazy; apathetic or sluggish inactivity."

 

...does not agree with the number of runs the White Sox offense has scored, which is 373 runs, which is good for 4th in the AL.

 

I understand the premise of the point though.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

 

 

As soon as I get some damn time, I intend to.

 

Yes, I am passionate about anything White Sox. But to say I don't care enough isn't true.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

 

Damn K, a little harsh.

Dont worry Paulie and Thome will save us they are bound to go on a massive rampage

Dont worry Paulie and Thome will save us they are bound to go on a massive rampage

 

for probably the 7th time, Jim Thome's June OPS is over 1.000. He already is starting his massive rampage.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

 

 

The Red Sox are 6-21 when scoring less then 3 runs. This is a .222 winning percetange, higher then the Sox (who are now 7-27 after the Dodger series) .205.

 

The Red Sox have played 81 games, so in 33.3% of their games they've scored 3 runs or less. The White Sox are at 43.5% of their games.

 

I'll get more teams as time permits.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

 

 

The Twins are 6-25 when scoring 3 runs or less. This is a .193 winning percentage. They've scored 3 runs or less in 39% of their games. The winning percentage isn't as surprised as the fact that many consider the Twins offense to be worse then the Sox. And it may be, but they seem more consistent.

So what we have learned is that when you don't score too many runs, it is hard to win.

So aside from idol speculation and a whole mess of guessin' what exactly I'm I reading here? Instead of making assumptions why not do a little research and tell us what the other contending teams are doing in similar situations? What's Boston's record this season when they score 3 runs or less? How many times have the Angels scored under 4 runs? These questions are easily answered. What you're telling me is you're passionate enough about the topic to start a thread but don't particularly care enough to do the work. Speculation is worthless.

 

 

Rays are 11-20 when scoring 3 runs or less, a .354 winning percentage. They've done this in just under 40% of their games.

offense is down around the league. These numbers don't surprise me in the least. The Sox are on pace to score less than 800 runs and have one of the "top" offenses in the league.

 

 

It's really not important what a team's record is when they score less than 3 runs... I mean you lose a lot when you don't score much, duh. The real question should be how many times do the Sox score 3 runs or less?

It's really not important what a team's record is when they score less than 3 runs... I mean you lose a lot when you don't score much, duh. The real question should be how many times do the Sox score 3 runs or less?

 

 

That's one of the points I'm trying to make. I want to see how the Sox compare to other contending teams.

 

The other think I was curious about was how the Sox did in those games when they had the leagues best ERA. So far it isn't looking like it matters much. I'll keep going through contending teams, and if time permits, try to compare it to some of the NL teams.

 

But if the Sox keep up this pace of 43% of their games scoring less then 3 runs then over the course of a season it means 70 games over the course of a season. When comapred to other teams, specifically in the division, then it can mean the difference in a playoff spot.

offense is down around the league.

 

I wonder why.

 

I wonder why.

 

All the pitchers are on roids?