I know its well documented that the Sox have been a homerun heavy team for a while. The team is built to play at the cell 81 times a year and Hrs are a big part of the gameplan here. One thing that worries me is that ESPN showed a stat yesterday that the sox are something like 43-11 when they homer. It pisses me off i cant remember what the exact stat was did anyone else see this?

I saw the stat, if you're not correct you're pretty close.

 

That they win games when they hit HRs is not surprising, that's the "live" stat. Take a look at the "die" stat though (not sure what it is) and it's just plain abysmal. The Sox are explosive when they're on, but literally non-competitive when they don't hit home runs.

what were the numbers like in 05'? I know they're probably not as high as this year, but if I remember correctly, they were kind of high

IIRC, the Sox are 4-20 when they do NOT hit a homerun

I know its well documented that the Sox have been a homerun heavy team for a while. The team is built to play at the cell 81 times a year and Hrs are a big part of the gameplan here. One thing that worries me is that ESPN showed a stat yesterday that the sox are something like 43-11 when they homer. It pisses me off i cant remember what the exact stat was did anyone else see this?

You can make that statement for a ton of stats. What is the record of the Sox when Quentin gets a hit?

 

I bet if you did that for any good team you would get similar results. Many teams win when they hit home runs. Would you rather have them hit it softer for a double off the wall?

You can make that statement for a ton of stats. What is the record of the Sox when Quentin gets a hit?

 

I bet if you did that for any good team you would get similar results. Many teams win when they hit home runs. Would you rather have them hit it softer for a double off the wall?

That's not really the point of the stat though. The Sox score a disproportionate amount of runs via the home run, and they are hard pressed to do it any other way. In fact, in games where they're hitting home runs, they're probably getting a couple of them hit "softer for a double off the wall" too because they're exploding on some poor pitcher. But when they're not hitting home runs they're just not hitting, period (see: numerous shutouts this year) which probably means they're facing a lefty with something resembling an off-speed pitch. The end result is a lot of runs, but maddening inconsistency.

 

Hell, if I could throw with my left hand with a curveball and a changeup, even I could get a CG SO and strike out 12 against them, I can barely throw 60 mph with that hand. lol.

The more telling stat is the 4-20 (or whatever the stat is) when they haven't hit a HR. A lot of teams win when they hit home runs, the difference is that they also win when they don't hit home runs.

Edited June 30, 200817 yr by Felix

IIRC, the Sox are 4-20 when they do NOT hit a homerun

 

We were like 0-10 at one point when we've never hit a homer...

Well I mean hitting at the Cell, so many times a ball that could be a double in a lot of other parks could be a HR at the Cell.

 

So obviously they have such a good home record, because they win when they hit the longball, and it happens so often at the Cell.

 

Hence, why KW tried to bring in more OBP guys in the off-season to create a more balanced attack. And for the most part it's worked, as guys like Swisher (hasn't hit for power, but his OBP is still very good considering what his BA is) and OC (been our best hitter in June argubly) have been huge upgrades on the likes of Uribe and Mackowiak from past seasons.

Macowiak was always a decent offensive player IMO, I never had any complaints about his bat.

 

There's a fair amount of OBP on this team, but it's just imbalanced.

That's not really the point of the stat though. The Sox score a disproportionate amount of runs via the home run, and they are hard pressed to do it any other way. In fact, in games where they're hitting home runs, they're probably getting a couple of them hit "softer for a double off the wall" too because they're exploding on some poor pitcher. But when they're not hitting home runs they're just not hitting, period (see: numerous shutouts this year) which probably means they're facing a lefty with something resembling an off-speed pitch. The end result is a lot of runs, but maddening inconsistency.

 

Hell, if I could throw with my left hand with a curveball and a changeup, even I could get a CG SO and strike out 12 against them, I can barely throw 60 mph with that hand. lol.

I understand that, but are we winning because of the HR, or are we hitting HRs when we win? An example of this is our 10-3 vs the Cubs. We hit HR's, but even without them, we still would've won.

 

When the Cubs swept us, they scored 12 of 22 runs on HRs, when we swept them, we scored 12 of 21. How is that so different?

I understand that, but are we winning because of the HR, or are we hitting HRs when we win? An example of this is our 10-3 vs the Cubs. We hit HR's, but even without them, we still would've won.

 

When the Cubs swept us, they scored 12 of 22 runs on HRs, when we swept them, we scored 12 of 21. How is that so different?

It's not that we win when we hit HRs. It's that we are almost guaranteed to lose when we don't hit HRs.

As long as they are not solo home runs, that means people are getting on base. Just win, baby! Just win!

Why is this such an issue for people? We've been at or near the top of MLB in home runs since like 2003. Our park is a hitter's paradise, so we build our team to take advantage of that. We're on pace for about 215 home runs this year, meaning we'll average roughly 1.33 home runs per game. We also average 4.83 runs a game. The offense is fine. Inconsistent at times, but every team has the same problem.

 

I sure would like us to start scoring in different ways and become one of the best offenses of all time and score like 900 runs a season, though. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen.

I'm all for HRs, but they still leave way too many people on base. IIRC, Dye and Thome were on 2nd a 3rd with nobody out last night and neither were driven in. They definitely need to work on their situational hitting, especially bunting.

 

I checked a couple other teams, just for perspective:

 

Yankees: 32-22 with, 12-16 without

Minny: 28-18 with, 17-19 without

Cleveland: 28-18 with, 9-27 without

The solution is to hit even more homeruns.

Our guys are pretty good at hitting it out of the park. Our pitchers are pretty good at keeping it in the park. This is a good thing.

The Sox have 109 HR compared to the Twins 56 HR, yet the Sox have scored only 2 more runs than the Twins. To me that's just mind boggling.

Why is this such an issue for people? We've been at or near the top of MLB in home runs since like 2003. Our park is a hitter's paradise, so we build our team to take advantage of that. We're on pace for about 215 home runs this year, meaning we'll average roughly 1.33 home runs per game. We also average 4.83 runs a game. The offense is fine. Inconsistent at times, but every team has the same problem.

 

I sure would like us to start scoring in different ways and become one of the best offenses of all time and score like 900 runs a season, though. Unfortunately, that's probably not going to happen.

As evidenced by Jackie Hayes' and a couple other posts, this is a pretty gross misrepresentation of what people are saying.

The Sox have 109 HR compared to the Twins 56 HR, yet the Sox have scored only 2 more runs than the Twins. To me that's just mind boggling.

 

Check out the run differential, though. The Sox should keep on keeping on and the Twins should backslide a bit if the current pace is maintained.

Edited June 30, 200817 yr by YASNY

Check out the run differential, though. The Sox should keep on keeping on and the Twins should backslide a bit if the current pace is maintained.

 

Yes, people often forget the run differential.

 

The Cubs are the only team in baseball with a better run differential than the White Sox.

 

If you score 200 runs, but give up 200 runs, odds are you're playing 500. If you're above 500, (like the Twins), then it's only a matter of time before the law of averages catches up to you.

I checked a couple other teams, just for perspective:

 

Yankees: 32-22 with, 12-16 without

Minny: 28-18 with, 17-19 without

Cleveland: 28-18 with, 9-27 without

If you get a chance, let me know what the Red Sox record is. I'd expect the Red Sox, Tribe, and Yankees to be much more like the Sox (more reliant on the homer) while I think the Angels and Twins would be on the other side of the spectrum (as they don't hit many hr's, thus they have to be able to manufacture and play to other strengths to have such good records).

If you get a chance, let me know what the Red Sox record is. I'd expect the Red Sox, Tribe, and Yankees to be much more like the Sox (more reliant on the homer) while I think the Angels and Twins would be on the other side of the spectrum (as they don't hit many hr's, thus they have to be able to manufacture and play to other strengths to have such good records).

Red Sox, 39-20 with, 11-14 without

Oakland, 25-11 with, 19-26 without

 

Oakland, just because I was curious (since they have been neck-and-neck with the Sox in terms of pitching, with a much weaker offense).

 

Okay, no more requests. I'm just copy-pasting the baseball-reference batting game logs into Excel and then adding the formulas, so any teams you're curious about, that's one way to check.

This is not a big problem. The team is built to play in US Cellular field. The best way to score runs in baseball is to get on basel and mash the baseball. I'd love to see the team average over 5 runs a game and have a great offense, but it just isn't going to happen. As long as they finish in the top half of the league in offense the pitching should carry them to the playoffs.

Edited June 30, 200817 yr by chitownsportsfan