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

I don't see how what I said is a misrepresentation of this thread at all. The observation that we don't win when we don't hit homeruns as presented is an obvious complaint against our offense and the way it's built. My response was that we play to the strengths of our park, we average more than a HR per game, and when given the evidence presented in this thread, this is a pretty good indication that we'll keep winning consistently, as long as the pitching holds up.

I don't see how what I said is a misrepresentation of this thread at all. The observation that we don't win when we don't hit homeruns as presented is an obvious complaint against our offense and the way it's built. My response was that we play to the strengths of our park, we average more than a HR per game, and when given the evidence presented in this thread, this is a pretty good indication that we'll keep winning consistently, as long as the pitching holds up.

We will look great in some games and pathetic in others. When the offense is bad, it's really, really bad. Nobody here is saying we should be a juggernaut offense and that the Sox suck because they're not one, they're saying this team is unbalanced and inconsistent. Which is really obvious when seeing the records of those other teams without HRs.

We will look great in some games and pathetic in others. When the offense is bad, it's really, really bad. Nobody here is saying we should be a juggernaut offense and that the Sox suck because they're not one, they're saying this team is unbalanced and inconsistent. Which is really obvious when seeing the records of those other teams without HRs.

Boston Red Sox Offense

84 games played

19 games scoring 2 or less runs

5 games shutout

5.04 R/G

 

Chicago White Sox Offense

82 games played

24 games scoring 2 or less runs

8 games shutout

4.83 R/G

 

So the Sox average roughly a quarter run less per game than the Red Sox, which is a team most consider to be very good offensively on a consistent basis. The Sox also have only 5 more games scoring >= 2 runs (6% more), and have 3 more shutouts against (~4%).

 

I haven't looked into it beyond the Red Sox, but I'd bet the White Sox are not as inconsistent as you think, at least as compared to the rest of baseball. We also have the second-highest run differential in baseball, as someone mentioned previously. That's a far better measure of W/L records than offensive "consistency."

Average runs, by its very definiton, tells me absolutely nothing especially when the primary argument is consistency.

Boston Red Sox Offense

84 games played

19 games scoring 2 or less runs

5 games shutout

5.04 R/G

 

Chicago White Sox Offense

82 games played

24 games scoring 2 or less runs

8 games shutout

4.83 R/G

 

So the Sox average roughly a quarter run less per game than the Red Sox, which is a team most consider to be very good offensively on a consistent basis. The Sox also have only 5 more games scoring >= 2 runs (6% more), and have 3 more shutouts against (~4%).

 

I haven't looked into it beyond the Red Sox, but I'd bet the White Sox are not as inconsistent as you think, at least as compared to the rest of baseball. We also have the second-highest run differential in baseball, as someone mentioned previously. That's a far better measure of W/L records than offensive "consistency."

 

 

Start looking at standard deviation of runs scored instead of average. That will tell you how consistent they are. I'd also guess that as your runs scored deviates more and more, your run differential becomes less and less accurate at predicting wins and losses.

Start looking at standard deviation of runs scored instead of average. That will tell you how consistent they are. I'd also guess that as your runs scored deviates more and more, your run differential becomes less and less accurate at predicting wins and losses.

He's not just looking at averages, he also mentioned games with fewer than 2 runs and shutouts. That's the best way to look at the data, looking at the actual distribution instead of summary statistics. Standard deviations do not mean much on their own, because the standard deviation in runs scored could be higher simply because the offense scores more -- so the Sox, a high scoring team, would look more inconsistent than a low scoring team (or the league as a whole).

Start looking at standard deviation of runs scored instead of average. That will tell you how consistent they are. I'd also guess that as your runs scored deviates more and more, your run differential becomes less and less accurate at predicting wins and losses.

Link or evidence, please? The only research I've seen is that teams with a standard deviation of runs scored & runs against close to the league average for a particular year fall closest to their Pythag record.

Link or evidence, please? The only research I've seen is that teams with a standard deviation of runs scored & runs against close to the league average for a particular year fall closest to their Pythag record.

He only said it was a guess...

He only said it was a guess...

As I said, what I've seen doesn't reflect that, so I was interested to see if he could produce any evidence to show it. Otherwise I'm not going to agree with something based on a guess.

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

 

You can blame that one on Danks

 

if not obvious enough, maybe we can blame Dubee a bit too.

Edited June 30, 200817 yr by witesoxfan

The solution is to hit even more homeruns.

 

I think the ESPN stat just shows that the Sox have a power lineup and we must hit a lot of home runs because we have a lot of wins. Now I have come to the

conclussion that it's ok to hit a lot of homers as long as we win a lot of games. Keep it up Sox

Edited July 1, 200817 yr by elrockinMT

I think it was 45-11, just FYI

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.

That's a stat worth figuring out -- which I won't do -- how many runs have scored via the homer? If it is anything under 2/3rd's, I'll be surprised. 

 

 

 

That's a stat worth figuring out -- which I won't do -- how many runs have scored via the homer? If it is anything under 2/3rd's, I'll be surprised. 

Heard a blurb on TV today that it was a bit under 50%.

couple days ago i heard it was 46% of runs scored are from the longball, so we're scoring ~the same amount of runs (slightly, anyway) via singles/doubles (loltriples) as we are with homeruns

Link or evidence, please? The only research I've seen is that teams with a standard deviation of runs scored & runs against close to the league average for a particular year fall closest to their Pythag record.

 

Wait, isn't that what I said? When your run scoring is more consistent game-to-game, your Pythagorean record prediction is more accurate. If you're scoring 10 one game and 0 the next while only giving up 1 per game, your Pythag will be way off.

As Earl Weaver would say, "The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."

As Earl Weaver would say, "The key to winning baseball games is pitching, fundamentals, and three run homers."

Just don't ask him about gardening.