Thursday, June 23, 2005
Sox and Consistency
Today there were two great blog posts about the Sox you should read involving the consistency in the Sox's offense. As John Dewan writes, the Sox have been much more consistent this year in scoring runs than at this point last year:
Last year, the White Sox scored 10 or more runs 14 times in those first 64 games (and they lost two of them). This year it is only twice (winning both of them). If you calculate the runs per game, of just the games with less than ten runs, the White Sox are doing better this year with 4.4 compared to only 4.0 last year.
In the same light, this year the White Sox have been held to less than two runs only five times this year. Last year that happened ten times in those first 64 games! Despite that great offense.
Those figures are consistent with Kenny Williams' complaints about scoring 10 runs 1 game and 0 the next in the offseason. The Sox have been more consistent. But what has this consistency meant? Dave Studeman at the Hardball Times (which you should read, if you do not already) puts it in context, noting that this consistency means that the Sox are putting them in a position to win more games:
As you can see, the White Sox have scored two, four, five and six runs a game more often than the average team. . . . Runs two through seven are a team's "sweet spot." If you had your druthers, you'd score between two and seven runs in every game. Which is just about what the White Sox have done.
In fact, if you multiply the White Sox's run distribution times the average winning percent for each number of runs scored, you'll find that the Sox have an "expected" winning percentage of .540! Despite the fact that they are scoring nearly half a run less than average! And when you add in the fine performance of their pitching staff, you have this year's White Sox.
That's just great work. Studes could have gone the final step and used the same math to look at the 2004 White Sox by runs scored. If he'd done so, he'd see that the 2004 White Sox should have had a record of 89-73, rather than 83-79. The Sox's run distribution last year:
| Runs | Games |
|---|---|
| 0 | 8 |
| 1 | 13 |
| 2 | 24 |
| 3 | 11 |
| 4 | 24 |
| 5 | 14 |
| 6 | 14 |
| 7 | 12 |
| 8 | 6 |
| 9 | 12 |
| 10 | 6 |
| 11+ | 17 |
The big difference, from Studes' data to real life is that the Sox were a woeful 1-23 in games where they scored 2 runs. On average, they should have won 6 of those games, leaving them 5 games behind expectations. The pitching last year simply wasn't good enough to support the offense when it was scoring low last year. Here's the expected winning percentages and actual percentages by runs scored:
| Runs | Games | Expected % | Actual % |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 8 | .000 | .000 |
| 1 | 13 | .078 | .000 |
| 2 | 24 | .243 | .042 |
| 3 | 11 | .322 | .545 |
| 4 | 24 | .494 | .417 |
| 5 | 14 | .606 | .714 |
| 6 | 14 | .700 | .857 |
| 7 | 12 | .858 | .750 |
| 8 | 6 | .847 | .667 |
| 9 | 12 | .880 | 1.000 |
| 10 | 6 | .936 | .667 |
| 11+ | 17 | .980* | .882 |
* estimate.
As you can see, the underperformance in the 1-2 runs scored games - of which the Sox should have won 6 more - really made the difference last year. That's why the consistency in scoring has helped - the fewer games the Sox play scoring 2 or fewer runs, the fewer losses they will have.
Monday, June 20, 2005
Through 68 Games...
Here's a tour of White Sox history through 68 games:
In 2000 - the Sox were 44-24, 7.5 games up on the Jndjans. They went 51-43 (.543) the rest of the way to win the AL Central.
In 1994 - the Sox were 37-31, 5 games behind the Jndjans. The Sox went 30-15 (.667) until the strike, where they finished in 1st place.
In 1993 - the Sox were 36-32, tied with the KC Royals for the AL West lead. The Sox went 58-36 (.617) the rest of the way to win the division.
In 1990 - the Sox were 43-25, 1 game behind the Oakland A's. They would go 51-43 (.543) the rest of the way in finishing second.
In 1983 - the Sox were 34-34, 3 games behind the Texas Rangers. They would go an astonishing 65-29 (.692) the rest of the way to win the AL West by 20 games.
In 1977 - the Sox were 38-30, tied with the Minnesota Twins for 1st in the AL West. They would go 52-42 (.553) the rest of the way to finish at 90-72, 12 back of the KC Royals.
In 1972 - the Sox were 40-28, 3.5 games behind the Oakland A's in the AL West. They would go 47-39 (.547) the rest of the way, but fell short by 5.5 games to the Oakland A's in a strike-shortened season.
In 1967 - the Sox were 42-26, 5.5 games ahead of the American League! They went 47-47 (.500) the rest of the way to finish fourth in the AL, 3 games behind the AL Champion Red Sox.
In 1964 - the Sox were 39-29, 5 games behind the Orioles. The Sox went 59-35 (.628) the rest of the way to finish second by 1 game to the Yankees in the AL.
In 1959 - the Sox were 36-32, 2 games behind the Jndjans. The Sox went 58-28 (.674) the rest of the way to win the AL pennant by 5 games.
In 1951, the Sox were 44-24 after 68 games (that was the 1st of a doubleheader) and 44-25 after 69 games, tied with the New York Yankees atop the AL. They sputtered to a 37-49 (.430) record the rest of the way to finish 81-73, a distant 17 games behind the Yankees.
In 1920, the Sox were 40-28 after 68 games, 6.5 games behind the Yankees. They would go 56-30 (.651) the rest of the way, falling short to Cleveland by 2 games.
In 1919, the Sox were 43-25, one-half game up on the Yankees. The would go 45-27 (.625) the rest of the way to finish 88-52, 3.5 games better than Cleveland.
In 1917, the Sox were 44-24, 1.5 games up on the Boston Red Sox. They would go 56-30 (.651) the rest of the way for a 100-54 season, and won the AL pennant by 8 games.
In 1915, the Sox were 46-22, 5.5 games up on the rest of the AL (the Red Sox were in 2nd). The would go 47-39 (.547) the rest of the way and wind up 93-61, good for 3rd place behind the Red Sox, 10 games back. (1915 was a fascinating season. The Red Sox finished in 1st place, but had 1 fewer win than the second place Tigers, who played 6 more games than the Red Sox. Theoretically, had the Red Sox lost the 6 games they had "in hand", they would have finished in second).
In 1906, the Sox were 37-31, 5 games behind the Cleveland Naps. The Sox would go 56-27 (.675) the rest of the way to win the AL pennant, beating the New York Highlanders by 3 games.
You probably never heard of the 1915 White Sox before - and it was only through luck I found their 68-game start. But you can see that a 68 game start is only a good indicator of where a team will wind up - not a great one. There's a lot of baseball left to be played. Here's for matching the 65-29 record of the '83 Sox the rest of the way...and getting 111 wins.
Is This Year Different?
Browsing through the ESPN Message Board for the Twins, you'll find nuggest like this:
first of all....chicago and clevland fans, go to ur own post.. sencond of all.. u people need to stop being so ignorint. this happens every year..twins fall behind and after the all star break... they wont stop winning..all u white sox and indians fans...dont give me crap about our starting rotation..radke just doesnt have much run support right now..santana is just good..lohse is having a good strech right now and maybe mays can be better...but we have a much better closer than you guys do and we probly have the rolaids relief award rapped up with crain....its already over guys...twins will once again win the central division with a week to spare(again.....) and finally the yankees wont kill us in the first round (cause they wont go and u know it) so all u *** **** chicago and clevland fans can go **** * **** once again because you just wont win....you dumb ***** were like this last year..but wait who won last year? o yeah the twins and they will again...so go back to your little league baseballI'm not sure this post is representative of the intelligence of Twins fans, but the bolded portions gave me a thought - how do the Twins' comebacks of the last three years compare to what they would need to do this year?
In 2002, the Twins were 7.5 games ahead of the White Sox at the All-Star Break. This would not be considered a "comeback" for the Twins. They actually played better ball in the second half, on the way to a 13.5 game final margin over the Sox.
In 2003, the Twins were 7.5 games behind the KC Royals (who were only 51-41 at the break). They played .667 ball the rest of the way to win the division over the White Sox by 4 games.
In 2004, the Twins were only 0.5 games behind the White Sox (who were only 46-38 at the time). They played .600 ball the rest of the year to finish 8 games ahead of the White Sox.
In really only one of these years, 2003, did the Twins ever mount a real "comeback." And they did so because the division leader - who was only 10 games over .500 - utterly and completely collapsed.
Even if the Twins played .600 ball the rest of the way (going 58-39), the Sox would need to only go 50-46 (.520 record) to cruise into a first-place tie with the Twins.
There's still a long way to go, folks, but a Twins comeback would have to be pretty fierce if it's going to work.
Saturday, June 18, 2005
Buehrle Now And The Rest Of The Way
Out of curiousity more than anything, I thought I would compare how Mark Buehrle has done so far this year with his previous seasons, as well as look at how he has done from this point of the season (14 starts) to the end of the year.
Here's the comparison of his seasons through 14 starts:
| Year | W | L | IP | R | ER | H | BB | K | ERA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 | 8 | 1 | 108 | 35 | 32 | 97 | 16 | 67 | 2.67 |
| 2004 | 7 | 1 | 91 1/3 | 41 | 37 | 102 | 21 | 73 | 3.65 |
| 2003 | 2 | 9 | 86 | 55 | 44 | 98 | 31 | 40 | 4.61 |
| 2002 | 9 | 4 | 96 1/3 | 35 | 30 | 83 | 27 | 54 | 2.80 |
| 2001 | 6 | 3 | 95 2/3 | 39 | 35 | 75 | 21 | 66 | 3.29 |
As you can see, only 2003 was an anamoly; Buehrle has performed pretty well through 14 starts. Of his starts, 2005 has been his best, although his 2002 start was pretty good, too.
Now look what he's done in the rest of his starts in 2001-2004:
| Year | W | L | IP | R | ER | H | BB | K | ERA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 | 9 | 9 | 154 | 78 | 69 | 160 | 30 | 92 | 4.03 |
| 2003 | 12 | 5 | 144 1/3 | 69 | 62 | 152 | 30 | 79 | 3.87 |
| 2002 | 10 | 8 | 142 2/3 | 67 | 65 | 153 | 34 | 80 | 4.10 |
| 2001 | 10 | 5 | 125 2/3 | 50 | 46 | 113 | 27 | 60 | 3.29 |
Remarkably consistent, isn't it? What's scary about it is that, except for 2001, it's been consistently below Buehrle's performance for the first 14 starts. Although he had a nice 12-5 record in 2003 (the year he started horribly), he's been a much poorer pitcher otherwise.
I'm not sure if it is overwork in the early season, or that batters "figure out" Mark as he goes along. But I wouldn't be surprised if last night's game was the Zenith of his season. Let's hope it's not.
Friday, June 17, 2005
There's No Such Thing as a Sox Pitching Prospect
I dredged this up from some old e-mail files I was looking through. Phil Rogers wrote this in 2001:
If any organization can withstand this run of pitching injuries, the White Sox are the one. Their list of legitimate pitching prospects just keeps getting
longer. Youngsters Mark Buehrle, Kip Wells, Rocky Biddle and Jon Garland are playing big roles now and have guys like Danny Wright, Josh Fogg and Matt Ginter behind them. The next wave has previously unsung guys like right-hander Matt Guerrier (9-3, 3.38) at Double-A Birmingham, right-hander Kyle Kane (2-0, 1.54 and .130 opponents' batting average between three levels), right-hander Ed Almonte (1.43, 16 saves at Double-A Birmingham), right-hander Jeff Bajenaru (2.38 ERA, 43 strikeouts in 34 innings at Class A Winston-Salem), left-hander Corwin Malone (10-1, 2.08 at Class A Kaanapolis and left-hander Dennis Ulacia (8-1, 2.43 at Kaanapolis).
Buerhle has been great, Garland has been about average before this year, Wells was traded after he struggled with the Sox, Fogg went with him, Ginter was useless as a middle relieve and was given to the Mets, Guerrier was traded for Marte, Kyle Kane got hurt and was released, Ed Almonte had a 11.12 career ERA, Bajenaru is stuck in AAA, Malone got hurt, and Ulacia has been hurt and/or ineffective. Biddle was traded (among others) for Colon, and is pretty much out of baseball. So much for the "stockpile" of arms.
On the other hand, it is true that the Sox developed 4 pitchers who are currently in starting rotations (Buehrle, Garland, Fogg and Wells). One of those is All-Star quality (Buehrle), and Garland may just join Buehrle in the All-Star category this year. Guerrier got turned into Marte who, before this year, was perhaps one of the most effective left-handed relievers in baseball the last few years.
Monday, June 13, 2005
100 Games To Go
Yesterday's 8-5 victory over the Padres was thoroughly enjoyable. On the heels of Dustin Hermanson's 9th inning meltdown about 18 hours before, it sure was good to see the Sox steal one back from the Padres. It reminded me a bit of the Cleveland series to begin the year; the Sox pulled off an improbable comeback in the second game of the year, and then Shingo blows up in the 9th inning of the third game of the year. As I noted then, the Sox were playing with house money in the last game - here, the Padres were doing the same.
Rowand's shot was a bomb, though, wasn't it?
The victory left the Sox 42-20 after 62 games. Assuming the rain-out in Arlington will be made up (the Sox have a three-game series at Texas August 29-31), the Sox have 100 games remaining. That's a nice round number to make some projections and estimations.
The Sox need to break even (50-50) to win 92 games. Since the Wild Card was instituted in 1995, only the 2003 Mariners and the 2002 Red Sox have won 92 games and not made the playoffs.
The Sox need to go 54-46 to make 30 games over .500 and 96-66. This would be the best finish since the 1983 club. Going 54-46 would force the Twinkies to go 60-41 the rest of the way or better to catch the White Sox. Note - the Sox's third order winning percentage as measured by Baseball Prospectus (in other words, the "true" winning percentage based on raw stats) is .544. So 54-46 makes some amount of sense as a reasonable expectation.
If the Sox can go 58-42 (.580 winning percentage), they'll be only the second White Sox team to win 100 games. The only other Sox team to win 100 games was the World Champion 1917 squad.
Obviously, we'd love the Sox to play like they have in the first 62 games and win 68 of the next 100 to finish at a cool 110-52. I'm hoping the Sox can meet or exceed the century mark myself - but the big golden trophy with all the little flags is what we all should care about.
Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Two Nights in Colorado
As I said in a post on Soxtalk.com before the series, if someone gave me two of three from the Rockies in Colorado on Monday afternooon, I would have taken it. Well, the Sox have won the first two games of the series in Denver, allowing only 4 runs in 2 games in Coors Field. Clint Barmes' groceries be damned, that's a hell of a performance.
Given that I've gotten everything I asked for - two wins in the series - one might otherwise think I would be willing to give a pass to the Sox if they lose to Jeff Francis and the Rockies. Not so. You see, those Twinkies keep on winning, and this four-game lead continues to make me nervous. The Twinkies are now not just 4 games back, they actually have the second-best record in the American League. They are a very, very good team playing very, very well. (Not only that, but they have a gimme tonight in Arizona as the Diamondbacks pitch Nats-cast-off Claudio Vargas against Johan Santana. Gulp.) A win tonight is more than just a series sweep - it's another day of keeping the wolves from the door.
On another note, a Baseball Prospectus note compared the Orioles of this year to the Cincinnati Reds of last year. Buried in that column is a link to retrosheet's daily standings for a year ago today (the point being that the Reds were 34-24 at this point last year). If you move your attention to the AL Central one year ago, you see this:
| Team | W | L | RS | RA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White Sox | 31 | 24 | 304 | 242 |
| Twinkies | 31 | 26 | 271 | 284 |
Something unusual there? Well, the Sox's +62 run differential wasn't reflected in their record - which the Pythagorean Theory would expect to be 33-22. The Twinkies would have had an expected record of 27-30. In the expected standings, the Sox were 7 games ahead - a really, really big lead. In the real standings, the Sox were just 1 game ahead...and we know how that turned out.
Now this year:
| Team | W | L | RS | RA |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| White Sox | 39 | 19 | 263 | 217 |
| Twinkies | 34 | 22 | 262 | 214 |
This year, the Sox's expected record is 34-24, while the Twinkies' expected record is 33-23 - a dead heat from the expected standings perspective. This year, of course, the real standings are tilted in the Sox's favor by four games.
All I have to say is that it's better to be lucky than good.
Monday, June 06, 2005
The Real Curse
If you haven't seen this already (my friend DM at Nats Blog pointed me to it), the Baseball Crank notes that the White Sox have a double curse - they haven't won the World Series since 1917, and they do not get any credit for being a long-suffering team.
This, of course, all relates to my "Adjusted Fan Frustration" formula:
Adjusted Fan Frustration (aFF) equals Years since last World Championship (nWC) divided by Public Acknowledgement of Fan Suffering (paFF).
Expressed in algebra,
aFF= nWC / paFF.
We clearly lead the Majors in Adjusted Fan Frustration, if only because our paFF is so low.
Why the Sox Are Like Luke Skywalker
Despite Bat-Girl's insistence on calling the Big Hurt "Darth Thomas," I am of the opinion that the 2005 White Sox are more like Luke Skywalker. And for this reason, like Luke flying over the Death Star with a Tie Fighter on his tail, the Sox can't shake the Twins. Despite having the best record in baseball, and being 18 games over .500, the Sox have a slender 3.5 game lead on the Twinkies - and, as I discussed in my last post, that's mostly due to the 4 of 5 games the Sox won from the Twinkies in April.
I was talking to my brother about the Sox's inability to shake the Twins this weekend, and he said something that has been on my mind for a while. Three and a half games isn't a lead. It's just an edge. Three and a half games is made up in a three-game series; if the Sox are swept and the Twins sweep, they are, for all intents and purposes, tied. My new standard is five games - five games in the standings is a lead.
In 2000, the last time the Sox won the division, it was a bit different. They were 33-23 through 56 games (4 games behind this year's pace), with the Cleveland Jndjans 1.5 games back on June 5th. But they were powering through the schedule at that point, going 22-7 over the next 29 games to top out at 55-30, while the Jndjans had faded to 11.5 games back at 43-41. That was, pretty much, all she wrote for the 2000 season. The Sox went 40-37 the rest of the way to cruise to the division title.
The Sox need a similar stretch this year to put the Twinkies away. Indeed, were the Sox 33-23 now like they were in 2000, they'd be 1/2 games behind the Twinkies. The next 30 games look like this:
3 @ Colorado (19-36, 15-13 at home)
3 @ San Diego (34-23, 19-8 at home)
3 v Arizona (30-27, 14-15 on road)
3 v Los Angeles (29-27, 14-12 on road)
3 v Kansas City (17-39, 6-20 on road)
3 v the Cubbies (30-25, 15-13 on road)
3 @ Detroit (26-28, 13-12 on road)
3 @ Oakland (23-33, 15-13 at home)
3 v Tampa Bay (20-37, 4-23 on road)
3 v Oakland (23-33, 8-20 on road)
You have to figure the Sox need to at least split the next road trip at Colorado and San Diego, and then go 8-4 or better at home during the 12 game home span. If they can close out the last 12 games before the All Star Break with a 8-4 stretch against poorer teams (Oakland, Detroit, Tampa), they'll go into the break with a 56-30 record. That MAY be good enough for a lead on the Twinkies.
Wednesday, June 01, 2005
Treading Water In The AL Central
I have to admit, I've been a little despondent about how the Sox have played over the last couple of weeks. After peaking out at 24-7 after sweeping the Blue Jays on May 8th, the Sox have gone just 11-10 since - barely over .500 baseball. And they haven't particularly looked good doing it - hitting poorly, and not pitching like they had at the beginning of the season. It's been a dead spot for the team, and it the Sox will not be able to hold a lead over the Twins with that kind of performance.
But the truth of the matter is that the Twinkies are in their own dead spot, going 10-10 in their last 20 games since they beat Tampa Bay on May 8th. Indeed, since May 8th, the Sox have actually increased their lead by 1/2 game - something that really amazes me.
There's a reason for all of this. Both the Twinkies and the Sox started out with AL Central-heavy schedules. Through May 8th, the Twinkies had played 21 of their 30 games against the AL Central, managing a 12-9 record versus the Central and a 7-2 record versus the Mariners, Angels, and Devil Rays. Through May 8th, the Sox had played 22 of their 31 games against the AL Central, going 18-4 versus the Central and 6-3 against the Blue Jays, Mariners, and A's. Indeed, take away their record against each other (the Sox won 4 of 5 from the Twinkies), and you get, through May 8th:
| Team | vs. CLE, DET, KC | vs. Other AL | vs. CHI/MIN | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Twinkies | 11-5 | 7-2 | 1-4 | 19-11 |
| White Sox | 14-3 | 6-3 | 4-1 | 24-7 |
Pretty close right there - the Sox's victories over the Twins in the early going are really the ONLY reason for the five-game lead at this point. So much for Jacque Jones' "it's early, dude" statement.
Since that time, both teams have concentrated on playing non-division opponents. The Twinkies have gone 10-10 versus a lineup that includes Baltimore (1-2), Texas (1-2), Toronto (4-2), Milwaukee (2-1), and Cleveland (2-3), while the Sox have gone 11-10 versus Tampa Bay (1-2), Baltimore (2-2), Texas (2-3), the Cubs (2-1), and the Angels (4-2). Indeed, they've played relatively similar schedules, and performed relatively similarly thus far.
And if you look at the two team's performances, they are really indicative of a close race. The Sox have scored 229 and allowed 188 in 52 games, while the Twinkies have scored 225 and allowed 191 in 50 games. Those are roughly equal totals, with the Twinkies having a slightly better offense and the Sox a slightly better defense/pitching. The team rate-statistic totals look like this:
Minnesota Offense: .267 AVG/.334 OBP/.400 SLG
Chicago Offense: .255 AVG/.321 OBP/.403 SLG
Minnesota Pitching: 3.43 ERA, 1.16 WHIP, 1.1 HR/G, 1.6 BB/G, 5.8 K/G
Chicago Pitching: 3.42 ERA, 1.23 WHIP, .9 HR/G, 2.9 BB/G, 6.3 K/G
Wow, those are pretty close on the pitching side, where the Sox have made up for the Twinkies' lower walk rate by allowing fewer home runs and striking out slightly more hitters.
On the offensive side, the Twinkies have a good lead in OBP and AVG, but the two teams are even when it comes to SLG. Given that the patience of the two teams has been about the same (.321 OBP-.255 AVG = .66 for Sox, .334 OBP - .267 = .67 for Twinkies), a rise in the Sox's batting average commensurate with Konerko, Dye, and Everett getting back up to their historic performances (.276 for Konerko, .270 for Dye, and .276 for Everett), would probably push the Sox to about even with the Twinks in the hitting department.
It's going to be a long race ahead.
