Maybe the White Sox are for real.

[UMFan83]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

[sneakypower]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

the astros pitchers pitched even more 'out of their minds' and their offense 'couldn't score many runs' even worse yet they managed a modest 25-21 record in their games.

[UMFan83]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

the astros pitchers pitched even more 'out of their minds' and their offense 'couldn't score many runs' even worse yet they managed a modest 25-21 record in their games.

 

Guess they were unlucky.

[sneakypower]

Guess they were unlucky.

thats the best reasoning you can give for it?

 

boy are those teams who exhibit great fundamentals really lucky. 2007 diamondbacks...horseshoe...ass...

[bukie]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

the astros pitchers pitched even more 'out of their minds' and their offense 'couldn't score many runs' even worse yet they managed a modest 25-21 record in their games.

 

The Astros had 6 good pitchers, couldn't hit home runs, and hit even worse than the White Sox. They also finished with 10 less wins.

[SouthSideRyan]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

I believe the '03 Tigers had a winning record in 1 run games.

 

Yep 19-18 in 1 run games, despite an overall 43-119 record.

Edited April 18, 2008 by SouthSideRyan

[CubinNY]

both the logic and the numbers clearly point in our direction.

They were 35-19 in 1-run games and outproduced their expected W-L by 8 games. That indicates to me they excelled at fundamental play and situational hitting (and featured a strong bullpen).

 

They were 35-19 in 1-run games because they had 12 pitchers pitch out of their minds and their offense couldn't score many runs so they were drawn into close games.

Performance in one run games is terribly influenced by random variability. So much so that many people call 1 run wins "lucky" wins. There's not much "fundamental" about a "seeing eye" grounder or "ducksnort" bloop hit.

Edited April 18, 2008 by CubinNY

[sneakypower]

I believe the '03 Tigers had a winning record in 1 run games.

they were 16 games over .500 in one-run games too?

 

you're being intentionally dense. if you have a team with a good run differential and good execution of fundamental play, you probably have a WS contender. i can't believe this is so controversial, but the groupthink evident in this thread is that the 2nd aspect is simply BS. it's really a bizarre bias.

[CubinNY]

they were 16 games over .500 in one-run games too?

 

you're being intentionally dense. if you have a team with a good run differential and good execution of fundamental play, you probably have a WS contender. i can't believe this is so controversial, but the groupthink evident in this thread is that the 2nd aspect is simply BS. it's really a bizarre bias.

 

Group think, that's a good one.

[XZero771679666304]

Guess they were unlucky.

thats the best reasoning you can give for it?

 

boy are those teams who exhibit great fundamentals really lucky. 2007 diamondbacks...horseshoe...ass...

 

 

Except the 2005 Sox ranked poorly in sacrifices, SB%, OBP, avg w/risp (second to last in the AL), avg w/risp and 2 out and walks. You know, most of the fundamental/smallball stats.

 

Meanwhile, they were right at the top of the league in HR (most of them solo), and team ERA. They didn't hit many doubles or triples, either, just homers. It was a team that didn't get on base, and pretty much waited for the longball to get a lead for their insane pitching.

 

I can understand how a casual fan could have watch Pods run all over in hi inefficient way and think they played smallball, but the stats paint a diametrically opposed picture. And we're not talking about close enough for interpretation, we're talking night and day.

 

It must be really romantic to think the Sox won the series in 2005 because of good ol' fashioned fundamental ball, because so many cling to that notion in the fact of pretty clear empirical evidence to the contrary.

 

The Sox won by hitting homers (mostly solo and early), while their great pitching clung to the small leads they had.

 

There is more than one way to score a run, but the Sox weren't particularly good at any of them other than the homer.

[bukie]

"groupthink" != "more than one person disagrees with me"

 

Defensive fundamentals are difficult to quantify statistically with any sort of objective accuracy since there's no real way to tell who would've gotten to what if they were there (other than observation and speculation/estimation). Offensive fundamentals involve hitting the ball, hitting with power, avoiding pitches out of the zone, and not getting yourself out on the basepaths (combining speed, when to steal, and when to get your butt back to first base). Those are easier to quantify, and have been several times in this thread. Anyone who chooses to blindly ignore their effects is ignoring a significant part of the game winning equation.

[sneakypower]

Performance in one run games is terribly influenced by random variability. So much so that many people call 1 run wins "lucky" wins. There's not much "fundamental" about a "seeing eye" grounder or "ducksnort" bloop hit.

right, I agree with that. but if you're able to hit behind the runner, lay down sacrifice bunts, get runners in from 3rd with 1 out, etc. you're going to win close games at a better percentage. if you watch games allowing yourself some subjectivity this becomes evident before long.

 

Group think, that's a good one.

ok, fine. collective concensus, if thats the term you'd prefer.

[sneakypower]

It must be really romantic to think the Sox won the series in 2005 because of good ol' fashioned fundamental ball, because so many cling to that notion in the fact of pretty clear empirical evidence to the contrary.

romantic?

i dont even like the white sox.

i'm not all that big a fan of small ball.

 

i've just argued that it can be very beneficial in certain situations.

 

the SB% and other stats you're mentioning you get a distorted picture of the truth when looking at the totality of the production. you have to take into account there are situations where the probabilities change. meaning, i don't see much problem with the KC Royals running at will with their speedy players. the negative effect of a CS is much less pronounced than having say, a guy getting caught with Ortiz and Manny coming up to the plate. the situation for the Royals is that they don't have enough power in the lineup to make the penalty for this as severe. i don't think all outs are created equally. if you're facing Joe Nathan with bad hitters, bunts or steals are probably going to be the smartest way of trying for the tying run.

[XZero771679666304]

It must be really romantic to think the Sox won the series in 2005 because of good ol' fashioned fundamental ball, because so many cling to that notion in the fact of pretty clear empirical evidence to the contrary.

romantic?

i dont even like the white sox.

i'm not all that big a fan of small ball.

 

i've just argued that it can be very beneficial in certain situations.

 

the SB% and other stats you're mentioning you get a distorted picture of the truth when looking at the totality of the production. you have to take into account there are situations where the probabilities change. meaning, i don't see much problem with the KC Royals running at will with their speedy players. the negative effect of a CS is much less pronounced than having say, a guy getting caught with Ortiz and Manny coming up to the plate. the situation for the Royals is that they don't have enough power in the lineup to make the penalty for this as severe. i don't think all outs are created equally. if you're facing Joe Nathan with bad hitters, bunts or steals are probably going to be the smartest way of trying for the tying run.

 

I agree, but the problem here is that the stats show that the Sox didn't do that stuff particularly well. They did not rank well in sacrifices. They did not rank well at all in situational stats. The stats say the Sox didn't advance via sacrifice that much, or score via sacrifice that much.

 

That's aside from the poor SB%, or that the Sox had few non-HR XBH, indicating a LACK of team speed.

 

Or that they weren't good at all at getting men on base in any situation.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

there is more than one way to score a run, and win ballgames.

 

No, there isn't. There is one way to score a run: turn a batter into a batter-runner and advance him through the bases to home.

 

There is only one way to win a game: score more runs than your opponent.

[imb]

There have been some amazingly terrible threads lately.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

I believe the '03 Tigers had a winning record in 1 run games.

they were 16 games over .500 in one-run games too?

 

you're being intentionally dense. if you have a team with a good run differential and good execution of fundamental play, you probably have a WS contender. i can't believe this is so controversial, but the groupthink evident in this thread is that the 2nd aspect is simply BS. it's really a bizarre bias.

 

You are being intentionally illogical.

 

There's no evidence whatsoever that strong fundamentals equals one-run wins, but you assert it as if it is unassailable fact.

 

If they were so good fundamentally in those games, shouldn't they have won by more than one run? Or is it non-fundamental to manufacture a run when you are already winning 4-3?

[Rob]

if you're facing Joe Nathan with bad hitters, bunts or steals are probably going to be the smartest way of trying for the tying run.

 

That's asinine. Why would you give away outs against one of the best pitchers in baseball?

 

37.5% of the runs scored against Joe Nathan came on home runs. How do you think that compares to league average?

[sneakypower]

I believe the '03 Tigers had a winning record in 1 run games.

they were 16 games over .500 in one-run games too?

 

you're being intentionally dense. if you have a team with a good run differential and good execution of fundamental play, you probably have a WS contender. i can't believe this is so controversial, but the groupthink evident in this thread is that the 2nd aspect is simply BS. it's really a bizarre bias.

 

You are being intentionally illogical.

 

There's no evidence whatsoever that strong fundamentals equals one-run wins, but you assert it as if it is unassailable fact.

 

If they were so good fundamentally in those games, shouldn't they have won by more than one run? Or is it non-fundamental to manufacture a run when you are already winning 4-3?

unassailable fact? i had said "probably". not sure what you're referring to.

 

situations usually dictate what to do in different situations of the game, that's a big function of the manager.

[sneakypower]

That's asinine. Why would you give away outs against one of the best pitchers in baseball?

37.5% of the runs scored against Joe Nathan came on home runs. How do you think that compares to league average?

to increase your chances of winning the game. he's more likely than not going to get you out anyways. might as well make it a productive one.

There have been some amazingly terrible threads lately.

thankfully your hysterical wit remedied this one

[Ding Dong Johnson]

There have been some amazingly terrible threads lately.

and I've nearly enjoyed every last one of them

[SouthSideRyan]

I believe the '03 Tigers had a winning record in 1 run games.

they were 16 games over .500 in one-run games too?

 

you're being intentionally dense. if you have a team with a good run differential and good execution of fundamental play, you probably have a WS contender. i can't believe this is so controversial, but the groupthink evident in this thread is that the 2nd aspect is simply BS. it's really a bizarre bias.

 

I'm being intentionally dense????

 

The '03 Tigers were one of the worst teams EVER. Yet they managed to perform above 500 in 1 run games. 19-18 in 1 run games. 24-101 in non 1-run games. You don't see what I'm getting at here? You have one of the worst teams in baseball history, yet according to your definition of what wins 1 run games, they were a fundamentally sound worst team in baseball. Imagine how many losses they'd have if they weren't fundamentally sound? They may have only won single digit games!

[Garage Party]

I hope the White Sox aren't for real.

[Vanilla Ice]

When ran through the lineup simulator

 

in all of the 2005 white sox best lineups- podsednik was their 9th hitter and not their leadoff hitter.

 

so he wasn't even their best "leadoff" hitter

[sneakypower]

"this is what another couple of guys figured the right answer was"

 

that settles it you win