Is Kenny Williams a genius or is this a fluke??

[UMFan83]

With regards to Ozzie and his dumb decisions, him and Dusty are somewhat alike. They are both regarded as player managers, they both make dumb moves from time to time, and Ozzie for awhile had Timo Perez hitting 1-2 starting as often as possible, similar to Dusty's usage of Jose Macais.

 

Of course there are differences too. Ozzie's penchant for small ball is well known, and while Dusty may sometimes preach small ball, anyone that has watched the Cubs down by 1-2 runs in the late innings knows that is a farce.

[dalgreen]

I don't understand this "fluke" thing. They had the best record in the AL and a couple games short of having the best record in baseball. Their "slump" over the last six weeks was more of Cleveland going crazy than the White Sox actually slumping. Had the Indians not gone 17-2 over that 19 game stretch, but instead gone 14-5 (still a great stretch) nobody would have talked about a Sox collapse. Yeah, I'm jealous and a bit bitter, but gosh give credit to the Sox organization. Only one team from the AL can play in the World Series and this year it's them. Can you look at them as a possible dynasty? Probably not, but this year---after 162 games and two rounds of the playoffs--- is not a fluke.

[dalgreen]

With regards to Ozzie and his dumb decisions, him and Dusty are somewhat alike. They are both regarded as player managers, they both make dumb moves from time to time, and Ozzie for awhile had Timo Perez hitting 1-2 starting as often as possible, similar to Dusty's usage of Jose Macais.

 

Of course there are differences too. Ozzie's penchant for small ball is well known, and while Dusty may sometimes preach small ball, anyone that has watched the Cubs down by 1-2 runs in the late innings knows that is a farce.

 

Phil Garner is no better manager now than when he was in Detroit. Terry Francona is no better now than when he was in Philly. Joe Torre is no better than when he was in Atlanta, NY Mets and with the Cardinals. Players make the managers look good or bad, and their performance on the field can even compensate for poor in-game strategy and decision.

[TheDude]

I echo the "not a fluke" sentiments, though luck is a factor in their success this season.

 

Williams acquisition of Garcia and Contreras were calculated gambles that paid off. Both were quality pitchers that had some concern prior to the trades. Garcia needed a change and Contreras needed to get his head clear of the aftershock of defecting and family seperation.

 

Williams went with good defense up the middle to back-up those pitchers, which is always critical. Iguchi was another successful gamble.

 

Where they got lucky IMO is with the starting pitching staff remaining healthy and productive all season long. It is rare for a team to have 4 starters have 32/33 starts in a season these days. And the two 5th starters combined for 32 starts. In other words, the team used only 6 starters for the entire season.

 

Podsednik was an interesting gamble. Respectable average, OBP, and light OPS for a corner outfielder doesn't exactly wow anybody. But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

[Derwood]

One thing to consider:

 

Hendry and Williams did essentially the same thing this off season. They both got their managers the "guys they wanted." The difference, of course, is in the managerial philosophies. Dusty requests players who are in his secret cult of suckitude, while Ozzie got guys who would buy into his "weeening eez fung" approach.

 

Basically, if you're going to sign players based on who your manager requests, you are putting a lot of faith in that manager to make sound decisions with personnel. We know how that turned out with Dusty :cry:

[YearofDaCubs]

It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

Thank you. That's why I value Podsednik and Furcal a little more than others on here.

[burnt out cubbie fan]

I didn't read almost any of this thread but the fact that you have genius and Kenny Williams in the same statement really makes me laugh.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

Labels are fun!

 

Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles.

 

I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

[David]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

Labels are fun!

 

Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles.

 

I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

 

I love it when arguments are supported with facts rather than unfounded rhetoric! :D

[RynoRules]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

Labels are fun!

 

Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles.

 

I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

 

I think there is a happy-medium here: Podsednik was a major factor in the first-half, less so in the second (and BTW, the Sox record suffered in the second-half; go figure).

 

In general, there's a place for both stats and so-called intangibles in analyzing any good team. Happens that stats are quantifiable and thus a product of science, and intangibles have more to do with a feeling or observation, and thus are a product of philosophy.

 

Some people are more inclined one way or the other, thus coloring their opinions. I'd venture to say that Ken Williams is more the philosophical type and was less concerned with stats.

[bc2k]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

 

Actually, Podsednik's intangibles may include getting Sox pitchers to pitch better. Podsednik, the leadoff hitter, is a huge reason why the Sox were so successful scoring in the first inning, making early Sox leads commenplace. The starting pitchers were able to pitch with a lead quite regularly because of Podsednik's contributions, setting the tone for a well-pitched game.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

 

Actually, Podsednik's intangibles may include getting Sox pitchers to pitch better. Podsednik, the leadoff hitter, is a huge reason why the Sox were so successful scoring in the first inning, making early Sox leads commenplace. The starting pitchers were able to pitch with a lead quite regularly because of Podsednik's contributions, setting the tone for a well-pitched game.

 

Is there a connection between scoring in the first inning and pitching well? Do the Sox score more in the first inning than anyone else?

[CubfaninCA]

If Williams was a Beane disciple, I have a feeling he'd be getting alot more praise considering his $75 million budget. Williams went the one direction you have to go when you have a middle of the pack budget. He stockpiled pitching. I don't like the White Sox, but can respect how they play the game. They play w/ lots of emotion. Anaheim had a collective whooped dog look in Game's 4 and 5. Kinda reminded me of the Cubs for all of 2005. Hendry needs to shake things up because I doubt Baker can get the same group of guys fired up in 2006. The same group would most likely crumble out of the gate. Nomar, Kerry Wood, Patterson and Walker aren't much of a backbone.

[Fred Hornkohl]

Is there a connection between scoring in the first inning and pitching well? Do the Sox score more in the first inning than anyone else?

 

Actually, in the case of the CUBS you could make a reasonable argument that the pitching staff does perform slightly better when the CUBS score 1 or more runs in the first inning......

 

04/04 - 10/02        IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
CUBS zero runs   1120.0 1051  559  529  442  988  148  3.55  7.94  1.19  1.33  4.25
CUBS 1 or more    320.0  306  155  145  134  268   37  3.77  7.54  1.04  1.38  4.08
CUBS overall     1440.0 1357  714  674  576 1256  185  3.60  7.85  1.16  1.34  4.21

 

What's really more fun to look at, though, is the effect that scoring in the first inning has on the CUBS' offense......

 

04/18 - 10/02      AB    R    H   2b   3b   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
CUBS zero runs   4298  479 1111  246   14  130 1775  460  306  714  0.258  0.311  0.413  0.724
CUBS 1 or more   1287  224  395   76    9   64  681  214  113  206  0.307  0.369  0.529  0.898
CUBS overall     5585  703 1506  322   23  194 2456  674  419  920  0.270  0.324  0.440  0.764

 

                             R/G   Record  pct
Not scoring in the first    3.77   53-74  .417
Scoring in the 1st inning   6.40   26-09  .743
CUBS overall                4.34   79-83  .488

 

Never underestimate the value of getting off to a fast start, eh?

[NorthsideAvenger]

First: I don't care what has been said about, but CHEMISTRY is an important factor in baseball. The White Sox have chemistry, the Cubs don't. The Cardinals have chemistry, the Cubs don't. Etc, etc...Don't convince me otherwise, but chemisty is vastly UNDERRATED.

 

Second: The White Sox is legitmately a "Lightning in a bottle" formula, hmmmm. don't that formula sound familiar. They have gotten NOTHING for Crede, Uribe, Pierznyski, Hermansen, Marte, Rowand, and look where they are at. This team rode the pitching staff, Konerko, and Dye to the WS. To me, that doesn't sound like a formula this will last very long.

 

Kenny Williams is still an idiot. The Sox having a great yr is overshadowing that little tidbit.

[katway]

...They have gotten NOTHING from Crede ....

 

Clearly, you haven't been watching the games. Crede went 7 for 19 with 7 RBIs. He hit a game tying homer and twice drove in the go ahead/winning run.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

...They have gotten NOTHING from Crede ....

 

Clearly, you haven't been watching the games. Crede went 7 for 19 with 7 RBIs. He hit a game tying homer and twice drove in the go ahead/winning run.

 

Pretty sure he's talking regular season.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

Is there a connection between scoring in the first inning and pitching well? Do the Sox score more in the first inning than anyone else?

 

Actually, in the case of the CUBS you could make a reasonable argument that the pitching staff does perform slightly better when the CUBS score 1 or more runs in the first inning......

 

04/04 - 10/02        IP    H    R   ER   BB    K   HR  BB/9   K/9  HR/9  WHIP   ERA
CUBS zero runs   1120.0 1051  559  529  442  988  148  3.55  7.94  1.19  1.33  4.25
CUBS 1 or more    320.0  306  155  145  134  268   37  3.77  7.54  1.04  1.38  4.08
CUBS overall     1440.0 1357  714  674  576 1256  185  3.60  7.85  1.16  1.34  4.21

 

The ERA goes down some, but just about all the peripherals are slightly worse. There's basically no difference. I'd assume it's similar for just about every MLB team.

[CoolHandLuke]

First: I don't care what has been said about, but CHEMISTRY is an important factor in baseball. The White Sox have chemistry, the Cubs don't. The Cardinals have chemistry, the Cubs don't. Etc, etc...Don't convince me otherwise, but chemisty is vastly UNDERRATED.

 

 

The White Sox were a winning ballclub, the Cubs weren't. The Cardinals were a winning ballclub, the Cubs weren't.

[Fred Hornkohl]

First: I don't care what has been said about, but CHEMISTRY is an important factor in baseball. The White Sox have chemistry, the Cubs don't. The Cardinals have chemistry, the Cubs don't. Etc, etc...Don't convince me otherwise, but chemisty is vastly UNDERRATED.

 

 

The White Sox were a winning ballclub, the Cubs weren't. The Cardinals were a winning ballclub, the Cubs weren't.

 

See how important chemistry is ???? :wink:

[Derwood]

Crede posted a career high in HR and batted 8th or 9th in the lineup. What do you want from him?

[TheDude]

But he definately makes things happen on that team, with his energy, and that was true in Milwaukee also. It's an intangible that stat-mongers won't understand or place any value in.

 

Labels are fun!

 

Wouldn't this intangible help them score runs? It's not like people are saying that Podsednik doesn't do anything and the White Sox are scoring runs in bunches. They were middle of the road, they weren't a good offense. Milwaukee was the second worse offense in the game last year with Podsednik and his intangibles.

 

I'm not about to say that there aren't parts of the game that are unquantifiable. But if you're going to claim something like that, there has to be an effect seen somewhere. And unless one of Podsednik's intangibles is getting the pitchers on his team to be awesome, then there isn't much evidence supporting that as part of a reason for their success.

 

I love it when arguments are supported with facts rather than unfounded rhetoric! :D

 

It isn't rhetoric if you bother to look up some numbers. The White Sox had a higher winning percentage when Podsednik played than when he didn't, though the difference isn't staggering.

 

But, in games where Podsednik scored, the difference is staggering:

 

Record when Podsednik scores at least one run: 42-17

Record when Podsednik didn't score: 38-32

 

Also true when Podsednik steals bases: 30-10

 

Regardless of whether the White Sox had a good offense or not, it is very clear that the man creates energy for the White Sox, and when he is on base things happen for them.

[goonys evil twin]

Regardless of whether the White Sox had a good offense or not, it is very clear that the man creates energy for the White Sox, and when he is on base things happen for them.

 

Things generally happen for teams when they get people on base or successfully steal, regardless who it is. What matters when judging the individual player is the rate at which he does those things successfully.

[Magnetic Curses]

Regardless of whether the White Sox had a good offense or not, it is very clear that the man creates energy for the White Sox, and when he is on base things happen for them.

 

Things generally happen for teams when they get people on base or successfully steal, regardless who it is. What matters when judging the individual player is the rate at which he does those things successfully.

 

case in point: juan pierre, a guy who makes things happen when he's on base--all too often, the exciting thing is an out for the opposing team.

[TheDude]

Regardless of whether the White Sox had a good offense or not, it is very clear that the man creates energy for the White Sox, and when he is on base things happen for them.

 

Things generally happen for teams when they get people on base or successfully steal, regardless who it is. What matters when judging the individual player is the rate at which he does those things successfully.

Not at all. That drags the conversation back to looking only at stats again. The whole point was that invidual stats like AVG/OBP/OPS don't tell the whole story in all cases.

 

[edit]The end-game point being that a measuring a player's wroth to his team can't always be ascertained in the indivudal stat column. Win Shares aren't out yet for 2005 that I can find, but it is kind of like trying to evaluate at that level.[/edit]