Comparing fundamental changes on the bad part of town:

[katway]

The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year....

 

The Sox outscored the Cubs this year. But, more importantly, it's their type of small ball offense that scores runs against good pitchers. They may not post up 15 runs in a game, but they consistently score and make the game competative. Even though the Cubs have more power in their lineup, the Cubs post far too many goose eggs for a good team. The Sox offense was more consistent in giving the team an opportunity to win and did, in fact, outscore the Cubs this year. Those 38 extra runs are a lot of one run ballgames with their stellar pitching staff.

[USSoccer]

The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year....

 

The Sox outscored the Cubs this year. But, more importantly, it's their type of small ball offense that scores runs against good pitchers. They may not post up 15 runs in a game, but they consistently score and make the game competative. Even though the Cubs have more power in their lineup, the Cubs post far too many goose eggs for a good team. The Sox offense was more consistent in giving the team an opportunity to win and did, in fact, outscore the Cubs this year. Those 38 extra runs are a lot of one run ballgames with their stellar pitching staff.

 

The Sox did not play "small ball". They were 4th in the AL in Home Runs. The reason they won games is because eevry single pitcher on that staff had a career year. EVERY one.

 

The small ball/ozzie ball/parole ball thing is a media creation. Nothing more. That team is as dependent on the HR as any other WS team of the past 4 years, they just happen to have traded a slugger for a leadoff guy. That really didn't change a thing.

[Banghart]

The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year....

 

The Sox outscored the Cubs this year. But, more importantly, it's their type of small ball offense that scores runs against good pitchers. They may not post up 15 runs in a game, but they consistently score and make the game competative. Even though the Cubs have more power in their lineup, the Cubs post far too many goose eggs for a good team. The Sox offense was more consistent in giving the team an opportunity to win and did, in fact, outscore the Cubs this year. Those 38 extra runs are a lot of one run ballgames with their stellar pitching staff.

38 runs is not significant when you have an extra hitter. As cubbieinexile posted before the difference between the Cubs runs scored and the Sox is the difference between the DH and the Cubs pitchers hitting. Once again the reason the Sox are where they are this year compared to last year is great pitching, and not some dramatic change from a slugging team to a small ball offense.

 

-Banghart

[katway]

The Sox built an offense that was more pathetic then the Cubs this year....

 

The Sox outscored the Cubs this year. But, more importantly, it's their type of small ball offense that scores runs against good pitchers. They may not post up 15 runs in a game, but they consistently score and make the game competative. Even though the Cubs have more power in their lineup, the Cubs post far too many goose eggs for a good team. The Sox offense was more consistent in giving the team an opportunity to win and did, in fact, outscore the Cubs this year. Those 38 extra runs are a lot of one run ballgames with their stellar pitching staff.

 

The Sox did not play "small ball". They were 4th in the AL in Home Runs. The reason they won games is because eevry single pitcher on that staff had a career year. EVERY one.

 

The small ball/ozzie ball/parole ball thing is a media creation. Nothing more. That team is as dependent on the HR as any other WS team of the past 4 years, they just happen to have traded a slugger for a leadoff guy. That really didn't change a thing.

 

Small ball isn't just scoring on singles. It's getting on base so the homeruns are more than one run shots. It's disrupting the pitcher, moving guys over, making the pitcher work so they come out earlier, etc.

 

I attended a Sox game this year and their style of baseball was completely different than the Cubs. Pods totally disrupted pitchers when he was on base, they made good base running decisions, Ozzie called hit and runs, they actually took a few pitches from time to time :shock: , etc. In the several Cubs games I attended this year, I never saw the Cubs create havoc and move runners over like the Sox. Perhaps the stats don't tell the whole story. It's like Justice Stewart said of pornography... I know it when I see it. :wink: The Sox play small ball, the Cubs don't.

[cubbieinexile]

The Sox outscored the Cubs this year. But, more importantly, it's their type of small ball offense that scores runs against good pitchers. They may not post up 15 runs in a game, but they consistently score and make the game competative. Even though the Cubs have more power in their lineup, the Cubs post far too many goose eggs for a good team. The Sox offense was more consistent in giving the team an opportunity to win and did, in fact, outscore the Cubs this year. Those 38 extra runs are a lot of one run ballgames with their stellar pitching staff.

 

The Sox outscored the Cubs because of the DH.

 

Secondly the Cubs were shutout 8 times, the Sox with their DH were shutout 7 times. The Sox scored 2 runs or less 49 times, the Cubs did that 46 times. The sox didn't win because of small ball, hell most of the time they didn't even play small ball. They won because of their pitching and they lost most of the time because of their anemic hitting.

Edited October 24, 2005 by cubbieinexile

[cubbieinexile]

Small ball isn't just scoring on singles. It's getting on base so the homeruns are more than one run shots. It's disrupting the pitcher, moving guys over, making the pitcher work so they come out earlier, etc.

 

I attended a Sox game this year and their style of baseball was completely different than the Cubs. Pods totally disrupted pitchers when he was on base, they made good base running decisions, Ozzie called hit and runs, they actually took a few pitches from time to time :shock: , etc. In the several Cubs games I attended this year, I never saw the Cubs create havoc and move runners over like the Sox. Perhaps the stats don't tell the whole story. It's like Justice Stewart said of pornography... I know it when I see it. :wink: The Sox play small ball, the Cubs don't.

 

Well if small ball is getting on base they did a piss-poor job of it. They ranked 11th in the 14 team AL in OBP and 11th in batting average. Their small ball amounted to Scott Podsednik. When and if he got on he would either steal second or get moved to second through some kind of event, and then the 3-4-5 hitter would hit a homer or some kind of hit to knock him in. The rest of the team is not small ball.

[katway]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."

 

The fact is that the WhiteSox can manufacture a run against a good pitcher on top of his game. They may not score more runs over the course of a season or pad other stats, but the fact is that they are capable or scratching out a run or two in tight ballgames. They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. They know the one stat that counts... Ws.

[Careless]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. .

Really? So the white sox were good at smallball til june then got bad at it? Fascinating.

[katway]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. .

Really? So the white sox were good at smallball til june then got bad at it? Fascinating.

 

 

What is this comment refering to :?:

[Careless]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. .

Really? So the white sox were good at smallball til june then got bad at it? Fascinating.

 

 

What is this comment refering to :?:

The white sox won (basicaclly) all their 1 run games through june. After that, they were much, much worse. If this was a talent, why did it go away?

[cubbieinexile]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."

 

The fact is that the WhiteSox can manufacture a run against a good pitcher on top of his game. They may not score more runs over the course of a season or pad other stats, but the fact is that they are capable or scratching out a run or two in tight ballgames. They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. They know the one stat that counts... Ws.

 

They won the tight ballgames because they were not scoring 5 runs they were scoring 2 or 3. Fortunately for them their pitcihng allowed them to win 3-2 instead of losing 5-3.

[katway]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."

 

The fact is that the WhiteSox can manufacture a run against a good pitcher on top of his game. They may not score more runs over the course of a season or pad other stats, but the fact is that they are capable or scratching out a run or two in tight ballgames. They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. They know the one stat that counts... Ws.

 

They won the tight ballgames because they were not scoring 5 runs they were scoring 2 or 3. Fortunately for them their pitcihng allowed them to win 3-2 instead of losing 5-3.

 

Those are games the Cubs would have lost 2 to nothing. So what's your point?

 

You can't deny they were best in the league in one run ballgames. It's a combination of good pitching and actually scoring runs. In converse, the Cubs put up a lot of goose eggs in similar circumstances. A one run win counts as much as a 10 run win.

[katway]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. .

Really? So the white sox were good at smallball til june then got bad at it? Fascinating.

 

 

What is this comment refering to :?:

The white sox won (basicaclly) all their 1 run games through june. After that, they were much, much worse. If this was a talent, why did it go away?

 

A win in April counts as much as a win in September. In any event, their talent didn't go away. They continued to win many one run games.

[Careless]

Sciocia's was right when he said "...The White Sox execute small ball probably better than anybody in our league."They were best in the majors in one-run ballgames for a reason and it wasn't just good pitching. .

Really? So the white sox were good at smallball til june then got bad at it? Fascinating.

 

 

What is this comment refering to :?:

The white sox won (basicaclly) all their 1 run games through june. After that, they were much, much worse. If this was a talent, why did it go away?

They continued to win many one run games.

No, they did not. you are in error.

12-10.

[RynoRules]

Cubs and Sox had similar issues in RF last offseason. Here's an interesting comparison:

 

Dye: http://www.baseballreference.com/d/dyeje01.shtml

 

Burnitz: http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/burnije01.shtml

 

Dye was better, but not a ton better. Cubs almost certainly had a shot at getting him, and its worth noting that Dye is 5 years younger.

[cubbieinexile]

 

Those are games the Cubs would have lost 2 to nothing. So what's your point?

 

You can't deny they were best in the league in one run ballgames. It's a combination of good pitching and actually scoring runs. In converse, the Cubs put up a lot of goose eggs in similar circumstances. A one run win counts as much as a 10 run win.

 

No the Cubs would not have. AS I already showed the Cubs without a DH had 1 more shutout then the Sox and their vaunted offense. Overall the Cubs had less 2 runs or less then the Sox did. So no the Cubs would not have lost that game 2-0. You are not doing your homework at all on this matter.

 

Nor does being the best in one run games mean much. Unless they can do that consistently from year to year and even throughout the season it means nothing. Lots of teams do well one year or in one part of the season in one run games but then they are not able to duplicate it.

 

In todays games scoring 2 runs is easy, scoring 3 runs is easy. Allowing only 0 runs, or 1 run or 2 runs is not easy. Winning a game 2-1 does not mean the offense did its job. It means the pitching staff did a great job and the hitters did a mediocre job. Just because they won doesn't mean the hitters are good or are doing their job.