White Sox Bandwagon Doesn't Leave USCF
Blame the bullpen. Alright. But nobody's perfect.
Blame Ozzie. Miss the mark. He he made the right move. The players failed.
Blame the offense. Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner!
The White Sox have dropped their last 7 road games. 4 of those games came on walk-off HR. All told, the Sox have thrown a total of 22 pitches in walk-off situations over those 7 games. 4 have gone over the wall. 4 HR in 22 high-leverage pitches is absurd, especially when you take a look at the bullpen's stats as a whole.
Meanwhile, the offense batted just .234/.283/.320 in the first 6 of those games. (Baseball Musings updates their DB in the morning. Click the previous link and alter the endpoint to get the proper 7 game total). They've gone just 7-for-53 with one extra-base hit with Runners in Scoring Position over that span (full 7 games -- I did the math), slugging .153 in their own high-leverage situations.
In other words, the Sox 7-game road losing streak has been made possible only through the teamwork of two incredibly unclutch forces. Had either the offense or bullpen been able to perform with the hanging in the balance, the Sox might be looking at a .500 or better stretch on the road.
Instead we're forced to confront the fact that the Sox appear to have the deadly combination of an explosive offense that appears above average on paper, but one that's prone to prolonged droughts especially with runners on base, and a bullpen which appears great on paper, but in practice is prone to give up game-winning bombs. It's the perfect combination to appear like a good team, one that ends up ranked #3 in BP's hit list and #5 in THT's Dartboard Factor, thanks to their phythagorean record loaded with blowouts on one night followed by close losses the next.
Pythagorean record is a nice system for judging the true talent of a team, but it's not without flaws. And we've seen enough teams on the south side that have nice pythagorean records get outperformed by "lesser" teams.
So just as many of us felt that loss coming when the Sox were unable to plate Nick Swisher after his leadoff double, which made Ozzie pull Danks after 6, which put the bullpen in early, which, well, you get the picture, I feel like these stretch of eminently winnable games -- both the 9-game stretch against sub-.500 clubs, and the overlapping 7-game road losing streak -- are a harbinger for the Sox blowing a mediocre division ripe for the taking.
Playoff teams don't have two losses in which they allowed ZERO earned runs before the All-Star break (No team has lost more than 2 in the last 10 years). Playoff teams don't have all of their complete games go for losses (Sox are 0-3 in CG). Playoff teams don't have stretches were they get walked-off 4 times in 7 road games while slugging .151 w/RISP. The Sox aren't a playoff team. They're a .500 club in a terrible division. And that terrible division is the only reason they're in first place right now.
0 recs |
241
comments
Read Related
Comments
Why Dotel over Danks
By Mark Gonzales – 6:19 p.m.http://blogs.chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports_hardball/2008/06/why-dotel-over.htmlWhite Sox manager Ozzie Guillen quickly responded to a question why he pulled John Danks after allowing one run in six innings in favor of Octavio Dotel, who gave up home runs to Derrek Lee and Aramis Ramirez in the seventh that tied the game at 3-3.
“If I thought about it, I would have kept [Danks] there,” Guillen said after Danks threw 85 pitches. “We have our game plan, and the seventh and eighth inning is for Dotel. Thank God, we got to pinch hit for [Danks], and Dotel threw well. He just got hit twice. He just threw the wrong pitch to the wrong guy."
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on Jun 20, 2008 6:48 PM CDT 0 recs
I didn't think swapping Dotel for Danks was at all a bad move
I didn’t think much of it at the time. Middle of the order was coming up and outside of a couple of mishaps, Dotel has been pretty awesome this year.
Apparently there’s a lot of teeth gnashing about Ozzie’s moves today over at ST. I’m not really sure why… Seems to me the Sox got incredibly unlucky today. The combination of things that went wrong for the Sox - Quentin and Cabrera each missing homers by about a foot, the stranding of runners, the inability to get either Anderson or Swisher over to third - is an absurd amount. Then again, I think I’ve said that several times over the course of this season, so maybe it’s gotten past the point of being just bad luck and is actually something of a trend.
by CWSKeith on
Jun 20, 2008 7:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
well said
i agree with you completely. if Q or orca had gotten one of those out, we would likely be singing a different tune, but im pretty sick of saying that myself. certainly a disturbing trend to say the least.
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I don't blame Ozzie for anything either...
but this luck bullshit has got to go. How many leadoff men on base did the Sox fail to knock in or even advance? We have seen this garbage before.
by SSH2005 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:32 PM CDT
up
0 recs
That's where I am
This is a team whose greatest skill is their ability to underachieve their phytag… This comes from a variety of skills…
Hitting that only comes in bunches…
Lack of hitting with RISP… Specifically when getting good pitching. (It’s not like we’ve seen many blowout losses)
Good starting pitching keeping every game close
Inability to productive out their way into free runs (especially in close games)
Insanely fluky number of walk-off HR per walk-off opportunities.
Just as with the D’backs last season and Angels this season, it’s important to point out why the Sox have underachieved their phythag by 4 games… The D’backs got blown out in 5th starter games and had a poor backend off the bulpen. The angels have a ridiculous “close” record thanks to a solid pitching staff, shutdown closer, batting average driven lineup, and an ability to manufacture runs. The Sox are 4 games under for the reasons mentioned above…
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on
Jun 20, 2008 7:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Angels
30-13 in “close” games according to THT—13-17 in others.
Sox on the other hand are now 15-20 in “close” games and 26-12 in games the rest….
At first glance it looks like the Sox are the better team, just unlucky. But if you watch everygame, see how and when the teams score/prevent runs, the Angels appear both better suited to make the playoffs and make a run once they get there.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on
Jun 20, 2008 7:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Eh
Honestly… we have been hosed by the umps all year long. I am not saying that every call has to go our way, but if half of the games we’ve played were called evenly we would have about 5 or 6 more wins. I think it is a combination of bad luck and terrible umping against us. I know that is a lame excuse and I am usually not one to criticize an ump because I ref football and basketball and I know what it’s like to have Little Johnny’s dad all up in your face, but I feel that we have had the short end of the stick on about %75 of close plays, pitches, and check swings. Plus the Angels have that laid back dude who just doesn’t care if he wins or loses.
"I would rather have a battalion of German soldiers in front of me than a platoon of French soldiers behind me."
by Where Triples Go to Die on
Jun 21, 2008 4:05 AM CDT
up
0 recs
ladies and gentlemen, hawk harrelson.
They're gonna give daddy the Rain Man suite, you dig that?
by MarketMaker on
Jun 21, 2008 5:15 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Seems a tab over the top
Ya win some ya lose some. Go get them tommorow. This team has flaws, but as Joe Morgan says: there are no perfect teams.
by madvillian on Jun 20, 2008 6:55 PM CDT 0 recs
that's dr. joe morgan
:p
The greatest trick the White Sox ever pulled was convincing their fan base that "Ozzieball" ever existed.
by The Wizard on
Jun 20, 2008 6:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
as of now...
They're gonna give daddy the Rain Man suite, you dig that?
by MarketMaker on
Jun 21, 2008 5:16 AM CDT
up
0 recs
There's no overreacting
I’ve thought the Sox were a .500 club all year long… The only time I really raised those expectations was following the 7 game win-streak, but I hedged my bets by saying I’d wouldn’t be full “on the bandwagon” until I saw how they did on that 9-game stretch preceding the Cubs game… 4-6 record later…
I still think they’re a .500 club. The division just sucks.
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on
Jun 20, 2008 7:26 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Well if we keep beating up on the division we'll be in good shape
In ‘05 we were just 6 games over outside the division (before playoffs of course).
by 3E8 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I think this is overreacting...
Both feet on the bandwagon.
by vince_ on Jun 20, 2008 7:02 PM CDT 0 recs
I'm sure if you looked hard enough...
...you could find a 7 game road stretch from 2005 and cherry pick stats that made that team look really bad.
I’m not saying this team is as good as 2005, but I don’t think it is as dire as you make it out to be. The whole home/road balance has been skewed across the league, not just with the Sox. Predicting the rest of the season based on a week or two of games is ridiculous.
Both feet on the bandwagon.
by vince_ on
Jun 20, 2008 7:05 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Agreed
How many teams have winning records on the road? Not many. Granted.. you could argue that the “road” status doesn’t matter as much in Chicago.. but I think thats bullshit. There are Sox fans at every away game.
The Cubs got lucky today more then anything…. I agree our offense has been having some troubles on the road but that happens.
We are going to the playoffs, we may not go far, but I don’t see anyone in our division catching us. Not saying we are going to win the whole thing.. but remember nobody picked us in 05.
In baseball… possibly more then any other sport, its about who is hot in October.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:15 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I need to clear this up
“In baseball… possibly more then any other sport, its about who is hot in October.”
Basically meaning that in baseball… when it comes to the playoffs, its more about who is playing well and hitting a hot streak at the right time.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:18 PM CDT
up
0 recs
just looked
and… not really. the sox in 05 never had more than a 3 game losing streak on the road, and even a bunch of those were games in which the sox scored 5+. the sox road record in 05 seems to more illustrate cheat’s point that “playoff” teams are teams that go on the road and win close ones. in a quick scan, i count 30 road wins in which the losing team was within 2 runs of the sox. that seems like a lot, and im not sure if it proves them to be more “clutchy” than this team, but they certainly never had a strech like this. also, the 05 team outperformed its pythagorean by 8 games, so i dont think it really helps much to compare this team with them. but, regardless, i agree with both you and cheat in a way; this stretch of road play is bad, offensively, and needs a remedy… yet im not sure it is time to get worked up about it, with the sox being in first place, bad road performance around the league, etc. It sure would be nice if the sox had pulled out a few of those, as I would be the first to point out that champions win those types of games on the road, e.g. 2005 white sox haha
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:21 PM CDT
up
0 recs
looks like the phillies are the only real "playoff" team so far. the angels are close but they are barely over .500 at home. and surely a team can't be a "playoff" team if it can't even win in its own ballpark.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:24 PM CDT
up
0 recs
yeah, i didnt mean to say i agree with the notion
that playoff teams go and win on the road. just using it in the general abstract way in which its used by talking heads on tv. i of course agree that a playoff team is a team that wins, period.
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:27 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I'm looking at it myself now
Kinda fun to look back on it. August was def a scary month.. we lost 7 in a row. September was iffy as well.
Anyways, I’m just not ready to jump ship yet. This team has gone far beyond my expectations already. Remember what we were saying before the season started?
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:27 PM CDT
up
0 recs
yeah, true
but, its not like i havent watched the 2005 dvd enough times already ;)
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:29 PM CDT
up
0 recs
:)
I hear that…
I’ll never forget the first time I told my friends that I thought the sox were going to win it. We were sitting in a bar when I made the declaration. They (all cubs fans except for one Indian fan) all said “your crazy.. first round and out”.
I can’t tell you how nice it was to be right.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Guaran - fucking - teed
Ozzie wouldn’t have lifted MB or Vazquez if they were pitching like Danks.
Pitching, defense, health.
by ballyb on Jun 20, 2008 7:28 PM CDT 0 recs
I think I agree with your comment...
but I still don’t blame Ozzie for the loss. This one is on Dotel and the pathetic “can’t advance a leadoff runner to save their life” offense.
The only way they were going to score those runners was via a longball.
by SSH2005 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
i just don't understand why they couldn't get anybody over.
the guys didn’t hit homers to get on base, right? is it all approach?
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:37 PM CDT
up
0 recs
What is so hard to understand?
Hitting homeruns is great but when your offense is almost entirely dependent on it, do you just pray for a homer a la Farmer everytime the Sox hit a leadoff double? A bunt and a groundout / sac fly score that runner.
by SSH2005 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
not what i'm asking.
i’m asking for the cause of the inability to get it done. obviously, the sox put balls in play, other than home runs, that do not result in outs (see leading off 6th, 7th, 8th, and 9th innings today). so what is that results in being unable to hit singles or doubles after that? the conventional wisdom on here is that everybody swings for the fences. if so, do they only do that when runners are on? were the guys leading off the 6th-9th trying to hit home runs and fell into singles and doubles instead?
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:51 PM CDT
up
0 recs
crickets
i guess no one actually wants to address the underlying reasons for what they whine about. rather typical.
by larry on
Jun 20, 2008 8:16 PM CDT
up
0 recs
perhaps it's a product of skill sets?
They're gonna give daddy the Rain Man suite, you dig that?
by MarketMaker on
Jun 21, 2008 5:20 AM CDT
up
0 recs
to some degree
as noted, they’ve hit very few line drives this year. if hitters can’t control their BABIP to a large extent, i don’t see why we should expect that to continue. we don’t hit a lot of ground balls, which is very good.
are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM
by colintj on
Jun 21, 2008 5:28 AM CDT
up
0 recs
i figured toonder's comment/question was more about approach than it was quantifiables.
so obviously none of us could truly answer it.
They're gonna give daddy the Rain Man suite, you dig that?
by MarketMaker on
Jun 21, 2008 5:33 AM CDT
up
0 recs
which is why i proposed skill sets.
maybe sox hitters try to hit homers because they wouldn’t succeed in getting runners over consistently and would sacrifice the homers trying to do so. the higher level players i’ve known have generally tried to develop a ‘launching’ swing so that if they do hit something on the nose it goes out. then, their approach at the plate is to just try and hit everything as hard as possible.
They're gonna give daddy the Rain Man suite, you dig that?
by MarketMaker on
Jun 21, 2008 5:38 AM CDT
up
0 recs
if i recall correctly
the double by anderson and maybe the double by swisher (or it could have been someone else) hit off the wall deep in the outfield….one could argue that they were swinging for the fences then but just resulted in doubles
either way, i further rest my case that the offense lives and die with the home run and their ability to ‘manufacture runs’ via singles, moving the runner over, bunting, sacrifice etc is poor
by The Scoper on
Jun 20, 2008 8:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
i was on gameday so didn't see the doubles. liners, flyballs that just came down out of reach, in between?
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 8:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
they both hit middle to high off the wall in center if i remember correctly
to be honest, it seemed that fukodome could of had a play on both of them if playing back enough. they definitely werent balls that were barely missing the basket. it was fukodome’s first start in center this year and i wonder if it had anything do with it.
regardless, both of the balls were well struck so made it harder for him to make a break back on them if he wasnt already playing the batter deep
by The Scoper on
Jun 20, 2008 8:55 PM CDT
up
0 recs
i'm trying to uncover
whether they were high fly balls, which would indicate uppercut ima waveland this shit swings, or not.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 8:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
i couldnt determine from my vantage point on the television
how high the fly balls were. all you saw was that it was struck and then fukodome running back, the ball hitting off the wall, and then bouncing back beyond fukodome and him retreiving the ball
by The Scoper on
Jun 20, 2008 9:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
how relevant is that? you guys are griping but not giving the context or the underlying cause.
when you lose a lot of games by a little, the tendency is to feel disappointed and cnsider the possbility of victory. if you lose by a lot, then you suck. but this team doesn’t suck. and we’re trying to figure out how good we are. I think losing a lot of close games indicates that we’re good. our flyball tendencies as a bullpen are part of the HR issues, but in the long run it isn’t as big a deal as the game makes it out to be.
are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM
by colintj on
Jun 20, 2008 9:05 PM CDT
up
0 recs
This is what I would have said
Just because it has happened so far doesn’t give me why we should expect it will continue.
are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM
by colintj on
Jun 20, 2008 8:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I don't get it
I’m a sox fan from England and I watched the game on MLB.TV, and there are fans from the White Sox all over the place, right in the middle of the Cubs fans!!! This would never happen in English football, they would be lucky to make the local hospital with out a horrible scar. How come you are so tolerant to your biggest rivals??? why do want to lick the arse of your rival? makes no sense to me
by hoodlight on Jun 20, 2008 7:30 PM CDT 0 recs
Fuck off. We're mourning ; )
Pitching, defense, health.
by ballyb on
Jun 20, 2008 7:31 PM CDT
up
0 recs
is this the one instance in which americans are more civilized than the english?
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:33 PM CDT
up
0 recs
beautiful.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 8:58 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Cuisine?
Or do you like haggis?
You POS.
CWS: Slashing negative expectations since May, 2008.
by winningugly on
Jun 20, 2008 8:59 PM CDT
up
0 recs
shits nasty
Everyone would order it because of the name…
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 9:01 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Having been to both English Soccer Games and Crosstown Classics
The atmosphere is totally different. I hate to say it but you guys simply outshine us in your fandom. Its way more intense over there. This has positives and negatives.
Of course the occasional fight breaks out, but you must understand that we are mainly all from the same area. I have way more friends that are Cubs fans then Sox fans. We give each other shit, but its all in good fun.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:33 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Also
I sat in the vistors section during the Macedonia v England nation game two years ago, when they tied 0 to 0. Needless to say we hauled ass out of there.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Vlade Divac thinks English Football is full of floppers
AIM: SouthSideCheat
by The Cheat on
Jun 20, 2008 7:34 PM CDT
up
0 recs
lol
how many oscars did that guy win again?
"I would rather have a battalion of German soldiers in front of me than a platoon of French soldiers behind me."
by Where Triples Go to Die on
Jun 21, 2008 4:15 AM CDT
up
0 recs
It's just laundry.
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
Sox Machine
by Sox Machine on
Jun 20, 2008 8:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I will expect more outrage from you guys...
if the Sox lose a Contreras vs. Marquis matchup.
by SSH2005 on Jun 20, 2008 7:37 PM CDT 0 recs
Lilly
Looked pretty shitty today… some of our batters looked worse though
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:38 PM CDT
up
0 recs
the matchup shouldn't matter.
if the offense is terrible, what’s the difference who’s pitching for the sox, right? and marquis has outperformed lilly this season.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:40 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Regardless of season stats...
We both know who the better starter is between Lilly and Marquis. Plus, Lilly is a lefty and the Sox struggle against lefties. If they don’t beat up Marquis tomorrow, more people will be pissed.
by SSH2005 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:43 PM CDT
up
0 recs
you're probably right.
i just don’t see the matchup to be any more favorable than today’s.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
I do...
Marquis is a righty and he throws junk. If the ball isn’t sinking for him or if they lay off the low crap, they can tank his ass. I guess we’ll see.
by SSH2005 on
Jun 20, 2008 7:47 PM CDT
up
0 recs
hopefully it'll be an '06 repeat.
Half Dome is my bitch. Shasta is next.
by Toonderstrook on
Jun 20, 2008 7:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs
you argue just to argue.
that statement is ridiculous.
"I would rather have a battalion of German soldiers in front of me than a platoon of French soldiers behind me."
by Where Triples Go to Die on
Jun 21, 2008 4:16 AM CDT
up
0 recs
Because misery loves company?
Never trust a big butt and a smile.
Sox Machine
by Sox Machine on
Jun 20, 2008 8:13 PM CDT
up
0 recs
yes we have football
and my country is hopeless, but I just laughed tonight when i saw the fan shots, all mixed together with the Cubs and the Sox, and you are supposed to be the big rivals, would never happen in an english soccer game
by hoodlight on Jun 20, 2008 7:41 PM CDT 0 recs
if i had a choice
i would sit with only my sox-fan friends, and that would be as far away from my cubs-fan friends as possible. unfortunately, i can only choose which section my seat is in, and nothing more.
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:44 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Exactly
And yes I’d rather only sit by sox fans.
We should point out that the stadium is segregated like they are over in the UK.
When I was over there I found that strange though… so its all perspective.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Fuck
“We should point out that the stadium is segregated like they are over in the UK.”
I mean our stadiums are not segregated.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:46 PM CDT
up
0 recs
but if they were...
boy would that be embarrassing for the rays when the red sox/yankees/cubs/basically any other team with an existent fan base came to town
by parkermo on
Jun 20, 2008 7:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
our stadiums are segretgated
because if they didn’t the fans would beat the crap out of each other, you lot are very very calm!!!
by hoodlight on
Jun 20, 2008 7:48 PM CDT
up
0 recs
Yeah
My sister got stuck in a riot in Italy… she said it was fucking scary.
But Parkermo is right… look at the poor Brewers fans when the Cubs come to town.
I would just skip those games, I’d hate to deal with asshole cubs fans the whole time.
Also hoodlight, fights do happen. We just don’t have these crazy organized “firms” and “ultra” groups like you do.
But I will say it again, you guys are more intense about it over there. The first match I saw when over there blew my mind.
I lived in London btw.
by 815Sox on
Jun 20, 2008 7:52 PM CDT
up
0 recs


