2008 Sox better than 2005 Sox?

It was first mentioned in passing a few days ago by a veteran baseball scout, his theory that these 2008 White Sox are better than the 2005 World Series champion White Sox.

In qualifying his belief, the scout said this season's Sox might not win as many games and certainly might not win the World Series, but that he would pick this one talent-wise, albeit with barely half the season played.

over 3 years ago vince_ 44 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

in a vacuum i think i might take this team on paper,

but this team doesn’t get to play mlb 2005 so i don’t suppose it does the 2008 sox any good to be better than their predecessors.

if you consider the holdover players to be the same in 2008 as they were in 2005 (which i don’t think i would, and not better either) then i would say we have upgrades at most positions that have been replaced so we’re a better offensive team. bullpens i’d say are comparable though this one probably has more depth, imo. so i guess it boils down to the staffs…tough call. i’d give the nod to the ‘05 guys just because we’ve already seen them win it all.

fuck you, that's my name!! you know why, mister? 'cause you drove a hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar bmw. that's my name!!

by MarketMaker on Jul 8, 2008 12:35 AM CDT reply actions

I was going to write this post at some point when it became truly obvious that this Sox team was getting to the playoffs

are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM

by colintj on Jul 8, 2008 12:46 AM CDT reply actions

owned. pwned.

and bowned.

good night, sweet prince.

fuck you, that's my name!! you know why, mister? 'cause you drove a hyundai to get here tonight, I drove a eighty thousand dollar bmw. that's my name!!

by MarketMaker on Jul 8, 2008 1:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Like MarketMaker said...

On paper, yes this team is probably better. But does anyone think that this pitching staff could be as dominant in the postseason as Contreras, Buehrle, Garcia, and Garland? That was a once in a lifetime kind of performance. Hell, even Podsednik and Uribe tore it up in the postseason.

by SSH2005 on Jul 8, 2008 7:32 AM CDT reply actions

“could”. of course they could.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 8:47 AM CDT up reply actions

But the chances of it happening are slim to none.

by SSH2005 on Jul 8, 2008 8:53 AM CDT up reply actions

i think not.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 9:02 AM CDT up reply actions

Well, I have to side with SSH on this one -

The starters did what hadn’t been done in 50 years re: complete games. Danks ain’t going the distance after his first “full” year, and I can’t see Gavin doing it, either. Count would need to crank it up a couple of notches.

Anything’s possible – but an 11-1 run led by our starters’ complete games, especially in the playoffs, seem remote. (Though I’d love to be proven wrong – I’ve already changed my sig, so my flexibility in admitting error is well documented.)

CWS: Slashing negative expectations since May, 2008.

by winningugly on Jul 8, 2008 10:54 AM CDT up reply actions

well, if we're talking complete games or something fine.

he referred to pitching staff, though. i consider complete games cute but rather irrelevant in the overall scheme. it’s about preventing runs, stupid. if 9 pitchers or 1 pitcher do it, the result is the same – just like it was in the divisional series and in the world series.

not to poo-poo the 2005 team much but the sox weren’t exactly mowing through three ‘27 yankees or something. the red sox’ offense was hot shit that year but the angels were league average and the astros were below it. the sox pitching staff, which had an era, etc. and makeup very similar to this year’s version, performed well but i don’t think the overall performance in terms of run prevention was some epic aberration that is so, so unlikely to occur again.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 11:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Do keep in mind

“the sox pitching staff, which had an era, etc. and makeup very similar to this year’s version”

...that the run environments in 2005 and 2008 are fairly different. I would argue that Garland’s 2005 was more impressive than Floyd’s 2008, though they are very similar numbers-wise.

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 11:55 AM CDT up reply actions

seems to me that the difference in runs scored in the AL overall this year as opposed to 2005

and the runs scored against the sox in each of those years would suggest that so far the current sox pitching staff is doing a better job of preventing runs compared to league average than the 2005 version. at any rate, i don’t think the run environment is relevant. i stand by what i said. if the pitching staff continues to perform roughly as it has, i don’t see why a similarly dominant performance in the post season is so far out of the realm of possibility. the opponents, like in 05, will likely dictate it to a large measure, along with simply getting hot for a stretch. this team certainly has the depth to produce consistently high level performances in a short stretch.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 12:18 PM CDT up reply actions

???

In 2005, the league average was 4.76 runs per game. The Sox gave up 3.98 runs per game.

In 2008, the league average is 4.59 runs per game. The Sox are giving up 3.89 runs per game.

Adjusting for the run environment (i.e., teams are scoring about 3% fewer runs per game), the two teams are exactly equal. ERA+ shows 126 this year, 124 in 2005—but, of course, the 2005 team gave up a lot fewer unearned runs ( I don’t have the numbers, but the 2005 team committed .58 errors/game, compared to .66 this year), so RA+ presumably would be better.

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 12:40 PM CDT up reply actions

check your math.

because one of us is using incorrect numbers for 2008. and i’m guessing it’s you.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 12:54 PM CDT up reply actions

perhaps we're defining league average differently or using earned runs/unearned

at any rate, even taking your numbers, i don’t see .1 runs a game as constituting much of a difference. perhaps you see it as such. i think your point about the teams being “exactly equal” is closer to the correct one and agrees with what i wrote previously which you seemed to disagree with. any distinctions we want to draw between the teams seem to be pretty inconsequential at this point, unless we want to point out that one team did it over 162 games while another has only done it over 89.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 1:05 PM CDT up reply actions

Typo on my part.

3.81 runs/game for the Sox in 2008. 0.17 runs/game lower than 2005, which precisely matches the league difference. Also, I have the 124 and 126 ERA+ flipped (ERA+ is slightly better in 2008)—though that should be obvious from the context.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/AL_2008.shtml

As far as your point below, I tend to agree that overall pitching has been about the same. The main difference has been the 2005 rotation was better, but the 2008 bullpen is better (and for more innings/game, though I’m too lazy to confirm that).

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 1:11 PM CDT up reply actions

Oh...

...by the way, I generally agree with you re: likelihood of such a strong postseason pitching. My only caveat is that the current team strikes out more batters (7.2/game vs. 6.4/game, and though I’m too lazy to break out the starters, I bet you would see a similar discrepancy there), and it’s harder for pitchers to go deep into games when they are striking out more hitters.

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 12:46 PM CDT up reply actions

I don't think that's actually true. In any case, one of the things BP

found correlated highly with post-season success was K rate and bullpen strength, as well as defense. With BA in center, I think we’re one of the best in the MLB. Having that option is a pretty big deal imo.

are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM

by colintj on Jul 8, 2008 2:25 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm saying something a little different

Obviously K rate is a huge predictor of success (in the postseason or otherwise). But a starter who strikes out a ton of people generally will not be able to pitch as many innings vis a vis a starter with comparable RA results. Basically a high strikeout guy will have a lot more pitches per out. That’s not to say he’s not more successful - you’d almost certainly rather have a guy who strikes out 8 in 6 innings than one who strikes out 4 in 7 innings, but he won’t be able to go as far in games if you adhere to any sort of pitch count. That’s why it’s relatively rare to see a really high strikeout no-hitter - if a pitcher is striking out 13 hitters, he’s probably going to be throwing 15 pitches per inning.

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 2:55 PM CDT up reply actions

pitch counts probably won't be all that high of a priority, though

if a team is cruising like the sox were in 05. first, you have more off days between starts and the sox likely would not be looking to only start three pitchers, as some teams try to do, because they do have depth. second, pitch counts, both late in the season and in the playoffs, tend to get stretched quite a bit just by the nature of the importance of the game. and, at any rate, just like 05, i wouldn’t be all that concerned with turning the game over in the seventh to the bullpen because they’re just as good as the starters.

If there's a baseball equivalent to "never fight a land war in Asia," Vizzini might tell us "never buy the decline years of a player."

by larry on Jul 8, 2008 3:12 PM CDT up reply actions

yeah i understand what you're getting at

but i’m pretty sure THT dispelled that myth

are you trying to use stats around here? what the fuck do you think this is? - MM

by colintj on Jul 8, 2008 5:01 PM CDT up reply actions

Um, 2005 played Ozzieball....and Ozzieball>>>>>>>>>>>>everything

They played smart, and didn’t rely on home runs. They played the right way. They played with passion, with grit, with hustle, with heart, with gusto, with musto. The 2005 Sox had the eye of the tiger, they never stopped believing.

But in all honesty, it boils down to whether DeWayne Wise can be the next Willie Harris.

by Ozzie Montana on Jul 8, 2008 10:54 AM CDT reply actions

Who plays Shingo?

CWS: Slashing negative expectations since May, 2008.

by winningugly on Jul 8, 2008 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions

Adam Russell

They;re like practically the same height, and like totally look the same

-Jeeves Life in the Cell

by jeeves on Jul 8, 2008 10:58 AM CDT up reply actions

Godzilla v. Mothra?

CWS: Slashing negative expectations since May, 2008.

by winningugly on Jul 8, 2008 11:08 AM CDT up reply actions

Let's think about it...

Going down the list, position by position:

1B: 2005 Konerko is much, much better than 2008 Konerko.
2B: Call it a wash. Iguchi gets on base more, Ramirez has more pop. Maybe give a slight edge to Ramirez because of defense.
SS: It’s another wash offensively (Cabrera gets on base more, 2005 Uribe had more pop), but Uribe has a moderate defensive advantage. Edge to 2005 Sox.
3B: Another wash. 2008 Crede is better at the plate but much, much worse in the field.
LF: Obviously a huge advantage to 2008 Sox.
CF: Big huge advantage to 2005 Sox. Swisher has been somewhat better offensively, but he’s only played half the games in CF, and Rowand’s defensive advantage is massive.
RF: 2008 JD has been much better at the plate. He gives some of that back in the field, but not much.
C: 2008 AJ has been substantially better than 2005 AJ.
DH: Moderate advantage to the 2008 Sox. But only because Dinosaurman was so miserable.

So position-wise, you’ve got the 2005 Sox much better at 1B and CF, and a little better at SS. The 2008 Sox are only much better at LF, but they do have noticeable advantages at RF, C, and DH, plus they are a little better at 2B. 3B is a wash, but if you put a gun to my head, I think I’d rather have 2005 Crede’s defense and sacrifice a little at the plate. (Incidentally, that 2005 team was fantastic in the field—their advantages at CF, SS, and maybe SS are solely due to defense, and they were also better defensively at 1B, C, and RF. The 2008 Sox really are only better in the field at 2B and LF.)

Pitching-wise, I’ve got:

1 Starter: I’ll actually call this a wash. Danks has ever-so-slightly better numbers than 2005 Contreras, but 2008 is a better pitching environment.
#2-#3 Starters: Buehrle and Floyd vs. Buehrle and Garland, whichever way you want to rank them. I’d say that 2005 Buehrle is the best of the bunch by a long shot, followed by Garland, Floyd, and then 2008 Buehrle. So, the 2005 Sox have an advantage at both spots—and especially given the pitching environments, the difference between 2008 Buehrle and whichever 2005 pitcher you are comparing him to is pretty extreme.
#4 Starter: Big advantage for Garcia over 2008 Contreras.
#5 Starter: Big advantage for Vazquez over Hernandez.

So, starter-wise, you’ve got a wash at one spot in the rotation, an advantage for the 2005 Sox at #2-#4 (and a big advantage for #3 and #4), and a big advantage for the 2008 Sox at the #5 spot. Overall, the 2005 Sox had a significantly better rotation.

Bullpen:

Closer: 2005 Jenks/Hermanson was much, much better than 2008 Jenks.
Top righty setup man: Wash between Politte and Linebrink.
Top lefty setup man: Cotts was somewhat better than Thornton.
Next righty: Dotel over Vizcaino by a large margin.
Next lefty: Logan big over Marte.

I give the 2008 Sox a decent advantage here—the 2005 team had a much better closer and a little better first lefty, but other than that, the 2008 team is better down the line.

Overall, it’s a close call. The 2005 team was much better in the field with a significantly better rotation. The 2008 team is better at the plate (not surprising given that the 2005 team was only average, and the 2008 team is definitely above average), and they have a better bullpen. Overall, I THINK I’d go with the 2005 Sox—you can really minimize the effects of two advantages of the 2008 team (better 5th starter and a better bullpen) by utilizing off days to skip a spot in the rotation and by having your starters go deep into games, which reduces exposure to relievers other than the closer and the top lefty/righty setup men (where the 2005 Sox are better than the 2008 Sox).

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 11:53 AM CDT reply actions

Where is your bench?

I know it might be deemed “insignificant” but the role it played in 2005 canot be overstated. And if we are even comparable to 2005 how is it we aren’t running away with the division, as we were this time in 2005? One might argue that it took a bit of time to find our lineup in 2008 ( Necktie, Q, AJ hitting 2nd, etc.) compared to 2005, perhaps, but other than Tampa, BoSux and LAAAAAngels no one really looks all that threatening (and we were the fearsome ones in 2005, and I don’t see us in a dominant postition now). Each of them has decent weaknesses.

No one really cares about our advantage in the #5 SP slot, as that person doesn’t pitch in the playoffs. Also, I would not put Danks as our #1 this year – his stats may be best, but is he regularly pitted against the other team’s #1? Nope,that’d be either Javy or Mark.

I still think we are at least 4-5 games behind 2005’s team.

CWS: Slashing negative expectations since May, 2008.

by winningugly on Jul 8, 2008 12:12 PM CDT up reply actions

When comparing rotations

I really think you have to line up the pitchers performance-wise and then compare them that way. Or aggregate stats. Otherwise you risk someone gaming the comparisons by comparing the second best pitcher on one team to the third on another, the third to the fourth, etc. And I’ve never bought the whole ”#1 pitching against #1” argument—after the second week of the season, rotations get shuffled enough so that it usually doesn’t work out that way.

As for why the Sox aren’t running away with it now like they were at the same point in 2005, that’s easy. The current team has been a little unlucky—they are a “true” .600 team playing .580 ball. The 2005 Sox at this point were pretty lucky. They were a “true” .600 team playing .680 ball. Combine that with the fact that the 2008 Twins have been a bit better than they were in 2005 (when they were in 2nd until August), and that explains the difference between a 10 game lead and a 1.5 game lead.

by BridgeportJoe on Jul 8, 2008 12:31 PM CDT up reply actions

An interesting exercise

Though I agree with WU, you have to compare benches.

Hall – Widger
BA – Timo?
DW – Gload?
Ozuna – Ozuna
Uribe – Willie
7th bp pitcher – Blum

The 05 team only ran a 6 man pen most of the season if memory serves (Pollite, Cotts, Hermanson, Marte, Vizcaino, and a combo of Shingo and Bobby) whereas KW and Ozzie left the gate this season with the 7 man pen.

I believe in Harvey, Illinois

by Hazymania on Jul 8, 2008 1:12 PM CDT up reply actions