It's tough. Every year, the media needs a story. A story about an underdog. A surprise team that nobody saw coming. A David who comes out of nowhere to stare down Goliath. In 2005, MLB's story is the Chicago White Sox. At least, everyone in the media seems to think so.
Tune into any national broadcast of a White Sox game this year, and you won't get through two Chicago plate appearances before being subjected to a monologue on the genius of manager Ozzie Guillen's "little ball" strategy. Bunting, stealing bases, moving runners — they all allow the power-poor Sox to outwit their muscle-bound competitors in Boston, New York, and Texas.
It's simple, elegant, and it's wrong.
Attributing the White Sox' success to their playing "little ball" is like saying that the Atlanta Braves are back in the playoffs because their pitchers handle the bat so well. It's true that they play little ball, but it's not why they win. Below are the three most important factors in the Sox' success this season, in order of significance, as well as some thoughts on Ozzie's offensive philosophy.
Pitching
The White Sox compiled a team ERA of 3.61 this year, which was the fourth-best mark in baseball. This is a fairly remarkable fact, since most of their starting rotation had never pitched this well before 2005. Every member of the starting rotation, excluding Orlando Hernandez, has posted an ERA below his personal career mark. Jon Garland's and Jose Contreras' improvement have been the most conspicuous — both guys are more than a run under their pre-2005 level. Hernandez, while he hasn't pitched particularly well, has pitched to his run support quite a bit, collecting more wins (9) this year than he had since 2000 (12).
The bullpen has been even better. Its 3.26 mark is also the fourth-best in the majors. Only two teams in the American League (Los Angeles, Cleveland) allowed fewer runs than the Sox, and by just two runs. It's hard not to win when the other team doesn't score.
Power
Yeah, yeah, I know. The White Sox don't win because of power. They win despite the other team's power. If only that were true. Let's take a look at the numbers, shall we? The major league leaders in home runs hit in 2005 are, in order, Texas, New York Yankees, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Chicago White Sox. Yep, Ozzie's slap-hitting, base-stealing wonders hit 200 home runs this season.
With all their highly-publicized power hitters, the Red Sox (Chicago's ALDS opponent) managed just 199 round-trippers during the regular season. The White Sox have seven players with 15 or more home runs. Although Boston probably has a slight edge in long-ball production given that Chicago's U.S. Cellular Field is statistically the majors' most homer-friendly, Ozzie's crew can certainly hold their own in a slugfest. In their 3-0 sweep of Boston last week, Chicago out-homered their opponents 7-3. It generated plenty of surprise on the highlight shows, but they've been doing it all season.
Record in One-Run Games
Ozzie's troops were 35-19 in one-run games this year. Not only did they play a lot of them (exactly one third of their games), but they were 16 games over .500 in these situations. It's a huge reason they were able to win 99 games this season.
How much of their prowess in close games was due to Ozzie's little ball tactics? It's hard to say. A complete analysis of this issue would fill its own book, but suffice to say there are far too many factors at play to view the White Sox' record in these games as a ringing endorsement of little ball. From the Sox' strong bullpen, to the tendency of good teams to win more close games in general, to flat luck, there are too many alternative explanations for Chicago's performance in one-run games to call Guillen's strategy the difference maker. Make no mistake, however: the Sox' success in these games is a huge reason they're in the playoffs.
A Couple Thoughts On Little Ball
Many announcers speak glowingly of the fact that Ozzie's team leads the American League in sacrifice bunts (53). What's not clear is why this is something to brag about. Unless you're bunting in the late innings of a tied or one-run game, studies have demonstrated time and again that sacrifice bunting is generally not a good strategy. Outs are simply too valuable, and the strategy will limit a team's total scoring in the long run. If the bunter is a hitter with the skill of the average pitcher, statistics favor the strategy to a greater degree. However, playing with a DH and a lineup that hits more home runs than all but four major-league teams, it's hard to figure out why Guillen would want to give the opposition any more outs than is absolutely necessary.
Another supposed hallmark of Guillen's style is base stealing, personified by Chicago's leadoff hitter Scott Podsednik and his 59 thefts. And the Sox have stolen a lot of bases. Trouble is, they're just not very good at it. Chicago stole 137 bases this season, the fourth-most in baseball. They were also caught stealing 66 times — 10 more than any other team. Their 67-percent success rate is the lowest of any team with more than 100 stolen bases. Compared to running teams like the Phillies (116 steals) and Mets (153), the Sox have given up 39 more outs than Philadelphia and 26 more than New York. Once again, why are you giving up outs with a lineup that can hit it out of the ballpark from almost any spot in the lineup?
Perhaps this is why, despite hitting more home runs than most teams in the game, the White Sox are just 13th in runs scored. To be fair, they are just 17th in team batting average, but they remove themselves from the bases more than any other team in the league, preventing their home runs from driving in as many runs as they might. In the final analysis, Ozzie's boys might be winning in spite of the little ball philosophy — not because of it.
October 10, 2005
William Geoghegan:
“studies have demonstrated time and again that sacrifice bunting is generally not a good strategy.” That is true, but these types of analysis are based on a 162-game season. And over those 162 games, things tend to even out, which is why sacrifice bunts seem to make little difference in the long run. But in one game, a scarifice bunt can make a gigantic difference. Obviously, it’s impossible to say how much. A runner who advances to second on a sac bunt then scores on a single might also have scored on a home run, which would have netted two runs. But he also might have been stranded at first. You never know. So while it’s fine to use these analyses as proof over the long term, it may not apply quite as well to a five- or seven-game postseason series.
October 14, 2005
Jake:
“Although Boston probably has a slight edge in long-ball production given that Chicago’s U.S. Cellular Field is statistically the majors’ most homer-friendly..”
That’s hilarious, where are you getting that information? Are you completely oblivious to Coors Field? Or the depths of major league stadiums? US Celluar is relatively shallow in the corners, but not as much as Seatle, or even Boston’s right field. Those numbers they show on stadium “blueprints” are the distances for home runs, you might want to look at them before writing an article about it.
The Rockies regularly have the highest ERAs in the league because of the thin air, and the infamous homer friendly field, remember the Bichette, Walker, Castilla days, of 3 50HR hitters? You don’t see that anywhere else. Not to mention, the Red Sox only have to pull 302ft down the right field line to go yard.
In response to your bunt comments, and other dribble; Have you ever even played baseball? I’d do some simple research before writing some nonsense like this.