« Tomonori Maeda | Main | A-Rod On The White Sox »

October 27, 2005

'05 White Sox vs. '98 & '99 Yankees

I've been hearing a lot in the last 12 hours where some folks are saying that the 2005 Chicago White Sox compare to the Yankees teams of 1998 and 1999. Do they?

Let's look at the Runs Created Above Average (RCAA) and Runs Saved Above Average (RSAA) for each squad:


For those not aware -

Runs Created Above Average (RCAA) is a Lee Sinins creation. It is the difference between a team's Runs Created total and the total for an average team who used the same amount of outs. (A negative Runs Created Above Average indicates a below average team in this category.)

And, Runs Saved Above Average (RSAA) is another Lee Sinins creation. It is the amount of runs that a pitching staff saved versus what an average staff would have allowed. It is similar to the statistic Pitching Runs detailed in the book Total Baseball - except (1) both have different ways of park adjustments and (2) Total Baseball added a procedure to take into account the amount of decisions the staff had while Runs Saved Above Average does not. (A negative Runs Saved Above Average indicates a below average pitching staff in this category.)

The 2005 White Sox were a poor offensive team. The 1998 and 1999 Yankees were strong offensive teams. There is no comparison here.

The 2005 White Sox were an excellent pitching team. In fact, they were one of the best pitching staffs the American League has seen in the last decade - if not the best.

Still, the 1998 Yankees were a very strong pitching team as well. And, the 1999 Yankees were an above average pitching team.

This all said, because of the 2005 White Sox offensive attack - or lack thereof - there's no way that they should be compared to the 1998 and 1999 Yankees. Yes, they are World Champions - but, they're a one dimensional team. And, that one dimension was so strong that it covered their weakness and carried them to a World Series victory.

Posted by Steve Lombardi at October 27, 2005 10:49 AM


This is the reason they're compared;

2005 CHW: 11-1
1999 NYY: 11-1
1998 NYY: 11-2

That's where the similarities end.

BTW, that -59 in the RCAA column is "small ball" at work. Before anyone gets bent out of shape, that's more a declaration of fact, than a commentary.

I don't have RSAA numbers in front of me, but looking @ the AL, it seems that Cleveland and the Angels pitching staffs were just as good as the ChiSox staff.

Posted by: Raf [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 11:54 AM

Raff - not close, FYI:


1 White Sox 143
2 A's 128
3 Twins 110
4 Angels 81
5 Indians 78
6 Blue Jays 60
7 Yankees -11
8 Mariners -29
9 Tigers -38
10 Red Sox -54
11 Rangers -69
12 Orioles -76
13 Devil Rays -171
14 Royals -196

Posted by: Steve Lombardi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 12:06 PM

Gee, only -11 and middle of the pack for the Yanks' pitching staff? I'd hate to see what it was at midseason.

Posted by: rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 12:47 PM

Thanks, man..

I based my comment on AL ERA

CHW: 3.61
CLE: 3.61
LAA: 3.68
OAK: 3.69
MIN: 3.71

Posted by: Raf [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 12:51 PM

RBJ - here's how it was on 7/3/05:


1 White Sox 92
2 Twins 58
3 Angels 54
4 Blue Jays 48
5 Indians 41
6 A's 28
7 Tigers 20
8 Orioles 16
9 Rangers 7
10 Red Sox -21
11 Mariners -36
12 Yankees -37
13 Royals -104
14 Devil Rays -134

Posted by: Steve Lombardi [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 01:05 PM

Thanks Steve. Only above the Royals & D-Rays. Extreme ouch.

Posted by: rbj [TypeKey Profile Page] at October 27, 2005 02:46 PM