How Good Are The Sox Now?

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I would guesstimate a handful, but I really don't care about what other teams and pitchers are doing in this regard: notice I used the word "prepared". Average is a meaningless statistic by itself because of a SP would almost never pitch more than nine innings, so the range of data would not exceed nine. A better comparison might be comparing the fraction of starts in which a pitcher pitches seven complete innings. Have at it.

League-wide this season there have been 731 instances in which the starter threw a minimum of 7 full innings, out of 3034 starts (1517 total games X 2). That's about 24% of the time. If we're calling that the baseline, the Red Sox rotation is slightly better than average with 28 starts of seven innings or more (28% of their games). Price counts for 12 (of 22 starts), Wright for 9 (of 20), Porcello for 5 (of 20), and Buchholz and Rodriguez have one each.

Here are the only AL teams that exceed 24% in their starts of 7+ innings this year:

Blue Jays = 40 of 102 starts (39%) - 6.3 IP per start
Indians = 36 of 99 starts (36%) - 6.1 IP per start
White Sox = 30 of 102 starts (29%) - 6.0 IP per start
Red Sox = 28 of 100 starts (28%) - 5.9 IP per start
Astros = 26 of 101 starts (26%) - 5.9 IP per start

I included the average innings per start to show that there's arguably correlation between average innings per start and how frequently a pitcher (or staff) pitches into and through the seventh inning.

Either way, I'm not sure one can conclude that the Red Sox are doing something poorly that the rest of the league is doing better, hence I'm not seeing where the coaching staff can be accused of falling short in some respect that replacing them might improve.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-ball-in-play-analysis-al-east/

Fangraphs thinks the Sox should be 17 games over .500 and best in division thanks to superior defense and K/BB rates. Baltimore should be 46-41, a full six games behind Boston and Toronto should be two games back.

Of course, we should all blame Farrell....

 

[Adrian's Dome]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-ball-in-play-analysis-al-east/

Fangraphs thinks the Sox should be 17 games over .500 and best in division thanks to superior defense and K/BB rates. Baltimore should be 46-41, a full six games behind Boston and Toronto should be two games back.

Of course, we should all blame Farrell....

I hate projection systems. There's a lot of reasons for this team's relative underperformance, we just don't know exactly what they are outside of Price having a down year and bullpen injuries. Those may be the only two reasons, there may be more to it (including Farrell,) but that's shit we just can't pinpoint.

 

[joe dokes]

nm. i got some dates mixed up....

 

[Buzzkill Pauley]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-ball-in-play-analysis-al-east/

Fangraphs thinks the Sox should be 17 games over .500 and best in division thanks to superior defense and K/BB rates. Baltimore should be 46-41, a full six games behind Boston and Toronto should be two games back.

Of course, we should all blame Farrell....

That sounds about right.

 

[dhappy42]

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/team-ball-in-play-analysis-al-east/

Fangraphs thinks the Sox should be 17 games over .500 and best in division thanks to superior defense and K/BB rates. Baltimore should be 46-41, a full six games behind Boston and Toronto should be two games back.

Of course, we should all blame Farrell....

For no other reason than I was curious, I did a "simple" Bill James Pythagorean Theorem of Baseball analysis on the AL East last night after the game. Don't now how to format it here, but basically, it suggests the Orioles and Yankees are playing above "expectation," i.e. what their runs scored-allowed would predict. The Rays, Jays and Sox are all playing below expectation.

Expected current Won-Loss records are:

Jays 65-49 (+1.3 different from actual)
Sox 63-48 (+2.2. different from actual)
Orioles 60-52 (-3.3 from actual)
Yankees 52-60
Rays 51-61

Predicted end-of season records based on current runs scored-against:

Jays 93-69
Sox 92-70
Orioles 86-76
Yankees 76-86
Rays 74-88

What's that all mean? Nothing, really, except that the Sox aren't performing much differently -- 2 losses -- than their run differential predicts.

 

[grimshaw]

I think they still have a few things on their side.
a) An easy schedule, despite the road games.
b) September call ups. They do have some good arms still in the minors, like Brian Johnson, Brandon Workman, Hembree, Kelly, Elias and Chandler Shephard who I bet gets a crack. They can use some of those arms in blow outs either way to save some wear and tear on the top guys. Last night's game for example, you use a mop up guy instead of blowing through the pen.

The Pawsox aren't making the playoffs either, so you can plunder the roster on 9-1 instead of a week or two later.

And Maybe Moncada and/or Marco Hernandez can contribute (pinch hit for catchers not named Leon). They have some depth that other teams would be envious of. It may be enough to steal a game or two overall.

So basically, saving the best arms some innings. Minimizing bad matchups at the plate. Be more aggressive getting your back up catchers out of the games earlier. Make Holt more Brock-like as the utility guy. Pinch running Moncada for Wright.

Here is the remaining schedule along with what I think could be reasonably expected win/loss records.
Yanks 5-3
O's 4-5
AZ 2-1
Cle - 0-1
Detroit 2-2
KC 2-1
Oak - 3-1
Tampa 6-4
Tor 3-3
SD 2-1
---------
29-22

That gets them 90 wins and a decent shot for the WC.
I could see them crapping the bed against Detroit again, or maybe the O's and Rays steal a few more games, but I could also see them sweeping SD or AZ, or going 6-2 vs the Yanks.

They just need to hold their own against the east, and take care of business on the crappy teams.

 

[Humphrey]

Call-ups are one thing, but one or two of them actually have to get someone OUT. The present bullpen is for the most part not doing that. And when someone like Barnes who's done well comes out and fails, it really shows up.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Chris Young DH'd in Pawtucket today and went 0-2.

 

[dhappy42]

I think they still have a few things on their side.
a) An easy schedule, despite the road games...

That gets them 90 wins and a decent shot for the WC.
I could see them crapping the bed against Detroit again, or maybe the O's and Rays steal a few more games, but I could also see them sweeping SD or AZ, or going 6-2 vs the Yanks.

They just need to hold their own against the east, and take care of business on the crappy teams.

I'm not at very concerned about the Sox making the playoffs. I think they're a 90-win team, plus-or-minus two games. Might they miss a wild card spot by a game? Maybe. Depends on injuries, I think. When Papi limped off last night, I thought "season over." Glad it isn't (does not appear to be) too serious. A two-week DL stint might even be a good thing for Ortiz right now.

What the awful Sox pitching and high LOB numbers mean to me is that they're not a World Series winning team. Teams with very good-to-great pitching win Word Series. Streaky hitting, no matter how powerful, and relying on 7-plus runs-per-game to win doesn't. Of all people, Rex Sox fans should know that World Champion teams come back from behind and win squeakers. Teams with shitty bullpens -- and that's what we have now -- can't do that. Ours can't even hold a five-run lead now.

 

[Papelbon's Poutine]

He's playing tonight.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

That gets them 90 wins and a decent shot for the WC.

Just very hard to see. Our best players have dramatic, and sometimes they have especially dramatic, home road offensive splits. We have a very good sample size of what this team can do on the road and it is a .500 team. Even if the schedule gives them an extra win or two over .500 they just don't have enough home games left to get to 90. If we say 16-14 on the road, that's 12-7 at home to get to 89. That seems like the best case at this point. I think it's overly optimistic. Bullpen woes hurt incrementally more on the road, where the home team knows what it needs and bats last.

 

[dhappy42]

Red Sox home-and-away splits, 2016:

Home
Batting: .301/.368/.491 (1st in AL)
Pitching: 4.39 ERA, 1.34 WHIP (13th)

Away
Batting: .263/.328/.433 (2nd in AL)
Pitching: 4.17 ERA, 1.31 WHIP (5th)

 

[dhappy42]

Home pythag prediction (360 RS, 298 RA) is .586 win pct = 10-11 wins

Away pythag prediction (247 RS, 226 RA) is .540 win pct = 15-16 wins

Record now is 61-52, so the prediction suggests 86-88 wins.

 

[dhappy42]

One more thing, then goodnight.

I don't usually look at loss columns until much later in the season, but the Sox have only lost 2 more games than both the Jays and Orioles.

Think about that for a sec. If not for the last two losses to the MFY, the Sox, Jays and Orioles would be tied in the loss column.

I still think this season is going to be decided in Sept-Oct, when we play 13 games against Toronto and Baltimore.

 

[grimshaw]

Just very hard to see. Our best players have dramatic, and sometimes they have especially dramatic, home road offensive splits. We have a very good sample size of what this team can do on the road and it is a .500 team. Even if the schedule gives them an extra win or two over .500 they just don't have enough home games left to get to 90. If we say 16-14 on the road, that's 12-7 at home to get to 89. That seems like the best case at this point. I think it's overly optimistic. Bullpen woes hurt incrementally more on the road, where the home team knows what it needs and bats last.

It's obviously completely inexact either way. I put less weight on the remaining road vs home schedule and a lot more on the quality of the competition. They have actually been even or better on the road in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Last year was a disaster the other way, but it's been close otherwise.

They do go out west again, but it's vs the A's and Padres. The last major hurdle before September 1 is the upcoming Cleveland, Balt, Det matchups. If the pen can't stabilize in the first few days, it could really snowball without any days off, but call me an optimist.

Home pythag prediction (360 RS, 298 RA) is .586 win pct = 10-11 wins

Away pythag prediction (247 RS, 226 RA) is .540 win pct = 15-16 wins

Record now is 61-52, so the prediction suggests 86-88 wins.

FWIW - Baseball prospectus has them at 87, and fangraphs at 89 wins.

I'll stick with 90 and people can make fun of me later.

 

[grimshaw]

What the awful Sox pitching and high LOB numbers mean to me is that they're not a World Series winning team. Teams with very good-to-great pitching win Word Series.

The upside is that they have 4 strong starters now, and E-Rod turning the corner, so in a short series at least, they could use one of those guys out of the pen to help shorten things up. I think the bigger struggle is reaching the playoffs, than going deep.

 

[YTF]

The upside is that they have 4 strong starters now, and E-Rod turning the corner, so in a short series at least, they could use one of those guys out of the pen to help shorten things up. I think the bigger struggle is reaching the playoffs, than going deep.

Agreed and in all honesty, those "4 strong starters" don't mean much when in the past 3 weeks (starting with the Minnesota series) the team hasn't won a series and has gone 8-13. How good are the Sox now? Not very.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

It's obviously completely inexact either way. I put less weight on the remaining road vs home schedule and a lot more on the quality of the competition. They have actually been even or better on the road in 4 of the last 6 seasons. Last year was a disaster the other way, but it's been close otherwise.

They do go out west again, but it's vs the A's and Padres. The last major hurdle before September 1 is the upcoming Cleveland, Balt, Det matchups. If the pen can't stabilize in the first few days, it could really snowball without any days off, but call me an optimist.

FWIW - Baseball prospectus has them at 87, and fangraphs at 89 wins.

I'll stick with 90 and people can make fun of me later.

Yeah, and I'm probably being too much of a pessimist. The Angels, Twins and Yankees series have me a little spooked whether they can play better than .500 on the road even against bad teams, but I certainly hope to be wrong.

 

[bankshot1]

I am about to be unduly optimistic in the face of reality.

IF the starters can hold this together and take some of the pressure off this patchwork clown show of a BP (I may be unduly optimistic, but I'm not fucking crazy) the offense will eventually get out of the malaise they seem to be stuck in.
Ortiz looks about cooked literally playing on his last leg, but he doesn't quit easily, and there is so much talent around him, they should be able to win enough 5-3, 6-4 games to contend for the ALE. But 1-run games scare the crap out of me.

sis boom bah!

 

[dhappy42]

The upside is that they have 4 strong starters now, and E-Rod turning the corner, so in a short series at least, they could use one of those guys out of the pen to help shorten things up. I think the bigger struggle is reaching the playoffs, than going deep.

Here's some flip-flopping, silver-lining optimism: winning the World Series isn't only about strong pitching. It's also about being hot at the right time, specifically October. Baseball teams can be streaky. Better that the Sox to go through a sucky patch now, than in the middle of September, when they face the Jays and Orioles a dozen-plus times, or in October.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

At this rate they probably won't make it to October. They haven't won a series in 3 weeks.

 

[dhappy42]

At this rate they probably won't make it to October. They haven't won a series in 3 weeks.

And yet they're still only two games behind the bird teams in the loss column.

Obviously, if they keep up the current level of suckitude, they don't make the playoffs, but the silver lining of nutpunches (how's that for mixed metaphor?) is their freaky nature. And to get nutpunched you had to be in it in the first place. Teams that never get nutpunched or blow close games aren't in it.

At least three (that I can think of) of the recent nutpunches involved bad, random juju, the kind of "shit happens" things that tend to even themselves out eventually. (Holt dropping a throw from X. MFYs bunching three seeing-eye bleeders in one inning. Hanley backing into a runner. Benintendi losing a ball in the lights. Etc.)

When "shit happens" in bunches, teams look worse than they actually are, just as when teams get lucky, they look better than they actually are. I'm hoping the Sox right now just look bad and that they'll stop blowing leads and start winning some close games, be the nutpuncher, not the nutpunchee. But they've got to turn it around soon.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

They already had their chance to turn it around, against shitty Angels and Twins teams, against mediocre Mariners and Yankees teams. They keep losing. Good teams don't blow this many leads to bad teams late in games. Good teams don't continually fail to get hits in bases-loaded situations.

This is who they are. Thoroughly mediocre.

 

[pokey_reese]

And yet they're still only two games behind the bird teams in the loss column.

Obviously, if they keep up the current level of suckitude, they don't make the playoffs, but the silver lining of nutpunches (how's that for mixed metaphor?) is their freaky nature. And to get nutpunched you had to be in it in the first place. Teams that never get nutpunched or blow close games aren't in it.

At least three (that I can think of) of the recent nutpunches involved bad, random juju, the kind of "shit happens" things that tend to even themselves out eventually. (Holt dropping a throw from X. MFYs bunching three seeing-eye bleeders in one inning. Hanley backing into a runner. Benintendi losing a ball in the lights. Etc.)

When "shit happens" in bunches, teams look worse than they actually are, just as when teams get lucky, they look better than they actually are. I'm hoping the Sox right now just look bad and that they'll stop blowing leads and start winning some close games, be the nutpuncher, not the nutpunchee. But they've got to turn it around soon.

I think that by invoking fuzzy concepts like "nut punches' and 'shit happens' you are creating a narrative to fit the situation that you like. Isn't 'bad juju' just some supernatural explanation for what is actually playing badly? Every team and player makes mistakes or bad plays, and those that make more than average we call 'bad players.' Our team is mainly good players, but by focusing on specific plays that were 'freak' occurrences, you ignore the fact that the same guys struck out with men at the corners and no outs, or that Hanley should have stretch forward instead of back (but lacks the experience at 1B to instinctively know that), etc.. What about the luck we have gotten, like Leon's bloop 'double' that was grabbed by a fan, etc.?

There is no such thing as juju, and a 'nut punch' game refers to the effect it has on us as fans, it has nothing to do with the play on the field. Ziegler loading the bases was bad, and even if AB makes that catch and only one run scores, the Sox still couldn't score enough runs and would simply have lost 3-2 instead of 4-2. The fact that the unexpected happens every game is why baseball is fun to watch, but it also means that you can't cherry pick moments and play 'what if' to explain away bad outcomes. I agree with you that the team can play better down the stretch, they are as talented on paper as most teams, but ascribing the nature of the plays on which recent games have been won or lost to freakishness or a witches curse isn't predictive of success. If anything, a team that makes a bunch of mistakes is probably more likely to make more mistakes in the future.

Still, watching EdRo come around has been a really great sign, and if the bullpen can get its act together, they can still be a dangerous team between now and October, if the injury bug stops biting.

 

[dhappy42]

They already had their chance to turn it around, against shitty Angels and Twins teams, against mediocre Mariners and Yankees teams. They keep losing. Good teams don't blow this many leads to bad teams late in games. Good teams don't continually fail to get hits in bases-loaded situations.

Good teams blow leads and strand runners all the time. The Cubs and Giants both strand more runners per game than the Sox. (7.6 and 7.4 versus the Sox's 7.3.) The team that strands the least runners (5.8) is Cincinnati. How they doin'? The Sox have the 4th highest BA with runners in scoring position in the league. (.278) Only the Cards, Rangers and Tigers are better.

But "bases loaded!" you say. Sox aren't great there. They're hitting only .223, third worst in the AL, but basically the same as the AL Central leading Indians. (.228) The best bases-loaded hitters in baseball are the last-place Angels. (.323) What's that tell you? It tells me that it's dumb to draw big conclusions from small sample-size stats like BA with bases loaded. Frustrating to watch bases-loaded squanders? Sure, but folks are making too much of it.

The Sox's problem is pitching. They're scoring plenty of runs. They're giving up too many. Especially the bullpen. The Sox have the 19th best bullpen in the AL (going by ERA in innings 7+). The best? Baltimore and Cleveland. But worse than the Sox are both Toronto and Texas. Hard to believe, right? Two of three AL division leaders have worse bullpens than Boston.

This is who they are. Thoroughly mediocre.

Interesting. A "thoroughly mediocre" team with the 5th best winning percentage in a 15-team league. And the best offense in baseball. Sox team OPS is .814, which is .044 higher than the Cubs. And the offense has just been made better with the addition of Benintendi. I guess I've been away from Boston and lived in Detroit for too long. After two weeks of mediocre play (6-8), the Sox still hold a wild card. And some fans think that means they suck. Season over.

 

[DeadlySplitter]

They were once 32-20. They have been 29-32 since - a long stretch of mediocrity.

They were also once 54-39. They have been 7-13 since - a medium-length stretch of terrible baseball.

So yes, the LOB rate is partially a product of being the best offense, but they are stranding relatively more than they should be, too.

 

[YTF]

Don't get all giddy about this best offense in baseball thing folks. IMO even though the stats tell you so, this team has been far from that for a while now. What do your eyes tell you people? There hasn't been a whole lot of "clutch" in this offense for some time now.

 

[dhappy42]

I think that by invoking fuzzy concepts like "nut punches' and 'shit happens' you are creating a narrative to fit the situation that you like.

Yes, but so are people who invoke meaningless concepts like bases-loaded squanders and "they lost two games each to the Twins, Angels and Yankees." My point is that as much as nutpunches hurt, they're kind of random, and good teams get punched in the nuts more often than bad ones because they're more often in a position to get punched in the nuts, i.e. leading the game going into late innings.

Isn't 'bad juju' just some supernatural explanation for what is actually playing badly?

No. It's just bad luck, like dropping a fly ball with the bases loaded as opposed to with no one on a two outs, isn't supernatural. It's just kind of random. When your mistakes come at bad times or when they're bunched together, you lose games. That's randomness biting you in the ass. It doesn't mean you suck. If Papi goes 0-20 this week, will that mean he sucks even though up to now he's been having an MVP season? People focus too much on small sample sizes, especially recent small sample sizes. Yeah, the Sox lost two close games they should have won to the MFY. Get over it. So what? Next pitch.

Every team and player makes mistakes or bad plays, and those that make more than average we call 'bad players.'

Exactly. The Red Sox are a good team. Best offense in baseball. Pitching has been mediocre. Their "ace" has been ineffective. Their bullpen awful That's why the team only holds a wild card and isn't headed towards a 100-win season.

Our team is mainly good players, but by focusing on specific plays that were 'freak' occurrences, you ignore the fact that the same guys struck out with men at the corners and no outs, or that Hanley should have stretch forward instead of back (but lacks the experience at 1B to instinctively know that), etc..

I'm not ignoring that stuff at all. I'm directly addressing it. I'm saying a few bunched-together errors, mistakes and bleeders (and some craptacular bullpen performances) that cost the Red Sox a few close games against mediocre or poor teams during the last two weeks doesn't mean the Sox suck and that the season is effectively over.

Still, watching EdRo come around has been a really great sign, and if the bullpen can get its act together, they can still be a dangerous team between now and October, if the injury bug stops biting.

Almost exactly my point.

 

[dhappy42]

Don't get all giddy about this best offense in baseball thing folks. IMO even though the stats tell you so, this team has been far from that for a while now. What do your eyes tell you people? There hasn't been a whole lot of "clutch" in this offense for some time now.

Good point. As they say on Wall Street, past performance is not a guarantee of future results.

But the Sox don't have to be the best offensive team in baseball to make it to the playoffs or win the WS. They need Price to step up and for the bullpen to quit blowing 3-4 run leads. And to stay relatively healthy, of course.

 

[scotian1]

Obviously we are all in a panic mood but with good reason. There are a lot of questions and disturbing trends at the moment. Will Betts continue to excel through his nagging injury, Ortiz has been on a downward trend lately, Bogaerts and Bradley as well. The relief pitching has been terrible of late. Being below .500 since the break has been less than inspiring for their future fate not to mention that 30 of their final 49 games are on the road. Sadly at this moment in time they are not a very good team but things can change and hopefully they will.

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

They were once 32-20. They have been 29-32 since - a long stretch of mediocrity.

They were also once 54-39. They have been 7-13 since - a medium-length stretch of terrible baseball.

So yes, the LOB rate is partially a product of being the best offense, but they are stranding relatively more than they should be, too.

This. It's always best to put more weight on recent performance and less on older. They might've been great in May...who gives a shit? They're bad now, they've been bad for a good long time and there are zero signs they're going to snap out of it.

 

[pokey_reese]

Yes, but so are people who invoke meaningless concepts like bases-loaded squanders and "they lost two games each to the Twins, Angels and Yankees." My point is that as much as nutpunches hurt, they're kind of random, and good teams get punched in the nuts more often than bad ones because they're more often in a position to get punched in the nuts, i.e. leading the game going into late innings.

No. It's just bad luck, like dropping a fly ball with the bases loaded as opposed to with no one on a two outs, isn't supernatural. It's just kind of random. When your mistakes come at bad times or when they're bunched together, you lose games. That's randomness biting you in the ass. It doesn't mean you suck. If Papi goes 0-20 this week, will that mean he sucks even though up to now he's been having an MVP season? People focus too much on small sample sizes, especially recent small sample sizes. Yeah, the Sox lost two close games they should have won to the MFY. Get over it. So what? Next pitch.

Exactly. The Red Sox are a good team. Best offense in baseball. Pitching has been mediocre. Their "ace" has been ineffective. Their bullpen awful That's why the team only holds a wild card and isn't headed towards a 100-win season.

I'm not ignoring that stuff at all. I'm directly addressing it. I'm saying a few bunched-together errors, mistakes and bleeders (and some craptacular bullpen performances) that cost the Red Sox a few close games against mediocre or poor teams during the last two weeks doesn't mean the Sox suck and that the season is effectively over.

Almost exactly my point.

I think a few things are happening here (in our little back-and-forth). One is that we do agree on a few things, like the fact that the Sox aren't terrible and that small samples are not good for predicting. On the flip side, you seem to be mixing my post with some things other people are saying, which I get is probably just to save time, but it muddies the waters. Additionally, I think that you are conflating concepts like luck, randomness, samples sizes, etc. a little too loosely. Luck and randomness are certainly related, but my point is that you can't point to 'bad luck' on a few plays as reasons not to worry about small sample size results, because it ignores the other side of the coin. Yes, there is randomness involved with every play, and it can work for or against your team, but that is the error term in the equation of predicted versus actual results that plays out on a large scale, which makes it a wash by definition. This is a stochastic process. Additionally, you can argue that it's 'luck' that the bases were loaded when a bad play was made by the defender, but that's very different than saying that the bad play was a result of luck. You are now doing the small sample size cherry picking that you were just railing against, while I'm arguing for the largest sample at all times, which says that teams that make more mistake are more likely to have a mistake happen (assuming that they are truly randomly distributed) at a bad time, i.e. when the bases are loaded.

Does losing 13 of the last 20 games mean that the true Red Sox talent level is a .350 win percentage? No, but it also doesn't mean that they are truly as good as they looked before this bad/unlucky stretch. You build it in, so yes, if I were estimating their true talent level, as a dispassionate data analyst, I would downgrade my assumption based on the last few weeks. Same goes for your Ortiz 20 at bat sample. The fact that he is slumping doesn't mean he is cooked going forward, but it also means that he is less likely to be the MVP-level guy he was in May/June going forward.

 

[dhappy42]

I think a few things are happening here (in our little back-and-forth). One is that we do agree on a few things, like the fact that the Sox aren't terrible and that small samples are not good for predicting. On the flip side, you seem to be mixing my post with some things other people are saying, which I get is probably just to save time, but it muddies the waters.

Thanks for not doing the internet-thing and assuming the worst. If I've mixed up your points with some others, I apologize. I'm sick in bed with a summer cold and probably mashed up my response a little. (This also explains, but doesn't excuse, my rambling. I'll try to be more succinct.)

Additionally, I think that you are conflating concepts like luck, randomness, samples sizes, etc. a little too loosely.

I'm sure I have, but this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?

...my point is that you can't point to 'bad luck' on a few plays as reasons not to worry about small sample size results, because it ignores the other side of the coin. Yes, there is randomness involved with every play, and it can work for or against your team, but that is the error term in the equation of predicted versus actual results that plays out on a large scale, which makes it a wash by definition. This is a stochastic process.

"...this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?" Apparently not. ;^)

Seriously, I agree with you. But allow me to (over)simplify the probability problem, as it relates to my (and your?) point.

Let's say the Red Sox win-loss probability could be made into a coin. Flip the coin at home and there's a 60% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. Flip the coin on the road and there's a 54% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. The fact that the last 10 times you flipped the coin it came up tails six times does not mean anything going forward. It's not predictive. That's just as true if the last ten times you flipped the coin it came up tails every time. Basic rule of probability, but very counter-intuitive.

Does it make fans think the Sox aren't really a .570 team? Sure. "What have you done for me lately?" Might the 4-6 rough patch (12-14 since the ASG) be a signal that something's changed, that the win-loss coin, for whatever reason (injuries, fatigue...) has found a new balance and the team isn't as good as it was previously? Sure, that's possible too. But a 10-game patch of poor play and bad luck is a classic example of small sample size. Teams, like batters, slump.

Additionally, you can argue that it's 'luck' that the bases were loaded when a bad play was made by the defender, but that's very different than saying that the bad play was a result of luck.

I disagree. Luck, or rather, probability, figures into the offensive side too. As far as I know, there's no recorded stat for individual BA with bases loaded, but let's pretend there is and that Ortiz's BAwBL (pron. "bauble") is an amazing .500. Half the time he's going to make an out. Again, flip a coin. (Let's ignore the fact that with the bases loaded you don't have to get a hit to drive in a run.) If Ortiz comes up 10 times in two weeks and doesn't drive in a run, what does that mean going forward? Nothing more than flipping a coin 10 times and it coming up tails means anything about the result of the next coin toss. Probability.

Unless you think that Red Sox players are somehow psychologically spooked when batting with the bases loaded, then the stretch of bases-loaded squanders, though painful to watch, is probably a good thing going forward. Although, like a coin toss, the bad stretch doesn't predict a better results going forward, in the long run, the coin will come up heads 50% of the time and this team will hit better than .223 with the bases loaded.

Does losing 13 of the last 20 games mean that the true Red Sox talent level is a .350 win percentage? No, but it also doesn't mean that they are truly as good as they looked before this bad/unlucky stretch.

Agreed. At one point, the Sox looked like a 95-win team. Recently, the've looked like an 85-win team. They'll probably end up somewhere in the middle. Whether that's 89, 90 or 91 wins, I dunno. That's why they play the games.

 

[dhappy42]

One more thing. What I said about being succinct? Forget I said that.

 

[MtPleasant Paul]

Twelve years ago today the Sox were 63-50 and 9 and 1/2 games out of first place. Terry Francona's job was as much in danger as John Farrell's today. Seems to me that there was an ownership intervention around this time with Terry. They finished at 98-64 and picked up six and a half games, against the Yankees no less, before advancing to the postseason and their trip to glory.

This is a very discouraging team that hasn't played well lately, but there is plenty of talent here just as there was in 2004 and the competition isn't as tough.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Twelve years ago today the Sox were 63-50 and 9 and 1/2 games out of first place. Terry Francona's job was as much in danger as John Farrell's today. Seems to me that there was an ownership intervention around this time with Terry. They finished at 98-64 and picked up six and a half games, against the Yankees no less, before advancing to the postseason and their trip to glory.

This is a very discouraging team that hasn't played well lately, but there is plenty of talent here just as there was in 2004 and the competition isn't as tough.

The 2004 team was all veterans and this one has a lot of kids who could wear down, make some rookie mistakes that hurt, etc. In fact, the mix this year is probably too heavy on the kid side, which is great for years to come, but may be what's making them run out of gas now.

 

[pokey_reese]

Thanks for not doing the internet-thing and assuming the worst. If I've mixed up your points with some others, I apologize. I'm sick in bed with a summer cold and probably mashed up my response a little. (This also explains, but doesn't excuse, my rambling. I'll try to be more succinct.)

I'm sure I have, but this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?

"...this is a baseball fan board, not a academic forum, am I right?" Apparently not. ;^)

Seriously, I agree with you. But allow me to (over)simplify the probability problem, as it relates to my (and your?) point.

Let's say the Red Sox win-loss probability could be made into a coin. Flip the coin at home and there's a 60% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. Flip the coin on the road and there's a 54% chance it'll turn up heads, a win. The fact that the last 10 times you flipped the coin it came up tails six times does not mean anything going forward. It's not predictive. That's just as true if the last ten times you flipped the coin it came up tails every time. Basic rule of probability, but very counter-intuitive.

Does it make fans think the Sox aren't really a .570 team? Sure. "What have you done for me lately?" Might the 4-6 rough patch (12-14 since the ASG) be a signal that something's changed, that the win-loss coin, for whatever reason (injuries, fatigue...) has found a new balance and the team isn't as good as it was previously? Sure, that's possible too. But a 10-game patch of poor play and bad luck is a classic example of small sample size. Teams, like batters, slump.

I disagree. Luck, or rather, probability, figures into the offensive side too. As far as I know, there's no recorded stat for individual BA with bases loaded, but let's pretend there is and that Ortiz's BAwBL (pron. "bauble") is an amazing .500. Half the time he's going to make an out. Again, flip a coin. (Let's ignore the fact that with the bases loaded you don't have to get a hit to drive in a run.) If Ortiz comes up 10 times in two weeks and doesn't drive in a run, what does that mean going forward? Nothing more than flipping a coin 10 times and it coming up tails means anything about the result of the next coin toss. Probability.

Unless you think that Red Sox players are somehow psychologically spooked when batting with the bases loaded, then the stretch of bases-loaded squanders, though painful to watch, is probably a good thing going forward. Although, like a coin toss, the bad stretch doesn't predict a better results going forward, in the long run, the coin will come up heads 50% of the time and this team will hit better than .223 with the bases loaded.

Agreed. At one point, the Sox looked like a 95-win team. Recently, the've looked like an 85-win team. They'll probably end up somewhere in the middle. Whether that's 89, 90 or 91 wins, I dunno. That's why they play the games.

I totally get where you are coming from, and far from assuming the worst, I appreciate that you are trying to take a reasoned approach, and I hope that you get well soon. What probably comes off as pedantic is just me trying to be informative, but for a guy who says that this isn't an academic forum, it sure seems like you are trying to bait me into a discussion about probability...

...And I will totally bite. The coin flip analogy doesn't work in the example you are using it for. Basically, you are correct that the coin flip doesn't care about prior outcomes, and doesn't depend on them in any way. This allows us to always know that the probability of heads will be 50%. With Ortiz though, it doesn't work quite the same way, and not the way that you describe. While the outcomes of his previous ABs don't have any effect on the outcome of his next potential AB, they DO have an effect on our ability to estimate the probabilities of those outcomes. You also want to separate the bases loaded part, because that looks like a conditional probability from the outcome sense, but we know that it isn't predictive. The Ortiz example you cite isn't the same as a coin flip because we actually know the probability is a 50/50 split with the coin, whereas with the hitter we have a Bayesian prior essentially, of knowing that Ortiz is a basically a .290ish hitter overall, so the probability of his getting a hit in any situation is about 3/10, not 1/2 (for the record, you can look up BA w/ bases loaded, like here: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?id=ortizda01&year=Career&t=b and see that Ortiz is a career .353 hitter with the bases loaded). Just because something can have a probability of 50%, that doesn't mean that the underlying mechanics of the 'luck' is the same as with a coin flip.

However, I'm then going to jump back and agree with you that the squanders are in fact indicative of a good thing, namely having people on base, and not some underlying inability to hit in clutch situations, masked by small sample.Teams with high on base percentages have the highest strand rate and double play rate, simple as that. That's why in a regression model, double plays are actually a positive predictor of runs scored, because it just means that you have runners on first for more ABs, even if the outcome is bad. The higher probability of one particular bad outcome is thus actually a good thing, because it includes a conditional that even more often leads to a good outcome, i.e. the man on 1st scores.

As for record and eschewing small sample size, with nothing other than game results included we would say the Sox are an 87-88 win team over the course of the season. We know, however, that some variants of nth-order runs scored/allowed can be slightly more predictive than raw record, so you can use something like pythag if you want, but with the number of games left it should, as you say, be something in the realm of 85-90 wins. The other thing though, is that in that situation you are assuming the same roster moving forward as the one that scored/allowed the runs that have been booked to this point, which isn't necessarily true, largely due to injuries.

 

[nvalvo]

The 2004 team was all veterans and this one has a lot of kids who could wear down, make some rookie mistakes that hurt, etc. In fact, the mix this year is probably too heavy on the kid side, which is great for years to come, but may be what's making them run out of gas now.

While I hear you, one of the biggest differences between the first half and the second half is .400 points of OPS from David Ortiz. 1.107 in his first 81 G, .678 in 23 G since.

(Also the bullpen is imploding.)

 

[dhappy42]

I totally get where you are coming from, and far from assuming the worst, I appreciate that you are trying to take a reasoned approach, and I hope that you get well soon. What probably comes off as pedantic is just me trying to be informative, but for a guy who says that this isn't an academic forum, it sure seems like you are trying to bait me into a discussion about probability...

Uh oh. I've stepped in it now. I used to understand Bayesian probability... never mind. I take your points. When I wrote "(over)simplified probability" I meant it. And thanks for the pointer to situational batting stats. I knew they were out there. I'd seen them, but couldn't locate them today. (Cough, cough. Sigh.)

You put the "squanders are a good thing" much better than I did. Thanks. And yeah, 87-88 wins is about right, plus or minus. Again, that's why they play the games instead of adding up team WAR on Opening Day and proceed directly to the playoffs. Also, yes, rosters aren't fixed. Even if they were, players get hurt, tired, disgruntled, distracted, inspired, whatever. I'm reasonably sure that the Sox players don't pay much attention to the negativity, but I'd put it on the "distraction" side of the ledger, not the "inspiration" side.

 

[AB in DC]

This. It's always best to put more weight on recent performance and less on older. They might've been great in May...who gives a shit? They're bad now, they've been bad for a good long time and there are zero signs they're going to snap out of it.

Building on this --

Per Fangraphs, in the second half so far, the Sox offense is:

5th in the AL in WAR (2.9)
5th in the AL in wOBA (.320)
t7th in the AL in wRC+ (95)

 

[dhappy42]

Building on this --

Per Fangraphs, in the second half so far, the Sox offense is:

5th in the AL in WAR (2.9)
5th in the AL in wOBA (.320)
t7th in the AL in wRC+ (95)

In other words, not great, but not bad. Pitching, on the other hand...

7th in ERA (3.81)
9th in WHIP (1.29)
3rd in FIP (3.78) -- Jays FIP is 3.79

The thing that jumps out of the second-half pitching stats on Fangraphs, though, is that the Jays starting pitching has been phenomenal.
W/L = 11-7
ERA = 2.57 (1st in AL. 2nd is Tigers 3.30)
WHIP = 1.12 (1st in AL. 2nd is Tigers 1.17)

And that our bullpen has sucked. (Don't need stats to know that.)
W/L = 4-7 and 5 blown saves
ERA = 4.07 (11th in AL)
WHIP = 1.39 (13th in AL)

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Under what premise is MLB allowing the Tigers to schedule Thursday's game at 1:00 EDT?

Tigers are at home the night before. Red Sox need to finish a night game in Baltimore and then travel to Detroit to open a series 14 hours after the O's game ends, 5 or 6 of those hours probably spent travelling.

I mean, could the Red Sox do that to any team they wanted? (I guess a team that had to travel after a Sunday game to a Patriot's Day game is analogous, but it would also need to be a Sunday night game)

 

[RedOctober3829]

Under what premise is MLB allowing the Tigers to schedule Thursday's game at 1:00 EDT?

Tigers are at home the night before. Red Sox need to finish a night game in Baltimore and then travel to Detroit and play 14 hours after the O's game ends, 5 or 6 of those hours probably spent travelling.

I mean, could the Red Sox do that to any team they wanted? (I guess a team that had to travel after a Sunday game to a Patriot's Day game is analogous, but it would also need to be a Sunday night game)

The Patriots Day scenario almost never happens that way either. They usually play a 4-game series with a team from Friday-Monday. This day game on Thursday is bullshit. Their website lists Thursday as "Grandparents Day". Is this a nod to older people and them not being able to stay up through a night game?

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Maybe the Sox should designate every home-home series opener as "Camp Day" throughout the summer and start at noon...and then every home-home Sunday as "Keep it Cool Sunday Day" and start at 8:00.

That's the ticket.

 

[dhappy42]

I live outside Detroit. Tigers Thursday home games (all six of them this season) are all day games with 1:08 pm start times. It's been that way for the six years I've lived here. It's kind of nice, fan-wise. I like playing hooky and taking in a weekday day game. Might go see the Sox at Comerica this Thursday.

 

[Sampo Gida]

The 2004 team was all veterans and this one has a lot of kids who could wear down, make some rookie mistakes that hurt, etc. In fact, the mix this year is probably too heavy on the kid side, which is great for years to come, but may be what's making them run out of gas now.

I'm not sure age has much to do with how a team finishes. In 2011 that was a fairly veteran team that collapsed. In 1967 a very young team had a great finish. I know in the Bronx fans there believe age is more a factor in wearing down late in the season.

I really think its more about health than anything. Many slumps are due to a physical ailment a player plays through, and old and young alike can get injured. Not all slumps are injury related of course. Sometimes regression is a factor, maybe this team just was not as good as they looked during their winning streak, which happened during a favorable stretch in the schedule.

 

[dhappy42]

I'm not sure age has much to do with how a team finishes. In 2011 that was a fairly veteran team that collapsed. In 1967 a very young team had a great finish. I know in the Bronx fans there believe age is more a factor in wearing down late in the season.

I really think its more about health than anything. Many slumps are due to a physical ailment a player plays through, and old and young alike can get injured. Not all slumps are injury related of course. Sometimes regression is a factor, maybe this team just was not as good as they looked during their winning streak, which happened during a favorable stretch in the schedule.

The good news is that after Detroit, there's another favorable stretch in the schedule coming up, 16 games against TB, KC, Oakland and San Diego.

 

[simplicio]

The good news is that after Detroit, there's another favorable stretch in the schedule coming up, 16 games against TB, KC, Oakland and San Diego.

Given how they've played against Tampa this year I hesitate to call that favorable until I see wins.

 

[dhappy42]

Given how they've played against Tampa this year I hesitate to call that favorable until I see wins.

I suppose, but I'd say a 16-game stretch against teams with a combined win pct of .440 is about as favorable as you could hope for.