Outs at Home 2017

[chrisfont9]

Very interesting comments on this subject from Bradley and especially Betts:
http://nesn.com/2017/08/red-sox-notes-mookie-betts-has-message-for-doubters-after-walk-off-win/

They seem to be hearing the criticism (!) and pushing back that this is who they are. Quantitatively you can analyze these situations and decide that the risk is generally not worth it relative to the odds of scoring without the aggressive approach, but these guys still have to play the game, and it sounds like what they're saying is that this is part of their collective personality. If a few outs on the bases is the cost of seeing a team that plays this hard all the way through to the end, and puts opponents under pressure, then a) it sounds like it might be worth the risk after all, and b) they're going to keep playing this way no matter what we conclude.

 

[dwainw]

Also thought it was a great send. One would think the minimum safe chance to be around 30% to make it a good play. Obviously based on what the next guy's chance is of driving him in.

While I agree it was a good send, how does one calculate this when you have to factor in what kind of a jump the runner got, his speed, the quality of the outfielder's arm, etc? It looked very much like a solid throw and catch--not great--would have gotten Bradley, even with him getting a good jump and having good speed. So success of the play ultimately relied mostly on a poor throw.

Meanwhile, Bradley explicitly said he was going on anything hit off the wall no matter what (even prior to the 3 - 2 count), which would indicate....

they're going to keep playing this way no matter what we conclude

....math be damned.

 

[rajendra82]

....math be damned.

But I will still do the math.

Jackie holds at third base: Sox bat with two outs in the ninth, first and third, and game tied = 0.647 Sox win probability

Jackie tries and out at home: Cards bat in the top of the 10th, nobody on, and game tied = 0.522 Sox win probability

Jackie tries and safe at home: Walkoff = 1.000 Sox win probability

Given these odds, send JBJ if you think he can make it 27 percent of the time

 

[Reverend]

Very interesting comments on this subject from Bradley and especially Betts:
http://nesn.com/2017/08/red-sox-notes-mookie-betts-has-message-for-doubters-after-walk-off-win/

They seem to be hearing the criticism (!) and pushing back that this is who they are. Quantitatively you can analyze these situations and decide that the risk is generally not worth it relative to the odds of scoring without the aggressive approach, but these guys still have to play the game, and it sounds like what they're saying is that this is part of their collective personality. If a few outs on the bases is the cost of seeing a team that plays this hard all the way through to the end, and puts opponents under pressure, then a) it sounds like it might be worth the risk after all, and b) they're going to keep playing this way no matter what we conclude.

I took something very different from this: It sounds to me like an attempt to rally the players around a strategy they're getting from the FO.

Farrell has explained at some length how the difficulties in getting buy in for the new ideas and described as well how they go about getting it. Mookie's comments sounds very much like the kind of ways they tried to get the message to players--this sounds very specifically like the conversations with players about getting them (and especially pitchers) to go along with the shift in that it's easier for players to remember when it fails than when it works.

My takeaway was: 1) The Red Sox have numbers that they believe support more aggressive base running and are happy--and/or expect to be happy--with their net runs they've calculated based on the approach; 2) Mookie is moving to a greater position of leadership on the team.

These are both potentially very promising things.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Reverend
You are right, but it's the coaching staff's strategy.
'Buy in' on base running was written about in SI/Tom Verducci in Spring Training.
Here is his talk with Pedroia>>

TOM VERDUCCI
Wednesday March 15th, 2017
FORT MYERS, Fla.—Life for the Red Sox without David Ortiz requires group therapy. Nearly every spring training morning, coach Brian Butterfield assembles the players to impress upon them the little virtues of team play by reviewing the previous game with a humorous touch. These sessions are designed to establish the culture of having the right culture, which is why they are known in Red Sox camp as “Culture Culture.”

“I can’t even tell you how funny they are,” second baseman Dustin Pedroia said. “You have to hear it. It’s hilarious. It’s out of control. He’s talking about things that build an environment, but he’s doing it in a way so that guys with zero attention span listen. He’s accomplishing things that are tough. It’s pretty cool. There’s a 100% buy-in. There’s nobody walking away like, ‘How about that rah-rah guy?’ No, no. That’s why he’s the best at what he does.”

Here’s how it works: Players are acknowledged with a raised right fist for smart plays and hustle plays. (You might also see the salute during a game, for instance after a batter moves a runner to third with no outs.) Dumb mistakes, or just silly ones, merit a raised left fist and a word best left unsaid here. It’s a combination of the Instructional League, the old kangaroo court and a night at the Improv. First base coach Ruben Amaro, for instance, gets needled nearly every day, from something he said to the way he wore his uniform.

“Nobody ever credits guys for doing the right thing on the field,” Pedroia said about the way baseball is typically viewed. “If you play well, everybody just high fives you and that’s it. You score a run, high five everyone and that’s it. The next day they talk about, ‘Hey, that guy hit good yesterday.’

“Okay, but hey, first and third, a guy hits a routine double play ball, but the guy on first got his butt down the line and slid hard into second, and the guy running didn’t shut it down. He ran his ass off and beat the play. We get a run, we keep the inning alive. Then he reads the ball in the dirt, gets to second, [there’s a] base hit. We got two runs on hustle plays—and they’re not in the box score. They’re never written about.

“We want everybody to know the reason we won the game. It’s not because of Hanley [Ramirez's]’s three-run home run. It was because Christian Vazquez slid in and had a good secondary [lead] and got on the second baseman to cause the throw to be up the line for the inning to continue. That’s how we won. We didn’t win because Hanley hit a three-run homer.

“And yeah, guys buy into that, because that’s important. Maybe Vazquez went 0-for-4. Maybe he reached on an error. Maybe he’s feeling like [garbage]. But our coach, our team goes, ‘The only we won the game was because of you, and you didn’t do anything in the box score—you’re irrelevant there—but you won us the game.’”

 

[soxeast]

Very interesting comments on this subject from Bradley and especially Betts:
http://nesn.com/2017/08/red-sox-notes-mookie-betts-has-message-for-doubters-after-walk-off-win/

They seem to be hearing the criticism (!) and pushing back that this is who they are. Quantitatively you can analyze these situations and decide that the risk is generally not worth it relative to the odds of scoring without the aggressive approach, but these guys still have to play the game, and it sounds like what they're saying is that this is part of their collective personality. If a few outs on the bases is the cost of seeing a team that plays this hard all the way through to the end, and puts opponents under pressure, then a) it sounds like it might be worth the risk after all, and b) they're going to keep playing this way no matter what we conclude.

Usuually teams / players love the "us against the world."

Reverend
You are right, but it's the coaching staff's strategy.
'Buy in' on base running was written about in SI/Tom Verducci in Spring Training.
Here is his talk with Pedroia>>

TOM VERDUCCI
Wednesday March 15th, 2017
FORT MYERS, Fla.—Life for the Red Sox without David Ortiz requires group therapy. Nearly every spring training morning, coach Brian Butterfield assembles the players to impress upon them the little virtues of team play by reviewing the previous game with a humorous touch. These sessions are designed to establish the culture of having the right culture, which is why they are known in Red Sox camp as “Culture Culture.”

“I can’t even tell you how funny they are,” second baseman Dustin Pedroia said. “You have to hear it. It’s hilarious. It’s out of control. He’s talking about things that build an environment, but he’s doing it in a way so that guys with zero attention span listen. He’s accomplishing things that are tough. It’s pretty cool. There’s a 100% buy-in. There’s nobody walking away like, ‘How about that rah-rah guy?’ No, no. That’s why he’s the best at what he does.”

Here’s how it works: Players are acknowledged with a raised right fist for smart plays and hustle plays. (You might also see the salute during a game, for instance after a batter moves a runner to third with no outs.) Dumb mistakes, or just silly ones, merit a raised left fist and a word best left unsaid here. It’s a combination of the Instructional League, the old kangaroo court and a night at the Improv. First base coach Ruben Amaro, for instance, gets needled nearly every day, from something he said to the way he wore his uniform.

“Nobody ever credits guys for doing the right thing on the field,” Pedroia said about the way baseball is typically viewed. “If you play well, everybody just high fives you and that’s it. You score a run, high five everyone and that’s it. The next day they talk about, ‘Hey, that guy hit good yesterday.’

“Okay, but hey, first and third, a guy hits a routine double play ball, but the guy on first got his butt down the line and slid hard into second, and the guy running didn’t shut it down. He ran his ass off and beat the play. We get a run, we keep the inning alive. Then he reads the ball in the dirt, gets to second, [there’s a] base hit. We got two runs on hustle plays—and they’re not in the box score. They’re never written about.

“We want everybody to know the reason we won the game. It’s not because of Hanley [Ramirez's]’s three-run home run. It was because Christian Vazquez slid in and had a good secondary [lead] and got on the second baseman to cause the throw to be up the line for the inning to continue. That’s how we won. We didn’t win because Hanley hit a three-run homer.

“And yeah, guys buy into that, because that’s important. Maybe Vazquez went 0-for-4. Maybe he reached on an error. Maybe he’s feeling like [garbage]. But our coach, our team goes, ‘The only we won the game was because of you, and you didn’t do anything in the box score—you’re irrelevant there—but you won us the game.’”

IMO this is a "no big deal" post. I even hear announcers when I watch other games speak of good plays that aren't just "home runs."

 

[soxeast]

I took something very different from this: It sounds to me like an attempt to rally the players around a strategy they're getting from the FO.

Farrell has explained at some length how the difficulties in getting buy in for the new ideas and described as well how they go about getting it. Mookie's comments sounds very much like the kind of ways they tried to get the message to players--this sounds very specifically like the conversations with players about getting them (and especially pitchers) to go along with the shift in that it's easier for players to remember when it fails than when it works.

My takeaway was: 1) The Red Sox have numbers that they believe support more aggressive base running and are happy--and/or expect to be happy--with their net runs they've calculated based on the approach; 2) Mookie is moving to a greater position of leadership on the team.

These are both potentially very promising things.

My take is a negative and a positive. They are rallying against the media (and at fans too - fans like me.) which could bring them closer. But conversely coming out publicly and all but suggesting running into dumb out because you are aggressive is never a good thing. Just because one is aggressive and takes an aggressive approach throughout doesn't mean it is smart. There are times to be aggressive. times not to be. Not just blindly be one way. My issue with their philosophy is that it too often blindly excuses dumb play.

 

[joe dokes]

Even when Farrell says publicly that he applauds the aggressiveness, if it's truly a dumb play, do you doubt that there's some discussion about it with the player?

If you're waiting for him to rip a player publicly, it won't happen.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Soxeast
Imagine Butter waving our catcher last night on a ball Hicks scooped in shallow center.
Aggressive approach. Paid dividends.

 

[soxeast]

Even when Farrell says publicly that he applauds the aggressiveness, if it's truly a dumb play, do you doubt that there's some discussion about it with the player?

If you're waiting for him to rip a player publicly, it won't happen.

I'm not so sure he does. If he did, maybe we don't hear Nunez or Mookie or Bradley make the comments they've recently made. Not one time do I hear a player say in some manner "we have to be smarter." Unless you have some quotes that say it? Anyways, last year do you recall how Hanley early in the season ran through a stop sign and scored? Afterwards he and Butter were laughing. What happened after that? Hanley ran past him several more times only to be gunned down. He still does it now but not as blatant/as often after he did it the 1st time. I don't believe Farrell went after him until several more times - that eh felt "enough is enough." . By his silence, he "encouraged" Hanley to keep it up is my take. The fact Farrell's assistant coach laughed with Hanley about it, imo it encouraged Hanley to be more aggressive. This overall undermines "smart baseball." Overall- agree? The point is Hanley "continued" to do it until several more times it became extremely obvious he was making dumb decisions. Right from the start, do you think Farrell spoke to Hanley that his decisions were dumb? I don't because Hanley continued with that behavior several times after.

Secondly, when you say "rip," what does that mean? If John Farrell were to say something like - "we have to be smarter as a team in picking our spots for aggression," is that "ripping?" He never has said anything near that but when Bradley or Hanley forgets the outs (recently) - he has no problem saying we need to be smarter/more aware. We've been thrown out 64 times as a team right now? You mean if he says "we need to be smarter" - that would classify as "ripping" but it's not "ripping" when he mentions players forgetting outs - that they shouldn't?

 

[soxeast]

Soxeast
Imagine Butter waving our catcher last night on a ball Hicks scooped in shallow center.
Aggressive approach. Paid dividends.

bestgame.
If he got thrown out it would have been a bang bang play.

MUCH MUCH MUCH different than sending runners when there is little to no chance.

You can't be right all the time-- but 64 times this year-- you don't think many weren't just plain ignorant?

 

[DJnVa]

bestgame.
If he got thrown out it would have been a bang bang play.

MUCH MUCH MUCH different than sending runners when there is little to no chance.

You can't be right all the time-- but 64 times this year-- you don't think many weren't just plain ignorant?

Ignorant? Like the coach doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of the players, but thought it would just be fun?

 

[BestGameEvah]

Ignorant? Like the coach doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of the players, but thought it would just be fun?

You're right.
Gomes came in to work w/ WEEI the night Mookie ran through a STOP sign.
He said post game: When Butter tells you to stop, it's because he has gone through a pile of scouting reports 3 feet high post game. Listen to him.
He'll never blame a runner, but deflect any criticism to himself. Buying in.

 

[soxeast]

Ignorant? Like the coach doesn't know the strengths and weaknesses of the players, but thought it would just be fun?

So does this mean the coach never made a mistake ever because he knows/follows the correct path of strengths and weaknesses all the time? So for example you must assume bringing in Kelly once he's come back from his injury in high pressure situations instead of using Workman for example is someone who makes sound decisions of "strengths and weaknesses?"

Two nights ago wasn't Eck saying "why is Scott still in there" when he was pitching to Hicks, only to have Scott wind up hitting Hicks? What if you agreed with Eck? What would you be thinking of John's decision to leave Scott in?

We've also heard John Farrell at times mention he blundered (after the fact with certain moves) - yet the way you seem to imply that we can't question his philosophy yet we know he's made some dumb individual moves? If he has made some big time blunder moves - what would make his philosophy immune to criticism? Unless you think John Farrell is perfect?

I'm not an "all-in basher" of John Farrell but to be honest I believe he is a sub-par manager and I do want him fired. OFC I understand in general no way he can be fired if team is successful in any manner after the playoffs. SO obviously I am rooting for him. And I think some posters get sick and tired of the bashing of John Farrell and just don't want to hear it any more. Sometimes I feel it gets too much too.

But I do think for example John is incredibly stubborn. Last year IMO it was obvious Ross should have been used more early on instead John used Taz a lot (overused a bit) in 2015. Then last year when Ross should have been used early John over-used Taz. At the end of the year he was done but John kept trying to bring him back even though he over-used him from the start. This is testament to John's stubbornness. In order to undue his stubbornness. he needs to "get hit in the head over and over and over and over" before he'll change. In the beginning of the year the sox hit into a lot of double plays. Yet we knew we'd have to run more to start the season. He reacted quicker in this scenario but he had to get hit over and over before he did more hit and runs etc.

IMO right now he is doing what "he is." He is a stubborn coach and if his philosophy is wrong (which I think uber-aggressive baserunning which he is doing-- ie not caring about running into those particular outs that have little chance for success) which I believe it is, he's going to continue to be stupid about it. Because as I said he is stubborn. It has little to do with strengths and weaknesses but more with stubbornness. As a result, I hate the uber-aggressive approach he is doing. And I think without a doubt he is a stubborn manager to a fault. SO I am going to be negative with him on this subject.

Thus to answer your "fun comment>" It has nothing to do with fun. It has to do with a manger that is too stubborn and imo not very good. It's his philosophy that is flawed which comes back to he just isn't a very good manager.

 

[joe dokes]

ie not caring about running into those particular outs that have little chance for success

That's a new one. That he doesn't care about the outs. OTOH--it can't be disproven ("have you ever seen him care? I haven't."), so it's likely correct.

 

[BestGameEvah]

Right on Cue, Michael Silverstein tweets story about Butterfield:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2017/08/silverman_red_sox_have_a_plan_behind_their_aggressive_baserunning

 

[soxeast]

You're right.
Gomes came in to work w/ WEEI the night Mookie ran through a STOP sign.
He said post game: When Butter tells you to stop, it's because he has gone through a pile of scouting reports 3 feet high post game. Listen to him.
He'll never blame a runner, but deflect any criticism to himself. Buying in.

I don't agree with your implication about "blame." If a runner such as Hanley continues to run past Butter's stop signs in the manner Hanley did, it may not be Butter who will complain, but sooner or later - someone would. As you say- he has scouting reports "3 feet high." He is taking the time to evaluate. To ignore those the way Hanley was doing, was just plain silly/unacceptable. Yet afterwards we see he and Butter laughing it up. What kind of message did you think that sent to Hanley?

Show me the scouting reports two nights ago that a pitcher like Scott who has been struggling so much with his control was a good matchup vs Hicks vs other alternatives? What type of scouting reports are out there to put Kelly in - in high leverage situations after coming back from injury instead of using planning on using Workman more?

When John has had "3 pages of scouting reports" - we have seen him ignore them too. I still remember Nelson Cruz was a sox killer and having super years and John choosing to pitch to him instead of letting the next batter who wasn't near as dangerous. Afterwards he admitted he made a mistake. He went with his gut. Not the scouting reports. Right now imo John is just going with combination of gut and stubbornness by encouraging his team to run on certain plays that have little chance of success.

 

[soxeast]

That's a new one. That he doesn't care about the outs. OTOH--it can't be disproven ("have you ever seen him care? I haven't."), so it's likely correct.

Really? Ask yourself are you being honest with my post? IMO it's clear you aren't. Does John Farrell care if he puts in Kimbrel and Kimbrel blows a game? If I say he he doesn't care - you would blast me for that?

OFC he doesn't care. I would support him for "not caring." His philosophy and 99.999999% of the entire population on the planet agree that "the philosophy of Kimbrel as the closer" or "high leverage" is absolutely right. Therefore he "won't care" if he blows a rare game.

OFC what you just did to my post is pretty rotten. You deliberately mis-characterized my post. Way to go buddy.

 

[DJnVa]

So does this mean the coach never made a mistake ever because he knows/follows the correct path of strengths and weaknesses all the time? So for example you must assume bringing in Kelly once he's come back from his injury in high pressure situations instead of using Workman for example is someone who makes sound decisions of "strengths and weaknesses?"

Two nights ago wasn't Eck saying "why is Scott still in there" when he was pitching to Hicks, only to have Scott wind up hitting Hicks? What if you agreed with Eck? What would you be thinking of John's decision to leave Scott in?

None of what you posted means the coach was "ignorant". That was your word. It was a specific meaning. Defend it.

Also, you can respond to multiple posts in one reply.

 

[soxeast]

Right on Cue, Michael Silverstein tweets story about Butterfield:
http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2017/08/silverman_red_sox_have_a_plan_behind_their_aggressive_baserunning

You're right. On cue with that poster that mis-represented my post when I spoke of the SOx "philosophy" while he tried to imply some other meaning. Isn't what Butter is saying here that he doesn't really care when the article says the following?

"So if there is a sound reason to run and 100 percent effort involved in a baserunning out, the Red Sox are fine with it."

Now from the link above - below the quotes from the article is my huge problem. I brought up an example last year of Butter laughing with Hanley after he ran past stop signs. Butter like anyone else - all of us can be wrong. Butter was certainly wrong with how he yucked it up with Hanley. Butter I'm sure he'll agree he has made some bad decisions sending the runners.

In addition we have many views on how we perceive things. For example, a poster on this thread replied to me by trying to downplay Hicks arm because of his low number of putouts. Butter isn't doing that. And another poster on this thread replied to me by suggesting that the throw in throw from left-field to home wasn't that deep because Bradley and others made the same throw to home. Yet Butter from the quotes below seems to suggest the throw was very deep from left field to 3rd, never mind what that poster replied to me that Hicks could have thrown to home. From the below quotes below - isn't Butter telling us / implying heavily that home would be no shot?

But the main point is - we've seen Butter make wrong decisions, We've seen John make wrong decisions. They are number 1 in being thrown out by a wide margin. We all speculate on batting orders and who we would bring in. I'd be surprised last year if there weren't heavy discussions on the bullpen etc. But what if you think a certain philosophy or batting order or who the 8th inning guy is -- is really dumb? So what happens if this reckless running costs us a playoff series? Some of you would come back and say "You weren't complaining during the season. . ." IMO - just as well have opinions on batting orders -w ho to trade whether we need a power bat vs a good bat but defensive player etc-- the philosophy of uber-aggressiveness is wrong.

I 100% agree "if there is sound reasoning behind some moves." For example I have not complained about Holt being picked off. But I think the below philosophy of Butter is flawed. For example they make it a point "they went to replay." yeah-- John Farrell went to replay because it was late and he was desperate. But at least my view the play wasn't close. DO we really think John was being told that Nunez was safe? IMO by them bringing that the play "had to be replayed" is obviously a desperate attempt to justify the terrible decision. The fact that the replay is being used to mean that the play was close imo is laughable.

This flawed philosophy of uber-aggressive baserunning is one of several point s of why I prefer John to be ultimately fired. OFC the more we win I'm happy. But this is a case in point (on cue) why I want a new manager in the future. A better manager imo will not go along with this silly philosophy which if Butter were to have a different manager with a different view, I wouldn't be surprised that he change his tune. Right now he is marching to John's philosophy. He's not going to openly oppose it. Below are the quotes from the article and Butter which are in part reasons why ultimately John should go.


"But even the most notable outs — like Eduardo Nunez’ ill-fated, ninth-inning attempt to advance from second to third on a fly ball hit to cannon-armed Yankees left fielder Aaron Hicks on the most recent road trip — aren’t really bottom-line a failure.

They are not reckless.

“We’re going to keep doing it,” Butterfield said. “People might not understand this much. This region is so great because the fans are so passionate, and I’m sure some of them are sitting there saying, ‘What’s going on?’ They can trust that we address things that if we feel like it might be . . . even though we don’t use the term, I will use the term reckless . . . if we feel like it’s assertive, we talk to them and we talk to them calmly.

“For me, Eduardo Nunez tried to tag on one of the best arms in baseball in left field. I wanted to bring some people out to Yankee Stadium that were saying that was ridiculous. I wanted to stand them in left field to where he was standing, and I wanted them to look at third base. I don’t care if you’re Roberto Clemente, that’s a long ways away, and he has to execute perfectly. It took a cannon shot, an unbelievable pick and tag by (third baseman) Todd Frazier, and they had to take it to replay."

 

[soxeast]

None of what you posted means the coach was "ignorant". That was your word. It was a specific meaning. Defend it.

Also, you can respond to multiple posts in one reply.

Running into outs with little chance of success and defending it with an overall philosophy that "they are fine with it" IS IGNORANT.

Laughing it up with Hanley after he ran past a stop sign early in season - IS IGNORANT.

 

[Al Zarilla]

Running into outs with little chance of success and defending it with an overall philosophy that "they are fine with it" IS IGNORANT.

Laughing it up with Hanley after he ran past a stop sign early in season - IS IGNORANT.

 

[joe dokes]

Butter was certainly wrong with how he yucked it up with Hanley.

So what should he have done?

Shunned him?
Laughed AT hm instead of WITH him?
Dunce cap?
Jumped up and down like Earl Weaver going after Ron Luciano?
Put him in a chair "Clockwork Orange"-like and made him watch videos of baserunning blunders until he puked, while "Sweet Caroline" plays in a continuous loop?


The only thing that's certain is your certainty.

 

[soxeast]

So what should he have done?

Shunned him?
Laughed AT hm instead of WITH him?
Dunce cap?
Jumped up and down like Earl Weaver going after Ron Luciano?
Put him in a chair "Clockwork Orange"-like and made him watch videos of baserunning blunders until he puked, while "Sweet Caroline" plays in a continuous loop?


The only thing that's certain is your certainty.

Not laugh WITH him? Don't you understand? You laugh with him -- you are telling him what he's doing is okay.

Then behind closed doors tell him what he did was not acceptable. It's not rocket science.

 

[rajendra82]

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox/2017/08/silverman_red_sox_have_a_plan_behind_their_aggressive_baserunning

 

[joe dokes]

Not laugh WITH him? Don't you understand? You laugh with him -- you are telling him what he's doing is okay.

Then behind closed doors tell him what he did was not acceptable. It's not rocket science.

Apparently I don't understand, since yukking it up is "certainly wrong."

 

[soxeast]

Apparently I don't understand, since yukking it up is "certainly wrong."

Okay-- you don't understand. I do . . .

 

[ledsox]

The running Red Sox are hitting their stride on the bases (with a little help from the Blue Jays).

Reading a Jeff Sullivan article on Fangraphs on Puig, Sullivan mentioned that Fangraphs have recently updated their baserunning stat (BsR) and according to their numbers the Sox are well above average as runners. The BsR stat is based on steals, double plays and advances on the bases.
As a team the Sox now rank 8th in MLB and have 3 of the top 12 base runners (400 PA min.).

Mookie - 3rd at 6.8
X - 5th at 6.6
JBJ - 12th at 4
Benny - 43rd
Moreland - 85th
Hanley - 139 of 154

On a team level the D-backs (16.2) rate #1 while the O's (-14.6) are 30th in MLB. The Sox at #8 (6.2) are just behind the Indians and just ahead of the Yankees on the list.

The base stealing has been excellent. 89 steals ranks 5th in MLB and their success rate of 77% is 6th.

They are holding steady on bases taken with a 68.6% success rate. . 70 outs (worst) / 152 bases taken (3rd).
They are 6th in percent of extra bases taken at 42%.. League average is 39%.

The additions of Devers, Davis and Nunez should only be helping the cause.
Davis has been excellent in his career on the bases (+62). Nuney has been slightly above average and Devers seems to get good reads as long as he keeps his head up.

It also seems to me the Sox have been good at not making the 1st or 3rd out at third base. I remember a few but in total it seems they have this "rule" down..
So despite the 70 outs on the bases (27 at home now) the overall numbers still look good for generating runs. The Sox should run smart but they definitely should keep on running. .

 

[The Gray Eagle]

On the other hand, BP says "By Baseball Prospectus’ Baserunning Runs, the high- scoring 2016 Red Sox were basically average on the bases (0.6 BRR) and this 2017 group is considerably below average (-6.9 BRR)."

 

[ledsox]

On the other hand, BP says "By Baseball Prospectus’ Baserunning Runs, the high- scoring 2016 Red Sox were basically average on the bases (0.6 BRR) and this 2017 group is considerably below average (-6.9 BRR)."

Would be interesting to know how BP does their measurement. I know Fangraphs is revamping some metrics as they have also pulled base running out of wRC+.

As for the article, I agree with the obvious premise that you need a lot more than smart, aggressive running to make an offense go. My point is that the moaning has been overdone (shocker). The fact that the writer points to the logic behind Butter's and the Sox aggressive strategy backs this up.

 

[kazuneko]

So with the season now complete I thought it might be interesting to revisit this discussion, as -at least in my mind- the unique characteristic of this team was their remarkably aggressive base running, and in particular the historic amount of outs on base (OOB) they accrued in the course of the season. While their final total didn't end up cracking the top 5 (since 1930 -I can't find OOB statistics from before 1930), they did have the 3rd most OOB since 1945 and the 6th most since 1930, which almost certainly means that the 2017 Red Sox had the highest total of OOB in franchise history.

Most OOB in a season since 1930:
1.102 (1945 Washington Senators)
2. 92 (2004 Anaheim Angels)
3. 89 (1936 New York Yankees)
4. 85 (1932 Philadelphia A's)
5. 84 (1932 Brooklyn Dodgers)
6. 81 2017 (Boston Red Sox)
7. 80 (1932 St. Louis Cardinals)
8. 80 (1986 San Francisco Giants)

 

[Pitt the Elder]

So with the season now complete I thought it might be interesting to revisit this discussion, as -at least in my mind- the unique characteristic of this team was their remarkably aggressive base running, and in particular the historic amount of outs on base (OOB) they accrued in the course of the season. While their final total didn't end up cracking the top 5 (since 1930 -I can't find OOB statistics from before 1930), they did have the 3rd most OOB since 1945 and the 6th most since 1930, which almost certainly means that the 2017 Red Sox had the highest total of OOB in franchise history.

Most OOB in a season since 1930:
1.102 (1945 Washington Senators)
2. 92 (2004 Anaheim Angels)
3. 89 (1936 New York Yankees)
4. 85 (1932 Philadelphia A's)
5. 84 (1932 Brooklyn Dodgers)
6. 81 2017 (Boston Red Sox)
7. 80 (1932 St. Louis Cardinals)
8. 80 (1986 San Francisco Giants)

Do we have a breakdown of who on the team made the most outs?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Do we have a breakdown of who on the team made the most outs?

Total outs on bases:
Benintendi 11
Ramirez 10
Bogaerts 9
Pedroia 7
Leon, Nunez, Moreland, Young 5
Betts, Vazquez, Bradley, Holt 4
Travis 3
Devers 2
Hernandez, Lin, Marrero 1

 

[dhappy42]

Base running outs are extremely costly. Is there a way to measure the positive value of aggressive base running?

I mean, apart from stolen bases and caught stealing.

 

[Harry Hooper]

Total outs on bases:
Benintendi 11
Ramirez 10
Bogaerts 9
Pedroia 7
Leon, Nunez, Moreland, Young 5
Betts, Vazquez, Bradley, Holt 4
Travis 3
Devers 2
Hernandez, Lin, Marrero 1

Well, there you go. Given how often he's on base, is Betts a phenomenal baserunner or not aggressive enough or both?

 

[BaseballJones]

Base running outs are extremely costly. Is there a way to measure the positive value of aggressive base running?

I mean, apart from stolen bases and caught stealing.

Re; the bolded part.... Outs are outs, which is why people don't get too caught up in strikeouts, right?

And yet... we all know that's not really true. Runner on second, one out, a ground out to second base is a more valuable out than a strikeout or pop out, because along with the out, it gains you an extra base.

If there's nobody on and two outs, an out may have X negative value.

But if you have a runner on second and two outs, and that guy gets thrown out trying to steal third, then yes an out is an out, but this one costs you more because you are also losing a scoring opportunity.

So is there a way, do you know, to look at the value of the various forms of outs from a run expectancy standpoint?

As in....

In the first scenario, how much more valuable is a ground out that advances the runner versus a strikeout or pop out? How big is the gain in run expectancy?

And how much does the out on the bases in the second scenario hurt from a run expectancy standpoint?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Well, there you go. Given how often he's on base, is Betts a phenomenal baserunner or not aggressive enough or both?

I'd say he's a very good runner. He led all of baseball in runs from baserunning with 9 (0 being the average player).

As a team, the Red Sox were better than average in this stat as well at 5. Only Arizona (11), Cleveland (10), Minnesota (8), Texas (8), Kansas City (6) and LA Angels (6) were better.

 

[tims4wins]

Re; the bolded part.... Outs are outs, which is why people don't get too caught up in strikeouts, right?

And yet... we all know that's not really true. Runner on second, one out, a ground out to second base is a more valuable out than a strikeout or pop out, because along with the out, it gains you an extra base.

If there's nobody on and two outs, an out may have X negative value.

But if you have a runner on second and two outs, and that guy gets thrown out trying to steal third, then yes an out is an out, but this one costs you more because you are also losing a scoring opportunity.

So is there a way, do you know, to look at the value of the various forms of outs from a run expectancy standpoint?

As in....

In the first scenario, how much more valuable is a ground out that advances the runner versus a strikeout or pop out? How big is the gain in run expectancy?

And how much does the out on the bases in the second scenario hurt from a run expectancy standpoint?

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

 

[BaseballJones]

http://www.tangotiger.net/re24.html

Thanks T4W. Now I'm curious and will dig into this a little.

 

[charlieoscar]

Base running outs are extremely costly....

Not necessarily. If you have a three-run lead with one out in the bottom of the 8th and you have a runner thrown out trying to take an extra base, that may well have no impact on winning the game, unlike being one run down in the bottom of the 8th with one out and having a runner thrown out trying to stretch. In this latter case would you rather have a runner get thrown out trying to turn a double into a triple, thus having no one one and two out, or have a runner on second with one out?

In order to completely evaluate these plays you need to look at the context of each. Obviously, the third base coach is going to send/stop the runner based on his opinion of the runner's speed and the strength/accuracy of the outfielder's arm. One thing that needs to be looked at (and probably is not readily available) is in the case of off-line throws whether the runner would have beat an accurate throw or not. Also another thing that should be looked at, and is probably not easily available, is by how far was a runner thrown out. Getting tagged out sliding into a base is one thing; getting thrown out by ten feet is another.