99 replies to this topic

[Fratboy]

(Tangentially related to the "Is this team as good as they look?" thread, but it's on page 2, and hasn't been visited for a week, so I'll start anew, I suppose. Feel free to move this there if that thread has some stuff left in the tank.)

Nate Silver from his BP chat yesterday:

mattymatty2000 (Philly, PA): Simple question, but feel free to give as complex an answer as you want: Are the Red Sox this good?

Nate Silver: Guys that are going to cool off: Lowell (a lot); Youkilis (a little, but he's looking like a real power hitter now); Beckett (a little); Wakefield (a lot); Okajima (a lot).

Guys that are going to heat up: Ramirez (a lot), Crisp (maybe), Drew (probably), Matsuzaka (a little).

Right now they're on pace to win 113 games and I don't think they'll sustain that but they haven't been playing that far above their heads; they've had some hot starts but some cold starts too. I think it's probably a 100-102 win team in terms of true talent level.

dokomoy (LA): Does that mean you think they *will* win 100-102 games, or that on paper they're a 100-102 win team?

Nate Silver: I think they have 100-102 win talent but will end up at 103-105 wins because of their hot start.

Not too much of a stretch, but the Nate-ster also think the Mets are the team to beat in the National League:

Mike (NY): The braves need a lot of starting pitching. Do you think they will deal Escobar for a starter and do you think Elvis Andrus will amount to anything?

Nate Silver: The Mets are a 100-win team, so I think Schuerholz is going to survey the wild card race and make an optimal decision. Sorry if that's a lame answer; he's maybe the only GM that I won't pretend to give advice to.

The Red Sox are playing pretty well through what projected to be a brutal month. We can reasonably expect the Yankees to hang tough against the Sox (they're not really as bad as their win/loss record indicates, for those in denial) as well as the Indians and Angels in the coming days, but they'll have a reprieve in Interleague, when they play everyone in the NL West except the first place Dodgers.

Edited by Fratboy, 29 May 2007 - 10:08 PM.

[Worst Trade Evah]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

[Jethro Q. Walrustitty]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

He believes that Youks' breakout season is a real improvement in skill not a hot start. Papelbon as dominant closer not average starter is worth 3 extra wins. The other guys in the bullpen are better than we thought when the season began.

[Bowlerman9]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

Here's my guess:

At the beginning of the year it was pretty safe to say Beckett and Matsuzaka would each win 14-15 games, since one was coming off a 5 ERA year and the other was new to the country. Also the Sox had no set up man.

Now Beckett and Matsu look like legit 20 win guys and Okajima is going to save the Sox 30-40 runs over the course of the season. That right there is probably 12-13 wins or so. Throw in decreased projections for Manny and Drew, and we could be 8-10 games over the "pre-season" projections.

[bowiac]

If Silver thinks their talent level now is 102 wins or whatever, I wonder why Pecota, B-P and all the rest pegged the Sox for about 10 wins less than that at the beginning of the year? Where's the surplus talent level coming from?

1. Beckett. Projections had him with an ERA in the mid 4s. Silver probably thinks that a lot of his success this year has been "real", probably because it's not just the ERA which has been good, but the peripherals are there too.

2. Okajima. Obviously nobody saw him being this good. However, he's got the peripherals to back it up.

3. Papelbon. Silver probably thinks he's better than the 3.04 ERA PECOTA projects him to.

That's probably about it. PECOTA had the Red Sox scoring lots of runs (probably more than they'll end up scoring), but it didn't buy the pitching being particularly good. The improvements of Beckett, Okajima, and Papelbon relative to projections is probably where the 10 wins come from.

EDIT - For the record, I'll take the under on 103 wins. I'd take the under on 100 wins too.

Edited by bowiac, 22 May 2007 - 10:28 AM.

[Rudy Pemberton]

I'm assuming BP, if they had as us a 92-93 win team, just has us as +10 so far...and expects us to play to the projections going forward? If they've adjusted the expectations forward based on overperformance, though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

Just seems weird to me...that 25% of the season would cause them to adjust their projections by so much, no?

[DJnVa]

though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

Sure, Rudy, that's why a post up above has this line:

Throw in decreased projections for Manny and Drew, and we could be 8-10 games over the "pre-season" projections.

The point is the "improvements" from Beckett, Okajima, Papelbon (to the pen) are giving a larger bump than the decrease for Manny, Drew, etc.

[TomRicardo]

Just seems weird to me...that 25% of the season would cause them to adjust their projections by so much, no?

When the predictions were made Timlin was our closer and Josh Becket was 2/3 starter. Our bullpen as well as Beckett are what really changed the prediction. You have to remember the bullpen was predicted to be one of the worst bullpens in the league. The Rotation had great potential but the projections didn't see the rotation living up to its full potential as it has.

[Fratboy]

I'm assuming BP, if they had as us a 92-93 win team, just has us as +10 so far...and expects us to play to the projections going forward? If they've adjusted the expectations forward based on overperformance, though, wouldn't they have to adjust other projections downward (thinking Drew, Lugo, etc.). Have we just banked the extra wins at this point?

The 103-105 wins is Silver's opinion, not PECOTA's analysis. Per the Postseason Odds report, taking into account the banked wins and a regression to the PECOTA forecast, this is still a 103 win team. They've simply been playing out of their minds - 20 wins above forecast, but that performance has been real.

[yecul]

When I saw "For Realz" I knew this was a Frat post.

At this moment I'm having a hard time projecting them because they're a mix of over and under performing players. As he said, Wake, Lowell, and Okajima will drop off. The latter two have been big keys to the early success. Wake, despite his great performances, has been involved in some tough low scoring losses. Conversely, Manny and Drew (and others) are underperforming. Those two by a lot and they are integral players on this team.

Maybe it's my/our pessemistic nature, but with a player like Manny you can't just assume an improvement going forward. It's very likely, but he is aging and there are certainly points of concern with his current approach at the plate. A down season and/or beginning of a decline is certainly a reasonable thing to worry about.

Drew had his contract held up due to his shoulder and has lots of stipulations built into his deal. That's a tangible reason for concern about his struggles and the chances of improvement.

Now, I happen to think they will turn it around. At what point and how much is the only question.

Will they win 102 games? No, I don't think so. Over the long haul their pen isn't going to maintain and the 5th starter coupled with a Wake decline will catch up to the team. The lineup will also end up being a little blotchy. In no way am I saying they will be bad, but mid-90s or so is still pretty damn good. 100 is definitely possible, but I would take the under. Over 90 definitely, the top of the rotation and funamental talent is strong enough.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Just a comment about luck. Several people appear to be suggesting that because peripherals are in line with results, that therefore the results are "real". I agree that results confirmed by peripherals are more secure, but isn't there a role for luck in the production of the peripherals themselves? Okajima's had great results which have been in line with his peripherals. He's been great. I also think he's been lucky -- including in where his peripherals have come from. Just because the peripherals are in line with results doesn't mean we haven't been lucky. Not as lucky as getting good results from bad peripherals, but to some extent maybe the luck's just been moved around.

I also agree that Beckett is a great source for extra wins -- but he was around last year too, and has had stretches of pitching well. He's been great this year, and his results do seem more real than last year, but then again he's also on the DL with a recurrence of a finger problem (I don't really believe the story about the defective baseball). Who knows what we'll see when he comes back. Youkilis was on the team last year also. They don't really have new people around that the pre-season projection people didn't have access to, including the free agents and the Japanese guys.

Is 40 games really enough to rewrite the "talent level"? Sure, the results will likely be better just because of the hot start, but do we know enough about the talent level?

For my part, I see them as a 95 win team which because of the hot start will win around 98-99 games. I'd take the under on 100 also.

Edited by Worst Trade Evah, 22 May 2007 - 12:18 PM.

[Bowlerman9]

Is 40 games really enough to rewrite the "talent level"? Sure, the results will likely be better just because of the hot start, but do we know enough about the talent level?

Well sure, for a couple of reasons. First off, the Sox had 2 players who had never pitched in America before, so its understandable that projection systems would be way off on them. Its safer to say the Sox are going to go 16-16 in games Matsuzaka starts, because then you cant really be that far off. Now that we're 1/4 of the way into the year and the Sox are 7-2, we can feel safe in saying that we will win more than 50% of his games. Not 77%, but even 60-70% would be above projection. Similar for Okajima. Safe to predict a 4.5 ERA, because that way you cant be off by too much. Even if he ends at a 2.2, he will be worse than he is now but still ahead of projections.

Then we get to the streaky Josh Beckett. Last year the Sox were 18-15 in his starts (54.5%). This year, if you include Gabbards start, the Sox are 9-0 on "day 2" in the rotation. People who had previously predicted the Sox would go 20-13 or 20-14 on "day 2" should now be revising those projections to, say, 24-10. Granted, we arent always going to win games down 5-0 in the 9th, nor is Gabbard going to win all his starts. But the Sox had a lot of places where they truly have improved the "talent level" from where they were in February.

Maybe this has been Matsuzaka's true talent all along. But not all projection systems accurately forecasted this. Same with Oki and Beckett.

[NYCSox]

Just a comment about luck. Several people appear to be suggesting that because peripherals are in line with results, that therefore the results are "real". I agree that results confirmed by peripherals are more secure, but isn't there a role for luck in the production of the peripherals themselves? Okajima's had great results which have been in line with his peripherals. He's been great. I also think he's been lucky -- including in where his peripherals have come from. Just because the peripherals are in line with results doesn't mean we haven't been lucky. Not as lucky as getting good results from bad peripherals, but to some extent maybe the luck's just been moved around.

Very true. For example if you look at standard peripherals for a pitcher (such as BAA or H/IP) without looking at BABIP/DIPS data, you are not getting a complete picture. As you correctly note, luck (both good and bad) can play a factor in producing a given set of peripherals. Which is why you always have to dig a little deeper.

[Worst Trade Evah]

Well, I thought B-P projected Matsuzaka at 5.4 WARP or so, so wherever the talent level revision comes, it shouldn't be from him.

[William Robertson]

If they win between 95 and 99, I'll be dancing in the streets. That's no knock on this team, or on the statistical wisdom expressed above; rather, we just know that winning 105 is a truly extraordinary thing, and this team looks to be a few weak spots short of extraordinary. The team is loaded with talent, and I'm very optimistic, but for one thing, you're not going to go too much longer without a spell of things falling wrong and losing a few games you shouldn't. We haven't had our share of that yet.

[JakeRae]

Well, I guess I'll be the optimist and take the over to add some variety to the thread. I see this team as a low 100 win team. I think the only thing that will keep them from getting to 100 wins is serious injury trouble. Schilling looks like he has another effective season in him, Beckett seems to have figured out whatever was wrong last year and looks to be moving toward his ceiling, which he still isn't at yet. Okajima is better than anyone expected. Tavarez is a decent 5th starter. All of these things were not true going into the season when this was probably a 94-96 win team.

I'm not willing to commit to Youks breakout being real yet and I know Lowell will regress, but I think bouncebacks from other members of the offense will compensate for that. Coco is the guy I have the least faith in rebounding, but we have other CF options in Wily Mo and possibly Jacoby who could improvement at that position if Coco continues to struggle.

The pitching will not continue to be this good, but the offense should be this good if not slightly better and that should be enough, with the hot start, to carry this team to 100+ wins and a division title.

[Carlos Cowart]

They’re going to end up with 95 - 97 wins because no one in the division is going to mount a serious challenge and they’ll play sub-500 ball in September with Pawtucket’s roster. If they gave out rings for having the best regular-season record, then this team could probably muster 103 - 105.

[Eric Van]

Then we get to the streaky Josh Beckett. Last year the Sox were 18-15 in his starts (54.5%). This year, if you include Gabbards start, the Sox are 9-0 on "day 2" in the rotation.

Actually, Hansack took Beckett's first missed turn. Gabbard ended up taking his second missed turn; the rainouts and doubleheaders pushed Tavarez and Schilling an extra day, filling in the scheduled Beckett start on Wednesday, so they opted to push Wakefield, too, and insert Gabbard into the resulting hole. Very strange for a pitcher to miss two turns and have them end up being on consecutive days!

I'm sure this will cause eternal confusion, as it's obvious that Beckett is missing 2 turns (starting on the 13th, then the 29th, with the Sox off once in between) and it's obvious that Hansack and Gabbard did start instead, but it doesn't seem possible at first glance that the two cancel each other out. But they do.

Edited by Eric Van, 22 May 2007 - 01:52 PM.

[Bowlerman9]

Actually, Hansack took Beckett's first missed turn. Gabbard ended up taking his second missed turn; the rainouts and doubleheaders pushed Tavarez and Schilling an extra day, filling in the scheduled Beckett start on Wednesday, so they opted to push Wakefield, too, and insert Gabbard into the resulting hole. Very strange for a pitcher to miss two turns and have them end up being on consecutive days!

I'm sure this will cause eternal confusion, as it's obvious that Beckett is missing 2 turns (starting on the 13th, then the 29th, with the Sox off once in between) and it's obvious that Hansack and Gabbard did start instead, but it doesn't seem possible at first glance that the two cancel each other out. But they do.

9-1. My apologies to SoSH, Josh Beckett, Devern Hansack, and Kason Gabbard as well as their families for the confusion in my previous post and hope we can move on with our lives in light of my horrendous miscalculation.

[The Gray Eagle]

If this season was one game, we'd be winning 4-0 or 5-0 over the Yankees in the 3rd inning right now. That's a fantastic start, but you haven't won anything yet, a million teams have overcome 5 run leads in the third inning. The team chasing us has a ton of high priced talent, and they're about to add a $28 million a year pitcher to the mix.

If you're up 5-0 in the third, that doesn't mean that you expect to win 15-0. Sure you could, but realistically, you're just off to a great start and you hope to maintain it.

What matters is how big our lead in the division is, not how many total games we win. So far in this series, two more games have gone off the schedule and NY has gained no ground in this series at their place. That's like getting them out with no runs allowed in the 3rd inning of one game. You can't win anything yet, but it's nice to see.

I just hope we have a peak Papelbon pitching our "9th inning" this year, not Heathcliff Slocumb. Ideally, we'll be far enough ahead in the "9th" that we can throw some scrub out there.

[missinpedro]

I'm gonna go with the optimistic prediction too. I think this team is really talented and very well balanced.

Take a look a the 1998 Yankees. Everyone of their starters had an ERA + over 100, but they weren't ridiculously high they were: 105, 110, 126, 128, and 143. Their bullpen had two aces that year: Rivera and Grame Lloyd (though he only thre 37 innings all year) and then a few other solid performers. They also had a superflexible guy who had a great year in the rotation and bullpen in Ramiro Mendoza. Their lineup was very good as well, but they only had one hitter who was great that year in Bernie Williams. After that, their starters all had OPS+ between 101 to 131, with the exception of Chad Curtis who had a pretty poor year with an OPS+ of 89.

By the end of the year, I expect our team to have only two to three regulars with OPS+ of less than 100: Julio Lugo and DP, will be very close though I bet one falls short and one makes it just over, and Coco Crisp, who will probably be pretty far from . Right now, we've got 3 guys who have VERY high OPS+ in Papi, Youks, and Lowell. I think Manny will join them by the end of the year, Lowell will probably drop, Youks will drop some, but I think this production may be for real in his case. So we may not have the balance of the 98 Yankees lineup, but we will still have good balance and a better top 3. The 98 Yankees had a team OPS+ of 116, we've got a 113 and I happen to be in the camp of people who think that on balance our offense is underperforming.

I think our starters may end up being just as good. I think Beckett could be better than their ace, both in terms of ERA+, but also in terms of overall contribution because El Duque only threw 141 innings that year. I think theres a very reasonable chance Schilling, Dice-K, and Wake could equal the production of Cone, Wells, and Irabu. Right now the big gap would be in the final spot of the rotation, PettiTTe provided a 105 ERA+ that season, while we're getting an 82 out of Tavarez. But Taverez has been pitching better and even if he falters, we can bring in Lester, who I think may be able to provide around that type of ERA, he had a 98 while pitching with cancer last year. Its optimistic, but I don't think unrealistic either to think that maybe he could provide an ERA+ of around 100-110. Regarding our bullpen, that yankee team had more depth but I like our top two better because Okajima can pitch more innings than Graeme Lloyd did. The 98 Yankees had a team ERA+ of 117, we've got a 124 and I am in the camp of people who think that we can maintain something around there because the likely regression of Oki and Wake, may be tempered by the improvement of Dice-K and the addition of Lester.

For a more brief comp to another great team, look at the 2001 Mariners, who had a 119 OPS+ and 119 ERA+ as a team. Thus far, our hitting has been nearly as good as each of these great teams and our pitching has been better. Now I understand the argument being made here that the peripherals thus far aren't lying, but the production of the peripherals themselves may be based partly on luck. Obviously, I'm an optimist, but I think we're at the point in the season where its optimistic, but no longer unrealistic to think that perhaps these team rates could continue. At least on paper, it would seem that the expected improvement and regression of everyone who is out of line with expectations one way or the other will balance out. That may not end up being the case, but it makes logical sense. There is the obvious concern of injuries, so I'll admit that my optimistic forecast is based on the hope that they don't suffer any major injuries.

But I don't think its unrealistic at this point to say that we may be looking at a pretty special team. 28% through the season the peripherals are in line with the two best regular season teams of the past 20 years and the team is on pace to win 112 games and this thread is asking about 103-105. I'm not even saying we'll match the 98 Yanks or 01 Mariners. I'm just saying that at this point, if this team stays healthy they've got an excellent shot at 105 wins and I would expect at least 100.

[SoxFanSince57]

Saturday vs. Braves: Matsuzaka vs Lerew--W
Saturday vs. Braves: Hansack vs Smoltz—L
Sunday vs. Braves: Gabbard vs Hudson--W
Monday at Yankees: Wakefield vs Wang--L
Tuesday at Yankees: Tavarez vs Mussina--W
Wednesday at Yankees: Schilling vs Pettitte—L

Given the run the Sox had been on; given their pitching match-ups in these two series; given the offensive strengths of the two opponents and given that 3 of the games were at the Toilet, all I can say is that getting through this stretch at 3-3 exceeded my expectations.

Playing .500 ball against these teams during the season is okay with me. It is a bit tough to maintain a pace of .700 against the Braves and MFY.

Let’s go to Texas as kick up some s***.

[GriffinDoerr]

Saturday vs. Braves: Matsuzaka vs Lerew--W
Saturday vs. Braves: Hansack vs Smoltz—L
Sunday vs. Braves: Gabbard vs Hudson--W
Monday at Yankees: Wakefield vs Wang--L
Tuesday at Yankees: Tavarez vs Mussina--W
Wednesday at Yankees: Schilling vs Pettitte—L

Given the run the Sox had been on; given their pitching match-ups in these two series; given the offensive strengths of the two opponents and given that 3 of the games were at the Toilet, all I can say is that getting through this stretch at 3-3 exceeded my expectations.

Playing .500 ball against these teams during the season is okay with me. It is a bit tough to maintain a pace of .700 against the Braves and MFY.

Let’s go to Texas as kick up some s***.

I'd venture to say two day-night double-headers practically back-to-back just before and during that stretch probably didn't help either. Considering the lead could have dwindled to 7.5 after the NY series, the fact that it's at 9.5 is fairly satisfying, though admittedly not as delilcious as a double-digit lead would be.

I'm very glad the Sox have a scheduled off-day tomorrow. I think they could use it.

[Eric Van]

Here's an interesting tidbit.

The Sox are only 26-22 (.542) in being the first team to establish a 75% Win Expectancy.

In games where we've reached 75% first, we're 24-2 (.923). (The other game besides Papelbon's blown save was 4/23 vs. the Blue Jays.)

In games where our opponents have reached 75% first, we're 9-13 (.409).

Against the Yankees, we are 2-7 in being the first to 75%, but are 2-0 after being up and 4-3 after being down.

Winning 92% of the games you have a 75% chance of winning and 41% of the games you have a 25% chance of winning -- that's certainly a formula for success. I doubt either success rate is typical of a team that gets into a solid winning position just 54% of the time.

[Theoretician]

I've been reading SoSH threads for a long time. Most Red Sox seasons since the late 1990s seem to have given someone a reason to start a thread like this. Though I recognize that threads like this are inevitable -- and believe this one has more sober assessments than most -- I still hate them. If you can remember 2002 you know why.

MAY 27, 2002
W 33
L 15
% .688
RS 271
RA 185

MAY 27, 2007
W 34
L 15
% .694
RS 267
RA 188

The Sox went 10-16 in June 2002 and 12-15 in August 2002. They ended with 93 wins. They not only failed to win the division, they ended 6 games behind Anaheim for the wild card. It was one of a series of depressing seasons in the decade before 2004. It did not happen because of projections; it happened because the Sox horribly underperformed given their talent level. Still, I would be a lot happier if folks would stick to individual performance and team measures other than final wins and losses. Probably highly idiosynchratic on my part, but thought I would share it in case it was of interest.

[Fratboy]

The Sox are only 26-22 (.542) in being the first team to establish a 75% Win Expectancy.

<snip>

Winning 92% of the games you have a 75% chance of winning and 41% of the games you have a 25% chance of winning -- that's certainly a formula for success. I doubt either success rate is typical of a team that gets into a solid winning position just 54% of the time.

Would you be inclined to believe the success is luck, or is the third order run differential more indicative of the team's ability/talent level?

[Fratboy]

Most Red Sox seasons since the late 1990s seem to have given someone a reason to start a thread like this. Though I recognize that threads like this are inevitable -- and believe this one has more sober assessments than most -- I still hate them. If you can remember 2002 you know why.

<snip>

Still, I would be a lot happier if folks would stick to individual performance and team measures other than final wins and losses. Probably highly idiosynchratic on my part, but thought I would share it in case it was of interest.

We all know what happened in 2002. We ain't stupid.

I would be a lot happier if n00bi3s like you would stick to opening their minds to perspectives other than their own than living in their cozy little boxes. And it's spelled "idiosyncratic". Perhaps you might find this thread to be more your speed, which I share with you in case it was of interest.

[paulftodd]

I also remember a 14 game lead over the Yankees in 1978 as late as July 19th that did not turn out so well.

Last year on this date Minnesota was 12.5 games behind Detroit, and ended up winning the division.

The Yankees want revenge after being humiliated in 2004. I fear them. We need to be at least 20 games ahead of them before anyone can write them off.

[Jethro Q. Walrustitty]

Would you be inclined to believe the success is luck, or is the third order run differential more indicative of the team's ability/talent level?

That stat is more than likely a reflection of the outstanding bullpen to date. They're not giving up the lead and they're keeping the score close when behind.

[Fratboy]

I also remember a 14 game lead over the Yankees in 1978 as late as July 19th that did not turn out so well.

Last year on this date Minnesota was 12.5 games behind Detroit, and ended up winning the division.

The Yankees want revenge after being humiliated in 2004. I fear them. We need to be at least 20 games ahead of them before anyone can write them off.

Yeah, and I remember a certain Yankee team of recent vintage that blew a 10 game lead to the Red Sox. I'll let you research that one.

Listen, for all you not paying attention here, this thread isn't about how many games ahead of the Yankees the Red Sox will finish or how they compare to the 2002 team. This was all about some comments by talking statheads about the quality of this year's team based on its statistics and peripherals.

[Rasputin]

This was all about some comments by talking statheads about the quality of this year's team based on its statistics and peripherals.

We're currently playing at a .694 pace. .500 the rest of the way gets us 90 wins, .600 gets us over the hundred mark. Yeah, 103-105 wins is very much in the picture.

[SoxFanInCali]

We're currently playing at a .694 pace. .500 the rest of the way gets us 90 wins, .600 gets us over the hundred mark. Yeah, 103-105 wins is very much in the picture.

I've always hated the "If we just go .500 the rest of the way..." argument. It's always said as if it could never happen, or that's as bad as we could possibly do.

The Yankees are currently 6 games under .500 through 48 games, and you wouldn't have found one person on earth who would have predicted that at the beginning of the season. There are 4 months left, and a lot of things can still happen.

[Noah]

People love to bring up the Twins last year and 1978, as if that proves something. The fact is, for any team that you can name that came back from 12 or whatever games out, I can list 20 more that didn't.

[No Guru No Method]

The Yankees want revenge after being humiliated in 2004. I fear them

Yeah but you're probably afraid of the Stay-Puft marshmallow man.

Edited by No Guru No Method, 28 May 2007 - 12:54 PM.

[Eric Van]

That stat is more than likely a reflection of the outstanding bullpen to date. They're not giving up the lead and they're keeping the score close when behind.

I'll post a revised set of bullpen stats tomorrow AM, but they're pretty startling. Going into today's game, the Sox bullpen led the AL with a 1.60 WRA (Win-Equivalent ERA), and the Mariners were second at 3.51.

Incidentally, today was the first game all year with a double momentum swing: the Sox got WE > 75%, then the Rangers did, then the Sox came back to win. So we improved both records: we are now 25-2 after getting a 75% chance of winning and 10-13 after getting a 75% chane of losing.

Teams with great bullpens often do outperform their Pyths (anecdotally at least; I'm not sure if the definitive study has been done--does anyone know?) and we're starting to see that. We are +1.8 wins over Pyth now. We are also +0.9 wins in Run Efficiency, although that would be reduced if you substituted a league-average Reached on Error - Out on base for the actual 0 (15 of each). The offense has scored 2.3 runs less than expected, but the pitchers have allowed 9.7 runs less.

[Rasputin]

I've always hated the "If we just go .500 the rest of the way..." argument. It's always said as if it could never happen, or that's as bad as we could possibly do.

No, it's to put things in perspective. Of course it can happen and worse can happen. A couple big injuries and we could be struggling to make .500 the rest of the season.

What this lead gives us is a margin for error. Over the course of a hundred some odd games there are going to be ups and downs that will generally even out. That means that we're going to have some good streaks and that the Yankees are going to have some bad streaks. Thing is, we can now withstand the bad streaks better than them. They need to win 14 more games than us the rest of the way to overtake us. That's a .124 winning percentage all in itself. It's HARD to win that many more games than another team if that team is anywhere near decent, and the greater the number of games left, the less a factor hot and cold streaks are going to be. I'm more confident now with an eleven game lead than I would be with a three game lead with six left. All it takes to lose that is a crappy week and that can happen to anyone.

The Yankees are currently 6 games under .500 through 48 games, and you wouldn't have found one person on earth who would have predicted that at the beginning of the season. There are 4 months left, and a lot of things can still happen.

And the yankees are probably going to win more of their remaining games than they lose, as are the BlueJays but they have to play four months of great baseball to beat us and we don't have to play four months of great baseball to beat them. We have a margin for error and they don't.

[Eric Van]

That stat is more than likely a reflection of the outstanding bullpen to date. They're not giving up the lead and they're keeping the score close when behind.

It's more than the bullpen.

We've been the first team to get Win Expectancy over 60% in 24 games, and have gone 18-6 (.750).

In another 25 games, the opponents have been the first to get to 60%. And we have gone 16-9 (.640). If you add last night (where we got up over 60% and then back below 40%), we are 17-9 (.654) in games where an average team would have less than a 40% chance of winning.

In regards the pennant race -- we are 1-8 against the Yankees in being the first team to get to 70% in a game. But of course we went 5-3 in the games here they had a 70% or better WE -- winning games where they had WE's of .972, .710, .793 (the opening sweep), .778, and .763 (the two wins in the second series). The odds that an average team would blow all 5 of those leads are 1 in 11,308.

A big part of our success appears to be our offensive success against relievers, or against SP the 2nd or 3rd time around the lineup. I may try to see if those numbers are available.

Edited by Eric Van, 28 May 2007 - 01:48 AM.

[paulftodd]

Yeah, and I remember a certain Yankee team of recent vintage that blew a 10 game lead to the Red Sox. I'll let you research that one.

Listen, for all you not paying attention here, this thread isn't about how many games ahead of the Yankees the Red Sox will finish or how they compare to the 2002 team. This was all about some comments by talking statheads about the quality of this year's team based on its statistics and peripherals.

Nate Silver seemed to be just expressing an opinion, I did not see too many numbers there.

Obviously if this team does win 105 games they will not have blown the lead to the Yankees unless the Yankees go 84-30. Teams that win 105 games have always won their division (SF did finish in 2nd with 103 in 1993). The implication being, if we did blow this lead to the Yankees, we will probably not have won 103-105 games.

I think if you take the stats on any team that has won 34 of 49 games, you will find good stats, probably as good as those teams that won over 110 games. The question of course is how do these stats project and predict the outcome for the team in the other 114 games, are the Red Sox performing at their talent level or are they simply on a hot streak. They got great pitching in April (3.28 ERA, offense 5.2 RPG) and the hitting picked up as the pitching regressed somewhat in May (RPG 5.7, ERA 4.00).

The Red Sox have been remarkably healthy compared to other teams. If this continues we could definitely approach 100 games. But part of what a team is is it's depth. Could we sustain a long period with WMP in RF if Drew got hurt. How about Mirabelli playing every day if Tek was down, or Okajima as closer if Pap's went down. Can Lester really be more than a 5 IP pitcher this year if one of the starters were out for a long period of time. We do not know the answers yet.

I guess I am jaded by the past 10 years where we have been ahead of or tied with the Yankees at the end of May in 7 of 10 seasons, but have finished behind them every year.

If we were at 500 we would be hysterical about JD, Coco and Lugo poor starts and calling for Theos head on a platter. Papi is in the middle of his longest homerless streak as a member of the Red Sox and Alex Gonzalez has more HR's than Papi, and now Papi's hammies hurt when the interleague season is about to start. Manny is off to his worst start in his career, and the inevitable declining years concerns would be headlines despite his feasting off Texas pitching this weekend. Mike Lowell leads the league in errors. Curt is showing a velocity drop and is getting rocked. Becketts finger problems are acting up again (avulsions, blisters, whatever), Paps velocity is down and is being handled with kid loves due to concerns about his health. Okajima is showing signs of reverting to the Okajima fans in Japan knew and loved, a good RP'er, but not a relief ace.

But we are 12 1/2 games up over the Yankees, in May. May the good times continue, but you risk the wrath of the Baseball Gods by starting threads like this. It's on you if a losing streak starts against the Indians

Edited by paulftodd, 28 May 2007 - 04:04 AM.

[Ananti]

I think the key is the Sox patience that forces the other team to use their middle relief.

[LondonSox]

I think the key is the Sox patience that forces the other team to use their middle relief.

To emphasise this there are c.60 qualified batters in MLB this year who see more than 3.92 pitches/PA. Boston's team P/PA is 3.92...

Pedroia would be top 20 in MLB if not for sitting him constantly (he doesn't qualify)!! (PLEASE FOR THE LOVE OF GOD STOP)

Amazingly there are 6 Red Sox seeing more than 4 P/PA Mirabelli (4.2), Papi (4.14), Pedroia (4.10), Youks (4.06), V-Tek (4.04) and WMP 4.00 (!)
SSS but WMP that's surprising to me and the average for our catchers is superb. There are only 2 players sub 3.8 Lowell at 3.65 and Cora at 3.72

Now vs seeing the same pitcher I'm interested in EV's question and ESPN has splits for seeing pitcher 1st 2nd and 3rd times in a game but not vs relievers so that would be interesting to dig out
These are OPS

Papi 1st 1069, 2nd 716 and 3rd 1307
Pedroia 1st 819, 2nd 475, 3rd 819
Youks 1st 925, 2nd 1085, 3rd 792 (4th 1904)
Tek 1st 775, 2nd 909, 3rd 651
Lugo 1st 727, 2nd 707, 3rd 389 (4th 311)
Drew 1st 548, 2nd 885, 3rd 765
Manny 1st 880, 2nd 587, 3rd 825
Coco 1st 729, 2nd 676, 3rd 334, (4th 500)
Lowell 1st 812, 2nd 1457, 3rd 653

So not a lot obvious to me there, Papi, Manny and Pedroia suffer in the 2nd time around which seems odd. Youks and Lowell and Tek rip the second time around. Lugo and Coco suck the more they see of a pitcher... I don't understand that at all. But get Coco out of the top!

Only Papi averages his best hitting the 3rd time round, (pedroia is level with 1st) I find this very odd everyone else has a higher ops either the 1st or second time.

If I have time I'll dig out some reliever stats

[StupendousMan]

I think if you take the stats on any team that has won 34 of 49 games, you will find good stats, probably as good as those teams that won over 110 games. The question of course is how do these stats project and predict the outcome for the team in the other 114 games ...

Right. Let's see. Using the records of all AL teams since 1961, I find that 7 teams have won exactly 34 of their first 49 games. In no case did the team continue at the same pace, which would predict 112 wins. The actual number of wins at the end of the season ranged from 93 to 109, with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 6.

The Yankees, on the other hand, have a record of 21-27 through 48 games. There have been 37 other teams with the same record through the first 48 games in the study period. Those teams, on average, improved slightly during the final portion of the season: they averaged 75 wins at the end, rather than the 71 one would predict via extrapolation. It is interesting to note that the range of win totals for those teams, 60 to 89, does not overlap the range of wins for teams going 34-15.

[DannyHeep]

Right. Let's see. Using the records of all AL teams since 1961, I find that 7 teams have won exactly 34 of their first 49 games. In no case did the team continue at the same pace, which would predict 112 wins. The actual number of wins at the end of the season ranged from 93 to 109, with a mean of 100 and standard deviation of 6.

The Yankees, on the other hand, have a record of 21-27 through 48 games. There have been 37 other teams with the same record through the first 48 games in the study period. Those teams, on average, improved slightly during the final portion of the season: they averaged 75 wins at the end, rather than the 71 one would predict via extrapolation. It is interesting to note that the range of win totals for those teams, 60 to 89, does not overlap the range of wins for teams going 34-15.

To reach the max of 89 wins for those teams at 21-27 the Yankees will have to win at a .596 clip the rest of the way. To reach 93 wins the Yankees have to go at a .631 clip the rest of the way.

The Yankees are capable of doing better than that over the remainder of the season.

[Eric Van]

If I have time I'll dig out some reliever stats

B-r has them.

ESPN's numbers combine starters and relievers and are thus not quite the data we're interested in.

[reggiecleveland]

and WMP 4.00 (!)
SSS but WMP that's surprising to me and the average for our catchers is superb.

Not to be a smart ass but striking out takes at least three pitches.

[Tudor Fever]

I think the key is the Sox patience that forces the other team to use their middle relief.

That, plus wearing out the starters. They are on a pace to draw 700 walks. A bunch of teams drew this many walks in 1999-2000*, but the only team to draw 700 since then is the 2004 Giants, who drew 705 (232 from Bonds).

* Until I checked it out, I didn’t realize how much the volume of walks spiked in 1999-2000. Here is a complete list of teams that drew at least 700 walks from 1996 though 2000:
2000 Giants: 709 (117 from Bonds, and at least 50 from 7 other players)
2000 Mariners: 775
2000 Athletics: 750
1999 Indians: 743
1999 Yankees: 718
1999 Athletics: 770
1999 Mets: 717
1999 Astros: 728
1996 White Sox: 701

[wibi]

Not to be a smart ass but striking out takes at least three pitches.

Add that to the 0-2 pitch that is usually so far off the plate that WMP doesnt swing and you have your 4 P/PA average

[Todd Benzinger]

Lugo and Coco suck the more they see of a pitcher... I don't understand that at all. But get Coco out of the top!

Only Papi averages his best hitting the 3rd time round, (pedroia is level with 1st) I find this very odd everyone else has a higher ops either the 1st or second time.

If I have time I'll dig out some reliever stats

Youk is an anomaly here, but I think the reason that most guys are better in 1 or 2 than 3 is that when they completely slam a guy, he is likely gone before he faces anyone 3, and certainly 4, times, so you only see a guy 4 times if he is pitching well, and therefore the #1 and #2 numbers are somewhat inflated by including the worst of opposing starts.

[Rasputin]

Two questions for the gallery de peanut regarding opposing teams and their chances of overtaking us in the standings?

At what point do we become more concerned about the Blue Jays than the Yankees?

At what point do we become more concerned about the Orioles than the Yankees?

We aren't at this point yet, but there's gotta be one right?

[SoxFanSince57]

I start to worry about the Blue Jays when B.J. Ryan shows me that he has come back from elbow surgery during spring training 2008.

I start to worry about the Orioles about 5 years after Peter Angelos sells the team.

In other words, do not worry.

[Fratboy]

I defy anyone to tell me when someone overcame a 14.5 game deficit to win a divisional title or playoff spot.