Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Is this a historically great offense?


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
9 replies to this topic

#1 Ananti


  • little debbie downer


  • 2075 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 04:18 PM

This team at the ASB has 482 runs in 90 games, or 5.36 runs/game. Which doesn't sound that special until you compare it to the current AL average of 4.28 runs/game.

That is 25.1% better than the league average.

Which would be the 2nd highest in Red Sox history, behind only the 1950 team that scored 1027 runs.

The top ten in Red Sox history:

1950 132.32%
2011 125.13%
1946 125.05%
1948 123.97%
1949 123.78%
1903 122.47%
2003 122.06%
1967 120.45%
1972 118.99%

Edited by Ananti, 10 July 2011 - 08:29 PM.


#2 JohntheBaptist


  • SoSH Member


  • 7843 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 04:30 PM

It is pretty incredible if you just look at the OBP of the starting lineup. The league average is .321. Varitek is at .333, Saltalamacchia .320, Scutaro .328, Drew .331. The other 2/3 of the lineup looks like this:

Gonzalez 412
Youkilis 397
Pedroia 395
Ortiz 391
Ellsbury 374
Reddick 455

Runners are constantly on base. Especially when McDonald isn't playing.

Edited by JohntheBaptist, 10 July 2011 - 04:31 PM.


#3 dbn

  • 3142 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 05:26 PM

I checked on their runs scored rate the other day and it projected only to 857 ("only" relative to all the preseason 1,000 run predictions). So, when I saw the title of the thread thought "no way", but you have a great point:

... Which doesn't sound that special until you compare it to the current AL average of 4.28 runs/games.

That is 25.1% better than the league average.
...




#4 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 26062 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 05:54 PM

If you were to remove John Lackey from the scene, the remainder of the Sox pitching staff is allowing 3.57 runs per nine innings which would be third behind Seattle at 3.53 and LAA at 3.54.

#5 koufax32


  • He'll cry if he wants to...


  • 3370 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 08:08 PM

If you were to remove John Lackey from the scene, the remainder of the Sox pitching staff is allowing 3.57 runs per nine innings which would be third behind Seattle at 3.53 and LAA at 3.54.


I'm Eric Van and I approve this post. :)

Really these relative stats are special when you think about some of the suck that has taken up a significant number of at-bats in the outfield. Thank you for posting these.

#6 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 6958 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 08:27 PM

If Crawford can return to his career norms and Theo can upgrade the RF situation (both very likely); this offense has the potential to be truly historical.

The only weak spot in the lineup would be Scutaro, and even he isn't horrible. If Lowrie can be back by September and healthy, there won't be a free out to be had.

#7 Al Zarilla


  • SoSH Member


  • 21101 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 09:45 PM

The 1950 Red Sox were indeed a historically great offense. There was absolutely no easy spot for the opposing pitcher in that lineup (well, pitcher), and Williams was even out half of the year with a cracked elbow from the all star game (ouch!). Besides Williams, most Sox fans have heard of Doerr, Pesky, Dom DiMaggio, Vern Stephens, and Walt Dropo on that team. And, they all had excellent years. But, the catcher Birdie Tebbets was .310/.377/.444/.821, and forgotten man right fielder Al Zarilla was .325/.423/.493/.915. A guy BREF calls a utility man, Billy Goodman, scraped together enough ABs to win the battle title at .354. The entire team slash was .302/.385/.464/.848. If only the pitching didn't fall apart from 1949. Actually, it wasn't deep enough in 1949 either. Yawkey and his boys didn't worry about pitching so much. The 1950 team finished third.

This year's team looks solid one through five, but after that there are question marks, at least as far as being a historically great offense. Will Crawford really get it going this year? Can Reddick keep it up, or will he even get the chance when Crawford is back? Can the catchers keep it up? At short, could Lowrie get back and recapture his early season magic? Scutaro would be the weak link in the lineup otherwise. Overall, not quite historic, but a really, really strong offensive team.

#8 Rough Carrigan


  • reasons within Reason


  • 16552 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 10:30 PM

If you go by OPS+, admittedly an imprecise measure but one which at least takes park factors into account, this year's team has a *better* offense than 1950's.

Fenway was outrageously pro offense in 1950 with a park factor of 115.

Here are the OPS+'s of some famous Sox teams. A lot of them had great run totals but Fenway was so much better than an average hitting park that the adjustment brings them back down to earth:

Year--Team OPS+
1946 106
1949 105
1950 107
1967 103
1975 107
1977 108
1978 103
1986 106
2003 118
2004 110
2011 118

#9 Hee-Seop's Fable

  • 1264 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 11:55 PM

DP

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 10 July 2011 - 11:56 PM.


#10 Hee-Seop's Fable

  • 1264 posts

Posted 10 July 2011 - 11:56 PM

One has to imagine Gonzalez, Ellsbury, the catchers (Varitek in particular - I have to think Saltalamacchia is simply arriving into his prime) and especially Reddick could easily cool off some, but Crawford has to be much more useful than he's been so far, and Pedroia and Youkilis appear to have returned to their healthy productive selves in the last month or so and are likely to continue, and Lowrie has to come back eventually (he does, doesn't he!?). Maybe even Drew has a dead cat bounce left in him, or McDonald hit's his stride. So any fade from a team OPS+ of 118 shouldn't be too precipitous.

I made a comment in a game thread a long time back how much I liked the way the lineup turned over, before Salty had really come around, and Ellsbury being fourth on the team in RBI reflects that. Someone standing in scoring position when he comes up seems awfully common. Hell, someone standing in scoring position period seems awfully common. A team wOBA of 354 is pretty nuts. That's 3 points lower than Andre Ethier so far. Ryan Howard would be just barely below average on this team.

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 10 July 2011 - 11:58 PM.