Jump to content


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

SOSH

OK we're back on our main server.  It was taking a super long time to move *everything* back just to save a day's worth of messages.  I've been at this all day now and need to get back to my real job so.,... sorry.  Working on a better plan in case this happens again.  nip

Photo

The glass is half empty. What has gone wrong & the dismal prognosis


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
39 replies to this topic

#1 mabrowndog


  • Ask me about total zone...or paint


  • 34185 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:13 PM

No, I'm not really a pessimist, and the Sox are certainly playing more towards their talent level of late despite the rash of injuries. I just think some of the persistently frustrating shitty crap deserves equal air time. This is where we vent about it.

* I'm not ready to dump Mike Aviles yet, but since May 22 when he stood at .279/.306/.494/.800 with 8 HR, he's hitting just .250/.262/.323/.584 with 1 HR over 33 games. He's walked a mere 3 times in his last 181 PA over 46 games dating back to May 9.

* Adrian Gonzalez in his last 41 games: .247/.282/.386/.668 with 34 Ks and just 8 BB over 170 PA.

* Dustin Pedroia's last 36 games: .214/.266/.276/.542 with 22 K and no HR over 159 PA.

#2 Snodgrass'Muff


  • smarter as Lucen


  • 18327 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 12:34 PM

Well, since I threw a glass half full opinion into this thread's mirror, I'll throw a glass half empty one here. The team has been decimated by injuries and is old enough that this could continue. I was one of the loudest voices on the "the injuries can't get worse" train, and they actually did get worse.

The pitching has been disappointing over all and Lester still looks like a shell of his former self. I don't know if he's hurt, declining early or just has a mental issue going on, but something is definitely wrong. They'll need him to turn it around if they want to make a run at the playoffs this year and I haven't seen anything this season to suggest that he's about to figure it out.

The replacements who have had to step in for our injured regulars have played well above their heads. The help we're about to get from the DL might not be as much of an upgrade as some are assuming. See: Nava, Daniel; Morales, Franklin; Miller, Andrew; Podsednick, Scott, ect ect.

And the AL East is better than most of us had anticipated meaning the Sox are at a disadvantage with respect to the non-AL East playoff hopefuls.

#3 Darnell's Son

  • 3003 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:32 PM

I kinda hate to be that guy, but I feel as if at least half the threads in this forum are negative towards the Sox, because they have underperformed our expectations so far. That was the point of the glass half ful thread, because there was no positive vibe around these parts.

Edit: To add to this thread, how much does it suck that the Sox had to DFA Darnell? Talk about half empty...

Edited by Darnell's Son, 30 June 2012 - 06:32 PM.


#4 The Long Tater

  • 1820 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:40 PM

I there was no positive vibe around these parts.


Do you believe there should be one? Make your case.

#5 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25279 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 06:55 PM

Do you believe there should be one? Make your case.


We've played the whole season with two outfielders on the DL, Buchholz pitched worse than Lackey for a month and a half, the Bard to the rotation experiment failed, Youks turned out to be completely washed up. Oh, and Adrian Gonzales has been absolute shit so far.

And if the Sox win tonight, they're a half a game out of second place with those two outfielders on their rehab assignments, [I am an Idiot] having straightened his shit out, Dice K being back and looking better than he has in years, a bullpen that has quality depth, and half a season to make up fewer games than the Rays made up in September.

If you don't have a positive vibe about this team you're just not paying attention.

Edited by Rasputin, 30 June 2012 - 07:25 PM.


#6 Darnell's Son

  • 3003 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 07:02 PM

Do you believe there should be one? Make your case.


First off, I never said or, in my opinion, hinted at that. Secondly, what Ras said. Thirdly, I just stated that a lot of the threads have a lot of negativity in them, which was the whole point of the Glass Half Filled thread. We tend to be really negative around here, which is expected among championship hungry fans. Thanks for the inquisition though, it was fun.

#7 drbretto


  • guidence counselor


  • 4361 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 07:04 PM

10 out of the last 13 and people are questioning what there is to be positive about?

#8 ThatsMyPeskyPole

  • 452 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 08:13 PM

10 out of the last 13 and people are questioning what there is to be positive about?

Because negative is what makes people happy, misery loves company. Its what makes talk radio so annoying.

#9 Pumpsie


  • The Kilimanjaro of bullshit


  • 10570 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 08:34 PM

Things that have gone wrong this year?

1. Theo ran away after burdening the team with several terrible long-term contracts (Lackey, Crawford) and one iffy one (Adrien Gonzalez.)
2. Ben Cherington signed Nick Punto to a 2-year deal.
3. The team waited way too long to sign a new manager, crippling his ability to put together a solid and loyal coaching staff.
4. The team has been hammered from ST on by an incredible amount of injuries to important players.
5. Because of the number of injuries (which have not really abated as of yet) the team has had a revolving door of players that must make it difficult for the team to really feel like a team.
6. Many of the vets who were counted on to lead this team (e.g., Lester, Beckett, Buchholz, Pedroia, Adrien Gonzalez and Youks) have underperformed so far.
7. The front office's Bard to the rotation strategy has crashed and burned.
8. The AL East continues to be the AL East, creating a substantial disadvantage for the teams there in competing for the two WC spots.
9. The local mediots continue to be complete dicks.

...but that's about it. Everything else has been pretty good and, right now, we're pretty in good shape.

#10 seantoo


  • has never met Mr. Strunk or Mr. White


  • 1098 posts

Posted 30 June 2012 - 09:33 PM

Do you believe there should be one? Make your case.


That we are within 1 game of the WC chase with over a half season to go. This despite a new coach handling a team new to him and a league leading 21 trips to the DL and a man games lost to injury pace that would have us miss half our 24 man roster over the course of a season. Yet despite all that some measures still have the Sox with a better than 50/50 chance of making the playoffs. Also, that within 2 weeks we should actually have just about our whole 24 man roster for the first time all year just as the team leading the division is starting to experience something resembling what we've gone through this seaon with injuries. Not to mention we have the 3rd best record in baseball since May 10, 12-19 and today we're 41-36 therefore we've gone 29-17 the last 46 games a .630 winning percentage which over the course of a season translates to a 102 wins. I'm not sure I can call myself a fan and not be optimistic about this team but that's me.

Edited by seantoo, 01 July 2012 - 05:38 PM.


#11 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:25 PM

This team has zero margin for error in September, even if they do sustain a two-month run similar to the midsummer dominance of the 2011 team. Between injuries and the competition (Baltimore astounds me, they should be regressing by now, damnit!), this team isn't likely to do better than 90 wins even if they do get healthy and stay productive.

Of course, 90 wins might be good enough, so long as Baltimore regresses, or if the Angels suffer some significant injuries.

#12 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 25279 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 10:41 PM

this team isn't likely to do better than 90 wins even if they do get healthy and stay productive.


How the hell do you come to this conclusion? The team has been on a 95 win pace over the past 65 games and is on an 84 win pace overall. If you happen to do the math, a 95 win pace over just a 148 games plus the 4-10 record going in adds up to 90 wins.

#13 gammoseditor


  • also had a stroke


  • 2580 posts

Posted 01 July 2012 - 11:38 PM

This team has zero margin for error in September, even if they do sustain a two-month run similar to the midsummer dominance of the 2011 team. Between injuries and the competition (Baltimore astounds me, they should be regressing by now, damnit!), this team isn't likely to do better than 90 wins even if they do get healthy and stay productive.

Of course, 90 wins might be good enough, so long as Baltimore regresses, or if the Angels suffer some significant injuries.


Baltimore is 3-9 over their last 12 games.

#14 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 02 July 2012 - 10:26 AM

How the hell do you come to this conclusion? The team has been on a 95 win pace over the past 65 games and is on an 84 win pace overall. If you happen to do the math, a 95 win pace over just a 148 games plus the 4-10 record going in adds up to 90 wins.


The past 65 games haven't exactly been against the cream of the crop in the AL East, so I'm hesitant to project out the current winning pace over the rest of the season. Playing just as well against better teams should naturally result in a slight downtick in that pace. It only takes a slight bump in the road to get below that number and out of the playoffs. Besides, this is the thread for such thoughts.

Baltimore is 3-9 over their last 12 games.


They are in the process of regressing, then, which is good. I will consider them fully "regressed" once they take their rightful place under the Red Sox in the standings [/entitled 21st century Red Sox fan].

#15 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 07:49 AM

At the half-way point in the season, the Red Sox have 63 games remaining against opponents currently with .500+ winning percentages (.551 overall and .556 weighted). Thus far, they haven't done that well against .500+ opponents (21 and 24, .467).

#16 Rudy Pemberton


  • just plum doesn't understand


  • 27029 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:06 AM

Aceves has gone from the Vulture to....well, whatever is the opposite of vulture. Never good news when your closer is 0-6. Now, he hasn't been awful, but he hasn't been close to the guy he was last year.

On a completely different note, I've been totally disappointed in Kalish, who has been pretty terrible in all facets of the game, playing lousy defense, making numerous mental errors, and showing no patience at the plate.

#17 NDame616


  • will bailey


  • 931 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 08:17 AM

Aceves has gone from the Vulture to....well, whatever is the opposite of vulture. Never good news when your closer is 0-6. Now, he hasn't been awful, but he hasn't been close to the guy he was last year.

On a completely different note, I've been totally disappointed in Kalish, who has been pretty terrible in all facets of the game, playing lousy defense, making numerous mental errors, and showing no patience at the plate.


His splits in save situations paint a pretty bleak picture...

4.98 ERA and a 1.2 WHIP

Tough to depend on a guy not to allow a run with an ERA and WHIP like that.........

#18 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10990 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 11:18 AM

The Sox have the best offense in baseball when they are already leading: .295 / .354 / .504.

When trailing, they're at .245 / .306 / .403. That ranks 12th (7th in the AL), but if you park-adjust it, it probably drops a few notches. It's below the AL average of .252 / .314 / .403.

With the score tied, they are .256 / .318 / .402. That ranks 21st.

And this is pretty clearly the reason they are tied for 4th in wRC+ but 22nd in offensive WPA.

That's right: it's the 4th best offense for compiling impressive stats but the 22nd best for helping you win games. Because almost all of the former happens when the team is already winning.

(It's also the reason they are 0-39 after the opponents reach a Win Expectancy of 90%.)

Who are the culprits? Here's estimated TAv (EqA) based on OBP and SA.

Ahead vs. Not, eTAv
Name Ahead Tie, Behind Diff
Nava .419 .224 .194
Podsednik .412 .255 .157
McDonald .293 .176 .118
Punto .268 .158 .110
Youkilis .313 .206 .107
Ross .364 .271 .093
Saltalamacchia .321 .249 .072
Byrd .247 .192 .055
Gonzalez .287 .238 .049
Ortiz .359 .312 .047
Aviles .246 .236 .010
AL Average .259 .253 .006
Middlebrooks .283 .296 -.013
Pedroia .239 .264 -.026
Sweeney .237 .269 -.033
Shoppach .266 .343 -.077
Kalish .143 .254 -.111

Edited by Eric Van, 04 July 2012 - 11:24 AM.


#19 Eric Van


  • Kid-tested, mother-approved


  • 10990 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:12 PM

Sox are now:

.739 (17-6) in games decided by 5 or more runs (blowouts)
.453 (24-29) in games decided in regulation by 1-4 runs*
.167 (1-5) in extra innings

That's an overall .424 in non-blowouts.

*Including 8-10 in 1-run games, not substantially different from the 16-19 in games decided by 2-4 runs. Hence lumped together.

#20 reggiecleveland


  • sublime


  • 13283 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:38 PM

Some dismal points:

Our infield that looked like three all stars and Aviles has no all stars. Pedroia has turned into down year Marty Barret since his injury, Adrian Gonzalez is now an Angels era Rod Carew, Aviles is showing why nobody even KC thought he should start, WMB is good for a rookie.

The OF will get Crawford back but he will not outperform the punching above his weight Nava. Nava is due to come to earth and Carl should take his job, but Carl won't be as good as Nava was over the first half. If Ellsbury comes back strong likely his upgrade in CF will be equal to the decline of good performances we got from the fill ins. The Sox were lucky to get hot streaks from Pods and Nava and Sweeney that gave them more than they could expect from the OF.

It is possible to see the offense decline.

The pen has been great but lets be honest. Do we expect these guys to keep being lights out? Before Ras jumps in here and tells me how statistically inevitable it is that Adrian Gonzalez and Pedroia start ripping I hope he doesn't make a Pollyanna assumption that all those guys in the pen are now studs. The rose colored glasses people assume the guys playing well will keep playing well, while the injured guys and the slumping guys will all recover. There is a pretty good chance the additions will be balanced by regression from the over performers.

#21 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 04 July 2012 - 06:46 PM

Sox are now:

.739 (17-6) in games decided by 5 or more runs (blowouts)
.453 (24-29) in games decided in regulation by 1-4 runs*
.167 (1-5) in extra innings

That's an overall .424 in non-blowouts.

*Including 8-10 in 1-run games, not substantially different from the 16-19 in games decided by 2-4 runs. Hence lumped together.


It's getting hard to avoid engaging in armchair (read, BAD) psychology when looking at the numbers presented in your last two posts.

Actually, come to think of it, one post might somewhat disarm the other post's implication. If one decided to read into your last post (extra innings, 1-4 run suckage, blowout dominance) that this team "chokes" offensively when put under "pressure" of a game being undecided, it might not seem totally unreasonable (within the realm of bad message board psychology, that is) based on the data.

At the same time, your previous post seems to present a slightly more analytical basis for where things are going wrong. The players who appear to suffer the most when tied or behind are those same players that I would somewhat expect, from a talent/style standpoint, to suffer against better pitching. It seems reasonable to assume that in those 1-4 run games, and extra inning games that the Red Sox might be facing better pitchers than they see in blowouts, where they just happen to dominate. If one makes the leap to assume (and I know it's an assumption) that better pitching is being faced in the "Tied, Behind" category, then it seems logical that the historically marginal MLB players (Nava, Podsednik, McDonald, Punto, post-concussion Byrd), the injured star (Youkilis), and the studs who hit bombs when they hit anything at all (Salty, Ross) would drop off in terms of their productivity. Basically, the lineup features too many players who might be especially sensitive to the quality of competition, hence why they were either meant to be platoon players, or backup/AAA players. It's not a psychology problem, it's a talent problem, and that only gets fixed by players coming back healthy AND the other stars staying healthy.

#22 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6321 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:23 AM

Sox are 10-19 in games started by Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz, and 33-23 in games started by everyone else.

#23 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 5026 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 08:45 AM

Sox are 10-19 in games started by Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz, and 33-23 in games started by everyone else.


That can't be right, just adding their W-L records those three are 17-14; I suppose it could be true of the combination of Lester (5-5) and Beckett (4-7), who by W-L record are 9-12, if the team went 1-7 in games in which they didn't get a decision.

And, I'd say you could make a case that statistic belongs in the glass half full thread, because they're both pitching to a much better expected win percentage.

#24 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 09:08 AM

Team W-L by pitcher starting:

Lester: 7-10
Beckett: 5-9 (current streak - 5 straight losses)
Buchholz: 9-5 (current streak - 4 straight wins)
Combined: 21-24

t4w is smoking something and/or getting his stats from a lousy source, but the combined record still isn't particularly impressive.

#25 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6321 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 09:18 AM

Haha. Read it in Cafardo's column this morning. MY BAD NEVER AGAIN.

#26 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 09:25 AM

Haha. Read it in Cafardo's column this morning. MY BAD NEVER AGAIN.


I think there needs to be a Cafardo sticky at the top of this forum, because I'm pretty sure quoting him is worse than using WAR to compare players. I trust Lackey's 2011 fWAR more than I trust Nick Cafardo to tell me whether it's raining or not when we are both outside in a hurricane.

Edited by JMDurron, 08 July 2012 - 09:25 AM.


#27 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 10:58 AM

Team W-L by pitcher starting:

Lester: 7-10
Beckett: 5-9 (current streak - 5 straight losses)
Buchholz: 9-5 (current streak - 4 straight wins)
Combined: 21-24

t4w is smoking something and/or getting his stats from a lousy source, but the combined record still isn't particularly impressive.


I'm sorry but I don't see what the problem is. If you go to baseball-reference.com and look at the pitchers' individual game logs, you get the same numbers as Carado used.

Of course, if the Red Sox scored some runs when Lester (4.01 rpg support) and Beckett (4.16 rpg) pitched like they do when Buchholz (6.39 rpg) did, things would look better.

All that aside, have Lester and Beckett pitched like "aces?" Go to Lester's box scores and see how many times he either gave up the first runs(s) in games or allowed an opponent to tie or go ahead after being given the lead. Far too many.

#28 Cuzittt


  • Bouncing with Anger


  • 16112 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:15 AM

I'm sorry but I don't see what the problem is. If you go to baseball-reference.com and look at the pitchers' individual game logs, you get the same numbers as Carado used.


The numbers you quote are not from Cafardo, they are from JMDurron (who may have used Baseball-Reference).

Cafardo said (according to tim4wins) that the team record in games started by the "Top 3" pitchers is 10-19, which is idiotic on its face. Besides the fact that the combined 3 pitchers have more than 10 wins combined (and have not come out of the bullpen)... It would mean they only have started 29 of 82 games.

But... this belongs more in the media forum.... not the main forum.

#29 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6321 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 11:47 AM

The article still hasn't been amended

http://www.boston.co...jolt/?page=full

Doubront got his act together and pitched into the seventh to get the win, responding a lot better than Morales. And although Beckett pitched better after the first inning Friday night, the so-called ace of the staff couldn’t get past the fifth. The Red Sox are 10-19 in games started by Beckett, Lester, and Clay Buchholz, and that’s not the way it was drawn up at the start of the year.


My only defense for posting the stats in the first place without realizing that they were quite obviously wrong is that I have a 5 week old baby and I had been up since 5:45. Still, I'm ashamed.

Edited by tims4wins, 08 July 2012 - 11:47 AM.


#30 bosox79

  • 1623 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:15 PM

The Sox have the best offense in baseball when they are already leading: .295 / .354 / .504.

When trailing, they're at .245 / .306 / .403. That ranks 12th (7th in the AL), but if you park-adjust it, it probably drops a few notches. It's below the AL average of .252 / .314 / .403.

With the score tied, they are .256 / .318 / .402. That ranks 21st.

And this is pretty clearly the reason they are tied for 4th in wRC+ but 22nd in offensive WPA.

That's right: it's the 4th best offense for compiling impressive stats but the 22nd best for helping you win games. Because almost all of the former happens when the team is already winning.

(It's also the reason they are 0-39 after the opponents reach a Win Expectancy of 90%.)

Who are the culprits? Here's estimated TAv (EqA) based on OBP and SA.

Ahead vs. Not, eTAv
Name Ahead Tie, Behind Diff
Nava .419 .224 .194
Podsednik .412 .255 .157
McDonald .293 .176 .118
Punto .268 .158 .110
Youkilis .313 .206 .107
Ross .364 .271 .093
Saltalamacchia .321 .249 .072
Byrd .247 .192 .055
Gonzalez .287 .238 .049
Ortiz .359 .312 .047
Aviles .246 .236 .010
AL Average .259 .253 .006
Middlebrooks .283 .296 -.013
Pedroia .239 .264 -.026
Sweeney .237 .269 -.033
Shoppach .266 .343 -.077
Kalish .143 .254 -.111


Do you have the PA to accompany these stats?

#31 geoduck no quahog

  • 4773 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 01:17 PM

The glass half empty is named Aceves. He's done a terrific job after being thrust into an emergency position. A winning team needs a bona fide closer and after Bailey went down (surprise) Ownership made no effort to find one (don't talk to me about Melancon, the 8th inning guy). If they knew Bard was toast, they should have left him in the setup role to pass or fail. If they didn't know he was toast, they were idiots for not trying him as the closer. Just bad decisions all around.

Aceves should have been stretched to start (which is what he wanted).

The glass is only half empty because Alfredo has done a pretty decent job in a position he's not suited for.

#32 JMDurron

  • 4143 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:09 PM

My only defense for posting the stats in the first place without realizing that they were quite obviously wrong is that I have a 5 week old baby and I had been up since 5:45. Still, I'm ashamed.


That was me last September, so it's all good as far as I'm concerned.

I used baseball-reference for the stats I cited.

#33 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6321 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 02:41 PM

Yes, baseball-reference is a "source". A Nick Cafardo column is "not".

#34 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 08 July 2012 - 03:11 PM

The numbers you quote are not from Cafardo, they are from JMDurron (who may have used Baseball-Reference)....


I misunderstood Durron's quote.

#35 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:50 AM

The prediliction of the Red Sox for giving up first-inning runs this season prompted me to take a look at the historical winning percentages when the home team gives up n runs in the first inning. Overall, in the 150,961 games in my study, the home won at a rate of 54.1%. As can be seen, when the home team does not yield any runs in the first inning, their expected winning percentage goes up but when they allow as few as one run in the first, their winning percentage drops below .500. This is pretty much of a straight line drop-off (the correlation coefficient, r = 0.995)

A single team-season is a small sample and can vary greatly from the historical trend, but I think this does show that giving up run in the first inning is not good.

1st Hwin% Hwon Hlost
V0 .594 63951 43724
V1 .489 11169 11691
V2 .384 4316 6932
V3 .302 1618 3747
V4 .196 468 1914
V5 .150 138 784
V6+ .067 34 475
All .541 81694 69267


V0, V1, etc., are games when the visiting team scores 0 runs, 1 runs, etc., in the first inning. All is total games won and lost.

#36 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 6321 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:47 AM

Great stuff Otto. Can you run the same numbers for giving up runs in the bottom of the first as the visiting team? Because home or road, this staff sucks in the first inning.

Edit: and it's worse than I thought. 6.49 ERA, .838 OPS, 121 OPS+

Edited by tims4wins, 09 July 2012 - 10:51 AM.


#37 Saints Rest

  • 3543 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:07 AM

I had had a similar thought on Saturday, but when I looked at RA by inning, the Sox ranked 25th worst in the ML. The worst? NYY. My conclusion: baffled.

#38 trekfan55


  • SoSH Member


  • 5218 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 11:50 AM

The glass half empty is named Aceves. He's done a terrific job after being thrust into an emergency position. A winning team needs a bona fide closer and after Bailey went down (surprise) Ownership made no effort to find one (don't talk to me about Melancon, the 8th inning guy). If they knew Bard was toast, they should have left him in the setup role to pass or fail. If they didn't know he was toast, they were idiots for not trying him as the closer. Just bad decisions all around.

Aceves should have been stretched to start (which is what he wanted).

The glass is only half empty because Alfredo has done a pretty decent job in a position he's not suited for.


Aceves was practically stretched out as a starter in ST and was in the running for a spot in the rotation (in a race that included Doubront, Padilla, Cook, Silva, and him to start ST) one by one, injuries claimed each one and for some reason Bard was always deemed "untouchable". In the end Aceves made a few comments akin "what do I have to do to earn a starting spot?" but BobbyV already knew Bailey was out for the long term and so made him the closer. The change was made at the last moment due to the Bailey injury. If Bailey had not been injured who knows what might have happened?

Edited by trekfan55, 09 July 2012 - 11:50 AM.


#39 kieckeredinthehead

  • 2941 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 12:02 PM

The issue is being confounded with the fact that giving up first-inning runs is also a very good predictor that your starting pitching that night is going to suck. That is, those stats don't necessarily say "If you start down 2-0 in the first, that's a very difficult hole to climb out of," but are more likely saying "If your pitcher gives up two runs in the first, it's probably going to be another two runs in the second, and the third." But actually, at least in this series, most of the damage done against the starter was in the first and then they settled down, something that the Yankees starters are even better at. In fact, in the second inning, Boston pitchers have among the LOWEST ERA in the league (as does NY).

Note also that 23% of all first inning runs scored on Boston occurred in the last three days (14 of 62) - if the Yankees hadn't scored any runs in the first this weekend, or had scored runs in the first proportional to Boston's overall ERA, Boston would be league average in this split.

Looking over the past few years (i.e. with different pitching coaches and Varitek), Boston was generally around league average in the first inning. So, is there a different pattern in approach?

#40 OttoC


  • SoSH Member


  • 7023 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 01:10 PM

Great stuff Otto. Can you run the same numbers for giving up runs in the bottom of the first as the visiting team? Because home or road, this staff sucks in the first inning.

Edit: and it's worse than I thought. 6.49 ERA, .838 OPS, 121 OPS+


The first table shows the home team's winning percentage when it scores in the first inning for all games and the second table shows THE same, but when the visitinig team fails to score in the first. The home team's record when not scoring in the first is included for comparison.

Visiting team gives up runs in 1st (with or without scoring themselves)
1st Hwin% Hwon Hlost
H0 .479 48824 53000
H1 .590 14605 10139
H2 .691 8954 4010
H3 .778 5023 1432
H4 .836 2541 499
H5 .884 1045 137
H6+ .934 702 50



Visiting team gives up runs in 1st (without scoring themselves)
1st Hwin% Hwon Hlost
H0 .534 38832 33920
H1 .645 11360 6264
H2 .743 6833 2365
H3 .822 3763 815
H4 .879 1907 263
H5 .913 754 72
H6+ .953 502 25





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users