Jump to content


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

Photo

So the Sox are even at the All-Star break...


  • Please log in to reply
222 replies to this topic

Poll: .500 at the break (287 member(s) have cast votes)

With the Red Sox at 43-43 at the break, where do you see them ending up W-L wise at the end of the year?

  1. >90 wins (23 votes [8.01%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 8.01%

  2. 86-90 wins (123 votes [42.86%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 42.86%

  3. 82-85 wins (104 votes [36.24%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 36.24%

  4. 81-81 (even record) (6 votes [2.09%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 2.09%

  5. <80 (18 votes [6.27%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.27%

  6. Who cares, this team sucks and should be sellers immediately. (13 votes [4.53%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 4.53%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#51 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 23,324 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 06:59 PM

I'm about 90% sure you two are talking past each other over the slippage between "health is the issue" and "health is an issue."

The difference, of course, is huge. Certainly, health is an issue. But would controlling for health mean the team would be (have been?) in contention of not? That is a huge difference between the two articulations.

I have a certain amount of faith in SJH to believe he's not claiming that the health issue has made no difference, but rather I beleive he is saying that even with "average" health luck, this team would still be in bad shape and that is what needs to be addressed.

Of course, I could be wrong, and SJH might just be a big poopie head--who knows?


Well of course I'm a big poopie head. Why else would I agree to help run this madhouse?

But essentially, yes, that's more or less it. The injuries certainly haven't helped, but IMO they're not the prime reason this team has been so poor this year. They're masking the real reasons, the way I see it.

Don't get me wrong: Ellsbury is a tremendous player.Only an idiot wouldn't want him back in the lineup, and I'm no idiot. But as pointed out already the team scores plenty of runs, and he's missed most of the year so they haven't exactly been killed by his absence. Maybe P91 is right and when he comes back the starters' ERAs will drop 2 runs a game, but I doubt there will be THAT much of a change despite the defensive superiority he has over Kalish and Ross and Sweeney in CF.

#52 Reverend


  • B.P.I.W.


  • 14,557 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:08 PM

Do you have the stats to prove you're not an idiot?

#53 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,786 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:09 PM

It's all about the schedule. This team has not demonstrated an ability to consistently beat good teams or good pitching, and the only guy coming back who wasn't part of the first half performance (mostly against the lower tier of both leagues) is Ellsbury.


Middlebrooks missed the first month and the past 7 games, Pedroia missed 2-1/2 weeks and sucked for 2_1/2 more. Crawford hasn't played at all. Bailey hasn't pitched. Matsuzaka made 4 starts. Melancon appears to be poised to be an asset.

Crawford is unlikely to outperform the guys who subbed for him and although Bailey might help, the bullpen hasn't really been the concern.


These are demonstrably not true. The team's leftfilders have a combined OPS of 780, and the team's CF have a combined OPS of 610. Aceves has blown 4 saves (Pap blew 3 all of last year) and has 6 losses. The team blew a 9-1 lead in the 7th inning, and blew a game in which it led by 3 going into the bottom of the 9th, and 2 going into the bottom of the 12th.

So any hope based on the "reinforcements are coming!" is largely illusory.


To the contrary, your reality is what is warped.

The other major issue (besides remaining schedule) is the starting pitching. Lester and Beckett might suddenly figure out how to pitch again, but their performance against the Yankees in this series is the real measure of who they are this year. Less than meh. It'll take a miracle to reach 80 wins, but mid-to-high 70s is the more likely outcome.


Well given that Crawford, Ellsbury, and Pedroia are gold glove defenders, and Middlebrooks is rumored to be in that category, the pitching should benefit from massively improved defense.

#54 Rudy's Curve

  • 988 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:10 PM

Well of course I'm a big poopie head. Why else would I agree to help run this madhouse?

But essentially, yes, that's more or less it. The injuries certainly haven't helped, but IMO they're not the prime reason this team has been so poor this year. They're masking the real reasons, the way I see it.

Don't get me wrong: Ellsbury is a tremendous player.Only an idiot wouldn't want him back in the lineup, and I'm no idiot. But as pointed out already the team scores plenty of runs, and he's missed most of the year so they haven't exactly been killed by his absence. Maybe P91 is right and when he comes back the starters' ERAs will drop 2 runs a game, but I doubt there will be THAT much of a change despite the defensive superiority he has over Kalish and Ross and Sweeney in CF.


Red Sox CF have a .604 OPS in addition to shit defense from Kalish and others - they've been murdered by his absence. If Ellsbury is anything close to his normal self, he's a massive upgrade.

#55 Reverend


  • B.P.I.W.


  • 14,557 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:22 PM

Red Sox CF have a .604 OPS in addition to shit defense from Kalish and others - they've been murdered by his absence. If Ellsbury is anything close to his normal self, he's a massive upgrade.


Everyone agrees on this. The difference is how much of a difference this upgrade will make and whether or not said upgrade is sufficient to achieve certain goals.

I'm not sure why there is confusion that these are two different issues. Better is one thing. Enough is another. Is the improvement (i.e the amount of better) enough?

#56 Rudy's Curve

  • 988 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:35 PM

Everyone agrees on this. The difference is how much of a difference this upgrade will make and whether or not said upgrade is sufficient to achieve certain goals.

I'm not sure why there is confusion that these are two different issues. Better is one thing. Enough is another. Is the improvement (i.e the amount of better) enough?


It's not going to be enough unless the SP/Gonzalez/Pedroia get their acts together, but I was simply taking issue with SJH's point that they haven't been hurt by his absence just because they've scored a ton of runs. As for how big the upgrade is, even if Ellsbury only performs like he did on average in 2008-09 (prorated 3.4 WAR and likely a conservative estimate), that's still two wins going forward. He could help the team a ton by being awesome, but he will naturally help it a lot just by not sucking.

#57 brs3


  • sings praises of pinstripes


  • 3,030 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:38 PM

Too many things need to happen for the Red Sox to find a way to 10 games over .500 for a finish. They'll need just about every returning player to return with a bang, current struggling players to find their way, and their opponents to struggle a bit, too. I'm not sure how likely that is. Everything gets tougher in the second half. I voted for less than 80 wins.

#58 Reverend


  • B.P.I.W.


  • 14,557 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 07:40 PM

It's not going to be enough unless the SP/Gonzalez/Pedroia get their acts together,


Sure.


but I was simply taking issue with SJH's point that they haven't been hurt by his absence just because they've scored a ton of runs.


I think we disagree as to his point.


As for how big the upgrade is, even if Ellsbury only performs like he did on average in 2008-09 (prorated 3.4 WAR and likely a conservative estimate), that's still two wins going forward. He could help the team a ton by being awesome, but he will naturally help it a lot just by not sucking.


Sure.

#59 dbn

  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:02 PM

For what it's worth (probably not too much), if they win the rest of the way at their current Pytag winning % (0.552, an 89 win pace over 162), they will finish with 85 wins.

Edit to add: it has taken between 87 and 94 wins to clinch 2nd in the AL Wild Card race over the past 10 seasons, with an average of 89.4

Edit again to add: if all of the AL wins the rest of the way at their current Pytag winning %s, the Red Sox will be the 2nd wild card.

Edited by dbn, 09 July 2012 - 08:11 PM.


#60 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,058 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:18 PM

C'mon, he's not an ordinary pitcher. You might be right that he's not a top-5 guy in the AL like he was in 2009 and 2010 (which probably were the peak of his career), but "ordinary pitcher?" His xFIP+ in 2012 (a down year) is 88. That's eleventh among qualified SP in the American League.

His SwStr% is the same it was last year and is still above league average. His whiff rate on the cutter in 2012 is 13.13%, down only slightly from his career rate of 14.56%. But more importantly it was 18.87% in June, so while his aggregate might not be hitting the same peak it did 3-4 years ago; it's still an effective pitch.

And you're using body language and facial expressions? Isn't that something we tried to rub out when everyone wanted Buchholz and Lester off the team when they first came up because they were "headcases?" We know nothing about what is going on inside the players' heads (or at least 1/100th of what we know from watching the results in the stat column) so unless Lester threw off his glove and flipped the double birds to the press box before walking off last night, I don't think it's fair to call him out on facial expressions.


The cutter has gone from a +2 wCT/100 in 2009 and 2010 to -2 wCT/100 in 2012. That is a spectacular collapse, from a knockout pitch to a dead weight so heavy that Lester nearly discarded the cutter for stretch in the spring. It may still get some whiffs, but it is being hammered at a rate never seen before. I would guess that it is a combination of poorer command of the pitch and batters looking for what the entire league knows as Lester's signature pitch.

Regarding body language: did the game threads want Buchholz and Lester off the team, or did we want them to concentrate on the hitter, master fastball command, and generally grow up? This is a different scenario: Lester has grown up. He looks like and behaves like a different person from the 2008 breakout year. He has taken to giving Lackey-style histrionics when a fielder blows a play, and he and Bobby the Fifth aren't always singing from the same hymnbook at those pitching mound revival meetings. He doesn't look like a happy man, and we are certainly entitled to wonder why.

#61 Montana Fan


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,014 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:29 PM

Is this the "blow it up" thread. That's where DH3 lived for about 6 years. A couple of WS victories and he's gone soft.

This year would be a good one to sneak into the 1 game wild card playoff as maybe this average team can catch fire at season's end. But somehow, I doubt it. The catching fire part that is. The planets would have to align perfectly for this team to end the year healthy and playing like they did last summer. I don't see it happening.

86 wins and a lot of September football is what I think the future holds.

#62 dbn

  • 1,616 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 08:44 PM

There has been a lot of mention of a tough 2nd half schedule. ESPN.com has their "SOS" listed as 0.507, which I assume is the weighted winning % of their opponents so far. The weighted winning % of their opponents the rest of the season is... 0.507.

Edit: That's completely wrong. It's 0.530.

Edited by dbn, 09 July 2012 - 08:51 PM.


#63 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,058 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 09:21 PM

Middlebrooks missed the first month and the past 7 games, Pedroia missed 2-1/2 weeks and sucked for 2_1/2 more. Crawford hasn't played at all. Bailey hasn't pitched. Matsuzaka made 4 starts. Melancon appears to be poised to be an asset.


Melançon's stuff looks pretty good. He hits 94 with regularity and his curve is sharp. The questions about him have more to do with whether he is up to AL East lineups in high-leverage situations. It's hard to test that tolerance without putting him into high-leverage situations.

Well given that Crawford, Ellsbury, and Pedroia are gold glove defenders, and Middlebrooks is rumored to be in that category, the pitching should benefit from massively improved defense.


Middlebrooks clearly has the tools -- a very strong throwing arm, although it occasionally misfires, and the quick reactions, athleticism and reach to get to the bunts and high hoppers. He's still clumsy on foul popups, where he needs more time in Fenway, and groundballs, which seem to find their way out of his glove often enough to put pressure on his throws. He's a work in progress with a very high ceiling, both at the plate and in the field. I wouldn't expect him to reach that ceiling until 2014.

I wouldn't call Crawford a gold glove defender any more. His speed is wasted in Fenway's left field, his arm will be replacement-level until his UCL pops for real, and he was none too graceful in 2011.

Ellsbury and Pedroia are in their later twenties, so they should be as good as ever in the field, once they have healed from their latest injuries.

#64 HriniakPosterChild

  • 1,657 posts

Posted 09 July 2012 - 10:48 PM

He also walked a mere 3 times during the streak, which suggests he wasn't necessarily seeing the ball much better. His .412 BABIP for the stretch would, unfortunately, support that as well.

I don't think pitchers worry about throwing the ball over the plate when they're facing a singles hitter who can't run. Maybe he didn't walk because they're not afraid to pitch to him lately.

#65 Reverend


  • B.P.I.W.


  • 14,557 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:58 AM

I don't think pitchers worry about throwing the ball over the plate when they're facing a singles hitter who can't run. Maybe he didn't walk because they're not afraid to pitch to him lately.


Uh...

Yes?

#66 Snodgrass'Muff


  • definitely knows how to calculate shit


  • 14,091 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:15 AM

Well of course I'm a big poopie head. Why else would I agree to help run this madhouse?

But essentially, yes, that's more or less it. The injuries certainly haven't helped, but IMO they're not the prime reason this team has been so poor this year. They're masking the real reasons, the way I see it.

Don't get me wrong: Ellsbury is a tremendous player.Only an idiot wouldn't want him back in the lineup, and I'm no idiot. But as pointed out already the team scores plenty of runs, and he's missed most of the year so they haven't exactly been killed by his absence. Maybe P91 is right and when he comes back the starters' ERAs will drop 2 runs a game, but I doubt there will be THAT much of a change despite the defensive superiority he has over Kalish and Ross and Sweeney in CF.


The team is only a few games out of a playoff spot right now. Getting healthy is absolutely enough to closer that gap. I don't see how that is al that crazy a thought. Do you really believe a healthy roster isn't a big enough upgrade to make that much of a difference? It's not enough to win them the division, but it should absolutely be enough to grab a wild card spot.

Edited by Snodgrass'Muff, 10 July 2012 - 06:17 AM.


#67 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 23,324 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:46 AM

The team is only a few games out of a playoff spot right now. Getting healthy is absolutely enough to closer that gap. I don't see how that is al that crazy a thought. Do you really believe a healthy roster isn't a big enough upgrade to make that much of a difference? It's not enough to win them the division, but it should absolutely be enough to grab a wild card spot.


I disagree with your premise given where the injuries are, and leave it at that. We've already been over this and we're not going to reach an agreement.

#68 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,786 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 07:53 AM

I don't think pitchers worry about throwing the ball over the plate when they're facing a singles hitter who can't run. Maybe he didn't walk because they're not afraid to pitch to him lately.


This goes back to the 1970s mentality that walks occur when the pitcher just happens to mistakenly throw 4 pitches outside the strike zone. Drawing walks is a skill; one that includes being able to foul off close pitches that are strikes and take close pitches that are balls. Wade Boggs was a singles hitter who couldn't run, and drew lots and lots of walks.

#69 John Marzano Olympic Hero


  • has fancy plans, and pants to match


  • 14,003 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:25 AM

I have them at 82-85 wins mostly because of strength of schedule coming up and the areas where they need better players (namely the starting pitching staff) they aren't going to get them. Yes, Ellsbury and Pedroia and Middlebrooks will be back; but the fact is the Red Sox have been hitting without them.

Their problem is pitching and while Buchholz will help (I hope), his return won't be enough. Currently, the Sox' winning percentage against teams over .500 is .431, which is (obviously) terrible. Considering that the competition during the first half of the season was easier than the second half (and the Red Sox only were able to muster a .500 record) I don't see any hope for optimism.

Yeah, they'll probably be in the running for the second Wild Card spot for most of the year and I'm sure they'll be a hue and cry for Cherrington's head if they don't make a "big splash" at the July trade deadline, but even if they do somehow sneak into the post season, realistically they're not going anywhere. Compared to the strongly built Sox teams of the last decade (2003, 04, 07 and 08) this club pales in comparison.

#70 TheYaz67

  • 2,609 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 09:43 AM

The team is only a few games out of a playoff spot right now. Getting healthy is absolutely enough to closer that gap. I don't see how that is al that crazy a thought. Do you really believe a healthy roster isn't a big enough upgrade to make that much of a difference? It's not enough to win them the division, but it should absolutely be enough to grab a wild card spot.


I went with 82-85 wins, and only because I was feeling optimistic - I think 90 wins is pretty much almost completely out of the question. I agree with those that are worried that even with getting some guys back/improved overall health the tough second half schedule is going to not let them get on any meaningful run of wins to get some momentum going. The pitching is the huge question mark - it got worse last year as the year wore on - it would have to get better from here on (against many AL East teams and Rangers & Angles teams that can rake) out for them to exceed the 82-85 threshold and be in the mix for the postseason I think....

#71 lexrageorge

  • 2,336 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:37 AM

I'm a firm believer in "you are what your record says you are". To date, they've been a thoroughly mediocre team. Yes, technically they are still in it, and the team's performance can improve if folks get healthy and if some of their higher paid players perform closer to their career averages. Both are very big "if's".

The lineup still disappears too easily against better pitching. While 3rd in the league in OPS, they are league average at 103 OPS+. The return of Ellsbury, Middlebrooks, and Pedroia to health, and the return of Gonzalez' lost power would help a lot. But it would be foolish to count on all of that happening while simultaneously assuming no regression from the Nava's of the team.

The pitching is a bigger problem. No team can survive in which the top 3 pitchers in the rotation sport an ERA+ of 97, 96, and 78. Lester has been victimized by a high BABIP of 0.326, but hasn't helped himself with the lowest K rate since 2008. And others have noted the problems he's having throwing his signature out pitch, which isn't good. Beckett meanwhile has the lowest K rate of his career, and his .280 BABIP is unlikely to get better. And obviously Buchholz' numbers are inflated by his early season struggles, but it's still unknown exactly which Clay we will have when he comes off the DL. Doubront and Morales have both been pleasant surprises, but a regression of one or both wouldn't be unprecedented. We can no longer count on Dice-K; Bard will probably never start another game for the team; and pitchers like Cook are simply no more than spot starters for injury replacements.

The bullpen has kept the team alive during stretches of May and June, but I don't think we can assume the pen will get better. Perhaps Melancon will pick up a bigger role, or even Bard comes back as his early 2011 relief ace. But there could just as well be regression from some of the others that have been pitching well above their career norms.

Bottom line is this looks like a team heading for the low to mid 80's in wins, which will not be enough for a WC spot in the AL this season. There's probably not much that can be done either, especially given the payroll constraints. Get some of the key guys like Pedroia and Gonzalez healthy and confident heading into the offseason would be a good thing. Trading some of their best prospects for a 4th starter would be a terrible thing.

#72 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,383 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:45 AM

The cutter has gone from a +2 wCT/100 in 2009 and 2010 to -2 wCT/100 in 2012. That is a spectacular collapse, from a knockout pitch to a dead weight so heavy that Lester nearly discarded the cutter for stretch in the spring. It may still get some whiffs, but it is being hammered at a rate never seen before. I would guess that it is a combination of poorer command of the pitch and batters looking for what the entire league knows as Lester's signature pitch.

Regarding body language: did the game threads want Buchholz and Lester off the team, or did we want them to concentrate on the hitter, master fastball command, and generally grow up? This is a different scenario: Lester has grown up. He looks like and behaves like a different person from the 2008 breakout year. He has taken to giving Lackey-style histrionics when a fielder blows a play, and he and Bobby the Fifth aren't always singing from the same hymnbook at those pitching mound revival meetings. He doesn't look like a happy man, and we are certainly entitled to wonder why.


And what are the splits on the weights? Since they not normalized by luck, I assume some of that poor number (which is poorer than the weights given by PF/X FWIW) is inherent in the BABIP/LOB% luck that you see in the aggregate since Lester throws so many cutters to begin with. Given the PF/X data and the raw rates, I'd expect those weights to be much better in the second quarter of the season than the first -- at least in line with last year, but probably a bit higher.

And yes, people wanted Buchholz and Lester off the team. People lamented the fact that "we didn't trade Lester when we could have" and "why hasn't Buchholz been DFAed yet" because they A) kept walking guys, B) kept throwing over to first base, and C) kept looking like petulant little children or whatever on the mound. This was a huge problem. I can't dig up the 2008 thread for some reason, but we pretty much had a 10 page rabblefest where something absurd like 70% of this board (not hyperbole) kept saying that Buchholz was a "meltdown waiting to happen" because of his on-field histrionics.

Calling players out on facial expressions and body language is a terribly slippery slope. I'd go so far as to argue it's an unacceptable one since it's armchair psychology at it's finest. Plenty of pitchers have looked whiny or pouty while pitching and won the Cy Young. Plenty of other pitchers have shaken each of their 40 HRs off by patting the catcher on the ass and saying "I'll get 'em next pitch!" and never made it to 200 IP before ending up in a used car dealership.

Edited by czar, 10 July 2012 - 10:46 AM.


#73 wade boggs chicken dinner


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,851 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 11:29 AM

Posted this in the Crawford thread but meant to post it here:

I voted 86-90 without a ton of conviction, but mostly on my feverent hope that the starting pitching have better results when the roster is finally healthy (if nothing else, maybe even, dare I say, a psychological boost).

I wonder how different this thread would be if the Red Sox had managed to win most or all of the 7 games that resulted in blown saves in the first half. Granted - I'm not saying that the Red Sox should have won those games, but to me, the interesting thing is that the Red Sox had managed to pull 4 or 5 of those games out, most of the stats we throw around on this board would be the same (pythag would be better but more normal) and no one would be placing 20-1 odds on the Sox winning the division methinks.

#74 OttoC


  • Mr. Excel


  • 6,364 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:14 PM

The team has a 43-43 record and 76 games left. In order to get to 90 wins for the season, they must go 47-29 (.618) in the second half...with 85 of those games against teams that currently have a .500 winning percentage, or better. I don't have that much faith.

#75 kieckeredinthehead

  • 1,924 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 12:31 PM

The team has a 43-43 record and 76 games left. In order to get to 90 wins for the season, they must go 47-29 (.618) in the second half...with 85 of those games against teams that currently have a .500 winning percentage, or better. I don't have that much faith.


That's 65 of the remaining 76, not 85. But the .500 winning percentage thing is a total canard due solely to the fact that only three teams in the American League are under .500. All of the teams in competition for the two wild card spots have a ton of games left against teams above .500. The Rays have only 12 games against teams under .500, the Orioles have only 14. If Toronto loses the first game after the break, all of a sudden Boston has 20 of its remaining 76 against teams under .500.

Baltimore, currently in place to take the second wild card, will win 86 games with their current winning percentage. Right now Baseball Prospectus has either Detroit or Cleveland taking the second spot with 84 wins. Parity this year makes it very unlikely that the second wild card will require 90 wins.

#76 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,058 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

And what are the splits on the weights? Since they not normalized by luck, I assume some of that poor number (which is poorer than the weights given by PF/X FWIW) is inherent in the BABIP/LOB% luck that you see in the aggregate since Lester throws so many cutters to begin with. Given the PF/X data and the raw rates, I'd expect those weights to be much better in the second quarter of the season than the first -- at least in line with last year, but probably a bit higher.


My observation is that Lester's cutter is getting hit for more home runs than usual, so luck (if any) would be reflected in HR/FB. That is currently at ~11%, neither lucky nor unlucky by league average. Those home runs usually come when he tries to bust at RHB inside at the ankles, but the cutter doesn't dive and ends up inner edge and belt high. That is a mistake he rarely made until this year, which explains his attempt to reinvent himself as a fastball-changeup pitcher to RHB.

And yes, people wanted Buchholz and Lester off the team. People lamented the fact that "we didn't trade Lester when we could have" and "why hasn't Buchholz been DFAed yet" because they A) kept walking guys, B) kept throwing over to first base, and C) kept looking like petulant little children or whatever on the mound. This was a huge problem. I can't dig up the 2008 thread for some reason, but we pretty much had a 10 page rabblefest where something absurd like 70% of this board (not hyperbole) kept saying that Buchholz was a "meltdown waiting to happen" because of his on-field histrionics.


Buchholz 2008 was a meltdown that did happen, pretty much costing the Red Sox the division title. I blame that on Farrell trying to tweak Buchholz's delivery in mid-season, which backfired in the short term by turning his fastball into a gopherball.

Game threads are rabblefests - you can find a quotation to support any ridiculous argument or trade. I remember Lester being considered for a Santana trade, not because people wanted to dispose of Lester, but because Santana was an ace.

Calling players out on facial expressions and body language is a terribly slippery slope. I'd go so far as to argue it's an unacceptable one since it's armchair psychology at it's finest. Plenty of pitchers have looked whiny or pouty while pitching and won the Cy Young. Plenty of other pitchers have shaken each of their 40 HRs off by patting the catcher on the ass and saying "I'll get 'em next pitch!" and never made it to 200 IP before ending up in a used car dealership.


Yeah, we've been over the data vs observation debate a thousand times. Behavior, which includes body language, is an indispensable part of observation. If you're sitting in a slippery armchair, then don't slip, but don't shy away from making simple observations either.

#77 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,786 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:29 PM

The lineup still disappears too easily against better pitching. While 3rd in the league in OPS, they are league average at 103 OPS+. The return of Ellsbury, Middlebrooks, and Pedroia to health, and the return of Gonzalez' lost power would help a lot. But it would be foolish to count on all of that happening while simultaneously assuming no regression from the Nava's of the team.


The regression has already happened. Nava has been terrible during this stretch, Kalish was punchless where Podsednik was hitting .400, Salty has cooled off considerably. This period was one where the holes made by the injuries were exposed. That's all.

The bullpen has kept the team alive during stretches of May and June, but I don't think we can assume the pen will get better. Perhaps Melancon will pick up a bigger role, or even Bard comes back as his early 2011 relief ace. But there could just as well be regression from some of the others that have been pitching well above their career norms.


By far, the most important member of the bullpen is Alfredo Aceves. He is 0 and 6 with 4 blown saves. How is that "pitching well above his career norms?" Padilla has been good, but his ERA is still almost 4; Unless I'm mistaken that's roughly his career average. Contrary to some posts here, the losses during the 12-19 start to the season that are 100% on the bullpen still count. The return to form of Melancon, and eventual return of Bailey, make such a stretch less likely in August and September.

Bottom line is this looks like a team heading for the low to mid 80's in wins, which will not be enough for a WC spot in the AL this season. There's probably not much that can be done either, especially given the payroll constraints. Get some of the key guys like Pedroia and Gonzalez healthy and confident heading into the offseason would be a good thing. Trading some of their best prospects for a 4th starter would be a terrible thing.


As someone else just noted, why won't mid-80s be enough? Baltimore is currently leading that race and is on pace for 86 wins.

#78 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,383 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:47 PM

My observation is that Lester's cutter is getting hit for more home runs than usual, so luck (if any) would be reflected in HR/FB. That is currently at ~11%, neither lucky nor unlucky by league average. Those home runs usually come when he tries to bust at RHB inside at the ankles, but the cutter doesn't dive and ends up inner edge and belt high. That is a mistake he rarely made until this year, which explains his attempt to reinvent himself as a fastball-changeup pitcher to RHB.


Is there evidence of this I'm not seeing? He's throwing the cutter to RHB at a rate of 20% in 2012. This is down from 26% in 2011 but very close to the 22% from both 2009 and 2010 (his peak seasons). His fastball frequency is roughly the same (37-38%) those four years. He has increased the changeup usage (up to 20% from 9-14%) but that is mostly at the expense of his curveball/slider, not his cutter.

Buchholz 2008 was a meltdown that did happen, pretty much costing the Red Sox the division title. I blame that on Farrell trying to tweak Buchholz's delivery in mid-season, which backfired in the short term by turning his fastball into a gopherball.

Game threads are rabblefests - you can find a quotation to support any ridiculous argument or trade. I remember Lester being considered for a Santana trade, not because people wanted to dispose of Lester, but because Santana was an ace.


These weren't game threads, these were sitting right on the main board. There were people legitimately arguing that the Sox should be making moves based on Buchholz/Lester's gesticulations on the mound -- not objective evidence. In fact you even posted in one of those threads from 2009.

I keep reading these claims about Buchholz's immaturity and need to grow up, but I'm not seeing it this year. There's no Clay Buchholz Face: he looks quite composed and intent on the mound, and his strand rate at 78.2% is impressive. The number of nervous throws to first base has declined over the last few starts. Why exactly do you think he "needs to grow up"? Or are you simply reading an old narrative that diagnoses him as a "head case" and then imposes that diagnosis on scant evidence?

Why do we think that Lester has a killer mentality on the mound? I think it has everything to do with excellent command of a 96 mph fastball, a deadly cutter and an unhittable curve. In other words, most of what we are seeing from these pitchers in 2009 is in their arms, not in their heads; and most of what we read on the board about their mindsets and maturity levels is psychobabble.


Yeah, we've been over the data vs observation debate a thousand times. Behavior, which includes body language, is an indispensable part of observation. If you're sitting in a slippery armchair, then don't slip, but don't shy away from making simple observations either.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'll stick with the peripherals which imply Lester will rebound from his current 4.49 ERA during the second half in 2012. Everyone else can be concerned about his pouty faces and shoulder shrugs.

Edited by czar, 10 July 2012 - 01:50 PM.


#79 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,421 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:51 PM

By far, the most important member of the bullpen is Alfredo Aceves. He is 0 and 6 with 4 blown saves.


Seriously? You're quoting W/L for a closer? In 2012?

#80 Smiling Joe Hesketh


  • now batting steve sal hiney. the leftfielder, hiney


  • 23,324 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 01:59 PM

Seriously? You're quoting W/L for a closer? In 2012?


He's got more saves than Papelbon, though. :buddy:

I think his point was that Aceves has also picked up losses in tie games and games where he's blown the save, so it's not entirely misleading to note it.

#81 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 5,304 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:03 PM

2.24 WPA last year, -0.53 this year. Nuff said.

#82 Hokie Sox

  • 80 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:05 PM

Which blew about 6 games in April and has recently shown signs (Miller, Atchison) of regressing back to normal levels. Which is....underperforming.


On a more positive note, Melancon has been rather effective lately (1 ER given up since his comeback on June 11) thereby droppping his ERA from 49.50 to 7.04, albeit he's pitched in relatively low leverage situations. Still, this is important now that it looks like Bailey won't be back until August, if at all. It'll be interesting to see whether our intellectual-wannabe of a manager recognizes this and throws him into some higher leverage situations coming out of the break.

And I said 86-90 (definitely on the low side of that though) and I think that's incredibly optimistic. However, that should be enough for one of these 2 wildcard slots, provoking Selig's wet dream. Perhaps the most disconcerting thing is that I'm not confident in any of our starters to pitch that game at this point.

#83 Plympton91


  • it's time to get weird


  • 3,786 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:06 PM

Seriously? You're quoting W/L for a closer? In 2012?


1. He wasn't supposed to be the closer

2. 0-6 with 4 blown saves is not good at all, especially if it's your "relief ace," no matter what decade you're in.

3. The closer is paid to give up one less run than the lead he had entering the game. For a starting pitcher, run support and a host of other factors goes into W-L percentages making them almost worthless. When your closer loses a game, it's pretty much because he gave up 1 or more runs when such runs were not welcome.

4. If Aceves peripherals suggest he should be better than 0-6 with 4 blown saves, that works in favor of my argument that the team can be expected to play better in the second half.

5. If Aceves' peripherals suggest he should be worse than 0-6 with 4 blown saves, that works in favor of my argument that he's not performing above expectations.

What's the problem?

#84 Red(s)HawksFan

  • 2,749 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:15 PM

Seriously? You're quoting W/L for a closer? In 2012?

In order to get hung with a loss, he's giving up the winning run(s). If you presume that a closer is most often used when the game is tied or his team has the lead, then a closer with six losses halfway through the season is noteworthy when evaluating his overall effectiveness.

#85 Savin Hillbilly


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,421 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:25 PM

In order to get hung with a loss, he's giving up the winning run(s). If you presume that a closer is most often used when the game is tied or his team has the lead, then a closer with six losses halfway through the season is noteworthy when evaluating his overall effectiveness.


If P91 had just said "6 losses and 4 blown saves," that would have been reasonable--although since three of the losses are also blown saves, there's some double-counting there. But saying "0 and 6" implies that the lack of wins is also part of the indictment, which is silly.

#86 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,058 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:36 PM

Is there evidence of this I'm not seeing? He's throwing the cutter to RHB at a rate of 20% in 2012. This is down from 26% in 2011 but very close to the 22% from both 2009 and 2010 (his peak seasons). His fastball frequency is roughly the same (37-38%) those four years. He has increased the changeup usage (up to 20% from 9-14%) but that is mostly at the expense of his curveball/slider, not his cutter.


These weren't game threads, these were sitting right on the main board. There were people legitimately arguing that the Sox should be making moves based on Buchholz/Lester's gesticulations on the mound -- not objective evidence. In fact you even posted in one of those threads from 2009.


I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree here. I'll stick with the peripherals which imply Lester will rebound from his current 4.49 ERA during the second half in 2012. Everyone else can be concerned about his pouty faces and shoulder shrugs.


He is throwing the cutter less often and less effectively, in part because he has been making big mistakes with its location. Fangraphs has the cutter dropping from 28% in 2011 to 16% in 2012. Pitchfx has the cutter dropping from 25% to 12%. The data are fuzzier than usual this year because of persistent horizontal and vertical movement errors that throw off automated pitch identification, but Lester has had a significant number of starts like May 30 against Detroit where he throws just a handful of cutters.

My post from 2010 draws a conclusion about Buchholz's maturation from his composure on the mound, so I am arguing for observation as the first indicator of change, including observations of facial expressions. It can be confirmed or refuted later in the results and data. In the case of Buchholz 2010, I would argue that it was confirmed.

The difference in the Lester case is that I am not imposing an old narrative on Lester. Instead, I think we are seeing something new that we haven't seen in Lester when things were going well. If you want to stick entirely with the peripherals, then consider the declining K-rate; if the fundamentals, then consider the declining fastball velocity.

#87 Adrian's Dome

  • 1,549 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:37 PM

If P91 had just said "6 losses and 4 blown saves," that would have been reasonable--although since three of the losses are also blown saves, there's some double-counting there. But saying "0 and 6" implies that the lack of wins is also part of the indictment, which is silly.


Come on, that's a stretch. Everyone knows that when a closer is racking up wins it's because he's been either brought into tie games that the team has squeaked out, or it's because of blown saves that the team has managed to bail him out of. You didn't need to dissect his statement down that far.

#88 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,383 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 02:57 PM

He is throwing the cutter less often and less effectively, in part because he has been making big mistakes with its location. Fangraphs has the cutter dropping from 28% in 2011 to 16% in 2012. Pitchfx has the cutter dropping from 25% to 12%. The data are fuzzier than usual this year because of persistent horizontal and vertical movement errors that throw off automated pitch identification, but Lester has had a significant number of starts like May 30 against Detroit where he throws just a handful of cutters.


I used the data from Jnai's site that (if I understand correctly) Harry Pavlis hand-sorted, so it should be one level better than the Fangraphs pF/X data (which is still the auto-classification). That seems to imply the errors you mention are enough to cause people to believe the Lester has abandoned the cutter to RHB this year (which, at first glance at the game logs as well, he has not).

My post from 2010 draws a conclusion about Buchholz's maturation from his composure on the mound, so I am arguing for observation as the first indicator of change, including observations of facial expressions. It can be confirmed or refuted later in the results and data. In the case of Buchholz 2010, I would argue that it was confirmed.

The difference in the Lester case is that I am not imposing an old narrative on Lester. Instead, I think we are seeing something new that we haven't seen in Lester when things were going well. If you want to stick entirely with the peripherals, then consider the declining K-rate; if the fundamentals, then consider the declining fastball velocity.


Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Your own words were "most of what we read on the board about their mindsets and maturity levels is psychobabble" in reference to people who tried to ascribe good/bad pitching stat lines to mannerisms on the pitching mound. That seems to me like what you are doing here. And "confirmed or refuted later in the results and data?" Seriously? We draw conclusions based on what the player looks like in brief snippets on our NESN telecast and then we go to the numbers to support or refute our "uh oh, Lester looks like me when I'm pitching beer league softball!" thoughts?

We've already gone over the peripherals a page or two ago. The K rate slumped from 2011 during the first two months but was way up (21.7%, right at career average) in June. Once considered his biggest issue, his BB% (6.3) is at it's lowest point it's even been (career 8.7). The fastball velocity is down a tick or two (1.1 or 1.5 mph depending on your velocity source) from a couple years ago, but that's to be expected since pitching velocity peaks early (21-22) and only holds through 27-28. It has also stabilized the two years, so let's not toss out "declining velocity" like he's dropped a mph each of the past 4 years. Every ERA predictor has him right in line with last year (actually most are a hair better) and in the top 15 AL SP. He has 2.5 fWAR at the break which puts him (even if he continues pitching this poorly, which he shouldn't) right around 5 at the end of the season. Last year a 5 fWAR would have put him 8th in the AL.

Outside of perhaps the cutter weights (which aren't delucked), you really haven't produced any objective evidence that Jon Lester is A) a vastly (or even slightly) worse pitcher than 2011 and/or B) someone the Sox should be tremendously concerned about going forward.

He's not 2009-2010 Jon Lester, but probably never will be. Most pitchers never get back their mid-late 20's peak years. But Jon Lester is certainly not an "ordinary pitcher" and is way, way down the list of this team's problems.

Edited by czar, 10 July 2012 - 03:07 PM.


#89 dbn

  • 1,616 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:29 PM

(snip)

As someone else just noted, why won't mid-80s be enough? Baltimore is currently leading that race and is on pace for 86 wins.



Exactly. The Red Sox are only 2.5 games behind Baltimore, at the All Star break, and sport a run differential that is 79 runs better. It is valid to point out that Boston has to pass four teams (and they're tied with Oakland [edit: and Toronto]) to get that 2nd WC, but they have the best coolstandings playoff odds after the three division leaders and LAA. In other words, they are considered the most likely team in the AL to be the 2nd wild card team.

Edited by dbn, 10 July 2012 - 04:30 PM.


#90 tonyarmasjr

  • 543 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:29 PM

On a more positive note, Melancon has been rather effective lately (1 ER given up since his comeback on June 11) thereby droppping his ERA from 49.50 to 7.04, albeit he's pitched in relatively low leverage situations. Still, this is important now that it looks like Bailey won't be back until August, if at all. It'll be interesting to see whether our intellectual-wannabe of a manager recognizes this and throws him into some higher leverage situations coming out of the break.

And I said 86-90 (definitely on the low side of that though) and I think that's incredibly optimistic. However, that should be enough for one of these 2 wildcard slots, provoking Selig's wet dream. Perhaps the most disconcerting thing is that I'm not confident in any of our starters to pitch that game at this point.

I'm in agreement with you there. The one thing I think about, though, in relation to the 1 game playoff, is that the Sox SHOULD be in a better position than most teams. We were supposed to have Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz being 1A, 1B, and 1C/2. That type of rotation isn't destroyed by the play-in game like a team like Detroit, which has to throw Verlander and then run out league average guys for Games 1, 2, and 3. If the Sox gets into the playoffs, it will be in large part because our SPs returned to some semblance of form past, hopefully allowing them to not get bounced right back out in short order.

#91 tims4wins


  • PN23's replacement


  • 5,304 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 04:33 PM

I'm in agreement with you there. The one thing I think about, though, in relation to the 1 game playoff, is that the Sox SHOULD be in a better position than most teams. We were supposed to have Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz being 1A, 1B, and 1C/2. That type of rotation isn't destroyed by the play-in game like a team like Detroit, which has to throw Verlander and then run out league average guys for Games 1, 2, and 3. If the Sox gets into the playoffs, it will be in large part because our SPs returned to some semblance of form past, hopefully allowing them to not get bounced right back out in short order.


That, plus they won't be screwed if their #1 starter can't pitch the play-in game, unlike Detroit. It's entirely possible the Sox are battling it out until the final game, with Beckett, Lester, and Buchholz unavailable to pitch the play-in game. But Doubrount may be equally capable of pitching well in the play-in game; at the very least, they'd have a chance with any of their 2-4 starters.

#92 jon abbey


  • Shanghai Warrior


  • 11,455 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:15 PM

Exactly. The Red Sox are only 2.5 games behind Baltimore, at the All Star break, and sport a run differential that is 79 runs better. It is valid to point out that Boston has to pass four teams (and they're tied with Oakland [edit: and Toronto]) to get that 2nd WC, but they have the best coolstandings playoff odds after the three division leaders and LAA. In other words, they are considered the most likely team in the AL to be the 2nd wild card team.


FWIW, BP's system has them slightly behind TB and tied with Cleveland for the second WC spot:

http://www.baseballp...ectus.com/odds/

This can change really quickly with a very hot or very cold week, though.

#93 PaulinMyrBch


  • Don't touch his dog food


  • 3,767 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 05:55 PM

The 2004 team played about .500 ball for nearly 80 games from late May to early August and won nearly 100. I'm being optimistic and voted for 86+ and expect a wild card slot.

#94 Sprowl


  • mikey lowell of the sandbox


  • 16,058 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 06:06 PM

I used the data from Jnai's site that (if I understand correctly) Harry Pavlis hand-sorted, so it should be one level better than the Fangraphs pF/X data (which is still the auto-classification). That seems to imply the errors you mention are enough to cause people to believe the Lester has abandoned the cutter to RHB this year (which, at first glance at the game logs as well, he has not).


The manual classification was performed during the offseason to the data sets for 2009-2011 (not sure about 2008). The classifications for 2012 have not been corrected manually (to my knowledge), and are actually poorer than in prior years before reclassification, owing to the large number of parks with movement discrepancies. All the classifications for 2012 appear to be automatic (Jnai can give more exact information). I've been over the game logs: the Detroit game is perhaps the most extreme, but it is not an outlier -- it reflects a change in approach, particularly but not exclusively, during May 2012.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree here. Your own words were "most of what we read on the board about their mindsets and maturity levels is psychobabble" in reference to people who tried to ascribe good/bad pitching stat lines to mannerisms on the pitching mound. That seems to me like what you are doing here. And "confirmed or refuted later in the results and data?" Seriously? We draw conclusions based on what the player looks like in brief snippets on our NESN telecast and then we go to the numbers to support or refute our "uh oh, Lester looks like me when I'm pitching beer league softball!" thoughts?


You misunderstand me. Observation -- changing arm slots, changing behavior, changes in whatever -- begets hypothesis. Hypothesis is then evaluated by results forward from the point at which the change was identified. If the results do not change, then the change in mechanics, behavior or whatever should not be considered significant, and can indicate that the observation was mistaken. If the data (velocity, predictive peripherals, and game results) do change, however, then it tends to confirm that the observed change was real, and that the change may be significant.

We've already gone over the peripherals a page or two ago. The K rate slumped from 2011 during the first two months but was way up (21.7%, right at career average) in June. Once considered his biggest issue, his BB% (6.3) is at it's lowest point it's even been (career 8.7). The fastball velocity is down a tick or two (1.1 or 1.5 mph depending on your velocity source) from a couple years ago, but that's to be expected since pitching velocity peaks early (21-22) and only holds through 27-28. It has also stabilized the two years, so let's not toss out "declining velocity" like he's dropped a mph each of the past 4 years. Every ERA predictor has him right in line with last year (actually most are a hair better) and in the top 15 AL SP. He has 2.5 fWAR at the break which puts him (even if he continues pitching this poorly, which he shouldn't) right around 5 at the end of the season. Last year a 5 fWAR would have put him 8th in the AL.

Outside of perhaps the cutter weights (which aren't delucked), you really haven't produced any objective evidence that Jon Lester is A) a vastly (or even slightly) worse pitcher than 2011 and/or B) someone the Sox should be tremendously concerned about going forward.

He's not 2009-2010 Jon Lester, but probably never will be. Most pitchers never get back their mid-late 20's peak years. But Jon Lester is certainly not an "ordinary pitcher" and is way, way down the list of this team's problems.


Well, there's something we can agree on: he's worse in 2011 and 2012 than in 2008-2010. Jon Lester is also probably the team's most valuable asset.

You seem to think that the data suggesting that Lester is throwing only half his usual number of cutters are somehow not real or not reliable. The game threads for Lester's starts are full of observations about what he is throwing, including those games where his repertoire is conspicuously different. I am hardly the only person to reach that conclusion, which has ample quantitative as well as observational support. Explaining the loss of effectiveness for the cutter is more difficult, but poor location (TexasLeaguers data are suggestive, but not dispositive) and that batters are recognizing it better (no data are available for batter familiarity with the pitch). Maybe he'll recover his command of it -- based on 2008-2011, I would expect so. He needs that pitch to be an ace.

#95 czar


  • fanboy


  • 3,383 posts

Posted 10 July 2012 - 10:33 PM

You misunderstand me. Observation -- changing arm slots, changing behavior, changes in whatever -- begets hypothesis. Hypothesis is then evaluated by results forward from the point at which the change was identified. If the results do not change, then the change in mechanics, behavior or whatever should not be considered significant, and can indicate that the observation was mistaken. If the data (velocity, predictive peripherals, and game results) do change, however, then it tends to confirm that the observed change was real, and that the change may be significant.


Well sure. But changing arm slots is different from "facial expressions" and I think you'd be hard-pressed to find someone who disagrees.

I (and this is my opinion, I suppose) think it's a fool's errand to watch little tics like how Jon Lester's eyes look down after giving up a HR or whatever and then try to correlate that post-hoc to performance. Yes, if his arm slot changes, that's a big deal. Yes, if his mechanics change, that's a big deal. But because you think he's pouting more, or is more truculent (nice drop, BTW) during 2012 and has had an unlucky first half you can correlate the two? If player XX doesn't look like "he has the fire" like player YY and player YY puts up better stats, does that in any way validate the ludicrous "has the fire" statement?

I honestly think that (trying to watch for these minute behavior tics during the cumulative 10 minutes per game NESN actually shows a pitcher not pitching and try to ascribe things like entitlement or disenchantment or anxiety or whatever) is really pushing the envelope in terms of armchair psychology analysis.

The manual classification was performed during the offseason to the data sets for 2009-2011 (not sure about 2008). The classifications for 2012 have not been corrected manually (to my knowledge), and are actually poorer than in prior years before reclassification, owing to the large number of parks with movement discrepancies. All the classifications for 2012 appear to be automatic (Jnai can give more exact information). I've been over the game logs: the Detroit game is perhaps the most extreme, but it is not an outlier -- it reflects a change in approach, particularly but not exclusively, during May 2012.


I'll drop this since it sounds like we're at a bit of a stalemate and I don't want to clutter the thread with Lester talk (feel free to spin it off if you want, I guess), but Harry Pavlidis (@harrypav) let me know that the pitch classifications on the player cards (the ones where I am getting the aggregate data from, and, unless you are parsing the game logs, you probably are as well) are up-to-date (as in they include 2012). Also said it goes back to 2006, so what you are seeing is corrected classifications for all games, not just up through the end of 2011.

The next step would be to go through each of Lester's starts by hand myself/yourself and prove/disprove those numbers from the cards but I don't have the time. I guess we'll just have to see whether Lester bounces back during the second half. I think there's a very high likelihood he does.

EDIT: Lysdexia.

Edited by czar, 10 July 2012 - 10:49 PM.


#96 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 7,302 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:44 AM

Exactly. The Red Sox are only 2.5 games behind Baltimore, at the All Star break, and sport a run differential that is 79 runs better. It is valid to point out that Boston has to pass four teams (and they're tied with Oakland [edit: and Toronto]) to get that 2nd WC, but they have the best coolstandings playoff odds after the three division leaders and LAA. In other words, they are considered the most likely team in the AL to be the 2nd wild card team.


After last season's 99.4% chance of making the playoffs until Crawford didn't catch that ball, I can't believe people still talk about playoff odds. In my mind, it's just as dumb as using W-L for a starter and BA as a basis for how good a hitter is.

#97 Rasputin


  • Will outlive SeanBerry


  • 23,199 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 09:49 AM

After last season's 99.4% chance of making the playoffs until Crawford didn't catch that ball, I can't believe people still talk about playoff odds. In my mind, it's just as dumb as using W-L for a starter and BA as a basis for how good a hitter is.


If you thought they pegged the Sox at 99.4% right up until the last play of the last game, it's no wonder you have no use for them.

They didn't.

Impartial estimators of ability that do their best to remove elements of flawed perception are a good thing.

#98 Carl Everetts Therapist


  • yossarian


  • PipPip
  • 1,558 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 10:07 AM

I'm going out on a lengthy and twiggy thin limb and saying this team will win 94 games and finish 1 or 2 games out of the American League East division crown. I think this team will find something to collectively rally around. They will bring a big cardboard cutout of Nick Cafardo in a Tuxedo into the locker room. They will slowly remove a piece of velcro'd on clothing after each win. By the last game of the season Cafardo will be left standing naked in a leopard skin G-string. Beckett will pitch like he's got something to prove as a crafty old veteran loading the ball wit vaseline and Lester and Buchholz will follow his example. A-Gon will have an epic second half hitting 12 HR's per month and finishing close to his career averages.... Ellsbury and Crawford will come back and become the best 1 and 2 hitters in the league while running around the bases like men dipped in gasoline fleeing a struck match (collecting black batting gloves that are to be nailed to their home bedroom walls). Middlebrooks will push his way into ROY discussions and the bullpen will be lock down with THE additions of Bailey and Bard having a triple headed closing monster. In fact wild-thing Bard will find that his only problem was fixed with a pair of skull and crossbone glasses.

The sell-out streak will remain intact keeping the team from moving to Orlando, Florida.

I predict all this with only a little bit of tongue and cheek wishcasting.

Edited by Carl Everetts Therapist, 11 July 2012 - 10:08 AM.


#99 Dogman2


  • Yukon Cornelius


  • 7,302 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 11:33 AM

If you thought they pegged the Sox at 99.4% right up until the last play of the last game, it's no wonder you have no use for them.

They didn't.

Impartial estimators of ability that do their best to remove elements of flawed perception are a good thing.


Nobody should have any use for them. On Sept. 8th they were 99.999999999999999999999999999999999% in the playoffs. They didn't make it. It should never be used as a discussion or basis point.

The 99.4% was hyperbole, you should have known that.

#100 bosockboy


  • SoSH Member


  • 5,002 posts

Posted 11 July 2012 - 12:15 PM

For everything to happen that did (including the Yankees blowing a 7-0 lead in the final game), I doubt they were wrong. We were a 99.9% probability. Just because it didn't happen doesn't mean the odds were wrong




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users