35 replies to this topic

[Eric Van]

With back-to-back giveaways, there are now five games that qualify as "I can't believe we lost that" head-shakers.

What's remarkable is that there hasn't been a single "I can't believe we won that" game. And I'm not setting the bar Mother's Day Miracle-high. We haven't come back from a 12.5% chance of winning all season. We haven't come back from 15.0% since April. We haven't come back from 15.0% at Fenway. I've been tracking this for some years now and I can't remember a team that devoid of late-inning heroics.

The best comeback of the year was May 21st in Baltimore, when they were down 5-2 going into the bottom of the 5th, tied it in the top of the 6th on a balk by Tommy Hunter, and went ahead the next inning.

The best late-inning comebacks were:

April 9 in Toronto, where they went into the 9th trailing 2-1 and scored 3 times, the big hits being Pedroia's leadoff double and Sweeney's two-out seeing-eye hit through the 1B hole that scored pinch-runner McDonald when Arencibia couldn't handle the throw;

April 23 in Minnesota, when Ross hit a 2-run bomb in the 7th to tie the game 5-5, then homered in the 9th.

The best Fenway comebacks:

June 21st vs. Miami, when Salty doubled and WMB homered in the bottom of the 8th to tie it 5-5, Kalish singled and went all the way to third on Aviles' hit-and-run groundout to first, and Nava singled him in;

May 26th vs. Tampa, when Salty hit a 1-out, 2-run walkoff bomb for a 3-2 victory.

Compare these modest efforts to the last two nights, or to blowing the 9-0 lead to the Yankees on national TV, or the 3rd game of the year in Detroit where they blew a 96.3% chance in the 9th and a 95.0% chance in the 11th, or July 3rd in Oakland, where they had a 2-1 lead and 2 on and no one out in the 9th (and hence an expectancy for 1 insurance run, on average) and Punto bunted into a double play, Kalish was caught stealing third, and Aceves gave up 3 hits and a Crisp SF in the bottom of the inning.

In case it's not clear, the latter list of calamities is to be expected from a team with a mediocre closer. We're still winning 91% of the time after getting to a 90% win probability.

It's the lack of big-time comebacks that is amazing. How does a team with a good offense go an entire season without coming back from 2 down in the 9th, or from 1 run down with 2 outs? I'm now thinking that this is a big reason why the team is 9th in wRC+ but 24th in WPA. We're missing 6 or 7 comeback wins*, which is enough to account for all our bad karma and then some, and enough to put us in the first wild card lead..

So, the question I ask SoSH: why? I think there are three possible components:

Luck. Maybe we just haven't run into nearly as many closer off-nights as you'd expect.

Lineup. Maybe we have too many guys who feast on mediocre pitching but are overmatched by your typical closer.

Intangibles. Maybe we've been unduly pressing all year in such situations, lack the confidence or spark to come back in this way, or however else you want to frame it.

How would you break it down? (Or am I missing a factor?)

*If you look at WPA, what's missing is 4.5 wins, which is precisely our bad karma. The difference is because we've been 1.5 wins better than average at coming back from 12.5% to 25% win expectancy. I suppose to be fair, you have to credit that, so it might be more accurate to say that with a normal amount of comebacks, we'd be tied for the WC.

Edited by Eric Van, 05 August 2012 - 06:35 AM.

[biollante]

I think the whole season has been a "why?" from the moment Bobby V. was hired. I'm not blaming him but nothing makes sense. Whether it is "luck", "karma", or whatever you want to call it, it isn't there and the biggest late game win would be the Sox pulling this season around at this late date. Losing 3 to Minnesota seems mathematically impossible, but they have managed it with great sublime losing ability.

[YTF]

Generally speaking, without being a huge stat and data guy I see two big possibilities for this. The lack of walks and "grinding out ABs" that we've seen from this team in years past. It's been a trademark for the gritty and gutty Sox that we've enjoyed in recent years, something that seems to have been abandoned and when you think of of comebacks it often starts with guys working some tough ABs, making the pitcher throw a lot of pitches in those ABs with the hitter eventually fouling off a number of pitches before getting on base and the guys coming up SEEING a lot of pitches before stepping to the plate. Being able to put the screws to a bullpen that's overworked or over matched is always a plus as well but at times the Sox haven't have guys in the lineup or on the bench that are up to the task. I think part of that is that the Sox have had to rely on a lot of young and inexperienced guys this season, guys who aren't battle tested, guys who have performed pretty well over all but names like Middlebrooks, Ciriacco, Aviles, Punto, Shoppach, Sweeney, McDonald, Podsednick aren't they crew you think of when you think of comeback wins and it wouldn't be uncommon to see three or more of these names in the lineup along with an underperforming Gonzales and a struggling/injured Youk and Pedroia and the others as your options off the bench. The make up of this team just doesn't seem to be suited for a lot of comeback wins.

Edited by YTF, 05 August 2012 - 07:16 AM.

[PaulinMyrBch]

It's hard to understand from a team that has scored the 3rd most runs in MLB, you figure they would accidentally come from behind a few times just by random samples of which innings runs are scored.

I think its big picture culture. They lost the manager they loved, their captain, and GM, and are now being managed by a sarcastic asshole. Not exactly sporting a 'run through a wall' mentality.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

It's hard to understand from a team that has scored the 3rd most runs in MLB, you figure they would accidentally come from behind a few times just by random samples of which innings runs are scored.

I think its big picture culture. They lost the manager they loved, their captain, and GM, and are now being managed by a sarcastic asshole. Not exactly sporting a 'run through a wall' mentality.

This is probably very accurate and rings much truer to me than the tiresome "bad luck" or karma arguments. They are not experiencing bad lack, they're simple not a very good club and they dislike both each other and the asshole in the manager's office. They get down in games and pretty much give up. Every once in a while Cody Ross will hit a meatball out for a walk-off, but generally this team seems to have accepted their lot overall.

It's also hard to make comebacks when you're down early in games so often due to the Aaron Cooks of the world remembering that they're, well, Aaron Cook. Gets exhausting after a while being down by 5 runs every game.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

Also, this team likes to makes excuses. Aceves, on the first before Mauer's HR last night:

Aceves didn't think the pitch was off the plate.

"Why don't you ask the umpire how big he missed the pitch before? Ask him," he said.

It's never their fault they're losing, so how can they try to make it up by making comebacks?

I've never been a big fan of the chemistry argument in baseball, but this year it seems clear to me that starting in September of last season the ballclub has lost an immense amount of personal baseball confidence in everything they do. Yes, the talent level is down from last year, but their September collapse has now carried over 5 months into the following season.

[PaulinMyrBch]

I agree. The Aceves comment jumped off the page when I was reading that this morning. The ump missed one pitch, yet he gave up 4 hits and threw a wild pitch in the 9th alone. Not his fault.

Edited by PaulinMyrBch, 05 August 2012 - 08:26 AM.

[Harry Hooper]

Just as with Pedroia's comment earlier this season about BobbyV, the media is doing a great job highlighting only one part of Aceves' statement. To his credit, Aceves said the following:

"I have nothing to say to that," Aceves said when asked how tough a loss the 6-4 setback was. "I felt good. I felt good. Why don't you ask the umpire how much he missed the pitch before, ask him.

"It's part of the game, mistakes. I think [missed strike call] was a mistake. I made a mistake on the next pitch and it cost us the game."

WEEI

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

My point was, he shouldn't be mentioning the missed pitch call AT ALL. Make pitches, not excuses. Umps miss pitches all the time.

And as stated above, Aceves was pitching like shit before the missed pitch.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I agree. The Aceves comment jumped off the page when I was reading that this morning. The ump missed one pitch, yet he gave up 4 hits and threw a wild pitch in the 9th alone. Not his fault.

And the ump didn't even miss that pitch, as the PitchFX charts show. It was a close but excellent call.

[ToeKneeArmAss]

With the caveat that I have been vocal in my dislike of our manager, is it possible that some component of this comes down to field-level decisions?

Like two nights ago - was Aviles really our last best hope? And last night - why is Aceves still on the mound to give up the HR to Mauer anyway?

I know a real analysis would require balancing out the headscratchers with all the moves made that did go right. Still, if you combine this with the points upthread about less-than-run-through-walls followership and the overall spirit of the team, it's hard not to look toward the manager's office for at least part of the answer to EV's question.

[Savin Hillbilly]

And last night - why is Aceves still on the mound to give up the HR to Mauer anyway?

I think the answer to that is one that was made by a couple of people in the game thread--while it may seem very obvious on paper that it would have been better to have Breslow pitch to Mauer and Morneau in that situation, you can probably count the managers in baseball who would make that move on one hand and have, oh, maybe five fingers left. Yes, it's stupid, but it's a universal kind of stupid. I don't think you can really call Bobby out individually for it.

[SMU_Sox]

I'm reminded of an old article by Joe Posnanski about clutch. Some Indians player, was deemed Mr. Clutch one year by Tops (baseball card makers). The next year he wasn't nearly as good from the "clutch". So what's the deal? Did he just not care the same anymore? Was he dealing with something in his personal life? Or was it merely luck in a relatively small sample size?

The clubhouse culture seems to be shit. Fine, I acknowledge that. I'll also acknowledge that there does seem to be a culture of blaming others.

But bear with me here... EV you've done this over the years right? So you should have a sample size large enough to work with. Over the corse of a season what is the data for what % of games teams win when they have a 12.5% chance or lower to win. I'm sure it averages around 12.5% but I'd like to know the standard deviation as well as a bunch of other tests. Any chance you can PM me the data or post it here?

[Rasputin]

It seems to me this team just sucks at sustained rallies, a symptom, no doubt, of the lineup irregularities and the unmitigated suck coming from important lineup positions.

Compare the numbers for the top three spots in the lineup between 2011 and 2012.

OBP .366, .371, .397 for the top three spots in 2011 and in 2012 .315, .314,
OPS .903, .827, .916 for 2011 and for 2012 .712, .716, .793

I think it ties in to the low OBP, of course.

Also the nine spot has been a sucking chest wound with an OPB of .270 and an OPS of .601.

Eric, you have data, would it be possible to look at the distribution of plate appearances in any given inning and compare 2011 to 2012?

The team as a whole has sucked at getting on base an extending rallies and the guys who have been most likely to get that extra plate appearance in a game have been either absent or terrible for much of the season.

[judyb]

They don't play games against the 2011 Red Sox, they play against other 2012 teams who mostly have similar or worse offensive issues who do sometimes manage comebacks against them and other teams.

[Rudy Pemberton]

They don't get on base; and late in games, you'll be facing good pitching, which is also more likely to exploit the lineup which is more prone to matchup issues than other Sox teams. Its also just a very mediocre team overall, obviously.

[Eric Van]

EV you've done this over the years right? So you should have a sample size large enough to work with. Over the corse of a season what is the data for what % of games teams win when they have a 12.5% chance or lower to win. I'm sure it averages around 12.5% but I'd like to know the standard deviation as well as a bunch of other tests. Any chance you can PM me the data or post it here?

Alas, what I've got is data just for the Sox, in the form of annual lists of games that met some criterion, which I think I may have refined over the years, and they are scattered in various spreadsheets in a way that makes them hard to find easily. I'd try to hunt them all down but it wouldn't be a sample big enough to do analysis of.

The question of the distribution (standard deviation, etc.) of this stat is a great one. IOW, is the ability to come back late in games normally distributed, or is it skewed in some way?

Eric, you have data, would it be possible to look at the distribution of plate appearances in any given inning and compare 2011 to 2012?

The team as a whole has sucked at getting on base an extending rallies and the guys who have been most likely to get that extra plate appearance in a game have been either absent or terrible for much of the season.

You'd have to get that from Retrosheet data. Otto might be able to do it.

I think that the idea that low OBP (and perhaps P/PA) correlates to the ability to come back, given the same wRC+, is worth looking into. I think that when a rally includes long, grind-it-out ABs, we have a tendency to notice those unduly, so I'm skeptical whether P/PA is a separate factor. But guys simply working walks? That rings true as a factor (Kevin Millar agrees).

Which raises another question: is there any correlation between guys who get most of their value through SA, and guys who feast on bad pitching but have trouble with good pitchers (i.e., closers)? Because the two would reinforce one another in this case. And of course the answer to that question is: you're essentially asking if "mistake hitters" are real.

(The irony, of course, is that the one walk-off HR was hit by a guy, Salty, whose value is entirely SA.)

One of the problems analyzing this, of course, is that there are so few PA in a season, in the 9th down 2 or 3 runs, or down 1 run with 2 outs. I may try to compile those stats anyway.

[SMU_Sox]

If you decide to do that, and that's entirely up to you (as that's a lot of work) I'll definitely parse through it. There are a lot of interesting queries you've presented. I just don't know how to pull this situational data.

[HeelDice]

Would Cody Ross's three-run homer in the ninth against the White Sox on July 19 (3-1 victory) qualify?

[Eric Van]

Would Cody Ross's three-run homer in the ninth against the White Sox on July 19 (3-1 victory) qualify?

That is, in fact, the third (and third best) of the home comebacks. But it was just a 1-run deficit, and the lowest Win Expectancy was 18.2%, when the White Sox had runners on 2nd and 3rd with 2 outs in the top of the 9th.

[Eric Van]

Here's a mind-boggling teaser trailer for another post, later today or tomorrow.

It's the 9th inning (or later) and the Sox are trailing by 1, 2, or 3 runs going into their half. In the course of the inning, someone knocks in the tying, go-ahead, or winning run with a base hit in play.

Think back. How many of these big, dramatic hits can you remember, with a play at the plate and all? Who had them? Who scored?

Spoiler

Ryan Sweeney tripled off of Jose Valverde with 2 outs, driving in pinch-runner Darnell McDonald to tie the game 2-2. Opening day in Detroit.

After Pedroia had led off with a double off of Sergio Santos, gone to third on a passed ball, and scored to tie the game 2-2 on Gonzalez's SF, Ortiz and Ross draw 2-out walks and Ryan Sweeney grounds a single through the 1B hole to plate pinch-runner, yup, Darnell McDonad with the go-ahead run. April 9 in Toronto. The fourth game of the season.

That's right. Ryan Sweeney knocking in Darnell McDonald twice in the first four games. And never again since.

Any guess what 5-letter stat acronym will be featured in the followup?

[Plympton91]

They don't get on base; and late in games, you'll be facing good pitching, which is also more likely to exploit the lineup which is more prone to matchup issues than other Sox teams. Its also just a very mediocre team overall, obviously.

The problem with the "very mediocre team overall" meme is that they are actually a bad team when Lester and Beckett pitch, and a very good team when anyone else starts? Have Lester and Beckett matched up more with other #1 and #2 starters that are exploiting the weakness in lineups, and so the record with Lester and Beckett equally a function of poor run support as their poor pitching? Is the bullpen worse following Lester and Beckett than the other starters, so that they're not getting picked up on all their off nights? You could probably expand that split to include Bard's starts, because I think they're well under .500 in his, too.

[Eric Van]

With RISP, 9th or later, down 1, 2, or 3 runs ...

After starting the season 2-2, 2 SF (the 2-2 and first SF opening day in Detroit, the second SF in Toronto on 4/9) ...

The Sox are now 2 for their last 22, 2 BB (1 IBB), 7 SO, 1 GDP, 2 SH. The 2 hits were walk-off HR by Saltalamachhia (5/26) and Ross (7/19).

[Eric Van]

When when the last time a Sox hitter drew a walk in the 9th inning or later, down 1-3 runs?

June 15, when Carlos Marmol walked Scott Podsednik to load the bases with 2 outs, bringing Pedroia up as the go-ahead run; he grounded to 3B to end the game.

Since then? 46 PA, 16 K (14 swinging), 0 BB.

I'll have full stats and splits tomorrow, but there's no question in my mind that they are altering their approach big-time.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

They're also a .487 team trying like hell to salvage their season.

They probably just suck.

[Eric Van]

They're also a .487 team trying like hell to salvage their season.

They probably just suck.

No, they're a team with the hitting and pitching stats -- the stuff that's supposed to be predictive -- of a .553 club (against neutral competition), one that would be tied for the second wild card if it weren't for what this thread is discussing. Which has cost them 6 wins now, above and beyond everything you've actually noticed: 6 wins above and beyond Beckett and Lester sucking, 6 wins above and beyond BV suddenly managing like John McNamara with the season on the line, 6 wins above and beyond the historic run of injuries. Even with all that crap, they would be right in the thick of things if it weren't for their turning into an unimaginably bad offensive club, instead of one of the better ones in baseball, whenever it came time to try to beat some other team's closer.

Here is K% and BB% -- the best marker of plate approach -- in opponent save situations, by month. I've used (2 * BB% - K%) / PA as the overall measure of strike zone command.

Down 1-3 runs, 9th Inning or Later

Month	K%	BB%	Command
4	.182	.136	.091
5	.171	.073	-.024
6	.361	.083	-.194
7	.286	.000	-.286
8	.316	.000	-.316
Total	.259	.065	-.129

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

So they're pressing in tight spots. So they can't hit opposing closers. What's your point? That's what makes them a bad club. Avoiding pressing is just another baseball skill, like throwing strikes or playing good defense. Their lack of walks in the 9th shouldn't be surprising since their plate discipline overall has been lousy this season.

At least you're not saying it's just more bad luck, it's chronic bad performances by players who shuld be better. That's the very definition of a shitty team.

I don't think there's really much to this. They have crappy starting pitching and a bunch of players who choke late in tight games. They suck. <shrug> Having a good offense at other times in the games doesn't really matter one whit if they can't apply it when the game is on the line. They're not going to magically stop sucking or stop pressing in tight spots as the season slips away from them, because that's what they've been consistently doing since September 1, 2011. That's who these players are right now.

[Super Nomario]

No, they're a team with the hitting and pitching stats -- the stuff that's supposed to be predictive -- of a .553 club (against neutral competition), one that would be tied for the second wild card if it weren't for what this thread is discussing. Which has cost them 6 wins now, above and beyond everything you've actually noticed: 6 wins above and beyond Beckett and Lester sucking, 6 wins above and beyond BV suddenly managing like John McNamara with the season on the line, 6 wins above and beyond the historic run of injuries. Even with all that crap, they would be right in the thick of things if it weren't for their turning into an unimaginably bad offensive club, instead of one of the better ones in baseball, whenever it came time to try to beat some other team's closer.

Here is K% and BB% -- the best marker of plate approach -- in opponent save situations, by month. I've used (2 * BB% - K%) / PA as the overall measure of strike zone command.

Down 1-3 runs, 9th Inning or Later

Month	K%	BB%	Command
4	.182	.136	.091
5	.171	.073	-.024
6	.361	.083	-.194
7	.286	.000	-.286
8	.316	.000	-.316
Total	.259	.065	-.129

Can you add PA to this chart so we can see what tiny samples you're talking about?

[BroodsSexton]

I don't think there's really much to this. They have crappy starting pitching and a bunch of players who choke late in tight games. They suck. <shrug> Having a good offense at other times in the games doesn't really matter one whit if they can't apply it when the game is on the line. They're not going to magically stop sucking or stop pressing in tight spots as the season slips away from them, because that's what they've been consistently doing since September 1, 2011. That's who these players are right now.

I don't know. Seems like useful insight, if you think that something can be done about it. Maybe they could engage in group meditation between the eighth and ninth innings or something.

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

I don't know. Seems like useful insight, if you think that something can be done about it. Maybe they could engage in group meditation between the eighth and ninth innings or something.

I know! They all get a shot of whiskey and pass it around! I seem to remember that working once before.

Just don't give any to Lackey.

[Dogman2]

I don't know. Seems like useful insight, if you think that something can be done about it. Maybe they could engage in group meditation between the eighth and ninth innings or something.

Eric doesn't propose anything that can fix this. He is simply saying the luck will turn in the Sox favor.

I know! They all get a shot of whiskey and pass it around! I seem to remember that working once before.

Just don't give any to Lackey.

Both of his hands are occupied already, how would he drink his shot?

[JakeRae]

Eric doesn't propose anything that can fix this. He is simply saying the luck will turn in the Sox favor.

Does the identification of a problem, or interesting and aberrant phenomenon, require a proposal as to how to rectify said problem to be a useful discussion point?

[TomRicardo]

Does the identification of a problem, or interesting and aberrant phenomenon, require a proposal as to how to rectify said problem to be a useful discussion point?

Sure if you aren't going to adjust for karma.

[Al Zarilla]

Eric doesn't propose anything that can fix this. He is simply saying the luck will turn in the Sox favor.


Both of his hands are occupied already, how would he drink his shot?

Eric doesn't propose anything that can fix this. He is simply saying the luck will turn in the Sox favor.


Both of his hands are occupied already, how would he drink his shot?

Boilermaker.

[BroodsSexton]

Does the identification of a problem, or interesting and aberrant phenomenon, require a proposal as to how to rectify said problem to be a useful discussion point?

That's what I was getting at. Maybe if they recognize that this is a particular problem, they can be conscious of it and relax or change their approach. Kind of like a pitcher tipping pitches. Obviously he doesn't know that he's tipping the pitches until it is pointed out to him. Obviously, this assumes the observation is valid. But if it is valid, then maybe it can be addressed. Any sports shrinks around?

[Dogman2]

Does the identification of a problem, or interesting and aberrant phenomenon, require a proposal as to how to rectify said problem to be a useful discussion point?

Point to me where I said it wasn't worthy. How do we know the team has not addressed or attempted to address it? Van's thread doesn't offer any manner in which to solve this problem. Reading between the lines, Eric has proposed that the team is the unluckiest team in MLB the last three years. His data, as SJH notes, does not support this. The data supports the fact that they are not a good team that cannot hit during close and late instances or against good pitching. That means the team is not very good.

It's either the team is not very good or it is bad luck. 3 games under .500 is evidence enough that it is not bad luck. EV can't have it both ways.

Edited by Dogman2, 10 August 2012 - 03:01 PM.