Is a bad record in 1-run games meaningful?

[nattysez]

The Sox are now 11-17 in one-run games (they've played the second-most one-run games in MLB, with PIT playing the most).  When the Orioles went 29-9 in one-run games in 2012, it was dismissed as luck and they were predicted to decline the next year, which they did.  If the Sox were .500 in one-run games, they would be one game below .500 overall and there'd still be great hope for a run that could vault them into contention. 
 
When the Orioles had such a great 1-run record, their bullpen was cited as a reason.  But the Sox bullpen has great numbers, so you can't really say that their record in one-run games indicates a bullpen issue (though it could perhaps indicate a misuse issue -- the wrong guys getting high-leverage appearances).
 
Can we say this team is better than they look and just getting unlucky thus far?  Or is the fact that they'd be a game below .500 even if they were .500 in one-run games mean that they are what they are -- a team that's just not very good this year, and getting unlucky on top of it?  Or is trying to draw any conclusion from 28 1-run games just SSS cherry-picking that doesn't really tell us anything at all?

 

[StupendousMan]

Consider the "All-Pitch, No-Hit" team, or APNH for short.  They have a bunch of great starters and a terrific bullpen.  Their offense, on the other hand, is terrible -- so bad that they average 1 run or so a game.
 
Almost every time they get into a 1-run game, they lose 2-1.  On those fortunate occasions that they reach extra innings, 0-0 or 1-1 or 2-2, they almost always lose because the offense takes 6 or 7 innings to score.  Even if the bullpen has an average ERA of 2.0, the team will still lose almost every game in extra innings.
 
There's an example of a team with a terrible record in 1-run games, and it says nothing about the pitching.

 

[HriniakPosterChild]

Consider the "All-Pitch, No-Hit" team, or APNH for short.  They have a bunch of great starters and a terrific bullpen.  Their offense, on the other hand, is terrible -- so bad that they average 1 run or so a game.
 
Almost every time they get into a 1-run game, they lose 2-1.  On those fortunate occasions that they reach extra innings, 0-0 or 1-1 or 2-2, they almost always lose because the offense takes 6 or 7 innings to score.  Even if the bullpen has an average ERA of 2.0, the team will still lose almost every game in extra innings.

 
I have season tickets for that team! They have played in Safeco Field for about the last 10 years!

 

[bankshot1]

Its almost all on the offense.
 
The Sox have lost 13 1-run games where they score 3 runs or less. (they've won 5).
 
For a team that over most of the past decade+ was at the top of the AL in runs scored, BA, OBP(still somewhat true true) slugging %, OPS, this team is sadly lacking.
 
BA 13th of 15 in AL
Runs scored 14th
OBP 8th
SLG% 15th
OPS 13th
# of HRs 13th
Total base 13th
Ground DPs 14th
 
All the while the pitching is pretty good.(3rd in ERA, 2nd in quality starts)
 
Is it a wonder they can't win close games?
 
The question remains: slump, bad luck, was the loss of Ellsbury and Victorino at the top of the line-up too much offense to replace, or do the Sox suck and won't get better?

 

[Mighty Joe Young]

The short answer is no

But if you can't score it's hard to win games .. Low scoring or high scoring.

 

[Rovin Romine]

The short answer is yes.

Lose too many 1 run games and you don't play in the post season. No matter how good "you actually are."

 

[Rasputin]

There is an element of luck. That's inherent in one run games but it is mostly a factor of the good pitching and crappy hitting.

Our last five losses have been by a grand total of six runs.

When you consider that pretty much everyone in the lineup save Holt and JBJ are slumping, and that the latter is only not slumping because his YTD results are so poor, it suggests that part of the solution is just waiting out the slumps.

And part of it is getting Vic and Wombat healthy.

And part of it is using them smartly which means Wombat at third and Bogaerts at short v lefties.

And it probably means getting some OF help.

And it may mean making Holt the CFer once Vic is back.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

And part of it is using them smartly which means Wombat at third and Bogaerts at short v lefties.

 
I'm not saying there's zero chance of that happening, but it's probably well below 1%.

 

[Rasputin]

 
I'm not saying there's zero chance of that happening, but it's probably well below 1%.

When Farrell said they wanted to make sure X was not switching positions Willy nilly, he said it was for now and not necessarily forever.

Also, I said it was what they should do and not what they will do.

 

[EpsteinsGorillaSuit]

In my opinion (unchecked by historical data), one-run games are not created equal, such that one should not expect a winning percentage of 50% depending on a team's strengths.
 
It does not surprise me that teams with poor offenses end up losing more one-run games, since any time the pitching gives up 2-4 runs, there is a good chance that the offense might put up one less run without seriously threatening to score more.
 
In contrast, a team with a good offense might win more than their share of one-run games since they will be a constant threat to come from behind, and are likely to tailor their play to maximize the chances of scoring the go-ahead run. This strategy, combined with an effective bullpen, is probably why early-2000's yankee team consistently had excellent 1-run game records and often outperformed their pythagorean records.

 

[Sampo Gida]

Indirectly yes.  There have been so many 1 run games because this offense is the worst I have seen from a Red Sox team in almost 20 years.  Not winning many of them because they have a 653 OPS against the other teams bullpen. 
 
They only had 42 1 run games all of last year, and at 28 games at this point should exceed that by a good amount.  Score more runs and there will be fewer 1 run games, the pen will get more rest and be even more effective, and life will be good again.

 

[Adrian's Dome]

When Farrell said they wanted to make sure X was not switching positions Willy nilly, he said it was for now and not necessarily forever.

Also, I said it was what they should do and not what they will do.

 
I'm not disagreeing with you, I think you're right, I just don't believe it'll happen. I'm also on record as hating Farrell's stubbornness when it comes to playing logical matchups.
 
This topic in itself is one of the few where we have a very clear answer: the offense is the problem. The bullpen isn't perfect (ahem, Mujica,) but it's very good, and the starters have been good enough, especially with the latest efforts of Rubby and Workman. Thus, this topic moves to: "yes, a bad record in one-run games is meaningful when there's one glaring specific issue with the team, but is it fixable in-house and in-season?"

 

[judyb]

I don't know, but the Padres, Braves, and Rays all have good records in 1-run games while at least appearing to have similar or worse offenses than the Red Sox.

 

[seantoo]

I don't know, but the Padres, Braves, and Rays all have good records in 1-run games while at least appearing to have similar or worse offenses than the Red Sox.

True but it's when you get the hits that matters. When one of your best hitters with runners in scoring position is a batter that overall is struggling to stay above the Mendoza line your in trouble.

 

[O Captain! My Captain!]

why would a team with a bad offense lose more one run games than anyone else? aren't they just as likely to win 2-1 as lose 2-1? if you can't hit, more of your wins are likely to be games where you do just enough to win.

 

[AbbyNoho]

Over the years, I've heard arguments blaming a poor record in one-run games on the manager, offense, pitching, inability to be clutch, and lack of depth. Fact is that not all one-run games are equal. A 2-1 loss is a much different game than a 10-9 one. For this team, it's far more of the 2-1 variety because they just cannot hit, have several players who are useless offensively, can't manufacture runs, and no PH / bench options. I suspect they are even crappier against late inning relievers because of these facts.

 
This is precisely it. That's why the Orioles 2012 record wasn't as indicative as the 2014 Red Sox record is. Constantly losing (or winning) 10-9 has a lot of luck to it. Constantly losing 1-0 or 2-1 means your pitching is good and your offense is not.
 

why would a team with a bad offense lose more one run games than anyone else? aren't they just as likely to win 2-1 as lose 2-1? if you can't hit, more of your wins are likely to be games where you do just enough to win.

 
Because in one scenario you listed the team with the bad offense is scoring twice the runs as the other scenario. So, no, they're not just as likely to win either scenario. 

 

[OttoC]

paper presented David Smith (founder of Project Retrosheet) at SABR national convention in Denver, 2003
 
http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/SmithD/WinClose.pdf

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Baseball a funny game. Even with the 2 run loss on Thursday, the Red Sox were a handful of better placed hit balls and a couple of better pitches away from sweeping the vaunted A's.

 

[dcmissle]

The short answer is yes.

Lose too many 1 run games and you don't play in the post season. No matter how good "you actually are."

This is right. Let's stipulate that 100% of it can be attributed to luck. Luck can absolutely carry over a full season.

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Conventional wisdom is that ability to win (or lose) one-run games is random.  Here's a recent look at the issue from a statistical POV:  http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2013/3/15/4105922/one-run-game-performance-unsustainable-orioles.
 
That said, I don't know if ability to win (or lose) one-run games is luck.  It would seem logical that there are certain traits that would make some teams better at it than others.  However, it doesn't appear that anyone has figured out exactly what those traits are.  An article at Fangraphs last year - http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-much-luck-is-involved-in-one-run-games/ - looked at few years and postulated that isolated power, and relievers K/9 & BB/9 have a "limited explanatory effect."
 
So "luck" is probably as good a descriptive term as anything else. 

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

 
Constantly losing (or winning) 10-9 has a lot of luck to it. Constantly losing 1-0 or 2-1 means your pitching is good and your offense is not.

 
Can you explain why this is more true than the converse ("Constantly losing (or winning) 2-1 has a lot of luck to it. Constantly losing 10-9 means your offense is good and your pitching is not")?

 

[ji oh]

I went looking for an argument from a few years ago that suggests that a team that loses a lot of one-run games is often a good candidate for a turnaround the following year.  I didn't find it yet, but this 2013 paper by Smith suggests that one-run-game success is partly luck, but partly affected by these three factors:
 
"The resulting model showed that there are certain team attributes which lend themselves to better records in close games. However, the model had limited explanatory power. There were only three significant coefficients: isolated power for hitters, and strikeouts per nine and walks per nine of relievers."
 
Without even looking it up, I'm guessing our isolated power is very poor.
 
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/how-much-luck-is-involved-in-one-run-games/

 

[ji oh]

Here is a brief article saying that gamblers believe that teams that win or lose a lot of one-run games will do worse or better, respectively, the following year:

http://sportsgambling.about.com/od/baseballbetting/a/turnaroundteams.htm

 

[Toe Nash]

 
This is precisely it. That's why the Orioles 2012 record wasn't as indicative as the 2014 Red Sox record is. Constantly losing (or winning) 10-9 has a lot of luck to it. Constantly losing 1-0 or 2-1 means your pitching is good and your offense is not.
 
 
Because in one scenario you listed the team with the bad offense is scoring twice the runs as the other scenario. So, no, they're not just as likely to win either scenario. 

This seems mostly true, but I wonder two things:
1. Where the "cutoff" is from "you're likely to lose this one-run game" to "coinflip." The Red Sox have the following records in their one-run games when they've scored the following number of runs this year:
0: 0-2
1: 2-4
2: 2-5
3: 1-2
4: 4-0
5: 0-2
6: 1-1
7: 2-0
 
So, if you have a 5-4 game, is that a 50-50 win? What about 3-2? They're probably "unlucky" to be 0-2 when scoring 5 runs, but lucky to be 4-0 when scoring 4?
 
2. How does this differ from the rest of their games? How does this differ from the rest of the league? 
 
That said, the difference in a game between losing 2-1 or winning 3-2 is just one good stroke of BABIP luck or better sequencing of hits, both of which are mostly random.