The offense has been horrible

[BosRedSox5]

1992 was what jumped to mind for me as well.  At least this team has Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli as real major league hitters and Brock Holt doing Brock Holt things.  That team had Bob Zupcic to get excited about
 
Still excruciating when being down 2-0 basically means flip the channel

 
Not only were people excited about Zupcic, but they were excited about Phil Plantier and Scott Cooper. Let's hope some of these young guys like Bogaerts, Bradley Jr., Holt , Middlebrooks and Betts are a little more like the 1992 bright spots of Tim Naehring, John Valentin and Mo Vaughn then those guys I previously mentioned. 

 

[Merkle's Boner]

1992 was what jumped to mind for me as well.  At least this team has Pedroia, Ortiz, and Napoli as real major league hitters and Brock Holt doing Brock Holt things.  That team had Bob Zupcic to get excited about
 
Still excruciating when being down 2-0 basically means flip the channel

I'm fairly certain others are going to be looking back on this season 20 years from now and saying, "My God, Brock Fuckin' Holt was their best playah!"

 

[Super Nomario]

So what's the path to making the offense good, or at least watchable, in 2015?
 
1) Do nothing, hope for better health and prospects / young players greatly improving.
2) We need another middle of the order bat to take the pressure off up-and-down the lineup and let us play some of the good-field/no-hit kids.
3) 2013 model - strong lineup 1-9, real bench contributors, keep most of the kids at AAA as depth.
4) Offense is a lost cause; build the best defense you can and hope to win a lot of 3-2 games.

 

[Rasputin]

So what's the path to making the offense good, or at least watchable, in 2015?

Bring in some pop to play left. Go with the kids.

 

[ivanvamp]

Not that batting average is all that, but still.  Here is their lineup last night and the players' batting averages (after they actually got 10 hits):
 
Holt - .313
Pedroia - .282
Ortiz - .256
Napoli - .273
Gomes - .236 (Carp subbed in, at .211)
Bogaerts - .239
Ross - .179
Drew - .131
Betts - .174
 
Of course, they could have had Bradley (.220) in there, or AJP (.254), or Nava (.222), or Herrera (.233).  I mean, good god, look at those numbers.  The bottom FIVE guys in the lineup all hitting below .240.  How on earth are they supposed to score runs hitting like that?  
 
Answer:  Of course, they DON'T score runs.

 

[Otis Foster]

I'm fairly certain others are going to be looking back on this season 20 years from now and saying, "My God, Brock Fuckin' Holt was their best playah!"

 
Or maybe they'll say 'Can you believe the jewel we turned up while dumpster-diving?' He's not the best player, but he's a professional who can fill a lot of gaps.

 

[OttoC]

 
Not only were people excited about Zupcic, but they were excited about Phil Plantier and Scott Cooper. Let's hope some of these young guys like Bogaerts, Bradley Jr., Holt , Middlebrooks and Betts are a little more like the 1992 bright spots of Tim Naehring, John Valentin and Mo Vaughn then those guys I previously mentioned. 

 
They were excited about Scott Cooper because a watchword back then was "doubles." You didn't measure the power of young hitters by home runs but by the number of doubles they hit and Cooper hit 45 in 130 games with Lynchburg at age 20. Unfortunately, that marked the high point in his career.

 

[MetSox1]

 
They were excited about Scott Cooper because a watchword back then was "doubles." You didn't measure the power of young hitters by home runs but by the number of doubles they hit and Cooper hit 45 in 130 games with Lynchburg at age 20. Unfortunately, that marked the high point in his career.

I seem to remember him hitting for the cycle

 

[joyofsox]

The 2014 Red Sox's team OPS+ is 91.
In 1992, it was 83.
In 1922, 1923, 1926 and 1932, it was 76.
 
Trying to find the lowest: In 1930, it was 74.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Why are teams so stupid when talking about injuries? They really think the opponent isn't aware of this stuff?
 
Pedroia was apparently hurting, now he's back to hitting like Pedroia.
 
Ortiz' legs seem to have atrophied, or are just hammed up.
 
Napoli's hand has apparently impacted his swing.
 
AJP has lost all power, but that's probably a pure lack of talent.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if they're hiding something about Xander.
 
Combine that with JBJ's woes and Drew's extended spring training - and that's 2/3 of the lineup under performing.
 
Add Victorino and why should anyone be surprised...

 

[ivanvamp]

Rudy, essentially everything that could have gone wrong offensively for this team has gone wrong.  None of the rookies, except Holt (!) have performed well at the plate.  Napoli has been ok.  Ortiz has been ok (but below his norms).  Everyone else has been below his norm or outright bad.  Victorino has missed almost the entire season.  One year after everything went right, everything has gone wrong.  It's incredible to watch, really.

 

[OptimusPapi]

Rudy, essentially everything that could have gone wrong offensively for this team has gone wrong.  None of the rookies, except Holt (!) have performed well at the plate.  Napoli has been ok.  Ortiz has been ok (but below his norms).  Everyone else has been below his norm or outright bad.  Victorino has missed almost the entire season.  One year after everything went right, everything has gone wrong.  It's incredible to watch, really.

That is precisely it. It doesn't matter who got sign or which rookies are coming up if there are problems one through nine in any season the Sox are going to have a bad season. I mean as much as I want to throw someone under the bus I think it just comes down to shitty luck. What are the odds that all the veterans that were sign in the offseason would suck in conjunction with all the veterans already on the team sucking or underperforming relative to their career averages, in conjunction with all the rookie with the exception of Holt sucking. The only silver lining is asking what are the odds that everything goes horribly wrong a second year in a row and given that those odds are low it means that some optimism for 2015 is warranted.

 

[YTF]

Offensively this this just hasn't been a very good lineup. There is no spark at the top of the order. Holt has been a pleasant surprise, and prob the best choice for lead off, but he's only in that slot because they have no one else. I'd love to see him bolstering the bottom third. Predroia's not been the #2 hitter that we're accustomed to him being. Victorino's been the player we feared we might be getting last season and Nava is just now finding his stroke with about 3/4 of the season gone. Ortiz has been productive but his average down, Napoli has been less than what we would have hoped for. Of course in both of those cases I guess you would have to look at what they have hitting behind them and the bottom third of that lineup has been a mess all year. IMO, offensively speaking, The Sox overachieved last season and underachieved this season. Nava/Gomes/Carp didn't happen this year, neither did Victorino. Ellsbury is gone and Salty/Ross was greater than A.J./Ross. The left side of the infield (Drew, Bogaerts and Middlebrooks) gave very little and JBJ has struggled the entire season. Looking to 2015......I think/hope the off season will bring an infusion of offense. Hopefully a full season of Cespedes helps and I'm thinking a package of young players will bring another dose of power. Perhaps Mookie Betts shows that he can play decent enough CF where he might get a chance to help improve the offense and upgrade over JBJ who's defense should be very attractive to a potential trade partner.  Small sample, but already Vazquez seems like he'll be an improvement over anything else we've seen from the 7-9 spots in the order and will get enough big league games under his belt this season to give some sort of idea what he can offer. I think they are already moving in the right direction with Betts, Cespedes and Vazquez, if this team can find an upgrade in production at corner outfield, third base and a decent bat to come off the bench they should be more than OK offensively.   

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What's killed them offensively this year is a terrible combo of the second worst team batting average in the AL (.244, just ahead of Houston at .243) combined with the very worst slugging percentage in the entire league (.368). The OBP is just about league average, but when you're not hitting for much average AND the hits you do get are invariably singles as evidenced by the awful SLG, you're simply not going to score many runs AND you're going to leave tons of guys on base because the OBP isn't horrible. If their SLG was better then they'd at least have a chance in most games because of the threat of driving in a few runs with doubles or something.
 
It's the worst possible combination for offense and it makes the team extremely unpleasant to watch.

 

[YTF]

For what it's worth here's a look at the team's RBI totals to date.
 
Ortiz...92
Pedroia ...45
Napoli...45
Gomes...32
Pierzynski...31
Bogaerts...30
Bradley...30
Holt...27
Nava...19
Sizemore...15
Ross...12
Victorino...12
Vazquez...12
Cespedes...12
Drew...11
Middlebrooks...11
Herrera...9
Carp...9
Betts...2
Cecchini...1

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

It's getting hard to see how this isn't a two-year process.  Fixing the rotation alone would be a challenge.  Fixing the offense alone would be a challenge.  Doing both in one year with $95 million in commitments seems almost insurmountable.   I just don't see Craig, Cespedes, and one more major piece as likely being enough, and I think that's the most that realistically can be done while also putting together a serviceable rotation.  

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

It's getting hard to see how this isn't a two-year process.  Fixing the rotation alone would be a challenge.  Fixing the offense alone would be a challenge.  Doing both in one year with $95 million in commitments seems almost insurmountable.   I just don't see Craig, Cespedes, and one more major piece as likely being enough, and I think that's the most that realistically can be done while also putting together a serviceable rotation.  

well, it's possible some of the underperformers from this year will improve and that could solve a lot of problems by itself--but obviously you can't count on that

 

[Philip Jeff Frye]

I know many here don't give a shit about RBIs but its pretty remarkable that Ortiz leads the majors in RBIs in the midst of this offensive ineptitude.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

well, it's possible some of the underperformers from this year will improve and that could solve a lot of problems by itself--but obviously you can't count on that

 
Certainly can't go anywhere but up, right?  And I guess given how close some of the games have been this year, the level of improvement needed isn't hugely dramatic -- just maybe going from awful to decent would help.  On the other hand, father time is cruel and we can't rely on the big fellah to play 150 games while carrying us on his shoulders again at age 39 either.  

 

[Stan Papi Was Framed]

 
Certainly can't go anywhere but up, right?  And I guess given how close some of the games have been this year, the level of improvement needed isn't hugely dramatic -- just maybe going from awful to decent would help.  On the other hand, father time is cruel and we can't rely on the big fellah to play 150 games while carrying us on his shoulders again at age 39 either.  

fair point, indeed.  unfortunate, to say the least, that Ortiz's year is being wasted.  hopefully he'll have something left in the tank for next year

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

The big challenge there is that Papi and Napoli may not be here in '16, and likely won't be nearly as effective.

 
Sigh.  It's all a bit depressing.  I guess the good news there, though, is that when they do go, the team will have $33 million a year to try to replace their production.  We'll be hard pressed to ever truly replace what Papi means to the team, but with good decisions $33 million should be enough to try to buy the six wins or so one might expect from 2015 Papi and Napoli.

 

[YTF]

 
Certainly can't go anywhere but up, right?  And I guess given how close some of the games have been this year, the level of improvement needed isn't hugely dramatic -- just maybe going from awful to decent would help.  On the other hand, father time is cruel and we can't rely on the big fellah to play 150 games while carrying us on his shoulders again at age 39 either.  

 
Going from awful to decent might help if Clay Buchholz isn't penciled in as your #1. I doubt that will be the case heading into next season, but what WAS the team's strength has been significantly weakened.

 

[ivanvamp]

I know many here don't give a shit about RBIs but its pretty remarkable that Ortiz leads the majors in RBIs in the midst of this offensive ineptitude.

 
That really is incredible.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Red Sox have one player that has scored more than 60 runs (Pedroia, 66).  They have one player with more than 45 rbi (Ortiz, 92).  They have one player with more than 190 total bases (Ortiz, 222).  They have one player with more than 115 hits (Pedroia, 140).  They have one player with more than 25 doubles (Pedroia, 31). They have one player with more than 15 home runs (Ortiz, 29).  
 
But at least they can run, right?  Uh….no.  They have one player with more than 6 stolen bases (Bradley, 8).  
 
The offense is unfathomably bad.  In any of our worst-case scenarios, I don't believe any of us would have dreamt it would be this bad.

 

[Al Zarilla]

The Red Sox have one player that has scored more than 60 runs (Pedroia, 66).  They have one player with more than 45 rbi (Ortiz, 92).  They have one player with more than 190 total bases (Ortiz, 222).  They have one player with more than 115 hits (Pedroia, 140).  They have one player with more than 25 doubles (Pedroia, 31). They have one player with more than 15 home runs (Ortiz, 29).  
 
But at least they can run, right?  Uh….no.  They have one player with more than 6 stolen bases (Bradley, 8).  
 
The offense is unfathomably bad.  In any of our worst-case scenarios, I don't believe any of us would have dreamt it would be this bad.

Thanks for the breakdown of the suck. What has to be up there for WTF stat of the year is that Ortiz has scored 48 runs, AND HE KNOCKED HIMSELF IN FOR 29 OF THOSE.

 

[AbbyNoho]

 

I know many here don't give a shit about RBIs but its pretty remarkable that Ortiz leads the majors in RBIs in the midst of this offensive ineptitude.

 

 
This is the strangest thing to me. Our offensive has been this terrible, and yet we have the major league leader in RBI on the team: David Ortiz (92). How often has that happened in baseball history?

 

[MuzzyField]

Thanks for the breakdown of the suck. What has to be up there for WTF stat of the year is that Ortiz has scored 48 runs, AND HE KNOCKED HIMSELF IN FOR 29 OF THOSE.

Amazing! This provides the 20/15 clarity to the 2014 season that WMB's wishes he could have at the plate. 

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

 
 
 
 
This is the strangest thing to me. Our offensive has been this terrible, and yet we have the major league leader in RBI on the team: David Ortiz (92). How often has that happened in baseball history?
 

 
I don't know how to search for such a thing efficiently, but I can't find an example since 2000.

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I agree the Ortiz thing is crazy, but then it also kinda makes sense in a screwy way--RBI are a function of opportunity and (generally speaking) performance/ execution, and since clearly no one else is driving in anything, Ortiz is going to have a bit more in the way of opportunity than a guy who is supported in the lineup by even one consistent, competent hitter.
 
The fact that he's the league leader and not just high up on the list is crazy to think about though.

 

[SirPsychoSquints]

 
I don't know how to search for such a thing efficiently, but I can't find an example since 2000.

 
Frank Howard, 1970.  44 HR and 126 RBI, each led the league.  His Senators were 11th out of 13 AL teams in runs scored - their 626 were only 5 ahead of the Royals for last place.

 

[Madmartigan]

Is there any way to estimate how many RBIs some of the worst offenders could have had if only they had put up league average numbers with RISP?  I'd be very interested to see how much of a difference that would make in our pythag.   

 

[geoduck no quahog]

I've never been able to understand offense from a statistical basis. I understand pitching, baserunning (speed) and defense, because that's something the players have great control over - but the fact that hitting even bad pitching is such a crapshoot most of the time, these things find me confused.
 
The only hitting thing I do understand is the concept of strong-ish lineups top to bottom, ones that see a lot of pitches...because logically that says you're giving the pitcher a lot more opportunities to make a mistake in concentration or performance over the course of his 100 repetitions. Now, with bullpens becoming so good, I'm not even sure that theory holds - and that theory falls apart completely for NL games.
 
What does SOSH think the most telling offensive statistics are?
 
% of  time the ball is put in play?
% of line drives?
% of extra base hits?
OBP?
P/PA?
HR's/PA
Time to 1B?
Hits within Strike Zone / Swings outside of strike zone?
Slugging?
 
Clearly - RBI's, Runs Scored, GIDP's are stupid stats. Also, stats don't seem to take into consideration the quality of different pitchers, the situation, bat control, defensive alignment, etc.
 
We know a good offensive player when we see one, and we've seen good offensive teams (many of which are complete failures).
 
Does it all boil down to lineup construction and putting a team in the best offensive position to succeed over the entire season...because that seems to be the A's formula.

 

[Rasputin]

It's getting hard to see how this isn't a two-year process.  Fixing the rotation alone would be a challenge.  Fixing the offense alone would be a challenge.  Doing both in one year with $95 million in commitments seems almost insurmountable.   I just don't see Craig, Cespedes, and one more major piece as likely being enough, and I think that's the most that realistically can be done while also putting together a serviceable rotation.  

 
All you need to fix the lineup is for the talented young guys to not be terrible. We got terrible production from catcher, third base, and center field, and the only reason short doesn't look that bad is because shortstops can't hit. Except, ours is supposed to hit.
 
Bogaerts does better, Bradley either does better or get replaced by Betts who does better, and Vazquez does better than Pierzynski, and instantly you have a decent lineup. Add in the fact that Cespedes is better than our right fielders and Craig is better than our left fielders, and the lineup is going to be more than okay.

 

[vadertime]

Jayson Stark
 

 
 
 
 
This is the strangest thing to me. Our offensive has been this terrible, and yet we have the major league leader in RBI on the team: David Ortiz (92). How often has that happened in baseball history?
 

Jayson Stark offers just how rare it is.
 

And one more classic feat by a last-place team: The Red Sox may be last in the AL in runs scored. But they still have the league leader in RBIs, in David Ortiz. Which understandably prompted loyal reader Rick Malwitz to ask: Is that unprecedented? And the answer, according to Elias, is: Not quite -- but almost. The only other team ever to pull that off? Wally Berger’s 1935 Boston Braves. Big Papi had knocked in nearly 20 percent of the Red Sox’s runs this season (92 of 480). But what Berger did in 1935 was even more incredible. He drove in 22.6 percent of the runs scored (130 of 575) by a team that lost 103 games. And that, friends, is a lot of Bergers to go.
 

 
http://espn.go.com/blog/jayson-stark/post/_/id/861/the-trouble-with-three-contending-teams

 

[YTF]

I've never been able to understand offense from a statistical basis. I understand pitching, baserunning (speed) and defense, because that's something the players have great control over - but the fact that hitting even bad pitching is such a crapshoot most of the time, these things find me confused.
 
The only hitting thing I do understand is the concept of strong-ish lineups top to bottom, ones that see a lot of pitches...because logically that says you're giving the pitcher a lot more opportunities to make a mistake in concentration or performance over the course of his 100 repetitions. Now, with bullpens becoming so good, I'm not even sure that theory holds - and that theory falls apart completely for NL games.
 
What does SOSH think the most telling offensive statistics are?
 
% of  time the ball is put in play?
% of line drives?
% of extra base hits?
OBP?
P/PA?
HR's/PA
Time to 1B?
Hits within Strike Zone / Swings outside of strike zone?
Slugging?
 
Clearly - RBI's, Runs Scored, GIDP's are stupid stats. Also, stats don't seem to take into consideration the quality of different pitchers, the situation, bat control, defensive alignment, etc.
 
We know a good offensive player when we see one, and we've seen good offensive teams (many of which are complete failures).
 
Does it all boil down to lineup construction and putting a team in the best offensive position to succeed over the entire season...because that seems to be the A's formula.

 
I'm not a huge stat head and I guess that the bolded means that they are less meaningful indicators of a player's value to his team than some other stats, but on a whole as related to the entire team, the fact that no one is scoring or driving in runs is pretty much like the Cliff Notes version for baseball suckage.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
All you need to fix the lineup is for the talented young guys to not be terrible. We got terrible production from catcher, third base, and center field, and the only reason short doesn't look that bad is because shortstops can't hit. Except, ours is supposed to hit.
 
Bogaerts does better, Bradley either does better or get replaced by Betts who does better, and Vazquez does better than Pierzynski, and instantly you have a decent lineup. Add in the fact that Cespedes is better than our right fielders and Craig is better than our left fielders, and the lineup is going to be more than okay.

You mean Craig may be better. For 2013 and 2014, Daniel Nava has had better offense. We have yet to see whether Craig will recover his power or his ability to hit the ball in the air.

Otherwise, pretty much this.
EDIT: Sorry, I meant 2013 and 2014, not 2012 and 2013.
 

 

[benhogan]

You mean Craig may be better. For 2012 and 2013, Daniel Nava has had better offense. We have yet to see whether Craig will recover his power or his ability to hit the ball in the air.

Otherwise, pretty much this.

Eric, you may want to re-check your stats. Craig was a much better hitter then Nava in 2012 and slightly better in 2013

 

[EricFeczko]

I've never been able to understand offense from a statistical basis. I understand pitching, baserunning (speed) and defense, because that's something the players have great control over - but the fact that hitting even bad pitching is such a crapshoot most of the time, these things find me confused.
 
The only hitting thing I do understand is the concept of strong-ish lineups top to bottom, ones that see a lot of pitches...because logically that says you're giving the pitcher a lot more opportunities to make a mistake in concentration or performance over the course of his 100 repetitions. Now, with bullpens becoming so good, I'm not even sure that theory holds - and that theory falls apart completely for NL games.
 
What does SOSH think the most telling offensive statistics are?
 
% of  time the ball is put in play?
% of line drives?
% of extra base hits?
OBP?
P/PA?
HR's/PA
Time to 1B?
Hits within Strike Zone / Swings outside of strike zone?
Slugging?
 
Clearly - RBI's, Runs Scored, GIDP's are stupid stats. Also, stats don't seem to take into consideration the quality of different pitchers, the situation, bat control, defensive alignment, etc.
 
We know a good offensive player when we see one, and we've seen good offensive teams (many of which are complete failures).
 
Does it all boil down to lineup construction and putting a team in the best offensive position to succeed over the entire season...because that seems to be the A's formula.

It depends on what you are interested in. If you are interested in what a player has done that has scored runs. The best stats are runs scored and runs batted in, because they tell you how many runs a player scored and how many runs a player drove in.
Of course the problem is that these stats don't answer what a player will do to score runs. In order to make an educated guess, one needs to be able to evaluate the talent a player has at creating runs. This is the question that most of us are interested in, and therefore you need to look at multiple measures, and also evaluate the player "by eye" (things like the personality of a player may affect the ability to make adjustments later in his career, but are difficult to evaluate statistically, others we just don't have the data measured, such as the swing path of a player, or it has to be coded visually, such as their stance). Some measures have greater stability across time, but are difficult to interpret (e.g. flyball rate), others are really easy to interpret (e.g. batting average) but may fluctuate wildly across time, independent of the player. Therefore, using measures to evaluate a player's talent must take into account the sample size required for a stable measure.
EDIT: changed to avoid a misunderstanding. I'll stop posting when I'm sick.
Here is an old fangraphs primer on the issue.
 

 

[EricFeczko]

Eric, you may want to re-check your stats. Craig was a much better hitter then Nava in 2012 and slightly better in 2013

I blame the flu, I was referring to his 2013 and 2014 stats. I'll edit to avoid confusion. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[Rasputin]

It depends on what you are interested in. If you are interested in what a player has done to score runs. The best stats are runs scored and runs batted in, because they tell you how many runs a player scored and how many runs a player drove in.
 

 
No, just no.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
No, just no.

Well technically, yes. They are very good at telling you how many runs a player scored or drove in. which indicates how many runs a player contributed to the scoreboard. Of course, such information has zero interpretive or predictive value, so they are very useless otherwise.

 

[Rasputin]

Well technically, yes. They are very good at telling you how many runs a player scored or drove in. which indicates how many runs a player contributed to the scoreboard. Of course, such information has zero interpretive or predictive value, so they are very useless otherwise.

 
No, not even technically yes.
 
If a guy hits a double, he's done something to score a run. That the run doesn't score isn't his fault, and is completely irrelevant.

 

[EricFeczko]

 
No, not even technically yes.
 
If a guy hits a double, he's done something to score a run. That the run doesn't score isn't his fault, and is completely irrelevant.

Ugh. I used the wrong phrase. I meant what a player has done that has scored runs. Changed that too.

 

[ivanvamp]

Thanks for the breakdown of the suck. What has to be up there for WTF stat of the year is that Ortiz has scored 48 runs, AND HE KNOCKED HIMSELF IN FOR 29 OF THOSE.

 
And now he's scored 49 runs and knocked himself in 30 of those times.  
 
His teammates have driven David Freaking Ortiz in just 19 times this year.
 
That is almost impossible to imagine.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Reading this thread, I reminisced about the 1977 Red Sox lineup that amazed me at the time:
 
Burleson: .293 w/ 36 doubles
Lynn: .260 w/ 18 HR
Rice: .320 w/ 39 HR
Yaz: .296 w/ 28 HR
Fisk: .315 w/ 26 HR
Scott: .269 w/ 33 HR
Carbo: .289 w/ 15 HR
Hobson: .265 w/ 30 HR
Doyle: (well, Doyle)
 
With Dewey at .287 w/ 14 HR
 
How's that for offense. Number 8 hitter with 30 HR.
 
I loved that team.
 
__________________________
 
{edit: I just looked up team stats and found that the Twins outscored the Red Sox 867 to 859 that year.
 
Wynegar, Carew, Randall, Smalley, Cubbage, Hisle, Bostock, Ford & Kusick 
 
Though Boston out-homered them by 31: 213 to 192}

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

The Sox are 2 for 39 with RISP in the last 3 games.

Read that sentence again, and weep.

 

[ivanvamp]

The Sox are 2 for 39 with RISP in the last 3 games.

Read that sentence again, and weep.

 
I know it's often talked about here in SoSH that there is no true thing as being "clutch".  So if that's really correct, then all we are seeing is the Sox absolutely crushing the odds - basically almost every time they come up with RISP and the odds say, well, you're likely to get a hit at the same rate as normal (which for them still isn't great this year, but still), they still somehow manage to beat the odds and come up empty.  2-39 = .051, ladies and gentlemen.  
 
So all they need to be a LOT better next year is simply hit with RISP at the same rate as they hit otherwise, right?  If there's no such thing as "clutchness" then it's pretty reasonable, just on the basis of large sample size statistics, that we will see a regression to the mean and they'll be a lot better with RISP.
 
Right?
 
Right?????

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

 
I know it's often talked about here in SoSH that there is no true thing as being "clutch".  So if that's really correct, then all we are seeing is the Sox absolutely crushing the odds - basically almost every time they come up with RISP and the odds say, well, you're likely to get a hit at the same rate as normal (which for them still isn't great this year, but still), they still somehow manage to beat the odds and come up empty.  2-39 = .051, ladies and gentlemen.  
 
So all they need to be a LOT better next year is simply hit with RISP at the same rate as they hit otherwise, right?  If there's no such thing as "clutchness" then it's pretty reasonable, just on the basis of large sample size statistics, that we will see a regression to the mean and they'll be a lot better with RISP.
 
Right?
 
Right?????

 
Well, their team batting average as a whole is .245. One might expect that over the long term they'd hit .245 is all situations. So logically, going 2 for 39 with RISP over a 3 game stretch is just a monumental run of bad luck, as they'd be expected to get about 10 hits in 39 ABs if their usual trends held.
 
Over the course of this entire season, the team has hit 245/317/368/686 in all situations. With RISP, they've hit 234/320/355/675, so very roughly it's been the same performance. So, the problem isn't necessarily the lack of "clutch" hitting as a whole, although stretches like the last 3 games seem to amplify that. The problem is that the team, in general, sucks at hitting.

 

[Super Nomario]

The team's utter lack of power magnifies RISP slumps. They have so little ability to drive in runners without stringing several hits together that they're dependent on hitting with runners on base. Better baserunning ability would help, too; if they could walk and steal second they'd only need one hit to bring a run in.

 

[Clears Cleaver]

so Ortiz has been on base via hit or walk 179 times. Scored thirty times on his own home run. so of the other 149 times he's been on base, he was stranded or forced out 130 times? holy crap that is ridiculous.
 
edit:
Just to compare vs others in the AL
 
Ortiz 149 times on base ex HR, 19 runs scored ex HR  = 12.8% score rate
Pujols 156 OB, 46 runs scored = 29.4%
Trout 174, 57 = 32.7%
N Cruz 134, 35 = 26.1%
Encarnacion 115, 32 = 27.8%
V Martinez 164, 37 = 22.5%
Dunn 121, 23 = 19%
Napoli 146, 26 = 17.8%
 
Wow, those are damning numbers
 
edit 2:
Ortiz score rate by year:
2014 12.8%
2013 26.2%
2012 30.8%
2011 26.0%
2010 28.4%
2009 28.0%