Do the Math

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Right, and the Sox answers to the pitching was 
    1. let go of the consistent closer.
    2. allocate 82 million to a middle range righty with an ailing arm.
    3. try to figure out why their over-priced, over-hyped Japanese import
    didn't become the next Pedro
    4. turn their most talented short man into a SP
    5. fill the gas tank of the clowncar that used to go from Pawtucket to Fenway, stopped for a few years and is back running a usual route, sort of like the Jimy/Duke days.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Actually, I think the FO played it about right since Theo left.   Without Pap, Bard, Bailey, or Melancon, the Sox have had the best bullpen in the AL for something like 20 games now.  Aceves is looking tough as the closer and, unlike Pap, will go more than one inning. 

    With Lackey and Matsuzaka on the DL, the first priority was the rotation, and so far Bard and especially Doubront have been adequate at the #4 and #5.  With the bullpen doing so well, it seems pretty clear to me that the best place for Bard is in the rotation.  A good call by management. 

    And right now the bullpen may just have a couple good ones still in Pawtucket, Mortensen and Melancon (assuming he's as good as he has been in AAA and not nearly as bad as he was with the Sox). 

    To me the rotation problems are Beckett and Buchholz, both veterans.  Hard to fault management for putting them out there. 
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    I want Mortensen back now...guy was throwing lights out. striking guys out.
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Yeah, that was a strange move which the sportswriters commented on.  And the position player they brought up hasn't really been in a game yet because I don't count playing late in a slaughter as real game time.  That said, so far the bullpen hasn't missed Mortensen. 
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from mef429. Show mef429's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    In Response to Re: Do the Math:
    Yeah, that was a strange move which the sportswriters commented on.  And the position player they brought up hasn't really been in a game yet because I don't count playing late in a slaughter as real game time.  That said, so far the bullpen hasn't missed Mortensen. 
    Posted by maxbialystock


    mortenson was sent down to make room for nava who has played in games so far (and rather good at that)

    You are thinking of the 1st baseman we brought up when we put Dmac on the DL...
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Aggregate ERA is meaningless. There were a number of low ERA year long teams who weren't contenders. The 2004 and 2007 Red Sox identity was the offense, with a couple of good starters and pen arms in support. The offense identity is what drives the pitching, not the other way around.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    We had the same offense for years. It wasn't until we got Schilling, and later Beckett that we ended up winning the WS.

    Nobody is saying hitting is unimportant, and we get the median runs scored point, ( we don't get "median average" because we aren't clowns) but we can't win this year unless we have 2 great or 3+ solid starters and a strong pen.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Hank baby just doesn't get it.  Yes, the offense is very important, but no, the Sox can't contend without decent pitching which they did not have in 2009, 2010, and 2011.  The Sox collapse last September was the result of a team ERA over 5 which was the worst in MLB.  Meanwhile, the offense in September was like 4th best in MLB. 

    Low ERA teams who don't contend are teams that can't hit and score runs.  There are absolutely no teams in MLB who have good hitting and good pitching who are not contenders.  But it is absurd for Hank baby to keep saying that pitching doesn't count or that a couple of starters and two or three pen arms are all you need to contend. 
     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The Red Sox were within a Tim Wastefield gopher ball from winning the title in 2003. Manny's arrival with Ortiz is what 2004 and 2007 identity was all about.

    The magic number is 4 or more, and the math is clear as a bell. The Red Sox, for years, have had the 2 or 3 decent starters and pen arms to win it all. The fatal flaw is the issue, through Pedro's and Beckett's great years and poor years. The Red Sox winning identity is by virtue of AL/ALE/DH/Fenway.

    Very important to keep Middlebrooks at 3rd and move Youk out to LF. The infield defense needs to be improved, so Iglesias needs to replace Avilies who isn't anything more than a UIF'er.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    turn their most talented short man into a SP

    Making Bard a starter was the correct move, something I stated that needed to be done before they considered it. The most talented pitchers need to be starters, as that is where the most value is. Pen arms come and go, with the exception of a few closers.

    Pitching staff is not the problem.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    When the offense puts runs up early and

    scores 4 or more earned runs, they are

    15-2.

    When the offense scores 3 earned runs or

    less, they are 1-17

    When the Red Sox pitch great, 3 runs or less, they are 7-5 (few games will be pitching duels which the Red Sox will lose most of those with current fatal flaw)

    Red Sox in AL/DL/Fenway aren't going to be playing a bunch of pitching duel games, even with the best pitchers in baseball on the embarrassingly bloated with poor value payroll. Their winning identity is a more capable offense in the kind of individual games with plenty of runs scored that they will usually be involved in, not due to poor pitching, but due to AL/DH/Fenway.

    Good pitching by the Red Sox, yesterday, but a loss due to poor plate work. Without a consistent offense they will continue to manifest the zero playoff wins and near half a billion InEpstein construction.
     
    Early and solid hitting for the Red Sox. Poor pitching. Nice to see the identity of this team working wins.

    Oakland, May 1, 2012   Pitching was fair for a Fenway/DH-AL game, offense was pitiful.

    Oakland, May 2, 2012  Pitching was good in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense was pitiful. Good pitching, and another loss.

    O's, May 4, 2012  Pitching was good, only 4 runs through 9 in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense is unable to score more than 3 earned runs. Another loss. 

    O's, May 5, 2012 After 3 straight games of good pitching for each game, the pitching has a bad game and the pitiful offense continues to produce a string of pitiful offensive production games.

    O's, May 6, 2012 A rarity, the Red Sox score more than 3 earned runs but lose

    @ KC May 7, 2012 Offense wins one again

    @ KC May 8, 2012 Offense is pitiful v great J. Duffy and scores 3 ER Loss

    @ KC May 9, 2012 Good pitching but the Offense is pathetic against the great Bruce Chen 3 ER Loss

    Clev May 10, 2012 Offense a pitiful 3 ER v. Old journeyman Lowe

    Clev May 11, 2012  Offense Wins it and pitching with 4 ER is Good (People whine about the pitching in this game is pitiful) 

    Clev May 12, 2012 Offense hit magic number 4 ER and staff has a great pitching game

    Clev May 13, 2012 Offense scores early and carries the pitching to a huge cushion. The offense is the identity. It carries the pitching, not the other way around.

    Clev May 14, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and one of the two decent starters needed to succeed in regular season and post season with winning identity pitches well

    Clev May 15, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and pitching staff gets cushion to ease pressure and produce shutout

    @ Tampa May 16, 2012 Pitching losing identity poster child, offense is pitiful and pitching is outstanding to produce a loss

    (Note: This offense, as constructed, will never put up the consistent offense needed for the Red Sox winning identity that management is oblivious to)

    Red Sox win or lose with the identity that doesn't fit the archaic cliche of many years ago, in the AL. Drones are like apes, except apes are much more intelligent.


    "The Red Sox lead the league in nearly every offensive category, it's the pitching". No it aint!
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    When the offense puts runs up early and

    scores 4 or more earned runs, they are

    15-2.

    When the offense scores 3 earned runs or

    less, they are 1-17

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Now, it's not just the offense, it has to be "early offense".

    The joke gets funnier and funnier. The clown gets sadder and sadder.

    When TB scores 3 runs or less, they are 6-10. Their pitching lets up one less and does what it takes to get the win. Ours hasn't.

    When the Rays pitching lets up 5 or more runs they are 3-12. We are 6-13. Our bats bailed out our early season rotten staff more than TB's has done.

    What was the difference between the 2003 and 2004 Sox? The 2006 and 2007 Sox? Better hitting?

    What was the difference between the 2009 and 2010 Rangers?

    Hitting isn't the only way to win a WS.

    Only softy can argue that a small sample size tells more than a season sample size.


     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from devildavid. Show devildavid's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Pike is right.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The Red Sox were within a Tim Wastefield gopher ball from winning the title in 2003. Manny's arrival with Ortiz is what 2004 and 2007 identity was all about.

    I love this one!

    softy blames the pitching (Wake) for the 2003 loss, but then says it's all about the hitting.

    Am I the only one laughing?
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    even dumber, he forgets that there is no game 7 with the Yanks without Wakefield throwing 2 gems in 03....This is revisionist history, blame the guy who gets you to 7 because he gave up the GW homer in a game he probably never should have come in to relief in, which was the same game where the manager forgot he had a bullpen. But obviously it was all Wakefield's fault. I'm sure that's when hank-ie started his Wake venom.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    You think if we had Schill in 2003 instead of Wake, we'd have lost?

    Identity -- I-shmentity!

    Schill's bloody sock was our identity.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    "  did a full game log for August and September, which showed exactly what the Red Sox winning and losing identity is. "

    Did you squander your  free time on this project or did you attempt to bill your clients for this work? 

    Might I suggest this was not the best use of your time or intellect?

    You've done the opposite of real science here. You went out and found facts that supported your already hardened (and propogandized) position rather than consider facts that challenge your position as well. Please never teach debate to anyone. 

    Meantime you are totally out of line blaming Wake for the 2003 loss. 

    One thing we all know: last year when Wake was still on the team you would  NEVER have made your "it's all about the offense" argument as you were too interested in your trollish bash Wakefield campaign.
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from carnie. Show carnie's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    In Response to Re: Do the Math:
    The Red Sox were within a Tim Wastefield gopher ball from winning the title in 2003. Manny's arrival with Ortiz is what 2004 and 2007 identity was all about. I love this one! softy blames the pitching (Wake) for the 2003 loss, but then says it's all about the hitting. Am I the only one laughing?
    Posted by moonslav59
    Weren't Manny and Big Papi both on the Sox in '03?
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Weren't Manny and Big Papi both on the Sox in '03?

    softy won't answer this, but I will:

    Yes, Manny & Papi were on the 2003 team that lacked a solid #2 starter: the team that scored more runs than the 2004 team with Curt Schilling.

    Also...

    Yes, Manny & Papi were on the 2005 team: the team that let up 37 more runs than the 2004 team due to Schill's injury.

    Yes, Manny & Papi were on the 2006 team: the team decimated by injuries and 3 starters with ERAs over 4.63, and only one relief pitcher with an ERA under 4.35. basically only 3 pitchers out of the top 16 by IP that year had an ERA under 4.35! Yeah, the hitting lost it for us that year too.. is this getting too comical yet? 

    Let's look forward...

    Yes, Manny & Papi were on the 2008 team that let up 37 more runs than 2007.
     (BTW: Manny and Bay combined for nearly 30 HRs, over 100 RBIs and a .900+ OPS)

    In 2009, we scored more runs than 2007, but let up 79 more and didn't even get out of the division series (swept 3-0). We missed having a median of 5 runs scored by 2 games in 2009 and went 13-37 in games we scored 1-3 runs. (in 2007 we were 3 games from haing a median runs scored of 4.) Unbalanced offense? In 2009 we scored over 9 runs 27 times, but in 2007, it was 31. In 2009 our bats bailed out poor pitching (7+ runs allowed) by winning 8 games out of 35, but in 2007 the offense only won 3 out of 26. The offense was better in 2009, but we won in 2007, because of the pitching staff. Beckett had a solid year in 2007, we had Schilling and went deeper with Dice-K (15-12) and Wake 917-12). We also has a pen with 3 of it's top IP arms with an ERA under 2.22 (Paps, Oki, and MDC). We also had 3 more guys between 3.10 and 3.81 (Timlin, Lopez, and Snyder). The 2009 team was Scill-less and had just 2 solid starters (Beckett and Lester). The rest of the starters had a combined 5.00+ ERA (led by Penny with 24 starts, Wake with 21, Buch with 16, Dice-K with 12 (5.76 ERA), and Byrd with 6.) The 2009 pen was not as good as 2007.

    2011, we scored more than 2007, but let up 80 more runs. We missed the playoffs.

    It's not that teams can't win with average pitching and great hitting, but it's clearly easier to win and stay in more games with great pitching and average hitting, especially in the playoffs. 

    Everyone know when you get to a playoff game, you always start with, "who's pitching for us, and who is pitching for them?"

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    When the offense puts runs up early and

    scores 4 or more earned runs, they are

    16-2.

    When the offense scores 3 earned runs or

    less, they are 1-17

    When the Red Sox pitch great, 3 runs or less, they are 7-5 (few games will be pitching duels which the Red Sox will lose most of those with current fatal flaw)

    Red Sox in AL/DL/Fenway aren't going to be playing a bunch of pitching duel games, even with the best pitchers in baseball on the embarrassingly bloated with poor value payroll. Their winning identity is a more capable offense in the kind of individual games with plenty of runs scored that they will usually be involved in, not due to poor pitching, but due to AL/DH/Fenway.

    Good pitching by the Red Sox, yesterday, but a loss due to poor plate work. Without a consistent offense they will continue to manifest the zero playoff wins and near half a billion InEpstein construction.
     
    Early and solid hitting for the Red Sox. Poor pitching. Nice to see the identity of this team working wins.

    Oakland, May 1, 2012   Pitching was fair for a Fenway/DH-AL game, offense was pitiful.

    Oakland, May 2, 2012  Pitching was good in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense was pitiful. Good pitching, and another loss.

    O's, May 4, 2012  Pitching was good, only 4 runs through 9 in this Fenway/AL game, but the offense is unable to score more than 3 earned runs. Another loss. 

    O's, May 5, 2012 After 3 straight games of good pitching for each game, the pitching has a bad game and the pitiful offense continues to produce a string of pitiful offensive production games.

    O's, May 6, 2012 A rarity, the Red Sox score more than 3 earned runs but lose

    @ KC May 7, 2012 Offense wins one again

    @ KC May 8, 2012 Offense is pitiful v great J. Duffy and scores 3 ER Loss

    @ KC May 9, 2012 Good pitching but the Offense is pathetic against the great Bruce Chen 3 ER Loss

    Clev May 10, 2012 Offense a pitiful 3 ER v. Old journeyman Lowe

    Clev May 11, 2012  Offense Wins it and pitching with 4 ER is Good (People whine about the pitching in this game is pitiful) 

    Clev May 12, 2012 Offense hit magic number 4 ER and staff has a great pitching game

    Clev May 13, 2012 Offense scores early and carries the pitching to a huge cushion. The offense is the identity. It carries the pitching, not the other way around.

    Clev May 14, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and one of the two decent starters needed to succeed in regular season and post season with winning identity pitches well

    Clev May 15, 2012 Offense scores early, reaches winning identity threshhold and pitching staff gets cushion to ease pressure and produce shutout

    @ Tampa May 16, 2012 Pitching losing identity poster child, offense is pitiful and pitching is outstanding to produce a loss

    @ Tampa May 17, 2012 Offense scores 3 early and reaches the magic number of 4 earned runs and scores 5 earned runs. Had the pitching been outstanding and the offense in pitiful game mode, the Red Sox would have lost this game for near certainty. The offense always sets the winning identity tone for the Red Sox, as this game paradigmed.

    (Note: This offense, as constructed, will never put up the consistent offense needed for the Red Sox winning identity that management is oblivious to)

    Red Sox win or lose with the identity that doesn't fit the archaic cliche of many years ago, in the AL. Drones are like apes, except apes are much more intelligent.

    The Red Sox need to start working on acquiring Justin Upton, via trade market. Until such time as Cherry sobers up, Youk needs to be put in LF, Middlebrooks remains at 3B, and Ross (not the everyday RH star bat answer) needs to platoon with Sweeney. Ross is a horrible fielder, so Byrd will need to stay in CF for the time being. 

    "The Red Sox lead the league in nearly every offensive category, it's the pitching". No it aint!
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from DirtyWaterLover. Show DirtyWaterLover's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    The only reason the team wins when the offense scores a lot of runs is because the pitching gives up a lot of runs. 
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    No, the reason the team is 16-2 when scoring 4 or more runs is because of probability. The same reason the team is 1-17 when scoring less than 4 runs.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    Wrong. The Sox do not win the normal percent of low scoring games. They should be better than 1-17 in those games. Losing low scoring games is not just the batters' fault.

    The rest of the league is 67-190 in games scoring under 4.

    We are 2-12 in games where we scored 2-4 runs while the rest of the league is 82-136 in games where the offense scored 2-4 runs.

    Do the math.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Do the Math

    I went back and combined the total AL record of 2011 and 2012  for each game based on how many runs were scored and how many runs were allowed. This gives us the normal expectation for winning when a given team scores a certain amount of runs or lets up a certain amount of runs. I then aplied that league norm winning percentage to what the results the Sox got for each subgroup of runs scored and runs let up. The differential, in theory, will show if we should have won more or less on any given run number scored or allowed. This data can be used to assign "blame" to the offense or the defense depending on what side of the differential we fell on.

    (Side note: A winning team should do better than the norm on offense and defense. Breaking even would, in theory, lead a team to an 81-81 record, but for argument's sake, whichever side of the equation if farther from the norm-good or badly, should determine who is more at fault: the offense or the defense.)

    The pitching is assigned plus or minus wins as related to how much run support they got. The offense is assigned plus or minus wins as related to how many runs our staff allowed.

    Here's the data:

    2012 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs  AL win%               Expected    Sox Actual
              '11-'12     Tot. Gms    Wins          Wins          Differential
    0          .000             2           .000              0                .000
    1          .102             4           .408              1              +.592
    2          .219             4           .876              0              - .876
    3          .364             6         2.184              0             -2.184
    4          .537             5         2.685              2              - .685
    5          .648             2         1.296              2              +.704
    6          .693             4         2.772              3              +.228
    7          .804             2         1.608              2              +.392
    8          .887             0           .000              0               .000 
    9          .907             1           .907              0              -.907
    10        .926             2          1.852             2             +.148
    11+      .991             7          6.937             6              -.937

    If we look at the 19 games where we scored 1-4 runs, we should have won 6.193 games, but instead we only won 3. That shows that our staff did not pitch as well as the AL norm in low scoring games. We lost 3.193 more games than we "should have" (based on league norms). This shows the exact opposite of what the silly clown (softy) is saying. Yes, with 3 guys out of our line-up, we have scored 4 or less runs a little too often, but when we have, we should have 3 more wins.

    Let's look at games where we score 5-7 runs: We should have 5.676 win s out of those 8 games, and we have 7 wins. That's a 1.324 plus. This means our pitchers helped us win 1.3 more games than we should have in this range.

    In the 10 games we scored over 9 runs, we won 8.616 games, but instead we won only 8. That means our staff lost .616 more games than we should have in this range.

    The net plus/minus of our staff comes to  MINUS  2.485

    This shows for the amount of games we scored a particular amount of runs, we should have about 2 and half more wins than we do now: meaning the pitching has lost us 2.5 games.

    Now, let's look at it from the other side:

    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense:

                AL     Total Gms   Expected    Actual wins
    RunsL win%   '   11-12         wins          Wins       Differential
    0         1.000           2           2.000             2               .000
    1           .901           4           3.604            3               -.604
    2           .787           4          3.148             3               -.148
    3           .615           5          3.075             3               -.075
    4           .466           4          1.864             1               -.864
    5           .354           5          1.770             4            +2.230
    6           .260           7          1.820             2             +.180
    7           .196           1            .196             0               -.196
    8           .120           2            .240             0               -.240
    9           .081           1            .081             0               -.081
    10         .090           1             .090            0               -.090
    11+      .009             3            .027            0               -.027

    There's a little truth is softy's position looking at games where our staff and defense allowed 1-4 runs. In those 17 games of good pitching, we should have won 11.691 games, but instead, we only won 10. All of softy's huffing and puffing has been basically over 1.69 wins in games our offense let down our pitching... the same offense missing 1/3rd of its players. However, the part softy never even dares discuss is this: in games where the staff pitched OK to poorly, our bats bailed them out more often than not.

    In the 13 games our staff and defense let up 5-7 runs, we should have won only 3.786 games, but instead we won 6. That's 2.214 more wins that the league norm in games the stff lets up 5-7 runs.

    In the 7 games we let up 8 or more runs, we should have won 0.438 games, and we won zero for a net loss of .438.

    The net Plus/Minus for our offense: PLUS 0.086 games

    Basically, our offense has not won or lost us any games overall (net).


    In summary, the offense has won/lost the league average

    overall. The pitching has lost 2.5 games for the team.

    What about 2011?

    For thos still hung up on the "collapse of 2011, here's a breakdown of the season and September seperately:

    2011 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs/AL win%11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0          .000               11                          .000                 0          .000
    1          .102               12                         1.224                2          +.776
    2          .219               15                         3.285                2         -1.285
    3          .364               17                         6.188                7          +.822
    4          .537               30                        16.110             17          +.890
    5          .648               15                         9.720               7          -2.720
    6          .693               13                         9.009               9           -.009
    7          .804                9                          7.236               7           -.236
    8          .887                7                          6.209               7          +.791 
    9          .907                8                          7.256               8          +.744
    10        .926                7                          6.482               6           -.482
    11+     .991                17                        16.847             17          +.153


    Pitching: MINUS  .556  WINS


    2012 Offense Plus/Minus:
    Runs allowed by pitching and defense.
    Runs/AL win% 11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0         1.000                      13                   13.000      13                .000
    1           .901                      15                  13.515       13              -.515
    2           .787                      15                  11.805       13            +1.115 
    3           .615                      24                  14.760        16           +1.240
    4           .466                      20                    9.320       11            +1.680
    5           .354                      23                    8.142       10            +1.858
    6           .260                      14                    3.640        6              +.700
    7           .196                      11                    2.156        3              +.844
    8           .120                       4                      .480        2             +1.520
    9           .081                     14                      1.134       2             +.866
    10         .090                       3                      .270         1             +.730
    11+      .009                        6                      .054         0              -.054

    Offense: PLUS   9.984 

    Basically, the offense accounted for all the wins we had over a .500 season. (81+9=90) 

    The pitching was about even.

    Now, for the September collapse. Who was more at fault?

    Runs scored
    R  Gms  Exp W  Sox W  Diff
    0    2         .000       0     0
    1    2         .204       0   -.204
    2    4         .876       0   -.876
    3    3       1.092       0  -1.092 
    4    5        2.685      1  -1.685
    5    4        2.592      0  -2.592
    6    0         0           0     0
    7    1         .804      1    +.196
    8    1         .887      1    +.113
    9    0         0           0     0
    10  1         .926      0     -.926
    11+ 4   4   3.964     4    +.036

    Pitching Total:  MINUS  7.030 WINS

    Runs Allowed:
    R  gms  ExpW  SoxW  Diff
    0    1        1        1        0
    1    1        .901    0     -.901
    2    0        0        0        0
    3    1       .615    1      +.385
    4    4       1.467  1      -.467
    5    1        .354   0      -.354
    6    6       1.560  1      -.560
    7    5        .980   2    +1.020
    8    1       .120    0     -.120
    9    4       .324    1     +.676
    10  1       .090    0     -.090
    11+ 2      .018    0     -.018

    Offense: MINUS .429 WINS

    Basically, the 7 games under .500 for September was all the pitcher's fault, except for under 1/2 a win turned to a loss by the offense.

    Here's the "math".  Plain and simple.

    Our pitching did not helped us win games over the league norm for the amount of runs our offense has scored on a GAME BY GAME basis.

    Our offense helped us win 90 games instead of 81. 

    Yes, we could use a big RH'd bat in the clean-up slot, but our biggest need was and still is our pitching staff and defense.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share