Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    You won't get an argument from me that it was the pitching that led this team down the road to nowhere.

    However, looking at the whole season is not as productive as looking at the team prior to July 31st and post July 31st.  At the July trade deadline this team was in the hunt and trending up.  But August hit and the train went off the tracks.  Look at that month.  And then, the trade happened and the train went off a cliff.  Should look at September and compare to the rest of the league.  You might find it was actually the offense that held this team back.  Moon, you love those month-by-month comparisons...I suspect such an analysis would be quite interesting and informative.

    What I noticed all year long, but especially in the last two months, was that this team was horrible offensively when behind.  And they were behind more often than not.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    You won't get an argument from me that it was the pitching that led this team down the road to nowhere.

    However, looking at the whole season is not as productive as looking at the team prior to July 31st and post July 31st.  At the July trade deadline this team was in the hunt and trending up.  But August hit and the train went off the tracks.  Look at that month.  And then, the trade happened and the train went off a cliff.  Should look at September and compare to the rest of the league.  You might find it was actually the offense that held this team back.  Moon, you love those month-by-month comparisons...I suspect such an analysis would be quite interesting and informative.

    What I noticed all year long, but especially in the last two months, was that this team was horrible offensively when behind.  And they were behind more often than not.

    [/QUOTE]


    Actually, I did this exact same analysis in June, July and August. The results were the same. The pitching lost more games than the offense, in fact, back in early July, the offense was in the plus column.

     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Love how freaked out softy is about this post. 

    Funny how his facts always seem more factual than other people's facts. 

    Love that he wants Cherry, management's puppet, to be fired, to be replaced by another puppet. Great. 

    Moon nice job coming up with stats, but anyone who thinks pitching wasn't our biggest problem is too blind to see stats. 

    That's not to say our offense hasn't struggled in those close games and late game situations.

     

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to BostonTrollSpanker's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Love how freaked out softy is about this post. 

    Funny how his facts always seem more factual than other people's facts. 

    Love that he wants Cherry, management's puppet, to be fired, to be replaced by another puppet. Great. 

    Moon nice job coming up with stats, but anyone who thinks pitching wasn't our biggest problem is too blind to see stats. 

    That's not to say our offense hasn't struggled in those close games and late game situations.

     

    [/QUOTE]


    Case & point: last year softy spent pages and pages blasting our 6th starter for having an ERA over 5. This year our starters combined for an ERA  5.19, and somehow that is not an issue anymore. He even called Bard's season as a starter "decent" with a 5.30 ERA and a 1.620 WHIP.

    As we can all see, the silly clown is at his best when talking about pitching.

     
  5. This post has been removed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    trotternixon is simply not credible on this subject and moonslav is. 

    Normally, usually, the Sox hitting has made the difference and the pitching has just been good enough.  2007 was an exception when the Sox pitchers had the best ERA in the AL despite pitching half their games in Fenway Park.  And for the 2007 playoffs the Sox had Beckett at his best, Schilling, Lester, and Matsuzaka (when he was OK).  2004 was closer to the norm when the Sox had good enough pitching but far and away the best offense (total runs scored) in MLB.  And Schilling at his best in the playoffs. 

    This year the Sox started out with horrendous pitching--starting and bullpen--which pretty much stayed bad the whole season albeit with interludes of semi-competence.  Buchholz, who got better, was a disaster in April.  Beckett, whose ERA was under 3 last year, stayed right around 5 or over this year, almost double 2011's ERA.  Lester finished around 5 even though he was below 3.50 in 2011, 2010, 2009, and 2008.  Bard was a disaster.  Cook was a disaster.  Matsuzaka was worse than Cook.  Doubront was a bright spot, but still finished with an ERA around 5.  The bullpen definitely had some good moments, but also plenty of bad ones, especially early and late in the season.  Neither Aceves nor Bailey turned out to be a reliable closer, etc. 

    When the hitting was good, it was pretty darn good, and the Sox led the AL in runs scored for basically the first four months, thru the end of July.  This despite missing Ells and CC and Pedroia having the bad thumb, Youk struggling, AGon not getting dingers, etc.  The hitting went off the cliff after Ortiz went on the DL and AGon went to LA. 

    In fact, I would argue, as important as getting a very good starter is, the Sox must get one really good bat to replace AGon, who still led the Sox in rbi's despite missing roughly the last 50 games.  Loney/Gomez ain't that guy.  Ross, ditto.  Youk might be, but I think he is already past his prime.  Bogaerts could play 1B or 3B (moving Middlebrooks), but no one can be sure either of those guys can hit at the .900 OPS level.  Bogaerts hasn't even hit at AAA level yet. 

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. This post has been removed.

     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    How about the month of September, post trade?  I suspect the offense was as big a part of the fall off th cliff the Sox suffered, as was the pitching; which for some contained some of their best performances of the season (Melancon, Lester are examples).

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    The author of this thread thinks that guys who start every 5 days are why the Red Sox have been the embarrassing billion dollar zero playoff team for nearly half a decade.

     

    Too funny. 

    softy blamed our loss in 2011 on Wakefield: a player who pitched every 5th day for two-thirds of the season. Now, he is trying to claim any player that pitches just every 5 days can not be the main reason of our demise... even if all 5 were bad, amounting to bad pitching everyday by 5 different guys.

    Does anyone else here find themselves laughing hysterically at this clown?

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Fenway Park and a lot of blow out single games make total season runs almost meaningless.

    Before the trade, even if you took out all the big scoring games, we would still have been one of the top scoring teams in MLB.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from parhunter55. Show parhunter55's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Statistically you can get a handle on whether blowouts were more common with the Sox than with others, and therefore get a sense of whether blowouts accounted for too much of their total offensive output.  The median is meaningless in this case.  Establish the mean, and calculate the variation about the mean.  If that variation is large, it suggests the Sox amassed great run totals but were very inconsistent, sometimes scoring a lot of runs and other times not scoring many
    (or any) at all. 

    Maybe most teams are like this.  Maybe winning teams have far less variation.  I do not know, but the analysis can be made.  It might help resolve some differences of opinion here.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to parhunter55's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Statistically you can get a handle on whether blowouts were more common with the Sox than with others, and therefore get a sense of whether blowouts accounted for too much of their total offensive output.  The median is meaningless in this case.  Establish the mean, and calculate the variation about the mean.  If that variation is large, it suggests the Sox amassed great run totals but were very inconsistent, sometimes scoring a lot of runs and other times not scoring many
    (or any) at all. 

    Maybe most teams are like this.  Maybe winning teams have far less variation.  I do not know, but the analysis can be made.  It might help resolve some differences of opinion here.

    [/QUOTE]

    Look at tghe numbers on page 1. It shows how many times the Sox scored a given amount of runs vs the rest of the AL.

    We scored 12+ runs 7 times: the rest of the AL did it an average of 4.3 times. (+2.7)

    We scored 10-11 runs 8 times: the AL: 6.3. (+1.7)

    We scored 8-9 runs 12 times: the AL 14.3.  (-2.3)

    We scored 6-7 runs 26 times: the AL 27.0.  (-1)

    In short, 8+ runs we had 27 games while the rest of the AL averaged 24.9. (+2.1)

    That's about 2 more big scoring games than the rest of the AL. Go ahead and knock off 2 12 run games and make them 4 (subtract 18) and we'd still be 11th- or above average).

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    I don't think I or most some-what rational people can understand why Softy  thinks that the Sox don't need pitching help. He uses a fallacy being like what ace would have help this team. The real way to fix this team is add one starter now, have tons of depth and see what you got a the trading deadline. He also says that they pulled the plug on the season to early, when the big trade came in August. Softy is okay not to know about baseball, I don't know about rugby.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    The real way to fix this team is add one starter now, have tons of depth and see what you got a the trading deadline.

     

    I agree. Add to teh pitching now and stockpile prosepcts and talent to better position us to make deals in the future of the 3 or 4 for 1 variety.

     

    He also says that they pulled the plug on the season too early, when the big trade came in August. 

     

    Now, he is saying we should have kept CC until his stock was higher, so we could have gotten someone to pay more of his salary than the Dodgers did. This is wrong on so many levels, it is hard to take it seriously.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from garyhow. Show garyhow's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Well done Moon. One of major reasons our pitching has gone down hill has been were it has put the money. Both Dice K and Lackey the RS big money pitchers signed under current ownership have been busts for the $ it cost. I think w/ FA signings if you want to go after someone make sure they are one of the best at what they do. Look Manny for the money was a great sign, he was the best RH hitter at the time and he lived up to it. Damon was one of the best CF in the game at time of signing and he lived up to it. When the Yanks signed CC did anyone doubt he would win 20 games? Under the current ownership we always seem to settle for the guy on just a little lower level or w/ some warts and have paid the price. Imagine if we had signed CC and how things might be a little different in the AL East, forget Lackey and Beckett extension think we might have been better off out bidding the Yanks in hindsight? If it cost 23-24mil to outbid or are we better off w/ 2 guys @ 34 mil w/ health issues that everyone knew about before we signed Beckett/ shoulder & Lackey/elbow? Look the best way to build a team is thru the farm. But at times you need a piece the farm can't provide, in my mind best to go for the best. This year stay away from FA market nothing but warts @ high end. If want a complementery piece like LaRoche for 1B, and cost is right by all means go ahead. Not going to kill you down the road if it doesn't work out. But if your going to sign someone for big $, sign only the very best. 

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    But if your going to sign someone for big $, sign only the very best.

    I agree, but this year it may be almost impossible to get "the very best", so I think we need to try and upgrade our staff with young starters under team control for 3+ years. Starters that may be able to become a solid #2 or #3 going forward, so when the that "very best" pitcher does come along, and hopefully we pounce on the opportunity, we will have a strong enough supporting cast to be instant contenders.

    We now have the cash available to outbid anyone for that one guy.

    I have mentioned some specific ideas on other threads, but I do not think Greinke is the answer. I'd like to see us try to trade for Brett Anderson or Yavani Gallardo, and then maybe sign McCarthey (if healthy) or maybe Marcum if the number is right.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Well done Moon. One of major reasons our pitching has gone down hill has been were it has put the money. Both Dice K and Lackey the RS big money pitchers signed under current ownership have been busts for the $ it cost. I think w/ FA signings if you want to go after someone make sure they are one of the best at what they do. 

    While true, it didn't help to lose Papelbon (but at that cost and years, I was all for letting him walk), have Bard and Aceves decline in their new roles, and Lester & Beckett have off years. Even Buch had a rough start that contributed to us starting in a hole. Doubront & Morales did OK, but with our top 3 doing poorly, they could not make up the difference.

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from snakeoil123. Show snakeoil123's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to TrotterNixon's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    and the Sox led the AL in runs scored for basically the first four months

    Anyone using total season runs as an important metric for offensive performance has zero credibility on any baseball issue.

    [/QUOTE]

    What metric would you choose to use to establish which teams have a better offense over a season?

    Whichever metric you choose please also list all other American League teams using the same metric.  

    Thank you in advance.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Anyone using total season runs as an important metric for offensive performance has zero credibility on any baseball issue.

    [/QUOTE]

    What metric would you choose to use to establish which teams have a better offense over a season?

    Whichever metric you choose please also list all other American League teams using the same metric.  

    Thank you in advance.

    He won't do it, so your advanced "thanks" is lost.

    He will spew drivel about game logs and the need to score first. When confronted with gamelog facts, he goes into a shell. For example, he said that bard pitched decently as a starter this year if you look at his game logs. Yet, when I compared the gamelogs one by one vs Wakefield's 2011 game logs, softy went silent or diverted to another issue.

    Yes, we do have more high scoring blow-out games than the average team, but even if you take those away, we still score more than about 2/3rd of the teams. However, like you said, use the same criteria for all teams, by taking away their high scoring games as well, and we will still be near the top of the list in scoring for 2012 and 2011. Our mean is 4 runs scored. The AL has a winning percent of .607 when scoring 4 runs. We went 8-9. We also had a .615 winning% in 5 run games, while the rest of the AL had over a 70% winning percentage.

    Our pitching cleaarly did not help us win enough low scoring games, and caused us to lose too many middle scoring games, while also being the only team in the AL to lose a game when scoring 12+ runs. We did it twice!

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Another noteworthy number was our 12-13 record when our staff & defense allowed 5 runs.

    The rest of the AL was 66-144 in 5 run games.

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another noteworthy number was our 12-13 record when our staff & defense allowed 5 runs.

    The rest of the AL was 66-144 in 5 run games.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think this is because our offense, overall, was above average, if inconsistent. The team ended up finishing fifth in runs scored. So even if our pitching allowed five runs there was an above average chance that we would win the game.

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

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    Another noteworthy number was our 12-13 record when our staff & defense allowed 5 runs.

    The rest of the AL was 66-144 in 5 run games.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think this is because our offense, overall, was above average, if inconsistent. The team ended up finishing fifth in runs scored. So even if our pitching allowed five runs there was an above average chance that we would win the game.

    Yes, and that was my point. Our offense carried the pitching along better than most teams did, but when the offense sputtered, the pitching did not take up the slack as much as other teams did.

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from pumpsie-green. Show pumpsie-green's posts

    Re: Facts Are Facts: It Was More About the Pitching than the Hitting...

    In response to moonslav59's comment:
    [QUOTE]

    Another noteworthy number was our 12-13 record when our staff & defense allowed 5 runs.

    The rest of the AL was 66-144 in 5 run games.

    [/QUOTE]

    I think this is because our offense, overall, was above average, if inconsistent. The team ended up finishing fifth in runs scored. So even if our pitching allowed five runs there was an above average chance that we would win the game.

    Yes, and that was my point. Our offense carried the pitching along better than most teams did, but when the offense sputtered, the pitching did not take up the slack as much as other teams did.

    [/QUOTE]


    This is going to take time, probably two years at least. There is no way to go out and get four good SP, which is what we really need. Only Buchholtz is somewhat reliable, and he wasn't even that good this year, overall. Lester, if he works hard, could improve to becoming a #4-5 SP; he could just as easily be finished. We need an ace to lead the group and three other good SP before we will be a relevant club again.

     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share