It's never been "The Pitching"

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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    AGon was a good deal based on what we saw last year.  Right now he's in a slump.  If he stays in it and has a really bad year, then maybe it was a bad deal, but I don't think that will happen. 

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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    As for the OP and hankwilliamsjr, the Sox scored six runs in 9 innings yesterday and could not win.  At some point one has to recognize that the 2d worst pitching staff in the AL is a liability.  I am all for a great offense which the Sox have regularly had, but you can't win without a decent pitching staff. 

    The Sox missed the playoffs in 2009, 2010, and 2011 despite having a good offense all three years, but all three years the Sox pitching staff was subpar. 
     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from SanCap. Show SanCap's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching":
    Joe we don't need more scoring we need more consistent scoring. We score 10 runs one game and struggle to score 1 or 2 the next game.   Runs scored per game:       Bos   TB   NYY  Bal  Tor 0-3   12      11   9     12     8 4- 7   5       11  14    11    15 8+     8        4   3       3      4    Wins  11    19   14   17    16 It seems to me that there isn't much difference in 0-3 runs scored between Boston and the first and second place teams. The only tangible difference is instead of scoring 4-7 runs 11 times and 8+ runs 3-4 times, the Sox scored 8+ runs 4-5 times more.  Now, look at runs allowed and see if there is a stronger co-relation: Runs allowed per game:       Bos   TB  NYY  Bal  Tor 0-3   9     14    9     14    13 4-7  12    11   15    10    11 8+    4     2     2      2      3 Wins 11  19   14   17    16 Well, lookie here! The teams withthe most  0-3 runs allowed games have the most wins (TB and Bal), in fact, the standings are in direct co-relation to the runs allowed totals.   1) TB - Tied for 1st in 0-3 runs allowed and ahead of Bal in games with 4-7 runs allowed. 2) Bal - Tied for first in games with 0-3 runs allowed. 3) Tor - Very close to Baltimore in 0-3 runs and 4-7 runs allowed. (1.5 games behind the O's). 4) NYY - Same amount of 0-3 runs allowed games as Boston, but 3 more 4-7 allowed and 2 less 7+ runs allowed games (2.5 games ahead of the Sox). 5) Boston- Last in 8+ runs allowed games (4) . Last in 6+ runs allowed games (10). Last in AL East. Small sample size? Yes!  So, let's look at 2011 totals: Runs scored:       Bos  TB  NY  Bal  Tor 0-3  55     70   49   64     70 4-7  67    65   80   80    68 8+   40   27    33   18    24 Runs allowed: 0-3  67   82    83   51    63 4-7  68   65    63   72    78 8+   27   15    16   39    21 Wins 90  91   97   69    81  Yes, the Yanks had the fewest games with 0-3 runs scored, but they also had the fewest games with 4+ or 8+ runs allowed. Now, compare the Rays and Sox: what's the biggest variable? TB scored 0-3 runs 15 more times than the Sox, but still won 1 more game. If it was mostly about consistent scoring, TB should have finished last place. The biggest differential was in runs allowed. TB had 16 more games with 0-3 runs allowed than the Sox and 11 less games with 8+ runs allowed. Some say that TB had more "timely" or "better clutch" hitting than the Sox... 2011 OPS:         Late & Close  High Leverage Boston     .750               .771 TB Rays   .687               .748 NOT! It's almost always about the pitching (and defense). Keeping the score lower puts you in more games with a chance to win. A team with 750 runs scored and 650 runs allowed will almost always win more than an 850-750 or 900-800 team. It's not that complicated to figure out why.  "Do the math."
    Posted by moonslav59


    Excellent analysis, thanks.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from maxbialystock. Show maxbialystock's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Sancap, you're absolutely right.  moonslav nailed it.  hankwilliamsjr never actually responded to moonslav's analysis other than to try another one of his ad hominem attacks. 
     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from dgalehouse. Show dgalehouse's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    The starting rotation has been abysmal , but the bullpen pitched valiantly all weekend. The overrated offense was never able to get the needed big hit. It is not a question of which is worse between the starters and the offense. They both deserve blame.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from Drewski5. Show Drewski5's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Agree with dgalehouse.

    We won in 2004 and 2007 with offense AND pitching.  Look at the Tigers.  You want to make it to the world series, we';re going to need more offense and more pitching.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    The starting rotation has been abysmal , but the bullpen pitched valiantly all weekend. The overrated offense was never able to get the needed big hit. It is not a question of which is worse between the starters and the offense. They both deserve blame.

    Of course both are to blame to some extent, but to get a power RH'd bat and a solid top starter we'd need to make 2 blockbuster trades. We aren't deep enough to make 2, so the question is what is the first priority? 

    A power RH'd bat or a stud pitcher?


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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    We can get more offense right now if Adrian Gonzalez performs up to his talent level.
     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from roberr48. Show roberr48's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Always been the Starting Pitching......No lead is safe with this staff.....but the offense sure can go in funks as well......Not a very good team, even if we had Ells, Craw, Youk & Bailey.......none of them are starting pitchers............
    July should be the time to let loose of smirking Beckett......& see what we can get for Youk as well......Hope that Lavarnway can get hot in Pawtucket, & get the call to the Big Show......By August we might have Middlebrooks, Lavarnway & Kalish giving this team new Life.......
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

      I am all for a great offense which the Sox have regularly had

    The aggregate "season total runs" nonsense. The team is 10-3 when scoring more than 4 runs. It is 3-2 when giving up 3 runs or less. It aint about the pitching.

    Any "ace" the Red Sox get will be a terrible value. Either the team fills the hole that Manny left or it will continue to be the loser that it has been for nearly a half a decade.
     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from roberr48. Show roberr48's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching":
      I am all for a great offense which the Sox have regularly h ad The aggregate "season total runs" nonsense. The team is 10-3 when scoring more than 4 runs. It is 3-2 when giving up 3 runs or less. It aint about the pitching. Any "ace" the Red Sox get will be a terrible value. Either the team fills the hole that Manny left or it will continue to be the loser that it has been for nearly a half a decade.
    Posted by hankwilliamsjr


    Wow!    Remarkable synopsis..... "Any ace the Sox will get will be a terrible value" What does that possibly mean?.......LOL!
     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BostonTrollSpanker. Show BostonTrollSpanker's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    " The team is 10-3 when scoring more than 4 runs. It is 3-2 when giving up 3 runs or less."

    === SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT === 

    === SMALL SAMPLE SIZE ALERT ===

    The team ERA this year is 5.32

    so "more than four runs" won't work now will it? 

    Seems six runs is needed to win this year. 

    I know you think this is crazy but it really is true that winning in sports, and by that I mean all professional sports, involves both offense and defense.






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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    What does that possibly mean?.......LOL!

    It means Beckett's extension, Lester's extension, Buch's extension, Slackey's FA contract mean beyond your intelligence.

    Season long ERA, see the great Oakland A's and LA Angels W/L. You are out to lunch if you hang your tiny hat on season long team aggregate stats.
     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from antiqueman1. Show antiqueman1's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching":
    In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching" : While the RS may have made the wrong choice in resigning Beckett he was one of the key reasons the RS won the WS in 2007. And both the 2004 and 2007 teams had many key components that came from FA and trade and then extend deals. Notable high profile deals: Pedro Martinez - trade and extend Curt Schilling - trade and extend Keith Foulke - FA signing Manny Ramirez - FA signing Johnny Damon - FA signing Josh Beckett - trade and extend Mike Lowell - trade and extend in the Beckett deal Lackey's signing in hindsight given that there was a pre-existing history of elbow issues was a bad gamble. Heavens knows I can't figure out what made the RS brass think Crawford was a value at $140M. But I get why they resigned Beckett and aside from his last few starts of 2011 the signing looked good. A-Gon is in a horrid slump but it is not hard to understand why the RS did the deal and signed him. There is only so much predictability to any signing, whether it is extending your own (Buchholz is a shining example right now) or FA.
    Posted by fivekatz


    Agree Beckett was a key player in WS. Fine. But resigning the guy was a mistake for that kind of money. No hindsight for me about Lackey. I was never impressed with him. He was always just mediocre. I did not want him or Crawford. The Crawford signing was a waste. And if it hurts the Sox chances of signing Els, well then it blows. A-gon just was not needed at the time he was acquired. Youk was rocking 1st. And Beltre had 3rd covered. And Victor was doing just fine behind and at the plate. Pay those 2 and Sox never had to worry about large A-gon contract. Too many fat contracts on the payroll now. Hard to move them, but I feel they need to.
     
  17. This post has been removed.

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

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    In Response to Re: It's never been "The Pitching":
    Why do threads started by Softlaw get responses? Doesn't everyone by now realize that Softlaw is a closet Yankee fan whose act is to be a pretend Red Sox concerned fan? It is amazing to me that most of you still fall for the act. Why not get smart and realize that you are wasting your valuable time?
    Posted by Calzone65


    Ouch! That hurts!
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Before tonight, the Sox were 10-4 in games where we scored 4 or more runs. Going by league averages, we should have gone 12-2, but our staff let up more than the norm.


    2012 Pitching Plus/Minus
    Runs scored by offense
    Runs/AL win%11-12/Tot. Gms/Expected wins/Sox W's/ Differential
    0          .000                  2                          .000                 0                .000
    1          .102                  3                          .306                 1              +.694
    2          .219                  4                          .876                 0              - .876
    3          .364                  4                         1.456                0            -1.456
    4          .537                  2                         1.074                1             -  .074
    5          .648                   0                           .000                0                .000
    6          .693                  3                         2.079                2             -.079
    7          .804                  1                           .804                1             +.196
    8          .887                  0                           .000                0               .000 
    9          .907                  1                           .907                0             -.907
    10        .926                  2                         1.852               2             +.148
    11+     .991                  5                          4.955              4             -.955

    The only subgroup where we have more wins than the league norm expectation is when we scored 1 run, 7 runs, and 10 runs. The total combined amount of wins we gained in those 3 sub groups was 1.038 
    (in red) or just over 1 win gained by better than norm results. In games where our staff won less than expectations based on the league norm, our staff lost a total of 4.347 (in black). Ta he net plus/minus comes to ...

    MINUS  3.309 WINS due to poorer than normal pitching this year

    In other words, we should have won 3.3 more games based on game by game results and the amount of runs we scored.

    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                       1                   1.000              1                .000
    1           .901                       1                      .901              0              -.901
    2           .787                       3                     2.361             3             +.639
    3           .615                       4                     2.460             2              -.460
    4           .466                       3                     1.398             1              -.398
    5           .354                       3                     1.062             2              +.938
    6           .260                       5                     1.300             2              +.700
    7           .196                       1                       .196             0               -.196
    8           .120                       1                       .120             0               -.120
    9           .081                        1                       .081             0              -.081
    10         .090                        1                      .090              0              -.090
    11+      .009                        3                      .027              0              -.027

    The net Plus/Minus for our offense:

    MINUS .001 WINS (or basically status quo with the rest of the AL)

    These numbers are based on game by game logs and run totals vs league expected wins when scoring or letting up a certain amount of runs.

    See the "Nitty Gritty" thread for more numbers on this issue, including a breakdown of 2001 and September of 2011.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    These numbers are based on game by game logs and run totals vs league expected wins

    Completely meaningless. Look at the Red Sox, Fenway/AL/DH game logs and it's real simple for you Wastefield's valuable "jobs saved" charts:

    11-3 when the team scores 4 runs or more. For the Red Sox, Fenway and AL/DL, their identity for winning will be in how consistent the offense is.

    When the Red Sox score 3 runs or less, they will be losing most all those games because of Park Factor plus AL/DH.
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    I thought we lost last year because our 6/7th starter's (Wake) ERA was over 5.00.

    Now our whole staff's ERA is over 5, and it's the hitting's fault?

    What a silly clown!

    FYI

    Wakefield  in 2011:   5.12   1.358 WHIP

    Whole staff in 2012:  5.31  1.467 WHIP
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Aggregate team ERA is meaningless.
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    We certainly have too many 0-3 runs scored games for being near the top in scoring: nobody is saying otherwise, but I still don't blame the offense, particularly because we are missing 1/3rd of it due to injuries.

    Look at it this way: Change all of our massive offensive games (8 games with 10+ runs) to 7 runs scored and that would subtract 36 runs from our total, leaving us with 123 runs scored, we'd still be better than average in MLB. That's with not doing the same adjustment to the other teams as well!

    We need more balanced scoring, but it is nearly an impossible problem to solve. You can't sign or trade for "clutch hitters", because their are none (who can sustain it for a career). Having a more balanced line-up "top to bottom" and Lefty-righty" helps, but we have actually improved in these areas since last year to no avail (so far).

    People (with softy as their leader) are screaming for a big RH'd bat, claiming the unbalnced line up is hurting us vs LHPs...

    Runs scored:
    vs RH starters: 4.85
    vs LH starters: 6.89

     OPS:
    vs RHPs: .757
    vs LHPs: .866

    Last year, softy led the charge of posters claiming our 6-9 hitters were too bad compared to others. I showed that only 3 teams had a slightly better bottom of the order than us.

    Compared to last year, here's how our line-up compares:
       2012  2011

    1  .755   .903
    2  .891   .827
    3  .766   .916
    4  .615   .861
    5  1.028 .885
    6  1.024 .695
    7  .722  .778
    8  .801  .629
    9  .446  .757

    Now, our problem appears to be our 1 and 3/4 hitters, not 6, 7, 8. 
    (Yes, our #9 hitter has been atrocious.)

    Hopefully, getting Ellsbury back in the 1 slot will help balance the line-up. I'm not counting on CC doing much better offensively than Ross/DMac/Byrd combined, but it should be a little uptick. Youk's return may help or hurt.

    Guys, our team ERA is over 5.50 since Sept 1st. Not saying that is our number one problem, and hence our # priority is just plain clownish.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from hankwilliamsjr. Show hankwilliamsjr's posts

    Re: It's never been "The Pitching"

    Team ERA aggregate is meaningless.
     
Sections
Shortcuts

Share