The 2017 Lineup

Papelbon's Poutine

Homeland Security
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2005
19,615
Portsmouth, NH
He wouldn't be under the LT anymore if he signed Moustakas. And Fielder was widely reported to be a directive of Illitch. The notion of DD of 'throw care to the wind' really needs to be toned down, if not did all together.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
He wouldn't be under the LT anymore if he signed Moustakas.
Can we really project that with any absolute certainty atm? Even the rough and conservative math here leaves it a pretty tight fit without that signing at best. Again, you seem to be drawing a pretty firm line in the sand there in terms of what we can and can't do next season if/when a potential need to look outside the organization arises.

Heck, the estimates I've seen to where we are right now exactly seem to be pretty inexact in itself for that matter. Latest one I saw over on https://twitter.com/redsoxpayroll claims we are sitting at $1m under right now. If that's true (no clue how reliable they are) the rough math estimates for next year are probably even tighter then we are speculating now, since I'm not sure the salaries coming off the books is 100% offsetting the incoming salary bumps.
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
It's not so much infatuation as I see it being DD, the same guy who once moved Miggy back across the diamond to make room for Fielder's bat, potentially keeping his options open while seeing how the market plays out everywhere. Moustakas has age, the current power #'s, and the signing while still under LT benefit in his corner. Which you can't completely discount as a possibility there imo, at least until the actual commitment #'s on everybody start getting thrown around this winter.
If we all stipulate that it is theoretically possible that the Red Sox sign Mike Moustakas this off-season, will you stop with this? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to sign an expensive free agent to play 3B when we have already have a better player at that position making the minimum, but, yes, sure, maybe it'll happen anyway, you can't rule it out!!!

More realistically, though, I think they could do one of two things. 1) Sign another short-term Moreland type with the hope that, by the end of 2018, Sam Travis seems like the long-term answer. 2) Decide that Travis isn't the long-term answer and find one. And assuming that they go for option 2, and assuming that they are smart enough not to give Eric Hosmer a top-of-market contract, I'd like to see them make a run at trading for Justin Bour, who's about to hit arbitration with the Marlins. Travis would, you'd think, be part of the package going back, and I can imagine it would take Chavis as well, but that's a deal I'd make to fill a major hole for 2018 and beyond with a guy who seemed to be in the midst of a real breakout this year until he got hurt.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I'd like to see them make a run at trading for Justin Bour, who's about to hit arbitration with the Marlins. Travis would, you'd think, be part of the package going back, and I can imagine it would take Chavis as well, but that's a deal I'd make to fill a major hole for 2018 and beyond with a guy who seemed to be in the midst of a real breakout this year until he got hurt.
I would love Bour. He was feeble against lefties until this year, and seems to have figured it out.
I know he wasn't available at the deadline, so am not sure if Jetes wants to hang onto the (relatively) cheaper guys during the rebuild while moving Stanton.
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,345
MM now at a .785 OPS.... I think he's definitely worth another 1 year deal-
His and Hanley's positional inflexibility (DH, 1B) keeps me hesitant... with Travis the same... but for value, he has to be seriously considered.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Recognizing that the title of this thread is the 2017 Lineup, it's clear that recent posts have morphed this into a discussion of whether there is a need to add a power bat in the offseason, and a general discussion of lineup construction. A major factor in both is the implications under the new CBA for exceeding the "luxury tax."

In reviewing the new agreement, the "luxury tax" (officially, the "competitive balance tax" exists at several different levels:

First, there is a "base tax thresholds" - the point over which some tax kicks in - $195m for '17, $197m for '18, rising to $210m in 2021. You pay one level of tax (20%) if you did not exceed in the prior year, 30% if you did in prior year, and 50% if you did in two (or more consecutive prior years. There is no loss of draft picks for exceeding the base tax threshold.

Potential loss of draft picks kicks in for exceeding higher thresholds, identified as "Surcharge Thresholds." There are two levels. The first surcharge threshold is $215m this year, $217 in '18, and $230 in 2021 - basically, this means you have a $20m cushion between when the base luxury tax kicks in and when you hit the first surcharge level. You pay an additional surcharge of 12% on the amount of payroll above the first surcharge level. But there is no draft pick penalty for exceeding the first surcharge level.

The second surcharge threshold is set at $40m above the base level ($20m above the first surcharge level) - so $237 for 2018. The tax rate is 45% of the amount by which you exceed this second threshold. If you exceed this second threshold, then you are penalized by having your first or second pick moved back in the draft. This is regardless of whether you are a first-time or serial CBT offender.

I think it's true that teams will be very reluctant to take the draft pick penalty for exceeding the second surcharge level. But with the trigger for this set at $237m for 2018 I don't think the Sox are in any great danger of hitting this. And up to that point, it's only money. In that respect, I think the Sox, as with most teams, will play the game where if the exceed the base level one year, they will try to get in back under the following year - or at worst, the year after that - in order to reset the tax rate and not get hit at 50%. [I'm still a bit flabbergasted that the MLBPA agreed to this scheme, or at least to the payroll numbers that trigger the base CBT and the two surcharge levels - the CBT level wasn't much higher than the last CBA, and the numbers don't escalate far or fast enough in the ensuring years. It would seem that the system will have a dampening affect on salaries by somewhat constraining the spending of the large market/high payroll teams.]

Bottom line: having successfully kept under the base CBT level this year, I think the Sox have plenty of flexibility to add payroll for 2018 and further years without worrying about running into the draft pick penalties.
Thanks for this - very helpful!
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
It's not so much infatuation as I see it being DD, the same guy who once moved Miggy back across the diamond to make room for Fielder's bat, potentially keeping his options open while seeing how the market plays out everywhere. Moustakas has age, the current power #'s, and the signing while still under LT benefit in his corner. Which you can't completely discount as a possibility there imo, at least until the actual commitment #'s on everybody start getting thrown around this winter.
Miggy was mid career though, and moving him over to 3b increased his value. And Fielder was a legit established beastly hitter.

I agree that DD will address the weakness. That's his MO. I just very much doubt it's Moose.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
If we all stipulate that it is theoretically possible that the Red Sox sign Mike Moustakas this off-season, will you stop with this? It would make absolutely no sense whatsoever to sign an expensive free agent to play 3B when we have already have a better player at that position making the minimum, but, yes, sure, maybe it'll happen anyway, you can't rule it out!!!

More realistically, though, I think they could do one of two things. 1) Sign another short-term Moreland type with the hope that, by the end of 2018, Sam Travis seems like the long-term answer. 2) Decide that Travis isn't the long-term answer and find one. And assuming that they go for option 2, and assuming that they are smart enough not to give Eric Hosmer a top-of-market contract, I'd like to see them make a run at trading for Justin Bour, who's about to hit arbitration with the Marlins. Travis would, you'd think, be part of the package going back, and I can imagine it would take Chavis as well, but that's a deal I'd make to fill a major hole for 2018 and beyond with a guy who seemed to be in the midst of a real breakout this year until he got hurt.
Outside viewing everything in a "theoretically possible" manner, which is basically what the entire foundation of the staying under the LT dynasty puzzle you are trying to piece together here is (very optimistically) built on btw, are we also stipulating the existence of a very real possibility on the table that Devers doesn't pan out to be a great player? Or that his current defense and body type leads to a shorter expected shelf life mostly revolving around his ability to hit, and by moving him to first we don't actually end up sacrificing some guaranteed 10+ year studly solution at 3B many would like to wishfully project him out to be atm?

Given the more then theoretically possible window concerns beyond 2019, viewing Moustakas as being a potential answer there looks a lot more realistic to me then banking on Sam Travis developing into that lineup solution. Plus I'm again left pointing out that while the shoot lower appeal of Moreland here seems to revolve quite heavily around the surface notion that it guarantees we stay under the LT, that doesn't actually appear to be a clear cut and absolute given atm.

Bour is a nice possibility to look at, but also enters into a reality where we are surrendering expendable assets we don't arguably even have to give up.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
I agree that DD will address the weakness. That's his MO. I just very much doubt it's Moose.
Agreed, minus the very emphasis.

Moose certainly wouldn't top my guess list, but I still see there being enough there (markets depending of course) where he's more of an outside horse then something that will be be dismissed away as a non-possibility.
 

uk_sox_fan

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 11, 2006
1,273
London, England
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am under the impression that getting under the LT is a 2017 imperative - not necessarily a 2018 one (if successful in 2017).

The logic, as I see it, is as follows. If you try to get under the cap but miss by a little you have two repercussions: you pay tax on the small amount you went over and you move the counter (which determines the tax percentage) by a year (from 0 years in a row after 2017 to one year over after 2018).

In a "normal" year the team will try to stay under the cap, but if they're skating close to the edge (as they typically will) they may go just over. Every now and then, however, they may have a season when they have to go signifiantly over (maybe because they have a legitimate shot to win but because of circumstances - i.e. a key injury - they have to pay up for a key replacement or maybe because they have an opportunity one year to bid on a phenom free agent who would put them over before cap room opens up when other expensive contracts expire a year later). When these instances occur the tax percentage becomes relevant and it makes a big difference if they're in the 20% bracket or the 50% bracket.

In other words most years it won't matter if they go over by a little (since there's not much difference between 20% of $2.3m and 50% of $2.3m, to the Red Sox that is!) but in that rare year when they have to go over by $25m they would much rather pay at the 20% rate and so therefore after they've exceeded the cap for a couple of years need to have a year below to reset it.
 

MikeM

Member
SoSH Member
May 27, 2010
3,049
Florida
Someone correct me if I'm wrong here, but I am under the impression that getting under the LT is a 2017 imperative - not necessarily a 2018 one (if successful in 2017).

The logic, as I see it, is as follows. If you try to get under the cap but miss by a little you have two repercussions: you pay tax on the small amount you went over and you move the counter (which determines the tax percentage) by a year (from 0 years in a row after 2017 to one year over after 2018).

In a "normal" year the team will try to stay under the cap, but if they're skating close to the edge (as they typically will) they may go just over. Every now and then, however, they may have a season when they have to go signifiantly over (maybe because they have a legitimate shot to win but because of circumstances - i.e. a key injury - they have to pay up for a key replacement or maybe because they have an opportunity one year to bid on a phenom free agent who would put them over before cap room opens up when other expensive contracts expire a year later). When these instances occur the tax percentage becomes relevant and it makes a big difference if they're in the 20% bracket or the 50% bracket.

In other words most years it won't matter if they go over by a little (since there's not much difference between 20% of $2.3m and 50% of $2.3m, to the Red Sox that is!) but in that rare year when they have to go over by $25m they would much rather pay at the 20% rate and so therefore after they've exceeded the cap for a couple of years need to have a year below to reset it.
You aren't factoring in all the other surrounding penalties there. As assuming you can keep the runaway payroll concern at bay, it's still essentially the years that you either follow that up by letting $50m+ free agents walk and/or signing $50m+ free agents that really matter imo. In that respect going over this winter isn't that big a deal if it's making the team better imo.

The impact that might have going towards the following winter is the real potential sacrifice being made there. At least if under the belief that the current core we've built here isn't good enough to get around the "didn't develop enough pitching along side it" expiration date that was included, and while buying into the possibility that it then might end up in our best overall interests to take a temporary but still trying to field an upside team step backwards. At which time the three potential post-1st round picks instead of 4ths (plus the bonus flexibility to sign any outside $50m+ free agents that might catch our eye with minimal penalty) might be looking pretty damn good if/when DD doesn't have a #1 ranked system to use as a rebuild tool, we decide against overspending on an aging Chris Sale, and Jason Groome doesn't quite pan out to be the savior piece which makes that current continuing at full speed puzzle work.

So yeah, ideally you would go over next year and then get back under the following. Again though, I just question how reasonably feasible that all really is without waving some painful white flags in the process. Or whether the step backwards approach above, if it really did come down to that, is even realistically in DD's playbook for that matter.
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
I mentioned this in the game thread, but this is the worst Red Sox slash line (.243/327/426, an OPS+ of 102 and 88 relative to the league) out of the clean up spot since Tony Armas' absurd .218/.254/.456 1983 season.

To be fair, It's not just Hanley who has 285 PA there, but also Moreland 185, and Beni 80.

Fifth is an even more dreadful OPS+ of 84. Relative to the league it is 77. The combos don't seem to matter much. 6 different players have 50 or more PA there. Even Devers has struggled since being moved up
 

Imbricus

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 26, 2017
4,810
I thought this article might fit here best. It's a nice analytical look at the Red Sox offensive woes. The conclusion isn't much of a surprise I suppose: the offense has fallen off a cliff this year, and it's not all on Papi.

By wRC+ they are producing a net 23 percent fewer runs. That's massive. That's the space between dominating Murderers Row types of teams and small ball, pitching-and-defense squads.
Here's the author on Ramirez and Betts:

The two most glaring issues are probably Ramirez and Betts. Ramirez because at this point he only really brings a bat to the table, and Betts because a year ago he seemed to cement himself as a superstar. When your defensive wizard also flashes 30-home run power, you can be excused if you get a little excited for the future. But this year, the power has faded (his ISO has fallen 40 points, to .176) and his plate discipline numbers have taken a shift
Anyway, it's worth a read. I know the Red Sox "power outage" has been a subject off and on this year, but it seems especially relevant after that dismal Baltimore series when they only scored one friggin' run off Wade Miley.
 

Sampo Gida

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 7, 2010
5,044
I pointed out in another thread the Red Sox only have a 24 OPS advantage at home vs a 96 OPS advantage last year. League average home advantage is typically about 50 OPS points over timd and the Red Sox tend be be Well over that in most years even if HR tend To show no advantage or even fewer than on the road.

I dont have a definitive answer on why this year is different. Kind of like the 2014 drop off from 2013 which was more regression than anything as pretty much everyone exceeded projections in 2013.

From 2001-2016 only 2002, 2005 and 2008 did the Red Sox have lower home - away OPS differentials. 2002 was actually a negative differential. However in all 3 years the OPS at home was 800 or above. Only 2014 did the Red Sox have a lower OPS at home and that was in the dead ball post steroid era. This year taking into account the juiced ball their offensive performance at home is not much better than the last place 2014 team.

Maybe its just regression. Players just over achieved in 2016 much like 2013. Why its affecting them more at home makes me wonder about the ball or the balls conditioning

The pitching staff has a lower ERA at home than the road. Thats the Red Sox 6th largest negative differential since 2001. Those teams hit much better at home though
 

Sandy Leon Trotsky

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 11, 2007
6,345
I'm not attacking Farrell here... and there'd be no possible way to prove a correlation, but it seems whenever a player has started heating up at the plate, he juggles the lineup to get that player into a middle slot (3, 4, 5...) and then said "heated up" player goes into another slump.
Not sure how much this is accurate, and I have absolutely zero time to go through lineup structures throughout the season... but it seems like whenever I check on a box score that the lineup has been juggled significantly from the previous night based on who had a decent night at the dish.
I know it shouldn't affect how a hitter approaches his plate appearance... but reality seems to suggest that baseball players are creatures of habit more than other professional atheletes and don't respond positively to having their routine altered.
I dunno..... just the offensive struggles of the players that I expect to anchor this team have been frustrating and I'm probably grasping at straws here
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Betts and Xander have hit far below expectations. If Xander continues hitting so meekly will the Sox have the guts to not play him? Give Mookie a few days off and the lineup should be decent enough for the post-season and just hope a few of the hitters get hot.

As for next year-- why go over the cap? Devers should hit well next year. Beni should hit well. Betts and Xander should have bounce back years. Pedey seems like can still give us something. But how much can we rely on Pedey? There will be about 35 games or so the SOx can't play him? When he is out of the lineup, it would be nice to have a bat. Can't rely on Holt anymore, can the Sox? Therefore- sign Nunez and say goodbye to Holt. Signing him gives the Sox a top of the order quality bat and is major insurance for further Pedey injuries plus he is a DH and can give nearly anyone a rest while allowing an added pitcher.

An added bonus is that you can probably sign him and remain under the cap. IMO it is crucial to have another year of drafting minor leagues - as many as the Sox can get. This will allow the sox in years down the road to possibly get "the next Sale" while right now in-the-moment the Sox remain a threat to win it all. Keeping a small contract for now also allows us to keep pushing long-term to set up some of our cornerstone young players.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
Boston's SS production is 16th in MLB - completely average.

Here's the actual average SS production in all of MLB so far this year:

135 g, 519 ab, 28 2b, 3 3b, 15 hr, 61 rbi, .263/.317/.413/.729

Here's Boston's SS production:

136 g, 535 ab, 29 2b, 6 3b, 9 hr, 57 rbi, .265/.327/.393/.720

Here's Bogaerts' production:

124 g, 476 ab, 28 2b, 5 3b, 8 hr, 52 rbi, .271/.333/.401/.734

Project that over 136 games and his line is:

136 g, 522 ab, 31 2b, 5 3b, 9 hr, 57 rbi, .271/.333/.401/.734

In other words, Bogaerts has been just a little above average for a MLB SS this year. I know we were all hoping for, and expecting, much more out of him this year. And maybe he should bat lower in the order. But he's been better than average offensively at the SS position this year. I hope this is his worst season because he has the ability to be a lot better than this.
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Since July we have had

0 Run games= +2 (losses)
1 Run games= +2 (losses)
2 run games= +1 (win) +4 Losses
3 run games +3 Wins +4 Losses
4 Run games +3 Wins + 2 losses
 

soxhop411

news aggravator
SoSH Member
Dec 4, 2009
46,274
Last splits I found

Offensive stats by Lineup position. (sorted from lowest to highest)



Clutch stats

Late & Close are Plate Appearances in the 7th or later with the batting team tied, ahead by one, or the tying run at least on deck.
Offensive stats based on bases occupied


Stats from last 7/14/28 days (As of SEPT 4th)


Pre/Post ASB offensive stats
 

iddoc

New Member
Nov 17, 2006
137
Mookie's splits sure make it look like he got hurt sometime in July...
I would not be surprised to learn that Mookie has been playing with an undisclosed injury. Immediately after last season, we learned that he had been playing, essentially every day, with an injured knee in September. A couple weeks ago he was reported to be limping with a swollen knee after running into a wall, but was in the lineup the next day. His problems this season started well before then, but it is further evidence of his keeping quiet about, and playing through, injuries.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
While Mookie has struggled, people expecting him to repeat 2016 were bound to be disappointed. Plus it seems a lot of the down performance for a lot of our players is due to low batting average and batting average from year to year is pretty volatile. If Mookie and Xander were hitting over .300 again this season, no one is worried. JBJ is an exception as he's basically hitting for the same average and getting on base at the same clip but his power has dipped considerably. Betts has lot some power too but I think 2016 is going to be his career year power wise and he'll settle more into a .170-.180 ISO type guy with a few .200 type seasons sprinkled in.

Also worth noting that the team really struggled and up until like Mid May or so had an ISO under .100 AS A TEAM. So from Mid May to the all star break, the team must have been hitting exceptionally well to raise the team ISO to .151 before the all star break. The difference between pre and post all star break also appears to be batting average. .268/.340/.419 compared to .244/.317/.391. Add 24 points of batting average to the 2nd half line and you are roughly at .268/.338-.341ish/.415. Pretty much identical.
 

redsox2020

Member
SoSH Member
May 30, 2002
268
KS
Injuries aside, Dustin Pedroia's having a good year, so I was surprised to see him go hitless in 9 at bats on Friday. That got me thinking, what's the MLB record for oh-fers in a single game? The most I could find is 0-11 by Charlie Pick (1920) and Don Mincher (1971). And coincidentally enough, the last player to go hitless in at least 9 ABs was a fellow Red Sox, none other than Trot Nixon back in 2006.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
First, let me introduce myself. I'm David Kaiser, an historian and author. A few of you may know me as the author of Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race, which is still in print, although it appeared 19 years ago. I have recently written a new book, entitled Baseball Greatness: The Best Players and Teams According to Wins Above Average, 1901-2017. It was supposed to have come out months ago, but something went wrong, and it isn't out yet. As a result, I'm going to add material on the current season as soon as it is over. This post is a preview that I think people on this site will be interested in.

The book uses Wins Above Average (WAA, not WAR) as its basic metric. That allows me, year after year, to show who was responsible for the success of playoff-caliber teams. Basic data comes from baseball-reference.com, but I adjust it in various ways. For hitters, I do not use position adjustments, and I also use different fielding statistics. But neither of those issues will affect what I'm about to say about the 2017 Red Sox.

A superstar season, in my book, is 4 Wins Above Average or WAA. That, as it turns out, is the answer to a question Bill James posed more than 30 years ago: if this guy were the best player on your team, could you win the pennant? It turns out that very few teams have turned in a pennant-caliber performance without at least one player with 4 WAA. That, to repeat, defines a superstar season. 2-3 WAA is defined as a star season.

Which brings us to the Red Sox. Last year, the Red Sox lineup featured two superstar performances: Mookie Betts (5.8 WAA) andDavid Ortiz (4.2 WAA.) (Incidentally, that was Ortiz's fifth season of 4 WAA or more, which historically makes him almost a lock for the Hall of Fame.) Sandy Leon also had a remarkable season with 2.7 WAA. Among the pitchers, Rick Porcello had 3.1 WAA, David Price had 1.3, and no one else was significantly better than average. Overall, the Red Sox lineup (hitters and fielders) earned +12 WAA and the pitchers earned +5. That was good enough to have won 98 games but they missed their Pythagorean proejction by 5 games and won only 93.

I took a look at the baseball-reference figures for the Red Sox as of this morning. I was, to put it mildly, surprised. Mookie Betts is the most valuable Red Sox this year--but he has earned less than 2 WAA. Bradley has earned 1; no one else has earned more than .6. (Nunez and Devers are performing at a rate that would earn them 1-2 over a whole season, but they haven't' played a whole season. Hanley Ramirez is at least a full -1 WAA below average.) If the Red Sox make the playoffs with this lineup, they will probably be one of very, very few teams to have done so without one regular over even 2 WAA.

As for the pitchers, the picture is, of course, brighter. Sale according to baseball-reference has earned 4.1 WAA, Pomeranz 2.3, Kimbrel 2.1. (Mariano Rivera did that repeatedly as well.) Everyone else is within 1 WAA of average. There are two reasons why the Red Sox are in first place. One is these pitchers. The second is that the Yankees, whose Pythagorean percentage was about 6 games better than the Sox when I computed it about a week ago, had underperformed their percentage by a full 10 games.

Anything can and does happen in the playoffs. Kansas City nearly won one World Series and did win another with teams no better than the 2017 Red Sox. But at the moment, the Red Sox are about 7 games worse than they were last year, and this doesn't bode well for their chances come October.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
With regards to the Yankees, they are 16-25 in one run games. That's usually where the difference lies. That or a team wins 20+ games in a row while outscoring their opponents by more than 100 in that process. The Indians are 8 under themselves.

For reference, the Yankees are now 11 wins below while the Sox are 2 below. Still 6 games better, though.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Other odd stats this year: Redsox 19-17 in one run games, yet 13-3 in extra innings. The things are closely related. Baltimore is in the same boat at 21-18, 12-2. The team overachieving their Pythag Record the most are the Padres. Actual Record is 66-83, Pythag is 54-95 and worse than the Giants. 12 games! The aforementioned Royals are 2nd, at +7. Pretty amazing they've done it year after year, suggesting maybe it isn't luck. I've always thought an exceptional bullpen was the difference with most overachievers, or better luck in 1 run games. Of course, that's basically the same thing.
 

David Kaiser

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 13, 2017
30
The Royals were +5 in 2014, +4 in each of the last two years. The standard deviation from 0 is plus or minus 4. So going into this year they had flipped three heads in a row, in effect, which is a 1/8 shot. I haven't seen anyone make a real case that it's anything but luck. The one really good team that consistently beat its projection, I found, was the 1929-31 Athletics.
 

AB in DC

OG Football Writing
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2002
13,616
Springfield, VA
It's certainly plausible that this can be something other than randomness. For example, reliever innings aren't randomly distributed across the season; each manager deploys their bullpen in different ways. Perhaps some strategies make one-run victories more or less frequent, or make one-run losses more or less frequent, and there would not necessarily be a correlation between the two.

The mechanism for doing so may be unclear, but the fact that the Royals have had very strong bullpens in recent years suggests that there may be something to it.

Similarly, there are also end-of-game strategies in play here. I think we've all seen two-run leads in the ninth where a batter walks, advances to second on defensive indifference, moves to third on a groundout, and scores on a fly ball. Teams may handle that sort situation a bit differently, being more or less willing to trade off that one run for more outs, vs. being extra careful not to bring the tying run to the plate.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,236
Similarly, there are also end-of-game strategies in play here. I think we've all seen two-run leads in the ninth where a batter walks, advances to second on defensive indifference, moves to third on a groundout, and scores on a fly ball. Teams may handle that sort situation a bit differently, being more or less willing to trade off that one run for more outs, vs. being extra careful not to bring the tying run to the plate.
This has always been an issue for me in 1-run game analysis. You're starting with a pretty small sample of games anyway, and then within that, as you point out, there's the fact that not all 1-run games are the same. It may look like a good bullpen, like KC, but for other teams it may be a not-so-good rest of the bullpen turning larger leads into 1 run games for the closer, or an offense falling just short after falling far behind.
 

Idabomb333

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 5, 2007
202
This has always been an issue for me in 1-run game analysis. You're starting with a pretty small sample of games anyway, and then within that, as you point out, there's the fact that not all 1-run games are the same. It may look like a good bullpen, like KC, but for other teams it may be a not-so-good rest of the bullpen turning larger leads into 1 run games for the closer, or an offense falling just short after falling far behind.
...or a team with excellent pitching and poor offense, so games tend to have low scores and thus are more likely to have a 1-run difference in the score, or a team in an extreme pitcher's park, where the scores are again low and thus close, but the home team has home field advantage, etc.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
24,375
A good thing for the .com to study might be this: Looking at teams' records in one-run games, and seeing how that correlates with their bullpen ERAs. If you do that study over the course of, say, 5-10 years, you might be able to draw some useful conclusions (generalizations, anyway).
 

grimshaw

Member
SoSH Member
May 16, 2007
4,220
Portland
The Rangers last year in one of their flukiest seasons ever, were 36-11 in one run games and 24th in bullpen WAR. And the Yankees have the 2nd best pen and the terrible won/loss record in 1 one run games. Those are obviously just two examples and maybe a large data sample can tell something, but there are so many random factors in one run games.

Basically good teams' margins of loss are lower, so that means on average a larger chunk of their total losses are going to be close regardless of how well they hit or pitch.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,478
Rogers Park
My sense anecdotally is that we've had some absolutely clutch defensive plays this season, which means our defensive win probability added has likely outpaced our dWAR, if you understand me.

Jackie Bradley has very good, but not outstanding, defensive numbers this season. But just thinking about his second half, he's made a few astonishing plays in big spots in games. Pulling Judge's HR out of the bullpen, throwing Carpenter out at the plate *from third on a single*, doubling up Bautista on a would-be sac fly in extra innings... you get the idea.

All of those were huge plays in close games. So when we're wondering about our lack of position player WAR (or WAA) relative to the standings, I wonder if the imprecision of defensive stats might be part of it.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
First, let me introduce myself. I'm David Kaiser, an historian and author. A few of you may know me as the author of Epic Season: The 1948 American League Pennant Race, which is still in print, although it appeared 19 years ago. I have recently written a new book, entitled Baseball Greatness: The Best Players and Teams According to Wins Above Average, 1901-2017. It was supposed to have come out months ago, but something went wrong, and it isn't out yet. As a result, I'm going to add material on the current season as soon as it is over. This post is a preview that I think people on this site will be interested in.


Anything can and does happen in the playoffs. Kansas City nearly won one World Series and did win another with teams no better than the 2017 Red Sox. But at the moment, the Red Sox are about 7 games worse than they were last year, and this doesn't bode well for their chances come October.
Ever since I was a little kid - I learned the hard way that anything can happen. So I agree with the underlined above. In 1973 I was a Big Red Machine fan and a Red Sox fan. In 1973, the 82 win New York Mets beat my favorite NL Team (99 wins Reds. Pythag right now shows 73 Reds was +12 vs Mets). I saw what the Mets pitching did in a series to a far superior Cinci Reds team. Late in the season you can see the Mets had "Seaver/Koosman/Matlack" becoming a formidable pitching trio. All the wins the Reds accumulated during the Reg Season, it didn't matter. The Reds much better team got beat by an 82 win team. When those Big Red Machine teams went against these type strong pitching teams, they struggled. Yet they could pummel the teams with "pretty good ot poor pitching.) Last year's Red Sox team was so similar to those Red Teams imo. I think there has been many examples of this. Yanks vs Mariners 2001 comes to mind the most. Mariners were far, far, far superior with Pythag.

So imo it doesn't matter how many more games last year's sox were better than this year. Anything can happen. Especially if the Sox have shutdown pitching. **Hopefully the Yanks can drop a few and the Sox can give Sale some much needed rest.
 
Last edited:

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Unless Mookie gets hot over the final week, it looks like this will be only the fifth Red Sox team in the history of the franchise, and the first since 1929, not to have a single player with at least 300 PA and an OPS+ over 110.
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
Unless Mookie gets hot over the final week, it looks like this will be only the fifth Red Sox team in the history of the franchise, and the first since 1929, not to have a single player with at least 300 PA and an OPS+ over 110.
I know the flaws with OPS, but do you know the last time a Redsox team went a full season without a player at 300 PA and an OPS .800 or over? Mookie leads the team at .797. Our worst starter is Bogaerts, at .731. Such a weird team. Nunez and Devers do have 383 PA between them and somehow Devers qualified as our starting 3rd baseman on baseball reference when he had like 180 PA.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I know the flaws with OPS, but do you know the last time a Redsox team went a full season without a player at 300 PA and an OPS .800 or over?
There are a lot more of those--13 including this year--because there have been periods where you could go over a 110 OPS+ without going over an .800 OPS -- the whole dead-ball era, for instance. The last one was 1992 (Tom Brunansky had a 118 OPS+ with just a .799 OPS).
 

Cesar Crespo

79
SoSH Member
Dec 22, 2002
21,588
There are a lot more of those--13 including this year--because there have been periods where you could go over a 110 OPS+ without going over an .800 OPS -- the whole dead-ball era, for instance. The last one was 1992 (Tom Brunansky had a 118 OPS+ with just a .799 OPS).
I figured there would be more but 25 years is still a very long time, even if it isn't 88 years.
 

Sam Ray Not

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 19, 2005
8,848
NYC
Betts up to .800 OPS after tonight's game.

.892 Nunez
.871 Devers
.800 Betts
.794 Benintendi
.766 Pedroia
.752 Moreland
.746 Vazquez
.741 Ramirez
.739 Bradley. Jr.
.732 Bogaerts
 

strek1

Run, Forrest, run!
SoSH Member
Jun 13, 2006
31,747
Hartford area
Betts up to .800 OPS after tonight's game.

.892 Nunez
.871 Devers
.800 Betts
.794 Benintendi
.766 Pedroia
.752 Moreland
.746 Vazquez
.741 Ramirez
.739 Bradley. Jr.
.732 Bogaerts
Hanley is fading and getting older and the fact that Xander has struggled masks the other big surprise with this list. I really expected more from JBJ going into this year. Was hoping for more consistency from him.
 

DeadlySplitter

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 20, 2015
33,247
X has looked more like himself in September. I really think he had some crucial injuries he "gutted" through. The only killer B I am concerned about for now is JBJ, who is in a decent slump.
 

Red(s)HawksFan

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 23, 2009
20,676
Maine
X has looked more like himself in September. I really think he had some crucial injuries he "gutted" through. The only killer B I am concerned about for now is JBJ, who is in a decent slump.
JBJ has had two stints on the DL this year (knee and thumb), so it's possible, if not likely, that injuries are at the root of his struggles as well.