If this team goes 22-19 down the stretch this board will be fucking apocalyptic.Personally I'm looking at 108 wins, or .667 ball. That would be a hell of an accomplishment, and in all likelihood enough for the division title. 22-19 gets us there.
If this team goes 22-19 down the stretch this board will be fucking apocalyptic.Personally I'm looking at 108 wins, or .667 ball. That would be a hell of an accomplishment, and in all likelihood enough for the division title. 22-19 gets us there.
Low bar...If this team goes 22-19 down the stretch this board will be fucking apocalyptic.
Maybe. Kind of depends how they get there. If they go 22-15 and then lose their last 4 because they treat them like glorified spring training games I am sure a few people will get worried, but that wouldn’t be much cause for concern for most of us, I would hope.If this team goes 22-19 down the stretch this board will be fucking apocalyptic.
Exactly. There wasn’t a lot of “well that was a great season anyway” going onPatriots 16-0 season outcome looms ominously in the back of my mind.
But would happen if the board was apoplectic, instead? Huh?Maybe. Kind of depends how they get there. If they go 22-15 and then lose their last 4 because they treat them like glorified spring training games I am sure a few people will get worried, but that wouldn’t be much cause for concern for most of us, I would hope.
Apocalyptic sorta works too, like apoplectic.If this team goes 22-19 down the stretch this board will be fucking apocalyptic.
The best
Apocalyptic sorta works too, like apoplectic.
Too late, Rev quick on the trigger.
I have never once claimed to be good with words. You can't hold me to that.But would happen if the board was apoplectic, instead? Huh?
Have you thought about that?
Yes, the nature of the journey to the final W-L numbers factors in.Maybe. Kind of depends how they get there. If they go 22-15 and then lose their last 4 because they treat them like glorified spring training games I am sure a few people will get worried, but that wouldn’t be much cause for concern for most of us, I would hope.
The board is always apoplectic.But would happen if the board was apoplectic, instead? Huh?
Have you thought about that?
Fine--be a good sport about it!!I have never once claimed to be good with words. You can't hold me to that.
We have always been apoplectic against the Mother Fucking Yankees.The board is always apoplectic.
Try to unpack this so you can enjoy it more.I have completely enjoyed this team and very early in the season mentioned in a couple posts how I felt this was possibly the best RS team ever. However, winning 116 games or 105 or whatever is great, but it would feel awfully hollow if it doesn't come with a World Championship. I am not a Pat fan, but I would expect that in 2007 they weren't thrilled going undefeated until losing the Super Bowl to the Giants.
I was all in on the Patriots in 2007 and that sucked, but I would be hard pressed to deny that there is not something poetic about the tragedy of their joyless pursuit of perfection falling short on bizarre happenstance; it reminds me of something I once read about Musashi Miyamoto's Book of Five Rings's only weakness being it's monomaniacalness, though, Belichick is known for being more flexible, but maybe that's the point...Try to unpack this so you can enjoy it more.
The 2007 Pats were annihilating opponents week after week. They were aiming for perfection. In terms of the championship, most people would have taken them against the field by this point of the season. A hardened vet, who played several seasons after surviving a stroke, Tedy Bruschi, said that the stretch run brought suffocating pressure, more than he had ever experienced on a field. All this played out in the shadow of Spygate.
Let’s agree the RS are the best team now and may be when the playoffs begin. Which of the other boxes above are you checking for them?
Seems to be mostly a Jeckyl and Hyde offense and losing a lot of low scoring games because the pitching, by and large, has been excellent. They're 16-21 in 1-run games. They just lost five in a row (2 by one run), at home, in which they scored a total of 14 runs. They broke out of it last night by winning 12-1. So 26 runs scored and 26 runs allowed in 6 games...suggests a .500 winning percentage, not 1-5.The second best team in baseball is 10 games back right now with 75 wins and a .625 win percentage. This team is incredibly fun to watch.
Sox and the Astros are both expected to have 81 wins right now yet the Sox have 86 and the Astros have 74. I haven't seen much of then this year, losing games vs good teams and blowing out bad or some other craziness at play for the Astros?
Wow. Just wow. That’s incredible.Just over 3/4ths of the way through this season... If you break down our first 120 games into equal thirds, we've gone...
3/29 - 5/13: 28-12 (.700) (113 win pace)
5/14 - 6/26: 25-15 (.625) (101 win pace)
6-27 - 8/13: 32-8 (.800) (130 win pace)
During that 25-15 run, Mookie missed 15 games while on the DL, during which the Sox went 8-7. They went 17-8 (.680, 110 win pace) in the other 25 games.
A couple of things:Just over 3/4ths of the way through this season... If you break down our first 120 games into equal thirds, we've gone...
3/29 - 5/13: 28-12 (.700) (113 win pace)
5/14 - 6/26: 25-15 (.625) (101 win pace)
6-27 - 8/13: 32-8 (.800) (130 win pace)
During that 25-15 run, Mookie missed 15 games while on the DL, during which the Sox went 8-7. They went 17-8 (.680, 110 win pace) in the other 25 games.
It's even worse than you think, we've lost two! That's almost twice as bad according to the statistics.I can't believe we lost a game this month and it's not even half over!
Yes. NOW it is! Thanks!It's even worse than you think, we've lost two! That's almost twice as bad according to the statistics.
Mookie was out from May 27th to June 10th. That's a very, very small sample size. The Sox were beaten by ATL, HOU, CWS, and DET.(Snip)
Secondly, what he points out in his post is the evidence as to why Mookie is MVP. With due acknowledgement of the superlative season of JD Martinez, the impact of Betts on the record is borne out in Scorpio’s post.
This is a pretty awesome stat right here. Just wanted to make sure it got some love.I think what will stand out most in my memory is the enjoyment of watching a Red Sox team that seems to be in every single game. The Sox are currently 13-27 (.325) when trailing by three or more runs, better than the overall winning percentage of two AL teams. They've lost only 11 times all year by four or more runs, and have come back to win (off the top of my head: ) at least four times when trailing by four or more.
Ah, but what does that project to the rest of the year, hmmmmmm?It's even worse than you think, we've lost two! That's almost twice as bad according to the statistics.
Update to my John Henry era table:Just over 3/4ths of the way through this season...
What's the opposite of "fading down the stretch"?Update to my John Henry era table:
View attachment 22631
Note that before this year, the 2011 team had the most wins. Adding how that team finished their last 40 games would still yield 102 wins. Adding in the last 40 games of the 2004 team yields 114 wins.
Then again, maybe using this sample for projection isn't a great idea, since compared to the rest of this era, the 2018 is a real outlier. From 2002-2018 the average wins at this point was 68 wins, with a standard deviation of 5.70 wins. So being 18 wins above the average is more than 3 standard deviations from the mean, a very unlikely result.
Finally a graphical comparison of interesting years:
View attachment 22632
What are you talking about? They have a win percentage of precisely ZERO in their last one game.What's the opposite of "fading down the stretch"?
We've gone Secretariat. The Red Sox are winning like a tremendous machine.
How about in the expansion era, post-1961? It would have to be one of those 1998 Yankees or 2001 Mariners years, I’d guess.I note that Tampa Bay is 61-59 -- and 24 games out. That led me to wonder, what is the furthest behind that any above-.500 team has ever finished? The answer appears to be 33.5 games (1909 Reds, 77-76, behind the 110-42 Pirates).
Yeah - every team that was more games above .500 than the 1909 Pirates didn't have a trailing team close enough to .500 to best that figure.I note that Tampa Bay is 61-59 -- and 24 games out. That led me to wonder, what is the furthest behind that any above-.500 team has ever finished? The answer appears to be 33.5 games (1909 Reds, 77-76, behind the 110-42 Pirates).
You're gonna need a bigger chart.Update to my John Henry era table:
View attachment 22631
Note that before this year, the 2011 team had the most wins. Adding how that team finished their last 40 games would still yield 102 wins. Adding in the last 40 games of the 2004 team yields 114 wins.
Then again, maybe using this sample for projection isn't a great idea, since compared to the rest of this era, the 2018 is a real outlier. From 2002-2018 the average wins at this point was 68 wins, with a standard deviation of 5.70 wins. So being 18 wins above the average is more than 3 standard deviations from the mean, a very unlikely result.
Finally a graphical comparison of interesting years:
View attachment 22632
The '98 Blue Jays were 26 back of the MFYs at 88-74.In modern-ish times, Ted's '69 Senators finished 86-76 23 games back of the 109 win O's.
Yeah, I was focusing on gaps between teams in the same league or division.How about in the expansion era, post-1961? It would have to be one of those 1998 Yankees or 2001 Mariners years, I’d guess.
Edit: maybe I’m not doing this right, but in 2001 when Seattle went 116-46, the White Sox were 83-79, which is 33 games behind. But different divisions too (West vs Central)
https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/MLB/2001-standings.shtml
I did not realize just how good the pitching has been this season in terms of runs alllowed relative to other Red Sox teams from the past 16 seasons.Update to my John Henry era table:
View attachment 22631
I had a similar thought ... since divisional play started, how many games behind has a second place team with the second best overall record finished? (Have their been any?)I note that Tampa Bay is 61-59 -- and 24 games out. That led me to wonder, what is the furthest behind that any above-.500 team has ever finished? The answer appears to be 33.5 games (1909 Reds, 77-76, behind the 110-42 Pirates).
Limited to one league, but there was this team in 2004...I had a similar thought ... since divisional play started, how many games behind has a second place team with the second best overall record finished? (Have their been any?)
The MFY in 1997 were 2 back.I had a similar thought ... since divisional play started, how many games behind has a second place team with the second best overall record finished? (Have their been any?)
I read your post and this line jumped out at me and I immediately thought "Well, he just doesn't get the concept, because there's no way that a team finishing 22 games back was the second best record in the league." Then I checked the final standings for 1998 ...The Sox in 1998 were 22 back.
I had the same thought. Wow.I read your post and this line jumped out at me and I immediately thought "Well, he just doesn't get the concept, because there's no way that a team finishing 22 games back was the second best record in the league." Then I checked the final standings for 1998 ...
It would please me if this year's team could wipe that memory from my consciousness once again.
But won’t you feel so much better when the current winning percentages hold and the MFYs win 100 games and still finish 14 games back?I read your post and this line jumped out at me and I immediately thought "Well, he just doesn't get the concept, because there's no way that a team finishing 22 games back was the second best record in the league." Then I checked the final standings for 1998 ...
It would please me if this year's team could wipe that memory from my consciousness once again.
I know off the top of my head 2004 isn't true, because the Cards won 105 that year.The MFY in 1997 were 2 back.
The marlins in 1997 were 9 back.
The Sox in 1998 were 22 back.
Oakland in 2001 was 14 back.
The cardinals and astros in 2001 were tied.
The Sox in 2004 were 3 back.
The Rockies in 2007 were 1 back and won a game 163 to finish a half game back.
The MFY in 2010 were 1 game back.
The pirates in 2015 were 2 games back.
The MFY are currently 10.5 back.
So 9 times (before this year) in 23 years of three division play.
I did mean in all of MLB, not a league. In that case 1998 isn't true either as all the NL division winners had better records than the Sox.I know off the top of my head 2004 isn't true, because the Cards won 105 that year.
So lowering the amount of light radically benefits Red Sox opponents, eh?The Red Sox are 30-5 in day games.