Yup.It’s over, it’s been over, and it’ll remain over. Onward to 2023.
If the Sox stay red-hot and go 10-0, they'll stand at 29-22, and a 90 win target (solid post season chance) in the remaining 111 games would require 61 wins (.549):
10-0 - .549
9-1 - .558
8-2 - .567
7-3 - .576
6-4 - .585
5-5 - .594
4-6 - .603
3-7 - .612
2-8 - .621
1-9 - .630
0-10 - .639
This is the set for the more modest 87 win target (which is maybe? a 50% chance of making the post season):
10-0 - .522
9-1 - .531
8-2 - .540
7-3 - .549
6-4 - .558
5-5 - .567
4-6 - .576
3-7 - .585
2-8 - .594
1-9 - .603
0-10 - .612
This is the type of main board analysis that makes SoSH so greatYup.
But . . but . .. that's ONE GAME PER MONTH they need to make up!!! They can't possibly do that, could they?4 back of the Angels for the final Wild Card spot.
They'll still be in it, but they may stand pat. There is a major opportunity to stay under the luxury tax threshold this season and to gain financial flexibility after the season. Opportunistic trades that allow them to do both and improve the team for this season are possible, but I wouldn't expect the Red Sox to go all-in if they are on the outside looking in at the trade deadline. I think there is a better chance for the Red Sox to be sellers than buyers in a sellers' market.Still a lot of time left, especially given there's an extra WC spot this year. Even a month from now, if they are still only four games out of the last WC spot, they'll still be in it and looking to be buyers rather than sellers depending on how many teams are between them and that last spot and how they're playing at that point.
I suspect both- they will need to clear some space on the 40-man in order to protect some. Ore important assets. I suspect we’ll see Barnes DFA’d soon, Dalbec dealt in a package with some significant mL prospects.They'll still be in it, but they may stand pat. There is a major opportunity to stay under the luxury tax threshold this season and to gain financial flexibility after the season. Opportunistic trades that allow them to do both and improve the team for this season are possible, but I wouldn't expect the Red Sox to go all-in if they are on the outside looking in at the trade deadline. I think there is a better chance for the Red Sox to be sellers than buyers in a sellers' market.
By that measure, TEX (who has a better record than we do) and LAA might also remain ahead of us, or even pull ahead by 4 more.But . . but . .. that's ONE GAME PER MONTH they need to make up!!! They can't possibly do that, could they?
Pivetta, Whitlock and Eovaldi have been great. If Sale can be a good no.3 that’s bumping Hill. Small improvement but it’s somethingLast year Sale pitched in 6 of 9 games against last place teams. The 7th game was against a bad Mets team and he pitched twice against the Rays, and got smoked once. He wasn't very good in the playoffs.
While he may provide a boost, I think at this point in his career he is a #3/4 starter (which still may be better than some of the SPs we have) but when people are getting excited about Sale coming back I hope they aren't expecting 2017 Sale. Out of Paxton/Sale returning there's a significant chance Sale is the lesser of the two
They gained 2 games on the Angels while going 2-3 against the Orioles. So, a third of their lead in 4 days. Just sayin'But . . but . .. that's ONE GAME PER MONTH they need to make up!!! They can't possibly do that, could they?
There's probably something in here:Is the goal to squeek into the playoffs and take out chances, if so, we need to improve the bullpen. Hard to make the playoffs when we lose so many very winnable games. In spite of the shutout yesterday the offense looks mostly fine. The question of improving relief pitching is a big one. I would think we should wait until July to see about trading away pieces. I hope we can build around Xander and Devers. JD is playing great but i do not see how we keep all three players. I wonder what we could get for him from a contender if we need to build for the future
Sorry about that. It's possible I was a little frustrated after Barnes gave up the dinger.This is the type of main board analysis that makes SoSH so great
There is no way that the quest for a wild card is over.
Sale threw a 25-pitch bullpen this weekend. Seems like barring another setback, he's on pace to return around the all star break, maybe just before. If that happened, I would expect his pitch limit to be higher than 60 by August (assuming at least 2-3 starts in July).And then we have Sale and Paxton, and the hope they can push Whitlock (and maybe Hill) back to the pen. Tomorrow is June 1. Do any of you honestly believe we'll get more than a 3-inning 60 pitch performance from Sale before August? I certainly don't.
Yes, the amazing thing is - you divide their blown saves in half and they're in second place in the division. Of course, you can't do that, because the pen has mostly been a mess. But this maybe puts into focus the run differential/pythag gap. Maybe, just maybe, it is worth more than just fliers in the pen ....Hard to believe the Red Sox have a better run differential than both the Rays and Jays. They've gotten some shit luck on the sequencing and close games (esp early in the season). You'd hope that turns around here soon.
That the bullpen is somewhere between crap and crapshoot is indisputable. But blown saves is close to a useless metric by which to measure it, given that teams can win games in which they have multiple blown saves, and get charged with a blown save in many un-savelike situations.Yes, the amazing thing is - you divide their blown saves in half and they're in second place in the division. Of course, you can't do that, because the pen has mostly been a mess. But this maybe puts into focus the run differential/pythag gap. Maybe, just maybe, it is worth more than just fliers in the pen ....
I think the question is what inspires the Sox to take a shot at the postseason. Four games out doesn't seem so bad, but if the bullpen is a mess then how far does the FO think the Sox are going to get in the playoffs? If the FO thinks not far at all, then does it make sense to trade off pieces like JDM and Evoldi to help fill in the many holes the Sox team will have come the next off season?I can certainly understand the feeling that it's "over," but I can also understand the incredulity of those who point out that 4 games back in the Wild Card race with way over 100 games to go hardly warrants closing up shop on a season. Obviously, things can quickly turn a corner, and being a handful of games back is way short of desperate, so based on the sheer numbers, surrender seems woefully premature. But the "over" sentiment doesn't seem unwarranted for folks closely watching the pattern of losses. The Sox have been so "creative" in the many (inventive) ways they've lost thus far, and it's natural enough to get the feeling eventually that they just don't have "it," even if the "it" is vague and difficult to pin down (much less measure). Whether it's Sawamura airmailing a simple bunt throw to end a game, Barnes constantly turning into a pumpkin, blowing a 6-run lead to the O's by giving up 10 in the last three innings, or the offense being so quiet for so long (despite its recent resurgence), it's hard to look at the collection of such things and see the makings of a really good baseball team. But of course, few teams are ever as bad as they appear in their really bad times, just as they're seldom as good as they seem at their best. I don't think it's "over," but it's not easy to feel confident about this team's chances, even if despair is an overreaction. All in all, I won't be surprised if the Sox surprise me by turning a corner, particularly if the upcoming reinforcements prove useful, but neither will I be surprised if they continue to be a very frustrating club.
Is it luck? I think there were a few things in play.Hard to believe the Red Sox have a better run differential than both the Rays and Jays. They've gotten some shit luck on the sequencing and close games (esp early in the season). You'd hope that turns around here soon.
I think this is pretty much accurate ... which means that, somewhere, there's a clock wondering when it will be right for the second time today.I think the question is what inspires the Sox to take a shot at the postseason. Four games out doesn't seem so bad, but if the bullpen is a mess then how far does the FO think the Sox are going to get in the playoffs? If the FO thinks not far at all, then does it make sense to trade off pieces like JDM and Evoldi to help fill in the many holes the Sox team will have come the next off season?
If almost half the teams in baseball make the post season (if only for a day or two for some), is it really that much of an accomplishment.I guess it would be an accomplishment
A team with good starters and a poor pen actually has an advantage in the playoffs if they can get there. They can use the fifth through eighth starters exclusively out of the pen and the other starters can give an inning or two on their throw days. If everything works out and the team squeaks into one of the wildcard spots, the rotation could be Eovaldi, Pivetta, Sale, and Paxton with Whitlock, Houck, Hill, and Wacha working out of the pen. That's a really good staff for a short series. The hard part is not blowing too many games with the terrible regular pen before then.I think the question is what inspires the Sox to take a shot at the postseason. Four games out doesn't seem so bad, but if the bullpen is a mess then how far does the FO think the Sox are going to get in the playoffs? If the FO thinks not far at all, then does it make sense to trade off pieces like JDM and Evoldi to help fill in the many holes the Sox team will have come the next off season?
Yeah, I'm with you on that. I mean, I've read how they need to hold it together until Sale and (maybe) Paxton are in the rotation. But there's no guarantee that either will be that much help or even stay healthy after they return.If almost half the teams in baseball make the post season (if only for a day or two for some), is it really that much of an accomplishment.
I suppose the chance to catch lightning in a bottle is worth something but if a ~.500 Red Sox team eeks into the playoffs only to be eliminated in a few games, I don't think I'll view this season as much of a success.
That is a really awesome description and pretty much sums up this team.I think this is pretty much accurate ... which means that, somewhere, there's a clock wondering when it will be right for the second time today.
I also think this accounts for perception squabble going on in this thread and elsewhere. Are the Red Sox "out" of the playoff chase? Of course not. But is this team, with its holes and weaknesses, really worth the effort of making the postseason? I guess it would be an accomplishment, but it's such a critical offseason ahead that it might not be worth taking this opportunity to spin pieces off for the future
They're basically Schrodinger's Team ... they're dead and not dead at the same time
These are plausible explanations, but do they hold up to empirical rigor?Is it luck? I think there were a few things in play.
First off, they had the strike and short spring training. For whatever reason, that might have impacted them.
Second, they adopted a "Two Times Through" strategy early on. (Maybe in part because of the short spring training.) That resulted in a lot of single-inning relief appearances - either everyone's good on a given night, or the opposing team tees off for at least 3 batters - more with the slow hook if your bullpen is gassed.
Third, they committed to carrying a lot of feast or famine offense guys with a history of not particularly hot starts. Shaw, Arauz, Dalbec, Hernandez, etc. Until Story warmed up (again, short spring training) they had an auto out section from #6-#1. And not much was done about it but wait. In some cases like Hernandez, the waiting is likely justified. Shaw/Dalbec wasn't, when Dalbec had options.
That seems like baked-in failure, as opposed to a team getting robbed on calls or fluke hits or whatnot.
I guess the counter to this is what do you do instead? What options are available in late April/early May to remedy slow starts by half the lineup? Trades? Scrap-heap free agents? Throwing minor leaguers into the fire? Phantom IL stints? Even with the extra roster spaces at the start of the year, they're still limited to who they can fit at any one time. Seems like the only one that they have maybe given too much rope to so far is Dalbec, but much like last year, he's been getting playing time because there aren't a ton of in-house alternatives (if he's sent down, who is the RHH 1B option? Arroyo?). Though to Bloom's credit, he jettisoned Shaw quickly (20 games into the season) and brought up Cordero who is playing well while taking the majority of the 1B starts since he came up (15 of 29 games).Third, they committed to carrying a lot of feast or famine offense guys with a history of not particularly hot starts. Shaw, Arauz, Dalbec, Hernandez, etc. Until Story warmed up (again, short spring training) they had an auto out section from #6-#1. And not much was done about it but wait. In some cases like Hernandez, the waiting is likely justified. Shaw/Dalbec wasn't, when Dalbec had options.
Does "just luck" hold up any better? It's also a plausible explanation. But it's not some kind of proven baseline we should default to.These are plausible explanations, but do they hold up to empirical rigor?
Is it a counter? I mean, what do you think you're countering?I guess the counter to this is what do you do instead? What options are available in late April/early May to remedy slow starts by half the lineup? Trades? Scrap-heap free agents? Throwing minor leaguers into the fire? Phantom IL stints? Even with the extra roster spaces at the start of the year, they're still limited to who they can fit at any one time. Seems like the only one that they have maybe given too much rope to so far is Dalbec, but much like last year, he's been getting playing time because there aren't a ton of in-house alternatives (if he's sent down, who is the RHH 1B option? Arroyo?). Though to Bloom's credit, he jettisoned Shaw quickly (20 games into the season) and brought up Cordero who is playing well while taking the majority of the 1B starts since he came up (15 of 29 games).
Also, how does one discern a "history of not particularly hot starts" as a pattern and not simply a fluke thing in order to acquire players that won't start slow? Kike, for example, has career OPS by month of .748/.637/.751/.798/.785/.710 (.737 overall). That doesn't look like a guy who's traditionally a slow starter, nor a feast or famine guy (outside that May number maybe). He just happened to have a shitty first month this season.
Clearly, patience isn't something fans have in abundance, but it's hard to argue that impatience and more frequent tinkering with the roster is the better path for a manager/GM.
We know baseball is full of random variance (whether it’s batting average of balls in play, hit sequencing, etc). There’s plenty of quantitative literature on the subject.Does "just luck" hold up any better? It's also a plausible explanation. But it's not some kind of proven baseline we should default to.
Were they underperforming their pythag on May 8th?We know baseball is full of random variance (whether it’s batting average of balls in play, hit sequencing, etc). There’s plenty of quantitative literature on the subject.
If we can agree on that, then the next step is to ask “can we prove that a team that has a +17 run differential is 3 games below .500 is due to some unique ‘skill’ or is it due to the random variance we have agreed already exists in the game?”
Barring an empirically sound explanation of an alternative source of underperforming their Pythag, I would default to mostly random variance.
If the Sox stay red-hot and go 10-0, they'll stand at 29-22, and a 90 win target (solid post season chance) in the remaining 111 games would require 61 wins (.549):
10-0 - .549
9-1 - .558
8-2 - .567
7-3 - .576
6-4 - .585
5-5 - .594
4-6 - .603
3-7 - .612
2-8 - .621
1-9 - .630
0-10 - .639
This is the set for the more modest 87 win target (which is maybe? a 50% chance of making the post season):
10-0 - .522
9-1 - .531
8-2 - .540
7-3 - .549
6-4 - .558
5-5 - .567
4-6 - .576
3-7 - .585
2-8 - .594
1-9 - .603
0-10 - .612
Not to mention it isn't that unusual for a team's run differential to be heavily skewed by several months/halves and for them to have a totally different look than earlier in the season. A few examples:The Pythagorean thing is cool I guess, but run differential really only matters in each individual game. All it means is that the average margin of sox victory is larger than the average margin of sox defeat. What to make of that, who knows .
This is what they are, I think. A ~.500 team that can win 5 in a row and then hit a bump, never really finding some consistency. Too many holes on both pitching and offense to be anything better than that. A healthy, dominant Chris Sale could change that, but I have my doubts. They also need more from their outfield and a real first baseman, both areas they rank bottom 5 of the majors in in wRC+. Then there's the bullpen which leads the majors in "meltdowns". That's a lot to overcome if they want to make a real run and chase down the teams ahead of them.The Red Sox are 71-71 since last July.
Sometimes the answer is very simple: They have a dominant closer. He has 15 saves already this year.I mean, why is Toronto sitting 7 games over .500 while being outscored on the season? To me, that is just random good fortune for them. Their bullpen hasn't been much different than the Red Sox (3.96 ERA to BOS 4.04 ERA....similar FIP too). They've had some lousy bad streaky hitting by their hitters as well...yet, it didn't affect them in an overtly negative way.
I mean, a decent team could.But . . but . .. that's ONE GAME PER MONTH they need to make up!!! They can't possibly do that, could they?