How to get back in this thing
- Thread starter BaseballJones
- Start date
I posted more detail in the in-season discussion thread, but the Sox were under their pythag by 2 games even before the offensive outburst last night, and there are a bunch of indicators that the Sox have suffered from events outside of their control this year. The Sox hitters are underperforming their expected outcomes by a significant margin this season, and the Umpires have been brutalizing the Sox (see details in the other thread).
That's right. How bad does an offense have to be to make the current conventional wisdom no longer wise?
Bunting would probably be the least effective way to get the offense out of a slump since it is giving up an out (unless it is a bunt for a hit). I would think steals and hit-and-run attempts would have more impact. And more aggressive pinch hitting.
Anecdotally, I think having a slumping batter attempt a hit and run is a good option for breaking out, since it eliminates the decision about whether to swing.
Giving up an out seems like less of a big deal when a non productive out is the most likely outcome, though, no?
Thing is, a non-productive out is the most likely outcome nearly every time up for any batter. This is a game where the best hitters are still failing 7 out of 10 times. I'd rather have a guy swing away and have a chance to get a very productive base hit as well as a chance to make a productive out (sac fly, grounding to the right side to advance the runners, etc) rather than guarantee an out by having him bunt, especially in the early parts of the game.
Well, giving up an out for the 22 Sox (.291 obp) feels different than it did in 2018 (.339), especially when six of the guys in todays lineup were below .270.
When the shift is extreme, I would like to see bunts to the unfilled positions.
A bunt to third when the 3B is in short right field seems like it should be good for a .750 batting average even for a bad bunter.
Or it forces opponents out of the extreme shift.
A bunt to third when the 3B is in short right field seems like it should be good for a .750 batting average even for a bad bunter.
Or it forces opponents out of the extreme shift.
This has it around .440 last year, but more importantly, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a team shift less in subsequent ABs because of successful bunts.
https://deadspin.com/why-don-t-more-players-bunt-against-the-shift-1847659278/amp
Since this thread started they've gone 3-6. Tonight will be the 35th game.
However, they've played well in the last 5 games against ATL and TX, going 3 for 5. Might have been 4 for 5 with competent umpiring. Most importantly the hitting started to come around and we saw some walks.
This seems like "the week" for me.
If they keep up the better play until this Sat. (the 40 game mark), my take will be "might still be competitive." But they also have to win.
If they perform at less than .500, and/or revert to sloppy play and pressing batting, I'll be nominally writing them off. Could they go on a tear? Sure. But I'm not going to feel the need to watch games or read box-scores. Probably will anyway, but you just start watching for different outcomes, like individual player performances, etc.
However, they've played well in the last 5 games against ATL and TX, going 3 for 5. Might have been 4 for 5 with competent umpiring. Most importantly the hitting started to come around and we saw some walks.
This seems like "the week" for me.
If they keep up the better play until this Sat. (the 40 game mark), my take will be "might still be competitive." But they also have to win.
If they perform at less than .500, and/or revert to sloppy play and pressing batting, I'll be nominally writing them off. Could they go on a tear? Sure. But I'm not going to feel the need to watch games or read box-scores. Probably will anyway, but you just start watching for different outcomes, like individual player performances, etc.
On the few occasions David Ortiz tried it I think I recall infielders coming back to traditional positions for the next few at bats.
I think people may underestimate just how bad that bad bunting can be. If a guy can't bunt, he risks popping it up or hitting the softest of line drives to an infielder or deadening it right at the catcher's feet, etc. We've all seen bunts turn into double plays pretty easy, which is much worse than just giving up one out.
If they want to deploy that strategy, then they better start doing bunting drills.
If they want to deploy that strategy, then they better start doing bunting drills.
Hitters that are good at bunting typically avoid bunting into double plays. But "good at bunting" is doing some work there; even when bunting was regular thing, managers seldom asked their premier power hitters in the middle of the order to bunt.
I cite your argument whenever people ask why the 2004 Yankees did not bunt against Schilling in Game 6.
Of the current Sox, I'm not sure who I'd trust be a good bunter that isn't also a power bat. One of the lighter-hitting bench guys may want to work on their bunting skills if they want to get into the lineup a little more often
Jackie is one player who could be bunting more. He’s a good bunter and faces a shift that he hits grounders into on the regular.
Caveat: I don’t know if teams are leaving their 3B at third when they shift on him.
I'd love to see them put together a 3-game win streak at some point before Memorial Day.
I don't think the "players going back to their position instead of shifting" idea holds much water. If Devers has a prime time to bunt with the shift on (say... down by 2, just need to get the tying run on and a home run doesn't matter), then sure, go for it. But the opposing team knows that he isn't going to be bunting in every at bat for the foreseeable future just because they leave the shift on, he is too valuable.
Jackie laid down a good one the other day in Texas. Of course, it was a straight sacrifice in the second inning and in the midst of what ended up being a four run inning, so I imagine the pitcher was glad to take the out and gave him a decent pitch to bunt. Probably a lot tougher, even for a good LHH bunter, to lay one down the third base line when the pitcher is trying to induce you to pull one into the shift by pitching inside. Bunting an inside pitch the other way is just as difficult as inside-outing a full swing to go the other way. Jackie might have the skill to do it, but fat chance that a power guy like Devers can.
Yeah, with 100+ games left if they can correct the challenges they are certainly still in it. Hopefully the starting pitching can stay strong while the bats reawaken. Unless they catch lighting in a bottle with a hot arm or two, the Bullpen gonna bullpen I'm afraid.
This team basically has 9-10 weeks to figure out if they can fight for a wild card spot. That's about 50ish games or so. They need to probably play .600 ball in that time, maybe more, to realistically be considered back in it by the deadline. Can they do that? I'm not sure I like the odds, but they have the firepower to make it interesting.
They are. It's still very early and they are still a very smart team that has been good at finding guys. As explored above, they have underperformed their expected record etc etc. I just think they are about to regress back into the WC.
13.5 out of first, 5.5 out of the wild card and better than just three teams in the AL. Have yet to win three games in a row.
Its not dark yet, but it’s gettin’ there.
Its not dark yet, but it’s gettin’ there.
The deficit in the division is mind boggling. They’ve only played 36 games and are already 13.5 back. It’s not just that the Sox have gotten off to a terrible start; the Yankees have been unconscious (27-9, .750).
Bad combination for the divisional standings.
Bad combination for the divisional standings.
The Yankees are a lock for the playoffs and the Red Sox aren’t getting the #1 seed. I’m not wasting any time this summer thinking about either. Winning the division in MLB is turning into the equivalent of being division champs in the NBA - there is minimal difference between being the 2 seed or the 6 seed.
6 teams per league make the playoffs. Top two get byes while the bottom four play the wildcard round.
Top two seeds get byes, 4 plays 5 and 3 (the worst division winner) plays 6 in 3 game series which are entirely hosted by the higher seed.
FWIW, It is likely better to be the #2 seed in this system (with 3 and 6 on your side of the draw) than it is #1 (the top two wild cards on your side of the draw) even without potential home field advantage in the ALCS.
https://www.cbssports.com/mlb/news/what-the-new-12-team-mlb-playoffs-will-look-like-and-how-it-would-have-looked-in-recent-years/
One important distinction -- top two division winners. So the bye is dependent on catching the Yankees (and the many dominoes that would need to fall before that).
It's important to note these are the top 6 teams of 15. So on paper your odds seem good at first glance. However, as the article above pointed out, to get a #6 spot you likely need to be in at least the mid-to-upper 80s in wins.
For the AL:
2021, the #6 team had 91 wins.
2019 - 93.
2018 - 90.
2017 - 80 (3 team tie).
2016 - 86 (2 team tie).
2015 - 85
2014 - 87
2013 - 91
2012 - 90
But that's assuming that those previous season excluded teams played hard, didn't ease up, break-in AAA players, etc. It makes what follows very very fuzzy, but bear with it.
So go with the more optimistic argument - those teams played hard and those #6 records might reflect what we'd see this year. If so, we can peg 89 wins as getting you into the #6 spot half the time, and 93 wins as getting you in almost all of the time.
The Sox are 14-22. They need 75 wins to get to 89 total, or 79 to get to 93 total. They have 126 games to do that in. So they have to go 75-51, or 79-47. That's a .595 to .627 winning percentage from here on out.
How likely is that?
(I mean, they could squeak into a #6 spot in an unlikely way, but the point is we're coming close to the absurd here.)
So a 96 win pace to a 102 win pace. The former seems doable. The latter doesn't. With that said, it's early and a nice stretch of games would have a big impact on the pace needed to play with X games left. As would a losing streak.
When I say doable, plenty of teams play at a 96 win pace. Not unheard of. 102 isn't either, but clearly a bit harder. Probably less so over 126 games, but still.
I wouldn't say we are in absurd land yet, but yeah we are getting there. They have to start playing well soon before the pace becomes 110, 115...
Just keep in mind that it's much easier playing at a crazy win pace over a smaller number of games. Like, .750 ball is insane, right? Well, not over 4 games it's not. Teams win 3 of 4 all the time. Obviously that's at the extreme low end of the sample size, but the point is the Sox don't need to keep up a great pace *over the whole season* at this point. Just over 77% of a season. Which is still a large sample size, of course.
Because it’s such a small sample, relatively normal winning or losing streaks also changes things drastically. Right now they need a 97 win pace for the rest of the season to reach 90 wins. If they win 7 more in a row (so an 8 game winning streak, not at all crazy), they would only need to play at a 93 win pace to reach 90
So I think we have an answer to the question in the OP:
1. Get more length out of the starters to reduce the innings pitched by our leaky bullpen -- see Pivetta the other day. Hopefully this will come naturally as the effect of the shortened spring training fades into the past.
2. Get Hernandez/Verdugo/Story/Vazquez back to at least their career average hitting line. Story got there already as of yesterday and that alone has made a huge difference. Improvements from the other three should make the Sox a 90-win team.
3. Get something out of the 1B position -- I'm actually less worried about this one than the others since there are at least three options here (Dalbec/Franchy/Casas) and chances are at least one of them will get hot at some point.
1. Get more length out of the starters to reduce the innings pitched by our leaky bullpen -- see Pivetta the other day. Hopefully this will come naturally as the effect of the shortened spring training fades into the past.
2. Get Hernandez/Verdugo/Story/Vazquez back to at least their career average hitting line. Story got there already as of yesterday and that alone has made a huge difference. Improvements from the other three should make the Sox a 90-win team.
3. Get something out of the 1B position -- I'm actually less worried about this one than the others since there are at least three options here (Dalbec/Franchy/Casas) and chances are at least one of them will get hot at some point.
I imagine the intent doesn't matter so much as the result. A straight sacrifice attempt can result in the batter reaching and no outs recorded, which probably has the same impact as a successful bunt for a hit attempt.
A week or two ago this team was something like 25th-29th in most overall measures of offensive efficacy (like wRC+, wOBA), and more mainstream metrics like walk rate and OBP. They are now top-10 or top-15 in all of them, and amazingly 6th overall in walk rate as of today. The turnaround by the offense has been impressive, even if the record isn't reflective of it yet.
I think while it shows the offense has really turned it on in the last couple weeks, it also demonstrates that we're still relatively early in the season for the stats to move that dramatically in such a short period of time.
Are you sure about that? Fangraphs has them at 29th.
(Similarly with the other measures -- or are you only looking at the last week or so?)
Drawing more walks has been, seemingly, key to the turnaround. Maybe they're adjusting to the dead ball and going back to basics
Story's obviously been the biggest story (lol) of the past few games, but something that's stood out to me is how much better Franchy has looked at the plate this year. Much more patient, drawing walks, getting hits where he can. He looks like a completely different player.
7-3 in their last 10 still have them at 5 under .500. So they need a couple more good stretches to get to .500. But it feels doable by the halfway point. To get to 41-40 they need to go 24-18.
If they play .570 ball the rest of the way (winning 4 of 7), they get to 87 wins, which should put them right in contention for a WC.
We shall see.
If they play .570 ball the rest of the way (winning 4 of 7), they get to 87 wins, which should put them right in contention for a WC.
We shall see.
Alex Speier made the point during the pre-game show yesterday that the Sox last year had a 16-22 stretch while winning 91 games. It just didn't stand out as such because it was in July and August rather than the first 38 games of the season. Though to be fair, it did inspire the same panic-induced doom-posting from some of the same folks around here. The team isn't substantially that different and we know they've got potential help coming mid-season without need of trade (which doesn't mean they won't trade for more help if necessary). If the offense continues to show life, .570 ball the rest of the way isn't an unreasonable expectation.
Ok to revisit this...
1. Offense has come alive, thankfully. They had been averaging fewer than 3 runs a game through their first 29, when they were 10-19. Now in their last 10 they've averaged 6.5. It's amazing what can happen when you score runs.
2. Whitlock has stuck in the rotation, and he's been solid. He hasn't been as dominant in a starting role as a reliever, but he's been solid.
Reliever: 4 g, 9.2 ip, 4 h, 1 r, 1 er, 2 bb, 11 k, 0.93 era, 0.62 whip, 10.2 k/9
Starter: 5 g, 20.0 ip, 14 h, 8 r, 7 er, 8 bb, 26 k, 3.15 era, 1.10 whip, 11.7 k/9
Houck has been bumpy, but that's largely due to one catastrophic outing against the Angels. Still, it counts. His last two outings as a long reliever: 7.0 ip, 2 h, 1 r, 1 er, 2 bb, 6 k, 1.29 era, 0.57 whip, 7.7 k/9 - his K numbers starting to rise after adopting a new slider grip.
3. Who is this dominant, consistent bullpen arm? Still not sure. Maybe it's just small sample size, but two guys have started to emerge: Strahm and Schreiber.
Strahm: 17 g, 14.1 ip, 7 h, 4 r, 3 er, 3 bb, 15 k, 1.88 era, 1.83 fip, 0.70 whip, 9.4 k/9
Schreiber: 9 g, 9.1 ip, 5 h, 1 r, 0 er, 0 bb, 9 k, 0.00 era, 1.48 fip, 0.54 whip, 8.7 k/9
Strahm's last 9 games: 7.1 ip, 1 h, 0 r, 0 er, 2 bb, 9 k - so he and Schreiber have really done the job in the late innings lately.
4. Stop with the "take the starter out if he's still effective" routine. Well, incredibly, we saw a complete game out of Pivetta. Whitlock had his longest outing recently (5 innings) against Houston. Rich Hill went 6 innings against Texas. Pivetta went 7 in the start before his complete game. So if the starters have been effective, Cora is letting them go deeper into games. This is a very good sign moving forward, both for the starters and for the bullpen guys.
5. Find help in the minors. Well, Cordero hasn't exactly been prime Yaz at first, but he's hitting better than Dalbec has been. Francy is at .273 this season with a .713 ops, a great improvement over Dalbec. And there are strong signs that this season the Sox could have Casas, Bello, Walter, Winckowski, and Seabold all pushing for spots on the big club. Help from the minors could be on the way.
They've gone 7-3 in their last 10, so they've gone from 10-19 up to 17-22. Still in a hole, but they've started to dig their way out. My hope was that they'd be at .500 by the end of May. That's a tall order as they only have 11 games left and would need to go 8-3 over that stretch to get there. But hey, if they just went 7-3, why not 8-3? Their opponents the rest of the month:
- 2 vs Sea
- 3 at ChW
- 5 vs Bal
- 1 vs Cin
So that's 6 games against TERRIBLE teams in Baltimore and Cincy. They won't win all those, but maybe they can go 5-1 against them. Then they'd just need to go 3-2 in the 5 games against Sea and ChW to get that 8-3 mark and be at .500 at the end of May.
They're at 21-23 with six games left in the month. My goal for them (or my hope anyway) was to be at .500 by the end of the month. Just need to go 4-2 to make that happen, with five games against Baltimore (18-27) and one against Cincinnati (14-30). Hope they can pull that off.
Yep, the crux of it comes down to the W-L record - the actual one in actual games. There are very encouraging signs in the recent hot streak.
A trimmed version of a post in the "in season discussion thread" follows. It probably belonged here in the first place. Going 2-1 against the toughest team in the 10 game stretch isn't terrible by any means. (Although going 3-0 would have afforded them a bone-headed loss to the Orioles.)