How to score a lot of runs

[rjortiz]

To me, it seemed like jung was saying that he wasn't overly concerned about facing Price. I just think the pitching matchups between the Rays and Sox favor the Rays. Whether the Sox offense can make up the difference (especially against lefties) remains to be seen.

 

If he can dominate you in games 1 and 4, your only real chances are games 2 and 3 out of the first four. That makes a 7 games series tough to win because you you are getting stoned in games 1 and 4.

 

I was responding to this point. He goes on the bring up Scherzer as an example. Not to beat a dead horse, but to say the Red Sox don't have a real chance in any game against the Tigers is unfounded.

[rjortiz]

The problem, however, is that when he comes in throwing strikes, he's the bane of the Sox' offensive approach. A lefty power pitcher pounding the strike zone is not something the Red Sox have been particularly able to overcome this season. And look no further than Moore's July 22 start against the Sox for evidence.

 

More often that not, he's missing the zone. He's 3rd in MLB in BB/9 among qualified starters over the last two years. His FIP this year is 3.69, which is closer to Jon Lester than it is to David Price. His xFIP over the last two years have both been over 4.19. I know he was the best pitching prospect in the game not too long ago, but he's lost three mph off his fastball since 2011. I wouldn't be surprised if he peaked in his rookie year.

[Behindenemylines]

The Sox have used the bench and platoon in other areas to get some production from everyone on the roster. Enough players have been hot at the same time that it has off set those players who were struggling at the time. Once again it has been a team effort is why the Sox are second in the league in runs scored.

[Orange Juiced]

And that's partly why Fat sabby is now a shell of his former self.

 

Can we really say that with any knowledge, though? I mean, here were his next 3 seasons after pitching one 3 days' rest twice in the playoffs in 2009:

 

2009: 19-8, 3.37 era, 137 era+, 1.15 whip, 7.7 k/9 (for reference's sake)

2010: 21-7, 3.18 era, 136 era+, 1.19 whip, 7.5 k/9

2011: 18-8, 3.00 era, 143 era+, 1.23 whip, 8.7 k/9

2012: 15-6, 3.38 era, 124 era+, 1.14 whip, 8.9 k/9

 

So for the next 3 seasons following those two games on 3-days' rest, he was just as good as he was in 2009 (better, really). It's just this year that he's really dropped off. I would just attribute it to age and wear-and-tear more than those two games.

[User Name]

You can convert the betting line into a percentage. -150 is a 60% chance to win a game. That seems to be a reasonable number. The point being that even with Scherzer on the mound, the Tigers win probability isn't anywhere near the point where you could just write off Game 1. Betting lines are just one way to look at that. They pretty much use the same statistical data that other experts use to make projections, plus the track record of sportsbooks are good enough that they should be taken into consideration when making a prediction. It should at least erase the idea that Scherzer is an absolute lock to win every game he pitches in.

 

BTW, this was more in response to Jung's statement about Scherzer.

 

Betting lines are about spreading the money, not entirely about the likelihood of an outcome.

 

^This is my point.

[User Name]

Can we really say that with any knowledge, though? I mean, here were his next 3 seasons after pitching one 3 days' rest twice in the playoffs in 2009:

 

2009: 19-8, 3.37 era, 137 era+, 1.15 whip, 7.7 k/9 (for reference's sake)

2010: 21-7, 3.18 era, 136 era+, 1.19 whip, 7.5 k/9

2011: 18-8, 3.00 era, 143 era+, 1.23 whip, 8.7 k/9

2012: 15-6, 3.38 era, 124 era+, 1.14 whip, 8.9 k/9

 

So for the next 3 seasons following those two games on 3-days' rest, he was just as good as he was in 2009 (better, really). It's just this year that he's really dropped off. I would just attribute it to age and wear-and-tear more than those two games.

 

I was talking about general overuse, not only his pitching on 3-days' rest every so often. They ran him to the ground.

[Orange Juiced]

I was talking about general overuse, not only his pitching on 3-days' rest every so often. They ran him to the ground.

 

Ok. That was not apparent to me because you responded to the point about him twice pitching on 3-days' rest in the 2009 playoffs.

 

But yes, he's pitched a TON of innings over his career and it just might be catching up with him. I'm not upset that the Yankees are on the hook for him through 2017 (if his option for 2017 vests), for a total of $96 million ($24 million per season). If they're gonna pay $24 million a year for a 200 ip, 4.50 era guy for the next four seasons, I'm perfectly ok with that. :-)

[rjortiz]

^This is my point.

 

Any book that operated like that would get murdered. In order to entice 50/50 betting, books would have to drastically move the spread, which would open them up to sharp gamblers taking advantage of inefficient lines. I wish this were the case. I could make a lot of middle bets when the public goes beserk on the Patriots or Packers. Here's an interview with Stardust Sportsbook manager Bob Scucci:

 

Millman: Another common question I get is bookmakers want to have even action on both sides, and that is not the way I see it. I see bookmakers gambling just as much as the wise guys. I know you guys have opinions, and I know there are going to be games where you guys are willing to take money and not have equal action on both sides because it will increase your margins and give you a better chance to make money at the end of the year. Is my opinion wrong?

 

Scucci: No. It is not wrong. We could not survive if we only got 50/50 on both sides. The juice is there, but it is not enough to pay our bills and to do what we have to do. It is not that great. And second of all, it never happens. It is impossible to get the same amount on both sides at the same point spread. At the same point spread is the key phrase there because a lot of people that don’t fully understand bookmaking say, “Why don’t you just move the line to get money on the other side?” And the reason we don’t do that is because it opens up our chances of getting middled or sided on a game. We are often buried on a game at -7 and you say move it to -8 and we still don’t get money. So you move it to -9 and we still don’t get money, so we move it to 9.5. And everyone says I will take 9.5 and you have a 2.5 point middle. Well the best case scenario for us is we break even because of the money on both sides. And our worst case is the game falls on 9 or 8 and we lose both bets. So instead the philosophy we like to use is let’s put up a game that looks attractive on one side where we feel the other side is actually the better play. Some people call it a trap. Some people have other phrases for it. But you look at a game and we feel this road team should be -3 and we know the public thinks it should be -6. So we put up -3 and get a ton of money on 3. So we go to 3.5 and maybe the wise guys take 3.5, and then we win the game. That is the ideal way. We just feel like if we have over 50% of the games where we win, then we will make money in the end. And that is our philosophy as bookmakers.

[User Name]

More often that not, he's missing the zone. He's 3rd in MLB in BB/9 among qualified starters over the last two years. His FIP this year is 3.69, which is closer to Jon Lester than it is to David Price. His xFIP over the last two years have both been over 4.19. I know he was the best pitching prospect in the game not too long ago, but he's lost three mph off his fastball since 2011. I wouldn't be surprised if he peaked in his rookie year.

 

The problem is that when he's been around the plate, games like the July 22 one happen. Considering the sox' weakness against LHP, even when he's not around the plate, they may still be unable to get anything off of him

Edited August 27, 2013 by User Name?
Wrong quote

[Orange Juiced]

The problem is that when he's been around the plate, games like the July 22 one happen. Considering the sox' weakness against LHP, even when he's not around the plate, they may still be unable to get anything off of him

 

Who are you talking about? The stats to which you replied were Sabathia's. But on July 22 the Sox played the Rays.

[User Name]

Who are you talking about? The stats to which you replied were Sabathia's. But on July 22 the Sox played the Rays.

 

Sorry, got distracted and quoted the wrong post. I was talking about Matt Moore and his ability to shut down the Sox in the post-season.

[rjortiz]

Sorry, got distracted and quoted the wrong post. I was talking about Matt Moore and his ability to shut down the Sox in the post-season.

 

This is a pretty good point, and I didn't consider the platoon splits.

[sk7326]

Tazawa is very interesting. His raw numbers are very solid: 2.75 era, 1.15 whip, 7.0 k/9. He's pitched in 59 games (59 innings pitched as well), and in those 59 games, he's allowed the other team to score 17 times (28.8% of the time). In other words, pretty much once out of every four games he allows a run. But only *twice* has he allowed more than one run: April 30 (vs. Tor), 2 runs; and then June 29 (vs. Tor), 2 runs. So he never "blows up".

 

Notice the opponent in those two games: Toronto. They seem to be his kryptonite. Here are his numbers:

 

- vs. Toronto: 7.2 ip, 11 h, 7 r, 7 er, 3 bb, 7 k, 5 hr, 8.22 era, 1.83 whip, 8.2 k/9, 1.53 ip/hr

- vs. Everyone Else: 51.1 ip, 48 h, 12 r, 11 er, 6 bb, 56 k, 3 hr, 1.93 era, 1.05 whip, 9.8 k/9, 17.11 ip/hr

 

I mean, he's nails against everyone but Toronto, apparently. The good news for him is that in the playoffs, he won't be facing the Jays. :-)

 

It is an odd quirk. That said 8 HR in 59 IP is not the sort of thing you like out of relievers - but the walks and strikeouts are excellent, enough to work with. He doesn't throw his split enough and gets the ball up in the zone more than you'd like. But the results the last 2 years are there - he is a fine reliever. I think he would have done a solid job closing if they rode him out - but obviously things have gone well this way too .

 

Breslow's K rate this year is below what you'd like too - but the results are hard to argue with. He has been good, better than strictly a matchup lefty. I'm not worried about that part of the team.

 

The interesting choice is who becomes the swing guy. Dempster is the likely, and obvious choice (and I support it definitely). But - I could see an argument for Doubront, not because he has not done a solid job starting, but because his stuff could be very nasty in a "Lincecum 2012" role.

[Orange Juiced]

Back to the idea of scoring, it goes to show you how times have changed. Look at these two ops+ numbers put up by David Ortiz:

 

2006: 161

2013: 160

 

Virtually identical, right? Well, here are the rest of the numbers associated with those ops+ numbers:

 

2006: 54 hr, 137 rbi, 10.3 ab/hr, .287/.413/.636/1.049

2013: 24 hr, 78 rbi, 17.0 ab/hr, .318/.399/.572/.971

 

So, same person, same position, same team (thus same park effects). The only difference is the era in which these numbers were produced. So a 1.049 ops in 2006 is equivalent to a .971 ops in 2013.

 

Wow, that's a HUGE difference.

[sk7326]

Back to the idea of scoring, it goes to show you how times have changed. Look at these two ops+ numbers put up by David Ortiz:

 

2006: 161

2013: 160

 

Virtually identical, right? Well, here are the rest of the numbers associated with those ops+ numbers:

 

2006: 54 hr, 137 rbi, 10.3 ab/hr, .287/.413/.636/1.049

2013: 24 hr, 78 rbi, 17.0 ab/hr, .318/.399/.572/.971

 

So, same person, same position, same team (thus same park effects). The only difference is the era in which these numbers were produced. So a 1.049 ops in 2006 is equivalent to a .971 ops in 2013.

 

Wow, that's a HUGE difference.

 

2007 the slash line is even better, .332/.445/.621, a 1.067 ops in 2007, which was a 171 OPS+. So the baseline OPS+ has fluctuated quite a bit, even those two seasons.

[User Name]

That has a lot to do with the nature of the OPS+ formula. There's no denying that offense has significantly declined throughout MLB though. Edited August 28, 2013 by User Name?

[Behindenemylines]

Last night's offensive output is one where a lot of hitters in a lineup are starting to pick it up. Both Pedroia and Nap who struggled after the All-Star break are starting to get hot. If you have enough bats in a lineup that are clicking at the same time it is hard to pitch around someone. That combination with the SP the Sox have gotten the last week makes for a lot of wins. Hopefully, it will carry into September.

[Orange Juiced]

Ken Rosenthal ‏@Ken_Rosenthal6m

#RedSox sent Ellsbury back to Boston to get examined. Right foot in a boot.

 

Jacoby looks like he'll be out for a little while (no idea how long), but "foot in a boot" is generally not a great sign. Fortunately, the Sox lead the division by 7.5 with less than 3 weeks to play, and they're up 9.5 for the last WC slot (should some disaster happen).

 

It's as good a time as any to rest Ellsbury and let him heal up, I guess.

[Palodios]

Losing Ellsbury for the playoffs could hurt. But a few weeks? It could be an opportunity to check out Bradley and see what the kid has.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Losing Ellsbury for the playoffs could hurt. But a few weeks? It could be an opportunity to check out Bradley and see what the kid has.

 

We're 4 weeks from the 1st game of the ALDS (assuming we hang on to the division).

 

That should be ample time for Ellsbury to heal up. You can bet, with free agency looming, Ellsbury will play through just about anything in the post season.

 

He'd be able to play through it now if it was the PS. He hurt his foot on 9/2. Took 9/3 off. Then on 9/4 and 9/5, he went 4/11 (.364) with a double and a SB.

 

Seems like it's pretty precautionary. 7.5 game lead. Just make sure he's all set for the post season, and get a good look at JBJ while he's out.

 

May even help the Sox evaluate how much they want to spend on Ellsbury.

[jung]

People are referring to the Pedey injury. But Pedey's foot was confirmed broken. Is that the early report on Ells or are they just reporting the swelling and inflammation?

[Orange Juiced]

By the way: How to score a lot of runs? Apparently by just hitting the crap out of the ball. Last 4 games for the Sox:

 

20 r, 19 h, 4 2b, 8 hr, 4 bb, 19-41

9 r, 16 h, 2 2b, 2 hr, 10 bb, 16-45

12 r, 15 h, 2 2b, 3 hr, 7 bb, 15-41

13 r, 14 h, 5 2b, 4 hr, 2 bb, 14-39

 

TOT: 54 r, 64 h, 13 2b, 17 hr, 23 bb, 64-166, .386 avg, .460 obp, .819 slg, 1.279 ops

 

Yeah, that'll work!

[Behindenemylines]

No one on the Sox is having a career year, but the balanced lineup with few holes puts pressure on opposing pitchers. They run up SP pitch counts and get into teams bullpens in the 5th and 6th innings. This is most teams weak link with their staff and allows the Sox to score runs. This has been the formula that has worked well for the Sox so far in 2013.

[Orange Juiced]

Good article on the Sox' lineup at cnnsi.com:

 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20130909/red-sox-offense/?sct=hp_wr_a2&eref=sihp

[sk7326]

With Middlebrooks coming back rejuvenated (yes he is not going to be an onbase machine but he should be able to be at least his 2012 self going forward) the lineup has 9 tough outs in it - where the lesser guys still have good approaches. The Sox will not have shortage of scoring chances - runs usually follow.

[Orange Juiced]

With Middlebrooks coming back rejuvenated (yes he is not going to be an onbase machine but he should be able to be at least his 2012 self going forward) the lineup has 9 tough outs in it - where the lesser guys still have good approaches. The Sox will not have shortage of scoring chances - runs usually follow.

 

Every single Red Sox hitter with more than 100 plate appearances (there are 12 of them) has an ops+ of >100. Eight of the 12 have an ops+ of 112 or greater.

 

That's unbelievable.

[sk7326]

Every single Red Sox hitter with more than 100 plate appearances (there are 12 of them) has an ops+ of >100. Eight of the 12 have an ops+ of 112 or greater.

 

That's unbelievable.

 

It's not quite as good an attack as 2003 (where the #8 hitter won the batting title and the #9 hitter hit 24 homeruns) ... but it has been it's equal for sheer depth and difficulty to negotiate.

[Orange Juiced]

FWIW, the Red Sox:

 

- Have the most wins in baseball (87)

- Have the biggest run differential (+162)

- Have the best home record in baseball (47-25)

- Have the highest team OPS in baseball (.795)

- Have the highest team OBP in baseball (.350)

- Have the highest team SLG in baseball (.446)

- Have the most extra base hits in baseball (511)

- Are 4th in baseball in stolen bases (111)

- Are 1st in baseball in SB% (85%)

 

Very, very impressive stuff.

[Youk Of The Nation]

They are also first in baseball in beards, and the importance of that statistic cannot be understated.

[Orange Juiced]

They are also first in baseball in beards, and the importance of that statistic cannot be understated.

 

Clearly this one is the reason for all the others.