A Realistic View at 2016

[moonslav59]

Bogey did get 5 days off this year, and for a player his age, that seems about right. However, it did seem pretty clear he was running out of steam (or just slumping) towards the end.

 

Since we really didn't have a good SS back-up, and the playoffs and division lead were in doubt until the big win streak, I can see the reasoning for playing Bogey a lot until the last week.

 

Total games started:

 

157 Bogey & Betts

155 JBJ

151 Pedey

144 Ramirez

140 Ortiz

127 Shaw

76 Holt, 30 Hill

53 Young, 30 Beni

68 Leon, 49 Vazquez, 30 Hanigan, 10 Holaday

 

PA (rank leaders in AL)

730 Betts (2)

719 Bogey (3)

698 Pedey (11)

636 JBJ (58)

626 Ortiz (69) amazing the numbers he put up with just 626 PAs

620 Ramirez (77)

530 T Shaw (131)

 

Papi ended up tied for 8th in AL HRs with 38

T1st in RBI with 127 (with EE)

1st in OPS at 1.021 (30 points ahead of Trout)

1st in SLG at .620 (57 points ahead of Miggy)

 

 

 

 

[Wade Boggs]

With Bogaerts playing the 157 was due with Holt being concussed and them not wanting to give Hernandez a shot. But in the big picture it was more do with Holt being injured. He couldn't play the super sub role. I think XB would've had a little more time off.

 

JBJ's 155 was due to Young being out and not trusting Brentz or Rusney.. with good reason... The thing that surprised me was Pedroia. I didn't think he could hold up for over 150. I'm glad he did.

[Emp9]

Nothing like sending out Owens and have Pedey, Betts, Sandy and Hanley sit out a game at the same time telling the media we're trying to garner home field advantage. Sure, John, whatever you say. Chicago Cubs don't appear tired.

 

Cubs were resting their key players periodically, but it didn't appear as blatant because they clinched soo early. It wasn't even that clear some of the consequences of a win or a loss even until mid-game last night. I'd blame Kimbrel for the loss of HFA if I wanted to assign any blame, but I really don't. Playing the beat-up Guardians (SP-ing wise) in the first round should be a nice warm-up. There should be no excuses if Sox lose that one.

[sk7326]

Not totally meaningless as our loss of 5 of the last 6 has cost us home field advantage. We saw playoff ball today with good pitching and a 2 to 1 result. My view is that when in games like today's we have to think about small ball with the stolen base and bunting taking a part. We also need to execute when attempting these things. Even so, we still can lose, as we did today.

 

Home field means basically nothing.

[Wade Boggs]

Cubs were resting their key players periodically, but it didn't appear as blatant because they clinched soo early. It wasn't even that clear some of the consequences of a win or a loss even until mid-game last night. I'd blame Kimbrel for the loss of HFA if I wanted to assign any blame, but I really don't. Playing the beat-up Guardians (SP-ing wise) in the first round should be a nice warm-up. There should be no excuses if Sox lose that one.

 

Case in point. If the sox tied that game yesterday in the 9th. Would go into the 10th tied, guess who was coming out for the top of the 10th. Koji? Kimbrel? You got it. TAZ. They tried for the win. But not all out winning. Plus with KC laying down and the Red Sox having to face HAPP and Sanchez back2back it's tough. IMO

[Wade Boggs]

Home field means basically nothing.

 

Depends on how you look at it. If the Red Sox hitters hit a couple of balls to the LF warning track those are doubles in Fenway. Caught there. I get it. In the end it does mean nothing. Plus Cleveland has over 53 wins at home. They play good there.

[sk7326]

Depends on how you look at it. If the Red Sox hitters hit a couple of balls to the LF warning track those are doubles in Fenway. Caught there. I get it. In the end it does mean nothing. Plus Cleveland has over 53 wins at home. They play good there.

 

The last time the Red Sox had an elimination game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox had a deciding game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox trailed in a postseason series on the road it went well. Really many of the franchise's proudest moments took place in the other guy's house (and indeed many of the heartbreaks were at Fenway). The electricity in Fenway for Game 4 vs Cleveland in the 1999 ALDS (the one Sox playoff game I got to go to) was unlike anything I can remember. But home field does not buy much in a short series.

 

This is the thing about the playoffs - six months of season and trends go out the window - it's the ability to win 11 games ... basically play 3 weeks of good baseball. All of these ten teams can do that.

[a700hitter]

The last time the Red Sox had an elimination game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox had a deciding game in Cleveland it went well. The last time the Red Sox trailed in a postseason series on the road it went well. Really many of the franchise's proudest moments took place in the other guy's house (and indeed many of the heartbreaks were at Fenway). The electricity in Fenway for Game 4 vs Cleveland in the 1999 ALDS (the one Sox playoff game I got to go to) was unlike anything I can remember. But home field does not buy much in a short series.

 

This is the thing about the playoffs - six months of season and trends go out the window - it's the ability to win 11 games ... basically play 3 weeks of good baseball. All of these ten teams can do that.

You haven't convinced me or changed the stats that indicate otherwise.

[sk7326]

You haven't convinced me or changed the stats that indicate otherwise.

 

The problem is those stats commingle two things:

 

1. Teams that have the home field vs the other

2. Team which are better than the other

 

The fact is that a team with home field (since the wild card era where baseball changed home field to not rotate annually) over another team is quite often the better team. They would also beat that opponent on a neutral field - and quite regularly without it. The contribution of home field (whether you think having Game 1 or Game 2 has some magic, since often these series never get to the 5th or 7th game) is very very fuzzy. Now there is an advantage of course - the same reason you get a better night's sleep at home than in a hotel - but being a better team is a much larger one.

 

The one set of numbers where you can pull this out a little is looking at World Series results - in particular World Series that got to the 7th game (which is what Home Field is) - since World Series home field is not by record. Road teams have won exactly half of the 28 times since 1946 a World Series has gotten to the 7th game. Interestingly home teams have won 9 of the last 10, reversing a 36 year trend of road teams coming through in the biggest game of the season.

[moonslav59]

Had we won one more game, wouldn't CLE have had to play another game to determine seeding in the playoff?

 

Wouldn't that have been worth something to us?

[Bellhorn04]

Had we won one more game, wouldn't CLE have had to play another game to determine seeding in the playoff?

 

Wouldn't that have been worth something to us?

 

Maybe.

[sk7326]

Had we won one more game, wouldn't CLE have had to play another game to determine seeding in the playoff?

 

Wouldn't that have been worth something to us?

 

maybe - i seriously doubt Francona would have - say, burned a playoff starter for it

[illinoisredsox]

maybe - i seriously doubt Francona would have - say, burned a playoff starter for it

 

And the Tigers would have thrown out a AAA line-up at best. My guess is the game would have been akin to the Columbus Clippers playing the Toledo Mud Hens with a few Indian and Tiger backups filling in the gaps.

 

Not that it would have mattered, because unless the game would have determined as to whether the Tigers could have qualified for the post-season or not, it would not have been played. They don't play games for seeding.

[a700hitter]

The problem is those stats commingle two things:

 

1. Teams that have the home field vs the other

2. Team which are better than the other

 

The fact is that a team with home field (since the wild card era where baseball changed home field to not rotate annually) over another team is quite often the better team. They would also beat that opponent on a neutral field - and quite regularly without it. The contribution of home field (whether you think having Game 1 or Game 2 has some magic, since often these series never get to the 5th or 7th game) is very very fuzzy. Now there is an advantage of course - the same reason you get a better night's sleep at home than in a hotel - but being a better team is a much larger one.

 

The one set of numbers where you can pull this out a little is looking at World Series results - in particular World Series that got to the 7th game (which is what Home Field is) - since World Series home field is not by record. Road teams have won exactly half of the 28 times since 1946 a World Series has gotten to the 7th game. Interestingly home teams have won 9 of the last 10, reversing a 36 year trend of road teams coming through in the biggest game of the season.

Do I need to get one of those blah blah blah gizmos? This horse is dead

[mvp 78]

Do I need to get one of those blah blah blah gizmos? This horse is dead

 

Neigh.

[d-money]

I don't like the way this team ended their season. They where not hitting. I am not overly confident right now heading to cleveland. Too many distractions. Hope they get it in gear.

[oldtimer]

Depends on how you look at it. If the Red Sox hitters hit a couple of balls to the LF warning track those are doubles in Fenway. Caught there. I get it. In the end it does mean nothing. Plus Cleveland has over 53 wins at home. They play good there.

 

And them there is home cooking.

[moonslav59]

I'd prefer game 5 in Boston, but hopefully, we won't even need game 5.

[sk7326]

I'd prefer game 5 in Boston, but hopefully, we won't even need game 5.

 

Who wouldn't? But this team has been very portable.

[moonslav59]

Who wouldn't?

 

It seems many here think it doesn't matter.

[Bellhorn04]

Who wouldn't?

 

It seems many here think it doesn't matter.

 

Everybody feels more comfortable playing the deciding game at home. But the hard cold historical facts show that it doesn't affect the outcome much.

[S5Dewey]

Everybody feels more comfortable playing the deciding game at home. But the hard cold historical facts show that it doesn't affect the outcome much.

 

I see that as being somewhat situational. I'd rather be playing the most games in Fenway every time. We have the LF wall which is a good target for our hitters and they're accustomed to using it. In addition, and maybe even a bigger factor is that our outfielders are accustomed to the overall shape of the outfield, which is quirky at best. Something we have that most teams don't have is two CF's roaming around out there, which is something you need in Fenway. The more games played there the better I like it.

[Bellhorn04]

I see that as being somewhat situational. I'd rather be playing the most games in Fenway every time. We have the LF wall which is a good target for our hitters and they're accustomed to using it. In addition, and maybe even a bigger factor is that our outfielders are accustomed to the overall shape of the outfield, which is quirky at best. Something we have that most teams don't have is two CF's roaming around out there, which is something you need in Fenway. The more games played there the better I like it.

 

All that is understood. But again, history shows that it doesn't matter much.

[Bellhorn04]

When you come down to a one-game decider the biggest factors are the starting pitchers and the bullpens, wherever you're playing.

[moonslav59]

When you come down to a one-game decider the biggest factors are the starting pitchers and the bullpens, wherever you're playing.

 

...and when things are pretty even, like Porcello vs Kluber in game 5, you look for any edge you can get... like HFA.

 

[Bellhorn04]

...and when things are pretty even, like Porcello vs Kluber in game 5, you look for any edge you can get... like HFA.

 

I'll take better pitching and take my chances.

[Nick]

I see that as being somewhat situational. I'd rather be playing the most games in Fenway every time. We have the LF wall which is a good target for our hitters and they're accustomed to using it. In addition, and maybe even a bigger factor is that our outfielders are accustomed to the overall shape of the outfield, which is quirky at best. Something we have that most teams don't have is two CF's roaming around out there, which is something you need in Fenway. The more games played there the better I like it.

 

We actually have 3 CF's

[moonslav59]

I'll take better pitching and take my chances.

 

Was that a choice?

 

Of course better pitching beats HFA, but there's a good chance Porcello faces Kluber in game 5. They are about as equal as they get. It might help to tip the balance by playing in Fenway.

[Bellhorn04]

Was that a choice?

 

Of course better pitching beats HFA, but there's a good chance Porcello faces Kluber in game 5. They are about as equal as they get. It might help to tip the balance by playing in Fenway.

 

If Porcello and Kluber pitch the same, the bullpens will decide it.

 

I don't believe the HFA has any effect. You do. We'll have to agree to disagree.

[Bellhorn04]

With all the discussion of HFA, I went back and analyzed the Red Sox history in winner-take-all games since the Babe was sold.

 

There have been 13 of them, including the 1948 and 1978 1-game playoffs.

 

Sox record in home games 2 wins 4 losses .333

Sox record in road games 3 wins 4 losses .429