Countdown to the Playoffs - 2017 Edition

[S5Dewey]

 

Sure, it's possible we might have only lost 1-2 games as a result of mental mistakes, but I'm thinking 4-5 is on the light side.

 

That's a good, well researched post in spite of the fact that I slashed the bejeezus out of it to salvage the point I want to make.

 

I know I expressed my opinion on this early in the year but I still think that we minimize the value of "1 or 2 games". 1 or 2 games can (and probably will for some team) be the difference between making the playoffs and playing golf in October. That's why I like to stress the importance of playing smart baseball. If dumb baseball only cost us two games this year I'd like to have those two games back right now! At this typing those two games are the difference between a 3 1/2 game lead and a 4 1/2 game lead over the Y's.

[moonslav59]

I'm as baffled as anyone about the mental blunders. I think maybe you have to look at them on a player-by-player basis. I have seen Bogaerts make a couple that suggested his mind was elsewhere at the time. Those are the ones where the player really has to be straightened out by the manager.

 

JBJ has made some of the blunders. But when you look at how this guy plays in the outfield it's hard to believe that he suffers from a lack of focus.

 

Nobody can stay 100% focused 100% of the time. It's expected that everyone make a blunder here and there. Several Sox players have not had more than their "quota". Others have done much worse.

[moonslav59]

And yet you're telling Max not to make any claim that can't be proven!

 

You're contradicting the heck out of yourself, and it really diminishes your credibility.

 

Suggesting these mistakes have cost us 6 or 7 games is like saying they are the equivalent of having a replacement level pitcher this year instead of Sale.

 

I said, "I believe" it costs us games. How can dozens and dozens of blunders not cause runs to be given up? It's possible many runs can be given up and never cost a game, but the odds are stongly against that when you see the sheer magnitude of mental mistakes we've made.

 

I've said over and over, it is all conjecture. It seems to me, Max feels like he proved we could not have possibly lost that Yankees game with a change in one play. I've stated nothing can be proven.

 

I see a major difference in our claim presentations.

 

Edited September 8, 2017 by moonslav59

[moonslav59]

That's a good, well researched post in spite of the fact that I slashed the bejeezus out of it to salvage the point I want to make.

 

I know I expressed my opinion on this early in the year but I still think that we minimize the value of "1 or 2 games". 1 or 2 games can (and probably will for some team) be the difference between making the playoffs and playing golf in October. That's why I like to stress the importance of playing smart baseball. If dumb baseball only cost us two games this year I'd like to have those two games back right now! At this typing those two games are the difference between a 3 1/2 game lead and a 4 1/2 game lead over the Y's.

 

It very well could be just 1-2 games. I happen to feel it pretty much has to be more, but the exact number can never be proven. I think the odds are surely in favor of us losing 1-2 games instead of zero, and I strongly believe it's closer to 4 or 5 than zero or 1.

[Bellhorn04]

I said, "I believe" it costs us games. How can dozens and dozens of blunders not cause runs to be given up? It's possible many runs can be given up and never cost a game, but the odds are stongly against that when you see the sheer magnitude of mental mistakes we've made.

 

I've said over and over, it is all conjecture. It seems to me, Max feels like he proved we could not have possibly lost that Yankess game with a change in one play.

 

I see a major difference in our claim presentations.

 

 

Any suggestion that mental mistakes could have cost 6 or more games is outlandish. At least Max tried to use actual game information to substantiate his claim.

[Nick]

And yet you're telling Max not to make any claim that can't be proven!

 

You're contradicting the heck out of yourself, and it really diminishes your credibility.

 

Suggesting these mistakes have cost us 6 or 7 games is like saying they are the equivalent of having a replacement level pitcher this year instead of Sale.

 

I think it's difficult to quantify "games lost" unless it happens in last at bat as an example. Making a stupid running mistake in 2nd inning becomes an afterthought. It maybe that it was a factor but the team still had 7 innings to overcome the dumb play. No so much last at bat.

[cp176]

excellent post.

 

ty - It's da old coach in me. I used to use expressions like wins and losses take care of themselves. Whatever the hell that means. What it meant to me was that it was my job to prepare my team as well as they could be prepared for every game. Even though kids will still make mental mistakes, they are never acceptable. Doesn't matter how good or how valuable the player is who makes them - still unacceptable! You accept them long enough and you will suck. Got to take care of the little controllable things. it just seems as though this team makes too many little mental mistakes. Either they are stupid or there are in fact some coaching issues. I'm still enjoying the ride though.

[S5Dewey]

It very well could be just 1-2 games. I happen to feel it pretty much has to be more, but the exact number can never be proven. I think the odds are surely in favor of us losing 1-2 games instead of zero, and I strongly believe it's closer to 4 or 5 than zero or 1.

 

My interpretation of this post is that Moon believes we've run ourselves out of a substantial lead, and I agree with that.

[mvp 78]

I think it's difficult to quantify "games lost" unless it happens in last at bat as an example. Making a stupid running mistake in 2nd inning becomes an afterthought. It maybe that it was a factor but the team still had 7 innings to overcome the dumb play. No so much last at bat.

 

Then you can only blame the guy who made the final out for the loss.

 

Thanks for ruining '78 Yaz!

[S5Dewey]

I think it's difficult to quantify "games lost" unless it happens in last at bat as an example. Making a stupid running mistake in 2nd inning becomes an afterthought. It maybe that it was a factor but the team still had 7 innings to overcome the dumb play. No so much last at bat.

 

Aughh! I'm not buying that at all!! A missed opportunity is a missed opportunity no matter when it happens. We just tend to focus more on it when it happens at the end of the game.

 

As someone told me when I was just a young man, 'Never pass one up because you'll never get that chance again."

[Bellhorn04]

Nobody ever knows 'what would have happened if...'. I believe that the principle used in calculations like WAR is to give all plays equal weight regardless of the situation. Which makes sense. A run in the second inning counts just the same as a run in the ninth inning.

[Bellhorn04]

Then you can only blame the guy who made the final out for the loss.

 

Thanks for ruining '78 Yaz!

 

Yes, exactly. Even though Yaz had a home run and a single, 2 runs and 2 RBI prior to that.

[Spudboy]

Base running mistakes that take runs off the board change the dynamics of the game with regard to which pitchers each manager might be used etc. I agree with you that OOBs stat is not reliable. In fact, I would say that OObs is for boobs. And that is not a sexist term!

 

I agree.

[Spudboy]

In that game if we had put up an additional run an CC had to pitch to an additional batter in a stressful AB in that inning, the whole game could have changed.

 

Absolutely.

 

Contrary to the silly idea that baseball is such a random sport, cause and effect determines what happens.

 

Change the outcome of one play and the proceeding events may have been very different.

 

One has to be a f***ing dope not to understand that idea.

[Spudboy]

Excuse me, but I didn't just analyze that one inning (the 3d). I also cited just 4 singles in the game and the total abortion of a 9th inning rally when the Sox had the bases loaded with no one out and got zero, repeat zero hits. We got the one run when I think Beni got walked. We were vastly outplayed in that game, top to bottom, and all the blather about mental mistakes won't change that fact. It was 6-2, not 2-1.

 

Is one game a valid sample size?

 

While I don't recall in which games I saw blunders that probably caused a loss of runs scored or enabled opponents to score more runs, they did, in fact happen.

 

Not in just one game, but many games.

 

That is the point. The Sox make a bunch of dumb ass plays.

[moonslav59]

Any suggestion that mental mistakes could have cost 6 or more games is outlandish. At least Max tried to use actual game information to substantiate his claim.

 

Saying it is "outlandish" is outlandish.

 

Also, I never used the Yankee game as an example of a game lost by a blunder, so Max proved nothing , even if his evidence proved we could not have won that game- which it didn't.

 

Probably 4-5 games is more likely than 6-10, but one never knows. Games seem to get out of hand once a cascade begins.

 

To think none of our blunders have cost us a game is way more "outlandish" than thinking "MATBE" is cost us 4-5 games and pretty certainly 1-2.

 

[moonslav59]

Any suggestion that mental mistakes could have cost 6 or more games is outlandish. At least Max tried to use actual game information to substantiate his claim.

 

And by the way, even though I think nothing can be proved and that no game is 100% won or lost on one play, I did provide an example of losing a game on a blunder- the one where Holt held onto the ball as the winning run barely crossed the plate in time.

 

No response from Max or others on that one. Is that so-called "proof"?

 

I think not, but using Max's methodology, it could be (As I do not believe there is certain proof of anything when changing one play in a game.)

[Spudboy]

Exactly.

 

I have no problem with aggressive base running, and I realize it will, at times, mean we run into outs. Sometimes there may be a thin line between good aggressive running and over aggressiveness that is borderline stupidity.

 

I'm not talking about those plays at all. Not one of them.

 

Running into an out at 3B when the grounder is hit in front of you is not aggressive base running: it's a blunder.

 

Forgetting how many outs there are, even if it does not lead to an out is a blunder, but I'm only focused on blunders leading to outs (and likely loss of runs and games).

 

Making the first or third out at 3B, especially when one run is needed may not always be a "blunder". Sometimes a weak- armed OF'er happens to make a perfect throw, or a runner stumbles. Most of the time, it's probably a blunder by the runner or 3B coach. Getting thrown out at home is usually not a blunder, but if you are thrown out by 15 or more feet, one has to wonder if someone made a mistake.

 

Not running full speed is a mental mistake or blunder.

 

Not going about a third of the way to the next base on a fly ball, in case it is dropped or misplayed is a blunder.

 

I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but I've seen too much of the above to think this is normal.

I realize personal observations can be biased. I try not to be, but I realize I can be. I have watched just about every single play of every single game for over 25 years. I know: I'm a freak. I really do believe I've never seen anything like this team and bonehead plays on the base paths and on defense. I could be wrong. i have no data to support my claims. But, I am 100% certain the odds are we have lost multiple games due to blunders this year.

 

Boom.

[moonslav59]

I wish I had kept track of every mental blunder. It's impossible to go back now, since many of the plays are not captured in box scores or play-by-play listings. Some weren't even called errors.

 

There is a program that gives the odds of a team winning at any given point in a game. It's not perfect for sure, and it only gives the odds of a team winning or losing. It would be interesting to see how many actual times a single bonehead play turned the odds from probable winning to probable losing. This wouldn't help in the several games with 2 or more blunders, but it would be an interesting study- had someone kept track.

 

Plus, I'm sure there would be some debate about some plays I might call a mental blunder, but others might see it as a physical blunder.

 

This has been an interesting debate. The "what ifs" in baseball has always been one part of the game that often adds interest.

[moonslav59]

Boom.

 

700 added one that has happened more than once...

 

Running with your head down without noticing that the lead runner is returning to the base that you are running toward.

 

I'm sure there are more I haven't remembered.

[Spudboy]

700 added one that has happened more than once...

 

Running with your head down without noticing that the lead runner is returning to the base that you are running toward.

 

I'm sure there are more I haven't remembered.

 

You have stated that there have been many bonehead plays and blunders that have cost the Sox runs either offensively or defensively and that it is next to imposible to recall each event.

 

I agree.

 

But I do have another example.

 

I have seen Hanley ( and I am not ragging on him or his dreds ) smack a hard hit ball to the outfield several times when he decided to "stretch" a single to a double but was gunned down at second.

 

The Sox have some speed but they do not have a single player ( I don't know about R. Davis ) that has what I call "game changing speed".

 

Guys like Lou Brock, Ricky Henderson, or even a young Jacoby Ellsbury.

 

When those guys attempt to stretch a single it is not really a bonehead play because they can actually make that play work because of their speed. But when the current version of Hanley does it and fails, it's a f***ing dumb play with a limited chance for success.

 

Like your self, and anyone who watches all the plays, I have seen way more of this type of stupid play on this year's team than in the past.

 

Quantifying the effects of such plays may be difficult. Never the less these plays did happen and it is possible and likely that they prevented runs from scoring.

[Maxbialystock]

Exactly.

 

I have no problem with aggressive base running, and I realize it will, at times, mean we run into outs. Sometimes there may be a thin line between good aggressive running and over aggressiveness that is borderline stupidity.

 

I'm not talking about those plays at all. Not one of them.

 

Running into an out at 3B when the grounder is hit in front of you is not aggressive base running: it's a blunder.

 

Forgetting how many outs there are, even if it does not lead to an out is a blunder, but I'm only focused on blunders leading to outs (and likely loss of runs and games).

 

Making the first or third out at 3B, especially when one run is needed may not always be a "blunder". Sometimes a weak- armed OF'er happens to make a perfect throw, or a runner stumbles. Most of the time, it's probably a blunder by the runner or 3B coach. Getting thrown out at home is usually not a blunder, but if you are thrown out by 15 or more feet, one has to wonder if someone made a mistake.

 

Not running full speed is a mental mistake or blunder.

 

Not going about a third of the way to the next base on a fly ball, in case it is dropped or misplayed is a blunder.

 

I'm sure I'm forgetting some, but I've seen too much of the above to think this is normal.

 

I realize personal observations can be biased. I try not to be, but I realize I can be. I have watched just about every single play of every single game for over 25 years. I know: I'm a freak. I really do believe I've never seen anything like this team and bonehead plays on the base paths and on defense. I could be wrong. i have no data to support my claims. But, I am 100% certain the odds are we have lost multiple games due to blunders this year.

 

 

You always right good stuff, however--

 

Running into an out at 3b when the ground ball is in front of you isn't defacto dumb. Infield might be shifted to the right side. Grounder might not be right to the SS or 3b or they might prefer to go for the GIDP the easy way or we might have a really good baserunner like Betts who seems to know when he can do stuff like.

 

Forgetting number of outs is definitely dumb, but also very infrequent.

 

Risking making the 1st or last out at 3b is also very situation dependent. Sometimes it's worth it. A man on 3b can score in a lot of ways not requiring a hit. Not so a man on 2b.

 

Not running out grounders at full speed is endemic among MLB veterans. Ortiz, the very guy many Sox fans now say is the most valuable Sox player ever, made a point of "saving himself" on obvious groundouts. Not running full out on popups is also unprofessional, but rare is the player who runs them out every time.

 

Now taking that 1/3 lead on a popup or fly when there are 1 or no outs is not good, agreed. I'm not sure how often that happens on the Sox, however. You might know. I suspect it's not very often.

 

About running into outs causing runs not to be scored. Hard to prove or disprove, but I agree it has to happen now and then. However, my view is that generally that's only important in a game lost by 1 or 2 runs.

 

And, as I've tried to suggest, i'm not sure that running into outs is always bad baseball. Thus my example of Beni trying to get to 2b on a single back in game 1 of the latest Yankees series. We lost that game 6-2. We had 4 singles. We were uniformly terrible with RISP. And our starter gave up 5 runs. Beni was the least of our problems if a problem at all. I like aggressive baserunning and having men on 2d and 3d with no outs because you should be able to get both home without a hit, plus you taken away the GIDP. I realize the is a minority opinion on talksox, but so be it.

 

I say the above with the certain knowledge that you have not only watched, but studied way more Sox games than have I.

 

Nevertheless I just can't get my head around the idea that the Sox should be even with the Guardians if only they weren't such dummies. Not when the Guardians have better pitching and a whole lot better hitting. No when they have scored 190 more runs (in games to date) than their opponents and we have scored 81 more runs. Can those numbers really be because Farrell can't manage or because we have weak fundamentals or we have too many dummies running amuck, not taking that 1/3 lead on flies, etc?

Edited September 8, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[mvp 78]

@jay_jaffe

 

a good reminder for panicky-ass Dodger fans: there's no correlation between September performance & playoff success

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9617

 

As the postseason unfolds over the next few weeks, you're going to hear a lot about momentum and its importance to a ballclub, and while it's undoubtedly a good idea to bear Earl Weaver's famous maxim in mind, the take-home message is that the conventional wisdom that a team's recent performances foreshadows their playoff fate is generally wrong. The fact that there are no shortage of pundits who elevate the 2007 Rockies as their evidence while forgetting the 2006 Cardinals underscores either how little attention some talking heads pay to actual results, or how short their attention spans are.

[moonslav59]

Max, I'm not talking about running into an out at 3B on a GB with a shift on. I can recognize times when it may not be an open and shut case of stupidity. I can't recall what game it was, but it wasn't long ago when Beni ran to 3B on a grounder hit in front of him. That was a sure fire bonehead mistake that led to an out. It wasn't the only time we've done that and others I've mentioned.

 

I'm fine with some one thinking it wasn't likely we lost many games due to these blunderes, but I get the feeling you don't even think we've made any more than normal. Please, correct me if I am wrong on this assumption about your beliefs.

 

I mentioned the game we lost when Holt held onto the ball as the winning run scored (just barely). Surely, using your methodology, that blunder cost us a game. Do you remember the game? If so, I'm interested in your thoughts on that game.

 

[illinoisredsox]

@jay_jaffe

 

a good reminder for panicky-ass Dodger fans: there's no correlation between September performance & playoff success

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9617

 

As the postseason unfolds over the next few weeks, you're going to hear a lot about momentum and its importance to a ballclub, and while it's undoubtedly a good idea to bear Earl Weaver's famous maxim in mind, the take-home message is that the conventional wisdom that a team's recent performances foreshadows their playoff fate is generally wrong. The fact that there are no shortage of pundits who elevate the 2007 Rockies as their evidence while forgetting the 2006 Cardinals underscores either how little attention some talking heads pay to actual results, or how short their attention spans are.

 

The article cites Earl Weaver's maxim; it's a link to several quotes he made:

 

http://www.icelebz.com/quotes/earl_weaver/

 

Several good ones there:

 

"A manager should stay as far away as possible from his players. I don't know if I said ten words to Frank Robinson while he played for me."

 

"A manager's job is simple. For one hundred sixty-two games you try not to screw up all that smart stuff your organization did last December."

 

"The job of arguing with the umpire belongs to the manager, because it won't hurt the team if he gets thrown out of the game."

 

and, in deference to Applewatchgate:

 

"If you know how to cheat, start now."

[Spudboy]

I was a big fan of Earl Weaver.

[moonslav59]

Earl was the man!

[Bellhorn04]

Saying it is "outlandish" is outlandish.

 

Also, I never used the Yankee game as an example of a game lost by a blunder, so Max proved nothing , even if his evidence proved we could not have won that game- which it didn't.

 

Probably 4-5 games is more likely than 6-10, but one never knows. Games seem to get out of hand once a cascade begins.

 

To think none of our blunders have cost us a game is way more "outlandish" than thinking "MATBE" is cost us 4-5 games and pretty certainly 1-2.

 

 

Saying our accumulated mental mistakes have probably cost us a couple of games is reasonable.

 

Your claims of 5 or more lost games, without any indication of how you could possibly determine this, have been outlandish. They're reminiscent of the thread on BDC in 2007 about how Tito's in-game mistakes had cost us '14 games and counting'.

[moonslav59]

Saying our accumulated mental mistakes have probably cost us a couple of games is reasonable.

 

Your claims of 5 or more lost games, without any indication of how you could possibly determine this, have been outlandish. They're reminiscent of the thread on BDC in 2007 about how Tito's in-game mistakes had cost us '14 games and counting'.

 

I said it could be 5-10 games. I'm pretty sure it's closer to 4-5 than 0-1.

 

To me it's more outlandish to think dozens and dozens of blunders that led to outs or took away outs to our opponents did not lead to any losses at all, yet you choose to call my claim of 4-5 and possible 5-10 as outlandish- not the claim of zero.

 

Maybe I'm overestimating how many mental blunders there have been. Maybe I'm wrong about how many runs have been lost or given away as a result of dozens of mistakes. Maybe I'm wrong about how many of those runs actually affected a game's outcomes. I realize the highly speculative nature of this debate. I've said it over and over again, unlike Max claiming seemingly matter-of factually that we have not lost any games due to mental blunders. I know I have used the words "I am certain" we've lost games due to mistakes, but I have gone out of my way to say I can never prove my position.

 

No matter how much anyone analyzes each game and each mental blunder, we can never know for sure. I do not think it's "outlandish" to think we've lost more than a couple games and closer to 4 or 5 than 0-1. Maybe 6-10 is a stretch, but I do think it's possible within the context of "butterflies flapping their wings in China."

 

I will say, I feel pretty certain we've lost more than just 2 games as a result of blunders. 4-5 seems very realistic. 6-10 is maybe as outlandish as saying zero, do you agree with that?

 

 

[Slasher9]

Saying our accumulated mental mistakes have probably cost us a couple of games is reasonable.

 

Your claims of 5 or more lost games, without any indication of how you could possibly determine this, have been outlandish. They're reminiscent of the thread on BDC in 2007 about how Tito's in-game mistakes had cost us '14 games and counting'.

hahaha. didnt that thread have 1,200+ pages?