Countdown to the Playoffs - 2017 Edition

[notin]

Maybe, but Farrell's record was his record. You can't give him credit for what they did under Lovullo.

 

 

Interestingly, most sites do, even though he wasn't with the team. I guess because he was technically the manager.

 

The Sox record under Farrell that year was 50-64, but he did so with Bradley not hitting like the monster he was under Lovullo. Not sure if Lovullo's impact on Brdley is actually quantifiable.

 

Of course, the entire point was that Farrell - and only Farrell - is credited with a last place finish, which I think is an oversimplification of that team. I don't think he's much of a manager, but I do think he isn't going anywhere soon and he's better than many Sox fans give him credit for. and as we have learned in the past, it's usually easier to get a worse manager than a better one. For some reason, there were fans calling for Francona's head every year. I'd think his replacement should have taught us all a lesson about being careful what you wish for.

 

Really, since we all watch more Sox games than any other team, it is easier to spot Farrell's mistakes and his total becomes much larger. But there are plenty of worse managers out there holding MLB jobs...

[a700hitter]

Interestingly, most sites do, even though he wasn't with the team. I guess because he was technically the manager.

 

The Sox record under Farrell that year was 50-64, but he did so with Bradley not hitting like the monster he was under Lovullo. Not sure if Lovullo's impact on Brdley is actually quantifiable.

 

Of course, the entire point was that Farrell - and only Farrell - is credited with a last place finish, which I think is an oversimplification of that team. I don't think he's much of a manager, but I do think he isn't going anywhere soon and he's better than many Sox fans give him credit for. and as we have learned in the past, it's usually easier to get a worse manager than a better one. For some reason, there were fans calling for Francona's head every year. I'd think his replacement should have taught us all a lesson about being careful what you wish for.

 

Really, since we all watch more Sox games than any other team, it is easier to spot Farrell's mistakes and his total becomes much larger. But there are plenty of worse managers out there holding MLB jobs...

Lovullo was not even the interim manager. He had no official title.

 

There are many bad managers, probably most. Where he stacks up in that pile of stink doesn't matter much to me. He still stinks.

[Bellhorn04]

Name a manager on any past top 5 spending team that has kept his job after finishing in last place in 40% of his seasons. My guess is zero in modern day history.

 

I thought you were OK with last place finishes as long as there were rings along with them.

 

But maybe you only said that with reference to Ben...

[moonslav59]

I thought you were OK with last place finishes as long as there were rings along with them.

 

But maybe you only said that with reference to Ben...

 

I was responding to the claim that JF may end up winning a WS in 40% of his years and nobody fires someone for that.

 

The 40% last place point was a counterpoint. Many are fired for that and have had a lot less resources to work with than JF. We've been a top 3 spending team in all of JF's years here.

 

In general, I am okay with some last place finishes as long as we win rings, but I also said I have become spoiled. I also never meant to imply we just stand pat during those bad years and not try to improve the team, sometime by changing a manager. I actually said that back before our first ring, I used to say I'd give up 10 last place finishes for 1 ring, but once we won once, I got spoiled.

 

I'm not a person who always blames the manager- really, I'm not. Here are some examples:

 

1) I defended Grady Little on the "Pedro choice".

2) I was probably the last guy wanting Bobby V to get canned.

3) I loved Tito. I had some beefs with his over-loyalty thing, but never came close wanting him fired until the great implosion and my belief that he lost control. I realize he had great distractions going on in his life, and I wish we still had him over JF.

4) I've always thought JF was a very good pitching coach, and I was not against trying him as a manager. I gave him plenty of time on his learning curve, but I have seen little improvement in any areas beyond pitching.

 

[oldtimer]

I was responding to the claim that JF may end up winning a WS in 40% of his years and nobody fires someone for that.

 

The 40% last place point was a counterpoint. Many are fired for that and have had a lot less resources to work with than JF. We've been a top 3 spending team in all of JF's years here.

In general, I am okay with some last place finishes as long as we win rings, but I also said I have become spoiled. I also never meant to imply we just stand pat during those bad years and not try to improve the team, sometime by changing a manager. I actually said that back before our first ring, I used to say I'd give up 10 last place finishes for 1 ring, but once we won once, I got spoiled.

 

I'm not a person who always blames the manager- really, I'm not. Here are some examples:

 

1) I defended Grady Little on the "Pedro choice".

2) I was probably the last guy wanting Bobby V to get canned.

3) I loved Tito. I had some beefs with his over-loyalty thing, but never came close wanting him fired until the great implosion and my belief that he lost control. I realize he had great distractions going on in his life, and I wish we still had him over JF.

4) I've always thought JF was a very good pitching coach, and I was not against trying him as a manager. I gave him plenty of time on his learning curve, but I have seen little improvement in any areas beyond pitching.

 

 

It seems some of the spending that we did saddled us with Sandoval, Price, Hanley, Craig, Castillo. That spending may have occured before or during his tenure, but it certainly has limited some of the options the club has had. To be fair to JF, I don't know how much say he had in bringing these guys in or the length of their contracts. Still, he is the manager and as such is accountable for the level of performance of the club. I haven't been a fan of his after the swoon at the end of last season and the underperformance of our hitters this year. Lets see where he takes us this year, but I am not against any move which is likely to improve the team.

[Maxbialystock]

Top three in total salaries doesn't mean that much when right now about $90M is going to Pablo, Ramirez, porcello, and Price.

 

On top of which, as you say, the hitting has nearly collapsed without Ortiz. Throughout the John Henry era, the Sox have had good hitting and in 2004, 2007, and 2013 it was the best in the AL. Francona got those two WS in part because he had Manny, Papi, and other assorted good hitters.

[Kimmi]

But the percentage you have to win the game goes up or down with each out or runner on base. At any given point in a game, you could calculate the percentage of a win. Even if we forget calling it a "boneheaded" play and call it an out, it affects the precentage of our chance to win the game. One out saved might only give us a very small percentage of winning a game, but 10 outs would start to make that small percentage turn into a greater number.

 

I do not disagree with that at all. In fact, I stated in my previous that every play and pitch affects the outcome of the game, which is exactly what you're saying. Yes, a play can absolutely decrease the chances of winning the game. I didn't say it couldn't. What I said was that a game can never be won or lost on a single play.

 

When someone says that a certain play 'cost us that game', I disagree. It may have contributed to the loss, it might not have. But my point is that it did not single handedly cost us a game.

[Kimmi]

I google it. Holy crap. Can you get that WPA somewhere in actual game time?

 

We could use a program where that is calculated game time, with the ability to check against other situations that could have happened.

 

This is good stuff, isn't it?

 

This goes along with the changes in win expectancy and run expectancy that I have talked about before. This is the way that you need to go when you are trying to figure out how many games we have lost due to boneheadedness.

[Kimmi]

Who has the list of all bonehead plays.

 

Then, some here dispute just about every play we label "bonehead" by claiming it's just "aggressiveness".

 

Then, looking at these numbers cannot take into account games with 2, 3 or more bonehead plays in the same game.

 

It is a start though.

 

I can't believe some feel the play where Holt held onto the ball was not a blunder, but I'm done arguing that. B-R had our winning that games chances go from 68% to 22% after that play (if I'm reading the numbers correctly).

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE201708210.shtml

 

 

I don't think you're reading it right. The biggest change in win expectancy that I see in this game is +35% when Cleveland tied the game in the bottom of the 8th with another runner advancing to 3rd.

[oldtimer]

The Yankees only have 3 away games left on the schedule of the 14 remaining. Talk about a favorable schedule.

[Spudboy]

The Yankees only have 3 away games left on the schedule of the 14 remaining. Talk about a favorable schedule.

 

Well don't you worry yourself about it.

 

We are told by the big brains here that home field advantage does not exist.

[a700hitter]

Well don't you worry yourself about it.

 

We are told by the big brains here that home field advantage does not exist.

That's right. Home field advantage doesn't exist.

[Spudboy]

That's right. Home field advantage doesn't exist.

 

See? The old school guys like us can learn new ideas.

[moonslav59]

The Yankees only have 3 away games left on the schedule of the 14 remaining. Talk about a favorable schedule.

 

I'd probably rather have our schedule, even with the 4 games vs HOU to end the season and 3 at BAL.

 

The Yanks play,,,

3 vs MN

1 vs KCR

6 vs TOR (3H 3A)

3 vs TBR

1 vs BAL

 

We have 3 at Cincy which is probably easier than 3 vs TOR at home.

 

We end with 3 vs TOR and 4 vs HOU at home:

 

Ours:

 

4 vs HOU

3 vs TOR

3 @ CIN

3 @ BAL

1 @ TBR

[jacksonianmarch]

If Houston isn't in the running for the top spot in the AL, then that last 4 game series will be a cakewalk for you guys. Your schedule to end the season is pitiful in terms of opponents. You'll probably lose 2 of the 3 vs Baltimore, just because that's what happens when you play them for some reason. But prior to the Houston series, I anticipate you'll go 7-3. And if Houston is not in the running for the top spot, you'll either sweep or take 3 of 4. The division couldn't be more in your hands

[Bellhorn04]

If Houston isn't in the running for the top spot in the AL, then that last 4 game series will be a cakewalk for you guys. Your schedule to end the season is pitiful in terms of opponents. You'll probably lose 2 of the 3 vs Baltimore, just because that's what happens when you play them for some reason. But prior to the Houston series, I anticipate you'll go 7-3. And if Houston is not in the running for the top spot, you'll either sweep or take 3 of 4. The division couldn't be more in your hands

 

Houston is still very much in the running for that top spot though. They're only 1 back in the loss column and they've won 3 in a row.

[S5Dewey]

Boston needs for Cleveland to go into a tailspin for a few games to allow Houston to get a stranglehold on the best record.

[Bellhorn04]

Boston needs for Cleveland to go into a tailspin for a few games to allow Houston to get a stranglehold on the best record.

 

Not unless you'd rather play Cleveland.

[Kimmi]

The Yankees only have 3 away games left on the schedule of the 14 remaining. Talk about a favorable schedule.

 

Salty made a good point on the telecast last night, about how a 3 game lead probably doesn't seem like a lot to the Sox, but it probably does seem like a lot to the Yankees.

 

Think about it this way. If we were 3 games behind the Yankees at this point, would you feel very confident about being able to win the division? I think most posters here would be more concerned with not falling out of the wildcard race, if that were the case.

 

The division is not wrapped up by any means, but we are in the driver's seat. I would much rather be in our position than in the Yankees' position.

[illinoisredsox]

Magic Numbers:

 

Division - 12

Wild Card - 7

[S5Dewey]

I'm wondering why some of these stat folks aren't asking how long Cleveland can keep doing this before the law of baseball averages catches up with them. They're currently .958 over their past 24 games. Are they really that good? I doubt it, over a long stretch. If they're not really that good then statistically they're due for a significant losing streak.

Me? I'm hoping they keep winning because the longer this .900+ streak continues the longer it's going to be until the inevitable(?) slump comes. The later it comes the better chance of that very good team being eliminated and therefore the better the chance of the Sox winning the AL.

 

Of course if they are that good and they prove the statistics wrong nothing matters because nobody is going to beat them anyway.

[SoxHop]

I'm wondering why some of these stat folks aren't asking how long Cleveland can keep doing this before the law of baseball averages catches up with them. They're currently .958 over their past 24 games. Are they really that good? I doubt it, over a long stretch. If they're not really that good then statistically they're due for a significant losing streak.

Me? I'm hoping they keep winning because the longer this .900+ streak continues the longer it's going to be until the inevitable(?) slump comes. The later it comes the better chance of that very good team being eliminated and therefore the better the chance of the Sox winning the AL.

 

Of course if they are that good and they prove the statistics wrong nothing matters because nobody is going to beat them anyway.

 

I look at it this way. The first game they won before going on their run was the last game we played against them in a 4 game series, where we beat them the previous two games, and I think we could have beaten them the previous three if we brought Kimbrel in a couple batters earlier.

 

Good for Cleveland. Great run, historic. And now that it is over. It doesn't mean s***....

[Kimmi]

I look at it this way. The first game they won before going on their run was the last game we played against them in a 4 game series, where we beat them the previous two games, and I think we could have beaten them the previous three if we brought Kimbrel in a couple batters earlier.

 

Good for Cleveland. Great run, historic. And now that it is over. It doesn't mean s***....

 

It's an anomaly, which is why their run has been record setting. That said, Cleveland is a very good team. Not good enough to have a streak of 22 wins without some luck and randomness, but very good nonetheless.

 

They are due to come back down to earth. But here's the thing that is often misunderstood about 'coming back down to earth'. When they return to earth, they should still continue to play at about .600 winning baseball. They are not going to play .100 ball to 'balance out' the hot streak.

 

You are right that now that the streak is over, it doesn't mean anything. In fact, while it was going on, it didn't mean anything as far as what would happen next. It would be a fallacy to predict what Cleveland will or won't do in the postseason based on that win streak.

[S5Dewey]

So do we assume that since essentially everyone on the team has been playing well during the streak that they'll all regress to their norms exactly when the streak ends, and therefore go back to .600 baseball?

[moonslav59]

Boston needs for Cleveland to go into a tailspin for a few games to allow Houston to get a stranglehold on the best record.

 

Or, a stranglehold on the 2 slot would work, too.

[Maxbialystock]

Come on, gang. Cleveland is tough, simple as that, and it is no fluke. They went to the WS last year and lost in 7 to the Cubs. This year they are better and have outscored their opponents by a bigger margin than anyone, even the Dodgers.

 

The neat thing to me is they have not exactly dominated us this season. I think they go all the way this year, but that we got a shot.

Edited September 17, 2017 by Maxbialystock

[moonslav59]

So do we assume that since essentially everyone on the team has been playing well during the streak that they'll all regress to their norms exactly when the streak ends, and therefore go back to .600 baseball?

 

Hard to know: they were a .552 team before the streak began.

[Maxbialystock]

Since the blind stupid luck of winning 22 straight games, the Guardians have won 2 of 3, and the loss was by 4-3. It's hard for me to see Cleveland collapsing or even playing below .500 in their few remaining games. The have given up 528 runs in 149 games, and the second lowest is 608 runs in 148 games--our guys. That's over .5 runs per game. The Yankees and Astros have given up 613 and 663 runs, also in 148 games.

 

Defense, pitching and fielding, tends to hold up better than hitting.

 

The Astros only have 1 more loss than the Guardians, so they could definitely catch them. They've won 4 in a row, but are 5-5 in their last 10. Their last 7 games are on the road against the Rangers and the Sox.

 

Houston is a little like us last year--great hitting, easily the best in MLB (runs scored and team OPS)--but somewhat suspect pitching. Plus hitting, sadly, can come and go even with the best of teams.

 

I believe I am correct that we are 2-1 against Houston (all games in Houston, 1st half of season) and 4-3 vs. Cleveland (all 2d half of the season).

[illinoisredsox]

Magic Numbers:

 

Division - 11

Wild Card - 7

[oldtimer]

Salty made a good point on the telecast last night, about how a 3 game lead probably doesn't seem like a lot to the Sox, but it probably does seem like a lot to the Yankees.

 

Think about it this way. If we were 3 games behind the Yankees at this point, would you feel very confident about being able to win the division? I think most posters here would be more concerned with not falling out of the wildcard race, if that were the case.

 

The division is not wrapped up by any means, but we are in the driver's seat. I would much rather be in our position than in the Yankees' position.

 

I just get concerned that the injury bug has bitten us at a tough time, taking too many of our right handed bats out of the lineup. We need to keep winning and I would prefer to face Houston to Cleveland, but neither is a walk in the park.