Countdown to the Playoffs - 2017 Edition

[Kimmi]

We're saving our "peak" for just the right time.

 

Exactly!

[Kimmi]

I understand exactly what you're saying, but I think this may be a matter of how one looks at things.

 

There are a lot of close games where one key play or one key misplay appears to make the difference.

 

"Appears" being the key word. I understand the feeling. I feel the same way when I see a play like, believe me.

 

However, two big points that keep this from being true:

 

1. There are 27 outs in a game and who know how many plays and pitches. Every one of them affects the outcome of the game. Every single one of them. The outcome of the game is never determined by one play alone.

 

2. There is absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened if the 'key play' had gone differently. The outcome might have been exactly the same, or it might not have been.

[Maxbialystock]

We're saving our "peak" for just the right time.

 

moonslav the adroit one. a silk purse, just like that, right before our eyes. Watching and studying and writing about the Sox has you slightly unbalanced because you have said publicly Farrell can stay (for one more year) if the Sox win the AL East and at least one round in the postseason. That's right, isn't it?

 

Last night was certainly gritty. Sale disappointed (I refuse to write him off, however), but still went 6 giving up 4. The bullpen, whom I periodically rage against (and did last night) went 9 giving up 2--terrific. And the hitting, which disappointed us all in innings 1 thru 8 and 10 thru 13 (and maybe 14), was like we wanted them in innings 9 and 15.

 

As I wrote earlier, the low-down, misbegotten, trying to throw it all away Sox are actually 7-3 in the last 10 games. The Yankees, who are definitely surging--peaking, if you will, at just the right time--are also 7-3 in their last 10 games. Instead of playing the Rays in Tampa as scheduled, they got to play them in NYC (or close to it).

 

So, even though the Sox aren't getting a lot of style points, it's hard for me to see why all the gloom and doom (I'm guilty too).

[Maxbialystock]

Reposted:

Mental errors don't show up in the box score and our memories tend to gloss ithem over with the attitude of "Well, we had lots of other opportunities to win that game." That may be true but it doesn't alter the fact that the one error early in the game is what lost it. Everything else that happened...happened and that attitude is just a cop-out.

 

Our gamethreads gloss over nothing. We love to dwell on every single miscue, every mental error. We dwell less on the aggressive plays that work--or some of us say, "well it worked, but it was lucky. It was not the smart play."

 

On another thread I wrote (probably a week ago) that out of 140 games played to date, I counted 21 games we lost by 1 or 2 runs. I suggested anyone was free to look at the play by play and or video replays (mlb.com package replays entire games in about 15-30 minutes) of any of those 21 games and point to any of those games to show how mental blunders or horrible throws or whatever on deems to be boneheaded actually cost us a game. I also said that claiming miscues cost us games we lost by 3 or more runs was likely to be unfounded (but would not object to anyone trying to do it--with play by play analysis).

 

I do not think it is fair for you to conjecture what might have happened from one single play without showing us some analysis. That means I can't buy what seems to me--my opinion--the theory that single plays (or several boneheaded plays) have cost us more than 1 or 2 games this season. I would further suggest one could look at all 1 or 2 run losses by any other team and find the same cost of losing 1 or 2 games. The exception might be the Guardians, but guess what? They are running away from the field and are just 4 games behind the Dodgers for home field advantage throughout the postseason.

[cp176]

Our gamethreads gloss over nothing. We love to dwell on every single miscue, every mental error. We dwell less on the aggressive plays that work--or some of us say, "well it worked, but it was lucky. It was not the smart play."

 

On another thread I wrote (probably a week ago) that out of 140 games played to date, I counted 21 games we lost by 1 or 2 runs. I suggested anyone was free to look at the play by play and or video replays (mlb.com package replays entire games in about 15-30 minutes) of any of those 21 games and point to any of those games to show how mental blunders or horrible throws or whatever on deems to be boneheaded actually cost us a game. I also said that claiming miscues cost us games we lost by 3 or more runs was likely to be unfounded (but would not object to anyone trying to do it--with play by play analysis).

 

I do not think it is fair for you to conjecture what might have happened from one single play without showing us some analysis. That means I can't buy what seems to me--my opinion--the theory that single plays (or several boneheaded plays) have cost us more than 1 or 2 games this season. I would further suggest one could look at all 1 or 2 run losses by any other team and find the same cost of losing 1 or 2 games. The exception might be the Guardians, but guess what? They are running away from the field and are just 4 games behind the Dodgers for home field advantage throughout the postseason.

 

In a perfect world, umpires decisions should not cost teams games but they do. Are those mental mistakes acceptable? I hope not. That is the reality though. Essentially it doesn't matter how much importance we place on the stupid mental mistakes any team makes that we have seen. It is quite possible that they have cost us a game or games. One game lost to a foolish mental mistake is one game lost too many. A primary purpose of having a coach is to have someone who wants his team to play a pefect game even though we all know that that is impossible. A stupid error early in a game certainly could lead to a loss. That is just the way it is. Whether it is an umpires mistake, a coaches gaff, or something a player does, if they just get accepted as the way things go because there 27 outs in a game, then someone just isn't doing a very good job.

[devildavid]

I love being aggressive and don't mind some over aggressiveness.

 

I'm okay with running into outs. I really feel I am being very discriminating. I'm not counting aggressiveness or slight aggressiveness when I am talking about excessive bonehead plays. I've seen more than I ever have with a Sox fan, which includes the Wendell "send 'em all" Kim era.

 

I realize I could be wrong.

I never kept a running tab.

I can't prove what I believe.

 

I will say, I think we've done much better in the last month or so. Maybe JF has knocked some sense into the team without the media catching on. Maybe the players smartened up by themselves.

 

I really hope we don't end up losing this season on a major blunder at the end.

 

 

JF is the root cause of the base running blunders because he does not see them as blunders but as part and parcel of a productive aggressive base running philosophy. He will never tell them to be aggressive except when you shouldn't. He wants them to always be aggressive.

 

I will go out on a limb and predict that there will away be base running blunders on this team as long as JF is the manager.

[devildavid]

"Brock (Johnny Pesky) Holt 'held' the ball and Sox lose. What a boneheaded play!"

 

http://www.masslive.com/redsox/index.ssf/2017/08/boston_red_soxs_brock_holt_say.html

[notin]

JF is the root cause of the base running blunders because he does not see them as blunders but as part and parcel of a productive aggressive base running philosophy. He will never tell them to be aggressive except when you shouldn't. He wants them to always be aggressive.

 

I will go out on a limb and predict that there will away be base running blunders on this team as long as JF is the manager.

 

 

But sometimes the baserunning blunders are acceptable, especially the ones that are from aggressiveness for a team lacking punch.

 

Moreland getting thrown out at third (despite it being the first out) didn't look like a blunder to me. If Moreland draws that throw like he did, it guarantees Betts scores, which is important in the 14th inning. I know the speedy Betts likely beats it anyway, but a non-throw eliminates any sort of freak miscues like Betts stumbling. In that situation, the single run was more important than worrying about a big inning. At least at the time.

[moonslav59]

moonslav the adroit one. a silk purse, just like that, right before our eyes. Watching and studying and writing about the Sox has you slightly unbalanced because you have said publicly Farrell can stay (for one more year) if the Sox win the AL East and at least one round in the postseason. That's right, isn't it?

 

No, I said he likely will stay- not that I'd want him to stay. I wouldn't bring him back even if we win the WS. (I realize I'm probably a minority of one on that one.)

 

 

Last night was certainly gritty. Sale disappointed (I refuse to write him off, however), but still went 6 giving up 4. The bullpen, whom I periodically rage against (and did last night) went 9 giving up 2--terrific. And the hitting, which disappointed us all in innings 1 thru 8 and 10 thru 13 (and maybe 14), was like we wanted them in innings 9 and 15.

 

We need to give Sale extra rest over the next 2 weeks, perhaps even if we risk winning the division.

 

 

As I wrote earlier, the low-down, misbegotten, trying to throw it all away Sox are actually 7-3 in the last 10 games. The Yankees, who are definitely surging--peaking, if you will, at just the right time--are also 7-3 in their last 10 games. Instead of playing the Rays in Tampa as scheduled, they got to play them in NYC (or close to it).

 

So, even though the Sox aren't getting a lot of style points, it's hard for me to see why all the gloom and doom (I'm guilty too).

 

I'm still very optimistic... like I've been since day 1 and before.

[moonslav59]

Our gamethreads gloss over nothing. We love to dwell on every single miscue, every mental error. We dwell less on the aggressive plays that work--or some of us say, "well it worked, but it was lucky. It was not the smart play."

 

On another thread I wrote (probably a week ago) that out of 140 games played to date, I counted 21 games we lost by 1 or 2 runs. I suggested anyone was free to look at the play by play and or video replays (mlb.com package replays entire games in about 15-30 minutes) of any of those 21 games and point to any of those games to show how mental blunders or horrible throws or whatever on deems to be boneheaded actually cost us a game. I also said that claiming miscues cost us games we lost by 3 or more runs was likely to be unfounded (but would not object to anyone trying to do it--with play by play analysis).

 

I do not think it is fair for you to conjecture what might have happened from one single play without showing us some analysis. That means I can't buy what seems to me--my opinion--the theory that single plays (or several boneheaded plays) have cost us more than 1 or 2 games this season. I would further suggest one could look at all 1 or 2 run losses by any other team and find the same cost of losing 1 or 2 games. The exception might be the Guardians, but guess what? They are running away from the field and are just 4 games behind the Dodgers for home field advantage throughout the postseason.

 

I'm not going to argue about Sox blunders anymore. I've said all I can say and more.

 

I will say, in general, I feel one blunder can turn a game won or lost by 5 or more runs. It's not likely, but it could.

 

Unless someone logged every mental blunder, which apparently are more subjective than I first believed, doing an full game analysis of all close games is not really possible.

[Bellhorn04]

No, I said he likely will stay- not that I'd want him to stay. I wouldn't bring him back even if we win the WS. (I realize I'm probably a minority of one on that one.)

 

No, there are probably some other crazy people who would fire a manager who has won the World Series in 40% of his years with the team.

[a700hitter]

Our gamethreads gloss over nothing. We love to dwell on every single miscue, every mental error. We dwell less on the aggressive plays that work--or some of us say, "well it worked, but it was lucky. It was not the smart play."

 

On another thread I wrote (probably a week ago) that out of 140 games played to date, I counted 21 games we lost by 1 or 2 runs. I suggested anyone was free to look at the play by play and or video replays (mlb.com package replays entire games in about 15-30 minutes) of any of those 21 games and point to any of those games to show how mental blunders or horrible throws or whatever on deems to be boneheaded actually cost us a game. I also said that claiming miscues cost us games we lost by 3 or more runs was likely to be unfounded (but would not object to anyone trying to do it--with play by play analysis).

 

I do not think it is fair for you to conjecture what might have happened from one single play without showing us some analysis. That means I can't buy what seems to me--my opinion--the theory that single plays (or several boneheaded plays) have cost us more than 1 or 2 games this season. I would further suggest one could look at all 1 or 2 run losses by any other team and find the same cost of losing 1 or 2 games. The exception might be the Guardians, but guess what? They are running away from the field and are just 4 games behind the Dodgers for home field advantage throughout the postseason.

And you are a beacon of positivism? Must you continue your boring lecturing of other posters for how they watch the games and what they discuss. Talk about negative.

 

When watching games, we note and discuss the truly outstanding plays as well as the errors and misplays. Everything else is standard fare -- very high level high skilled standard fare, but not enough to generate discussion. Are we supposed to ooh and ah about a throw to first base that gets the batter by 30 feet? If you examine the game threads, we mention, discuss and gush about the extraordinary physical and smart plays. Those discussions don't last that long, because there is little or no disagreement about the excellence of those plays and the positive impact on the game. On the other end of the spectrum, we mention the stupid plays, because first and foremost, they are preventable. Those plays also have a negative impact on the the outcome of games, but the impact of those plays can be subject to dispute. If you want to dispute the effect of those plays, that is why we are here, but cut out the ******** lecturing, and please try to keep the discussion to the plays in question and not discussing the effect of these types of plays on the entire season, which involves far more conjecture than discussing the effect of a particular play on the outcome a single game. I guess that you don't see that.

[a700hitter]

I'm not going to argue about Sox blunders anymore. I've said all I can say and more.

 

I will say, in general, I feel one blunder can turn a game won or lost by 5 or more runs. It's not likely, but it could.

 

Unless someone logged every mental blunder, which apparently are more subjective than I first believed, doing an full game analysis of all close games is not really possible.

The dynamics of the game are such that a single play or misplay can make the difference in a game that would appear not to be close from the final score. Schilling always used to say that the difference between winning and losing was the execution by him of 5 or 6 pitches. That didn't mean that he could lob the other pitches. it meant that those 5 or 6 pitches were the key pitches in the game -- turning points.

[Bellhorn04]

2. There is absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened if the 'key play' had gone differently. The outcome might have been exactly the same, or it might not have been.

 

With just one situational exception.

[a700hitter]

 

2. There is absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened if the 'key play' had gone differently. The outcome might have been exactly the same, or it might not have been.

But we do know something with absolute certainty. That a key bonehead play did not help you win the game. Whether it caused or contributed to a loss is up for debate and some cases are more clear than others.

[SoxHop]

"Appears" being the key word. I understand the feeling. I feel the same way when I see a play like, believe me.

 

However, two big points that keep this from being true:

 

1. There are 27 outs in a game and who know how many plays and pitches. Every one of them affects the outcome of the game. Every single one of them. The outcome of the game is never determined by one play alone.

 

2. There is absolutely no way of knowing what would have happened if the 'key play' had gone differently. The outcome might have been exactly the same, or it might not have been.

 

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.

[SoxHop]

But we do know something with absolute certainty. That a key bonehead play did not help you win the game. Whether it caused or contributed to a loss is up for debate and some cases are more clear than others.

 

That's right. It's a negative, or you could even call it a nuetral, and in no way could be called a positive.

[notin]

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.

 

B-R tracks all of that in their box scores as WPa (Win Probability Added)...

[SoxHop]

B-R tracks all of that in their box scores as WPa (Win Probability Added)...

 

It gives percentages of WPa for every out?

 

And my follow up question would be ...... how the hell does it do that?

 

Shoot me a web page link please.

[SoxHop]

It gives percentages of WPa for every out?

 

And my follow up question would be ...... how the hell does it do that?

 

Shoot me a web page link please.

 

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.

[moonslav59]

No, there are probably some other crazy people who would fire a manager who has won the World Series in 40% of his years with the team.

 

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.

 

Francona never finished last in his 8 years here. He was canned after finishing in 3rd place 2 straight years. TF's teams finished in 3rd 3 times in 8 years (38%), however, look at our records those 3 years:

 

90-72 2011

89-72 2010

86-76 2006

 

Call me crazy, fine, but if we win this year, in my opinion, it will be despite having JF as our manager and not because he was our manager.

 

I'll give him all the credit in the world for getting the most out of our pitching, but nothing more. Hopefully, that will be enough.

 

[notin]

It gives percentages of WPa for every out?

 

And my follow up question would be ...... how the hell does it do that?

 

Shoot me a web page link please.

 

It gives a probability for each play affecting the outcome of the game.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/library/misc/wpa/

[moonslav59]

B-R tracks all of that in their box scores as WPa (Win Probability Added)...

 

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

 

[notin]

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.

 

I'm not so sure they track it live...

[a700hitter]

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.

 

Francona never finished last in his 8 years here. He was canned after finishing in 3rd place 2 straight years. TF's teams finished in 3rd 3 times in 8 years (38%), however, look at our records those 3 years:

 

90-72 2011

89-72 2010

86-76 2006

 

Call me crazy, fine, but if we win this year, in my opinion, it will be despite having JF as our manager and not because he was our manager.

 

I'll give him all the credit in the world for getting the most out of our pitching, but nothing more. Hopefully, that will be enough.

 

I would not dispute that at all. The same was true last year.

[notin]

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.

 

Then it vindicates your position...

[notin]

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.

 

Francona never finished last in his 8 years here. He was canned after finishing in 3rd place 2 straight years. TF's teams finished in 3rd 3 times in 8 years (38%), however, look at our records those 3 years:

 

90-72 2011

89-72 2010

86-76 2006

 

Call me crazy, fine, but if we win this year, in my opinion, it will be despite having JF as our manager and not because he was our manager.

 

I'll give him all the credit in the world for getting the most out of our pitching, but nothing more. Hopefully, that will be enough.

 

 

 

But then his last place teams did include a 78-84 record, which is rarely a last place record.

 

He has one fewer than 78 games one time in Boston and currently has a .532 winning percentage. Bruce Bochy is never a manager anyone thinks is in danger, yet after this season he won't be able to make either of those claims...

[a700hitter]

But then his last place teams did include a 78-84 record, which is rarely a last place record.

 

He has one fewer than 78 games one time in Boston and currently has a .532 winning percentage. Bruce Bochy is never a manager anyone thinks is in danger, yet after this season he won't be able to make either of those claims...

The good part of that last place record was under Lovullo.

[notin]

The good part of that last place record was under Lovullo.

 

 

While true, a bigger factor in that hot streak under Lovullo might have been the emergence of Jackie Bradley as a legitimate offensive player.

 

And what a crazy emergence it was...

[a700hitter]

While true, a bigger factor in that hot streak under Lovullo might have been the emergence of Jackie Bradley as a legitimate offensive player.

 

And what a crazy emergence it was...

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