Red Sox (Dobbins) vs Tigers (Skubal): 5/14/25, 6:40pm

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

The problem is 2021 was a long time ago, and for Whitlock a TJ surgery ago.  He might not be the same pitcher today he was then…

That's true, but the sample for 2025 is too small to indicate he's much better in inning 1 than inning 2, which is what you're kind of trying to hang Cora for.

Obviously it's possible he'll just never that 2021 guy again.

[notin]

1 minute ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Nonsense, one could argue it's just as close in the NFL.

A .600 team wins 10 games, a .500 team wins roughly 8.

Many more teams make the NFL playoffs with 10 wins than 8.

My point is that there's a huge difference between 97 wins and 81. If you want to hang your hat on "there isn't" then have at it. That will be a lonely ship to sink on.

The NFL routinely sees teams win 13 games.  Thats 81% of the 16 game schedule and 76% of the 17 game schedule.  Name one MLB team that has ever won 76% of their 162 game schedule.    
 

And many teams exceed the 13 wins threshhold in the NFL, even getting as high as 100%. 
 

The range in the NFL absolutely crushes the one in MLB.  

[Bellhorn04]

6 minutes ago, notin said:

The NFL routinely sees teams win 13 games.  Thats 81% of the 16 game schedule and 76% of the 17 game schedule.  Name one MLB team that has ever won 76% of their 162 game schedule.    
 

And many teams exceed the 13 wins threshhold in the NFL, even getting as high as 100%. 
 

The range in the NFL absolutely crushes the one in MLB.  

Of course.  The two games are radically different.  Brady and Mahomes have won 70-80% of their games.

In baseball your ace pitcher is on the mound for you less than 15% of the time.

[notin]

1 minute ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Of course.  The two games are radically different.  Brady and Mahomes have won 70-80% of their games.

The NFL has seen teams win 100% of their regular season games, and seen one team win 0%.  The range can’t get any bigger.

 

MLB just doesn’t compare.  Most teams win 40-60% every year, and the few that fall outside that range rarely do so by much.  And the ones that do fall outside by much (2024 White Sox, for example) are newsworthy…

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Only time will tell.

To me it looks like he caters to the players' egos too much.

I think they need a Girardi type guy.

I'm not sure it's about egoes as much as thinking players do better in their comfort zones.

When we go Story, I'd have moved Bogey to 2B (or 3B) and played Story at SS, but Cora did not do that.

Was it Bogey's ego? What about Story's ego?

I'm just not sure.

I also don't think Devers is a "diva." Until this season, he seemed like a fun-loving guy who didn't let much bother him. He did not seem to be high maintenance. He played hurt and rarely complained about anything, even bad calls by umps. He reminded me of Manny in some respects, including the awful defense and calm approach to hitting and dealing with the umps.

The demands on position changes brought out a side I never knew he had.

[Bellhorn04]

3 minutes ago, notin said:

The NFL has seen teams win 100% of their regular season games, and seen one team win 0%.  The range can’t get any bigger.

 

MLB just doesn’t compare.  Most teams win 40-60% every year, and the few that fall outside that range rarely do so by much.  And the ones that do fall outside by much (2024 White Sox, for example) are newsworthy…

Major league baseball is built for a massive randomness factor.  

[illinoisredsox]

1 hour ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

Umm, the difference at the end of the season is winning 97 games or 81.

I'd say that's a pretty big difference.

In the end, there there’s a huge difference between the two, but the sheer number of games magnifies small differences in success.  The number of wins you used is about 3 wins per month over the season.

What was it they said in Bull Durham.  One hit a week is the difference between the mediocre .250 hitter and a HOF .300 hitter.

[mvp 78]

3 hours ago, notin said:

When they’re ready to compete?  When exactly is that?
 

Despite the opinions here on the board, I can promise you the Sox haven’t run up the white flag.  They’re looking bad now, but they’re also still winning almost 50% of the time in a game where winning 60% of the time is elite…

They aren't competing at the moment IMO, are picking at the top half of the draft and will continue to do so until changes are made.

[mvp 78]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Major league baseball is built for a massive randomness factor.  

Not for the Red Sox:

78 wins

78 wins

81 wins

Hovering around .500 again. 

[mvp 78]

2 hours ago, harmony said:

The Red Sox are a winning streak away from likely postseason contention and a losing streak away from falling out of contention.

https://www.fangraphs.com/standings/playoff-odds

That's baseball.

 

And watching this team everyday leads me to believe a winning streak is unlikely. 

[notin]

1 minute ago, mvp 78 said:

And watching this team everyday leads me to believe a winning streak is unlikely. 

No .500 team ever looks likely to go on a winning streak.  But it does happen.  Less than 2 weeks ago, the Cardinals were 15-19 and not impressing anyone.  Now a game behind the Cubs…

[vegasbob]

3 hours ago, mvp 78 said:

He's a winning coach WHEN HE HAS THE RIGHT PLAYERS. He's not able to take a .500 team and make them better than what they are like some other coaches. He needs prime Mookie, Xander, JD, etc. Otherwise, I think he's happy to just babysit and get along with the guys and not make too much of a fuss. 

I think you caught Cora's character very well. He is not the manager for a young team.  His approach works well with veteran players who know their way around the diamond and clubhouse.    Sometimes I think he is there  because he can speak Spanish to the some of the young players on this team.    

He is , at minimum, part of the problem in terms of not winning close games.  Is Bailey not ?

[notin]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

That's true, but the sample for 2025 is too small to indicate he's much better in inning 1 than inning 2, which is what you're kind of trying to hang Cora for.

Obviously it's possible he'll just never that 2021 guy again.

I’m not hanging him yet.  I specifically called the usage “questionable”, which means “open to doubt, question, or challenge.”  I think that’s fair…

 

[notin]

7 minutes ago, vegasbob said:

I think you caught Cora's character very well. He is not the manager for a young team.  His approach works well with veteran players who know their way around the diamond and clubhouse.    Sometimes I think he is there  because he can speak Spanish to the some of the young players on this team.    

He is , at minimum, part of the problem in terms of not winning close games.  Is Bailey not ?

Speaking Spanish is certainly a plus.  But I’d bet every team has at least one bilingual player…

[Bellhorn04]

20 minutes ago, vegasbob said:

I think you caught Cora's character very well. He is not the manager for a young team.  His approach works well with veteran players who know their way around the diamond and clubhouse.    Sometimes I think he is there  because he can speak Spanish to the some of the young players on this team.    

He is , at minimum, part of the problem in terms of not winning close games.  Is Bailey not ?

The losses in close games could be nothing but randomness.  The last 2 games were incredibly frustrating, but they were only close losses because the team battled back from deficits, which is preferable to getting blitzed like in the first game.

[Duran Is The Man]

3 hours ago, notin said:

And sometimes the bullpen is just full of bad or struggling pitchers.  But sometimes the manager makes the bullpen less effective.  Right?

no doubt. i get particularly pissed when he says he's out of pitchers yet he uses one guy for FOUR f***ing pitches. good gawd.

[dgalehouse]

I think Cora is a decent manager. He is not the best, but certainly not the worst. He won it all in 2018. He had a great team, but he handled it well and did not do anything to screw it up. ( And it is possible to do that) Since then, he has been getting mediocre results with mediocre rosters. All managers are second guessed for pitching changes made or not made , but you have to do your best with what you have to work with. I think he has done that, although the results are not always too good. And I definitely think this team will do better as the season progresses. 

[illinoisredsox]

29 minutes ago, Duran Is The Man said:

no doubt. i get particularly pissed when he says he's out of pitchers yet he uses one guy for FOUR f***ing pitches. good gawd.

Could be a couple reasons for that:

1) The modern day reliever seems to have difficulty finishing an inning, sitting for 10 minutes, then going back out.  I don’t get it; these guys were all starting pitchers as amateurs, but it is what it is.

2) The 3 batter minimum rule.  A reliever can finish an inning and not have to face 3, but if he comes out for the start of the next inning, he has to.  Righty-lefty numbers probably play a role here.  I don’t like it, but it’s modern baseball theory; Cora is hardly the only manager doing it.

[Kimmi]

2 hours ago, notin said:

No .500 team ever looks likely to go on a winning streak.  But it does happen.  Less than 2 weeks ago, the Cardinals were 15-19 and not impressing anyone.  Now a game behind the Cubs…

Same with the Twins.  They were 13-20 on May 2.  They are now 23-20.  I don't expect the Red Sox to win 10 games in a row, but it's certainly possible for them to go on a nice run.

[FredLynn]

7 hours ago, Bellhorn04 said:

But you'd rather not be the Pirates.

There are many teams I would not "rather be". I prefer not to compare the Red Sox to the dregs. Instead, lets compare them to the teams that are in a position to compete year after year. You know who they are.

[Kimmi]

This series was painful.  PAINFUL

I know that a 1-run loss counts the same as a 5-run loss in the standings, but you can typically judge the talent of a team better by its record in blowout games (5+ runs) than you can by their record in 1-run games.  The good news for the Red Sox is that their record in blowout games is 8-5, a .615 winning percentage, versus a .250 winning percentage in 1-run games.

Good things are coming.

[Kimmi]

4 minutes ago, FredLynn said:

There are many teams I would not "rather be". I prefer not to compare the Red Sox to the dregs. Instead, lets compare them to the teams that are in a position to compete year after year. You know who they are.

The Red Sox have the 5th best run differential in the league.  They are not as bad as their sub .500 average indicates.

[oldtimer]

4 hours ago, notin said:

The problem is 2021 was a long time ago, and for Whitlock a TJ surgery ago.  He might not be the same pitcher today he was then…

He seems to refuse to throw strikes. To me it appears he can throw strikes but chooses to nibble off the plate. Batters keep taking those until he gets into serious trouble. Then he finds the middle of the plate and disaster. Listen to Pedro.

[FredLynn]

14 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

The Red Sox have the 5th best run differential in the league.  They are not as bad as their sub .500 average indicates.

Unfortunately making the playoffs is dependent on your RECORD, not your run differential. That said, I think that the run differential does indicate that they are POTENTIALLY a better team than their record shows. The trick is to meet that potential. Its going to be a tall task if their bullpen keeps blowing games.

[Kimmi]

12 minutes ago, FredLynn said:

Unfortunately making the playoffs is dependent on your RECORD, not your run differential. That said, I think that the run differential does indicate that they are POTENTIALLY a better team than their record shows. The trick is to meet that potential. Its going to be a tall task if their bullpen keeps blowing games.

That's all I'm saying.  There is hope for the season moving forward.

[Maxbialystock]

4 hours ago, notin said:

The NFL has seen teams win 100% of their regular season games, and seen one team win 0%.  The range can’t get any bigger.

 

MLB just doesn’t compare.  Most teams win 40-60% every year, and the few that fall outside that range rarely do so by much.  And the ones that do fall outside by much (2024 White Sox, for example) are newsworthy…

I have said that many, many times on talksox. 

In their best season ever the Sox had 108 wins, a 67% win percentage.  They confirmed that strength in the postseason by beating the Yankees 3 games to 1, Houston 4 games to 1 and the Dodgers 4 games to 1.  Their offense was ranked #1 in runs scored and team OPS.  Pitching was 6th in ERA, 7th in saves, 8th in On base average, and tied for 10th in quality starts.  

I think the best reason for the closeness of the winning percentages in MLB is the season's length, 162 games, which translates to 6 games a week for 6 freaking months.  When you combine that incredibly long season with the difficulty of hitting a round ball with a round ball squarely and of throwing strikes with a variety of speeds, spins, and aiming points, it seems to me obvious why the teams going to the postseason win around 60% and the total dirt bag losers are around 40%.  In 2004 the Yankees winning % (101 wins) was .623 and the bungling Blue Jays, 33.5 games behind the Yankees, were at .416.  That's a 20% difference in winning percentage.  

Oh, and let's not forget the rotten, stinking, no good 2024 Red Sox losers at 50% and the ALE leaders/winners Yankees way, way up there at 58%.  Sox finished 20 games back of the Yankees with a freaking 8% differential in winning percentage.    

 

[moonslav59]

12 minutes ago, Kimmi said:

That's all I'm saying.  There is hope for the season moving forward.

Almost every winning team has times like this. There is a lot of season left to play.

[dgalehouse]

When a team wins a blowout, it is almost obligatory for a fan to say, " Why can't we save some of those runs for tomorrow " ? And if they lose a low scoring game the next day, the fan is beside himself over it all.  That's baseball. Each day is a new contest,  often with different circumstances. The runs are not carried over.  However, I agree that over the long haul, run differential gives you an idea of a teams overall strength or weakness as the case may be. 

[Kimmi]

1 minute ago, moonslav59 said:

Almost every winning team has times like this. There is a lot of season left to play.

Exactly.

A lot can change in just one week.  We've seen it happen many times.  

[Maxbialystock]

37 minutes ago, oldtimer said:

He seems to refuse to throw strikes. To me it appears he can throw strikes but chooses to nibble off the plate. Batters keep taking those until he gets into serious trouble. Then he finds the middle of the plate and disaster. Listen to Pedro.

Love that analysis.  I can only add that Whitlock has a huge repertoire for a reliever.  One of the best Sox reliever/closers was Koji Uejara, who basically used just two pitches, a slow fastball and a slower splitter--and they were more than enough.