Yankees (Fried) vs Red Sox (Bello): 9/13/25, 4:10pm

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Posters may not like these breakdowns, but they explain some of the agita in watching the 2025 Red Sox:

Boston has won 19 games by 6 or more runs this year, with a cumulative score of 220 runs vs. 45 runs against. 

In the other 130 games, the Sox have scored 510, and allowed 583.

Run differentials: in the 19 blow-out wins, the Red Sox are +175; in all other 130 games -- that's 87% of the season -- the Sox are -73.

Over a full weekly average -- for every 7 games -- we have watched the Sox win big once and then get outscored the rest of the week (87% of 7 = 6). All season. 

 

 

[Randy Red Sox]

13 hours ago, FredLynn said:

Time to flush the whole franchise down the hopper. Of the four major Boston franchises the FLOPS are by far the worst. Tear it down. Start over. Henry must sell.. 

this team took off when Anthony arrived and has flopped ever since he went down

[notin]

2 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Posters may not like these breakdowns, but they explain some of the agita in watching the 2025 Red Sox:

Boston has won 19 games by 6 or more runs this year, with a cumulative score of 220 runs vs. 45 runs against. 

In the other 130 games, the Sox have scored 510, and allowed 583.

Run differentials: in the 19 blow-out wins, the Red Sox are +175; in all other 130 games -- that's 87% of the season -- the Sox are -73.

Over a full weekly average -- for every 7 games -- we have watched the Sox win big once and then get outscored the rest of the week (87% of 7 = 6). All season. 

 

 

No idea what to make of this.

i don’t expect any answer because the legwork is insane, but is this really unusual?  Yes, the Sox scoring will look worse and they will look worse in that regard if you discount their top 19 wins by run differential.  I have to imagine that applies to every team ever.

And that they are outscored in the remaining games? Easily believable, but is it problematic?  Wasn’t it a bit unfair to discount the blowout wins from run differential but not the blowout losses?  

Not to mention on the “non blow out games”, scoring 510 while allowing 583 runs has a Pythagorean expectation of 56 wins.  But in those games, the Sox have 62.  Thats likely a product of leaving blowout losses in...

[Maxbialystock]

2 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Posters may not like these breakdowns, but they explain some of the agita in watching the 2025 Red Sox:

Boston has won 19 games by 6 or more runs this year, with a cumulative score of 220 runs vs. 45 runs against. 

In the other 130 games, the Sox have scored 510, and allowed 583.

Run differentials: in the 19 blow-out wins, the Red Sox are +175; in all other 130 games -- that's 87% of the season -- the Sox are -73.

Over a full weekly average -- for every 7 games -- we have watched the Sox win big once and then get outscored the rest of the week (87% of 7 = 6). All season. 

 

 

I for one like the breakdowns.  

[Maxbialystock]

14 minutes ago, notin said:

No idea what to make of this.

i don’t expect any answer because the legwork is insane, but is this really unusual?  Yes, the Sox scoring will look worse and they will look worse in that regard if you discount their top 19 wins by run differential.  I have to imagine that applies to every team ever.

And that they are outscored in the remaining games? Easily believable, but is it problematic?  Wasn’t it a bit unfair to discount the blowout wins from run differential but not the blowout losses?  

Not to mention on the “non blow out games”, scoring 510 while allowing 583 runs has a Pythagorean expectation of 56 wins.  But in those games, the Sox have 62.  Thats likely a product of leaving blowout losses in...

Doesn't this really go back to the earlier data indicating the Sox simply could not win games with a run differential of 1?  

How about the fact that the Sox have easily the second highest run differential in the AL but not the 2d best winning percentage?

 

[Bellhorn04]

18 minutes ago, Maxbialystock said:

Doesn't this really go back to the earlier data indicating the Sox simply could not win games with a run differential of 1?  

How about the fact that the Sox have easily the second highest run differential in the AL but not the 2d best winning percentage?

 

Plenty of teams have substantial differences between run differential and record.  It's mostly randomness. 

[moonslav59]

4 hours ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

Posters may not like these breakdowns, but they explain some of the agita in watching the 2025 Red Sox:

Boston has won 19 games by 6 or more runs this year, with a cumulative score of 220 runs vs. 45 runs against. 

In the other 130 games, the Sox have scored 510, and allowed 583.

Run differentials: in the 19 blow-out wins, the Red Sox are +175; in all other 130 games -- that's 87% of the season -- the Sox are -73.

Over a full weekly average -- for every 7 games -- we have watched the Sox win big once and then get outscored the rest of the week (87% of 7 = 6). All season. 

All teams do this to some extent, but the Sox seem to corner the market on it, every season.

The Yanks have won 27 games by 5+ runs and 24 by 6 or more runs. They even scored 7 or more runs and lost 5 times.

Yankee big wins:

12 (15-3, 13-1)

11 (20-9, 11-0)

10 (12-2, 13-3)

9 (11-2, 9-0, 12-3, 12-3, 11-2)

8 (10-2, 10-2, 9-1, 10-2)

7 (12-5, 10-3)

6 (10-4,  11-5, 8-2, 7-1, 10-4, 7-1, 9-3)

In the Yankees 17 biggest blow-outs (7 or more runs, they outscored their opps by 157 runs!

Wins by 6 or more runs

29% Yankees: 24 of 83 wins

23% Red Sox 19 of 81 wins

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

In my opinion the Sox offense is overrated, even by stats. They may have averaged scoring almost 5 runs per game, but the data shows in contests that weren't blowout wins that it's less than 4 runs per game.

That's less than 4 runs in 87% of their season -- not an insignificant number. Compared to most MLB clubs, Boston may have one of the top rated offenses in some categories, but don't forget this may be the worst year for quality batting averages in big league history -- with currently only five players over .300 (1968 had six).

Elite pitching can carve up any batting order, but the Sox didn't face aces in 130 games, either. Their 3.9 runs per game in those tilts is still higher than the Royals, the AL's worst offense at 3.8. When KC's 10 blowout wins by 6 runs or more are subtracted, they only average 3.4... but that's still only half a run worse than Boston's O in non-blow-out Ws.

All this angst can really just be simplified with one fact: the Red Sox have exactly one guy who can pull Paul Skenes deep, and he's on the IL.

 

[moonslav59]

10 minutes ago, 5GoldGlovesOF,75 said:

In my opinion the Sox offense is overrated, even by stats. They may have averaged scoring almost 5 runs per game, but the data shows in contests that weren't blowout wins that it's less than 4 runs per game.

That's less than 4 runs in 87% of their season -- not an insignificant number. Compared to most MLB clubs, Boston may have one of the top rated offenses in some categories, but don't forget this may be the worst year for quality batting averages in big league history -- with currently only five players over .300 (1968 had six).

Elite pitching can carve up any batting order, but the Sox didn't face aces in 130 games, either. Their 3.9 runs per game in those tilts is still higher than the Royals, the AL's worst offense at 3.8. When KC's 10 blowout wins by 6 runs or more are subtracted, they only average 3.4... but that's still only half a run worse than Boston's O in non-blow-out Ws.

All this angst can really just be simplified with one fact: the Red Sox have exactly one guy who can pull Paul Skenes deep, and he's on the IL.

 

The combination of more than our share of big scoring games and park factors make our offense look better than it is. It's been this way for years, right?

WRONG!

Here are our Home vs Away Rankings, this year...

H/A

Runs: 7th/6th

OPS: 9th/9th

wRC+: 14th/10th

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

28 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

The combination of more than our share of big scoring games and park factors make our offense look better than it is. It's been this way for years, right?

WRONG!

Here are our Home vs Away Rankings, this year...

H/A

Runs: 7th/6th

OPS: 9th/9th

wRC+: 14th/10th

We need Rico to come out of retirement: the perfect flyball pull Fenway swing. And tear down the sky boxes behind home plate!

And don't build any on my lawn!

[Bellhorn04]

The Sox are 6th in runs per game but they're 11th in OPS+, which is the only readily available offensive stat that's adjusted for the park.

I think it's definitely fair to say we're probably the 11th best offense and not the 6th best offense.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

The Sox are 6th in runs per game but they're 11th in OPS+, which is the only readily available offensive stat that's adjusted for the park.

I think it's definitely fair to say we're probably the 11th best offense and not the 6th best offense.

Wouldn't 8th in road OPS and 6th in road runs show we are higher than 11th?

[Bellhorn04]

2 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Wouldn't 8th in road OPS and 6th in road runs show we are higher than 11th?

Maybe so.  No doubt the numbers require some digging into.

[moonslav59]

1 hour ago, Bellhorn04 said:

Maybe so.  No doubt the numbers require some digging into.

Looking at everything, I'd say we are maybe 7th to 9th. 10th is okay.

[notin]

17 hours ago, moonslav59 said:

Looking at everything, I'd say we are maybe 7th to 9th. 10th is okay.

I think these analyses are all over the place.

The initial post appeared to try to discredit run differential as a method of evaluating an offense, but the resulting analysis was not good and very misleading. 
 

Bringing other stats and methods is good, but it cannot be done on rank and rank alone.  The Sox fare better on some metrics and worse on others, but that doesn’t make them unique in this regard,  If the Sox are the tenth best offense, for example, whats the criteria and what 9 are better?