The Red Sox Have A Strikeout Problem With Runners In Scoring Position

This is an interesting topic.  The Red Sox have the most plate appearances of any team in baseball with RISP (495) and their 123 strike outs also leads all teams.  Also, their 103 hits is 6th most.  Their 13 HRs is 3rd most. Their batting average of .242 ranks 19 out of 30.  Their OBP is 19th.  Their SLG is 13th best.  Their OPS is 14th.  So, overall, they get the most opportunities with RISP but their performance is average ranking near the middle of the pack.  Only their strike outs standout BUT their hitting (AVG, OBP) is average, or middle of the pack so does their strike out rate matter?  An out is an out and the rest of the stats suggest the Red Sox are pretty average with RISP so strike outs are NOT affecting their overall performance which is average.  

Now let's consider why an insignificant stat gets pointed out and who the criticism was directed at.

Story is being criticized and Campbell the best rookie in the Red Sox organization is being highlighted.  With Devers striking out a comparable number of times to Story, why pick on Story?  Could it be to promote Mayer by creating a need for him to be promoted despite him not even being the best SS available in the organization?  This theory seems very likely and to further it Campbell the best SS in the organization that is not named Story is also being attacked.  Heck, many fans on this site dismiss Campbell despite all he has achieved and are trying to promote Mayer despite him being highly disappointing so far in the minors and being injury prone.   It makes no sense.

The Depth chart for the Red Sox at SS should be Story, Campbell and then Mayer since Meidroth got traded to Chicago.  The depth chart for 2B should be Campbell, Hamilton and then Mayer assuming he can outplay guys like Grissom and Gonzalez. 

Anthony is the other prospect that people are trying to get promoted to the MLB, so they are bad mouthing Duran who has been in a slump after two great seasons and Rafaela who has gone from the worst at Ks to the best starter with respect to limiting his Ks.  He's also the best defensive outfielder by a long shot despite Abreu winning a GG for competing against a very weak fielding group of right fielders versus the centerfielders Rafaela competed with.  Abreu had double the errors of both Rafaela and Duran making him the weakest outfielder in the bunch.  

The politics of Boston baseball has always been a problem.  Today, we are seeing both Rafaela and Campbell being treated without the respect they have earned and guys like Abreu (a part time player) getting far more respect than they deserve.  In the minors we have Anthony who is deserving of his accolades and Mayer who has been hyped like Jeter Downs, to levels far beyond his performance.

Why is the K rate with RISP a big concern?  Because it provides an opportunity to bad mouth two players in front of Mayer in the pecking order.  The BA and OBP show that there is no impact of Ks versus ground out and fly outs when it comes to scoring the runners on base.  The real issue is that as the team with the highest rate of RISP Boston needs to be better hitters, so they move up in the overall rankings for productivity with RISP.  That means not only less Ks but less ground outs and less fly outs.  You can't assume if a player doesn't strike out that he's not going to ground out or fly out and that he will get a hit.  It doesn't work that way.  More hits and less outs need to be achieved.  That's the issue here!!

6 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

This is an interesting topic.  The Red Sox have the most plate appearances of any team in baseball with RISP (495) and their 123 strike outs also leads all teams.  Also, their 103 hits is 6th most.  Their 13 HRs is 3rd most. Their batting average of .242 ranks 19 out of 30.  Their OBP is 19th.  Their SLG is 13th best.  Their OPS is 14th.  So, overall, they get the most opportunities with RISP but their performance is average ranking near the middle of the pack.  Only their strike outs standout BUT their hitting (AVG, OBP) is average, or middle of the pack so does their strike out rate matter?  An out is an out and the rest of the stats suggest the Red Sox are pretty average with RISP so strike outs are NOT affecting their overall performance which is average.  

Now let's consider why an insignificant stat gets pointed out and who the criticism was directed at.

Story is being criticized and Campbell the best rookie in the Red Sox organization is being highlighted.  With Devers striking out a comparable number of times to Story, why pick on Story?  Could it be to promote Mayer by creating a need for him to be promoted despite him not even being the best SS available in the organization?  This theory seems very likely and to further it Campbell the best SS in the organization that is not named Story is also being attacked.  Heck, many fans on this site dismiss Campbell despite all he has achieved and are trying to promote Mayer despite him being highly disappointing so far in the minors and being injury prone.   It makes no sense.

The Depth chart for the Red Sox at SS should be Story, Campbell and then Mayer since Meidroth got traded to Chicago.  The depth chart for 2B should be Campbell, Hamilton and then Mayer assuming he can outplay guys like Grissom and Gonzalez. 

Anthony is the other prospect that people are trying to get promoted to the MLB, so they are bad mouthing Duran who has been in a slump after two great seasons and Rafaela who has gone from the worst at Ks to the best starter with respect to limiting his Ks.  He's also the best defensive outfielder by a long shot despite Abreu winning a GG for competing against a very weak fielding group of right fielders versus the centerfielders Rafaela competed with.  Abreu had double the errors of both Rafaela and Duran making him the weakest outfielder in the bunch.  

The politics of Boston baseball has always been a problem.  Today, we are seeing both Rafaela and Campbell being treated without the respect they have earned and guys like Abreu (a part time player) getting far more respect than they deserve.  In the minors we have Anthony who is deserving of his accolades and Mayer who has been hyped like Jeter Downs, to levels far beyond his performance.

Why is the K rate with RISP a big concern?  Because it provides an opportunity to bad mouth two players in front of Mayer in the pecking order.  The BA and OBP show that there is no impact of Ks versus ground out and fly outs when it comes to scoring the runners on base.  The real issue is that as the team with the highest rate of RISP Boston needs to be better hitters, so they move up in the overall rankings for productivity with RISP.  That means not only less Ks but less ground outs and less fly outs.  You can't assume if a player doesn't strike out that he's not going to ground out or fly out and that he will get a hit.  It doesn't work that way.  More hits and less outs need to be achieved.  That's the issue here!!

An "out is an out" is a little misleading.

A strikeout, unless on a WP or PB, doesn't move the runners over, while balls in play certainly do.

40 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Rafaela: 220 G, 2.0 fWAR

Abreu: 203 G, 5.2 fWAR

Abreu is apparently not a fulltime player and is getting too much respect. WTH? 

fWAR is not a recognized estimate to me.  

Why not use real stats?

Rafaela

810 PA, 763 AB, 188 hits (.246 avg), 280 OBP, .387 SLG, .667 OPS 

105 Runs, 98 RBIs 36 2Bs, 7 3Bs, 19 HRs, 29 SBs HBP 10

Abreu

VS Right Handed pitchers

599 PA, 530 AB, 149 hits (.281 avg), .356 OBP, .521 SLG, .876 OPS

87 Runs, 91 RBIs, 42 2Bs, 2 3Bs, 27 HRs, 14 SBs HBP 2

VS Left Handed pitchers 

102 PA, 92 AB, 17 hits (.185 avg), .265 OBP, .261 SLG, .526 OPS

6 Runs, 8 RBIs, 4 2Bs, 0 3Bs, 1 HR, 1 SB, 1 HBP

THE ABOVE STATS SHOW WHY ABREU IS NOT A FULL TIME PLAYER!!

Rafaela's numbers show that he faces lefties about 26.6% of the time.  That means that the really bad stats of Abreu facing lefties would more than double if he was full time.  

While Abreu's numbers are very good when he faces right-handed pitchers his numbers are very bad when he faces left-handed pitchers.  So how can a one-dimensional hitter command so much respect when you can't play him in roughly 25 percent of the games?  

Now consider his defense being compared to the right fielders in the AL and Rafaela being compared to the center fielders in the AL.  It's a joke to call Abreu the GG outfielder simply because he's competing at a weak defensive position.  If Rafaela had played right field he might have won the platinum glove not just the gold glove.  Yet nobody acknowledges the misleading honor Abreu received.

I hope that explains why Abreu gets too much respect compared to Rafaela.  Rafaela is the better all-around player and far more valuable on defense than Abreu.  That's not an insult to Abreu because Rafaela is an outstanding player and hopefully, he'll get his recognition someday soon.  If Abreu could learn to hit lefties, then the WAR value might actually have more meaning.  

FYI... Baseball Reference has the 162-game adjusted WAR as 3.3 for Rafaela and 5.0 for Abreu.  That's why I throw out all fabricated estimates from all sources.  Multiple sources can't even agree on the definition of the ESTIMATES.  Also, please note they are estimations not real stats.  

2 hours ago, Maxbialystock said:

What "politics of Boston baseball?"  Explain that, please.  

 

I've been following the Red Sox since the 60s and there have been many political issues related to the team.  One big one relates to race and how long it took the organization to integrate it's ball players.  Another one in my opinion is the history of the minor league coaching staffs.  As the farm system integrated over time the coaching staff seemed to become stagnant and a bit of a good old boy club.  Coaches remained for decades and their influence on who got promoted and when seemed to be heavily influenced by a small set of resources within the organization.  

Think about the fact that some players are part of the inner circle of supported players and others are not.

We brought Papi to Boston by having Pedro recommend him.  Fortunately, Pedro was right and it all worked out great.  We watched issues with players like Garciaparra, Fisk and Lester.  Maybe you remember more recently that Mookie wasn't in the top 100 prospects in Baseball America or the MLB listings but Blake Swihart was.  That's an example of a front office/farm system preferred player getting recognition thanks to the politics.  Mookie proved how good he was and was already in the MLB before he ever made the top 100.  Swihart was a bust who broke the top 50 like Jeter Downs.  These are examples of the politics that have endured in Boston for ages.  Recently, Duran was promoted to the MLB and looked to be on a fast track but he struggled for a bit and got sent back to the minors.  When Devers struggled in 2018 he not only got to play a position he wasn't qualified to play but they carried him with an average under .240 most of the year.  The politics of the front office and ownership dictates who is supposed to be great versus who is actually great.  Campbell is a great example.  He won the Minor League Player of the Year by being phenomenal in 2024 yet both Anthony and Mayer who got beaten out for the award are both ranked higher than Campbell and the marketing department swoons over the 3 at AAA last year but Campbell received the least media support despite being the best player.  Campbell played SS his whole life until he went to college for a season and he had to move to 2B because an incumbent best player was blocking him from playing SS.  He's a better shortstop than Mayer but the marketing of Mayer suggests he's the SS of the future because he was the fourth pick.  What it doesn't mention is that every season was a disappointment until 2024.  Campbell on the other hand, got drafted in 2023 and arrived in Boston in 2025 whereas Mayer was drafted in 2021 and has yet to arrive.  Politics.  It's a big part of the Red Sox legacy.

I hope that better defines what I meant or was referencing.  

17 minutes ago, mvp 78 said:

Feel free to write so much with saying so little. 

Rafaela faces lefties about 26% of the time, because that's about how much the entire Sox faced last season! This means that Rafaela's 613 OPS vs RHP is what we get 75% of his AB's! If Abreu is only facing lefties a quarter of the time, big whoop! Hold your nose! He has the 8th most PA's of any RFer in MLB! He has the 5th most PA's of any Red Sox! Even more than Rafaela! Does this mean Rafaela is no longer a fulltime player? Abreu has only missed 2 games so far. He's a fulltime player with 30 more total bases than Rafaela (59% more than Ceddanne), twice the bb rate AND has a GG. 

Rafaela is starting to come into his own this year, but your weird "Abreu is not a fulltime player" schtick is kinda wild. 

First, I want to thank you for starting with an insult.  That's a very ignorant approach.

Next, let me suggest you actually look at the stats provided.  They tell the story you are missing.

While the two players have played against the same opponents, Abreu has had over 100 less at bats against left-handed pitchers than Rafaela.  Does that seem like he's a full-time player against both lefties and righties?  Are you thinking when he gets a day off against lefties it's a coincidence?  That data is indisputable.  You just have to understand the data.  FYI... Today Boston faces Sale and once again Abreu is NOT in the starting line-up. THUS, NOT FULL-TIME PLAYER.

Also having 30 more total bases means he's more of a power hitter not that he's playing more than the next guy.  The walk rate also doesn't make him a full-time player.  It means he walks more.  The GG was a joke because it wasn't against the same level of competition.  You can thank the MLB for segmenting the OF positions when awarding GGs, otherwise a right fielder like Abreu would NEVER get a GG.  

FYI... Rafaela finished 8th in the AL at all positions in Defensive WAR with a 1.9.  Duran was 3rd with a 2.5 and Abreu didn't make the top 10.  Daulton Varsho was the GG in Centerfield with a Defensive War of 3.0.  Duran was the second highest outfielder at Defensive WAR but was a Centerfielder too.  Rafaela was the third highest outfielder but he too was a Centerfielder so the real GG recipients should have been Varsho, Duran and Rafaela.  This is why Abreu's GG was a joke.  Centerfield is the strongest outfield position on defense.

So my so called Schtick isn't really wild after all.  It's a fact.

9 hours ago, TheSplinteredSplendor said:

An "out is an out" is a little misleading.

A strikeout, unless on a WP or PB, doesn't move the runners over, while balls in play certainly do.

What you stated CAN be true but isn't a defacto truth.  A fielder's choice doesn't advance the runner unless there are more than one runner on base.  There is a set of times when each of the three types of outs is best for the team.  Many people errantly believe the strike out is significantly worse than the ground out or fly out.  That's simply not true.  It's all situational.

A ground out is the worst when there is a runner on first or first and second and the possibility of a double play looms.  A strike out is less dangerous than a ground out in this situation.  A fly out could lead to a runner advancing or it may not depending on where it is hit to and where the runner(s) are located.  Yep, the strike out is the least risky of the three under these scenarios.

You mentioned a scenario where a strike out with runners is worse than a ground out or fly out that moves the runners forward.  That's why the concept of an out is an out applies.  Every situation has a probability to whether the damage will be greater or less.  As a former pitcher, if I had 1 out or no outs I preferred a ground out to a strike out because of the possibility of a double play or at least a fielder's choice but with 2 outs I preferred a strike out.  That's why rules of thumbs like strike outs matter more than other outs is incorrect.  It can matter more but the statement isn't necessarily true.  

7 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

Campbell played SS his whole life until he went to college for a season and he had to move to 2B because an incumbent best player was blocking him from playing SS.

A major league infielder played shortstop most of his life?🫢

Stop the presses. Multiple people will need AED’s at finding out that news.

37 minutes ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

 

A ground out is the worst when there is a runner on first or first and second and the possibility of a double play looms.  A strike out is less dangerous than a ground out in this situation.  A fly out could lead to a runner advancing or it may not depending on where it is hit to and where the runner(s) are located.  Yep, the strike out is the least risky of the three under these scenarios.

Agree on the groundout but:

“A fly ball could lead to a runner advancing or it may not.”  In what universe is that outcome less preferable to a strikeout?  At worst, it’s status quo and next batter up.

1 hour ago, illinoisredsox said:

A major league infielder played shortstop most of his life?🫢

Stop the presses. Multiple people will need AED’s at finding out that news.

 

 

 

Not sure why you wrote what you wrote.  Most a players life means from childhood when he started playing baseball, through Little League, High School, Select Perfect Game teams and then in College he was forced to move to 2nd for ONE SEASON due to being behind the incumbent SS at his college.

Was the comment meant to be funny?  If so, great.  If not, I don't get the comment.

1 hour ago, illinoisredsox said:

Agree on the groundout but:

“A fly ball could lead to a runner advancing or it may not.”  In what universe is that outcome less preferable to a strikeout?  At worst, it’s status quo and next batter up.

No, I was saying that a FLY OUT in some cases would be worse for your team if the runners advance versus a strike out but if they don't then as you stated the two results have the same impact. 

19 hours ago, TedYazPapiMookie said:

What you stated CAN be true but isn't a defacto truth.  A fielder's choice doesn't advance the runner unless there are more than one runner on base.  There is a set of times when each of the three types of outs is best for the team.  Many people errantly believe the strike out is significantly worse than the ground out or fly out.  That's simply not true.  It's all situational.

A ground out is the worst when there is a runner on first or first and second and the possibility of a double play looms.  A strike out is less dangerous than a ground out in this situation.  A fly out could lead to a runner advancing or it may not depending on where it is hit to and where the runner(s) are located.  Yep, the strike out is the least risky of the three under these scenarios.

You mentioned a scenario where a strike out with runners is worse than a ground out or fly out that moves the runners forward.  That's why the concept of an out is an out applies.  Every situation has a probability to whether the damage will be greater or less.  As a former pitcher, if I had 1 out or no outs I preferred a ground out to a strike out because of the possibility of a double play or at least a fielder's choice but with 2 outs I preferred a strike out.  That's why rules of thumbs like strike outs matter more than other outs is incorrect.  It can matter more but the statement isn't necessarily true.  

Well, my statement that "an out is an out" isn't entirely correct is 100% correct.

5 minutes ago, moonslav59 said:

I'm curious as to how many balls put into play for outs actually advance runners. Then, how many times that advancement led to a run being scored.

It surely happens, but perhaps it's not as often as we think.

Whatever the numbers are, it is surely greater than the zero that goes with a K.