July 9, 2007

Red Sox Since June 4: 16-16

Talk about posts that write themselves!

What follows is most of an email I received from Pete:

*****

I'm not a big number cruncher but the lost weekend in Detroit prompted me to open Excel to try and make sense of what the Sox have been doing since they flew to Oakland on June 4.

In short, Boston's pedestrian 16-16 record since then can largely be attributed to its performance against five teams which -- for whatever reason -- got really hot: Detroit, Seattle, Texas, Colorado, and San Diego.

Those five teams were .504 on June 4 (82-win pace) and .591 on July 8 (96-win pace).

The Red Sox went 5-11 (.300) against them. All other teams went 58-80 (.420) against them.

During the 34-day period -- Monday, June 4 (at Oakland) to Sunday July 8 (at Detroit) -- the Sox played 32 games against 10 teams and went 16-16.

Boston's record against opponents other than the Hot Five: 11-5 (.688) (111-win
pace)

And, if you're still reading: Number of cross country flights Boston took in 34 days: Four (Boston to Oakland, Arizona to Boston, Atlanta to San Diego, Seattle to Boston)

*****

Thanks Pete!

Also, since June 4:

The MFY went 18-13 and gained 2 games in the standings (12.5 to 10.5). At this pace, it will take New York roughly 188 games to catch Boston this season. (Take that, Murray Chass!)

The Blue Jays went 16-15 and stayed the same in the standings (10.5).

25 comments:

chief said...

Well, that didn't give me the impending sense of doom that I had for most of last year, but I'm not exactly excited to see those numbers.

I was even less excited to hear that the Sox record was identical at this point last year. So it is that the Sox have been on a tear or just that the AL East stinks this year (present company excepted, obviously).

chief said...

Of course, we are leading the majors in both wins and winning %, and the bulk of our remaining games are against teams at .500 or below.

Phew, I feel better.

Two of the Detroit games and two of the Seattle games were VERY winnable too. Just bad luck for us. That could have easily been a 4 game swing.

10 game lead! Woohoo!

9casey said...

Anything can happen , Theo can not wait for the next ball to drop , he did nothing last lear and it cost the Red Sox.

Needs to rock the boat ala '04 trade. It is easy to say that formula works because it did.....

He needs to see this team is flawed and fix the mistakes he made.......Or it will be a replay of '06....It can happen......

That is not doom and gloom that's reality....The Tigers just taught us that...........

redsock said...

Anything can happen , Theo can not wait for the next ball to drop, he did nothing last lear and it cost the Red Sox.

There were no moves at the deadline last year -- not because Theo sat on his ass, but because everyone was asking high prices. You don't pay $40 for a loaf of bread.

But we were alright until the injuries hit. Seemingly one a day for the entire month (I gotta find a list). That will not happen again.

And the MFY are weaker.

We're good. We're winning the East and the Yankees will not make the playoffs. Yay and yay!

Bray said...

that is good to know. however i would love to know if their men stranded percentage took a jump, because i really felt like that is what killed us.

chief said...

I remember reading (maybe here last year?) that leaving men stranded is an inevitable consequence of having a good offense. Usually, a high LOB number has a corresponding high runs scored number to go with it.

I see we are current 8th in the Majors in runs scored, and within easy striking distance of 5 of those. Detroit's runs scored is just ridiculous.

Leaving men on base sucks, but I try not to dwell on it.

Mainecatwoman said...

"Two of the Detroit games and two of the Seattle games were VERY winnable too."

Whether they could have won them or not...they didn't. As Bill Parcells was fond of saying, you are exactly what your record says you are.

The rest-playing hot teams, cross-country trips-are just excuses IMO. The bottom line is, it doesn't cost the team any less if they lose to a hot team in Oakland or a slumping one in Baltimore.

Woti-woti said...

Sure, you're likely to leave more runners on if you put more on, so it really depends on your comparative average with men on. Go to ESPN.com and scroll down their team batting splits. I was surprised until I got to 'with bases loaded.' As bad as my eyes were telling me.

chief said...

Whether they could have won them or not...they didn't.

This is true, but I don't think you should discount the importance of luck. Whether it's on a West Coast swing, Mother's Day at Fenway, or whatever. No matter how good or bad you are, there is always an element of luck (or 'chance' if you prefer).

Those four games I mentioned in Seattle and Detroit could have turned on any number of small chances. Two of them could have been much different if Coco had made dramatic catches in CF, for instance (something he's done how many times this season?). Seattle and Detroit may have still won both, but play would have continued.

I agree that in the end, it's the record that counts. But if you play well and lose, you can still hold your head high and expect to win the next one.

Daniel said...

the bulk of our remaining games are against teams at .500 or below

That's why I really like the Sox' chances to win the division. But what happens after that? What's the chance they'll take a 102-60 record into Detroit for the ALDS and lose in three?

chief said...

So am I reading this right? Boston is 3rd in the majors for runs scored while the bases are loaded (behind only Detroit and Toronto)?

That's A LOT better than I would have suspected.

Availability Heuristic at it's best I suppose.

Ah - but we are near the bottom in BA and just below the middle in OBP.

Interesting.

Jere said...

"Ah - but we are near the bottom in BA and just below the middle in OBP."

We're first in OBP and fifth in BA.

And aren't we 10 up on the Yanks and Jays, not 10.5?

Rasputin said...

"What's the chance they'll take a 102-60 record into Detroit for the ALDS and lose in three?"

Close to zero.

The Sox have 64.2 innings pitched against Detroit this year. This includes 22.1 innings by Kason Gabbard, Julian Tavarez, Kyle Snyder, and Brendan Donnelly and zero pitched by Beckett.

chris said...

Why the Donnelly hate?

As for trading...hey, I'd like to see the burl man too, but other than that, what exactly do you recommend theo do? The weakest spot I can think of reasonably replacing (taking Lugo and drew out of it because let's face it...no) is lowell, and that's just because of his second half downturn. AND the only good replacement in my mind would be miguel, and we aren't getting him unless we give up everyone in the minor leagues, i'm guessing.

9casey said...

redsock said...

And the MFY are weaker.

We're good. We're winning the East and the Yankees will not make the playoffs. Yay and yay!


The Yankees if anything should be stronger....Damon is killing them and when you need that leadoff hitter like that lineup does it kills you.

They had their injuries early this season like we had late last year...

Chris Russo said on the Fan today the if the yankees win every series and split 3 four game series they will have 91 wins .....thats tough.


You know what is strange about this season... Is the way they win games .....The only dramatic win I remember is the Mother's Day Game...was there another one?

Devine said...

The other one that immediately comes to mind is the rally from four (?) down against the Yankees (first game against them of the season? April?), featuring the game-tying 2-RBI triple down the first-base line by Coco Crisp off Rivera; Crisp soon after scored the go-ahead run in the 8th on Cora's single over a drawn-in infield. Okajima closed for his first save in the major leagues.

redsock said...

The Yankees if anything should be stronger....Damon is killing them and when you need that leadoff hitter like that lineup does it kills you.

Just Sayin' Dept.: Julio Lugo was our leadoff hitter until mid-June.

9casey said...

I also remember When the Bot came in in the 8th against the Rangers.

chief said...

"Ah - but we are near the bottom in BA and just below the middle in OBP."

We're first in OBP and fifth in BA.


Sorry - I was referring to those two stats while the bases are loaded. Sorry that wasn't clear.

Jere said...

I see. Thanks for CTU.

Rootdown said...

quick question: does anyone know the expected starter for this friday's game?
thanks

redsock said...

T 0712 - Wakefield v Blue Jays
F 0713 - Tavarez v Blue Jays
S 0714 - Matsuzaka v Blue Jays
S 0715 - Beckett v Blue Jays
M 0716 - Gabbard v Royals

L-girl said...

Whether they could have won them or not...they didn't. As Bill Parcells was fond of saying, you are exactly what your record says you are.

The rest-playing hot teams, cross-country trips-are just excuses IMO.


I totally agree with this. There's no such thing as "we would have but we were injured" or "we were on a west coast trip". That's just rationalization. You win or you lose, period.

However...

We're winning the East and the Yankees will not make the playoffs.

...I absolutely agree with this, and that's what counts. This team will be strong in the playoffs. It'll be great.

L-girl said...

Whether they could have won them or not...they didn't.

This is true, but I don't think you should discount the importance of luck.


I agree. But luck cannot be traded for or predicted. Luck comes and goes, and all teams need it. So in a sense it's a non-factor.

RPM said...

Well, it’s an honor to see a summary of my little research project, and all these informed comments on such a great site.

As Mr. Parcells says, “nobody wants to hear your excuses,” but just to keep things interesting, I will stake out a couple of positions.

1. The effects of so much cross country travel should not be underestimated. To go 5-5 (Texas, Tampa Bay, Detroit) after four such trips in less than a month is not bad. During the same time period, Detroit played exclusively in the Eastern and Central time zones and went 20-10.

2. Given the opposition and other factors – injuries to Schilling and Youkilis to name one - if the Sox had won just three more games – say 1 at home against Colorado, 1 at home against Texas, and 1 at either Seattle or Detroit – this stretch of the season could reasonably be called a success. The fact that they did not win those games means only that they slightly under performed, not that they had a bad month.