Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Sox Therapy > Discussion
Sox Therapy
— Where Thinking Red Sox Fans Obsess about the Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Pingu Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:00 PM (#3787601)
Well if they lose tonite they risk being the last winless team in MLB. The mighty Astros have saved them so far from that feat.

Boy this is fun. I was calm thru the first 3. Last night I found myself yelling at the pixels on my TV.
   2. Rafael Bellylard: Built like a Panda. Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:06 PM (#3787607)
Tampa's winless and hitting worse. 6 runs in 4 games, and the Manny/Damon duo is a combined 2-for-27 with one walk and eight K's. Team is 138/237/260.
   3. TomH Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:08 PM (#3787609)
..and the Rays have been at home.
   4. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:19 PM (#3787618)
I think Matt hits a good point here. There is not a lot of analysis necessary, the Sox have played poorly for four games. Any further analysis (like my friend calling me up literally screaming into the phone about Francona's "stupid f-ing lineup") is overthinking it. Occam's Razor, the Sox are 0-4 because they have played like crap.

Just a check on BBRef finds that the Sox had a .235/.307/.381 line in their losses last year. If the Sox were hitting .280/.350/.440 and 0-4 there would be more reason for concern.
   5. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:39 PM (#3787633)
The Red Sox pythagorean winning percentage is.146, giving them a projected record of 0.5-3.5.

They'd probably come out even worse if you projected runs based on component stats.
   6. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 06, 2011 at 02:46 PM (#3787643)
I've officially decided I'm not checking Red Sox game scores until I hear from you guys that they've won at least one. I'm bad luck to 'em.
   7. Swedish Chef Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:01 PM (#3787670)
Kevin Cash career: .183/.248/.278
   8. Sheer Tim Foli Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:13 PM (#3787687)
I recall the anecdote of the NY Mets owner leaving for a trip to Europe asking for a daily telegram on the result of each game. After a series of dismal results she responded saying "please not send any more telegrams until the team wins." The wire was silent until game 10.

Anyhoo as a rival fan, I have been suckered into watching the Yankees suck in April so many times only to come back and punish the field come September I am not falling for it again. The Bosox roster is chock full of awesome and I will quietly relish each loss without ceremony as I know the bounce back is coming and will come hard.
   9. RB in NYC (Now Semi-Retired from BBTF) Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:20 PM (#3787709)
I was thinking about this yesterday--while stalking around my apartment fuming about the Yankee game--I wonder what the shortest losing streak is for any World Series winning team. Last year the Giants lost 7 in a row, the year before the Yankees lost 5, the '08 Phillies lost 6. Even the '98 Yankees lost 4 in a row at one point. I would guess four is the lowest, but maybe I'm wrong.

(The 1906 Cubs never lost four in a row, only three, but of course, they didn't win a title either.)
   10. The Good Face Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:25 PM (#3787722)
Pretty sure the '84 Tigers never lost more than 4 in a row.
   11. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:29 PM (#3787730)
RB - I posted in one of the other threads a similar question;, what's the longest losing streak for a 90+ win team? I checked the last decade worth of Sox teams and they all lost at least four in a row at one point while 7 of the 10 (and God willing 7 of 11) lost 5 in a row. What's the point (or is there a point) where a losing streak becomes indicative of something?
   12. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:31 PM (#3787735)
I don't think the '88 Dodgers ever lost more than three in a row.

EDIT: Linky. Looks like they lost three in a row in the neighborhood of ten times, but never lost as many as four in a row. This is a factoid I learned from the LA Dodgers '88 WS Commemorative VHS my family had when I was a kid.
   13. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:32 PM (#3787736)
When I heard that the Sox had lost yesterday, I was much more interested in the requisite pants-pissing on here (which has not been nearly as entertaining to me as I had expected) than I was confident that it means anything at all about the Sox or the Yankees.
   14. booond Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:40 PM (#3787750)
Yankees lost, Tampa hasn't won, either. Dice-K starts the winning streak tonight.
   15. Pingu Posted: April 06, 2011 at 03:47 PM (#3787758)
Yes, pin the hopes of a 1-4 start on the most mind-numbingly inconsistent pitcher in Red Sox history. This, my friends, is a recipe for success.
   16. John DiFool2 Posted: April 06, 2011 at 04:19 PM (#3787792)
What's the point (or is there a point) where a losing streak becomes indicative of something?


We aren't anywhere near that point (Bill James called it signature significance). Frankly all the whinging I'm seeing here and elsewhere isn't worth it (yet, if there ever is a yet).
   17. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 06, 2011 at 04:35 PM (#3787808)
I recall the anecdote of the NY Mets owner leaving for a trip to Europe asking for a daily telegram on the result of each game.



Fred Wilpon's like, "Our telegram costs have been through the roof! Cut somebody else!"
   18. Swedish Chef Posted: April 06, 2011 at 04:36 PM (#3787811)
What's the point (or is there a point) where a losing streak becomes indicative of something?

Maximal loss-streak distribution for a .600 (97 win) team:

1 0%
2 0.1%
3 7.1%
4 28.7%
5 30.9%
6 18.4%
7 8.5%
8 3.8%
9 1.4%
10 0.8%
11 0.3%
   19. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: April 06, 2011 at 04:38 PM (#3787814)
Frankly all the whinging I'm seeing here and elsewhere isn't worth it (yet, if there ever is a yet).


Honestly, I think the response around here's been pretty measured, all things considered. I mean, baseball is a game meant to provoke emotional responses, and I think it's not ridiculous that a team that we were all pretty excited about crapping the bed in the first week makes us feel bad. Nobody seems to think the season's over or anything, though.
   20. Dave Cyprian Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:09 PM (#3788062)
I have a serious question, I apologize if this has been discussed ad naeseum pre-season in forums I did not read. Also, my simplistic approach to quantitative analysis will reveal itself in the query. Maybe one of you kind souls will enlighten my ignorance.

The team lost Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre (who played exceptionally well last year), and added Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. The pitching staff is basically the same, Jenks being the biggest addition. Why did this set of transactions make them the prohibitive favorite among smart fans? (I get that the news media loves the big-money AG/CC signings, but quantitatively, are they that much better than the production we got in 2010 from the two guys who left?)
   21. Jon T. Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:20 PM (#3788084)
Because the two teams that finished ahead of them figured to be worse. Also, they won 89 games last year with exceptionally poor health.
   22. Cowboy Popup Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:21 PM (#3788087)
Why did this set of transactions make them the prohibitive favorite among smart fans?

Figure Gonzalez and Beltre cancel each other out, Crawford is likely better than Martinez was last year. You anticipate full years from the right side of the infield. Chalk up some of the rotation struggles from last year to bad luck. Lowrie is healthy for a full year. Cameron and Ellsbury are back and should be better than the guys who played OF last year. The Yanks didn't get better (although maybe Russell Martin was a bigger signing than believed originally, we will see), Rays got worse by losing Crawford. I think that's most of the big reasons. Also, the projection systems had the Sox as a clear favorite this year.
   23. Famous Original Joe C Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:27 PM (#3788094)
The team lost Victor Martinez and Adrian Beltre (who played exceptionally well last year), and added Adrian Gonzalez and Carl Crawford. The pitching staff is basically the same, Jenks being the biggest addition. Why did this set of transactions make them the prohibitive favorite among smart fans? (I get that the news media loves the big-money AG/CC signings, but quantitatively, are they that much better than the production we got in 2010 from the two guys who left?)

Also, all of the publicly available projection systems had them as the (theoretical, of course) best team.

Edit: Carbonated beverage to CP.
   24. Dave Cyprian Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:35 PM (#3788104)
Good answers, thanks.
   25. snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster) Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:44 PM (#3788110)
Why did this set of transactions make them the prohibitive favorite among smart fans?

Also, the projection systems had the Sox as a clear favorite this year.

But, they were favored over the Yankees by ~2 Gs.

They should have been favorites, but "prohibitive favorites" was always an over-reach.
   26. Famous Original Joe C Posted: April 06, 2011 at 08:51 PM (#3788123)
They should have been favorites, but "prohibitive favorites" was always an over-reach.

Thanks, wet blanket.
   27. Drew (Primakov, Gungho Iguanas) Posted: April 07, 2011 at 12:29 AM (#3788474)
This is going to sound like sour grapes...but does anyone think Talbot is doctoring the baseball tonight? He's repeatedly breathing into his hand--then licking his fingers--and then afterward the ball dips and weaves to the point where not even the catcher knows where it's going.
   28. John DiFool2 Posted: April 07, 2011 at 02:57 AM (#3788784)
Why did this set of transactions make them the prohibitive favorite among smart fans?


The two new stars are younger than the old ones which left, which means they'll hold their peak value longer. Beltre has had two career years-the first one had him crater in the following seasons-I see no reason to think that he's suddenly discovered a new performance level in his mid-30's. VMart can't even catch anymore (well, neither can Salty apparently).
   29. Dan Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:35 AM (#3788879)
Saltalamacchia's defense has been fine.
   30. Mattbert Posted: April 07, 2011 at 12:36 PM (#3788917)
You know what sucks?

This.
   31. Nasty Nate Posted: April 07, 2011 at 12:51 PM (#3788920)
Good thing our cagey baseball-smart captain has such a firm grasp of basic baseball rules...
   32. tfbg9 Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:06 PM (#3788924)
I don't want to see Reyes anymore. Wow.
   33. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:25 PM (#3788937)
I have to say that I was honestly disappointed last night. What with the Yankee rainout, I had some extra time on my hands, and I dropped in to lurk in the Red Sox game chatter thread. I saw a Sox fan repeatedly trying to drive a Yankee fan out of the thread, and I didn't think that was appropriate at all. If there's a rule that the thread should be "Sox fans only" or something, it ought to be labeled that way up front.

Maybe I missed some early action on it, but in my mind the Yankee fan was not trolling, which would justify that response.
   34. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:43 PM (#3788949)
TVE - Yeah, it surprised me too. I've never found WJ (or you) to be particularly unreasonable.

With that said, the way the Sox are playing has all of us surly. It's not going to take much to set us off.
   35. Pingu Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#3788950)
Maximal loss-streak distribution for a .600 (97 win) team:

1 0%
2 0.1%
3 7.1%
4 28.7%
5 30.9%
6 18.4%
7 8.5%
8 3.8%
9 1.4%
10 0.8%
11 0.3%


So what you're saying is the Red Sox are now heading down the wrong side of the bell curve.
   36. Pingu Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:44 PM (#3788951)
With that said, the way the Sox are playing has all of us surly. It's not going to take much to set us off.


Who the #### you callin surly?
   37. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 01:58 PM (#3788963)
Who the #### you callin surly?


Me. Not you of course, you are a ray of sunshine on an otherwise cloudy day.

So my company has a wonderful HD TV in our lounge. When I saw the schedule I was really looking forward to spending my lunch hour today watching the first couple of innings of the game. I'm still going to watch today but I may kill someone. My problem is I work with non-sports fans. That is fine by itself but there are two guys who know just enough to be obnoxious. Most of the folks just ignore it but while I'm watching the game these two guys are going to be asking questions about what is wrong with the Sox and if they will turn it around and generally be unintentionally snarky. Nice guys but there is a non-zero chance that I'll get fired for slapping one of them at some point.
   38. Pingu Posted: April 07, 2011 at 02:12 PM (#3788974)
So my company has a wonderful HD TV in our lounge. When I saw the schedule I was really looking forward to spending my lunch hour today watching the first couple of innings of the game. I'm still going to watch today but I may kill someone. My problem is I work with non-sports fans. That is fine by itself but there are two guys who know just enough to be obnoxious. Most of the folks just ignore it but while I'm watching the game these two guys are going to be asking questions about what is wrong with the Sox and if they will turn it around and generally be unintentionally snarky. Nice guys but there is a non-zero chance that I'll get fired for slapping one of them at some point.


Close the fist. It will feel better.

Or put another way....when security is escorting you to your car, you'll sure as hell wished you did.
   39. Dale Sams Posted: April 07, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3789012)
What do you say about a 565 OPS


I say if they were playing my fantasy team* they'd be 5-0.

*For whom I somehow managed to combine the worst of the Sox and the Rays,... and Adrian Beltre.
   40. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 07, 2011 at 02:51 PM (#3789015)
Last night's loss was somehow significantly more infuriating than any of the ones that came before. They actually created multiple opportunities and failed to cash them in, and then blew the game by combining all the most frustrating ways to give up runs.

Reliever with zero control + huge defensive blunder + home run to crappy hitter

I went from "hey, bad start, #### happens, this is a good team" to \"####, I don't think I want to watch this stupid team play their stupid game tomorrow" in the course of about 15 minutes.
   41. Darren Posted: April 07, 2011 at 03:21 PM (#3789046)
Now now, everyone settle down. Such negativity may get you all labeled pants-pissers!

At least we are certain of one thing: Terry Francona is a great manager who pushes his teams to overachieve!
   42. Dale Sams Posted: April 07, 2011 at 04:04 PM (#3789092)
The Red Sox Years, by Terry Francona and Tom Verducci. "It was when I saw David Wells lying on the clubhouse floor, rocking back and forth and saying, 'I can't go out there!'. It was then I knew I was going to need a lot more sunflower seeds."
   43. Darren Posted: April 07, 2011 at 04:26 PM (#3789110)
And gum.
   44. Famous Original Joe C Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#3789357)
Last night's loss was somehow significantly more infuriating than any of the ones that came before.

Well, today's takes the cake.
   45. tfbg9 Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:51 PM (#3789358)
Darren needs to skipper the Sox. I'm convinced. Tito is a bad manager.
Today's game was the worst so far.
I'm simply tired of being in a lousy mood.
   46. Pingu Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3789360)
This has got to be some kind of teamwide conspiracy to throw games. 16 runs in 6 games?

When MCoA starts getting emotional, you know its time to panic.
   47. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:52 PM (#3789363)
This is really bizarre. It's like Francona has tapped in to the anti-Morgan Magic.
   48. Pingu Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:53 PM (#3789365)
On a positive note, I dont have to watch a ####### awful baseball team play a ####### awful game tonight.
   49. Famous Original Joe C Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:55 PM (#3789368)
I think I'm going into Red Sox hiding until both the Bruins and Celtics are knocked out of their respective playoffs. See y'all in May or June.
   50. Famous Original Joe C Posted: April 07, 2011 at 06:56 PM (#3789369)
By the way, was McDonald really out?
   51. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:00 PM (#3789377)
By the way, was McDonald really out?


they showed one replay and didn't bother to inquire into it too much. the ump was adamant that he was out.
   52. The Piehole of David Wells Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:02 PM (#3789380)
the sox are hitting .175 with men in scoring position through yesterday. 0 for 4 today won't help that.
   53. tfbg9 Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:04 PM (#3789386)
50-probably not, but rest assured, if the ump was wrong, nothing will happen to him. Ever.
   54. Dan Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:09 PM (#3789395)
So I guess they managed to actually lower the OPS today again?
   55. Dan Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:11 PM (#3789398)
So at what point does Francona actually end up on the hot seat? 0-10? 0-15?
   56. Smiling Joe Hesketh Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:17 PM (#3789410)
Francona's not on the hot seat and probably should never be.

None of the batters are hitting at all. That's his best lineup he's using and not a single guy save for Gonzalez is hitting.

At least they found a new way to lose today. Comical in its ineptitude.
   57. Darren Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:34 PM (#3789446)
Francona is only judged on the players' performance when they perform well. For instance, last year Francona was a great manager but the players were at fault when the team started 5-9. He was a great manager when he kept the Red Sox in it by getting nice seasons from Beltre, McDonald, Hall, and others. This year, they're 0-6 with Francona shuffling the lineup around but not in any way that makes sense, so naturally it's back on the players.

When will he be on the hot seat? I'd say they'd have to miss the playoffs this year and be pretty bad the first half of next year.
   58. Mattbert Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:40 PM (#3789471)
I'm thinking it's for the best that I live in a time zone not conducive to watching much baseball.

Lollygaggers!
   59. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:47 PM (#3789499)
This is insane - one day they'll have a good April
   60. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 07:56 PM (#3789520)
Darren - What would you blame Francona for? I know you don't like him (don't understand why but that's fine, to each his own), but this isn't on him. Is it his fault that Daniel Bard walked Adam ####### Everett? Is it his fault that they are 7 for 44 with RISP?

If you want to argue the team is "listless" or "choking" or some such thing like that and blame that on him I'll disagree but I guess that would make some sense.
   61. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:02 PM (#3789530)
I guess the larger issue, w/r/t Francona is that we don't know whether anything is actually wrong, and if something is wrong, we don't know what it is. How do you tell a slumping team from an improperly motivated or prepared team? What's the difference between a team in a bad slump and a team that's not as good as you thought? And further, it's easily possible for a team to be both of those things. That doesn't even get into the multitude of things that could at least possibly be wrong with the club, and we don't even know if something is wrong.

It's extremely frustrating to be a fan in this situation. You'd like to have something to latch on to, but there's no way of identifying who or what might be to blame - if there is anything or anyone to blame beyond the fickle nature of human events - and at least on an emotional level, it's getting harder and harder to watch the games with any remaining optimism.
   62. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:08 PM (#3789538)
There is the beginning of a case to be made that between Varitek's force play last night and McDonald's overrun of second this afternoon, the Red Sox do not appear to have their heads in the game - or, alternately, the Red Sox are too tensed up to make good decisions in the moment. Either way, that'd be on the manager.
   63. The Essex Snead Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:12 PM (#3789548)
[62] You're going to have trouble sticking the landing on that leap of logic -- it's the manager's fault that the players screwed up?
   64. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:19 PM (#3789559)
There is the beginning of a case to be made that between Varitek's force play last night and McDonald's overrun of second this afternoon, the Red Sox do not appear to have their heads in the game - or, alternately, the Red Sox are too tensed up to make good decisions in the moment. Either way, that'd be on the manager.


I think you can go back to Tuesday, Crawford's overthrow of the cutoff man. In Texas they just got beat. Hey, good team, home park, it happens. Not only did they get beat in Cleveland, they played poorly.
   65. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:24 PM (#3789566)
You're going to have trouble sticking the landing on that leap of logic -- it's the manager's fault that the players screwed up?


In my mind a big part of the manager's job is to put the players in a position where they are able to play their game free of distraction and be at their best. In modern baseball, particularly in places like Boston and New York where the attention is so ridiculously over the top that takes on added importance. It is a big reason I have always liked Francona, I think he keeps the team on a pretty even keel and keeps the distractions (and anyone who has managed Millar, Manny, Ortiz, Pedroia, Pedro has distractions) from interfering with their game. These last three games, frankly, it's the first time in years I can remember thinking to myself "wow, they look out of sorts."

I still don't think it's fair to suggest Tito belongs on any kind of "hot seat" but there are questions to be asked.
   66. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:26 PM (#3789573)
You're going to have trouble sticking the landing on that leap of logic -- it's the manager's fault that the players screwed up?
If one player just happened to make a mental error, that's not on the manager. If three players in successive games just happened make mental errors, that's not on the manager.

If the players are not properly focused on the games, whether because they're too tense and or they're not prepared for the rigors of the season, and they're making mistakes because of it, that's on the manager. When you have significant mental errors in consecutive games, you can start to build a case that these aren't random events but part of a pattern. It can never be a particularly strong case, but it can be the beginning of one.

As I said in #61, I have no freaking clue if this is the case or not. I don't think it's knowable at all for us as fans. I would bet against the Sox being underprepared or overconcerned, I'd bet they just happen to be sucking because human events are complicated, but I don't know. I probably never will know, regardless of how soon the Sox find a way out this tailspin. This is the frustration.
   67. Darren Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:32 PM (#3789578)
Darren - What would you blame Francona for? I know you don't like him (don't understand why but that's fine, to each his own), but this isn't on him. Is it his fault that Daniel Bard walked Adam ####### Everett? Is it his fault that they are 7 for 44 with RISP?


Notice what a one-way street this is. Nobody objected to Francona getting credit for "keeping the team" in it last year even though a) it was the players' performance that kept them in it and b) nobody could actually articulate what Francona did to make them better. But in times when the team has clearly underperformed (such as early 2010 and 2011), it's unfair to even mention the possibility that Francona is the problem. Dan asks when Francona might be on the hot seat and is shouted down that he isn't and never should be! I mention the asymmetry of who gets credit when the team is going bad vs. when it's going good, and get the incredibly tired 'Tito is a better manager than you' (45) and get asked what I would blame Francona for. MC lifts a phrase from the mealy-mouth centrist Dem handbook--"There is the beginning of a case to be made..." and gets accused of an untenable leap of logic.

I think MC does a nice job summarizing why it is difficult to judge a manager's interpersonal abilities. It's a good case for treating the subject as something that us fans can never really know. But it's completely unfair to only do that half the time.
   68. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:47 PM (#3789596)
get asked what I would blame Francona for


I asked it of course but I think it's a reasonable question. If we want to put this on Tito, then by all means, tell me why. If the best you can come up with is "they were bad last April and they are bad again now" I'm not buying.

For what it's worth the argument in favor of Tito is built on a few factors;

1. The success of the team. At worst he hasn't screwed them up, at best he has led them to levels of success not seen in nearly a century.

2. Ability to bounce back from adversity. Not only the 3-0 deficit, not on the 4-9 start last year and God willing this disgrace but in general it seems that the Sox have rallied when they looked like they might be in danger of sinking like a stone. Now admittedly this gives him credit for the recovery and not the blame for the struggle but it's a matter of perception on my part. I don't see anything that would proactively cause most of these failings so when the Sox were 4-9 last year I didn't see any reason to blame him. I felt his even-keeled approach allowed the team to let its talent come through.

I will concede that there is a reasonable argument to be made that this is to one sided but I have reasons for feeling the way I do.

3. Interpersonal relationships. Acknowledging that we don't know a damned thing about what goes on each day in that clubhouse, the fact that a team that is under crazy scrutiny really on a year round basis and has featured some real outsized personalities has seemed to be fairly cohesive for the most part suggests to me he is keeping things in line. Again, I acknowledge that I have no clue, maybe Varitek's the guy doing the police work, maybe it's the clubhouse boy, but the simplest answer is the guy nominally in charge.
   69. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 07, 2011 at 08:58 PM (#3789620)
By the way, as incredible as it is the Sox have actually gotten marginally worse since Mikael posted this;

.186/.271/.295

to

.181/.269/.275 (includes today)

Unfreakinbelieveable.
   70. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: April 07, 2011 at 09:18 PM (#3789638)
Wow. To put it another way, the Sox hit .186/.271/.295 in their first four games. They have, in the following two games, hit .172/.264/.234. That's a sub-500 OPS.

I am indeed not freakin believing this.
   71. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 07, 2011 at 09:39 PM (#3789654)
My prediction? Red Sox win 13-2 on Friday. The Sox take 2 of 3 (the Yankees never win on E5PN), and they also win the coveted Pythagorean series by at least double.

I think that dropping this game to the Indians will result in a far bigger massacre this weekend than a win would have.
   72. tfbg9 Posted: April 07, 2011 at 09:52 PM (#3789663)
Oh yeah...my prediction?

Oh and nine. That's right. Oh and nine. Right now, I'm please as punch if I wake up Monday AM and they're f*cking 1-8. Seriously. I'm that down.
   73. Mattbert Posted: April 07, 2011 at 09:54 PM (#3789665)
I think that dropping this game to the Indians will result in a far bigger massacre this weekend than a win would have.

Your mind powers will not work on me, boy.
   74. Phil Coorey is a T-Shirt Salesman Posted: April 07, 2011 at 09:58 PM (#3789671)
I need to find a way to sleep through the home opener - I didn't sleep last night though - so that might help
   75. Mattbert Posted: April 07, 2011 at 10:11 PM (#3789683)
I wonder if they'll get booed.
   76. Spivey Posted: April 07, 2011 at 10:16 PM (#3789690)
It's hard to write a team off before you play a home game. Especially a team that has done so well in their home park the last several years.
   77. tfbg9 Posted: April 08, 2011 at 12:41 AM (#3789813)
0-6:

.55 x .45 x .45 x .55 x .55 x .55 = .01853
   78. Fly should without a doubt be number !!!!! Posted: April 08, 2011 at 02:00 AM (#3789871)
Maximal loss-streak distribution for a .600 (97 win) team:

1 0%
2 0.1%
3 7.1%
4 28.7%
5 30.9%
6 18.4%
7 8.5%
8 3.8%
9 1.4%
10 0.8%
11 0.3%


Where does this come from? Does this assume a consistent pitcher? Or is this historical?
   79. Swedish Chef Posted: April 09, 2011 at 12:14 AM (#3791207)
Where does this come from? Does this assume a consistent pitcher? Or is this historical?

No, it is just calculated from winning percentage*, you could get fancy and distinguish home and away games. But it really is of limited utility, looking at the streaks doesn't give any insight over W-L and RS-RA.

Sox fans can be happy that they aren't an outlier, so far at least.

*) or really in this case simulated by running 10000 seasons. There is a closed form, a double exponential distribution, see for example Analytic Combinatorics p 308, but it takes a hell of a lot less thinking to just let the computer do some number crunching.
   80. Dan Posted: April 09, 2011 at 08:47 PM (#3791946)
So, 1-17 with RISP for the day. Beautiful.

10 runners left on base.
   81. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: April 10, 2011 at 04:56 PM (#3792396)
Week 1 thoughts. I wrote this Saturday morning. I don't really have much to add about the Yankee games yet. here will be plenty of time to talk about them over the course of the year.
   82. Biff, highly-regarded young guy Posted: April 10, 2011 at 05:23 PM (#3792414)
The offense is up to .215/.297/.313! Now if only they worked on that 7.09 team ERA...
   83. tfbg9 Posted: April 10, 2011 at 05:45 PM (#3792426)
I dug the new piece GGC. The opening was "most excellent". ;-)
   84. GGC don't think it can get longer than a novella Posted: April 10, 2011 at 07:29 PM (#3792510)
tfbg9, it wasn't aimed at karlmagnus ;).
   85. Dan Posted: April 10, 2011 at 07:54 PM (#3792550)
Red Sox have signed Buchholz to a 4 year deal for ~$30M. I like it.
   86. TVerik, the gum-snappin' hairdresser Posted: April 10, 2011 at 07:57 PM (#3792552)
Isn't that just buying out his arb years? I don't hate it, but if he was under team control anyway, I don't see why guaranteeing him this amount of money makes sense.
   87. Dan Posted: April 10, 2011 at 08:14 PM (#3792570)
The deal buys out his arbitration years, his first FA year (I think), and has 2 options at the end. If they exercise both options they'll have him through 2017.
   88. Jose Can Still Seabiscuit Posted: April 11, 2011 at 02:47 PM (#3793295)
.231/.322/.324

The Sox are now Mike Gallego (.239/.320/.328). Gone are the Kevin Cash Red Sox!

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
BDC
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.5384 seconds
41 querie(s) executed