20 - 12 and it's the end of the world!

by fishfarmr on May 12, 2009 4:42 PM EDT Comment 23 comments

A sign that our front office is great is the fact that at 20-12 we feel like our team stinks. We have such high expectations that anything short of 26- 5 is failure! All of us would have taken 20-12 at the beginning of year, The fact that Ortiz has no HR's and our Starters have been lackluster (don't get me on Lugo!) we cannot get discouraged. We should rejoice that we are on a 100 win pace despite these things! Ortiz may not hit 30, but he will get his average up and hit some homeruns. Our starting pitching will get better and Lowrie will be back and Drew will get better(he always starts slow). So at 20-12 we should be happy and keep our concerns low and not blow them out into full fledged panic. Relax......until Paps comes in and then prepare for a stessful rollercoaster ride called the 9th inning. And to think, I did'nt mention injuries.

1 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I agree we should be happy.

But that doesn’t mean this team has no problems and is on pace for 100 wins. Over at Beyond the Boxscore, Sky Kalkman points out that the Sox have been the luckiest team in the AL. The Sox are 3.4 wins above their expected 3rd order win total. If they had been a little unlucky they could easily be at 14 or less wins right now. We need more from our starters and from Ortiz or the Sox could be headed for 90 wins, and that won’t be enough for the playoffs.

by BTLove on May 12, 2009 5:19 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs

I agree

the way I look at it, I’m happy that we are where we are because we have been lucky. That does not mean that things will get worse from here on out. There are a lot of variables at play. Our pen is much improved and that often plays out as luck in metrics (teams that overperform their Pythag often have better pen performance). We have been injured (the Rays have not at all, unless you assume injury is at play with Upton’s and Kazmir’s performance). Our D has stunk and will improve, our starting rotation will improve, and our production at the plate can go either way. I think we should be happy about the start and accept the bit of luck we have had in close games and comebacks. We do have reason to be optimistic, even though improvement from here on out is not at all a given.

by Buzzy on May 12, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Rec'd.

WBULTV - BDale TV Prod

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 12, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I disagree

20-12 maps out to 100 wins. And lucky? I feel we have been unlucky! What if lugo doesn’t stink up the joint, thats 2 more wins! what if we had no injuries? 2 more wins. “What if” and luck cannot be measured! It is absurd to try! All I know is that I would take 20-12 for the next 32 if you offered it! Hopefully we can start another lucky streak tonight.

the difference between a yankee stadium hot dog and a Fenway frank is that they dont sell yankee dogs in October anymore.

by fishfarmr on May 12, 2009 6:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

That's nice and all...

But you can measure it. The Angels last year were predictably mediocre in the playoffs as they were some 16 wins above their 3rd order W-L. We get by on a lot of late-inning heroics and big comebacks, but ultimately for a team to be successful it’s gonna need to stop giving up 5 runs every start, playing mediocre defense, etc. This sort of record is non-sustainable the way we’ve been playing.

by USG on May 12, 2009 6:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

You can try to measure it. Its not particularly accurate, and I think you know it.

by Charger567 on May 12, 2009 7:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

sure

it is not accurate in the sense that “luck” is not well defined, but it is better than nothing if you want to estimate future performance.

by Buzzy on May 12, 2009 7:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think luck can be pretty accurately measured.

That’s how we know that Lester is unlucky. HR/BIA, BABIP, LD%, etc.

The difference here is that we’re talking about a specific kind of luck and Fishfarmr is bringing in other kinds of luck. 3rd-order W-L adjusts for strength of schedule and runs scored vs. runs allowed, ignoring what games they happened to distribute themselves to and adjusting based on who they were scored against. It suggests that you can’t just pull out grit and determination to win by 1 run every time, but that you were lucky to get by on that one run.

Fish suggests we’re unlucky because…we’re playing bad defenders and getting the expected results. The injury factor is certainly worth considering depending on if we don’t expect it to continue.

But luck as far as how well you do against specific teams and how many wins you’re pulling off by the skin of your teeth is important. A team that loses a series 1-2 with scores of 4-5, 5-6, and 12-1 is in many ways better than the team that won the series. That’s what they’re measuring.

by USG on May 12, 2009 7:25 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes

I agree but it is not entirely clear what that really means in terms of performance. It is not clear that there are not team construction related issues that skew this. Some teams nearly always out perform their pythag. Look at the Yankees historically. How often do they underperform their pythag? Since 1996 they have underperformed their Pythag a mere two times. Sometimes, like 2004 it is dramatic; they won 101 with an 89-Pythag wins. In fact, I think this is true historically of the Yankees. I think more reseach needs to be done looking beyond the linear correlation coefficient of real vs predicted wins to see if there are long-ranged fluctuations that indicate something more than “luck.”

by Buzzy on May 12, 2009 7:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

Sounds like fishfarmr is reluctant to accept the SABR way.

WBULTV - BDale TV Prod

by bs.uf15bosox9bears23 on May 12, 2009 9:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you misunderstood.

We have been “unlucky” (maybe “unfortunate” is a better word?) in that we have had injuries and poor performances. However the point that we are making is that, given our performance level, we have been lucky to win as many as we have. Meaning if we were to play another 32 games with everyone performing exactly the same as they did in their first 32 games, we most likely would not win 20 games. Most likely we would win 16 or 17.

The team has been “unlucky” with bad performances, but has been “lucky” to win as much as they have with those bad performances.

by BTLove on May 13, 2009 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs