Red Sox Bases Loaded Weirdness
There are plenty of things that can be argued regarding the 2011 Red Sox. How well they hit is not one of them. Up through early August, the Red Sox were threatening to be the top offensive club in the last 50 years, beating out even the Big Red Machine of the 70s and the 1982 Brewers, a club that featured so much hitting that Hall of Famer Paul Molitor looked pretty ordinary in the lineup.
Of course, then Kevin Youkilis was injured. He played with these injuries for a while before finally giving in, but not before damaging the Red Sox' bottom line on both sides of the ball. Josh Reddick hurt his hand, and eventually required surgery: his performance before year's end helped tank his numbers and those of the team's as well. These led to the Red Sox having an impressive offense, but not quite at the historic boundaries they sat at with a little more than a month of the season to go.
What's crazy about the Red Sox, though, is that they could have been better than they were, even with the whole injury thing hurting them at the end of the season. As a team, the Red Sox hit well with men on base and in scoring position -- as is to be expected, given it was a team full of real good hitters. With the bases loaded, though, luck never seemed to swing their way.
The team that hit .280/.349/.461 overall put up a line of just .244/.293/.356 with the bases loaded. That's 20 percent worse than the league, and 39 percent worse relative to their overall OPS. It's also the only situation in which they performed worse than they did normally:
| Split | G | GS | PA | H | 2B | 3B | HR | BB | SO | GDP | tOPS+ | sOPS+ | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| --- | 162 | 3453 | 842 | 178 | 21 | 116 | 296 | 604 | .268 | .336 | .450 | .785 | 0 | 94 | 121 | |
| Men On | 162 | 2957 | 758 | 174 | 14 | 87 | 282 | 504 | .294 | .364 | .474 | .839 | 136 | 107 | 127 | |
| 1-- | 162 | 1157 | 337 | 80 | 6 | 36 | 82 | 173 | .318 | .372 | .506 | .878 | 80 | 116 | 137 | |
| -2- | 142 | 541 | 112 | 23 | 4 | 16 | 68 | 104 | .247 | .356 | .421 | .777 | 0 | 93 | 116 | |
| --3 | 101 | 188 | 52 | 13 | 0 | 7 | 31 | 29 | .366 | .447 | .606 | 1.052 | 0 | 160 | 175 | |
| 12- | 145 | 482 | 119 | 27 | 3 | 12 | 33 | 88 | .272 | .327 | .429 | .756 | 33 | 87 | 117 | |
| 1-3 | 116 | 221 | 53 | 15 | 0 | 7 | 22 | 38 | .294 | .344 | .494 | .838 | 12 | 106 | 111 | |
| -23 | 93 | 180 | 46 | 7 | 1 | 6 | 34 | 35 | .331 | .450 | .525 | .975 | 0 | 143 | 150 | |
| 123 | 80 | 188 | 39 | 9 | 0 | 3 | 12 | 37 | .244 | .293 | .356 | .649 | 11 | 61 | 80 |
It's not like this didn't happen often, either. The Red Sox loaded the bases in 80 of 162 games, and had 188 plate appearances with the bases juiced -- they were second in games, and first in plate appearances, but ranked 10th in the AL in split-adjusted OPS with the full bags. And, for a team that normally hit a homer every 31 plate appearances or so (203 in 6,410 chances), three in 188 looks out of place.
It's kind of ridiculous to suggest that what, when healthy, was easily the league's top offense -- and a potentially historic one, at that -- should have been much better than they were. But the numbers with the bases loaded don't lie.
You might not like what this means, though. The difference between the Red Sox and an average team with the bases loaded was about 30 points of batting average, and 40 points of Isolated Power (the on-base percentages were similar -- .306 for the league, .293 for Boston). In sample sizes like this, that isn't that many hits -- maybe a half-dozen or a little more; the Yankees had 16 more hits with the bases loaded in just three more at-bats, and nearly 100 points more batting average. With the run expectancy for bases loaded situations, it's easy to make the case that Boston could have gained about at least 10 runs, if not another four or five more, simply by being average in this situation. That many runs is easily at least one win; for a team that had their season end on the final day, that's rough news.
It's not something to make a big deal about, in the sense of "choking" or anything like that -- after all, the Sox did hit 21 percent better than the league with runners in scoring position overall, roughly in line with their overall numbers -- but it does lead to some mid-December sighs from those hungry for a new season to start.
16 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I assume...
… there’s a Part Two wherein we find out that most of this is Carl Crawford’s fault.
The Year of Extreme Opinions
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 20, 2011 11:58 AM EST reply actions
Actually, not at all
Crawford hit .353/.400/.529 with the bases loaded, over 20 chances.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Dec 20, 2011 12:08 PM EST up reply actions
WARNING! INADEQUATE CRAWFORD BLAMING! DOES NOT COMPUTE! DANGER! DANGER!
The Year of Extreme Opinions
"It is so on that things have now become very much like Donkey Kong."
by nuthinboutnuthin on Dec 20, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Fire hi…wait, what? You mean he did something right?
Writer at Over The Monster. Follow me on Twitter! It'll be super awesome fun! @mattymatty2000
by Matthew Kory on Dec 20, 2011 12:20 PM EST up reply actions
Small sample size
Crawford still sucks.
You build on failure. You use it as a stepping stone. Close the door on the past. You don't try to forget the mistakes, but you don't dwell on it. You don't let it have any of your energy, or any of your time, or any of your space.
-Johnny Cash
by TheLoneDavid on Dec 20, 2011 12:24 PM EST up reply actions
Let's cross our collective fingers...
And hope for a bases-loaded regression to the mean in 2012.
by Zagz on Dec 20, 2011 12:24 PM EST via mobile reply actions
I'm not surprised by these findings at all.
I remember the bases-loaded futility all too well…
Galactus does as he pleases. Because Galactus is drunk.
@#$%ing Twit: @blogtard
OTM | Silver Seven
It stuck out to me during the season
I’ve had a note on my desktop about bases loaded stuff for months now. Hello, rainy day.
Twitter: @Marc_Normandin
by Marc Normandin on Dec 20, 2011 3:41 PM EST up reply actions
You know, we all saw it last year.
However, definitely appreciate showing that it wasn’t just a figment of our imagination. Great analysis, and also love the fact that of all the things he did poorly last year, Carl Crawford didn’t contribute to our bases loaded woes.
Seems perfectly appropriate that he was an abberation there too.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
I always remember
having a sinking feeling when the Sox would have the bases loaded. Years ago it used to be just when Veritek would be coming to the plate because he never seemed to come through, but now it is the whole team. I will say that it seemed that most of the time when the bases would get loaded there were already 2 outs so that probably didnt help anything.
by AverageJoeEveryman on Dec 20, 2011 4:45 PM EST reply actions
Not the way I remember it.
I remember us getting the bases loaded with no outs, and having the whole game thread groan because we knew they’d screw it up.
Suddenly we’d have a pop up to the catcher and a GIDP, leaving the inning with no runs to show for it.
I mean, that’s the way it felt, anyway.
I thought we’d never win it all. And then we went down 0-3 to the Yankees in 2004, and I thought it was the end of the world.
Wait ’til next year!
The GIPD is a related issue
And it seems the Sox had their share of ending inngs tbat way.
an interesting thought that's not really related to this that I found when looking that up
the top 5 offenses by runs scored were the Sox, Yankees, Rangers, Tigers, and Cardinals. Those were also the teams that grounded onto the most (Cardinals) and 3-6 most double plays (the aberration is the Orioles, who grounded into the second most double plays and scored a pretty mediocre amount of runs). Kinda weird.
Probably because they had the most opportunities to GIDP
Being that they had men on base so often.
Strikeouts are boring- Besides that, they're fascist. Throw some ground balls - it's more democratic.
by CasanovaWong on Dec 20, 2011 8:59 PM EST up reply actions
hm could be
the Mets kind of buck that trend by having the 6th highest OBP (weird, right???) but grounding into the 18th most double plays. I have a feeling it has more to do with the type of players that tend to create a ton of runs having a tendency to be slow guys who have a lot of power. But I dunno. Just thought it was interesting.
Red Sox batting with Bases Loaded
Check many of the previous years and I think you find a similar result. What I have noticed is the overall team approach of taking too many get me over curve balls early in the count with bases loaded especially, therefore being behind in the count and too often looking for a pitch to drive instead of a pitch you can handle and go the other way and take the bleeping single.

by 




























