When was the last time

[BohKnowsBmore]

A team swept another team on the road without hitting a single home run?

that’s what the Os just did to the BoSox and I have to think it’s somewhat uncommon. 

[HowAboutThat]

@Frobby

! this ones for you!

[Oriole1940]

I do not know the answer to the question, but I do know that when you have 15 team strikeouts and win by 9 runs, things are going your way.

[BohKnowsBmore]

12 minutes ago, Oriole1940 said:

I do not know the answer to the question, but I do know that when you have 15 team strikeouts and win by 9 runs, things are going your way.

That’s over 51 plate appearances though, so it’s not a super crazy high amount, honestly. 

[Frobby]

17 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

That’s over 51 plate appearances though, so it’s not a super crazy high amount, honestly. 

Also they played literally half the game with the batters box in the shadows and the pitchers mound in the sunlight.    Very tough hitting conditions and the Sox pitchers were throwing some pretty serious heat.  

[OFFNY]

32 minutes ago, Oriole1940 said:

 

I do not know the answer to the question, but I do know that when you have 15 team strikeouts and win by 9 runs, things are going your way.

 

 

 

22 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

 

That’s over 51 plate appearances though, so it’s not a super crazy high amount. 

 

o

 

Somewhat similar to the fact that the Orioles left 14 runners on base today, while the Red Sox left only left 5 runners on base. The "Runners Left on Base" statistic needs to be scrutinized beyond just the face value of the statistic itself ...... for example, a team can score 12 runs in a game, and still have left 14 or 15 runners on base. The only way that you won't wind up with any runners left on base in an inning in which you have any base-runners at all is if you hit a home run to clear the bases just prior to making the 3rd out of the inning. You can score 6 runs in one inning, and still leave 2 or 3 runners on base in said inning.

Hence, if you look strictly at the statistic in and of itself without any further context, it can be misleading.

 

o

[Frobby]

3 minutes ago, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Somewhat similar to the fact that the Orioles left 14 runners on base today, while the Red Sox left only left 5 runners on base. The "Runners Left on Base" statistic needs to be scrutinized beyond just the face value of the statistic itself ...... for example, a team can score 12 runs in a game, and still have left 14 or 15 runners on base. The only way that you won't wind up with any runners left on base in an inning in which you have any base-runners at all is if you hit a home run to clear the bases just prior to making the 3rd out of the inning. You can score 6 runs in one inning, and still leave 2 or 3 runners on base in said inning.

Hence, if you look strictly at the statistic in and of itself without any further context, it can be misleading.

 

o

8 for 24 with runners in scoring position.    I’ll take .333 with RISP any day, and it’s awfully nice to get 24 RISP opportunities.   

[BohKnowsBmore]

11 minutes ago, Frobby said:

8 for 24 with runners in scoring position.    I’ll take .333 with RISP any day, and it’s awfully nice to get 24 RISP opportunities.   

Got into a mini argument with a friend about this once a few years back when the Os were having winning seasons. He mentioned something about how leaving a lot of men on wasn’t going to lead to future wins because it wasn’t a sustainable formula (or something to that effect). I argued that, if anything, it should tell you that the current winning is sustainable because the run creation opportunities are there and you aren’t eking out wins purely by lucky sequencing. That said, there are certainly better predictive measures than LOB, but the interpretation of the stat is often questionable in my opinion. 

[Number5]

They mentioned during the broadcast that this is the first time since 1979 that the O's failed to hit a HR in the first three games, if I heard them right.  Sounded a bit hard to believe, but if so, wow.  And yet we won all three games!  Interestingly the O's won the AL pennant in 1979.  Karma?    

[byrdz]

I heard another 1948 stat at some point. I believe it had to do with Red Sox losing opening series at home.

[byrdz]

Here it is: Red Sox suffer 1st 0-3 start at Fenway Park since 1948 after Orioles sweep

[ChosenOne21]

45 minutes ago, BohKnowsBmore said:

Got into a mini argument with a friend about this once a few years back when the Os were having winning seasons. He mentioned something about how leaving a lot of men on wasn’t going to lead to future wins because it wasn’t a sustainable formula (or something to that effect). I argued that, if anything, it should tell you that the current winning is sustainable because the run creation opportunities are there and you aren’t eking out wins purely by lucky sequencing. That said, there are certainly better predictive measures than LOB, but the interpretation of the stat is often questionable in my opinion. 

Exactly, you can't leave many guys on base unless you're hitting them there and it's hard to score runs if you're not hitting

[HowAboutThat]

@byrdz beat me to it, but it’s only happened twice in Boston history.

Truly, in Boston there is weeping and gnashing of teeth...

[scOtt]

Just now, OFFNY said:

 

 

o

 

Somewhat similar to the fact that the Orioles left 14 runners on base today, while the Red Sox left only left 5 runners on base. The "Runners Left on Base" statistic needs to be scrutinized beyond just the face value of the statistic itself ...... for example, a team can score 12 runs in a game, and still have left 14 or 15 runners on base. The only way that you won't wind up with any runners left on base in an inning in which you have any base-runners at all is if you hit a home run to clear the bases just prior to making the 3rd out of the inning. You can score 6 runs in one inning, and still leave 2 or 3 runners on base in said inning.

Hence, if you look strictly at the statistic in and of itself without any further context, it can be misleading.

 

o

Or if you get no-hit or a perfect game... 0 or maybe 1 or 2 runners LOB.

 

[scOtt]

Just now, Number5 said:

They mentioned during the broadcast that this is the first time since 1979 that the O's failed to hit a HR in the first three games, if I heard them right.  Sounded a bit hard to believe, but if so, wow.  And yet we won all three games!  Interestingly the O's won the AL pennant in 1979.  Karma?    

Sweep or even get swept... it's odd to not hit a single HR in Fenway in 3 games.