Jump to content

Is .500 in jeopardy?


Moose Milligan

Recommended Posts

As far as I’m concerned, the playoff race is over. Even if we won the past couple series, the Rays and Blue Jays are winning at a better clip. 
 

At this point with the way we’ve been playing over the past week or so, I’m starting to wonder if our shot at a .500 season is in jeopardy.  Even if we finish below that mark, the season still should be considered a success but I think it would still sting, it’d probably cost Hyde manager of the year.  
 

The rest of the schedule is pretty stout and I can easily see this happening. And if we don’t watch out, we can still finish below the Sox in our all too familiar position. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s possible they fall below if they keep hitting like this. 9-13 gets them to 82-80. 
 

I was just hoping they would be in the race as long as possible. The bats this weekend were bad. I know Saturday the game was over early but it’s been frustrating to watch them hit. 
 

They need to beat WAS and DET when they play them. The Nats have been playing better lately. I just hope they can get the bats going some and don’t limp into the off-season. We don’t know how much will be at stake for NYY and TOR the last 6 games. Odds are NYY may clinch the division at some point that series. TOR will want to set up their pitching for the playoffs. 
 

They look like a team that has the weight of the world on their shoulders. Hope the off day will help. Be nice to score some early and maybe relax a little. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do think .500 and 4th place are both in jeopardy. Boston is not a normal last place team....there is proven talent all over that roster.  After everything this team has accomplished, to finish under .500 and in 5th place would negate most of it because it would imply a 9-21 finish against mostly division rivals.  That would sound like....every other year.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's possible given the tough schedule, but more likely they go ~.500 the rest of the way to finish with 83-85 W's. I don't see a team in collapse, I just see a slumping offense and a bad week.

This team has been so consistent that people forgot what it's like to have a bad week. The team hasn't lost two straight series since the All Star Break, and the last time they had a losing week of two series (Monday to Sunday) was June 27 to July 3.

This losing week just stings extra because we haven't had one in a while, and it's coinciding with other hot streaks in a way that makes the WCGB look insurmountable. 

  • Upvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Spy Fox said:

I think it's possible given the tough schedule, but more likely they go ~.500 the rest of the way to finish with 83-85 W's. I don't see a team in collapse, I just see a slumping offense and a bad week.

This team has been so consistent that people forgot what it's like to have a bad week. The team hasn't lost two straight series since the All Star Break, and the last time they had a losing week of two series (Monday to Sunday) was June 27 to July 3.

This losing week just stings extra because we haven't had one in a while, and it's coinciding with other hot streaks in a way that makes the WCGB look insurmountable. 

Definitely agree with all of this.

I can see them limping to the finish a bit and running out of gas.  I may be in the minority, but I don't really care about .500.  I have a pretty binary view - you either make the playoffs, or you do not.  If you don't make the playoffs then finishing above .500 or in a certain place in your division doesn't really matter to me.

Which doesn't mean that the season hasn't been successful, I think it very much has been regardless.  I think we've found some good nuggets and we've found the areas that need to improve to try to make the jump next year.

Edited by glenn__davis
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply hard to win with these cold bats.  Too many poor hitters in the lineup too often (Odor, Chirinos) which is magnified when the 'better' hitters like Hays and Mountcastle are struggling and not able to carry the team. I think .500 is going to happen, but if the bats keep up this frigid pace, falling below that is possible.   Partly depends on lineups going forward. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can really only follow the games online, but from what I can see when we are hitting, we have a lot of 1-2-3 innings, a lot of falling behind early in the count (where the pitches at least online do not appear to be in the strike zone), a lot of pop-ups, and just not a lot of baserunners at all.   The stats show us 25th in the majors in OBP.  Also looks like we are 27th in O-Swing %.  I think we had 14 strikeouts yesterday out of our 27 outs, which means a ton of unproductive outs.  Not sure where to find the stats for productive outs as a team, but I suspect we are not great in that area as well.  

Foot traffic on the basepaths creates stress for the opposing pitcher, and it feels like we are making things very easy for the opposition regardless of who is pitching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, glenn__davis said:

Definitely agree with all of this.

I can see them limping to the finish a bit and running out of gas.  I may be in the minority, but I don't really care about .500.  I have a pretty binary view - you either make the playoffs, or you do not.  If you don't make the playoffs then finishing above .500 or in a certain place in your division doesn't really matter to me.

Which doesn't mean that the season hasn't been successful, I think it very much has been regardless.  I think we've found some good nuggets and we've found the areas that need to improve to try to make the jump next year.

I agree with this partly, specifically the part about either you're in the playoffs or not. 

But it's been so long for this team, I still think it's important that they just win more than they lose and can say they had a winning season.  The season has been successful but I'd like for them to see it through all the way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Posts

    • dWAR is just the run value for defense added with the defensive adjustment.  Corner OF spots have a -7.5 run adjustment, while CF has a +2.5 adjustment over 150 games.    Since Cowser played both CF and the corners they pro-rate his time at each to calculate his defensive adjustment. 
    • Just to be clear, though, fWAR also includes a substantial adjustment for position, including a negative one for Cowser.  For a clearer example on that front, as the chart posted higher on this page indicates, Carlos Santana had a +14 OAA — which is the source data that fWAR’s defensive component is based on. That 14 outs above average equates to 11-12 (they use different values on this for some reason) runs better than the average 1B.  So does Santana have a 12.0 defensive value, per fWAR? He does not. That’s because they adjust his defensive value downward to reflect that he’s playing a less difficult/valuable position. In this case, that adjustment comes out to -11.0 runs, as you can see here:   So despite apparently having a bona fide Gold Glove season, Santana’s Fielding Runs value (FanGraphs’ equivalent to dWAR) is barely above average, at 1.1 runs.    Any good WAR calculation is going to adjust for position. Being a good 1B just isn’t worth as much as being an average SS or catcher. Just as being a good LF isn’t worth as much as being an average CF. Every outfielder can play LF — only the best outfielders can play CF.  Where the nuance/context shows up here is with Cowser’s unique situation. Playing LF in OPACY, with all that ground to cover, is not the same as playing LF at Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Treating Cowser’s “position” as equivalent to Tyler O’Neill’s, for example, is not fair. The degree of difficulty is much, much higher at OPACY’s LF, and so the adjustment seems out of whack for him. That’s the one place where I’d say the bWAR value is “unfair” to Cowser.
    • Wait a second here, the reason he's -0.1 in bb-ref dwar is because they're using drs to track his defensive run value.  He's worth 6.6 runs in defense according to fangraphs, which includes adjustments for position, which would give him a fangraphs defensive war of +0.7.
    • A little funny to have provided descriptions of the hits (“weak” single; “500 foot” HR). FIP doesn’t care about any of that either, so it’s kind of an odd thing to add in an effort to make ERA look bad.  Come in, strike out the first hitter, then give up three 108 MPH rocket doubles off the wall. FIP thinks you were absolutely outstanding, and it’s a shame your pathetic defense and/or sheer bad luck let you down. Next time you’ll (probably) get the outcomes you deserve. They’re both flawed. So is xFIP. So is SIERA. So is RA/9. So is WPA. So is xERA. None of them are perfect measures of how a pitcher’s actual performance was, because there’s way too much context and too many variables for any one metric to really encompass.  But when I’m thinking about awards, for me at least, it ends up having to be about the actual outcomes. I don’t really care what a hitter’s xWOBA is when I’m thinking about MVP, and the same is true for pitchers. Did you get the outs? Did the runs score? That’s the “value” that translates to the scoreboard and, ultimately, to the standings. So I think the B-R side of it is more sensible for awards.  I definitely take into account the types of factors that you (and other pitching fWAR advocates) reference as flaws. So if a guy plays in front of a particular bad defense or had a particularly high percentage of inherited runners score, I’d absolutely adjust my take to incorporate that info. And I also 100% go to Fangraphs first when I’m trying to figure out which pitchers we should acquire (i.e., for forward looking purposes).  But I just can’t bring myself say that my Cy Young is just whichever guy had the best ratio of Ks to BBs to HRs over a threshold number of innings. As @Frobby said, it just distills out too much of what actually happened.
    • We were all a lot younger in 2005.  No one wanted to believe Canseco cause he’s a smarmy guy. Like I said, he was the only one telling the truth. It wasn’t a leap of faith to see McGwire up there and Sosa up there and think “yeah, those guys were juicing” but then suddenly look at Raffy and think he was completely innocent.  It’s a sad story. The guy should be in Hall of Fame yet 500 homers and 3,000 hits are gone like a fart in the wind cause his legacy is wagging his finger and thinking he couldn’t get caught.  Don’t fly too close to the sun.  
    • I think if we get the fun sprinkler loving Gunnar that was in the dugout yesterday, I don’t think we have to worry about him pressing. He seemed loose and feeling good with the other guys he was with, like Kremer.
    • I was a lot younger back then, but that betrayal hit really hard because he had been painting himself as literally holier than thou, and shook his finger to a congressional committee and then barely 2 weeks later failed the test.
  • Popular Contributors

×
×
  • Create New...