SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
4/20-4/22 Red Sox @ Athletics Series Thread
|
Post by benogliviesbrother on Apr 20, 2018 18:29:44 GMT -5
All fair, but I bet Graveman is shaking in his boots. Some time this year I would not be surprised to see the Sox hit six or seven HRs in a row. I'd be shocked. Using a very generous 1/15 (odds to homer in any given PA) to the 6th power (number of batters who homer) = 11,390,625 to one odds. Using 1/20 to 7th power puts you over a billion to one. But if you're feeling it, maybe start looking for a (deep pocketed) gambling house that takes such prop bets.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Apr 20, 2018 18:40:43 GMT -5
At some point, the insane start has to come to the end. What you want after that is being merely genuinely great. Like .667 ball. A team that can win 2 of every 3 games wins 108. They've already banked 4 wins above that. That's the realistic dream that makes us giddy ... and if we're talking 112 wins, you may as well set 115 to top the '98 Yankees. So, I'll be perfectly satisfied to go 4-2 on the rest of the trip, and so should you. Whereas 5-1 would be more of this madness, as we'll see right now ... Here are all the teams in MLB history that started 20-4 or better, with run differential and Pythagorean wins. * lost game 25. 22-2
1955 Dodgers, +69, 18.0 * (but got to 24-4). Won WS. 21-3
1911 Tigers, +68, 18.5 * (got to 22-4). Finished 2nd, 89-65. 1946 Red Sox, +58, 16.7 * (got to 23-4). Won pennant. 20-41981 A's, +68, 19.7 *. Lost ALCS. 2003 Yankees, +85, 19.1 *. Lost WS to Josh Beckett's Marlins. 1984 Tigers, +71, 18.6 (got to 26-4). Won WS. 1986 Mets, +55, 17.6 *. Not sure what happened. 1977 Dodgers, +58, 17.3 (got to 22-4). Lost WS. 2001 Mariners, +50, 16.7 *. Lost ALCS. 1987 Brewers, +38, 15.0 *. Finished 3rd, 91-71. Kind of eerie that 8 of the 10 teams lost game 25. But 8 finished first. 112 wins is a realistic dream? Really? This Red Sox team is awesome but there's no way they're playing anywhere near .667 ball the rest of the way. I thought the Sox have the talent to win 95 games. They have a realistic shot at 100, especially given how poor so many teams are. To win 100, they'd have to go 84-60 which is .583 ball or close to a 95 win pace, which is about as good as they've averaged during their best full years. I don't foresee any scenarios where they threaten 112 wins but if I'm wrong at the end of the season, feel free to remind me. Especially if they win the Series. I wouldn't mind.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 20, 2018 18:57:18 GMT -5
At some point, the insane start has to come to the end. What you want after that is being merely genuinely great. Like .667 ball. A team that can win 2 of every 3 games wins 108. They've already banked 4 wins above that. That's the realistic dream that makes us giddy ... and if we're talking 112 wins, you may as well set 115 to top the '98 Yankees. So, I'll be perfectly satisfied to go 4-2 on the rest of the trip, and so should you. Whereas 5-1 would be more of this madness, as we'll see right now ... Here are all the teams in MLB history that started 20-4 or better, with run differential and Pythagorean wins. * lost game 25. 22-2
1955 Dodgers, +69, 18.0 * (but got to 24-4). Won WS. 21-3
1911 Tigers, +68, 18.5 * (got to 22-4). Finished 2nd, 89-65. 1946 Red Sox, +58, 16.7 * (got to 23-4). Won pennant. 20-41981 A's, +68, 19.7 *. Lost ALCS. 2003 Yankees, +85, 19.1 *. Lost WS to Josh Beckett's Marlins. 1984 Tigers, +71, 18.6 (got to 26-4). Won WS. 1986 Mets, +55, 17.6 *. Not sure what happened. 1977 Dodgers, +58, 17.3 (got to 22-4). Lost WS. 2001 Mariners, +50, 16.7 *. Lost ALCS. 1987 Brewers, +38, 15.0 *. Finished 3rd, 91-71. Kind of eerie that 8 of the 10 teams lost game 25. But 8 finished first. Excellent. I would put....got lucky as balls.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Apr 20, 2018 19:28:28 GMT -5
The Toronto ny game going on now has me conflicted. A Toronto loss gives us more of a division lead, but a Yankees lost just gives me good feelings regardless of the larger picture
|
|
|
Post by kingofthetrill on Apr 20, 2018 19:32:45 GMT -5
I wouldn't worry about a division lead in April. Gotta hold the Yankees under water until the bubbles stop coming up. Gotta pile on as many losses as possible before the balls really start carrying in July. You'll eventually start seeing check swing HR's.
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Apr 20, 2018 19:40:36 GMT -5
At some point, the insane start has to come to the end. What you want after that is being merely genuinely great. Like .667 ball. A team that can win 2 of every 3 games wins 108. They've already banked 4 wins above that. That's the realistic dream that makes us giddy ... and if we're talking 112 wins, you may as well set 115 to top the '98 Yankees. So, I'll be perfectly satisfied to go 4-2 on the rest of the trip, and so should you. Whereas 5-1 would be more of this madness, as we'll see right now ... Here are all the teams in MLB history that started 20-4 or better, with run differential and Pythagorean wins. * lost game 25. 22-2
1955 Dodgers, +69, 18.0 * (but got to 24-4). Won WS. 21-3
1911 Tigers, +68, 18.5 * (got to 22-4). Finished 2nd, 89-65. 1946 Red Sox, +58, 16.7 * (got to 23-4). Won pennant. 20-41981 A's, +68, 19.7 *. Lost ALCS. 2003 Yankees, +85, 19.1 *. Lost WS to Josh Beckett's Marlins. 1984 Tigers, +71, 18.6 (got to 26-4). Won WS. 1986 Mets, +55, 17.6 *. Not sure what happened. 1977 Dodgers, +58, 17.3 (got to 22-4). Lost WS. 2001 Mariners, +50, 16.7 *. Lost ALCS. 1987 Brewers, +38, 15.0 *. Finished 3rd, 91-71. Kind of eerie that 8 of the 10 teams lost game 25. But 8 finished first. 112 wins is a realistic dream? Really? This Red Sox team is awesome but there's no way they're playing anywhere near .667 ball the rest of the way. I thought the Sox have the talent to win 95 games. They have a realistic shot at 100, especially given how poor so many teams are. To win 100, they'd have to go 84-60 which is .583 ball or close to a 95 win pace, which is about as good as they've averaged during their best full years. I don't foresee any scenarios where they threaten 112 wins but if I'm wrong at the end of the season, feel free to remind me. Especially if they win the Series. I wouldn't mind. 538 Sports already projects them to win 103 games. Fangraphs projects them to win 100. That's not a dream, that's the projection.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 20, 2018 20:08:37 GMT -5
112 wins is a realistic dream? Really? This Red Sox team is awesome but there's no way they're playing anywhere near .667 ball the rest of the way. I thought the Sox have the talent to win 95 games. They have a realistic shot at 100, especially given how poor so many teams are. To win 100, they'd have to go 84-60 which is .583 ball or close to a 95 win pace, which is about as good as they've averaged during their best full years. I don't foresee any scenarios where they threaten 112 wins but if I'm wrong at the end of the season, feel free to remind me. Especially if they win the Series. I wouldn't mind. 538 Sports already projects them to win 103 games. Fangraphs projects them to win 100. That's not a dream, that's the projection. And "realistic dream" is of course a self-contradictory phrase. In this sense, "realistic" means "not absurd" or "not impossible." We sometimes use the phrase "not in my wildest dreams." If the Red Sox win 130 games, we would all accurately say "not in my wildest dreams did I think that would happen." Since a team won 114 games exactly 20 years ago, and this team appears to be jaw-droppingly talented, it would not be accurate at all to say that if we won 115. I was trying to get a handle on the performance that we'd all be seriously dreaming about. Oh, and Fangraphs is projecting us for 100 wins with Xander Bogaerts hitting .289 / .352 / .446 the rest of the way, Mookie Betts hitting .302 / .373 / .519 the rest of the way, David Price having a 3.75 ERA, Eduardo Rodriguez a 4.11, and Rick Porcello a 4.12. Their projections still have Benintendi as the team's 3rd best hitter going forward, at .280 / .359 / .453. IOW, if we're colossally disappointed with the future performance all of the apparent 2018 breakouts (several of which have already been analyzed and explained sabermetrically), that's how we win 100 games.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2018 20:24:39 GMT -5
In what world does “realistic” mean “not impossible?” In what world is it “realistic” to beat your projection by 12 wins? The world of Eric Van, I suppose.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 20, 2018 20:29:08 GMT -5
In what world does “realistic” mean “not impossible?” In what world is it “realistic” to beat your projection by 12 wins? The world of Eric Van, I suppose. To be fair in his world it means “not absurd”.
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Apr 20, 2018 20:29:52 GMT -5
But also he does call it a dream scenario as well.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Apr 20, 2018 20:30:37 GMT -5
Let’s start a pool on wins for this season,
|
|
|
Post by michael on Apr 20, 2018 20:43:59 GMT -5
I wouldn't mind.[/quote]538 Sports already projects them to win 103 games. Fangraphs projects them to win 100. That's not a dream, that's the projection.[/quote]
Might I offer that 538 Sports is being transferred from ESPN to ABC News. FWIW
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,946
|
Post by ericmvan on Apr 20, 2018 20:45:53 GMT -5
In what world does “realistic” mean “not impossible?” In what world is it “realistic” to beat your projection by 12 wins? The world of Eric Van, I suppose. In a world where it modifies the word "dream." In a world where adjectives are relative to the nouns they modify. "Jumbo shrimp" are actually small compared to almost all other forms of seafood. Does that confuse you as well? In a world where avoiding such a use (where the adjective is not only relative to its noun, but technically contradictory) would instead require 101 words instead of 2. jmei, tell me which single adjective you would use to modify "dream" to mean what I've explained what I meant by it? Or give me a two word-phrase other than "realistic dream" that means "the best possible outcome that you could imagine that would be clearly within the realm of possibility rather than absurd"? (Since one meaning of "dream" is "the best possible outcome that you could imagine" and one meaning of realistic is "clearly within the realm of possibility rather than absurd," I think you've got your work cut out for you.) Admittedly, that's 20 words rather than my previous 101, but sometimes you want to go into more detail than seems necessary.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Apr 20, 2018 20:52:21 GMT -5
"best dream" "possible dream" "imaginable dream" "non-absurd dream" "plausible dream" "conceivable dream" "viable dream" "feasible dream"
Should I keep going?
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 20, 2018 21:22:22 GMT -5
Pomeranz at a alarming velocity drop. 88-90 mph this inning with his fastball.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 20, 2018 21:25:58 GMT -5
Control is off too. Why didn’t they leave him down for a couple more starts to at least get him to work out the delivery kinks, I wonder?
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 20, 2018 21:27:23 GMT -5
Don't be a buzzkill Dwew !!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 20, 2018 21:29:13 GMT -5
Vazquez still needs work blocking balls at the plate. Could have bailed out Pomeranz there Vazquez.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 20, 2018 21:29:25 GMT -5
but really....not a good start. CVaz has to block that pitch.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Apr 20, 2018 21:29:26 GMT -5
Vazquez played that passed ball too casually.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 20, 2018 21:31:11 GMT -5
Lin would’ve had that.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Apr 20, 2018 21:31:58 GMT -5
Save Baseball !! Ban the shift ! Give the shift the shaft !!
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Apr 20, 2018 21:32:11 GMT -5
Pomeranz is getting hit hard.
|
|
|
Post by chrisfromnc on Apr 20, 2018 21:33:46 GMT -5
At this pitch count, it’s unlikely Pomeranz completes even four innings.
|
|
|
Post by Guidas on Apr 20, 2018 21:34:14 GMT -5
Pomeranz is getting squeezed a bit at the bottom of the zone.
|
|
|