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.
7/30-8/1 Red Sox vs. Rays Series Thread
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 30, 2019 22:21:43 GMT -5
JBJ, Ted Williams when he's on. Sandy Leon when he's off.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 30, 2019 22:22:01 GMT -5
meanwhile edwin diaz is imploding for the Mets. this guy would be bite your fingernails every time frustrating to watch. Annnd he just blew the save. Just think, he could be doing that for us and our pen would be fixed! I would still gladly take him with open arms.
|
|
bosox
Veteran
Posts: 2,117
|
Post by bosox on Jul 30, 2019 22:23:05 GMT -5
Weird year as in most years a team will at least go on some kind of winning streak. This team can't get on a roll. They can't take advantage of opportunities like the 2018 team.
|
|
wcp3
Veteran
Posts: 3,833
|
Post by wcp3 on Jul 30, 2019 22:23:46 GMT -5
Small time performance by Price did them in tonight.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 30, 2019 22:24:23 GMT -5
Next time, go to Darwinzon instead of Walden, Taylor, and crap Brewer. There's a suggestion.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2019 22:26:14 GMT -5
Small time performance by Price did them in tonight. Has he won a game since he berated Dennis Eckersley again? Karma.
|
|
|
Post by grandsalami on Jul 30, 2019 22:27:32 GMT -5
We are not doing jack this season unless price and sale get fixed.
Both of them have been slumping for a good while.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Jul 30, 2019 22:27:56 GMT -5
meanwhile edwin diaz is imploding for the Mets. this guy would be bite your fingernails every time frustrating to watch. Annnd he just blew the save. Just think, he could be doing that for us and our pen would be fixed! He's just lowering the price so that the Mets will stop demanding Benintendi in a deal for him. Way to go Edwin. Is that Dombrowski getting a call from Brodie?
|
|
|
Post by Don Caballero on Jul 30, 2019 22:30:04 GMT -5
What an absolute nightmare of a game, felt like there was a real chance to score forever and it just refused to happen.
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Jul 30, 2019 22:30:50 GMT -5
I feel we could take out the MFY in the playoff as we always score a lot in the matchup. Games with the Rays are a coin toss.
|
|
|
Post by incandenza on Jul 30, 2019 22:30:56 GMT -5
Red Sox bullpen (bunch of bums, puke emoji): 4.2 IP, 3 H, 2 ER, 3 BB, 6 K, 3.86 ERA
Number of AL teams with better than a 3.86 bullpen ERA: 3
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 30, 2019 22:33:52 GMT -5
Next time, go to Darwinzon instead of Walden, Taylor, and crap Brewer. There's a suggestion. If your starter can't get you through 5, you're gonna need to go through the crappy part of your Bullpen. BTW, Price pitched in every series vs the Rays. They've got a good idea how to attack him, that's too much exposure.
|
|
|
Post by pedrofanforever45 on Jul 30, 2019 22:40:41 GMT -5
Next time, go to Darwinzon instead of Walden, Taylor, and crap Brewer. There's a suggestion. If your starter can't get you through 5, you're gonna need to go through the crappy part of your Bullpen. BTW, Price pitched in every series vs the Rays. They've got a good idea how to attack him, that's too much exposure. The Sox could have went to Darwinzon in the 6th. Barnes for the 7th. Eovaldi to the 8th. Workman for the 9th. All with a lead. The crappy part of your bullpen should have been already been dealt with when Walden finished the 5th.
|
|
|
Post by station13 on Jul 30, 2019 22:43:39 GMT -5
Next time, go to Darwinzon instead of Walden, Taylor, and crap Brewer. There's a suggestion. If your starter can't get you through 5, you're gonna need to go through the crappy part of your Bullpen. BTW, Price pitched in every series vs the Rays. They've got a good idea how to attack him, that's too much exposure. How does the Rays do it ? Their relievers are totally new everytime I see them the next year. Tonight was more on the offense anyway.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,416
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Jul 30, 2019 22:48:11 GMT -5
If your starter can't get you through 5, you're gonna need to go through the crappy part of your Bullpen. BTW, Price pitched in every series vs the Rays. They've got a good idea how to attack him, that's too much exposure. The Sox could have went to Darwinzon in the 6th. Barnes for the 7th. Eovaldi to the 8th. Workman for the 9th. All with a lead. The crappy part of your bullpen should have been already been dealt with when Walden finished the 5th. In hindsight? Yes. Cora played the match ups and it fired back. Walden committed a the cardinal sin of walking the batter with 2 outs an nobody on and f***ng Colton Brewer got a 0-2 count to a 3-2 count to free the runners and the winning run scored from 1st on a double to left. The guy just can't throw a pitch over the plate even if he wants to 😂 He needs to be in AAA working on that.
|
|
|
Post by tizzle on Jul 30, 2019 23:25:05 GMT -5
The Sox could have went to Darwinzon in the 6th. Barnes for the 7th. Eovaldi to the 8th. Workman for the 9th. All with a lead. The crappy part of your bullpen should have been already been dealt with when Walden finished the 5th. In hindsight? Yes. Cora played the match ups and it fired back. Walden committed a the cardinal sin of walking the batter with 2 outs an nobody on and f***ng Colton Brewer got a 0-2 count to a 3-2 count to free the runners and the winning run scored from 1st on a double to left. The guy just can't throw a pitch over the plate even if he wants to 😂 He needs to be in AAA working on that. I think his whole thinking was centered around Eovaldi, Barnes and Workman for an inning each to finish. I don't really mind sending Walden back out, I think Taylor has been good enough that I don't mind him in there at all. The only thing I didn't like was Brewer there. Too much at stake and too crappy a Pitcher.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2019 2:24:32 GMT -5
How awful was that loss?
You bring in your least good of 8 relievers into the game's highest leverage situation, and he costs you the lead.
Then the offense has 9 chances to tie the game by simply getting a real single, and can manage only two walks and an infield hit that doesn't plate the run.
They have now gone 136 consecutive PA with Leverage Index of 2.65 or higher without getting an extra base hit, which is to say, since April 29. They have 420 XBH in 4198 PA in leverage lower than that. Given that rate, the odds of going 0 for 136 in a random simulation against the same quality of pitchers are 1 in 1,638,237.
At least tonight they managed three singles (in 10 AB) and a walk. That's a big improvement. Bt all it did tonight was put us in even higher leverage, where we then failed.
|
|
|
Post by hammerhead on Jul 31, 2019 2:41:01 GMT -5
I wonder if Cora did it on purpose to show DD which arms should be upgraded on.
I'm mostly kidding...mostly
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 31, 2019 7:49:58 GMT -5
How awful was that loss?
You bring in your least good of 8 relievers into the game's highest leverage situation, and he costs you the lead.
Then the offense has 9 chances to tie the game by simply getting a real single, and can manage only two walks and an infield hit that doesn't plate the run.
They have now gone 136 consecutive PA with Leverage Index of 2.65 or higher without getting an extra base hit, which is to say, since April 29. They have 420 XBH in 4198 PA in leverage lower than that. Given that rate, the odds of going 0 for 136 in a random simulation against the same quality of pitchers are 1 in 1,638,237.
At least tonight they managed three singles (in 10 AB) and a walk. That's a big improvement. Bt all it did tonight was put us in even higher leverage, where we then failed.
Thinking it is either law of averages catching up with them over the 2 seasons...but even more, has it just crept into their heads? Are they that tight...or do their plate approaches change that much.. in clutch situations? JBJ certainly stops trying to go opposite field, or so it seems. It's a real chicken and egg discussion...whose fault, short inning starters, worn relievers or squandered at bats! Truth lies in bits across all 3, most likely
|
|
|
Post by redsoxfan2 on Jul 31, 2019 8:35:33 GMT -5
I'm still fully convinced the Red Sox are winning the next 2, but the loss was very disappointing because a sweep would have just buried them. I think the Red Sox need to shut down both Price and Sale for a couple of weeks (not at the same time). They need to get a starter and rotate shutting down guys to give them a break.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2019 13:19:54 GMT -5
How awful was that loss?
You bring in your least good of 8 relievers into the game's highest leverage situation, and he costs you the lead.
Then the offense has 9 chances to tie the game by simply getting a real single, and can manage only two walks and an infield hit that doesn't plate the run.
They have now gone 136 consecutive PA with Leverage Index of 2.65 or higher without getting an extra base hit, which is to say, since April 29. They have 420 XBH in 4198 PA in leverage lower than that. Given that rate, the odds of going 0 for 136 in a random simulation against the same quality of pitchers are 1 in 1,638,237.
At least tonight they managed three singles (in 10 AB) and a walk. That's a big improvement. But all it did tonight was put us in even higher leverage, where we then failed.
Thinking it is either law of averages catching up with them over the 2 seasons...but even more, has it just crept into their heads? Are they that tight...or do their plate approaches change that much.. in clutch situations? JBJ certainly stops trying to go opposite field, or so it seems. It's a real chicken and egg discussion...whose fault, short inning starters, worn relievers or squandered at bats! Truth lies in bits across all 3, most likely It was definitely in their heads before last night, as they had just 6 BB in the previous 111 PA with this leverage.
Looking at Statcast data, you can't really pin this loss on high leverage failures, because after Devers' leadoff 2B in the 7th (109 mph), they never made hard contact again. Travis's 2B leading off the 8th had an 89.5 EV and projected distance of 357', and is an out 88% of the time (averaging all horizontal angles). Benny's 2-out single in the 9th was 66.5 and was an 82% out, which is to say, it wasn't even a legitimate bloop. Travis followed with an 83 mph grounder that finds a hole 45% of the time.
They just stopped hitting after the Devers 2B, and got chances in the 8th and 9th by luck. It probably would have been just as frustrating if they'd gone 6 up, 6 down in the 8th and 9th, but frustrating in a very different way.
Meanwhile, by xwOBA they've just had the worst stretch of 5 starts of the year since the first five. And this is overlapping one of the very best stretches (Porcello's start against the Yankees is in both groups).
Put another way, Cashner against the O's (good but unlucky) and Sale, Rodriguez, Price against the Rays in Tampa had a .252 xwOBA. The same four guys against the Yankees and now the Rays at home have had a .415. And in the first of those starts, Cashner had a .147 through 4 innings and a .538 in his last 3. The latter was masked by luck and his run support, as was E-Rod's very subpar outing.
Just at the point where the SP was going great (Porcello in the Yankees opener had a .233 outside the 2nd inning when he pitched after a ridiculous long wait), it went south in the middle of Cashner's start and has stayed there. That they're still 5-3 in this key stretch is very fortunate.
They are still good enough to go 4-2 in the remaining games and end up 9-5, which I regarded from the beginning as par for the course, the result that is satisfying but not a cause for celebration. But until two nights ago it really looked like they had a chance for 10-4, which I thought was the goal or target (win every series or the equivalent).
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Jul 31, 2019 13:55:28 GMT -5
I just had to say this. Doesn't really belong anywhere so I'm putting it here. Why is xFIP not adjusted year to year with an average HR/FB rate instead of an arbitrary 10.5% rate that is far better than any team in the league has now? The median is 15.1%. The low is 11.4% by Oakland (duh) and the high is 18.3% by Philly.
This has turned xFIP into a completely worthless stat unless you want to know how a pitcher might be pitching with a normal baseball (but not really because juiced balls also lead to a lot more non-HR base hits as well and also likely more walks because pitchers are afraid of HR).
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Jul 31, 2019 15:46:11 GMT -5
I just had to say this. Doesn't really belong anywhere so I'm putting it here. Why is xFIP not adjusted year to year with an average HR/FB rate instead of an arbitrary 10.5% rate that is far better than any team in the league has now? The median is 15.1%. The low is 11.4% by Oakland (duh) and the high is 18.3% by Philly. This has turned xFIP into a completely worthless stat unless you want to know how a pitcher might be pitching with a normal baseball (but not really because juiced balls also lead to a lot more non-HR base hits as well and also likely more walks because pitchers are afraid of HR). The whole notion FIP and xFIP as a meaningful measure of pitching skill is incoherent, anyway.
Take BABIP and HR/FB and regress them properly to the mean. Smartly. Properly. And then adjust them for all known confounds. Replacing them with the mean, just because the variance is hard to measure, has never made any sense to me.
(Now, xFIP- should be a handy number that translates K, BB, and FB% into an equivalent ERA- so that you can isolate those three factors and then look at BABIP and HR/FB. And you are dead right that it no longer does that job.)
You could do a simple regression to isolate the very small portion of each that is predictive, but we know that the skill level varies from year to year, and you don't want to eliminate that from the metric.
You can plot any stat against its sample size and get a sideways cone, centered on the mean, with the point to the right. The point at which the cone stops narrowing and starts to look like a band is the point where the stat seems to "stabilize," which is really the point at which the variance created because of sample size is no longer visible relative to the actual variance.
You then transform the data so that the whole thing looks like a band (easy to define mathematically: the SD of the data has no correlation to the minimum sample size used.)
And then adjust for ballpark and hitters faced.
You can use Statcast data (going deeper than xwOBA) to refine the stat, and thus make it useful for historical data.
|
|
|
Post by soxfansince67 on Jul 31, 2019 17:30:50 GMT -5
Feeling a bit deflated going into this game...part last night's mess, part watching the trade deadline go by. Important game tonight for sure.
|
|
manfred
Veteran
Posts: 11,421
Member is Online
|
Post by manfred on Jul 31, 2019 17:31:39 GMT -5
I just had to say this. Doesn't really belong anywhere so I'm putting it here. Why is xFIP not adjusted year to year with an average HR/FB rate instead of an arbitrary 10.5% rate that is far better than any team in the league has now? The median is 15.1%. The low is 11.4% by Oakland (duh) and the high is 18.3% by Philly. This has turned xFIP into a completely worthless stat unless you want to know how a pitcher might be pitching with a normal baseball (but not really because juiced balls also lead to a lot more non-HR base hits as well and also likely more walks because pitchers are afraid of HR). The whole notion FIP and xFIP as a meaningful measure of pitching skill is incoherent, anyway.
Take BABIP and HR/FB and regress them properly to the mean. Smartly. Properly. And then adjust them for all known confounds. Replacing them with the mean, just because the variance is hard to measure, has never made any sense to me.
(Now, xFIP- should be a handy number that translates K, BB, and FB% into an equivalent ERA- so that you can isolate those three factors and then look at BABIP and HR/FB. And you are dead right that it no longer does that job.)
You could do a simple regression to isolate the very small portion of each that is predictive, but we know that the skill level varies from year to year, and you don't want to eliminate that from the metric.
You can plot any stat against its sample size and get a sideways cone, centered on the mean, with the point to the right. The point at which the cone stops narrowing and starts to look like a band is the point where the stat seems to "stabilize," which is really the point at which the variance created because of sample size is no longer visible relative to the actual variance.
You then transform the data so that the whole thing looks like a band (easy to define mathematically: the SD of the data has no correlation to the minimum sample size used.)
And then adjust for ballpark and hitters faced.
You can use Statcast data (going deeper than xwOBA) to refine the stat, and thus make it useful for historical data.
Who says baseball can’t be cool with kids again?
|
|
|