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.
10/12 Red Sox vs. Tigers ALCS Game 1 Thread
|
Post by Jonathan Singer on Oct 11, 2013 14:23:57 GMT -5
10/12 Red Sox (LHP Jon Lester 1-0 2.25) vs. Tigers (RHP Anibal Sanchez 0-1 10.38) 8:07 pm ET, FOX/WEEI ALCS Game 1Season SeriesTigers won season series 4-3 How they got here?Red Sox 97-65 AL East Champions, Beat Tampa Bay 3-1 in ALDS Tigers 93-69 AL Central Champions, Beat Oakland 3-2 in ALDS Playoff HistoryFirst playoff meeting MLB StandingsRed Sox Hitting StatsRed Sox Pitching StatsMLB ScoreboardMLB TransactionsWeatherSeries Thread Disclaimer: The SoxProspects Moderators will be somewhat liberal in policing the Red Sox "Series" Threads. Some of the Ground Rules are applied loosely in here, as we understand that there is a tendency to want to react (or overreact) to every play of a Sox game with one line reactionary posts. Those posts are okay in the Red Sox Series threads to a point - we certainly appreciate the passion. Just try not to overdo it, and try to maintain some semblance of reason. In addition, please don't let those type of posts spill over to other more substantive threads, where they may be deleted. -The Management
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 11, 2013 14:39:09 GMT -5
Buchholz is starting game 2.
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 11, 2013 15:23:18 GMT -5
Alex Speier ?@alexspeier 11m Farrell said Middlebrooks would start first game (vs Sanchez), but suggested team considering options at a couple spots for G2 (vs Scherzer)
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 11, 2013 17:07:35 GMT -5
The clear best team in baseball faces the clear "most talented" team, that is, the team that had the best pitching and hitting stats.
The key question is: why did the Tigers win a worst-in-baseball 13.3 games less than you'd expect, given their stats? If that has no predictive value for the post-season, they're the clear favorite to win the WS. If that underperformance derives from some real weakness in situational performance, however, then conceivably they could project even worse than a team with their actual W/L record.
It is worth noting that they had that big negative number all season long, once I started to track it, so their first half inefficiency at turning stats into wins seemed to predict their second half.
If I get a chance tonight, I'll try to break down where their inefficiencies were.
|
|
|
Post by bosox81 on Oct 11, 2013 19:10:28 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Oct 11, 2013 19:26:52 GMT -5
The clear best team in baseball faces the clear "most talented" team, that is, the team that had the best pitching and hitting stats. The key question is: why did the Tigers win a worst-in-baseball 13.3 games less than you'd expect, given their stats? If that has no predictive value for the post-season, they're the clear favorite to win the WS. If that underperformance derives from some real weakness in situational performance, however, then conceivably they could project even worse than a team with their actual W/L record. It is worth noting that they had that big negative number all season long, once I started to track it, so their first half inefficiency at turning stats into wins seemed to predict their second half. If I get a chance tonight, I'll try to break down where their inefficiencies were. Question not challenge: I'm not arguing most talented, and it may not be material since they seem to have the best pitching and second best hitting, but by what metric were the Tigers the better hitting team? AVG is the only one I see on Fangraphs' Dashboard unless K% means a lot more than I think it does. Rank Team G PA HR R RBI SB BB% K% ISO BABIP AVG OBP SLG wOBA wRC+ BsR Off Def WAR 1 Red Sox 1663 6382 178 853 819 123 9.1 % 20.5 % .169 .329 .277 .349 .446 .347 115 11.3 121.1 6.5 36.6 2 Tigers 1695 6388 176 796 767 35 8.3 % 16.8 % .151 .320 .283 .346 .434 .341 113 -19.4 76.7 -43.1 26.5
Given what this team has accomplished, it's all good from here on, and no disgrace if it ends too soon, but I see no reason to doubt the "best" team now.
|
|
jimoh
Veteran
Posts: 3,984
|
Post by jimoh on Oct 11, 2013 19:31:56 GMT -5
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,933
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 12, 2013 2:32:38 GMT -5
The clear best team in baseball faces the clear "most talented" team, that is, the team that had the best pitching and hitting stats. Question not challenge: I'm not arguing most talented, and it may not be material since they seem to have the best pitching and second best hitting, but by what metric were the Tigers the better hitting team? None, as you point out. I meant best (pitching and hitting) stats, with no implication of best (hitting) and best (pitching). If I'd meant the latter, I would have said "both the best hitting and the best pitching" to make it unambiguous. It's one of those odd places in the English language where making a potentially ambiguous statement can be assumed to default to the simpler meaning. The NLCS game going 13 means I'm going to do a microwave version of looking into where the Tigers' inefficiency was. Six of their missing wins were simple Pythagorean (inefficiency translating RS and RA into wins), which that means that there were seven wins they missed by inefficiently translating stats (offensive and defensive events) into RS and RA. They hit better with RISP than with the bases empty, but their pitchers had a considerably bigger split. They allowed .239 / .297 / .365 with the bases empty, but .260 / .332 / .402 with RISP, and -- this is a big part of it -- in 263 PA with two runners in scoring position, they allowed .294 / .392 / .475, including .320 / .366 / .563 in 123 PA with the bases loaded. Wow. If I get a chance I'll look to see if any of the pitchers we'll be facing contributed to this split.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 12, 2013 4:34:33 GMT -5
Noting that I'm at Logan and too close to boarding to check the numbers, isn't an obvious major part of that answer their defense? Hell, they basically punt on defense at third base, and it's not like Peralta or Fielder (the irony...) are known to be much better.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2013 8:33:20 GMT -5
Agreed on the Tigers defense issue. Also wouldn't it appear that the Redsox approach is exactly what is not ideal for the Tigers. We put a lot of guys on base. I expect Iglesias to play a lot of SS in this series. And it probably makes sense for the Tigers to throw strikes more than usual. Especially when there is no one on base.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2013 8:35:33 GMT -5
Having their starters go long in each game is probably key for the Tigers. Their defense has been their biggest weakness but the pen is not a strength either while their starters are strong.
|
|
|
Post by brianthetaoist on Oct 12, 2013 8:39:06 GMT -5
Question not challenge: I'm not arguing most talented, and it may not be material since they seem to have the best pitching and second best hitting, but by what metric were the Tigers the better hitting team? None, as you point out. I meant best (pitching and hitting) stats, with no implication of best (hitting) and best (pitching). If I'd meant the latter, I would have said "both the best hitting and the best pitching" to make it unambiguous. It's one of those odd places in the English language where making a potentially ambiguous statement can be assumed to default to the simpler meaning I get the distinction as a semantic matter, but I still don't get what you mean ... what stats are better for the Tigers? This isn't exactly a big deal, since the Tigers have great hitting stats, but it seems like the Sox stats are better. Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, as a baseball traditionalist, I like the makeup of these LCS series, some good ol' historical franchises going at it, the descendants of Musial, Cobb, Robinson, Reese, Speaker, Williams, Branch Rickey's two teams ... good stuff.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2013 8:48:26 GMT -5
The Tigers appear to be the worst team in the league against the run. Worst CS percentage. If Ellsbury and Victorino get on they should run at will.
Another reason why maybe they don't do well statistically when men are on base.
|
|
|
Post by ramireja on Oct 12, 2013 8:58:37 GMT -5
None, as you point out. I meant best (pitching and hitting) stats, with no implication of best (hitting) and best (pitching). If I'd meant the latter, I would have said "both the best hitting and the best pitching" to make it unambiguous. It's one of those odd places in the English language where making a potentially ambiguous statement can be assumed to default to the simpler meaning I get the distinction as a semantic matter, but I still don't get what you mean ... what stats are better for the Tigers? This isn't exactly a big deal, since the Tigers have great hitting stats, but it seems like the Sox stats are better. Meanwhile, apropos of nothing, as a baseball traditionalist, I like the makeup of these LCS series, some good ol' historical franchises going at it, the descendants of Musial, Cobb, Robinson, Reese, Speaker, Williams, Branch Rickey's two teams ... good stuff. He's agreeing that no (or maybe one) stats are better for the Tigers offensively. He's not saying the Tigers are the better offensive team......he's saying essentially that having the best pitching staff and 2nd best offense is collectively more talented than say the best offense and the 10th best pitching staff.
|
|
|
Post by jchang on Oct 12, 2013 11:01:58 GMT -5
I would think that the question is: Given that BAA, OBP and SLG is so close, along with PA, there is a difference of 57 runs scored of 162 games, or 0.35 per game. Some additional stats not mentioned above by Onbase is -- Bos, Det TB 2521, 2491, GDP 137, 146 HB 72, 43 I would like to think that the run difference is a larger deviation than would be expected (but I am not sure how this would be computed). Some possible explanations could be: difference in SB+HBP, poorer hitting with RISP (I don't have this stat), or just the fact the Detroit runners are slower - so it takes more TB to get a base runner home?
|
|
|
Post by onbase on Oct 12, 2013 11:21:30 GMT -5
Noting that I'm at Logan and too close to boarding to check the numbers, isn't an obvious major part of that answer their defense? Hell, they basically punt on defense at third base, and it's not like Peralta or Fielder (the irony...) are known to be much better. Because defense is more important the more runners are on base? Makes sense to me. So all we have to do is get on base against three elite pitchers. I should be worried, but I'm not. Our relentless beards will get it done.
|
|
|
Post by thelavarnwayguy on Oct 12, 2013 13:42:32 GMT -5
It sure would help matters if we put the hurt on Sanchez and win game one. It's tough to beat Fister, let alone Verlander, Sanchez and Scherzer. But how do we get beyond their starters if they throw strikes? They led the league in strikeouts. It's not like they are easy to hit.
Should be a tremendous series!
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 12, 2013 13:46:38 GMT -5
Tigers have three lefty relievers: Phil Coke, Drew Smyly and Jose Alvarez so we might see Xander tonight!
|
|
|
Post by FenwayFanatic on Oct 12, 2013 14:02:46 GMT -5
Quick question - were there any changes to our roster or no?
|
|
|
Post by Oregon Norm on Oct 12, 2013 14:44:38 GMT -5
Quick question - were there any changes to our roster or no? No changes.
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 12, 2013 15:28:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by soxfanatic on Oct 12, 2013 16:35:15 GMT -5
#RedSox ALCS Gm 1 v #Tigers: Ellsbury 8, Victorino 9, Pedroia 4, Ortiz DH, Napoli 3, Nava 7, Drew 6, Middlebrooks 5, Ross C, Lester SP.
|
|
|
Post by iakovos11 on Oct 12, 2013 17:43:58 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by preston on Oct 12, 2013 19:04:52 GMT -5
Giddy up!
|
|
|
Post by jmei on Oct 12, 2013 19:12:54 GMT -5
Like in Game 1 of the ALDS, Jon Lester is coming out strong. Hitting 95-96 with ease.
|
|
|