Sooner or later, they were bound to have a down week. And they sure did...
- It's very easy to overreact to a bad stretch. Did anyone think that they'd go the entire season without being swept in a three game series? Did anyone think that the season would feature a winning record in each and every week? That the the lead in the AL East would be monotonically non-decreasing? If not, and of course no one believed any of those things, there's no reason to look at this week as anything other than a single bad week.
- Of course, all Red Sox fans have a certain amount of historical and cultural bias towards the negative, where it's easy to look at four good weeks and one bad, and think, "yeah, that's more like what I expected..."
- For those who greatly feared that this wouldn't be a good offensive team, the last four games (3, 0, 1, 3) might have exacerbated those fears. But it's important to maintain perspective - in the seven games preceding those, they had scored 6, 7, 7, 8, 6, 7 and 10. The Rangers good pitching matched up with a Red Sox slump. Those things happen.
- And, of course, despite the lost weekend in Texas, the Red Sox are still leading the East by a game and a half, and are still tied for the best record in baseball. And they're home this week.
- Is Clay Buchholz doctoring the ball? Who knows? He does, obviously, but does anyone else? More to the point, does anyone really care? I'd prefer that he weren't, because if he is, the possibility exists for him getting caught, and the Red Sox really don't need him getting suspended and missing a start. But I saw a lot of moral dudgeon exercised last week that was just silly. First, from the Toronto guys who were outraged that he was getting away with obvious cheating. And then, just as silly, were the Red Sox fans who were outraged that someone would dare to suggest that a highly-paid, driven, professional athlete might possibly do something - anything! - that wasn't strictly entirely 100% by-the-rule book in order to succeed. The only emotional energy I've got for this particular issue is being spent in the form of amusement at both sides.
- Middlebrooks Watch: Another putrid week (.158/.238/.158/.396) brings his major league career numbers to .261/.298/.474/.772 in 105 games. Kind of Dave (.236/.302/.478/.780) Kingman-lite. If you're not worried about Middlebrooks, you're not paying attention.
- He had company in putrescence this week. Dustin Pedroia (.160/.222/.160/.382) and Jarrod Saltalamacchia(.100/.250/.200/.450) did more than their fair share of lineup-deadening, too.
- Red Sox Player of the Week - David Ross (.250/.538/.750/1.288, with a HR and 5BB) certainly made the most of his limited playing time. As did Jonny Gomes (.364/.533/.727/1.261). And Mike Carp (.300/.364/.900/1.264). But the player of the week, with the most production, was, again, David Ortiz (.316/.381/.789/1.170).
- Red Sox Pitcher of the Week - Clay Buchholz continues his domination of AL batters, with another short-shutout of seven innings and only two hits allowed in Toronto.
AL Pythagorean Projection Report - 5/6/2013
| | | | | | | Projected | Actual | | |
|---|
| R/G | (rank) | RA/G | (rank) | Pythagorean | (rank) | W | L | W | L | Luck | |
|---|
| Detroit | 5.47 | (1) | 3.73 | (3) | 0.668 | (1) | 20 | 10 | 19 | 11 | -1 | |
| Texas | 4.42 | (8) | 3.16 | (1) | 0.649 | (2) | 20 | 11 | 20 | 11 | 0 | |
| Boston | 4.9 | (5) | 3.71 | (2) | 0.625 | (3) | 19 | 12 | 20 | 11 | 1 | |
| Baltimore | 4.97 | (4) | 4.16 | (7) | 0.581 | (4) | 19 | 13 | 19 | 13 | 0 | |
| Kansas City | 4.48 | (6) | 3.81 | (4) | 0.573 | (5) | 15 | 12 | 17 | 10 | 2 | |
| Cleveland | 5.07 | (3) | 4.36 | (11) | 0.569 | (6) | 16 | 12 | 14 | 14 | -2 | |
| Oakland | 5.34 | (2) | 4.69 | (12) | 0.56 | (7) | 18 | 14 | 18 | 14 | 0 | |
| NY Yankees | 4.43 | (7) | 4.1 | (6) | 0.536 | (8) | 16 | 14 | 18 | 12 | 2 | |
| Tampa Bay | 4.37 | (9) | 4.33 | (9) | 0.504 | (9) | 15 | 15 | 14 | 16 | -1 | |
| Minnesota | 4.11 | (11) | 4.33 | (9) | 0.476 | (10) | 13 | 14 | 13 | 14 | 0 | |
| Chicago Sox | 3.52 | (15) | 4.03 | (5) | 0.438 | (11) | 13 | 16 | 12 | 17 | -1 | |
| Seattle | 3.55 | (14) | 4.3 | (8) | 0.412 | (12) | 14 | 19 | 15 | 18 | 1 | |
| LA Angels | 4.16 | (10) | 5.19 | (14) | 0.4 | (13) | 12 | 19 | 11 | 20 | -1 | |
| Toronto | 3.66 | (13) | 5.13 | (13) | 0.35 | (14) | 11 | 21 | 11 | 21 | 0 | |
| Houston | 3.84 | (12) | 6.19 | (15) | 0.295 | (15) | 9 | 23 | 8 | 24 | -1 | |
Top 5 projections (using current winning %)
| Texas | 105 | 57 | |
| Boston | 105 | 57 | |
| Detroit | 103 | 59 | |
| Kansas City | 102 | 60 | |
| NY Yankees | 97 | 65 | |
Top 5 projections (starting with today's record, using Pythagorean winning %)
| Detroit | 107 | 55 | |
| Texas | 105 | 57 | |
| Boston | 102 | 60 | |
| Baltimore | 95 | 67 | |
| Kansas City | 94 | 68 | |
Standings for the week
| | | | | | | Projected | Actual | | |
|---|
| R/G | (rank) | RA/G | (rank) | Pythagorean | (rank) | W | L | W | L | Luck | |
|---|
| Cleveland | 7.5 | (1) | 2.5 | (1) | 0.882 | (1) | 5 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 | |
| Detroit | 7 | (2) | 2.57 | (2) | 0.862 | (2) | 6 | 1 | 6 | 1 | 0 | |
| Texas | 4.83 | (7) | 3 | (3) | 0.705 | (3) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | |
| Seattle | 5 | (5) | 3.83 | (4) | 0.619 | (4) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | |
| Oakland | 5.5 | (4) | 4.5 | (8) | 0.591 | (5) | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | |
| Kansas City | 5 | (5) | 4.8 | (11) | 0.519 | (6) | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 1 | |
| Baltimore | 4.29 | (9) | 4.14 | (5) | 0.516 | (7) | 4 | 3 | 4 | 3 | 0 | |
| Chicago Sox | 3.8 | (12) | 4.2 | (6) | 0.454 | (8) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| Boston | 4 | (10) | 4.5 | (8) | 0.446 | (9) | 3 | 3 | 2 | 4 | -1 | |
| Tampa Bay | 5.6 | (3) | 6.6 | (14) | 0.425 | (10) | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | |
| Minnesota | 3.83 | (11) | 4.67 | (10) | 0.411 | (11) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
| NY Yankees | 3.5 | (15) | 4.33 | (7) | 0.404 | (12) | 2 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 1 | |
| LA Angels | 4.57 | (8) | 6 | (13) | 0.378 | (13) | 3 | 4 | 2 | 5 | -1 | |
| Toronto | 3.67 | (13) | 5.67 | (12) | 0.311 | (14) | 2 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | |
| Houston | 3.57 | (14) | 7.14 | (15) | 0.22 | (15) | 2 | 5 | 1 | 6 | -1 | |
Labels: pythagorean, Red Sox
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Comment?
<< Home