I know for years, when the Padres were at home, Thursday games were always either 1:05 starts or 2:05 starts (can't remember which). I can't remember there really ever being Thursday night games at home for the Padres. That may have changed though now.

The Boston fans crying on talk radio(as shown on ESPN) is fucking hilarious.

Maybe to make travel a little easier for the weekend series?

That's my best guess.

Holy shit a shorty sighting!!



+10000000000 too =)

Red Sox are now 0-6. When is it officially ok to panic?

Wow, Sox lose again. This time 1-0 on an 8th inning run scored on a walk, SB, and 2 sacrifice bunts.

Well, no team with an 0-4 start has ever won the pennant, let alone the World Series.

So I guess it depends on what your season expectations were.

I know Mike Francesca on WFAN is just a pot-stirrer...but when the game was scoreless in the 7th, he asked if the fans will boo the Sox at the home opener tomorrow if they went on to lose today. I'm pretty curious myself.

I haven't watched one second of the Sox yet this season

I would be surprised if they did

This thing with the Red Sox is surreal now.

Get out your brooms! The Indians sweep the Red Sox. I love it!

I think the more relevant numbers are 4 1/2 games out, behind 4 teams, on April 7. That's not an insignificant hole at all, but it's not a "never has been done before" kind of hole either. Still, they'd have to play really good baseball now just to get over .500 by late May.

Francona teams have started slow quite a few times now. It's fair question to ask at this point whether that's related to the country club atmosphere they seem to employ at spring training, how Red Sox starters play fewer spring training innings than other teams' starters, how the buzz words are always, "taking things slow, relaxing, not rushing anything, findings ourselves as a team, etc. etc"

I'd be surprised too - I think the type of fans that take these things personally and emotionally aren't the fans that can afford to be there opening day against the Yankees. Also, the true "panic" that we used to be known for I think had died out some after 2004 and 2007. The desperation (and really, a lot of the fun), is gone.

Triple Dola (sorry). They could easily be 0-9 with the Yankees coming up. There's been so many Yankee sweeps against the Red Sox over the years when the Sox have been even a little vulnerable going into it, as if the Yankees smell blood. (2004 excepted).

But, you do have to believe that the .181 AVG/.543 OPS and 7.13 ERA will improve at some point.

3 out of 4 against the Braves isn't bad. Looks like the opening series sweep at the hands of the Reds is just a case of running into a very good (and clear division favorite) team that started the season hot.

Mets are getting crrrrrrrrrrushed.

Well, that & the fact that most of the Braves couldn't hit my wife's pitching. One guy in the lineup hitting over .250, only 3 with an OBP over .300

Well, the thing is, a 4 game deficit with 156 to play isn't insurmountable, no. You're right about that.

But you also made my other point for me at the end of your first paragraph - the hole the Red Sox find themselves in isn't just comparative to the rest of the division, but comparative to where they need to be in order to compete. I remember a few years ago, the Braves played out of their minds for a period of 2-3 months, where their winning percentage was in the high .600s. That's doable in the short term, but markedly difficult to do over the course of an entire season.

The math in terms of getting to 97 wins (roughly a .600 performance over the course of the season), isn't awful right now, but the longer they struggle, the tougher it gets.

I chose 97 wins, offhand, because that's the midpoint between the Red Sox's win totals in their two championship years this century. They won 98 games in 2004, 96 in 2007, so my off-the-cuff guess is that they need to be roughly in that ballpark to win the pennant.

Right now, they need to play .622 ball the rest of the way in order to get to that 97-win mark. Offhand, the last time Boston played at that level over the span of a full season was, conveniently, 1949. They went 96-58 (with a 'tie' also according to Baseball Reference) in 154 (or 155, if you count the tie) games played. They have 156 ahead of them currently, so it's a nice neat comparison.

Just sayin'.

It does seem like the Braves' lineup is pretty heavy in the middle but nothing else that really strikes fear into a pitcher.

Then again, you could say the same about the Brewers.

40 great fantasy baseball names

1. Mat Latos Friar Breathing Fists (@Bruvydsb10)
2. The House. (Why? Because the House always wins! via @Digs79)
3. B. Inge Drinking (via @b3r2y)
4. Kershawshank Redemption (via @KNLawlz)
5. My Dinner with Andrus (via @dlhauser)
6. Openly Bay (@aL3481)
7. Hameltime! (@drejay25)
8. Tabata Bing! (@BDC_Pain)
9. FIP 2 Be Square (@SwinAbe)
10. Frozen CarGoNite (@nilsilly)
1. Will Rhymes with Winning (@MookieBlaylock)
2. Crown Jhoulys (@justintime56)
3. The Triple Linding (via @bighambowski)
4. I left my wallet in Alexi Ogando (@therealrorch)
5. To Kila Marlon Byrd (@upyourbuttjobu)
6. Delusions of Adequacy (@alex_q_2006)
7. The Tolbert Report (@_purple_stuff)
8. 902Cano (@Sen_Dangerous)
9. Sipping on Gin & Youk (@jbhollndr)
10. Derek Holland's OPS (@nilsilly)
1. Dexy's Midnight RISP (@kdar123)
2. Dropping Gloads (@steveoutr)
3. The Duda Abides (@mikemattone)
4. Mos Eisley Womp Rats (@RMcfadden94)
5. Baby Got Bacne (@teachak)
6. The TMR is going uBALDo (@MrConsistent14)
7. Anibal Lester (@MOanimalcracker)
8. Can't stand the heat, get out of the McCutcheon (@mebcook)
9. O's before Hoes (@HeyBeavis)
10. Outstanding Morel Fiber (@Many_Vent)
1. The CamRod Popcorn Suite (@drejay25)
2. Bourn in the Youkilis A (@ando775)
3. A Priest walks into Aybar (@ando775)
4. OrangeJhoulys (@wenbickert)
5. Free Willy Bloomquist (@edmfbfanatic)
6. BELTRAN: Legacy (@akhanna4)
7. Bryce Bryce baby (@jamesonfleming)
8. Hu's Clues (@literateartist)
9. Walden Pond (@ehorlib)
10. If you like Pineda Coladas (@tomclaycomb)

Nice!

Sure, good stuff - but outlooks and possibilities can change so quickly and so dramatically this time of year. If they can manage to go a mere 4-3 in their next 7, they've at least matched last year's 4-9 start (a year where they contended despite a ton of lineup injuries). If they win 6 in a row, everything is forgotten. If they lose another 6 in row starting now - obviously the current analysis of future possibilities would seem incredibly rosy by comparison. It's been a stunning 3.7% of the season (equivalent of a little more than a half of a football game in a 16-game season), but we'll know twice as much as we do now in a week.

I do believe too that there's something (non-statistical) to their repeated crappy starts. Even though that's tough to analyze through data, that doesn't mean it's just random.

What the hell is with Fredi Gonzales batting his star hitter 6th? Seriously - you want to get Jason Heyward less AB's? That makes sense if you have Pujols batting in front of you... less so if its Alex Gonzales.

Those are great. Personal favorite has to My Dinner with Andrus, though Dexy's Midnight RISP is pretty awesome. I'm surprised there wasn't a good Brian Wilson joke in there.

Sure. And it's a small sample size, I get that.

Can I pinpoint what precisely might be the Achilles heel that's causing this slow start and may sink Boston's season? Nope. I still maintain, though, that teams that have these sort of starts typically have underlying issues that make competing over the course of the season more of a hypothetical exercise than anything else.

Jayson Stark noted today that 85 teams in MLB history have started 0-5 or worse. Of those, 41 went on to lose 90+ games. About 1/4 of those 85 teams have managed a record of .500 or better.

Not one of those 85 teams even won 95 games, which falls short of the 97 win back-of-the-napkin number I mentioned earlier.

And no American League team has rebounded from 0-5 or worse to a playoff berth.

Doesn't mean the Sox can't buck the trend this year. Before 2004, no team had ever come back from down 0-3 in a best-of-seven series and won, but they managed that. I'm not saying that their start dooms them.

Just that it's cause for greater concern than some would like to admit.

:banana:

Now they'll probably go on a 26 game losing streak but it's been a fun week + of baseball for the Tribe.

Even better - the guy hitting 2nd is McLouth. Ridiculous.

But I wonder how many 90+ win, and how many 85+ win teams lost 5, 6, or more games in a row during the season. My guess is that there's a fair amount. And of those teams, how many of those 6 game losing streaks occurred lets say, specifically from game 84 through games 90. Probably 0, or 1, just because the odds are low for that to happen over the same 6 games of a 162 game season. I'm going to guess that no team has ever won the world series after losing 6 in a row to start August. But I bet at least a couple have won the world series after losing 6 in a raw in the 2nd half of a season at some point. That's all we're dealing with here. Games 1-6. Superlatives abound. Now, losing in the beginning is probably worse that losing at other times, psychologically, and because of the fact they're not losing a big lead, they're digging themselves a big hole. And they've left themselves with a much smaller margin for error (i.e., they likely can't have any losing streaks any longer than this one). But there is going to be extra focus, probably more than is appropriate, on the start of the season.

But he's tied for the team lead in RBIIIIZ!

SI

Ok, let's turn this around. A 95 win team wins 58.64% of its games. What are the odds that a 95 win team loses 6 in a row? Well, there's a 4% chance that any 6 game stretch for a 95 win team is 0-6. Considering there are 27 such stretches throughout a season, it's quite likely that a 95 win team goes through an 0-6 stretch. They just happened to have theirs at the beginning of the season.

Let's be honest, who would you expect to be higher at the end of the season? 4-1 Baltimore or 0-6 Boston, even with these starts? Nothing against the Orioles, but I'll take Boston to still be 4.5 games better the next 156/157 games.

SI

BTW, I know its early, but its great to see towns like CLE and KC in particular doing well. I think the Indians are a ways away, but man the future looks bright in KC. Do you Royals guys read Rany Jazeryleri(sp?)'s blog? ranyontheroyals.com?

Sure, I read Rany. Tho not always quickly as his posting schedule is somewhat erratic.

It's interesting that Poz didn't write his "Why the Royals will win" column so he wrote his own take on that with his "Not a Prediction" post

SI

Damn, Swisher broke Nishioka's left leg breaking up a DP.

Is Fredi a numbers guy? (if so I never realized it, but I wouldn't necessarily complain a ton about it either.)

In limited AB's at #6 last year, it was noticeably more productive for him than anywhere else in the order. In 47 PA, 1.315 OPS with 6 HR and +1 BB/K ratio (8/7). His other 400+ PA elsewhere in the order feature 121 K's to 83 BB's and only 2x as many homers in nearly 10x as many PA's, and the remainder of his OPS was over 500 points lower.

Limited sample size, too small to be meaningful? Perhaps. Heck, even probably, I'll admit it. But he's also walked 5 times so far this year with only 1K in the spot, his HR/AB ratio is also higher than anywhere else in the order (vs last year),etc. In other words, the results of the limited sample have carried straight through into this season. Maybe he's just a guy who psychologically hits better lower in the order.

Do I really think that's why he's hitting there right now? Nope. I think it's more likely that they're trying to use him as protection for the struggling Uggla and maybe even as twice-removed protection for Chipper in order to get whatever they can out of him before he breaks something.

Plus, it hasn't really made much impact on the PA's so far (he's tied for 3rd on the team, just one behind Uggla for 2nd).

And not quite randomly, here's a handy little chart I stole from a blogger who stole it from a WaPo article about Werth hitting 2nd.

That was probably because the guys he was hitting in front of last year didn't scare anyone, so they were more likely to walk him.

Maybe he wouldn't be as great hitting 2nd, but he's been on base almost 50% of the time so far this year and has scored 1 run. If that drops to 38% hitting 2nd, he'll score a boatload more runs hitting in front of good hitters rather than walking so much and getting stranded in front of the 7/8/9 hitters.

I have to say, a month or so into Rob Neyer's tenure over at SB Nation, I'm not enjoying it at all. First of all, their MLB page is terribly organized - it's just a mess of stories and links, and way too cluttered. Trying to find Rob's stuff only is pretty much impossible. Even if you click on him, it doesn't just give you all of the stuff he's written. You still have to wade through othe rstuff, and if what you are looking for is a day or two old, forget about it unless you want to go link by link backwards.

And now that they've added 3 or 4 other commentors/bloggers to the site, gone are Rob's 3-5 paragraph discussions of topics (it looks like he does one feature blog piece pretty much every day, along with a couple of quickie blog shorts), and in their place are a bunch of tweet-like one-liner jokes from people other than Rob, with the occasional Rob post thrown in.

Oh, and I hope all the winless teams win and Texas loses so Jayson Stark can crawl back under a rock. Until it's time for some zany info based on April's numbers, of course. Does this guy do any substantive reporting anymore, or has he gone all-in as the sports news version of Jeanne Moos?

It's not just the Orioles, though. You've also got the Yankees and the Blue Jays playing well ahead of them, and only one of those teams needs to continue to play well to compound the problem for Boston. Start talking about the wild card, and the number of teams playing well that they'd need to catch eventually is larger than that.

If it were simply about what Boston does in a vacuum, it'd be less onerous, but it isn't.

Whether the reason is psychological, a matter of having to play at a sustained higher level for whatever period of time, or some fundamental flaw with the team (masked injury, a player not settling in right away, whatever), teams that start this poorly have made the playoffs just twice in 85 attempts.

I'm not saying that starting 0-5 or worse automatically dooms them. I'm saying teams that start 0-5 or worse probably face deficiencies in one of those three areas that tend to dictate the outcome of the rest of the season.

I suspect a team like Boston, with their resources, stand a better chance of pulling out of it and making lemonade from lemons than a lot of other teams would.

But I also think that dismissing it as "a 95-win team probably lost six in a row at some point so Boston still has to be considered a favorite to win the AL pennant" is probably glossing things over too much.

I suppose this thread is as good a place as any to post this...

The next time you hear someone argue that we should value the opinions of players over those of impartial observers, because "they're the ones playing the games and they know best", consider this:

http://www.lookoutlanding.com/2011/4...attle-mariners

For those too lazy to click the link and read the short entry, here's the summary:

Both Brendan Ryan and Jack Wilson claim they are/have been seeing fewer fastballs since moving over to the AL. The data suggests that, if anything, they are seeing more.

While I will acknowledge that Pitch FX data isn't perfect, and pitch classifications can use a bit of tweaking from time to time, also remember that psychologists have proven over and over again that memory is a fallible instrument.

Wilson and Ryan may believe that they're seeing fewer fastballs in the AL, but it appears that they are in fact mistaken.

That wouldn't explain why his strikeout rate was so much higher everywhere else in the order though.


But if he isn't driving in runs, they aren't scoring either. Somebody has to hit down in the order.

Which also brings us back to another bit of data.
He's lousy when leading off an inning, average w/out runners on base, much more productive with men on base. Granted, it changes pitch selection, etc & that can have an impact but it seems at least equally likely to me that there are subtle psychological differences in his plate approach, especially at his age. For now, I'm content to trust Fredi G. on this one.

Manny Ramirez forced to retire:

Manny Ramirez has retired, Major League Baseball has announced. MLB says it notified Ramirez of "an issue" under its drug program and that the longtime slugger decided to retire instead of continuing with the process, according to Bill Shaikin of the LA Times (on Twitter).

Neyer has gone from a daily read forme to a check once-in-a-while thing exactly for the reasons you state.

Games 1-6
Games 2-7
Games 3-8
Games 4-9
Games 5-10
.
.
.
.
Games 154-159
Games 155-160
Games 156-161
Games 157-162


Twenty-seven, huh?

cuervo = snobby mathelete!

Well, I'm no QuikSand -- but you need to at least make a little sense if you're going to attempt to throw numbers around all authoritative-like around these parts.

Good riddance, this fucker had no respect for the game and its no surprise he took the easy way out.

Bonds trial ending, Manny retires...man, all we need now is for Clemens to take Mindy McCready hostage to complete the roids troika!

Sure it does. Facing better pitches and not faring as well. At the bottom of the order, why throw him anything he can hit? He can wait on a mistake instead of worrying about being challenged.


Not your best hitter, though.

No audible boos for the Sox at their home opener, and Pedroia is fun to wach when he gets on a roll. So they won't go winless this season, we know that much.