The Blowout That Wasn’t

Mike Napoli was the 9th batter to hit last night, if you’re counting batters from when Matt Carpenter led off for St. Louis. Napoli launched a three run double to left center field, clearing the bases thanks to the help of Shane Robinson‘s defensive misplay. From that point on, there were exactly three at-bats where the leverage index was greater than 1.0; Dustin Pedroia’s bases loaded chance in the second, and then the at-bats by Yadier Molina and David Freese when the Cardinals had their best chance of scoring in the fourth.

It’s not entirely accurate to say that the game was decided by Napoli’s double, but it was mostly decided after the Red Sox took a 5-0 lead in the second inning. At that point, their win expectancy was 92%, and the play where the fifth run scored forced Carlos Beltran from the game, limiting the Cardinals line-up and forcing Jon Jay into the #2 spot in the batting order against a good left-handed pitcher. This game was, for all intents and purposes, pretty much over after the second inning. Game 1 of the World Series was a blowout.

Except, it wasn’t really a blowout. It was on the scoreboard, but that’s basically the only place where the Red Sox really trounced the Cardinals last night.

Let’s just look at the team’s offensive totals, side by side:

Team PA 1B 2B 3B HR BB HBP
BOS 36 5 2 0 1 1 0
STL 34 6 0 0 1 1 0

The Red Sox came to bat two more times than the Cardinals did. Overall, the numbers are pretty similar, with the difference in the two lines essentially coming down to doubles; they hit two, and the Cardinals didn’t hit any, but St. Louis did have one more single, so by total bases, we’re looking a very slim gap. The Red Sox hit .242/.250/.394 yesterday, so it isn’t like their offense just ran roughshod all over the Cardinals pitching staff.

In fact, this game was actually a postseason record. According to the Baseball Reference Play Index, the Red Sox were the first team in postseason history to score 8 runs in a game where the team got on base at a .250 clip. Only seven teams in MLB postseason history had ever scored 8 runs while getting on base less than 30% of the time. Here’s the full list of 8 run postseason scoring games, filtered for OBP under .300.

Rk Date Series Gm# Tm Opp Rslt PA 1B 2B 3B HR BB OBP
1 10/23/13 WS 1 BOS STL W 8-1 36 5 2 0 1 1 0.250
2 10/17/01 NLCS 2 ATL ARI W 8-1 39 4 1 0 3 3 0.282
3 10/7/27 WS 3 NYY PIT W 8-1 36 5 2 1 1 1 0.286
4 10/7/03 NLCS 1 CHC FLA L 8-9 46 2 4 2 3 2 0.289
5 10/11/99 ALDS 5 CLE BOS L 8-12 38 1 3 0 3 4 0.289
6 10/12/96 ALCS 4 NYY BAL W 8-4 38 2 3 0 4 2 0.289
7 10/18/77 WS 6 NYY LAD W 8-4 34 3 1 0 4 2 0.294
8 10/15/86 ALCS 7 BOS CAL W 8-1 37 5 1 0 2 3 0.297

Not only did the Red Sox have the lowest OBP of any team to score 8 runs in a postseason game, they had hit the fewest home runs of any of the other teams who managed to score that many runs without actually getting themselves on base very often. Of the 323 teams who have scored 8+ runs in a postseason game, the Red Sox slugging percentage last night ranked 306th. 323rd in OBP, 306th in SLG. This was perhaps the worst offensive performance by a team that scored 8+ runs in MLB postseason history.

And it would have been a pretty rare accomplishment even in the regular season. In the last 50 years, only 14 times has a team scored 8+ runs while posting an OBP of .250 or less, and in most of those cases, the team hit multiple home runs.

We don’t have wOBA data going back quite as far, but we do have regular season data back to 1980, and I asked David Appelman to give me a list of all of the teams that have scored 8+ runs in a game while posting a wOBA below .275, since the Red Sox put up a .271 wOBA last night. In 33 years, it’s happened 52 times, and only 42 of those came with a wOBA of .271 or worse. Basically, MLB sees a game like this once per year, where a team gets a bunch of runs despite not really hitting very well. It happened twice this year (before last night), with the Angels putting up 9 on the Pirates despite a .274 wOBA — the baseball gods made them lose anyway, as punishment — and the A’s putting up 10 on the Angels with a .273 wOBA, but that game took 19 innings. The Angels loss to the Pirates took 10 innings. Last night was the only time this year that a team managed 8+ runs in a nine inning game where they hit as poorly as Boston did.

This game was a blowout for two simple reasons: the Cardinals defense put three extra Red Sox on base via the error, and the Red Sox bunched their hits together. Basically, the Red Sox beat the Cardinals the way the Cardinals have beaten everyone else this year. Sequencing has been a primary key to St. Louis’ success in 2013, and last night, they sucked at getting hits in big situations while the Red Sox managed to come up with big hits when they mattered most.

In the end, the only thing that matters is the score, and the Cardinals mistakes combined with the Red Sox clutch hitting gave Boston an easy win and a 1-0 advantage in the series. And, given that the Red Sox didn’t make all the same mistakes that the Cardinals did, it is fair to say that they played a much better game and deserved to win.

But this game wasn’t really a blowout, not in the way we usually think of them anyway. The Red Sox didn’t hit Adam Wainwright very hard. They didn’t blow up the Cardinals bullpen. They weren’t pounding the ball all over the field. The Cardinals gave them a few extra outs and the Red Sox drove in runs every time they had the chance. It was a win, but it wasn’t really a beatdown like the 8-1 final score might have indicated.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

92 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
RC
10 years ago

It’s a little strange to look at the stats for the whole game, as teams change their approach when games get out of hand. Pitchers throw different pitches, batters start looking for different things, defenses play differently, etc.

IE, if Kozma had made the play, Lester probably would have had more strikeouts and less hits, as he would have been throwing more offspeed stuff, and less pitches over the middle of the plate.

Clustering is important, but 5 runs in the first two innings invalidates a lot of what happens in the rest of the game.

chuckb
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

I hate to be that guy, Dave, but you misspelled “bullshit.”

Sorry to be the spelling police.

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

“Jon Lester, after the Red Sox took a 5-0 lead, struck out 5 of the 21 batters he faced, a 24% strikeout rate.”

And before the lead, he struck out 3/7 batters he faced, or a 42.9% strikeout rate.

Stop being lazy.

Ian
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

What a large sample size!

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

That was kind of the point. 5/21 batters isn’t a relevant sample size, and it doesn’t even make his point.

gump
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

# pitches % game % season dif
FF 54 0.482142857 0.45 0.032142857
SI 2 0.017857143 0.07 -0.052142857
CH 3 0.026785714 0.11 -0.083214286
CU 15 0.133928571 0.12 0.013928571
FC 38 0.339285714 0.24 0.099285714
112

sooo only more cutters, fewer changeups, is that what you call pitching to the score?

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

Why the hell are you comparing the game to the season to figure out something that would change between the 2nd inning and the 3rd?

Do you even understand what this conversation is about?

Bad Bill
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

Pitching to the score is NOT baloney. Pitchers will tell you they do it, and they’re in a position to know. What is baloney is the contention that pitching to the score makes a huge difference in the outcome. That is the thing that has been refuted statistically. Don’t make the mistake of confusing process with outcome.

chris moran
10 years ago
Reply to  Bad Bill

As a former college catcher, and current college coach, I can tell you that less than 5% of hundreds of pitchers I know say they pitch to the score, and most of those don’t actually do it. Absolutely no evidence that “pitching to the score” exists.

Teddy Rochlis
10 years ago
Reply to  Bad Bill

Come on guys its the World Series, you honestly think a pitcher is gonna think “hey we have a 5 run lead time to get of the gas a little”. No way. Not gonna happen, not in this game.

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  Bad Bill

” “hey we have a 5 run lead time to get of the gas a little”. ”

Thats not what pitching to the score is. Pitching to the score is “I’m going to do my best to avoid walks at the expense of the occasional solo shot, keep my pitch counts low, and protect the bullpen”

Which sounds about exactly what you’d want a pitcher to do.

B N
10 years ago
Reply to  Bad Bill

“I’m going to do my best to avoid walks at the expense of the occasional solo shot, keep my pitch counts low, and protect the bullpen”

This. Pitching to the score is the opposite of letting off the gas. It’s being more aggressive, hammering the zone, and pushing your advantage. It is hard to get 8 hits in half a game. To get 8 runs on hits, even with optimal sequencing, you’d still need 8 hits (and two grand slams). So you can make the other guys try to get the dozen hits they’d need to get those runs.

I would also be surprised to see that pitching to the score does not impact the outcome. It probably is a fairly small effect, since you’re already trying to get ahead in the count and not walk guys, but I’d expect it to play a significant role in pitch selection with 2 or 3 balls in the count.

I’m also dubious of how you can show that pitching to the score doesn’t exist from correlational data only. When you do that, you don’t get to see the impact of a pitcher choosing one strategy versus another. You’re also more likely to see big leads for better pitchers (who, as a group, tend to be more aggressive and walk less guys anyway). There are a lot of confounds that would make it hard to find an effect, even where one exists.

B N
10 years ago
Reply to  Bad Bill

I should also note that I would doubt that “pitching to the score” impacts the expected number of runs that much. I would assume that it would instead impact the shape. At one extreme, in a potential walkoff tie-game situation, giving up 1 run is as bad as giving up 4. You want to pitch for the maximum weight on 0 runs, rest of the distribution be damned.

At the opposite extreme, a 10 run lead makes giving up 1 run almost insignificant in the odds. You want to pitch to give up 9 runs or less. You want to maximize weight of the distribution that keeps you in that region. This may not actually impact the expected # of runs, but it could easily impact the WPA.

It’s not like this is some sort of dark magic. You can easily determine this by looking at WPA tables that are adjusted for the current game inning and number of runs ahead/behind. If players and managers are even marginally rational, this has to be a consideration.

Internet Jackson
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

I’m sick of people using “baloney” as a derogatory term. Everyone here has had fine and true baloney sandwiches. So cool it on that, you supple sexpots.

Jason B
10 years ago

My baloney was decidedly not true. It was false. False I say!

Delicious? FALSE.

Filling? FALSE.

Left me wanting more? FALSE.

Word
10 years ago

No one has ever enjoyed a baloney sandwich, except in Bologna.

channelclemente
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

NY Times is reporting this AM, Lester may have been doctoring the ball. Does Pitch F/x have any ‘ingredients’ that would reveal that?

RC
10 years ago

There’s a pretty thorough review of it on SonsOfSamHorn. His stuff pretty much looked exactly like it always did.

B N
10 years ago
Reply to  Dave Cameron

“Pitching to the score is baloney.”

If it is baloney, wouldn’t that be a HUGE inefficiency? If you are up by 8 runs, you SHOULD be hammering the zone. You should not be walking people. Ever, practically. Let them try to hit the ball out of the park. Even very good hitters still only have a BABIP of 0.500 if you throw the ball right over the middle of the plate. So if you get to three balls with a huge lead? Throw it down the pipe. Make a team string together 8 hits to try to get those 8 runs.

On the converse, if you have a one run lead? You’ve got to nibble more. Walks don’t often lead to an RBI. Sometimes you’re even intentionally walking guys to try to get a double-play. You’re not going to confront power-hitters who can put up that one run with a moon shot unless you have to.

In short, if you think that “pitching to the score” is BS, you need to go brush up on your… well, your probability, actually. Unless you think that WPA is a bunch of hokum, the score DOES matter and it SHOULD matter in pitch selection. Saying otherwise is as dumb as saying that the chip stack doesn’t matter in poker strategy. In poker, a big chip-stack means you can be more aggressive and push your weight around by forcing the other guy to commit. In pitching, a big lead lets you be more aggressive in the zone. If pitchers are not doing this, they’re being inefficient. When was the last time you saw an 8 run lead erased with zero walks?

Justin
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

Two of the hits were allowed by Dempster in the 9th inning, one of them being the home run. One would expect that if the game were closer, Dempster would not be the one pitching in the 9th and the Cardinals might’ve had fewer hits and total bases.

Perhaps pitching to the score is baloney, but relieving to the score is not.

RC
10 years ago
Reply to  Justin

Pitchers say they do it. Managers say they do it. Hitters say they do it. Catchers say they do it.

Whether or not its effective, I have a hard time believing they don’t do it.

Bad Bill
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

Well said.

Anon
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

The statistics say it happens too.

Pitching to the score does not mean pitching worse. It is pitching different. More strikes and less balls result in fewer walks, more strikeouts, and more hits.

1AZfan
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

But this article wasn’t so much about how closely the box scores resembled each other as it was the Red Sox did the most with their opportunities, whereas the Cardinals did not. Whether the Cardinals got two hits in ‘garbage time’ is not a big deal. The fact that the Red Sox scored so efficiently IS a big deal because typically, as the article very clearly laid out, teams don’t do that.

Rainmakermember
10 years ago
Reply to  RC

100% agree. Viewpoints like this article are why sabermetrics get a bad rap — looking at the game in the blinders of the box score doesn’t represent what happened on the field. It also fails to use any of the tools this site champions.

A real statistical analysis would show that Wainwright in fact didn’t have his best stuff. While typically one of the better (Top 10) groundball pitchers in the league at ~50%, the Red Sox were squaring up the ball better leading to a 37% GB%, with the delta coming in more line drives. From the Pitch f/X data, it seems like Waino’s velocity was off a touch for the game, sitting more in the 91 range vs. the 93-94 he showed in the two start again PIT and one against LAD.

Three earned runs isn’t bad at all, and yes the errors led to the score, but without the errors, STL’s ace didn’t have his best stuff and that should be concerning.