This statistic keeps repeating on the Sports networks: 8 wins the final at-bat.

Now, considering Tuesday night was the first walk-off, and it is impossible to win in the final at-bat on the road, I assume they mean the final batting frame for the Red Sox (8th or 9th at home, 9th on the road, any extra-innings win).

Anyway, do these dramatic wins build confidence, produce momentum, or are they too taxing on pitchers due to high leverage innings?

While they are thrilling to the fan, I have a feeling that these types of wins are a bit too taxing mentally to truely help the team over the course of a season. They're good, they create a sense of "never give up", but also remove the sense of urgency to score early and often. I'm sure Terry can manage this, but why is it that we have so many this early into the season?

Is this a come-down from the World Series?

I don't know the stats on it, but anecdotally I remember a couple back-to-back games in '04 where the Sox won on the last at-bat in extra innings. Then they went on to rip off 6 more wins in a row.

Seriously, I suspect one or two of these games at a time isn't a huge deal. Obviously it has some effect on the pitching staff - Paps is probably unavailable tonight, but that's fine because the rest of the staff is rested. These haven't been games where the starter has gone 4 and a third and gotten yanked.

But I'd love to see convincing data either way.

I think it's hard to make much in the way of rules for how final AB wins impact the team because you can have two distinctly different types of final AB wins, as we have seen so far this season. The first kind is the sort that we saw earlier in the season - the pitching sucks, the team falls behind, and the offense eventually picks up the slack and comes storming back at the very end of the game, like in the Texas series. The second kind is what we've seen the past two nights - the offense sucks, the pitching staff holds the other team down, and eventually the offense finally strings a couple of hits and a walk together to win the game. The first type seems to get more IP to the scrub relievers (down 4-1 or 5-2 in the 7th or 8th will rarely lead to an Okajima appearance, more Tavarez and Aardsma and Timlin somehow limiting the damage, like Tavarez in Cleveland), with a 3-out appearance by the closer (or Okajima if Papelbon needs a day off) to end things. The second type would seem more likely to wear down the ace relievers, but if the starter pitches well enough to keep the team in the game when the offense is sucking, how many innings are those ace relievers likely to have to pitch?

Anyway, I don't think that this streak of last AB wins is related to a comedown from the World Series. I think it's more a matter of the pitching and lineup not being in sync at all, and either one or the other seems to suck at any given time. If the offense is raking and the pitching sucks, you're going to get some comeback wins with late rallies. If the offense sucks and the pitching is great, you get extra inning games or late-inning wins when a run finally scores. You're only going to avoid these kinds of games altogether if the team is sucking as a whole, or clicking on all levels. This team is too talented to suck as a whole for any length of time, and the combination of a brutal schedule, the flu, and various injuries has prevented the offense and pitching from running smoothly at the same time so far. I think it's a random set of circumstances that has led to this streak of late, close wins, and I don't expect it to continue.

I would think that the 0-0 game into the 8th inning is much more stressful on the defense, as no one wants to be the person to make the one fatal mistake. A four run rally in the bottom of the 8th is more of a pleasant surprise that swings everyone from "looks like we're going to drop this one" to "we've got it now" pretty quickly. If long term suspense generates more wear and tear for the team as a whole (I think that's a safe assumption), then clearly the last two games are more likely to have an effect.

I think they would have a much more negative affect if we were to lose these games. At least for the last two nights we have seen great pitching rewarded by the team winning. If anything this has to build confidence for the pitching staff as they see that even when the offense is terrible they can still win. The games are stressful but winning is such a euphoric and rewarding experience for the team that I find it difficult to see it having long term negative effects. Now you look at how dejected the Jays have been the last two night and there is certainly reason to believe they might have some negative effects. It's not a matter of whether you play a tight ball game that is decided during the last at-bat, but rather whether you win or lose that ball game.

NO WAY!!!!

I keep missing these games, so it's actually kind of just pissing me off.

What is the ML record for wins in the final AB?

In 2004, the Sox were just 7-15 in one-run games on August 5th.
However, they won 9 of 11 one run decisions through the remainder of the season to finish 16-17 in close calls for the year.

In 2007, the Sox were 15-11 through August in one run games however, they lost 7 of the final 9 one run games of the season (all in Sept) thus finishing 17-18 in one run matches for the season.

In 04' they win lots of dramatic games down the stretch of the regular season and in 07' they lost, almost to the same degree. Draw from this what you will.

VRI, that's pretty typical. Record in one-run games has a lot more to do with luck than a team's record in other games.

So, what I take from that is that I'd like to see the Sox start putting some runs on the board! I would feel much better about this year's team if they do that.

Bullpen is also a big factor in one run games. As well as many small ball skills, like speed on the basebaths, ability to move runners, bunt, etc..

Our bullpen is rock solid(at least the back end) and we have more speed and small ball guys than in the past.

The idea that "small ball" tactics are more important in a 1-run game than in other contexts is a fallacy, and while bullpen, bench, and manager ought to make some difference at the margins, there isn't overwhelming evidence for it. In games decided by one run it usually comes down to something very closely approximating luck in the end. Just look at the Sox's record last year: they had a competent manager, good "small ball guys" in Lugo, Crisp, and Ellsbury, and the back of the bullpen was lights out. They were 17-18 in one-run games, and they were the best team in the league.

The Sox either need to start scoring some runs or they're going to be on the outside looking in come playoff time. Their current record is an aberration.

Bullpen and the ability to play for one run actually do mean a lot in one run games. I dont know why you think that's a "fallacy." Luck is obviously a major factor as well, though. In fact, I would say poor luck is the reason for our record in 1 run games last year - or conversely, we would have been much worse in those games b/c of poor luck except for our bullpen, etc...

As for our record... We've scored 136 Runs and allowed 130. That puts us what? like 2 wins above our pyth. We're also fourth in the AL in RS, and 10th in the AL in RA... I dont know how you can look at that and say we need to score more runs. I imagine both will correct themselves soon, though. I think the offense will pick up the pace, and the pitching will finally get healthy and step up.

Am I the only one who sees this clearly? In 2004, the Sox' record in one run games was decided by one game. They won the World Series. In 2007, the Sox' record in one run games was decided by one game. They won the World Series. Clearly - CLEARLY - the Sox need to make sure that their record this year in one run games is decided by one game. So much for that!

I suppose the biggest factor is that you're playing one run games at all.

Just like "winning in the final at bat" doesn't mean any one thing, one run games aren't all the same. Some really aren't even close. If you blow a 5 run lead in the 9th and only win by one, that has nothing but the margin of victory in common with a game where your bullpen comes in in the 6th and pitches 4 scoreless innings to hang onto the lead. Scratching out a run in a game that was tied for several innings is different from having to come from behind in the late innings. You even approach it differently as a manager – how you use the bullpen, how you use the bench, how aggressive you are on the basepaths, etc.

I don't know if "luck" is the major factor per se in determining your record in one run games. But what type of one run games you're playing in has a lot to do with it.

What worries me about winning so many low-eclipse victories is that our Pyth keeps showing up as a .520-ish team...

Just saying.

There are NL clubs that are outscoring us.

But If we got to hit NL pitching all the time we'd have 450 Runs by now and Ortiz would be having an MVP season.

Again, its the runs allowed component that's dragging down the pyth. Only three AL teams have scored more runs than us. That's about where I expect us to finish (3rd or 4th in Runs Scored in the AL).

This team is too talented to suck as a whole for any length of time, and the combination of a brutal schedule, the flu, and various injuries has prevented the offense and pitching from running smoothly at the same time so far. I think it's a random set of circumstances that has led to this streak of late, close wins, and I don't expect it to continue.

Great Moogly-Googly, JMD - how spoiled are we that "Last At-bat" wins constitute sucking?!?!?


I recall the 04 Yankees getting 61 come-from-behind wins out of 101. THAT's sucking - or certainly riding Mystique & Aura hard, and pressuring the final at-bats & Gordon/Rivera.

As to small-ball, you are aware that the Sox are 20 - for - 20 in SB this year?

I'm pretty sure you missed the entire point of anything anyone has written in this thread.

Seriously. Wow.

Ok...perhaps I should go back over what I meant in less detail. I see it as 4 possible combinations of offensive and defensive/pitching performance:

1) Bad pitching/defense with bad offense
2) Bad pitching/defense with good offense
3) Good pitching/defense with bad offense
4) Good pitching/defense with good offense

A large helping of #2 and #3 over the course of the first 3 weeks of the season (first #2, then #3) led to an abnormally large number of close games that the Red Sox managed to win late (one half of the team sucking, the other half carrying the load between pitching/defense and the offense). Travel, the flu, and injuries prevented #4 from happening with significant frequency, and the team is too talented (in my mind, anyway) to be stuck with #1 for any significant length of time. I really have no idea how what I typed led directly to what you just posted.