Joe Buck or the Red Sox - Who's weirder?
 

For the 79th time we've heard Joe Buck and to some extent Smoltz rail about the unusual amount of 2 out runs scored by the Red Sox.

I want to know what a normal distribution is for 0 out runs, 1 out runs and 2 out runs. My gut tells me that 0 out runs would be the least and 2 out runs would be the most, but what are the numbers and how much do they differ from the Red Sox regular season numbers. Forget the World Series for it is too small a sample to be meaningful.

Hopefully someone out there in Net54 land knows the answer or can find it quicker than I can.

If you do not know the answer, feel free to answer the question in the title anyway?

1- out appears to he the winner
 

Stolen straight from internet:

More runs are scored with 1 out than with 0 or 2 outs, though almost as many are scored with 2 outs. For example, in 2013, 3329 runs have scored with 0 outs, 5518 runs have scored with 1 out, and 5416 runs have scored with 2 outs. [1]

Here is the percentage breakdown for a few particular years [2], and you can see that the pattern is very consistent:
2013 - 23.3% with 0 outs, 38.7% with 1 out, 38.0% with 2 outs
2012 - 24.0%, 38.4%, 37.6%
2011 - 22.9%, 39.7%, 37.3%
2010 - 23.2%, 38.5%, 38.3%
2000 - 23.8%, 38.8%, 37.3%
1990 - 22.1%, 40.1%, 37.8%
1980 - 22.1%, 40.2%, 37.7%
1970 - 22.8%, 39.8%, 37.5%

I guess it's fairly easy to see that producing runs with one out is more probable than doing the same with two outs, just because you can score while making the second out, but not the third.


Every other major variable involves 1.) the planning and execution of pitches, swings (or takes) and the defense and 2.) proper use of available players.



Much less (IMO) involved are weather (most of the time), playing surface maintenance, Stadium design, adequate umpiring, and, of course, dumb luck.


.

The Red Sox are weird when there's two outs.
Joe Buck is weird all the time.

Truth. Hate him.

Joe Buck will always bother me. I can't help but think he has his lofty position because of his father's good name and career.

Joe Buck's hair is weirder than anything he says.

There were so many times in the WS where Buck and Smoltz were off on overheated tangent ("this pitcher is locked in. He can do whatever he wants to do right now, he wants to humiliate the other batting order . . .bla bla bla" and then within 10 seconds someone would lace a double in the corner and they switch on a dime and go off on some diametrically opposed harangue ("no one is going to stop so and so . . . . he can put the ball anywhere he wants. . . . ."). Like the prior discussion that went on for 4 minutes never happened. Which is it? Is the pitcher unhittable or not? I realize these guys have a lot of space to fill but the non stop jabbering really wears me down. 95% of the time they just wait for something to happen and then explain why it was inevitable what just happened. Okay. Whatever.

As far as Buck goes, the fact that he never played the game (like many announcers) means all he really does is repeat the same obvious stuff we have all heard our whole lives watching baseball. No insight just repetition.

Smoltz is fair. Don't hate him and at least he has some insights the average fan might not catch.

But what about Kershaw and how he figures into all those 2 out runs 😎

Not always. He brought up the Hrbek-Gant incident and was clearly biased. :)

That's pretty consistent over time. Not even a 10% deviation for the high and low within an area. I wonder how far back that goes.

I guess that means that the new strategy for the chart-mongers is having the lead-off hitters for each inning take 3 strikes. I mean by doing that, wouldn't that increase their chances of scoring by at least 50%? :cool:;)

I meant fair as in falling somewhere between poor and good.

We still haven’t heard if the Red Sox over the course of the 2018 season exceeded 38% in 2 out runs and if so by how much. Due to the consistency of the data presented, I would think that a number of 45% or higher would be a significant variation from the expected norm.

As annoying as he could be, I preferred McCarver to Smoltz who is boring.

I don't like either of them. In fact, I muted the sound on the Fox broadcast and streamed WEEI (Red Sox radio broadcast) for the sound, which was much better. I still had to deal with the gratuitous camera shots of people in the stands, which always annoys me - Fox has been doing this for years and it drives me crazy. I'd much rather see the players involved in the game in between pitches, rather than shots of some fan with their hands at their mouth for 10 seconds (but I digress)...

I believe Fox, with Joe Buck, does a handful of baseball games per year, as Buck has other obligations with NFL and golf (I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure of this). I also think that since baseball is played pretty much everyday, radio and TV announcers who work every day do a much better job than announcers who only do games on occasion. They know the teams better, know the cadence of the game better and can add specifics to the broadcasts, rather than overused cliches and generalized blather.

Joe Castiglione on WEEI has been the voice of the Red Sox forever. He is classic old school. I used to like Jerry Trupiano as his sidekick in the 90s and 00s, he wasn't as well-loved but they had a good chemistry I thought.

Was it me or when Roberts took out Hill did the TV crew miss the fact that Hill handed him the ball and walked off the mound before Roberts had signaled to the bullpen?

You guys don't realize how lucky you are...at least you don't have to endure 'Slip' Carey every game.

Thank goodness I have the option of muting the TV and listening to the game on the radio.

Muting the TV offers no protection from the inane tomahawk chop.:eek: