This is a theoretical question as opposed to a statistical question.
The most obvious answer is that they have a very strong home field in terms of the structural advantages that Fenway Park provides (i.e. familiarity among fielders) as well as their lineup which is built in such a way to succeed in that ballpark. Moreover, they have a very intense and loyal fan base thus creating a strong atmosphere and homefield where they may overperform compared with their road efforts.
However, one thing to keep in mind is that just because Boston has been "dominant" at home does not necessarily translate into financial success for their backers, in fact, you may find Boston to be a more profitable bet outside of Fenway Park. Let's consider for a moment 2007:
At home, Boston was 51-30 (62.96%, +$69). On the road they were 45-36 (55.55%, +$390). Cleary they were a better bet on the road than they were at home despite having a better overall record at home. Generally, Boston isn't a very profitable bet at home as they've burned their backers over the years. I think only three times in the past 10 years or so have they been profitable at home. Although this year, they look very sharp but realize you are going to pay a pretty penny if you want to continue backing them at home. At this point, I almost think there is no value left with Boston at home...you will routinely be expected to pay 20-30 cents more to back them at home than what they should be. Bortolo Colon being like -160 or is a perfect example of that the other day.....
|