SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
MLB Playoffs - World Series Thread
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 28, 2020 2:04:27 GMT -5
What a year for LA sports. 2 titles within 2 or 3 weeks. Just realized that. The LA Lakers one is the one that hurts more (despite Mookie winning). Tied with the Celtics in championships in that league now.
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 28, 2020 5:21:02 GMT -5
This surprises me:
Chris Cotillo @chriscotillo · 3h Dave Roberts is the first person in MLB history to win the World Series as a player and a manager with two different clubs. . . .
It's been done 6 times with the same club, last to do it, Cora.
|
|
|
Post by unitspin on Oct 28, 2020 6:23:14 GMT -5
Congrats to mookie and the dodgers. Feel bad for TB back to the drawing board for them. They need to add salary to get over that hump. Now I have nothing to watch sports related, sad day.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2020 7:37:21 GMT -5
[quote author="@electricit yverdugo99" source="/post/432161/thread" timestamp="1603868667"]What a year for LA sports. 2 titles within 2 or 3 weeks. Just realized that. The LA Lakers one is the one that hurts more (despite Mookie winning). Tied with the Celtics in championships in that league now.[/quote]
If I'm not mistaken, that was the 18th title for the Lakers giving them one more than the Celtics who have 17 championships.
Had Tampa won, they could claim the World Series title, the Stanley Cup, and the way they're going - as long as Tom Brady doesn't forget how many downs there are - they're on track to win the Super Bowl (Guess Brady needed an all-star receiving corps even more than he needed Belichick, who knew? lol).
|
|
|
Post by philsbosoxfan on Oct 28, 2020 9:24:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by thegoodthebadthesox on Oct 28, 2020 11:17:52 GMT -5
the impact one player can have is not the same. m Still a metaphor. Technically it would be a simile but it's not even that, it's just a bad comparison. If you really think the pre-Mookie Dodgers were similar to the pre-LeBron Cavs, Heat, and Lakers, I'm not sure what you're looking at.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 28, 2020 11:44:58 GMT -5
OK let's let the LeBron comp go. There's no reason to belabor that.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2020 12:36:52 GMT -5
there you go. New School v Old Skool managing. Which is better ?? False dichotomyit isn't a false dichotomy. there are very real effects derived from management styles that adhere to analytic orthodoxy as opposed to what had been traditional managerial philosophies. Now you want to say that a good manager knows when to (or decides on how to) differentiate the correct methadology in real time. It doesn't work that way. It is too hard to add that variable in without the benefit of hindsight. Kevin Cash replaced Snell, probably because of the third time through the order concerns. That is fine, he made his decision. We will never know what would have happened had he not, but I think most people feel that a manager should not replace a guy who had been throwing that well because of solidly struck ball for a single.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2020 12:58:55 GMT -5
it isn't a false dichotomy. there are very real effects derived from management styles that adhere to analytic orthodoxy as opposed to what had been traditional managerial philosophies. Now you want to say that a good manager knows when to (or decides on how to) differentiate the correct methadology in real time. It doesn't work that way. It is too hard to add that variable in without the benefit of hindsight. Kevin Cash replaced Snell, probably because of the third time through the order concerns. That is fine, he made his decision. We will never know what would have happened had he not, but I think most people feel that a manager should not replace a guy who had been throwing that well because of solidly struck ball for a single. That "must pull the starter" mentality drives me crazy. There's always the assumption that the incoming reliever is more likely to be highly effective as opposed to the "fading" starter who must go through the lineup a 3rd time. I mean, really, do you literally have to pitch a perfect game to stay in beyond the 5th inning? That's the way it seems sometimes. Once upon a time, starters pitched a ton off innings. It ranged at its ridiculous high point of 400 plus innings for a starter in the late 1800s down to the 300s in the first half of the 20th century until it got whittled down to 200 - 250 for the 2nd half workhorse of the 20th century. Now it's like they want 5 innings per start, even if the guy is going well. It means more innings to be covered by the bullpen, meaning they get extended beyond their natural capabilities - if they were capable of wracking up a lot of outs, they'd be starters, or the relievers coming in work in short stints but now you have many relievers coming in. What are the odds that the more relievers you put into the game, that they're going to come in pitching well. It only takes one guy to mess up the work that five other guys did. It's funny. I'd do an eye roll when older friends of mine would drone on about how the pitchers were "real men" during the 1960s pitching all of their innings....and I'd point out that it was a different game, that every hitter in the lineup can mash, and that the pitchers aren't pitching off a high mound with a huge strike zone in huge ballparks facing hitters who weren't juiced. The old Sandy Koufax vs Pedro Martinez argument. But now it's like...ridiculous. It's getting to the point that a 200 IP pitcher will be as rare as a 300 inning pitcher would have been 25 years ago. But it's not the pitchers begging out. It's the managers scared to put them in to face a lineup for the 3rd time. Over the majority of the time, they're right. When they're struggling you can see the sense to pull a starter out, but when they're pitching well....you have to use your eyes. In 2003 when Grady kept Pedro in, it was obvious that Pedro was laboring in the 7th inning. Thus the outrage. Yesterday Snell was nowhere near the gauntlet that Pedro faced in the 7th inning when he gave up a HR to Juicin Giambi and two singles. Luckily, Pedro knew he could trick the hacking Alfonso Soriano into swinging at pitches out of the zone, so he exploited it, but you knew he was done. Unfortunately Little didn't know. Now it seems that it has swung so much in the opposite direction. Ok. I'm off my soap box now. And...get off my lawn.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2020 13:11:06 GMT -5
That "must pull the starter" mentality drives me crazy. There's always the assumption that the incoming reliever is more likely to be highly effective as opposed to the "fading" starter who must go through the lineup a 3rd time. I mean, really, do you literally have to pitch a perfect game to stay in beyond the 5th inning? That's the way it seems sometimes. Once upon a time, starters pitched a ton off innings. It ranged at its ridiculous high point of 400 plus innings for a starter in the late 1800s down to the 300s in the first half of the 20th century until it got whittled down to 200 - 250 for the 2nd half workhorse of the 20th century. Now it's like they want 5 innings per start, even if the guy is going well. It means more innings to be covered by the bullpen, meaning they get extended beyond their natural capabilities - if they were capable of wracking up a lot of outs, they'd be starters, or the relievers coming in work in short stints but now you have many relievers coming in. What are the odds that the more relievers you put into the game, that they're going to come in pitching well. It only takes one guy to mess up the work that five other guys did. It's funny. I'd do an eye roll when older friends of mine would drone on about how the pitchers were "real men" during the 1960s pitching all of their innings....and I'd point out that it was a different game, that every hitter in the lineup can mash, and that the pitchers aren't pitching off a high mound with a huge strike zone in huge ballparks facing hitters who weren't juiced. The old Sandy Koufax vs Pedro Martinez argument. But now it's like...ridiculous. It's getting to the point that a 200 IP pitcher will be as rare as a 300 inning pitcher would have been 25 years ago. But it's not the pitchers begging out. It's the managers scared to put them in to face a lineup for the 3rd time. Over the majority of the time, they're right. When they're struggling you can see the sense to pull a starter out, but when they're pitching well....you have to use your eyes.
In 2003 when Grady kept Pedro in, it was obvious that Pedro was laboring in the 7th inning. Thus the outrage. Yesterday Snell was nowhere near the gauntlet that Pedro faced in the 7th inning when he gave up a HR to Juicin Giambi and two singles. Luckily, Pedro knew he could trick the hacking Alfonso Soriano into swinging at pitches out of the zone, so he exploited it, but you knew he was done. Unfortunately Little didn't know. Now it seems that it has swung so much in the opposite direction. Ok. I'm off my soap box now. And...get off my lawn. champs..i agree. LOL. Part of what i am referencing to eric's post is bolded though. The bolded part is where the difficulty lies. Humans neurological paths are trained by experience. Thus comfort levels when making decisions. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that Blake Snell has not been asked to pitch 6 innings (he had not) all year. Why is that ? The guys stuff is as good as it gets. The Rays appear to not prioritize stud starting pitching. I have always argued that teams should be working to develop frontline starter material. Hence, why I would like to see Darwinzon stretched out. But others have decided that his control / command will never be good enough by the time he has reached the age of.......22. The Rays are lauded for running out a competitive team of overachievers. Are they really overachievers ? To the extent they have a low payroll, out of necessity (understandably), they are. But their thoughts on platoons, bullpens, manager are their consequences. That is why I maintain that Cash really couldn't have chosen otherwise yesterday, which was my point to eric.
|
|
radiohix
Veteran
'At the end of the day, we bang. We bang. We're going to swing.' Alex Verdugo
Posts: 6,404
Member is Online
|
Post by radiohix on Oct 28, 2020 14:14:12 GMT -5
I remember exactly where I was when Dave Roberts came in to pinch run for Millar. I'll love him forever for that stolen base. Very happy that he got himself a ring and I really dislike the Rays so it was a satisfying post-season. Now I can pay more attention to the upcoming draft. 4th pick baby!
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 28, 2020 14:26:21 GMT -5
[quote author="@electricit yverdugo99" source="/post/432161/thread" timestamp="1603868667"]What a year for LA sports. 2 titles within 2 or 3 weeks. Just realized that. The LA Lakers one is the one that hurts more (despite Mookie winning). Tied with the Celtics in championships in that league now. If I'm not mistaken, that was the 18th title for the Lakers giving them one more than the Celtics who have 17 championships. Had Tampa won, they could claim the World Series title, the Stanley Cup, and the way they're going - as long as Tom Brady doesn't forget how many downs there are - they're on track to win the Super Bowl (Guess Brady needed an all-star receiving corps even more than he needed Belichick, who knew? lol). [/quote] They're both tied for 17.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Hatfield on Oct 28, 2020 14:59:11 GMT -5
it isn't a false dichotomy. there are very real effects derived from management styles that adhere to analytic orthodoxy as opposed to what had been traditional managerial philosophies. Now you want to say that a good manager knows when to (or decides on how to) differentiate the correct methadology in real time. It doesn't work that way. It is too hard to add that variable in without the benefit of hindsight. Kevin Cash replaced Snell, probably because of the third time through the order concerns. That is fine, he made his decision. We will never know what would have happened had he not, but I think most people feel that a manager should not replace a guy who had been throwing that well because of solidly struck ball for a single. I think his point was that it's not a dichotomy but a spectrum. This isn't a situation in which every "old school" manager leaves Snell in and every "new school" manager pulls him. I think it was just a situation in which the manager proved too much a slave to whatever numbers backed up the decision to pull Snell and made the wrong call. There are plenty of analytically inclined managers who'd have left him in. And as mentioned by someone above, the part that's getting lost in this is the fact he brought Anderson in, who's just not been good lately. Go to Fairbanks earlier than you wanted or something, but that's just not the spot.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2020 15:36:14 GMT -5
[quote author="@electricit yverdugo99" source="/post/432161/thread" timestamp="1603868667"]What a year for LA sports. 2 titles within 2 or 3 weeks. Just realized that. The LA Lakers one is the one that hurts more (despite Mookie winning). Tied with the Celtics in championships in that league now. If I'm not mistaken, that was the 18th title for the Lakers giving them one more than the Celtics who have 17 championships. Had Tampa won, they could claim the World Series title, the Stanley Cup, and the way they're going - as long as Tom Brady doesn't forget how many downs there are - they're on track to win the Super Bowl (Guess Brady needed an all-star receiving corps even more than he needed Belichick, who knew? lol). They're both tied for 17. [/quote] Shoot, you're right. I thought when the Lakers beat the Celts in 2010 that put them at 17, but apparently not. That was #16 for them then. Now they have 17, just like the Celtics.
|
|
mobaz
Veteran
Posts: 2,797
|
Post by mobaz on Oct 28, 2020 15:58:12 GMT -5
If I'm not mistaken, that was the 18th title for the Lakers giving them one more than the Celtics who have 17 championships. Had Tampa won, they could claim the World Series title, the Stanley Cup, and the way they're going - as long as Tom Brady doesn't forget how many downs there are - they're on track to win the Super Bowl (Guess Brady needed an all-star receiving corps even more than he needed Belichick, who knew? lol). They're both tied for 17. And they are winning 6 to 1 this century... Ugh.
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 28, 2020 17:21:55 GMT -5
The Dodgers used seven pitchers. The one who retired the most batters was the last one. It eas the second time in a six-game World Series that they ran a bullpen game. For all intents and purposes they didn't have a closer. This was the furtherst thing possible from a victory for old-school orthodoxy against our antihuman analytic overlords.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2020 17:32:31 GMT -5
The Dodgers used seven pitchers. The one who retired the most batters was the last one. It eas the second time in a six-game World Series that they ran a bullpen game. For all intents and purposes they didn't have a closer. This was the furtherst thing possible from a victory for old-school orthodoxy against our antihuman analytic overlords. but we aren't talking about the Dodgers. Not sure why this is even relevant
|
|
|
Post by James Dunne on Oct 28, 2020 17:52:47 GMT -5
The Dodgers used seven pitchers. The one who retired the most batters was the last one. It eas the second time in a six-game World Series that they ran a bullpen game. For all intents and purposes they didn't have a closer. This was the furtherst thing possible from a victory for old-school orthodoxy against our antihuman analytic overlords. but we aren't talking about the Dodgers. Not sure why this is even relevant Because an analytics-employing team beat another analytics-employing team who made a specific strategic move that backfired and people are using it to indict statistical analysis rather than the individual decision.
|
|
|
Post by jerrygarciaparra on Oct 28, 2020 18:05:34 GMT -5
but we aren't talking about the Dodgers. Not sure why this is even relevant Because an analytics-employing team beat another analytics-employing team who made a specific strategic move that backfired and people are using it to indict statistical analysis rather than the individual decision. that is a total cop out. All teams use analytics to some extent. I am trying to make 2 points and I have made them well. 1). The decision to pull Snell was an obvious decision based on analytic orthodoxy. 2). The Tampa Rays have a philosophy that does not appear to lend itself to have pitchers go even 7 innings. For years, analytical people gave shit to managers for looking into their eyes to determine whether they should take them out. Ironically, even given the Rays model (which I actually give Cash credit for sticking with last night), the point now is the manager trained in that methodology is supposed to know when he shouldn't use it ?!?!?!? That is my point
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 28, 2020 22:29:28 GMT -5
but we aren't talking about the Dodgers. Not sure why this is even relevant Because an analytics-employing team beat another analytics-employing team who made a specific strategic move that backfired and people are using it to indict statistical analysis rather than the individual decision. James, I get what you're saying but I still think it misses the point. The Dodgers decided that Tony Gonsolin is going to be jerked around between starting and relieving this post-season, kind of the same as Dustin May and Julio Urias. Fine, ok. That decision was made. So if Gonsolin doesn't have it and the Dodgers are keeping 53 pitchers on their World Series roster (I exaggerate, sort of), then it makes perfect sense to give him a quick hook. It was obvious he didn't have it. Why let him bury them and put them in a scary Game 7? So it made perfect sense to run throught their relievers - and I have to say, they had a lot of decent options. They weren't bringing in the Colten Brewers of the world. Dylan Floro was a good reliever for them. Baez has been a decent reliever. Alex Wood has been a decent swing man for them. I was surprise a little that they didn't use Joe Kelly, but they had Graterol as well, and their ace in the hole in Urias. For the Dodgers it made sense what they did. Quick hook for Gonsolin. But for the Rays, Anderson and Fairbanks haven't been getting through their outings unscathed. They've been extended in their outing beyond what they'd normally do. I think turning to them was a bigger risk that thinking that Snell was suddenly going to lose it. I mean, he allowed 2 baserunners the entire 5.1 innings he was out there. With his low pitch count I would have tried to get him through 7 if possible to reduce the number of outs Anderson, Fairbanks, and Castillo would have had to get. I would have given Snell more rope. It's not like he had given up 2 or 3 runs and 6 or 7 baserunners. You're talking 2 singles over 5.1 innings. I mean, what would have it taken to get him through 7? Would he have had to retire the final 12 batters or something like that? I mean, the Dodgers, had to be so inflated to see him leave. It's like you're doing the other team a favor when you remove a pitcher who is virtually mowing down a lineup. I get that you're talking about a new age team versus another new age team - I mean the Dodgers are kind of the Rays with a lot of money. They're similar in styles and there's not a lot of old school there, but I think in this case there was room for both. Old school would have been Dave Roberts feeling obligated to put Kenley Jansen, the long-time once great Dodgers reliever to be the guy on the mound to get the save. I was wondering if he was going to make that move, which I thought would be a mistake because Urias was dominating the Rays. I'm glad for him that he didn't give into that and saw that Urias was dealing and not to mess with a good thing. I remember thinking a similar thing when the Sox brought in Sale to close out the series and when the Astros stuck with Charlie Morton instead of the Sox and Astros turning to Kimbrel and Giles, respectively.
|
|
ericmvan
Veteran
Supposed to be working on something more important
Posts: 8,941
|
Post by ericmvan on Oct 29, 2020 0:27:44 GMT -5
First, to clarify what I meant by "false dichotomy" -- embracing analytics doesn't mean you reject all of the elements of the pre-analytic method. In fact, the only one you're actually rejecting is the old analytics (BA, wins for pitchers, and so on). In particular, all good teams use sabermetrics and scouting in synergy.
But here's a complete different take on the Snell decision. AFAI can tell, it was bad analytics.
The Rays are obviously the best team in MLB for using analytics for player evaluation and acquisition.
That is a completely different thing than analytics for in-game strategy. I would be surprised if they were not done by two different groups of people.
Now, it' a demonstrable fact that the 2018 Dodgers dropped the ball in the latter. After the Sox crazy performance with RISP in the first two rounds of the playoffs, I was able to figure out what the Sox were doing, and there was a simple strategy that could have been used to negate it (pitch less predictably in certain RISP situations). That tells me that the sabermetrics of matchups, tactics, and so on may well be lagging behind that of optimizing player performance. Spin rate, pitch mix and tunneling ... all that stuff is way sexier than, when should be pull our pitchers?
MLB Splits by times around the order from 2013:
700 729 (94% as many PA)
761 (70% as many PA as the first time around)
This year:
716 765 (88%) 754 (39%)
We see a strong selection bias at work here. The effect hasn't disappeared; the pitchers seeing the lineup for the 3rd time are better.
Dodgers hitters:
831 888 (90%)
703 (45%)
Snell's career splits need to be compared to 2013, where the peer goup is everyone, not just top-0f-rotation guys: 592, 711, 742. Completely average difference, not enough to offset the Dodgers' struggles. Mookie struggled a bit and Seager a lot.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 29, 2020 6:10:57 GMT -5
Because an analytics-employing team beat another analytics-employing team who made a specific strategic move that backfired and people are using it to indict statistical analysis rather than the individual decision. I mean, he allowed 2 baserunners the entire 5.1 innings he was out there. With his low pitch count I would have tried to get him through 7 if possible to reduce the number of outs Anderson, Fairbanks, and Castillo would have had to get. I would have given Snell more rope. To further your point using data (analytics). Snell gave up only one hard hit ball over 90 mph all game. They were barely touching him. The top of the order was up and Snell struck out the first 3 batters of the lineup all 6 times. The Rays pulled him before the third time in the batting order. This move points to reverse Grady Little, who used no analytics or any common sense based off of any numbers to keep Pedro in ironically. Pedro's performance declined after 100 pitches. Even for back then, they could track at least that. Pedro had thrown that or just about that through 7 innings, nevermind bringing him back out in the 8th. Then give up a bunch of baserunners, and keeping him in. Aggravating just to rethink that 30-60 minutes of Game 7 in the ALCS innings 7-8.
|
|
|
Post by redsox04071318champs on Oct 29, 2020 7:47:21 GMT -5
I mean, he allowed 2 baserunners the entire 5.1 innings he was out there. With his low pitch count I would have tried to get him through 7 if possible to reduce the number of outs Anderson, Fairbanks, and Castillo would have had to get. I would have given Snell more rope. To further your point using data (analytics). Snell gave up only one hard hit ball over 90 mph all game. They were barely touching him. The top of the order was up and Snell struck out the first 6 batters of the lineup all 6 times. The Rays pulled him before the third time in the batting order. This move points to reverse Grady Little, who used no analytics or any common sense based off of any numbers to keep Pedro in ironically. Pedro's performance declined after 100 pitches. Even for back then, they could track at least that. Pedro had thrown that or just about that through 7 innings, nevermind bringing him back out in the 8th. Then give up a bunch of baserunners, and keeping him in. Aggravating just to rethink that 30-60 minutes of Game 7 in the ALCS innings 7-8. Yup, exactly. You might recall that Pedro was laboring in the 7th making a lot of high stress pitches. Giambi took him deep. I believe he had given up 2 hard hits after the HR, he was nearing 100 pitches which he had the track record of wearing down. The one saving grace is the matchup that Pedro was able to exploit, the ability to get the hacktastic Alfonso Soriano to swing at his pitches outside of the zone, because if he had been patient, at that point in the game Pedro wasn't going to get away with too many pitches in the zone. Soriano was his bailout. He looked relieved, exhausted and done when he got Soriano to whiff on pitches out of the strike zone, and clearly most everybody could see that - except for Grady Little. I think most of us had that "What the HELL is he DOING?!!" moment when we saw Pedro come back for the 8th.
|
|
|
Post by electricityverdugo99 on Oct 29, 2020 15:33:32 GMT -5
Correction. I said first 6 batters struck out. It was the first 3 batters that struck out twice after Snell faced them. Fixed it, and wanted that to be known.
|
|
|
Post by foreverred9 on Oct 29, 2020 20:47:54 GMT -5
Let's say Snell gave up the double to Betts. No one would have asked why he stayed out to face Betts, and I think people would have understood if Cash went out to get him then.
I just checked his game logs, the deepest he pitched all season was 5.2 innings and all his regular season starts after his first 3 warmup starts he went 5.0, 5.1, or 5.2 IP. So Cash likely went into that inning expecting to pull him.
I didn't watch it, but it seems like he did something similar in the WC game. Snell was at 82 pitches, up 1-0, 1 man on. Going to the bullpen worked then.
But to Eric's point, this just seemed like the case where you just had to know there was something the analytics was missing. The 0-6 with 6 Ks for the top 3, the painting of the zone during the game, Anderson unable to pitch a clean inning, etc.
|
|
|