The Alex Cora Managerial Decision Thread

[Bellhorn04]

How about a step further - Why is there so much randomness in life in general?

 

We can get into that too.

[moonslav59]

I was not pushing for Devers to come up because he was so darn young, but he was pretty amazing when he did.

 

It seems like we're seeing more and more younger players called up. Devers had been a hit machine everywhere he went. To me, it wasn't just about our horrid offense from the 3B position prior to Devers being called up, it was about our struggling overall offense plus Devers attitude that seemed to show that nothing phases him. He just plain hits! And hits! AND HITS!

[Emp9]

I'm not talking about managers decisions when I talk about randomness. I'm talking about things like a closer making the perfect pitch to a batter, and the batter hitting a 20 foot check swing dribbler for a game winning hit. Did the batter really beat the pitcher because he was more skilled than the pitcher, or did the batter get lucky?

 

That's randomness. And there are many of these random events that take place every game.

 

If the pitcher’s goal was a strike-out, as opposed to inducing contact, then it wasn’t a “perfect” pitch to begin with. If the batter never played baseball before, sure, I would consider him extremely lucky. More likely he’s been playing since T-ball and is a “machine” with a baseball bat.

[Bellhorn04]

If the pitcher’s goal was a strike-out, as opposed to inducing contact, then it wasn’t a “perfect” pitch to begin with.

 

Don't you think the pitcher's goal in general is to make a really tough pitch to hit - the batter is either going to miss it or if he hits it it's going to be weak or glancing contact.

[Emp9]

I think it's time for me to start my thread about Baseball Philosophy - in which we seek explanations for WHY there is so much randomness in baseball, WHY hitters and pitchers have such hot and cold streaks etc.

 

Again with the “so much randomness”. I definitely think randomness exists in baseball. However, I do question the amount and frequency of it being thrown about on here. Perceived Randomness is just as objectionable as Perceived Meaning.

 

But yeah, it seems to be a hot topic, perhaps you should.

[Emp9]

Don't you think the pitcher's goal in general is to make a really tough pitch to hit - the batter is either going to miss it or if he hits it it's going to be weak or glancing contact.

 

With a man on 3B? No, I don’t.

[Kimmi]

obviously Jd's triple was a lucky break . Often times what we see as simple luck, they don't. it's probably fairly safe to say that good fielders make plays everyday that might appear lucky to an opponent when in reality they are just good fielders. Your theory is interesting but I don't buy it. That's ok.

 

First of all, let me clarify (in case there is any misunderstanding) that the outcome of 1 run games is not solely luck or randomness. Skill does play some part in it, but in 1 run games (and even 2 run games), randomness trumps skill.

 

Two things to consider, which again are fact, not just my opinion:

 

1. You can tell a lot more about the true talent level of the team by looking at its record in 4+ run games than you can by looking at its record in 1 or 2 run games. In other words, records in 4+ run games correlate a lot stronger to overall season record than do the records in 1 or 2 run games.

 

2. Team records in 1 run games will regress to .500. Or in other words, maintaining a good record in 1 run games is not a repeatable skill.

 

Exhibit A - The 2012 Orioles were 29-9 in one run games. Many of the "good teams know how to win the close games" crowd credited Showalter's genius managing and the Os incredible BP for the record.

 

The 2013 Orioles, which was largely the same team and certainly the same manager, had a 20-31 record in one run games. Did the genius Showalter suddenly forget how to manage? Did the vaunted BP forget how to pitch? Did the great Orioles team suddenly forget how to win the close games?

 

Or perhaps, those records had more to do with randomness than anything else.

[Kimmi]

I think it's time for me to start my thread about Baseball Philosophy - in which we seek explanations for WHY there is so much randomness in baseball, WHY hitters and pitchers have such hot and cold streaks etc.

 

I like it.

[Kimmi]

If the pitcher’s goal was a strike-out, as opposed to inducing contact, then it wasn’t a “perfect” pitch to begin with. If the batter never played baseball before, sure, I would consider him extremely lucky. More likely he’s been playing since T-ball and is a “machine” with a baseball bat.

 

OK, scratch the word 'perfect'. Maybe it was a terrible pitch. It really doesn't matter.

 

The batter checked his swing, meaning that he had no intent to hit the ball. He gets a hit anyway. Are you going to credit the batter with skill?

 

And that's only one example. There are numerous examples that take place every game.

[Kimmi]

Again with the “so much randomness”. I definitely think randomness exists in baseball. However, I do question the amount and frequency of it being thrown about on here. Perceived Randomness is just as objectionable as Perceived Meaning.

 

But yeah, it seems to be a hot topic, perhaps you should.

 

IMO, most fans underestimate the amount of randomness that takes place in every baseball game.

[Emp9]

OK, scratch the word 'perfect'. Maybe it was a terrible pitch. It really doesn't matter.

 

The batter checked his swing, meaning that he had no intent to hit the ball. He gets a hit anyway. Are you going to credit the batter with skill?

 

And that's only one example. There are numerous examples that take place every game.

 

Again, I might argue a batter that’s never played baseball before may not have developed the skill to even check his swing. In addition, why would a practiced and trained baseball player check his swing to begin with? If not for prior knowledge and experience at identifying a pitch he’d rather not commit to swinging at.

[Maxbialystock]

First of all, let me clarify (in case there is any misunderstanding) that the outcome of 1 run games is not solely luck or randomness. Skill does play some part in it, but in 1 run games (and even 2 run games), randomness trumps skill.

 

Two things to consider, which again are fact, not just my opinion:

 

1. You can tell a lot more about the true talent level of the team by looking at its record in 4+ run games than you can by looking at its record in 1 or 2 run games. In other words, records in 4+ run games correlate a lot stronger to overall season record than do the records in 1 or 2 run games.

 

2. Team records in 1 run games will regress to .500. Or in other words, maintaining a good record in 1 run games is not a repeatable skill.

 

Exhibit A - The 2012 Orioles were 29-9 in one run games. Many of the "good teams know how to win the close games" crowd credited Showalter's genius managing and the Os incredible BP for the record.

 

The 2013 Orioles, which was largely the same team and certainly the same manager, had a 20-31 record in one run games. Did the genius Showalter suddenly forget how to manage? Did the vaunted BP forget how to pitch? Did the great Orioles team suddenly forget how to win the close games?

 

Or perhaps, those records had more to do with randomness than anything else.

 

Stunning. I never thought of it that way and agree. I follow NCAA basketball and subscribe to kenpom.com. He has a stat he calls "luck," which basically is how often that team wins close games.

 

Last season on talksox there was a discussion about whether run differential (runs scored - runs scored against) was predictive, and it sure turned out to be. We won 93 games, but had a lower run differential than the Yankees, Guardians, and Astros--and were left in the dust in the ALDS once again.

 

Right now our run differential of +8 is 5th best in the AL. We really do need those hitters to start coming around.

[Maxbialystock]

IMO, most fans underestimate the amount of randomness that takes place in every baseball game.

 

Actually, if randomness means unpredictable, we should be delighted it is there because it's what makes sports in general so much fun to watch. I think this is especially true in MLB where a .600 winning percentage, which is hardly dominant, usually means winning a division. In MLB lousy, no good, rotten, stinking cellar dwellers usually win about 40% of the time. Ironically--or maybe appropriately--the fans tend to stay away from those teams' games. We just took 6 out of 7 from two teams who will likely win 40% of their games, and some of us are saying (incorrectly, I think), "we should be beating those teams at that rate."

[Bellhorn04]

With a man on 3B? No, I don’t.

 

Even Nolan Ryan only struck the batter out 25% of the time.

[a700hitter]

First of all, let me clarify (in case there is any misunderstanding) that the outcome of 1 run games is not solely luck or randomness. Skill does play some part in it, but in 1 run games (and even 2 run games), randomness trumps skill.

 

Two things to consider, which again are fact, not just my opinion:

 

1. You can tell a lot more about the true talent level of the team by looking at its record in 4+ run games than you can by looking at its record in 1 or 2 run games. In other words, records in 4+ run games correlate a lot stronger to overall season record than do the records in 1 or 2 run games.

 

2. Team records in 1 run games will regress to .500. Or in other words, maintaining a good record in 1 run games is not a repeatable skill.

 

Exhibit A - The 2012 Orioles were 29-9 in one run games. Many of the "good teams know how to win the close games" crowd credited Showalter's genius managing and the Os incredible BP for the record.

 

The 2013 Orioles, which was largely the same team and certainly the same manager, had a 20-31 record in one run games. Did the genius Showalter suddenly forget how to manage? Did the vaunted BP forget how to pitch? Did the great Orioles team suddenly forget how to win the close games?

 

Or perhaps, those records had more to do with randomness than anything else.

You keep using this term repeatable skill, and I have to say that I don’t know the significance of that term in a sport that is as dynamic as baseball where your opponent is countering your every move. Winning 1 & 2 run games is not a repeatable skill, but you are saying that winning blowout games is a repeatable skill? Is that what you are saying?

 

As for the Baltimore example, while I agree that the skewed records in 1 run games had something to do with good and bad fortune, the fact that the 2012 team won more than it lost was in greater part due to the fact that it was a better team than the 2013 team. It could also have to do with the fact that the 1 run games in 2013 were played against better teams. Just because the personnel on both teams were very similar doesn’t attribute the deviation to luck. Players perform differently from play to play, game to game, and so on. A player can strike out on a pitch and on the next pitch hit the same pitch in the same location for a HR. He doesn’t come back to the dugout talking about the randomness of the outcome. He knows what he did right when he hit the HR and what he did wrong when he swung and missed. The variation was in his performance. It wasn’t randomness at work. The Oriole 2012 team performed better than the 2013 team.

 

Can there be a more repeatable skill than rolling a bowling ball? The ball is the same on every throw. The lane stays exactly the same and the pins are always positioned in the same spots. The sport is played indoors so there is no wind or other weather related variation. Yet, even a champion bowler like Mookie Betts who has rolled a high number of 300 games doesn’t come close to rolling 300 games every time. Is it randomness? No. The variation is in his performance. He knows exactly where he needs to put the ball to get a strike. The problem is that if he is not precise he will leave the 7 pin or the 10 pin or some other pin. Those pins didn’t randomly avoid the collision of the other pins. He just missed his spot. Now, let’s take a sport like baseball that is not static like bowling. There is an opponent countering your every move, umpires with varying strike zones, weather elements and fields of different dimensions come into the dynamics of the game. Those dynamics are not elements of randomness, but they do affect performance. In the end, it is a game of applied skill between 2 the most highly skilled performers in the world and the outcome of those contests is rarely random.

Edited April 7, 2018 by a700hitter

[Dalas21000]

I'm starting to feel like Boston should have kept Farrell. I was the first person to bad mouth Farrell when he was in Boston, but I think he was more knowledgeable pitching wise. I don't think Cora knows when to pull a pitcher out exactly...I mean I would have pulled Porcello a run earlier than he was today. Thankfully, they scored enough runs to cover the mistake. Overall, I don't think Farrell was good enough to win another world series but he may have been better than Cora. I do think the team needs to adjust to not having Farrell as well. Overall, I think Farrell was a better fit as a manager because of his knowledge about handling pitching. I think Cora would be better as a hitting coach but its too late now I guess.

[moonslav59]

I'm starting to feel like Boston should have kept Farrell. I was the first person to bad mouth Farrell when he was in Boston, but I think he was more knowledgeable pitching wise. I don't think Cora knows when to pull a pitcher out exactly...I mean I would have pulled Porcello a run earlier than he was today. Thankfully, they scored enough runs to cover the mistake. Overall, I don't think Farrell was good enough to win another world series but he may have been better than Cora. I do think the team needs to adjust to not having Farrell as well. Overall, I think Farrell was a better fit as a manager because of his knowledge about handling pitching. I think Cora would be better as a hitting coach but its too late now I guess.

 

Farrell was an excellent pitching coach. It's too bad we couldn't have kept him there, but you can't blame a guy for wanting to be the manager.

[S5Dewey]

Don't you think the pitcher's goal in general is to make a really tough pitch to hit - the batter is either going to miss it or if he hits it it's going to be weak or glancing contact.

 

It depends on who the pitcher is. Chris Sale's goal is usually to strike out the hitter but Porcillo's goal is to try to make the batter hit the pitch Porcillo wants him to hit and not the one the batter wants to hit.

 

There's a lot of research done on where a batter's "hot zone" is as well as where the part of the strike zone is that the batter makes a lot of outs. Pitchers will try to put the hitter in a position where they're getting a "bad (for the hitter) strike to hit.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm starting to feel like Boston should have kept Farrell. I was the first person to bad mouth Farrell when he was in Boston, but I think he was more knowledgeable pitching wise. I don't think Cora knows when to pull a pitcher out exactly...I mean I would have pulled Porcello a run earlier than he was today. Thankfully, they scored enough runs to cover the mistake. Overall, I don't think Farrell was good enough to win another world series but he may have been better than Cora. I do think the team needs to adjust to not having Farrell as well. Overall, I think Farrell was a better fit as a manager because of his knowledge about handling pitching. I think Cora would be better as a hitting coach but its too late now I guess.

 

Are you even being serious?

[Maxbialystock]

I'm starting to feel like Boston should have kept Farrell. I was the first person to bad mouth Farrell when he was in Boston, but I think he was more knowledgeable pitching wise. I don't think Cora knows when to pull a pitcher out exactly...I mean I would have pulled Porcello a run earlier than he was today. Thankfully, they scored enough runs to cover the mistake. Overall, I don't think Farrell was good enough to win another world series but he may have been better than Cora. I do think the team needs to adjust to not having Farrell as well. Overall, I think Farrell was a better fit as a manager because of his knowledge about handling pitching. I think Cora would be better as a hitting coach but its too late now I guess.

 

It was a 10-2 game in the 8th. Who cares whether Porcello gave up another run after 7 excellent innings?

 

This pitching staff has the lowest ERA ever for a Sox team—granted, just the first eight games—and you think Cora is clueless?

[dgalehouse]

I think Cora brings the energy and enthusiasm to the job that Farrell seemed to be losing. The players can pick up on that. As far as in-game decisions ; it is too soon to make much of a judgement. Certainly cannot argue with the results so far.

[Kimmi]

Again, I might argue a batter that’s never played baseball before may not have developed the skill to even check his swing. In addition, why would a practiced and trained baseball player check his swing to begin with? If not for prior knowledge and experience at identifying a pitch he’d rather not commit to swinging at.

 

If you really attribute that type of hit to skill versus luck, then we are so far apart in our opinions that it's not even worth discussing. I don't mean that with any disrespect Emp, I just don't even know what else to say.

[Kimmi]

Stunning. I never thought of it that way and agree. I follow NCAA basketball and subscribe to kenpom.com. He has a stat he calls "luck," which basically is how often that team wins close games.

 

Last season on talksox there was a discussion about whether run differential (runs scored - runs scored against) was predictive, and it sure turned out to be. We won 93 games, but had a lower run differential than the Yankees, Guardians, and Astros--and were left in the dust in the ALDS once again.

 

Right now our run differential of +8 is 5th best in the AL. We really do need those hitters to start coming around.

 

It's way too early to really put much stock into the run differential or the team record or anything else. That said, run differential is really pretty good. And the neat thing about run differential is that it really does not matter if a good bit of the run differential comes in a few blow out games.

[Kimmi]

Actually, if randomness means unpredictable, we should be delighted it is there because it's what makes sports in general so much fun to watch. I think this is especially true in MLB where a .600 winning percentage, which is hardly dominant, usually means winning a division. In MLB lousy, no good, rotten, stinking cellar dwellers usually win about 40% of the time. Ironically--or maybe appropriately--the fans tend to stay away from those teams' games. We just took 6 out of 7 from two teams who will likely win 40% of their games, and some of us are saying (incorrectly, I think), "we should be beating those teams at that rate."

 

I think one of the most beautiful things about baseball is its randomness. I don't necessarily mean unpredictable when I say random, but I think much of the unpredictability of the game is due to its random nature.

 

It's hard to sweep any series. It doesn't matter how bad the team is, sweeping a series is hard. Anyone who thinks that it's a given that we should be 7-1 is fooling themselves.

[Kimmi]

You keep using this term repeatable skill, and I have to say that I don’t know the significance of that term in a sport that is as dynamic as baseball where your opponent is countering your every move. Winning 1 & 2 run games is not a repeatable skill, but you are saying that winning blowout games is a repeatable skill? Is that what you are saying?

 

Repeatable skill means that there is some statistical correlation between records in one run games and overall records, and/or some correlation from season to season or even from the first half of the season to the second half of the season.

 

Yes, I am saying that given the same or similar teams, winning 1-2 run games would not be repeatable. Winning 4+ run games would be.

[moonslav59]

I think Cora brings the energy and enthusiasm to the job that Farrell seemed to be losing. The players can pick up on that. As far as in-game decisions ; it is too soon to make much of a judgement. Certainly cannot argue with the results so far.

 

Excellent post.

 

Last year I mentioned a lack of "fire and desire". It's early yet, but I like what I see.

 

(Of course, even a lackluster 7-1 team would be fun to watch.)

[Kimmi]

As for the Baltimore example, while I agree that the skewed records in 1 run games had something to do with good and bad fortune, the fact that the 2012 team won more than it lost was in greater part due to the fact that it was a better team than the 2013 team. It could also have to do with the fact that the 1 run games in 2013 were played against better teams. Just because the personnel on both teams were very similar doesn’t attribute the deviation to luck. Players perform differently from play to play, game to game, and so on. A player can strike out on a pitch and on the next pitch hit the same pitch in the same location for a HR. He doesn’t come back to the dugout talking about the randomness of the outcome. He knows what he did right when he hit the HR and what he did wrong when he swung and missed. The variation was in his performance. It wasn’t randomness at work. The Oriole 2012 team performed better than the 2013 team.

 

How was the 2012 team better than the 2013 team?

 

They had a better record, but that was due to their outrageously lucky record in one run games.

 

The 2013 team was actually better than the 2012 team. Just not as lucky.

[cp176]

First of all, let me clarify (in case there is any misunderstanding) that the outcome of 1 run games is not solely luck or randomness. Skill does play some part in it, but in 1 run games (and even 2 run games), randomness trumps skill.

 

Two things to consider, which again are fact, not just my opinion:

 

1. You can tell a lot more about the true talent level of the team by looking at its record in 4+ run games than you can by looking at its record in 1 or 2 run games. In other words, records in 4+ run games correlate a lot stronger to overall season record than do the records in 1 or 2 run games.

 

2. Team records in 1 run games will regress to .500. Or in other words, maintaining a good record in 1 run games is not a repeatable skill.

 

Exhibit A - The 2012 Orioles were 29-9 in one run games. Many of the "good teams know how to win the close games" crowd credited Showalter's genius managing and the Os incredible BP for the record.

 

The 2013 Orioles, which was largely the same team and certainly the same manager, had a 20-31 record in one run games. Did the genius Showalter suddenly forget how to manage? Did the vaunted BP forget how to pitch? Did the great Orioles team suddenly forget how to win the close games?

 

Or perhaps, those records had more to do with randomness than anything else.

 

Sorry - I might be inclined to buy into this if the teams were exactly the same in addition to the umpires and their calls - the time of day or night of each game was the same - the teams they played in 2013 were the exact same teams and players that they faced last year etc. . etc, etc.

There are so many things that change form year to year that I can't buy your theory of randomness trumping skill at all. Randomness of course plays a role but teams that have good players and are also well coached get "lucky" a whole lot more than those that aren't prepared as well. Obviously I don't think that it is all luck. Teams that are better prepared often times make their own luck. I have never thought at all about the concept of winning games in any sport as a repeatable skill. A good coach emphasizes repeatable skills daily that enable teams to win games.

[Thunder]

I think one of the most beautiful things about baseball is its randomness. I don't necessarily mean unpredictable when I say random, but I think much of the unpredictability of the game is due to its random nature.

 

It's hard to sweep any series. It doesn't matter how bad the team is, sweeping a series is hard. Anyone who thinks that it's a given that we should be 7-1 is fooling themselves.

 

Definitely. You always hear about the concept of being only as good as that day's starting pitcher, and that any given day, anything can happen. At the end of the day, these are all professional hitters and pitchers, capable of putting on a masterful performance. I think that Opening Day loss was a great example of that, and it was good to be humbled so early in the season. Yes, we have talent. Yes, we are probably a playoff team regardless. But being able to respect our opponent will prevent extended cold spells and some of the dumb losses we had last year.

[Kimmi]

Can there be a more repeatable skill than rolling a bowling ball? The ball is the same on every throw. The lane stays exactly the same and the pins are always positioned in the same spots. The sport is played indoors so there is no wind or other weather related variation. Yet, even a champion bowler like Mookie Betts who has rolled a high number of 300 games doesn’t come close to rolling 300 games every time. Is it randomness? No. The variation is in his performance. He knows exactly where he needs to put the ball to get a strike. The problem is that if he is not precise he will leave the 7 pin or the 10 pin or some other pin. Those pins didn’t randomly avoid the collision of the other pins. He just missed his spot. Now, let’s take a sport like baseball that is not static like bowling. There is an opponent countering your every move, umpires with varying strike zones, weather elements and fields of different dimensions come into the dynamics of the game. Those dynamics are not elements of randomness, but they do affect performance. In the end, it is a game of applied skill between 2 the most highly skilled performers in the world and the outcome of those contests is rarely random.

 

You have a lot to learn about the sport of bowling. The lanes do not stay exactly the same. The oil pattern is constantly changing due to the lighting, room temperature, and the balls rolling down the lanes. The bowlers have to constantly make adjustments, including ball changes.

 

When the pins are set, they can sometimes be off spot. A pin being off spot by just a millimeter can be the difference between a strike and a 10 pin.

 

Sometimes a bowler can throw a great shot, and leave a ringing 10 pin or a stone 7 pin. Bad luck. Sometimes a bowler can throw a bad shot and get a strike. Good luck.

 

Bowling is not nearly as random as baseball, but it has its randomness.

 

Throwing the same shot is a repeatable skill, despite not always getting the same result.