Moneyball and the mechanization and computerization of MLB

[mvp 78]

Remember when Pedro came in in relief in that Guardians playoff game and went like 7 innings all tired out?

 

Had he let up a ton of runs, would that have been worse than the Little decision?

 

Even your strawman is saying no.

[mvp 78]

A fair point, but, based on the responses so far, I'd have to say no one on talksox (so far) is arguing to go with the computer no matter what. And that's my quarrel. Computers are here to stay, but last night Kevin Cash reminded me of the Scarecrow in the Wizard of Oz: "I haven't got a brain."

 

Trust but verify.

[mvp 78]

"If he doesn't have that WP" is kind of like that joke, "other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

 

Remember when Stanley didn't cross up Gedman?

[notin]

If Cash really said that, he is a raving idiot. As I just pointed out to Notin, how come Cash didn't follow that plan in the previous game when his starter Glasnow went five innings, gave up 4 runs, and faced--wait for it--24 batters.

 

Cash and the Rays had a great season, especially given their payroll. But that doesn't mean Cash never makes mistakes.

 

It’s not a question of whether or not Cash makes mistakes. It’s a question of whether or not he relies solely on the computer, as you said he does in the OP...

[Maxbialystock]

Well, like I said, the game plan was clearly to ride the bullpen. Since he was not able to get a good game out of Glasnow, it's possible he decided to change his strategy for game 6, when his back was up against the wall. What are you saying - that he has to use the same strategy every day?

 

And really, we don;t know how much of his "twice through the lineup" plan was based on conversations with Snell, or what he felt he could get out of his pen, or possibly even his desire to use Snell as an emergency reliever the next day.

 

The bottom line is, none of us really know everything behind why Snell was pulled.

 

And leave Snell in or pull him out, the Rays only scored one run and were shutout the final 8 innings. THAT was a much bigger factor in losing...

 

To me the fact that the Rays only scored one run only reinforces the notion that you stay with Snell because he was their best means of winning a low scoring game. Or have you never heard of a pitching duel? Have you even heard of Johnny Podres who shut out the Yankees in game 7 of the 1955 WS?

[Bellhorn04]

Remember when Stanley didn't cross up Gedman?

 

Exactly what came to my mind.

[moonslav59]

Even your strawman is saying no.

 

What a performance by Pedro that deciding game.

 

They had put up crooked numbers in 7 of the 8 innings they batted the previous game- winning 23-7, but they went down 5-2 and 8-7 against the Guardians.

 

Saberhagen 1 IP 5 runs

S Lowe 2 IP 3 runs

 

Pedro comes in for 6 IP

 

0 Hits

 

0 runs

 

8 Ks

 

We went on to lose to the Yanks (4 games to 1) with Pedro winning our only game (#3 over Roger Clemens). In that game, he went 7 IP 2H 0 Runns (12 Ks). We were down 2-1 in that series, at the time, despite outscoring the Yanks 18-8.

[moonslav59]

Exactly what came to my mind.

 

Damn Stanley and his analytics!

[Bellhorn04]

Damn Stanley and his analytics!

 

Bob Stanley, the most tragic figure in Red Sox history, in my books at least.

[Maxbialystock]

Of course he said he did not have his good stuff, and he didn't. But the Rays got where they were by riding their bullpen, too.

 

And really, if Anderson doesn't have that WP, do you not see that entire inning being drastically different?

 

If Anderson doesn't have that WP???????!!!!!!! To me the wild pitch is one more strong piece of evidence that Anderson wasn't ready to pitch, didn't have good stuff, didn't have good command, etc. Guess how many Snell had in 73 pitches. That's right, none. I mean, seriously, how could any pitcher in the post game interview say, "I was doing great except for the double and wild pitch that turned that inning into a disaster. If they ain't hitting it out of the park, I'm doing my job.

[Bellhorn04]

I just read that Anderson said after the game he was fatigued from the heavy postseason workload.

 

That makes the decision look even worse.

[moonslav59]

Bob Stanley, the most tragic figure in Red Sox history, in my books at least.

 

Bill Buckner for me, not that he deserves it.

[dgalehouse]

I just read that Anderson said after the game he was fatigued from the heavy postseason workload.

 

That makes the decision look even worse.

 

Yeah. You can only go to the well just so often. These bullpen guys can wear down too. But Cash stayed with what worked for him all year. It didn't work this time. As someone pointed out , you won't win many games when you score just one run.

[Kimmi]

Old school , baseball sense , gut feeling , tobacco spitting, beer drinking , no nonsense managing vs. New school , data driven, analytics loving , nerd consulting, geek web site studying , five hour energy, sabermetrics managing. The debate rages on . It should sustain us through the long , cold winter and the " not so " hot stove league.

 

I am very much a fan of analytics, but it should never be an either/or thing. It can't be when you're working with human beings.

 

I am not going to bash Cash for his decision to take Snell out of the game. The Rays have been following that playbook all season, and there is certainly some validity to his decision. That said, in general, I think there is a not so good trend towards removing starting pitchers too early in postseason games. I understand the urgency of making moves and all, but if a starter is cruising, then let him stay in the game until he gives up a baserunner or two.

 

I really, really don't like the fact that the role of the starting pitching is becoming so much less important.

 

Also, I really don't like the hot stove league.

[Kimmi]

He went with his strength, which was his bullpen all season long.

 

Since he has not really said why he pulled him, a lot of people are jumping to conclusions. But Cash didn't put have the best season in the AL because he did not know what he was doing...

 

I like this post.

 

I will say, however, that when a starter gets pulled early and often in the postseason, the bullpen is going to get overused and overexposed.

[Kimmi]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I am willing to bet the the difference in win expectancy between leaving Snell in the game versus bringing Anderson into the game was so small that it was negligible. I am guessing this won't sit well with most people, but in other words, Cash's decision did not cost the Rays that game.

[Maxbialystock]

Trust but verify.

 

That's about right. Woe betide any manager today that's doesn't use all the amazing stats and other data computers generate.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

...when a starter gets pulled early and often in the postseason, the bullpen is going to get overused and overexposed.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I am willing to bet the the difference in win expectancy between leaving Snell in the game versus bringing Anderson into the game was so small that it was negligible. I am guessing this won't sit well with most people, but in other words, Cash's decision did not cost the Rays that game.

 

Two polarizing points. The first is the best argument against bullpening -- and as we Sox fans know all too well, "early and often" in the regular season basically ruins any legit shot at extending or even qualifying for the postseason.

 

The second, as workhorse legends like Jack Morris argue, can supersede the numbers. Morris, who knows a bit about completing World Series games, said, "Blake Snell was pitching better tonight than anyone I've ever seen in the World Series. These analytics guys we have now think numbers are more important than having an ace at his best on the hill."

 

But even a dinosaur like myself (tricerabottoms) considers numbers: Snell had 9 Ks through 5 IP. If he finished his 1-0 shutout and averaged 2 more per frame -- he already had 6 on Betts, Seager and Turner -- he would tie Bob Gibson's all-time WS record.

 

May the spirit of Gibby (9 World Series starts, 81 innings pitched) haunt Kevin Cash until next Halloween...

[Maxbialystock]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I am willing to bet the the difference in win expectancy between leaving Snell in the game versus bringing Anderson into the game was so small that it was negligible. I am guessing this won't sit well with most people, but in other words, Cash's decision did not cost the Rays that game.

 

What in the wide, wide world of sports is "win expectancy?" Are you saying that, when Kevin Cash pulled Snell in the 6th inning, the game was already a lost cause because the Rays had only score 1 run? Or that Anderson was just the victim of bad luck when Mookie doubled and Anderson threw the wild pitch?

 

If that is not your point, then what is? My point is that Snell was having a great night, Cash took him out, and brought in Anderson who was predictably lousy enough to guarantee the Dodgers two runs thanks to the double and the wild pitch--oh, and the rbi groundout for the go ahead run.

 

The one point I will certainly agree to is that the Dodgers had the better team. But guess what? Somewhere, no doubt in some old, unread newspaper, I read that you gotta play the games. Moreover, once Snell went to the mound, it became very apparent that the Rays had a real shot--granted, against a better team--because last night Snell dominated the Dodgers. For 5.1 innings, 73 pitches, 9 K's, 0 walks, 0 runs, and 2 singles, anyway.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I am willing to bet the the difference in win expectancy between leaving Snell in the game versus bringing Anderson into the game was so small that it was negligible.

 

Win expectancy is an extremely difficult concept for me to wrap my head around. Would you be able to do a little analysis of it as it pertains to this situation?

[Bellhorn04]

Baseball-Reference shows Win Probability, which I can wrap my head around a lot better.

 

When Cash pulled Snell, the Dodgers had a 42% chance of winning.

Mookie's double: increased to 56%.

Wild pitch, run scores: increased to 65%.

Seager's grounder, run scores: increased to 73%.

 

So there was a hefty 31% change on those two at-bats.

[mvp 78]

I just read that Anderson said after the game he was fatigued from the heavy postseason workload.

 

That makes the decision look even worse.

 

If there were only advanced stats for overuse and decreased effectiveness...

[notin]

Baseball-Reference shows Win Probability, which I can wrap my head around a lot better.

 

When Cash pulled Snell, the Dodgers had a 42% chance of winning.

Mookie's double: increased to 56%.

Wild pitch, run scores: increased to 65%.

Seager's grounder, run scores: increased to 73%.

 

So there was a hefty 31% change on those two at-bats.

 

Yeah there is no data for what the pitching change itself did. And they really can't do that, since it is based on actual game play...

[notin]

If there were only advanced stats for overuse and decreased effectiveness...

 

There probably are. But if Anderson was fatigued, it's really something he has to talk to Cash about before the game...

[Bellhorn04]

There probably are. But if Anderson was fatigued, it's really something he has to talk to Cash about before the game...

 

His numbers in his 6 previous appearances were somewhat indicative.

[notin]

His numbers in his 6 previous appearances were somewhat indicative.

 

Yeah but at some point, he was the anchor of this team;s strength. And a big part of why the Rays got as far as they did. And maybe Cash figured he needed him and that pen to have any chance at all....

[Bellhorn04]

Yeah but at some point, he was the anchor of this team;s strength. And a big part of why the Rays got as far as they did. And maybe Cash figured he needed him and that pen to have any chance at all....

 

In this particular situation, he went with a struggling reliever over his ace starter who was at only 73 pitches, had terrific stuff and had thus far mowed down the hitters who were due up.

 

It seems like a case of analytics defying sense.

[mvp 78]

In this particular situation, he went with a struggling reliever over his ace starter who was at only 73 pitches, had terrific stuff and had thus far mowed down the hitters who were due up.

 

It seems like a case of analytics defying sense.

 

Yes, you need a 100% balance between analytics and what is going on in real life on the field. If a guy has a history of striking out a specific batter 10/10 times, but he's struggling to get the ball over the plate, odds are that you probably should get a new pitcher. Having analytics that say pull a starter out before the 3rd time through the order is fine, but it can't ignore recent history of a bullpen pitcher's struggles. If Cash went to a reliever that had been dominating recently, it would have made much more sense.

[notin]

Yes, you need a 100% balance between analytics and what is going on in real life on the field. If a guy has a history of striking out a specific batter 10/10 times, but he's struggling to get the ball over the plate, odds are that you probably should get a new pitcher. Having analytics that say pull a starter out before the 3rd time through the order is fine, but it can't ignore recent history of a bullpen pitcher's struggles. If Cash went to a reliever that had been dominating recently, it would have made much more sense.

 

Cash was obviously aware that Anderson had been struggling recently, so either he ignored his recent data and went with his gut. Or he found some data that seemingly justified the move at the time.

 

To say he solely removed Snell because the top of the order was coming up for the third time and the computer said so is also saying he would have removed Snell had he struck out Barnes. With 2 outs and no one on and Betts up, I am not so positive he makes that move.

 

It is also possible that Snell's sudden inability to get people out after 4.2 no hit innings in game 2 came into play....

[mvp 78]

It is also possible that Snell's sudden inability to get people out after 4.2 no hit innings in game 2 came into play....

 

LOL wut?

 

So the second that Snell gives up a hit, you just assume he'll repeat game 2? Why even start him then?