Moneyball and the mechanization and computerization of MLB

[Maxbialystock]

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....

 

I have no doubt that Anderson was very good at some point this season, but we now know beyond any question that he was not good in this WS and certainly was not good in game 6. He said so himself after the game. So Cash absolutely was not going to his team's strength. Indeed, to any viewer with half a brain (about all I can claim to have), the guy at the top of his game, who was not tired (having thrown just 73 pitches), who had mowed down Dodger hitter after Dodger hitter, and who won the Cy Young Award just 2 years ago, was already on the mound.

 

And what do you mean by "have any chance at all?" When Snell was pulled in the 6th--and I know this will come as a shock to you--the Rays were leading, 1-0. Yes, the Dodgers had an excellent lineup. But not against Snell Tuesday night when Snell struck out their top of the order both times he faced them. In a tight ball game, Snell, not Anderson, was by far their best option. But not to Cash. He decided before the first pitch that Snell would only face 18 Dodger batters.

[notin]

I have no doubt that Anderson was very good at some point this season, but we now know beyond any question that he was not good in this WS and certainly was not good in game 6. He said so himself after the game. So Cash absolutely was not going to his team's strength. Indeed, to any viewer with half a brain (about all I can claim to have), the guy at the top of his game, who was not tired (having thrown just 73 pitches), who had mowed down Dodger hitter after Dodger hitter, and who won the Cy Young Award just 2 years ago, was already on the mound.

 

And what do you mean by "have any chance at all?" When Snell was pulled in the 6th--and I know this will come as a shock to you--the Rays were leading, 1-0. Yes, the Dodgers had an excellent lineup. But not against Snell Tuesday night when Snell struck out their top of the order both times he faced them. In a tight ball game, Snell, not Anderson, was by far their best option. But not to Cash. He decided before the first pitch that Snell would only face 18 Dodger batters.

 

So you think that if Snell struck out Barnes, he would have been pulled? I know this is really hypothetical...

[Maxbialystock]

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....

 

Hold it, there pardner. I didn't say Cash decided before the game to pull Snell after 18 Dodger batters--twice through the lineup. Kevin Cash said that after the game.

 

That's right. Cash told the known baseball world that he decided before the first pitch that Snell was not good enough to go thru thru Dodgers lineup 3 times, not even if he was having a great night, which he certainly was.

 

Interestingly, in the previous game his starter Glasnow faced 24 Dodger hitters, threw 102 pitches, and gave up 4 runs in a game the Rays lost. So maybe Cash decided he simply couldn't trust any starter, not even his Cy Young Award winner from 2 years ago.

[notin]

Hold it, there pardner. I didn't say Cash decided before the game to pull Snell after 18 Dodger batters--twice through the lineup. Kevin Cash said that after the game.

 

That's right. Cash told the known baseball world that he decided before the first pitch that Snell was not good enough to go thru thru Dodgers lineup 3 times, not even if he was having a great night, which he certainly was.

 

Interestingly, in the previous game his starter Glasnow faced 24 Dodger hitters, threw 102 pitches, and gave up 4 runs in a game the Rays lost. So maybe Cash decided he simply couldn't trust any starter, not even his Cy Young Award winner from 2 years ago.

 

Maybe.

 

And maybe game 2, where Snell threw 4.2 no-hit innings and then the wheels came off was also a factor.

 

(I do think if he got Barnes out, that he at the very least gets a chance to finish the inning.)

[Maxbialystock]

So you think that if Snell struck out Barnes, he would have been pulled? I know this is really hypothetical...

 

I don't have to think. As I've already said several times, after the game was over, Kevin Cash told the known baseball world that he decided before the game that he would pull Snell after he had faced every Dodger batter twice.

 

However, since you ask, I will say I strongly believe he would have pulled Snell when Mookie came to bat, even with 2 outs, no one on, and Snell pitching the game of his life. Cash would not care one whit that Snell had struck Betts out twice already--as well as the next two batters due up.

 

What would have mattered most to Cash was that this would be the third time facing Mookie, that Mookie has hit Snell fairly well in the past, and that the Dodgers in this WS had been very good at scoring runs with two outs.

 

Heck, I think Kevin Cash would have loved to jerk Snell off that mound with two outs and no one on base in the bottom of the 6th. What a dramatic move by the brilliant manager and the real source--not the players who don't get paid much anyway--of Rays wins this year.

 

My guess is that by the 4th inning Cash was already fidgeting in the dugout because he was way behind Dave Roberts in the arms race. By the 4th inning, Roberts had already brought in two fresh arms to none by Cash.

[Bellhorn04]

Maybe.

 

And maybe game 2, where Snell threw 4.2 no-hit innings and then the wheels came off was also a factor.

 

(I do think if he got Barnes out, that he at the very least gets a chance to finish the inning.)

 

You should check out Alex Speier's tweets from the game. He had some in-game analytics on Snell, swing-and-miss rate and exit velocity stuff, indicating that Snell was really having an extraordinarily game.

 

In spite of which, Speier said that pulling Snell was defensible.

 

But he thought that replacing him with Anderson did not make sense.

[notin]

I don't have to think. As I've already said several times, after the game was over, Kevin Cash told the known baseball world that he decided before the game that he would pull Snell after he had faced every Dodger batter twice.

 

However, since you ask, I will say I strongly believe he would have pulled Snell when Mookie came to bat, even with 2 outs, no one on, and Snell pitching the game of his life. Cash would not care one whit that Snell had struck Betts out twice already--as well as the next two batters due up.

 

What would have mattered most to Cash was that this would be the third time facing Mookie, that Mookie has hit Snell fairly well in the past, and that the Dodgers in this WS had been very good at scoring runs with two outs.

 

Heck, I think Kevin Cash would have loved to jerk Snell off that mound with two outs and no one on base in the bottom of the 6th. What a dramatic move by the brilliant manager and the real source--not the players who don't get paid much anyway--of Rays wins this year.

 

My guess is that by the 4th inning Cash was already fidgeting in the dugout because he was way behind Dave Roberts in the arms race. By the 4th inning, Roberts had already brought in two fresh arms to none by Cash.

 

Sure we get he decided before the game Snell saw the Dodgers twice, but game plans change on the fly all the time.

 

Howeve, I do think that the last time Snell pitched, he was also throwing the game of his life, until he wasn't anymore. That Glasnow pitched more innings the game before really shows how short Snell's leash was...

[notin]

You should check out Alex Speier's tweets from the game. He had some in-game analytics on Snell, swing-and-miss rate and exit velocity stuff, indicating that Snell was really having an extraordinarily game.

 

In spite of which, Speier said that pulling Snell was defensible.

 

But he thought that replacing him with Anderson did not make sense.

 

There was a lot about Anderson that made him an odd choice. The only reason to use him is he had excelled all season as the high leverage/closer. But the counter to that was his recent struggles and his post-game admission that he was gassed. So did Cash value the longer history over the more recent one?

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Maybe.

 

And maybe game 2, where Snell threw 4.2 no-hit innings and then the wheels came off was also a factor.

 

(I do think if he got Barnes out, that he at the very least gets a chance to finish the inning.)

 

This batter count limit reminds me in a way when Pedro used to turn into a pumpkin after 100 pitches. But he wasn't in his prime like Snell.

 

Also, Roberts said a few nights before that Kershaw was only going to face 21 hitters no matter what. So both teams -- run by guys who ran the Rays -- are ruled by the same playbook. This is why, as much as I hated Cash's move, that I hope the ultimate result will have an influence on the data-driven Bloom era in Boston. Sometimes, baseball players still know as much as baseball watchers.

 

Good thing Kershaw didn't throw a perfect game through seven innings, especially with a pitch-to-contact approach. Imagine if he got every batter out on first-pitch grounders and pop-ups, and the analytics dept. ordered Roberts to yank him after 21 pitches?

[Bellhorn04]

There was a lot about Anderson that made him an odd choice. The only reason to use him is he had excelled all season as the high leverage/closer. But the counter to that was his recent struggles and his post-game admission that he was gassed. So did Cash value the longer history over the more recent one?

 

He must have. And I think this highlights one of the things that analytics can't capture. Cash had to make a gut decision on which history to rely on.

[moonslav59]

We don't know if analytics had anything to do with Cash's pre-determined decision.

 

We do know he did not allow much flex in the plan.

 

6 Ks in 6 PAs by the next 3 batters, surely points to the call for adjusting the plan, especially in a 1-0 game.

 

He'll never live down this call, which is too bad, because he must be a pretty good manager to get a team like his that far.

[mvp 78]

This batter count limit reminds me in a way when Pedro used to turn into a pumpkin after 100 pitches. But he wasn't in his prime like Snell.

 

Also, Roberts said a few nights before that Kershaw was only going to face 21 hitters no matter what. So both teams -- run by guys who ran the Rays -- are ruled by the same playbook. This is why, as much as I hated Cash's move, that I hope the ultimate result will have an influence on the data-driven Bloom era in Boston. Sometimes, baseball players still know as much as baseball watchers.

 

Good thing Kershaw didn't throw a perfect game through seven innings, especially with a pitch-to-contact approach. Imagine if he got every batter out on first-pitch grounders and pop-ups, and the analytics dept. ordered Roberts to yank him after 21 pitches?

 

OPS pitch 1-25: .663

OPS between 26-99: .586-.597

OPS pitch 100+: .617

 

Can't say that's really a "pumpkin"

[dgalehouse]

It is fair to say that Cash pushed the wrong buttons this time . And it did not work out as he hoped it would. But he was really just following the formula that had worked for him all year. It did not work this time. We know that the Monday morning quarterbacks always call the correct play. The second guessers are never wrong. If Cash had stayed with Snell , and Snell gave it up , they would be saying, " Why didn't he know that Snell would have trouble the third time through? Why didn't he trust the bullpen that has served him so well all year"? And this debate would essentially be the same thing. In the end , the manager makes the call on pitching changes. We know whether or not it was the right call after we see the outcome.

[notin]

It is fair to say that Cash pushed the wrong buttons this time . And it did not work out as he hoped it would. But he was really just following the formula that had worked for him all year. It did not work this time. We know that the Monday morning quarterbacks always call the correct play. The second guessers are never wrong. If Cash had stayed with Snell , and Snell gave it up , they would be saying, " Why didn't he know that Snell would have trouble the third time through? Why didn't he trust the bullpen that has served him so well all year"? And this debate would essentially be the same thing. In the end , the manager makes the call on pitching changes. We know whether or not it was the right call after we see the outcome.

 

Much like with Pete Carroll, who I still think made the right call.

 

As I explained to my daughter when she was starting to play softball, sometimes you can do everything right and it still doesn't work out...

[Bellhorn04]

It is fair to say that Cash pushed the wrong buttons this time . And it did not work out as he hoped it would. But he was really just following the formula that had worked for him all year. It did not work this time. We know that the Monday morning quarterbacks always call the correct play. The second guessers are never wrong. If Cash had stayed with Snell , and Snell gave it up , they would be saying, " Why didn't he know that Snell would have trouble the third time through? Why didn't he trust the bullpen that has served him so well all year"? And this debate would essentially be the same thing. In the end , the manager makes the call on pitching changes. We know whether or not it was the right call after we see the outcome.

 

Something like starting Denny Galehouse in the playoff game, huh?

[dgalehouse]

Something like starting Denny Galehouse in the playoff game, huh?

 

Yup. See post #20 in this thread. That game is actually my earliest ( extremely fuzzy ) memory of being disappointed in the Red Sox. We didn't have a TV , so I listened to the game on the radio. It was the beginning of many unhappy big games to come , until 2004 happened. You might say that Denny Galehouse was my original ham and egger.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

OPS pitch 1-25: .663

OPS between 26-99: .586-.597

OPS pitch 100+: .617

 

Can't say that's really a "pumpkin"

 

I don't when these stats are from, if they're for his entire career or Red Sox career, but I was just referring to his end in Boston -- whenever that was when the Sox tried to get him off the mound when he reached 100. If you were watching then, the announcers kept reminding us that after 100, he was toast.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

It is fair to say that Cash pushed the wrong buttons this time . And it did not work out as he hoped it would. But he was really just following the formula that had worked for him all year. It did not work this time. We know that the Monday morning quarterbacks always call the correct play. The second guessers are never wrong. If Cash had stayed with Snell , and Snell gave it up , they would be saying, " Why didn't he know that Snell would have trouble the third time through? Why didn't he trust the bullpen that has served him so well all year"? And this debate would essentially be the same thing. In the end , the manager makes the call on pitching changes. We know whether or not it was the right call after we see the outcome.

 

I disagree that complaints would be the same. If Snell had finished the 6th, gave up a dinger to Betts and lost the lead, I don't think current and retired MLB players and analysts would be tweeting, texting and giving angry interviews for the next 24 hours. Great pitching performances do go south suddenly sometimes, and great batters that don't miss one bad pitch can change outcomes. Snell could've hung one slider, lost 2-1, Ked 15, and people would've praised him and said, "Tough game; that's baseball."

 

... instead of "That's baseball?"

[moonslav59]

OPS pitch 1-25: .663

OPS between 26-99: .586-.597

OPS pitch 100+: .617

 

Can't say that's really a "pumpkin"

 

Career:

.629>.649>.642

 

1st PA: .629

2nd PA: .645

3rd PA: .656

4th PA: .730

[Slasher9]

Cash blew that game. he's just lucky it wasnt a game 7. Then it would be a historic blown game.

 

Manny and I each had a free taco at Taco Bell yesterday afternoon. Thanks Mookie!

[Slasher9]

OPS pitch 1-25: .663

OPS between 26-99: .586-.597

OPS pitch 100+: .617

 

Can't say that's really a "pumpkin"

 

more like a "blumpkin"

[Kimmi]

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...

 

I happen to agree that Snell should have stayed in the game.

 

I'm just saying that Cash pulling Snell was not the reason the Rays lost the game.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

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?

 

When I get some time, I will research some of the actual numbers that I have seen before regarding win expectancy.

 

Based on a wide variety of stats, win expectancy will tell you how much of a difference one decision versus another decision would have on the outcome of the game, before anything happens.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

Win probability gives you new probabilities after an event has occurred. The problem with that as far as trying to determine if Snell was the better option or Anderson was the better option is that you don't know what would have happened if Snell had stayed in the game. Snell might have given up 4 runs, for all we know.

 

You really have to go with win expectancy, IMO.

[Bellhorn04]

Win probability gives you new probabilities after an event has occurred. The problem with that as far as trying to determine if Snell was the better option or Anderson was the better option is that you don't know what would have happened if Snell had stayed in the game. Snell might have given up 4 runs, for all we know.

 

You really have to go with win expectancy, IMO.

 

Sure, I realize the probability is calculated after the fact.

 

But it does show that the Dodgers went quickly from a 42% chance to a 73% chance, and how crucial those at-bats were to the outcome of the game.

[Maxbialystock]

Win probability gives you new probabilities after an event has occurred. The problem with that as far as trying to determine if Snell was the better option or Anderson was the better option is that you don't know what would have happened if Snell had stayed in the game. Snell might have given up 4 runs, for all we know.

 

You really have to go with win expectancy, IMO.

 

Then why did you bring up the top of win probability if it was not pertinent to this discussion?

 

Of course we don't know what Snell would have done, but we do know that, right up until the moment Cash jerked him out of the game, he was feeling great with excellent command and stuff and was pitching the game of a lifetime. To me that's sufficient evidence to say Snell--who had already struck Mookie and the next two Dodger hitters twice apiece--was a much better choice than Anderson, who said after the game he was tired and did have his good stuff, which is why he gave up the double, the wild pitch, and the groundout that brought Betts home with the go ahead run.

 

But let's ignore all that and just focus on the simple fact that after the game Kevin Cash told reporters that he decided before the first pitch that Snell would not be allowed to face any Dodgers hitter a third time.

[Maxbialystock]

I happen to agree that Snell should have stayed in the game.

 

I'm just saying that Cash pulling Snell was not the reason the Rays lost the game.

 

And I disagree with you because at the moment Snell was pulled off the mound and Anderson was brought in, the Rays were leading, 1-0, and Snell was not tired and was pitching brilliantly. Snell was the Rays best hope of winning that game. Bringing Anderson in, as we now know, guaranteed the Rays would lose.

[Maxbialystock]

Maybe.

 

And maybe game 2, where Snell threw 4.2 no-hit innings and then the wheels came off was also a factor.

 

(I do think if he got Barnes out, that he at the very least gets a chance to finish the inning.)

 

Take another look at the box score. Snell gave up 2 runs in 4.2 innings, and the bullpen gave up 2 runs in 4.1 innings.

[Maxbialystock]

Sure we get he decided before the game Snell saw the Dodgers twice, but game plans change on the fly all the time.

 

Howeve, I do think that the last time Snell pitched, he was also throwing the game of his life, until he wasn't anymore. That Glasnow pitched more innings the game before really shows how short Snell's leash was...

 

I agree game plans change for some managers. But Cash assured one and all that in this game he absolutely, positively stuck to his game plan--get rid of the guy having a great game and bring in the tired arm because he dare not let Snell face the Dodgers lineup a third time.

 

So let's talk about Snell's first outing vs. this one. I get that Snell did give up those 2 runs in the 5th inning, but you seem to overlooked a much bigger fact, that Snell--beyond any possible doubt--pitched way better against the Dodgers in the second game than he did in the first. Before he was unwisely removed from game 2, he had given up 2 singles, no runs, no walks, and had struck out 9. He struck out the Dodgers top three hitters all six times he faced them.

 

And he did all that in game 2, when the Dodgers should have been able to hammer him because it was the second time they had faced him in a week.

 

Kevin Cash showed absolutely zero flexibility in this game and, in my opinion, zero awareness of what was needed to win the game. He was just going thru the motions that worked before and refused to believe that Snell was actually pitching well. He also was unaware that Anderson, not Snell was the one out of gas.

[5GoldGlovesOF,75]

Career:

.629>.649>.642

 

1st PA: .629

2nd PA: .645

3rd PA: .656

4th PA: .730

 

Those numbers for times through the order for one of the all-timers is statistical evidence to support Ted Williams when he said he could never hit .400 in modern games -- because few starting pitchers are ever allowed to face batters 4th or even 3rd times (Ted mentioned relievers with live arms).

 

In Williams' day, pitchers were expected to finish what they started. I would guess adjusting to a guy you've seen all day -- another factor -- and swinging at more tired stuff that last at bat, would also help a guy like Joe D. hit in 56 straight games.