Kimmi

Saying 'full blown rebuild' over and over again is not going to make that wishful thinking come true.

One of the articles made the analogy to a child who drives home completely wasted, but somehow manages to make it home safely. Are we going to excuse that child's behavior because the result ended up being great? I don't know if Roberts made the right decisions either, but because it didn't work does not mean it was the wrong decision, and vice versa.

That is exactly the point Bell. That is why you have to go with win expectancy before the events happen. Or as MGL pointed out, you cannot base the correctness of a decision on the results.

For some reason, people (managers, players, fans) think that a team's closer, if available, has to come into the game in a close situation. The truth of the matter is that the team would probably fare just as well with another good reliever coming into the game. As an example, your chance of winning might drop from 95% to 93%. You're still going to win the vast majority of those games.

And I thought I was this close to winning you over. FTR, Roberts has been criticized heavily for his postseason decisions. Not that that really means anything one way or the other in this discussion.

I know I'm not going to convince most of you otherwise. It probably matters a whole lot to the manager, coaches, and teammates. Despite that, it makes little difference in the outcome of the game.

A manager's decision between batting Mookie 1st or batting him 4th, all else being equal, makes a difference of maybe 2 runs all year. That assumes that Mookie will be basically put up the same types of slash line numbers regardless of where he's hitting. What I'm talking about with regard to knowing his players well would be if perhaps Mookie was 100% against batting leadoff. And since he was 100% against the idea, perhaps he hits considerably worse in the leadoff spot than he does elsewhere in the line up. So you might end up replacing an 8 WAR player with a 5 WAR player if that's the case. There are many things that our baseball instinct has told us to do for years. We are now finding out that perhaps our instinct has been wrong. A prime example is that 10 years ago, the thought of batting your best hitter in the #2 hole was almost unheard of. Now, more and more people are accepting this idea. I get that you don't like the robot feel of it all. There are a lot of things that I don't like either. Whether analytics are ruining the game of baseball or not is certainly a topic open for debate.

I have always felt that the way that a manager handles his players and the clubhouse is far more important than the in game decisions that he makes. Managers are needed for both, but particularly for the managing of players. A manager who knows his players well will do a better job with making in game decisions. The bottom line is, however, that a manager's decisions do not impact the outcome of the game that much. As far as removing a starting pitcher in the 6th inning, that whole argument was addressed in the second article that I posted. There is no evidence to suggest that a pitcher who has been lights out for 5 or 6 innings will continue to be lights out, even with a low pitch count. In other words, there is no predictive value in the way a pitcher has pitched in the first 6 innings of the game. FTR, I am 100% against robot umps, as well as instant replay.

Well if there is something physically wrong with the pitcher, then that's a whole different story. A manager should know if that's the case. I do agree that there is something to the 'overexposure' argument.

There has been a lot of speculation that Bloom didn't really want Cora, that he would have preferred bringing in 'his guy' (Fuld), and that he was pressured by ownership into hiring Cora. It's nice to read that none of that seems to be the case. I think Cora is absolutely the right choice, based on the way his players respond to him. Even Price, obviously no longer with the team, commented on how good a decision it was to bring Cora back. But beyond his ability to manage the players, Cora has great baseball smarts as well.

Post of the Day!

I am neither a basher nor am I grouchy. Just here to spread the truth.

Exactly. I get that baseball is a business, but I don't like it. On either side.

Also, the reliever might have a fairly short track record, but trying to base a decision off of a much shorter track record of postseason games would be a mistake.

I get where you're coming from. My gut says to leave Snell in that game as well, but when the numbers contradict my gut, I'm going with the numbers. The numbers not only support taking a pitcher, who is dealing, out of the game for the 3rd time through the order, they also support using a recently (6 games?) struggling reliever who is typically pretty good. I'm not necessarily saying that Cash was right, though he might have been. I'm saying he certainly wasn't as wrong as everyone is saying that he was. I wish someone would determine the difference in win expectancy between the two decisions in this particular game (I don't know how to do that.)

I am a true believer that confidence and mental attitude have a big effect on performance. That said, the data still don't support leaving in a pitcher who is cruising past the 6th inning. This case with Snell being pulled is an anecdotal example. There are always going to be counterexamples, but the statistics to support that just aren't there. How a pitcher is pitching up to that point has no predictive value on how he will pitch the next inning. Here is one of my favorite parts of the article from MGL, in reference to deciding whether a manager made the right decision or not: The first thing they teach you in sabermetrics 101 is not to be results oriented. For the most part, the results of a decision have virtually no correlation with the “correctness” of the decision itself.

Yes. Replacement level for relievers is pretty low, because relievers are much easier replaced than starting pitchers or position players. This is why I would never spend big on a reliever.

I think players should show a little more loyalty to the team that drafted and developed them. But I agree that loyalty works both ways. The team should show a little more loyalty to their players as well, especially the home grown ones like Jon Lester. IMO, Mookie was shown that loyalty with a $300M + offer. And though Bronson Arroyo wasn't home grown, I still haven't forgiven Theo for trading him.

To give you some percentages on the difference between one pitcher over another: The difference in win expectancy between and elite closer (Giles) with a 2.71 ERA and a very good closer (Devenski) with a 3.37, in perhaps the highest leverage situation (9th inning of a tie game), is 1.5%. Some of that is offset if the game continues past the 9th. The difference in win expectancy between an elite closer and a mediocre closer in the 9th inning with a 3-run lead is approximately 0.8%. The most egregious error that a manager can make, short of purposefully throwing a game, will result in a difference in win expectancy of 5%. That is considered a HUGE swing. This occurred when a manager chose to keep his weak hitting pitcher in the game (6th inning I believe), with runners on 2nd and 3rd, rather than going with a pinch hitter.

Here's another great, but lengthy and math filled article, on removing a pitcher, like Snell, who is cruising after 6 innings. Dealing or Dueling - What's a Manager to Do?

Here is a quote from Ben Clemens, Fangraphs writer, on the topic of pulling Snell: If you want my opinion on it, I would have kept Snell in, though I don’t think that was in any way the determining factor in the game. Any honest analysis of that decision is going to come down to a minuscule edge. Use one good pitcher, or use another good pitcher? It doesn’t matter much — the players on the field determine the game, not the manager, even if you think the decision was clearly one way or the other.

Oh, so much to say, so little time. The more I read, the more I want to defend Cash's decision, both in pulling Snell and in using Anderson. Rather than having me try to quote almost everything in this article, please read it, if you are so inclined. It's a great article, IMO. I'll forewarn you that it's kind of lengthy and it has that dreaded, gory math in it. The last word of the title tells you pretty much what you need to know. The 2017 World Series, Ken Giles, Reliever Hot and Cold Streaks, and ********

Yes! LOL Much better!

I'm hearing that Cora's deal is for two years + two team options.

To hear how happy the players are to have him back says a lot. That alone is enough to tell me that Cora is the right choice.