Kimmi

FTR, I am opposed to signing a reliever for $10 mil a year under normal circumstances. The fact that it would only be for year makes it a little easier to accept, but still too much, IMO. Since no team claimed him, it looks as though he will be signed for less than $10 mil a year. The Sox should definitely look into it. No more than 2 years.

Some early opinions regarding this year's free agent market. Jon Heyman @jonheyman · 28m Not one team claimed Brad Hand for $10M. He was a top 3 finalist for AL reliever of the year with a 0.77 WHIP. and 16 saves. Time to revise free agent contract projections downward! (Hand is now a free agent after Guardians then declined the $10M option and paid $1M buyout.) Christopher Smith @smittyonmlb · 9h Brad Hand clearing waivers is ridiculous. $10M for a shutdown closer. He went 16 for 16 in saves w/ 2.05 ERA. I understand teams suffering significant revenue losses and it may continue next year if no vaccine is available. But this is a very bad sign for offseason spending Chris Cotillo @chriscotillo · 24m PSA: Do not underestimate how absolutely brutal this winter is going to be for free agents. Jon Couture @joncouture · 28m If you thought the MLBPA was mad about the free-agent market before, wait until you see them after this offseason.

I will admit that I wasn't sure exactly what the context of the post was. I have been skimming most of the threads because 1) I have not had much time for reading and posting, especially when there are several pages of new posts since the last time I logged in and 2) a lot of this off season and budget stuff just does not interest me. Wake me up when the Sox sign or trade for someone. LOL That said, the Sox should not have kept Mookie at the price that he was asking for, regardless of whether they could keep him or not. And Dombrowski is 100% responsible for the Sox not being able to keep Mookie. We knew this would happen on the day that Dombrowski was hired. So in a way, I guess we should thank Dombrowski. Hehe.

There are some other good candidates out there, but Cora is my top choice by far as well.

This is not even a half kidding post.

Yes, I do. It's weird, I know.

As much as I'm a fan of analytics, I am not a fan of these things that you have listed. That said, it is not turning me off from the game. What might end up turning me off from the game is the insane amount of money being thrown at players these days. That kind of makes me sick to my stomach.

I agree. Not necessarily that we're headed towards an iceberg, but I agree with your last statement.

No robot umps!

I loved it. One of my favorite Mookie moments. The guy was almost in centerfield and barely had to move a step to catch a fly ball. How great is that? That said, and this might seem contradictory, I'm not a fan of all of the extreme shifting.

Here are some lines from a Fangraphs article, written by Jeff Sullivan, that I found on the topic. This is mostly in response to the criticism that Boone received during the 2018 playoffs. I’ve long been someone who didn’t think about managers too much. And part of that is because strategic decisions tend to barely move the needle. Fans frequently get on a guy for how he handles a bullpen, and fans frequently get on a guy for when he calls for a bunt, or for how he builds a lineup, but it all makes such a small difference in the odds. Short of conceding a random forfeit, a manager can’t blow a game. Realistically, a manager can’t move the win expectancy more than a small handful of percentage points. Everything is ultimately up to the players. It’s the players who have to execute. It’s the players who determine the outcomes. Every single player in the majors is good. The per-inning difference between one reliever and a slightly worse one is remarkably small. It’s true that, by and large, managers can’t affect the game all that much. Not if we’re being realistic. There’s no would-be managerial candidate out there who would constantly bunt with Aaron Judge, or bring in a backup shortstop to be the closer. Managers all make pretty similar strategic decisions. There’s not that much of an opportunity to make a difference. https://blogs.fangraphs.com/the-sense-behind-ripping-the-manager/

FTR, analytics say that decisions should not be made based on recent games. They should be made based off of season long data and projections.

And you know that Snell would not have made a couple of bad pitches and given up the lead? No, you don't.

I believe it was Bell who brought up the topic of win probability. As I've already stated, I agree with what you are saying regarding Snell being the better decision. I'm just saying that the difference between staying with one pitcher over another is not very significant. FTR, based on what I've read, almost every manager, if not every manager, has already decided before the first pitch how they are going to use their bullpen in different scenarios. Most managers will alter that plan based on the way the game is unfolding, but they do have most game decisions already decided before they start playing.

I get that. But we don't know whether the outcome would be any different if Snell had stayed in the game. Therefore, the only fair way to assess whether a move is a good move or not is to see what the difference in win expectancy between the two pitchers is before any events take place. We have to remember that just because a move does not work that doesn't mean that it was the wrong move or a bad move. Even the best move doesn't always end in a good result. I really wish I could find the article that showed a very good example of this. It was a similar situation, I want to say with the Nats, where the manager was being heavily criticized for going with one pitcher over another when the move didn't work out. The article showed that the difference in the decision between one pitcher and another is remarkably small.

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.

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.

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.

Especially in the short sample crap shoot that is the playoffs.

No team or manager should ever resort to total reliance on analytics, and I'm guessing that Cash did not rely solely on analytics. That said, perhaps he needs to be more flexible with altering his plan in game based on the way things are playing out. It's interesting to note that the Dodgers are a strong analytically based team as well. As Bell pointed out, Friedman is the predecessor to what the Rays are doing.

Preach sister!

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.

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.

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.

They were the best team. Very tough to to beat all season.