Maxbialystock

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

Yeah, that's why Mookie broke into a grin when he saw Cash pull Snell--and why his manager smiled back at him--because Anderson in that situation was going to be much tougher than Snell. I have no doubt that the game plan was to pull Snell after he had pitched to the Dodgers lineup twice, but that's my point. Cash had zero situation awareness and did not care that: Snell was having a career night and had struck out the next three batters all six times he faced them; Anderson was tired; Anderson was not effective against the Dodgers in this World Series; Snell had only thrown 73 pitches. And while we're on the topic of Kevin Cash's genius and superior situational awareness, please explain to me how in the previous game (when the Dodgers won 4-2 and went up 3 games to 2) Cash decided to leave Glasnow in for 5 innings, 103 pitches, and 4 cotton picking runs, including 2 dingers? And what happened to the "don't let him pitch to the Dodgers lineup a third time" rule? I ask because by my count Glasnow faced 24 Dodger batters (15 outs, 6 hits, and 3 walks). Snell, having a spectacular game, was jerked after facing 18 batters.

Are you joking? Are you really saying that, short of giving up back to back dingers, Anderson was doing fine out there? He gave up a hard hit double to the same guy Snell had struck out twice in the game and then made a wild pitch. He himself said after the game he did not have good command or good stuff.

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." Even worse, I'm betting the Rays President of Baseball Operations (or whatever they call him) is fine with a brainless manager as long as he does what the computer tells him to do. They Rays have their systems, and they sticks to 'em. I am of course exaggerating because I certainly don't think Kevin Cash is brainless. Nevertheless, I thought he at least implied last night that he would make the same decision again because computers know better.

German officers have/had a term--fingerspitzengefuhl--that means "finger tip feel" and refers to a commander's situational awareness of what is happening on the battlefield. I think the best football coaches, even the ones who rely heavily on computers and game plans, assistants in the press boxes, etc, have that situational awareness and that it helps them make what are often spur of the moment decisions on who to play and what formation/play should be used. Baseball used to be that way. Remember Grady Little's decision to keep Pedro Martinez on the mound in the 2003 ALCS game which allowed the Yankees to come back? Grady had lousy situational awareness and was correctly fired after that season. But to my way of thinking those kinds of human errors are the essence of sports and baseball and should be celebrated (unless your a huge Sox fan, which I am). These days MLB managers rely less and less on understanding what is happening on the field and more and more on what the computer says. Last night Kevin Cash displayed that phenomenon perfectly. And, by the way, substituting computer sense for situational awareness has worked wonderfully for the Rays. They have a codified system for acquiring players (on a very low payroll), developing them, and now orchestrating how they are positioned on the field, when and how pitching changes are made, etc. Cash confirmed this last part last night. It mattered not a whit to him that Snell was pitching the game of a lifetime (5.1 innings, 73 pitches, 9 K's, 0 walks, 0 runs, 9 K's) or that Snell had struck out the next three batters (Betts, Seager, Turner) he would have faced six out of six plate appearance. What did matter is that the computer told him that the third time through the batting order is fraught with peril--indeed, hopeless--no matter how well the starter is pitching. The computer also did not care that Anderson, the guy who came in, was tired and had an ERA of over 7 (which became 9) in this WS. And, if the computer didn't care, Kevin Cash didn't either. And neither does the Rays hierarchy. What was it Humphrey Bogart said near the end of the movie, The African Queen? "The Germans have their systems and they sticks to 'em." Let me hasten to add that all managers use computers today all the time: before games, during games, after games. So it's clearly too late to put that genie back in the bottle. Indeed, I suspect that Dave Roberts relied heavily on computer information to make six pitching changes last night (he used 7 pitchers). It's remotely possible that Kevin Cash was resentful that he couldn't pull Snell out sooner because these days that's how managers show how smart they are--they bring in a new pitcher. Only dumb managers rely on players (more than computers) to win the games. Speaking of situational awareness, I thought the Dodgers displayed far more of it than the Rays, who in one game had men on 2d and 3d and no outs when the batter hit a grounder to the third baseman. That resulted in both runners being thrown out and the batter ending up on 1B. On the other hand, whenever Mookie Betts was on base, it usually spelled trouble because he knew when to gamble, plus the Rays players routinely made the wrong defensive play under pressure.

Kevin Cash seems to think players don't win ball games; managers do. Plus he loves nothing more that to march out, get rid of the guy on the mound, and bring in a "fresh arm." What a crock. Kevin Cash lacks fingerspitzengefuhl. And the notion that the Rays lineup are the real culprits is just baloney. Bringing in Anderson was monumentally dumb because he promptly gave Mookie (the same guy Snell struck out twice) a double and then threw a wild pitch, which brought home the tying run and put the go ahead run on 3B win just one out. Rotten pitching, dumb manager, simple as that.

Gotcha. Grady little was an idiot for leaving Pedro in, and Kevin Cash was an idiot for pulling Snell--who pitched better tonight against the Dodgers than any Rays pitcher has. Also: Snell had only thrown 73 pitches; the Rays bullpen has not been all that reliable; and Snell had already struck Mookie out twice. Kevin Cash lacks fingerspitzengefuhl and seems to think that players don't win ball games; managers do. He was probably outraged that Snell was going to win game 6 for the Rays when that honor belonged to the manager.

Snell looked really tired to me. He could barely make it back to the dugout. Plus it's obvious now he threw way too many fastballs. Somewhere Grady Little is smiling.

I hated losing Iglesias too, not because I thought the Sox needed him, but because he was such great fun to watch at SS.

I usually don't root for former Sox players, but it is impossible not to root for Daniel Bard. I agree the Sox have usually let guys go for good reasons, and certainly that is true of Bard. But the Sox were also the ones who messed up his head big time--he was a terrific reliever before they made him a starter. To be honest, it's nothing short of amazing that somehow he won that mental battle and made it all the way back. I don't root for Mookie, but cannot help but admire the way he plays the game. I think the Dodgers real postseason star is that shortstop, but Mookie just brings so much to a game. If he just gets on base, he's trouble. If he's playing right field, he is about as good as there is at helping get the pitcher out of trouble. And most days he is trouble at the plate. If anything, he seems even more enthusiastic than he was in Boston. I was a pretty big Ellsbury fan, but completely agreed with getting him go to the Yankees for that insane salary and loved that he never really earned it. Never rooted for Manny Ramirez after he left. But I definitely root for the Dodgers manager for that one great, great stolen base in game 4 of the 2004 ALCS.

I'm fine with letting Betts go even though he clearly is a big help to the Dodgers. He might just be a six tool player: he can hit, hit with power, field, throw, run, and play smart. Last night was some smart baserunning, but I really liked the way (in the NLCS) he converted a possible triple (a line drive into the right field corner) into a definite single by the way the played the carom.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see that much value in any player. I think Trout is better than Mookie, and he has not been able to turn Angels around--nor will he. You can maybe say a great player puts butts in seats, but the Dodgers already have great attendance. To remind: Mookie is just one of nine in the lineup and one of nine in the field; he is one of 13 position players, with the other 12 all being pitchers, which Mookie doesn't do. I gotta say, however, he has made a bunch of nice defensive plays in the postseason. They all went ape last night when he grabbed that dinger, but the one I liked was the opposing hit into the right field corner which Mookie fielded so well, then threw so well, the hitter didn't even try for 2B. I also liked that grab when he realized almost immediately that the only way to get that line drive was to stay put and jump as high as he could. In other words, money aside, I think he is a real asset for MLB (and the Dodgers of course).

True. And when he arrived at Baltimore in 1988 (age 22) he was lousy and stayed that way until Houston traded him to Philly, where he was excellent his first year there, 1992 (age 26). Thereafter, 1993-2007, he was pretty reliable when he wasn't injured. My guess is the Sox coaches did their level best to screw him up and he was lucky to escape to Baltimore, Houston, and finally Philly, where he blossomed.

A palpable hit. Nothing like some sarcasm to spice things up.

Schilling came to the Sox at the end of his career--the last stop before retiring. Clemens was drafted in 1983 and started 20 games for the Boston Red Sox in 1984 (when he was 22), so I have my doubts about the genius of the Sox pitching coaches. I think he arrived almost fully formed with a great fastball and pretty good control. Two years later he went 24-4 with a WAR of 8.8. See Notin's post on Eck. I honestly think you know your baseball, so the fact that even you can't think of any pitchers the Sox really developed suggests that they are indeed clueless.

From what I've read about Bloom's system, you have to be good at both. You have to know what to look for in young arms and you have to have a tried and tested system for helping them reach their potential.

No doubt, but being more interested in scouting than DD was is a pretty low hurdle.

No doubt you are right about the scouting, but there is overwhelming evidence that the Sox don't know diddly about developing pitchers.