Farrell

[devildavid]

In 33 years of baseball studied, only 6 teams have improved their win expectancy in any one season by employing sacrifices, stolen base attempts, and intentional walks. In other words, a manager should mostly just let the players play.

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game. The most important strategizing takes place before the game begins. You don't run plays or schemes in baseball games to the same extent you do in football, basketball, or hockey. Sure, there are more things done today with shifting infields and such, but that tends to be widely followed rather than exclusive to certain managers.

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

[devildavid]

My response would be I guess to say that I have never really said that the analytics whoever they might be get things wrong. Regardless though of the copious studies that they do (I guess) I probably will continue to believe that old school worn out refrain that the quality of the people in charge still can (didn't say always) play quite a role in the performance of a team whether that team is talented or not. Now - one last thing - If Chris Sale was on the mound, and my team was not hitting, my thinking in that situation might be that we needed to score a run anyway we could. If I had a runner on first, with a good handler of the bat at the plate, i very well might try to move that runner up and take my chances that that next hitter might be able to hit a ball over the second baseman's head and score that runner who quite possibly moved up on the bunt. Strategy doesn't always work. but it would be tragic not to try and do something.

The problem with this is that you can't predict outcomes. If your team is not hitting it doesn't follow that they will continue not to hit. Giving up outs in an attempt to score can also decrease your chances of scoring. Trying to make something happen in that way has a price that may be too high and actually hurt our chances of scoring more runs in general. The strategy cuts both ways. The appearance of "trying" to score may satisfy an emotional desire, but does it really work out statistically in the long run?

[S5Dewey]

The problem with this is that you can't predict outcomes. If your team is not hitting it doesn't follow that they will continue not to hit. Giving up outs in an attempt to score can also decrease your chances of scoring. Trying to make something happen in that way has a price that may be too high and actually hurt our chances of scoring more runs in general. The strategy cuts both ways. The appearance of "trying" to score may satisfy an emotional desire, but does it really work out statistically in the long run?

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

[devildavid]

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

Yes, there are productive outs. I'm just questioning getting them intentionally. If you make an out, you always prefer one that advances runners. But you should prefer not to make an out at all.

[Bellhorn04]

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game.

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

[S5Dewey]

Yes, there are productive outs. I'm just questioning getting them intentionally. If you make an out, you always prefer one that advances runners. But you should prefer not to make an out at all.

Obviously not making an out is always preferable to making an out.

However, baseball is a game of chances where nothing is a sure thing. IMO there's a lot to be said for putting pressure on a defense to 'make the play' even though it may not be the high-percentage move.

[S5Dewey]

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

But...but.. but... what about all the research?? What about the "fact" that a poor manager will only cost a team about 5 wins a year?? - with no mention of how many games a good manager will win?

[devildavid]

I respectfully disagree (and I don't give a damn about bunting). I think many baseball games do entail a fair number of impactful decisions. It's not so much about strategy as it is about NOT SCREWING UP. You do have to know when to pull the starting pitcher. In the modern game you do have to know the 3 or more relievers you're going to use after that and in what order.

Baseball has one unique strategic element in that when you remove a player he's gone from that game forever. So you have to be careful about exactly when you use pinch hitters and pinch runners.

Frankly I'm getting tired of all this diminishment of the importance of good in-game management.

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

[devildavid]

Obviously not making an out is always preferable to making an out.

However, baseball is a game of chances where nothing is a sure thing. IMO there's a lot to be said for putting pressure on a defense to 'make the play' even though it may not be the high-percentage move.

Simply swinging away puts pressure on the defense to make the play.

[Slasher9]

He never made it to the World Series without Zimmer. So yes, Torre achieved very little without Zimmer on the bench. I am asserting that. In 2001, they got to the 9th inning of the 7th game of the World Series. In 2003, they ran into a hot Josh Beckett.

or...Torre never got to the WS without a $200MM+ payroll......

[Slasher9]

Then is there really any such thing as a "productive out"? Or does a team's making an out actually reduce a team's chances to score, regardless of the peripherial results of the out?

s5. you know better than that. outs are random. productive is not a real thing. it's not a repeatable skill. something something...

[a700hitter]

Hey Kimmi, I'm still in your gang. Or are you in my gang? I've felt for a while that in game moves do not impact chances to win very much, especially when you are sacrificing an out. Baseball, in general, is not a strategic sport when it comes to making moves in the game. The most important strategizing takes place before the game begins. You don't run plays or schemes in baseball games to the same extent you do in football, basketball, or hockey. Sure, there are more things done today with shifting infields and such, but that tends to be widely followed rather than exclusive to certain managers.

A really good manager instills a certain philosophy in his team in how to play the game. He also utilizes every player in such a way as to help them reach their maximum potential. It is an art that very few master. An that is truly where we separate the great managers from the rest. It isn't in their use of in game moves. Within each game, the manager has a very limited ability to impact the final outcome.

Doesn't the proper utilization of players include in game decisions? Doesn't it also involve decisions regarding who plays on a given day and the construction of the lineup?

[Slasher9]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

hard to argue with this.

[a700hitter]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

It is impossible to prove and therefore impossible to quantify, because we can never know the the outcome of alternative moves or non-moves.

[Bellhorn04]

The efficacy of in game management is mostly seen in hindsight. There is no right time to put in a reliever or right time to pinch hit. You are correct in that there are sometimes obvious bad moves. But both obvious good and bad moves are extremely rare and almost impossible to demonstrate that the moves are what impacted the outcome.

The fact that these are judgment calls doesn't mean there's no right or wrong.