Register now to remove this ad

Page 6 of 17 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 90 of 250

Thread: Moneyball and the mechanization and computerization of MLB

  1. #76
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    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.

  2. #77
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    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.

  3. #78
    Quote Originally Posted by dgalehouse View Post
    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?"

  4. #79
    Deity moonslav59's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Sugar Land, Texas
    Posts
    80,047
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    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
    Sox 4 Ever

  5. #80
    Deity Slasher9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,248
    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!
    other names i have posted under: none

  6. #81
    Deity Slasher9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    NJ
    Posts
    12,248
    Quote Originally Posted by mvp 78 View Post
    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"
    other names i have posted under: none

  7. #82
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by 5GoldGloves:OF,75 View Post
    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.

  8. #83
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Maxbialystock View Post
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    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.

  9. #84
    Deity Kimmi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    26,666
    Quote Originally Posted by Bellhorn04 View Post
    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.

  10. #85
    Deity Bellhorn04's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Halifax
    Posts
    46,973
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    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.
    Championships since purchase by John Henry group: Red Sox 4 Yankees 1

    The Red Sox are 8-1 in their last 9 postseason games against the Yankees.

  11. #86
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greensboro, NC, moved here July 2020
    Posts
    16,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    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.

  12. #87
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greensboro, NC, moved here July 2020
    Posts
    16,015
    Quote Originally Posted by Kimmi View Post
    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.

  13. #88
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greensboro, NC, moved here July 2020
    Posts
    16,015
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    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.

  14. #89
    Deity
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Greensboro, NC, moved here July 2020
    Posts
    16,015
    Quote Originally Posted by notin View Post
    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.

  15. #90
    Quote Originally Posted by moonslav59 View Post
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •