Dodgers-Rays World Series

[kosmos412]

I'm glad I no longer can only enjoy a dodgers championship within the confines of OOTP.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

The Dodgers are definitely not passing the Snell test!

Seriously? You had to go there? Nice. And true: They did not.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Snell wasn't pulled because of the hit
But because it's the third time through the order

Fact check: Most-likely true.

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

I hope the Dodgers pound this bullpen and everyone complains about taking out a pitcher who was dealing.

The D's clearly didn't end up pounding the Rays' bullpen, but they did get to it for the go-ahead run and insurance run - 2 runs in 2 2/3 innings. And yep, plenty of complaining about taking out a dealing Snell. Hindsight always being 20/20, it sure seemed like the wrong move, as the Dodger hitters' relief (postgame) at the move seemed to indicate. I know that I, as a Dodger fan, was in favor of the Roberts-like move to remove an effective Snell.

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

You are about to get your wish. I am never an advocate of pulling a dominant pitcher who has thrown only 73 pitches, no matter what today's advanced analysis says. "Ooops."

I wonder if there are actually statistics from history - specifically in the World Series - that support (in hindsight) pulling some of the greatest WS pitchers - such as Koufax, Gibson, Burdette, Lolich, Ford... - from games before they encounter "third time through the order." Maybe there are...

Originally Posted by Magus978

Kevin Cash has out-Dave Roberts'd Dave Roberts... That takes talent. He's learning a harsh lesson tonight in that sometimes you just have to let it ride instead of clinging to analytics.

And a short time after Cash out-Dave Roberts'd Dave Roberts, Dave Roberts appeared to go against every bit of Dave Roberts-ness, and allowed Urias to close it out with 2+ innings of dominance.

Originally Posted by dkgo

Can't wait for all the hot takes about how "analytics" are wrong when instead it's the use of them that is (arguably) wrong.

Data shows that the batters will generally perform better the third time they see a pitcher, true.

That does not mean anyone advocates a hard and fast rule to "always do this" or "never do that" for each situation.

Yep. I think that most times when we hear a Smoltz or whoever criticize analytics, it's within the context of exactly above: Analytics should be embraced, but should not override common sense, or gut feel.

Originally Posted by dkgo

The Rays scored one run against a motley collection of bullpen arms. That's not a "deserving" performance and a bigger contribution than the Snell decision.

Motley? Perhaps, but the Rays actually scored zero runs against the LA bullpen in game 6, and the Dodgers' best relief options who did not appear in the game - Treinen, May, Kolarek, and Kelly - simply weren't needed due to - mostly - Urias' dominance.

So ya, a bit Motley, but not quite rag-tag

What's surprising to me is that we did not see Treinen.

Originally Posted by Hoiles

Meh, he was probably scared of the guys in the front office Instead. Didn’t work this time.

The guys on the FS1 postgame show seemed sure that the Snell-removal was a front-office/computer-generated move and were not in favor of it. One (me?) wonders how much of those type of decisions are a) made in advance, and b) how susceptible they are to gut revisions by the manager...

[neugey]

I think there is something wrong with Kevin Cash's Strategy Presets sliders

[Curve Ball Dave]

Originally Posted by Magus978

He's learning a harsh lesson tonight in that sometimes you just have to let it ride instead of clinging to analytics.

The analytics would have said don't let Urias keep pitching. Your eyes see him mowing the Rays down and there's no point in pulling him, not unlike the Astros letting Morton pitch because the Dodgers couldn't touch him. Smotlz is right. There's what the analytics say, and what's in front of your eyes. There are times when you should trust the analytics, and times when you have to trust your eyes and pure common sense.

[Hoiles]

We keep on talking about analytics, but Cash appeared to use the simplest statistical model possible with ONE factor (time through order) to make his decision, ignoring everything else.

From a statistical perspective, these models also tend to make much better predictions in the center of the distribution than the tails (extremes). Snell's performance was clearly an outlier, especially since it's a World Series game where he probably has the adrenaline going full on that isn't the case in the regular season. I don't think the steadfast use of any stat model is really appropriate in this case.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by thehef

Analytics should be embraced, but should not override common sense, or gut feel.

Counterpoint, gut feel and "common sense" should never override analytics

Originally Posted by Curve Ball Dave

The analytics would have said don't let Urias keep pitching.

Why do you think they would have said that?


As mentioned above, nothing in analytics says "thou shalt never let a pitcher go through the order three times". Only that pitchers are less effective the third time.

[CONN CHRIS]

What a great series to watch. I can't remember the last time that I actually watched every inning of a WS without my dog in the race. Glad that I did.

This Mookie fellow may be underpaid.

[CBeisbol]

A similar incident from a few years ago

Maybe there’s something to the “cruising” hypothesis. Maybe there’s still a third-time-through-the-order penalty, but when a guy is cruising, it’s not as bad.

To test the hypothesis, I ...

[Stuff, read the article if you're interested]

The regression predicted the difference between a league-average pitcher who was pitching a perfect game through 18 batters and a league-average pitcher who was having an average night (let’s say six on-base events through the first 18 batters), was about seven points of OBP. That’s not nothing, but to put it in perspective, grabbing the platoon advantage is worth about 20 points of OBP.

So yes, Miley was probably a little better than his numbers would have suggested, but not in a strategy-altering way...The fact that it “didn’t work” doesn’t negate the correctness of the move. All options have risk. You pick the one most likely to break your way.

https://www.baseballprospectus.com/n...ut-wade-miley/

[CBeisbol]

Another study

https://twitter.com/ckurcon/status/1...141205506?s=19

Finds that pitchers who were dealing through 5 innings (0.62 ERA) had a 3.86 ERA in the 6th inning.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

We keep on talking about analytics, but Cash appeared to use the simplest statistical model possible with ONE factor (time through order) to make his decision, ignoring everything else.

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/a-defens...-world-series/

[Hoiles]

All those studies are interesting and show it wasn't necessarily clearcut to leave Snell in without thinking, and a decision had to be made. That said, none of them really provide compelling evidence for the quick hook either, with clear drawbacks to each of them:

1) Applies to Wade Miley. No matter how hard you try, you won't really convince anyone here that the decision between Snell and Miley should be the same. If Cash had pulled Miley, there would still be controversy, but not near as much pure disbelief from the public.

2) Doesn't take into account pitch counts. Again, if Snell's pitch count was higher, there were still be controversy, but the general public would have been much more understanding of the move.

3) The graph looks convincing the way it's drawn, but his fastball was ONE MILE PER HOUR slower than the magic 95 mph cutoff they provide as statistical evidence. If they changed the axis something more closely resembling Snell's season fastball speed distribution (say 91-99 MPH). then the graph is less convincing. The article also provides stats on pitches below 95 mph, but were those pitches really at 94 mph, or were they more so around 90-91 mph? Also, is making a decision based on 2 pitches being proactive or just being a spaz? Granted the article doesn't necessarily defend the move itself, it defends Cash making a decision.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

All those studies are interesting and show it wasn't necessarily clearcut to leave Snell in without thinking, and a decision had to be made. That said, none of them really provide compelling evidence for the quick hook either, with clear drawbacks to each of them:

1) Applies to Wade Miley. No matter how hard you try, you won't really convince anyone here that the decision between Snell and Miley should be the same. If Cash had pulled Miley, there would still be controversy, but not near as much pure disbelief from the public.

2) Doesn't take into account pitch counts. Again, if Snell's pitch count was higher, there were still be controversy, but the general public would have been much more understanding of the move.

3) The graph looks convincing the way it's drawn, but his fastball was ONE MILE PER HOUR slower than the magic 95 mph cutoff they provide as statistical evidence. If they changed the axis something more closely resembling Snell's season fastball speed distribution (say 91-99 MPH). then the graph is less convincing. The article also provides stats on pitches below 95 mph, but were those pitches really at 94 mph, or were they more so around 90-91 mph? Also, is making a decision based on 2 pitches being proactive or just being a spaz? Granted the article doesn't necessarily defend the move itself, it defends Cash making a decision.

Right

And this is mostly how tough decisions are made.

There are reasons for both sides. If there were only reasons for one side it wouldn't be a tough decision

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Right

And this is mostly how tough decisions are made.

There are reasons for both sides. If there were only reasons for one side it wouldn't be a tough decision

And yet often, there’s still an obvious choice to be made. Especially when one of the most compelling evidence the other way involves a crudely drawn graph with poor choice of axis.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Hoiles

And yet often, there’s still an obvious choice to be made. Especially when one of the most compelling evidence the other way involves a crudely drawn graph with poor choice of axis.

The stupidest thing about this argument is always that one side can always hang their hat on pretending that the hypothetical thing they wanted to happen is what would have happened.

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

Counterpoint, gut feel and "common sense" should never override analytics

Bull. Experience - you left that out - gut feel, and "common sense" can be just as valuable as reams of analytics. Cowards will hide behind the numbers, though, pointing to them in their defense. You push these analytics a lot but sometimes you, and they, are right and sometimes they are wrong.

That guy would have stayed in my game UNTIL he gave up the first run, perhaps. As it is they took him out after 73 pitches when somebody hit a measly single off of him. Why, because some damned chart said "According to our analysis, pitching the third time around to the batting order fails 58.45% of the time?" What nonsense. Right in front of Cashman's face was the evidence that Snell was dominating and unless he said he was tiring, he deserved the chance to show that he was not.

And the fact that the Rays ended up with only one run themselves is not a factor in that decision, ahead of time. Cashman had to assume that his team would score again but if not, all the more reason to keep a dominant pitcher in a 1-0 game.

Have fun waving the stacks of numbers around, CB, but you are not convincing this dude at all. Such analysis is only helpful IN ASSISTING a person to make a decision, not in making it for him. As I said, people are deferring to, and hiding behind, this stuff to the point of disgrace.

Why do I care? I am thinking of "Brett Phillips, 'flying' around the outfield in pure and utter joy." Little did he know that it would be the highlight of his series, possibly his career and life, because that was the high water mark for the Rays in this World Series. He and they deserved a better chance at an even loftier moment of glory.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Bull. Experience - you left that out - gut feel, and "common sense" can be just as valuable as reams of analytics. Cowards will hide behind the numbers, though, pointing to them in their defense. You push these analytics a lot but sometimes you, and they, are right and sometimes they are wrong.

Bull
When are the analytics wrong?

According to our analysis, pitching the third time around to the batting order fails 58.45% of the time?"

What would this even mean?

That guy would have stayed in my game UNTIL he gave up the first run, perhaps. As it is they took him out after 73 pitches when somebody hit a measly single off of him. Why, because some damned chart said "According to our analysis, pitching the third time around to the batting order fails 58.45% of the time?" What nonsense. Right in front of Cashman's face was the evidence that Snell was dominating and unless he said he was tiring, he deserved the chance to show that he was not.

Ok?
So?
I hope you're not arguing that that would have been "the right" decision

Have fun waving the stacks of numbers around, CB, but you are not convincing this dude at all. Such analysis is only helpful IN ASSISTING a person to make a decision, not in making it for him.

Have I suggested otherwise?
Or are you arguing against some version of me that exists only in your mind?

[Déjà Bru]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Right in front of Cashman's face was the evidence that Snell was dominating and unless he said he was tiring, he deserved the chance to show that he was not.
. . .

Have fun waving the stacks of numbers around, CB, but you are not convincing this dude at all. Such analysis is only helpful IN ASSISTING a person to make a decision, not in making it for him. As I said, people are deferring to, and hiding behind, this stuff to the point of disgrace.

And before you latch onto this, I will answer your rebuttal.

If I am Cash, and I recall some arcane analysis about "58.45% of the time, pitchers fail on the third time around the batting order" (I am merely alluding to the phenomenon, not quoting an actual statistic), I say, "Well, I understand that but maybe this is one of the 41.55% of the time when the guy would pitch a shutout, which is what we may need. I'm going with the evidence that I see in front of me. If I'm wrong, I will got to the press conference with my head held high."

Instead, we have the situation where Cash can point to that analysis and say "Not my fault. Those are the numbers." Frankly, if you are going to go strictly by the numbers, you don't need a manager; just a laptop. As it is shaping up these days with all of this analysis, it's a cop-out and you are never going to convince me otherwise. Managers need to manage, not just read reports. The analysis HELPS but it should not DETERMINE.

[dkgo]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Bull. Experience - you left that out - gut feel, and "common sense" can be just as valuable as reams of analytics. Cowards will hide behind the numbers, though, pointing to them in their defense. You push these analytics a lot but sometimes you, and they, are right and sometimes they are wrong.

Yet "gut feelings" are also sometimes right and sometimes wrong.

Until we can predict the future people are going to make decisions that don't work out.

Making a decision you know will be unpopular is the exact opposite of cowardly though. Doesn't mean it's right, but it is certainly not cowardly to put the entire consequence of failure on you instead of passively managing "by the book" and shrugging it off as if there was nothing else you could have done if Snell were to give up the same runs.

[Hoiles]

Originally Posted by CBeisbol

The stupidest thing about this argument is always that one side can always hang their hat on pretending that the hypothetical thing they wanted to happen is what would have happened.

No offense, but your reply reads like a non-sequitur and didn't address my comment at all.

That said, an equally silly argument is using "uncertainty" as a failsafe for any bad decision, which means any choice is valid because we can't prove the other option would have worked out.

[CBeisbol]

Originally Posted by Déjà Bru

Have fun waving the stacks of numbers around, CB, but you are not convincing this dude at all.

Woah, woah, woah. Hold up

What is it that you think I'm trying to convince you of?