2020 MLB postseason thread

The first thing this guy says is, "I'm going to share some data ..." And that's where it, and this sport, goes off the rails. Data are good over 162 games. They are not good over 1 game. Sometimes it's about feel. Sometimes a guy with a 4-9 record and a 4.37 ERA takes a no-hitter into the eighth inning because his stuff is nasty that day. Kurkjian had it right when he said baseball is basically quitting on its starting pitchers. This is where this crap drives me nuts. Relief pitchers are failed starters. So we take out a starter who is unhittable to replace him with a guy who's not even good enough to be a No. 5 starter? Makes zero sense. Sometimes you have to go with your gut. That, however, will never happen again, because the book has all the answers. I'm not even sure why teams need managers anymore.

 

Holy fuck.

 

You really sound like someone who loves the LaRussa hire. And like someone who didn't watch the whole thing.

 

I did watch the whole thing, and couldn't care less about the LaRussa hire. The fact is, starters are the best pitchers. That's why they're starters. But they're being conditioned to pitch 5 innings and being told that's good. It's not. And unless you take all the analytical mumbo jumbo and run it side by side with how every scrub reliever who pitches in the sixth inning performs, it's meaningless. It's also meaningless because, as was pointed out, it takes into account every start. Just like once in a while a scrub fifth starter will throw seven shutout innings, sometimes aces get shelled. And that leads to those numbers that the propeller-heads love to spew. Sometimes you have to go with what your eyes see. Snell hadn't been touched. The guy they brought in had been scored upon about every day this month. The move was indefensible, regardless of what the sliderule says.

I'm guessing in 1991 or whenever that was, Jack Morris had worse numbers in the seventh-through-ninth innings, too. And analytics, and probably conventional wisdom, would have said don't send him out for the seventh, let alone the 10th. He was dominating, though. Nobody was going to hit him. People watching the game, instead of buried in spread sheets, could see that and acted accordingly.

I'm sure you love the stats. I'm nearly as sure you never played baseball above Little League and have no idea what it's like to just have a feel for the game being played right in front of you. All those numbers do is indicate trends and probabilities. You want to play based on them over 162 games, that's smart. You want to play based on them in one game that means everything, well, you saw what happened.

 

My friend, in 1991 Jack Morris had a 4.35 ERA in innings 1-3 and a 2.82 ERA in innings 7-9.

You cannot argue with this!

 

His main argument had nothing to do with history but with how he was pitching and being hit in that game that was consistent with the results in his other games. Stats are just ways of seeing the things that you can't see with your eyes, either because you don't watch every game (I know I don't) or because we don't pick up everything (maybe because of my lack of personal experience you reference). He agreed with you about Cash bringing in the wrong guy. If you watched it, you didn't get it.
Your theory about relievers being the pitchers who couldn't be 5th starters is dated. I doubt there are 5 teams about which that is true,

 

That's the thing. He literally was NOT being hit in that game. If they reached some kind of conclusion after one guy hit safely, sorry, but that's not enough of a sample size to end his night. The way Snell was pitching prior to then, he was as likely to strike out the next two guys as not. Number crunching freaks like this can find an argument for or against anything. Sometimes you just have to believe what you're seeing.
I don't watch every game. This year, though, thanks to being stuck indoors, I did watch literally every Indians game. And I think It's safe to say that every guy who regularly started for them this year was a better pitcher than every guy in their bullpen. That includes Tristan McKenzie. If Shane Bieber is pitching a shutuot in Game 6 of the World Series, I'm riding with him because nobody I can bring in will be as good or better. Couple that with the fact that managers are conditioned to save their best relievers for the later innings, chances are you will bring in someone worse in the fifth or sixth, as was the case with Snell. I understand analytics and I think they have an important place in the game. If you use them in every instance, though, it means you either have no instincts or you don't trust them. If you don't trust your instincts, why are you managing a baseball team?

 

Isn’t it great that people who’ve been arguing with each other for 13 years can still argue with each other?

 

Oh fuck off with never played baseball above little league. Have you listened to Alex Rodriguez talk about the game?

You can believe in spreadsheets and numbers and still disagree with taking out Snell. The days of railing against analytics are over. You guys have lost that fight. It may make the game boring and shitty to watch but to maximize your chances of winning that horse has left the barn.

Jack Morris’s pitched a great game in 1991, brilliant. He’s also one of the most overrated pitchers of all time. Unless, of course you believe his ERA is because he “pitched to the score”.

you pointed out how taking Snell out was a mistake, I wouldn’t argue against that. Now show me the thousands of times pitchers have been left in too long or when the best reliever hasn’t been used because it’s not a save situation.

Analytics and spreadsheets are not a 100%, but they are a hell of a lot more successful than the gut feel.

 

Did Kevin Cash play above little league?

 

8 of the last 9 swings made contact with the ball. Dodgers hitters had caught up with Snell.