MLB 2023 Season

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

MLB owners unanimously approve Oakland Athletics' move to Las Vegas

While also allegedly having a super janky revolving-door plan for the interim.

"The A’s told MLB they plan to play in a revolving series of sites starting in 2025 until they move, one MLB owner told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has yet to publicly address the plans. They will play games in Summerlin, Nevada, home of the A’s Triple-A team, Oracle Park in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Giants play, and perhaps also the Coliseum."

[mytreds]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

MLB owners unanimously approve Oakland Athletics' move to Las Vegas

More death bells tolling.

I’ll be sure to go to the Coliseum a handful of times next year to enjoy it while it lasts.

Sure is nice growing old enough to see all the things I enjoy destroyed wantonly.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

While also allegedly having a super janky revolving-door plan for the interim.

"The A’s told MLB they plan to play in a revolving series of sites starting in 2025 until they move, one MLB owner told USA TODAY Sports on the condition of anonymity because MLB Commissioner Rob Manfred has yet to publicly address the plans. They will play games in Summerlin, Nevada, home of the A’s Triple-A team, Oracle Park in San Francisco, where the San Francisco Giants play, and perhaps also the Coliseum."

[Le Grande Orange]

And there goes Oakland's attendance even lower.

[snarls200]

i do wonder how OOTP will factor this in for next years game

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by cephasjames

MLB owners unanimously approve Oakland Athletics' move to Las Vegas

bad for the sport, bad for the city, bad for the A's staff and players. after 2024 the A's don't have a home, which is an embarrassing thing to have happen at the pro level. i think the owners only cleared it because they get to line their pockets with a little more scratch if the A's get sold in Vegas

[CONN CHRIS]

There must be a relatively nice high school or community college field around Henderson somewhere. Just move there for 2024; attendance might even be better than it would be in Oakland.

[Pelican]

I have to be a contrarian on this, at least to observe that the pitcher must get some advantage from seeing the batting order the first two times through. (If a guy hits the slider down and away, note to self - and catcher - don’t throw him the slider down and away the next time…) So I would not hang my hat on the third time through invariably favoring the hitter. (A pitcher who expects to go eight innings might not show everything he has the first two times through…)

I understand I would be bucking some statistical evidence on this, that suggests a real penalty the third time through. Baseball Prospectus has featured a lot of work on this. There’s a bit of a chicken/egg problem: is facing the batting order a third time causing shorter outings - or are mandated shorter outings causing a problem pitching past the fifth inning? There’s a big difference between a manager saying “give me four good innings of all you got” and “I need seven innings from you to rest the ‘pen”.

Of course a SP who has not gone over 75 pitches over his first ten starts can be expected to struggle, when called upon to throw 100 pitches in a game. It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We’re designing SP for shorter outings, at the expense of endurance. The “penalty” becomes almost inevitable.

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

There must be a relatively nice high school or community college field around Henderson somewhere. Just move there for 2024; attendance might even be better than it would be in Oakland.

I believe the majority of home games will be played near the Bay Area to make sure the local NBC sports outfit honors the TV contract. they'll be splitting time at Oracle and their Nevada minor league affiliate, and elsewhere apparently

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Pelican

I have to be a contrarian on this, at least to observe that the pitcher must get some advantage from seeing the batting order the first two times through. (If a guy hits the slider down and away, note to self - and catcher - don’t throw him the slider down and away the next time…) So I would not hang my hat on the third time through invariably favoring the hitter. (A pitcher who expects to go eight innings might not show everything he has the first two times through…)

I understand I would be bucking some statistical evidence on this, that suggests a real penalty the third time through. Baseball Prospectus has featured a lot of work on this. There’s a bit of a chicken/egg problem: is facing the batting order a third time causing shorter outings - or are mandated shorter outings causing a problem pitching past the fifth inning? There’s a big difference between a manager saying “give me four good innings of all you got” and “I need seven innings from you to rest the ‘pen”.

Of course a SP who has not gone over 75 pitches over his first ten starts can be expected to struggle, when called upon to throw 100 pitches in a game. It’s kind of a self-fulfilling prophecy. We’re designing SP for shorter outings, at the expense of endurance. The “penalty” becomes almost inevitable.

I don't think it's chicken-and-egg, since the data strongly supports it even for players from previous eras who were known for their ability to pitch a lot of innings and throw deep into games.

Fangraphs splits tool only goes back to 2002, so here are some 'Career' (2002-XXXX) numbers for pitchers who were definitely not "designed for shorter outings at the expense of endurance" for reference. Note that these aren't cherry-picked, they are the first 6 pitchers I looked at trying to represent the most dominant arms of the late 90s to today (and for the more modern pitchers, ones known for their ability to be full starters and not the super-modern 5-inning aces).

Randy Johnson
* Overall- 3.61 ERA, 3.42, FIP, 3.23 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.49 ERA, 3.75 FIP,3.51 xFIP

Roger Clemens
* Overall- 3.23 ERA, 3.28 FIP, 3.51 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.05 ERA, 3.63 FIP ,3.80 xFIP

Pedro Martinez
* Overall- 3.32 ERA, 3.19 FIP, 3.45 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.80 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 3.75 xFIP

Roy Halladay
* Overall- 3.17 ERA, 3.23 FIP, 3.23 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.67 ERA, 3.49 FIP, 3.42 xFIP

Clayton Kershaw
* Overall- 2.48 ERA, 2.82 FIP, 3.00 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.04 ERA, 2.92 FIP, 3.21 xFIP

Justin Verlander
* Overall- 3.24 ERA, 3.38 FIP, 3.73 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.21 ERA, 3.62 FIP, 3.92 xFIP

[MathBandit]

Also keep in mind that when you look at any data about pitchers the third-time through (whether it's this data or anywhere else), that you need to factor in that if there was no penalty you'd expect the pitchers to be a *lot* better the 3rd and 4th times through the order than they are in the 1st and 2nd times through, since the times they see the lineup a 3rd time is already self-selecting only their good outings while the overall data includes the outings they didn't have it and got rocked.

[pilight]

OTOH, pitchers who pitched in NL ballparks faced pitchers most of the time in the first two trips through the lineup, less often afterwards. Also just generally situational pinch hitters are used more later in games, almost always to replace weaker hitters. That's gonna skew your data.

[thehef]

Definitely not offering this up as anything definitive; just as interesting fyi...

Originally Posted by thehef

Is "3rd time time through..." supported by the stats, historically speaking?

I realize it's not quite the same statistic, but I looked up the 300-game-winners - W Johnson, Feller, Carlton, Spahn, Maddux, Ryan, Sutton, Perry, Seaver, Glavine, R Johnson, Grove, Wynn, plus Koufax, Drysdale, Hershiser, Schilling, Clemens, Valenzuela - and of their various Situational Splits, none had a "Close & Late" drop-off in AVG or OBP of any significance. Many had better numbers. The only one who sort of stuck out was Phil Niekro, whose Close & Late AVG was higher by a mere 5 points, but whose OBP was 14 points higher...

Again, I realize this is not the same stat, but it would at least suggest that - historically if not currently - among the better pitchers, they did not perform worse after going through the lineup a couple of times.

And even in looking at a few of the best current pitchers, Kershaw, Bauer, Strasburg, Verlander, Cole all suffer no drop-off in Close & Late. Of the handful + I looked up, deGrom was the only exception.

[TheMaus2]

that kershaw split... not sure if that's a benefit of having an arthritic elbow or a curse lol

[kq76]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I don't think it's chicken-and-egg, since the data strongly supports it even for players from previous eras who were known for their ability to pitch a lot of innings and throw deep into games.

Fangraphs splits tool only goes back to 2002, so here are some 'Career' (2002-XXXX) numbers for pitchers who were definitely not "designed for shorter outings at the expense of endurance" for reference. Note that these aren't cherry-picked, they are the first 6 pitchers I looked at trying to represent the most dominant arms of the late 90s to today (and for the more modern pitchers, ones known for their ability to be full starters and not the super-modern 5-inning aces).

Randy Johnson
* Overall- 3.61 ERA, 3.42, FIP, 3.23 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.49 ERA, 3.75 FIP,3.51 xFIP

Roger Clemens
* Overall- 3.23 ERA, 3.28 FIP, 3.51 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.05 ERA, 3.63 FIP ,3.80 xFIP

Pedro Martinez
* Overall- 3.32 ERA, 3.19 FIP, 3.45 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.80 ERA, 3.51 FIP, 3.75 xFIP

Roy Halladay
* Overall- 3.17 ERA, 3.23 FIP, 3.23 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.67 ERA, 3.49 FIP, 3.42 xFIP

Clayton Kershaw
* Overall- 2.48 ERA, 2.82 FIP, 3.00 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 3.04 ERA, 2.92 FIP, 3.21 xFIP

Justin Verlander
* Overall- 3.24 ERA, 3.38 FIP, 3.73 xFIP
* 3rd/4th time through- 4.21 ERA, 3.62 FIP, 3.92 xFIP

Regardless, I'd much rather keep a pitcher in a game late (and especially a top of the line pitcher like one of them), if they've already been pitching well that game, than bring in a reliever who may or may not be on that day. I don't mind relieving an SP early if he's already given up 4+ runs, but if they haven't and they look like they have gas left, I say leave them in until it looks like they don't. Far too many relievers come on and they're just not as good as the previous guy and that drives me batty. The best relievers are pretty consistently good, yes, but I'd much rather take an expected dip in performance from an SP who looks good out there, than roll the dice on a reliever you haven't seen perform yet today.

Just looking at your xFIPs above, which is probably the best stat of the 3, they're all 0.3 and lower the 3rd time through. A 0.3 drop is nothing to be alarmed about and I'd much rather take that drop than tire out a reliever that I might want to really use tomorrow, but can't because I used them today. A big part of the game, of any game probably, is (or at least should be) about using your best players as much as possible. No sane NBA fan, for example, would, in a non-blowout win, say, "you know, Michael or Steph, they're probably tired by now, we should bench them the last few minutes of the game". That person would be so ridiculed for taking that stance that they'd be hesitant to comment on basketball ever again. But what do some people say in baseball? "Oh, no, take out that borderline hall of famer late, he might be tired. You say he hasn't shown any signs of being tired yet? Doesn't matter. Our statistics tell us to expect a dip in performance the 3rd time through". That's just nuts.

Originally Posted by thehef

Is "3rd time time through..." supported by the stats, historically speaking?

I realize it's not quite the same statistic, but I looked up the 300-game-winners - W Johnson, Feller, Carlton, Spahn, Maddux, Ryan, Sutton, Perry, Seaver, Glavine, R Johnson, Grove, Wynn, plus Koufax, Drysdale, Hershiser, Schilling, Clemens, Valenzuela - and of their various Situational Splits, none had a "Close & Late" drop-off in AVG or OBP of any significance. Many had better numbers. The only one who sort of stuck out was Phil Niekro, whose Close & Late AVG was higher by a mere 5 points, but whose OBP was 14 points higher...

Again, I realize this is not the same stat, but it would at least suggest that - historically if not currently - among the better pitchers, they did not perform worse after going through the lineup a couple of times.

And even in looking at a few of the best current pitchers, Kershaw, Bauer, Strasburg, Verlander, Cole all suffer no drop-off in Close & Late. Of the handful + I looked up, deGrom was the only exception.

1) What is close and late, exactly? It's not really the same as 3rd time through.

2) I wouldn't really expect that much difference for the better pitchers late in a game. I'd be more worried about average and below pitchers.

3) I wouldn't really expect that much of a difference in AVG and OBA, again, among the better pitchers late in a game. I'd be more curious about their opponent SLG. I think the better pitchers can often work themselves out of a jam with runners on and while letting the odd runner on might not hurt you, letting the odd runner on and giving up a double or a home run could lose you the game. Yeah, you might just completely lose your control and walk in batters, but I don't think that many runs get walked in as opposed to driven in. You often hear the announcers talk about how many runs a team drives in via a home run, add doubles to that, and I imagine that includes the vast majority of runs. Anybody know how to see these #s ourselves?

No, for as much as some people talk about OBA, I don't think too many teams are concerned about it, defensively at least. SLG is the killer for most, and for some it's BA. Or maybe even more specifically, BA with RISP and SLG with ROB. A batter who produced that, or a pitcher who gave that up, I'd be scared of, regardless of their other stats.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by kq76

Just looking at your xFIPs above, which is probably the best stat of the 3, they're all 0.3 and lower the 3rd time through. A 0.3 drop is nothing to be alarmed about and I'd much rather take that drop than tire out a reliever that I might want to really use tomorrow, but can't because I used them today. A big part of the game, of any game probably, is (or at least should be) about using your best players as much as possible. No sane NBA fan, for example, would, in a non-blowout win, say, "you know, Michael or Steph, they're probably tired by now, we should bench them the last few minutes of the game". That person would be so ridiculed for taking that stance that they'd be hesitant to comment on basketball ever again. But what do some people say in baseball? "Oh, no, take out that borderline hall of famer late, he might be tired. You say he hasn't shown any signs of being tired yet? Doesn't matter. Our statistics tell us to expect a dip in performance the 3rd time through". That's just nuts.

It's a drop of more than .3 relative to their early performance though, since the overall includes the "3rd and 4th times through" as well. And again, the overall also includes the days they got shelled while the 3rd/4th presumably only includes their good days.

As well, while I agree with you that normally xFIP is the one I would care most about of those three (which is why I included it), your point in the second half of the comment intrigues me and makes me wonder if that is also flawed. As you point out, it's certainly possible that a major part of the tiredness penalty is giving up much harder contact- which would track with a pattern where all of them see an uptick in HRs per FB (the rough difference between FIP and xFIP), since while in a vacuum xFIP says that HR/FB is mostly noise, if there *is* a loss of 'Movement' (to borrow OOTP vernacular) either when fatigued or when the batter has seen you twice already, then some what xFIP masks in those situations might be signal instead of noise.

[kq76]

Yeah, I can't argue with any of that. I do believe the numbers, I just don't think we should be over-reacting to them when a little common sense would tell us not to.

Sorry, I'm obviously still recovering from the Berrios pulling.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by kq76

Yeah, I can't argue with any of that. I do believe the numbers, I just don't think we should be over-reacting to them when a little common sense would tell us not to.

Sorry, I'm obviously still recovering from the Berrios pulling.

Listen, I'm not saying that starters should be pulled *that* early.

I think for a long long time the common belief was "Wait until the pitcher tires, gets shelled and puts us in a bad spot, THEN take him out." Now it's possible that the current belief of "Whatever you do, take him out before he tires and gets shelled" has moved too far the other way and there may well be a middle ground of "Wait until the risk of him getting shelled outweighs the risk of pulling him when he could still give several quality IP/PAs/etc", accepting that sometimes you will get burned by waiting too long, but that on average the gains outweigh the negatives.

I think it also ties into bullpen usage as well, since in a world where every bullpen arm only goes 1 inning at most, then pulling your starter after 5 means you need to use *at least* 4 BP arms, which both risks any of them not having it that day, and also tires them for future days. If instead bullpens had 3-4 pitchers each who could give 2-3 quality innings, then you could more easily pull a starter early and only need a couple arms to see the game out. I think it was Brian Kenny's book who compared 90s/00s pitcher usage akin to saying that all racers have to either run marathons or sprints and nothing in between, since you were either a Starter (and expected to go 6+) or a Reliever (and expected to throw 1 inning at a time), which misses the entire group of players in the middle who are best when used for more than 1 but less than 6 innings at a time.