MLB 2023 Season

[David Watts]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

I know it is still a man's decision. But too many fans & media "experts" don't seem to think so. Too many fans & critics think decisions should be made based solely on what the computer says. And the result is a bunch of unnecessary 2nd guessing & Monday quarterbacking. The math is a tool. It is not a Bible. It is not an instruction book. It is not a boss.

The game does not go by the book. Last night was the perfect example. People want to criticize leaving Gallen in for the 7th? How about the fact Eovaldi faced more batters than he did? I thought the reasoning behind taking out the pitcher was for no none to face him more than twice? Eovaldi faced 27 hittters to Gallen's 23. So did Bochy make a bad decision letting him continue? And what was the 1st hit Gallen gave up? A cue ball single away from the shift that would have been an easy play for a normally positioned 3B. But do I hear any 2nd guessing of the math on that one? Or do we just recognize Seagar is super hot & clutch & even his "mistakes" turn out right?

The "calculator" doesn't always know what it is talking about. And I wish, I have no control over it, but I wish baseball watchers would stop using it to 2nd guess everything. And baseball managers stop using it to absolve themselves any guilt for any decisions. "Well the stats say that was the way to go". That's the coward's way, not a leader's way. Know your team, know your opponent, train your gut.

Did you use the word Clutch? How dare you.

[MathBandit]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

And what was the 1st hit Gallen gave up? A cue ball single away from the shift that would have been an easy play for a normally positioned 3B. But do I hear any 2nd guessing of the math on that one?

I find it ironic that in your indictment of how analytics looks at data without taking into account the human element, you are doing the *exact* same thing. The reason to take Gallen out wasn't because of a cue-ball hit from Seager. The reason was he was getting shelled several innings prior to that, struggling to find the zone, and coming about 5 combined feet away from giving up back to back jacks in I think the 5th inning. There's no second-guessing here; I was watching live and spent 2 innings thinking that Torey Lovullo was blowing the game by keeping Gallen in when he had a no-hitter.

[Cobra Mgr]

Originally Posted by MathBandit

I find it ironic that in your indictment of how analytics looks at data without taking into account the human element, you are doing the *exact* same thing. The reason to take Gallen out wasn't because of a cue-ball hit from Seager. The reason was he was getting shelled several innings prior to that, struggling to find the zone, and coming about 5 combined feet away from giving up back to back jacks in I think the 5th inning. There's no second-guessing here; I was watching live and spent 2 innings thinking that Torey Lovullo was blowing the game by keeping Gallen in when he had a no-hitter.

I didn't ignore the "human" element. Nor do I criticize how analytics look at data.

1st, analytics job is not to find the "human" part of the equation because that can't be defined definitively for every scenario. It is supposed to be a cold hard unbiased report of the data it is given. I have no problem w/analytics in sports. It is a useful tool. TOOL. Information that can tell a coach/manager what was more likely to happen before this moment & what in the past was more successful. It most definitely should be used to help formulate a decision. I would not want a coach who completely ignored analytics. It just should not BE the decision. That's why the coach is hired. To peruse thru the data & help him make a best decision as applied to his roster & the current situation.

2nd, your criticism on the B'backs manager wasn't that the pitcher was beginning to give up bombs. Your criticism was he wanted the pitcher to go 7+. So when you say that, your name is MATHBandit, it isn't hard for the reader to imply from your criticism that the amount of innings was the problem, not the recent at bats. If you had said that clearly, it would have changed the discussion. But your post as written was in line with the "never let them get 3 AB's vs a starter" philosophy. That is why I stated what I did. And I do believe that is why others behind me did as well. But if I got that part wrong, I apologize.

3rd, keeping him in takes in the "human" element as well. If I'm Lovullo, I see a bullpen who gave up double digits the night before, a hot pitcher on the mound, and a defense that is making plays behind him. The formula for past no hitters. So I'm going with my gut. But I'm also playing it safe & having someone casually getting ready in the bullpen. The first hit was almost an accident. The 2nd a solid double. So now I may stick someone in. The magic is gone. And despite the one run, I still think it was the right move. Cause the Rangers touched the relievers for 4 more runs. So it is not like they were reliable & would have changed the final result.

The final problem in your post was pinning the loss on that choice. Arizona was not winning if they didn't score. No matter how early or late the bullpen came in. They were shutout. Blame, if any, should be placed on the D'backs leaving a man in scoring position in each of the 1st five innings. If Arizona had a lead, then maybe you could point to a pitching change as the diff in a comeback. I prefer to give Eovaldi his flowers for not giving in. He deserves a ton of credit for keeping things even while Gallen was impenetrable,

[Westheim]

Hard to analytically quantify, but I have the post-World Series doldrums. No more baseball for four months.

Heeeelp.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

But too many fans & media "experts" don't seem to think so.

That seems to me to be a fan and media "expert" problem.

Originally Posted by Cobra Mgr

Too many fans & critics think decisions should be made based solely on what the computer says.

They probably also think that brilliant ChatGPT-written story they have can be copyrighted. They'll be in for a surprise.

[GeoWar]

MVP --- Aaron Judge - he proved it by Yankees rise and fall when he is out of the lineup

Otan is a a media hype MVP what were is numbers ?

[Izz]

Originally Posted by GeoWar

Otan is a a media hype MVP what were is numbers ?

Hitting:

.304/.412/.654 from 599PA (184 OPS+, which was league-leading, along with SLG and OPS). 44HR, AL league leader despite missing the last chunk of the season. 6 WAR as a hitter.

Pitching:

10-5 from 23 starts. 3.14 ERA with 1 complete game shutout (4.00 FIP however). 11.4 K/9. 4 WAR as a pitcher.

Pretty good case for MVP, imo.

[CONN CHRIS]

Originally Posted by GeoWar

Otan is a a media hype MVP what were is numbers ?

Was this a serious question?

Here are a few follow-up questions:

1 Do you follow baseball?
2. Do you have an internet connection that allows you to view anything besides this forum?

I am not saying that he is or is not the right pick for MVP but come on man.

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

No kidding. When the norm has become that teams don't have at least four guys who can consistently give you five innings, it's time to re-think the whole development system in place.

We've been thinking about this all wrong.

I watched an article, and I wished I remembered who wrote it, that the REAL reason pitchers are averaging five innings has NOTHING to do with their stamina, or even pitch counts.

It is that opponents batting averages, on base percentages, and especially slugging percentages go up on the second and succeeding at bats.

IF a pitcher makes it through the order a second time, then he's got a HUGELY better chance to bet smacked around - hard - the third time through the order.

So...take him out before then. Four innings (12 outs), plus another four or five base runners is pretty much twice through the order.

A reliever coming into the game for the third time the order cycles only makes sense.

This may also be a prime reason averages are so low, and have been for the last couple of years. Sure..uppercut swings, sticky tar, and a few other factors are involved..but seeing a fresh pitcher for your third, then fourth at bats are HUGE.

I remember, back in the day, when pitchers started only pitching seven innings...and closers were the worst thing that ever happened to the game. This is just the next, logical progression of analysis and roster management.

I will take a look at selected players in the past, and see what their numbers looked like in innings 7-9, and report back.

Ty Cobb - 8th inning or later, lifetime .403, over 970+ AB
Babe Ruth - 1st, 2nd, and then 3rd time vs. the same starter, (AVG): .325, .339, .355
Ozzie Smith - 1st time facing a pitcher, .247. 2nd and later? . 273

This isn't true for everyone...some players are notorious for coming up small *cough*frankthomas*cough*

[dsvitak]

It would be interested to hear a Cricket fan's take on their bowlers. When to use a fast bowler, or a slow spinner-type bowler.

If the objective is to keep the batsmen off balance and uncomfortable, then it would make sense to swap out styles frequently.

This would also lead to the old maxim, in MLB, to through a junkball reliever after Nolan Ryan, and vice versa..a hard thrower after Wilbur Wood.

[Izz]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

It would be interested to hear a Cricket fan's take on their bowlers. When to use a fast bowler, or a slow spinner-type bowler.

Simplistically, it really depends on three things:

pitch conditions (pitch being the strip the bowlers bowl down): a pitch with more grass on it will likely suit fast/swing bowlers more, while a pitch that's drier/dustier will likely suit spinners more

weather conditions: certain weather conditions suit fast/swing bowling more, or can affect the pitch during the game (night games, for instance, can introduce dew onto the pitch, making the ball skid on more)

the age/condition of the ball: for short games (50 overs each, 20 overs each) the same ball is used for the whole inning (unless it's hit out of the ground and lost, at which point a replacement ball of similar age will be introduced). The ball gets softer the more it's used, meaning it'll suit fast bowlers more at the beginning of the innings, and spinners later. However, there are techniques to preserve the shine on one side of the ball while ensuring the other side gets rougher, which can mean later in the innings the ball can swing dramatically and in reverse to how it usually would, which suits fast bowlers.

There is also an element of game situation, too, with fast bowlers used more at the end of the innings than spinners because it'll give hitters (who are in full smash mode) less reaction time. Typically, a fast bowler might bowl their overs in 2 or 3 spells - a spell at the beginning of the innings and another at the end. In 50 over games, they'll likely bowl a few in the middle, too (for that purpose of mixing things up)

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Izz

Simplistically, it really depends on three things:

pitch conditions (pitch being the strip the bowlers bowl down): a pitch with more grass on it will likely suit fast/swing bowlers more, while a pitch that's drier/dustier will likely suit spinners more

weather conditions: certain weather conditions suit fast/swing bowling more, or can affect the pitch during the game (night games, for instance, can introduce dew onto the pitch, making the ball skid on more)

the age/condition of the ball: for short games (50 overs each, 20 overs each) the same ball is used for the whole inning (unless it's hit out of the ground and lost, at which point a replacement ball of similar age will be introduced). The ball gets softer the more it's used, meaning it'll suit fast bowlers more at the beginning of the innings, and spinners later. However, there are techniques to preserve the shine on one side of the ball while ensuring the other side gets rougher, which can mean later in the innings the ball can swing dramatically and in reverse to how it usually would, which suits fast bowlers.

There is also an element of game situation, too, with fast bowlers used more at the end of the innings than spinners because it'll give hitters (who are in full smash mode) less reaction time. Typically, a fast bowler might bowl their overs in 2 or 3 spells - a spell at the beginning of the innings and another at the end. In 50 over games, they'll likely bowl a few in the middle, too (for that purpose of mixing things up)

I have a pc cricket game that I really enjoy. Learned a lot.

I also played cricket, when I was stationed in East Anglia for several years. It took some effort to not bend the ol' elbow when throwing the ball..something the blokes we played against accused us of doing, constantly. They may have had a point..heh heh.

[CONN CHRIS]

Hanshin just won their first Japan Series since 1985 and broke one the truly odd sports curses - The Curse of the Colonel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Colonel

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by CONN CHRIS

Hanshin just won their first Japan Series since 1985 and broke one the truly odd sports curses - The Curse of the Colonel.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curse_of_the_Colonel

In the Korean Series, second-place KT will play first-place LG. In the Taiwan Series, Rakuten and Wei Quan Long have split the first two games, with Rakuten having lost the first game 3-2 in 14 innings while winning the second game 4-0 in 11 innings.

Both the Korean and Taiwan Series are using a 2-2-3 home field rotation.

[thehef]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

Both the Korean and Taiwan Series are using a 2-2-3 home field rotation.

That's an interesting format. Never heard of that one before... An even break for the first four games - which is fairly common - but then HFA heavily tilted at the end...

[Amazin69]

Not that I was paying the slightest attention, but what was happening out in Anaheim the last two months?

Trout out (July 3rd), 45-42
immediate swoon, 46-48
rally (through the 27th), 54-49
final, 73-89

That's 19-40 over the final two months. With, presumably, a couple of series with Oakland included therein. What happened?

(It should also be noted that the last time Mike Trout played more than 120 games was in 2019. So long ago that "ghost runners" had yet to be invented. That's not a good trend.)

[dsvitak]

Originally Posted by Amazin69

Not that I was paying the slightest attention, but what was happening out in Anaheim the last two months?

Trout out (July 3rd), 45-42
immediate swoon, 46-48
rally (through the 27th), 54-49
final, 73-89

That's 19-40 over the final two months. With, presumably, a couple of series with Oakland included therein. What happened?

(It should also be noted that the last time Mike Trout played more than 120 games was in 2019. So long ago that "ghost runners" had yet to be invented. That's not a good trend.)

I am getting Eric Davis vibes here. Great player when healthy. Jimmy Edmonds, too.

[Cobra Mgr]

Ron Washington to manage Angels

[TheMaus2]

Originally Posted by dsvitak

We've been thinking about this all wrong.

I watched an article, and I wished I remembered who wrote it, that the REAL reason pitchers are averaging five innings has NOTHING to do with their stamina, or even pitch counts.

It is that opponents batting averages, on base percentages, and especially slugging percentages go up on the second and succeeding at bats.

IF a pitcher makes it through the order a second time, then he's got a HUGELY better chance to bet smacked around - hard - the third time through the order.

this is a big factor, also worth noting that the game has shifted all the way over to high velo and pulling starters to protect their arm health, which is becoming more of a concern with the pitch clock.

[cephasjames]

MLB owners unanimously approve Oakland Athletics' move to Las Vegas