Home | Webstore
Latest News: OOTP 25 Available - FHM 10 Available - OOTP Go! Available

Out of the Park Baseball 25 Buy Now!

  

Go Back   OOTP Developments Forums > Prior Versions of Our Games > Out of the Park Baseball 16 > OOTP 16 - General Discussions

OOTP 16 - General Discussions Discuss the new 2015 version of Out of the Park Baseball here!

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 05-06-2015, 12:36 PM   #61
RandyMyers
Minors (Single A)
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 97
I have been a baseball fan forever (ok, 50 years). I have wrote several papers on baseball strategy and even a decent stats lookup program. With all that said I am a huge fan of the DH. Back in high school the coach would DH for me when I was pitching and I was the DH during the other games.

The DH rule actually adds real strategy not take it away as the traditional argument would have you believe. With few exceptions, pitchers cannot hit through out history. They did not make it to the majors with their bat. In almost every case the decision is a given about pinch hitting.

While strategic decisions with the DH are more difficult. You don't have that automatic out any more but instead have to deal with one of the opposing teams better hitters. Do you shift your defense, hold the runner tighter knowing it will open a hole for a player who can actually handle the bat, etc. A lot more pitcher match ups instead of holding them back for after that automatic pinch hit.

No the DH actually adds more actual strategy to a game that is seeing offense diminishing. These are very real "new" strategic choices. It is only a matter of time before it is added to the only league in the entire world that still makes an amateur go up to the plate against someone throwing 90+ MPH. A few more star pitchers getting hurt at the plate and it will happen sooner rather than later.

Last edited by RandyMyers; 05-06-2015 at 12:40 PM.
RandyMyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 03:21 PM   #62
Amazin69
Hall Of Famer
 
Amazin69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,261
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RandyMyers View Post
The DH rule actually adds real strategy not take it away as the traditional argument would have you believe.
Ah, again the "traditional" insult. Yeah, it's just "tradition" that keeps me from endorsing the DH. That's why I yearn for the return of segregation, refuse to go to night games, and would certainly never use a "computer" to go on this "internet" thingamabob…oh, wait…

I believe the word you're looking for there is "intelligent".
Quote:
With few exceptions, pitchers cannot hit through out history.
No, they can hit, just not as well as the other players. The occasional Bob Buhl 0-for-62 season aside, pitchers make enough contact to cause strategy to come into play. A .250 hitter, given four plate appearances per game, can be expected to get one hit per game. A .125 hitter can be expected to produce one hit every other game. That's not really "struck-by-lightning" levels of rare. Give a pitcher 32 starts a year and even with a BA well south of the Mendoza line, he'll be statistically likely to have produced at least one hit 16 separate times. And even a pitcher in a horrific slump can be the fulcrum of a key decision, as we'll see later.
Quote:
They did not make it to the majors with their bat. In almost every case the decision is a given about pinch hitting.
No, in "almost every case" it's presumed the pinch-hitter is more likely to get a hit than the pitcher. That doesn't make the decision "a given", that's what makes it a tough decision.

It's the basic "bird in the hand" conundrum…do I want to give up this pitcher who is pitching well and probably has more good innings in him to take a chance on a hit (knowing the PH is likely to make an out two-thirds of the time anyway), or do I keep the pitcher going and just pray he can do something with the bat?

A classic example is Game 5 of the 1968 World Series. The Tigers trail, 3 games to 1, facing elimination in their home park. Bottom of the 6th, down 3-2, bases loaded, two out, and Mayo Smith lets Bill Freehan bat (despite Freehan being 0-for-14 in the Series so far) because he doesn't want to lose his veteran backstop. Freehan hits into a force play; opportunity lost. Next inning, still 3-2, Cardinals. Lead-off hitter makes out, bringing up Mickey Lolich. Seven outs left in the Tiger season. Lolich batting on the season: .114/.184/.157. And this is "The Year of the Pitcher", with the high mound and the big strike zone. Surely a pinch-hitter is called for here, right?

But the Cardinals will get two more cracks after this, and the Detroit bullpen is pitching like crap. 6.28 combined ERA to this point in the Series, and that's not counting the two inherited runs Pat Dobson let score in Game 3. And Lolich went the distance in Game 2, the Tigers' only win so far in the Series.

So do you pull the plug on Lolich and hope that Dobson and Don McMahon and Joe Sparma (who gave up a homer to Bob Gibson yesterday) can hold the fort after this? And who are you going to send up, anyhow? Gates Brown is a great pinch-hitter, but if you use him now, with nobody on, what are you going to do if you have a rally going in the 9th and you need him? And the rest of the bench, this being 1968 and all, is horrible-hitting glove guys (Tom Matchick, .202 BA; Dick Tracewski, .156; Ray Oyler, .135; Jim Price, .175, Wayne Comer, .125) and a used-up Eddie Mathews (.212/.281/.385). The infielders were so terrible, Smith has decided to play 4th OF Mickey Stanley at shortstop (a position he'd never played in career) just to get some production out of the spot. So do you gamble on Brown now and the bullpen later, or hold your cards and send up Lolich?

Lolich went up, dropped a weak fly into short RF for a single, started a three-run rally, and finished out the win. (Including the 9th, where the Cards had the tying runs on base with one out.) The Tigers took the next two (Lolich pitching Game 7 on two days' rest), and won the Series.

Put the DH in there and Smith has absolutely NO decision to make. Brown is DHing, and Smith doesn't have a hitter worth his life on the bench, so he just sits back and waits and hopes. Two words: Bo.Ring. The drama was there because Smith was forced to choose between an advantage (Lolich on the mound) and the disadvantage that went with it (Lolich at the bat). The DH kills all that.

Okay, so it's 50 years later and pitchers aren't expected to go nine any more. But this still comes into play, it's just an inning or two earlier. It's the fifth inning and Bartolo Colon has been laboring out there, but the Mets have so many bullpen injuries that they've put the batboy on the active roster and they really don't want to use the entire bullpen, because Dillon Gee got bombed out last night and most of those guys have tired arms to begin with. And since for some goddamn reason, teams nowadays only have a 5-man bench (which is more like a 4-man bench since nobody wants to use the backup catcher to pinch-hit), do you want to use Kirk Nieuwenhuis, your only LH bat on the bench right now and hope you can round up some guys with something left in their arms in the pen, or do you send Bartolo up to bat, and hope he can (pardon the pun) gut out another inning or two before you have to start using your thin reserves? It would be a shame to waste Nieuwenhuis so early and not get anything for it, but there are runners on 2nd and 3rd and two out and what if you never get another chance like this? Does Bartolo even have another inning in him? He was lucky to get out of the 4th only down 3-1…but then he cruised in the top of the 5th, and he's only thrown 70 pitches, so maybe?

(This isn't an actual 2015 Mets game, I'm just asking you to imagine the scenario. There is no "right" answer. Because Terry Collins has a decision to make. With the DH, no such decision. Again, boring. Pull off the DH's kneecaps!)

Quote:
While strategic decisions with the DH are more difficult. You don't have that automatic out any more but instead have to deal with one of the opposing teams better hitters. Do you shift your defense, hold the runner tighter knowing it will open a hole for a player who can actually handle the bat, etc.
No, those aren't strategic decisions, that's just the scouting report. The manager has made his decision on how he's going to play the DH just as he's made his decision on how he's going to play every other guy in the lineup, well before the national anthem was even sung. He doesn't have to think about this at all.

Whereas the presence of the supposedly-weaker hitter not only provides entertainment when the unexpected hero comes through…

(One of the highlights of the stretch drive for the 1969 Mets was a double-header in Pittsburgh where the Mets were not hitting well, and were further shorthanded because Cleon Jones was out with a leg injury and Art Shamsky was observing Rosh Hashanah. The Mets' regulars didn't drive in a single run all day, but they got the sweep, both games by 1-0, with the pitcher driving in his own run in both cases. Don Cardwell was hitting .171 at that point, so maybe he had a chance to "help himself", but the other game, where Jerry Koosman was the pitching/hitting hero? Koos was hitting a rollicking .044 coming in. But he did it, and it's remembered because of it. DH, and nobody remembers these games.

In Game 3 of the NLCS, people remember Nolan Ryan coming on in long relief to shut down a Braves rally and enable the Mets to get back in the game. What they may not remember is that Ryan started the Mets' winning rally with a hit, after batting an impressive .103 for the year. Miracle Mets, on the mound and at the plate.)

…not only does the psychological damage of allowing a hit to the opposing pitcher (or worse, walking him) carry a greater chance of totally undoing a hurler because "dammit, I should be able to get the pitcher out, ffs!", but the "easy out" expectation gives the opposing manager a chance to royally screw up…if the manager is unbelievably stupid, that is. For the sake of the argument, let's call this unbearably stupid, loud-mouthed, self-promoting cornball of a manager "Tommy Lasorda".

Return with us now to the halcyon days of August 31, 1983. The 77-54 Dodgers, struggling to stay ahead of the Braves in the NL West, are at Beautiful Shea Stadium to take on the Mets, 54-78, buried in last, and having already fired George Bamberger and playing out the string under Frank Howard. (Keith Hernandez writes that Dave Kingman rejoiced when the Mets traded for Hernandez, even though it meant Sky King would have to ride the pine the rest of the year, because Dave knew that he wouldn't have to come back next season. Yeah, not a highly-motivated team here. Tom Seaver, in his one-year return, called them "The Stems"…"Mets" spelled backwards.) Your pitching matchup is Fernando Valenzuela (13-7) vs. Mike Torrez (8-14, on the way to leading the NL in losses, earned runs allowed, and walks; he already had his epic 10-walk performance against Cincinnati earlier this season). But Torrez has won his last two starts, so…

Torrez allows a run in the top of the first on a Dusty Baker RBI groundout, but then settles down a bit. Meanwhile, Fernando cruises through the first three innings, allowing but a single hit (by Mookie Wilson) and two walks. In the bottom of the fourth, however, things get interesting.

George Foster leads off by grounding out, but then Mark Bradley (former Dodger) ties the game with an inside-the-park HR to RF. (I'm guessing that Mike Marshall [not the screwball pitcher, the other one] didn't do a great job of tracking the ball down in the corner.) Perhaps slightly rattled, Fernando doesn't do a great job on Bob Bailor's grounder (listed as "single to P" on the PBP) and then lets Bailor steal 2B. He rallies to strike out Junior Ortiz for the second out, though, bringing up rookie SS Jose Oquendo.

Now, Oquendo was a fantastic gloveman, which is why then-manager Bamberger had pulled him out of the minors at the start of May and given him the SS job instead of incumbent Ron Gardenhire. And Oquendo not only fielded well, he got off to a good start with the bat. After 40 games (June 17), he was hitting .299/.372/.346, certainly respectable. But then the wheels fell off.

Oh, boy, did they fall off. In his next 56 games (June 18-August 30), Oquendo posted a rousing .186/.205/.210 slash line. Ten weeks of .414 OPS. He went 25 games at one point without drawing a single walk. His last extra-base hit was a double on June 25th, 48 games previously.

Now, you might think the struggling Oquendo would be the answer to Valenzuela's prayers, and that Fernando was seeing an easy ticket out of the inning. Well, maybe he was, but the distinctly stupid walking sack of pasta Tommy Lasorda looked past Oquendo, to the "pathetic" Mike Torrez, riding an 0-for-43 slump, and gave Oquendo the intentional walk. An intenional walk to a guy who went almost a month without any walks. Seriously.

As Bill James later wrote, this was bad baseball because Lasorda had two chances to get his pitcher out of the inning, and he threw one of them away. Say Oquendo somehow manages a hit; Bailor scores, and now it's 2-1 Mets, with 2 out, a man on 1B and Mike Torrez coming up. Still pretty workable, for the 4th inning, after all.

But what actually happened was that Lasorda walked Oquendo, Torrez singled to break his 0-fer, and now it was 2-1, two men on, and Mookie Wilson coming up, not Torrez. In putting all his effort into cutting off that one run, Tommy opened the door for a big inning. And to make it worse, you know how all the top pitchers have a guy they just can't get out? Like Tommy Hutton hit over .400 against Tom Seaver? Well, Fernando's "Tommy Hutton" was…yup, Mookie Wilson.

Three-run homer, Mets lead 5-1, Mets win 7-1. Inexcusable loss to a bad team while the Dodgers were in a pennant race because Lasorda wouldn't pitch to Jose-freaking-Oquendo since the pitcher was a "sure out" behind him. But again, Tommy had a strategic decision to make that no AL manager would ever have; does he "play his card" (the likelihood that Fernando can retire Torrez) and risk a big inning to get to him by walking Oquendo, or does he risk pitching to Oquendo and save the (presumptive) out he can get with Torrez to start off the 5th? What would you rather have, an increased likelihood of ending the inning by getting to the pitcher, or keep the pitcher's spot as insurance if Oquendo hits and an easy start to the next inning if he doesn't? That's strategy.

Not that Tommy learned anything from this; he intentionally walked the #8 hitter constantly, for years. One year, Garry Templeton, of all people, led the NL in IBB, simply because he hit 8th for the team Tommy was most worried about.

And yet, when you remember Tommy these days, what game decision comes to mind? His call to NOT give Jack Clark an intentional pass in Game 6 of the 1985 NLCS, and Clark's famous homer off of Tom Niedenfuer. The "right" decision [walk Clark and all it takes for Andy Van Slyke to beat you is a double, and Van Slyke had more XBH than Clark had HR], but the wrong result.

That's what happens sometimes, what makes decision-making so difficult. Which is why it adds to the game, rather than the "preset lineups, give the umpire the card, and then take a nap" baseball they play in the AL. JMO.

Last edited by Amazin69; 05-13-2015 at 09:08 PM.
Amazin69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 07:31 PM   #63
ThatSeventiesGuy
Hall Of Famer
 
ThatSeventiesGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Midland, MI
Posts: 3,421
I was at the local Half-Price Books yesterday, and picked up something interesting. A copy of the 1973 Baseball Digest season preview issue, for only $3!

In it, there was an interesting discussion about the pros and cons of the new DH rule. Very similar to some of the arguments posted here, but I did notice one anti-DH argument there that never really came to pass.

Some of the antis thought that the DH would lead to pitchers throwing at random batters more often, since the pitcher no longer batted, and therefore couldn't be held responsible for brushbacks when his time to bat came around. Another reason I love old articles like that...you get the perspective at the time, unfiltered by years of hindsight.

They also had the Cubs winning the NL East in '73...so take it all with a grain of salt, I guess.
ThatSeventiesGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 08:25 PM   #64
Hasta la vista pelota
Minors (Double A)
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 137
Good points, Amazin, but some people might say that basketball had more strategy without the shot clock. And they would probably be right. But things change, and most fans aren't interested in the strategy. They want action.

As for the DH, I still say you need to remove it from the high schools and colleges first. Won't happen, though. I used to work for the chairman of the NCAA baseball committee back in the '80s and he told me the DH would come up for vote and the coaches overwhelmingly wanted to keep it. It was all they ever knew.

Today's fans just don't want to see a rally ruined by the 1-in-8 chance that a (starting) pitcher will get a hit. More likely, they flail at one pitch and get called out on strikes. Relief pitchers, who are in the game by the sixth or seventh inning, seldom bat. Instead we see a double switch where the team's fourth outfielder or backup middle infielder is up with the game on the line in the ninth inning.

I used to be anti-DH but have come to accept it. The AL game is still baseball, just like the shot clock has a home in college basketball. Sometimes you have to go with the flow.
Hasta la vista pelota is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-07-2015, 10:02 PM   #65
Amazin69
Hall Of Famer
 
Amazin69's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 2,261
Infractions: 0/1 (1)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hasta la vista pelota View Post
Good points, Amazin, but some people might say that basketball had more strategy without the shot clock. And they would probably be right. But things change, and most fans aren't interested in the strategy. They want action.
Fair enough, but RandyMyers was arguing that the NL didn't have the advantage in strategy that I (and others) allege it does. So I was rebutting him.

And the "strategy v. action" issue is a false dichotomy. Certainly the NL has been able to increase run production throughout the years via a variety of means, none of which required the use of a Designated Has-Been. Juiced baseballs, juiced players, reduced strike zones, expansion, smaller ballparks, calling more balks, cutting down on beanballs, letting Barry Bonds go up to bat wearing ridiculous body armor and actually letting him hit with his hands in the f*cking strike zone but if you threw an inside pitch you got a warning and so of course the cheater could cover the whole plate that way…grrr. All of these boosted run production, just as the insane proposals for an "illegal defense" rule would. None required a half-player to sit in the dugout and pop out for random cameos without even pretending to play defense.

From 1973 to 2014, the NL ERA has ranged as high as 4.63 (2000) and as low as 3.45 (1988). And, in each of those 42 seasons, the NL has played a more interesting, fairer, and more complex form of baseball than the DH dullards up in the Bronx (and elsewhere). The AL ERA last season was only 3.81, DH and all. The NL has had more "action" than that in half of the 42 seasons in question. The DH is not the primary determinant of runs scored, not nearly.

It's also not the primary driver of attendance. The NL has led the AL in average attendance for the majority of the DH era, including every single season since the 1994 strike. (This despite the NL having had the only team that had to relocate due to poor attendance during this time.) So while fans may turn out for higher scores in general, of those who turn out, a consistent majority prefer the NL version of the game.

Last edited by Amazin69; 05-07-2015 at 10:04 PM.
Amazin69 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:00 AM   #66
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
We are never going back to pitchers hitting. The designated hitter is not an aberration of history, and it is not an experiment. It is the state of the game today, at every level above high school, and in every country in which the game is seriously played. Unlike interleague play, which is nothing more than a business gimmick, the designated hitter is a strategic improvement to the game on the field itself, and no league is going to degrade the quality of play by forcing players who not only cannot hit, but who never even train to hit, to stand at the plate as though they can.

All is not lost for those who desperately long to go back to 1955, though. It looks like the serious discussion about going back to a 154-game schedule is escalating. So you might actually get this one.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:42 AM   #67
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Not sure how one can argue that it is a "strategic improvement" when using it means less strategy decisions are required during the course of a game.
Dyzalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:10 AM   #68
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
Not sure how one can argue that it is a "strategic improvement" when using it means less strategy decisions are required during the course of a game.
There have been numerous examples of how the DH is a strategic improvement in this thread already, so just rehashing them yet again would be redundant. I am simply making a summary statement that the DH is never, ever going away. But people who want to see less baseball during the course of the season might get their wish.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:39 AM   #69
Anyone
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr View Post
There have been numerous examples of how the DH is a strategic improvement in this thread already.
And many other examples, which I find far more persuasive, of how the DH is awful for strategy.

Double switches are interesting strategically. There really are times that it's a tough decision whether to let the pitcher bat to keep him in the game or to pinch hit for him. I run across those playing OOTP.

It makes batting order a little more complicated, working around a non-hitter. Its importance is overstated regardless, despite how intuitive it is that it should make a lot of difference. But it does give some form to your lineup, that the SLG of the guy right after the pitcher means less, as does the OBP of the guy just before the pitcher.

Specialization is bad for the game. Heck, you could see more great plays and more great hitters if you just let teams field one group of 9 players and have another group of 9 hitters-only. That would never happen, but the DH is a tiny bit of that.

The game needs more offense, specifically by cutting down on strikeouts. So, squeeze the strike zone and lower the mound. And by the way, make pitchers have to spend some time learning to hit (or at least bunt) that takes a bit away from the time they can spend learning to pitch better.

If I were baseball czar I'd wipe out the DH in the USA and in many other nations whose players wanted to play in the USA. I'd not only ban it from the majors and minors, but say that "beginning two years after this date (giving leagues a chance to dump the DH), playing in any league that has the DH rule at the age of 18 or over shall make a player forever ineligible to play in the Major Leagues." Then the NCAA and high school leagues also have to drop it (high school does because some are 18 before they graduate-- or they could stop playing in high school the day before their 18th birthday), and so do many foreign leagues, as many have players who hope to play in MLB.

Then eventually pitchers will hit only as badly as they used to, as they'll have played with no DH in college, the minors, foreign leagues, etc..

No to specialization. And lessening K's makes fielding somewhat more important, so with no DH and fielding more important, players who can't field at all would see their value drop.

I'm not a big traditionalist. I think the 154 game schedule idea is awful, and I like the 3 divisions plus a wild card (even now two wild cards, though that needs to be a 2 of 3 series for the play-in, but avoiding the play-in makes winning divisions a bit more valuable) keeping more teams in the playoff race, though I never want to see MLB expand the playoffs beyond that. I don't follow the NBA or NHL at all, because practically everybody makes the playoffs. I'm also for instant replay and even for a time limit for the pitcher to throw the ball, which seems unpopular.
Anyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 07:40 PM   #70
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
The double switch is not a brilliant strategic undertaking. It's actually the opposite: it's a pushbutton move. Have to take the pitcher out but his spot is due up in the order? Push button and double switch. Everybody in the park knows it's coming. The only question is whether it's going to be the guy who made the last out, or the guy in the order before him. It would be a lot more interesting if such a pitching change would occasionally NOT entail a double switch, even a third of the time. But it always does, so I guess not double-switching during such a change isn't an arrow in the NL manager's strategy quiver.

I don't buy the idea that "specialization is bad for the game". The very core of the game entails nine specialized positions, nine guys who each do their own particular job in the field. If it's generalists we want to celebrate, we could rotate players around the positions every inning. But that would be a stupid slippery slope argument I'd be making, precisely along the lines of the "why not just have nine designated hitters" argument. After all, various high-level leagues have been playing with the designated hitter for almost 50 years, and its nearly universal adoption makes the DH the state of the game today. Yet, the number of people inside the game who have ever seriously lobbied for more designated hitter positions in the batting order is exactly zero.

The DH is not about "creating more offense", despite what guys like Harold Reynolds and Sean Casey tell us on MLB Tonight. The DH is about getting the pitcher out of the lineup because he is a total dead spot. 2014: .122/.152/.152, -19 wRC+. And how are pitchers doing in 2015 so far? How does .107/.127/.129, -31 wRC+ grab ya? And it's only going to get worse. How can I possibly know that? Because it has been getting steadily worse year after year. And why is that? Because pitchers simply do not work on their hitting. So why bother sending a guy to the plate who trains at hitting major league pitchers to exactly the same degree that you and I do? It just strikes me as asinine.

Some people might say that the pitcher does have an offensive role by moving runners along via the sacrifice bunt. To which I would reply, I don't understand why any serious baseball fan would want to root for a hitter to make an out. To me, going to the plate to try to make an out feels like an inherently dishonest plate appearance. Sacrifice bunts are not cool, even in the less than 70 percent of the time they succeed. Sacrifice bunts suck.

Last edited by chucksabr; 05-08-2015 at 08:57 PM.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 07:54 PM   #71
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
I disagree with you on double switches. As evidence I present to you game 5 of last year's World Series.

Ned Yost made a terrible double-switch last night | HardballTalk
Dyzalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:07 PM   #72
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
I disagree with you on double switches. As evidence I present to you game 5 of last year's World Series.

Ned Yost made a terrible double-switch last night | HardballTalk
Nice anecdote. How would this support the argument that the double switch is a brilliant strategic undertaking?
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:15 PM   #73
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr View Post
Nice anecdote. How would this support the argument that the double switch is a brilliant strategic undertaking?
It would support the point that there is a strategic decision in when to and when not to use it.
Dyzalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 08:45 PM   #74
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
Just because Ned Yost botched this particular double switch doesn't per se mean that the decision to double switch is always a brilliant strategy move that is wonderfully unpredictable as to when it gets applied. In fact, I would even argue the opposite here: Ned Yost tried to play the National League manager game by pushing the button at the exact same time every actual National League manager would have pushed that same button. It's just that in this case, a baseball writer with 20-20 hindsight criticized the move that, again, is the default pushbutton move that always gets made in this same situation, because of the rule that pitchers have to bat in that league.

Last edited by chucksabr; 05-08-2015 at 08:54 PM.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:21 PM   #75
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
The double switch is used a lot less than it used to be because managers don't expect relievers today to go more than one inning. That said, it still takes strategic skill to know when and when not to use it.
Dyzalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 10:57 PM   #76
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
To the degree that a manager needs strategic skill to know when to push the button, yes, it takes strategic skill. By the same token, when that skill is shared by 10,000 other people who are in the building at the same time, it's not really very special or unique.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:15 PM   #77
Dyzalot
All Star Starter
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 1,735
Well apparently Yost had trouble with it.
Dyzalot is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:36 PM   #78
Anyone
Major Leagues
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 405
Quote:
Originally Posted by chucksabr View Post
To the degree that a manager needs strategic skill to know when to push the button, yes, it takes strategic skill. By the same token, when that skill is shared by 10,000 other people who are in the building at the same time, it's not really very special or unique.
It's far from always a simple decision to use it at all (do you need the new reliever for more than one inning?) And which player to swap out is far from a trivial decision.

And the DH is overspecialization. My example of a separate offensive and defensive team for each team was not meant as a "slippery slope" that would ever actually happen, but rather an extreme example of what makes the DH awful. It goes against the concept that every player must play both offense and defense. There should be a large cost to playing an awful defensive player. You shouldn't get to hit if you can't field at all, or cost your team by your awful fielding, one or the other.
Anyone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:50 PM   #79
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
Pitchers already do something that nobody else does. The pitcher is already going way above and beyond what the other eight guys on the field do, by a factor of multiples, and that's in addition to fielding his position, too, just like the other guys do. Pitching is the ultimate in specialization. It's also why pitchers don't work on hitting: nobody gives a s*** about their hitting, including the pitcher himself, in most cases, and their performance at the plate is the proof of that. So why subject us to it?

As for the double switch, yes, it is a pretty simple decision, and the player to swap out is always the guy who made the last out, unless he's the team superstar or you have literally have no one on the bench to take the position, then you go to the guy ahead of him. Could a monkey manage a double switch? No, I would agree that a monkey could not do that. But it's not advanced game theory, either. It's fairly simple IF-THEN logic, and anyone who has average or better baseball knowledge can fairly easily determine exactly when and how it's going to go down. I would guess you do it in your own OOTP league, and flawlessly. Unless you're willing to confess to us that it's too complex for you?

Last edited by chucksabr; 05-09-2015 at 12:30 AM.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-08-2015, 11:52 PM   #80
chucksabr
Hall Of Famer
 
chucksabr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2013
Location: In the canyons of your mind
Posts: 3,172
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dyzalot View Post
Well apparently Yost had trouble with it.
That's one, then.
chucksabr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
designated hitter

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:31 AM.

 

Major League and Minor League Baseball trademarks and copyrights are used with permission of Major League Baseball. Visit MLB.com and MiLB.com.

Officially Licensed Product – MLB Players, Inc.

Out of the Park Baseball is a registered trademark of Out of the Park Developments GmbH & Co. KG

Google Play is a trademark of Google Inc.

Apple, iPhone, iPod touch and iPad are trademarks of Apple Inc., registered in the U.S. and other countries.

COPYRIGHT © 2023 OUT OF THE PARK DEVELOPMENTS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

 

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.10
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright © 2020 Out of the Park Developments