baseball playoffs

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

well, sure, but the thing is they had to win two games to make the next rd and the argument is will a regular rest Urias in 4 and Kershaw in game 5 be better than a short rest kershaw in game 4 and a short rest Hill in game 5?

an argument can be made that the former was the better option.

A team facing elimination in game 4 is, rightly, focused not on the best chance to win two but the best chance to stay alive and worry about game 5 if they get that luxury. You don't start a 19 year old with 5 lifetime wins in an elimination playoff game, IMO, not when you have an elite HOF pitcher available even if he is on short rest.

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

A team facing elimination in game 4 is, rightly, focused not on the best chance to win two but the best chance to stay alive and worry about game 5 if they get that luxury. You don't start a 19 year old with 5 lifetime wins in an elimination playoff game, IMO, not when you have an elite HOF pitcher available even if he is on short rest.

this isn't entirely true tho (tho this is the way most people would view it)

a loss in game 4 or game 5 equals the same result, no advancement in the playoffs. true one must win game 4 to reach game 5, but the numbers of a 3 days rest Kershaw and Hill are not better than the numbers of a full rest Urias and Kershaw. (not to mention that in this age of bullpen specialization, Urias really only needs to go 4 or 5 to provide good value. ) It's tough to get past must win two vs must win one, but in some cases (like the most recent one) it was probably the correct call to save Kershaw for game 5. regardless of the result of game 4

I tend to think decisions should be made based on giving a team the highest % chance of a favorable result and not on whether or no the fanbase or media is going to get angry if the end result is not what they had hoped.


Dave Cameron of Fangraphs and ESPN presents a pretty good argument here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-d...t-julio-urias/

[Peter_Spaeth]

Urias is a 19 year old kid with five wins to his name. No way, no how. Forget all this fangraphs stuff, use some common sense.

[chaddurbin]

Yea basically you need 2wins, the better % would have Kershaw starting game 5, hill/urias in front of a hostile crowd seems like another disadvantage on top of starting Kershaw game 4. I'm sure the front office know all this so they're taking a short-term hit in case they get thru.

[Peter_Spaeth]

If you don't win the first game, your odds of winning the second game are zero. The immediate issue is not maximizing your chances of winning two, it's maximizing your chances of winning one and getting to the final game. This seems obvious.

[chaddurbin]

looking with hindsight that the dodgers won...but starting kershaw on 3 day rest over urias (who is a very capable pitcher and even better at home) was a marginal upgrade. i felt urias could've held his own against gio gonzalez and at worse was 50/50. with a tired kershaw dodgers are 55% to win? scherzer over a short-rest hill is a big advantage...whereas with a fully-rested kershaw on the road for game 5 you could make the case kershaw might have the advantage like game 1.

but whatever it's done with i'm not going to belabor the point.

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

If you don't win the first game, your odds of winning the second game are zero. The immediate issue is not maximizing your chances of winning two, it's maximizing your chances of winning one and getting to the final game. This seems obvious.

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

[bravos4evr]

Originally Posted by itjclarke

I agree with this fully. Sure it's less than ideal to make compromises for a potential game 5, but when facing elimination you have to put all focus on the next game, plain and simple.

I think metrics also tend to ignore human considerations, and these guys are all very human. I remember a 19-20 year old Rick Ankiel being thrust into the post season spot light as a rookie, throwing 4-5 wild pitches and never recovering as a pitcher. Some guys can handle it (Bumgarner went 8 shutout innings in the WS his rookie year at age 20), some guys maybe need a little more seasoning. All of that (and more) and the numbers factor into these guys' decisions.

(NOTE: typed the above hours ago then lost internet on a plane... just finished game. Wow. Even as a Giants fan, I must say that was a manly showing by Kershaw)

Metrics do not ignore "the human side" any more than batting avg, era or RBI's do. It's just a better, more accurate representation of statistics than the old baseball card stats. That's it. They are just stats. And just because something gives you a better chance at winning doesn't mean the results will pan out, but I would always prefer to increase my overall % rather than decrease it if given the opportunity (which is why I loathe so many mgrs who manage with their "gut" instead of data)