baseball playoffs

[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)

[itjclarke]

Originally Posted by bravos4evr

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)

I wasn't comparing advanced metrics to traditional stats when commenting on the human side of the game, and the influence it can have on managerial decisions. I was just drawing a line between stats and the very human elements that effect the game (confidence, anxiety, etc). I think any manager who's worth a sh*t in baseball takes everything into consideration, stats (advanced or other) and his own gut instincts about his players.

Not to get off track, but I also think as various technologies improve, we'll learn more and more that what often influences our "gut" may be as quantifiable or measurable than any advanced baseball statistical metric could ever be. Softwares that record and analyze the most subtle facial and non verbal characteristics are continually being developed to better determine a person's mood or state of mind. This has been considered for things like long space missions (monitoring mental health/acuity of astronauts), and expect could become applicable in countless applications (baseball??).

I think the human brain is able to detect many of these markers (small twitches, a blink, posture, tone of voice, etc) that the camera catches/records and make "gut" determinations in real time, even if a person cannot fully explain why. Over time with the help of technology, we may learn how to do this more scientifically than anecdotally. I think some people, good baseball managers included, are just generally better (many far better) than others at gauging those around them. I think many great natural leaders have this incredible empathy towards others, combined with confidence, clearness or purpose, charisma, etc, which make them good at what they do. I think just because we haven't yet developed a WAR-like metric to measure these intangibles doesn't mean they don't hold very high, although as yet un-quantifiable value.

I don't dismiss advanced metrics, but I also don't think they are the end all be all, especially above and beyond any/all notion of human intuition. I think all information needs to be taken in its totality, carefully considered and then weighted accordingly when making decisions. I'd consider an old "baseball man's" opinion as well as considering the stats. I respect Moneyball but I get annoyed when people dismiss human intuition/leadership skills and ALL traditional stats (remember-- it's hard to get a base hit).

I'm sure you could teach the computer Watson to manage a baseball team. He could set the lineup and manage all in game decisions based purely on analytics (not letting him consider human emotion). Using statistical analysis, I'm sure it could even scout, draft, promote and demote players, etc. Do you think that would work though? Do you think if it made the correct statistical move at every step (while of course ignoring any human consideration) the team would meet it's Pythagorean win total? I'd love to see crazy owner and GM try it for a full season. Would love to see how a computer manages via metrics while ignoring any clashing personalities, any tension and conflict in the club house, a slumping player who's lost his job and confidence, etc.

... I know I'm rambling, but I feel like this stat movement (new is better than old) is way overdone and it sort of irks me. Baseball is still baseball, let's watch it and enjoy it.