Was given a ticket to Sat 4/6 Reds vs Nats.
5th game. 6 days. Is that a Cueto/Strasburg matchup or Leake/Nats #5 matchup?
Was given a ticket to Sat 4/6 Reds vs Nats.
5th game. 6 days. Is that a Cueto/Strasburg matchup or Leake/Nats #5 matchup?
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.
All the dishes rattle in the cupboards when the elephants arrive
I would think the Reds and Nats would skip over their 5th starter this early in the season.
Reds Fan Since 1971
Baker doesn't usually skip starters from what I remember. I doubt they want leake going 2 weeks almost without pitching in a real game. I have tickets for Sat and Sun. Expecting Leake vs. Detwiler then Cueto v Strasburg. Should be a great game sunday.
You will get Leake vs. Nats 5. The reasoning goes like this. Sure there is an off-day in there and sure Cueto would be going on his normal turn. But Latos, Arroyo and Bailey would be coming back on short rest, unless they pitched Leake on the 7th. I think you should expect Leake to be on the mound for that game.
I see, I see. Thanks for the education regardless of who throws. I'd obviously prefer to see 1vs1, but any day at the yard watching high level baseball is a good one.
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.
All the dishes rattle in the cupboards when the elephants arrive
thatcoolguy_22 (03-31-2013)
On MLB.com they are listing Detwiler as the Nats starter for April 6th. TBD for the Reds.
Reds Fan Since 1971
Why wouldn't they go Cueto in that game, then Leake in the next one (on the 7th)?
That would keep everyone else on normal rest and wouldn't hurt Leake at all.
Probably don't want to end up with a lot of Leake vs. other team number ones matchups.Originally Posted by Scrap Irony
Funny update...I sent my boy a text about more than likely seeing the #5's battle. He replied with: "No worries, out seats are worse than the starters anyway".
My first game of the season and the ticket was gift, who'd listen if I complained?
Everything that can be counted does not necessarily count; everything that counts cannot necessarily be counted.
All the dishes rattle in the cupboards when the elephants arrive
Why not?
Wouldn't that mean the Reds have a ton (four of them) of better pitchers against other teams' lesser starters?
Old wives tale that #1 pitches agaisnt the other team's #1 etc. After the first week of the season, it gets mixed up pretty quickly. Everyone pitches agaisnt everyone pretty much.
Otherwise, you'd have alot of #1's with 5-15 records, and a lot of #5's with 15-5 records.
The rotation is set for a reason. They want certain pitchers following others etc. I know they want Arroyo between Latos and Bailey for example.
And Leake between Cueto and Latos makes the same type of sense.
Bill James has a formula to estimate how many games a team with one winning percentage can be expected to win against a team with another winning percentage. I used his formula to see how your suggestion would work out. (Mainly because I have had that very same thought.) It turns out that a team would win slightly (very slightly) more games doing what you suggested.
Here is the link: http://207.56.97.150/articles/playoff2002.htm
So I just assumed the following winning percentages for each position in the rotation from 1 through 5. I assumed the same winning percentages for Reds' pitchers as opponents' pitchers.
1 - .600
2 - .550
3 - .500
4 - .450
5 - .400
Here are the results: In the upper chart, if Number 1s matched up against Number 1s on down the line, it would work out as one might expect, with 81 wins on the seasons for Reds' opponents. In the lower chart, if the opponents' number 1 matched up with the Reds' number 5, and the Reds had the advantage at the other four slots, the result would be 80.8 expected wins for the opponents. So, you are right by the slimmest of margins. The Reds would win 81.2 games doing it your way instead of 81.0 matching up 1s vs. 1s, etc.
Code:OPP REDS WPCT GAMES XWINS TOT-XWINS .600 .600 .500 33 16.5 81.0 .550 .550 .500 33 16.5 .500 .500 .500 32 16.0 .450 .450 .500 32 16.0 .400 .400 .500 32 16.0 OPP REDS WPCT GAMES XWINS TOT-XWINS .600 .400 .692 33 22.8 80.8 .550 .600 .449 33 14.8 .500 .550 .450 32 14.4 .450 .500 .450 32 14.4 .400 .450 .449 32 14.4
You asked why they wouldn't not why they shouldn't. I gave you the reason the Reds are not going to do it. Whether it makes sense or not is another debate. Baseball teams in general like to have their best against the other teams best. We may not like it but that is how decisions are made.
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote