2020 MLB Season / Postseason Thread Part Deux

[The Operator]

Lol, likely a non story in the end

Eh, I dunno. Check out some of the media coverage.


I really doubt this was how The Dodgers wanted the narrative of their first championship in 32 years to unfold. Likewise, I doubt this was how MLB wanted the first World Series since the news of The Astros cheating scandal broke, to unfold.

[WVRed]

Eh, I dunno. Check out some of the media coverage.


I really doubt this was how The Dodgers wanted the narrative of their first championship in 32 years to unfold. Likewise, I doubt this was how MLB wanted the first World Series since the news of The Astros cheating scandal broke, to unfold.

I would agree with this.

Especially considering this overall season was delaying the inevitable to a much larger problem that is coming this off-season with players salaries.

[klw]

According to Ken Rosenthal:

The story of an inconclusive test is false. He tested positive yesterday and it was confirmed again today.


He was told not to return to the field. He insisted on returning, as did The Dodgers apparently. And no mask? My god.



Bad look for The Dodgers, bad look for MLB.

I don't see how this could be accurate. If there was a positive test the day before the game, he would have been ineligible to play. Also if the Dodgers delayed pulling him and had to be told multiple times, they would have been playing an ineligible player. If either are true, they need to be stripped of the win. Play game 7 in 3 days once two rounds of testing are complete and the Dodgers lose all draft picks next year and get huge fine.
I just think the above can't be accurate because if it is MLB is a farce and the other 29 teams would be screaming.

[Chip R]

I wonder if analytics truly would support the decision to remove Snell in the sixth.

Given the specifics of the situation, would the probabilities favor removal of the pitcher?

It's not a binary thing. It's not like he has some magic 8 ball that says "Keep Snell in" or "Remove Snell now." He probably had data which said that the splits against Snell after 2 times through the lineup and after so many pitches were higher. As they would be against most pitchers. Hell, we use those stats all the time when watching games here. So the stats probably told Cash that regardless of how Snell was pitching, there was a greater likelihood of him giving up a hit and/or a run (or two) the third time through the lineup than there wasn't. He's used those stats all year and got them to the 6th game of the World Series. Reds fans would sell their souls to the devil to just win a playoff series.

That said, what the analytics don't tell you is how Snell - or any other pitcher - is pitching at that moment. It makes sense to remove someone the 3rd time through the lineup if he's doing well but not dealing like Snell was. That's a part of analysis too. It's not just using data off a computer. That is a factor but there are other factors too. Snell was at 73 pitches and only gave up 2 hits. I'm sure Cash took that into account but he gave more credence to the other data and not as much to how Snell had done so far. I think he pulled him too early and he's got to live with that. But if he had left him in and he gave up a HR to Betts, he would have been crucified for not paying attention to the stats.

[Kc61]

It's not a binary thing. It's not like he has some magic 8 ball that says "Keep Snell in" or "Remove Snell now." He probably had data which said that the splits against Snell after 2 times through the lineup and after so many pitches were higher. As they would be against most pitchers. Hell, we use those stats all the time when watching games here. So the stats probably told Cash that regardless of how Snell was pitching, there was a greater likelihood of him giving up a hit and/or a run (or two) the third time through the lineup than there wasn't. He's used those stats all year and got them to the 6th game of the World Series. Reds fans would sell their souls to the devil to just win a playoff series.

That said, what the analytics don't tell you is how Snell - or any other pitcher - is pitching at that moment. It makes sense to remove someone the 3rd time through the lineup if he's doing well but not dealing like Snell was. That's a part of analysis too. It's not just using data off a computer. That is a factor but there are other factors too. Snell was at 73 pitches and only gave up 2 hits. I'm sure Cash took that into account but he gave more credence to the other data and not as much to how Snell had done so far. I think he pulled him too early and he's got to live with that. But if he had left him in and he gave up a HR to Betts, he would have been crucified for not paying attention to the stats.

Whole concept of analytics is to leave less to judgment; more to the probabilities which are largely calculable.

At that moment, you could calculate the probabilities of success for Snell and relievers - based on, among other things, Snell’s performance and history; reliever’ recent performances; matchups, lots of factors.

It’s impractical to perform a full analysis before every hitter. Manager relies on guidelines and patterns developed in advance. Maybe analytics would have been inconclusive, as you suggest, leaving room for judgment.

But some folks “blame” analytics for his decision. I’m not sure the analytics would have supported Cash’s call when weighing all the specifics.

[CaiGuy]

Kinda hard to dog on the Rays for an analytics-driven approach, when it's the only way they can even complete with one of the lowest revenue streams in MLB in a division with some of the highest.

If you are going to win with it sometimes, you are going to lose with it sometimes.

[Kc61]

Kinda hard to dog on the Rays for an analytics-driven approach, when it's the only way they can even complete with one of the lowest revenue streams in MLB in a division with some of the highest.

If you are going to win with it sometimes, you are going to lose with it sometimes.

Yes, and it’s hard for a manager to always get it right. Sometimes the decision-making is complex. Especially when starting pitchers are trained to go five-six innings. That lends itself to critical mid-game decisions like last night.

But overall, absolutely agree, Rays have benefitted enormously from the analytics approach and deserve credit for it.

[757690]

I don't see how this could be accurate. If there was a positive test the day before the game, he would have been ineligible to play. Also if the Dodgers delayed pulling him and had to be told multiple times, they would have been playing an ineligible player. If either are true, they need to be stripped of the win. Play game 7 in 3 days once two rounds of testing are complete and the Dodgers lose all draft picks next year and get huge fine.
I just think the above can't be accurate because if it is MLB is a farce and the other 29 teams would be screaming.

Maybe this tweet from Rosenthal clears things up:

One correction to what I said on @FS1 about Turner timeline. First result, on the test from yesterday, came back in the second inning, not in the afternoon. His test from earlier today was then expedited, and when it came back positive, he was removed from the game.

[mth123]

It's not a binary thing. It's not like he has some magic 8 ball that says "Keep Snell in" or "Remove Snell now." He probably had data which said that the splits against Snell after 2 times through the lineup and after so many pitches were higher. As they would be against most pitchers. Hell, we use those stats all the time when watching games here. So the stats probably told Cash that regardless of how Snell was pitching, there was a greater likelihood of him giving up a hit and/or a run (or two) the third time through the lineup than there wasn't. He's used those stats all year and got them to the 6th game of the World Series. Reds fans would sell their souls to the devil to just win a playoff series.

That said, what the analytics don't tell you is how Snell - or any other pitcher - is pitching at that moment. It makes sense to remove someone the 3rd time through the lineup if he's doing well but not dealing like Snell was. That's a part of analysis too. It's not just using data off a computer. That is a factor but there are other factors too. Snell was at 73 pitches and only gave up 2 hits. I'm sure Cash took that into account but he gave more credence to the other data and not as much to how Snell had done so far. I think he pulled him too early and he's got to live with that. But if he had left him in and he gave up a HR to Betts, he would have been crucified for not paying attention to the stats.

I think it's being applied like it's Binary. Has the pitcher reached the third time through the order? Yes - Remove Pitcher. No - Evaluate on other performance factors.

[Patrick Bateman]

Snell has a career 5 ERA third time through the order.

1st time is 2.25, second time 3.50.

I get the decision especially with an elite bullpen ready to come in. I was surprised at the time and wouldn't have done it myself.

Didn't work out, and on that stage it opened themselves up to a lot of public scrutiny. But Tampa has been doing stuff two steps ahead of everyone else for years that "looked bad" and were unconventional at the time before they were early adopted. These are the margins that helped them get where they are and consistently perform well with a tight payroll.

Its kind of fascinating. It's against the romance of baseball. It's ugly. But it is borne out of pure logic, and I think they have earned the credit to be doing stuff like this and not be considered idiotic for it. They may be absolute robot decision makers, but idiotic, they are not.

[RichRed]

They should send a mock Hall of Fame plaque of Betts wearing a Dodgers cap.

Recycling a post I made in March:

Every 34 years like clockwork, the Red Sox get burned by a Mookie.

[M2]

Snell has a career 5 ERA third time through the order.

1st time is 2.25, second time 3.50.

I get the decision especially with an elite bullpen ready to come in. I was surprised at the time and wouldn't have done it myself.

Didn't work out, and on that stage it opened themselves up to a lot of public scrutiny. But Tampa has been doing stuff two steps ahead of everyone else for years that "looked bad" and were unconventional at the time before they were early adopted. These are the margins that helped them get where they are and consistently perform well with a tight payroll.

Its kind of fascinating. It's against the romance of baseball. It's ugly. But it is borne out of pure logic, and I think they have earned the credit to be doing stuff like this and not be considered idiotic for it. They may be absolute robot decision makers, but idiotic, they are not.

And, I will note again that the Dodgers hadn't been shut out in 2020. No matter what pitching decisions Cash made, the Dodgers were going to put up some runs. I don't think there was a path to a 1-0 final result.

[Boston Red]

And, I will note again that the Dodgers hadn't been shut out in 2020. No matter what pitching decisions Cash made, the Dodgers were going to put up some runs. I don't think there was a path to a 1-0 final result.

Well, there's certainly could have been a path to a 1-1 result. That keeps it going.

[Chip R]

I think it's being applied like it's Binary. Has the pitcher reached the third time through the order? Yes - Remove Pitcher. No - Evaluate on other performance factors.

That would only hold water if it applied to every other starting pitcher on the Rays. Glasnow has gone 7 twice this season and 6 twice. To be fair to Cash, Snell hasn't gone more than 5.2 innings in any start this season. But he's also faced 22 batters twice, 23 once and 24 once. So he doesn't always pull Snell after 18 batters. Ultimately it's the manager who has to use the data given him and make the choice whether to pull him or not. Not some IPad or smartphone. I haven't seen the data but I'm fairly sure that the data doesn't say it's 100% certain that Snell should be pulled in that situation. And it wouldn't say that anyway. It would say that Snell's stats are worse after so many batters faced after so many innings pitched.

[The Operator]

Why go to Nick Anderson, though?

He hadn’t made a scoreless appearance the entire World Series.