Poor Kevin Cash

[757690]

The blackjack analogy is non sensical because there wasn’t an extreme pay off by leaving in Snell for a few batters. It’s not like if you all of a sudden go all in at the blackjack table and double your money on one hand (ie Snell getting two more outs is not worth 4 outs).

Baseball is not black jack. The best chance of winning is to consistently play the odds so as to increase your probabilities as much as you can.

It’s a 7 game series. Tampa was absolutely capable of beating them in that time period probably 40 percent of the time. Taking extreme, unsupported risks to go from 40 to 30 is a silly strategy even if it could theoretically work.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No analogy is perfect, but you’ve got the blackjack scenario all wrong. Taking risks doesn’t mean going all in, ever, it means doubling down with hard 12, or splitting tens, or not hitting a soft 17. Going off book and hoping you get lucky. The reason why you do is that you are almost definitely going to lose if you stick by the book over the long haul.

Anyway, it’s clear you and your dad are committed to sticking to playing by the book, sticking to the chart, believing in the odds to the bitter end.

I disagree. In the postseason, in my opinion, in a short series, the odds mean little. What matters is getting this very decision correct, right now. That means going off book every now and then, taking a risk, going against the odds and hoping you get lucky. We all know that luck already will play a big role in deciding who wins in the playoffs, so you mights as well embrace it, and just go with it.

[Patrick Bateman]

It’s not about blindly sticking to the book.

It’s about positioning yourself for the most likely outcome of getting a decision right. We are both trying to get the decision right, and you haven’t offered one slice of evidence that your methodology does that other than basically admitting that you aren’t willing to consider any evidence.

To me it’s very simple:

-Snell started showing a decline of velocity
-he showed a decline in velocity when he normally does based on how he has been conditioned
-analytically, when he starts losing his velocity at this time he demonstrates declining results especially when batters have seen him for the 3rd time

Why in this situation would he magically be expected to reverse his career trends?

Btw, the whole blackjack analogy is literally just about shortening the sample size. When I’m bored at the table and either want to walk out with quick money or nothing, I just double down and have like a 45 percent chance of winning, and in my experience has actually worked. It’s a flawed analogy because the World Series has already been shortened, and doesn’t require decisions against the odds to decrease the time on the clock. All you are doing in making decisions that admit may not be in the best of odds is getting your odds down to 38 from 40, and then confusing the potential outcome as relating to that decision, rather than getting even luckier than you needed to get the positive outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Patrick Bateman]

you guys are doing a not-so-admirable job of defending the worst decision we've been by a manager in a deciding game of the world series since ... hell, i don't even know when.

it was an amazingly-bad decision. you have your ace dominating, it's only the 6th inning, he's only thrown 73 pitches ... and you pull him after giving up a bloop hit? just atrociously bad on kevin cash's part.

You are trolling, and respectfully, doing a not so admirable job on that. Although it’s kind of funny, a better troll makes it less obvious (the fcb method - lol!!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[757690]

It’s not about blindly sticking to the book.

It’s about positioning yourself for the most likely outcome of getting a decision right. We are both trying to get the decision right, and you haven’t offered one slice of evidence that your methodology does that other than basically admitting that you aren’t willing to consider any evidence.

To me it’s very simple:

-Snell started showing a decline of velocity
-he showed a decline in velocity when he normally does based on how he has been conditioned
-analytically, when he starts losing his velocity at this time he demonstrates declining results especially when batters have seen him for the 3rd time

Why in this situation would he magically be expected to reverse his career trends?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I absolutely have considered all the evidence, and I made clear from the beginning that the evidence was inconclusive. There were good reasons to pull Snell, his loss of velocity being a big one, and there were good reasons to keep him in, the fact that he was dominating the Dodgers and had struck out Betts twice already in the game being big ones there. There is more on both sides, but it all has been debated too much already.

You keep touting the analytics, but the analytics were not decisive on this matter, they only made the decision muddier. In my opinion, it was a coin flip, like most tough managerial decisions are. I have said I don’t fault Cash for taking Snell out. I fault Cash for taking Snell out because, “that was the plan.” Snell was never going to face the Dodger lineup a third time, no matter what, because that was the plan. That is what I find upsetting.

[Patrick Bateman]

I personally think it was a coin flip too, and wouldn’t have necessarily taken him out when they did depending on who the available options were, and the analytics support that Snell was on the cusp of a decline, to what degree we aren’t sure.

I extremely disagree with the notion that this was a horrendous decision, and that analytics have no place in the decision that was made (which is what a lot of people, not you, have suggested and brought national attention to).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[PuffyPig]

I’ll use another gambling analogy. In blackjack, if you play the odds perfectly, you will still lose in the long run, because the house has a built in advantage. The only way to win big is take risks, go against the book every now and then, and hope you get lucky..

The blackjack odds are slightly in favour of the house, that is true.

But you think the best way to beat those odds is to do things that actually increase the house’s odds?

I have absolutely stunned that you would say that. Winning by purposely deceasing your odds. That is laughable at best.

The way to win at blackjack is the play the odds perfectly and win quickly in a small sample size. And then leave. Decreasing your odds is never a smart idea.

Are you saying that taking Snell out was actually smart if you were playing the odds correctly? Because that’s not what you were saying originally. Or at least I didn’t think so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[757690]

The blackjack odds are slightly in favour of the house, that is true.

But you think the best way to beat those odds is to do things that actually increase the house’s odds?

I have absolutely stunned that you would say that. Winning by purposely deceasing your odds. That is laughable at best.

The way to win at blackjack is the play the odds perfectly and win quickly in a small sample size. And then leave. Decreasing your odds is never a smart idea.

Are you saying that taking Snell out was actually smart if you were playing the odds correctly? Because that’s not what you were saying originally. Or at least I didn’t think so.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Well, the best way to win at blackjack is to never play, lol.

But if you are to play, playing by the odds is a fools errand. There is a reason why the casinos sell cards that tell you how to play by the book. Your only chance is to get lucky, period, no matter how long you play. Taking high reward risks are the best way to get lucky, that means going against the book every now and then.

The key is how much you bet and when you make bold moves like doubling down and splitting. If you play by the odds, and bet the same every time, you will lose. Talk to any professional gambler, that is how they play blackjack (though most never do, because they know it’s a loser overall). No professional gambler plays blackjack according to the book, if they play. It’s the same with craps. You make bold moves and hope you get lucky.

As for Snell, you get getting stuck on the odds. My point is that the odds matter little in a short series and especially in an elimination game. What matters is making the right decision right there, not playing the odds over a long haul. You don’t ignore the odds, but you shouldn’t be a slave to them either. You need to make bold moves, and hope you get lucky. After all, we all know that in the playoffs, luck plays a huge role. Playing the odds strictly ignores the power that the odds have in a short series.

[PuffyPig]

But if you are to play, playing by the odds is a fools errand. There is a reason why the casinos sell cards that tell you how to play by the book. Your only chance is to get lucky, period, no matter how long you play. Taking high reward risks are the best way to get lucky, that means going against the book every now and then.

The key is how much you bet and when you make bold moves like doubling down and splitting. If you play by the odds, and bet the same every time, you will lose. Talk to any professional gambler, that is how they play blackjack (though most never do, because they know it’s a loser overall). No professional gambler plays blackjack according to the book, if they play. It’s the same with craps. You make bold moves and hope you get lucky.

.

It easier to get lucky the closer you play the odds.

Going against the odds and hoping you get lucky is a fools errand.

Bold moves, meaning going against the odds, is another phrase for stupid moves. If you double down in a situation where the odds do not favour you, you may vocally it bold, but it’s actually stupid.

Your best chance to beat the dealer is to play the odds and win in a relatively short time, and then quit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[757690]

It easier to get lucky the closer you play the odds.

Going against the odds and hoping you get lucky is a fools errand.

Bold moves, meaning going against the odds, is another phrase for stupid moves. If you double down in a situation where the odds do not favour you, you may vocally it bold, but it’s actually stupid.

Your best chance to beat the dealer is to play the odds and win in a relatively short time, and then quit.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You’re defining anytime anyone goes against the odds as stupid. I’m trying to provide examples when it’s is not stupid, but actually wise. It’s a fundamental difference that no debate will solve. Anyway, it was a fun and healthy debate.

[PuffyPig]

You’re defining anytime anyone goes against the odds as stupid. I’m trying to provide examples when it’s is not stupid, but actually wise. It’s a fundamental difference that no debate will solve. Anyway, it was a fun and healthy debate.

By definition, going against the odds lowers your chance of success.

What you should be arguing is that sometimes the apparent odds are not accurate, and going in another direction actually increases your chance of success. But in that case, you are still going with the odds.

For your argument to make sense, you need to argue that Snell in fact had a better chance of success than bringing in a reliever. That's a truly debatable point. But you seem to have accepted that taking out Snell was within the best odds, but that he should have remained in because for Tampa to win they had to take a chance on something that would likely have less of a chance of success.

Patrick Bateman and I feel that leaving Snell in was certainly a debatable point, but that there were real reasons for removing him. Out view is that taking hij out was consistent with how cash has managed all season. Switching that up and going with a lower percentage choice makes zero sense, if you believed it was a lower percentage chance.

[JFLegal]

You are trolling, and respectfully, doing a not so admirable job on that. Although it’s kind of funny, a better troll makes it less obvious (the fcb method - lol!!).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

definitely not trolling, champ. that was as bad of a managerial decision as you will ever see ... and we root for a team managed by david bell.

i mean, i would love to even be in a game 6 of a world series to see bell mess up that bad. but just because kevin cash is a good overall manager doesn't mean he didn't crap the bed with his decision to pull snell.

[757690]

By definition, going against the odds lowers your chance of success.

What you should be arguing is that sometimes the apparent odds are not accurate, and going in another direction actually increases your chance of success. But in that case, you are still going with the odds.

For your argument to make sense, you need to argue that Snell in fact had a better chance of success than bringing in a reliever. That's a truly debatable point. But you seem to have accepted that taking out Snell was within the best odds, but that he should have remained in because for Tampa to win they had to take a chance on something that would likely have less of a chance of success.

Patrick Bateman and I feel that leaving Snell in was certainly a debatable point, but that there were real reasons for removing him. Out view is that taking hij out was consistent with how cash has managed all season. Switching that up and going with a lower percentage choice makes zero sense, if you believed it was a lower percentage chance.

When you are speaking of odds in baseball, it is not the same as talking odds in blackjack, or craps, or roulette. In the latter, there are absolute fixed odds that we know with certainty, that never change. In the former, there are no real odds, just guesstimates based on previous performance. And while previous performance has shown some predictability of future performance, it’s still rather vague and not very precise. It is even less precises when it comes to pitchers.

We don’t really know what the odds are. We have rough guesses. The charts that teams use don’t tell the odds of what will happen, they tell us what has happened, and we then use logic and reason to make the best guess possible of what we think might happen next.

So we can’t really say taking Snell out gave the Rays the best odds or leaving him in gave the best odds. All we can do is guess what might happen in either instance. And in this case, it was anyone’s guess what would happen next in either instance. The debate in this thread is proof of that.

That’s why going off the chart isn’t as radical and stupid as you are making it to be. The “odds” from the chart are not absolute, they are just best guesses. So deviating from them doesn’t mean that I am going with lower odds, because the odds don’t really exist. It just means I interpret the information differently, and come to a different conclusion.

[M2]

that was as bad of a managerial decision as you will ever see

That was about as immaterial a decision as you'll see a manager make. Should he pull his SP after 5.1 or 6 IP in a game where his offense is only going to give him 1 run and the opposing team has a death-and-taxes offense? His sunflower seeds or gum decision was roughly as impactful.

[dougdirt]

that was as bad of a managerial decision as you will ever see ... and we root for a team managed by david bell.

The moment was huge. The decision itself? Man, how long have you been watching baseball if you think that was as bad of a decision as you'll ever see?

The Cincinnati Reds let Bronson Arroyo throw 83 MPH fastballs to professional hitters for half of a season 3 years ago while getting his brains beat in.

Norris Hopper and Juan Castro were asked to pinch hit for Josh Hamilton at times in 2007.

Aaron Harang, the week of May 22nd through May 29th of 2008.

I'm not going to keep going, but you get my point.

[757690]

That was about as immaterial a decision as you'll see a manager make. Should he pull his SP after 5.1 or 6 IP in a game where his offense is only going to give him 1 run and the opposing team has a death-and-taxes offense? His sunflower seeds or gum decision was roughly as impactful.

You keep pushing this narrative and it’s one of your few really poor takes.

If the Rays were as doomed as you like to portray, then why even play the game? Or even the World Series?

The Rays had just pulled off one of the greatest comebacks in World Series history days before. It easily could have happened again. A team should never assume that the other team will eventually outscore them, so it’s meaningless to even try. Keeping the other team scoreless in the sixth inning of an elimination World Series game is about as essential and important as one gets.

This was a monumental decision for the Rays, and Cash made a decision that didn’t work. That, at least, needs to be recognized.