THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

You could make the same argument today about the Indians’ usage of Rafael Perez, their best LH reliever with a six and then an eight run lead. Also, they’re currently using Jensen Lewis with an eight run lead, as well. Lewis isn’t one of their best guys, but that’s a spot for your worst guy (Tom Mastny).

My first thought was Wedge wanted to let his young relievers have some taste of playoffs.

But after I found Perez pitched 31(!) pitches, that’s totally indefensible.

At least the Indians weren’t using Betencourt.

Yes, I wondered about Perez as well.  I think that some of the managers think that these games are so important, they don’t want to give the other team any chance of coming back.  IOW, if they should ever blow a large lead (which can and will eventually happen, they will get lambasted for letting “so-and-so” pitch.

That is a meritless argument of course, as they are way overestimating their opponents’ chances of coming back, Yankees, or what have you.

What about bringing Valverde to close in the 9th with a 4-run lead and a WE close to 99%? Did they need THAT much insurance? Or does having Fontenot-Soriano-Theriot coming up plus a day off tomorrow justify it?

What about Charley Manuel bringing in Lohse with the bases loaded? It seems to me, and this is based on “gut” feeling, not actual empirical analysis, that it’s a mistake to put a pitcher who is accustmed to starting into a situation like that. He’s accustomed to taking a little while to figure out which of his pitches are working, how the ump is calling balls and strikes, etc. A pitcher who is accustomed to coming into tough situations would have a different approach. He would come in prepared to go right after the guy at the plate. Some guys might have difficulty making the adjustment. Given the critical nature of the game, it seems to me that Manuel should have brought in someone, perhaps even Myers, to finish the inning, then brought in Lohse to start the next inning.

I agree with you about bringing Fuentes in in the first place, but I thought the move to Corpas in the 8th with the bases-loaded and two outs was necessary.  The top of the Phillies order was only two batters away, and you want to slam the door before you get there.  I think that was a critical game situation at that point, and the chances of winning were no longer 99% with any old scrub on the mound.

Perhaps Corpas should have been removed for the ninth, but at that point Hurdle was probably concerned that with the top of the Phillies’ order coming up in the ninth he would have no one left to bail them out if they started threatening again.  With that lineup, in that park, I think that was at least understandable if not necessarily correct. 

I did notice the comment about the outfielders playing deep for Howard, and I had the same reaction as you.  Note that the announcers seemed to approve of the idea—they didn’t go on about it, but the tone seemed to acknowledge that the positioning was logical.

I can’t fault any of these managers for using their best pitchers in any situation that has come up so far.  These games are that important.  I don’t care what the odds say, if the Angels were up by 4 on the Red Sox I would not want to see Dustin Mosely in there.

Keep in mind this is not the regular season, there is virtually no cost to using these pitchers.  Some of these relief pitchers have had almost a week’s worth of rest, and with all the off days in there, they’ll be there if you need them for the next game.

Tonight I want to see an inning out of K-Rod no matter what the score is.  He’s already on 6 days rest, and K-Rod gets rusty when he’s not used, and a rusty K-Rod is wild.

I generally agree with Rally on the bullpen usage.  I’d be happy in those “blowout” type of situations where a reliever would come in for 15-20 pitches (an inning’s worth).  With all the off-days, you can certainly afford it, and in fact, as Rally points out, you can’t NOT afford to do it (or is it that you can’t afford NOT to do it?).

Back-to-back games with guaranteed days off bookended on both sides that is fone for me.  And any day off tomorrow means I want my top relievers today, regardless of the game situation.

I also thought the move to bring Corpas in with 2 outs in the 8th inning was justifiable.  The leverage index was spiking, even if the win expectancy was pretty low for the Phillies.  As far as using him in the 9th inning?  Well, he only threw 2 pitches in the 8th.  There was no more Fuentes or Corpas available if whoever you bring in gets into trouble, and it is the Phillies offense we are talking about.  On top of that friday is an off day for the Rockies, so Fuentes and Corpas should each be able to pitch their usual one inning on saturday evening if need be.  But I have to agree that some of the moves that Hurdle makes are puzzling, though most of them have been paying off of late.  Go figure!

vr, Xeifrank

I don’t like using Corpas in the 9th.  The whole point of not using him is that the chances of anyone getting in trouble are near zero.

And using Perez for 31 pitches is puzzling.  I am not sure he can throw tonight.

The Zambrano pull in game 1 is still getting discussed here in Chicago, and has been the subject of much debate in the local media, so I’ll give my 2 cents.

A move can be evaluated on an absolute basis, or relative to the manager’s own thought process. By the former, I don’t have a problem, given who the reliever was, and the point in the game. But by the latter, I think Lou goofed.

Piniella clearly stated, before the game, that he would like to leave Zambrano in for 100-105 pitches. That was his reasoned solution to the combination of Carlos’ own good endurance, and the intention to bring him back on short rest. He also stated that they expected this to take 6 innings (obviously he is aware that Zambrano has spotty control). But at the actual moment, Big Z was pitching well, and Lou/Rothchild had 2 pieces of information--6 innings and 85 pitches.

I think they ‘panicked’, forgot that the essential info is pitches, not innings, and pulled Zambrano before he really needed to come out.

It all depends on whether their initial determination of 100-105 pitches for Zambrano was correct. If it was, then I think Lou blundered.

It was just said on the Fox broadcast that Kenny Lofton starts tonight because he played well last night. It doesn’t matter whether that’s the right idea or not (I suspect it’s not), that rationale is insane. It’s been pointed out on this blog often how baseball people do not properly understand sample size and this is the ultimate example of that. ONE GAME worth of performance altering a manager’s decision making.

Wedge is making a lot of mistakes here. The decision to hit Asdrubal Cabrera second is awful as he’s the worst hitter in the lineup. The bunt by Jason Michaels was a very poor decision. Pinch hitting Gutierrez for Michaels to face Chamberlain was also foolish as Gutierrez has a platoon disadvantage, the pinch hitting penalty described in The Book and is not all that good of a hitter to begin with. Subjectively, he’s not a good match for Chamberlain as he’s a very aggressive and Chamberlain lives on getting guys to chase out of the zone. The right decision there would be to either let Michaels hit or pinch hit lefty Trot Nixon. Neither would be desirable but better than Gutierrez.

It was not the bunt per se of Michaels but the fact that Wedge bunts (at least he did in this game) in every single bunt situation late in a game.  As I discuss ad nauseum in The Book, the ONLY value of the bunt is when the opposing manager does not know you are going to do it every time.  That is why bunt attempts are so much more successful earlier in the game, because the defense is not sure you are going to bunt and cannot play so aggressively in.  If the defense, especially with a runner on second, is going to play very aggressively, you almost have to NOT bunt, which is why you CANNOT bunt a lot or a little.  You have to use game theory to force the defense into being agnostic.

I agree that the pinch hit by Guttierez was pretty strange (and probably foolish).

Other than that, and even though the Indians eventually won the game, I did not think that the Indians’ hitters were very smart in their hitting approach versus Pettitte.  You have to give fault to Wedge and the hitting coach for that.  Pettitte did not mix up his pitches (randomize) very well, but why should he when the (RH) Indians kept swinging at the off-speed stuff (cutter and slider) under the hands (almost every time he got ahead in the count) and were not adjusting to the fact that Pettitte threw almost exclusively inside, also to the right handers. 

A pitcher should never be “allowed” by the hitters to throw in the same location (more or less) all the time and to throw the same pitches in the same counts (more or less), unless that is all they throw and/or they have nasty stuff (like Carmona).

And speaking of Cabrera batting second, I am not sure Varitek should be batting anything but 8th or 9th in the BoSox lineup.  I have watched him for months now, and he looks horrible.  Everyone throws him high and away fastballs and low and inside off-speed stuff now.  He has no eye and no bat speed.  I don’t know if it is my eye and mind playing tricks on me (as we, as analysys always say, the mind is aterrible processor of information, especially when it tries to process piecemeal observational data), but Varitek just seems like almost and automatic out now and rarely has a good AB.  I have a feeling it is a combination of age and a catcher being exhausted at the end of the season.  He actallu didn’t have a bad season, lwts-wise, after a very poor one last year.  Maybe this season was his last hurrah and last year is closer to (and actually better than) his present true talent and that going forward.

And how silly is it to say how great a pitcher Pettitte is because he never allowed the multitude of runners HE put on base to score?  If he can do that at will (which is what the announcers are implying), then why is he allowing them on base in the first place?  And why does he not do that all or even much of the time (not allow baserunners to score at the usual percentage (I assume he does not)?

Sure he pitched well, but to me a much better gauge of how a pitcher pitched is his component ERA.  I’m not saying that Pettitte’s was bad, but it sure wasn’t better than Carmona’s.  Carmona pitched brilliantly.  Was it Pettitte’s doing that Hafner ripped a line drive right into the first baseman’s glove with Hafner on third base and one out?  Etc.

It is amazing how announcers attribute the vagaries, bounces, umpire calls, and all other nuances of a game to heart, desire, character, skill, etc.  I’m sure that there is plenty of that going on in a baseball game, but maybe it is just me, but damned if I can tell which players or teams have more heart and character than others…

Re: Varitek

Would you want Lugo or Crisp moved up to 7th?  He’s still probably more dangerous than they are. I think they bat Crisp and Lugo in the 8-9 spots because, first of all, they are the worst 2 hitters in the lneup, and because as the base stealers, they hit in front of Pedroia and Youkilis, probably the two hitters most likely to hit singles.

Meanwhile, the top two hitters are ideal for hitting 1-2 in this lineup, they get on base a lot but don’t run too much, as stealing bases is less valuable when you are followed by the big power threats.

I can’t stand them at all but its a well constructed lineup.

I guess the lineup is probably fine.  Lugo and Crisp are pretty bad hitters - probably worse than Varitek, even now.

I was just wondering mostly what some smart people thought about Varitek.  As I said, I don’t normally put much stock in watching players (and then trying to figure out a hitting projection), but he sure seems like almost an automatic out to me.

In toady’s Cub/ARI game, the bad, lefty hitter, Montero, starting against a tough lefty pitcher, Hill, because he is Livan Hernandez’ personal catcher?  I can see if it is Greg Maddux (who used to have some bad-hit personal catchers), but Livan Hernandez?  He stinks no matter who catches him!

If I run the difference between Montero and Snyder in my sim, it is .16 runs and 1.8% in win expectancy, not a trivial amount.  I suppose that with Montero, Livan could make up that .16 runs (in his ERA), but…

We’ve all seen this a million times.  In the game today, Floyd gets hit in the leg by a pitch and is awarded first base.  He clearly makes no attempt to get out of the way.  According to the rules he should NOT be awarded first under any circumstance.  There is no option or discrection by the umpire, other than to determine whether the batter made an attempt to get out of the way.  In this (Floyd) case and many others, the batter clearly makes no attempt to get out of the way.

The rule as written is:

The batter becomes a runner and is entitled to first base without liability to be put out (provided he advances to and touches first base) when --
(b) He is touched by a pitched ball which he is not attempting to hit unless (1) The ball is in the strike zone when it touches the batter, or (2) The batter makes no attempt to avoid being touched by the ball;
If the ball is outside the strike zone when it touches the batter, it shall be called a ball if he makes no attempt to avoid being touched.

As you can see, the rule is clear and unambiguous.  In many cases, the batter should NOT be awarded first base when hit by a pitch out of the strike zone.  You rarely see this invoked though, and you rarely see the fielding team’s manager say anything if it is not invoked, unless the batter obviously and deliberately gets in the way of a pitch.

Now, I am NOT advocating that the umpires should start enforcing the rule.  That would be a quagmire.  I AM, however, advocating that MLB makes a simple rule change.

Batter’s will often get hit by a pitch and NOT make ANY attempt to get out of the way, for the following reasons:

1) They did not have time
2) They did not think or were not sure they were going to be hit.
3) They do not care if they get hit, especially on a slow pitch.
4) The definitely want to get hit in a crucial situation where a baserunner is important.

None of these cases are an exception to the rule - not even the first one, which obviously should be.  With Floyd today, it was probably a combination of 2 and 3.

I am simply advocating that the rule be changed to:

If, in the opinion of the umpire, the batter makes no reasonable attempt to get out of the way, and could have, the umpire MAY call the pitch a ball and the batter shall not be awarded first base.

Or something like that.

Funny (silly, stupid) things that announcers say:

Joe Simpson

Regarding Manuel’s lifting of Kendrick and brining in of Lohse with the bases loaded and not outs in game one (of which I have no opinion one way or another):

Lauding Manuel because when asked about it, he said something like, “It was my decision, and I thought I made the right one.”

What is the alternative?

“I didn’t make the decision.  The ball boy did.  If you have a problem, go talk to him!”

“I made the decision, and I knew it was wrong.  So why are you criticizing me now?  I was right (that it was wrong), wasn’t I.”

When Philly brought in Romero, he pointed to his .130 BA against this year and said, “And that is no fluke.” Romero promptly let up 3 hits in a row and was taken out of the game.”

In his defense, I think he meant, “That is no misprint,” or something like that.  Maybe.  At least as compared to the misprint (at least TBS’ second one that I saw) on Jimenez’ line when he left the game (the graphic said 5 hits and it should have been 3).

Someone above mentioned that batting Cabrera second was bad, and I agree.  I had to look up the current projections for their entire lineup, and he is easily the worst hitter in the lineup and should probably be batting 9th.  It is probably not a big deal though.

If I break out my sim and switch him with Guttierez versus a lefty like Pettitte, and bat Blake 8th and Cabrera 9th, CLE wins .7% LESS often, further evidence that lineup construction is NOT a big deal AND that it is tricky to figure out who bats where.

If I move Lofton into the #2 hole (he was in the 7th hole in the previous lineups) and bat Blake, Gutierrez, and Cabrera 7, 8, and 9, they win around the same.

Versus a RHP, like Clemens, with Cabrera batting 2nd versus him batting 8th or 9th, again, the Indians do a lot better (over 1%) with him batting 2nd.  One reason is probably that since he is a switch hitter, he may be better versus a RHP than Blake or even Peralta.

So I take back what I said above that he should probably be batting 8th or 9th.

"And how silly is it to say how great a pitcher Pettitte is because he never allowed the multitude of runners HE put on base to score?”

I agree with this point re: Pettitte, whose career strand rate is only slightly above average (about what you’d expect for a pitcher of his ability).  However, I think Livan H. may be someone who does have this ability, as illustrated in his 11 baserunners/6 IP/1 run performance last night.  Over the last 5 years, Livan has pretty consistently outperformed his FIP while posting only lg-avg BABIP:
FIP/ERA
2003 4.04 3.20
2004 4.16 3.60
2005 4.51 3.98
2006 4.90 4.83
2007 5.73 4.93

On average, he’s over .5 R/G better than his FIP, and that’s with a very low K-Rate.  I think Livan walks a lot of good hitters strategically, such that his BB-rate hurts him less than it “should.” And he induces a lot of DPs (Cubs hit into 4 last nite), which helps a lot too.

Pet peeve:  GDP is rarely included in pitchers’ stats, when it can be quite important in their performance.  You won’t find it at B-Ref or THT, or on B-Pro player pages (you will find out how many DPs a pitcher hit into, but not how many he induced!).  I understand space is limited for all these sites, but I can’t see using columns to show balks or WPs while leaving out the vastly more important GDP.  Perhaps this is another insidious influence of DIPS orthodoxy, or just an oversight, but either way I wish more sites would make GDP info easy to access.

Interesting, Guy.  Watching Livan pitch, it is not hard to imagine that he has a skill to outperform his component or DIPS ERA.

I agree that GDP (and wp) should be routinely included in a pitcher’s stats.  But in an FIP type of stats, only to the extent their ground ball and baserunner rates suggest.

Also, a pitcher’s ability to keep (or not) baserunners from stealing is part of their overall skill set.  You hardly ever see that included in anything.  That is especially true for left-handers.  There are a few pitchers who are so easy to steal against, it is ridiculous.  Almost every single or walk is a double.  Like Papelbon.

I like Nate Silver’s QuikERA more than DIPS ERA. It substitutes GB rate for HR rate which is correct for two reasons. Firstly, research done by the Hardball Times indicates that pitchers have little to no control over what percentage of fly balls become home runs. Secondly, GB rate helps account for the absence of GDP which, as illustrated above, is a small exclusion in DIPS. I have not done any tests to compare the accuracy of the two statistics, but QERA seems intuitively superior.

Fly ball rate as a proxy for home runs is bad.  “Little or no” control over HR/FB rate is a bad choice of phrases (I know it is not your phrase, Phil).

I sort of misrepresented what THT2007 actually reported. Here’s an exact quote: “Pitchers clearly have some, though not much, impact on the numbers of home runs they allow per OF fly. What this means is that we should pay attention to the numbers of home runs a pitcher allows per FB, but with one year of data, we should be wary of pitchers with highly unusual numbers of HR/fly” (159).

So, what we should do is regress a pitchers HR/FB number to the mean some, thus allowing for some variance from pitcher to pitcher, no?

The run value per GB and per non-HR FB is virtually identical.

***

Guy/GIDP, it’s here:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/psplit.cgi?n1=hernali01

You should note that the “split” pages on b-r.com are derived from Retrosheet data, while the “main” pages are derived from the Lahman database (mostly).  Eventually, Sean will probably synch the two up.  Until then, I find going to the “split” (career) pages much better, as you get the pitcher’s stats in “batting line” format.

How we would determine whether some pitchers excel at stranding runners is an interesting question.  Livan has averaged about 76% the last 5 seasons, vs. lg avg of 71%.  Given that he has been roughly average in BABIP, Ks, and HR over that span, it seems pretty clear he’s doing something different (or has been VERY lucky).  But calculating a pitcher’s expected strand rate would be tricky, since it needs to account both for baserunners’ starting place and likelihood of advancement, given that pitcher’s general performance metrics.  Perhaps this is one place where a regression model would be helpful, modeling strand rate based on K, HR, BABIP, BB, SB%, and GB%. 

Has anyone researched this issue?  I have a vague sense that THT did something on this.....

Tango/27:  thanks, that’s helpful. But I would still argue that the failure to post GDP #s on most stats sites reflects a tendency to underestimate their importance.  The run value is huge (more than 2 random outs), and while the fielders of course play a role pitchers also do vary a lot here if only because of GB/FB ratio.

Pitchers’ GIDP also can be found at THT under basic pitching stats, hiding under the column header “DP.”

Pitchers’ GIDP are also available at some mainstream sites like ESPN and Foxsports (and CNNSI as well, though hidden under situational splits, so not integrated with the rest of the stat line).

Thanks, Joe.  My bad—must have been looking only at the “THT stats” page.  Surprised Studes didn’t correct me first.

Tango is right.  Since GB and FB outs are worth the same, it doesn’t matter whehter a pitcher is a GB pitcher or not.  If you are interested in past value, then yes, a pitcher’s GIDP are important.  If you are interested in estimating true talent or performance going forward, it means nothing and you don’t need it (unless some pitchers have an ability to induce GB when they need it, over and above their GB rate).

As far as pitcher’s strand rates or ability to pitcher better (or worse) than a component ERA suggests, like anything else, first you have to figure out if it is a skill or not (what the regression equation or regression rate looks like given X opps) and THEN you can take a pitcher’s difference and regress it appropriately.  With these things, many people make the mistake of looking at individual players and say, “Look how much he deviated from the norm - it must be skill and not luck.” That is not the way it works.  First we determine the amount of skill in the population, then, if there is any, we take each player’s deviation from the norm and assign X amount to luck and x amount to skill.  If there is NOT skill to speak of in the population, then we ignore (assign all to luck, and rightfully so) ANY deviation no matter how large (because in any population, given enough players, there will be large deviations by chance alone).  Figuring out what percentage of any deviation from the norm is luck and what is skill is a function of two things:  One, the number of opps (size of the sample) and two, the spread (amount) of skill in the population.  If there is ANY skill in the population, no matter how small, the regression will approach 0 as the sample size gets larger (if the skill is small, the approach will be slow). If there is no skill in the population, the regression will be 100% no matter how large the sample.

MGL: “...it doesn’t matter whehter a pitcher is a GB pitcher or not.  “

Just in case others may take this out of context: it doesn’t matter, insofar as GB and FB on fieldable balls.  But, the chance of giving up a HR on a GB is zero, and on a FB is about 10%.

So, if all you know is that the pitcher is a GB (Webb) or FB (Santana) pitcher, then you have to conclude that the GB pitcher is better than the FB pitcher, on average. 

Just be careful with the context of MGL’s statement.

Guy/28: re Strand Rate.

Two things.  One, I posted this at baseball-fever:

LOB% will be something close to:
IP*3/TBP
with maybe some corrector factor for all pitchers.

For example, here are the LOB% on Fangraphs, and my quick estimator in parens:
Peavy 78.3% (74.6%)
Beckett 75.2% (73.2%)
CC 74.1% (74.2%)
Marquis 67.7% (68.0%)

For a quick estimator, it does a decent job. Probably much better for careers.

The logic behind this is the following: the % of baserunners that score is roughly in-line with the % of batters that get on base. And IP*3/TBF is roughly 1 minus OBP.

Support for the relationship can be found here:
http://www.tangotiger.net/markov.html

Change 37 to something else, like 57. In that case, you have almost 2 runs scoring, with a .230 OBP (which itself implies 8 guys reaching base). So, the percentage of runners scoring is 25%, meaning 75% left on base.

Change 37 to 24, and you have an OBP of .500 (27 guys reaching base), with 14 runs scored. 14/27=52% runners scoring, and 48% left on base.

Secondly, as noted at the end of the above quote, the Markov calculator would be an easy way to figure out the “strand rate” based on changing the various inputs.  Just remember that number of PA = 27/(1-OBP)
the score rate is runs / (OBP*PA)
and the strand rate is 1 - score rate

Maybe next time I update that Markov program, I’ll display these values.

(unless some pitchers have an ability to induce GB when they need it, over and above their GB rate).

It’d be interesting to see what the PITCHf/x guys have to say about this.  Intuitively it seems plausible.

MGL:  Well, sure:  someone should do the definitive study to determine whether stranding runners is a discrete skill.  It’s a pretty complicated study, since there clearly are real differences reflecting general pitching ability (we expect Peavy or Oswalt to allow fewer runners to score, and they do).  But in the meantime, is your point that it’s impermissible to speculate that certain pitchers may have such skill?  I disagree.  It’s often our interest in a few players or teams that then leads to broader investigations.  With 1460 baserunners over the past 5 seasons, Livan is about 4 SDs above average in stranding runners, while none of his peripherals indicate he should be above average.  Could that be luck?  Sure it could (as I said).  But there’s a non-trivial chance it’s some kind of skill or strategy at work.  To me, that’s interesting (w/o “proving” anything).

Tango/34:  neat formula.  Using that, Livan “should” have been 70% (69.8) over past 5 seasons, rather than 76%.

I used a simple base runs pitcher formula on L Herandez (thru 2006). He has allowed about 91% of the baserunners to score than he was “supposed” to. Over that number of seasons (10 or so?), this seems like a surprising variation.

Of course, the formula only includes H, BB, HR, and IP. Also, it says nothing about whether he just happens to be the outlier that would be expected due to chance.

Should we assume that something is luck other than skill, when we have not done the analysis to show how much skill there is in the population?  It depends on what it is.  As I said, all of these things are Bayesian probabilities, with often the “a priori” probabilities based on common sense.  For example, do we need to do an analysis to figure out whether player performance on odd/even days is a skill, if we find one or a few players that have large variations from the norm?  No.  We could, just to make sure, but we probably don’t have to unless we see an unusual number (a lot different than we might expect by chance) of anomolies.

For something like ability to strand runners over and above a pitcher’s normal component numbers (and the normal league adjustments with runners on base), sure that probably is a skill, but…

Just because someone has a large variation does NOT mean that he has a LARGE skill.  And just because it is intuitive that something is probably a skill does NOT mean that there is a large (or even a small but significant - see DIPS) spread of that skill in the population.

IOW, we still have NO idea how much of that variation to assign to chance and how much to assign to skill, until and unless we do the proper analysis to figure out how much spread of skill there is in the population.

For one thing, we are NOT even looking to figure out whether something is a skill or not, only the variance of skill within the population - those are two very distinct things and it is a very important distinction.

These are not my opninons of course.  These are basic tenets of baseball analysis (statistical analysis, actually) when it comes to estimating players’ true talents.

So Livan’s or any other pitcher’s # SD from the norm means absolutely NOTHING until and unless we figure out the spread of talent in the population and from information we figure out how much to regress those “splits” (anomolies) to estimate the proportion of skill/luck in those splits.  If the spread is large, as with left-handed batter platoon splits than even a 1 SD variation for a particular batter tells us a lot.  If the spread is small (as with RHB platoon splits, or even smaller, clutch hitting) a 4 SD variation does not tell us much.  Let’s please get rid of this notion that because someone has such a large variation from the norm that it must mean something.  That argument has no merit whatsoever. Most of the people who frequent this blog know that if something has no true variation in the population that a certain percentage of players within that population will be 1 SD from the mean, 2 SD, 3 SD, etc.  Now, as I said before, since most of these problems are really Bayesian ones, there is merit to the argument that if we think that something is skill based and we find extreme variations among players, then those variations are more likely to be due to chance than if we did NOT think something was skill based (and those “thoughts” were educated ones). The example I always give of this “Bayesian approach” is if we flipped a coin that we just got from the local 7 Eleven 100 times and came up with 70 heads (or some really unlikely percentage - say 3 or 4 SD’s from the mean of 50/50), would we conclude that our coin was biased?  The answer of course is no.  Why?  Because our a priori probability is that there is almost a zero chance that a coin in public is biased.  What if we got the same coin from a magician?  Then, our a priori probability would be different and our conclusion (the chances that the coin is biased) would be different as well, even though we got the same 70/30 (or whatever) result.

What’s the value of bringing back a pitcher on 3 days rest?  Is that actually an advantage?

Of course it is not a good thing to pitch on 3 days rest, otherwise most teams would have 4 man rotations and we wouldn’t see the hesitation of post-season teams to go with pitchers on 3 days rest, right?

The research for The Book shows a penalty for 3 days rest and a penalty for more than 5 days rest and an advantage to 5 days rest.

For individual pitchers, who knows.  It is probably detrimental to most if not nearly all pitchers, again, otherwise you would see more of it.  And the pitchers who were studies for The Book were presumably the ones that the managers thought were most able to pitch on 3 days rest and THOSE pitchers did worse than usual.  So I would venture that for the average starter, it is REALLY a bad idea and for the ones who appear to be able to go on 3 days rest, there is still a penalty.

Didn’t appear to be too much controversy in tonight’s game, strategy-wise. It is a shame that Cleveland has to use Borowski in the 9th and Betancourt in the 8th (or earlier) and that Wedge is such a stickler for bullpen “usage patterns.”

God help Cleveland when Borowski has to come in with only a 1 run lead.  Especially if the first or the first two batters are lefty.  If that is the case in the 9th, there is no doubt, 100%, that one of their lefties should start the inning and then Borowski should come in.  Wedge will never do that though and that is one of his weaknesses (poor bullpen managment).  That is not to mention the fact that Betancourt is MUCH the better pitcher than Borowski, but everyone knows that by know (the CLE organization, for some reason, does not trust Betancourt with saves - too bad for his pocketbook).

Two other notable things now that the DS are over:

1) Chip Caray has to be one of the worst commentators in baseball.  He speaks like he has never seen a baseball game in his life.  He knows virtually NOTHING about the game, yet he likes to speak as if he is one of the expert “analysts.”

The umps made two obvious blunders in the game.  The check swing by Posada in the (3rd or 4th I think) with runners on 1 and 2 was 100% an obvious swing.  And the high feed to Mussina at first obviously beat the runner to the bag.  (The hit by a pitch on the bunt attempt was the correct call, although I am not certain that he was hit on the hand - it looked like it though.) And the two catcher interference non-calls were probably wrong, but if the umpire cannot hear or see it, there is nothing he can do.  He cannot take the batter’s word for it, even though the batter ALWAYS knows when he hits the catcher’s mitt.

I know we say this often about many TV commentators, but Chip Caray is just horrendous.  There has to be something seriously wrong about the way he watches and processes information from a baseball game.  A pitch could be inside and he says, “That pitch is right down the middle.” He seems to get almost everthing wrong, even the mundane things.  One of the pitches to a Rockies’ batter was a little below the waist (clearly not too high) and on the inside corner (or a ball inside), the fans groaned when the ump called it a strike, and Caray said, “Ooh, the fans thought that was high.” My son asked me why he is even broadcasting and I told him that, #1, it was because of his pedigree, and #2, he has a good, smooth announcing voice, sounds like he knows what he is talking about, and 99% of the listeners (and ALL of the TBS brass) have no idea that he has no idea what he is talking about some unacceptable percentage of the time.

I could go on about Caray, but I’ll only mention one more.

With the pitcher Webb on first (and Young on second) and a 3-2 count to Snyder (who should NOT be batting second against a lefty starter, BTW), he (Caray) starting talking about the arms in the OF and how Webb might not score from second. I guess he does not know that runners go on the pitch in that situation. He has only been around baseball his entire life.

Anyway, in the bottom of the 7th, Cirillo bunted for a hit with a runner on second and 2 outs.  Normally you NEVER bunt for a hit with a runner on second (and no one on third) because you don’t score him with a bunt hit but you do (usually) with an OF hit.  So I thought it was kind of strange.  Then, one of the announcers (by the way, they are all pretty bad, although Brenley is pretty intelligent when he isn’t talking about how such and such batter has done against such and such pitcher), said that Cirillo realized that down 4 runs the D-Backs needed baserunners (and he noticed that the third baseman was playing back).

Well, of course he was playing back, because the bunt IS a bad play.  I had to look it up though, even though I thought that the 7th inning was a little early to be playing for “baserunners.”

The WE, according to Tango’s charts, is .056 with a runner on second, 2 outs, bottom of the 7th, and down by 4 runs.  With a runner on 1 and 3, it is only .061, not much of a gain.  That alone tells you it can’t be a good play to bunt. 

According to those numbers, Cirillo needs to be successful at least 92% of the time, not counting a foul or missed bunt.  That is the BE point.  Even though the third baseman was playing back, it is impossible to have nearly that high a success rate.  Even though these numbers (in Tango’s chart) are for average teams in average situations, etc., it is clear that a bunt is a very bad decision.

Contrast that with the bottom of the 8th, where time is running out and baserunners ARE important.  The WE with a runner on second only is .020 and with 1 and 3, it is .039, so the BE point is only 51%.  And of course, in the bottom of the 9th, runner on 2 is virtually the same as 1 and 3. 

Cirillo, being a veteran, should certainly know that you don’t bunt in that situation.  And with a manager and HOF player in the TV booth, you would think that one of them (I leave Caray out of this, because whatever he says, you can usually assume the opposite is true) would realize this also.

I dispute your math.  It appears you’re just taking WE(before bunt) / WE(after successful bunt) as your breakeven.  Don’t you have to take the weighted average of what Cirillo would have done had he not bunted and compare it to the after-bunt win expectancy to accurately estimate the breakeven?

For example, suppose Cirillo were the first batter of the ballgame.  WE = 0.5.  He decides to lay down a bunt—if it is successful, WE goes up a bit—say, 0.51.  You can’t then conclude that he must be successful 0.5/0.51 * 100 % of the time for this to be the right play.  It seems that that’s what you’re doing here.

Yes, that is what it looks like MGL did.  He obviously knows that’s not the way to do it, so let’s give him a mulligan.

Here’s the data:
http://www.tangotiger.net/wins.html

Bottom of 7th, down by 4, 2 outs:
2b: .056
1b/3b: .061
end of inning: 1-.9679=.0321
So that’s a gain of 5 points against a loss of 24.  That’s an 83% breakeven

Same situation, bottom of 8th:
2b: .02
1b/3b: .039
end of inning: 1-.988=.012
gain of 19 points against a loss of 8, for a breakeven of only 30%!

It was a test to see if anyone was paying attention! DAW, you win the prize!

I think we can give Brantley a star for having the foresight to say that the team needed baserunners, which is why a bunt would have been good.  What he didn’t appreciate was the enormous difference between the 7th and 8th innings.

The fielding team DID appreciate the enormous difference, if the 3B was playing as far back as he normally would.

Tom, can this thread somehow be “stuck” on top through the post-season?

It is!

Wow, that was quick!

I did not watch the first game beyond the 5th inning, and I am only now (bottom of the 5th) tuning in to the second game…

Beckett looked like the Cy Young contender (I think he will win - so much for my being an analyst and not an oracle!) he is, and Sabathia, despite being the other contender I guess, looked like a hard throwing lefty without much command, control, or game plan (too may fastballs, mostly because he was often behind in the count I guess).

Just goes to show you that on any given day, ANY pitcher can look like Cy Young or Jose Lima (on a bad day).  When a hard thrower has a good day, he looks unhittable.  When a hard thrower has a bad day, he looks like just another hard thrower.  When a finesse pitcher has a good day, he looks like a crafty veteran, and when a finnesse pitcher has a bad day, he looks like complete garbage.

Before the CLE/BOS series started, CLE was the great team that shellacked the Yankees and is at least as good as the Red Sox.  Now, after one game (it might take one more), they are going to be billed as good, but certainly not good enough to beat the great Boston Red Sox with Manny, Papi and Beckett.

The media coverage (and public thinking) during the post-season is a joke.  Then again, if I were a betting man, that kind of thinking and coverage makes for great (soft) Vegas lines!

Not too much in the second game, from what I saw.  Brenley kept mentioning that you don’t want to bunt when the following batters are weak.  He said several times, “Who are you sac bunting for?” That seems a little odd.  Commentators generally get all bent out of shape when someone bunts in front of a really good hitter.  You can’t have it both ways.  I am not sure of the answer, but I would think you would tend to bunt (if you were going to bunt at all) in front of weaker (singles-type) hitters and that Brenley is completely wrong.

Speaking of sac bunting, I liked that both managers mixed up their bunting and not bunting. I’ve said it a million times and I’ll say it again - the proper bunt strategy is to MIX IT UP!  Being predictable in your bunt strategy is ALWAYS wrong.

Is it possible that a pitcher who hardly ever bats, Owings, can be a better pinch hitter than a position player, Cirillo, albeit a fairly weak hitting one?

They mentioned that the Rockies were something like 78-1 when leading after 8 innings.  They also mentioned that they had 27 blown saves.  Are both of those things possible? I realize that you can get a blown save in other than the 9th or later innings, but that still seems odd.  Did they win every game in which they blew a save?

Finally, just when you thought that Fox got rid of all their gimmicks that are stupid and annoying.  Was anyone else bothered by that sound that I think the radar gun graphic made every time the catcher caught a pitch?

Presumably, most of the blown saves were in 7th and 8th, such that they were no longer leading after 8.  Plus, probably a handful of 9th inning blown saves that the Rox won anyway.

Fuentes was the closer for the first three months.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/NYN/NYN200704240.shtml
Fuentes blows a save and they lose, but it was tied after 9, and the blown save occurred in the 10th.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/COL/COL200706030.shtml
Fuentes blows a save in the 9th, but the Rockies win in 10.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CHN/CHN200706250.shtml
Rockies down 8-3 after 8, score 6 T9, Fuentes gives up two B9.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/TOR/TOR200706220.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU200706280.shtml
Both blown saves by the closer that resulted in losses, but they were in extra innings.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/HOU/HOU200706290.shtml
That’s there one loss when leading after 8.  Up 8-7, Fuentes gives up two B9.

After Fuentes blows four consecutive saves, Corpas becomes the closer.  He’s converted 19/20 opportunities (36IP, 6BB, 28K, 4HR, 1.50 ERA; somewhat lucky, I suppose).

http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/SDN/SDN200709210.shtml
Corpas blows a save B9, but the Rockies win in 14.

So only seven of these blown saves have come from guys who were Colorado’s closer at the time.  Three were tied after 8, and the BS was in extras.  Twice they were leading after 8 but ended up winning the game in extras.  Once they rallied to take the lead T9 before blowing the save, and only once did they lose a game they were leading after 8.

Glad I could provide this completely useless information.

Owings is a rookie without a lot of major league PA’s, but in 60 AB’s he’s got a 1.032 OPS, 4 HR’s and 2 4-hit games.  In college, he was a very good hitter as well, here’s a link to his college stats:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/O/micah-owings.shtml

I’d hit him over Cirillo every chance I had, and if I had him on an AL team and didn’t have a strong DH, I’d at least give him a shot at that…

Makes sense (#54).  The 60 PA’s doesn’t impress me because of sample size.  But if he used to be (and recently) a very good hitter, that is another story.

It is easy to say given the results, but leaving Perez in there in the 5th against Manny and Lowell is a dubious strategy I would think, given that he has 2 other lefties in the pen in case he needs them later in the game and given that Manny and Lowell are the two best RH hitters on the team and given that the Sox only have 2 lefties in the lineup.

Not a horrible mistake though, if a mistake at all, as Perez does not have a large split for a LHP I don’t think.  He just made some bad pitches.  Some pitchers don’t like to or just can’t seem to go out of the strike zone with a 0-2 or 1-2 count on the batter.

The Red Sox send out Timlin to start the eighth in a tie game. The LI is 1.9. In the regular season, you could understand though maybe not justify this move. In the playoffs, Papelbon must start this inning. Or at least ask the LH Okajima to face the LH Lofton and then go to Papelbon.

Okajima already pitched.  Timlin is still a very good pitcher.

I thought that both managers did a very good job with their bullpens.

I highly question Betancourt’s pitching to Youkilis in the bottom of the 9th with a runner on second and 2 outs.  He threw something like 10 straight fastballs in the same location.  NOT pitcher can do that.  Once you completely take out any surprise or guessing away the batter, all pitchers lose effectiveness.  It is like Youk is batting with a 3-0 count and knows he is getting a fastball.  With no runners on base, you have to mostly pitch to the outside corner because you fear the HR.  With a runner on second, the home run is the same as the single, and you MUST work both sides of the plate.  Even a pitcher like Rivera, who throws mostly fatballs, and likes to jam both lefty and righty hitters, uses both sides of the plate and throws two different kinds of fastballs.  There was simply no way that Betancourt should have been throwing all those fastballs in the same spot, even though Youk was late on most of them.  If he threw him a breaking ball or an inside fastball he would have easily gotten him out.  The ONLY reason Youk was fouling off all those pitches (and easily) and then drove the last one into the gap (even though it was caught), was because he knew exactly the speed of the pitch coming (93-94) and the exact location (down and away).  Terrible way to pitch with the game on the line.  A complete bastardization of the conventional wisdom that, “You don’t get beat with your non-best pitch.” I hate that expression anyway (that if you are going to get beat, get beat with your best pitch).  A batter not knowing what’s coming is the most important thing to pitching effectively.  As I said, if you pretty much know what’s coming, every pitch is a 3-0 fastball, regardless of the count (not quite but pretty much).

I really don’t know the right answer to the Papelbon question, but if you don’t bring him in to start the 8th, you can bring him in if the Sox get in trouble, where the LI goes up (I assume).

BTW, I thought that Danley called a great game.  A little tighter than many umps, but very consistent, and almost everything he called a ball was a ball, and the borderline strikes were good calls too.  I don’t remember one argument or dirty look from a batter, pitcher, or the bench.  That alone is remarkable.

MGL/57,

Okajima ended the seventh with 30 pitches, I don’t feel it would have been unreasonable to have him face one more LH batter. Is Timlin a very good pitcher? He had a PECOTA projected component ERA of exactly 4.00, a Marcel of 4.43 and had an xFIP of 4.66 this year. Certainly solid but I wouldn’t say very good.
Following the game along with Pitch FX, I agree with you on Danley.

Wow. Francona would rather have Javy Lopez face Jason Michaels than Gagne face Trot Nixon. Michaels is lifetime .300/.382/.460 against LHP. Wait, Nixon is hitting??? What the heck is going on here?

I am shocked that Wedge did not pinch hit Michaels for Nixon when they brought in Lopez, the sidearming lefty to pitch.  It was Nixon’s first PA, so both hitters have the pinch hit penalty. My guess is that Wedge looked at Lopez’ BA against versus lefties and saw that he was much better against righties.  That is horsecrap of course.  First of all, Nixon does not hit lefties well.  Second of all, it doesn’t take a genius to see that Lopez splits this year are a fluke.  Actually, I looked up his last 4 year splits and his OPS is around the same versus lefties and righties.  I am sure part of that has to do with the fact that only the best lefties hit against him.  Either way, Michaels has to be much the better choice in that situation.

We cross-posted but had the same idea.  Maybe Francona knew there was a good chance that Wedge would do the wrong thing.  Plus, I don’t think Francona likes Gagne, or at least he knows that the fans don’t like him and he didn’t want to take the heat if Gagne gave up a big hit.

I had a discussion about Timlin with someone else.  I think he is an excellent pitcher.  For some reason, I have him projected well even though he has not pitched well, according to his ERC, in many years. He still throws hard and has a good breaking pitch.  Who knows.

With Okajima, I am not sure he is any better versus the lefties.  He may have a reverse platoon.  His changeup versus the righties is awfully tough.  His best pitch.

Re: Crisp’s ineptitude

Have the Red Sox reached the point where Ellsbury starts Game 3?  It seems ridiculous to stick with Coco at this point.  What does Crisp do that Ellsbury can’t?

And why was Ellsbury running for Pedroia last night anyways?

Ellsbury was running in order to steal second base.  He is apparently one of the fastest guys in the league and stole a lot of bases in the minors.

As far as Ellsbury versus Crisp, I agree that Ellsbury is probably the better player overall, at least versus a RHP.  And he is probably their starting CF next year.  But they are not going to bench Crisp all of a sudden in the post-season after using him all year long and loving his defense.

If you are implying that Crisp should be benched because he has not hit well in the post-season so far, as you know if you read this blog at all, short term performance (so-called “streaks") have zero predictive ability for batters, so that is not and should not be an issue.  The only issue is who is the better talent overall and who will give them the best chance of winning each game in the post-season.  That is determined (from a sabermetric/analytical persepctive at least) by their respective offensive and defensive projections from this point forward.

As I said, that might favor Ellsbury, but I cannot fault Francona for sticking with Crisp.  Plus Ellsbury is a great pinch running weapon off the bench and could also be used as a pinch hitter versus a RHP late in the game, for someone like Lugo or Crisp, although I am not sure Francona would do that.  Maybe Lugo, but I don’t think Crisp.

Mitchel,

Thanks for the response.

Maybe it’s just me, but it doesn’t seem like the difference between Pedroia and Ellsbury as baserunners would be that big.  I know you’re going for the win and going for the throat, but it doesn’t seem Pedroia was the guy you wanted to replace on the basepaths.

Naw, it’s not just the playoffs.  I was surprised that Coco got his job back at the end of September, and even then he seemed to split time with Jacoby.

Sure, it is unusual to pinch run for a fast guy like Pedroia.  But I guess they figured that Ellsbury would have a higher success rate, which is probably true, and that the steal was very valuable, which it was.

As I said, I agree that Ellsbury in CF is probably the better choice.  They certainly could have platooned Crisp and him.  They probably also figured, whether it is true or not, that they wanted more experienced Crisp in the post-season.

Good points though.

Pedroia is not a fast guy.  He’s a smart baserunner, and picked up a few steals by picking his spots well, but his running speed is probably below average.

Bob Brenley tonight in the 3rd inning said one of the most bizarre things I have ever heard an intelligent (I assume) ex-player announcer ever say.  Remember, he has managed and played in the major leagues for over 30 years or so.

With Torrealba on second and Fogg attempting to sac bunt him to third, he said…

“Remember the runner on second is not under any obligation to advance to third. If he feels that it is a poor bunt, he can remain on second so as not to run into an easy out at third.” (I paraphrased.)

What!

I have been watching baseball for 40 years.  I have NEVER (ever, ever) seen a runner on second (or first for that matter) not try and advance on a bunt.  Ever.  And I doubt I ever will.

Why?  Because you start running long before you know whether it is going to be a good bunt or not!  The only time you don’t run is when the batter pops the ball up, and even then, you sometimes run into a DP.

I cannot believe that Brenley said this.  What could he possibly have been thinking or not thinking?

BTW, my last post is an example of how when people say that the managers, coaches, and players have fogotten more about this game then we, as analysts, will ever know, I say, “Humpf!”

Here is another, perhaps even better (more subtle), example:

With runners on 1 and 2 and 2 outs in the bottom of the 5th, and the 8th hitter, Torrealba at bat, the commentators (Brenley and Gwynn) were going on about how Livan was pitching around him with the pitcher on deck (and clearly implying that this was the proper thing to do).

Absolutely not!  You would pitch to him differently than you would with the bases empty, of course, but by no means do you want to walk him and bring the pitcher up with the bases loaded, another runner in scoring position, AND lose the opportunity for the pitcher to lead off the next inning (his next AB will probably be his last)!  It’s not even close.  Not to mention the fact that Torrealba is the worst hitter in the Rockies lineup.

The reason he was throwing off-speed pitches down and away is that Torrealba swings at them on a regular basis.

Yeah, managers and players know way more than we do!

So much for crafty veterans (Livan). 

Managers have an obsession with leaving pitchers in until they get in trouble, in this case, until the game is just about over.

Livan is a bad pitcher.  Sure, he makes the most of the stuff he has (which is bad).  Most pitchres with his stuff could not even pitch in the major leagues.  But he is still a bad pitcher.

Someone has to start the third game, so I have no problem with that.  But in the post-season, you generally don’t have bullpen problems.  When you start a bad pitcher, you want to take him out as soon as you can, REGARDLESS OF HOW HE IS DOING.  Your bullpen is going to be better than that starter, and as I said, you are not looking to save the pen, like you might in the reg season.

IOW, Melvin should have taken Livan out after 5 innings, for no other reason than to get better pitchers in the game.

But, managers will ALWAYS leave bad pitchers in the game if their pitch count is low, and they have not given up many runs.

That is a poor strategy.

Editor’s note: Post 54 was originally marked for moderation, and has now been approved.  I wanted to bring it to everyone’s attention in case it got missed.

Pedroia is not a fast runner at all according to Redsox Nation:
http://www.tangotiger.net/scouting/scoutResults2007_BOS.html

MGL/71:  This is a great point.  Facing the Rockies hitters for the 3rd time, Livan is probably a 5.50 R/G pitcher, give or take.  The DBacks have at least 5 relievers who are MUCH better than that, and it was a “must win” game.  In a game like this, Livan should be told he’s only going a max of 5 IP before the game even starts (unless he has a huge lead). In fact, Webb is probably the only starter they have who should be allowed to start the 6th, and even he is likely a little worse than their relievers (when facing hitters a 3rd time).

I could see the day coming when some manager has the guts to try this in a postseason.  After all, we watch a version of this every summer in the All-Star game, which tend to be low-scoring games.  And if this gutsy manager succeeds, it could lead to big changes in postseason pitcher usage.  Of course, if it happens to backfire the first time (despite being correct), no one will try it again for 10-20 years!

I don’t understand #54.  The apparently have 27 blown saves, but only lost one game that they were leading after 8.  That includes extra inning games by definition.  Why is he only telling us about the games in which the “closer” blew the save?  A blown save is a blown save.  Did they have 27 blown saves?  Did they only lose 1 game in which they were leading after 8?

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/inning_summary.cgi?year_game=2007&team_id=ANY
The average team, leading after 8, win 90% of the time. 

http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/inning_summary.cgi?year_game=2007&team_id=COL
The Rockies, leading after 8, are 71-8, or winning 90% of the time.

The Rockies have blown 30 saves, 21 of which they ended up losing the game:
http://www.bb-ref.com/pi/shareit/8vA5

#71,
Reprint the same comment and sub Jake Westbrook for Livan Hernandez. Westbrook is better but the same principle applies particularly when the guy has only one K through 25 BF.

Hurdle and Melvin are making mgl look very smart just now--on opposite sides of the coin.  Hurdle pulled Morales for a PH with runners on 2nd and 3rd, 2 out, down 1 run, and the PH comes through with a lucky hit.  Melvin leaves Owings in (all good reliervers relatively well rested, off day tomorrow) to face a fire, third time through the lineup in the 5th, and gets badly badly burned.

Sure, not only do you have the “Don’t leave a bad or even mediocre (and in some cases, good) starter in there for very long when you have a good, fresh pen,” which you usually do in the playoffs, but you also have the, “Pinch hit for your starter as soon as there is any decent leverage in the PA (although Owings is apparently a very good hitter).”

I agree that in today’s BOS/CLE game you could easily have had Westbrook NOT start the 7th inning, although the pen was pertty worked over yesterday.  Plus Westbrook is a very good pitcher, almost a run per 9 better than Livan.

But again, managers are obsessed with leaving starters in as long as the don’t give up many runs.  (And yes, Westbrook, while he pitched well, got very lucky in a couple of innings and allowed a lot of baserunners I think.  Not that pitching or not pitching well for an experienced pitcher has much if any predictive value.)

Most importantly though, I just got back from the CLE game.  We were sitting next to the, “$11.50 for a hamburger.  You must be kidding me!” Miller High Life guy.  He was a blast.  I don’t know if it was on T.V., but he was on the Jumbotron with his arm around my son!

Guy (#74): Arguably, Piniella did just that with Zambrano, though with a different motivation (having Zambrano come back on short rest for game four). Did not do him much good. The thing is, if you go against the conventional wisdom and it doesn’t work, like pulling Zambrano after 6 innings/80some pitches and the bullpen losing the game, you need a thick skin.

Different story with Zambrano as he is a stud pitcher.  However, even with him, you are not losing much if anything with a decent bullpen. But I agree with you in that if you take out a pitcher early who is pitching well and the bullpen does not do a good job, you have some splainin’ to do…

Remember that in The Book, we learned that a pitcher loses about 8 wOBA points (8 OBP, 10 SLG) every time through the order.  In terms of winning percentage, that’s about a .030 loss each time through the order.  So, a guy can go from being a .530 pitcher, to .500, to .470 each time through the order.

A replacement-level pitcher will pitch .380 as a starter, and .470 as a reliever.  It’s fairly easy to see that after only 18 batters (70 pitches), a .500 starter (.470 the third time in the order) can make way for the worst pitcher on the team!

What relievers possess is highly leverageable, and with all the off days, they definitely should be used alot.

More thoughts of Boston prospects in the post-season… if Theo had a time machine (or gets one in the future so he can come back to the present to go back to the past) does he call up Lowrie on Sep. 1 to see if he can hack it at SS?  Or is this the case where the veteran’s defense really does trump the rookie’s (possibly) superior bat?

Wedge sends Sabathia out for the 7th.

Sabathia’s ended the 6th with 106 pitches.  He’d been through the order 3 whole times.

Indians’ WinExp entering the 7th:  29.5%
After C.C. leaves with Youkilis on 3rd:  10.9%

RE #84, I agree that he was not pitching well the whole post-season, may have been tired (too many IP) and was ready to come out of the game anyway.  I would NOT have brought him out for the 7th.

If Tim McCarver were managing a team…

He would have someone warming up for CLE in inning one, and he would never has his pitchers throw an 0-2 changeup.

I don’t know what he is talking about with the 0-2 changeup, and this idea by virtually everyone that if a pitcher gives up X amount of runs regardless of whether he is tired or not, he must come out, is preposterous.

And the ONLY difference in a game 7 as opposed to any other game in the regular or the post-season (in which you try and mximize your win potential) is that you have 2 off days before the series starts and you don’t worry about preserving your bullpen for a whole season.  If managers managed, in some regards, as they do in the post-season during the regular season, they would win more games.

BTW, the way Elsbury threatened to bunt and then did NOT is the way you are supposed to go about it ALL season long (in order to bring in the corners).  Of course, in the long run, you still have to bunt sometimes, otherwise the opposing team will stop falling for the bait.

What I was talking about, in terms of the 7th game of a post-season series being like any other game, is mostly applicable to strategies that don’t have any future or external impact.

There are basically 2 kinds of strategy decisions or alternatives in baseball:  One, those that are completely internal and those that have some externalities.  Pinch hitting has some externalities, in terms of not being able to use that pinch hitter later in the game and to some extent, the ability of the other manager to change pitchers if he has not already done so.

Pitching changes or not usually have the most externalities in terms of impact on the bullpen, pitching rotation, etc.

IBB’ing a player or not has NO externalities.  Either it increases or decreases each team’s chances of winning (whether anyone knows the answer to that or not).  Therefor McCarver and Buck talking about how you might not or would not IBB Manny in the 3rd inning in the reg season but you have to in this game, is stupid.  If it is correct to do it here, it is correct to do it in any other game, given the exact same circustances of the game of course.

Commentators, managers, players, etc. understand so little about the mathematics of strategy decisions it is pathetic. You can’t even discuss it with them.  Can you imagine trying to explain to McCarver and Buck why the IBB decision in the 3rd is the same whether it is the 1st game of the season or the 7th game of the WS?

BTW, too many fastballs from the Indians starter again!  Could it be that for whatever reason Martinez is calling more fastballs than he normally calls during the reg season and more than is optimal against these hitters given the game situations?  Again, I would love to see the pitch f/x data.

While it is true that a pitcher is responsible for what he throws, surely if a catcher calls too many fastballs, a pitcher will end up throwing more than he usually does, even if he thinks he is shaking off the catcher when he is not in agreement with his pitch selection.

And BTW, Demuth was horrible with his strike zone the other day and so far, Marsh, who is typically a hitter’s umpire, has been horrible (consistency-wise) also.

Marsh has missed 6 B/S calls through three innings according to PitchFX. I’ve done this exercise a few times throughout the season and the average per game is roughly ten. Keep in mind I’ve only done this a few times and I’m counting all missed calls as equal no matter how bad. Still, I agree with MGL, this has been a poorly called game thus far.

Finally, in the 5th and 6th innings, Westbrook (and Martinez) decides to change speeds and mix up his pitches and lo and behold, the hitters start swinging at pitches out of the strike zone and striking out.  May be too little too late for CLE and their pitchers.

An absolutely horrendous mistake by third base coach Skinner.  Horrendous!

Even though Betancourt is a light out pitcher, he has been used too much in the post-season, has lost about 2 mph on his fastball, and I sound like a broken record, but if you want to strike someone out (or have them hit a weak ball), you need to mix up your pitches.  All Betancourt throws (more or less) is fastballs on the outside corner.

If I am the CLE brass, after the game is over, I fire Skinner and then the pitching coach.  Kidding of course about that, but you get the point.

CLE loses this series because other than a few innings here, their starting pitching has absolutely sucked. And I don’t mean “results” bad; I mean approach and execution bad.

#91: I agree. Also, don’t forget the defense. Especially, Jhonny Peralta is a HORRIBLE defensive SS and he proved it once again tonight.

Sabathia
Regular season (936 pitches): 61% fastballs, 22% curves and 17% changeups
Playoffs (296 pitches): 67% fastballs, 20% curves and 14% changeups.

Carmona
Regular season (963 pitches): 71% fastballs, 18% changeups and 12% sliders. 
Playoffs (262 pitches): 86% fastballs, 9% changeups and 5% sliders. 

Westbrook
Regular season (1072 pitches): 64% fastballs, 17% sliders, 11% changeups, 9% curves.
First two playoff starts (182 pitches): 70% fastballs, 9% sliders, 11% changeups, 10% curves.

I didn’t look at the bullpens, but it does look like Indians’ pitchers are throwing a lot more fastballs than they should be.

I wrote a little about pitch selection on Friday which is the only reason I looked at this, but along the lines of too many fastballs, Sabathia threw 78% first pitch fastballs during the regular season and 85% in the playoffs (74 playoff pitches).  Carmona threw 80% first pitch fastballs in the regular season and 90% in the playoffs (63 playoff pitches).  I don’t know the league averages for first pitch fastballs, but 90% seems like a ridiculously high amount.

Phil/88: there’s a very easy way to figure out how bad a umpire’s calls are, and it’s a similar process that you follow for UZR. 

If on a particular pitch (strike zone location), a pitch is called a strike 90% of the time, and the umpire calls it a strike, he gets “0.10” errors.  If he calls it a ball, he gets “0.90” errors.  Since everyone gets at least .10 errors, reduce everyone’s totals by .10, and you give the strike-callers 0 error points and the ball-callers .80 error points.  On a 50/50 call, everyone gets zero points obviously.  On a 51/49 call, the wrong-callers get .02 points while the right-callers get zero points.

So, you can see that the formula is the absolute difference between a strike call and a ball call (90% strike, 10% ball, means .80 error points for the wrong call; 55% ball, 45% strike means .10 error points for the less obvious call).

Let us know which umpires make the worst calls, please.

Joe/93: can you break down your splits of fastballs thrown based on hitter/pitcher counts?

Based on this:
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/hitting_by_count/

You should treat the 0-1 and 2-2 counts the same (meaning either treating them as even counts, or pitcher’s counts).

I’m at work right now, but when I get home I’ll do those splits.

Sabathia
Hitters count, regular season(n=101): 65% fb/27% ch/8% cb
Hitters count, playoffs(n=35): 89% fb/11% ch

Pitchers count, regular season(n=325): 46% fb/13% ch/41% cb
Pitchers count, playoffs(n=118): 47% fb/18% ch/35% cb

Neutral count, regular season(n=510): 68% fb/19% ch/13% cb
Neutral count, playoffs(n=143): 78% fb/10% ch/12% cb
===================================================
Carmona
Hitters count, regular season(n=124): 81% fb/16% ch/3% sl
Hitters count, playoffs(n=44): 91% fb/9% ch

Pitchers count, regular season(n=333): 56% fb/27% ch/17% sl
Pitchers count, playoffs(n=80): 73% fb/20% ch/8% sl

Neutral count, regular season(n=506): 78% fb/11% ch/10% sl
Neutral count, playoffs(n=138): 92% fb/ 3% ch/ 5% sl
===================================================
Westbrook
Hitters count, regular season(n=131): 85% fb/7% sl/5% ch/4% cb
Hitters count, playoffs(n=28): 96% fb/4% ch

Pitchers count, regular season(n=369): 38% fb/32% sl/18% ch/12% cb
Pitchers count, playoffs(n=52): 46% fb/19% sl/25% ch/10% cb

Neutral count, regular season(n=560): 76% fb/8% sl/8% ch/8% cb
Neutral count, playoffs(n=101): 75% fb/6% sl/6% ch/13% cb
====================================================

Some basic observations.
-Westbrook only threw 1 off-speed pitches in hitters counts in the playoffs and Carmona threw 4.
-Carmona threw more fastballs in every situation in the playoffs than he did in the regular season.  He really only threw off speed pitches in pitchers counts.
-Compared to his regular season, Sabathia threw a lot more fastballs in hitters counts in the playoffs and a few more in neutral counts.  He was pretty consistent in pitchers counts.

I don’t know enough about the Indians to say if the pitchers call the game or if Martinez does, but for some reason, they were throwing a lot more fastballs, especially in hitters counts, in the playoffs.
============================================
3-0, 3-1, 2-0, 2-1 were hitters counts.  2-2, 1-2, 0-2, 0-1 were pitchers counts.  3-2, 1-0, 0-0, 1-1 were neutral counts.

Good stuff!