+ Reply to Thread
Page 66 of 67 FirstFirst ... 16 56 63 64 65 66 67 LastLast
Results 1,626 to 1,650 of 1653
  1. #1626

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    That pen had been overexposed, and you need to catch up to the conversation if you want to be viewed as the one who isn’t dug in.
    That's cool. I'm fine digging in with the mountain of evidence in my favor.

  2. #1627
    Super Moderator matt2351's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, NY

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    That's cool. I'm fine digging in with the mountain of evidence in my favor.
    I look forward to reading this mountain of evidence.

  3. #1628

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by matt2351 View Post
    I look forward to reading this mountain of evidence.
    The 3rd time through the order evidence?
    The RA/9IP of 1 inning relievers vs starters evidence?

    It's all built on the entire history of baseball but go ahead and knock yourself out looking at it.

  4. #1629
    I.P. Standing Krall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    In the middle of New York

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by jbell025 View Post
    Guess this belongs here since he was talking about the whole Cash/Snell/Rays scenario, but did anyone hear Kay's rant about analytics today? I think we all agree analytics are out of control and taking Snell out was outrageous. 10000%.

    But the guy was going on about how ranting about how (to paraphrase) "baseball has been taken over by nerds who are getting revenge on all the star athletes who beat them up in high school and shoved them in lockers. These stats guys are loving the power they have over professional athletes who they can now control and dictate".

    The nerds took over? Did all these statistics guys from Harvard one day invade ballparks across America and demand to take control? It wasn't front offices who decided to go in this direction? It was just a really weird take on the situation. It felt like a perspective from another day and age (not that there isn't still bullying in schools), but it was just bizarre.

    I'd also like to hear him rant as passionately about the Yankees reliance on their (inferior) analytics compared to the Rays. Its one thing to rely on analytics that at least can get you to the World Series (with a fraction of the payroll) as opposed to relying on inferior analytics that can't get a team with a payroll over 250 million dollars into the Championship round.
    Maybe not overnight, but pretty close to it we went from managers managing a ball game to their power being reduced to guidance counselor. He talks of a well known manager making a move that went against what the analytics dept wanted, which ended up winning the game. They then went to his office to chew him out for making that move.

    This is gorilla warfare, the Rays are hungry underdogs without the capital to take the Yankees head on. So they do what you do in that situation, you come up with ways to beat your opponent. The Yankees in effect thumb their noses at the Rays, “see we can bullpen too” only by doing that they try to play a game they suck at. They’re good a spending money, but in being cute are trying to outsmart the Rays which is backfiring on every level. Their in Cashman’s head.
    “It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
    ― Epictetus

  5. #1630
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canada's basement

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    The 3rd time through the order evidence?
    The RA/9IP of 1 inning relievers vs starters evidence?

    It's all built on the entire history of baseball but go ahead and knock yourself out looking at it.
    Snell is better the third time through the lineup, and the pen was overexposed.

    You’re viewing data in the aggregate to support your claim that an elite pitcher needed to be taken out of a ball game despite having complete control of all four of his pitches, and having demonstrated total control over the Dodgers’ lineup.

    This isn’t the hill to die on for analytics.
    “Nobody teaches life anything.” - Gabriel García Márquez

  6. #1631
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canada's basement

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Krall View Post
    Maybe not overnight, but pretty close to it we went from managers managing a ball game to their power being reduced to guidance counselor. He talks of a well known manager making a move that went against what the analytics dept wanted, which ended up winning the game. They then went to his office to chew him out for making that move.

    This is gorilla warfare, the Rays are hungry underdogs without the capital to take the Yankees head on. So they do what you do in that situation, you come up with ways to beat your opponent. The Yankees in effect thumb their noses at the Rays, “see we can bullpen too” only by doing that they try to play a game they suck at. They’re good a spending money, but in being cute are trying to outsmart the Rays which is backfiring on every level. Their in Cashman’s head.
    And in the end, the Rays outsmarted themselves.
    “Nobody teaches life anything.” - Gabriel García Márquez

  7. #1632
    2009 WORLD CHAMPIONS aeromac76's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Huntington, NY

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    I think it is important to note that analytics tell us about bell curve type performance, and are based on statistical averages.


    So any analytics telling Cash or anyone else to remove Snell when they did were based on a "typical" or "average" Blake Snell start. But that those analytics do not take into account is that every so often, Blake Snell may turn into a single A pitcher who cannot get anyone out, and in that case, forget the 4th inning, he does not get out of the first or second..


    But every so often, Blake Snell, a former CYA winner, turns into Sandy Freaking Koufax in his prime. The other night, we got Sandy Koufax. And the analytics are there to tell us about a typical Blake Snell.. but we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell. It just goes to say that maybe because we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell versus his average performance, Cash may also have wanted to respond to the data in an atypical way..


    He did not, and I believe it cost them the game..
    I used to think I was crazy... Now I am sure of it..

  8. #1633

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    Snell is better the third time through the lineup, and the pen was overexposed.

    You’re viewing data in the aggregate to support your claim that an elite pitcher needed to be taken out of a ball game despite having complete control of all four of his pitches, and having demonstrated total control over the Dodgers’ lineup.

    This isn’t the hill to die on for analytics.
    Snell is on a team that doesn't pitch him 3 times thought the order. Hardly ever. How can you use Snell as evidence that Snell should be doing it? You are asking him to do something he doesn't normally do.

    I admitted from the start it wasn't a slam dunk call either way which is exactly why either decision was ripe for second guessing if it went wrong. And all decisions go wrong sometimes, even right ones. There are positives and negatives to both and the deeper you go into your bullpen the less sure the move is. You are the one claiming it was outrageous and indefensible and pants soiling.

    I'll die on the hill of "results don't justify or prove a decision wrong" all day.

  9. #1634
    NYYF Legend

    NelsonMuntz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Alexandria, VA

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    Snell is better the third time through the lineup, and the pen was overexposed.

    You’re viewing data in the aggregate to support your claim that an elite pitcher needed to be taken out of a ball game despite having complete control of all four of his pitches, and having demonstrated total control over the Dodgers’ lineup.

    This isn’t the hill to die on for analytics.
    I agree with all of this. But I still don’t blame the analytics. As you just illustrated here, there was data to support keeping Snell in the game.
    David Ortiz tested positive for performance enhancing drugs in 2003.

  10. #1635
    Super Moderator matt2351's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, NY

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    The 3rd time through the order evidence?
    The RA/9IP of 1 inning relievers vs starters evidence?

    It's all built on the entire history of baseball but go ahead and knock yourself out looking at it.
    The 3rd time through the lineup evidence was refuted in that video ojo posted. Did you take a look at that? That same video looked at bringing in Anderson. If you are going to go ahead and say the sample sizes are too small and we should make these moves based on the larger body instead of looking at how athletes are currently performing, I am going to disagree with you.

    Also, IMO, what you offered above doesn't constitute a "mountain of evidence."

  11. #1636
    Super Moderator matt2351's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Manhattan, NY

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    Snell is on a team that doesn't pitch him 3 times thought the order. Hardly ever. How can you use Snell as evidence that Snell should be doing it? You are asking him to do something he doesn't normally do.

    I admitted from the start it wasn't a slam dunk call either way which is exactly why either decision was ripe for second guessing if it went wrong. And all decisions go wrong sometimes, even right ones. There are positives and negatives to both and the deeper you go into your bullpen the less sure the move is. You are the one claiming it was outrageous and indefensible and pants soiling.

    I'll die on the hill of "results don't justify or prove a decision wrong" all day.
    I do agree with you on this.

  12. #1637

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by matt2351 View Post
    The 3rd time through the lineup evidence was refuted in that video ojo posted. Did you take a look at that? That same video looked at bringing in Anderson. If you are going to go ahead and say the sample sizes are too small and we should make these moves based on the larger body instead of looking at how athletes are currently performing, I am going to disagree with you.

    Also, IMO, what you offered above doesn't constitute a "mountain of evidence."
    No it wasn't really refuted. I love Jomboy but he isn't very analytical. He's more of a comedy analyst who breaks down video. The things he was referring to were more noise over small samples than trends.

    For his career though the order, Snell
    1st - .592 OPS
    2nd - .711 OPS
    3rd - .742 OPS

    Anderson - .587 OPS
    Anderson against RHB - .478

    If you don't want Anderson based on his recent history? Fine, that is a more fair argument. Pick a different reliever but that doesn't point to leaving Snell in.

    But the thing about "recent history" or hot hand... You don't know when it is going to end. People play to their averages and if you can't predict when the hot hand is going to stop, then why consider it? Like I said, I can point to a handful of playoff starts from Kershaw alone where he was putting up a great performance, until he wasn't. And Kershaw is a much better pitcher than Snell.

    The Dodgers were more careful about leaving Kershaw in too long this World Series. You guys say this pitching change is a bad argument to make a stand on for analytics? The team that beat them does the same thing. Both teams are two of the top analytical teams. One of them beat another top analytical team to get there. This post season in general isn't the place to take a stand AGAINST wide use of analytics.

    Edit: Also Snell's splits both the 2nd and 3rd time through the order were TERRIBLE in that video. .900+ OPS? That's not an argument to leave him him.

  13. #1638

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    It's still early in the process, but I believe the dramatic shift to analytics is part of a long term project by owners to control costs. Hear me out.

    Before anyone points to like Cole's contract as proof that I'm wrong, keep in mind Cole still came up well before we ever even heard of the term "opener" in the context of baseball. It will still take some time for this process to work itself out, but eventually guys like Cole and DeGrom will be the last of a dying breed of starters.

    Let's say you are a starting pitcher who comes up five years from now. Your organization has "protected you" throughout your minor league career, you've never gone more than 4 or 5 innings, thrown more than 70-90 pitches. You get to the Majors and are treated exactly the same. And why wouldn't you? Look at your minor league numbers! Your velocity begins to go down around the 90 pitch mark, you've never thrown a large amount of innings and the handful of times you've faced a lineup more than twice has been a disaster for you.

    Eventually you finally hit free agency. You've been a really good pitcher under these circumstances and you think its time to cash in. But...well now you're being told that you're value isn't THAT high. After all, you only throw 4 to 5 innings a start. Plus your spin rate on your fastball went down a little last year and we think its a troubling trend. There's also a 22 year old in our system who throws 100 mph like you used to do, but he only costs us a fraction of what resigning you would. We appreciate your service here, but we think the best way to allocate our resources is to let you go. Hope you find better luck elsewhere with your contract.

    Now you might say, "Hey! That's good for teams to be smarter with money" and while that is true to an extent, who really wins in this scenario? Are fans ever going to see any sort of "savings" from teams being able to slow the rate of player salaries? The only winners are the owners.

  14. #1639
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canada's basement

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by NelsonMuntz View Post
    I agree with all of this. But I still don’t blame the analytics. As you just illustrated here, there was data to support keeping Snell in the game.
    The analytics were misapplied, plain and simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by aeromac76 View Post
    I think it is important to note that analytics tell us about bell curve type performance, and are based on statistical averages.


    So any analytics telling Cash or anyone else to remove Snell when they did were based on a "typical" or "average" Blake Snell start. But that those analytics do not take into account is that every so often, Blake Snell may turn into a single A pitcher who cannot get anyone out, and in that case, forget the 4th inning, he does not get out of the first or second..


    But every so often, Blake Snell, a former CYA winner, turns into Sandy Freaking Koufax in his prime. The other night, we got Sandy Koufax. And the analytics are there to tell us about a typical Blake Snell.. but we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell. It just goes to say that maybe because we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell versus his average performance, Cash may also have wanted to respond to the data in an atypical way..


    He did not, and I believe it cost them the game..
    So much this.
    “Nobody teaches life anything.” - Gabriel García Márquez

  15. #1640
    NYYF Legend

    ojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Canada's basement

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by jbell025 View Post
    It's still early in the process, but I believe the dramatic shift to analytics is part of a long term project by owners to control costs. Hear me out.

    Before anyone points to like Cole's contract as proof that I'm wrong, keep in mind Cole still came up well before we ever even heard of the term "opener" in the context of baseball. It will still take some time for this process to work itself out, but eventually guys like Cole and DeGrom will be the last of a dying breed of starters.

    Let's say you are a starting pitcher who comes up five years from now. Your organization has "protected you" throughout your minor league career, you've never gone more than 4 or 5 innings, thrown more than 70-90 pitches. You get to the Majors and are treated exactly the same. And why wouldn't you? Look at your minor league numbers! Your velocity begins to go down around the 90 pitch mark, you've never thrown a large amount of innings and the handful of times you've faced a lineup more than twice has been a disaster for you.

    Eventually you finally hit free agency. You've been a really good pitcher under these circumstances and you think its time to cash in. But...well now you're being told that you're value isn't THAT high. After all, you only throw 4 to 5 innings a start. Plus your spin rate on your fastball went down a little last year and we think its a troubling trend. There's also a 22 year old in our system who throws 100 mph like you used to do, but he only costs us a fraction of what resigning you would. We appreciate your service here, but we think the best way to allocate our resources is to let you go. Hope you find better luck elsewhere with your contract.

    Now you might say, "Hey! That's good for teams to be smarter with money" and while that is true to an extent, who really wins in this scenario? Are fans ever going to see any sort of "savings" from teams being able to slow the rate of player salaries? The only winners are the owners.
    You raise some interesting points. Putting the ball in play is old school and strikeouts are to be emulated, too.

    Seriously though, the pitcher in your scenario will get squeezed because he's pitching on average 10-15% less per game than the SP a decade before him.
    “Nobody teaches life anything.” - Gabriel García Márquez

  16. #1641

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    A 1 run lead coming up on the 3rd time through the order with a fully rested bullpen coming off an off day and a game 5 loss...

    I have no problem with that call.
    Yes...go to the guy who has given up a run in 5-6 consecutive games in the playoffs.

  17. #1642

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Mixwell View Post
    These are fun.

    The Dodger, Astros and Nationals can all be built to win... only 1 can.

    I'll take the two formers who had winning records against teams above .500 and had a pythwl of 107 wins over the team with the ninth best record overall and a bullpen ERA of 5.66 during the regular season and easily one of the worst in baseball. Where was that built to win Nationals team in 2018 or in 2017 and 2016 when they were knocked out in the NLDS vs the Cubs and Dodgers respectively?

    Quote Originally Posted by Mixwell View Post
    No, the 2006 anecdote does not prove the crapshoot theory.
    I could have chosen the '03 Marlins, '11 Cards or the '14 Royals to name a few, all of whom made the WS but I chose to go with the most obvious.



    Quote Originally Posted by Mixwell View Post
    The Yankees have not won because the Yankees have not been the best team. Period. Despite all the resource advantages possible. Cashman is FAILING.

    Correct. Cashman is a failure and water is wet. Despite all this, the Yankees were one win away from the world series in 2017. Perhaps if the Astros weren't cheating, things may have ended differently.

  18. #1643
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by aeromac76 View Post
    I think it is important to note that analytics tell us about bell curve type performance, and are based on statistical averages.


    So any analytics telling Cash or anyone else to remove Snell when they did were based on a "typical" or "average" Blake Snell start. But that those analytics do not take into account is that every so often, Blake Snell may turn into a single A pitcher who cannot get anyone out, and in that case, forget the 4th inning, he does not get out of the first or second..


    But every so often, Blake Snell, a former CYA winner, turns into Sandy Freaking Koufax in his prime. The other night, we got Sandy Koufax. And the analytics are there to tell us about a typical Blake Snell.. but we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell. It just goes to say that maybe because we were seeing an atypical Blake Snell versus his average performance, Cash may also have wanted to respond to the data in an atypical way..


    He did not, and I believe it cost them the game..
    I don’t know if baseball analytics are based on a bell curve or not. Major-league talent and skill are at the extreme tail end of the normal distribution. There will always be a large available pool of replacement-level players, a smaller pool of average players, and a very small pool of top-flight talent.

    Perhaps standard parametric analyses will work better in talking about an individual's range of performance, which is what you’re talking about here. But in dealing with the overall population, it isn’t a bell curve.

  19. #1644

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Everything is based on a bell curve. If you plot everything, including pitchers who had a great first 2 times through the order,the results going forward would follow a bell curve. It happens with literally everything over a large enough sample. That's not a flaw, it's the nature of probabilities.

    Looking at the wrong stats is a problem, but the fact that they follow a bell curve is not. There are more than enough great starts 2x through the order from former cy young winners to come up with reliable probabilities.

  20. #1645
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    Everything is based on a bell curve. If you plot everything, including pitchers who had a great first 2 times through the order,the results going forward would follow a bell curve. It happens with literally everything over a large enough sample. That's not a flaw, it's the nature of probabilities.

    Looking at the wrong stats is a problem, but the fact that they follow a bell curve is not. There are more than enough great starts 2x through the order from former cy young winners to come up with reliable probabilities.
    Again, I'm not speaking to variance in an individual's performance from day to day, or times through the order. I'm talking about population variance, which is most decidedly not on a bell curve. The normal distribution applies when you have a large, random sample that will mirror the population at large. MLB is anything but a random sample. It does not represent the whole population, just the top fraction of a percentage. If you took a bell curve and cut off the bottom 99.9-whatever percent, that's what the distribution of talent would look like. It's a truncated range.

  21. #1646

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Again, I'm not speaking to variance in an individual's performance from day to day, or times through the order. I'm talking about population variance, which is most decidedly not on a bell curve. The normal distribution applies when you have a large, random sample that will mirror the population at large. MLB is anything but a random sample. It does not represent the whole population, just the top fraction of a percentage. If you took a bell curve and cut off the bottom 99.9-whatever percent, that's what the distribution of talent would look like. It's a truncated range.
    I understand what you are saying. I'm just letting you know that if you take anything, literally (and I'm using this correctly) anything and get enough samples, it will form a bell curve. That's because there is an expected average for whatever you are taking. That will represent the peak of the bell curve. Standard deviation from that average will follow suite and you will get a bell curve.

    So yes, you are right, even the worst MLB players are still at the tail end of the talent of the overall population but over the MLB population itself, there are still expected averages and given enough data points of whatever you are measuring, it will still naturally plot to a bell curve as well.

    Edit: Okay I take it back, I can think of a few discrete examples that aren't bell curves. So not literally everything. Almost everything. For example, coin flips. There are two outcomes, plotting them won't make a bell curve. But if we all flip coins 20 times and plot how many times we get heads, over a large enough sample of people flipping, that will plot to a bell curve.

  22. #1647
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    I understand what you are saying. I'm just letting you know that if you take anything, literally (and I'm using this correctly) anything and get enough samples, it will form a bell curve. That's because there is an expected average for whatever you are taking. That will represent the peak of the bell curve. Standard deviation from that average will follow suite and you will get a bell curve.

    So yes, you are right, even the worst MLB players are still at the tail end of the talent of the overall population but over the MLB population itself, there are still expected averages and given enough data points of whatever you are measuring, it will still naturally plot to a bell curve as well.

    Edit: Okay I take it back, I can think of a few discrete examples that aren't bell curves. So not literally everything. Almost everything. For example, coin flips. There are two outcomes, plotting them won't make a bell curve. But if we all flip coins 20 times and plot how many times we get heads, over a large enough sample of people flipping, that will plot to a bell curve.
    Yes, because those are random, independent trials.

  23. #1648

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by JL25and3 View Post
    Yes, because those are random, independent trials.
    Yes they are. You are correct.

    Compare that with my example. Great starts (and we could quantify that if you want to something. Say 5 or more IP with 0 runs, less than 2 hits, and more than 9K's for instance) 2x through the order from former cy young winners.

    If we look at all of those, it is random over that population. We aren't cherry picking only the ones who finished with CG shutouts or anything.
    And since what Greg Maddux may have done in his doesn't impact how Blake Snell will perform, they are also independent.

  24. #1649
    Tends to be difficult JL25and3's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Quote Originally Posted by sd. View Post
    Yes they are. You are correct.

    Compare that with my example. Great starts (and we could quantify that if you want to something. Say 5 or more IP with 0 runs, less than 2 hits, and more than 9K's for instance) 2x through the order from former cy young winners.

    If we look at all of those, it is random over that population. We aren't cherry picking only the ones who finished with CG shutouts or anything.
    And since what Greg Maddux may have done in his doesn't impact how Blake Snell will perform, they are also independent.
    What’s random? Cherry-pick the starters, and of course you’re going to have more great starts, but there’s nothing random about it. It’s a series of n=1 cases.

  25. #1650
    I.P. Standing Krall's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    In the middle of New York

    Re: 2020 Post-Season Notes and Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by ojo View Post
    You raise some interesting points. Putting the ball in play is old school and strikeouts are to be emulated, too.

    Seriously though, the pitcher in your scenario will get squeezed because he's pitching on average 10-15% less per game than the SP a decade before him.
    He’s saying SP as last of a dying breed though. There’s no way you could field a pitching staff like that. There’s not enough roster spots to cover a 162 game season x 9 innings. Pitchers are subject to not “having it” so by using so many pitchers a game you increase your chances of being blown out. On top of that if every team adopted that strategy there wouldn’t be enough pitchers to sustain it.

    Interesting on another note with pitchers “not having it” is similar to hitters and “hot hands”, no?
    “It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters.”
    ― Epictetus

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts