|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 9, 2019 1:26:43 GMT
Like why do they replace a guy who just struck out three guys in a row with another guy who batters start scoring on?
I guess it's mostly a gamable. Any given batter?
But is there any conventional wisdom or protocol behind it all?
If a pitcher does pretty good then why take him out only to be replaced by a pitcher who blows it?
|
|
|
|
Post by nutsberryfarm 🏜 on Oct 9, 2019 1:40:47 GMT
Like why do they replace a guy who just struck out three guys in a row with another guy who batters start scoring on? I guess it's mostly a gamable. Any given batter? But is there any conventional wisdom or protocol behind it all? If a pitcher does pretty good then why take him out only to be replaced by a pitcher who blows it?
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 9, 2019 1:44:55 GMT
Like why do they replace a guy who just struck out three guys in a row with another guy who batters start scoring on? I guess it's mostly a gamable. Any given batter? But is there any conventional wisdom or protocol behind it all? If a pitcher does pretty good then why take him out only to be replaced by a pitcher who blows it? If there is an answer in there to my OT I don't care to watch all 18 minutes of it to find it. Please post the time of it if there is one. Thanx.
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Oct 9, 2019 1:45:23 GMT
Dude, you are asking the question that led to millions and millions of people to hate baseball. Wow, this pitcher has pitched seven innings of shut out ball, striking out 15. Let's take him out and put in another guy. Let's actually do what the other team would want us to do - take out a pitcher that is white hot. It's the reason why I no longer watch baseball. Can you imagine a hockey goalie who has a shutout being removed for the third period?
It supposedly has to do with pitch count and "going by the book." Starter goes seven, then bring in your eighth inning man, then your closer for the ninth. Managers do that in order to save their own asses. "Look, I didn't make a mistake; I was following the book." It really started with the late '90s Yankees with John Wetteland and Mariano. They were so good the game really was a seven inning game. Starter gave you solid seven, those next two guys would not lose the game. The problem is every manager now thinks just call you call a guy a closer they are automatically Mariano Rivera!
It has ruined baseball. Baseball now is a game that is just a three inning game - 7, 8, and 9. That's all that matters. The pitchers in those innings now decide the game. It used to be the starter was the one who held the game in his hand, now it is scrubs replacing an effective starter. Let's take the effective starter out until we find someone who could lose the game for us. Bizarre, but true.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 9, 2019 2:13:53 GMT
Dude, you are asking the question that led to millions and millions of people to hate baseball. Wow, this pitcher has pitched seven innings of shut out ball, striking out 15. Let's take him out and put in another guy. Let's actually do what the other team would want us to do - take out a pitcher that is white hot. It's the reason why I no longer watch baseball. Can you imagine a hockey goalie who has a shutout being removed for the third period? It supposedly has to do with pitch count and "going by the book." Starter goes seven, then bring in your eighth inning man, then your closer for the ninth. Managers do that in order to save their own asses. "Look, I didn't make a mistake; I was following the book." It really started with the late '90s Yankees with John Wetteland and Mariano. They were so good the game really was a seven inning game. Starter gave you solid seven, those next two guys would not lose the game. The problem is every manager now thinks just call you call a guy a closer they are automatically Mariano Rivera! It has ruined baseball. Baseball now is a game that is just a three inning game - 7, 8, and 9. That's all that matters. The pitchers in those innings now decide the game. It used to be the starter was the one who held the game in his hand, now it is scrubs replacing an effective starter. Let's take the effective starter out until we find someone who could lose the game for us. Bizarre, but true. Yeah, or they replace a decent pitcher to bring in another one just to face one batter. Gets him out. Go to commercial. Come back with a replacement pitcher for the last two outs or the start of the next inning. WTF? Not only is each game long and boring but so is the freaking season. To put up with boring game after boring game hundreds of times only to get to the playoffs to watch your team lose as it was for the Losers/Brewers this year. They suck so I don't even waste much time with them as I used to.
|
|
|
|
Post by twothousandonemark on Oct 9, 2019 4:12:42 GMT
I don't know what we're talking about but as a long time baseball viewer (thousands of Jays games on tv over the years), I always find it fascinating how different pitchers of different staffs of different teams usually always end up throwing the same looking specific pitches to specific batters.
It's a bit weird. I know it's metrics & scouting... but it still looks like sometimes what's the difference between any pitcher not bound for the HOF... they're clones.
|
|
|
|
Post by wonderburstanger on Oct 9, 2019 17:14:28 GMT
Throw it to the catcher's mitt.
|
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 10, 2019 1:24:18 GMT
In baseball you play the odds and percentages. If the next batter has a low "all time" batting average against your relief pitcher, you put in your reliever when it's a crucial moment in the game. It's not exactly rocket science but many years of research have gone into it.
Anther rule is you NEVER intentionally walk the tying run or the go ahead run. You don't put runners on base that could potentially cost you the game if they score. Even if it's THE BEST hitter in the game of baseball, you still never intentionally walk him if he represents the go ahead or tying run. You take your chances and pitch to him.
There's dozens of little "cardinal rules" like this in baseball.
Just for fun... here's another one that managers like -
Don't stack too many lefties together in your lineup. Like, don't have a lefty batting 3, 4 and 5 in your lineup. It's makes it easy for the opposing manager to pull a lefty out of the bullpen to pitch to them in crucial moments of the game. Left handed pitchers do better against left handed hitters. And vice versa, right handed pitchers are better against right handed batters.
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Oct 10, 2019 1:31:40 GMT
In baseball you play the odds and percentages. No, you don't. A sport isn't a science. Things do not go the same way. A top manager relies on his knowledge of the game, his experiences, and then he plays his hunches. And there's one more thing a top manager relies upon -- the game itself. Odds and percentages do not tell you if the batter you are facing in a key situation is four for four or oh for four. The game itself tells you that. A top manager relies on the game that is playing out before him to make his decisions. A shit manager relies on a book that tells him to take out his starter in the seventh...even though that starter is working on a three hit shutout.
|
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 10, 2019 1:48:03 GMT
In baseball you play the odds and percentages. No, you don't. A sport isn't a science. Things do not go the same way. A top manager relies on his knowledge of the game, his experiences, and then he plays his hunches. And there's one more thing a top manager relies upon -- the game itself. Odds and percentages do not tell you if the batter you are facing in a key situation is four for four or oh for four. The game itself tells you that. A top manager relies on the game that is playing out before him to make his decisions. A shit manager relies on a book that tells him to take out his starter in the seventh...even though that starter is working on a three hit shutout.
Percentages is what it's all about. Ask anyone that knows anything about baseball.
It doesn't matter at all what the guy is doing in "the current game". It's all about what the odds are that my reliever can get an out when I put him in to face said batter.
Every manager in the majors does this. So, according to you, that would mean all managers are shit.
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Oct 10, 2019 1:55:06 GMT
No, you don't. A sport isn't a science. Things do not go the same way. A top manager relies on his knowledge of the game, his experiences, and then he plays his hunches. And there's one more thing a top manager relies upon -- the game itself. Odds and percentages do not tell you if the batter you are facing in a key situation is four for four or oh for four. The game itself tells you that. A top manager relies on the game that is playing out before him to make his decisions. A shit manager relies on a book that tells him to take out his starter in the seventh...even though that starter is working on a three hit shutout.
Percentages is what it's all about. Ask anyone that knows anything about baseball.
It doesn't matter at all what the guy is doing in "the current game". It's all about what the odds are that my reliever can get an out when I put him in to face said batter.
Every manager in the majors does this. So, according to you, that would mean all managers are shit.
Yes, yes, currently all managers are shit! You honestly aren't aware of that? You honestly aren't aware of the fact that more MLB games have been lost in the last two innings than ever before in baseball? Now why do you think that is? Do you think it's because batters eat their spinach in the 8th and 9th innings? Or do you think it is because managers are shit and are making their pitching decisions by relying on numbers in a book rather than what is actually going on in the field before them?
|
|
|
|
Post by marco26 on Oct 15, 2019 0:59:25 GMT
Didn't take long to get me to post an "I told you so" post, but last night's Yankee debacle from manager Boone gives me the right to say "I told you so."
That douche Yankee manager Boone followed the book. Pre-planned and written out before the game was even played. He pulled pitchers who were doing perfect work just because the book tells him to bring in another guy. He literally brought in ten pitchers. Kept bringing them in until he found one to lose the game. That last sentence sounds strange but it's true. Ten pitchers. Nine were spectacular. But Boone kept going to his bullpen until he found one that sucked and who would lose the game. Baseball is so f***ed up these days. I hate it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rufus-T on Oct 15, 2019 1:45:47 GMT
The problem with the so called "Sabermetric" nowadays is that the stats do not take into account of the human factor. The stats mostly considered that two similar type of players are basically interchangeable with another at any time, kinds of like a socialist system.
When a manager like Boone do not believe in "hot players", I have trouble respecting him. Very often a hitter hit a couple of home runs, and then inexplicably, he is not in the line up the next day. Something like the arbitrary 100 pitches limit doesn't always make sense since every pitcher has different stamina. It is up to the manager to know the player, not dictated by the stats. Unfortunately, there is this cult like analytical system in place that every manager should follow or be barraged with questions by the media. That is why we gets a bunch of puppet managers like Dave Roberts and Aaron Boone in MLB to follow these system instead of managers with great instinct to manage by the seat-of-the-pants.
|
|
|
|
Post by hoskotafe3 on Oct 15, 2019 3:05:45 GMT
I can explain the Nats strategy pretty easily. Keep your starter in for as long as you can, 7-8 innings ideally and then turn to Doolittle and Hudson to get you 4 or 5 outs at the end. And if you need to take one of your starters out after 6, bring in another starter to pitch the 7th. Doesn't get much more simple than that.
The Yankees strategy? NFI.
|
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 15, 2019 4:22:12 GMT
Didn't take long to get me to post an "I told you so" post, but last night's Yankee debacle from manager Boone gives me the right to say "I told you so." That douche Yankee manager Boone followed the book. Pre-planned and written out before the game was even played. He pulled pitchers who were doing perfect work just because the book tells him to bring in another guy. He literally brought in ten pitchers. Kept bringing them in until he found one to lose the game. That last sentence sounds strange but it's true. Ten pitchers. Nine were spectacular. But Boone kept going to his bullpen until he found one that sucked and who would lose the game. Baseball is so f***ed up these days. I hate it.
I thought you "no longer watch baseball".
|
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 15, 2019 4:25:59 GMT
The problem with the so called "Sabermetric" nowadays is that the stats do not take into account of the human factor. The stats mostly considered that two similar type of players are basically interchangeable with another at any time, kinds of like a socialist system. When a manager like Boone do not believe in "hot players", I have trouble respecting him. Very often a hitter hit a couple of home runs, and then inexplicably, he is not in the line up the next day. Something like the arbitrary 100 pitches limit doesn't always make sense since every pitcher has different stamina. It is up to the manager to know the player, not dictated by the stats. Unfortunately, there is this cult like analytical system in place that every manager should follow or be barraged with questions by the media. That is why we gets a bunch of puppet managers like Dave Roberts and Aaron Boone in MLB to follow these system instead of managers with great instinct to manage by the seat-of-the-pants.
That's just it, managers don't want to manage "by the seat of their pants". They don't wan to go on a hunch or gut feeling.
It's the same principle as professional poker players/gamblers. They don't rely on "hunches" they play the odds and percentages.
It may not always work but over the course of a 162 game season, it can mean the difference between having a losing season and a winning one.
|
|
|
|
Post by WarrenPeace on Oct 15, 2019 7:04:02 GMT
The problem with the so called "Sabermetric" nowadays is that the stats do not take into account of the human factor. The stats mostly considered that two similar type of players are basically interchangeable with another at any time, kinds of like a socialist system. When a manager like Boone do not believe in "hot players", I have trouble respecting him. Very often a hitter hit a couple of home runs, and then inexplicably, he is not in the line up the next day. Something like the arbitrary 100 pitches limit doesn't always make sense since every pitcher has different stamina. It is up to the manager to know the player, not dictated by the stats. Unfortunately, there is this cult like analytical system in place that every manager should follow or be barraged with questions by the media. That is why we gets a bunch of puppet managers like Dave Roberts and Aaron Boone in MLB to follow these system instead of managers with great instinct to manage by the seat-of-the-pants.
That's just it, managers don't want to manage "by the seat of their pants". They don't wan to go on a hunch or gut feeling.
It's the same principle as professional poker players/gamblers. They don't rely on "hunches" they play the odds and percentages.
It may not always work but over the course of a 162 game season, it can mean the difference between having a losing season and a winning one.
I dunno of any managers who do this and maybe you do, but it seems to me they should have a bit of a balance of both. Don't bring in a certain pitcher just because the batter bats terrible against him wearing Reeboks instead of Nikes on Mondays while the current pitcher is doing great. See what happens and if the batter hits a home run or a double then consider changing pitchers if he is still doing good and the next time he faces this batter. Seems to me that they are taking what used to be such a simple game into something more complicated than it should be.
|
|
|
|
Post by OrsonSwelles on Oct 15, 2019 7:10:56 GMT
Above, posters Rufus and marco are both on 999 posts-- backwards 'Satan.' Tremendous!
|
|
|
|
Post by stickman38 on Oct 15, 2019 14:31:40 GMT
That's just it, managers don't want to manage "by the seat of their pants". They don't wan to go on a hunch or gut feeling.
It's the same principle as professional poker players/gamblers. They don't rely on "hunches" they play the odds and percentages.
It may not always work but over the course of a 162 game season, it can mean the difference between having a losing season and a winning one.
I dunno of any managers who do this and maybe you do, but it seems to me they should have a bit of a balance of both. Don't bring in a certain pitcher just because the batter bats terrible against him wearing Reeboks instead of Nikes on Mondays while the current pitcher is doing great. See what happens and if the batter hits a home run or a double then consider changing pitchers if he is still doing good and the next time he faces this batter. Seems to me that they are taking what used to be such a simple game into something more complicated than it should be.
You know... bunting has become somewhat of a thing of the past too. Games change over time. I wouldn't say I agree with it 100% but it is what it is.
Look at the NFL now, it's almost like watching college games today.
|
|
