Eminor3rd

With the Abreu signing, Trumbo has no place here, in my opinion. Bourjos though, is an interesting case. According to his stats, he's an elite defender, an above average baserunner, and a league average-ish bat. His slash line wouldn't look sexy, but he's a quiet contributor who has been underutilized by the Angels. Oh, and he has three years of control remaining. I think I'd send Santiago for him straight up. I think our pitching strength is overrated, but I also don't think competing next year is super important, and we have a lot of young pitching depth that needs 2014 to develop in the Majors.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 10:24 AM) I said he didn't revolutionize the game, but neither did fangraphs. Saying a manager is lucky or not smart leaving a pitcher who has nothing bad happening to him in the game because of fangraphs numbers, is trying to revolutionize the game. Everyone knows pitchers tend to give up more hits and runs as the game goes on, that isn't a sabermetrics breakthrough. But if guys aren't showing signs of fading, and their pitch counts are in line, bringing someone else in just to bring them in is pointless. Riding hot players isn't a bad managerial tactic. Except when the entire league has a 60 point higher OPS the third time through the lineup.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:30 AM) I actually like managers with short hooks. I just don't understand why when you starter is in no trouble and the pitch count is fine you would make a change because the league average says he should start get hit harder. And why not pulling him with no trouble brewing is considered luck and not skill. It wasn't like Ozzie was saying, "I'm going 9 with my starter no matter what". He let the game dictate what he did. If you are up 3 or 6 runs, wait until he starts getting hit, or he looks like he is tiring or his pitch count is high. There is no reason to remove a guy who is mowing them down with ease and bring in a guy who may not have it that particular day because of "league averages". If there was trouble, I'm quite certain the pitchers would have been pulled. Again, if you're up big or your guy is throwing a one-hitter, you can consider the outing special. But if you've got a regular pitcher pitching a regular game at regular stakes, the data indicates that the effect is much bigger than it seems to you or me or managers. I mean how do you explain a 60 point jump in OPS between the first and third times through? I know it may not be intuitive, but it happens, and the sample is huge. It's surprising, but it's real.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 05:56 AM) The argument was it wasn't the smart thing to do ,he got lucky, and all pitchers, if they aren't aces get hit harder the second and third time through the line up each game. You don't even have to watch, it has nothing to do with the pitchers stuff, it has everything to do with the hitter seeing him multiple times. That sure does sound like he should have take them out. Then when the numbers showed Sale wasn't like that, they numbers that really ruined the argument were dismissed as sample size, and the others didn't show what he was saying either although he tried to make it fit. No, you are guessing and assuming every pitcher is the same. The same pitcher isn't even the same each time out. Ozzie had 4 guys go all they way. He won all 4 then swept the World Series. The proof is in the pudding. I am not an Ozzie fan, but this whole entire argument is ridiculous. If these pitchers were giving a league average performance like the league average numbers you use for the argument, the bullpen would have been used. And if you are going to exempt aces, shouldn't pitching like an ace be exempt as well? Ozzie didn't revolutionize managing. I know that. But he certainly was not "not smart" with how he handled his pitching staff during the 2005 playoffs and particularly the 2005 ALCS. The 11-1 record and WS trophy can confirm that. I think I understand what you're saying now. I'm NOT saying that a pitcher's stuff on that given day has nothing to do with the hitters' performance against him the 2nd/3rd time around, I'm just saying that the hitters' ability to adjust to the stuff is an element that is being overlooked, and that its significance is shown by those slash lines. So, if managers were successfully able to judge whether a pitcher should stay in or not based on his stuff, you wouldn't see such a substantial effect each time through. It's speculated that the disparity can be explained by some combination of (1) the fact that managers are flat out horrible at judging if their starters have anything left, (2) the hitters adjust to stuff quickly, or (3) the managers are purposely leaving their starters in too long for the sake of saving their bullpens. Personally, I don't think that #1 is true, at least not to the extent that it would show such a massive effect. I think a combination of #2 and #3 are true, with #2 also being supported by the disparate effectiveness of RP performance over short spans and the fact that the "best" starters find it necessary to vary approaches against hitters over the course of the game, i.e. not showing a breaking ball until the 3rd or 4th inning. So, my overall point is that #2 is a much larger effect than managers and typical fans are aware, and that the risk of leaving starters in a long time can be justifiable during the season for the sake of #3, but that in high leverage games, it would behoove a manager to, at the very least, employ a very short hook on his starter and consider planning to remove him after the second time through the lineup regardless of game situation, unless of course it's a blowout.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 06:17 PM) So why don't you break out the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run in 7 innings and thrown 90 pitches going forward? Instead of taking the average, get the numbers from guys who are dealing. That would be more accurate. Pitchers don't have the same stuff everytime out. Ozzie won all 4 games he did the "not smart" thing. And if those pitchers would have started to get hit around during the 2005 ALCS, he would have gone to the bullpen. I don't know where to find those numbers. Why don't you find them and prove me wrong? Until then, you're just guessing. I don't know how many times I have to say that no one in this thread is saying Ozzie should have taken his pitchers out. Are you reading something I'm not seeing?

QUOTE (Tex @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:33 PM) If you make every decision based on the average, you will get average results. I don't know why it's not clear that I'm not saying that. If you have an awesome pitcher on the mound, let him pitch. If you don't, you should know that pitchers tend to get hit MUCH harder the third time through. The numbers are stark and the difference is substantial. In general, relievers are more effective than starters on a per innings basis. There are several reasons why. It is useful to know when the best time to bring one in is. Sure, you can wait until the pitcher is already in a jam, but why would you ever do that if you could prevent it? Dick Allen -- if you have a 6 run lead, who cares what you do? If them scoring doesn't matter then whatever. But if it's a situation where you care about preventing runs, why not do the thing that prevents the most runs?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:12 PM) How come you know the stuff hasn't depreciated over the course of the game? What are the numbers for pitchers who have given up 1 run through 7 innings? Sale's splits don't indicate any difference BTW. The problem with using that number is you are assuming all pitchers are the same. I would think someone would have a better shot at Dylan Axelrod his 3rd time, than Chris Sale but that's just me. This is the third time now I've said I wouldn't take Chris Sale out. Aces are outliers, this information is averages. That's why we started talking about Hector Santiago.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:48 PM) Again, if a couple of guys get on, you take him out. This is a 6 run lead. If his stuff has dropped off, you take him out. If his stuff that his shutting them down for 7 innings is still there in the 8th, chances are they aren't going to start raking just because they have seen him before. If the guy is dealing and his pitch count isn't out of hand, leave him in and get the win. Hitters have seen many pitchers for years and still make outs most of the time. This just isn't true. These are the batting lines for 2013: 1st time: .250/.310/.390 (.700) 2nd time: .259/.319/.411 (.730) 3rd time: .270/.331/.429 (.760) This is actual, factual information -- not a projection. And keep in mind that this is only including starts where pitchers pitched well enough to even get to/through the 3rd time though the lineup. So that worst outings don't even factor in. If it's true that Santaigo would most likely get out of that situation, it's because hitting fails mostly, not because he was the best option.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:35 PM) If he's rolling along, for sure. But if Hector Santiago is at only 90 pitches through 7, you have breaking news on all networks. If a couple of guys get on, or his stuff has definitely fallen off, you take him out, but an extra 20 or 30 pitches isn't going to tire him out for his next start. You don't know if the reliever is going to implode. You're missing the point: it has NOTHING to do with how tired he is. It has everything to do with the effect of hitters having had a chance to see and time all of his stuff. That's one of the big reasons relievers are so effective -- it isn't just because they can throw as hard as they are able, it's that it's a totally different repertoire that, not only have they hitters seen all game, but will only see a couple times all year.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:31 PM) Eminor, I am not the devil. I know.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 02:18 PM) So next year on the final day of the season, if the Sox need a victory to get into the playoffs and Chris Sale is perfect through 6, has a pitch count around 90 and the Sox lead 1-0, if Ventura trots out Nate Jones to face the righty batting for the 3rd time to lead off the 7th, no one should really have a problem with it. It would be the smart thing to do. No, see that is to my point about the outliers. Now, same situation, but it's John Danks. And the bullpen lines up well with handedness the rest of the way. Hell yeah, I don;t have a problem with that. Like I said, though, it's even reasonable to jsut say start the inning with Nate Jones in the 'pen, trot him out the first time someone reaches base at all.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 12:16 PM) But he is saying continuing to have them pitch is not smart. They needed to be yanked. The object is winning games. Pulling pitchers that are cruising along just to insert a new pitcher because of a graph, is what not is smart. I think the problem that people have with this stuff is this insatiable human need for things to be black and white -- right or wrong, always works or never works. In baseball, this is never the case, indeed, in almost NOTHING is this the case. Again, there are two points being made here, both in response to greg's assertion of the man aging deity, Ozzie Guillen: (1) No one in this thread, including wite, is arguing that Ozzie should have pulled the pitchers. The pitch counts were low, the pitchers were cruising, the game was never in jeopardy. (2) If Ozzie were actually boldly leaving pitchers in longer than anyone else simply for the sake of trusting his starter, which he wasn't, he would have been putting the team in a worse position to win. That chart isn't projections, it's actual results. However, wite's point is that sometimes you can make a bad decision (in terms of it being a less likely route to success) and still end up with a good outcome, especially in baseball. The fact is, chance is ALWAYS on the defense's side when it comes to run scoring, unless there's a runner on third and no one out. No matter what you do as a pitcher, the guy in front of you is always substantially more likely to make an out than to reach base. EDIT: Also, it's a natural fallacy to assume that a sample is made up of a bunch of instances of its mean. In reality, it is nearly all instances of things happening above or below that mean, and all of those instances are not necessarily due to chance (though chance is a component). If lineups hit .300 off of a pitcher the third time through, that means they often hit much worse and often hit much better -- and it's safe to assume that the times when they hit much worse are the times when aces are in or the pitchers are "cruising." I guess what I'm saying is this: I don't think anyone advocates pulling a pitcher on a low pitch count who is pitching well. However, the strategy of leaving a starter in for a third time through the order, in general, is a poor choice if the game at hand is of high importance. This is convincingly demonstrated and the effect is, in my opinion, much larger than what most people assume it is. In reality, the behavior that you could see to take advantage of this info would be starting a RP warming regardless of situation when the third time through comes around, and having a short hook on the starter at the first sign of trouble, even if he isn't tired.

47

QUOTE (daggins @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:33 AM) I might be da-man here but: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/jose-abreus-swing/ Swing mechanics guy looks at Jose Abreu, likes what he sees. This is an awesome article, not just because of the conclusion.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 11:37 AM) Just remember next time Sale goes 8 or 9, gives up a couple of hits and strikes out 15, he was "lucky". And I get a kick out of you saying "I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just saying it's not smart". Sorry, that doesn't make sense. He's talking about Ozzie being lucky, not the pitchers being lucky.

I wish I knew about this board back then. I was the ONLY one I knew that cared because I was living in Ohio. I watched all the postseason games from the dorm lobby since I didn't have cable. My excitement was a major annoyance to the night guard, lol.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:32 AM) I remember a lot of folks here giving Ozzie kudos for the way he managed the pitching staff in that playoff run. We shouldn't take away from that now just because of the way things went downhill. Ozzie did a fabulous job of managing that club and he deserves respect for that. Unfortunately, that's about where the respect ends. Right, this is dumb. We're all bickering with one another over something we weren't even mad about until greg came in here and started spouting Ozzie garbage about changing the game and the best ever and all.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 10:23 AM) The starter didn't get rocked or hurt. The team won the WS. That is the only thing that matters. Ozzie removed Garland in the 7th or 8th inning that game, and still ran out of pitchers. If he did it by the fangraphs book, the Sox probably lose that game. And considering they actually count actual wins and losses in the WS and not theoretical, Ozzie's way was the better way. Just keep in mind if you manage the fangraphs way and pull your starter because he might fade the second or third time through the line up, your bullpen is going to in shambles in a month. One key to that 2005 team was when they had the lead in the 5th inning, the game was basically over. Ozzie used the bullpen perfectly that year. Who knows what happens if the bullpen was taxed because Ozzie managed based on fangraphs. Greg is obviously over the top in his love for Ozzie, but to say Ozzie was wrong or just got very lucky with how he used his pitching staff in the playoffs is ludicrious, and just as over the top, if not more, the other way. Managing a bullpen "the fangraphs way" is expressly, explicitly only recommended in must-win or playoff games. None of them have ever claimed that the strategy should be used in the regular season. We're talking only about the post-season.

QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 06:03 PM) Are u also second guessing his managing in the 05 postseason? If so, now I've seen everything. Yeah maybe if he'd abided by the book we'd have won every single game in that postseason instead of losing one. You pretend you have the memory of a goldfish. NO ONE IS COMPLAINING THAT HE LET THEM STAY IN. The first 3 pages of this thread are composed of people telling you that all the pitchers had low pitch counts, so there was no genius in not taking them out. There's a second point that wite is making now. Store the first one in your memory. That second point is how overwhelmingly bad an idea it is, objectively, to leave starters in games past the second time through the order, in general. Over the course of a season, the benefit of saving your bullpen can outweigh that risk, but in critical games, you stand to benefit greatly from bullpen matchups. This is because you always claim the platoon advantage and, even moreso, because hitters have a hard time timing a pitcher for the first time. Please, ditch your revisionist history. Ozzie did nothing that any manager would have done, and if things actually happened the way you claim, it would been a bad idea. Tex is right, your imagination-land preaching of Guillen makes everyone hate him more.

QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 04:54 PM) No, he put his pitchers at risk and gave the opposition greater opportunities to score because they'd seen the guys more often, and overall he was lucky that they didn't score more. You do not understand a lot of very basic concepts. He just doesn't click links. If you put the table in a post that shows the incredibly overwhelming evidence that pitchers are less effective every time through the order, I think it might sink in.

QUOTE (Chilihead90 @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 02:20 PM) I would take a package of Soler, Almora, Baez, and Bryant. I'd rather have Alcantara than Baez

I'm not sure there's a reasonable Cubs package I'd take for Sale. I'm not high on Baez like so many other are, though.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:56 AM) We will see what happens. This guy comes from Oakland, Beane has emphasised getting on base when stocking his lower levels. Hitting is hard. You can know exactly what you are doing wrong and what you need to do to fix it, and still not be able to do it. If this guy can make Garcia and Viciedo stars and on base machines, he will be worth his weight in gold. But guys still chase pitches. There are some built in things with hitters that are very difficult to change. I agree with you absolutely on this. There's pitch selection and then there's pitch recognition. One is a plan, the other is a skill that not everyone can develop. The coach needs to teach the plan and assess the skill. If players don't have the ability, they need to be cut. I would assume that since the players we have are all still here but the coach is gone, the organization believes it's the instruction that is faltering -- though I acknowledge there are a lot of politics and PR involved that may trump all. For example, I think Viciedo can't do it, because I see him look like he's deciding to take random pitches before they are even thrown, and half the time they're strikes. Then he swings at the next pitch above his eyes. He looks like he's trying but failing miserably. Alexei, on the other hand, has never done anything differently at the plate since we got him. He's getting gradually worse because pitchers are getting better at pitching to him and he's getting older and slower, and he refuses to adjust his game to stay on top. That could be his stubbornness or a failure in his instruction, not sure. But the fact remains that if Viciedo/Garcia CAN'T add 30-40 points to OBP, either through instruction or new skills, they will never even be average major league players.

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) I have no problems with this guy. I would just say if you really think the hitting coach is going to increase everyone's OBP 30 or 40 points, you probably need rehab. If that's out of the question, why are we even rostering Viciedo, Garcia, Phegley, Flowers, Beckham, etc?

QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 25, 2013 -> 10:39 AM) If you really think a month or a year with a new hitting coach is going to make Ramirez, Viciedo, or Garcia more selective, I have some Sears stock to sell you. They have played under multiple hitting coaches their entire lives but still have the same approach. I don't think there is much hope for Alexei to improve on that. As you do get a little older, sometimes you do get a little wiser, so maybe Viciedo and Garcia can become more selective, but odds are against it being anything drastic. If you show no signs of even trying to change habits which are NOT a matter of muscle memory after a year, that means you're not coachable or not capable. I can think of no industry where showing zero progress over the course of a year doesn't get you fired. So either those guys are unsalvagably bad, refuse to take direction, or it's the coach's fault for being unclear or having a bad philosophy.