Eminor3rd Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) 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. 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. Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyyle23 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 People had a good shot at Axelrod at any time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) 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. Edited October 28, 2013 by Eminor3rd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) 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. And again, why dip into the bullpen when you don't have to? If you have a 6 run lead in the 8th inning, Santiago at 90 pitches, why lift him then? Why not let the situation play out? If trouble occurs, then you go to the bullpen. Wite asked about why Ozzie took Contreras out in the 8th inning of game 1 in the WS after only 92 pitches. The situation dictates what you do. When Contreras was lifted, the Sox were up 4-3 and he just gave up a leadoff double. Cotts came in and struck a couple of guys out, then he went to Jenks for a 4 out save. I'm sure in the ALCS if the starters were in danger of losing the lead, the bullpen would have been called upon, but using more pitchers just to use them is silly. If your guy is on a roll, roll with him until the pitch count or the game situation makes you use someone else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 If you make every decision based on the average, you will get average results. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 Just so we have it on record: Chris Sale 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg775 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 QUOTE (LittleHurt05 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:34 PM) I always thought that winning the WS was the best and worst thing that could happen for Ozzie. Best: Obviously bringing Chicago a WS title as manager Worst: It inflated his already huge ego to epic proportions and he suddenly thought he was the best manager in the world and refused to hear it any other way. Which also spread to his next of kin. That ego got in the way of baseball and helped lead the Sox into major underachievement. Good post IMO until the final sentence. From reading the Ventura comments this season, I thought most on here agreed managers have very little effect on games. Hmmm Ozzie led the Sox into underachievement cause of his ego? Maybe the players let him down as the did Robin? QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:40 PM) I know. Yay. Eminor gives Greg a vote of confidence of sorts a few days before Halloween. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 05:35 PM) 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? 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. Edited October 28, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 03:39 PM) Just so we have it on record: Chris Sale 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. So you have a better chance of reaching base the first time than any other. Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jordan4life_2007 Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 05:01 PM) Yay. Eminor gives Greg a vote of confidence of sorts a few days before Halloween. J4L says stop talking in third person. Edited October 28, 2013 by Jordan4life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knightni Posted October 28, 2013 Share Posted October 28, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 01:03 PM) Wow. You are off the rails. ...on a Crazy Train? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eminor3rd Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 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 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Eminor3rd @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 07:33 PM) 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? 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. Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hogan873 Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (greg775 @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 06:01 PM) Good post IMO until the final sentence. From reading the Ventura comments this season, I thought most on here agreed managers have very little effect on games. Hmmm Ozzie led the Sox into underachievement cause of his ego? Maybe the players let him down as the did Robin? Yay. Eminor gives Greg a vote of confidence of sorts a few days before Halloween. Greg, this is why you get attacked when you talk about Ozzie. Make up your mind. Does the manager have a big impact on the game or not? Or is it only Ozzie that has a big impact when things are good and not much of an impact when things are bad? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 28, 2013 -> 06:19 PM) So you have a better chance of reaching base the first time than any other. Interesting. And also more likely to hit the ball for extra bases later on, which increases run probability. That was a limited sample size from one season. EDIT: You can pick and choose what you want, but you know better than that and you can clearly see that he's worse the 3rd time through the lineup. Anything else is being ignorant of facts. It's not a lot worse, but it's worse. Edited October 29, 2013 by witesoxfan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:14 AM) And also more likely to hit the ball for extra bases later on, which increases run probability. That was a limited sample size from one season. EDIT: You can pick and choose what you want, but you know better than that and you can clearly see that he's worse the 3rd time through the lineup. Anything else is being ignorant of facts. It's not a lot worse, but it's worse. Here are the numbers you posted: 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. To say he is worse the 3rd time through the line up is really a stretch, especially with the Sox defense, it's one misplayed ball or a bloop off the chalk in RF for a double, and of course you ignore the 4th time through because of sample size but I'm sure if the numbers indicated he was getting hammered, the sample size argument wouldn't be used. How do you explain the second time through being better than the first time through? You seem to ignore that as well. Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:31 AM) Here are the numbers you posted: 1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646 2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621 3rd appearance: .234/.292/.370/.662 There's not a big difference. There is a difference. The 4th plate appearance is less than a quarter of the PA's. The numbers were really good - .200/.238/.317/.555 - but are even less statistically significant than his numbers from this season. To say he is worse the 3rd time through the line up is really a stretch, especially with the Sox defense, it's one misplayed ball or a bloop off the chalk in RF for a double, and of course you ignore the 4th time through because of sample size but I'm sure if the numbers indicated he was getting hammered, the sample size argument wouldn't be used. How do you explain the second time through being better than the first time through? You seem to ignore that as well. No, he's worse the 3rd time. There's a .003 difference between the OBP. In 333 plate appearances, that's one walk or hit difference. That is literally nothing. Comparing that to his 3rd set of numbers, it means the opposition traded 1 single for 2 home runs. You do that 100% of the time, every time. Aruging otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, and space is small. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 (edited) QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:37 AM) No, he's worse the 3rd time. There's a .003 difference between the OBP. In 333 plate appearances, that's one walk or hit difference. That is literally nothing. Comparing that to his 3rd set of numbers, it means the opposition traded 1 single for 2 home runs. You do that 100% of the time, every time. Aruging otherwise is like arguing that the earth is flat, the sun is cold, and space is small. Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. And if you have a 3 or 6 run lead, who cares if you increased the odds of a guy hitting a solo homer by 166 to 1. The chances of a reliever imploding are far greater than that. Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. It's sample size Career: 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs The 4th time he has not allowed the same extra base hits, but we are talking about 1/5th the amount of plate appearances compared to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time through the order individually. Given these number, it's safe to say assume both of the following: #1) Had his best stuff on those days. #2) Has not faced enough hitters a 4th time to normalize his numbers. Seems that the first time through the order, he doesn't quite have his control but he doesn't allow much more than singles and the occasional XBH. Second time through, he locates better and gets more outs, but he also allows for balls to be hit harder against him. Third time through he's allowing even more balls to be hit and put into play while allowing even more extra base hits. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
witesoxfan Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (Dick Allen @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 08:46 AM) Explain the 2nd time and 4th time. And if you have a 3 or 6 run lead, who cares if you increased the odds of a guy hitting a solo homer by 166 to 1. The chances of a reliever imploding are far greater than that. You are making stuff up with this. Prove it then. I've gone the extra mile to show why these are not smart. You need to provide some proof on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) You are making stuff up with this. Prove it then. I've gone the extra mile to show why these are not smart. You need to provide some proof on this. Does a reliever implode on average at least once a season? They don't make 166 appearances a year, therefore, the odds are greater than 166 to 1. Simple math. You should know this. Ozzie won all 4 games his starters went 9. His team also swept the next series and won the title. It shows he was smart. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dick Allen Posted October 29, 2013 Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:01 AM) It's sample size Career: 1st time - .222/.285/.327/.612, 537 PAs 2nd time - .231/.278/.352/.630, 530 PAs 3rd time - .243/.294/.411/.705, 464 PAs 4th time - .245/.297/.372/.669, 101 PAs The 4th time he has not allowed the same extra base hits, but we are talking about 1/5th the amount of plate appearances compared to the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd time through the order individually. Given these number, it's safe to say assume both of the following: #1) Had his best stuff on those days. #2) Has not faced enough hitters a 4th time to normalize his numbers. Seems that the first time through the order, he doesn't quite have his control but he doesn't allow much more than singles and the occasional XBH. Second time through, he locates better and gets more outs, but he also allows for balls to be hit harder against him. Third time through he's allowing even more balls to be hit and put into play while allowing even more extra base hits. But the numbers indicate he and all pitchers should be best before anyone has a chance to see them that particular day. Your argument is flawed. Of course he had his best stuff the days he faced guys 4 times. Just like when Contreras, Buehrle, Garland and Garcia went the distance, they had their best stuff. League average numbers do not apply in those situations. I was also told that the "stuff" was irrelevant. What mattered was hitters seeing a pitcher for multiple times. Of course then, teams are apparently doing you a favor when they bring in a pinch hitter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted October 29, 2013 Author Share Posted October 29, 2013 QUOTE (witesoxfan @ Oct 29, 2013 -> 09:02 AM) You are making stuff up with this. Prove it then. I've gone the extra mile to show why these are not smart. You need to provide some proof on this. I hope you aren't holding your breath or anything... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.