Ozzie still out begging for a job

[Dick Allen]

[/b]

 

I hope you aren't holding your breath or anything...

Already proven, but the commentary is nice. Even Mariano Rivera implodes more than once per 166 appearances.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[Dick Allen]

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.

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.

[witesoxfan]

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.

 

What on earth are you talking about with the first point? That is about the worst "proof" I have ever seen. Using home runs or whatever is seriously flimsy as hell.

 

Here's Nate Jones's numbers, 1st time through the order - .252/.320/.353/.672

Here's Chris Sale's numbers, 3rd time through the order - .243/.294/.411/.705

 

Sale is more likely to retire them in order. He's also far more likely to give up back to back doubles. It's basically a wash overall with Sale more likely to retire lefties and Jones more likely to retire righties. And that's just the Sox set up guy.

 

If you want take Sale in that situation every time, that's fine. If they're up 6 and Sale's at 90 or 100 pitches, I'm going to take him out to preserve his arm. If they're up 1 and two lefties are coming up, I'll keep Sale. If they're up 1 and two righties are coming up, I'll take Jones. It's not black and white, and there's no wrong answer. I think, given the initial situation described - the Sox up 6, pitcher at 90 pitches after 7 - I'm taking him out.

 

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.

 

As you can clearly see, the numbers indicate that Chris Sale is best before anyone has seen him. He's still good otherwise. And, as you can clearly see, there is not a large enough sample size for hitters seeing Sale a 4th time to come to any sort of signficant conclusion. Given the same amount of plate appearances, it's safe to assume that it would come out to right about the same and likely slightly worse than the splits he allows after 3 times through.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[Dick Allen]

What on earth are you talking about with the first point? That is about the worst "proof" I have ever seen. Using home runs or whatever is seriously flimsy as hell.

 

Here's Nate Jones's numbers, 1st time through the order - .252/.320/.353/.672

Here's Chris Sale's numbers, 3rd time through the order - .243/.294/.411/.705

 

Sale is more likely to retire them in order. He's also far more likely to give up back to back doubles. It's basically a wash overall with Sale more likely to retire lefties and Jones more likely to retire righties. And that's just the Sox set up guy.

 

If you want take Sale in that situation every time, that's fine. If they're up 6 and Sale's at 90 or 100 pitches, I'm going to take him out to preserve his arm. If they're up 1 and two lefties are coming up, I'll keep Sale. If they're up 1 and two righties are coming up, I'll take Jones. It's not black and white, and there's no wrong answer. I think, given the initial situation described - the Sox up 6, pitcher at 90 pitches after 7 - I'm taking him out.

 

 

 

As you can clearly see, the numbers indicate that Chris Sale is best before anyone has seen him. He's still good otherwise. And, as you can clearly see, there is not a large enough sample size for hitters seeing Sale a 4th time to come to any sort of signficant conclusion. Given the same amount of plate appearances, it's safe to assume that it would come out to right about the same and likely slightly worse than the splits he allows after 3 times through.

Your own numbers

 

Chris Sale

1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646

2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621

 

 

He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series.

 

He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers?

 

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

 

There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture.

 

I've argued this point enough.

-In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't.

-Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game.

-The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers.

-There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't.

[witesoxfan]

Your own numbers

 

Chris Sale

1st appearance: .237/.295/.352/.646

2nd appearance: .226/.271/.349/.621

 

 

He is clearly better the second time someone sees him, and you are still taking career averages as the end all. Not all performances will be at their career average. Some are better, some are worse. The 2005 ALCS pitching staff was cruising. It would have been silly to yank them just to yank them, and they showed no ill-effect during the World Series.

 

See post above. Use the larger sample size unless there has been a clear and distinct change in talent. Jason Grilli's career numbers are not very good, but he has obviously improved his slider and is a dominant reliever; therefore, you should attempt to ascertain when that change in talent took place and determine how good a reliever he has been since that point.

 

Chris Sale has not had a change in talent in the last 2 years. He was a 4.7 WAR starter last year and a 5.1 WAR starter this year. That is easily explained by the increase in innings pitched this year. There was no change in talent. He was the same dominant starter this year as he was last year.

 

EDIT: Oh, and I'm done with this. I've stated my points and laid out my evidence. It's just rehashing the same old stuff anymore.

Edited October 29, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers?

 

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

 

There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture.

 

I've argued this point enough.

-In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't.

-Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game.

-The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers.

-There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't.

What were the numbers you posted earlier?

 

And clearly, using his career numbers at this point wouldn't be accurate considering he spent a season as a reliever.

[witesoxfan]

What were the numbers you posted earlier?

 

And clearly, using his career numbers at this point wouldn't be accurate considering he spent a season as a reliever.

 

Those are his career numbers as a starting pitcher

Edited October 29, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

He is NOT clearly better the 2nd time. Did you not look at his career numbers?

 

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

 

There they are again, his career numbers. He is clearly worse. This is more indicative of Chris Sale than his splits this year, unless you believe that Chris Sale was a different and much better pitcher this year compared to last year and that there was a clear shift upwards in his talent. I don't believe there was; therefore I'm using the larger sample size, which paints a clearer picture.

 

I've argued this point enough.

-In retrospect, I think Ozzie should have taken Garcia out in game 4. He didn't. It didn't matter. Nobody should care. I certainly don't.

-Hurrah, the Sox threw 4 complete games in a row. That in itself is lucky. It certainly didn't revolutionize the game.

-The numbers indicate that Chris Sale gets worse the more hitters see him, except the 4th time, which is not a signficant amount of plate appearances to begin with and can be explained away using fairly safe assumptions. This is true of about 99% of pitchers.

-There is no black and white in baseball. Except the White Sox uniforms. Except when they aren't.

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.

 

 

[Dick Allen]

Those are his career numbers as a starting pitcher

What were the first set of numbers you posted? It is funny you had to have them out there, then changed them.

 

The other thing is, the way pitchers are used, they are going to have a higher average the 3rd time through because they are going to get yanked after giving up a couple of hits, or walks. Perhaps the next 6 guys would continue the trend, perhaps not.

 

But this is all about Ozzie and the 2005 ALCS. He was not "not smart" to ride his starters. And the results proved it.

Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen

[southsider2k5]

What were the first set of numbers you posted? It is funny you had to have them out there, then changed them.

 

Has it gotten to that point now? Nothing left but conspiracy?

[Eminor3rd]

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.

[witesoxfan]

What were the first set of numbers you posted? It is funny you had to have them out there, then changed them.

 

Those were his numbers from 2013. I had struggled to find his numbers versus times facing an opponent, found it for 2013, and posted it. This morning I realized that I should post it for his career since it's a better sample size. The numbers fit every model for pitching. I fudged and used the yearly numbers and corrected my mistake. You should use his career numbers too, unless, like I said, you believe that there was a clear and distinguished change in talent from 2012 to 2013 for Chris Sale as a starting pitcher.

[Dick Allen]

Those were his numbers from 2013. I had struggled to find his numbers versus times facing an opponent, found it for 2013, and posted it. This morning I realized that I should post it for his career since it's a better sample size. The numbers fit every model for pitching. I fudged and used the yearly numbers and corrected my mistake. You should use his career numbers too, unless, like I said, you believe that there was a clear and distinguished change in talent from 2012 to 2013 for Chris Sale as a starting pitcher.

This morning you saw his career numbers fit your argument better so you switched.

Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point?

Edited October 29, 2013 by Dick Allen

[witesoxfan]

Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point?

 

Because Chris Sale is a really good pitcher and when he is fresh, his stuff is as crisp and sharp as it's going to be all game. Really, this is a ridiculous question that you know the answer to. You've played baseball. When pitchers get tired late in the game, they lose velocity, break, and angle. You see the ball better and can square it up more.

Edited October 29, 2013 by witesoxfan

[Dick Allen]

Because Chris Sale is a really good pitcher and when he is fresh, his stuff is as crisp and sharp as it's going to be all game.

But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this.

[witesoxfan]

But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this.

 

As I answered above in my edit. When guys get tired, they lose velocity, break, angle...their stuff gets worse. Stuff matters, but pitchers almost universally get worse as the game goes on.

 

A typical progression as the game goes on

 

1st appearance: Stuff is crisp, command is slightly off

2nd appearance: Stuff is beginning to diminish, command is at its best

3rd appearance: Stuff is at point of deterioration, command is also fading

4th appearance: Stuff will be at its worst, command will be at its worst (which can still be very good on any given day)

5th appearance: Nothing but home runs every time up, obviously

[Eminor3rd]

But I was told earlier his "stuff" had nothing to do with it, it was seeing him again. It might not have been you who told me this.

 

It was me that said that, then I later clarified it but you must not have read that part.

[Eminor3rd]

This morning you saw his career numbers fit your argument better so you switched.

Another thing I don't understand, if pitchers tiring really is a non factor, how come guys who have faced Sale 30 or 40 times during their careers aren't all teeing off at this point?

 

HOLY GOD it isn't a non-factor! Do you actually read responses or do you just say the same things regardless of what people write?

[Dick Allen]

HOLY GOD it isn't a non-factor! Do you actually read responses or do you just say the same things regardless of what people write?

your post #144. I really don't think it needs clarity. You emphasized the nothing:

 

 

Joined: December 10, 2009

From: Andersonville

Member No.: 7,886

 

 

 

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.

[Eminor3rd]

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.

 

[Dick Allen]

Then why would you post what you posted in post #144?

[witesoxfan]

Then why would you post what you posted in post #144?

 

A reliever offers a completely different look from the starter. Stuff matters, but it affects the timing of the hitter. Good stuff can always get out good hitting, but there are times good stuff plus different timing will get good hitting more often.