2017 MLB Playoffs

[degenerasian]

I'm more shocked that on a 3-2 count Altuve wasn't going on the pitch.

And getting back to managers, seeing Madden getting tossed on an overrule last night just reminded me more of what Dusty didn't do on Thursday.

[brian]

Astros are still -500 on series line which seems crazy low. Wonder if there’s some space there for Yankees being a public team. (I was hoping to get Yankees +800 or so).

[EnochRoot]

I'm more shocked that on a 3-2 count Altuve wasn't going on the pitch.

And getting back to managers, seeing Madden getting tossed on an overrule last night just reminded me more of what Dusty didn't do on Thursday.

I think Altuve's goal there was to just live in Chapman's head. Hinch played that beautifully.

As for Sanchez? Yeah. Defensively? He sucks. I know many a Yankee fan will cite 'fWAR', 'dWAR' or 'bWAR' rankings that show him to be above average defensively. All that crap tells me is that the formula(s) undervalue the defensive aspect to a catcher's game.

[mister d]

Eh? He’s obviously an elite thrower and a terrible pitch blocker. Numbers say he’s a solid framer, I believe. I’d agree the negative is enough to be net below average but I also don’t think it has anything to do with last night. (And if that’s not Sanchez, there’s more focus on both throws as a team failure.)

[TT2.0]

i had the sound off...was the yankees manager trying to claim correa interfered with the relay throw?

[mister d]

Yeah. Said he tried to block it with his hands “like Akeem the Dream in the mid-80s”.

[Joe K]

So, why Lackey there instead of Davis? Especially with a day off tomorrow and Jansen out of the game, I don't get it.

[tennbengal]

Maddon said post-game was keeping Davis back for the save...

[sancarlos]

So, why Lackey there instead of Davis? Especially with a day off tomorrow and Jansen out of the game, I don't get it.

The bullpen coach misheard and thought he said, “Get me the hoser!”

[EnochRoot]

Eh? He’s obviously an elite thrower and a terrible pitch blocker. Numbers say he’s a solid framer, I believe. I’d agree the negative is enough to be net below average but I also don’t think it has anything to do with last night. (And if that’s not Sanchez, there’s more focus on both throws as a team failure.)

He had to catch a ball on a hop and then wait for Altuve to arrive to apply the tag. He choked. He essentially ran without the ball. While I agree you can't pinpoint it to any of his particular issues as a catcher, you can still chalk it up as 'not surprising'.

[Joe K]

Maddon said post-game was keeping Davis back for the save...

I see, the Buck Showalter/Zach Britton strategy. The problem I have with that is that with Roberts having already used up Morrow and Jansen, the Cubs' chances of scoring in the 10th or 11th are higher than if those guys were still available. So why not being Davis in to face Taylor or Turner, with the plan of stretching him for 4+ outs?

[mister d]

He had to catch a ball on a hop and then wait for Altuve to arrive to apply the tag. He choked. He essentially ran without the ball. While I agree you can't pinpoint it to any of his particular issues as a catcher, you can still chalk it up as 'not surprising'.

Shit happens on short hops, the timing makes it exceptional.

[Steve of phpBB]

Maddon said post-game was keeping Davis back for the save...

I see, the Buck Showalter/Zach Britton strategy. The problem I have with that is that with Roberts having already used up Morrow and Jansen, the Cubs' chances of scoring in the 10th or 11th are higher than if those guys were still available. So why not being Davis in to face Taylor or Turner, with the plan of stretching him for 4+ outs?

Because Davis was used for 7 outs and 44 pitches on Thursday. And those were 44 high-stress, labored pitches.

No way could Davis go more than one inning last night. So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

From commentators and Twitter in 2016 and this week, I've learned two things about Maddon. First, he's an idiot because he doesn't trust anyone other than his closer. Second, he's an idiot because he trusted someone other than his closer.

[mister d]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

[Joe K]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

Plus Justin Turner is the Dodgers' best hitter. Even if Davis can only face a few batters, that's the spot he needs to be in for.

[Steve of phpBB]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand who you're referring to as the #2 option in that scenario.

[Joe K]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand who you're referring to as the #2 option in that scenario.

I think he's saying that pitching someone else besides Davis would make more sense if there were particularly favorable matchups. Instead, you had Lackey facing the most dangerous hitters. Even assuming that Davis could only face 3 hitters, isn't a tie game, with the winning run on base, and Taylor, Turner and Bellinger due up the time to bring him in?

[mister d]

Right, like say Justin Wilson is pitching well and the Dodgers have L-R-L due up in the 9th. In that scenario, I get reversing them out of best-to-worst order because you're arguably extending your odds. Nothing about Lackey over Davis makes sense for anything other than "we refuse to win a game that Davis doesn't save".

[Giff]

Have a weird potential scenario where I watch my team clinch in the city whose team won last year and may be eliminated during the same trip.

[mister d]

Have a weird potential scenario where I have the best seats I've ever had a legit ticket for lined up but its Game 5 and a sweep will ruin my life.

[Ryan]

Have a weird potential scenario where I watch my team clinch in the city whose team won last year and may be eliminated during the same trip.

I figured it out!

[tennbengal]

Have a weird potential scenario where I have the best seats I've ever had a legit ticket for lined up but its Game 5 and a sweep will ruin my life.

Since you already ruined the 2018 world cup, I don't like your chances here either.

[Steve of phpBB]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand who you're referring to as the #2 option in that scenario.

I think he's saying that pitching someone else besides Davis would make more sense if there were particularly favorable matchups. Instead, you had Lackey facing the most dangerous hitters. Even assuming that Davis could only face 3 hitters, isn't a tie game, with the winning run on base, and Taylor, Turner and Bellinger due up the time to bring him in?

I can see the argument that Davis should be brought in. He gives you a 71% chance of retiring a batter, and Lackey only gives you a 68.4% chance of retiring a batter.

But my main point is that it can go either way. If the Cubs had scored in the tenth (e.g., the Dodgers hit a bunch of guys and commit a bunch of catcher interference), the bottom of the tenth is the higher leverage situation than the ninth. So if Davis is the better pitcher, you'd want him for that higher-leverage situation.

So maybe Maddon's decision to hold Davis for three 100%-leverage outs instead of one 50% leverage out was wrong, but it certainly wasn't a stupid one.

And it certainly doesn't mean that Maddon is a "savebot" or "managing to the save rule" or whatever I've read from the likes of Neyer and Shaheen and Law. The whole reason the Cubs were in that position last night - having a tired closer, but playing baseball instead of golfing - was because Maddon did not go by the book on Thursday.

[A_B]

So by definition, a Cubs win would require someone other than Davis pitching at least one scoreless inning in the ninth and beyond.

But no one can pitch the 10th if you don't survive the 9th, that's why it has to go in cascading order of "goodness" unless there's some mitigating factor like your #2 option being a lefty and 2 of the 3 hitters up being lefty or something.

Sorry, I'm not sure I understand who you're referring to as the #2 option in that scenario.

I think he's saying that pitching someone else besides Davis would make more sense if there were particularly favorable matchups. Instead, you had Lackey facing the most dangerous hitters. Even assuming that Davis could only face 3 hitters, isn't a tie game, with the winning run on base, and Taylor, Turner and Bellinger due up the time to bring him in?

I can see the argument that Davis should be brought in. He gives you a 71% chance of retiring a batter, and Lackey only gives you a 68.4% chance of retiring a batter.

But my main point is that it can go either way. If the Cubs had scored in the tenth (e.g., the Dodgers hit a bunch of guys and commit a bunch of catcher interference), the bottom of the tenth is the higher leverage situation than the ninth. So if Davis is the better pitcher, you'd want him for that higher-leverage situation.

So maybe Maddon's decision to hold Davis for three 100%-leverage outs instead of one 50% leverage out was wrong, but it certainly wasn't a stupid one.

And it certainly doesn't mean that Maddon is a "savebot" or "managing to the save rule" or whatever I've read from the likes of Neyer and Shaheen and Law. The whole reason the Cubs were in that position last night - having a tired closer, but playing baseball instead of golfing - was because Maddon did not go by the book on Thursday.

I don't think that's right at all.

[MaxWebster]

what's higher leverage than "if the other team scores right here we lose?"

[A_B]

what's higher leverage than "if the other team scores right here we lose?"

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

[Steve of phpBB]

what's higher leverage than "if the other team scores right here we lose?"

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

"If the other team doesn't score here we win, if they score one we go on, and if they score two we lose."

[mister d]

And it certainly doesn't mean that Maddon is a "savebot" or "managing to the save rule" or whatever I've read from the likes of Neyer and Shaheen and Law.

Counterpoint: “I really just needed him for the save tonight,’’ Maddon said of not calling for Davis.

[A_B]

what's higher leverage than "if the other team scores right here we lose?"

Yeah, that's what I'm saying.

"If the other team doesn't score here we win, if they score one we go on, and if they score two we lose."

Hmmm. I think we must have fundamental differences in the defining the term leverage. Having a lead immediately reduces the leverage the way I look at it. Sure, you want to protect that lead, but you can still give up a run and not lose so that seems to be inherently less leverage than a tie game where allowing a run loses.

[mister d]

Maddon doubling down, I see.

[mister d]

I imagine I’ll never see a pitcher throw better when giving up 7 in under 4 innings.

[Steve of phpBB]

Maddon doubling down, I see.

After further review, Maddon was fucking right.

I've been digging into the Splits Tool. Since the beginning of June (239BF), RHH vs Lackey have a line of 205/273/377, wOBA 275.

RHH vs Davis: 211/317/389, wOBA 310.

In other words, Lackey is more likely than Davis to retire the next RH batter, and just as likely to avoid giving up a hit.

The Cubs needed only one out, with two or three righties coming up. It wasn't a situation where they needed a strikeout or a double play. And giving up a homer would be no worse than giving up a ground single through the hole.

Even disregarding Davis's 44 pitches from Thursday or the likelihood the Cubs would need someone to pitch a higher-leverage situation if/when they scored, it was completely justifiable to use Lackey in that spot.

The funny thing is, the folks who declared that Maddon was a mindless "savebot" don't seem to be looking at stats. They seem to assume Davis was the obvious choice because he's the Closer with all those saves we're not supposed to care about.

[Joe K]

Looking at this another way, for the season as a whole, Lackey gave up .300/.360/.592 splits in this first inning of games he started. His second inning splits are also quite poor, with his performance improving drastically beginning in inning 3.

That seems to indicate that he typically takes a while to find his groove. So maybe not a good option to have coming in for a do-or-die inning.

[A_B]

I figured it out guys. The answer is one. The question is how many World Series titles does it take for a Cubs fan to become indecipherable from a Red Sox fan?

[Steve of phpBB]

Looking at this another way, for the season as a whole, Lackey gave up .300/.360/.592 splits in this first inning of games he started. His second inning splits are also quite poor, with his performance improving drastically beginning in inning 3.

That seems to indicate that he typically takes a while to find his groove. So maybe not a good option to have coming in for a do-or-die inning.

That's a legit argument. I don't know if it's about finding his groove versus lack of intensity at the start. (Last yr he did fine in the first inning.). But I can see that being an issue.

[Steve of phpBB]

I figured it out guys. The answer is one. The question is how many World Series titles does it take for a Cubs fan to become indecipherable from a Red Sox fan?

Oh just wait and see what happens if the Cubs win another one.

[TT2.0]

I imagine I’ll never see a pitcher throw better when giving up 7 in under 4 innings.

i cant tell if you are being sarcastic...but i feel much the same honestly

[mister d]

Dead serious. It’s not even that I didn’t think he pitched poorly, I thought he pitched well. Two bloops before Frazier’s “poke” and then the other rally only starts because Maybin pulls up on a F7.

[EnochRoot]

Dead serious. It’s not even that I didn’t think he pitched poorly, I thought he pitched well. Two bloops before Frazier’s “poke” and then the other rally only starts because Maybin pulls up on a F7.

Maybin looked like he smokes cigarettes and didn't have it in him to dive.

I thought Morton didn't pitch as badly as the crooked line he splattered, but he did give up a lot of hard hit balls.

Which is a nice dovetail into CC's game last night. The Astros had their worst game of the year in terms of exit velocity (73.7 mph). Boom.

Re-sign him.

At the end of the day, it's still house money, but damn it still feels good. Actually, maybe better cuz there's no weight to it. "It's just good to be here!" said fans of every other team, once upon a time, but never mouthed by a Yankee fan.

[mister d]

I had a theory on Maybin driving in today ...