Game 20, Mariners at Rangers
Jeff · April 26, 2005 at 3:55 pm · Filed Under Game Threads
In just over one hour, an epic battle of pitchers with 6.39 ERAs will commence. Joel Pineiro takes on Ryan Drese as the Mariners tackle division rival Texas. TV: FSN. Radio: KOMO.
The Sportsline preview makes me giggle:
While the Seattle Mariners are back to scoring runs, Ryan Drese continues to give them up.
So true, so true. Let’s hope, anyway.
Comments
232 Responses to “Game 20, Mariners at Rangers”
[deleted, use of “literally†to mean “specificallyâ€Â]
“My analogy had nothing to do with the bullpen management issue. I was simply explaining the logical fallacy in the “it worked, didn’t it†response. The results based analysis of individual moves is probably the most common flaw most fans make when analyzing sports, and I’d love to see the readership of USSM get beyond that kind of shallow evaluation.”
Im going to ignore that last sentence as it is a very unnecessary comment by a very knowledgable and respected blogger. Never cut down your readership. Unless you’re Maddox. His readers seem to enjoy it.
The “it worked, didn’t it” also had nothing to do with the pitching matchup. It was a response to your comment that Beltre was playing the line too close. The ground ball that was hit to Beltre was right to where he was playing, positioned perfectly based on what the plan was against the batter and the pitching method used. It is very common in the late innings to play close to the lines (as you pointed out), so I was merely stating that it worked, in this case, the way it should have. Beltre, probably, would have made the out anyway if he was playing more off the line, but that’s kind of immaterial at the moment.
So it seems as though our comments directed at each other about the matchup and the analogy were miscommunicated on both ends. I apologize for my part. It’s hard to keep track of what some folks are responding to without quoting ad nauseum.
Random note:
In one of those Maxim-type magazines, FHM, I think, in their baseball preview they had an interview with Carl Crawford.
He said he has the greenlight to steal whenever he wants and that he’ll steal on anybody in baseball EXCEPT Olivo.
“The key to stealing bases is not having fear. There is one catcher, though – Miguel Olivo of the Mariners. When he’s behind the plate, I shut it down.”
By the way, Tacoma is up 10-0 in the fifth, behind the sterling pitching of … um … Andrew Lorraine. Doyle is 3-for-4.
Re 197, John in LA said:
“Huh? Dave was using the analogy to dispute your “It worked†“proofâ€Â, not to talk about the particular pitchers.”
Actually it looks as though both of us got confused on what we were talking about.
“And, if I read gameday correctly, the man gave up two hits and a walk before getting one out. That isn’t really, if you ask me, “workingâ€Â. That is walking a dangerous tightrope. Just because he got out of it doesn’t mean he did his job well.”
Yes, he didn’t do his job to the level of effectiveness that I would have preferred, but he did do it. I will agree that he should have gotten Young and / or Teixeira instead of letting it get that bad. Putz almost blew it. Price came out there and reminded Putz of the game plan and JJ got back on it nicely with the next pitch. So yes, you’re right, not AS effective, but he still did his job.
Interestingly enough, he might have done Guardado a favor by bleeding runners down to the 7-8-9 men, but I don’t go for speculative arguementation. 😉
“And why are you so abrasive? We’re all on the same side here. ”
Message boards and blogs are VERY hard to convey emotion in a post. I’m not TRYING to be abrasive anymore then I would try to be “wrong”. But I am wrong sometimes, and so sometimes I guess things come out that seem a little harsh. I assure you, and Dave, and everybody here, that it is not my intention. I just like talking baseball and pointing out my observations. I also like a good arguement to which I place the blame squarely on my father. 😉
Re 200
I find it interesting that Crawford didn’t mention “Pudge” Rodriguez too. Ivan’s always had a scary arm and loves to throw the ball around to keep runners on their toes. I’ve noticed that Olivo does that a lot too, and I like it. In the game on Saturday, when Dan Wilson threw the ball away that allowed a runner stealing third to score, I cringed because I knew that in that situation I wanted Olivo behind the dish. I’m becoming more and more a fan of Olivo and it’s probably because his defensive mindset remidns me a lot of Ivan Rodriguez (circa 1996).
Make that 4-for-5, with a dinger, for Doyle. I know it’s too soon to think about bringing him back up … but … well … damn.
It is Colorado Springs, Jim.
And TIF, I knew you were talking about the Beltre play the whole time. I was as well. I just happen to think that “it worked didn’t it” is never a valid response to anything. It’s bad analysis, and if you find that insulting, well, I’m sorry, but that’s going to be something you’ll need to get over.
Matt Olkin, the Mariner’s (sabermatrician?)player acquisition expert, is on Portland station, KFXX (1080) right now…
True, but altitude and ballpark dimensions aside, you still gotta rake ’em where they’re not. To hear Curto call it, he’s really getting good wood to all fields.
Re 205,
“And TIF, I knew you were talking about the Beltre play the whole time. I was as well. I just happen to think that “it worked didn’t it†is never a valid response to anything. It’s bad analysis, and if you find that insulting, well, I’m sorry, but that’s going to be something you’ll need to get over.”
It’s also not something to get worked up over either way.
And the insult had more to do with a veiled attempt at insulting me directly while attempting to broaden the insult to the readership of the USS Mariner. Unfortunately, I’ve seen some very intelligent posters leave this blog for less.
But, again, this is petty and nothing to get worked up over, so let’s just leave it at that.
As for “Doyle”, right now without Bucky, I’d welcome a hard slugging right handed bat. Dobbs, for all his flaws, is doing the left handed pinch hitting thing “decently” and Chooie isn’t getting any playing time up here, so it’s probably in his best interest to go back down to Tacoma.
Some of you guys sure like to be assholes to each other. Take it easy. It’s baseball!!!
Kevin Jarvis (2-0, 0.78 ERA) gets the win for Memphis tonight …
71/3 6 1 1 0 7. Bleah.
Ugh …
I sure wish someone would put Jeff Heaverlo out of everybody’s misery. This is just awful. Three walks, then gives up a bases-clearing double in mop-up ninth-inning duty.
Heaverlo: 0 IP, 4 BB, 6 ER. Yikes.
The Rainiers are trying their best to give away a 10-run lead in the last inning. Wow.
OK, I know we’re on a different and more relevant track right now…but can I just say that Colon is a moron? That may not be fair, but I’ve never liked him and it’s pretty crazy to see him throw a fastball over the plate to A-Rod with the bases loaded after Alex has already hit two HR that night. Maybe he just missed, but that pitch looked both deliberate and goddamn awful. I know I’m prejudiced because I’ve never liked Colon, but (as someone getting shelled is want to do) looked awful tonight.
I know that every pitcher has a terrible game ever now and then, but I’m glad we don’t have Colon, and I don’t care who knows it. I’m surprised he was even still in that game to serve up a third HR to Alex. With the bases loaded!!! What were they thinking?
Speaking of hacking away — anyone notice that Sexson has been swinging at a lot of outside pitches off the plate?
I’m encouraged that the second time Beltre sees Drese he hits a home run off of him. I hope as he goes around seeing the AL pitchers for a second time he’ll start hitting home runs off of them too.
#204 “Make that 4-for-5, with a dinger, for Doyle. I know it’s too soon to think about bringing him back up … but … well … damn.”
Speaking of which, Shin-Soo Choo has been on the roster for a week now with ONE AT-BAT. I could see them not starting him against Cleveland lefties Sabathia and Lee, but then the last two games have seen righties starting. Randy Winn and Ibanez have both started and played every inning of every game this year (I know Raul’s just DHing) Isn’t it time to let Choo get his feet wet and start a damn game? I know it won’t be tonight with Rogers going for Texas. Wouldn’t Winn and Ibanez be sharper if they each got a day off every week?
Not to mention that if Ibanez sat out a game you’d have a great pinch-hitter ready to insert in the late innings in just the right situation…
If the Mariners played in the NL, Doyle might be on the Seattle bench before May Day, but with Ibanez as productive as he has been at DH, I think Doyle is going to have to show he can play the field before he gets the call.
And yes, the sample size is still small – 35 AB – but his stats are confirming what we’ve seen in the past rather than setting a new pattern and his plate discipline has continued to be excellent: 6:4 BB:K in 41 PA.
#159 – Dave
That doesn’t make any sense, in that particular case it would have been a great move. If WFB hits a home run when Ichiro would have grounded out then you put the right person in the game at the right time. The object of the game is the result, why wouldn’t you measure how effective a move is on the result of the move?
J.R.
Think about it a little more.
If Ray Allen chucks a half court shot and makes it, does that make it a good idea?
Of course not.
Unless he has proven in the past he can hit half court shots at a higher percentage than a normal shot.
Just because it got results doesn’t suddenly make it the smart move.
In the particular case it makes it would be a good move, it would not be a wise decision to count on making it again, because the odds are against it. The goal is to make the shot, the shot was made, goal accomplished.
If WFB has a homer hiding in him ready to come out on at a particular time, and you take the gamble and put him in for even Ichiro at that time and the result is a homer, then it was a good move to put him it at that point.
There is a difference between a “good†move and a “smart†move, I wouldn’t call either of these analogies “smart†moves. The odds are stacked against both, but if you are willing to take a gamble and the gamble pays off, it is a good move.
That doesn’t make any sense, in that particular case it would have been a great move.
No, it would have been a terrible strategic move that worked. There’s a big difference.
If WFB hits a home run when Ichiro would have grounded out then you put the right person in the game at the right time.
You’ll never know what Ichiro “would have done”, so that assumption can’t be made. And you didn’t put the right person in the game. The wrong person committed the right act.
The object of the game is the result, why wouldn’t you measure how effective a move is on the result of the move?
Because when the decision is made, we have no way of knowing what the result will be. We make life decisions based on probabilities, whether consciously or subconciously. The result of an isolated event doesn’t provide us nearly enough information to decide whether the actual outcome was one that could have actually been anticipated ahead of time. We have to evaluate decisions based on the information available to the decider at the time of the choice. If you evaluate by results, you end up giving credit to someone for something that they had absolutely no control over, and thus have no ability to repeat in the future.
This kind of argument often leads to us getting labeled as statheads and other non-complimentary terms, but its just basic logical theory, really. If you decide to run across I-5 for recreational exercise and don’t get hit by a semi on your first attempt, that doesn’t mean its a safe sport and we should all go play in traffic to lose weight. It just means that, on one occassion, the X percentage of you not getting run over came into play. Do it enough times (in this case, probably just once more) and probabability will catch up with you and send you to the morgue.
Evaluating decisions with knowledge that could not have been known at the time of making the decision leads to incorrect analysis. This is why we evaluate methodology and not results.
I agree (at least mostly) with Adam. The only caveat I’d add is that sometimes a manager has inside information on who’s coming down with the flu, who’s dealing with personal problems, etc., that might make the smart percentage move a different one from what we outsiders might have reason to think it is. (However, I tend to find such possibilities believable only on the negative side. Only in fiction does getting bitten by a spider endow one with superhuman powers. I can believe that if Ichiro’s gotten sick he might temporarily be a .250 hitter; I can’t believe that Bloomquist could wake up feeling super-healthy one day and thus be trusted to perform like a .350 hitter.)
In any case, if a manager consistently gets good results from his decisions, then I tend to trust him even if I can’t always follow the logic. But if his pinch hitters go 10 for 100, then I don’t take that to mean that he made 10 smart decisions and 90 stupid ones. I take it to mean that he’s almost certainly following a bad process in his pinch-hitter selections, but that on ten occasions it worked out for him anyway.
(Note: I had the “reply” box open for a while, and was replying to #219. Obviously I’m agreeing with Dave’s #221. To JR’s #220, I reiterate my last paragraph in #222 above, especially the second sentence.)
Or, to add to that, methodology and results that help evaluate that methodology.
The example I always use is “should I bet everything I have on one spin of the roulette wheel?” This actually turns out to be a lot like bunting, or other baseball situations.
The answer, in the general sense, is no. The odds are not in my favor. Even if I win, it was a lousy decision.
But what if I need a million dollars in five minutes to buy my wife some experimental medical treatment that would save her life?
Sure. If I lose, I’m penniless and wifeless, if I win, I’m penniless and keep my wife, and if I don’t wager, I keep what money I have and lose the wife.
There are situations where it makes sense to take super-high-risk/reward gambles.
But overall, playing roulette will not make you money. Pinch-hitting Bloomquist for Ichiro will not score runs. And so on and so forth.
If I, not needing the money, wagered everything on a roulette spin, that’s dumb. I could be out on the street if I lose, and odds are that I’ll lose. Winning does not retroactively make that decision the correct one.
Let me first say that I agree with both Dave and DMZ on the points they’re making: strategical analysis determines which decisions to make based on the probabilities of success and “all or nothing” moves that work does not indicate that the probabilities are good for it working again, nor does it make it sound strategy.
Which is why, in hindsight, I’m trying to figure out why we were arguing about things.
I especially like the “do nothing, keep money, but lose wife” addition. To me, this is the normal situation in baseball where you don’t pinch hit, hit and run, try to steal, or make a pitching change (IE, do nothing and let the players you already have play, ala Ken Macha). It just shows a lack of determination to even try to win. You may win, or you may not, but in either case, you might as well not have been there.
But if you are going to play, play the percentages and go with the scenario which has the highest chance of producing results. So back to the Ichiro analogy. Pinch hitting Willie for Ichiro isn’t sound strategy, even if WFB is a righty. Pinch hitting Richie Sexson or Adrian Beltre (assuming you can) for Ichiro becomes less of a stretch of the possibilities, especially if you want to try to hit a home run.
Again, I’m not arguing, I’m agreeing.
Let me say this again:
There is a difference between a “good†move and a “smart†move, I wouldn’t call either of these analogies “smart†moves. The odds are stacked against both, but if you are willing to take a gamble and the gamble pays off, it is a good move.
J.R.,
You’re arguing semantics, really. You can it a “good move”, and I can call it a “bad move that worked”. We both know what we’re talking about, and there’s no real point in arguing category names.
I think you are right.
The corollary: if you don’t need it, it isn’t a bargain at any price. In other words: if you spend your strengths to weaken yourself at someone else’s gain, you lose.