Cardinals Demoralize Braves Early, Decrease NLCS Chances Late
If this afternoon’s contest between the Cardinals and Braves was a game you were interested in watching, hopefully you tuned in early; if you’re a fan of the Braves, or competitive baseball, there wasn’t much worth watching after that. Here was the Cardinals’ top of the first inning:
| Batter | Pitcher | Score | Play | STL WE |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| D Fowler | M Foltynewicz | 0-0 | Dexter Fowler walked. | 53.50% |
| K Wong | M Foltynewicz | 0-0 | Kolten Wong sacrificed to pitcher (Bunt Grounder). Dexter Fowler advanced to 2B. | 51.70% |
| P Goldschmidt | M Foltynewicz | 0-0 | Paul Goldschmidt singled to shortstop (Grounder). Dexter Fowler advanced to 3B. | 56.20% |
| M Ozuna | M Foltynewicz | 0-0 | Marcell Ozuna singled to right (Liner). Dexter Fowler scored. Paul Goldschmidt advanced to 2B. | 62.70% |
| Y Molina | M Foltynewicz | 0-1 | Yadier Molina reached on error to first (Grounder). Paul Goldschmidt advanced to 3B. Marcell Ozuna advanced to 2B on error. Error by Freddie Freeman. | 67.80% |
| M Carpenter | M Foltynewicz | 0-1 | Matt Carpenter walked. Paul Goldschmidt scored. Marcell Ozuna advanced to 3B. Yadier Molina advanced to 2B. | 75.30% |
| T Edman | M Foltynewicz | 0-2 | Tommy Edman doubled to right (Grounder). Marcell Ozuna scored. Yadier Molina scored. Matt Carpenter advanced to 3B. | 86.30% |
| P DeJong | M Foltynewicz | 0-4 | Paul DeJong was intentionally walked. | 86.60% |
| J Flaherty | M Fried | 0-4 | Jack Flaherty walked. Matt Carpenter scored. Tommy Edman advanced to 3B. Paul DeJong advanced to 2B. | 90.60% |
| D Fowler | M Fried | 0-5 | Dexter Fowler doubled to left (Grounder). Tommy Edman scored. Paul DeJong scored. Jack Flaherty advanced to 3B. | 95.40% |
| K Wong | M Fried | 0-7 | Kolten Wong doubled to center (Liner). Jack Flaherty scored. Dexter Fowler scored. | 97.30% |
| P Goldschmidt | M Fried | 0-9 | Paul Goldschmidt flied out to right. Kolten Wong advanced to 3B. | 97.10% |
| M Ozuna | M Fried | 0-9 | Marcell Ozuna reached on dropped third strike (wp). | 97.20% |
| K Wong | M Fried | 0-9 | Kolten Wong advanced on a wild pitch to score. | 97.90% |
| Y Molina | M Fried | 0-10 | Yadier Molina grounded out to third. | 97.90% |
Things could have gone differently for Mike Foltynewicz. There was an infield single by Paul Goldschmidt; Freddie Freeman committed an error. If Goldschmidt had hit that grounder at an infielder instead of in the hole, or if Freeman had caught Yadier Molina’s gounder, the Braves escape with a 1-0 deficit in the first. That isn’t what happened, though. After a walk and a double, Foltynewicz was done down by four and Max Fried came in to face the pitcher with the bases loaded. Fried walked Jack Flaherty, more damage was done, and by the time the inning finally, mercifully concluded, the Braves’ were in a massive hole, though not until after a wild pitch allowed Marcell Ozuna to reach, and Kolten Wong to score.
The next few innings involved more Cardinals runs and a defensive substitution before the Cardinals ever even took the field (Bader in center field with Carpenter out at third), and a debate about what to do with Flaherty ensued. With the Cardinals up 10-0 after one inning, Flaherty could conceivably have been held out of the game and started Game 1 of the NLCS. He went out and pitched the first inning and looked slightly rusty. He got out of the frame unscathed. He hit for himself again in the second and had a quick bottom of the inning, having thrown 33 total pitches through two. He then hit for himself in the third inning and went back out to the mound with a 13-0 lead. After finishing the third with 47 pitches, he continued on.
There was a little bit of drama when Flaherty plunked Ronald Acuña Jr. in the fifth inning. Given that Carlos Martinez was upset about how Acuña had looked at him when he rounded the bases on a homer in Game 1, and Acuña’s throat-slashing gesture at the end of Game 3 (Molina responded in kind after Game 4), hitting Acuna with a pitch in a blowout is a bad look whether it was intentional or not, and if intentional, it’s a dangerous, unnecessary play MLB should to do more to curb. Controversy (such as it was) aside, Flaherty got the club out of the fifth and the sixth and after 104 pitches, eight strikeouts, one walk and one run, his night was done.
The logic behind pulling Flaherty is pretty easy to sort out. Starting him in Game 1 and Game 5 is better than Game 3 and Game 7 since Game 5 is more likely to occur and if there were to be a Game 7, Flaherty could potentially pitch in relief. The counter is that perhaps that difference isn’t all that big, and as Flaherty is the Cardinals best pitcher, he ensures that the Cardinals hold on to that 13-run lead.
After Game 4, I wrote the following:
This hasn’t been a series where no lead is safe, but rather one where small leads have been precarious because they often are. These two clubs went back and forth in three of the four games. Game 5 promises a rematch of Game 2, which the Braves took wire to wire thanks to a great performance from Mike Foltynewicz. He bested Jack Flaherty last Friday in a series that has not gone as scripted for either club. Flaherty will get another opportunity to try to shut down the Braves’ offense, while the Cardinals’ offense, which has been mostly lifeless this series, will get another crack at solving Foltynewicz. Both clubs are certain to get their opportunities, and the team that takes advantage will celebrate on Wednesday night.
Some leads are safe. 10-0 in the first and 13-0 in the third certainly qualify. The Cardinals offense took advantage, and now the Braves are left thinking about the chances they squandered earlier in the series. The Cardinals move on the NLCS for the first time since 2014, when they lost to the Giants after Michael Wacha entered a tight game despite not having pitched in weeks. There are reports of Wacha making the NLCS roster, but a repeat of 2014 is unlikely. For now, the Cardinals celebrate. On Friday, they’ll hope their bats can stay alive and that Carlos Martinez and the bullpen fare better than they did against the Braves. If they can’t, St. Louis may be left thinking about their own opportunities squandered as their best pitcher threw 108 pitches with the win in the bag.
Craig Edwards can be found on twitter @craigjedwards.
The schadenfreude of this all happening while a large contingent of Barves fans were defiantly tomahawk chopping was (pizza chef finger kiss)
If the Braves ever become legit contenders and not just one of those young teams who make the playoffs a few years as they come together, that stupid chop will make their fans instantly the most hated in the league.
I beg to differ. The chop has been around for a loooong time, including when the braves were one of the favorites to win it all, and my reaction was always ‘wow, i wish the giants had something which was that cool’.
The chop has been around since the mid-90s, which I guess is sort of a long time, but certainly not worthy of the extra ‘o’s. It has also always been criticized as racist, and such casual racism is far less acceptable today than it was even in the 90s.
It’s also annoying as shit, it’s like someone looked at the wave and said “that’s nice, but can we make it even worse?”
I’m offended by white people being offended for non whites. Non whites are perfectly capable of formulating thoughts and expressing themselves. The soft bigotry of low expectations is far to prevalent. How exactly is the chop racist? Is it done to mock Native Americans? Is it done to intimidate Native Americans? So the braves don’t hand out foam tomahawks anymore. Maybe they can start handing out casino chips or packs of cigarettes? What a boring, sterile world this would be if every single offended person was pandered to. Super Mario and Luigi are offensive to Italians. The Fighting Irish Leprechaun is offensive to Irish.
From Indians.org. Um, is “Indians.org” problematic? Is there a white person that can weigh in here?
“Original native American tomahawks were used as tools or weapons and were made from stone. But native American tomahawks were also used to confirm friendships and even establish treaties. In this case, native American tomahawks were a little more fancy than the ones in everyday use. Perhaps these native American tomahawks were made from silver or pewter and engraved ornately and were owned by those chiefs who were considered to be prominent.
As time passed native American tomahawks were made from brass or iron. Native American tomahawks were examples of native American artwork, as well.
Use the word tomahawk anywhere, and immediately images of the old west pop in to mind. Native American tomahawks were in the possession of most Indians, and each individual decorated his own to suit his personal taste. The popularity of the native American tomahawk can be seen by the many portraits of tribal chiefs and other prestigious native Americans. Rarely will you see such artwork without the subject proudly displaying a native American tomahawk. Many of these were decorated with rawhide, brass, painted, or anything could have been used, even stonework, like turquoise and onyx inlays.
Perhaps the most common embellishments on native American tomahawks were medicine bundles, thought to bring about supernatural victories during battles. Another common decorum on native American tomahawks was eagle feathers, earned for acts of bravery.
Perhaps the owner of native American tomahawks would also clip a little hair from the mane or tail off his pony and affix it to his tomahawk.
Not commonly realized is the fact that the white man proficiently used native American tomahawks, as well. Native American tomahawks made excellent every day tools. Native American tomahawks were light weight, and could effectively be used with just one hand.
The most important native American tomahawks in history were the ones outfitted with a pipe bowl. It was made from a hollowed out handle on native American tomahawks.
High priced furs were traded for native American tomahawks pipe bowls and were owned mostly by prestigious leaders.
Native American tomahawks were effective weapons because they could be used in close up hand to hand combat, or they could be thrown at the enemy from a distance. Native American tomahawks were also used in celebrations and ceremonies.
A common misunderstanding of native American tomahawks, perhaps due to their Hollywood depiction is that the axe like instruments were used to do scalping. Scalping was the practice of removing the hair once an enemy was dead, and sometimes even while he was still living, so it is reasonable to believe that sharp knifes were used to do this instead of native American tomahawks. It is certainly possible that tomahawks were used to do at least some scalping if the scalper got in a pinch.
These days the word tomahawk has become associated with much more than just native American tomahawks. Submarines and cruise missiles have commonly been named after the native American tomahawks.”
…how many years do you think Native Americans have spent trying to get the MLB to change the Braves and Indians names, and the chop? They /have/ formed and expressed their own discontent about this. For years. Decades. This isn’t a “white people” thing in the slightest.
…..citation needed. I’m fine with getting rid of the chop if they do some market research/surveys like the Post did with the team in Washington. But do what the data tell you, and if the data tell you people who should care don’t, don’t pretend that the Braves should bow to a vocal minority who don’t reflect the preferences of the larger group. My experiences with Resball in Alaska suggest that NA/first nations are a lot less, uh, “woke” about it than most of the voices online, and some (a significant plurality in the post survey) actually like this stuff (which genuinely surprises me).
Fangraphs alumnus Sheryl Ring has plenty of citations to Native American groups expressing pain and hurt over the use of tomahawk chop, so here’s your citation:
https://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2019/10/8/20903421/atlanta-braves-tomahawk-chop-racist-chief-wahoo-mlb-lds
In addition, the “data” idea is absurd. This isn’t a tax issue where you say “we just want to come out net positive.” The opinion of the non-targeted group, which far outnumber the targeted group because ya know, one of the groups was the victim of genocide, are not equal things.
Native Americans, including a current player, have said that they are offended and literally all that anyone else has to do is stop doing the tomahawk chop and do ANY other chant. It is the bare minimum decency anyone could possibly show to just do whatever other chant you could want. The behavior of the group of Braves fans who saw a Native American player expressing his pain and then responding by doing that thing that caused him pain even more was despicable. They deserved to see their team eat it.
Using Sheryl Ring, the Sheryl Ring who thought that someone calling Soto a kid was an actionable defamation claim (just to name an example of when she’s been most wrong, and not bringing in her laughable but debatable attempt at contractual analysis, but I have more), as a source is just misguided. She was wrong on the facts there, and on the law, and unless it was absolutely open and shut she was pretty much wrong where you wondered if she was trolling real lawyers like Popehat for clicks.
I mean actual survey data, which you can collect. I find the chant objectionable, I also realize that I don’t speak for the people affected by the issue. I’m a firm believer in actually finding out if most people who are affected by this have an opinion, and not overcorrecting in response to fringe activists and causing even MORE problems (n.b.: I think the chant is a core thing, not a fringe thing, and should be killed). However, I refuse to make a policy recommendation without knowing more about how most of the affected people feel about the issue, especially after the washington thing.
The level of argument here has decayed to an argument by authority, which isn’t going to convince anyone of anything. But that probably wasn’t the point.
[The tomahawk chop is harmful to Native and Indigenous people, full-stop. The science, as they say, is settled. We know this. It is a fact.]
Insanely credulous take from Sheryl. What is a fact, and is settled, is that there is a severe replication crisis in the social sciences. Taking studies with a clear agenda such as the ones she cites without a massive grain of salt shows a disturbing lack of healthy skepticism.
It is clear that the tomahawk chop offends some Native Americans, and I wish that weren’t the case. The magnitude and ubiquity of the offense is not at all clear, however, and asking that a team and its fans dismantle part of their identity because half of one percent of Native Americans, say, have expressed their dismay at the continued use of the chant is craven at worst, unthinking at best.
Native American heritage is part of Native American identity NOT part of braves fans’ identities and it’s not theirs to complain about “dismantling their identity.”
Unfortunately, you’ve navigated to fangraphs, where we use data to support arguments in favor of, well, policies. I’m not sure if there’s a “make arguments based on crit theory victimhood olympics website that wishcasts for a group of people who you’ve not talked to” dot com (anecdata dot com sadly does not exist, but I’ll set it up to Fiske Gelman I think), but I THINK deadspin is still up and running for the next couple of weeks at least.
Other people have at least, you know, supported their position with some pertinent examples of how NA folks might well feel. You just went straight to insults of, btw, people who likely share your position.
The chop is part of Braves fandom’s identity, like it or not. That’s not up for debate. There’s a reason why so many Braves fans have displayed such a strong negative reaction to suggestions that the chop is racist and should be phased out, and it’s not because they’re distraught over the possibility that they’ll no longer be able to publicly demean people of Native American extraction to their heart’s content. They feel like their identity is being threatened.
That doesn’t mean that their reaction is well reasoned, but it also doesn’t mean that it should be dismissed as malicious or backwards. Given that the chop is obviously meaningful to a significant portion of fans, shouldn’t we at least take the temperature of Native American populations to see where the majority stand on the issue rather than relying on the word of fringe groups or a few vocal players as a basis for a change that would certainly upset many?
As soon as you back up an argument with something written by Sheryl Ring, by far the worst writer in the history of fangraphs, you lose all credibility. Again, you, sir, are a moron
“Citation needed” works both ways. You think it’s something pretty new? Then show when it first appeared, with a reference saying it hadn’t been done before. Better, drop the “citation needed” nonsense and own your mistake.
I’m partly of Native American extraction (not just American Indian but also Canadian First Nations, and spread among enough different tribes/nations that I don’t maintain a tribal affiliation), and the chop annoys me a great deal more than Chief Wahoo. If you get into the history of the Cleveland Indians, Chief Wahoo was intended to convey respect, not disrespect, for former Cleveland player (and Penobscot) Louis Sockalexis, taken all too soon by alcohol and disease after a promising start to his career. The chop doesn’t convey respect for anybody, or anything. It’s just obnoxious.
So generally, the racial issue here is cultural misappropriation. You ask if the chant is intended to mock or intimidate. Perhaps it is a form of mocking. But I would suggest you look into the issues around cultural misappropriation.
https://www.apnews.com/ef1a47e7ec1374b4363cfd0f149f6f2b
Based on that article from 1996, it certainly appears that at least some Native American groups have been offended for a while.
I grew up as a Braves fan in Georgia and I hate that tomahawk chop. It’s gross and dumb.
You, sir, are a moron
So 98% WP before Flaherty even took the mound. By the numbers, it’s hard to argue that letting him pitch at all (maybe just the first inning to stay sharp), let alone go six innings, makes sense. Maybe they moved the WP from 98 to 99.5%, but how much did their WP of the NLCS drop because Flaherty can’t start Game 1 and Game 5, and be available for some relief after that?
Same kind of thinking that made Maddon look bad in Game 6 of the WS, when he left Chapman in to protect a huge lead, then watched as he almost melted down the next night. The idea is to maximize the probability of going all the way, at least as far as you can reasonably foresee at any given moment. The Cardinals didn’t do that.
The only way I can rationalize this decision–and I know for sure that is not. what Schildt was thinking–is that if the Dodgers win, Flaherty will go against Buehler, LA’s ace right now, so a Game 3 win might be a little more valuable than a Game 1 win. Flaherty would also go against Strasburg in Game 3 if the Nats win. But two starts for almost certain vs. one start and who knows is pretty much a no-brainer.
Flaherty threw 1 fewer pitch today than Strasburg.
Josh Tomlin was the best pitcher for the braves today.
Reducing his lifetime playoff ERA to 3.33 and his FIP to 2.91, across four starts and four relief appearances totaling 24.1 innings. He’s honestly kind of good in the postseason, he only had one real clunker of an outing (WS G6 in 2016, which was at least partially the fault of bad defense).
How often is a pitcher the batter who walks to force in a run — I’m not a regular NL watcher but that’s got to be pretty rare?
There had been 3 in 2019 regular season. From 4,385 times when a pitcher was batting with the bases loaded.
Chris Archer was walked by Jhoulys Chacin on 2019-05-31
Patrick Corbin was walked by Michael Wacha on 2019-04-29
Trevor Williams was walked by Sonny Gray on 2019-03-31
My bad the 4,385 was bases loaded for all hitters not just pitches. Adjusted to 153.
I don’t know if the order matters that much. If it’s game 5 and you are facing elimination, either you are starting other pitchers and hoping to survive until Flaherty or going with Flaherty and having to win the rest of the series with other pitchers. While playing the high percentage game first might make prolonging the series more likely, the fact is you need to win every game so the order doesn’t matter.
That being said, I wouldn’t have let Flaherty throw a pitch today as the benefit was miniscule. The above reasoning is mostly to keep me from pulling my hair out as a result of Shildt’s awful game management.
First CC AFC, stop embarrassing yourself.
Second, there needs to be a broader article written about just how bad the Braves were this series. Just for this series to even make it 5 games, the Braves had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory so many times. Game 4 Cards got so so so lucky.
They’re not the one who looks bad here, I’m (not) sorry to say.
I agree, Christopher – Cards did get lucky in Game 4 (who can forget the hit by Molina JUST grazing the tip of Freeman’s glove?), but of course so did the Braves. I mean, a potential groundout to Carpenter hit the bag. A routine flyout got lost in the sun by Dexter Fowler. Those are freaky, random things that just happened to swing the Braves’ way. IOW, the Braves “gave” that game to the Cards only if you’re being willfully selective.
I’ll give you the Fowler play, but the Carpenter play is really just poor fundamentals by him. You are taught from young age that you should field a ball in front of the bag to avoid it hitting the bag. Carpenter was just watching and praying it went foul.
I guess I’ll play the Devil’s advocate of sorts re Flaherty’s usage tonight.
And I say this as someone who dislikes Mike Shildt, based primarily on his
(1)twice pitching closer Carlos Martinez four days in a row this September;
(2)running then-36-year-old catcher Yadier Molina into the ground in 2018 by starting him 27 games in a row, including 23 games in 24 days, in the swelter of a St. Louis summer; and
(3)re-installing Dexter Fowler and his .548 OPS into the regular lineup last season, after Mike Matheny had quite correctly [if belatedly] benched Fowler more than a month earlier. Besides making the team immediately weaker, said move by Shildt also indirectly made the awful Pham trade necessary, in order to get Bader back into the lineup. Basically, Shildt benched Bader — the team’s best overall outfielder in 2018 — to shoehorn one of baseball’s worst players [2018 version of Fowler] back into the starting lineup.
Anyway, I don’t like Mike Shildt much.
Okay, so tonight. Firstly, I don’t think it was realistic to simply not pitch Flaherty at all. Everything he did on game day today in preparation, everything he did yesterday, everything the day before — all the stretching or lifting or long toss or running or anything — was geared toward making the start in Game Five. Disrupting his routine would be risky, I think. Especially on a moment’s notice.
Now, about the pitch count and more specifically Craig Edwards’ contention that tonight when Flaherty reached 94 pitches, “at 94 pitches we are entering pitching tired territory and that can be dangerous for an injury.” Really, at 94 pitches we should start thinking about injury? Jack Flaherty threw 104 pitches tonight. Unusually low-stress pitches, obviously.
But let’s consider Craig’s point of view and see if there’s any reason to be concerned that Flaherty was “pitching tired” tonight, or that there may be repercussions going forward.
Q: How effective was Flaherty this year, when going beyond 100 pitches?
A: Batters went 1-for-23 with 9 K’s and 3 walks.
Wow. So, no evidence that Flaherty tires at 100 pitches, much less 94. It certainly looks like the manager (and catcher, and the pitcher himself) have a good idea of when Flaherty is tiring and when he ain’t.
But maybe there’s some evidence that they should have pulled Flaherty after, say, 75 or 80 pitches, though, because maybe he’s been better in the *following* start, when nominally fresher. Let’s test that theory and see how Flaherty pitched this year after his lowest and highest pitch counts.
His two lowest pitch counts were 75 on April 16, and 77 on June 1. Well, on April 23 he allowed 4 runs in 6 innings. On June 8 he permitted 4 runs in 3 2/3 innings. Not good.
Flaherty’s two highest pitch counts on the other hand were 118 on September 19, and 113 on September 3. After the 118-pitch effort, he threw 7 shutout innings on regular rest in each of his next two starts, allowing a total of six baserunners while fanning 17 men. After the 113-pitch outing, he tossed 8 shutout frames. Again, on normal rest.
Full disclosure: I also vehemently wanted Flaherty pulled after 70 or 80 pitches tonight. But then I checked the numbers. And now I feel pretty stupid and arrogant. Sometimes, as hard as it may sometimes be to believe, managers and pitching coaches and catchers do know more than we do about how to get the most from a pitcher.
I think you’re laboring mightily to assemble numbers to make a point that isn’t provable that way. But anyway…
Watching Shildt’s postgame interview, it’s clear he never considered not pitching Flaherty, period. And as for when to pull him, Shildt stated plainly he wanted to give his pitcher a full game because, basically, that’s what he thought Flaherty wanted. And finally, Shildt said that, in his mind, he didn’t want to take any chances on blowing the lead, so he wanted his best pitcher on the mound. In other words, Shildt is an unimaginative guy but he did what he thought was right in order to win the game and make his ace happy. Whatever, Mike.
Thanks for the response.
I don’t know about “laboring mightily.” I was just trying to be evidence-based and at least somewhat more thorough than one can possibly be on the spur of the moment in-game.
Like Craig and Szym and several others in the chat populace, my in-game gut reaction was to ardently second guess the manager — a manager I already disliked. But upon reflection & investigation, now I feel that I was upset over nothing, basically. Whatever Shildt’s declared (and undeclared) motivations/reasoning, I don’t see any reason to think Flaherty was ill served by his manager last night. I realize that nothing’s been “proven.” But based on everything that Flaherty’s done this year, I see no extra cause for concern going forward in the playoffs.
Anyway, thanks again and take it easy.
Flaherty had to pitch to at least one hitter.
SSS. The two low pitch count examples both come from the first half of the season, when Flaherty had an ERA of 4.64. The two high pitch counts come from the second half, when his ERA was 0.91. Maybe he didn’t throw as many pitches in April and June because he wasn’t reliable enough to leave in for a long time. Maybe he was allowed to pitch longer in September, because he was the hottest pitcher in baseball at that time; and the Cardinals were fighting to make the postseason.
IOW, maybe the low pitch counts came at a time when he wasn’t pitching that well, and the high counts came at a time when he was superb. In any case, I wouldn’t make much of four games. If you think managers and coaches and catchers believe that any SP is more likely to pitch better after a high pitch count game than after a low pitch count game, it’s certainly a very well kept secret.
Who starts for STL is far less important than how many Nationals MR self-destruct. Having seen…oh, all of the Nats’ self-immolations vs. the Cardinals over the years, until Washington exorcises some demons the Cards can pitch 83 year-old Bob Gibson and feel pretty good about their chances. This “Justice for Flaherty” meme is irrelevant because the NLCS is about what’s in the Nationals’ psyche, IMO.
In the 3 wins the Nats had in the LDS the bullpen numbers:
Game 2 3 innings, 2 hits, 1 run, 2 walks, 7 k’s
game 4 2 innings, 1 hit, 1 k
Game 5 4 innings, 1 hit, 5 k’s
so in those 3 games 9 innings, 4 hits, 1 run, 2 walks, 13 k’s
You say starters out of the pen….. Scherzer threw 1 inning in game 2. Corbin did help out last night- BUT there again, he’s not going until game 4 and so probably is available again out of the pen in games 1 and 2(and then in games 6-7).
To be fair, the Nationals playoff futility was against 4 different franchises over the years, only 1 of those being the Cardinals. And that was in 2012, a very different team than they are now (a team that also happened to just get the monkey off its back and advance in the playoffs for the first time since moving to DC).
Sure, their record against the Cardinals in the regular season has been pretty abysmal since 2012, but it’s still a relatively small sample size. The Nats losses to the Cards this year had little to do the bullpen, anyway, and more to do with poor starts and/or lack of run support (only 1 of the 5 losses was credited to a reliever). In any event, we’ll see soon enough.
What are “all of the Nats’ self-immolations vs. the Cardinals over the years”? Are you including regular season games in this as well? B/c the Nats have only faced the Cards once in the postseason, in the 2012 NLDS. They famously collapsed in Game 5, I’ll give you that, but their other losses were non-competitive. And in one of their wins, it was the Cardinals who had a 91% win probability in the 8th inning and “self-immolated.” What am I missing? (Of course this is all disregarding the obvious: whatever the Nationals did against the Cardinals in 2012 or 2013 or whenever really is clearly moot at this point.)
I just think the optics would be really bad from a karma perspective. I know baseball stat mavens dont traffic in karma, but something about pulling your best starter in the 2nd inning of an elimination game doesnt feel right if its just for the next series.
Maybe it wakes up the Braves. Maybe it makes the other Cards starters feel like they’re not trusted. It’s just not a good look.
Yes – 99% chance they win. But that 1% chance would be an all timer.
Yeah, I see the reason for leaving Flaherty in, too. I don’t trust the bullpen, personally, and with 27 (or 24 or 21) outs left, a bad relief appearance early could give life to an otherwise defeated team. I’m ok with the choice, even if the argument against letting him go too far is pretty clearcut.
Flaherty hit Acuna on purpose. His postgame comments about Ronald’s “antics”, immediately after denying hitting him intentionally, left little doubt of that. Whatever little doubt remained was erased by the locker room postgame speech from Schildt, live-streamed by a Cards player, in which he said “no one messes with us … we’re going to mess them up.”
There was a lot of talk about the chop in this series, and many of the points made against it were good ones, but by far the most offensive thing in this series was the behavior of Martinez, Flaherty, Molina, and Mike Schildt, the manager who at the very least let it all happen. Say what you will about the Braves, but they had the opportunity to throw at Flaherty the following inning and chose to take the high road. The Cards didn’t, and it was shameful.
They’re consistently held up as a model organization, yet the Braves showed more class in defeat than they did in victory.
Damn that Mike Shildt for letting his players show emotion and have fun playing a game. How dare he.
(I don’t condone the plunking if it was on purpose, but I really doubt it was on purpose)
“The [Braves] started some s—. We finished the s—,” Shildt says in the video, which outfielder Randy Arozarena later acknowledged he streamed live on Instagram. “And that’s how we roll. No one f—s with us ever. Now, I don’t give a f— who we play. We’re gonna f— them up. We’re gonna take it right to them the whole f—ing way. We’re gonna kick their f—ing ass.”
I was referring specifically to these comments. That sounds about as close to a confession as I one can possibly make without saying “You bet we threw at the cocky f—.” Turns out managers and players are a lot more truthful about these things when they think they’re talking behind closed doors. If you can’t see that it was intentional, then you should take off your Cardinal goggles.
I don’t know if Flaherty threw at Acuna on purpose. If he did it’s weird that he waited to plunk him after throwing 3 pitches to him inside the strike zone. Also, the Cards were pitching Acuna up and in even before he hit his HR in Game 1. Then again, Occam’s Razor says two outs in a blowout game, with all the bad blood between Acuna and the Cards, it’s probably more likely than not that Flaherty was throwing at him intentionally. If so: lame.
That said, I honestly took Shildt’s comments to mean f-cking up the Braves on the field. Seems weird to have a long rousing postgame speech that’s all about throwing at Acuna. Possible, I guess, but it seems there were a lot of other things going on in that speech.
Finally, saying the Braves showed class in this series is odd given the throat-slashing gesture by Acuna at the end of Game 3. I think the Cards responded to that gesture with a lack of class of their own (Molina echoing it after Game 4, Flaherty potentially retaliating on the mound), but that doesn’t change that it was a pretty awful moment for Acuna too.
Flaherty didn’t want to get suspended. The best way to get suspended would be to throw a pitch up and in at Ronald to lead off a plate appearance, right? I mean, this isn’t hard. Nearly every piece of circumstantial evidence points to this being intentional — the bad blood in the series bw Ronald and the Cards, the postgame comments from Flaherty — in which he displayed an obvious saltiness about Ronald’s behavior immediately after denying that he hit him purposely, Mike Schildt’s postgame tirade, Yadi’s comments and gestures, Martinez’s comments and gestures, and the fact that there was absolutely no cost to the Cards’ chances of winning that game by throwing at him there.
Schildt spoke like a man possessed of righteous anger and a desire for vengeance — “f— w/ us, and we’ll f— you up.” If you can’t hear that for what it is, given all the other things that went on in that series, then there’s nothing short of a direct and explicit admission that will convince you, and that is never going to happen. Flaherty’s denial was basically Urena’s denial, only he followed it up by telling everyone how salty he was about Ronald. Do you think Urena just missed inside? How was that any more clear-cut than this? The only difference is that Flaherty and Yadi weren’t stupid and hotheaded enough to throw at him on the first pitch. They had a low-cost opportunity to teach him a lesson, and they took advantage of that opportunity when it presented itself.
The Braves showed class by not throwing at Flaherty the following inning, which they could have easily done with no cost to their chances of winning. Not only could that have injured Flaherty and killed the Cards’ postseason chances, but it very well could have precipitated a brawl that injured other Cardinals’ players and gave baseball a black eye. The Braves showed class as a team by not retaliating. Their manager, catcher, and pitcher showed class by not retaliating. Whatever Ronald did that might have been objectionable was isolated to Ronald. The Cards objectionable behavior came from Yadi, Flaherty, Martinez, and Shildt, and thus is more representative of a pervasive tolerance of that nonsense within the Cards’ organization.
As I said earlier, I agree that Flaherty probably threw at Acuna. And I don’t have time to go into all that was going on with Shildt’s speech, but you’re clearly hearing what you want to hear and not entertaining alternate explanations. One of your odder points is your claim that Shildt was speaking in coded language – and yet he had no idea his speech was being recorded, so there was really no need for him NOT to directly and explicitly talk about retaliating against Acuna. Again, it’s possible Shildt was giving a clubhouse speech built around throwing at Acuna, but based on the evidence at hand we can’t say that with any certainty.
I didn’t say he was speaking in code. He sounded like a guy who wanted revenge. His team took it. He’s obviously referring to Ronald when he talks about the Braves “starting shit.” He’s obviously angry about it. He’s obviously not at all troubled by Flaherty’s actions. Just own it. Take some damn responsibility for it, and quit hiding behind the barely perceptible shadow of a doubt.
Of course he’s talking about Acuna when he talks about “starting shit.” The rest of your argument still doesn’t follow from that. But whatever. As I said I think it’s probable that Flaherty was throwing at Acuna and possible Shildt was cool with it. But the fact that the shadow of a doubt around those things is barely perceptible to you tells me all I need to know.
Hiding behind “probable but not certain” is just how this sort of thing perpetuates itself. It’s a feeble justification for not coming down on pitchers who throw at batters. “We’re not entirely sure” is enough of a crack for this nonsense to get through. If we can’t condemn anything less than a situation beyond all reasonable doubt, then we can never condemn it. In this case, resorting to “probable” is just a means of looking the other way and ignoring it.
Locker room talk. You’ve obviously never been in one
The fact that you played beer league softball doesn’t uniquely qualify you to discern Shildt’s motivations.
His comments after the game make one think it was on purpose. The grossest part is that braves players and management lack of standing up for Acuna after getting hit. Atlanta doesnt deserve him after this series.
Yep it was 100% intentional, and any respect I had for Snit is gone after he let that happen and flat out didn’t have Acuna’s back. He went out there ready to fight Urena last year after he plunked Ronnie, and this time in a 13-1 game where he was intentionally plunked he just stood there and did nothing. I never want to hear that “players manager” crap about him ever again.
You’re all wrong. Snitker knows a deliberate attack when he sees one. Urena was deliberate and he reacted. No one on the Braves thought it was. The only reason it even comes up is because Acuna started barking instead of trotting to first.
The Braves announcers, who have actually been in a pro baseball locker room, certainly did. They also thought Martinez was intentionally throwing at him in Game 3. *You*, the third-best player on “The Beer Boys” (a .500 team in a slow pitch softball league that only exists to give overweight middle aged men an excuse to get away from their wives once a week), don’t think he threw at him because of your hard-won expertise on locker room speeches. You don’t speak for the Braves.
The best defense against Flaherty’s HBP being intentional is how mind-boggling it would be to do that there. If Acuña and the Braves react, either charging the mound or hitting a Cardinals player, the only team really at risk is the Cardinals.
I find this defense less than compelling due to the fact that baseball players frequently do very stupid things in the name of their stupid macho feelings.
I’m sure the guy here yesterday saying Martinez wasn’t throwing at Acuña because he has bad control will be first to say this must have been. Flaherty was dealing and hitting his spots all day. He decided one of his spots was Acuna’s back. It was bush league and MLB should suspend him. The fact that the Braves took the high road should not be used to excuse this dangerous behavior.
HarryLives, while I won’t disagree with anything you said, I do wonder why more isn’t said about Ronald Acuna’s antics when people are so quick to criticize other aspects of the game (to include the tomahawk chop). IMO, Acuna’s antics demonstrate a childish lack of focus. Examples: dropping what would have been a great catch and, instead of hustling to throw the ball back to the infield to prevent runners from advancing, he stares at the sky in anger and disbelief; barely missing a HR ball just over the fence that he thinks he caught, he starts to go into his celebration rage scream only to realize he missed it and starts pouting as he leans against the CF wall; not running out a hit thinking it is a HR only to realize it’s off the wall and he ends up with a single – and then tries to make up for it by getting caught trying to steal 2nd base. These things matter in a player’s development, not to mention the game at hand. It somewhat reminds me of Yasiel Puig. While I believe Puig’s antics are genuine and not intentionally aimed at the other team, they demonstrate a lack of focus and maturity and are a major aspect of what has held him back from developing into a superstar. Don’t get me wrong and think I’m comparing their stats. Acuna is a great player already putting up superstar stats. But, he can be even better if he develops his focus and maturity. Age is no excuse – I continue to think Puig, at 28 years old, will one day figure it out.
When Acuna and Juan Soto made their debuts in the majors last season, I clearly saw Acuna as the better player – 5 legit tools. But over the course of this season, Soto (~ 10 months younger than Acuna) appears much more focused and mature. I have come to appreciate Soto more and Acuna less because of this. Focus, hustle and determination to improve are tremendous equalizers to talent.
Bottom line. Acuna’s antics, which are annoying, should be more of a concern to the Braves than the other teams.
Almost all of the complaints about Ronald’s style of play concern things that have no effect on his performance or on the Braves’ chances of winning. Sure, he’s made mental errors. Sure, occasionally he does something immature.
As far as I know, Ronald Acuna has never hurled a baseball at 90+ mph at someone’s head. Nothing Ronald has ever done is harmful in the sense that it endangers the physical well-being and career of another player. Only a few things Ronald has done were harmful in the sense that they hurt the Braves chances of winning, and those are vastly outweighed by the many great things he does to help the Braves win. For instance, in a game in which he hit a two-run homer, a double, a single, and made a difficult run-saving diving catch, the focus was somehow on the double he turned into a single.
If you watch Ronald play every day, you know he plays hard. He led the league in stolen bases. He always takes extra bases, and at times he runs so hard that his legs fly out from under him. He shows up on time every day, ready to play, and he does so under intense media and fan scrutiny. He’s far more mature than I was at 21 years of age, when I spent most of my time cutting class and chasing girls.
Rather than focus on his occasional lapse and condemn him for it, I’d rather forgive those things as youthful exuberance and concentrate on the many wonderful things he brings to the game. He plays with fire, flare, and joy, and baseball could use more of it. If Jack Flaherty, Yadi Molina, and Carlos Martinez can’t handle it, then maybe they should try to get him out rather than purposely endangering his safety.
The funniest part of that is the balls appear to be different than the ones used in the regular season lowering the distance they travel. Acuna thought it was a homerun because that exact same swing and hit was one 1 month prior.
Braves lost. Get over it
Note that that wasn’t the first HBP of the game. Marcell Ozuna, who’d gotten under Atlanta skin the same way that Acuna did under St. Louis skin (and others), wore one in the third inning.
Process seems fine for the Cards. Sure, it might limit you in the next series, but you have to get there first. Not that there aren’t legitimate arguments for who starts for the cards in that game that couldn’t go either way. However, for the most part, they made defensible if not optimal decisions.
Process for the BRAVES, however, is a tire fire. The whole series, when the manager could have done something to improve their chances, he did not, particularly with regard to starting pitching. This is a recurring theme, and even as a Braves fan, it’s a little rewarding to see bad process get blown up so bad in a big game.
Frankly, I appreciate that Snitiker can keep the clubhouse loose for six months, but I don’t enjoy his, uh, highly questionable decision-making during games and his willingness to throw his best players under the bus outside of them. This season was found money, but this is a lesson in how the playoffs require good decision-making processes to even be in a position to win (and in the future, there are lessons about how even good process doesn’t get you what you want all the time).
I suspect that part of the reason why Shildt didn’t pull Flaherty early was that he had watched Dallas Keuchel be ineffective on short rest in game 4.
Short-rest starts are probably a thing where one can have statistical data at hand for general trends, but it’s hard to know how a specific pitcher will perform around the trend without knowing the pitcher. Flaherty has precisely zero appearances in the majors on less than full rest. Has Shildt (or Maddux or Molina) seen something on his throw days that leads him to believe Flaherty wouldn’t do well on short rest? Maybe, maybe not. We will never know. But they know.
Knowing ONLY what I know, I’d have pulled him early. But I will not be so arrogant as to assert it would have been the right move. It might have been disastrously wrong. When things like this happen, in my opinion one must give the manager the benefit of the doubt, whether the decision is to pitch or to pull. They simply know things we don’t.
I think it was unwise for Shildt to leave Flaherty in the game for 104 pitches, but I think that not starting him or pulling him early enough (after 1 inning) to be available for Game 1 or Game 2 of the NLCS had its own downsides. Not so much in terms of win expectancy of this game, but little things that offset some benefit.
I echo ebsamson3’s point that I’m not sure the order matters that much. I do see some value in having Flaherty possibly available for an inning of relief in Game 7 of the NLCS if he’s lined up to pitch Games 1 and 5. Beyond that, though, Flaherty will start once in the NLCS during games that are guaranteed to happen (Games 1 to 4). After those games, since Flaherty won’t start more than twice in the NLCS, I agree with ebsamson3’s distinction between odds of extending the series and odds of winning the series. Ultimately the Cardinals are going to win (or not) some of the 3 to 5 games started by pitchers other than Flaherty.
As for the other considerations, pulling Flaherty after 0-1 innings still requires *someone* to pitch to get 24-27 outs. There are two pitchers – Ponce de Leon and Cabrera – where the team may not care much if any about having them eat innings as long as they’re halfway effective. Don’t know if any of the other starters were available for much of an outing without some downside: Hudson wasn’t available (started Game 4 on Monday), Wainwright would be on 2 days’ rest after a 120 pitch start, and Mikolas had pitched in Game 4 on Monday (though only 1 inning / 10 pitches). The NLCS starts Friday, so there’s some rest value in not pitching the three relievers who had already pitched three times in this series (Martinez, Miller, and Webb), probably especially Martinez since he’d thrown 71 pitches across his 3 relief appearances. That leaves Gallegos, Brebbia, and Helsley, who seem like reasonable choices to each get an inning or so of relatively low pressure tune-up work, but there’s downside in extending any of them out to 35 or 40 pitches with 1 day of rest before the NLCS. (Gallegos and Brebbia each did end up pitching an inning in Game 5.)
It’s very possible that pulling Flaherty in 1 inning or less is still a net benefit. There are some usage downsides for other pitchers, though, even if the end result is something like the Cardinals winning the game 10-6 but having the score get close enough that it’s more of a “normal” game in later innings and requires the use of everyone in the bullpen. To me the sweet spot would have been giving Flaherty a reduced workload outing (3 to 4 innings) and still planning to pitch him Game 3 of the NLCS.