Giants Best Dodgers in Tight, Windy Battle

It was windy in Los Angeles on Monday night. Not your garden-variety baseball wind — the kind that might turn a fly ball in the gap into a home run or vice versa. This was gnarly wind, blow-gigantic-human-being-Max-Scherzer-over wind:

That kind of wind can turn anyone’s control scattershot, and it appeared to weigh on Scherzer early. He labored through a 25-pitch first, frequently pushing the ball gloveside — three full counts, a blistered line drive single, and a walk, but also three strikeouts.

Alex Wood looked equally affected in the first. He threw a clean inning, but some of his sinkers sailed sideways, and the odd pitch darted strangely down as if pushed by an invisible hand (shout out to the Adam Smith fans out there). A game matching the two best teams in baseball, with a commanding 2-1 series lead in the balance, decided by wind? It’s exactly the kind of nonsense that makes me dislike five-game series.

Luckily, the wind seemed to agree. Though the conditions remained difficult and a steady stream of dust and debris kept the air hazy, both pitchers mastered the elements as the game went on. Scherzer poured on the strikeouts — eight through the first four innings. He stopped walking Giants hitters, too, and even stopped wasting pitches: after that strenuous 25-pitch first, he needed only 37 pitches to navigate the next three innings.

Wood thrived on soft contact — in those same first four innings, only one Dodger managed to hit a batted ball at least 90 mph and in the air. Even that one found a glove. Though Wood wasn’t missing bats altogether, he was missing the barrels, and that’s nearly as good.

I cut those statistics off after four innings because the fifth is where things started getting good. Scherzer, even when he’s on, has one weakness: his fly-ball based game makes him homer-prone. Evan Longoria jumped all over a middle-middle fastball and absolutely clobbered it, 407 feet into the wind. 1-0, Giants.

You Aren't a FanGraphs Member
It looks like you aren't yet a FanGraphs Member (or aren't logged in). We aren't mad, just disappointed.
We get it. You want to read this article. But before we let you get back to it, we'd like to point out a few of the good reasons why you should become a Member.
1. Ad Free viewing! We won't bug you with this ad, or any other.
2. Unlimited articles! Non-Members only get to read 10 free articles a month. Members never get cut off.
3. Dark mode and Classic mode!
4. Custom player page dashboards! Choose the player cards you want, in the order you want them.
5. One-click data exports! Export our projections and leaderboards for your personal projects.
6. Remove the photos on the home page! (Honestly, this doesn't sound so great to us, but some people wanted it, and we like to give our Members what they want.)
7. Even more Steamer projections! We have handedness, percentile, and context neutral projections available for Members only.
8. Get FanGraphs Walk-Off, a customized year end review! Find out exactly how you used FanGraphs this year, and how that compares to other Members. Don't be a victim of FOMO.
9. A weekly mailbag column, exclusively for Members.
10. Help support FanGraphs and our entire staff! Our Members provide us with critical resources to improve the site and deliver new features!
We hope you'll consider a Membership today, for yourself or as a gift! And we realize this has been an awfully long sales pitch, so we've also removed all the other ads in this article. We didn't want to overdo it.

What followed was a referendum on why managing is so hard. The two starting pitchers had been excellent on the mound so far, but they’re among the worst hitters in baseball. They were both due to bat in the fifth. Darin Ruf was preparing to bat for Wood when Longoria left the park, but he sat back down. With a lead, and with no one on base when Wood’s spot was due, Gabe Kapler traded a nearly-certain out on offense (grounder to third, out by 20 feet) for some extra length on the mound.

Right on cue, the Dodgers threatened. Albert Pujols smashed a single through the infield to lead off the inning, and Wood was under the gun. He got Will Smith on a pop up, which turned the spotlight on Dave Roberts — Scherzer was up, and he’s a worse hitter than Wood.

What would you do in this spot? The Dodgers needed runs, but they weren’t down by a field goal or anything. A couple singles could knot things, and with nearly half the game remaining, preventing further Giants runs was far from a given. It came down to this: how many runs would Scherzer cost the Dodgers by batting, and how many runs would he save in the rest of his outing?

You can approximate the run cost by giving Scherzer a 50/50 shot of landing a sacrifice bunt. That works out to roughly 0.3 runs sacrificed relative to an average hitter — the best case scenario, a runner on second and two outs, still wasn’t very good, and a strikeout or botched sacrifice was even worse.

How many runs did the Dodgers expect Scherzer to save? It comes down to outs and innings. If you’re generous, you might expect two more innings worth of outs — with a pitch count in the 80s, it’s hard to imagine much more than that. Some of the time, though, he wouldn’t last that long — let’s call it 1.5 innings on average. Scherzer projects to allow roughly three runs per nine innings, but of course he’s worse as the game goes on; adjusting for times through the order, it works out to something on the order of 3.2 runs per nine innings.

How good would the pitchers replacing him be? The Dodgers had everyone available, which meant their third- and fourth-best relievers would likely cover those innings. That’s Brusdar Graterol and Corey Knebel, who project to allow an average of 3.7 runs per nine collectively. From there, the math is straightforward — 1.5 innings of a 0.5-runs-per-nine differential works out to just under a 10th of a run. Getting Scherzer’s arm for an extra handful of outs cost them (in expectation) three times what pinch hitting for him would have gained them.

Back in the real world, Roberts disagreed. He left Scherzer in — the result, perhaps unsurprisingly, was a strikeout on a foul bunt. That led to another strange pitching move — after letting Wood hit for himself, Kapler pulled him rather than let him face Mookie Betts for a third time.

My estimated costs and benefits on the Scherzer decision roughly bore out. The Dodgers didn’t score that inning. The Giants didn’t score in the next two innings, both of which Scherzer threw. The Dodgers got their run prevention, but they sacrificed scoring to do it, not the way you’d draw it up in a game where you trail.

It’s reductive to say that one decision decided the game, but one decision certainly tilted the outcome. The Dodgers only threatened once more, though it was quite a threat: with runners on first and second and two outs, Betts smashed a line drive that Brandon Crawford high-pointed, turning a run-scoring single into a harmless out.

Scherzer put together a dominant performance. In seven innings, he struck out 10 batters and allowed only a single run. It was heady stuff, a turn-back-the-clock performance that evoked his world-devouring peak.

It didn’t matter. The last two of those innings came at too great of a price. Dodgers relievers, too, are excellent. Chances to score don’t grow on trees, particularly against the Giants, who were one of the toughest teams to score on in all of the majors this year. A runner on first and one out isn’t the best spot in the world, but you can’t screw around given how good pitchers are these days; when you get a chance to score, you better make the most of it.

Single decisions don’t decide games. Leaving Scherzer in likely cost the Dodgers some tiny fraction of a win — 3% if I’m being generous. Play this game a trillion times, and they’d win 5-1 sometimes, making the question moot, or smack a two-run homer and hang on 2-1. Even tonight, a score of other plays were every bit as impactful as the pinch hitting decision.

The Giants won this game because they made more plays, period: Evan Longoria, not Dave Roberts, crushed the game-deciding homer, and Camilo Doval blew away the Dodgers for six outs to send things home. It was a near thing — Gavin Lux sent the last out of the game to the warning track — but Doval stepped up in a huge situation and didn’t surrender so much as a baserunner. With the Giants pitching like this, it would always be hard for the Dodgers to win.

That doesn’t mean the decisions don’t matter, though. Managing means giving your team the best chance to win, and let’s not mince words: Roberts didn’t do that tonight. The pursuit of a great story — of Scherzer delivering a strong seven innings and the Dodgers offense scoring just enough to win — overtook the imperative to maximize the Dodgers’ odds.

Bullpens exist so that you can use them; pinch hitters are there because sometimes your poor-hitting pitchers come up in important spots in close games. The Dodgers have an excellent bullpen. Graterol was a top 100 prospect; Knebel was one of the best closers in the game only a few years ago. They have an embarrassment of riches on their bench, going 13 deep with solid hitters. They don’t need to rely on just a few players; the team is built specifically to avoid that shortcoming.

Probably, the Giants would have won even if Roberts pulled Scherzer. More than 60% of the time, the pinch hitter would have made an out too. Maybe they would have grounded into a double play, even. I don’t want you to leave this article thinking that Roberts alone lost this game.

I do want you to wonder what he was doing, though, whether he thought it all the way through or just wanted Max Scherzer to throw a great postseason start. These two teams are separated by very little; getting every advantage absolutely matters. Monday night, the Giants were the better team, and Gabe Kapler was the better manager. That’s a tough combination to overcome, even if the first of the two matters more. The two teams will clash again Tuesday, and if Monday is any indication, the Dodgers will be fighting uphill again, sacrificing small edges in a series where they undoubtedly matter.





Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.

39 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
johnforthegiants
4 years ago

About the pitching decisions:
(1) It is an article of faith in Giants’ circles that you don’t let Wood get into the third time around. There is a huge awareness of how much Wood has deteriorated statistically after that, and so it was 100% expected that he wouldn’t pitch to Betts.
(2) Roberts has a history of managing according to a script which he’s worked out in his mind before the game starts, or even before the postseason starts, and it leads him to make many questionable moves. Your observations about him leaving Scherzer are consistent with his general pattern. As a Giants fan I was kind of disappointed when Kershaw got injured in the sense that it meant that Roberts wouldn’t have the opportunity to mishandle him in the postseason.

juddfranklin
4 years ago

1. Yeah, Alex Wood having short but effective outings was a thing when he was a Dodger, too (both times).
2. Meh. Saint Bruce was a manager for like 20 years before he shook off the hemming and hawing about his managerial “mistakes.” For some, I would bet they still think that the Giants won all those championships despite Bochy being Bochy. Kapler was run out of Philadelphia on a rail because of his unconventional and rookie management choices that didn’t work out. They are all great at their jobs. I would go into battle with Roberts any day of the week. As far as I’m concerned, he’s on an inner circle hall of fame managerial trajectory.

Josh
4 years ago

This is a strange take and I don’t think a very useful one. Counterfactuals are tough to swallow anyway, but balancing out (or rather canceling) all the outs Scherzer got against an imagined half-inning (with that speedster, Pujols, on base) is a little ridiculous.

The facts don’t lend themselves to your speculative scenario. The Dodgers have 8 other people in the batting order, who didn’t hit well. That’s a fact and you even acknowledge it. I’m no fan of Dave Roberts, unless he’s stealing the Yankees’s souls, but he didn’t make a mistake by leaving Scherzer in. Reality said one thing, where is the evidence for this view? Oh, right, it’s counterfactual. 😉

connjc
4 years ago

It was a tough decision, but I’m sure Roberts was thinking that surely his lineup of allstar hitters can muster 1 run if the defense can just hold the Giants where they were. Scherzer gave him the best chance to do that.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  connjc

This is the key. When you only give up one run in a game and lose, the question of “why did you allow that one run” seems less important than “why didn’t you score at all?”

MoosetrooperMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  connjc

Agreed. The Giants’ bullpen is feared, but they had at least another inning vs Wood. I think whatever the small odds changes were, the expectation has to have been that the Dodgers could/would/”should” have scored more than 1 run in the game. As Ben says himself, the game was only halfway over at this point. Scherzer had really dialed himself in at that point and looked like the best option to keep the Giants to 1 run, which he did.

wjmmich
4 years ago

All this interesting discussion gone if DH added.

myartman
4 years ago

If Roberts had put in his 3rd and 4th best relievers in lieu of an ace nearly unhittable since his arrival, would you have written how this was the right move? How much of FG journalism is finding statistical nuances about contrarian standpoints after the fact? In the playoffs against 107-win teams, aces take on a more significant meaning and so you choose to win or lose without having pulled your ace too early.

Six Ten
4 years ago
Reply to  myartman

In the playoffs against 107-win teams, runs and outs take on a more significant meaning and so you choose to win or lose without having to sacrifice runs or outs because virtually your whole roster is in play every single game and you can maximize almost every run or out probability.

D-WizMember since 2019
4 years ago

More than anything else, these situations just make me want a universal DH even more. Everyone loses if Scherzer gets taken out there – it’s way more fun to watch him pitch deep into a game – and everyone loses when we’re forced to watch him “hit” in what would otherwise be a huge, tense spot in the game if a real batter was up. Why are we still doing this??

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  D-Wiz

I really like the strategy that is involved with pinch hitting and so I’ll be sad to see these decisions go when the universal DH gets implemented. I loved this. Making a strategic decision should have costs and this is one of my favorites.

All that said, I’m totally resigned to the fact that the universal DH is coming, and I am trying to look at the bright side. After all, if there’s a universal DH, Jimmy Nelson doesn’t nearly end his career sliding. It took him years to get back to being a real major league pitcher again, and he’ll never be trusted with a rotation workload again.

joe_schlabotnik
4 years ago
Reply to  sadtrombone

whats weird about this line of thinking is that it essentially just asks for a variable of total waste ~85% of the time in order to allow for interesting strategy once, maybe twice a game. That payoff isn’t enough for me.

The rays also seems to be the only team that consistently makes strategic moves like this throughout the game. It’s not going to completely disappear, and hopefully more teams fully utilize their benches moving forward.

sadtromboneMember since 2020
4 years ago

Yes, in theory teams can pinch hit for someone other than the pitcher. But they don’t!

One of the interesting side effects of the 13-pitcher rule on rosters is that it means teams are more likely to carry pinch hitters and the like. Most teams carry 13 but a lot of others are carrying 14 or 15 pitchers. My theory is that a lot of these teams will simply use the spot on a regular DH or a third catcher but I’d like to be wrong.

Left of Centerfield
4 years ago

Re. Max Scherzer being a bad hitter.

From 2015-2019, he hit .199/.226/.218 which is bad but probably normal for a pitcher. But this year he came to the plate 63 times and didn’t get a single hit or walk. That’s bad on a completely different level.

Via BR, he’s only the 3rd player to have 60+ PAs in a season without getting a single hit or walk. I’m not sure how that’s even possible. You would think that in 60+ PAs you could luck into a hit or a walk but guess not…

Brian
4 years ago

Remember, he busted his nose/face on a bunt in 2019. He didn’t hit all of 2020 because of the universal DH. I think it’s safe to say that Scherzer is not the same kind of hitter at this point. I don’t blame him for being skittish at the plate, but expecting him to drop a bunt down might not be realistic.

joe_schlabotnik
4 years ago
Reply to  Brian

yeah this is a good point. having watched tons and tons of max hitting, its super strange because he LOVES to hit.

knelsen
4 years ago

I wish the math had been done for Kaplers decision to leave in Wood as well. Sure it ended up working out for the Giants but Kapler knew he would only pitch to three more hitters so the upside of leaving him in vs the bullpen was even less than leaving Scherzer in for two more innings.

PrettyRickey
4 years ago
Reply to  Ben Clemens

Another strange decision, at higher leverage, was leaving Rogers in to face Smith in the 7th. Rogers had 27 pitches, McGee was ready, Smith had homered on Rogers before and so had Barnes, the pinch-hitter on deck. I’m not sure if there’s a model that combines single-game fatigue and historical “ownage” (if it exists). But that one seemed pretty indefensible until nothing bad came of it.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago
Reply to  PrettyRickey

Yup. Letting Rogers face Smith was not a good choice. The circle of Giants’ fans I was looking the game with all agreed on that.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago
Reply to  knelsen

Kapler wanted to get as much out of Wood as he could, because the plan was to try to get through the rest of the game with only Rogers, McGee, and Doval. The extra three batters was significant. And in any case, there was no one on base when Wood batted.

kylerkelton
4 years ago

“Managing means giving your team the best chance to win, and let’s not mince words: Roberts didn’t do that tonight. The pursuit of a great story — of Scherzer delivering a strong seven innings and the Dodgers offense scoring just enough to win — overtook the imperative to maximize the Dodgers’ odds.” Thank you for saying this. In the regular season of course you let your starter keep going, but in the postseason: with a all-hands-on-deck bullpen and a deep bench you 100% pinch hit there. I think Brian Snitker and Craig Counsell deserve a shout out. In a series where runs have been hard to come by both manager has not hesitated to go to the bench when you have a chance to score, no matter how good their starter is going.

joe_schlabotnik
4 years ago

i don’t think this article gives the wind enough credit. Truly. I also don’t think the giants played better. Sometimes the team that played better doesn’t win, and that happened last night. xBA of .920, .890, .870 on three pivotal AB’s that all turned into outs. Thats just the way it goes, I know.

Must have been an all time frustrating game for dodgers fans.

connjc
4 years ago

yes it was. But both teams dealt with the same conditions so there are no excuses that can be made.

ed-ott
4 years ago

Frustrating, yes. But enjoyable to watch, from a fans perspective. The wind surely was a factor (but equally, for both team, besides that horrendous strike-calling for both teams by the umpire), but really didn’t seem to affect the players. Though Mookie wearing sunglasses for dust relief could have been interesting… Should Scherzer have been pinch-hit? I also am no fan of our manager (“FDR” is my phrase where the “F” is the rhyming opposite of “Hire”…), but had no major qualm about leaving him in. The best team doesn’t always win. That’s why we “only” won 106 of 162…. So you’re saying there’s a chance?

Now get off my lawn!

slightlyoffMember since 2025
4 years ago

The Giants also had several balls knocked down by the wind. It’s really disappointing to see people already running with this narrative that “the Dodgers win without the wind”, as though removing one of the game’s defining variables would have only resulted in the outcome most of the people commenting seem to have wanted, which is the Dodgers winning.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago

The wind was a huge factor. Such a game often turns on one player crushing the ball hard enough to beat the wind. Last night it was Longoria, who happens to play for the Giants. I guess you could look at that as meaning that the better team didn’t win, because it was really one individual’s effort.

edges64Member since 2025
4 years ago

You’re forgetting that all three of those batted balls were hit to the Giants best two defenders: Duggar and Crawford. Crawford made a spectacular play to rob Mookie, and Duggar took away an XBH from Taylor.

chickentenders
4 years ago

Don’t you think that the uncertainty of the Dodgers’ game 4 plan factored into Robert’s thinking? Whether its Buehler on short rest or Gonsolin (or both) for the ‘bulk’ of the innings, the bullpen is going to cover a lot of outs tonight. Taxing two more arms (as well as giving the Giant’s additional ‘looks’ at those relievers) for a (very generous) 3% probability increase of winning that game makes less sense when considering that Robert’s job is to maximize winning the series, not Game 3.

sweepcut
4 years ago
Reply to  chickentenders

totally agree, getting length from scherzer last night allows us to keep arms fresh for tonight, and we will definitely need them. off day tomorrow means we can use them for a potential game 5, too. all hands on deck

johnforthegiants
4 years ago
Reply to  chickentenders

That does make sense but on the other hand, you really do want to win Game 3.

jtricheyMember since 2021
4 years ago

I had no problem letting Scherzer hit in the 5th. I think it is a big stretch to call that a game changing decision.

One thing I have noticed is that the Dodgers bench right now is pretty thin. Much worse than their usual benches. LA used Austin Barnes in a big situation in the 7th and that is not anywhere near ideal.

In the Scherzer 5th inning at bat case, Roberts probably would have put up Souza at which point Kapler may have taken Wood out right there for Rogers. LA counters with Lux, maybe it works out for LA, maybe not.

Anybody noticed how former Dodgers are dominating the post season? Kike, Joc, Verdugo, Grandal, Alex Wood all making huge contributions to their teams.

juddfranklin
4 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

Yes! Not to mention Kapler and Farhan Zaidi.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

The Dodgers have clearly let a whole lot of good players go. They’re always chasing somebody better.

NicklePickersMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

I was surprised Roberts didn’t pull Barnes after the pitching change for Lux. Seemed like a bigger moment to me.

cartographerMember since 2016
4 years ago
Reply to  NicklePickers

I’m sure Roberts considered using Lux, but Barnes had the platoon advantage, which Lux would not and Lux has . . . not been great against lefties this year (.188/.286/.247).

EltnegMember since 2020
4 years ago
Reply to  jtrichey

I’ve become used to assuming that the Dodgers always have a depth advantage, so it was kind of a shock to realize how bad their bench bats are. Matt Beaty’s ok, I guess, but then Bellinger/Barnes/Souza/Pujols/Lux is a really bleak group— Pujols was the only one of those guys to have an OPS over .700 this year. If a 41yo Albert Pujols is your best righthanded bat off the bench… woof.

johnforthegiants
4 years ago

FWIW, as a Giants’ fan I was happy when Roberts let Scherzer hit, suggesting that I thought it was a bad decision. My reasoning was:
(1) With the wind blowing in like that, it was going to be hard to get runs in general.
(2) Doval had been pitching very well and was rested, so he would probably be able to take care of the last two innings.
(3) Rogers was clearly going to replace Wood after the second time through the order (after Scherzer or the pinch hitter), and he would probably be able to handle the top of the Dodgers’ order if he started with them and if he didn’t come in in a difficult situation.
(4) The bottom of the Dodgers’ order would probably not be a problem with reasonably competent relieving (i.e. not Doval and not fresh Rogers).
(5) Wood was about at the end of his rope, because he doesn’t have much stamina, as was evidenced by Pujols getting the first real hit off of him in the 5th (his earlier hit was a bloop single), so there was a real danger that a pinch hitter for Scherzer would get on base.
Considering these factors, it seemed likely that the biggest threat to the shutout was likely to be Rogers facing the top of the order with two men on base and only one out in the bottom of the fifth. Letting Scherzer hit pretty much eliminated that danger.

OlanMember since 2020
4 years ago

I think that the Dodgers probably calculate odds of various scenarios looking at the whole 5 game series. Especially since the next day is likely a bullpen game. I imagine their computations look at a series win, rather than a one game win in isolation.