Hindsight Is 20/20: Game 4 Managerial Decisions
Saturday night, the Rays and Dodgers played one of the wildest World Series games ever. Leads changed hands, runners slipped, pitchers crumbled, and the Rays walked it off in spectacular fashion. At the time, I criticized several managerial decisions, and I wasn’t alone. With the benefit of a few days of thinking, however, I wanted to look back at a few key decisions each manager made and decide whether they were blunders or merely tough decisions that looked worse in hindsight.
For the Dodgers, the key managerial decision was the relief pitcher hierarchy. After a spectacular pitching performance from Walker Buehler the previous night, Dave Roberts had the entire bullpen available. His first decision came with two outs in the fifth inning, when Julio Urías began his third trip through the Rays’ lineup. Urías had been up and down on the night; he had nine strikeouts, but he’d also allowed some loud contact and two home runs. The Rays stacked their lineup to challenge him; the first four hitters were all right-handed.
Roberts went to Blake Treinen, and I think that’s a reasonable choice. The Rays had a bench full of lefties, which means any stretch of righties in their lineup can turn into lefties at the drop of a scorecard. Despite that fact, however, Randy Arozarena probably wasn’t leaving the game, and guaranteeing a Treinen/Arozarena matchup, plus forcing Tampa Bay to use some left-handed pinch hitters, is as close to a positive platoon matchup as the Dodgers were going to get.
That leads us to a pivotal pitching change in the sixth: two runners on, one out, and Brandon Lowe stepping to the plate. Behind Lowe, the Rays had Willy Adames and Hunter Renfroe due up. In theory, that’s two righties and a lefty. In practice, Lowe is the only Tampa Bay hitter who the team couldn’t substitute. That left Dave Roberts with three decisions, in my mind — all of which he would have had to make several batters earlier to allow the pitchers time to warm up.
First, he could bring in a lefty to limit Lowe’s production and live with the subsequent lefty/Adames matchup. In the current Dodger bullpen pecking order, that would be Victor González. Lowe/González is a good matchup for the Dodgers; Lowe has been pretty good against lefties in a limited sample in his career, but there isn’t nearly enough data to see him as anything other than a league-average lefty hitter, roughly 8% better against righties than lefties.
On González’s side, there certainly isn’t enough data to think of him as anything other than a league-average lefty pitcher; much better against lefties than righties, again roughly 8%. He’d then get Willy Adames, a much worse hitter who would have the platoon advantage. Adames has actually shown sharp reverse platoon splits in his career, but again, small sample — our best guess is still that he’s somewhere close to average.
The Dodgers could also have gone to Brusdar Graterol, conceding the platoon advantage to Lowe. The Rays would then have an option of their own: if Lowe’s at-bat ended in anything other than a home run or double play, they’d have a high-leverage spot for a pinch hitter. That involves some defensive wiggling — Adames is the team’s primary shortstop, which would probably leave Joey Wendle to play the position — but given that the Rays played Hunter Renfroe at first base in this game, they’re not above novel positions.
Graterol is a better pitcher than González, but he’d face two opposite-handed batters, while González would only face one. It’s not an obvious decision either way; limit Lowe, and you’re helping Adames, and vice versa.
Next, the Dodgers could do what Roberts chose: go with Pedro Báez, a righty who actually does have unique platoon characteristics. Unlike everyone else in this discussion, we have a mountain of data on Báez, 566 plate appearances against lefties to be precise. He’s been better against lefties than righties in his career, and even after regressing him to the mean, he’s roughly equally effective against both hands.
The Rays would still likely pinch hit for Adames if Lowe didn’t empty the bases one way or another, but that’s less damaging against Báez. Assuming the Rays would use Yoshi Tsutsugo as the pinch hitter, I used regressed platoon splits, 2021 projections, and a healthy dash of nested odds ratios to produce wOBA estimates for each batter/pitcher confrontation:
| Matchup | Lowe | Adames/PH |
|---|---|---|
| González | .318 | .326 |
| Graterol | .333 | .332 |
| Báez | .338 | .337 |
The results of this aren’t particularly surprising; with Tsutsugo available as a pinch hitter, letting him hit with a platoon edge isn’t where you want to be. The worst hitter of the three Rays is Adames, and righties have smaller splits in general, which leaves him as the best batter to concede an edge against. Báez has those nifty reverse splits — but he’s worse than Graterol overall by enough that he’s still worse against lefties, and much worse against righties, per Steamer’s 2021 projections and some translation.
Pitchers like Báez can mislead. “No platoon splits” makes him sound like a righty who crushes lefties, and it’s true that he’s better than a similar-talent, neutral-split righty. But left-handed pitchers don’t have no platoon split; they have a huge advantage against left-handed batters.
Giving up that free boost in favor of a middling pitcher, particularly given how the Rays lineup was set up, seems foolhardy. It’s not quite so bad as this grid makes it, because Renfroe, due up third, is also a righty, but he too could be pinch-hit for. Simply put, committing to a right-hander against an excellent left-handed batter and an available left-handed pinch hitter is a poor idea.
How much did that affect the results of the game? Negligibly! We’re getting into extrapolation territory here, but by plugging in the results grid I calculated, I came up with just under a 1% change in win probability by using Báez, the worst option, instead of González, the best option. It’s a tiny difference — Báez’s actual results lowered the Dodgers’ win probability by a total of 50%, more than 50 times more than the managerial decision cost. González might well have given up a home run to Lowe or Adames.
Still, I feel justified in saying it was an error. Báez wasn’t the best pitcher available, and he was the worst matchup against the Rays’ best hitter in a high-leverage spot. It wasn’t worth much, but it wasn’t the right decision.
The next inning, Roberts had another decision to make. He could leave Báez in to face the bottom of the Rays’ lineup or go to another reliever. He left Báez in, and it bit him in the form of a Kevin Kiermaier home run. I don’t hate the decision, though — it was a one-run game, but someone has to face the two worst hitters on the Rays, and it might as well be Báez, saving the better relievers for more important at-bats.
Roberts probably overplayed his hand, though. After Mike Zunino struck out and Kiermaier homered, the top of the Rays’ order went to work; Yandy Díaz drew a walk, which brought up Arozarena against a tiring Báez. Roberts stuck with his man and Arozarena grounded into a double play, but that could have easily gone wrong; a mediocre and tiring reliever against the hottest hitter in baseball with a runner on base doesn’t sound like a great outcome for the Dodgers. Rodgers got unlucky in the sixth and lucky in the seventh — but in both cases, he didn’t put his team in the best position to succeed.
Because Roberts used Báez instead of Graterol in these high-leverage spots, he got less out of his bullpen than he otherwise could have. After Adam Kolarek faced three lefties in the eighth (great decision!), Graterol entered to face two righties. The Rays now had less pinch hitting leverage — they’d used Wendle as a pinch runner and promptly deployed Brett Phillips as another. Graterol allowed a duck snort single from Adames but rallied to retire Renfroe, escaping the eighth.
Roberts went to Kenley Jansen to start the ninth, which means Graterol only faced two batters. Seven batters for Báez and two for the superior Graterol? It’s strange managing, to say the least. The fact that Jansen promptly coughed up the lead is neither here nor there; it simply seems like a waste to get only two outs from one of your best bullpen weapons while stretching another worse pitcher for two innings.
In the opposite dugout, Kevin Cash had some decisions of his own to make. I’m not convinced he fared any better, though his decisions were all on the batting side. The first one is a lineup construction mistake, and while those are generally overblown, I still think it’s worth talking about.
The Rays deployed a righty-heavy lineup:
| Batter | Handedness |
|---|---|
| Yandy Díaz | R |
| Randy Arozarena | R |
| Mike Brosseau | R |
| Manuel Margot | R |
| Brandon Lowe | L |
| Willy Adames | R |
| Hunter Renfroe | R |
| Mike Zunino | R |
| Kevin Kiermaier | L |
The general idea of stacking the top of the lineup with righties makes a ton of sense. Cash was forcing the Dodgers’ hands; there’s no question of running Julio Urías through the lineup a third time against a gauntlet of four solid right-handed hitters. Two of those hitters are also platoon pieces, so when Roberts inevitably countered with a righty, the Rays could seize the platoon advantage back by using their bench lefties.
One problem with this plan: the way the Rays designed it, Brosseau and Margot were the two batters who would likely be replaced. With Lowe batting after them, that would leave a three-lefty stretch in the Tampa Bay lineup, an easy way to let the Dodgers deploy a lefty with no chance of counterplay — the Rays had no right-handed pinch hitters.
Naturally, this exact event occurred. It almost had to — the Rays were always going to replace Brosseau and Margot. Adam Kolarek got a three-lefty slate, the optimal outcome for LA. How could the Rays have countered this? It’s a small change, but they could have swapped Margot (or Brosseau) and Arozarena in the initial lineup.
Sure, it moves their best hitter out of the two hole, but that’s small potatoes in a single game — lineup optimization is worth only a handful of runs over a full season. On the other hand, it takes advantage of the three-batter minimum; avoiding left-left-left pockets of a lineup is simply smart planning given the current state of baseball.
This was a small error; it essentially cost the Rays two platoon-advantaged plate appearances across the entire game. That isn’t huge in expectation, but it’s not nothing, and it wouldn’t have cost the team much to construct their lineup in a way that anticipated their own later moves.
The decision that I have a bigger problem with is Cash’s use of pinch runners. The first pinch running decision — sending Wendle in for Yandy Díaz in the bottom of the seventh — is understandable, if not obvious. Scoring a run in a tie game is quite valuable, and Wendle was likely to enter the game for defense before long anyway. Additionally, the Rays’ machinations had already removed some good pinch hitting spots; if Cash wanted to keep Adames at short, Díaz was one of the few batters Wendle could replace. Tsutsugo was still on the bench to hit for Zunino at some future point, which left only Adames, Díaz, and Renfroe.
Still, pinch hitting for Renfroe against a right-handed pitcher is a valuable chip. Wendle and Tsutsugo were the only two good hitters left on the Tampa Bay bench at this point; sacrificing one for a marginal running edge in a low-leverage spot — Wendle’s speed would only be the difference between scoring and not if Arozarena doubled — seems strange. As it turned out, Arozarena grounded into a double play, and Wendle’s speed didn’t matter at all.
In the next inning, Cash made a decision I like even less. With Ji-Man Choi on second base and two outs, he deployed Brett Phillips as another pinch runner. This left the Rays with no natural first basemen — Renfroe, who was at the plate, had to play first base the remainder of the game, and he’d played only nine innings at first in his professional career. He also had to bat against Graterol because Wendle wasn’t available to pinch hit.
A pinch runner on second base is a good spot for one. With two outs, however, it’s less valuable, because Choi could leave at the crack of the bat. I haven’t done the math on what percentage of singles are in the exact right area that Choi couldn’t score but Phillips could, but it’s a small subset when there are two outs.
More importantly, the Rays were setting themselves up for disaster in the ninth. At the exact moment that Phillips entered the game, the Rays were quite likely to send Arozarena to the plate in the ninth inning. If the eighth ended with Renfroe’s at-bat, Arozarena would be due up fourth. Should any runner reach base, the Rays could send their most fearsome hitter to the plate representing the winning run.
By pinch running with Phillips, they blunted that edge. He’s the worst hitter on the Rays’ roster, potentially including the catchers; his career slash line is .202/.284/.347. With him following Arozarena, it left an easy escape valve for opposing teams. Don’t want to face the hottest hitter in the postseason? Pitch around him and face the worst batter on our team. Put Choi in that situation instead, and it’s a different story entirely.
Naturally, that exact situation came to pass. Kiermaier reached base, Jansen did his best to avoid Arozarena, and Brett Phillips, the worst hitter Kevin Cash had access to, took the highest-leverage at-bat of the series. Of course, he won the game after a comedy of errors in the outfield and on the basepaths, then air-planed around the outfield in a glorious victory lap. But Cash couldn’t have known that, and he didn’t put his team in the best position to succeed, though succeed they did.
How much did these two managers put their thumb on the scales in Game 4? Only a little, despite their best efforts. That’s the nature of managerial decisions — the choices are never “use my best hitter or call up an 18-year-old from the DSL.” The worst hitters in the game still get on base nearly 30% of the time, and the best hitters make outs more often than not. The worst reliever in the Dodgers bullpen is still a competent major leaguer. Brett Phillips literally won the game, and Pedro Báez retired the Rays’ best hitter (Arozarena) in a high leverage spot.
Just because the maximum effect of manager moves is small doesn’t mean that moves can’t be bad, however. It wasn’t the reason the Dodgers lost and the Rays won; in fact, I’d argue that both managers cost their team a roughly equal amount. That doesn’t mean we should ignore the decisions, however. Both teams could have been fractionally better in Saturday’s game, and they simply chose not to be. That’s always worth recapping, even if the part of the game we’ll remember is Arozarena’s mad dash and Phillips’ wild celebration.
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
7 batters for Baez and 2 for Graterol. Yes, I agree completely that this was terrible decision-making by Roberts. What reliever gets to blow TWO leads in the same World Series game? And all along you had Graterol and Gonzalez, and even Dustin May in the bullpen as better options. Losing with your best players is one thing, but losing by giving such a long leash to Pedro Baez, who has been blowing playoff leads since 2014 was really hard to stomach. Glad they simply pitched their best pitchers in game 5.
Correct me if I am wrong, but nobody had a worse night than Trenien in game 4. Yanking Urias was a mistake. They have repeatedly yanked their starters early and paid for it. Nobody was worse in game 4 than Treinen.
They pitched their best in game 5? Kershaw was their best option and they went away from him unnecessarily. They literally let him face the best hitter on TB in a bad match-up (righty) whom he retired and then they put in May vs an easier righty later in the inning. In doing that the Dodgers prioritized getting May a soft match up over using their best player. If you let your lefty face the best righty, then you need to let him face the next one too if he is cruising (he was – 7 straight I think) . LAD chose helping May over helping the Dodgers. If May was their best option vs a righty, then why not let him face RA? They let May face the soft underbelly of the lineup – essentially just padding his stats and burning the bullpen for fun. Typical Dodgers move, but that is how you make it a series I guess.
I’d disagree. May’s filthy but he had not been pitching well, and they had just made mechanical tweaks to try and get him right. They need him to contribute. By giving him a scenario where it is hard to snowball out of control – none on, 2 out – they were able to see if his mechanical fix would carry over into a game situation and get some useful outs out of him with a relatively low risk of building a big inning because of the base/out situation. If he looks shaky, he’s still likely to retire 1 of 3 batters and get out of the inning, and you can move on to someone else. If he looks better, as he did, you can let him have the next inning as well (which is what happened). Letting Kershaw face Arozarena was a calculated risk: May’s better at that matchup, but much worse vs Lowe. They decided that the Kershaw vs Lowe gap was large enough to be worth letting Kershaw face Arozarena, and that gamble paid off (and it was a gamble). If you go to May to lead off the inning, if things go poorly you have to get 3 outs to end the threat, and whatever you might gain vs Randy A, you give back in RHP vs Lowe.
Your analysis ignores the reality that the Dodgers need May to contribute to win this series easily. Even if they lose Game 6, they need to do so without completely shredding their bullpen for Game 7. This requires getting some outs from May and Gonsolin. Finding out if they’ll be able to do so was valuable, and also spared the rest of the pen after it had been used fairly hard the previous night. They now go into Game 6 in a situation where only Treinen is likely to be limited (having had 1 day off after 3 in a row), which is a much better position overall.
Treinen’s also been one of their most consistent relievers all season, and they’re not going to get side-tracked by a single bad outing, especially when you’re dealing with a heavy groundball pitcher so you know a certain portion of the time those ground balls are just going to find holes and they’ll give up a few hits. Treinen didn’t look bad in Game 4, and there was no reason to think he was wrong or would be ineffective in Game 5 – in fact, he’d pitched very well vs Atlanta in a similar situation used 3 in a row, so there was actually more evidence he could handle that situation than most pitchers as he just did so recently.
The thing about ‘7 straight’ is that what it tells you is that the guys he’s about to face are the last ones he did NOT retire. How Kershaw looked vs Adames and Zunino is far less important than how Kershaw looked the last time he faced Margot and Renfroe, and rather famously those guys both reached base in their previous trip to the plate.
Treinen and Gonzalez definitely represent the most consistently effective relievers for the Dodgers this season, and if you weren’t aware of that you’ve just never clicked and looked at either of their stat lines. Gonzalez was exceptionally effective, and he did that while facing more RHB than LHB and while sometimes taking on more than 1 IP per outing (he pitched 20.2 IP in 15 appearances).
You’re just grousing to grouse because you don’t like modern pitching strategy, but there’s ample evidence to support every decision the Dodgers made in this game.
The thing that stuck in my craw the most was having Hernandez bunt after a leadoff double. Maybe I’m stuck in sabr circa 2006 but it really ticked me off.
Hernandez level of incompetence at bunting is what sticks in my craw! That would have been a putrid attempt by a 12-year-old. A line drive at the third baseman on a ball at his eyes? Given the way that both corners were crashing, they should have considered not bunting, but that would have been an out with any defensive alignment because it was such a bad bunt. A bunt towards third base would not have even had anyone covering – that is how innings break open if they look to make a play at third. If there ever were time for a decent bunt that would have been it. They likely would have won the game by getting him to third as Mookie was on deck with what would have been one-out. Even the most anti-bunt folks would have considered a bunt there. There were a few problems after the point of considering the bunt… calling a bunt initially was a smart move that nobody could ever make a strong argument against. After seeing the defense, they should have just stolen third base or done something else. Squaring early and stealing third is pretty hard to defend… more accurately, TB was not prepared for that and it would have worked. There are defenses designed to combat that and that wasn’t one of them. That is what makes it so bad is that they got a free look at the defense.. which is half of calling a bunt.
You’re risking an out for the privilege of giving up .15 of run expectancy, with a decent hitter at the plate. Plenty of outs left in the game, there was a lot of win left on the table.
I think this is pretty spot on and the only quibble I have with your analysis is that it leaves out some of the details in the profile of the two Dodgers pitchers (Baez/Gonzalez), in terms of the shape of the runs they allow.
Victor Gonzalez is an extreme groundball pitcher with considerable strikeout rates and unsustainably low HR rates (in that he hasn’t allowed a home run this season, lol); he also has shown quite low walk rates.
Pedro Baez is an extreme flyball pitcher who also has lesser strikeout rates, and who has been known to walk dudes at about a league average rate.
The way that the production would occur against each pitcher is likely to look different. The most significant consideration is that Gonzalez has a substantially higher probability to get out of the inning with a double play than Baez does. Gonzalez is also likely to allow more hits, which might score a run or two (if there are multiple hits), but relatively unlikely to allow the single 3 run swing.
Baez, on the other hand, is less likely to allow 1 or 2 runs to score, but more likely to allow 3. For his recent career, Baez has allowed a relatively low number of hits per 9 innings (less than 7!), but 1/6th or so of all hits he allows are home runs. Baez is also more likely to walk guys and less likely to record outs via a strikeout.
IMO, the distribution of outcomes is such that Gonzalez offered more great outcomes (eg no runs scored), more intermediate outcomes (1-2 runs score) and less awful outcomes (the 3 run HR that happened). Baez, on the other hand, offers significantly different probabilities of different outcomes. This is exacerbated by Baez having a career history and particularly a career postseason history of allowing inherited runners to score: He’s simply a better pitcher with no men on base. In his postseason career, Baez has allowed 10 of 17 inherited runners to score, including the last 6 and all 4 this season. His career regular season strand rates are also somewhat below average.
Gonzalez offered a much better range of outcomes given the particular score in that situation and the unlikelihood of Lowe being pinch hit for. In particular, he’s just so much more likely to be able to end the inning with a double play, avoiding even having the problem of facing a subsequent batter.
This would also free Baez to have his own clean inning without having already pitched. Even if he then does what he did (give up a solo dinger), it’s not such a big deal because the score is different.
These additional details, IMO, make the Baez/Gonzalez decision much worse than the relatively small overall wOBA allowed lines suggest.
And it’s particularly perplexing because the Dodgers had already, in this very postseason, seemed to acknowledge these realities. In the NLCS, in a similar situation, they brought in Treinen to for a 2 on, 1 out scenario against RHH instead of Baez, and then gave Baez a clean inning in the following inning. Treinen and Gonzalez are very similar pitchers outside of handedness (and Gonzalez having superior walkrates). And then we saw them do the same thing again in Game 5, where they recognized that Gonzalez was the man to use in a critical, high-leverage double play scenario.
So why did they feel so differently about it in Game 4? Gonzalez vs Lowe + others is much better than Gonzalez vs Brosseau, Arozarena and Lowe! But they made the second choice and not the first?
Pedro Baez is a fine reliever, but he’s very miscast for the role he was put into in Game 4, and he has little history of succeeding in those situations. It was a real failure to understand the pitchers’ relative strengths and weaknesses. Not all wOBA allowed is created equally, and Gonzalez offered many more outcomes where the Dodgers remained ahead or tied.
Don’t think of it as Graterol facing two batters in the eighth. Think of it as HE ONLY THREW SEVEN PITCHES!
One guy reached and the other was not a bad swing at all. You people are crazy about Graterol. You talk like he is Mariano Rivera.
“It’s strange managing, to say the least.” -In reference Graterol having a shorter outing than Baez; maybe they want Graterol more well-rested for a game 6 and possibly 7. Only way I could see justifying that.
More pertinent was keeping Graterol available for G5, even though he did not pitch in that game, at the time, it was certainly a consideration.
Jansen promptly coughed up the lead? That is an insane take. Never mind the broken-bat single, two outs or multiple errors, right? Jansen very nearly retired Randy A a few times – he didn’t do his best to avoid him at all. He actually got ahead and pitched to him. Again, details that don’t come through the game summary so well. In reality, that was one of the more brutal blown saves in history. A good CF might cut down that lead runner and the game might be over. That inning was over without the second error for sure. It was very nearly three straight outs to begin the inning.
You are vastly overrating Graterol. I have little doubt that he is not one of the elite relievers in the game. Watch him pitch sometime. He has some idea of where the ball is going and yields a lot of good swings that do’nt miss being HR by much. His command is poor and I think hitters pick up the ball pretty well. He is more Joe Kelley than Billy Wagner. Baez had been better than Graterol to that point and they trust him. Hitters don’t look uncomfortable against him. I think he is fine to use, but he is superior to very few legit bullpen guys. I guess to hate Jansen the way people do, you have to have a guy that you think should be there and that is clearly Brusdar for Twitter/ you. You should know well enough to realize first-time through the league success. Getting excited about every guy that comes along is something that you should do at your own risk.
This kind of Twitter/ reactionary analysis is regressive. Its the complete lack of context and general baseball knowledge that makes the Twitter reactions completely worthless. There are no right moves or wrong moves. You can make every wrong move and win games – see Dodgers, Los Angeles. Obsessing over these moves really doesn’t make that much sense. It leads to the current state of baseball where the best players are not on the field, like Brett Phillips or your 6th best RP in any situation. Brett Phillips did not literally win the game, Will Smith lost it. The players decide the games as inconvenient as that is. The real move that you missed is why is Chris Taylor in CF? IMO this is all solved by leaving Urias in the game. Teams these days are simply trying to use RP and that is as dumb as it sounds. LAD almost certainly would have won the game handily if they never got into that bullpen, but instead they felt obligated to overwork the usual crew and mix in a few scrubs. The volume of folks who just have nothing of value to contribute to the conversation has helped to bury decades of knowledge, which I call regressive. This is the inevitable result of trying to change everything just to change it. It starts off promising, but you quickly find yourself lost and worse off than when you started. You talk a lot about players that are really not good MLB players, but this is all moot if LAD has a CF and they leave the starting pitcher in long enough to qualify for a win.
If you want to get analytical about Rays moves, the Rays always prioritize this instant over everything in the future. They spend most of their nights in bad spots just hoping that their inferior players don’t cost them the game. On one hand, they make some clever decisions but unless the moves work out or luck bails them out, they get caught with their pants down. They don’t trust their players or develop guys. They don’t have a core group that they depend on. They simply try to go with match-ups and at the end of the day they have good depth and versatility to do creative things, but inferior players all over the field at one time or another. I think TB has done a great job of getting something out of their SP so far in the playoffs. It is silly to watch LAD piss away their talent edge trying to manage a game in a progressive manner, while TB has gone pretty old-school with the bullpen management. The only reason this series is not already over is because LAD is trying to micro-manage their way out of the playoffs. Somewhere, there are some off-field personnel trying to make a name for themselves at the expense of some world-class baseball players. There is no way that people watching the games could come up with absurd strategies like LAD does. TB needs match-ups because they lack talent, but the Dodgers do their best to bring themselves back to the pack. A game 7 looks pretty likely at this point.
Graterol gives up an insanely low amount of hard contact considering how few whiffs he produces. I was not personally a fan of sticking him in high leverage, but the difficulty people have squaring him up seems quite consistent. I don’t like any reliever that doesn’t strike out 20-25% of batters in a high leverage role, but Graterol’s soft contact tendencies have been extremely consistent and very remarkable.
One thing that seems to also be a fairly extreme trend for Graterol is that when he does give up hard contact, it’s hit at a fairly high launch angle – like, above the optimal HR angle. In some parks, those kinds of balls get out anyway, but in globe life they’ve been swallowed. The most obvious of those plays is the Bellinger stolen HR off Tatis Jr, but there’s been a number of other balls vs the Braves and Rays that were hard hit but turned into relatively easy flyouts due to the enormous field on which they’re playing.
Graterol’s not the first pitcher on the Dodgers I want to see pitch with a 1 run lead, but I certainly would rather see him more than most of the other options at this point.
It seems to me that you’re critical of the Dodgers using literally every pitcher on their team, which leads me to ask who exactly you think they should be relying on. It’s certainly not Joe Kelly.
Your take on the Rays is hilariously bad. The Rays have one of the best player development systems in baseball. They take cast-offs or talented players other orgs have given up on and find ways to help them be successful. And they do that in part by using the matchups – they do their utmost to put guys in positions where their strengths are emphasized and where their weaknesses are minimized. This is why they emphasize matchups and switching guys around, and their players understand it and buy into this arrangement. They know that the Rays recognize what they’re good at, and value it in ways other teams did not, and that the Rays will deploy them in situations where their strengths are maximized.
It’s also entertaining that you think the Rays, who are getting shorter starts than the Dodgers, are somehow going ‘old school’ with their pitcher usage. How exactly is that working out for them? Every member of their 3-headed relief monster (Fairbanks, Anderson, Castillo) has given up runs to the Dodgers. The Rays haven’t had a starter last more than 5, and only 2 even got that far. Their bullpen is much more taxed and depleted and overused than the Dodger pen, and virtually none of the relievers in it are having a good series.
The Dodgers may face a game 7, but if they do it’ll be for the same reason Game 2 went poorly for them: Because Gonsolin and May were not effective against the Braves, they had to use Urias to finish NLCS Game 7, and therefore had no ready starter for Game 2 of the World Series. On the other hand, if Gonsolin and May can combine to have just 1 good game between those 3 outings (NLCS 7, WS 2 and WS6) this series is going to end tomorrow. If not, the Dodgers will just get to ride Walker Buehler in a decisive game: I’d be hard pressed to think of a current pitcher you’d prefer to have in that scenario.
While the decision to take Urias out in the 5th inning made sense for the fifth inning, it led to a cascade of circumstances that led to problems later on. The bullpen now needed to get 13 outs. Had Urias been pushed to go, say 1 more inning, this eliminates either the need to keep flipping to a 5th reliever or sticking with Baez for as long as he did.
Plus, maybe its anecdotal, but it sure seems as if in the post-season, non-elite relief pitchers get less effective each time they enter a series, as the opponent gets better at attacking their stuff.
Finally, one of the ways a manager can help his team win is by ensuring his best pitchers pitch more innings and more high-leverage innings than lesser pitchers. The WS could end with Urias throwing 4.2 innings, which kinda seems like a waste.
How are we glossing over the Jansen decision? How did this whole article get written, but only one paragraph devoted to Jansen in the ninth inning? Baez/Jansen lost this game when the Dodgers had Dustin May, Gonsolin, Graterol in the pen. Jake McGee never warmed, but could’ve been a devestating matchup against Phillips. To turn the game over to your coldest pitcher, who’s shown that he can’t get 3 outs in the biggest spot was the worse decision Roberts made.
Cash hates Ji-man Choi. That’s what it is!
I know I’m being silly, but I and my wife are still bitter.
Yes, we are both originally from Korea and were looking forward to see more of Choi.
To add insult to injury, Cash completely burned Choi last night, of course.
Choi is a tough choice as a guy who isn’t allowed to face left-handed pitchers opposing a team that has 2 quality left-handed starters (who have combined to start 3/5 games in the series), plus 4 left-handed relievers in their bullpen to attack him (Gonzalez, McGee, Kolarek, Wood).
Given that, it’s not surprising that Choi has been fairly inconsequential in this series. The opportunities to see him in play have been very minimal, and the Rays don’t use their guys in sub-optimal scenarios. Choi’s not going to bat against a left-handed pitcher if they can possibly avoid that, as he is very, very bad at doing so.
Most teams don’t have as much left-handed starting pitching as the Dodgers and even fewer have so many lefthanders in their bullpen in this season with the 3 batter minimum. That’s been to Choi’s advantage previously, but in this series it just ensures it’s exceptionally hard to get him a good matchup. He’ll probably start vs Gonsolin, but the Dodgers will attack him with a left-handed reliever as soon as Gonsolin is done.
It may be in general, but the article explained why it also is overmanaging.
He may be better off using Philips first and leave Choi for later the way he uses them.
Cash has been lucky at least in that none of the games went to extra innings.
Unless Brett Philips is his secret weapon, of course.
It really depends on how much you value that specific situation as potentially your best chance at a rally. The Dodgers bullpen, for all its criticism, is good. You are not guaranteed future chances at a rally, so it may not be worth sacrificing the current one with a bad matchup
To add, as an example look at Game 5, where the Rays had only 3 baserunners for the rest of the game after the Margot attempt to steal home. Whether you pinch Brosseau for Choi depends whether you believe you’ll have a better opportunity in the future, and if you don’t then you dramatically reduced your chances in your best opportunity of the game.
In G4 it turned out there was a higher leverage situation later. In Game 5, there wasn’t. They burned Choi, but the next best place to use him was the bottom of the 9th, down 2, 2 out, none on to hit for Adames at the end of the game. That’s a lower leverage spot than with a man on base for a power hitter.
As someone who critiqued on your game 4 write-up, Ben, I feel I should say I buy your math on Dodgers pitching decisions, and that I only looked at Adames 2020 splits (where he crushed lefties to a .417 wOBA in a puny sample) and not his career splits. I think that changes the math in the manner you present; on Saturday, I assumed Adames was that lefty crusher he flashed in 47 PAs, which was shortsighted analysis and would have made the Baez decision look a lot more appealing. Thanks for running the numbers!
I think Cash should have pinch hit Tsutsugo for Renfroe and his career .268 OBP against righties in the 8th with two outs and the tying run on 2nd instead of waiting to use him for Zunino. There was a good chance that was the highest leverage situation the Rays would see for the rest of the game.
Glad the article pointed out why there was no need for that scenario in the first place.
Bump