In Defense of Dave Roberts
Well, that was one of the craziest baseball games anyone has ever seen. A would-be triple that hit the bill of Chris Taylor’s cap and then bounced right to Joc Pederson, a pickoff at second base that looked like Laz Diaz got challenged to an impromptu game of dodgeball, and finally, an extra inning home run derby led to a 7-6 Astros victory, tying the series at one game apiece. If we get any more baseball games like that one, this series will be a classic.
But before most of those crazy things happened, Dave Roberts made a decision that seemingly set the wheels in motion. In the top of the fifth inning, the Dodgers’ manager summoned Kenta Maeda from the bullpen to take over for Rich Hill.
Rich Hill had thrown just 60 pitches, 42 of them for strikes. Hill had given up just one run, so he wasn’t chased from the game by the Astros hitters. But with the top of the order coming up a third time and Justin Verlander looking like he wasn’t going to give the Dodgers many chances to score, Roberts opted for Maeda to face five consecutive right-handed batters and try to keep the game close.
Going to Maeda in the fifth inning pushed the team’s match-up relievers into the game in the sixth and seventh, with Ross Stripling and Tony Watson each only facing one batter in their outings. Brandon Morrow was called in to pitch the seventh inning once Stripling issued a four pitch walk, which meant that Kenley Jansen was asked to get a six-out save, with only Josh Fields, Tony Cingrani, and Brandon McCarthy to pitch if the game went extra innings.
Of course, the game did go extra innings, because Jansen couldn’t strand Alex Bregman at second base after relieving Morrow in the 8th inning with a runner at second base, and then he gave up a game-tying home run to Marwin Gonzalez in the ninth. And then Fields gave up two homers in the 10th. And after a miraculous comeback, McCarthy gave up a two run homer to George Springer, which proved to be the decisive blow.
If one so chooses, all of that can be traced back to the decision to pull Hill after four innings. The early bullpen usage led to the team running low on pitchers by the end of the night, and the Astros getting clutch hits against guys they probably weren’t expecting to face in high leverage situations this series. Given what came after Hill was removed, it’s very easy to claim that things would have been different had Roberts just done what managers have been doing since baseball was invented, and stuck with his starter until he had no other choice.
For basically all of baseball history, pitching changes have been made based with “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality. Starters pitch until they get in trouble, then relievers try to get them out of that trouble. Rich Hill was not in trouble but was removed anyway, and the guys who came after him gave up the runs that cost his team the game. And so now Roberts will spend the next 48 hours being pilloried for “overmanaging” or “outsmarting himself” or whatever other term people want to use to disparage the decision to remove Hill after four innings.
But when you look at the decision with the information Roberts had at the time he made it, the decision seems perfectly reasonable.
Let’s start with the reality that this isn’t new for Roberts. This was Hill’s third start of the postseason; in his first start, he was removed after facing 18 batters over four innings, and in his second start, he was removed after facing 19 batters over five innings. Tonight, Hill again faced 18 batters over four innings. In three postseason starts, Hill has faced exactly one batter three times in the same game. The Dodgers plan for his usage this postseason couldn’t be more clear; he gets two trips through the line-up, and then is pulled as soon as possible.
And the first two times Roberts made this decision, it worked out just fine. The Dodgers won both of Hill’s prior two starts. The idea that pulling Hill early had an obvious and foreseeable negative outcome simply isn’t supported by the results of the Dodgers managing Hill exactly in this way in the first two rounds.
And given the handedness of the Astros best hitters, changing plans to rely more heavily on Hill in this series didn’t really make sense. When Roberts removed Hill, the next four batters due up were George Springer (165 wRC+ against LHPs this year), Alex Bregman (160), Jose Altuve (164), and Carlos Correa (187). The four of them combined for 586 plate appearances against lefties this year, batting .340/.422/.569 between them. Hill is a better than average lefty, and he’s better against RHBs than most LHPs, but that’s a group where minimizing their plate appearances against left-handed pitchers makes all kinds of sense.
Kenta Maeda, who relieved Hill, has been nails all postseason, now throwing in the mid-90s as his stuff has played up in relief. Maeda made easy work of the top of the Astros order in the fifth, then came back out to pitch the sixth. Carlos Correa led off the inning with a single, but, well, here’s what Correa looked like right before and then right at the point of contact.
Maeda threw a 2-2 cutter off the plate that Correa lunged after, barely getting the end of the bat on the ball, and hitting it just 86 mph to the left side. Because Correa is a supremely talented hitter, he poked it over Corey Seager’s head for a dinker into left field. With Brian McCann on deck, Roberts made sure he had Tony Watson warm, and after Maeda got one more out, Watson came in to get a one-out double play to end the inning. The immediate results of taking Hill out? The Astros next six batters made six outs.
Could Hill have gotten some of those outs without giving up any runs to some of the best right-handed hitters in baseball? Maybe. But if one is going to use the late-game Dodger bullpen results as proof that pulling Hill early was a mistake, the same kind of results-based analysis could be used to “prove” that riding a dominating starter doesn’t always work either.
Justin Verlander has been the dominant force in the postseason thus far, and for the first four innings tonight, he looked as good as ever. He went 12-up, 12-down in his first four innings, with only a Chris Taylor walk spoiling a perfect start to the game. At that point, his postseason ERA stood at 1.29. Pulling him at that point would have been unconscionable for A.J. Hinch, and it looked like Verlander was cruising towards another seven, eight, or even nine inning throwback-style outing.
But then, in the fifth, Joc Pederson homered. And in the sixth, Taylor walked again, and then Corey Seager homered. And all of the sudden, after four dominant innings, Verlander gave up three runs in the next two innings and was on the hook for the loss. No one is claiming that Hinch should have pulled Verlander before those home runs — he doesn’t have Maeda, Morrow, and Jansen, after all — but it should be impossible to look at how the Dodgers bullpen blew the game, claiming it proved Roberts made a mistake in taking his starter out too early, without recognizing that the manager who stuck with his dominant starter then had to watch that guy give up the lead in the very same game.
In the fifth and sixth innings, Verlander showed that riding your dominant starter is no guarantee of success, and that great pitchers give up runs sometimes. It happens. It’s baseball.
But we don’t get to just wave away Verlander’s failures while acting as if Jansen’s were somehow written on tablets the moment Roberts pulled Hill after 18 batters faced. Tonight, both an elite starter and an elite closer blew leads. If anything, the story of tonight’s game is there is no perfect way to manage, and that no matter what you do or what they’ve done previously, no one can be counted on to perform in a certain way every game.
If Roberts sticks with Hill, perhaps he gets another scoreless inning out of him, or perhaps Altuve and Correa hit their monstrous home runs five innings sooner. We’ll never know. We can’t know. And pretending that it was clear that Hill would have rolled through four guys who just destroyed left-handed pitching this year, the best hitters on the best offense in baseball, is silly.
Everything in baseball is a calculated risk. In this case, the Dodgers’ calculations suggest that they don’t trust him to face batters a third time through the order, especially not elite right-handed hitters, when the alternative is a right-hander throwing 96 whose only hit allowed in October came on an 86 mph blooper tonight. And that calculated risk got the ball to Kenley Jansen with six outs to go.
And while you don’t want to ask your closer to go multiple-innings every outing, the reality is that Jansen’s track record in these kinds of outings is impeccable.
In his postseason career, he’d been brought into a game in the eighth inning or earlier eight times. His line in those eight outings:
14.2 innings, 3 hits, 0 runs, 5 BB, 25 K.
During the 2017 regular season, Jansen got at least four outs on 14 different occasions, and his line in those outings:
19.2, 14 H, 3 R, 1 BB, 28 K.
Those three runs allowed all came in one outing — July 23rd against the Braves — where he blew the save. In the other 13 outings, he recorded 12 saves and picked up a win, and didn’t allow a run in any of those appearances.
Tonight, Jansen wasn’t perfect. He gave up a bouncer up the middle that scored his one inherited runner, and then in the ninth inning, he threw a middle-middle cutter to Marwin Gonzalez that got launched into the seats. Like Verlander, Jansen just couldn’t keep runs off the board when he most wanted to. It happens. It’s baseball.
Did Roberts manage this game perfectly? No, of course not. Just like Jansen would probably like to have his cutter to Gonzalez back, I’d guess that, in hindsight, he wouldn’t have used Ross Stripling to start the seventh. With Gonzalez and Reddick due up to start the inning, that could have been a good spot to try and get a couple of outs from Cingrani, potentially saving Morrow for the 8th inning and Jansen for the ninth, or at least asking the pair to maybe get seven outs instead of nine.
But despite what John Smoltz spent most of the game telling the audience, the decision to remove Hill early didn’t doom the Dodgers. It was a perfectly reasonable decision that, this time, didn’t work out, because the team’s unhittable closer couldn’t hold a two-run lead. Sometimes, good pitchers get beat. Just like Justin Verlander got beat tonight, after looking untouchable for the first four innings of the game.
Baseball has changed. These days, starters get taken out before they get into jams, because the preponderance of the evidence shows that it’s better to go to your bullpen too early than too late. It doesn’t mean it’s always going to work, just like riding your starters isn’t always going to work. But despite Smoltz’s protestations, baseball isn’t going back to the days where starters are workhorses who carry their teams through October. The Dodgers had better options than letting Rich Hill face some great right-handed batters a third time through the order.
And if this series goes to Game 6, it’s a good bet that Roberts will manage his staff the same way. As he should. Because the Dodgers got here by trusting in the weight of the evidence, and they’re not going to stop just because Kenley Jansen blew one save.
Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.


The problem is that Hill actually has gotten better this season during his third trip through the lineup. K%-BB% improves, WHIP improves, FIP improves, BAA improves, and BB/9 improves. He has only given up 3 XBH to 102 TBF this year during his third time through the order. Hill also has reverse splits in 2017; he’s been better vs RHB than he has vs LHB.
I get it, starting pitchers aren’t going to be the 250 IP workhorses of the 1990’s anymore. But Hill had only thrown 60 pitches and (save for a questionably-scored Chase Utley play) had pretty much shut down the Astros up until that point. We can talk about how the Astros 1-4 hitters are super elite vs LHP, but I feel like it should also be noted that the Astros don’t strike out much, yet Hill had struck out 7 in 4 IP, most notably Altuve twice and Correa once. He hadn’t given up an XBH in his four innings of work. I just feel like one more inning in this instance shouldn’t be met with the utter disdain that this article portrays.
Another problem is the risk of overusing Jansen in this series. Last season we saw both Andrew Miller and Aroldis Chapman get pretty much abused during the postseason, and they both gave up some big runs in game 7 of the World Series.
I don’t see “utter disdain” at the possibility of letting Rich Hill pitch the 5th inning. Dave is simply defending Roberts decision, not claiming that the other decision would have been obviously incorrect. Roberts took a calculated risk, and Cameron shows that it was reasonable. This doesn’t mean the approach of leaving Hill in couldn’t also be called reasonable.
Very much agree here, and to add to it slightly: I also agree with the article when it notes Hill may very well gotten in some trouble, like Verlander got in some trouble, after staying in the game. Which also could be said of the bullpen. But keep in mind Hill getting in a bit of trouble means the ENTIRE bullpen is there to bail him out. While going to the bullpen so early might be a numerically equal or better strategy if things go well, there is the potential hidden cost of running out of people to pitch in big places IF someone gets in trouble.
Based on sample sizes, regression, and likely selection bias, I’m close to 100% certain that we shouldn’t believe that either result that you cite in your first paragraph is predictive.
The “reverse platoon split” one is fairly easily covered.
First, Hill’s count of total batters faced against LHH’ers this year is only 124. Mitchell Lichtman addressed this exact topic at his blog and walked through the mathematical details. Here’s the full post – https://mglbaseball.com/2015/10/13/addendum-to-my-post-on-siegrest-and-platoon-splits/ . His conclusion after going through all the math: “So please, please, please, when you see or hear of a pitcher with severe reverse splits in 200 or so BF versus lefties … remember that our best estimate of their true platoon splits, or what his manager should expect when he sends him out there, is very, very different from what those actual one or three year splits suggest when those actual splits are very far away from the norm. Most of that unusual split, in either direction – almost all of it in fact – is likely a fluke.” This sample for Hill isn’t even 200 LH batters faced – it’s 124.
For platoon split, it’s also worth considering selection bias. Hill’s total batters faced count this year is 124 LHH’ers compared to 428 RHH’ers, so 78% RHH’ers. For the NL overall, 43% of total PA’s were taken by LHH’ers. And the LHH’ers that Hill does face almost certainly aren’t just a random subset. A disproportionate number of the LHH’ers who do play against him are going to be ones who are very good hitters and/or have limited platoon splits themselves. To put an example name to it, the Anthony Rizzo’s of the world don’t sit just because the opposing starting pitcher is left-handed. I don’t know of a way to search for the average wOBA of a hitter faced by a pitcher, but my educated guess is that this selection bias has a real impact for a LH starting pitcher who is facing only a bit over 20% same-handed hitters.
I don’t have as good a reference for regressing the times through the order penalty, but it still comes down to limited sample size and probably some selection bias.
On the selection bias, what happens in a game where Rich Hill gets shelled early? He gets pulled, and probably doesn’t make it to a third time through the order. And, with how aggressive the Dodgers were about using relievers even in the regular season, there’s a real possibility that he only keeps going deep into the third time through the order if he keeps getting hitters out.
As for limited sample size and regression toward league averages, consider how unlikely it is that a pitcher has a true talent third time through the order benefit, because the best explanation for it is a combination of not just pitcher fatigue but also batter familiarity. There is evidence that some pitchers are impacted less than others by the times through the order penalty – https://mglbaseball.com/2013/11/11/ttop-and-a-starting-pitchers-repetoire/ – such as those with a broader repertoire. That doesn’t bode well for Hill, however, as he’s basically a two-pitch pitcher. This year he threw 54% fastballs and 38% curve balls.
If you regress his numbers, as you suggest, his overall body of work becomes much more impressive. And while I understand that the “third time through the order” is skewed because it doesn’t show when Hill is pitching a bad game, we’re not talking about leaving Hill in when he’s having a bad game. He was pretty thoroughly taming one of the best offenses in history up until he was pulled, and again, had only thrown 60 pitches, 42 of which were strikes.
Instead of a broad repertoire, Hill has many arm angles and arm slots that he throws his two pitches from. My whole point is that focusing on one stat (no matter how useful) can take away from the whole picture.
Excellent discussion overall ^ but I want to give kudos to Dave T for taking the time to systematically address what seemed to be a cogent criticism. Superbly constructed comment, sir.
“cogent”
this is an excellent post (would upvote again) but youre kinda preaching to the choir. i feel like no smart baseball minds actually believe that reverse platoon splits exist. and the people who do believe in them are just going to ignore everything you said above and stick with the raw numbers anyway.
They do for a small selection of pitchers, though, like Hansel Robles.
And for Hill, his career wOBA for lefties and righties, even counting his horrible early years, is almost identical (.297 vs. righties and .304 vs. lefties). At best, he has no split either way. It makes sense to be nervous about the impending righthanders he was about to face, but there is no evidence that he is worse against righties than he is against lefties.
dl80 makes a good point about career numbers, but we still regress those numbers some toward the league average platoon split for LHP’s, which is about 29 points of wOBA ( https://mglbaseball.com/2015/10/10/siegrest-platoon-splits-and-joe-maddon/ ). We just regress them considerably less, because 783 same-handed batters for his career faced is quite a lot larger than Hill’s one-year sample. I think, again based on a post from Mitchell Lichtman on this topic ( https://mglbaseball.com/2015/10/10/siegrest-platoon-splits-and-joe-maddon/ ), we regress that split 38% toward the league average based on observed correlation and stabilization (1-783/1255 is the detailed math of it). That moves us 13 points
– 29 point normal split is 36 points away from Hill’s reverse split, multiply that by 38% to get 13 – telling us that we expect Hill to have a 6 point true talent platoon split. That is a very modest split, so we’re not far off saying that Hill’s true split is close to 0.
In fairness, we can also criticize Dave Cameron some on methodology for focusing on the 1-year numbers for Springer, Bregman, Altuve, and Correa, because batter platoon splits take even longer to stabilize than pitcher platoon splits. If we just use the shorthand that these are “really good RH hitters with around league-average platoon splits” though, they still look like tough match-ups for Hill on the third time through the order, whether his true talent career platoon split is +6 or -7.
We should almost certainly also consider that the Dodgers have three good RH relievers in their bullpen (Jansen, Morrow, and Maeda) and should be able to line things up so that these dangerous Astros RH hitters face only some combination of those three for their likely two or three remaining PA’s in this game. Two of those, Jansen and Maeda, have fairly large career platoon splits. Maeda: .331 wOBA vs. LHH, .275 vs. RHH. Jansen: .274 wOBA vs. LHH, .140 wOBA vs. RHH. We regress both of those towards the league average split, but we’re still going to end up with larger than league average splits for those two pitchers. And, of course, Maeda’s overall numbers should be better than his career as a reliever facing hitters just once and with his velocity noticeably up when he’s been pitching from the bullpen.
Survivorship bias
This game very much reminded me of Game 2 of the ALDS that ultimately morphed into a debacle. Both arguments have credibility, but the only reasonable counterargument I can see is that the Astros have been statistically proven to effectively adjust, the third time through. Either way, it’s hard to fault Roberts for going to a pen that allowed 0 runs in the NLCS, knowing he had the next day off.
What seemed questionable to me was not pulling Hill after 4 innings but relying on Jansen to get a 6-out save, especially after he’d pitched an inning the day before. He hasn’t been asked to get 6 outs all year. Yes he went 2+ innings three times in the postseason last year, but never when he’d pitched the day before–one time it was on 3 days’ rest, another time it was on 2 days’ rest, and the time it was on one day’s rest he was pretty lousy, walking 4 and giving up a hit. Even aside from the result of this game, this could affect later games, as we saw last year when Miller and Chapman were both exhausted and unreliable by the end. It looks like the Dodgers have gone from expecting superhuman endurance from Kershaw to expecting superhuman endurance from Jansen instead of trusting their team’s pitchers in general.
Also would say that the games that Jansen pitched a lot last year- games 1 and 5 of the Nats series (1.2 and 2.1 innings) and games 2 and 6 of the Cubs Series(2 and 3 innings)- the weather was a lot different. Instead of like last year game start temps in the 60-70 range, it was 93 last night. And the game lengths last year were longer so by the time he was pitching- it was even more of a difference.
Though I don’t agree with Roberts’ decision to pull Hill early, note that Jansen gave up the game-tying HR leading off the ninth. IOW, he had pitched only 1+ inning to that point. So you can’t blame that HR on his throwing too many pitches, though he may have by the time the ninth was over. As far as this hurting his effectiveness later in the series, maybe, but of course there is a rest day today.
We’re talking about bad decisions here, not necessarily bad results. It was at least a very questionable decision to commit to using jansen to get 6 outs.
“He hasn’t been asked to get 6 outs all year.”
He actually did once. He also got 5 outs once and 4 outs on 12 different occasions. He’s seen his fair share of multi-inning use. In those 14 outings he gave up 3 runs, all on one HR.
Okay, missed that one (June 2). But he had 2 days off before that one. This time he had none.
Robert’s real mistake was pulling Maeda after only facing 4 batters. If you are only planning on having your SP go through the lineup twice, you better have a good plan on how to get through the remaining 4-5 innings. Pulling Hill after 4 pretty much meant you would need a multi-inning performance from a reliever (and that’s before worrying about extra innings). Roberts ended up needing/choosing Jansen to go multiple innings. Yes, he had done it before, but this is October (i.e. end of long season) and Jansen had pitched the night before.
That’s probably a better way to put it than I did, since Roberts pulled Maeda before he sent out Jansen to get 6 outs, but it was pretty much the same mistake, since he must have been thinking ahead to later innings when he pulled Maeda. He can’t be blamed for not knowing that the game would go into extra innings, but he certainly knew that it would go 9.
I thought 1 thing that may have influenced that one some is that Maeda in his 2nd inning(for the 1st time in the postseason btw) was laboring to some degree in that 2nd inning. After 14 pitches to go 1-2-3 in the 5th, he had gone 11 pitches in the 6th to get 1 out(5 batters faced by the way total). He didn’t look quite like the same pitcher.
Yes, but it’s also true that in his last 5 appearances Maeda had never pitched more than 1 inning even though he was pitching really well (zero baserunners in fact). There was every reason to believe that in any case Roberts wasn’t planning on having him pitch much more yesterday.
I think he was hoping Maeda would breeze thru the 6th and then be set perfectly for the end of the game. His lineup spot was due up 2nd in the 6th.
That was my natural assumption at the time but when I checked Maeda’s game log I noticed that he had pitched only 1 inning in his last 5 appearances which does kind of suggest that that was how Roberts was going to use him this time also.
True, but given how the Astros lineup rolls with 5 straight righties, you could see where Roberts was hoping to press his luck there and get 2 innings.
Quite possible.
Without going into details of looking at every game play by play, I think that Maeda in relief has been used as pretty much a ROOGY and kept almost completely away from facing LH hitters.
I just think if Maeda had gotten first 2 in the 6th Roberts lets him face McCann with bases empty.
I did look through the play-by-plays of the games in which Maeda has appeared this postseason. I only see that he’s been allowed to face 1 LHH, out of 20 total batters faced, and that 1 LHH has the qualifier that it was Daniel Descalso.
Last night was one of the most amazing, beautiful, exhilarating game of baseball I’ve ever seen, with weird bounces and twists and turns and seemingly a half dozen guys playing hero. It was an absolute classic.
The conversation shouldn’t be Dave Roberts anything; the conversation should be on how incredible both of these teams are, and how amazing last night was.
A far greater crime to me than any ‘overmanaging’ is over analyzing by folks like Smoltz who can’t just sit back and enjoy the game for what it truly is. I’ll remember last night for a long, LONG time – I won’t remember it for the managers or the announcers. I’ll remember it for the incredible things the players did.
it’s the World Series, and John Smoltz is a play-by-play analyst employed to give his opinion on the game. Doesn’t really sound like a crime to me.
True, but Smoltz “old man yells at cloud” routine is starting to wear thin. It’s one thing to disagree with Roberts methodology of managing his staff, but Smoltz seems utterly baffled by it, and is completely dismissive of it.
It’s easy to remember all the great pitching performances of the past, but just as easy to forget all the times starters were left in too long (Matt Harvey, anyone?).
Smoltz is a really smart analyst, and his knowledge of pitching, the game of baseball, and the pressures of postseason play are awesome. I just wish he would try to educate viewers on why Roberts is doing what he’s doing, even if he does so while disagreeing with it.
In a four and a half hour, 11 inning game, Smoltz had basically one opinion that he hammered home inning after inning. And it was a stupid one. Smoltz’s job would have been better done talking about why Roberts – one of the best managers in baseball who was two outs from a 2-0 lead – did what he did, not saying over and over about why he was wrong. This article – while good – shouldn’t be necessary. This is simple stuff that teams have been doing for long enough that guys like Smoltz should be used to it, even if they’re stubbornly stuck in the past.
The problem is not that an analyst analyzes, it’s that Smoltz is extremely bad at analyzing. It’s mostly just knee-jerk curmudgeon stuff, not real situational thinking or detailed observation.
Roger – this, times 100x.
Smoltz knows more about what its like to be on the mound for a postseason MLB game than almost anyone on earth.
But that’s not what he spends most of his time talking about. He’s using that as the basis for this appeal to authority on strategic topics in a way that ignores things like, you know, FACTS.
I would have told you a month ago that it was impossible to find someone that would make me think “Man, I wish Joe Buck would talk more”. But it’s been done.
To be honest I don’t understand why ex-athletes get so much air time as “analysts” — not that none of them can do it, of course, but the proportion of athletes who have the verbal and cognitive skills required is (obviously, given the results) a small one. Being able to pitch, or smart as a pitcher, is a very different skill from being able to *talk* about pitching compellingly at great speed. And like you say, having had the experience of standing on the mound in the World Series isn’t the same thing as being able to communicate that experience — or else we’d all be novelists. I don’t expect talented writers/speakers and thinkers to be able to pitch like major-leaguers, so I’m not sure why the media system seems to expect that talented pitchers can write/speak and think well enough to deserve a whole category of high-profile job doing so.
Well, to be a bit broader, read a lot of the writers at ESPN – with some notable exceptions such as Sam Miller – or read a lot of local beat writers, and they’re also not very good at incorporating modern information into analyzing baseball. They’ve gotten better than they once were: a lot seem aware of wRC+ or at least OPS, they use DRS or UZR/150 instead of fielding percentage, and they might be aware of FIP.
But I still see things like quoting splits on where hitters bat in the order and thinking those should be predictive (often SSS splits on this dubious information, no less), routinely quoting hitter vs. pitcher performance in 40 or 50 PA’s and thinking that should be predictive, citing one-year reverse splits without understanding they’re exceedingly unlikely to be meaningful, etc. And there are still some who obsess about nothing but Triple Crown hitting stats and pitcher wins.
It’s very annoying that writers, along with TV broadcasts, often seem to be actively making people less informed about what matters in baseball.
Having conversations about managerial decisions made during the game is how I “sit back and enjoy the game for what it truly is.” This is fangraphs.
Managers pull their non-ace starters before the third time through the order – it’s a thing guys have been doing for quite some time. Which is why Dave referred to Smoltz’ endless complaints during the game, which were stupid when he said them, and stupid today. It should go without saying that, on Fangraphs, that type of thing shouldn’t need defended – if you read this site, you know that the move was fine already. This is 2017.
I appreciate the insight Smoltz brings to the game. I don’t want my color commentator to tell me what I saw but with baseball slang, I hate those types of announcers.
Justin Verlander in the postgame interview alluded to the opportunity to get deep into the Dodger bullpen. He said “they used so many pitchers early, late in the game we were able to take advantage of that situation.” And he smirked a bit then fought it back down. Hill & Maeda looked pretty dominant. I was surprised they weren’t left in until pinch hitting or showing some sign of weakness.
To me, it’s obvious over-managing. Nothing really forced Roberts’ hand, yet he still ended up calling on Jansen for 6 outs when he pitched the previous day. A bad plan.
And obvious to the players, or at least one of them.
To be blunt, I have no reason to think that we should defer to Verlander’s analysis of this situation.
I obviously think he knows lot more than I do or ever will about topics such as pitch sequencing within and between hitters.
To use an analogy from another sport, though, I trust that ex-NFL QB’s who are TV analysts can tell us tons about route combinations on plays, cues to audible from pass to run or vice versa, how particular play calls match up with particular defensive schemes, etc. They don’t as a a rule, however, necessarily know much about whether going for it on 4th and 1 is a good call in terms of win expectancy.
Virtually all in-game managerial decisions in baseball fall into that latter category of “go for it on 4th and 1 or not”. They’re not decisions that we have any good reason to think that players understand better than outsiders do, with the exception that they probably know if other players are on their own team are at less than 100% health.
And let’s not fall into too much fallacious “post hoc ergo propter hoc” discussion of this game. If Puig hadn’t just missed a great defensive play on Bregman’s double, or if Marwin Gonzalez hadn’t hit a home run on an 0-2 count, very few if any people would be criticizing Roberts today.
If you have a pitcher that is doing well and not tiring (as Hill was not), you should stay with him. The more pitchers you trot out there, the higher the probability that one or more are not going to have it. And that’s what happened to the Dodgers, 3 times.
Baseball is going away from having workhorses get them through Oct (Madbum and Verlander say hello), but does that mean that a workhorse is now defined as someone that goes 5 innings.
Also definitely don’t like making Jansen get 6 outs. He only did that once during the regular (in early June).
The problem with this line of thinking is that you are assuming that if a starting pitcher has been good so far in the game, then he will be good later in the game. This is not necessarily true as shown in the very same game with Verlander (and also mentioned in this article). You can just as easily argue that if you don’t put a reliever in, you run a higher probability that your starting pitcher is going to lose it.
I agree with Dave on this: “If anything, the story of tonight’s game is there is no perfect way to manage, and that no matter what you do or what they’ve done previously, no one can be counted on to perform in a certain way every game.”
Only problem is that while saying this, Dave is still arguing that Roberts’s way is the “perfect way to manage” and that Smoltz is wrong for pointing out the down side.
If (recent) history is any judge, in the 2016 World Series Terry Francona played his bullpen like a Stradivarius and still lost, while Joe Maddon butchered his bullpen to the point that it was unwise to allow young children to watch and he still won. No perfect way, indeed.
I wouldn’t dispute that Francona is and was a better manager than Maddon, but I think it’s unfair to portray the difference as being that great. Maddon just plain didn’t have much to work with in the bullpen, much less than Francona. You really can’t compare Chapman to Miller, I mean obviously Chapman is a great reliever but he just isn’t flexible like Miller is and that’s no fault of Maddon’s, and in the rest of the bullpen there was no comparison at all. And although Francona was generally brilliant, sending out Miller to pitch 2 innings with a 6-run lead in game 4, especially given how incredibly heavy Miller’s workload had been, was a huge blunder which may well have cost Cleveland the series, given that Miller was clearly exhausted in game 7 and if he’d been normal Miller the game wouldn’t have gone into extra innings.
That wasn’t a good move by Francona in Game 4, and I think that it was criticized here at the time. I don’t recall if there was a post, but at least in the chat during the game. It seemed overly cautious at the time, but I don’t know that we can draw a straight line from that move to Miller having a rough Game 7. Miller threw 27 pitches in Game 4, and then he had 3 days off before his next appearance, which was Game 7. http://www.espn.com/mlb/player/gamelog/_/id/28563/year/2016
Maddon made the same mistake in spades in Game 6, however. He used Chapman for 20 pitches to face 5 batters across 3 innings with a 5 run lead that had become a 7 run lead by the last batter. That was just 2 days after Chapman had throw 42 pitches to get the last 8 outs in Game 5.
https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/aroldis-chapman-and-the-cost-of-risk-aversion/
Then in Game 7, Maddon brought Chapman back to pitch the 9th inning of a tie game when it was clear that Chapman was gassed. To face Santana, Kipnis, and Lindor, after throwing 21 pitches in the 8th, which took Chapman’s pitch count to 83 pitches over 4 days. It was simply by the randomness of baseball that the Indians didn’t connect for runs against the numerous meatballs that Chapman threw that inning – https://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-inning-the-cubs-stole/
Of course Maddon made more mistakes, no argument there, but I really think that having Miller pitch two innings in game 4 might have cost Cleveland the series. He just looked awful in game 7, I can’t remember Miller pitching that badly like ever. He’s usually like a machine, maybe he makes one mistake every few games, but in game 7 he just had nothing and there really wasn’t an explanation other than being tired or hurt. Because he’d had 3 days off my thought at the time was that he’d hurt himself, which is much more likely if you’re really tired. No question that Cleveland only got that far because Francona had been managing brilliantly but that was a serious mistake.
@john, the point of that example was that the Cubs won despite Maddon’s hack job. So regardless of the method (or irregardless, as I think I heard Smoltzie say at one point last night), the best managed team doesn’t always win.
More specifically about the ’16 Fall Classic, you also speak to my overall point. The genius of Tito (and the reason why everyone is rushing to copy him) is that he realized that a) he had a special weapon in Miller, b) he also had a decent closer in Allen, and c) the most important outs to get are not always in the 8th and 9th innings. The problem with copying that is that Millers don’t just grow on trees. Maddon’s folly was that while he had an extraordinary weapon, Chapman was not special in the way that Miller was (i.e multiple innings, cleaning up other guys’ messes) but he tried to use him that way anyway – even in spite of loud protests from Chapman himself. And Chapman hasn’t been the same since. That is the hallmark of a bad manager. Great bench coach, bad manager.
Having an unreliable bullpen naturally makes managers look bad. Francona generally managed like a genius but this was only possible because he had the tools which made this possible. Maddon didn’t have a Miller or another reliable reliever like Allen so he was motivated to try to make the best he could of what he had, trying to make Chapman into something he wasn’t. It’s looking like Roberts may be trying to do the same with Jansen, and people aren’t going around saying he’s a bad manager. Or at least not yet.
I focus on the last part of Dave Cameron’s sentence, and I take his meaning to be this: even if you manage in a way that is correctly playing the percentages, you won’t get perfect results.
Most of these decisions move win expectancy a few percentage points. I’m not sure that a single practical move that a manager would consider ever moves win expectancy even 10%. Good decisions increase the chance of a good result, but it still comes down to what happens on the field.
I mean, this was a game in which Cody Bellinger went 0-4, while Charlie Culberson – career 57 wRC+, sub-.600 OPS vs. RH pitchers each of the last two years in AAA – hit a HR against a RH pitcher. We can come up with good reasons to say what’s MORE LIKELY to happen in a baseball game, but we can’t at all say what WILL happen in a given baseball game.
This World Series has been epic so far. I would have preferred the Dodgers win, but wowee has it been a ride.
The worse over-managing to me were the late double switches. If you’re not going to leave Cingrani in for more than an inning anyways, why take Bellinger out for the double switch? Sure Culberson came up big, but seems awkward to put a Catcher at 2B and take out the team MVP when you can just pinch hit and maybe save a bench spot just in case.
Barnes played 21 games at 2B for the Dodgers this year and I’m pretty sure he was a second baseman/utility infielder in the minors before becoming a catcher.
Can I pile on? OK, I’m piling on. Why is Austin Barnes starting every game? Yasmani Grandal is a very good catcher, offensively and defensively. Yes, he tired a bit during the regular season, but he’s been rested for the past month! Sure, let Barnes play against lefties. But against righties, at home!, get Grandal in there. Sheesh.
As a Cubs fan, I was also wondering about Grandal – is he hurt or something?
Grandal has looked completely lost at the plate, and Barnes is every bit as good as him defensively. I would expect Grandal to start Game 4 though
Roberts was pretty open by about mid-September that Grandal and Barnes were no longer in a platoon situation and that Barnes was the starter. Grandal has lost his job. Austin Barnes is really fucking good.
I saw what I thought was a more subtle screw-up by Roberts in the extra innings, which was that he somehow double-switched Bellinger out of the game to put the pitcher’s spot hitting clean-up and then in the 11th inning double-switched Culberson into that spot (and put the pitcher in Taylor’s spot).
On the Bellinger double-switch, it was a weird mid-inning double-switch that occurred when Cingrani came in for Fields, but then Cingrani didn’t pitch past the 10th inning. And then Roberts in any case double-switched again to move the pitcher’s spot a second time when McCarthy started the 11th inning.
So of course in the 11th we had Culberson come to bat as the potential final out of the game, when it seemed like it could have been Bellinger instead. And then Culberson came through with a home run! That’s baseball.
But it’s easy to see a set of circumstances where Dave Cameron would also be writing today about how Seager and/or Turner got on in the 11th inning, but Culberson made an out in a key PA rather than Bellinger getting a chance. Or, if the game had gone for another inning or two, how Roberts had double-switched his way into an extra inning game where two of the team’s best hitters (Taylor and Bellinger) were both on the bench.
Disclosure: I’m a Cardinals fan, and therefore sensitive to noticing a perplexing series of double-switches that take good hitters out of the game before what turn out to be key late game or extra inning PA’s. #Mathenaging
As an aside, I hope that Charlie Culberson is getting some nice coverage from his hometown TV station and paper, because I feel like he’s sort of been lost as a story of an unlikely post-season overachiever.
He’s 28, and seemingly the definition of replacement-level player. Makes the NLCS roster after Seager’s injury. He now has a 252 wRC+ in 15 PA’s with 4 extra base hits including 1 HR.
Depleting his bullpen early led directly to the double switches.
No, it appeared to have very little to do with using a lot of the bullpen early. It was just a screw-up.
Roberts double-switched Cingrani into the 4th spot in the batting order from the 6th spot in the order, with the 5th spot due to lead off in the bottom of the 10th. For whatever reason, he also brought in two position players at the same time (Grandal and Forsythe) and put Forysthe in Utley’s spot in the order.
Then, to start the 11th, he double-switched McCarthy into the game in the first spot in the order, with the 2nd spot due to lead off in the bottom of the 11th.
In the 10th, however, he could have just put in Cingrani, PH for Cingrani in the bottom of the inning, and then figured out the double-switch once the Dodgers were done batting in the 10th. Don’t even need any double-switch if the Dodgers win in a walk-off.
If the thought was that McCarthy might end up entering the game for Cingrani at some point in the top of the 10th, then just wait until McCarthy actually enters the game to double-switch. Don’t pre-empt it by double-switching in Cingrani when you may not actually need that double-switch.
Disagree. Roberts totally mismanaged his pitching staff and gave the game away. I was appalled; he’s supposed to be Manager of the Year but I and a lot of people here could have managed that game far better than he did. Pulling your starter after four when he’s given up one run? Trying to get a two-inning save from a closer? Please are acts of desperation, not acts of proper pitching management.
Only thing I’d say is that to some degree it was a desperate game. The Dodgers now with the loss have to win 2 of the next 4 games with 3 of them in Houston and then a 4th back in LA vs Verlander.
I would say that roberts’ managing was extremely jumpy. He basically managed like the only pitcher he really trusted with the baseball was jansen. Everyone else was pulled at the first possible excuse.
I have watched every Dodgers game this season.
Not one single thing that Roberts did surprised me in any way, shape or form. What he did was completely consistent with the way the team has handled pitchers and it was not successful this time.
The Dodgers played the odds to win in 9 innings because they knew they would get less length from Hill than the Astros would get from Verlander. They knew they’d be at a disadvantage heading into an extra inning scenario. They managed to maximize their odds of winning in 9, especially once they had a lead.
If both Brandon Morrow and Kenley Jansen don’t crack in the same game, this isn’t in any way a story. Sometimes you can play the odds correctly and still lose. I think Dave Roberts correctly maximized their odds of winning in 9.
I agree that the early hook was defensible, *broadly* consistent with Hill’s prior outings, and didn’t totally dictate what followed. But two points:
1) The context was WAY different from Hill’s prior starts. In those, Hill was pulled for a pinch-hitter, Dodgers trailing by one, with someone in scoring position (1 out/bags full, no out/man on 2nd). Hill is a terrible hitter, *and* would have been facing a lefty. I definitely pinch-hit in those spots. But this hook was purely optional.
2) AFTER pulling Hill last night, Roberts continued to burn RPs aggressively:
— Tied in top-6, 1 out, man on 1st, McCann up, Roberts pulled Maeda (who had gotten 4 outs) for Watson, while knowing that Watson could face no more than 1 man with the platoon edge. The switch-hitting Gonzalez was on deck, and even if Watson got a DP by McCann (as he did), his spot was due up in the bottom half.
— Top-7, now up by 2, Roberts brought in Stripling — a RHP with a big reverse split — with Gonzalez leading off and Reddick on deck. When Stripling walked Marwin on 4 pitches, Roberts brought in Morrow. That seems very aggressive. Sure, the walk was disturbing; but if you liked Stripling to start the inning, I think you could still let him face the tying run, especially given how many RPs you’ve already used. Yes, there are points in Morrow’s favor. But the move didn’t even get the platoon edge vs. Reddick, and it meant you’re now seeking 9 outs from Morrow and Jansen — doable, but aggressive.
— Top-8, still up by 2, Morrow yields a leadoff double (on his 14th pitch) and gives way to Jansen. So now you’re asking 6 outs from Jansen — again, doable, but aggressive.
I can argue in favor of Roberts’s strategy, but I can also argue against it. In two key late moments with the tying run up, with his pen thinning rapidly, Roberts made a move solely to get a better overall pitcher — not to gain a platoon edge or force a move by the other side. He moved aggressively even though the worst-case scenario at each moment was a TIE game, at home. That’s not “wrong,” but it’s debatable.
I generally agree with this assessment. If you pull an effective starting pitcher early and the you lack a super deep bullpen, you have to have faith that your designated guys are going to get you the outs you need unless it is obvious that those guys do not have the stuff that day. It’s not really an option to have quick hooks on both the starter and your relief aces. Pick one. Asking Jansen to get 6 outs in that situation cannot possibly what Roberts wanted, but that’s what he managed himself into.
Spot on. The only indefensible Roberts move was bringing in Stripling in the 7th, and that worked out with Morrow inducing a DP. Ninety-nine times out of 100, Jansen gets Marwin Gonzalez with an 0-2 count. He missed his spot and Gonzalez hit it out. That’s baseball.
I was a little surprised that Roberts pulled Maeda as quickly as he did for Watson and Stripling. Those are 2 guys he hasn’t really trusted and, though the bottom of the Astros’ lineup had a bunch of lefties, I figured he’d just roll with Maeda and bring in Morrow to face the top of the order again. If he’d done that, he’d have had other choices besides McCarthy later but I’m probably splitting hairs here.
I actually *thought* Roberts would bring Jansen to START the 8th, and I wouldn’t have argued against it, given their 4 days off before this series and the off day coming up.
But it’s still worth noting that, in his whole career, Jansen had never before gotten 6 outs when pitching on zero days’ rest. And his only time getting 5 outs on no rest was this NLDS, retiring 5 in a row.
Jansen hasn’t been overworked per se this postseason, since LA won each prior series quickly. But he has worked in 9 of 10 games, logging 12% of their innings. And as great as he is, Jansen’s career RA/9 isn’t zero, it’s 2.14. In this postseason, it’s now 1.64. He’s gonna give up a run now and then.
Hey the Dodgers can fire Roberts today and bring aboard Joe Girardi, who just got let go by the Yankees.
Nats are going to swallow the bitter pill and hire Girardi for 6 mil/ year 4 years. NOT.
Say what you will about Hill facing righties for a third time but there were no two happier people in that building when the 5th inning started than Jose Altuve and Carlos Correa. Hill was was so far in their heads he was coming out their ears.
Thats…quite the visual you’ve provided there…
Im not going to question every move Roberts made but theres 1 that really stands out. Ross Stripling has been very bad for a while now and there is no way you can trust him in a closer world series game. Stripling should not even be on the roster. Putting stripling in made morrow and jansen have to come in early
The Dodgers got to the 8th inning with a 2-run lead and the best closer in the game on the mound, and with all relievers available for game 3 (due to the off day and the fact that none of them pitched much). Nothing else matters – you take those odds every time.
But he was asking ‘the best closer in the game’ to do something he’d never done in his career–get 6 outs when he’d pitched the day before. That isn’t something which you do in the World Series if you have a choice, and there were quite a few ways Roberts could haven’t avoided that scenario.
Point taken, but fatigue was not the issue with Jansen. If he labored through his second inning and ended up giving up 2 runs to tie it in the 9th after throwing 35 pitches, then I’d agree with you 100%.
How do you know fatigue wasn’t the issue? He very very rarely blows a save, let alone a 2-run lead, and he’s never ever been asked to pitch 2 innings when he’s pitched the day before. It could be a coincidence that these both happened yesterday but i wouldn’t have taken the chance in that situation.
Do you know what Bochy did in 2014?
He asked Bumgarner to come in as a relief to pitch 5 innings
with only two day rest right after Bumgarner pitched a complete game.
Guess how many times Bumgarner, or for that matter, any pitcher in the history of MLB did that in his career.
Yes, there were many ways Roberts could have avoided the scenario.
But there were many ways Roberts could have ended up in a worse, sometimes much worse scenario as well.
There were two differences though: (1) Bochy had no choice but to use Bumgarner at least for a while. The only other slightly rested and reliable pitchers he had when he brought Bumgarner in in the 5th were Casilla, Romo, and Lopez (Petit had pitched in 2 of the preceding 3 games and the rest of the starters were a mess), and Casilla and Romo never pitched more than 1 inning while Lopez only usually face a batter or two. There was no alternative to using Bumgarner for at least two innings, and by then he was cruising and pulling him after that would have meant being screwed if the game went into extra innings, and (2) There was no tomorrow so burning out Bumgarner for future games wasn’t an issue like it was for Jansen yesterday.
Watched the 1975 Reds v Red Sox WS game 6 on the telly, back in the day. The only reason that game might have eclipsed this game in greatness was that it was a do or die game for the Red Sox. On the other hand, this game had a do or die feeling for the Astros.
This post is completely insane. As others have pointed out, the context for pulling Hill in the other games was completely different, Hill was pitching well, and he’s done well the 3rd time through the lineup during the regular season. There was no reason to not at least let him start the 5th and have Maeda ready to come in if he got into trouble.
Then, Roberts burned through his bullpen like it was the 6th inning. He backed himself into a completely unnecessary 2 inning save situation. So sure, you can say pulling Hill by itself didn’t doom the Dodgers, but it was the first domino in a chain of bad decisions.
This was the FO being too clever by half and getting in the way of their players playing the game, plain and simple.
Though I disagree that the decision to remove Hill early was defensible, to be fair, Jansen’s vulnerability wasn’t the result of throwing too many pitches. The game tying HR he gave up was to the leadoff batter in the ninth, so at that point he had pitched only 1+ inning. Still, Roberts was knowingly gambling that the game wouldn’t go into extra innings.
I notice no one is talking about Hinch’s decision to leave Giles in for the 10th. I thought THAT was the real bad pitching decision lol
I’ll talk about Giles! He’s stunk all postseason. Even before last night, he’d had one scoreless game out of five, and even in that inning he allowed a hit and a walk — a walk, up 6 runs in the 9th.
I’m going to feel very queasy if he ever comes in with a 1-run lead.
Oh. People are saying this? I figured the Dodgers lost because their invincible relievers weren’t invincible for a day, or, in other words, because the Astros are good at hitting.
1) The batters will tell you when a pitcher is losing it. Hill wasn’t. 2) Brandon McCarthy is a fine pitcher – a fine STARTING pitcher. On this club, I’m sorry, he’s the 25th man, and you should never manage yourself into a box where your winning or losing depends on your 25th man. Never. 3) What are Jansen’s 2-inning appearance stats after having saved a game the night before? They might be great, but it seems like Dave is cherry-picking to make his point.
He’s never been in that situation in his career. Last night was the first time.
comment about the game as a whole- before last night there had been 17 extra inning homers in World Series History. There were 5 last night. Just an incredible game. Think the warm weather impacted things a lot- I mean night game at Dodger Stadium- and 5 extra inning home runs.
Isn’t there a wider theme here worth discussing? Throughout this postseason, starters are being asked to do LESS than usual, on the grounds that the best RPs are better than most of the starters. Part of that advantage is inherent to length of outings.
But then, the best RPs are asked to do MORE than usual, which obviously mitigates that advantage. And quite a few of them have gotten burned in those longer-than-usual outings.
Just last night, Giles blew up in his second inning, yielding a HR to his 4th batter, a walk to his 7th (after a 1-2 count), and an RBI hit to his 8th, on his 33rd pitch of the game. Giles didnt’ face 8 batters or throw 32 pitches at all this year. He’s faced 8 batters in just 4 of 245 career outings.
Giles has now given up runs in all 3 outings this PS that went past one inning.
A few other examples:
— In the NLWC game, Pat Neshek got burned in his second inning, yielding a game-breaking 2-run triple to a relief pitcher, the 7th man he faced. Neshek never faced 6 batters all season.
— ALDS game 2, David Robertson served a tying HR in the 8th after coming in to finish the 6th. He’d had 2 rest days since a career-high 52-pitch outing, yet was left to protect a 1-run lead against a LH slugger.
— Dellin Betances lost that game in his third inning, on a walk to his 7th batter and a hit by his 8th. He had just one game this year of 2 innings, and one of 8 batters.
— ALDS finale, Craig Kimbrel served a game-breaking 2-run hit to his 8th batter, in his second inning. He never faced 8 batters this year, nor even 7 in his 9 prior PS outings.
Several other RPs have been touched up after coming in to finish an inning, then going back out for the next. That practice is uncommon during the regular season.
And in the “asked to do what they’re not used to” vein, we can add the disastrous relief outings of Scherzer, Verlander and Lackey, who had combined for 1 relief stint in the last 8 years.
I’m not blanket condemning the usage changes, but some of them do seem reckless. And the overall results don’t support them. In this postseason to date:
— 4.26 RA/9 by starters.
— 4.27 RA/9 by relievers.
— Starters also have a slightly better SO%, SO-BB%, and WHIP.
And in these 2 WS games, we’ve had 4 ace starters pulled before 85 pitches, yielding 8 runs in 23.2 IP, a 3.04 RA/9. All the RPs have yielded 9 runs in 15.1 IP, a 5.28 RA/9. Small sample, but it is what it is.
thing is- look at the 2 Astros Starters this series…
Keuchel went 6.2 innings- but had given up 2 run homer in the 6th.
Verlander went 6 innings- and had given up 3 runs in final 2 innings. And he was pinch hit for- something that happens regular season in that situation almost every single time with team down. So neither one of those were really bad pulls…
And Hill is an Ace Pitcher? Did I miss something?
I guess you missed that Hill in the last 2 years ranks 6th in ERA+ among all those with 30+ starts — better than Strasburg, Bumgarner, Sale, Verlander…. He’s 7th in SO%, 4th in OPS+, 5th in HR/9, 2nd in BA….
That Rich Hill is a great pitcher is simply inarguable.
Now, maybe “ace” carries a workload connotation that you don’t think Hill meets, since he’s averaged just 5.5 IP and 22 batters per start in these years. But his PS workload has been cut at least as much as most other SPs, to 4.3 IP and 18 batters. Pulling him at 60 pitches, with no basis in game performance, is at least as aggressive as pulling some more durable ace at 80 pitches.
Hill is 27th in MLB in those 2 years combined with 6.4 fWAR. Among guys with 200+ innings, his 79.9% LOB is 6th best. Sorry, but he’s no ace. He may be a good pitcher- but definitely not in the same realm as the other 3- who have all rightly won Cy Young Awards.
WAR is not at all an appropriate measure for this context, since playing time is a major component. Hill has missed playing time, mainly with blisters. But he’s healthy now. WAR is a distraction here.
Playing time is a pretty big definition of being an Ace.
but just taking this year into account and looking at the rate stats- first off his 80.4% LOB rate was #8 in MLB of guys with at least 130 ip. His ERA even with that was #20. His FIP was #25. his xFIP was #33. Those last 3 numbers aren’t Ace level numbers by any stretch.
I guess we’re just using the term “ace” differently. To me, it means great pitcher, regardless of how much he happened to work within a given timeframe. By any reasonable estimate, the Rich Hill we’ve seen in the past few years is — in 5- to 6-inning bursts — equivalent to any “ace” outside a handful. I’d certainly take him over Keuchel, for instance.
And I really have no clue what that LOB rate is meant to signify. I can care about his overall rate of runs let in, or runs he might be expected to yield given his peripherals. I can’t care about a run-scoring rate that has already baked in his very low rate of men on base. 80% of a very low number is still a very low number.
Lastly, I wouldn’t judge anyone based just on the current year’s data.
Hill’s WAR isn’t high because he hasn’t pitched as many innings as the other guys.
On a per-inning basis, Rich Hill has been a phenomenal pitcher for the last 2+ seasons.
so much of that was just last year though..
2016- 3.8 WAR in 110 IP 6.9 to 200 ip
2017- 2.6 WAR in 135 IP 3.9 to 200 ip
2016 I’ll give you he was a great pitcher(when he actually pitched- tough to call any pitcher who throws 110 innings an ace). But 2017? Nope. I mean 3.9 in 2016 would be #15- similar to Quintana. But that’s before you look at guys just behind that- who didn’t throw 200 innings either but had WAR just below that. Guys like Fulmer, Godley, Wood, Duffy, Peacock, Morton, Anderson, Ray, Gray, and McCullers. If you extrapolate them to 200 innings, all of those are better than he was this year. So that would be at best #25 this year.
And if you’re delving into performance specifics at the time these WS starters were pulled, let’s note that:
— Kershaw had retired 12 of his last 13 batters, with 2 balls leaving the infield (ground single and flyout), and would have next faced the bottom of the order, with a 2-run lead.
— Hill had retired his last 3 (omitting an IBB), ending with two 3-pitch Ks, after a full-count leadoff walk in the 4th.
1 of the 2 K’s you’re talking about with Hill was vs Justin Verlander. And Hill is pretty much a 18-19 batter pitcher now. And he was up to 18 batters faced.
And Kershaw you understand as well. In the playoffs he had games of 100, 87 and 89 pitches. He had 83 pitches at this point. Also- the 2 balls leaving the infield both having come in the 7th inning. So EXTREMELY understandable.
It’s fine with me if you want to quibble over one-half of maybe my 10th-biggest point. Doesn’t really dent the argument.
Just to show you how your examples could be cherry picked/biased,
yes, Giles has given up a run in all outings where he pitched 1+ inning in postseason (2IP 1R, 1.2IP 1R, 1.2 IP 2R ERA 6.75)
but the question is how were his 1 IP or less per performance?
(1IP 1R, 0.1IP 2R, 1IP 0R ERA 11.74)
To be fair, this probably only tells us that Giles has sucked so far and not whether Giles’ performance is better/worse when asked to get many outs, but that is precisely the point.
That’s a good point. I did select anecdotally, although I specifically limited my examples to those yielding runs IN a second inning of work (not simply a game where they worked a second inning).
What we really want are searchable results for any Nth batter faced in a game. But I don’t know where to get that, and the manual data collection would be brutal.
“And the overall results don’t support them. In this postseason to date:
— 4.26 RA/9 by starters.
— 4.27 RA/9 by relievers”
The sample size almost certainly isn’t big enough to draw any conclusion from this information, but I’m also going to say that your claim is exactly backward. That information, if predictive, would show that starters are being pulled when they should be.
What’s one thing we think that we know really well about starters? That, as the game goes on, their performance gets worse due to whatever combination of pitcher fatigue and batter familiarity. So, if their true talent is reflected by that 4.26 RA/9 – dubious to assume with this sample size – what would expect from stretching them another inning? We’d expect the starters to perform worse than they have so far.
Yet the relievers as a group performed almost exactly the same. And that’s even with the reliever group presumably including some innings where guys were out there just to soak up innings in blowouts and save everyone else.
The sample size is simply what we have on which to judge this year’s trendy strategy. It’s 318 IP for starters, 264 for relievers. I make no claims to statistical significance, nor do I say outright that the strategy is misguided. I’m just saying, the numbers we do have DON’T support the strategy. Also, while the sample might be too small to put much weight in the mere RA figures, the fact that SPs are posting better peripherals is further evidence. SPs simply don’t have as good a SO% as RPs under normal circumstances.
I’ll add that last October, when the strategy began to take hold, people certainly pointed out the success RPs were having. That was an equally small sample. Now this year, the IP shares have skewed further — from a 57/43 split last year to 55/45 this year (both against 62/38 in the regular season). It seems reasonable to talk about this year’s results.
To counter your second point, I would ask — What do we know about the relationship between SP and RP run averages? That RPs tend to fare better, by an average of 0.35 RA/9 over the last 10 years. Since they are actually faring the same in this postseason, it’s reasonable to ponder why that might be, what conditions have changed. And a big change is the workload.
Of course it’s possible, even likely, that the SP RA/9 would be worse if they all went another inning apiece. It seems equally likely that the RP RA/9 would be better if they worked a bit less. So the early hooks could be a wash in terms of run prevention so far.
Except, those early hooks may have cumulative costs down the road. If this WS goes long, we may have some gassed relievers. That certainly seemed to be true at the end of last year with Miller and Chapman. Jansen and Morrow have each worked 9 of LA’s 10 games, combining for 23% the team’s innings. Will they still have it in Game 7?
In theory, there *must* be a tipping point at which further IP shifted to RPs becomes counterproductive. I’m simply asking whether we’ve reached that point in this postseason.
The samples may be small, but:
— You’d have to go back to the 2001 postseason to find one where relievers *didn’t* have a better RA/9 than starters.
— No postseason in the wild-card era had a higher SO/9 by SPs than by RPs.
Both are true so far this year.
I was at the game, with a friend that is also a fangraphs reader, and we were both impressed when Roberts brought in Maeda. At that point we surmised that Roberts and the front office had a game plan that accounted for various game states, and that pitching moves were more or less predetermined by the game plan. We felt like we could see the whole sequence, to the end of the game.
We were both shocked to see Stripling come out to face Gonzalez, rather than Cingriani. We assumed it would be Cingriani for Marwin/Reddick, then Morrow for PH, and then he and Jansen would divide up the last 6 outs depending on situation (Morrow would start the 8th, and would finish it if he allowed no baserunner, Jansen would either pitch the 9th, or come in during the 8th if a runner got on.)
So, not sure why they didn’t trust Cingriani in that spot. He looked good when he came in later in the game. Thhat four pitch walk and resulting run were big.
While this is after the fact so it shouldn’t really impact our view of the decision-making, Stripling’s 4 pitch walk in the 7th didn’t result in a run. Morrow came in, and the inning then went GIDP – infield single – ground ball out for no runs scored.
I agree with you that the use of Stripling rather than Cingrani, or Morrow for that matter, is surprising. Seems especially curious if Morrow is going to come in anyway for Reddick if Gonzalez reaches first. I’m sort of left grasping at straws such as noting that the Dodgers took the lead with 2 outs in the bottom of the 6th. Was Morrow therefore simply not ready after Turner’s PA making the final out of the 6th went only 3 pitches?
In an AL park, seems like Watson would have started the 7th because he would have stayed in rather than be lifted for a PH in the bottom of the 6th.
My problem with pulling a starter after 4 innings and then using 2 pitchers for 1 batter each is that it is terrible if even the slightest thing goes wrong. It leaves you with no contingency plan to execute if it doesn’t go exactly as planned. This becomes the case the second a single thing doesn’t go exactly as planned. While the process is good, it isn’t always the best thing to do.
In my opinion, Hill should have been allowed to pitch until there was any issue at all. The world’s fastest hook if needed. While this isn’t where the plan fell apart, it is what started the events that lead to the bullpen falling apart.
Unfortunately what happened for the Dodgers was they trusted their bullpen that has been very reliable. The guys who have been the most reliable faltered with a bit of bad luck and a few timely hits.
I don’t think I will ever be a fan of bullpenning a game or super quick hooks for starters for the simple reason that it leaves no real backup plan to fall back on. It closes options off, and fewer options are never a good thing when you are already limited by roster and rule constraints.
Excellent article — and thread. I find it difficult to see why Roberts is questioned for pulling Hill since their is ample logic to do so (Maeda’s recent dominance of righties) and the move worked! The move I questioned when made was bringing in Stripling instead of Cingrani to start the 7th. Cingrani has been very effective of late, and getting an inning out of him would have set up Morrow for the eighth and Jansen for the 9th. And you’d still have Stripling for multiple innings if it went extras.
I don’t really get how “trusting in the weight of the evidence” means that *every* decision Roberts made was a good one; it seems like this piece is arguing with Smoltz about Hill, exclusively, when (as a million comments have already pointed out) Roberts made at least a half-dozen other relief-pitching decisions after that, many of which seemed like major head-scratchers. And *all* of which continued the pattern of a lightning-quick hook and overuse of a few front-line relievers, obviously Jansen especially. Suppose we concede that the plan was to pull Hill after two times through the order, and Roberts stuck to the plan: fine! But then (even forgetting the LOOGY types) it’s still entirely arguable that he didn’t seem to be deploying Maeda, Stripling, Morrow, and Jansen in anything like a well-planned way. If you’re going to write a “defense of Dave Roberts” there’s a lot more that needs to be defended here.
I think that Maeda was deployed in a well-planned way. He has been used to face essentially only RH hitters this post-season. By my count, he’s faced 1 LH hitter – and Daniel Descalso at that – out of 20 batters faced this post-season.
There were 5 straight Astros RH hitters due up. Maeda faced all of them, getting 4 outs. It was then LH hitter (McCann), SH with almost even career splits (Gonzalez), and LH hitter (Reddick). Bringing in Watson to face McCann with 1 out and a runner on seemed like a reasonable move. The problem was likely to be that Watson’s spot was due up second in the bottom of the 6th inning, so he’s out of the game facing only 1 or 2 of those hitters if he does his job well. As it turned out, it was 1 hitter because of a McCann GIDP.
The only move that I find truly perplexing was bringing in Stripling to start the 7th if his leash was so short that he was going to be pulled for Morrow after a lead-off walk. You could instead use Cingrani for Gonzalez and Reddick, planning to go to Morrow next with hopefully only 7 outs needed. Alternately, just have Morrow start the 7th planning to have he and Jansen get 9 outs between them. I’m left wondering if Morrow simply wasn’t warmed up in time because the Dodgers took the lead with 2 outs in the 6th, changing Roberts’ plan. If that’s the case, though, it still doesn’t answer why Stripling was the choice over Cingrani.
Putting Jansen in for Morrow in the 8th was admittedly aggressive, but I can see the logic to it with a runner on 2nd, no outs, and Altuve and Correa due up next.
I broadly agree with your reasoning here — this is just about what I’d say if I were writing the “defense” side of the argument — but, for the record, I count at least three or four moves in there that are (IMO) describable as, if not outright “mistakes,” definitely suboptimal. And all the suboptimal moves trend in the same direction, as I was saying: lightning-quick hook, plus a failure to think very far ahead or to plan for length.
Not looking for a little more length from Maeda in a game where everyone knew Hill would be pulled early; not double-switching in Watson so he could potentially pitch into the 7th (in general Roberts seemed to start realizing he should be double-switching very belatedly, as extras loomed); bringing in Stripling but pulling him instantly; asking an unrested Jansen for 6 outs — to me all of these moves leaned in the same direction, the direction of “aggressive” to the point of seeming not to have a plan more than one or two batters out.
LAD was something like 89-0 this season with a lead going into the 8th. If Jansen doesn’t uncharacteristically give up those runs, we’d be talking about how Roberts’ bullpen usage was a masterstroke of genius.
For the millionth time in this thread, Jansen has never been asked to pitched two innings when he’d pitched the day before, so there’s no such thing as ‘characteristic’ in this context.
So it must be that Jansen was typically NOT pitching the eighth inning in all the aforementioned wins. Somebody was, and it wasn’t always Morrow. I bet Cingrani and Fields accounted for quite a few of the leads kept intact through those eighth innings. Roberts should’ve felt comfortable bringing in Jansen when he did, knowing he could be relieved by Cingrani or Fields for the last couple outs. The runs given up in the eighth and ninth don’t demonstrate that line of reasoning was bad.
Obviously when Roberts brought Jansen in in the 8th he was planning to leave him in through the 9th pretty much come hell or high water. And in fact hell came and he left Jansen in anyway.
For the millionth time, Gonzalez hit the HR on Jansen’s 5th batter and 16th pitch. Those are not unusual work loads for him.
For the millionth time, most of us here are discussing the intelligence of Roberts’ decisions, not the results. The original question addressed by the article was ‘independent of whether the Dodgers won or lost, was Roberts right to pull Hill after 4 innings?’ Another question which some of us have been addressing is ‘independent of the results, was it a good idea for Roberts to use Jansen to get the last 6 outs, even though he’s never done that on no days rest in his career?’ Another question being addressed here is ‘independent of the fact that Culberson homered in his last at bat, was it a good idea for Roberts to make the double-switch which put him in the lineup and removed Bellinger?’ Get the idea? You can analyze the intelligence of a decision without reference to the results. That’s what most of us here are doing.
Second guessing is the birth right of all baseball fans.
Roberts is a new age,metrics genius if the Dodgers win.
A stupid fool,if they lose.
W.S games are always under the microscope.
Realistically,who better than Roberts,and his staff to make that call.
Tony LaRussa said years ago.
Playoff baseball is a whole different animal.
One must manage accordingly.
More like “in defense of my crap article yesterday…”
Sorry, its a dumb move. Might have gone unnoticed if they won but if you blow your pen early you wont have it when you need it if the game goes extras, and close games tend to end up in extras as often as they don’t. Managers think theg have to be stars so overmanage, and Roberts move was a classic example of that.
Now if Hill was struggling or the Dodgers had a deeper pen then its a different story.
What no one is discussing is pulling Maeda after 5 batters. He isn’t your typical reliever as he was a reliable starter all season able to go more than 2 innings. Using all your good arms early just to get 1-2 batters will come back to haunt you sooner or later. Not a big fan of Roberts as I feel his overmanaging style has cost the team more than helped them. He shows no faith in a pitcher that has been an above average pitcher and pulls him after 4 innings yet uses the excuse for playing subpar players because he FEELS they will come around(see Hatcher/Granderson). I think if it was up to him both of these players would still be on the roster.
What was the added expected runs of having Ethier pinch hit earlier? Pulling your SP earlier also allows more professional at bats. Given Verlander’s dominance to that point, you don’t want him having any easy outs.
Completely off topic: Is anyone else surprised that McCann has become Houston’s full-time, never-comes-out catcher?
McCann has started 12 of 13 games, and finished all but one (leaving before the last inning of the ALDS blowout loss). He’s started and finished 5 of the 6 games against LH starters.
And (finally reaching my real point), he’s batted against a LHP in two key spots where I thought Gattis might pinch-hit:
— WS game 1, top-7, trailing by 2 against Kershaw, 2 out and a man on first.
— WS game 2, top-6, tied, with 1 out and a man on first, with Watson just brought in to face him.
McCann is now 5 for 40 in the PS with no homers. He’s 0-for-16 off lefties (with 2 walks and a HBP). And while he’s had one or two important hits, his combined WPA is the worst on the team.
Gattis was the main DH in the earlier rounds, but in the WS he’s batted just once, as a PH for Verlander against the RH Morrow in the 7th, down 2, with 2 out and none on.
This usage diverges from the regular season, when McCann started less than half the time they faced a southpaw, and Gattis got the bulk of those starts at C.
Neither McCann nor Gattis has a pronounced platoon difference, but they do have normal ones. I assume that McCann is the better defensive catcher (including framing), but I’m surprised that Hinch hasn’t even pinch-hit for him in key spots against lefties. They are carrying a 3rd catcher, after all.
what’s strange about their catching stats is looking at ERA with catchers(maybe not the best thing but still something I think)
McCann 4.36 in regular season
Gattis 3.87 in regular season
looking also-
Keuchel- McCann caught 22/23 of his games this year
Verlander- McCann caught all 5 starts with Houston of his.
McCullers- McCann caught 17/22 games for him this year.(4.50 ERA) Gattis caught 3 games.(3.86 ERA)
Morton- Gattis caught 12 games for him this year (2.90 ERA). McCann caught 9 gmaes for hims this year(4.42 ERA)
So of the guys starting in 1st 3 games(and presumably in 6/7 games in the series)- McCann caught 44/50 games. Gattis caught only 3 of them.