Mathemadage: Who Gets Game Seven?
You want your ace on the mound when all the marbles are in the fire. When the stakes are high, the big cheese needs to have his hands on the wheel. Are those real metaphors? No, but I bet you knew what I was talking about in each case, because the playoffs are a perfect time to discuss the importance of star pitchers. But do you want to deploy them as early in the series as possible? Or do you want them for the decisive game? Does it even matter?
In our game chats and article comments — across the internet really — it’s hard to find a consensus. When I wrote about Chris Sale earlier this week, there were comments to the effect of “It’s a bummer he pitched out of the ‘pen in the Wild Card, now he won’t get to pitch in NLDS Game 5,” as well as “Don’t save Sale for Game 7 of the NLCS, there might not be a Game 7!” Those are exact opposite opinions, and yet they both make a lot of sense when I hear them. But they can’t both be right, so let’s do some math. Even though there’s no real adage to prove or disprove here, this feels like a job for Mathemadage.
Here’s the question, as I see it: For a given set of pitchers making postseason starts, which way would you like those starts arranged in a seven-game series? In other words, if you have an ace, a second banana, and some bullpen games, would you prefer to have your ace for Games 1 and 5 or Games 3 and 7? There are good intuitive reasons to prefer either. Games 1 and 5 happen in almost every seven-game series; Game 7 is a much less frequent occurrence. More innings for my best guy, please! But the stakes can also never be higher than they are in a decisive game. In a big spot? Why wouldn’t I want my best guy in?
Ben is a writer at FanGraphs. He can be found on Bluesky @benclemens.
An overthinking thought: In your two-ace scenario, is the greatest marginal gain to stagger the good starters around bullpen games for games 2, 4 and 6? That approach would minimize back-to-back relief appearances and more effectively stagger the workload.
Winning in 6 games vs 7 matters more to my ulcer.
I’d love to see the strategies for the LCS teams this year mapped out.
For instance, with LAD, I’d assume it makes the most sense to go Skubal G1/G4, Snell G2/G6 (more bullpen workload between bulkier starts), Yamamoto G3/G7 and Glasnow G4. But if Yamamoto can go G1/G4 and be available from the ‘pen for G7 then maybe that changes the calculus.
I would always go with the G1/G5 and then available for G7. The rest of the options just seem like they are something that Joe Maddon would do to prove he’s smarter than everyone
Or if Yamamoto can go G2/G6 and be available from the pen for G7, hypothetically.
Since they really want 5 days rest for Yamamoto the only option is game 2/6.
If I’m Dave Roberts the primary goal of my pitching plan is to make sure that either Skubal or Yamamoto is on the mound to oppose Misiorowski whenever the Bewers elect to start him. He’s MIL’s best card, and the luxury of having TWO aces on your staff means you can deploy one for no better reason than to neutralize your opponent’s greates strength.
After that, the rest of the order doesn’t matter that much. You’re starting two other games with an ace with a clear advantage, and you’ve got Snell and Glasnow who are flawed aces in their own right and certainly look better on paper than May and Gasser.
The only wrong answer is using the hook wrong, or getting cute with reliever usage and not having rested guys on hand for games 6 or 7 if they happen.
You would also think Skubal could be available out of the pen in Game 7, whether he’s G1/G4 or G1/G5.
Then by pitching Yamamoto G2/G6 you have both him & Skubal that can pitch in game 7.
In that scenario- I think I’d want Skubal G1/G4 as it would save me from possible back-to-back bulk bullpen usage in Games 3 & 4. Put Skubal between Snell & Glasnow & in theory you give the bullpen a lighter load in game 4.
This is a pointless question for the Dodgers, who have 4 aces (actually 5 w Ohtani). My sports clock is a little messed up this week, but when I check the box scores to see who LAD started v ATL, I invariably realize stupidly, oh right, some ace.
The biggest advantage of getting your rotation lined up for Game 1, in my mind, is that you have the best chance of being able to use your bullpen efficiently for the rest of the series. For one thing, the more elimination games you are in, the more stressful innings will be required of the high leverage bullpen arms. (For example, if you’re down 1-3 because you gave up the first game and the second game was also not your Ace, now you have to win three elimination games in a row with a bullpen that was already used heavily in Game 1 (and it’s worse if it was a close loss.) Even if you are trailing by 5 runs in an early elimination game (say, in Game 5), you are going to use all your best bullpen arms.
On the other hand, if you can get any sort of lead in the series or at least stave off the elimination games by leading with your Ace and Co-Ace, my feeling is you have more freedom of choice to line your high- and low-leverage arms up appropriately. Now, if yo’ure down 5 runs in Game 5, you might save your high-leverage arms for Game 6 or 7 where the leverage will be higher, and only trot them out if the team makes it close again. Yes, you are lowering your win probability in Game 5, but maybe it’s from 10% to 5%, whereas taxing your bullpen aces repeatedly has to make it harder to stave off elimination 2 or 3 times.
Here’s a question that might get at this issue: What is the record of MLB playoff teams in games following an elimination game (so, obviously, coming off a win each time.) How does that compare to ther record in all other playoff games? Likewise, what is the record of such teams in games following two elimination games in a row? My instinct is that their record in such games gets worse the more elimination games they have played in a row. My instinct would be to confine this to single series, since the idea is that leverage keeps getting higher, whereas flipping over to a new series releases the pressure valve and allows a bit of an “efficiency reset” as the games immediately become lower leverage on average.
This is one of the most nerdy posts I’ve read in quite awhile on FanGraphs, a website where nerds unite. Kudos to Ben for +1 updoot in nerd today.
Of course this has me wondering about the ’73 Mets and whether to start Seaver in game six or seven. But that also had the issue of short rest vs. regular rest, so I guess it’s not exactly the same.
(I feel like there was once a FanGraphs article looking at that decision in depth?)
Historically there have been pitchers who started G1, G4, G7 such as Lew Burdette. It is not impossible, just a change in usage. A lot depends on your expectation of length from your starter in each game.
Or Curt Schilling in the aforementioned 2001 World Series. Short rest starts seem much rarer these days, though.
Is there an amount of pitches you could do this with? Say you have a killer bullpen, would you have him go 80 pitches 3x on short rest? Or if you’re up like 8-1 after 5, take him out and start him again on short rest?
Strasburg blowing out woke some people up! It is better to have a balanced team on regular rest, than rely on one or two stars and never seem them pitch well again!
Burdette’s workload from 1954-1960 was crazy. An absolute beast of a pitcher until his arm fell off.
Nice article. It’s very satisfying to learn that the two conflicting intuitions about this are both partially correct, but perfectly cancel one another out.
That intro was borderline Brisbee-esque