The New Postseason Plan: Defense Early, Offense Late

In general, when Major League teams have to choose how to deploy one-dimensional players, they go offense first, then defense later. Bat-only players are usually starters, they get their three at-bats, and then they are lifted for defensive replacements late in the game if there’s a lead to protect. This usage generally minimizes the number of at-bats you have to give to the weak hitting defensive specialist, and putting your best defensive unit on the field when you have a lead to protect seems to make sense, since you don’t need to score any more runs at that point, so long as you don’t let the other team score.

But baseball has changed, and postseason baseball has changed even more dramatically, so for the Indians and Cubs, I’d suggest that the best way to utilize their specialists is to start the defenders and sub in the offensive upgrades in the middle innings.

For the Cubs, this manifests itself mostly in the Jason Heyward decision. In writing about Kyle Schwarber yesterday, I noted that Schwarber would be taking DH at-bats that could go to Willson Contreras, and so the only way to get Contreras in the line-up in the games in Cleveland would be to bench Heyward. A lot of people are on board with that idea, given how poorly Heyward hit this year, and how awful he’s looked in the postseason. Right now, Heyward looks like a classic defensive replacement guy, a good glove who you don’t trust to do anything at the plate.

But if you want to maximize Heyward’s value in a part-time role, you want him playing in the first few innings of the game, not the last few. Here’s why.

Cubs SP/RP Breakdown
Cubs BB% K% HR% Ball in Play %
Starters 7% 24% 3% 65%
Relievers 8% 29% 2% 60%

This isn’t any kind of surprise, but Cubs’ relievers in the regular season struck out batters at a much higher rate than Cubs’ starting pitchers. In the postseason, that gap only grows, as the high-K relievers like Aroldis Chapman get expanded usage, and the team is more aggressive playing the match-ups to avoid balls in play.

Simply put, defense matters less when relievers are on the mound, because relievers are more likely to just get the job done themselves. When you use a defensive substitution to bolster the run prevention behind a reliever, you’re intentionally putting a defender into the time of game his skills are less likely to be utilized. If you start Contreras in the outfield, then sub in Heyward in the seventh or eighth inning as a defensive upgrade, there’s a pretty good chance he’s just going to stand there and watch Chapman, Hector Rondon, or Pedro Strop strike everybody out.

And while it sounds reasonable, the idea that defense becomes of greater importance with a lead isn’t really true. Additional runs scored don’t stop being important once you’ve taken a lead; the goal from that point is to simply not let your opponent outscore you, which can be done just as effectively by scoring as many runs as they score as it can be by both teams failing to score the rest of the way. Swapping out offense for defense with a late lead changes the way you’re likely to win, but doesn’t really change your likelihood of winning, especially if the defensive substitute has to hit in a critical situation.

And that’s the other consideration here for the Cubs. If you start Heyward, you basically guarantee he’s going to get his at-bats against right-handed pitching, since Cleveland doesn’t have any left-handed starting pitchers besides Ryan Merritt, who I can’t imagine they’ll trust with a World Series start. By starting Heyward and hitting him towards the bottom of the order, he’ll get essentially one guaranteed at-bat against an RHP, and then you can decide whether you want him to hit a second time based on the circumstance and who is pitching at the time.

If Terry Francona has gone to Andrew Miller in the 4th or 5th inning again, you can send Contreras or Jorge Soler up to the plate to bat with the platoon advantage, knowing there’s zero chance that Francona will play the match-ups there. So not only do you get the right-handed bat against the left-handed pitcher, but you also might have gotten four innings or even five innings of defensive work from Heyward while only giving him one at-bat. In a low-scoring environment where each game could turn on one defensive misplay, the Cubs are probably better off maximizing Heyward’s time in the field, even if he has to hit once against an RHP, then they are maximizing the number of times Contreras bats, especially given Cleveland’s RHP-heavy rotation.

For Terry Francona, this is less of an issue in the first two games of the series, but this will come up as a decision once the games move to Wrigley Field, and the team has to decide what to do with Mike Napoli. In an offense-first world, the team could theoretically move Carlos Santana to third base to open up first base for Napoli, shifting Jose Ramirez to left field, and starting Coco Crisp on the bench. This would get the team’s best hitters in the line-up even without the DH, but sticking Santana at third for even a few innings with pitch-to-contact starters like Josh Tomlin probably isn’t worth the cost.

I’d imagine Francona won’t seriously consider punting defense given how well their team is playing with Crisp playing regularly, but it will be interesting to see what the team does if and when Napoli pinch-hits in the games in Chicago; with very high-K relievers like Miller and Allen pitching at the end of the game, you could potentially argue for keeping Napoli in the game if he pinch-hits for Crisp, and trusting Miller and Allen to get outs without needing the team’s best defensive unit behind them.

But for both Maddon and Francona, I’d suggest the plan should be to go with their best defensive units to start the game, when those defenders are most likely to be put to the test, and then sacrifice offense for defense later when the dominant relievers start trotting in from the bullpen. Because relievers are getting used more heavily than ever before, you’re likely going to get the better hitter in the game for nearly as long as if he started and was lifted for a defensive replacement later anyway, only you’ll be lining up the skills of the players when they are most likely to impact the game.





Dave is the Managing Editor of FanGraphs.

23 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
kevo8Member since 2020
10 years ago

“Swapping out offense for defense with a late lead changes the way you’re likely to win, but doesn’t really change your likelihood of winning,”

I actually disagree with this point. Swapping in defense for offense lowers the expected amount of scoring in the rest of the game, which theoretically should lower the variability of each team’s final score. As the team in the lead, this is a good thing. On the other hand, if you swap in the offense, you increase the variability in runs scored by both teams, leading to more chances for the other team to come back.

In short, on average the margin of victory will probably be the same whether you swap out offense for defense or vice versa, but your probability of winning is probably higher with the former.

MPRox
10 years ago
Reply to  kevo8

Maybe I’m not very smart, but can you explain to me how the average margin of victory would stay the same but the probability of winning decreases? I understand the greater variability, but we’re talking one player for 3-4 innings or so. If the batter is leveraged as suggested ( poor hitter gets 1 AB, 4-5 innings in the field, good hitter gets 2-3 AB, 4-5 innings in field), that seems like a better overall outcome than the good hitter getting the same number of at-bats to start the game, but playing 7 innings in the field, while the bad hitter gets his 1 AB, but plays only two innings

mininimi
10 years ago
Reply to  MPRox

You don’t really care what the margin is, as a win is a win and a loss is a loss. So even if the expected margin of the game increases, more variability can mean a higher chance of losing. Think of it as two normal distributions: one with a mean of 2 and standard deviation 1 and another with mean 3 but standard deviation 2. The second one is more likely to be below 0 despite having a higher mean.

SirLancelittle
10 years ago
Reply to  MPRox

I think the easiest way to understand it is this. Imagine two teams that, on average, out score their opponent by 3 points. These teams have the same average margin of victory so you might expect their winning percentage to be the same. But imagine that 1 of these teams is playing soccer. A 3 goal differential is huge because so few goals are scored. That team would be one the greatest teams of all time. Now imagine that the other team is playing basketball. A 3 point differential in basketball is almost nothing. This team would be close to .500. They might win by 6 one night and lose by 3 the next.

Yanks123
10 years ago

I think it’s important to score and get a lead early so you don’t have to face the other team’s best relievers although Francona might bring in Miller even when he’s down. Still much rather face Miller ahead than behind and generally avoiding their better relievers can improve run scoring a bit as well. Then you can really kill scoring in the late innings with a good reliever and defense even if it’s not the most efficient use of the best defenders on the bench.

VottomanEmpireMember since 2016
10 years ago
Reply to  Yanks123

You’re jumping to the conclusion that playing offensively-minded players to start the game is the best way to build a lead early. However, run prevention is just as important as run production in building a lead. As Dave wrote, if you’re playing your less skilled defenders early while your starters (who K less batters) are forcing them to make more plays, then you’re not necessarily taking the optimal route to building a lead.

TL;DR – ‘offense’ does not equal ‘lead’.

JediHoyer
10 years ago
Reply to  VottomanEmpire

I agree, in the sense if the team is struggling its obvious to go offense first, if the team is hitting defense can be better. On the whole though, offense first is better.

Yanks123
10 years ago
Reply to  VottomanEmpire

That’s true but I still think it’s more likely to give you a lead. We’re basically comparing 1/9 of the offense vs whatever’s left of run prevention when you take into account the pitcher and all the other defenders. Offense is just more impactful in general and can also help take out the opposing starting pitcher earlier. If the gap in defense was huge and the gap in offense was small then starting the defensive player would make sense but otherwise I’d give the better bat a few PAs to start the game and then put in the better defender with the lead when run prevention becomes more important as MGL said below.

MGL
10 years ago

It very much matters whether you are winning or losing in terms of whether you want to add defense or offense. When you are losing adding a run increases win expectancy by around 50% more than you lose in WE by allowing a run. When winning, preventing a run is worth around 50% more in WE than scoring a run.

So you very much want to leverage D or O depending on the score. That should be obvious since taken to the extreme (which is often a good way to answer a binary analytical question) if you are winning you can’t lose if you don’t allow a run and if you are losing you can never win if you don’t score. But the important point is that the relative marginal impact of scoring or allowing a run is NOT the same and very much depends on the score (whether winning or losing).

Also if in fact relievers allow fewer balls in play, it is only by 5%! The impact of having better defenders against starters because they allow 5% more balls in play is going to be very, very small compared to the impact of leveraging O and D to the run differential.

That being said, the issue is complex. You have to look at it on a player by player and pitcher by pitcher basis. Some pitchers are going to allow more FB than GB and vice versa. So, for example, if you were considering Heyward you specifically want to look at how many BIP he is expected to get given the hitters and the pitcher and then compare that to his number of PA given his slot in the order, etc.

And stop acting as if Heyward can’t hit at all. Your own damn web site has his projection at a little ABOVE AVERAGE, which is obviously even greater against a RHP (and that’s another important factor – the handedness of the pitcher is only known for the first 5 or 7 innings, so getting a platoon advantage at the beginning of the game is important to offense). If you think that Heyward is a below average hitter because he HAS hit badly in 2016 then stop displaying the damn projections. Or show us how YOUR projections are better than Steamer or ZIPS. I’d really like to see that.

JediHoyer
10 years ago
Reply to  MGL

FanGraphs Depth Chart projections are a combination of ZiPS and Steamer projections with playing time allocated by our staff.

Projection systems are slow reacting, there really is no reason to assume he will be better this next series. Next year sure, with an off-season to retool the swing and with him showing being a quality hitter in the past already.

I agree with everything before your last paragraph but thought it was important enough to mention.

MGL
10 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

I’m sorry but that’s simply not true. Projections apply equally to tomorrow’s game as they do for the first game of next season (other than additional aging). Have you done or read any research to support the view that recent performance is predictive of “tomorrow’s” performance but that after an off season it’s not? I think you will be surprised at the results of you do.

Here’s a proposal. Look at players who had a terrible season like Heyward up until the very last week or month (you can’t look at that week or month). Then look at their performance in that last week or month and then again in the first week or month in the next season. I think you’ll find the performances more or less equal. In fact you’ll probably find it WORSE the next year because of additional aging. You may need to adjust for the month of year.

You are on the FG staff? You wrote this?

“I agree, in the sense if the team is struggling its obvious to go offense first, if the team is hitting defense can be better. On the whole though, offense first is better.”

Wow.

JediHoyer
10 years ago
Reply to  MGL

No, I copy pasted from this very site what you demanded to see.

To the actual point, I don’t think you understand how bad he has been. Anyone with eyes knows his true talent at the minute is roughly what his season line is, he is lost at the plate.

He needs to completely overhaul his swing, is it more likely he does that after an off season or an off day? I don’t understand how you think looking at the first month of next season will show anything. Sss, he will have to adjust to a new swing. Its more likely his WHOLE next season ends closer to his projection than in this series however.

JediHoyer
10 years ago
Reply to  JediHoyer

To use an extreme example, if heyward has an arm amputated it would not change his projected wrc+, we however should know a guy without an arm is going to struggle to hit.

dustygator
10 years ago

Great article, with some good points. It will be interesting to see what Francona and Maddon (both highly regarded, unorthodox managers) are willing to try considering the magnitude of the games.

Another thing I was thinking about is the “feedback/contingency” if you will of the worst case scenario happening.

If you bring in a late inning defensive replacement, you are generally trying to avoid giving them at-bats, especially high-leverage ones. However, if things go awry (and you give up the lead), that is almost impossible as it is now late/extra innings with the game tied/your team behind and you’ve already burned bench spots.

On the other hand, starting the game with a defensive player has the opposite effect. You still generally don’t want them to get too many at-bats, especially high-leverage ones. But the situation(s) where that would occur are those where you are batting around the order and very likely scoring runs in bunches. So while they are getting more at-bats than you would like, they aren’t necessarily going to be high leverage. Plus most managers would gladly make that trade-off (3 ABs for a Pillar/Heyward type) if your 1-7 hitters just put up 5 runs by the 4th inning.

Paul G.Member since 2016
10 years ago

It is certainly an interesting argument. However, there is the “pinch hitter” issue to be concerned about. It is generally accepted that for most hitters it is more difficult to pinch hit than it is to start and get several at bats. If you bring in the hitter part of the platoon late in the game, the first at bat is essentially a pinch hit situation which will suppress his abilities somewhat. This is really not the sort of thing a manager wants when facing elite relief pitchers. They do it anyway because they have no choice, but they do have that choice here. Presumably, defense does not suffer the same with a late game insertion.

C BeisbolMember since 2026
10 years ago

Apropos of not much,

I remember when I was a kid the platoon question was ground ball pitchers vs fly ball pitchers. With a fly ball pitcher the team would start an offense first infielder, but go to the defensive infielder with a ground ball pitcher.

See the 1988 Mets.
Starting Kevin Elster at SS for defense but Howard Johnson at SS with Dave Magadan or Greg Jefferies at 3B with a fly ball pitcher.

amdennis1990
10 years ago

The one point I would consider that I think this article misses, you want your best offensive players facing Cleveland’s starter instead of Miller and Allen. Even a good offensive player has a better shot of getting a hit and/or scoring a run against the starting pitcher than they do against a shut down reliever. By going with defense early you are giving those one or two PA’s against the starter to Heyward instead of Schwarber or Contreras. In this post season the wining formula really is get a lead early and hold it. There wont be too many comeback wins against either bullpen.

JediHoyer
10 years ago
Reply to  amdennis1990

A good point. Especially these starters.

Lou BrownMember since 2017
10 years ago

As one of the game’s dominant defenders, Heyward played a big part in Chicago’s historic run prevention this season. He should be in the field as much as possible and should only be replaced if the specific situation dictates he should come out. Early-game run prevention is just as important as early-game scoring in obtaining the leads that need protecting.

swingofthings
10 years ago
Reply to  Lou Brown

This question is why we have stats like WAR to compare the value of offense and defense. Despite his valuable run prevention, Heyward was below average overall this year. Contreras’ offense makes him a much more valuable player.

Member since 2016
10 years ago

The Pirates did this in the Wild Card game last year, starting Sean Rodriguez at 1B and pinch-hitting with Pedro Alvarez the first time through the lineup because they were already behind.

Alvarez went 0 for 3 with 3 strikeouts, though Rodriguez did make contact with a water cooler.

swingofthings
10 years ago

This is an interesting angle, but I don’t think I’m convinced about Heyward. When building a lineup, I think teams get their best chance to win by going with their best overall players. Early in the game, a run scored is theoretically the same as a run saved, so the better net value should play. Heyward and his 1.6 fWAR this season is not one of the Cubs’ best starting options.

Within the context of facing the Indians’ battered rotation and shut-down pen, it seems logical to suggest you should try to score your runs early, when it’s still possible. Preventing runs is also essential to win a game, but at some point you have to score and that might never happen if you don’t do it in the first 4-5 innings.

For the Indians, I think they would want a more balanced approach, considering the Cubs are very strong in both rotation and bullpen. Against Lester and Arrieta, they may actually want to prioritize players who can steal to try to create a few runs, noting the risk that good pitching and defense might prevent even their more threatening hitters from doing much damage.

O'KieboomerMember since 2021
10 years ago

Disagree with the assertion that it’s a plan. I think that most teams would prefer to score early and sit on their lead, gives them more flexibility with planning for later in the game. If this is happening i’ts purely a product of happenstance. This seems like yet another Cameron contrarian opinion easily disproven by simple logic.