Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
“A baseball game of constantly changing pitchers is like a movie with a convoluted plot line: you don’t know what it is ABOUT.” Actually, I think we know what it is about—it’s about the cleverness of the two managers
The analogy isn't exact (there are still one-way substitution and set lineups in baseball), but it's illuminating.
goalies can't really be what the game is about because they're legally barred from involvement in a lot of the play
And a first baseman I believe. Wasnt' he one of Frisch's teammates?
What can you tell us about the decision to turn Papelbon into a starter? Was it just an experiment at first?
If you think about it Frankie appears to be the only guy who truly understood what the HoF was actually about. The place is a tourist trap and what better way to get people to come up to upstate NY than to induct a ton of NY players?
What can you tell us about the decision to turn Papelbon into a starter?
Do we have any actual proof that Frankie Frisch was the guy responsible for getting all his teammates in? James presented circumstantial evidence 20 years ago, but it seems to be treated as fact today.
I'm guessing this meant to say "closer."
Lloyd Waner (57%) over Sam Thompson (47%)
... I disagree slightly with your observation that “A baseball game of constantly changing pitchers is like a movie with a convoluted plot line: you don’t know what it is ABOUT.” Actually, I think we know what it is about—it’s about the cleverness of the two managers in trying to out-maneuver one another with pitching changes and pinch hitters.
What percentage of the BBWAA vote did Vic Willis ever get, I wonder?
What it's really about is using fresh arms rather than tired ones wherever it makes sense to do so, thus keeping all of your arms fresher. [etc. etc.]
Kelly’s selection to the Hall of Fame was absurd
A 1B with a 109 OPS+ in 6500 PA. Total joke.
Agreed. So no more silly hitters position players who hit like that for their career. Apply the same standard to LF and RF.
On Ichiro... Should the Hall reward a player only moderately above average in overall value, if he has OMG INSANE skill in one facet of the game?
Though perhaps there's a lot of people just tying in "Thompson" and hoping someone in the Hall fits.
From ages 27-36, Ichiro put up 55 WAR and 31 WAA. Moderately above-average is a teeny understatement.
I'm fine with Ichiro going in with his probably 110 ops+ for a corner outfielder, but he's going to do it with probably over 10,000 plate appearances
Not to mention a roughly half-decade of high-level performance before that in Japan that many like to take into account when considering his overall value/skill level.
Modern pitcher usage is about exactly the opposite: taking the manager's judgment out of the equation. Managers establish "roles" for pitchers and rules about how long they can go and how frequently they can be used so that they don't have to decide when to use specific pitchers.
Managers are still using judgment, but a lot of the decision-making has become push button and formulaic:
It's your contention that establishing roles for pitchers, and rules for how long they can go and how frequently they can be used, don't involve the manager's judgment?
You've all read the poem that says "he does not perform (?) like Harold Chase upon the fielding job."
No; it's my contention that managers aren't doing that.
They do have to decide which pitchers on the roster to slot into each role, but the roles themselves are pre-established. As zack says in 52.
Of course managers use judgment in building the roster in the first place; nobody said otherwise. We're talking about actual game management.
Pre-established by whom?
The only reason to favor what David calls "game management" is that it's cool to see a reliever throw three and two thirds innings in a 5-4 game. Generally, sabermetrics favors objective criteria over esthetics, but in bullpen management, it seems to be the opposite.
Pre-established by whom? Just because those roles are commonly used across baseball doesn't mean the manager has no role in deciding them.
You're creating an artificial distinction between game management and what you might call season management. Obviously, managers don't go all-out to win every single game. Clayton Kershaw doesn't start every game for the Dodgers. Why would you want to favor decisions made in the heat of the moment over decisions made in the long term, for the good of the entire season?
For all the belly-aching over push-button managing, it's not at all clear to me that the current system is detrimental to teams. Bullpens don't seem to be performing any worse, and pitchers' careers don't seem to be suffering. There's a tacit judgement that managers are doing this to make their jobs easier, but it seems more likely to me that managers are doing it to win ballgames.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
Login to Join (3 members)
Page rendered in 0.7264 seconds, 57 querie(s) executed