Blue Jays Discussion: post-deadline, back-at-home edition
- Thread starter The Nemesis
- Start date
- Status
Yeah, not that he dominated or anything, but he got the job done. It was the defense that really blew it.
I'm not denying that. A pop up lost in the sun and an absolute atrocity of a decision on the grounder.
Anthrax442
Registered User
Woodman19
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2008
- 18,704
- 2,272
I feel like Blair misunderstands. I am sure the team outlines the game plan before the game starts on what we should be doing but the actual implementation of the game plan leaves a lot to be desired. No way you can excuse some of the decisions as "orders from above". Indecision for example isnt someone elses fault.
Kurtz
Registered User
- Jul 17, 2005
- 10,550
- 7,827
Ugh, and they only showed one quick replay of the grounder where Valera went to second, but I'm almost positive the runner was actually out there. But the Jays didn't have a challenge after losing it earlier.
I think he was too. His slide was atrocious.
That being said, Valera should have thrown to first.
phillipmike
Registered User
- Oct 27, 2009
- 12,983
- 9,185
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,856
- 13,561
Suntouchable13
Registered User
Analytics really bothers me. If analytics was a thing 10-15 years ago, Roy Halladay would be pulled every game after 6 or 7 innings because numbers say so. What happened to managing according to how the game is going instead of mindlessly following analytics?
No, he wouldn't. He kept his pitch counts down.
Oakland won 17-0. 7 game winning streak, 94 win pace. It's going to be real hard to catch them.
Boston down 1-0. If we can catch anyone I'm more confident we can catch Boston. We need TB to come through with a win today.
Playoffs is still very possible.
Woodman19
Registered User
- Jun 14, 2008
- 18,704
- 2,272
I guess knowing the velocity a pitcher is throwing, a players batting average, how many steals and HR's they hit bothers you too? Anything that measures performance is an analytical tool for judging talent, simply because someone doesnt know what a specific metric is doesnt make it less valuable. If anything, more information is always going to lead to better decisions.
Not to mention he had no discernible issue facing guys the third (or fourth time) in a game.
weems
Registered User
- Jul 3, 2008
- 18,856
- 13,561
The SOS of each team entering into today
Jays .493
Yankees .513
Red Sox .488
Rays .509
A's .510
Today we actually passed the Yankees for the first time in awhile in playoff odds.
We play the A's 3 games at home in early September. That will be a very big series.
Last edited:
The Nemesis
Semper Tyrannus
1) Analytics was a thing 10-15 years ago. "Moneyball" was written in 2003 and it wasn't even close to being the bleeding edge of the analytics movement, just the first popularized account of it. Bill James had been writing his "Baseball Abstracts", the progenitors of most of the modern sabermetric/analytic schools of thought, in 1977
2) Analytics would've and did love Roy Halladay. He was an elite pitcher who limited base-runners, pitched efficiently, didn't rely significantly on the defence behind him to spur his results, didn't wane as he repeated trips through the batting order (to wit: his OPS against in each turn through the order was, sequentially: .650, .627, .672, and .697*), and generally performed consistently well regardless of situation.
3) "managing according to how the game is going" as the opposite of analytics is how you end up with Charlieball nonsense like putting guys in based on "a feeling" or holding back your closer because it's not a save situation, or leaving a guy in to get murdered 3rd time through the order because you think he's doing well so far even though all the evidence says that no matter how well he's doing up to a point, he implodes during that 3rd trip. Analytics are not here to make hard and fast decisions based on set situations every time. They're here to present information to aid in decision making in order to stop managers from making stupid decisions based on bad, incomplete, or incorrect assumptions or info. And even if you got a manager who steadfastly believed in yanking a starter at 6 innings every single time regardless of what's happening, that's not on the data for being awful and ruining the game. That's on the manager and people in charge for not using it correctly to make smart decisions.
People act like embracing analytics is turning game management over to a spreadsheet with no regard for anything but a pre-planned formula that says "if X, then Y". It's not about that at all. It's about providing as much information as possible to allow decision makers to make well-informed choices. Blaming analytics for a manager doing dumb things is like a hitter blaming his bat for being defective while he's up there swinging at pitches 5 feet out of the zone. It's a tool, nothing more. It's just a tool that happens to often point out that classically held baseball truisms are sometimes built on really spurious assumptions or beliefs.
This reminds me of something I think was once highlighted on Fire Joe Morgan where there was an article decrying Moneyball (back when "moneyball" was synonymous with analytics and data-driven management) because it would've hated a base-stealing slap hitter like Jackie Robinson. And in the process the writer ignored that a hypothetical moneyball team operating during the segregated baseball era would've likely lined up to break the color barrier with an all-star team of negro league players because "moneyball" was all about market inefficiencies and nothing was more market inefficient than MLB ignoring truckloads of elite baseball talent for as breathtakingly stupid a reason as them not being the right color. And also that Jackie Robinson in particular would've been an analytics darling on account of being one of the toughest outs in baseball who excelled at getting on base and played stellar defence. If a player is of the caliber of Jackie Robinson or Roy Halladay, analytics are going to take notice of that and reinforce that fact. They don't summarily dismiss elite players from being able to do elite things just because the rest of the mere mortals in the sport can't do the same. They're there to help with the trickier cases where the eye test may paint a guy as good or bad undeservedly.
Rays beat the Sox 8-1. Jays win tonight they are 1.5 games back of them. The crappy part is they play the O's this weekend.
Cloned
Begging for Bega
- Aug 25, 2003
- 82,414
- 73,602
It’s not crappy if we can actually win that series.
Edit: Never mind, misinterpreted.
The good news is all three of the As, RS and Yankees have a tougher schedule next week.
Analytics has removed a few things from the game
1) slap hitters who don't walk are nearly extinct because all the speed in the world is useless if you are never on.
2) Early in the game sac bun, which lower your chances of scoring a run (late game can be valuable if one run specifically holds significant value, ie bottom of last inning of a tied game)
3) "Good fielders" whose good fielding is based on having no range or arm (not talking Jeter, but rather that analytics say that only a moron would use Joe Panik as a utility player)
1) slap hitters who don't walk are nearly extinct because all the speed in the world is useless if you are never on.
2) Early in the game sac bun, which lower your chances of scoring a run (late game can be valuable if one run specifically holds significant value, ie bottom of last inning of a tied game)
3) "Good fielders" whose good fielding is based on having no range or arm (not talking Jeter, but rather that analytics say that only a moron would use Joe Panik as a utility player)
- Status
