And wanted to get a righty/righty matchup. It was going to be Betts third look at Snell.That reliever's one job was to get Mookie Betts out and didn't do it.
I know two lefties followed, but that's one of their very best bullpen guys and if he gets Betts out, there are two outs, man on first.
Players have to do their jobs and in this case, he didn't.
The move was consistent with how Tampa played the entire year. Tough to critcize him.
that actually happened. He's a career .230 hitter.
I do believe that Cash wanted to pull him if he let up any hit. I don't believe he would have pulled him with none on and 2 out.
Understood re 9 hitter. But the top three hitters were 0-6 with 6 K's.
Re 2 out and none on - yes, that would have been interesting to see what Cash did there; if he pulled him them, then clearly he was simply following analytics.
and that brings us to the 3rd time though the order and what managers do about 99% of the time. There's very few pitchers that wouldn't be taken out there, IMO. I listed a guy earlier that wouldn't have ben (MB) and Snell just isn't on that level.
Snell didn't blow the lead. Cash didn't blow the lead. Anderson did.
the moves made in today's game have sound reasoning behind them. But they are judged on the result, not the reasoning.
Leaving a pitcher in too long who gives up a lead is foolish, but if he muscles through one more inning, it is "gritty". Remember Pedro being left in too long? A reliever going an extra inning than normal works sometimes, it backfires others. And the result dictates the narrative.
The Dodgers have been getting clutch hits all series. They could have done it against Snell the 3rd time around. They DID do it to the relievers.
The following is all from Connor Kurcon over at 6th man rotation. The link to the thread is below, but I"ve copied it here.
It's worth noting that Snell went 5 1/3 innings, gave up 2 hits, had 9 strikeouts, and allowed 0 walks, leaving a runner on 1st. So while the parameters he sets aren't identical, it's a large enough sample to show some interesting information, including performances that were both better and worse than Snell's. It also doesn't account for pitch count, and I hope there are follow up threads that look at this aspect as well.
Quote:
Connor Kurcon
@ckurcon
I've gone back and forth re: the Blake Snell decision, but here's an interesting number (1/ )
From 2017-2020, there have been 202 starts in which the SP went 5 innings, struck out 9+ hitters, walked 1 or fewer, and allowed 1 or fewer runs. Let's call these starts "Snells" (idk)
For the most part, these 202 "Snells" were, unsurprisingly, a majority of the time from the game's most elite pitchers. So we're not dealing with a sample of mediocre pitchers that got lucky for 5 innings. This is 202 pitchers of Snell's caliber (or better) pitching just as well.
In the 202 Snells, the ERA was 0.62 thru 5 IP
181 of these pitchers came back out for the 6th. In a large number of these starts, the pitcher was beginning to face the top of the lineup for the 3rd time
In the 6th inning, the 181 pitchers allowed 72 runs* in 167.2 IP (3.86 ERA)
* and this doesn't even include the players they left on base!
My point in all this, of course, is that the narrative that "Blake Snell was dealing, therefore you keep him in" means nothing.
All of these pitchers were just as good (or better) as Blake Snell and pitching just as well (or better).
They were "shoving", "momentum", etc.
The correct choice, on average, for these 202 starts, was to bring in a good RP. (Not saying Anderson was the right choice for Tampa)
And if you don't buy into all that, that's fine.
But, imo, you'd really need to have a compelling argument as to why the 200 similar starts/starters before Blake "collapsed" and why Blake was destined for a better outcome (/end)
Separately, it's also worth considering that Snell didn't go more than 5 and 2/3 innings all season. THis strategy with his starts is what the Rays did all season, and so it's not like they made some departure from what has worked for them this whole way.
I forgot the exact numbers but Snell this year (or maybe it was just the playoffs) is allowing a .900 OPS the third time through the order.
To put that in perspective only 23 players this year (less than 1 batter per team) had an OPS above .900
You can say what you personally would do and that's completely fine. But I don't support the idea that it was a stupid decision - everything i'm watching (feel) and reading (analytics) says the opposite.
he averaged 5.8 IP. DeGromm's 2 CY Youngs he was at 6.4 and 6.8 IP per start. Scherzer's Cy Young's are similar. Verlander/Cole are also similar. Kershaw's are over 7 IP.
Snell just isn't in that stratosphere as a pitcher and hasn't earned that long of a leash. Cash knows that. The decisions he makes are because of that. Part of that is "analytics" but a lot of it is watching what happens later in the game and Snell simply struggles (as the data in Paul's post suggests).
the moves made in today's game have sound reasoning behind them. But they are judged on the result, not the reasoning.
Leaving a pitcher in too long who gives up a lead is foolish, but if he muscles through one more inning, it is "gritty". Remember Pedro being left in too long? A reliever going an extra inning than normal works sometimes, it backfires others. And the result dictates the narrative.
The Dodgers have been getting clutch hits all series. They could have done it against Snell the 3rd time around. They DID do it to the relievers.
Well I mean yeah, the result will always dictate the narrative, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the wrong decision. A lot of people questioned the move at the time. Of course it’s not ALWAYS the right decision to leave the guy in, but every situation is different. Snell was only 5 1/3 innings in, 73 pitches, had only allowed 1 hard hit ball all night, and had struck out the entire top of the order 2x in a row. And they took him out when the top of the order was coming up (3 of the best hitters in baseball who Snell was having great success against). This was nothing like the Pedro decision IMO. That was much later in the game and pitch count. If there was ever a decision that would’ve clearly been worth questioning whether the analytics told the whole story of what was happening at that moment, this was the one.
I do believe that Cash wanted to pull him if he let up any hit. I don't believe he would have pulled him with none on and 2 out.
And wanted to get a righty/righty matchup. It was going to be Betts third look at Snell.That reliever's one job was to get Mookie Betts out and didn't do it.
I know two lefties followed, but that's one of their very best bullpen guys and if he gets Betts out, there are two outs, man on first.
Players have to do their jobs and in this case, he didn't.
The move was consistent with how Tampa played the entire year. Tough to critcize him.
I do believe that Cash wanted to pull him if he let up any hit. I don't believe he would have pulled him with none on and 2 out.
Understood re 9 hitter. But the top three hitters were 0-6 with 6 K's.
Re 2 out and none on - yes, that would have been interesting to see what Cash did there; if he pulled him them, then clearly he was simply following analytics.
Snell didn't blow the lead. Cash didn't blow the lead. Anderson did.
Leaving a pitcher in too long who gives up a lead is foolish, but if he muscles through one more inning, it is "gritty". Remember Pedro being left in too long? A reliever going an extra inning than normal works sometimes, it backfires others. And the result dictates the narrative.
The Dodgers have been getting clutch hits all series. They could have done it against Snell the 3rd time around. They DID do it to the relievers.
The following is all from Connor Kurcon over at 6th man rotation. The link to the thread is below, but I"ve copied it here.
It's worth noting that Snell went 5 1/3 innings, gave up 2 hits, had 9 strikeouts, and allowed 0 walks, leaving a runner on 1st. So while the parameters he sets aren't identical, it's a large enough sample to show some interesting information, including performances that were both better and worse than Snell's. It also doesn't account for pitch count, and I hope there are follow up threads that look at this aspect as well.
Connor Kurcon
@ckurcon
I've gone back and forth re: the Blake Snell decision, but here's an interesting number (1/ )
From 2017-2020, there have been 202 starts in which the SP went 5 innings, struck out 9+ hitters, walked 1 or fewer, and allowed 1 or fewer runs. Let's call these starts "Snells" (idk)
For the most part, these 202 "Snells" were, unsurprisingly, a majority of the time from the game's most elite pitchers. So we're not dealing with a sample of mediocre pitchers that got lucky for 5 innings. This is 202 pitchers of Snell's caliber (or better) pitching just as well.
In the 202 Snells, the ERA was 0.62 thru 5 IP
181 of these pitchers came back out for the 6th. In a large number of these starts, the pitcher was beginning to face the top of the lineup for the 3rd time
In the 6th inning, the 181 pitchers allowed 72 runs* in 167.2 IP (3.86 ERA)
* and this doesn't even include the players they left on base!
My point in all this, of course, is that the narrative that "Blake Snell was dealing, therefore you keep him in" means nothing.
All of these pitchers were just as good (or better) as Blake Snell and pitching just as well (or better).
They were "shoving", "momentum", etc.
The correct choice, on average, for these 202 starts, was to bring in a good RP. (Not saying Anderson was the right choice for Tampa)
And if you don't buy into all that, that's fine.
But, imo, you'd really need to have a compelling argument as to why the 200 similar starts/starters before Blake "collapsed" and why Blake was destined for a better outcome (/end)
Separately, it's also worth considering that Snell didn't go more than 5 and 2/3 innings all season. THis strategy with his starts is what the Rays did all season, and so it's not like they made some departure from what has worked for them this whole way.
https://twitter.com/ckurcon/status/1321483776141205506 - ( New Window )
To put that in perspective only 23 players this year (less than 1 batter per team) had an OPS above .900
You can say what you personally would do and that's completely fine. But I don't support the idea that it was a stupid decision - everything i'm watching (feel) and reading (analytics) says the opposite.
Snell just isn't in that stratosphere as a pitcher and hasn't earned that long of a leash. Cash knows that. The decisions he makes are because of that. Part of that is "analytics" but a lot of it is watching what happens later in the game and Snell simply struggles (as the data in Paul's post suggests).
Leaving a pitcher in too long who gives up a lead is foolish, but if he muscles through one more inning, it is "gritty". Remember Pedro being left in too long? A reliever going an extra inning than normal works sometimes, it backfires others. And the result dictates the narrative.
The Dodgers have been getting clutch hits all series. They could have done it against Snell the 3rd time around. They DID do it to the relievers.
Well I mean yeah, the result will always dictate the narrative, but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t the wrong decision. A lot of people questioned the move at the time. Of course it’s not ALWAYS the right decision to leave the guy in, but every situation is different. Snell was only 5 1/3 innings in, 73 pitches, had only allowed 1 hard hit ball all night, and had struck out the entire top of the order 2x in a row. And they took him out when the top of the order was coming up (3 of the best hitters in baseball who Snell was having great success against). This was nothing like the Pedro decision IMO. That was much later in the game and pitch count. If there was ever a decision that would’ve clearly been worth questioning whether the analytics told the whole story of what was happening at that moment, this was the one.
Like Paul said above, the "safe" decision would have been to leave him in (for Cash), but it doesn't make it the right one, either.
Would this situation had ended differently if Snell had been left in? We don't know. If it followed past patterns, then no.
They pulled snell, but they only scored 1 run.