2019 World Series -- Houston Astros vs Washington Nationals

That might be the most detailed account of a manager's thought process that I've ever read. (Can't remember if I read Weaver's book...I've read biographies of Stengel and Durocher, but I don't really read autobiographies from managers.)

That's a really great interview. I read somewhere that Kendrick had been thrown around 30 cutters away this season. Out of those thirty, he had one hit. Harris hit the spot perfectly, the pitch wasn't a mistake. Kendrick had a great swing and hit it out. Maybe Harris was tired after so many appearances and if he'd thrown that cutter one or two MPH faster, it's a foul ball. Not going to Cole in the eighth or ninth is less defensible, but at least he tries to address it.

I have a hunch that the hyper-analytic teams like Houston and LA do too much pre-scripting before the game and it's making them less flexible to in-game strategy moves. They pre-plan for so many scenarios but of course you can't plan for everything, and when something unexpected comes up the game starts passing them by. The Astros probably had two general plans for Cole. If they were winning, he protects the lead in the 8th and or the 9th. If Greinke gets hammered early, then he pitches in the middle innings to keep the game close (although Cole still claims that he wasn't supposed to pitch if they were losing). They didn't consider the in-between scenario where they have a lead and the guy who's supposed to bridge to Cole with the lead doesn't do his job. In Game 5 of the NLDS, I think the Dodgers had a similar plan -- if Buehler goes deep into the game with a lead, Kershaw is next, then Kelly for the save. Unless they have a two or three run lead, in which Kelly can hand off to Jansen for the save. They didn't count on Kershaw choking (how??) and Kelly having to pitch in a tie game. Maybe I'm speculating too much. But I thought about this when LA messed up their pitching decisions in Game 7 of the '17 Series too.

I have a hunch that the hyper-analytic teams like Houston and LA do too much pre-scripting before the game and it's making them less flexible to in-game strategy moves.

You mean spontaneous in-game moves like issuing an IBB when you've never issued one all year?!

I don't know that Houston can be accused of "hyperanalysis" now... wouldn't they have the same profile in 2017, when October worked out fine for them? (As it did this month too, through WS Game 5.) And a number of strategies that could be questioned aren't "analytic" at all, like the IBB and the Chirinos bunt attempt (has it been revealed if that was his own idea?).

And the Nationals are pretty damn analytic too.... The NYT just profiled their ass't general manager, Sam Mondry-Cohen, who was immersed in sabermetrics as a 16-yo batboy. (Now it's true that Mike Rizzo is a former scout and they have maintained a strong scouting infrastructure.)

clem, fwiw Durocher's autobio is considered to be heavy on fiction. The two excellent Stengel bios I've read, which include material on his tactical approach, are Steven Goldman's (the pre-genius years) and Bob Creamer's classic.

I still have no explanation for the IBB and Chirinos' bunt.

The Nats have their analytics guys too, all teams do. They kept throwing their best pitchers out there, treating almost every game like an elimination game (and in fact 5/17 of them were). Yes, that's in large part because they only trusted maybe six or seven guys. But the Astros' approach to pitching came off as overly scripted. "We like Harris and Smith in those situation" sounds like a plan they came up with in September. For Game 7 of the World Series you need to update the plan.

As for the Dodgers, I'll stick by my point. The higher ups never question his in-game decision making, and there have been plenty of sketchy decisions made the past three postseasons. They fully support him, in part, because some of those controversial decisions came from higher up. Again, that's my opinion, nobody really knows how it works there.

"his in-game decision making" ... I'm talking about Dave Roberts here. The Dodgers have made it clear that Roberts is their guy, even if there's a perception that "he" has been outmanaged in the playoffs the past three years.

(xpost) I haven't read the Goldman book, but Creamer's Stengel biography is one of my favourites. I don't recall the tactical discussions, but the story, to pick a word at random, is amazing. My copy's boxed up, otherwise I'd quote the chapter ending after the Braves fire him, where it looks like his baseball career is over. Greatest second act ever.

The one thing I get from Hinch re Cole is that--corny and irrational as it may sound--he was genuinely concerned about overextending him. I guess you can argue that if you plan on pitching him an inning or two to save a lead, what's the difference if that inning or two comes earlier in the game. But, in his mind, the only reason justifying any potential risk was protecting a lead; he wasn't, as he puts it, going to take that chance chasing after a win.

You can certainly disagree, but I find that anachronistically admirable.

I think the Greinke decision was the big one, to the point of it feeling like the elephant in the room on this thread. 80 pitches and he'd given up two hits. The Osuna decision feels less relevant - you want to use a starting pitcher out of the bullpen or you want to use one of your best relievers? Besides, they were already behind at that point and they never scored more than two runs anyway.

I don't recall much of a "What is he doing?" reaction at the time Greinke was removed.

the guy who got the biggest cheer in the victory parade was the dude who was holding two beers and bounced the home run ball off his chest

yeah no

Trump calls over Suzuki, who dons a “Make America Great Again” cap.

— Mark Zuckerman (@MarkZuckerman) November 4, 2019

oof

Zimmerman seems to be a big chud as well

hell of a time for Deadspin to go down

Strasburg left Trump hanging. 😂 pic.twitter.com/LFNQTpCs89

— Rudy Gersten (@DCBarno) November 4, 2019

Anthony Rendon’s fall evolution from most underrated player in baseball to stone cold legend is complete. https://t.co/eGlXBQo0s2

— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) November 4, 2019

That Strasburg video looks like an unmistakable blow-off, but, unfortunately, he did shake hands him soon after.

"with"--I have this uncanny ability to omit exactly one word in 90% of my posts.

He can jump in the Potomac.

#FakeNews https://t.co/ovDuHyRUTb

— Stephen Strasburg (@stras37) November 4, 2019

That's the same video as the one above, though--before or after, they shook hands.

http://usatftw.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/epa-usa-trump-world-series-baseball-washington.jpg?w=1000&h=667

Okay, got it...that's the point you're making.

but that can't be right, i saw a screenshot from the video yesterday and it was clear that Strasburg **HUMILIATED** Trump in public

hmm, this is a rough moment for all of us evidence-based screen capture-heads. time to rejuvenate by taking it easy, resting for a few hours, then going straight back to looking for another screen capture moment that could attain so many likes and retweets

i saw this one shot of don jr yesterday and it is clear that he actually HATES his father and wants to be far away from his every moment!!

Maybe I'll regret opening up this bag of worms ... but I don't see a problem with White House visits. The invitation is to the White House as an institution, that's what this represents. It's not about the sitting president, because this tradition pre-dates him. It would be like winning the Nobel Prize and not showing up because you think the head of the Swedish Academy of Sciences is a dick, or you disagree with the Prize selection process and the politics involved.

the white house as an institution can get fucked too iirc

yeah I wouldn't go under any president tbqh

Well OK, if you dislike the institution completely then that's different.

I don't think that's the stance of the players who refused to go, seeing as athletes across all sports have generally gone to these things without objections. Verlander skipped the victory parade in 2017 and got married instead. Everyone has their priorities.

standing on a stage with trump and smiling about it is nagl for anyone, regardless of what institution is technically hosting the event tho! is, i, think, the thing

xxp that's okay the mets aren't going either ; )

Maybe I'll regret opening up this bag of worms ... but I don't see a problem with White House visits. The invitation is to the White House as an institution, that's what this represents. It's not about the sitting president, because this tradition pre-dates him. It would be like winning the Nobel Prize and not showing up because you think the head of the Swedish Academy of Sciences is a dick, or you disagree with the Prize selection process and the politics involved.

― NoTimeBeforeTime, Wednesday, November 6, 2019 4:55 AM (three hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

uh no. it would be like if the head of the swedish academy of sciences was a fuckin nazi

Also it's one thing to go and stand respectfully around because it's part of the traditional post-championship whirlwind.

Quite another to wear a MAGA hat and bro-hug the Bad Orange Man.

Just as it's one thing to Not Go for your own private reasons, and another to Not Go while saying loudly why you're Not Going.

I am okay with three of those four choices.

I'm OK with three of the four too. I just said I don't have a problem with anyone who chooses to go. Unless you're wearing a MAGA hat, you're not endorsing anybody or their politics.

Trump is still an outlier in that regard, he's the one president where it's not about the institution and it's not about the team, it's about him, it's always about him, everything always has to be about him or he has no interest in it. It's why the Warriors and the Eagles were disinvited, because someone was mean to Trump and if you're gonna be mean to Trump then you don't get to meet Trump

you're not endorsing anybody or their politics

That doesn't mean footage of you will not appear in campaign material, which is reason enough not to go.

yeah I really disagree. you can either go or not go, and going is consciously rejecting not going

The invitation is to the White House as an institution, that's what this represents. It's not about the sitting president, because this tradition pre-dates him.

if the invitation were to the white house as an institution, various NBA teams wouldn't have been uninvited

trump is unlike previous sitting presidents, and taking part in his personal glorification/subsumption of others' victories is a choice. you can't go chill with mussolini on his balcony and claim innocence

Bringing up Mussolini and the Nazis undercuts the point you guys are trying to make. But I'm going to roll with it.

Yes, the Warriors and I think the Eagles were disinvited because of stuff they said about Trump. They were the winners in that exchange and Trump was the petulant loser.

But that's not the only way to win. If we're insisting on bringing the Nazis, then lots of people (artists, musicians, sports stars) showed up at Nazi-organized or sponsored events because they still wanted to bring class and culture to the people. Sometimes that's what the public likes and respects. And that's what I'm saying I don't have a problem with.

The Nationals going to the WH and continuing that tradition will live on in people's memories (at least for the people who care about this particular tradition), whereas the names of those who decided to stay home will be quickly forgotten. I'm not blaming anyone who chose to stay home. But that's the way it is.

Come on, you can care about the tradition AND understand that preventing a war criminal his photo-op is maybe more important. It's not like the tradition's going to fall apart or something, like players will just stop going in future years because eh it's no big deal.

I don't know how you arrive at that last point: to the contrary it will be the holdouts who are remembered for doing so decades later. Nobody's going to say at Ryan Zimmerman's funeral, "and he attended the WH event with the rest of his team as per custom." I didn't see a lot of the Nats this year but what I'll take away from a couple concentrated weeks of e.g. Anthony Rendon is 1) excellent baseball player and 2) has principles.

The White House: Home of War Criminals Since Teddy Roosevelt

(I thought it was strange, Hade, that you picked the descrip in which the OG is most like his predecessors)

what's funny is he's lagging in that dept. so far, let's give him another five years