Now you understand.
I wasn’t overreacting when I warned about the dangers of #OverNerding.
The Rays, who want to try to tell you they do analytics right, lost the World Series because of #OverNerding.
That is not an overstatement.
So intent on following their scripted plan, manager Kevin Cash refused to believe what his eyes were telling him. He refused to believe his ace lefty Blake Snell, a 2018 Cy Young winner, was in total control of the mighty Dodgers and the game with a 1-0 lead in the sixth inning of Game 6 Tuesday night.
He couldn’t wait to go to his Stable.
A mere seven pitches later after Snell was removed – and the lefty let out a loud curse to show how disgusted he was to see Captain Hook come to the mound – the Rays lead was gone, the World Series was gone.
All in a flash. The night ended at Globe Life Field in Arlington, Texas with the Dodgers celebrating a 3-1 victory, a World Series win in six games, their first World Series title since 1988.
Kevin Cash was their MVP.
Rob Manfred was booed by the fans during the trophy presentation or as I like to call it, “A piece of metal’’ presentation.
Under Manfred’s watch, analytics have stolen the game from the fans and the players in every way imaginable.
Take a bow, baseball. You screwed up the best game in the world and now you have to wonder if the game ever can be fixed again.
The Nerds are not only running the asylum. They have chased away so many experience-based coaches and managers; they have full control to make some of the dumbest decisions in baseball history.
Continue reading by clicking here.
12 comments:
If a Mets manager ever took Snell out in exactly that situation, dominating and with a low pitch count, I would have blown a gasket, for this simple reason: that system may have been very advantageous during the season - but this game is win-or-go-home, and you are winning with one of baseball's finest pitchers on the mound.
How do you know if your next guy is going to have it? You don't. Over 162, odds are it works.
Remember the game where the Knicks could have beaten the Rockets except Starks was something like 3 for 18? You never know if the next guy won't have it. I agree with Kevin - STUPID, STUPID, STUPID.
How stupid? If the Mets were down 3 games to 2, and leading game six 1-0 in the 6th, and they pull Jake after 70+ pitches and then they LOSE? I'd probably stop being a Met fan. I mean it.
Right now, would you trade a Game 6 loss like that for a last place finish? Hard choice.
Kernan is being a flaming idiot loudmouth here.
Yes, terrible move by the manager. It's not the first time that's happened.
But disparaging the Devil Rays season as "over-nerding" -- claiming that analytics cost them the WS -- ignores the very obvious fact that they were seeded # 1 in the AL and went toe-to-toe with the Dodgers without anything close to the financial resources afforded many other MLB teams.
He's taking an oafish, boorish, anti-intellectual stance, blowing up one mistake (that was, at least, consistent with the approach that brought Tampa Bay to that moment, the last AL team standing).
There's far more to learn from the Rays than to disparage.
It's not that I hate all of the content of Kernan's complaints, it's the gross mischaracterizations I can't stomach. The Trumpian tone. I'm not a fan of "bullpening" and many of the trends in baseball. Hey, I think MLB needs to gradually go to the 7-inning game, beginning by scheduling 4-5 Sunday doubleheaders. The sport is in trouble; the games are too long; many of the most vivid players are sitting on the bench while we watch an endless parade of robotic relievers. But those are thoughts for another day.
Kernan is a dope. A-Rod, too, with his complaints about Ivy Leaguers ruining the game. Bad moves have always been a part of baseball. It happens.
Jimmy
You need to keep the name calling to yourself. WTF is a trumpian tone. Re-read what Kernan posted. He makes a lot of good points. Analytics is fine but sometimes you need to trust your gut.
Okay, a Trumpian tone, to me, is a haranguing, anti-intellectual, anti-science argument full of bluster. For example, today he's saying that if Biden wins there will be no Thanksgiving and no Christmas.
Okaaaaay.
But, noted, shouldn't have dragged that guy into it. Sorry for that. This is a tough week and tough times.
Jimmy
This site is supposed to be apolitical. The names Trump or Biden should never be brought up. I thought Kernan brought up some legitimate points. None of us could ever be called intellecuals.
Jimmy. Thanks for your comments at some point would love to here more about your ideas on improving the game. Think you would have unique insight.
Ray - I agree we try to be an escape here abd stay away from politics - but the Mayor in NYC may make that difficult - I say may because after perhaps some posturing he will likely approve the sale.
It would be foolish for him to throw up a road block. Think he is simply postering.
I'm curious: What good points does Kernan make when he characterizes the Rays winning approach as "over-nerding"?
Jimmy
John, since you asked:
I'm in favor of seven-inning games.
It's interesting that probably the strongest argument against it is that it goes against tradition, the record book, all those stats.
But if you look at the history of the game, the stats have always vacillated, the deadball era, the steroid era, the analytics era, etc.
One thing that's now so out of whack, historically -- and maybe Tom will find this interesting -- is the stats for starting pitchers. For example:
Tom Seaver, 2.86 career ERA, 311 wins, 231 Complete Games, 20 seasons, 3 Cy Youngs.
Jake deGrom, 2.61 career ERA, 70 wins, 3 Complete Games, 7 seasons, 2 Cy Youngs.
For starting pitchers, the game has totally changed to the point where you have to be very, very careful when comparing pitchers from different eras.
Once you go 7 innings, the stats for wins and complete games will immediately revert to a comparable standard. Starting pitchers will regain much of their importance and luster. There will be 20-game winners again. Guys who finish games. And we'd see the elimination of the two worst relievers for every team -- those filler guys. 60 lousy pitchers won't be on the field anymore. We'd see more STARS on the hill late in games instead of an endless parade of robotic hard-throwing relievers. In addition, with smaller bullpens, teams would be able to expand their offensive and defensive possibilities. Platoon guys. Employ pinch-hitting specialists, a speed guy, an aging slugger. More diverse weapons on the bench.
And the games wouldn't last 3 1/2 hours.
Ratings were way down this WS, for a variety of reasons. But it's a clear trend. Game 4 had that miracle ending, just an incredible game all around: How many people stayed up after midnight on the East Coast to enjoy it?
Honestly, I think it would be good for the game. Good for television, good for the players, good for the owners, good for the fans -- though the fans would resist it mightily. Baseball fans hate change of any kind. We're traditionalists! But, again, look at wins for pitchers, look at complete games, look at the horrendous length of games. Change happens whether we like it or not. It's better to steer that ship than passively fall a victim to the game's worst tendencies. It's like capitalism: you need to tweak it every once in a while.
To ease fans back into the idea, I'd initiate, say, 7-inning doubleheaders. Maybe put 3 on the schedule for each team (with the awareness that with rainouts and schedule crunches a couple more might be added to the schedule). Or maybe just have a few sprinkled into the season. In exchange for this, to placate that lose of revenue, MLB can keep it's 162-game season and, okay, go with the expanded (lucrative) playoff format.
I know that this is radical and likely will never happen. But baseball is losing fans, the game is losing its appeal. More and more, less and less happens. If we consider a ball in play a "game event," then statistically we are seeing fewer game events per pitch than ever before. Maybe hitters would change their approach, less inclined to work counts in hopes of getting into the (crappy) bullpen.
The younger generations are tuning out. The little fixes to address pace of play haven't worked. Doing nothing doesn't seem to be an option.
Crazy, I know, but my guess is that 10 years from now it won't sound quite as wildly insane, or as sacrilegious, as it does today.
Jimmy
Jimmy, not so far-fetched to me.
I could go for 7 inning DHs, and not 7 inning, but 8 inning, games.
I think you'd see a lot more complete games with 8 inning games.
Maybe, coupled with that, an increase to a 170 game season with more scheduled 7 inning doubleheaders. Closer to the same number of total innings as currently, so as to not disadvantage the hitters in terms of total ABs.
Post a Comment