IGT 04/03, Mets at Redbirds

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: You don't see defensive replacements as something that occurs in save-like situations? Else it's just resting a guy with a big lead.

Not as purely as relievers in save situations, Shirley. If Wagner blows a one-run lead, you've got other relievers to pitch the 10th, and the 11th, etc. But if he blows a one-run lead and you've OPTED to take Alou and Green out of the game, you might regret having made that choice more. (Of course, this point would be clearer if Alou and Green were offensive monsters and Endy and Milledge were pure glovemen--in practice, the real difference is having used up two good pinchhitters, not the small difference between the offensive output of your outfielders.) The nightmare scenario is going deep into extra innings and two weak glove men getting multiple ABs in place of your two sluggers, where a solo HR means the game.

I guess I'm saying with a big lead, such a move is a no-brainer, while with a small lead, you'll need to exercise your brain a little bit.

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"] metsmarathon wrote: ="iramets"]W/o a backup 3b man, pretty close to 54. Will you buy 52? However many games you expect Wright to play, divide by three and there's your number for the difference of ABs between batting #5 and batting #2. league-wide, the difference between plate appearances for a #2 and a #5 is 53. for the mets, it was 60. How ya figure? Every team plays 162, and every lineup slot removed from #1 subtracts 18 Abs, so why would it differ from team to team? sorry. meant to say "in 2006..." i went to ESPN, looked at the team stats for 2006, and clicked on the pulldown menu to filter first for #2 hitters, then for #5 hitters. the league-wide average plate appearances for a #2 hitter was 750, and for a #5 hitter was 697. for the mets, it was 754 and 694, respectively. 750 - 697 = 53 754 - 694 = 60

Thanks for the explanation. The difference between 53 (reality in 2006) and 54 (what the numbers should be in theory) seems small enough to be accounted for by randomness, no? I mean, if one guy makes one more out instead of getting one more hit during the entire season, then your number is 54, right on the head, which seems more reliable for projection into the upcoming season than how the numbers last year shook out.

[metsmarathon]

yup. merely meant to provide actuals to back up the theoretical.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think if you check Mets history, you'll see that most classic Met defensive substitutions --- Gaspar for Swobodsky 1969, Jorgenson for Kingman 1982, Elster for Magadan with HoJo sliding over 1989 --- have taken place in games with a margin of three runs or less.

[Frayed Knot]

I no longer have any clue as to what is being argued here.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Willie dumb. Lineup bad.

[Benjamin Grimm]

My Imaginary Dinner with Ira:

Me: I think I'll order the pot roast.

Ira: We've been to this restaurant four times, and each time you ordered chicken? Explain to me why you're ordering pot roast today.

Me: I don't know. I'm just in the mood for pot roast today.

Ira: There's something you're not telling me. Why are you hiding the real reason that you'r'e ordering pot roast? If you prefer pot roast to chicken, why did you order chicken last week and the week before that?

Me: I'm not hiding anything. Last week I felt like eating chicken. Today I want pot roast.

Ira: You're not being forthcoming. I can only assume that you have some evil motive for ordering pot roast that you're reluctant to share. Either that or you don't have enough brains to discern the differences between chicken and pot roast.

[Guest iramets]

That's pretty good, Yancy. The only difference is that Willie has, or should have, good reasons for most of the stuff he does, and (generally) there should be no advantage to him in keeping those reasons secret, or expressing them poorly.

I don't think the lineup is bad or, more precisely, I don't think there's enough info about optimal lineups to make a rat's ass worth of difference. (I do think, in the absence of situational info, the preference should be towards giving your better hitters more at-bats, but that may amount to only a small advantage.) I do see Willie as unusually secretive and hostile to questions about his reasoning process (the mystery may also be in him trying, and failing, to be clear). Rotblatt gave an excellent and lucid explanation as to the lineup juggling in ST, and in general, when we try to delve into Willie's reasoning process around here, we often come up with excellent and lucid explanations that wouldn't endanger the Mets if WIllie were to voice them. Instead of excellence and lucidity (and plausibility and rationality), though, we often get from Willie "I know my players" and "I just thought that would be better" and other non-responsive answers that are neither helpful to my understanding of his thinking nor my confidence in his ability to understand the questions being asked.

I think his kneejerk reaction to a question, even a good question, is to give as little information as possible. Whether this is a decision stemming mostly from his adversarial vision of the press or from difficulty communicating (or both), I can't quite tell. But I've heard Torre, I've watched extended interviews with Bobby V, and, sir, he is no Torre nor Bobby V. Being a big league manager doesn't mean you must be uninformative and nasty, and I hope you don't mind too much my pointing where I feel Willie's being both, especially when there's no reason for him to be either.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: I think if you check Mets history, you'll see that most classic Met defensive substitutions --- Gaspar for Swobodsky 1969, Jorgenson for Kingman 1982, Elster for Magadan with HoJo sliding over 1989 --- have taken place in games with a margin of three runs or less.

I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. I'd assume that the vast majority of games, period, are with small leads rather than big leads. It would be interesting, if you're suggesting that in an equal sample of games that there would be a meaningful difference in the way such substitutions take place, to examine such games. (I'd suggest comparing 1-run leads in the late innings, suitably defined, against 6+ run leads, or 5+ run leads, or how ever few runs you need to constitute an equal number to the 1-run leads.) If you just reviewed the 1969 games where Gaspar played but did not start, we might see if there's a pattern to his use.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I thought of the first guys who popped into my head who regularly got defensive sub duty in a particular year. In each case, I linked to the player's first zero-plate-appearance of the season.

Does anybody else think strategic defensive substitution is, in practice or in theory, more a move for a team with a large lead than a slender one? This strikes me as silly. If we aren't clear on seeing simple baseball basics, what difference does it make if Lo Duca bats second, fifth, bunts, doesn't bunt, or comes to the plate with a pogo stick and and crys out to Odin? It's like we're in two different universes.

[Guest iramets]

Edgy DC wrote: I thought of the first guys who popped into my head who regularly got defensive sub duty in a particular year. In each case, I linked to the player's first zero-plate-appearance of the season. Does anybody else think strategic defensive substitution is, in practice or in theory, more a move for a team with a large lead than a slender one? This strikes me as silly. If we aren't clear on seeing simple baseball basics, what difference does it make if Lo Duca bats second, fifth, bunts, doesn't bunt, or comes to the plate with a pogo stick and and crys out to Odin.. It's like we're in two different universes.

I'm not sure if the zero-plate appearance means that much, since the defensive replacement often gets an at-bat. I think many defensive substitutions, as you observe, aren't so much for defensive reasons as they are for "rest" or "playing time" reasons,--in some cases the worse fielder may come into the game to give some better fielder a few innings off. Would that count or not-count as a defensive replacement? If you found that there are , say, 20 games in 1969 where the Mets held a 1-run lead in the 7th inning or later and 20 other games where they held a 3 or more run lead, it would be interesting to see if there's a real and significant difference in Hodges's insertion of Gaspar. For the right geek, there's an interesting project.

[metsmarathon]

it is far easier to prevent runs from being scored than it is to try to score them. therefore, the more you can do to assure that you remain in the run prevention business, the better, particularly when you have a narrower lead.

if you're in the latter stages of a game, and you have the lead, you are better off playing to ensure that you keep the lead than you are in strategizing what you need to do once you lose said lead.

defensive subsitution is the move for a team with a smaller margin of potential victory, as the gains from having a superior defender are more important to your chances of winning that game than they would be with a larger lead.

[Guest Edgy DC]

iramets wrote: I think many defensive substitutions, as you observe, aren't so much for defensive reasons as they are for "rest" or "playing time" reasons,--in some cases the worse fielder may come into the game to give some better fielder a few innings off. Would that count or not-count as a defensive replacement?

No, that's clearly not what we're talking about.

[Guest iramets]

metsmarathon wrote: it is far easier to prevent runs from being scored than it is to try to score them. therefore, the more you can do to assure that you remain in the run prevention business, the better, particularly when you have a narrower lead. if you're in the latter stages of a game, and you have the lead, you are better off playing to ensure that you keep the lead than you are in strategizing what you need to do once you lose said lead. defensive subsitution is the move for a team with a smaller margin of potential victory, as the gains from having a superior defender are more important to your chances of winning that game than they would be with a larger lead.

I completely get it that it MATTERS more to substitute a good fielder for a poor one in a close game. I'm just not sure if there's significantly MORE substituting in equal samples of big- and small-lead games. Get Kingman a late inning at-bat and then put Jorgy in for his glove with a small lead is a classic move--what I'm asking is, did Jorgy also come in for Kingman wiht big leads in similiar situations? I suspect he did, though it mattered less and the reasoning was different.

[metsmarathon]

if the discussion is no longer about why (or if it never was...), then i guess it simply comes down to looking it up.

not that i'm volunteering...

[soupcan]

Me think me agree marathon theory.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Catch ball. Help win. Good.

Big lead. Rest stud.

Lose game. Must hit.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think Johnny must have turned into the Hulk.

[nymr83]

]I do see Willie as unusually secretive and hostile to questions about his reasoning process

As opposed to Omar, whom you criticized FOR talking about his reasoning process.

[Guest Edgy DC]

iramets wrote: I completely get it that it MATTERS more to substitute a good fielder for a poor one in a close game.

I'm glad.

[Guest iramets]

Nymr83 wrote: ]I do see Willie as unusually secretive and hostile to questions about his reasoning process As opposed to Omar, whom you criticized FOR talking about his reasoning process.

No, I criticized him for talking vapidly and badly about his reasoning process.

Neither of these guys are gifted verbalists, but their lack of gifts are different. Willie is hostile, defensive, and I think deliberately offers much less information than he has, probably in the belief that the questions are designed to expose his flaws as a manager. Omar is speaking a second language and is often asked questions that are really in Willie's domain (as where Wright will bat in the lineup, which is purely a manager's call). Rather than speak for Willie, or the alternative to say tersely "That's WIllie's call," Omar speaks for several minutes without saying anything of substance, and maybe he thinks he's fooling people that way. And maybe he is.

Ultimately, neither of their jobs is primarily verbal anyway. If they make the right moves, it doesnt really matter how they've articulated their reasoning to the press (and ultimately to us). In that case, my critique is purely one of style. Torre's glib and he keeps his temper very well under provocation that would have Willie's teeth bared, so the contrast is a strong one that I'm exposed to a lot (Omar and Cashman likewise, though maybe less so). But I still am concerned that Willie especially may not HAVE the information or may not fully understand it--and that is a concern. IOW, with Willie, it may be more than just style--I remain unconvinced that he has certain key managerial abilities. His players' skills may be covering for his lapses in sound managerial judgment.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I think Willie's in-game decision making was better in 2006 than in 2005. There's probably a learning curve for managers and he seems to be showing progress.

His real strength, though, is in the off-the-field stuff. I think he handles the team well in the clubhouse. This is just a guess, of course, since I've never been in there. But I was watching him during the televised division-clinching celebration, and I saw him going around and saying a brief something to each player. He's quiet, he's cool, and he sets a good tone. You still need to make good calls from the dugout, but the clubhouse stuff has value too.

[Guest iramets]

Absolutely. One of his motivations in telling the press so little is that he's protecting the players from any misinterpretations (or correct interpretations) of his comments on their play. No doubt about it.

There are plenty of parts to the manager's job beside what he displays in public. On the in-game side, as far as I can tlell, he's slowly working his way up to mediocre. He might even become a decent in-game manager someday--he's only been at it for two years. But right now, some of his moves seem awkward and tentative and lacking in awareness (I'm still not sure he knows what the function of the doubleswitch is yet) and his public remarks don't persude me otherwise. I'm still not a fan of Willie's.