Effectively Wild: A FanGraphs Baseball Podcast - Effectively Wild Episode 303: Picking Playoff Narratives

Episode Date: October 9, 2013

Ben and Sam discuss the narratives that are dominating the discussion this October.

I think this year with the new guys that we brought in, the guys, you know, they have seven, eight years. Some of the guys they brought in and maybe more than that. So I think it's going to be unique in that clubhouse. I think guys can talk to each other. The great thing about the new coaching staff is we can talk to them and, you know, they can learn from us and we can learn from them. I think that's a great opportunity for this team. And I also think it's going to take, you know, with with 162 games it's going to pan out in the long run and uh you know it's going to be a lot of fun good morning and welcome to episode 303 of complex.com's number 23 ranked sports podcast

oh come on effectively wild the daily podcast from Baseball Prospectus You have absolutely no shame at all I just always wanted to be 23rd best at something So now we are My name is Ben Lindberg, joined by my co-host Sam Miller Good morning The number 23 co-host in America I wonder if one of us is higher than 23 and the other is lower than 23 and pulls the other one down. On average, we're 23rd.

Yeah. How are you? Good. How are you doing, Ben? Okay. I have a question for you. How are you doing, Ben? Okay. I have a question for you.

So on Tuesday, there was a home run call that went the Tigers' way and went against the A's. And that was a hugely significant play in the game. And it seems perfectly reasonable. The call that the umpires made seems reasonable to me. There were other people who thought it was obvious. It was obvious that it went against the A's unfairly. The A's radio team was 100% certain of it. There was no doubt in their mind at all that the umpires messed it up. But that's not really the point. The point is that sometimes when umpires have the benefit of replay, they still get it wrong. And I can't figure out whether when that happens, it is good for replay or bad for replay. It feels sort of like with the A's broadcast,

it sort of sounded like they were using that as evidence that replay isn't good, although it was subtle. And so I might have been projecting on them. But like this, they were sort of hinting like, well, you know, replay is not a magic cure-all and you still get missed calls. And I was sort of taking that to mean that they were saying that replay isn't good maybe, but I might be wrong. But, I mean, is it good or bad for the replay movement when umpires look at it, look at a replay and still get it wrong? Bad, right? How could it be good? Well, uh, because they get so many more of them, right. And because it's not like, I mean, I don't know. It feels like they get, uh, you know, if you get 99 right and one wrong, the wrong one stands out more than if you're just sort of used to them getting everything wrong, which is how we are now.

So you're saying that if they get more wrong, then it won't be as big a deal when they do get one wrong? I don't know what I'm saying. Exactly. I mean, it doesn't – like if you're saying that they got it wrong – I mean, look, if you think that they got this one wrong to start with and then they watched the replay and they upheld the wrong one if that's what you think then the replay didn't get them more wrong it didn't make anything wronger and uh i mean at least you feel like they got a chance to get it right um and they just you know they just didn't i mean they're still fallible people i don't know it doesn't make me feel like replay is is worse and yet i don't know it feels like some people

do use that and it feels like a little bit of a leap to me to get to that point i think it's definitely a leap i mean so that's that seems like a bad thing to me because, I mean, the argument for replay is, well, we want to get the calls right. And you can't really argue with that argument. So if replay is sometimes wrong, then that sort of takes away some ammunition from the pro-replay because the the anti-replay people can say well you know it's still not perfect there's still going to be mistakes so why don't we just stick with the the human element that we have instead of getting all fancy um so i think it's it's not good when that happens it's kind of it's i'm always surprised on TV broadcasts about how my opinion of what the replay shows

will sometimes differ from the broadcasters, which is weird. We're watching the same thing, and sometimes it seems really obvious to me. And sometimes it sort of seems like the announcer made up their mind before they saw the replay, and then the replay just kind of confirmed what they thought they saw. Often it will happen if their initial gut reaction is that something was like a bad call,

and then the replay will show that it was actually a good call, but maybe they don't want to go back on that after they've been bashing the umpire or something. So that happens sometimes, and it sounds like maybe that's what happened on the radio broadcast you were listening to, unless that was just a lot of homerism or something. Yeah, I think it was probably a lot of homerism. I do love the – I love – this is a different genre of announcer replay amusement, but I love it when the announcer will, like, use a play to make an example of something like, you know,

oh, look at look at how well he keeps his, you know, his his his, you know, I don't know, his head on the ball when he swings and then they show the replay and his head is way off the ball. And it's like painfully obvious. But the announcer like has already made his point so um we've got four teams now that have either won or lost a playoff series and i wanted to just ask you about what the narratives are for the two that are going forward and for the two that are going home um the red sox clinched last night the dodgers clinched the day before the braves are at home although their tears have dried the Rays are at home and they are still crying they are I have it on good authority they are all sitting at home crying every single one of them so the winners the Dodgers it seems to me have picked up this

like kind of public momentum where now anything less than winning the world series there will be like a lot of finger pointing and scapegoating because they are they have established themselves in the public perception as by far the best team in baseball does that does that seem like like the i mean do you have that impression? Not that they are the best team in baseball, but that that is how people view them now? Yeah, sort of. Yeah, there was a lot of criticism of – I guess if there's one narrative for everything that's happened so far, it seems to be managers, right? Yes. Managers are taking a ton of abuse for everything.

Managers are the new umpires. We're going to have to have instant replay for managers in a few years. Yeah. I don't know if, I mean, I guess this is something that probably happens every October to some extent. People focus on each decision, each pivotal point in the game, and often that's something that a manager did. But somehow it feels ramped up a bit this year relative to what I remember.

Every move is getting scrutinized and people are getting blamed for things. Why do you think? I don't know. I can't think of a reason why it would be more so now than in the past. I guess maybe there are some people who kind of have lame duck status or at least their job security isn't great, like Mattingly, I guess, doesn't have a contract for next year. And maybe that leaves him open to more criticism. I don't know.

Other than that, I can't think of what it would be, what would contribute to managers getting more abuse this year than they have before. You don't just blame the Twitter? The Twitter was here last year, too. I know but Maybe it's a ramping up Of this Could be yeah I haven't been on the Twitter much lately

Yeah But Mattingly's not You don't think Mattingly's job is in danger Probably not But I don't think Mattingly's job is in danger? Probably not, but I don't know. I mean, he hasn't gotten that extra year. Everyone wants that extra year. I don't know.

I mean, he almost got fired earlier in the season, as we've discussed, and it seems like it would be tough to fire him after him after, after how the Dodgers played, you know, following that point. So the, uh, the, I think that a lot of the manager, uh, the manager controversies have, have all been around, you know, when to use which pitcher there's been a little bit of bunting, but it's been almost all, it seems to me about, uh, when to use your starter. Uh, like, should you bring him back on three days rest? Uh,

how to use your starter if he's coming out of the bullpen and when to bring in your closer, uh, basically early in the eighth, late in the eighth or in the ninth. And, um, I don't know why those three are, are catching on now, but I, it sort of feels like, um, I don't know, maybe there's a, hang on. on all of those issues and so now they they feel um it doesn't feel like like we expect the managers to necessarily follow the orthodoxy and so when managers have the option we kind of really treat it like a choice rather than just like oh this is how it's always been done um so uh it stands out more when a manager uh goes with conservative approach, I guess. Yeah, that could be. I mean, there must be more people who are aware of sort of why it doesn't make sense

to manage according to save situations. And I don't know, maybe there are more people aware of the times through the lineup penalty or something. Maybe these things are making some headway and people are getting frustrated by them um the four out save seems to be picking up the four or more out save seems to be picking up more momentum both because managers are getting slammed when they don't do it i mean it's just it's like it almost is like automatic that if you have a lead in the eighth and you don't bring in your closer, you're going to get second guessed.

Now, it's still not the norm that they bring in their closer, but it is the norm now that you get second guessed for it. And I mean, we'll get to this, but I guess maybe we'll get to it right now. But it seems like the main narrative from the Braves series was that they were mismanaged. And the main example of it was under Yusuf Kimbrel. and the main example of it was under Yusuf Kimbrel. And it's way too early to say this, but it does feel like maybe there's a bit more momentum of actually using the closer for more than three outs. There have been three saves so far of three or more outs this year,

and of course we're still pretty early in the playoffs. There were, uh, four all of last year, 2011 was, uh, was pretty common. There were six. So I don't know if we'll catch 2011, but four in 2010, four in 2009, three in 2008. And I'll, you know, a decent proportion of those were Mariano Rivera, who has always been the exception. you know, a decent proportion of those were Mariano Rivera, who has always been the exception. So if you take out Rivera, the numbers go down historically. And so, yeah, but of course, on the other hand, nobody's come in for two yet. Nobody's gotten more than four outs in a save so far.

And really what differentiates the postseason is the six-out save, I would say. Well, I think it's good if there's some—I mean, if the public is second-guessing managers for not doing this, then I think that could lead to some change because it does seem to me that managers do manage to avoid getting second-guessed. After covering the Tigers-Yankees series last year and hearing Jim Leland talk about how he wished he had an established closer because no one questions you when you have an established closer and you can just put him in. And even if he fails, it's not your fault. You didn't make a mistake. now or if you know if there's a risk that you will get criticized in the paper and on twitter and on the radio the next day because you didn't use your guy for more than three outs then maybe that's something that future managers will will start to do and maybe it will trickle down to your setup guy and your your setup setup guy and-up guy. Maybe then we'll see some relievers actually pitch more than 60 innings in a season.

So I have an idea for what teams should be doing going forward, and I want to know what you think about it. As it is now, your Game 1 starter can pitch on full rest in Game 5, or he can pitch on short rest in Game 4. Your Game 2 starter can pitch on short rest in game four your game two starter can pitch on full rest in game five because the way the travel is your four your number one and two starters are both available on full rest for game five and so what I think teams should be doing is actually using their their best pitcher

in game two so that they can use they still get their two starts they maximize their their ace right they definitely get two starts out of their ace but they also can maximize their number uh two starter by having him go in game one and then be available like scherzer was last year in relief on short rest i'm not comfortable using starters on short rest but i am totally comfortable using them on short rest in a relief or even a sort of modified relief, like a two or three inning stint. And so in a way you could maximize your, your, your one and two, instead of basically just getting three starts and nothing more out of them or else having to, to pitch them on short rest, which is a perilous thing.

You get three starts plus three high leverage innings in game four, if necessary. So like with the Tigers, they were able to do this because there's no difference between their one and their two. But like, like, let you imagine that that Verlander wasn't their, their number two and maybe say it like, you know,

imagine a world where the say, I don't know, Cardinals had done this with Wainwright coming in and relief in game four, it would have been impossible, right? You couldn't bring Wainwright in and relief in game four because there'd be a big drop off between your number one and your number two and everybody would totally have a freak out over it. So if Wainwright started game two though, and then could pitch game five, and then your number two pitcher pitched game one and then could pitch game four, it seems like you get three extra innings. Yeah, that seems like a good idea. I could get on board with that.

Why would you not do that? I guess managers would say that there's some momentum benefit to getting that first game, getting that first win. Yeah, you would definitely be second-guessed. If you lost game one, then you would have columnists talking about how important it is to jump out ahead and how important the confidence is. I mean, that would be the big downside. And maybe it's real, or maybe it's just columnist talk, but one way or another that would come up. Yeah.

But you would also have – it would look pretty cool when you had game five and you had a rested ace going for you. Yeah, I agree. Good idea. Okay. I wonder – it's also possible – I haven't thought this through, but it's also possible there might be ripple effects for the NLCS or for the championship series, where if your ace is pitching game five instead of game. Well, I guess the ace was going to pitch game five regardless, unless you went on short rest. So that actually wouldn't matter. That would be perfectly fine because your number two starter would certainly be able to bounce back from two or three innings of relief to pitch game one, I imagine.

Yeah. Okay. I feel good about it. All right, next, Red Sox and Rays. The Red Sox, of course, their narrative was set in stone last year. Whatever they did this year was going to be the reaction to that, and so this seems to be the chemistry team, right? Yeah, chemistry, beards. the reaction to that. And so this seems to be the chemistry team, right?

Yeah. Chemistry beards. Yeah. Beards instead of beer. Oh, that's going to be a headline. Yeah. Yeah. This is probably the most,

the, the chemistry is a sentiment that I saw was on Yahoo, which had a long story about, well, that I saw was on Yahoo, which had a long story about the Red Sox chemistry and tied in Craig Breslow's chemistry background, I guess, and also the TV show Breaking Bad, and had this paragraph, Bogarts wasn't around last year, the year of beer and fried chicken and gas. He came into this season hoping to work on his confidence

and his patience at the plate. He had help from Gomes and Ross, guys who shared information rather than hoarding it, guys who spread the wealth and never the blame. So that seems to be pretty much the entire Red Sox narrative in one paragraph. That was an impressive walk that he drew. Yeah, that seems to be it.

They also seem to have leapfrogged the Tigers. I mean, it feels like to some degree the— People think the Red Sox are—I might have said that people think the Red Sox are the best team, not the Dodgers. Maybe. I think the Dodgers. I would bet that if you pulled the Nation's riders, they would definitely go with the Dodgers. But the Red Sox are considered the best team in the AL now, I think, in a way that they weren't necessarily heading in. they weren't necessarily heading in.

Like, the Tigers, I feel like the Tigers were the popular favorite going in because of their rotation. And it really only takes one loss before everybody, like, reapprises the situation. I mean, I feel like the Red Sox, by the end of the second game, everybody had just decided, oh, well, no one's going to stop the Red Sox because they've won two, and the Tigers are in danger because they can't score. Yes. Or because Miguel Cabrera is injured and might not survive, which seems fair. Yeah.

And the Rays? Is it like a Joe Maddon is too clever for his own good narrative? It could be, I, I, I don't, it could, it could definitely be that. Although they, they had such, they had the Joe Madden magic in game three, which wasn't really his choice, right? I mean, Lobitone hitting that home run was forced upon him, but it was, you know, it's sort of classic Joe Madden magic. home run was forced upon him, but it was, you know,

it's sort of classic Joe Maddon magic. And, uh, then he w I don't know that his, him pulling Helix in yesterday after, after one inning doesn't seem to have backfired and it doesn't seem to have been criticized. Yeah. And so that he's kind of probably regained his, his prestige. I think that the narrative is maybe going to be like, which pitcher do they trade now? They obviously need to trade a pitcher,

and it's going to be counting down the minutes until Hellickson gets traded, or can they afford to keep Price for another year? It probably just goes to this idea of them never being able to be quite good enough, and how aggressive are they going to be trading a pitcher to able to be quite good enough and you know how aggressive are they going to be trading a pitcher to get to be good enough yeah in in Zachary Levine's recap of of game four which is up at BP right now he he said kind of that like where does each team go from here and he talked about the Red Sox advancing and and then he talked about David Price, basically, and how the Rays are kind of a tough team to upgrade because they're not really losing a lot of people,

and they didn't really have any big holes this season, so there's not really one place to get much better. And I don't know, the things that they were good at just kind of let them down in this series. Will Myers wasn't that good, but Will Myers is good. The defense wasn't that good, but the defense is good. So maybe the narrative there is that they'll be okay and they'll be back. Or maybe they'll make some amazing trade.

And I guess the Royals are in need of a starter again so they could go back to the well with david price figure they could get more for price from the royals than they got for shields um so just out of curiosity if you were i mean obviously these are not mutually exclusive options but would you expect them to get a better return on the dollar trading uh a guy like price who is uh you know in at at a peak or you know has not uh has you know he's an ace he's a super ace they'll get a ton right yeah um or helixson a guy who is uh low in his career right now but you know clearly could be lower or could be higher like he's a he's an unknown which which do you think gives them a like kind of a better better value

on the dollar or i guess who should they trade i think probably you might get more back you know per win that you're giving up for helixson yeah i would think so too because it's hard to get you're giving up for Helixson? Yeah, I would think so too. Because it's hard to get, it's hard to replace a superstar. I mean, even if, obviously Price would command a very, very top prospect, or multiple top prospects, but even so, when you trade sort of a Cy Young winner type,

and maybe it's better with a pitcher than a position player, but when trade someone that good it's hard to get equal value back whereas with helixson maybe he's not great but he's young and under team control and and inexpensive so maybe someone would give you back a pretty good prospect for him and maybe you'd end up doing better there. Then again, I guess if the Rays can't afford to keep price, then it doesn't matter. Yeah, right. It's not actually an either-or situation. Okay, so we're done with this episode. We should have mentioned at the start that we're pushing back the listener email show to tomorrow for scheduling reasons. So if you haven't sent in an email yet,

you can still do that. And maybe we will talk about it on tomorrow's show. The address is podcast at baseball prospectus.com. And in the meantime, check out baseball prospectus.com for some of our, our playoff coverage, which has been pretty comprehensive. Someone at BP is,

our playoff coverage which has been pretty comprehensive someone at bp is is previewing each game and each series and also recapping each game and there are the coda simulations of each game before it's played and jason parks and the prospect staff have been working on advanced reports very very detailed looks at how to get certain prominent players out. So there's a lot of stuff to see there. So head over to baseballperspectives.com if you're looking for some playoff reading. And we will be back tomorrow.