Astros alternatives

A great moment for the Astros - but all they had to do was bring in Cole to get the last 3 outs in the top of the 9th, and they wouldn't have had to sweat.

You don't know much about baseball or strategy do you?

Look at it this way. It could have been Cole starting with a 0-0 score, and needing to pitch 9 shut out innings to assure going to the World Series. Or it could have been Cole starting with a 2 run lead, and needing to pitch 1 shut out inning.

What would the Las Vegas oddsmakers choose ?


He could still start game 1 of the World Series too.

Vegas oddsmaker would say you are a dipshit and would make it as a minor league manager about 1 week if that long.

Lmao


OP thinks AJ is a dumbass.

Go cry with the skanks. SMH

Look at it this way. It could have been Cole starting with a 0-0 score, and needing to pitch 9 shut out innings to assure going to the World Series. Or it could have been Cole starting with a 2 run lead, and needing to pitch 1 shut out inning. Originally Posted by VitaMan

Or it could have been Cole blowing the save and then you don't have an ace to start game 7.
The whole rotation got fucked up when Verlander insisted on starting(and was allowed to) on three days rest.

What ifs...the sportsradio mainstay. I'm a casual fan but the Astro pitcher in the eighth inning looked dominant.

Bottomline: Thank goodness for Altuve or as my wife calls him: "Li'l Badass."

Didn't Verlander just start game 5 on full rest....and gave up 4 runs in the first inning ?


And James is a train wreck. Every time he comes in, he starts walking batters, and AJ has to go get him off the mound.


How many times have we seen, just in the last few weeks, a relief pitcher comes in....immediately gets home runs blasted off him...many different teams..2 grand slams to knock out 2 teams from the playoffs...managers look off into space..this whole pitching culture or structure has to change anyway, and needs different rules.



Good sportsmanship shown when Yankee reliever Chapman gave up the home run to Altuve.....expression was like when a squirrel finds a way to get to your bird feeder and steal the nuts....added a lot of color to the moment.

Again, it's part of the game within the game. You get the best arms you can for the money you have and you hope they can perform their role. Throwing Cole out there in the 9th could have just as well ended badly. Starting pitchers have a different approach to the game and sometimes don't find their best stuff until they calm down a little. That's what has happened to Verlander in his last two games. He's let the moment get his adrenaline up. Closers are focused on getting only three outs and throw hard from the start. They are pitching on adrenaline but that can run out quickly and it's hard on their arms.

I'm sure it has happened at other times but I remember when Bobby Cox brought in Maddux,I think, when the Astros had 2 on or maybe bases loaded in a divisional series and only needing a couple of runs to go ahead. (I think I'm getting this right) He ended up getting three outs with no runs scored. Thing is he had Glavin, Smolz, Neagle and maybe even Millwood at the time so he had the luxury of wasting a start to get a close. Some pitchers have transitioned into closer roles in their careers but most are not successful at it. John Smolz is one starter who became a relief pitcher then transitioned back to starting. Dennis Eckersley might be the most famous. After long starting career he became one of the most dominant closers ever.

Nothing is a given. Managers used to go on gut instinct a lot. For instance, if team A brought in a LH relief pitcher to get an out on a LH hitter, the typical scenario, Team B might counter with a RH pinch hitter because it was the common practice and consensus that opposite handed batting had an advantage. The reasoning being that they got a better look at the delivery. Billy Beane changed many of those gut feelings and misconceptions by quantifying everything with Sabermetrics.

Managers now do what the statistics say more than they rely on gut instinct. Some LH batters do just as well or better against a LH pitcher and vice versa. AND if you go with what the numbers say will work not gut feeling you're not answering for your bad gut instincts. As much as statistics have been kept in baseball it's amazing that it took so long for someone to use those statistics to actually win games. It was a culture change. If you haven't seen Moneyball, you should.



Years ago complete games by a starting pitcher were the norm not the exception. Then some manager, at some point, started using a dedicated closer. Next thing you know you had dedicated set up men and middle relievers. When that happened pitch counts became an early form of quantitative analysis. Pitcher A was good for 90 pitches and he started loosing his stuff while pitcher B was good for 110 pitches. Managers had to manage an entire bench based on pitch counts. I'm not sure but it seems like the trend toward relying more heavily on relievers, and the decline in complete games, started within a few years after Baseball lowered the height of the pitching mound to increase batting. It was harder for pitchers to get outs from a lower mound. That's something else to keep in mind. With most changes there will be unintended, or at least unexpected, consequences.



So, How would you change the culture, structure or rules? Can you think of any possible consequences that might come about that aren't obvious on the surface?

OP, it's a good thing the Astros went from the NL to the AL instead of the other way around. Understanding the strategy of a double switch would have been a motherfucker for you.

We'll explain it after the first one happens in the WS.

Let the players play, and see who wins. Managers now over manage. Recent examples why manager decisions have only random results:


- the Brewcrew had their wild card game won. Then they decide to bring in their ace reliever in the 8th inning, and he has a hard time getting the ball over the plate. Walk after walk after walk.



- Strasburg was brought in and did a long relief stint for the Nationals.....worked out well for them.


- the Dodgers would still be in the playoffs, but decided to bring in one of their ace starting pitchers, Kershaw, in relief......result was 3 batters faced, 2 home runs.


Maybe make it standard for a starting pitcher to pitch at least 7 innings, unless injured.


Now it looks like must see tv for the World Series because of the 4 or 5 great pitchers. Hope they let them play.

Hinds ight is always 20-20

Let the players play, and see who wins. Managers now over manage. Recent examples why manager decisions have only random results:


- the Brewcrew had their wild card game won. Then they decide to bring in their ace reliever in the 8th inning, and he has a hard time getting the ball over the plate. Walk after walk after walk. It happens



- Strasburg was brought in and did a long relief stint for the Nationals.....worked out well for them. Again, it happens. Those two decisions offset one another so it's kind of a wash


- the Dodgers would still be in the playoffs, but decided to bring in one of their ace starting pitchers, Kershaw, in relief......result was 3 batters faced, 2 home runs. Wait, didn't you just advocate for bringing Cole in to close a game? How is this any different except that you are projectng 20/20 hindsight?


Maybe make it standard for a starting pitcher to pitch at least 7 innings, unless injured.


Now it looks like must see tv for the World Series because of the 4 or 5 great pitchers. Hope they let them play. Originally Posted by VitaMan

I agree, let players play but also let managers manage. Let closers do what closers do.



No one is going to make the perfect decision every game out. If they did there would be no reason to play the games. You could just play them on paper. Pinch hitting, pinch running, shifts, matchups, injuries, controlling emotions, playing one game at a time but knowing you have to have something left in the tank for the next one... Managers have always over managed. Because of the use of quantitative analysis I think there is less of it . Again, it's the games within the game that keep things interesting.


Interesting idea to make starters pitch 7 innings. One consequence would be much higher scoring games. Everyone likes offense...except when it results in 5 hour games...another consequence. That's just what I can come up right off the top of my head. How would you enforce injury replacement? Starter must skip a rotation? Go on the 15 day DL? It would certainly change the way a bullpen is assembled. You'd have more long relievers who could possibly start and only one or two one inning or situational guys.

Well, Cole got plenty of rest.....followed suggested strategy.....5 runs, first loss since May 22.

That's why they play the games.