Royals 3, Twins 2: Smeltzer Dazzles, Bullpen and Bats Fall Short

[IowaBeancounter]

I'm in agreement with letting Smeltzer start the 8th, he had already faced the top of the order for the 3rd time through the lineup.   Why not let him try to get the 6,7,8 batters in the 8th for a 3rd time.   What I really don't understand is using Duffey, prior to last night he had 3 appearances vs KC for 2.1 innings, giving up 4 runs for an ERA of 15.43 (after last night his ERA vs KC is 18.90).   IMHO KC has seen Duffey enough that they know what to swing at and what to lay off and Duffey knows this so he ends up grooving pitches.  In Duffey's 14 non KC appearances he has pitched 15 innings with an ERA of 1.80.   Duffey is an OK reliever, just not against KC.  

 

[rwilfong86]

1 hour ago, IowaBeancounter said:

I'm in agreement with letting Smeltzer start the 8th, he had already faced the top of the order for the 3rd time through the lineup.   Why not let him try to get the 6,7,8 batters in the 8th for a 3rd time.   What I really don't understand is using Duffey, prior to last night he had 3 appearances vs KC for 2.1 innings, giving up 4 runs for an ERA of 15.43 (after last night his ERA vs KC is 18.90).   IMHO KC has seen Duffey enough that they know what to swing at and what to lay off and Duffey knows this so he ends up grooving pitches.  In Duffey's 14 non KC appearances he has pitched 15 innings with an ERA of 1.80.   Duffey is an OK reliever, just not against KC.  

 

A manager with a brain will look at those stats and agree with your assessment which is accurate. 

[TwinsDr2021]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

It was the most he had thrown all year.  If he wasn't stretched out for more than you don't run the risk of injury.  This is the reality for all teams right now.  Your argument lacks the necessary context.

He had pitched 77 and 74 the two prior starts, so 104 is might a stretch, but he was at 80 averaging 11 pitches an inning against the bottom of the order. If now isn't the time to push him further when is? when he is not having a great game and has a high pitch count in the 4th or 5th?

The context is this was his 8th start this year and the three guys coming up were hitting  .160 , .224, .201 and he was pitching amazing and every fan knew the pitcher coming in was worse,

The other starter in the game is 25 and hasn't pitched a game with less than 81 pitches, it is lazy for people to say this is how baseball is these days because it just isn't true.

Hunter Green is 22 and has had 2 starts less than 80,  Nestor cortes, pitched 109 pitches last night and has been above 99 his last 4 starts, German Marquez has pitched less than 90 pitches in his last 2 of his 7 seven starts. Tarkik Skubal is 25 and has pitched 90 plus in 6 of his last 8. Konnor Pilkington has pitched at least 83 in his last two starts and has been terrible. Eric Lauer hasn't pitched less than 83 in any of his 8 starts, Ohtani has pitched over 90 in his last 4 starts, and only once less than 80 in his 8 starts,  Kyle Wright's only start this year less than 86 was his first and that one was 76. This was just pitchers in last night games, and doesn't include vets like Montas, Perez, Nola, Wainwright (all went over 96) or pitchers that were terrible or Ryu.

I went back to few games all this week, and 80 pitches is closer to the low end of pitchers that were pitching good.

IMO the decision to pull Smelter was more about they got way more than expected out of him and Rocco thought it is best to pull him before the house of cards fell, instead of trusting the starting pitcher that was pitching awesome. If that was the case they should have brought in Duran for 2 innings, again IMO.

[TheLeviathan]

3 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

He had pitched 77 and 74 the two prior starts, so 104 is might a stretch, but he was at 80 averaging 11 pitches an inning against the bottom of the order. If now isn't the time to push him further when is? when he is not having a great game and has a high pitch count in the 4th or 5th?

The context is this was his 8th start this year and the three guys coming up were hitting  .160 , .224, .201 and he was pitching amazing and every fan knew the pitcher coming in was worse,

The other starter in the game is 25 and hasn't pitched a game with less than 81 pitches, it is lazy for people to say this is how baseball is these days because it just isn't true.

Hunter Green is 22 and has had 2 starts less than 80,  Nestor cortes, pitched 109 pitches last night and has been above 99 his last 4 starts, German Marquez has pitched less than 90 pitches in his last 2 of his 7 seven starts. Tarkik Skubal is 25 and has pitched 90 plus in 6 of his last 8. Konnor Pilkington has pitched at least 83 in his last two starts and has been terrible. Eric Lauer hasn't pitched less than 83 in any of his 8 starts, Ohtani has pitched over 90 in his last 4 starts, and only once less than 80 in his 8 starts,  Kyle Wright's only start this year less than 86 was his first and that one was 76. This was just pitchers in last night games, and doesn't include vets like Montas, Perez, Nola, Wainwright (all went over 96) or pitchers that were terrible or Ryu.

I went back to few games all this week, and 80 pitches is closer to the low end of pitchers that were pitching good.

IMO the decision to pull Smelter was more about they got way more than expected out of him and Rocco thought it is best to pull him before the house of cards fell, instead of trusting the starting pitcher that was pitching awesome. If that was the case they should have brought in Duran for 2 innings, again IMO.

It's not lazy, it's just reality.  In the case of any of the players you listed, did they pitch in 2021?  Because Smeltzer didn't.  I think people forget that he's coming back from injury and hasn't been all that stretched out given the time he's missed.  Teams have pitch limits and plans for players with injuries like the one Smeltzer endured and given the time missed.  It's ok not to like that, but everyone does it.  It probably has medical merit as well, even if we don't like it.

The mistake, IMO, was in the choice to replace him (I'm good with Duran too!) or to pull the escape hatch on Duffey when it was obvious things were going south.  That was a classic "Joe Smith comes in and throws two pitches" situation and we let Duffey rot.  That part is inexplicable to me.

[TwinsDr2021]

29 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

It's not lazy, it's just reality.  In the case of any of the players you listed, did they pitch in 2021?  Because Smeltzer didn't.  I think people forget that he's coming back from injury and hasn't been all that stretched out given the time he's missed.  Teams have pitch limits and plans for players with injuries like the one Smeltzer endured and given the time missed.  It's ok not to like that, but everyone does it.  It probably has medical merit as well, even if we don't like it.

The mistake, IMO, was in the choice to replace him (I'm good with Duran too!) or to pull the escape hatch on Duffey when it was obvious things were going south.  That was a classic "Joe Smith comes in and throws two pitches" situation and we let Duffey rot.  That part is inexplicable to me.

Well he was back to pitching in October and had a healthy off season so sure they may be injury concerns or limits, but they let him go 77 pitches two starts ago, so I would expect part of the stretching out means pitching a bit more each start? Not sure how 77 pitches in start 6 of the season, means you don't let him start a fresh inning at 8.

100% agree with you are Smith should have came in with Duffy struggling.

[TheLeviathan]

13 minutes ago, TwinsDr2021 said:

Well he was back to pitching in October and had a healthy off season so sure they may be injury concerns or limits, but they let him go 77 pitches two starts ago, so I would expect part of the stretching out means pitching a bit more each start? Not sure how 77 pitches in start 6 of the season, means you don't let him start a fresh inning at 8.

100% agree with you are Smith should have came in with Duffy struggling.

Perhaps my phrasing of "stretched out" is problematic.  Maybe it's more like he's on a regiment with limits given his time away?  As in.....we'll let you flirt with 80, but we're not going past that until you've been pitching for awhile.

[rv78]

Unless Smeltzer tells me he's gassed he goes out to pitch the 8th. At least to start it. Rocco has it in his head that pitchers can't go beyond a certain pitch count no matter what and if they are close he'll replace them with another pitcher to start an inning rather than let them go 5 or 10 pitches past his predetermined cut off point. That is not good game management. The only way to stretch him out is to have him throw more than the last time. Seems that isn't or wasn't being done. Not only is it poor game management but also poor player management. Is bringing in a reliever and having him throw 2, 4, or 5 pitches and then getting pulled for a different pitcher good management? Don't think so.

Pulling guys in your starting lineup for pinch hitters that aren't any better hitters makes no sense. His constant rotation of players playing and then not playing and then getting pulled for pinch hitters and such only shows his inability to go with his best lineup everyday. Don't tell me he is only resting his players and keeping then fresh. It hasn't kept injuries away so that is not a legit argument. What it quite possibly has done is deter the hitters from getting in any kind of a groove hitting wise since they don't get repetitive at bats on a consistant basis. Maybe that is why they are struggling to get the big hit when they need it. They have played 45 games and my guess is he's used at least 40 different lineups. A good manager plays the best players every day possible to give your team the best chance to win. Does putting a .200 hitter at DH every game when you have a .300 hitter sitting on the bench tell you his level of competancy? Kinda makes you wonder why they can't score runs, right?

[Schmoeman5]

9 hours ago, Mark G said:

YES!  Hey, maybe I am not a minority of one.

 

9 hours ago, rwilfong86 said:

If the Twins gave up selling their collective soul to analytics and actually used their brains they would win far more games. Even the game Sunday they came back and won was in spite of analytics, not because of it. 

Unfortunately they already have sold their collective souls to analytics. Pitching and hitting. Last night there was no one on the bench after the 7th inning except Polanco and he wasn't going in regardless. He subs in his bench en masse. So he lost gordon as a potential pinch runner in the 9th for example. Baldelli is doing everything by the Falvey/Levine playbook.

[rwilfong86]

12 minutes ago, Schmoeman5 said:

 

Unfortunately they already have sold their collective souls to analytics. Pitching and hitting. Last night there was no one on the bench after the 7th inning except Polanco and he wasn't going in regardless. He subs in his bench en masse. So he lost gordon as a potential pinch runner in the 9th for example. Baldelli is doing everything by the Falvey/Levine playbook.

Unfortunately yes, and the team will continue to suffer because of it. 

[rwilfong86]

14 minutes ago, rv78 said:

Unless Smeltzer tells me he's gassed he goes out to pitch the 8th. At least to start it. Rocco has it in his head that pitchers can't go beyond a certain pitch count no matter what and if they are close he'll replace them with another pitcher to start an inning rather than let them go 5 or 10 pitches past his predetermined cut off point. That is not good game management. The only way to stretch him out is to have him throw more than the last time. Seems that isn't or wasn't being done. Not only is it poor game management but also poor player management. Is bringing in a reliever and having him throw 2, 4, or 5 pitches and then getting pulled for a different pitcher good management? Don't think so.

Pulling guys in your starting lineup for pinch hitters that aren't any better hitters makes no sense. His constant rotation of players playing and then not playing and then getting pulled for pinch hitters and such only shows his inability to go with his best lineup everyday. Don't tell me he is only resting his players and keeping then fresh. It hasn't kept injuries away so that is not a legit argument. What it quite possibly has done is deter the hitters from getting in any kind of a groove hitting wise since they don't get repetitive at bats on a consistant basis. Maybe that is why they are struggling to get the big hit when they need it. They have played 45 games and my guess is he's used at least 40 different lineups. A good manager plays the best players every day possible to give your team the best chance to win. Does putting a .200 hitter at DH every game when you have a .300 hitter sitting on the bench tell you his level of competancy? Kinda makes you wonder why they can't score runs, right?

Head scratching pulling 3 hitters who had a hit (including the 2 who drove in their 2 runs) and replacing them with 3 guys who ended up with nothing, He has no baseball instincts. I think most of us who have played MLB the Show could manage a team better then him. 

[TheLeviathan]

53 minutes ago, rwilfong86 said:

Unfortunately yes, and the team will continue to suffer because of it. 

Analytics is why this team is in first place.

[rwilfong86]

44 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Analytics is why this team is in first place.

The Twins are in first place because they've had a stretch of great starting pitching, timely hitting, a few lucky bounces, and the White Sox have been trash. I'm not sure what analytics has to do with any of those things. I would guess probably at least half of their losses can be blamed on analytics and Rocco's inability to use his brain but I'm not sure any rational person could give credit to analytics for their success. They're winning in spite of analytics, not because of it. 

[TheLeviathan]

1 minute ago, rwilfong86 said:

The Twins are in first place because they've had a stretch of great starting pitching, timely hitting, a few lucky bounces, and the White Sox have been trash. I'm not sure what analytics has to do with any of those things. I would guess probably at least half of their losses can be blamed on analytics and Rocco's inability to use his brain but I'm not sure any rational person could give credit to analytics for their success. They're winning in spite of analytics, not because of it. 

Analytics is why the team is working more counts, going the opposite way, leveling their swings, changing the way their pitchers approach their craft, employing defense and shifts, etc.

Seriously, your argument is pure emotion.  It has absolutely no basis in fact.  Analytics is not some evil boogeyman.

[rwilfong86]

Just now, TheLeviathan said:

Analytics is why the team is working more counts, going the opposite way, leveling their swings, changing the way their pitchers approach their craft, employing defense and shifts, etc.

Seriously, your argument is pure emotion.  It has absolutely no basis in fact.  Analytics is not some evil boogeyman.

Working counts, do you mean last night when they swung at the first pitch 5 consecutive at bats after a 5 pitch walk? That sure was a great example. The Twins 6 batters saw a total of 10 pitches. Great job of running up the pitch count wasn't it? 

Analytics is neutral, but it's what a team does with the data that determines success or failure. And the overemphasis on letting the "computer" determine what happens is gonna lead to failure if they don't adapt to be more situational rather than "by the book". Rocco has made some pretty horrible management decisions based on the data and last night was a golden example of that. 

[glunn]

The bickering in this thread needs to stop.

[Mark G]

7 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

Analytics is why this team is in first place.

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion they would be in first place every year.  They used the same analytics last year; I remember debating it then as well.  The analytics don't change, so why does the record?  I would submit it is because the computer doesn't see the intricate differences in skill levels and strengths and weaknesses each player has.  For instance, if you have a .198 hitting catcher at the plate with a runner(s) on, and a .349 hitter in the on deck circle, it might make sense to bunt the runner(s) along.   Rocco's computer tells him not to, because the statistics show (he has actually said this out loud) that sacrificing an out for a base does not work out often enough to use it as a strategy,  So the .198 hitting catcher swings away, and we all know how that turns out most of the time.  To the computer players are interchangeable, which is the reason Rocco interchanges players the way he does.  Analytics is supposed to be a tool, not a never bending management style.  So, in that way I understand the belief that it is a lazy way to manage.  We can debate lazy, or reality, or any other semantics, but in the end it is being used as cover for questionable game management decisions.  Everyone does it this way, or the analytics showed this was the move to make, shouldn't be the answer to every question.

[Mark G]

15 hours ago, bighat said:

Disagree.

It's not Rocco's fault this team can't hit a baseball with a man in scoring position. It's not Rocco's fault they're averaging 2 runs in 80% of their games this year. It's not Rocco's fault that Buxton went 0-for-30 (!!!!). The problem isn't the pitching (yet) or the manager. It's anemic hitting on a historic level.

I could make a pretty strong case that it is exactly Rocco's fault.  When you discard the sacrifice, the hit and run, the stolen base, bunting for base hits or squeezing runners home...............need I go on?  Rocco is the sole person making these decisions, and they have led, game in and game out, season in and season out, to relying on the long ball or 3 or more hits in an inning to score runs.  That doesn't happen much of the time, so it is important to "manufacture" runs, as they say, and Rocco does not do that effectively.  Hence the case it is not only Rocco's fault, it is solely Rocco's fault.  

On the other hand, is it the computer's fault?  I can never tell which one is which.    

[Mark G]

3 hours ago, glunn said:

The bickering in this thread needs to stop.

There is a difference between bickering and debating.   I don't think anyone has crossed a line yet.  

[rwilfong86]

7 hours ago, Mark G said:

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion they would be in first place every year.  They used the same analytics last year; I remember debating it then as well.  The analytics don't change, so why does the record?  I would submit it is because the computer doesn't see the intricate differences in skill levels and strengths and weaknesses each player has.  For instance, if you have a .198 hitting catcher at the plate with a runner(s) on, and a .349 hitter in the on deck circle, it might make sense to bunt the runner(s) along.   Rocco's computer tells him not to, because the statistics show (he has actually said this out loud) that sacrificing an out for a base does not work out often enough to use it as a strategy,  So the .198 hitting catcher swings away, and we all know how that turns out most of the time.  To the computer players are interchangeable, which is the reason Rocco interchanges players the way he does.  Analytics is supposed to be a tool, not a never bending management style.  So, in that way I understand the belief that it is a lazy way to manage.  We can debate lazy, or reality, or any other semantics, but in the end it is being used as cover for questionable game management decisions.  Everyone does it this way, or the analytics showed this was the move to make, shouldn't be the answer to every question.

[TheLeviathan]

7 hours ago, Mark G said:

Taking that argument to its logical conclusion they would be in first place every year.  They used the same analytics last year; I remember debating it then as well.  The analytics don't change, so why does the record?  I would submit it is because the computer doesn't see the intricate differences in skill levels and strengths and weaknesses each player has.  For instance, if you have a .198 hitting catcher at the plate with a runner(s) on, and a .349 hitter in the on deck circle, it might make sense to bunt the runner(s) along.   Rocco's computer tells him not to, because the statistics show (he has actually said this out loud) that sacrificing an out for a base does not work out often enough to use it as a strategy,  So the .198 hitting catcher swings away, and we all know how that turns out most of the time.  To the computer players are interchangeable, which is the reason Rocco interchanges players the way he does.  Analytics is supposed to be a tool, not a never bending management style.  So, in that way I understand the belief that it is a lazy way to manage.  We can debate lazy, or reality, or any other semantics, but in the end it is being used as cover for questionable game management decisions.  Everyone does it this way, or the analytics showed this was the move to make, shouldn't be the answer to every question.

That isn't the logical conclusion at all.  It's specious reasoning. Analytics is a process/approach to decision making, sometimes it will be used to great success and other times not so much.  But let's be clear: Analytics is NOT "computer says, we do".  That notion is absurd. 

What data analysis does is look for patterns that should drive decision making towards the best chance at the best outcome.  It assures nothing, it is an aggregator that guides best practices by looking for patterns.  The team is simply following that guide the best it can in the context of each individual game.  Sometimes it will yield wonderful results (which are easy to forget or not notice because it was successful) and other times it doesn't.  There are no guarantees no matter the approach you use.  Rocco going with his gut and leaving Smeltzer in there might well have blown out the kid's elbow or caused the same result.  Last year the analysis the Twins did on data yielded horrible results.  They incorrectly saw Simmons, Happ, etc. as viable solutions.  They were absolutely wrong.  This year it's abundantly clear that they shifted the focus of their analytics and strategies to better success.  It's the kind of philosophical change of gears you only see with a team invested in analytics.  If this was the Terry Ryan regimes of old we wouldn't see this pivot because they were never able to do anything other than "their way".  (Something they were quite proud of even as it mired us in losing)  Analytics offers the opportunity to be flexible and responsive, which this team's success is demonstrating.

There are no perfect solutions and it isn't robotic. It definitely doesn't have to be this kind of boogeyman.  

[Mark G]

3 hours ago, TheLeviathan said:

That isn't the logical conclusion at all.  It's specious reasoning. Analytics is a process/approach to decision making, sometimes it will be used to great success and other times not so much.  But let's be clear: Analytics is NOT "computer says, we do".  That notion is absurd. 

What data analysis does is look for patterns that should drive decision making towards the best chance at the best outcome.  It assures nothing, it is an aggregator that guides best practices by looking for patterns.  The team is simply following that guide the best it can in the context of each individual game.  Sometimes it will yield wonderful results (which are easy to forget or not notice because it was successful) and other times it doesn't.  There are no guarantees no matter the approach you use.  Rocco going with his gut and leaving Smeltzer in there might well have blown out the kid's elbow or caused the same result.  Last year the analysis the Twins did on data yielded horrible results.  They incorrectly saw Simmons, Happ, etc. as viable solutions.  They were absolutely wrong.  This year it's abundantly clear that they shifted the focus of their analytics and strategies to better success.  It's the kind of philosophical change of gears you only see with a team invested in analytics.  If this was the Terry Ryan regimes of old we wouldn't see this pivot because they were never able to do anything other than "their way".  (Something they were quite proud of even as it mired us in losing)  Analytics offers the opportunity to be flexible and responsive, which this team's success is demonstrating.

There are no perfect solutions and it isn't robotic. It definitely doesn't have to be this kind of boogeyman.  

While I admire the eloquence of your argument, and at the risk of being seen as bickering (  ), it seems we may not be on the same page as to the use of analytics.  The example I used with Jeffers and Arraez, for instance, is a good example of how Rocco will NOT use the compiled info on players.  If he did, he would bunt far more often (including making Kepler take the bunt singles he is being given with that shift) because sometimes the situation says to ignore his statistics that say giving up an out for a base is not advantageous overall.  He would have had the info on how Duffey has fared against KC and not put him in that situation.  And I will never accept the concept that the 82nd, 84th, 86th, etc. pitch would injure a pitcher who is in total command of his game that day.  Analytics or no, thousands of pitchers throughout history have already proven that.  If our pitchers are getting hurt, it is not because we over used them in a particular game, it is because we have NOT stretched them out over their professional career.  

It was interesting, as well, to say that Ryan wouldn't change, but you don't acknowledge that Falvine won't alter their overall approach when it fails too.  And it has at times, just as Ryan didn't always succeed.  They are just as proud of "their way" as anyone in Ryan's tenure was.  Especially in the context of putting rosters together, as you allude to.  '18 was not so great, '19 was great, '21 terrible, and '22 the jury is out.  Again, if the analytics are what it suggests, an analytical approach, then the wild card has to be the manager/FO (not necessarily in that order) and the way they use it in roster construction and game management.  Which does not explain how, if you have the same 3 people working it every year, how they can be so up and down with the results other than maybe it isn't the brainchild it is made out to be.  I stand behind the extremely humble opinion that it does see players as interchangeable, which is why you see the roster moves (especially pitching), lineup changes on a daily basis, and the bullpen usage and pinch hitting moves.  The job of a FO is to give the manager the best roster they can, and the manager's job is to put the players in situations that they have the best chance of succeeding.  They are NOT interchangeable parts on a 26 (or more) spoke wheel.  That is why it succeeds sometimes and not others; how it is used by these 3 people.  If they are given accurate info, which is what it should be, then forgive those of us who are not impressed by the system or how these 3 use it.  And I still say that if analytics are the reason we are in first place right now, then they have to be the reason we finished last last year.  Can't have it both ways.  Thanks for the debate.  

[TheLeviathan]

13 minutes ago, Mark G said:

It was interesting, as well, to say that Ryan wouldn't change, but you don't acknowledge that Falvine won't alter their overall approach when it fails too.  And it has at times, just as Ryan didn't always succeed.    Again, if the analytics are what it suggests, an analytical approach, then the wild card has to be the manager/FO (not necessarily in that order) and the way they use it in roster construction and game management.   And I still say that if analytics are the reason we are in first place right now, then they have to be the reason we finished last last year.  Can't have it both ways.  Thanks for the debate.  

Respectfully, we don't know what information he's working with so declaring that he read it wrong is not really fair.  We can certainly dislike the ideas and the outcomes, I've voiced as much a few times lately, but some of your conclusions are a bit unfair.  Analytics aren't a bulletproof strategy, they provide advantages over a larger sample size.  You might notice that at no point have I used one particular example, because that isn't a good way to approach it.  A single decision, using analytics, could be wrong based on the decision maker and the circumstances.  (Or just dumb luck)  The benefit of an analytical approach is on the macro level.

To that end, the team HAS changed.  Significantly.  Three years ago (and again the last two years, their biggest mistakes) they went with uppercut swings, aggressive plate appearances, and minimal small ball.  Driven by the data they had on launch angles and ball flight....they were right!  2019 they were a freaking launching pad that got thwarted by the small sample of the playoffs combined with MLB swapping out the baseballs on them.  2020 was largely the same positive result. The problem was that they were not flexible enough last year to realize that path was doomed.  But this year they did.  Their launch angles are down.  Their plate appearances involve the most 1-0 counts in baseball and the league's highest OBP.  (at least as of a few days ago)  They have completely, radically changed their approach driven by the data and the new baseballs.  (Not to mention the uptick in off speed pitches being thrown)  So, frankly, you're wrong.  They have quite obviously changed.  They haven't just slightly altered the team's approach, it's like watching a completely different organization from 2020.

Analytics is about being data driven.  That comes down to having good data and good analysts.  When things go south it could be blamed on either of those things.  When it goes well, it also gets credit.  The key for any good team using data is to be smart and ahead of the curve on which data points they value and how they translate that into success.  Shouting down "analytics" like some monolithic boogeyman misses the real nature of their use.

[Mark G]

55 minutes ago, TheLeviathan said:

Respectfully, we don't know what information he's working with so declaring that he read it wrong is not really fair.  We can certainly dislike the ideas and the outcomes, I've voiced as much a few times lately, but some of your conclusions are a bit unfair.  Analytics aren't a bulletproof strategy, they provide advantages over a larger sample size.  You might notice that at no point have I used one particular example, because that isn't a good way to approach it.  A single decision, using analytics, could be wrong based on the decision maker and the circumstances.  (Or just dumb luck)  The benefit of an analytical approach is on the macro level.

To that end, the team HAS changed.  Significantly.  Three years ago (and again the last two years, their biggest mistakes) they went with uppercut swings, aggressive plate appearances, and minimal small ball.  Driven by the data they had on launch angles and ball flight....they were right!  2019 they were a freaking launching pad that got thwarted by the small sample of the playoffs combined with MLB swapping out the baseballs on them.  2020 was largely the same positive result. The problem was that they were not flexible enough last year to realize that path was doomed.  But this year they did.  Their launch angles are down.  Their plate appearances involve the most 1-0 counts in baseball and the league's highest OBP.  (at least as of a few days ago)  They have completely, radically changed their approach driven by the data and the new baseballs.  (Not to mention the uptick in off speed pitches being thrown)  So, frankly, you're wrong.  They have quite obviously changed.  They haven't just slightly altered the team's approach, it's like watching a completely different organization from 2020.

Analytics is about being data driven.  That comes down to having good data and good analysts.  When things go south it could be blamed on either of those things.  When it goes well, it also gets credit.  The key for any good team using data is to be smart and ahead of the curve on which data points they value and how they translate that into success.  Shouting down "analytics" like some monolithic boogeyman misses the real nature of their use.

Wrong is such a strong word.    I understand the concept you are espousing, I just don't agree with it, and that doesn't make either one of us wrong.  You talk about a macro viewpoint, and I see it.  That is the job of the FO, putting together the best roster they can.  Rocco's job, on the other hand is entirely micro, using the info each at bat of every game  of the season.  He sees his job as protecting everyone, and saving them for games in Sept. that may or may not mean anything, and playoff games we may or may not be involved in because we didn't win enough of the games the first 5 months.  And some of us are not impressed, a lot of others are I guess.  But at the end of the day, analytics are simply putting into computers what baseball people used to put in their books on each team and each player; the info is only as good as the people entering the data.  So the human element really hasn't changed, just how the info is used.  And for all the new approaches and pitch taking and launch angles and all the rest of the data, they have still only scored 3 runs or less in 25 of 46 games so far this year, so how someone is using the data would have to be somewhat shaky, wouldn't it?  And last I looked (recently) the BP has pitched just over 47% of all innings pitched this year.  BP usage, as well as SP usage, is the use of that data, so I guess we will see as the year progresses which side of the coin that will land.  

I guess the bottom line is we see what we want to see in the way the team is managed long term and in the game that day.  And until we see better competition this year, the jury is out on what I see.  What I have seen over 5 years is we have had teams consisting of players who have been able to adapt to this style of interchangeable parts and rotating in and out of AAA, and other teams that didn't adjust as well.  So our success will depend, it appears, on obtaining a roster of the former, not the latter, because Rocco is not capable of changing his managing philosophy any more than Ryan or his crew were able to change theirs.  I don't trust "analytics" on a micro basis because it is a replacement for "gut" calls and broad experience and it simply does not have a track record long enough to have proven it is any better than the old "book" they kept on each team and each player.  Thanks, again.  

[TheLeviathan]

30 minutes ago, Mark G said:

Wrong is such a strong word.    I understand the concept you are espousing, I just don't agree with it, and that doesn't make either one of us wrong.  You talk about a macro viewpoint, and I see it.  That is the job of the FO, putting together the best roster they can.  Rocco's job, on the other hand is entirely micro, using the info each at bat of every game  of the season.  He sees his job as protecting everyone, and saving them for games in Sept. that may or may not mean anything, and playoff games we may or may not be involved in because we didn't win enough of the games the first 5 months.  And some of us are not impressed, a lot of others are I guess.  But at the end of the day, analytics are simply putting into computers what baseball people used to put in their books on each team and each player; the info is only as good as the people entering the data.  So the human element really hasn't changed, just how the info is used.  And for all the new approaches and pitch taking and launch angles and all the rest of the data, they have still only scored 3 runs or less in 25 of 46 games so far this year, so how someone is using the data would have to be somewhat shaky, wouldn't it?  And last I looked (recently) the BP has pitched just over 47% of all innings pitched this year.  BP usage, as well as SP usage, is the use of that data, so I guess we will see as the year progresses which side of the coin that will land.  

I guess the bottom line is we see what we want to see in the way the team is managed long term and in the game that day.  And until we see better competition this year, the jury is out on what I see.  What I have seen over 5 years is we have had teams consisting of players who have been able to adapt to this style of interchangeable parts and rotating in and out of AAA, and other teams that didn't adjust as well.  So our success will depend, it appears, on obtaining a roster of the former, not the latter, because Rocco is not capable of changing his managing philosophy any more than Ryan or his crew were able to change theirs.  I don't trust "analytics" on a micro basis because it is a replacement for "gut" calls and broad experience and it simply does not have a track record long enough to have proven it is any better than the old "book" they kept on each team and each player.  Thanks, again.  

Worth noting: the FO and Baldelli have stated that they work in concert.  Each of Baldelli's decisions may be micro, but the reasons behind them are generally decided on a macro level.  Taking issue with them is certainly fine, but remember that anything we say about what he "should" have done is arguing a counterfactual.  We'll never know if what we think is better would have actually been better.  Also worth noting.....considering the team's record, it certainly appears that the vast majority of his decisions are working well.  Putting in Megill over Smith.  Or Duran over Duffey.  Or pulling X guy here.  Take your pick in any of our W's so far this year.  We all have the tendency not to count all those positive, micro decisions in our moments of frustration.  Given the team's record, I think it's fair to say maybe he deserves some credit there....no?

There will always be a human element and that element will always be subject to mistakes.  Hell, baseball has a ton of randomness to it, no amount of computing or guts can perfectly navigate that minefield.  All you can do is look for advantages and analytics, IMO, helps eliminate noise and bias for teams to do that.  How we use it can certainly be subject to mistakes and criticism. 

[Mark G]

1 hour ago, TheLeviathan said:

Worth noting: the FO and Baldelli have stated that they work in concert.  Each of Baldelli's decisions may be micro, but the reasons behind them are generally decided on a macro level.  Taking issue with them is certainly fine, but remember that anything we say about what he "should" have done is arguing a counterfactual.  We'll never know if what we think is better would have actually been better.  Also worth noting.....considering the team's record, it certainly appears that the vast majority of his decisions are working well.  Putting in Megill over Smith.  Or Duran over Duffey.  Or pulling X guy here.  Take your pick in any of our W's so far this year.  We all have the tendency not to count all those positive, micro decisions in our moments of frustration.  Given the team's record, I think it's fair to say maybe he deserves some credit there....no?

There will always be a human element and that element will always be subject to mistakes.  Hell, baseball has a ton of randomness to it, no amount of computing or guts can perfectly navigate that minefield.  All you can do is look for advantages and analytics, IMO, helps eliminate noise and bias for teams to do that.  How we use it can certainly be subject to mistakes and criticism. 

Point noted.  I will reserve my thoughts on our record, seeing we have played 8 out of 47 games against any playoff potential teams (Chicago not withstanding, being .500 right now) that are over .500 and we are 2-6 against them.  Look me up in July when we have played some real competition.  I will close by lamenting that the massive change in organizational direction back in '17 and '18 was supposed to elevate us from the strictly human element and make the decisions better by having better data behind them.  I, and others (though maybe not a majority) don't see an improvement in the organization.  I only see us asking less and less out of our players, more and more injuries as we baby them, and a revolving door that the average fan can't keep up with.  If that is the wave of the future, we may be in more trouble than we know.  Love the talk.