2016 Postseason Thread

[50PoundHead]

Not sure if it was defense or not. Soler doesnt hit righties well and would likely be facing them rest of way. But then again he started Soler vs righty.

Funny thing is game would likely have still been tied if Heyward starts. He catches the Crisp ball with ease.

Indians did what they had to do and stole a game bc thr Cubs couldnt hit Tomlin with wind blowing out. They are going to have to
Steal ine back vs Kluber.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but with Miller out of the game Heyward was probably going to pinch-hit for Soler anyway so given that you go with the defensive upgrade. I don't know if Heyward gets to Crisp's ball or not, but he would have gotten closer than Soler did.

I think the managers are doing fine, but I think the roster construction is a little goofy. I get that the stathead en vogue move is to go with better relievers early instead of waiting (depending on situation of course), but if you're going to do that, you will have to use your second-tier guys at some point. It's rolling the dice and I suppose Francona gets points for being bold, but if Shaw gets lit up in the 7th or 8th, does it really matter. Everyone's a genius when things work.

As for Heyward, I'm wondering if the Cubs are going to try to unload him during the off-season. Right now (and I realize things could turn around for him), he's the highest-paid caddy in the game.

 

[nsacpi]

Funny thing is game would likely have still been tied if Heyward starts. He catches the Crisp ball with ease.

Yeah. I was thinking that. Soler has not been hitting either. So why not play the superior defender.

 

[smootness]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but with Miller out of the game Heyward was probably going to pinch-hit for Soler anyway so given that you go with the defensive upgrade. I don't know if Heyward gets to Crisp's ball or not, but he would have gotten closer than Soler did.

I think the managers are doing fine, but I think the roster construction is a little goofy. I get that the stathead en vogue move is to go with better relievers early instead of waiting (depending on situation of course), but if you're going to do that, you will have to use your second-tier guys at some point. It's rolling the dice and I suppose Francona gets points for being bold, but if Shaw gets lit up in the 7th or 8th, does it really matter. Everyone's a genius when things work.

As for Heyward, I'm wondering if the Cubs are going to try to unload him during the off-season. Right now (and I realize things could turn around for him), he's the highest-paid caddy in the game.

But Francona didn't just 'use Miller early'. He specifically used him against Fowler/Bryant/Rizzo. That's the right move. You're better off with Miller against them and Shaw against the latter half of the lineup than the other way around.

It's not about just using your best RPs early, it's about using them in the highest-leverage situations.

Maddon got lucky with Grimm against Lindor with the bases loaded. It worked, but it wasn't the best move. But even if bringing Miller in hadn't worked, it still would have been the right move.

 

[nsacpi]

With the injuries the Indians have suffered and the Cubs being the superior team, I think Francona realizes he has to manage boldly. This translates to burning up his best options every game the team has a chance to win, even if it might cost him later in the series. As it turns out his team won last night, and the pitch counts for Tomlin and Miller were held down. The Tribe is nicely set up. Miller will go two tonight if they are tied or ahead after the fifth inning.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

But Francona didn't just 'use Miller early'. He specifically used him against Fowler/Bryant/Rizzo. That's the right move. You're better off with Miller against them and Shaw against the latter half of the lineup than the other way around.

It's not about just using your best RPs early, it's about using them in the highest-leverage situations.

Maddon got lucky with Grimm against Lindor with the bases loaded. It worked, but it wasn't the best move. But even if bringing Miller in hadn't worked, it still would have been the right move.

I am liking this new trend of having both a shutdown guy for the highest leverage moments and a closer. Great strategy.

I am far less enamored of pulling starters in the fourth or fifth, at the first sign of trouble. I didn't like the Hendricks move last night, for example. They're your horses, ride 'em.

Maddon and Francona have gotten a little lucky that those early moves have worked out. There are gonna be times when you do that and burn your pitching and get left with a lesser guy in a high leverage situation. Having the Big Bullpen seems to be an increasing part of the modern game.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

I don't necessarily agree or disagree, but with Miller out of the game Heyward was probably going to pinch-hit for Soler anyway so given that you go with the defensive upgrade. I don't know if Heyward gets to Crisp's ball or not, but he would have gotten closer than Soler did.

I think the managers are doing fine, but I think the roster construction is a little goofy. I get that the stathead en vogue move is to go with better relievers early instead of waiting (depending on situation of course), but if you're going to do that, you will have to use your second-tier guys at some point. It's rolling the dice and I suppose Francona gets points for being bold, but if Shaw gets lit up in the 7th or 8th, does it really matter. Everyone's a genius when things work.

As for Heyward, I'm wondering if the Cubs are going to try to unload him during the off-season. Right now (and I realize things could turn around for him), he's the highest-paid caddy in the game.

Heyward is completely messed up right now. He's always been a tinkerer, and I get the feeling that trying to fix one hole he wrecked everything else.

His primary issue, as Enscheff and I discussed elsewhere, is his swing path. Enscheff says his top hand is going out and around the ball. I say his swing path is very rotational (and thus slow), rather than taking the butt of the bat directly to the baseball.

Same thing. It's killing him. It's fixable, but boy, it's going to take a lot of work.

 

[GovClintonTyree]

Yeah. I was thinking that. Soler has not been hitting either. So why not play the superior defender.

Because there's a chance Soler could hit, and absolutely none that Hayward would. So you sub Heyward late. It was the right move.

On a related note, I don't think Heyward gets to the Crisp single. That was a plain ol' line drive single to right.

 

[smootness]

I am liking this new trend of having both a shutdown guy for the highest leverage moments and a closer. Great strategy.

I am far less enamored of pulling starters in the fourth or fifth, at the first sign of trouble. I didn't like the Hendricks move last night, for example. They're your horses, ride 'em.

Maddon and Francona have gotten a little lucky that those early moves have worked out. There are gonna be times when you do that and burn your pitching and get left with a lesser guy in a high leverage situation. Having the Big Bullpen seems to be an increasing part of the modern game.

Yeah, no doubt having a great bullpen helps. I'm more ok with it on Cleveland's end than Chicago's because of Miller and because they are more desperate in dealing with their rotation. Cleveland really needs Kluber 3 times and Tomlin twice in this series, so you have to at least consider their number of pitches and taking them out earlier than normal. And Miller allows you to do that and not increase your risk of it going poorly.

I agree on Hendricks; I would have gone with him longer. On the other hand, he wasn't incredibly sharp last night.

 

[smootness]

On a related note, I don't think Heyward gets to the Crisp single. That was a plain ol' line drive single to right.

He definitely would have been able to make a play on it. Soler got a really late jump and then just kind of jogged in because he knew he wasn't going to get there at that point. Heyward likely gets a much better jump and then sprints in. Worst case scenario, he's probably attempting a sliding catch that's not incredibly difficult.

 

[50PoundHead]

But Francona didn't just 'use Miller early'. He specifically used him against Fowler/Bryant/Rizzo. That's the right move. You're better off with Miller against them and Shaw against the latter half of the lineup than the other way around.

It's not about just using your best RPs early, it's about using them in the highest-leverage situations.

Maddon got lucky with Grimm against Lindor with the bases loaded. It worked, but it wasn't the best move. But even if bringing Miller in hadn't worked, it still would have been the right move.

But because it's only the 5th inning, those guys are all going to bat again and they are going to bat against a second-tier reliever unless you bring Allen in to start the 8th. It worked, but it's still rolling the dice.

 

[smootness]

But because it's only the 5th inning, those guys are all going to bat again and they are going to bat against a second-tier reliever unless you bring Allen in to start the 8th. It worked, but it's still rolling the dice.

He faced them in the 6th. Sure, you know they're going to bat again, but at that point it's likely you see them in the 8th-9th. It's possible you get to them at a point in which you're not comfortable bringing Allen in yet, but if you don't allow Miller to pitch to them earlier, then you're guaranteeing it's a second-tier RP that pitches to them.

And you can bring in Allen whenever the top of the order comes back up. He doesn't have to get the last outs of the game.

But regardless, it's not really rolling the dice. You're ensuring the top of the order faces Miller that time through the order instead of Shaw or someone else. That's a good move.

 

[gilesfan]

I dont mind the use of Miller, I just wonder if hes gonna show signs of wear. Seems like he had some issues on game 1 and montero had a great swing last night.

Shaw and Allen are decent, but I wouldnt want either facing Rizzo and I wouldnt feel real comfy with a 1 run lead. But if they can match them up with bottom of order, they prolly are fine.

 

[smootness]

I dont mind the use of Miller, I just wonder if hes gonna show signs of wear. Seems like he had some issues on game 1 and montero had a great swing last night.

Shaw and Allen are decent, but I wouldnt want either facing Rizzo and I wouldnt feel real comfy with a 1 run lead. But if they can match them up with bottom of order, they prolly are fine.

I mean, at some point they're going to have to. You aren't fully in on using Miller like that, but you also don't want Allen or Shaw to face the top of the order? So what would you do? And don't lump Allen in with Shaw, they're not really that comparable.

And it's funny that you recognize his issues in Game 1 yet refuse to acknowledge the possibility of 'knocking the rust off' in a game with a good lead as something that can happen.

You seem to pick and choose when you want to use which arguments.

 

[gilesfan]

I mean, at some point they're going to have to. You aren't fully in on using Miller like that, but you also don't want Allen or Shaw to face the top of the order? So what would you do? And don't lump Allen in with Shaw, they're not really that comparable.

And it's funny that you recognize his issues in Game 1 yet refuse to acknowledge the possibility of 'knocking the rust off' in a game with a good lead as something that can happen.

You seem to pick and choose when you want to use which arguments.

Bc his issues werent related to rust?

 

[smootness]

Bc his issues werent related to rust?

So what were his issues?

 

[GovClintonTyree]

He definitely would have been able to make a play on it. Soler got a really late jump and then just kind of jogged in because he knew he wasn't going to get there at that point. Heyward likely gets a much better jump and then sprints in. Worst case scenario, he's probably attempting a sliding catch that's not incredibly difficult.

The Statcast review on MLB said that 100% of balls with similar traits went for hits in 2016.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/73955164/v1209836983/ws2016-gm3-statcast-looks-at-crisps-clutch-single

 

[smootness]

The Statcast review on MLB said that 100% of balls with similar traits went for hits in 2016.

http://m.mlb.com/video/topic/73955164/v1209836983/ws2016-gm3-statcast-looks-at-crisps-clutch-single

Fair enough. I still think it's possible Heyward could have gotten there because, frankly, it just looks like he could have (and just because it didn't happen in 2016 doesn't mean it's impossible). But I'll change to it being unlikely he would have.

He is the best defensive OF in baseball, though, so if anyone could have, it is him.

 

[50PoundHead]

Fair enough. I still think it's possible Heyward could have gotten there because, frankly, it just looks like he could have (and just because it didn't happen in 2016 doesn't mean it's impossible). But I'll change to it being unlikely he would have.

He is the best defensive OF in baseball, though, so if anyone could have, it is him.

But now you're arguing the opposite of what you're arguing with Francona's use of the bullpen. For all we know, Heyward dives, doesn't make the play, can't recover to make a strong throw, and Davis is standing on 3rd with one out as a result.

In a close game, there are a ton of risk situations. Francona is making a decision to kick the risks to later in the game and that's fine. But there are still risks.

 

[smootness]

But now you're arguing the opposite of what you're arguing with Francona's use of the bullpen. For all we know, Heyward dives, doesn't make the play, can't recover to make a strong throw, and Davis is standing on 3rd with one out as a result.

In a close game, there are a ton of risk situations. Francona is making a decision to kick the risks to later in the game and that's fine. But there are still risks.

I wasn't trying to argue Heyward should have been in the game, was just saying I think it's possible he could have caught it.

Francona's use of Miller was the right move. You're not just postponing risks. Again, if you don't use Miller there, it's a guarantee a lesser pitcher faces the top of the order. If you use him like Francona did, it's only possible a lesser pitcher faces the top of the order later, and that's only if Francona insists on Allen getting the last outs. It's not just one option; it's definitely the best option.

Outcomes do not prove processes. The process Francona is using is correct. The outcomes are always left to chance to some degree.

 

[NYCBrave]

Francona is pretty masterful. Got more than 4 good innings out of Tomlin (and got him out after only 58 pitches, making him easily available for Game 6), then let Miller get through the heart of their order once. Took him out after only throwing 17 pitches and put in Crisp, who got the game-winning RBI. Then had Allen ready for the last time through the heart of Chicago's order.

He is the best manager in baseball, and it's not close.

It's easy to call someone the best manager in baseball when players actually execute. Something the Braves have never done in the past 2 decades of playoffs, and having the best manager didn't change that.