NLDS Game 1 vs LAD prep

[Southcack77]

If he is pitching well, I would let Folty go through the order a third time until he lets someone on. At that point I bring in someone from the pen. First batter he lets on (even via error) is the last one he faces.

I agree. To me it depends on how well he's pitching, what he has looked like with previous batters, and what the game situation is as far as score, inning, and runners on base.

I agree also that he needs to be on a short leash.

 

[GeorgiaGirl]

The way I think it's probably set up in Snitker's head is:

Is Folty pitching well? If so, I let him go until he gets into trouble, ends an inning with close to 100 pitches (not that this is the limit though), or the 4th time through the order is soon. But I don't have a long leash, I give him a 2 batter leash at the most if it's in the 6th or 7th inning.
Then I think in this case, we're past the top of the order, so my suspicion would be we go Sobotka-Minter-Vizcaino. Minter opens the inning where at least part of the top of the order comes up.

Everyone else could well (and maybe should with guys like Sanchez) be a different story. Snitker at times has had a very fast hook with Sanchez so my suspicion there could be that he goes 5-5.2 IP and gets removed for a left hander, as if he pitches well, that'd be about the time where the 3rd time through starts.

 

[Enscheff]

A lot of outdated thinking going on in this thread.

We already know how Folty fares against an average lineup the 3rd time when he’s “pitching well”....a .338 wOBA.

The top of the Dodger lineup has LHHs that are much better than league average.

The only people who think he should be allowed to face the top of that lineup a 3rd time are stuck in the past, and refuse to learn from data presented to them. Hopefully the Braves are not among those people, and are able to understand data that is indisputable...regardless of what anyone’s gut tells them.

 

[NYCBrave]

A lot of outdated thinking going on in this thread.

We already know how Folty fares against an average lineup the 3rd time when he’s “pitching well”....a .338 wOBA.

The top of the Dodger lineup has LHHs that are much better than league average.

The only people who think he should be allowed to face the top of that lineup a 3rd time are stuck in the past, and refuse to learn from data presented to them. Hopefully the Braves are not among those people, and are able to understand data that is indisputable...regardless of what anyone’s gut tells them.

Isn't that skewed though? That would be assuming every time Folty wasn't pitching good, he never made it to the third time through the order.

 

[Enscheff]

Isn't that skewed though? That would be assuming every time Folty wasn't pitching good, he never made it to the third time through the order.

No....

He only faced the order a 3rd time when he was pitching well. The days he was terrible he wasn’t allowed to face the order a 3rd time. The bad days are reflected in 1st and 2nd TTO, but not always in the 3rd.

That’s the definition of survivor bias, and makes his (and all pitchers) 3rd TTO results appear better than they would be had they been forced to face the order 3 times every start.

 

[nsacpi]

Remembering that pitching through the order exactly twice entails facing 18 batters, here is how many batters Folty pitched to in each of his starts:

22, 22, 23, 23, 21, 22, 27, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 23, 18, 20, 18, 25, 27, 29, 24, 23, 27, 29, 25, 23, 28, 22, 32, 24, 26, 17

Only three times (and one of them was his tuneup last start of the season) did he fail to face at least 1 batter a third time. So whether he was pitching well or not, he usually faced at least one batter a third time. I do think the leash should be short. But I wouldn't adhere to a hard and fast rule that he should absolutely not face Pederson a third time. Whether that should happen or not turns on:

1) Pitch count
2) How well he is throwing
3) The score
4) What inning it is (ceteris paribus I'd rather our pen pitches 3 innings rather than 4).

In terms of how the Dodgers lineup stacks up, I see Muncy as being more likely to be the point I would want to bring in another pitcher than Pederson. But obviously it will matter what the situation is.

 

[Hulavol]

Remembering that pitching through the order exactly twice entails facing 18 batters, here is how many batters Folty pitched to in each of his starts:

22, 22, 23, 23, 21, 22, 27, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 23, 18, 20, 18, 25, 27, 29, 24, 23, 27, 29, 25, 23, 28, 22, 32, 24, 26, 17

Only three times (and one of them was his tuneup last start of the season) did he fail to face at least 1 batter a third time. So whether he was pitching well or not, he usually faced at least one batter a third time. I do think the leash should be short. But I wouldn't adhere to a hard and fast rule that he should absolutely not face Pederson a third time. Whether that should happen or not turns on:

1) Pitch count
2) How well he is throwing
3) The score
4) What inning it is (ceteris paribus I'd rather our pen pitches 3 innings rather than 4).

In terms of how the Dodgers lineup stacks up, I see Muncy as being more likely to be the point I would want to bring in another pitcher than Pederson. But obviously it will matter what the situation is.

That is some very good, and interesting information..

 

[nsacpi]

That is some very good, and interesting information..

Notice how in the second half he was facing more hitters. It reflects a couple things:

1) His strikeout and walk rates were both lower in the second half. He was pitching to contact a bit more and therefore being more efficient with his pitch count.

2) Snit started trusting him more. Perhaps out of necessity as the pen was showing signs of wearing down and none of the other starters are what anyone would call a horse.

 

[Hulavol]

Notice how in the second half he was facing more hitters. It reflects a couple things:

1) His strikeout and walk rates were both lower in the second half. He was pitching to contact a bit more and therefore being more efficient with his pitch count.

2) Snit started trusting him more. Perhaps out of necessity as the pen was showing signs of wearing down and none of the other starters are what anyone would call a horse.

I also think causally- as it relates to your two points- Folty learned how to pitch more as the season went along...

 

[Enscheff]

Remembering that pitching through the order exactly twice entails facing 18 batters, here is how many batters Folty pitched to in each of his starts:

22, 22, 23, 23, 21, 22, 27, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 23, 18, 20, 18, 25, 27, 29, 24, 23, 27, 29, 25, 23, 28, 22, 32, 24, 26, 17

Only three times (and one of them was his tuneup last start of the season) did he fail to face at least 1 batter a third time. So whether he was pitching well or not, he usually faced at least one batter a third time. I do think the leash should be short. But I wouldn't adhere to a hard and fast rule that he should absolutely not face Pederson a third time. Whether that should happen or not turns on:

1) Pitch count
2) How well he is throwing
3) The score
4) What inning it is (ceteris paribus I'd rather our pen pitches 3 innings rather than 4).

In terms of how the Dodgers lineup stacks up, I see Muncy as being more likely to be the point I would want to bring in another pitcher than Pederson. But obviously it will matter what the situation is.

None of that data suggests he should be allowed to face the order a 3rd time...

We already know how he fared against batters 19-27...a .338 wOBA. This fact is not a mystery, or open for debate. I count 23 starts he was not allowed to complete his trip through the order a 3rd time, and . Had he been allowed (or forced) to continue to 27 in those starts, his 3rd TTO wOBA would probably be even higher.

There is simply no evidence that anyone can determine if Folty is "pitching well" to decide if he should continue after 18 batters. The data tells us very clearly he is significantly worse the 3rd TTO.

If the top of the Dodgers lineup was Acuna/Albies like the Braves, I would be in favor of Folty going 20 batters. Unfortunately, the top of the Dodgers lineup is stacked with RHP killers in Pederson and Muncy.

The opener concept works well because it allows the SP to face 20+ batters without facing the top of the lineup a 3rd time. It is very clear why this works.

 

[nsacpi]

None of that data suggests he should be allowed to face the order a 3rd time...

We already know how he fared against batters 19-27...a .338 wOBA. This fact is not a mystery, or open for debate. I count 23 starts he was not allowed to complete his trip through the order a 3rd time, and . Had he been allowed (or forced) to continue to 27 in those starts, his 3rd TTO wOBA would probably be even higher.

There is simply no evidence that anyone can determine if Folty is "pitching well" to decide if he should continue after 18 batters. The data tells us very clearly he is significantly worse the 3rd TTO.

If the top of the Dodgers lineup was Acuna/Albies like the Braves, I would be in favor of Folty going 20 batters. Unfortunately, the top of the Dodgers lineup is stacked with RHP killers in Pederson and Muncy.

The opener concept works well because it allows the SP to face 20+ batters without facing the top of the lineup a 3rd time. It is very clear why this works.

I don't think there is any doubt that his results get worse as he pitches deeper into the game. I would argue, however, there isn't anything magical about hitter #19, as opposed to hitter #17 or hitter #23. The deeper the more risk when you stick with the starter. But there is nothing that says there is some sort of discontinuity at hitter #19.

Consider a situation where we had an opener who just faced Pederson. And then Folty comes in. Does that materially change the situation with respect to Folty pitching to Pederson when he comes up for the third time? I don't think so. You would still make the decision based on the same considerations: game score, pitch count, how he was pitching, what inning it was.

 

[DirkPiggler]

I don't think there is any doubt that his results get worse as he pitches deeper into the game. I would argue, however, there isn't anything magical about hitter #19, as opposed to hitter #17 or hitter #23. The deeper the more risk when you stick with the starter. But there is nothing that says there is some sort of discontinuity at hitter #19.

Consider a situation where we had an opener who just faced Pederson. And then Folty comes in. Does that materially change the situation with respect to Folty pitching to Pederson when he comes up for the third time? I don't think so. You would still make the decision based on the same considerations: game score, pitch count, how he was pitching, what inning it was.

I would think the third time through wouldn't be due to fatigue as much as familiarity with how the pitcher is throwing on that particular day. The more times a batter sees a pitcher, the better his chances to figure out what is coming and how to hit it. Assuming that the pitcher has a game plan for each hitter, that plan would become less effective once the hitter has seen it two times.

 

[Enscheff]

I don't think there is any doubt that his results get worse as he pitches deeper into the game. I would argue, however, there isn't anything magical about hitter #19, as opposed to hitter #17 or hitter #23. The deeper the more risk when you stick with the starter. But there is nothing that says there is some sort of discontinuity at hitter #19.

It's possible that TTO penalties is really a pitch count penalty. I don't know of any way to get that split easily, but maybe if I get some time I'll break down Folty's starts by TTO and pitch count to see if there's any data that can be gleaned from that type of analysis.

 

[nsacpi]

I would think the third time through wouldn't be due to fatigue as much as familiarity with how the pitcher is throwing on that particular day. The more times a batter sees a pitcher, the better his chances to figure out what is coming and how to hit it.

You know this can be empirically investigated now that we have "openers." Someone just needs to sort the data by the # of the batter faced. And we can see if there is some additional independent predictive juice to be gotten by number of times a hitter faces a pitcher beyond what is already provided by information on pitch counter and overall number of hitters faced. It is a fairly straightforward empirical question.

A perhaps simpler way of getting the answer is to focus on the leadoff hitter's third at bat. Are the results different when the other team employs an "opener."

 

[nsacpi]

It's possible that TTO penalties is really a pitch count penalty. I don't know of any way to get that split easily, but maybe if I get some time I'll break down Folty's starts by TTO and pitch count to see if there's any data that can be gleaned from that type of analysis.

I think the easiest way to test is to look at the leadoff hitter's results in his third AB when the other team employs an opener.

 

[Enscheff]

It's possible that TTO penalties is really a pitch count penalty. I don't know of any way to get that split easily, but maybe if I get some time I'll break down Folty's starts by TTO and pitch count to see if there's any data that can be gleaned from that type of analysis.

BRef has that split. Folty's pitch count split for 2018 is as follows:

1-25: .545 OPS
25-50: .530 OPS
51-75: .579 OPS
76-100: .773 OPS
101+: .566 OPS

This appears to suggest fatigue is a factor after 75 pitches. However, pitches 75+ are almost always thrown to batters 19+, so this isn't proof one way or the other any more so than TTO proves it's actually due to facing each batter a 3rd time.

TTO and pitch count are intrinsically linked (more batters faced always leads to more pitches thrown), and I'm unsure how to get the definitive answer of the true cause based on the info available.

I suppose my statement must be amended to, "Folty does not face Pederson a 3rd time if he is over 70-75 pitches". If he somehow cruises through 18 batters while only throwing 60-70 pitches, I can't imagine I'd be upset if he faced Pederson and Turner.

 

[Enscheff]

I think the easiest way to test is to look at the leadoff hitter's results in his third AB when the other team employs an opener.

It isn't the batter's 3rd PA that matters, it's the 3rd time seeing the same pitcher.

I think the strat needs to be: Folty does not face Pederson a 3rd time if he is over 70-75 pitches (or whatever pitch count the Braves determine to be Folty's fatigue point).

 

[nsacpi]

It isn't the batter's 3rd PA that matters, it's the 3rd time seeing the same pitcher.

I think the strat needs to be: Folty does not face Pederson a 3rd time if he is over 75 pitches

the comparison to be made

1) leadoff batter's results in third at bats against starting pitcher used conventionally as a starting pitcher

versus

2) leadoff batter's results in third at bats in games where the other team uses an opener and his third at bat is his second at bat against the pitcher he is facing

that gets you as close as possible to measuring the pure effect of facing a pitcher for a third time...how much extra value there is to the hitter from that third look at a pitcher

 

[NYCBrave]

Remembering that pitching through the order exactly twice entails facing 18 batters, here is how many batters Folty pitched to in each of his starts:

22, 22, 23, 23, 21, 22, 27, 21, 23, 25, 26, 29, 23, 18, 20, 18, 25, 27, 29, 24, 23, 27, 29, 25, 23, 28, 22, 32, 24, 26, 17

Only three times (and one of them was his tuneup last start of the season) did he fail to face at least 1 batter a third time. So whether he was pitching well or not, he usually faced at least one batter a third time. I do think the leash should be short. But I wouldn't adhere to a hard and fast rule that he should absolutely not face Pederson a third time. Whether that should happen or not turns on:

1) Pitch count
2) How well he is throwing
3) The score
4) What inning it is (ceteris paribus I'd rather our pen pitches 3 innings rather than 4).

In terms of how the Dodgers lineup stacks up, I see Muncy as being more likely to be the point I would want to bring in another pitcher than Pederson. But obviously it will matter what the situation is.

Good job, you just proved my exact point and proved Enscheff wrong. Let's see if he admits he was wrong....

 

[depley]

if it is all just based on statistics why even play the game? put them in a computer and let it tell us who won...........