Steve Garvey blames "millenial baseball" for Dodgers loss

[jerichoholicninja]

https://sports.yahoo.com/steve-garvey-blames-dodgers-loss-game-2-millennial-baseball-074225129.html

 

After reading this and listening to John Smoltz the last two series, it seems cranky, old baseball men are upset that two teams that dare do anything different than the way it's always been done are playing in the World Series.

[bill hAll Star]

I love it. I love when the data is presented RIGHT ON THE SCREEN and the guy commentating on the game says "I don't agree with this."

 

"Here, sir. Here's a card that gives you the odds in blackjack and what you do."

 

"I don't agree with this. I would like to hit on this 18."

 

The only argument is that Hill was pitching fairly well...but with the benefit of hindsight, Morrow and Jansen blew the game late. Those guys would've pitched anyways. Any argument about that basically suggests that you were playing for extra innings, which is silly.

[homer]

Steve Garvey is not my padre.

[MKEguy]

I remember a week or two ago, Ron Darling was complaining about the huge shift put on Rizzo. He had typical, old school comments. Rizzo hit the ball right at the 2b, who was in shallow right. If the shift wouldn’t have been on, it was a hit. Darling said something along the lines of... Well, they’re lucky it worked this time, while still complaining about it.

 

Commenter- this dumb thing is dumb, thats not baseball, I would know

(Dumb thing works perfectly and prevents a hit)

Commenter- ya but, ya but, ya but

[rickh150]

I love it. I love when the data is presented RIGHT ON THE SCREEN and the guy commentating on the game says "I don't agree with this."

 

"Here, sir. Here's a card that gives you the odds in blackjack and what you do."

 

"I don't agree with this. I would like to hit on this 18."

 

The only argument is that Hill was pitching fairly well...but with the benefit of hindsight, Morrow and Jansen blew the game late. Those guys would've pitched anyways. Any argument about that basically suggests that you were playing for extra innings, which is silly.

 

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make.

 

I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated.

 

That being said, I can't fault the Dodgers for pitching their lights out closer two innings. If you lose the lead with your rested, best pitcher in the pen, so be it.

[bill hAll Star]

I love it. I love when the data is presented RIGHT ON THE SCREEN and the guy commentating on the game says "I don't agree with this."

 

"Here, sir. Here's a card that gives you the odds in blackjack and what you do."

 

"I don't agree with this. I would like to hit on this 18."

 

The only argument is that Hill was pitching fairly well...but with the benefit of hindsight, Morrow and Jansen blew the game late. Those guys would've pitched anyways. Any argument about that basically suggests that you were playing for extra innings, which is silly.

 

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make.

 

I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated.

 

That being said, I can't fault the Dodgers for pitching their lights out closer two innings. If you lose the lead with your rested, best pitcher in the pen, so be it.

 

I agree with most of this. I sometimes wonder if teams take not bunting too far. Sometimes I'm wondering why a team isn't bunting with essentially the winning runner on first late in the game. However, I generally defer to the professionals that maybe they know more than I do on this...that said, I agree with the general premise of nuance here.

 

All of that said, Garvey here and Smoltz (in my example) are taking a swing at the entire approach of the Dodgers and baseball.

 

It just has too much of "back in my day, we didn't need all of these fancy-dancy numbers and we gritted it out and played baseball the way it should be." That's great. I'll bet if Garvey managed and built a team in 2017 it would underachieve. It's pretty clear that data-driven baseball gives teams an edge. It keeps getting more and more in depth, making the edge harder to obtain, but bashing the entire idea of it is silly.

 

I am all ears to the idea of "teams are shifting too much or an argument like that. I'm not going to listen to some fossil of baseball tell me that the way to win in baseball is to rub some dirt on it and play like it's 1975.

[FVBrewerFan]

Well, I'm taking this way OT now But the reason you don't/ shouldn't see more bunting when it's a close call to do it or not? Players don't know how to bunt anymore. Now there's an old school comment right there, but it's true.

 

Whenever these bunt discussions come up, the variable that is missed is % chance the bunt will be SUCCESSFUL. If it was a video game and you just bunt the runner(s) over, I'm sure managers would bunt more often. But with so many fails, it just seems like a better idea to hit away in most situations.

[Cool Hand Lucroy]

I'm just happy there are places where we can talk about baseball without falling into Hot Take Syndrome. Whenever I hear sports commentators talking, especially about the NFL, the quality of the evidence and arguments presented is way too often subpar.

 

Even if some folks still want to go old school and have bean wars in baseball, it seems there's always a vocal, visible segment of people and publications willing to dig deeper. I'm not saying you have to use advanced stats to do so, but the quality of discourse around baseball feels so much higher to me than it is around other sports. If I accidentally hear one more talking head claiming the NFL is turning "sissy" I think I might go crazy.

 

If "millenial baseball" means pitch counts, studies on rest, a willingness to look at macro statistics (without being guided by them all the time and in every situation), a concern for players' long-term health, avoiding flinging a hard object 100 mph in the direction of another human being, and trying to enter into complicated strategic discussions about what's best in various circumstances, sign me up.

[yfinn6]

When in doubt, just blame millenials.

[rickh150]

Well, I'm taking this way OT now But the reason you don't/ shouldn't see more bunting when it's a close call to do it or not? Players don't know how to bunt anymore. Now there's an old school comment right there, but it's true.

 

Whenever these bunt discussions come up, the variable that is missed is % chance the bunt will be SUCCESSFUL. If it was a video game and you just bunt the runner(s) over, I'm sure managers would bunt more often. But with so many fails, it just seems like a better idea to hit away in most situations.

 

How about the % of bunts that are bobbled, thrown away, or go as hits? Some bunts are not even outs. Now, that is the missing variable.

[CheezWizHed]

When in doubt, just blame millenials.

 

It will go away in 10-20 year and they will blame someone else. Used to be Gen X.... Then Gen Y...

[Thurston Fluff]

When in doubt, just blame millenials.

 

That's the way I look at it. I usually shake my fist and yell at them to get off my lawn too. It's easier than figuring out a whole new way of winning baseball games.

[Thurston Fluff]

When in doubt, just blame millenials.

 

That's the way I look at it. I usually shake my fist and yell at them to get off my lawn too. It's easier than figuring out a whole new way of winning baseball games.

[FVBrewerFan]

Well, I'm taking this way OT now But the reason you don't/ shouldn't see more bunting when it's a close call to do it or not? Players don't know how to bunt anymore. Now there's an old school comment right there, but it's true.

 

Whenever these bunt discussions come up, the variable that is missed is % chance the bunt will be SUCCESSFUL. If it was a video game and you just bunt the runner(s) over, I'm sure managers would bunt more often. But with so many fails, it just seems like a better idea to hit away in most situations.

 

How about the % of bunts that are bobbled, thrown away, or go as hits? Some bunts are not even outs. Now, that is the missing variable.

 

No question that's a variable in favor of burning. Here's another against. How many ABs are ruined by trying to bunt until 2 striikes, then swing away. So that doesn't go down as a failed bunt attempt, but it basically is.

[yfinn6]

When in doubt, just blame millenials.

 

It will go away in 10-20 year and they will blame someone else. Used to be Gen X.... Then Gen Y...

 

I'm a fringe Gen-X'er and Millenial. It's fun to get blamed for all the wrongs in society twice by baby boomers.

[3and2Fastball]

John Smoltz can be such an annoying announcer. We get it, you don't like seeing so many relief pitchers in one game. Maybe stop pushing your agenda and call the game!

 

I hereby apologize to everyone here for ever complaining about Brian Anderson. Buck & Smoltz make Craig Coshun and Jerry Augustine seem like Vin Scully, let alone BA & Rock...

[Lathund]

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make.

 

I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated.

 

It's a common misconception that the heavy analytical people think there are no situational factors affecting these situations (Not necessarily saying that's what you're saying, but it's a common criticism). Which is clearly not true; of course these factors exist, it's just that they can't be quantified and analyzed statistically, so the focus lies on the things that can.

 

And indeed it thus results in generalizations, or statistical truths. Which is where the similarity to Blackjack or Poker comes in. If calling a bet in a situation where you have a 10% chance of winning the hand, but you'll win 20x the size of the bet if you do, then that's the right move to make (Presuming you'll keep playing to see this situation regularly. And that you won't run out of money before that...). You'll look silly 9/10 times, but in the long run you win. But yes, in that sense it applies more to a full 162 game season rather than individual games.

 

Anyway to get back to the bunting (Or more precisely sacrifice bunts, not bunting in general): You're right that Sabermetrics says "You shouldn't sacrifice bunt, except for the few cases where you should". But that's still valuable in and of itself, as the prevailing truth before that was the opposite, that you should sacrifice bunts in these situtations, and only avoid doing so when there were compelling reasons not to.

 

The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball goes into great length about the subject if you're interested. A few things I remember from that chapter with regards to bunting:

- A sacrifice bunt is, other than in very, very specific situations, nearly always bad. Whereas attempting a sacrifice bunt is a net positive more often due to the other potential outcomes that can happen, like bunt hits, throwing errors, even the occasional run scoring from first. Part of this also comes from the limits of the data available; their data set includes at bats with sacrifice bunt attempts, but that also includes cases where the batter swings on 2 strikes, or attempts butcher boy plays and such.

- The batters skill at bunting, in relation to his skill as a hitter, is, rather obviously, the main factor in play. A pitcher should nearly always attempt a sac bunt, a position player should hardly ever do so. A position player who's a good bunter and not a big home run threat can be a different story, but even then it's because there's a decent chance he gets a hit from the bunt.

- Defensive alignment plays a huge role. If they expect a bunt, it's usually a bad idea. But the chances of getting a cheap hit are greater for someone who swings. If they play back, bunting becomes more attractive. So basically you should, occasionally, do the "wrong" thing; have a pitcher hit when he should bunt, or have a power hitter bunt when he should hit. Simply to keep the threat of it real, preventing the defense from selling out completely.

 

Anyway, read the book if you haven't already if the subject interests you. It does a really good job of combining the hard data with nuance, and tries to adress many of the situational factors. The book also deals with the predictive value of hot/cold streaks, platoon advantage, batting order and such.

[Samurai Bucky]

When they dump the pitcher in the NL in favor of the DH in the next couple of years, make sure you have Garvey and some of the other old timers in your death pool...

[monty57]

Unless someone's cheating, stats in cards are perfect. The number of cards will always be the same, and the cards will always be treated the same (a three is always a three, and an ace is always an ace).

 

Stats in baseball will never be perfect because humans are performing the acts, and the same humans doing the same acts can have multiple possible outcomes. That said, the infusion of statistical analysis into baseball has been positive, and anyone in management who ignores this should not be in baseball for long.

 

As to media, in general they don't matter as they don't effect the game. If the fans like hearing someone with a certain viewpoint, he will keep his job. If they don't, he will eventually be replaced by someone more appealing to the fans. It may take longer than you think it should, but it will happen. Look at how many more announcers today have some understanding of statistical analysis than they did a decade ago. Even more "old school" guys like Bill are making an effort in that direction.

[reillymcshane]

Considering the Dodgers won more games than anyone in the entire league this past year, you'd think he'd love 'millennial' baseball.

 

Or maybe the Dodgers won 100+ games in spite of 'millennial' baseball.

 

This kind of talk usually comes from people who have never actually sat down and actually tried to listen and understand the reasoning behind decisions. They see someone blow a bunt or strike out and talk about how no one nowadays can do things like that -- ignoring the fact that the same players may have hit doubles and HRs the previous at bats.

[jerichoholicninja]

Considering the Dodgers won more games than anyone in the entire league this past year, you'd think he'd love 'millennial' baseball.

 

Or maybe the Dodgers won 100+ games in spite of 'millennial' baseball.

 

That's the part that's hilarious. Most wins in baseball this year and 5 straight division titles. That whole "millenial baseball" thing seems to be working just fine.

[StearnsFTW]

John Smoltz can be such an annoying announcer. We get it, you don't like seeing so many relief pitchers in one game. Maybe stop pushing your agenda and call the game!

 

I hereby apologize to everyone here for ever complaining about Brian Anderson. Buck & Smoltz make Craig Coshun and Jerry Augustine seem like Vin Scully, let alone BA & Rock...

 

I really like Smoltz. And Jerry Augustine would have to be the last announcer alive to not be the worst announcer alive. Wait, I guess he'd be the worst then too.

[jerichoholicninja]

I saw Tanyon Sturtz and his buddies on Twitter having a hissy fit over what Joc did after his homerun last night saying in their day someone would be drilled in the ribs. When I finally saw the video, I agree what he did was over the top but it was for his teammates and was in no way directed at the Astros. I also highly doubt someone is going to throw at a batter in game 6 of the world series. Tanyon has been ripping anything "new school" this whole series, which backs up my point that all the cranky old guys are upset that the Dodgers and Astros aren't "old school" teams.

[monty57]

I saw Tanyon Sturtz and his buddies on Twitter having a hissy fit over what Joc did after his homerun last night saying in their day someone would be drilled in the ribs. When I finally saw the video, I agree what he did was over the top but it was for his teammates and was in no way directed at the Astros. I also highly doubt someone is going to throw at a batter in game 6 of the world series. Tanyon has been ripping anything "new school" this whole series, which backs up my point that all the cranky old guys are upset that the Dodgers and Astros aren't "old school" teams.

 

That's easy. Stop following Tanyon Sturtz and his buddies on Twitter if "cranky old guy" banter upsets you.

[OnTheBlack]

I love it. I love when the data is presented RIGHT ON THE SCREEN and the guy commentating on the game says "I don't agree with this."

 

"Here, sir. Here's a card that gives you the odds in blackjack and what you do."

 

"I don't agree with this. I would like to hit on this 18."

 

The only argument is that Hill was pitching fairly well...but with the benefit of hindsight, Morrow and Jansen blew the game late. Those guys would've pitched anyways. Any argument about that basically suggests that you were playing for extra innings, which is silly.

 

The odds in blackjack and the odds of baseball strategy are a little different, right? The odds of success of when to pull a pitcher, bunt, substitute have several more variables. Sure, you could take all those variables together and make generalizations that begin with, "Most of the time in this situation, the right move would be to _________." Yet, that still leaves a minority of times when a different move would be the right move to make.

 

I take offense to those who use macro stats to make decisions in every situation. The one I hear the most is that you score more when you let the batter hit with a man on first with no outs than having him bunt. Sure, in most situations, letting the batter hit would be the best decision. I'm agreeing with this. But how about if your pitcher is up, if the .225 #8 hitter is up with a tendency to hit many ground ball DP, if the pitcher like Garza or Lester can't throw to 1B, if it rained and the grass is slick, if you need one run to win the game and not 3 or 4.... The variables in baseball are so numerous. Decisions are more complicated.

 

That being said, I can't fault the Dodgers for pitching their lights out closer two innings. If you lose the lead with your rested, best pitcher in the pen, so be it.

 

 

I totally agree with you. There are ALWAYS going to be Joe Morgan, Dusty Baker(though he seems to have gotten at least a little better in some area's) or now Steve Garvey types. More knowledge is almost always a good thing. I DO think some have turned a little bit too much the advanced metrics that the Great Bill James pioneered, and I think people too often get bogged down in that minutia...especially when discussing how good a pitcher has been over 25 starts because his FIP or xFIP is 4.0 and his ERA is 3.2, so he's lucky, but I digress.

 

In the post-season, players perform differently for a number of reasons. Managers manage the game differently. I hate sac bunts, not a big fan of hitting and running either, and don't care about strikeouts...generally. An argument that I've just stopped having at the bar or elsewhere with those who insist a team is struggling because of them.

 

But there is still a place for a manager--and I know some people are gonna hate this--but using his gut during a game. Going against the odds. Or in close games of that magnitude, putting the ball on the ground. For instance, Bellinger...he looked awful all series. He wasn't just in a funk, that beautiful left handed stroke was just ugly and he was lunging at pitches, he was suddenly front footing pitches, he was even doing the old pitcher, read out, all arm swing in a 2-1 count. So you don't bunt with him in the regular season...you let him work it out. But perhaps you sac bunt with him...

 

But none of that led to any losses so far as I could tell. Young players struggling, putting more pressure on themselves, and more importantly, two really great teams coming up with some big hits(one more than the other) was the difference in the world series.

 

Oh...and I hate this "millennial" nonsense. I don't believe I'm a Millennial..I'm on the backend of the age apparently, but I'm so sick of hearing how bad they are. Every single generation complains about the next one...which is that much dumber when you really think about it, because do you think that these kids raised themselves? No. So if the next generation is worse, then it's the last generations fault. Of course that's not true, millennial are more engaged in activism and involved in various groups that frankly Gen X or whatever the last one was. Old guys just want to complain about something and now there are phones and that's the problem. Way back when it was heavy metal music, and before that it was "boomboxes" and rap music and....etc...etc...

 

 

But what I'm REALLY getting sick of...regardless of the generation is hearing or reading people write in calling athletes soft because Nolan Ryan threw 500 innings and could throw 200 pitches in a game and we have to baby these guys and take them out after only 150 innings and 100 pitches...who cares if he's a 23 year old prized pitching prospect you have 5 years invested into developing and an ENORMOUS amount of information to back up how tired arms turned into injured arms.

 

I swear, I'll take 6 hours of JUST Joe Morgan-Dusty Baker-Willie Mays talking about baseball today and the 1st and 3rd telling everyone how great they were on a loop than listen to the "players today are soft" nonsense.

 

 

Sorry, a lot of that should have been in the "what's bothering you thread."