OK, apologies in advance, but I must unload my rant about the Yankees intentionally walking Miguel Cabrera with 3,000 hits on the line in Thursday’s game in Detroit.
I totally disagree. The walk was the right thing to do to win the game. What the fans want means nothing. If the fans were important in the decision, why not just throw him a nice BP pitch to make sure he could get all of it and make those fans happy. Because it wouldn't be honest to the game. Not walking him would also not be honest to the game.
Boone was right only in that he did the obvious and safe thing in that situation: load the bases to maximize a ground out. The equivalent of kicking a field goal in the 4th quarter when down by 21 instead of going for it. The manager can't not be blamed for what happens next; only the players can.
Boone was wrong in thinking the Cabrera at the plate was the Cabrera who'll go to the Hall of Fame. Even the Cabrera that got three hits the night before wasn't that Cabrera. The next guy up, he was that Cabrera. And thus the Yankees lost. Again.
What Boone should have done was told his team: Show me who you are. Shut down this Hall of Famer. Maybe that would light a fire under them.
Interesting that you’re now arguing the opposite side you were with Kershaw--for the moment, for the memories, for the fans. Ehh. Unlike Kershaw, when the moment was permanently lost, Miggy’s moment was simply delayed. It was a 1-0 game Boone was trying to win. He should be trying to win. Sure, if the Tigers or Yankees were up 7-0, a different situation unfolds, but they weren’t. Does Boone owe more to the Tigers fans attending than he does to his team? Of course not. I’m quite sure the Tigers fans attending yesterday’s game were happy Boone walked Miggy on Thursday. Truth be told, the Tigers front office was likely happy too!
I think the difference here is Kershaw needs to last a full season and Kershaw is on a pitch limit. Kershaw could get hurt. I think that’s more of a long gameplay that’s worth more than 2/10 of a win down the road for the entire season. It’s a good comparison but at the same time it’s also like apples and oranges.
As usual, a thought provoking and well composed blog--which got my mind to wandering a bit...a little off the subject, but...
I was fortunate to grow up in a city (Chicago) that did not have the best teams in my childhood-young adulthood (circa 1957-1975), but had two major league baseball teams that played great players and teams--I went to a lot of games (first with my dad and brothers--then with friends--then, often, by myself)...as all of you know, given the above years I mentioned, I got to see quite a few legends...
The owner of the Cubs (Wrigley) and a revolving door of White Sox owners, including Bill Veeck (twice), provided some great players to adore, but always made sure that the fans would get their money's worth (Wrigley keeping 20,000 seats available each day for walk-ins went unnoticed until the late 1960s, but that was the mentality--make sure that a fan getting the urge to see a game, can see the game at a reasonable price).
Both Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park were simply fun places to be--the teams could be frustrating, but I never had the feeling that any particular strategy meant more than an overall experience...and while I have very little to brag about when it comes to the accomplishments of either team in the above time period (one pennant), I'll always remember being able to see, up close and personal, some great pitchers and batters of my generation--who live on in the glory of the game's history.
Amen! Any intentional walk or any 4 pitch walk should get 2 bases. We pay (tickets, cable, MLB.TV, etc.) to be entertained, for the excitement, for the memories. Yes, winning is usually more fun. However, how many kids would have liked to say, "I saw Miggy's 3000th hit!!!!" vs. "I saw the Tigers/Yankees win today." If we cannot make it fun for kids (and the kid in all of us), MLB is in long-term trouble.
One of my favorite baseball memories is seeing Ken Griffey Jr. hit his 500th home run (even though I’m a Cardinals fan). No idea who won the game, but I remember the crowd giving a standing ovation to an opposing player.
If you want managers to manage in an "entertaining" way then they have to be incentivized or punished so they do that (e.g. 4 straight balls gets 2 bases). However, as I understand it, the incentives they operate within are to win not entertain. Surprise surprise they manage to win (even if their grasp of probabilities is questionable).
I agree but maybe different people are framing the bigger issue differently. I am framing it as a manager has to do what he thinks is best to maximize his team’s chance of winning, without exception. Personal records have to come within the normal competitive flow of the game, season etc. But I am a bright line rule kind of guy.
Two examples come to mind. Not necessarily apples to apples, I understand that.
I think it adds to Ted Williams’ legend, and also to the legend of .406, that his manager offered him the chance to sit out the final days doubleheader because he came in hitting .400. Williams refused, played both games, and raised his average to .406. In fact, knowing what I know of Ted Williams, his response was probably more like “*%# you I’m playing every *%#*$& inning and if you $@&* try to take me out I’ll kick your $&@#* $&*.”
And I think it cheapens Michael Strahan’s sack record that Brett Favre laid down and gave him one. I think that record should have an asterisk. I like Strahan, I like Favre, I don’t particularly care for Gastineau. But like I said, to me all records need to come within normal competition
I get wanting to win although I disagree with the strategy but that's normal 2d guessing. To me the larger point is that although MLB has always been an entertainment business it has become much less about a game to entertain fans. It's the effect of big money. It manifests itself in many ways. It is what it is, it's just too bad.
BTW, I've always admired Williams for that day but going in it would've rounded up to .400 and he didn't want to hear it. He could've sat after his first ab though. By the 2d game it didn't matter what he did. Mathematically he was going to hit
.400 but he didn't have to play. He was great.
BTW #2, I agree totally about Favre but you left out why you mentioned Gastineau
If I remember right, Mark Gastineau had the single season sack record before Strahan.
I agree about baseballs entertainment value. And I 100% agree that the owners will always do what makes them money. I just don’t think the manager is the guy that should be thinking about any of that. Like I said, I am a bright line guy. And I also believe that everybody needs to stay in their lane.
Set aside whether Aaron Boone was right or wrong, he did what he thought was right. Why is Candelario allowed to do what he thinks will help his team win the game by trying to get a hit, even though a possibility is that he hits into a double play thereby opening first base. While Aaron Boone is not allowed to try what he thinks is his best chance to win the game by walking Cabrera? Candelaria could’ve just struck out on purpose to give Cabrera the chance at 3000. So maybe the Tigers’ manager is to blame for not telling Candalaria to strike out on purpose so his fans could have their moment. Isn’t the Tigers manager more responsible for his home team fans’ experience?
Joe, you are completely right. The intentional walk is terrible, especially in that situation. Yes, there's a base open and you set up the force then, but with two outs, who cares? Cabrera is a glacially slow runner. It's not like he's going to leg out an infield hit. Plus, as you point out, the next batter is substantially better than Cabrera at this point. The walk was cowardly and stupid.
Joe, I'm a big fan of your work. I love your passion and I enjoyed the rant. However, I simply disagree with your takeaway on this particular issue. It seems that you and quite a few others feel that yesterday’s game should have been played differently because Miggy was sitting on 2,999 hits. The Yankees pitched to him three times prior to the bizarrely controversial 8th inning AB- resulting in a flyout and two strikeouts. He had 3 AB opportunities to get 3,000 prior to the 8th. In the 8th inning, the game circumstances - endlessly debatable as they may be (which is wonderful)- made for a very rational and historically on point decision to not pitch to the first ballot HOF'er and instead go lefty vs lefty. The approach didn't work out, but it was absolutely a reasonable baseball decision. Yes, it would've been great to witness Miggy's 3,000th hit yesterday, instead a baseball game happened.
As an aside, I believe that Miggy's first, 1,000th, and 2,000th hits were all homeruns. I would imagine that he feels some pressure to hit a dinger for 3,000 as well. If he does, it would be completely and symmetrically awesome.
I interpret the rant, which I enjoyed by the way, at being overly beholden to marginal differences in statistical conclusions at the expense of the bigger picture and then defending oneself with "that's what our numbers said". Tom Tango would admit that there is margin of error in the calculations. How do you weight the factors? How many years do you go back? How do you count a hot streak or a slump or do you disregard that due to recency bias? How do you factor in the head-to-head matchups and performance with the bases loaded or again do you ignore due to limited sample size? It's not as simple as using your algorithm to decide a this-or-that decision. 0.2% is within the margin of error for the calculation.
This leads to the bigger picture. I've read from Tom Tango and others that fans over-value the marginal advantages in the game day and within-game decisions such as batting order and pulling a pitcher too early or leaving him in too late. We remember the times the decision doesn't work out and think the idiot manager's decision making is responsible for the team being 81-81 instead of 91-71 when really they might have only made it to 82 or 83 wins. Instead there are the decisions for the big picture. Giving days rest, giving younger players opportunities, allowing pitchers to learn how to work out of jams, giving relievers the experience of going more than one inning so they're better prepared in a playoff scenario, etc, etc, etc. Add this one in: the mindset of a team. Given the "no statistically significant difference" in the winning pct for the decision with Miggy, you then make the bigger picture decision, which in this case could be the projection of confidence of pitching to him as opposed to the projection of fear in intentionally walking him. Also the manager in such a situation can choose to make a decision based on how he likes the game to be played such as "this matchup should happen". For example, I think Joe Madden likes to be creative - pretty sure there was no algorithm that said to walk Seager - he does his own mental math which is really intuition resulting from years of experience and an all-things-being-equal-I'm-gonna-be-unconventional style.
In summary, Boone may have ignored any bigger picture considerations by over-valuing the result of the algorithm they used, which could be argued as bad managing in addition to not being good for the game. This is coming into football more now, by the way (punt or go for it on 4th down to run out the clock, kick the FG or go for the TD). Maybe in 10 years all game decisions are made by an AI. Another possibility is that the Yankees algorithm and/or Boone's consideration had a much bigger winning advantage in the IBB than Tom Tango calculated (ignore the possibility of walking in a run or Cabrera scoring to make the deficit larger and only focus on the odds of the lefty Meadows getting a hit against the lefty). If that's true then he of course should walk him. Joe is basing his rant though on Tango's result.
The problem with defending Boone (as some have) is that the move doesn't really improve his chances to win and he probably knew that. But the PERCEPTION would be, at least to some people, that it improved his chances to win and that is all Boone really cared about.
Logical inconsistencies bother me... so Joe, I'm troubled that for all of your disdain of the "unwritten rules," you're suggesting an unwritten rule that the manager shouldn't make certain decisions when personal milestones are on the line. And that baffles me. Where do you draw the line? Is it just 3000 hits / 500 homers? You play to win the game and the manager has to employ the strategy that they believe best accomplishes that goal.
I can't stand the intentional walk but it's not a terrible or unorthodox strategy in that situation absent the personal milestone. It's not like he walked Miggy with two outs and the bases empty. His team can't hit and they have a one run deficit. They have to play to win the game.
I think too many folks are letting their distaste of the IBB (which I share) seep into whether what Boone did was an abomination and disrespect of the game (it was not).
Also, won't it cheapen milestones if they start happening outside the strategy of a normal game?
Kind of like in football when Brett Favre just kind of fell to the ground to allow Michael Strahan to set the sack record. That record always feels not great to me, because it happened a little bit outside the normal strategy of a football game.
This situation, among the many others that Joe has pointed out recently, is part of the reason that MLB needs significant overhauls to the rules. We just can't expect people (players, managers, GMs, etc...) to make decisions that go against their own perceived interests for the good of the game. We can't expect that, with all the advantages and information that these people have as compared to 25, 50, or 100 years ago, that doing things the same way will produce a game people want to see. People come to games to watch hitters hit, pitchers pitch, fielders field, and teams compete. Any rules that prevent that need to go.
Agree w Joe. Adam Wainwright grooved one to Derek Jeter. (all star game, I know) FOR FANS! Pujols in the opening day lineup (Yadi, too, even though he wasn't ready yet) FOR FANS! the cynic can say this was to make money for someone, and who cares? fans wanted those experiences. no one dies bc a team takes a *SLIGHTLY* less likely path to victory by eschewing the *PERFECT* (maybe?) matchup. But as fans, all we want is to see our fave players in the arena. Not such a big ask, is it?
I totally disagree. The walk was the right thing to do to win the game. What the fans want means nothing. If the fans were important in the decision, why not just throw him a nice BP pitch to make sure he could get all of it and make those fans happy. Because it wouldn't be honest to the game. Not walking him would also not be honest to the game.
Boone was right only in that he did the obvious and safe thing in that situation: load the bases to maximize a ground out. The equivalent of kicking a field goal in the 4th quarter when down by 21 instead of going for it. The manager can't not be blamed for what happens next; only the players can.
Boone was wrong in thinking the Cabrera at the plate was the Cabrera who'll go to the Hall of Fame. Even the Cabrera that got three hits the night before wasn't that Cabrera. The next guy up, he was that Cabrera. And thus the Yankees lost. Again.
What Boone should have done was told his team: Show me who you are. Shut down this Hall of Famer. Maybe that would light a fire under them.
Interesting that you’re now arguing the opposite side you were with Kershaw--for the moment, for the memories, for the fans. Ehh. Unlike Kershaw, when the moment was permanently lost, Miggy’s moment was simply delayed. It was a 1-0 game Boone was trying to win. He should be trying to win. Sure, if the Tigers or Yankees were up 7-0, a different situation unfolds, but they weren’t. Does Boone owe more to the Tigers fans attending than he does to his team? Of course not. I’m quite sure the Tigers fans attending yesterday’s game were happy Boone walked Miggy on Thursday. Truth be told, the Tigers front office was likely happy too!
I think the difference here is Kershaw needs to last a full season and Kershaw is on a pitch limit. Kershaw could get hurt. I think that’s more of a long gameplay that’s worth more than 2/10 of a win down the road for the entire season. It’s a good comparison but at the same time it’s also like apples and oranges.
As usual, a thought provoking and well composed blog--which got my mind to wandering a bit...a little off the subject, but...
I was fortunate to grow up in a city (Chicago) that did not have the best teams in my childhood-young adulthood (circa 1957-1975), but had two major league baseball teams that played great players and teams--I went to a lot of games (first with my dad and brothers--then with friends--then, often, by myself)...as all of you know, given the above years I mentioned, I got to see quite a few legends...
The owner of the Cubs (Wrigley) and a revolving door of White Sox owners, including Bill Veeck (twice), provided some great players to adore, but always made sure that the fans would get their money's worth (Wrigley keeping 20,000 seats available each day for walk-ins went unnoticed until the late 1960s, but that was the mentality--make sure that a fan getting the urge to see a game, can see the game at a reasonable price).
Both Wrigley Field and Comiskey Park were simply fun places to be--the teams could be frustrating, but I never had the feeling that any particular strategy meant more than an overall experience...and while I have very little to brag about when it comes to the accomplishments of either team in the above time period (one pennant), I'll always remember being able to see, up close and personal, some great pitchers and batters of my generation--who live on in the glory of the game's history.
Amen! Any intentional walk or any 4 pitch walk should get 2 bases. We pay (tickets, cable, MLB.TV, etc.) to be entertained, for the excitement, for the memories. Yes, winning is usually more fun. However, how many kids would have liked to say, "I saw Miggy's 3000th hit!!!!" vs. "I saw the Tigers/Yankees win today." If we cannot make it fun for kids (and the kid in all of us), MLB is in long-term trouble.
One of my favorite baseball memories is seeing Ken Griffey Jr. hit his 500th home run (even though I’m a Cardinals fan). No idea who won the game, but I remember the crowd giving a standing ovation to an opposing player.
If you want managers to manage in an "entertaining" way then they have to be incentivized or punished so they do that (e.g. 4 straight balls gets 2 bases). However, as I understand it, the incentives they operate within are to win not entertain. Surprise surprise they manage to win (even if their grasp of probabilities is questionable).
I suggest taking a look at the bigger picture of the rant instead of focusing solely on Boone/Cabrera. There's a larger point.
I agree but maybe different people are framing the bigger issue differently. I am framing it as a manager has to do what he thinks is best to maximize his team’s chance of winning, without exception. Personal records have to come within the normal competitive flow of the game, season etc. But I am a bright line rule kind of guy.
Two examples come to mind. Not necessarily apples to apples, I understand that.
I think it adds to Ted Williams’ legend, and also to the legend of .406, that his manager offered him the chance to sit out the final days doubleheader because he came in hitting .400. Williams refused, played both games, and raised his average to .406. In fact, knowing what I know of Ted Williams, his response was probably more like “*%# you I’m playing every *%#*$& inning and if you $@&* try to take me out I’ll kick your $&@#* $&*.”
And I think it cheapens Michael Strahan’s sack record that Brett Favre laid down and gave him one. I think that record should have an asterisk. I like Strahan, I like Favre, I don’t particularly care for Gastineau. But like I said, to me all records need to come within normal competition
I get wanting to win although I disagree with the strategy but that's normal 2d guessing. To me the larger point is that although MLB has always been an entertainment business it has become much less about a game to entertain fans. It's the effect of big money. It manifests itself in many ways. It is what it is, it's just too bad.
BTW, I've always admired Williams for that day but going in it would've rounded up to .400 and he didn't want to hear it. He could've sat after his first ab though. By the 2d game it didn't matter what he did. Mathematically he was going to hit
.400 but he didn't have to play. He was great.
BTW #2, I agree totally about Favre but you left out why you mentioned Gastineau
If I remember right, Mark Gastineau had the single season sack record before Strahan.
I agree about baseballs entertainment value. And I 100% agree that the owners will always do what makes them money. I just don’t think the manager is the guy that should be thinking about any of that. Like I said, I am a bright line guy. And I also believe that everybody needs to stay in their lane.
Set aside whether Aaron Boone was right or wrong, he did what he thought was right. Why is Candelario allowed to do what he thinks will help his team win the game by trying to get a hit, even though a possibility is that he hits into a double play thereby opening first base. While Aaron Boone is not allowed to try what he thinks is his best chance to win the game by walking Cabrera? Candelaria could’ve just struck out on purpose to give Cabrera the chance at 3000. So maybe the Tigers’ manager is to blame for not telling Candalaria to strike out on purpose so his fans could have their moment. Isn’t the Tigers manager more responsible for his home team fans’ experience?
Joe, you are completely right. The intentional walk is terrible, especially in that situation. Yes, there's a base open and you set up the force then, but with two outs, who cares? Cabrera is a glacially slow runner. It's not like he's going to leg out an infield hit. Plus, as you point out, the next batter is substantially better than Cabrera at this point. The walk was cowardly and stupid.
Joe, I'm a big fan of your work. I love your passion and I enjoyed the rant. However, I simply disagree with your takeaway on this particular issue. It seems that you and quite a few others feel that yesterday’s game should have been played differently because Miggy was sitting on 2,999 hits. The Yankees pitched to him three times prior to the bizarrely controversial 8th inning AB- resulting in a flyout and two strikeouts. He had 3 AB opportunities to get 3,000 prior to the 8th. In the 8th inning, the game circumstances - endlessly debatable as they may be (which is wonderful)- made for a very rational and historically on point decision to not pitch to the first ballot HOF'er and instead go lefty vs lefty. The approach didn't work out, but it was absolutely a reasonable baseball decision. Yes, it would've been great to witness Miggy's 3,000th hit yesterday, instead a baseball game happened.
As an aside, I believe that Miggy's first, 1,000th, and 2,000th hits were all homeruns. I would imagine that he feels some pressure to hit a dinger for 3,000 as well. If he does, it would be completely and symmetrically awesome.
I interpret the rant, which I enjoyed by the way, at being overly beholden to marginal differences in statistical conclusions at the expense of the bigger picture and then defending oneself with "that's what our numbers said". Tom Tango would admit that there is margin of error in the calculations. How do you weight the factors? How many years do you go back? How do you count a hot streak or a slump or do you disregard that due to recency bias? How do you factor in the head-to-head matchups and performance with the bases loaded or again do you ignore due to limited sample size? It's not as simple as using your algorithm to decide a this-or-that decision. 0.2% is within the margin of error for the calculation.
This leads to the bigger picture. I've read from Tom Tango and others that fans over-value the marginal advantages in the game day and within-game decisions such as batting order and pulling a pitcher too early or leaving him in too late. We remember the times the decision doesn't work out and think the idiot manager's decision making is responsible for the team being 81-81 instead of 91-71 when really they might have only made it to 82 or 83 wins. Instead there are the decisions for the big picture. Giving days rest, giving younger players opportunities, allowing pitchers to learn how to work out of jams, giving relievers the experience of going more than one inning so they're better prepared in a playoff scenario, etc, etc, etc. Add this one in: the mindset of a team. Given the "no statistically significant difference" in the winning pct for the decision with Miggy, you then make the bigger picture decision, which in this case could be the projection of confidence of pitching to him as opposed to the projection of fear in intentionally walking him. Also the manager in such a situation can choose to make a decision based on how he likes the game to be played such as "this matchup should happen". For example, I think Joe Madden likes to be creative - pretty sure there was no algorithm that said to walk Seager - he does his own mental math which is really intuition resulting from years of experience and an all-things-being-equal-I'm-gonna-be-unconventional style.
In summary, Boone may have ignored any bigger picture considerations by over-valuing the result of the algorithm they used, which could be argued as bad managing in addition to not being good for the game. This is coming into football more now, by the way (punt or go for it on 4th down to run out the clock, kick the FG or go for the TD). Maybe in 10 years all game decisions are made by an AI. Another possibility is that the Yankees algorithm and/or Boone's consideration had a much bigger winning advantage in the IBB than Tom Tango calculated (ignore the possibility of walking in a run or Cabrera scoring to make the deficit larger and only focus on the odds of the lefty Meadows getting a hit against the lefty). If that's true then he of course should walk him. Joe is basing his rant though on Tango's result.
The problem with defending Boone (as some have) is that the move doesn't really improve his chances to win and he probably knew that. But the PERCEPTION would be, at least to some people, that it improved his chances to win and that is all Boone really cared about.
Logical inconsistencies bother me... so Joe, I'm troubled that for all of your disdain of the "unwritten rules," you're suggesting an unwritten rule that the manager shouldn't make certain decisions when personal milestones are on the line. And that baffles me. Where do you draw the line? Is it just 3000 hits / 500 homers? You play to win the game and the manager has to employ the strategy that they believe best accomplishes that goal.
I can't stand the intentional walk but it's not a terrible or unorthodox strategy in that situation absent the personal milestone. It's not like he walked Miggy with two outs and the bases empty. His team can't hit and they have a one run deficit. They have to play to win the game.
I think too many folks are letting their distaste of the IBB (which I share) seep into whether what Boone did was an abomination and disrespect of the game (it was not).
Also, won't it cheapen milestones if they start happening outside the strategy of a normal game?
Kind of like in football when Brett Favre just kind of fell to the ground to allow Michael Strahan to set the sack record. That record always feels not great to me, because it happened a little bit outside the normal strategy of a football game.
I'm in complete agreement with this. The intentional walk, especially in a situation like that, is so terrible for baseball.
This situation, among the many others that Joe has pointed out recently, is part of the reason that MLB needs significant overhauls to the rules. We just can't expect people (players, managers, GMs, etc...) to make decisions that go against their own perceived interests for the good of the game. We can't expect that, with all the advantages and information that these people have as compared to 25, 50, or 100 years ago, that doing things the same way will produce a game people want to see. People come to games to watch hitters hit, pitchers pitch, fielders field, and teams compete. Any rules that prevent that need to go.
Agree w Joe. Adam Wainwright grooved one to Derek Jeter. (all star game, I know) FOR FANS! Pujols in the opening day lineup (Yadi, too, even though he wasn't ready yet) FOR FANS! the cynic can say this was to make money for someone, and who cares? fans wanted those experiences. no one dies bc a team takes a *SLIGHTLY* less likely path to victory by eschewing the *PERFECT* (maybe?) matchup. But as fans, all we want is to see our fave players in the arena. Not such a big ask, is it?