Washington Nationals win the World Series!!

[DaveP043]

Edited October 31, 2019 by DaveP043

[DeadMan]

They've certainly come a long way ...

Edited October 31, 2019 by DeadMan

[klineka]

For me personally not caring who won, it was a great series.

Wild that a home team never won a game the entire series.

[slprrex]

Really great World Series with Nats having such a great run. Both teams stats were almost even at beginning of game 7.  I disagreed with not bringing in Cole after Grienke got pulled last night. Nats put Corbin in to finish out the game as a typical starter and had Hou done the same it may have been different.  Either way, Nats strategy works and Hou doesn't. 

Post season MLB was awesome this year!

Edited October 31, 2019 by slprrex
Content change

[DaveP043]

10 minutes ago, slprrex said:

Really great World Series with Nats having such a great run. Both teams stats were almost even at beginning of game 7.  I disagreed with not bringing in Cole after Grienke got pulled last night. Nats put Corbin in to finish out the game as a typical starter and had Hou done the same it may have been different.  Either way, Nats strategy works and Hou doesn't. 

Post season MLB was awesome this year!

I heard some local DC radio sports guys talking this morning, suggesting that the analytics indicated that Harris was the "smart" choice.  Analytics also generally suggests that its a good idea to replace a pitcher a pitch too soon rather than a pitch too late, but I wondered if leaving Grienke in might have made better sense, he was just SO dominant up until the Rendon homer.  For better or worse, the Astros have cast themselves all year as being driven by the numerical analyses (local radio guys use the term "smarter than everyone else"), but sometimes things run counter to any statistical predictions.

[Patch]

Glad the Nationals won it all. Being a Cubs Fan, I really didn't have a dog in this contest. However, I do have relatives in Texas. 😀

Plus I won a few bucks at the local sports book. 

[iacas]

43 minutes ago, DaveP043 said:

sometimes things run counter to any statistical predictions

Not really. One time is not enough of a sample size. Even if statistics say something will work 99 times out of 100, there's always that one time, which is predicted.

I know you're not really over-thinking this, but this is the kind of thinking that makes it tough for people to understand how statistics work.

[jamo]

3 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

I heard some local DC radio sports guys talking this morning, suggesting that the analytics indicated that Harris was the "smart" choice.  Analytics also generally suggests that its a good idea to replace a pitcher a pitch too soon rather than a pitch too late, but I wondered if leaving Grienke in might have made better sense, he was just SO dominant up until the Rendon homer.  For better or worse, the Astros have cast themselves all year as being driven by the numerical analyses (local radio guys use the term "smarter than everyone else"), but sometimes things run counter to any statistical predictions.

He had also just given up a home run and issued a walk, is a 36-year-old who doesn’t typically go very deep into games 80 pitches into an outing at the very end of a long season, has been a bit shaky lately despite 5 good innings to start this game, and was coming up on the third time through the order. Frankly I think they took him out at the exact right time, they were just unlucky a guy with a 1.50 ERA all season long, one of the best relievers in baseball, basically lost them games 6 and 7. 

To me, the only other argument to be made is that they could have put Osuna in (under the premise that Harris himself was overworked and maybe didn’t have his best stuff) and tried to ride out the rest of the game with Cole and Pressley.

[Piz]

I would have let Greinke finish the inning.  In a situation like that there are not good and bad decisions...just good and bad outcomes.  

[DaveP043]

3 hours ago, iacas said:

Not really. One time is not enough of a sample size. Even if statistics say something will work 99 times out of 100, there's always that one time, which is predicted.

I know you're not really over-thinking this, but this is the kind of thinking that makes it tough for people to understand how statistics work.

Yeah, you know what I mean.  Its not unlike a golfer making exactly the right choices when planning a shot, and simply hitting a bad shot.  Hinch just might have made exactly the right choices, they just didn't work out for him this time.

 

[billchao]

Good for them. Can't stand the Astros.

4 hours ago, DaveP043 said:

but I wondered if leaving Grienke in might have made better sense, he was just SO dominant up until the Rendon homer

I think it was the right call. I've seen plenty of dominant pitching performances completely undone in one inning.

Being a manager is kind of a tough spot. No matter what you do, unless it worked, you're always going to get questioned on it. As @iacas pointed out, even if the decision was 99% in your favor, there's always the one time it won't be.

[slprrex]

7 hours ago, billchao said:

Being a manager is kind of a tough spot. No matter what you do, unless it worked, you're always going to get questioned on it.

So true.  Can't believe they wouldn't give Cole a shot seeing its game 7.....but what would sports be without some good ol Monday morn qb'in?

8 hours ago, jamo said:

Frankly I think they took him out at the exact right time, they were just unlucky a guy with a 1.50 ERA all season long, one of the best relievers in baseball, basically lost them games 6 and 7. 

To me, the only other argument to be made is that they could have put Osuna in (under the premise that Harris himself was overworked and maybe didn’t have his best stuff) and tried to ride out the rest of the game with Cole and Pressley.

Agree with this 100%.  Grienke pitched a hell of a game.

 

But as i said before, great WS!

[billchao]

8 hours ago, slprrex said:

So true.  Can't believe they wouldn't give Cole a shot seeing its game 7.

I read that their plan was to get Cole in with a lead and after that inning they no longer had one. They didn't bring him in after right after Greinke because managers don't like to bring starters in for relief in the middle of innings because it's not something they're used to doing.

In the end they brought in their most reliable reliever in a high leverage situation and he just didn't get the job done.

[Bucki1968]

11 minutes ago, billchao said:

I read that their plan was to get Cole in with a lead and after that inning they no longer had one. They didn't bring him in after right after Greinke because managers don't like to bring starters in for relief in the middle of innings because it's not something they're used to doing.

In the end they brought in their most reliable reliever in a high leverage situation and he just didn't get the job done.

It's funny, I have been a coach for years and I can say one thing that I have learned for certain...you never really know what you are going to get. The move that you have made that has been successful every Friday night that you have run it, sometimes just doesn't work. Anything can happen. 

[DaveP043]

26 minutes ago, Bucki1968 said:

 Anything can happen. 

This is pretty much the story of the Nationals season.  From 19-31 to making the playoffs.  Beating Milwaukee and Hader to come from behind.  Beating the 106-win Dodgers with 2 runs in the 8th to tie, and a grand slam to win in the 10th.  A sweep of the Cardinals, who could imagine?  And winning 4 road games to win the Series.  Its all pretty improbable.  Its been a wild ride!

[Casualgolfer]

On 10/31/2019 at 11:09 AM, iacas said:

Not really. One time is not enough of a sample size. Even if statistics say something will work 99 times out of 100, there's always that one time, which is predicted.

I know you're not really over-thinking this, but this is the kind of thinking that makes it tough for people to understand how statistics work.

I'm not sure if you are a big baseball fan or not but I would say alot of the newer analytics in baseball aren't all that helpful sometimes. I played baseball my entire life, played D1, all American, etc and don't agree with alot of the "new" thinking of baseball analytics. Some I like but others I don't. And I watch all the baseball analytics shows and am a die hard Braves fan... Lot of "statistics" out there in baseball that may try and lead people to a decision but there is way more to it than numbers in a sport where that's all we do.  Feel is very real in baseball. Lot of human elements that cannot be measured. On a side note big congrats to the Nats who go real hot at end of season and carried it all the way. Wish the Braves could have went deeper.

[iacas]

3 hours ago, Casualgolfer said:

I'm not sure if you are a big baseball fan or not but I would say alot of the newer analytics in baseball aren't all that helpful sometimes. I played baseball my entire life, played D1, all American, etc and don't agree with alot of the "new" thinking of baseball analytics. Some I like but others I don't. And I watch all the baseball analytics shows and am a die hard Braves fan... Lot of "statistics" out there in baseball that may try and lead people to a decision but there is way more to it than numbers in a sport where that's all we do. Feel is very real in baseball. Lot of human elements that cannot be measured. On a side note big congrats to the Nats who go real hot at end of season and carried it all the way. Wish the Braves could have went deeper.

It's important to realize that stats tell you what has happened, not what is going to happen.

[Missouri Swede]

1 hour ago, iacas said:

It's important to realize that stats tell you what has happened, not what is going to happen.

Steering by looking in your rearview mirror.