****Official Tigers versus Oakland Thread*****

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
So adding up these things that were present in game #2, and tossing in the alleged misuse of Zumaya -- it is your contention that Leyland reduced his team's chances of winning game #2 by something approaching 20%. Do I have this right?

[/ QUOTE ]

i don't know where you're getting this figure from.

neifi being in there and batting second instead of having shelton in the lineup was probably worth around 4%. putting in jones to close out a three-run game can't really cost more than 1% and probably costs less, because you will almost always win that game either way. that brings the total to a generous 5%.

it's not my contention that having zumaya unavailable will actually cost you 10% of a win, but it is certainly possible that this situation will arise. (for example, if you intended to use zumaya for two innings with a one-run lead, but now cannot.) the 10% was just an illustration that you can't say your team is in a must-win spot unless you can attach a value to winning the game.

[kyleb]

[ QUOTE ]
leyland looks like a genius right now. he will still look like a genius even though he was obviously wrong on several of his moves this week. that doesn't make him a genius.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT

[crockpot]

[ QUOTE ]
This is the "mathematical" argument? Because Zumaya hurt himself, that shows you why it was wrong to put him in?

Zumaya threw a whole 3 pitches in the win the prior Friday, and had Saturday, Sunday, and Monday off. He's 21 years old. There's no way you should expect an inning of work in Game 1 to seriously affect his availability for the rest of the series.

One of the reasons why mathematical analysis is imperfectly suited to sports is that once you get past the immediate short term, the sheer number of variables make it impossible to quantify anything. Yeah, we can quantify the value of moving a runner over, because it's strictly a short-term call. But when you start trying to calculate the likelihood that the Tigers will need Zumaya for 1.2 innings in Game 2 but he runs out of gas after 1.1 because you used him in Game 1, you're kidding yourself to think you can put a number on that.

[/ QUOTE ]

go back and you will see i criticized the zumaya usage before his injury was revealed.

i agree that an exact number is hard to compute for the future, but any approximation will still show that this is not a close decision. and in the short term, we can calculate that zumaya adds almost nothing to their chances of winning game 1.

let's assume that leyland was correct to use zumaya with a 5-run lead. basically, that means he should use zumaya any time the tigers are up by 5 or less or down by 3 or less (since the value of his appearance is greater with a 3-run deficit than a 5-run lead). now zumaya is pitching in 80% of games. this cannot be optimal.

[fnurt]

[ QUOTE ]
go back and you will see i criticized the zumaya usage before his injury was revealed.

i agree that an exact number is hard to compute for the future, but any approximation will still show that this is not a close decision. and in the short term, we can calculate that zumaya adds almost nothing to their chances of winning game 1.

let's assume that leyland was correct to use zumaya with a 5-run lead. basically, that means he should use zumaya any time the tigers are up by 5 or less or down by 3 or less (since the value of his appearance is greater with a 3-run deficit than a 5-run lead). now zumaya is pitching in 80% of games. this cannot be optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm sure lots of people were like "why bother using Zumaya here?" It's a fair question to ask. But then you made the point that the result shows why it was a bad decision, which I don't buy.

I didn't say Zumaya should be in every single 5-run game. I made the point, which you didn't address, that he had 3 days off and a 3-pitch outing his last appearance. If you don't use him in Game 1, now it's like either you have to get him in Game 2 somehow, or else he doesn't see any action for a week.

Do you have any numbers on how Zumaya pitched this year coming off a really long break? I'm guessing you're not obsessive to that degree. There's a scenario in which he actually pitches BETTER in a key situation in Game 2 because he got a little work in Game 1, as opposed to coming in completely cold.

One advantage a manager has is a ton of contact with the players. He knows who's in a good state of mind, he knows who's a little off, he knows who's been crushing it in practice and who hasn't. None of us can quantify these observations when it comes to criticizing a decision. We criticize managers for following a hunch rather than math, but when that hunch is based on real-world observation it's silly to write it off as if it has no value.

I'm with those who say we've spent too much time talking about this already. But I'll just say this, obviously Leyland is far from perfect, but when you find yourself arguing that a manager who accomplished unprecedented stuff actually goes around making one obvious blunder after another, it's worth at least considering whether life might be a little more complicated than you make it out to be.

[bugstud]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
go back and you will see i criticized the zumaya usage before his injury was revealed.

i agree that an exact number is hard to compute for the future, but any approximation will still show that this is not a close decision. and in the short term, we can calculate that zumaya adds almost nothing to their chances of winning game 1.

let's assume that leyland was correct to use zumaya with a 5-run lead. basically, that means he should use zumaya any time the tigers are up by 5 or less or down by 3 or less (since the value of his appearance is greater with a 3-run deficit than a 5-run lead). now zumaya is pitching in 80% of games. this cannot be optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'm sure lots of people were like "why bother using Zumaya here?" It's a fair question to ask. But then you made the point that the result shows why it was a bad decision, which I don't buy.

I didn't say Zumaya should be in every single 5-run game. I made the point, which you didn't address, that he had 3 days off and a 3-pitch outing his last appearance. If you don't use him in Game 1, now it's like either you have to get him in Game 2 somehow, or else he doesn't see any action for a week.

Do you have any numbers on how Zumaya pitched this year coming off a really long break? I'm guessing you're not obsessive to that degree. There's a scenario in which he actually pitches BETTER in a key situation in Game 2 because he got a little work in Game 1, as opposed to coming in completely cold.

One advantage a manager has is a ton of contact with the players. He knows who's in a good state of mind, he knows who's a little off, he knows who's been crushing it in practice and who hasn't. None of us can quantify these observations when it comes to criticizing a decision. We criticize managers for following a hunch rather than math, but when that hunch is based on real-world observation it's silly to write it off as if it has no value.

I'm with those who say we've spent too much time talking about this already. But I'll just say this, obviously Leyland is far from perfect, but when you find yourself arguing that a manager who accomplished unprecedented stuff actually goes around making one obvious blunder after another, it's worth at least considering whether life might be a little more complicated than you make it out to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

looks like about6 instances of 5days+ of rest, 1 run and lots of strikeouts.

[shemp]

[ QUOTE ]


let's assume that leyland was correct to use zumaya with a 5-run lead. basically, that means he should use zumaya any time the tigers are up by 5 or less [...] now zumaya is pitching in 80% of games. this cannot be optimal.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your reasoning here is horrible.