Brewers vs. Mets - Game 3 - 10/3/24 - 6:08 - ESPN

[Ron Swanson]

Dude, everybody knows how you feel about this issue and the whole "the process itself is never wrong" mentality. I'm not out here to beat my chest about it, but the Mets hung their already dinged up starter out there for 107 pitches while we had a rested Freddy and pulled him after 68 despite him playing well. Hell, everybody in our section was questioning if he was hurt. It was a questionable at best decision to pull him after 4 innings, and in reality it turned out to be a disastrous one. Give it a rest.

[Kerb Hohl]

Dude, everybody knows how you feel about this issue and the whole "the process itself is never wrong" mentality. I'm not out here to beat my chest about it, but the Mets hung their already dinged up starter out there for 107 pitches while we had a rested Freddy and pulled him after 68 despite him playing well. Hell, everybody in our section was questioning if he was hurt. It was a questionable at best decision to pull him after 4 innings, and in reality it turned out to be a disastrous one. Give it a rest.

Can you explain the Royals' decision yesterday?

If your only analysis is, "we lost the game, let me go back and look at a new school baseball decision I didn't like" of course you're going to be 100% right, which you've convinced yourself of.

I'm looking at the data from yesterday. The Royals pulled their guy with 0 runs allowed after 80 pitches and 7 IP. The Brewers pulled a guy at 3 runs, 68 pitches. Looks like it's a tough call to make but it actually works just as much as it doesn't (or probably more, but I'm not gonna argue it).

It's like you're telling somebody they are an idiot for calling heads instead of tails. Just acknowledge it's basically a 50/50 call but you didn't agree with it and it's a completely reasonable take.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Dude, everybody knows how you feel about this issue and the whole "the process itself is never wrong" mentality. I'm not out here to beat my chest about it, but the Mets hung their already dinged up starter out there for 107 pitches while we had a rested Freddy and pulled him after 68 despite him playing well. Hell, everybody in our section was questioning if he was hurt. It was a questionable at best decision to pull him after 4 innings, and in reality it turned out to be a disastrous one. Give it a rest.

It was an extremely clear decision unless you want to ignore, you know, his entire body of work this season.

Read on Twitter

[sidney lanier]

Plenty of goofs and gaffes to rehash from yesterday, but I'm not sure you beat the riding-their-Monday-high Mets even if you cover first like you've worked on ever since pitchers and catchers in spring training and your rookie phenom doesn't take a step in on what at first appeared to him to be a sinking line drive but that had more carry than he thought -- the kind of straight-at-you ball that every outfielder from Willie Mays on down has been fooled by from time to time.

It's a new day, and these Brewers are a resilient team. But even if the season ends today, I'm grateful for the way they turned a season with essentially one real starter and their best position player down into a very satisfying division romp.

[Thunder Muscle]

On to today, kinda surprised we’re going Montas today. My guess is he is going to go a few innings (his 3rd inning ERA is awful) and hand it off to maybe Ross or Hall. Have to assume Civale, Mears are unavailable today. Myers probably saved for Game 3 if win?

Kinda miss Yelich right now too. Would rather have his bat as DH vs someone like Bauers (even though had a hit).

[Ron Swanson]

I'm looking at the data from yesterday. The Royals pulled their guy with 0 runs allowed after 80 pitches and 7 IP.

Ok, what was the difference here? Yes, you've made this clear multiple times that the data trumps everything, and if someone honestly thinks a certain decision was "stupid", you have to immediately lecture them about how regular season data should be the only driver of the decision-making process in the playoffs, despite the data constantly saying that it's actually kinda impossible to predict bullpen success based on that:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10094318-the-mlb-playoff-trend-in-2023-that-front-offices-must-remember-in-the-offseason

Here's the thing, though: There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to which bullpens will be reliable in the postseason.

En route to last year's World Series, Philadelphia's bullpen ERA went from a sub-par 4.27 during the regular season to a rock-solid 2.62 in the postseason, while Houston's bullpen went from "really good" (2.80 ERA during the regular season) to "goodness that's ridiculous" (0.83 ERA in the postseason).

This year, both Arizona and Texas entered the postseason with relief pitching representing a massive concern. The Diamondbacks had a 4.22 bullpen ERA and had to trade for Paul Sewald to finally get someone to pitch the ninth inning. The Rangers had a 4.77 bullpen ERA and blew more saves (33) than they converted (30).

But in the postseason, those bullpens have gone a combined 6-2 with eight saves, 19 holds and just the one blown save by José Leclerc. The Diamondbacks even won Game 4 of the NLCS with an "all hands on deck" approach, using eight relievers in the process of out-bullpening the Phillies.

Sure, a reasonable person would read that article and look at the numbers and go "Most of the time, it's smart to pull your starter after 4-5 innings in a playoff game, but I realize that situational decision-making matters and I'm not beholden to that philosophy", whereas I'm guessing you'd look at that and say "It's ALWAYS the right/defensible decision to pull a starter after 4, and if you call it a bad decision, well, you're just a dumb baseball caveman who doesn't understand numbers".

[JimmyTheKid]

Dude, everybody knows how you feel about this issue and the whole "the process itself is never wrong" mentality. I'm not out here to beat my chest about it, but the Mets hung their already dinged up starter out there for 107 pitches while we had a rested Freddy and pulled him after 68 despite him playing well. Hell, everybody in our section was questioning if he was hurt. It was a questionable at best decision to pull him after 4 innings, and in reality it turned out to be a disastrous one. Give it a rest.

It was an extremely clear decision unless you want to ignore, you know, his entire body of work this season.

Read on Twitter

So if Freddy had 4 shutout innings on 68 pitches, and the Brewers had a 1-0 lead, you would have advocated for his removal because "5th inning ERA"?

[coolhandluke121]

I'm not sure Peralta fell behind in the count for more than 2-3 pitches all night, unless you count 3-2 as "behind." I'm also not sure he gave up solid contact more than 2-3 times. Granted, they were pretty much all in the same inning, but that's baseball. He was absolutely filthy in every other inning.

Also, it's valid to use relievers for 5 innings in the playoffs, but are they really planning to use every good reliever two nights in a row and just pray that there's no game 3? Peralta is still more talented than any other starter, despite his inconsistency, and you should give him more than 4 innings when his control looks solid. His bad starts usually involve laboring through nearly every inning, and it's not like one rough inning means he's going to be unreliable.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm looking at the data from yesterday. The Royals pulled their guy with 0 runs allowed after 80 pitches and 7 IP.

Ok, what was the difference here? Yes, you've made this clear multiple times that the data trumps everything, and if someone honestly thinks a certain decision was "stupid", you have to immediately lecture them about how regular season data should be the only driver of the decision-making process in the playoffs, despite the data constantly saying that it's actually kinda impossible to predict bullpen success based on that:

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/10094318-the-mlb-playoff-trend-in-2023-that-front-offices-must-remember-in-the-offseason

Here's the thing, though: There's seemingly no rhyme or reason to which bullpens will be reliable in the postseason.

En route to last year's World Series, Philadelphia's bullpen ERA went from a sub-par 4.27 during the regular season to a rock-solid 2.62 in the postseason, while Houston's bullpen went from "really good" (2.80 ERA during the regular season) to "goodness that's ridiculous" (0.83 ERA in the postseason).

This year, both Arizona and Texas entered the postseason with relief pitching representing a massive concern. The Diamondbacks had a 4.22 bullpen ERA and had to trade for Paul Sewald to finally get someone to pitch the ninth inning. The Rangers had a 4.77 bullpen ERA and blew more saves (33) than they converted (30).

But in the postseason, those bullpens have gone a combined 6-2 with eight saves, 19 holds and just the one blown save by José Leclerc. The Diamondbacks even won Game 4 of the NLCS with an "all hands on deck" approach, using eight relievers in the process of out-bullpening the Phillies.

Sure, a reasonable person would read that article and look at the numbers and go "Most of the time, it's smart to pull your starter after 4-5 innings in a playoff game, but I realize that situational decision-making matters and I'm not beholden to that philosophy", whereas I'm guessing you'd look at that and say "It's ALWAYS the right/defensible decision to pull a starter after 4, and if you call it a bad decision, well, you're just a dumb baseball caveman who doesn't understand numbers".

I'm not saying you're a dumb caveman for wanting to continue with Peralta. I would have been totally fine with that.

I'm saying that this is now a time-honored tradition of watching playoff baseball and people come in from the clouds if there is a loss and claim a decision, which is rooted in good logic and can be very effective, happened to fail, therefore was the dumbest decision ever...because you were convinced Freddy would've just kept rolling therefore analytics = bad.

It's a close call. Murphy's not dumb. The Brewers are arguably a top 5 smartest organization in baseball. They made a tough call and lost with it, but it was not a stupid/bad decision.

You want to say Peralta or a starter should be kept in the game? Awesome and totally reasonable. You want to call making a good process-based decision is stupid and go and rip into them? That's a stupid position to take. There is no obvious choice in this case.

[ReasonablySober]

They lost because Payamps was late to cover a bag. A simple play a first grader makes. That's it.

[Kerb Hohl]

I'm not sure Peralta fell behind in the count for more than 2-3 pitches all night, unless you count 3-2 as "behind." I'm also not sure he gave up solid contact more than 2-3 times. Granted, they were pretty much all in the same inning, but that's baseball. He was absolutely filthy in every other inning.

Also, it's valid to use relievers for 5 innings in the playoffs, but are they really planning to use every good reliever two nights in a row and just pray that there's no game 3? Peralta is still more talented than any other starter, despite his inconsistency, and you should give him more than 4 innings when his control looks solid. His bad starts usually involve laboring through nearly every inning, and it's not like one rough inning means he's going to be unreliable.

The one thing with Peralta is, I think I may be saying this without numbers to back me up, but he throttles bad offenses. He only has one really effective pitch and if a team makes him locate it consistently, that's when he gets blown up.

The rest I agree with and is definitely the gamble/decision teams need to make. Go all-in to win this game/the next or leave yourself a bit of slack if things don't go perfectly.

[Turk Nowitzki]

Dude, everybody knows how you feel about this issue and the whole "the process itself is never wrong" mentality. I'm not out here to beat my chest about it, but the Mets hung their already dinged up starter out there for 107 pitches while we had a rested Freddy and pulled him after 68 despite him playing well. Hell, everybody in our section was questioning if he was hurt. It was a questionable at best decision to pull him after 4 innings, and in reality it turned out to be a disastrous one. Give it a rest.

It was an extremely clear decision unless you want to ignore, you know, his entire body of work this season.

Read on Twitter

So if Freddy had 4 shutout innings on 68 pitches, and the Brewers had a 1-0 lead, you would have advocated for his removal because "5th inning ERA"?

Sure, in that situation I'd let him keep going and in fact in the moment yesterday I posted that I'd let Freddy come back out but with a very short leash. I was just dumbfounded by the people who were so insistently blasting this after the fact like we haven't seen exactly who Freddy has been as a pitcher for 30+ starts this year. He had not earned the benefit of the doubt in that moment unfortunately.

[JimmyTheKid]

Get a couple relievers stretching, loosening up in the pen? Sure. Have a quick trigger in case Freddy gets wild or begins to give up hard contact. Definitely. But I just can't comprehend not letting Freddy start the 5th after retiring nine in a row while sitting on 68 pitches and the lead.

[Kerb Hohl]

Get a couple relievers stretching, loosening up in the pen? Sure. Have a quick trigger in case Freddy gets wild or begins to give up hard contact. Definitely. But I just can't comprehend not letting Freddy start the 5th after retiring nine in a row while sitting on 68 pitches and the lead.

It's a good idea until it isn't. Just like any other 4th down football decision or similar "gut vs. analytics" the comparison you're making in your head is that Peralta just keeps cruising or he loads the bases and Payamps gets a GIDP and you aren't considering the likelihood that he does poorly.

Just like Ragans for the Royals yesterday, who generally starts walking guys once he gets later into the game (I was a fantasy baseball-haver, this happened every freaking time the past 2 years), we have lots of data suggesting that Peralta is likely to start struggling. So they played what they thought were the best odds...and happened to lose. Not a stupid decision. It wasn't.

[JimmyTheKid]

Get a couple relievers stretching, loosening up in the pen? Sure. Have a quick trigger in case Freddy gets wild or begins to give up hard contact. Definitely. But I just can't comprehend not letting Freddy start the 5th after retiring nine in a row while sitting on 68 pitches and the lead.

It's a good idea until it isn't. Just like any other 4th down football decision or similar "gut vs. analytics" the comparison you're making in your head is that Peralta just keeps cruising or he loads the bases and Payamps gets a GIDP and you aren't considering the likelihood that he does poorly.

Just like Ragans for the Royals yesterday, who generally starts walking guys once he gets later into the game (I was a fantasy baseball-haver, this happened every freaking time the past 2 years), we have lots of data suggesting that Peralta is likely to start struggling. So they played what they thought were the best odds...and happened to lose. Not a stupid decision. It wasn't.

If it wasn't a stupid decision to pull Peralta after 4 innings "because analytics" than why is Freddy EVER allowed to come back out for the 5th? Isn't that in itself "stupid" according to the computers?

[Kerb Hohl]

Get a couple relievers stretching, loosening up in the pen? Sure. Have a quick trigger in case Freddy gets wild or begins to give up hard contact. Definitely. But I just can't comprehend not letting Freddy start the 5th after retiring nine in a row while sitting on 68 pitches and the lead.

It's a good idea until it isn't. Just like any other 4th down football decision or similar "gut vs. analytics" the comparison you're making in your head is that Peralta just keeps cruising or he loads the bases and Payamps gets a GIDP and you aren't considering the likelihood that he does poorly.

Just like Ragans for the Royals yesterday, who generally starts walking guys once he gets later into the game (I was a fantasy baseball-haver, this happened every freaking time the past 2 years), we have lots of data suggesting that Peralta is likely to start struggling. So they played what they thought were the best odds...and happened to lose. Not a stupid decision. It wasn't.

If it wasn't a stupid decision to pull Peralta after 4 innings "because analytics" than why is Freddy EVER allowed to come back out for the 5th? Isn't that in itself "stupid" according to the computers?

In the regular season you can't play an "optimal" game every time due to not having enough relievers, etc.

In the playoffs, you probably can do such a thing if you want to. Of course it is a tough as hell decision because maybe he's your "ace" and he's on a bit of a roll, but the predictive data tells you he may run into trouble soon.

You also could leave him out there if you're up 4-0 or down 0-3 in the game and gamble on an extra inning or two doesn't hurt you any further...or if he does give up 2 runs, you still can make up for it.

[coolhandluke121]

I'm not sure Peralta fell behind in the count for more than 2-3 pitches all night, unless you count 3-2 as "behind." I'm also not sure he gave up solid contact more than 2-3 times. Granted, they were pretty much all in the same inning, but that's baseball. He was absolutely filthy in every other inning.

Also, it's valid to use relievers for 5 innings in the playoffs, but are they really planning to use every good reliever two nights in a row and just pray that there's no game 3? Peralta is still more talented than any other starter, despite his inconsistency, and you should give him more than 4 innings when his control looks solid. His bad starts usually involve laboring through nearly every inning, and it's not like one rough inning means he's going to be unreliable.

The one thing with Peralta is, I think I may be saying this without numbers to back me up, but he throttles bad offenses. He only has one really effective pitch and if a team makes him locate it consistently, that's when he gets blown up.

That has not been my impression at all. My impression is that he labors when he's completely wild, whether it's against a good team or a bad one. His command is never going to be great, and it's probably the double-edged sword of all the movement on his fastball, but when he's at least staying close to the zone, he's practically unhittable. When he's completely wasting ~5 pitches per inning on pitches so far out of the zone that the hitter knows not to swing practically as soon as it leaves his hand, that's where watching his starts is so painful. That wasn't the case yesterday at all.

[coolhandluke121]

Also, I would say it's not about the inning number so much as it's about how many times he had gone through the order. He only faced 15 batters and pretty much mowed down everyone who didn't actually score a run. Ridiculous not to let him face the bottom of the order (with 3 RHBs no less) one more time.

[Thunder Muscle]

They lost because Payamps was late to cover a bag. A simple play a first grader makes. That's it.

This. Add this to the lore of postseason plays that will haunt me.

[MickeyDavis]

They lost because Payamps was late to cover a bag. A simple play a first grader makes. That's it.

This. Add this to the lore of postseason plays that will haunt me.

Watch on YouTube