You are viewing the chat in desktop mode. Click here to switch to mobile view.
X
Astros vs. Rays ALDS Game 4 Chat
powered byJotCast
Prev Page View Full Chat Next Page
Ben Clemens
7:38
Ah, the pitfalls of chatting with your editor.
Meg Rowley
7:38
Good offseason topic imo
7:39
I would have a fella warming imo
5 Run Homer
7:39
Hmm
Maybe
just maybe
This short rest thing wasn't a great idea
Ben Clemens
7:40
I mean, it's hard to know. But this has certainly *worked out* in the worst way possible.
There was no way they could know how he'd react to short rest unless they had him throw some max-effort short rest start earlier in the year or something.
7:41
But uh, yeah. This is bad.
psweeting
7:41
I assume the ability to recover quickly and go on short rest is one of the first things to go with age, right?
Meg Rowley
7:41
(thinks about how I feel after drinking two IPAs with a meal) who could possibly say?
Ben Clemens
7:41
No Meg's pseudonym, I have no idea how I'd even research this one.
Meg Rowley
7:42
lol
Derek
7:42
Girardi with the observation that more runs are better than fewer runs
Ben Clemens
7:42
Which is surprisingly not a given in a baseball broadcast!
A-Rod asserted confidently that you'd always rather lead by an even number than an odd number.
kevinthecomic
7:43
Thanks for chatting!!  Since you're explaining the maths, can you opine on why you shouldn't pull out all the stops in an elimination game if that will just get you to another elimination game? -- so like the Rays today, Baseball *wisdom* says they should do whatever they have to do (empty the bullpen, use your starters in relief, etc.) because if they don't win today, there is no tomorrow.  BUT, my understanding is that this is wrong again, according to the maths.
Ben Clemens
7:43
I've been saving this one because I think it's interesting.
It really depends what it costs you and what you get.
For example, let's say the Rays could burn Glasnow and Snell and work Nick Anderson beyond his logical breaking point.
7:44
In exchange for being 100% to win now.
But with no pitching left they'd be, eh, 20% to win Thursday.
7:45
Then they're 20% to advance. Whereas you figure they're 74% to win via our win expectancy, 34.6% to win per ZiPS, about 26% to win the series.
So going all out today would cost them a 6% shot at winning the series.
No awards for losing in 5 rather than in 4
Stavi
7:45
Is the math maximizing P(win today) * P(win game 5)?
Ben Clemens
7:46
Yeah exactly.
Now you can't know the tradeoffs of extending today.
But it's worth taking into account.
Dodger fan
7:47
That same logic can apply series to series, as potentially overworking Verlander, or what the Nationals have done with the Dodgers: the Nats may advance tomorrow (and given their BP its probably the better option), but they won't be at full strength for the LCS after depleting their starters out of the bullpen, especially if Corbin is used again tonight to follow on Strasburg.
Meg Rowley
7:47
While Ben does impressive math, I have to say that Yarborough's name reminds me of Jarlsberg cheese and now I want a snack
Ben Clemens
7:47
Yeah this is why I wouldn't have run Verlander today. Not because of a short rest issue, but because I'd rather gamble on Urquidy winning.
And having maximum strength JV against the Yankees.
Mike
7:48
What did we do as fans to deserve to listen to some of the people were forced to listen to, even in playoff games?
Meg Rowley
7:48
Think this booth is pretty good! Think Smoltz with Joe Davis is ok. Think that I just really miss the park audio option.
Derek
7:48
Wow I missed that A-Rod comment. Just watched the clip of it and... What.
Ben Clemens
7:49
Have you seen the Shaq gasoline thing?
When I heard A-Rod explaining this one my mind went there immediately.
Matt
7:49
Meg, Yarborough's name reminds me of the Yardbirds...which makes me want to listen to Clapton and eat some chicken. Same destination. Different route.
Connecting…