I agree with Bo's move. Here's an article on it from ESPN. http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/48334/bo-porter-makes-a-crafty-managerial-move
The move only would have "worked" had Williams gotten Goldschmidt out, and then Sipp goes out and K's the next guy (as he did). However, when Williams walked Goldschmidt... the move can no longer be considered "good". Sipp could have walked Goldschmidt, and it wouldn't have cost the Astros Grossman in LF (which did almost come back to backfire on them when Marwin Gonzalez severely misplayed a ball in the 9th). The move also backfires if a ball gets hit in the OF to Sipp and he misplays it. Basically, far too much risk... for very little reward.
False... Porter made the move to avoid wasting another lefty out of the pen. The Astros got the exact matchups they wanted without using another lefty. AKA... it worked.
False... they could have kept Sipp in and had him pitch around Goldschmidt, and gotten the exact same result (or hell, maybe he even gets him out). And they wouldn't have had to burn a position player which had the game ended up tied could have been far more costly than simply another reliever (which I've already established they didn't need to bring in). Again, only way the move "works" is if the righty you bring in, while you put your other pitcher in the OF, gets an out.
The move did not cost a run and got an out by Sipp being in the game after Williams walked Goldschmidt. May have been too risky, but it worked and the result should be considered good. Sipp is performing better in the limited role the Astros have had him in than he has in past. He is throwing his fastball 1-2 mph faster the past couple of months than he has for a couple of seasons. If limiting his pitches is responsible, keeping him as a lefty specialist may be best for team even though Sipp hasn't shown an extreme split. I don't want to see Williams pitch, but if I do...I'd rather it not be a left handed hitter. I don't have a problem with Sipp as a lefty specialist...I just wish the middle relievers were better. If Sipp is going to used as a middle reliever, I want someone better than Owens as the lefty specialist.
I'm arguing the outcome happened despite the move... not "because" of it, and that a similar outcome could have been reached without costing both a position player (Grossman) and a reliever (Williams...well, not too broken up about losing him). In the long run, i.e.- if this move is potentially done again and again, I don't see "success" more than I see potential failures.
If the Texans are on the 1-yard line and they throw the ball for a touchdown, does it really matter that they could have ran it in instead? The Texans would have gotten what they wanted, just like the Astros did. I agree with your overall idea, the move is risky. And to do it just for the sake of saving an extra lefty just in case it goes into extra innings might not be completely worth it.
If a team is leading and a move causes no net lose, it is a good result. You can argue in long run doing same move over and over again, could possibly have bad results, but this one did not. I do see a problem long term if Astros don't have a lefty specialist. Sipp can not pitch every pitch for Williams, Farnsworth. If Sipp faces more right handers, Williams is going to have to face more left handers. As Williams is twice as bad against lefties than righties..and he ain't good against righties. Until Williams, Farnsworth are replaced, pitching Sipp against right handers too much is a very risky option. I am not sure whether the move was stupid or not in the long run. I only know that it worked that time, that Sipp probably can't pitch to every batter, and that Sipp is performing great in the role he is in.
He is saying that since Williams did not get his man out, the move was useless, and he is correct. The net loss of the move was having to burn grossman as a defender, and having Marwin badly misplay a ball in the 9th, which almost cost them the game. Sipp could have stayed in and intentionally walked goldschmidt and they would have the exact same outcome minus not losing grossman. Had the runner scored in the 9th due to the misplayed ball by Marwin, the move would have been elevated into complete failure as opposed to useless.
The more accurate analogy is that the Texans have it at the 1 yard line, decide to run a flea-flicker reverse option with their nose tackle, who fumbles the ball but it's recovered by him in the end zone for a TD. Sure, the end result was a TD... Doesn't mean it was the right call.
Couldn't disagree with you more on both points. Just because the end result or something happens to be favorable does not = "the right move." Just because something happened to not backfire badly once doesn't mean it's "the right move". Again, had he brought in a better right hander who was able to handle Goldschmidt, and then Sipp gets the same outcome, I would have said the move "worked" (while still being risky). However, that did not happen.
He brought in Jerome Williams to face one of the best hitters in baseball. How can anybody agree with that move?
Sipp is a better pitcher than Williams, period. To bring in a worse pitcher just because he is right handed (while impairing your defense) is just plain stupid. Sipp throughout his career hasn't fared any better against lefties than righties anyhow. Sometimes I wonder if Porter ever actually looks at results, I think he just blindly does what "the book" says.
The object was to win the game. As the Astros were ahead, not giving up runs is working. You are being too microscopic. The object was not getting out the Goldschmidt. Sipp came in and got the next guy. Move results were one walk, one strikeout, and no runs. The move worked. I can see an argument over whether the move was smart, but saying a move that resulted in one walk, one strikeout, and no runs while leading is not working is wrong to me. I am actually leaning more your way on whether it is a stupid move....but only because it was Williams. I see Williams being more Luhnow's fault, though. There is no way Sipp wasn't pitching to Montero and I saw the move as a way to get Sipp, who had thrown a lot of pitches for himself, to face Montero. It may just be the crowd I hang out with, but every time Sipp is pulled for a righthander, there is whining. Sipp can't pitch to every batter and be available for as many games as he is. When I hear people wanting Sipp to pitch to this batter or that batter, my mind interprets that as wanting Williams to pitch against left handed pitchers, who he makes every batter look like Goldschmidt. It is my own knee jerk.
I can easily say you're being too "broad" when you say that if they didn't give up runs, it was a "successful" inning. Again, an end result that occurred "despite" the moves, not because of it. If the object was not getting Goldschmidt out, as you say, then why make the move at all??? Goldschmidt was very much a part of why he made the move. He didn't want Sipp to face him, but wanted him to face the other lefties. I say he should have either walked him on 4 pitches, or just pitched around him (who knows, maybe Paul gets himself out). Instead, you support putting a pitcher in the OF, taking out an established OF in a 1 run game, and bringing in a right-handed reliever to face one guy that you're probably not going to give him anything "good" to hit as is. The job of the manager in close games is to not only make the right move at that point of the game, but to also anticipate what could happen should the game be extended. As has already been said, they would have been in pretty awful shape had that one run lead dissipated, having burned a position player, a righty reliever, and having no viable OF'ers left. I would "hate" to see Porter (as he is now) manage in a playoff game or a lengthy extra-inning game... where every move they make "is" ultimately important and has huge ramifications (regardless of whether or not the team gets away with it).
In essence, the move worked because they eventually won the game. Had Sipp stayed in to face the one batter, the entire course of the game would have changed and there is not telling what would have transpired. That being said, currently right handed hitters are 4-22 against Sipp with a .626 OPS, while right handers are hitting .293 against Williams with a .782 OPS. Clearly Sipp has been the better pitcher overall this season regardless of hitter, so the move is an odd one. It is almost like Porter saw the opportunity to over manage and ran with it.
Okay, I'll play. We bring in Williams for Sipp traditionally. Williams walks Goldschmidt, as the result doesn't change. Now what do we do? We have a runner on base and we don't have our lefty-specialist available to face Montero. I'd argue that the move actually allowed for more error. Porter can't control how Williams performs, but just in case he gives up a walk (or hit) we still have our specialist available to get the next out. If Sipp is gone, then we're stuck with a runner on base, and only RHPs left to face a batter who hits righties much better than lefties. Sure, you can argue about Porter's decision to bring in Williams, but that's a different discussion.
No, I am saying the move was designed to designed to get the Astros out of the inning without giving up runs, which happened. Whether you say it was despite the move, it still got the desired result. The move resulted in an OPS of .500 while the Astros faced batters that averaged an OPS of .860. You can't know what Sipp would have done if he faced both batters, but the expected result would have been worse than one walk on average based on the hitters he faced. If I am saying the object is to not get Goldschmidt out because I disagree with you, you are saying the object of the move is for the Astros to give up runs for disagreeing with me. I guess since the Astros didn't give up runs, you are right.
Marwin could have caught the ball but I don't think it was a "mis play". He got a glove on it, there is no guarantee that Grossman makes that play either (he has had his share of miscues in the outfield).
