Lance didn't seem too upset after the game. They were at a point in the game where pulling Lance was likely the right move anyway and any kind of discomfort makes that a no-brainer decision for Dusty and Strom.
This is way too simplistic and not really true. The goal is always to find the maximum probability of winning a series, even moreso in today's analytics world. In this case, McCullers on regular rest is the obvious option so there was no real decision to be be made. But it's not always the case. Take a hypothetical team with 3 ace pitchers and one absolute dud. You're up 3-0 in a 7 game series. You still throw the dud out there in game 4 instead of ace #1 on short rest, because it gives you games 5, 6, and 7 with regular rest. It didn't maximize your chance of winning game 4 but did maximize winning the series. The Astros 2019 WS could be looked at similarly, except being behind 2-1 going into game 4. They still planned a bullpen game in game 4 (turned out Urquidy was amazing and didn't really play out that way) instead of Cole on short-rest because they knew game 4 wasn't the only thing they needed and having their big-3 on normal rest in games 5/6/7 gave them the best chance to win the series, despite hurting their chances in game 4.
In the hypothetical you painted you are totally wrong. You never run a “dud” out onto the mound if you have an ace ready to pitch. In the 2019 Series, the choice wasn’t between Cole on short rest or a “dud”, it was between Cole and Urquidy, who you admitted was “amazing”. So there’s a firm argument that rolling with Urquidy gave them the best chance to win that game, as Cole was on short rest. There’s nuance to everything. But the rule is firm, even tho it’s simple: in the playoffs, always try to win the current game.
Agreed. Nobody who gets paid to manage or construct a team actually thinks that way. If you think that way and you meaningfully reduce your chances of winning a series because you sell out to win one game then you should be fired.
Except it's not. I guarantee you the Astros didn't think they had a better chance winning game 4 in 2005 with Brandon Backe and his 4.75 ERA than any of their 3 elite starters. They just knew they had to win 4 games, rather than just game 4. It's the same reason the Astros wouldn't haven't thrown Cole and Verlander together in a game 1 despite it increasing their odds of winning that game, because they know they need to win game 2 also. It's a rule that people say because it sounds good but actually isn't remotely true.
Like I said, there’s nuance to everything. Of course throwing your two aces as a tandem in Game 1 would be a bad idea; of course there’s context of winning a series being a goal over winning one game. Those are silly, argumentative nits you’re picking. But in any reasonably questionable decision (like whether to go to an ace on short rest vs throwing out a “bum”), the wise course is to try to win the current game.
They're not silly at all. Now you're lobbing in concepts like "reasonable" to make the initial argument seem, well, reasonable. Of course if it's a tossup or if the cone of uncertainty is impossibly large, then you try to win the game. But that wasn't the claim. The claim was that you always try to win the first game. And that's just not true, as evidenced by easy-to-identify scenarios where you just wouldn't use that strategy.
Meh. First of all, the original comment was made in the context of this thread topic (whether to pitch Lance yesterday). Also, I said “current” game, not game 1. Either way, it’s easy to attack any broad claim like the one I made (especially after removing context). But in this instance it’s silly.
You're really going to die on this hill? You said: "The #1 rule of roster management in the MLB playoffs is ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS try as hard as you possibly can to win the current game." And it's "silly" to think that "ALWAYS ALWAYS ALWAYS" meant always? Seems, um, silly. Just say you misspoke or didn't write it as carefully as you meant to or something, but don't call someone silly for thinking 'ALWAYS ALWAY ALWAYS' was intended to mean "always."
