He also doesn't have his job any more despite winning the WS, 2 pennants and coming off an awesome draft. I don't like it either, but if I were in Dana Browns shoes I would be wary of rocking the boat as well. If Dusty gets pissy there's no guarantee Crane sides with you, maybe you get the "bad communicator" label that Click did. Even if he tried to trade Maldonado I'm 100% confident Crane would have vetoed it anyhow.
After Maldy got a few hits, no chance he sits tomorrow. You’ll next see Diaz in Arizona, and thank Dusty later.
Are you not thankful Nads and Scooby Doob played last night? I am, because they drove in four runs from the bottom of the order for the Houston Astros, for which any fan of whom would be thankful. **Disclaimer: this is in no way, shape, or corn an approbation of Diaz's misuse this season, but rather a pathetically, ubiquitously needed priority check.
Well, I posted this before last night. Of course I am happy ... but it doesn't mean it was the right decision.
I'm quite sure I know what you're trying to say, but last night, it absolutely was the right decision. That is empirically true and not subject to opinion. No reasonable person would doubt that it has been the wrong decision most of the season. But yesterday, it wasn't Dusty who was wrong - it was you. And that's 100% OK!! But, can we not just be honest anymore?
I don't agree. The right decision doesn't always work out and the wrong one sometimes does. If I drive drunk and make it home OK, was it the right decision because I didn't kill someone? I am thrilled the Astros won and if Chas was not available last night, then I agree that the 9 starters were the correct ones. 1) I think Framber is just too affected by the ups and downs within a game and changing to Diaz in that game was too risky. 2) Get Brantley's bat in the game vs a RHP!! That means he and Yordan have LF and DH so Diaz must sit. Abreu has been good enough to sacrifice the hitting upside for the defense. Abreu may not he Yuli but he's way better than Yainer with the glove. 3) Dubon is streaky and currently on the good side so he is the better choice vs a RHP. I would need to think about it if it were a lefty- both he and Meyers hit lefties well and Jake's defense may make the difference, but not vs a RHSP. Maybe the lineup wasn't ideal - I just simply don't think Dubon or Pena belong anywhere besides 8th or 9th but 1 of them had to be. Overall I think it was the best of available options unless Chas was available.
Maldy has a career OPS of .632. Weirdly, he had an ops of .760 in August and .806 in Sept. That is almost two months. I know the regression monster is coming. I also know that I still despise his terrible catching, pitch framing and broken ass machete. But his ABs have weirdly become more watchable. note, his OPS in June and July were below .500, and his OPS for the season is .616, completely in line with his career number. our best hope is that he made some adjustment to his swing or approach that explains this two month run of competence at the plate. I can’t stand dusty and in no way am I trying to defend him. But I think Diaz being so susceptible to chasing outside of the zone is going to cause Dusty to limit his ABs because playoff pitching is another level. Weirdly, I’d like Diaz in there for defensive purposes. At some point, Maldys ineptitude behind the plate is going to cost us a playoff game,
Appreciate the discourse! However, your argument runs into a few logical fallacies: 1) The Dicto Simpliciter fallacy refers to situations where circumstances or involved individuals are disregarded for unqualified generalizations. Since the manager's job as it pertains to constructing the lineup is to achieve maximum production - which, since said production is derived from fielding personel, involves more information than statistics - then the decision can be judged solely on the output of production. To wit, since the objective is to choose the right human to achieve the desired outcome, and since the desired outcome is production, and since the human element affects the outcome, then choosing a human who achieve the desired outcome of production is logically justified. 2) Concurrently, the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc creeps in. While we all know that going with your gut instead of past results will most likely lead to failing to achieve your desired outcome, that doesn't mean it ALWAYS does (i.e. "most likely" /= "never"). If future outcomes were dictated by past results, trends would never change, streaks would never end, players would never retire, I would never put down this delicious Crawford Bock, etc. I know how cringy it is, but sometimes going with your gut over past results is exactly the right decision. There is proof of this every single day in baseball and life. 3) Finally, you commit the logical fallacy of weak analogy. Since the important proporties of the two decisions are not related in any conceivable way (personal decision vs. morality), then the analogy really is meaningless - certainly no basis for a logical argument. On another note, I appreciate the rest of the post. I can dig that break down.
Thank you for taking the time and effort for this. You rule. I love this. Have an amazing day and GO ASTROS
You know that the correctness of a decision doesn't depend on the actual outcome, right? If you don't understand that concept, perhaps take a break from posting on a (normally) intelligent baseball board.
Communication, like improvising music together and coitus, can be excerises in self awareness, i.e. making love... Without the feedback loop, they're nothing more than bad ****ing, Coldplay, and the Astros game thread. To be yourself is to love yourself is to love another is to be another! An increasingly girthy Go Astros to you as well, sir!
Check out my reply above, where I go through some of the logical fallicies often employed unknowingly while engaged in this scenario, and then we can have a discussion. Cool? It'll be fun! To be clear, we are discussing judgement of a manager's decision on a single day to field a player who produced on said day.
Yainer Diaz's bat is special. _____________ ^ MLB average line eyeballed by me as Yainer's xwOBA over 100 rolling average PAs is so good and so consistent that the MLB average line dropped off the bottom of the default view from Baseball Savant. Of batters with at least 23 homers for the Astros in a season, the three fewest PAs... 2019 Alvarez 27 homers 369 PAs 2023 Diaz 23 homers 376 PAs 2004 Beltran 23 homers 399 PAs Alvarez was limited by service time manipulation. Beltran was limited by not being in Astros organization most of the year. Diaz was limited by .....
I assumed that your "response above" to @IdStrosfan was parody. I graduated with 5 majors from one of the top schools in the country, and two of those were statistics and psychology. So I know the theory about which you wrote, but 80% of your specifics were either gibberish or irrelevant. It was funny, though - so that was the spirit in which I took it. But none of that changes what is a very simple fact - the correctness of a decision doesn't depend on the actual outcome, it depends on the expected outcome at the time of the decision. Dusty played poor odds, and on this day he got lucky. To say, as you did, "last night, it absolutely was the right decision. That is empirically true and not subject to opinion" is just incorrect. If you have enough training in statistics to understand logical fallacies, you simply cannot debate that. You can keep doing so anyway, but either you know you are wrong and you are trolling, or you don't and you ignorant on the topic - either way, it's not worth a response.
If you have all these degrees in logic, surely you are interested in engaging in a conversation to help out a fellow Clutchfan understand his error, no? I see you have failed to address the specifics of my examples, instead opting to generally dismiss them. You have just committed the No True Scotsman fallacy, have you not? "the correctness of a decision doesn't depend on the actual outcome, it depends on the expected outcome at the time of the decision" While this is sometimes true, it is not always true. You have just committed the logical fallacy of false generalization, have you not? You're the expert. Please tell me specifically where I'm off. If you can't, perhaps you should try to get your money back for all those framed pieces of paper, as I'm sure they weren't cheap.
No, I have not. My statement is always 100% true. The definition of a good decision is the one that maximizes the chances of the desired outcome. The actual result depends on luck - it doesn’t change the correctness of the decision. If you have a dice with 6 sides and 4 are labeled red and 2 blue, and you insist on calling blue on a 50/50 wager, that is not a correct decision even if it rolls blue. There is no “false generalisation” - it is simply the wrong decision. 100% of the time. Yes, your other “logical fallacies” exist in the worlds of psychology and statistics, but they have nothing to do with this statement or with your erroneous argument that Dusty was objectively right because Maldonado hit a HR. You are just throwing out terms that you don’t fully understand in an attempt to sound smart. I can keep explaining it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.
