I Argue With Myself About Ian Anderson's Removal from World Series Game 3
Having Had More Than 24 Hours to Consider It, A Spirited Internal Dialogue Occurs About the 2021 World Series' Most Polarizing Decision Thus Far
For those who might have missed it, allow me to paint a proper picture.
On a cold, dreary and rainy Friday night in October, Atlanta Braves manager Brian Snitker found himself with a decision on his hands. His 23 year-old, (still technically) rookie right-handed starter Ian Anderson has thrown five innings of hit-less baseball at home in Game 3 of the World Series against arguably the best offense in baseball. The Houston Astros were tops in the league in Runs Scored, On Base Percentage and weighted Runs Created +, meaning that no matter your temperament towards analytics, the opposing Astros have an offense to be reckoned with.
As the top of the 6th approaches, so does the top of the Houston order. A former MVP (Jose Altuve), a 5-time All-Star (Michael Brantley) and a former Silver Slugger (Alex Bregman) are due up. Two of the three are right-handed, sandwiching the left-handed Brantley. This will be Anderson's third time through the order, and while he hasn't allowed a single hit, he has surrendered 3 walks and has only thrown 39 strikes to go with 37 balls. He's been effectively wild, and with only a 1-0 advantage for his squad, Snitker has to make a decision. Is his starter's hit-less line in the box score a hot streak to ride or a matter of luck that could run out at any moment, as the Astros hitters get more and more looks at Anderson's repertoire?
For most of you, this description is probably already familiar. This was the situation of Friday night's World Series tilt, and if you know that much than you likely also know that Snitker opted for his bullpen. Anderson was removed after 5 in favor of left-handed reliever AJ Minter. That decision would prove sound, as the Braves would not hold down the no-hitter but would shut out the Astros and take home a 2-0 victory for the night, giving them a 2-1 lead in the series heading into Game 4.
As the situation progressed in real-time, the internet was ablaze with discussion of the decision to remove Anderson, both positive and negative. The decision to relieve him may have been sound, but it is not perfectly popular. Surely, no one can disagree with the result, but what about the process? For what reason can it be such a quick and swift decision to remove a pitcher who hasn't allowed a single hit in one of the biggest games possible?
The data we have now today suggests there is significant impact on a starting pitcher's effectiveness as he gets to the third time through the order, combine that with the fact that the Astros front-load their offense (like most teams do) with their best hitters and the current baseball zeitgeist of today looks favorably upon the move to replace Anderson. But could an argument be made- an argument not only leaning on old-school baseball know-how but also some sort of empirical information- to give the ball to Anderson in the 6th?
It may be too late now to change the course of time but we can at least ask the question. This is not a matter of experience and savvy vs. analytics. A combination of both is necessary to make a compelling argument to send Anderson back out for the 6th inning.
And with that in mind, allow myself to argue with... myself. Consider the following an internal discussion. The devil on one shoulder and angel on the other, if you will. You can pick out the characters if you like, but here is the dialogue.
Take Him Out (THO): So, you saw how the game ended. How could you possibly make the argument that relieving Anderson wasn't the right decision? Because it would be more entertaining for Anderson to keep pitching? This is the World Series. You have to do whatever it takes to win and only win.
Keep Him In (KHI): Of course that’s not why I’m arguing for Anderson to keep pitching. My objective is for the Braves to get to a Game 3 victory just like what happened in real life. Look, I understand that Anderson's removal worked out, but there is nothing to suggest that keeping Anderson in the game wouldn't have led to the same outcome. He pitched 5 scoreless and hit-less innings. Two of his walks came in the first inning and on the third he was clearly pitching around Yordan Alvarez. He was completely in charge of this game… until he wasn't allowed to be anymore.
THO: You neglect to mention that after he walked Alvarez he fell behind Carlos Correa and ended up hitting him. That allowed Alvarez to reach scoring position.
KHI: Yeah, but that was the only time an Astro got into scoring position in the first five innings at all. And he got out of it right away but by inducing soft contact on a come-backer hit by Kyle Tucker. He came right back out in the 5th and set the side down in order including a strikeout to end the inning. He was cruising. Didn't we just go through this with Blake Snell last year? Just because it worked out this time doesn't automatically make it the only correct decision.
THO: He was cruising because that was the bottom of the order in the 5th. The lineup was about to flip back to the top for the 3rd time. Altuve-Brantley-Bregman is a world different than Gurriel-Maldonado-Marwin Gonzalez. You know the numbers say the third time through the order is a problem.
KHI: Anderson may have a short career, but his career OPS Against for the 3rd time through the order is .707. You know what it is for the first time through the order? .706. He's basically the same pitcher the 3rd trip through the lineup as he is in the first inning.
THO: Yeah, in 26 total games. But let's just say he gets through the order a 3rd time and let's even say he gets through it with the no-hitter intact, what about a 4th time? Or what about just regular old fatigue? He's already thrown 76 pitches. He's on pace to throw 138 if he goes all nine innings. Are you seriously going to blow his arm out in this game just to keep a no-hitter going?
KHI: Isn't your whole premise to just do whatever leads to the win? If Anderson keeps pitching and keeps not allowing hits or runs, aren't I fulfilling the same premise? Besides, all I am saying is to take his appearance batter by batter. I'll go as far to say Anderson's continued existence in this game really isn't even about the no-hitter. If Anderson gets into trouble; if he allows a runner in scoring position again, he is out of the game. Doesn't matter if its by hit, walk, catcher's interference, anything. Besides, like I said, he's only had runners in scoring position once. He may have thrown 76 pitches, but most of those have been out of the wind-up. There's been a lot of low-stress pitches and he's been trying to be careful. That's probably part of WHY he has a no-hitter going. If he can keep it going, why stop him?
THO: There's no such thing as low-stress pitches in the post-season, let alone World Series. Its a 1-0 ball game. All it takes is one swing to tie it. Again, the top of the order is coming up.
KHI: You can say that no matter which pitcher is in the game. When Minter took the ball, the Astros were still only one swing away. Anderson's ERA the third time through the order this year (3.55) was better than Minter's in any situation (3.78).
THO: Yeah, but Minter's Homers per 9 Innings (0.3) was 6 times better than Anderson's (1.8) in those same respective situations. And Minter has been lights out in this post-season. He’s given up only 1 run in 11 innings. Besides, what if you need Anderson later in the series? You'd really let him throw 130+ pitches?
KHI: Like I said, if that's what results in a W, then yes. And the Braves are less likely to need Anderson in a Game 6 or Game 7 if they win Game 3. Need I remind you Games 4 and 5 are about to be bullpen games for the Braves? It would have done them really well to stay away from one of Minter, Luke Jackson or Tyler Matzek in Game 3. They're going to need those guys in order to win this series. If they are winning the next 2 nights, is there any chance at all that any of them don't actually pitch? I think its a foregone conclusion they are all pitching three days in a row if the games are close. Is that really a recipe for success? (Update: Minter didn’t pitch in Game 4. I think the point remains though. We’ll see if the Braves can survive a Game 5 with Matzek and Jackson potentially pitching 3 days in a row).
THO: You make a point there, but in the event that the Braves are losing they will use their other relievers. Or even if they have a big lead. There are plenty of scenarios where the best pieces of the Braves bullpen don't need to be used three nights in a row.
KHI: What happened to there being no stress-free outs in the World Series? So if you're Snitker, you're going to pray for a blowout against one of the best offenses in baseball... or actually hope you lose a game at home in order to save your bullpen? That doesn't make much sense to me. This comes down to a simple weighing of two options. Would you rather a young but quality starting pitcher begin a third time through the order when he personally doesn't have anything in his splits to suggest he is especially poor on that third trip, or would you rather run the risk of burning out your best relievers by sending them onto the mound three nights in a row?
THO: I'd rather go with the the bullpen three nights in a row. Like I said, it might even be avoided.
KHI: I'd rather go with Anderson pitching into the 6th. Relievers pitching three days in a row happens so infrequently that I can't even find stats for it. Starters pitch over 76 pitches and past the 5th inning all the time. And I still say you can't hope for a blowout against Astros offense or actively root against yourself. The most likely thing that happens choosing my way is that Anderson just pitches deeper into the game and saves the bullpen. I think its already worth trying.
THO: No, the most likely thing to happen is that Anderson gives up the no-hitter and sparks an Astros rally. The most likely thing my way is that Atlanta wins Game 3. We know that for a fact. Its what happened. It was the right thing to do.
KHI: No, it was the safe thing to do. There is nothing to suggest that the Braves couldn't have won Game 3 just because Anderson walks out to the mound to start the 6th inning. If your way fails, Snitker can point at the data and the front office and talk about how these decisions are made in tandem with the analytics team. If he leaves Anderson in the game and it goes wrong, its a decision he has to own. God forbid managers actually have some agency in how the game plays out in 2021.
THO: If he leaves Anderson in and it fails, he might get fired.
KHI: If getting your team to the World Series for the first time in 22 years is a fire-able offense, then I guess so. Snitker admitted post-game that a couple years ago he would have had real questions about taking Anderson out. The baseball hivemind got to him since then. Its not that outrageous.
THO: Doing something that stupid could be a fire-able offense.
KHI: Your face is a fire-able offense.
I could keep going but this is starting to get even weirder than when it started. As corny as this dialogue might have come off, in a strange way I think it was a good exercise in getting a feel for both sides of this argument. I am not going to sit here and act like the Braves were wrong for taking out Anderson, it obviously worked. I do think though that there can be more than one way to be right.
We will never know for certain if there could have been a successful scenario for the Braves where Anderson had pitched deeper into the ballgame. The idea that he was going to throw a complete no-no is admittedly far-fetched and anyone arguing that Anderson should have remained in the ballgame for entertainment value isn't acting in good faith.
But still, situations like these are what is supposed to make sports fun. The games, the moments, the narratives and of course, the decisions that surround them. I don't care about the entertainment value so much of Anderson specifically seeking out a World Series no-hitter as much as I care about the fact that there should be multiple avenues to success. One of those avenues could have been extending Anderson deeper into the game which would save some of the Atlanta's bullpen for later in the series. Anderson specifically seems like an appropriate pitcher to do this with since his splits for the 3rd time through the order aren't that much different than the first time. I think the true salient point of discussion here is whether or not the Braves are better off with Anderson starting a third time through the order or with the Braves best relievers potentially pitching three days in a row. On Sunday morning, we are actually a step closer to possibly knowing the leaning on the bullpen was a good move. They look to clinch the Commissioner’s Trophy in Game 5 tonight.
Ultimately, my hope isn't so much that one of these arguments wins out as much as it is that both arguments remain relevant. The game seems to be having more and more of the variety in style of play and strategy taken from it. That, more so than any specific situation like Anderson's, is what could make the game a snooze-fest in the future.
Twitter- @DJLJR26
Feature Image: Federal Baseball