I've gone back and forth re: the Blake Snell decision, but here's an interesting number (1/ )

From 2017-2020, there have been 202 starts in which the SP went 5 innings, struck out 9+ hitters, walked 1 or fewer, and allowed 1 or fewer runs. Let's call these starts "Snells" (idk)

For the most part, these 202 "Snells" were, unsurprisingly, a majority of the time from the game's most elite pitchers. So we're not dealing with a sample of mediocre pitchers that got lucky for 5 innings. This is 202 pitchers of Snell's caliber (or better) pitching just as well.

In the 202 Snells, the ERA was 0.62 thru 5 IP

181 of these pitchers came back out for the 6th. In a large number of these starts, the pitcher was beginning to face the top of the lineup for the 3rd time

In the 6th inning, the 181 pitchers allowed 72 runs* in 167.2 IP (3.86 ERA)

* and this doesn't even include the players they left on base!

My point in all this, of course, is that the narrative that "Blake Snell was dealing, therefore you keep him in" means nothing.

All of these pitchers were just as good (or better) as Blake Snell and pitching just as well (or better).

They were "shoving", "momentum", etc.

The correct choice, on average, for these 202 starts, was to bring in a good RP. (Not saying Anderson was the right choice for Tampa)

And if you don't buy into all that, that's fine.

But, imo, you'd really need to have a compelling argument as to why the 200 similar starts/starters before Blake "collapsed" and why Blake was destined for a better outcome (/end)