George Springer: Should he lead off?

Agreed. Something else I've noticed is his management of the starters. He occasionally is late pulling a starter, but usually that's because it happens in the 4th/5th inning. He's giving Keuchel nearly free reign to decide when he's coming out. LMJ has gotten extra rope that has let him work through problems and start to pitch a little deeper. Heck I think Musgrove even got 7 innings the other game.

The starters collectively have to be very satisfied with confidence Hinch has in them. Except Fiers. Fiers sucks.

 

Hinch has definitely been good this year. I give him credit for correctly using MarGod and Jake. I'm just saying, some people are going to still bring up certain decisions throughout the year and question them. I don't see an issue with striking a balance between the two perspectives. I will agree, anyone who actually thinks he is terrible is flat out wrong, but team record shouldn't shield him from all scrutiny.

 

Of course it is fun fine to discuss and question strategy in a particular game or instance especially when the team makes well over 100 strategical decisions every game. What a lot of "new to baseball because the Astros are good this year" don't see is (as @Major aptly put it) is that the Astros are in the "long game". They may make a decision in a particular game in order to protect the future. For example, my guess is that Keuchel would not have been DL'd if it was September and they were in a playoff spot battle. Perhaps he would have started after 7 days instead of 10. For the betterment of the season, they took a safer approach. The vast majority of the time Hinch and his staff have made the right call on lineups and pitching decisions. They also know the team, personalities and health that we aren't privy to.

The Astros are still going to lose a boatload of games the rest of the year. They are apt to have a bad streak (a la the Indian series). There is no need to panic or call for drastic lineup changes. They know they need a starting pitcher or two. Potential trading partners know it as well. They need to be able to rely on that 3rd and 4th guy consistently giving them 5-7 decent innings.

It's just been history in this forum, that when the Astros falter, it is Hinch's fault and when they succeed it is in spite of Hinch. Of course, any team's record should not shield any player, coach or manager, but it's hard to argue with how the key players and staff have performed to produce the best record in baseball thus far this season.

 

I see the points you are making. Like I said in my previous post, I think it is only fair that a balance be struck between the "long game" outlook, and the "question single game decisions" outlook. I am not sure any competent baseball fan would disagree that every team views the season with a looking glass that is wider than the average fan. That much we totally agree on.

I would caution that consistently using the "long game" approach, as a fan, has both positive and negative outcomes. First a positive. Seeing that the "long game" approach doesn't put as much value in each decision, and instead focuses on potential long term gains, it is an approach that is much easier to stand by, and will be proven right more often then not. (especially when your team is almost guaranteed long term success regardless of what happens in the 60th game of the season.)

The problem though, is that it is often used as a sort of "catch-all", where some decisions, even if they are obviously poor, can be hidden in the fact that "the long game is in effect." It essentially creates an environment on this board where there is only one approved reaction to any given situation. Either: "Excellent! That was the right decision." or "Excellent! The long game is in effect, so it doesn't matter in the scheme of things.."

Well, what if I want to b**** about something, but I still understand all the facets of the "long game"? Is that wrong? I don't think so. If we are going to loose 60 + games anyway, we should be able to express grievances on the board. Who's to say one of the things consistently b****ed about doesn't become exceedingly important when the "long game" is no longer in effect? Who knows?


Let's have balance.


Also, speaking of @Major 's NBA analogy, The "long game" has been used successfully, but, It has also been an incredibly hot button topic in terms of the correct time to use it. I think that is another fair discussion to have. It is what sparked the discussion to begin with (then the Astros pulled off the comeback, so it became moot).

 

I am sure Hinch makes a lot of mistakes. I am fine with complaining about mistakes he makes a lot. That said, the title of this thread is "George Springer: Should he lead off?" George is the 9th best among leadoff hitters in RC+ while likely having a bad slump. He projects to be one of the best leadoff guys the rest of the season. Don't like fancy stats/projections...he's 4th in runs and 2nd in RBIs among leadoff hitters. Overreacting to small sample sizes asks for ridicule in my opinion.

Multiple people said Correa should be moved out of cleanup spot at about the three week mark. Heck, it still continued into the 4th and 5th weeks. Since the 3rd week, Trout, Judge, and Marwin have been better hitters. Outside that, I'm not sure there has been a better hitter. Correa leads all players in WAR in May.

Requests for Keuchel to be pulled at about 100 pitches while pitching great, effortless, and no sign of stress. Yes, that isn't something to call out Hinch on. I could see it if it was after he had given up the homer and the single such that tying run was at the plate with him at nearly 110 pitches. He has shown no ill affects unless you want to throw a pinched nerve as being caused by pitching an extra inning about 3-4 weeks ago.

Having Giles as closer...of the things that Hinch is slandered frequently about recently that has caused a major backlash, this is probably the most reasonable. However, among predictive stats xFIP and FIP, there is not a relief pitcher better that is not an Astro, Indian, Yankee, Dodger, or Red Sox over the past 2 years. Over the last year, a quarter of the runs he's given up have been in 1 game. He's given up 2 or more runs 5 times in last year. He's not perfect, though I still don't see anyone with a clear better track record that is easily obtainable.

I can see complaining about a certain reliever yesterday. I've seen people warning of wearing out the pen as well. I can see both of these complaints as having some merit though I have pointed out Devenski appears to be only one getting up there in innings. So I don't have a problem with people complaining. Just know, when a lot of people think it is stupid, it is going to look like people are ganging up on you.

 

Incredibly balanced outlook. Bravo, sir. (would like again)

edit: not worried about people ganging up on me personally at all. It's more a comment on the diversity of opinions/fandom

 

I think bobrek and JoeJoe covered my views pretty well, but I would add that two things that tend to set me off are:

1. The second-guessing. The amount of times that people say "Hinch was stupid for doing X" only *after* X didn't work is ridiculous. It's easy to be genius when people can just criticize after the fact and stay silent when the decision worked. This is especially true with bullpen decisions, or pulling starters too early/late.

2. The line between "questionable decision" to "bad manager" is ridiculous as well. I have a real problem with the leap people make every time a decision goes poorly to "Hinch sucks!"As someone above mentioned, managers will make 100 decisions a game. A lot of them won't work out. If decisions that don't work = bad manager, then every manager is baseball is terrible. The only difference is that most of us don't watch any other teams that much to see or analyze all those decisions. So much of baseball managing is navigating a team through the ups and downs of a 6+ month season. Managing their workloads, their health, their attitudes, etc. Hinch excels in that - he doesn't overreact to things, his players seem to love him and always play hard, etc. When I think of great manager, the first name I think of is Joe Maddon, and everything he is known for is that ability to get the most out of his team. That's what Hinch is doing right now.

Hinch, in 2015, took a team no one expected to be all that good to an amazing season and a near amazing playoff series win. Last year was a struggle, and now this year he has the team on pace to win something like 115 games. Astros were expected to be good this year, but not *this* good. They've done things Astros teams rarely have (multiple 5+ run comebacks) and now one that none has ever done (6+ run in the 8th). So 2 out of 3 years, so far, the Astros have way overperformed expectations. All of that is a reflection of his management of the team and the clubhouse, and it is so much more reflective of Hinch's impact than whatever random bullpen decision or not starting Jake for a game or whatever.

 

I asked a few pages ago....what is your lineup if you move Springer?

 

Springer needs to hit 5.

 

So you don't like his high strikeout totals but want him in a spot in the lineup where strikeouts really matter (as opposed to leadoff, where they are less relevant)?

 

I really don't think we are that far apart here. As I have said, this is not concerning the "Hinch sucks" "Hinch is a bad manager" people. I agree that is an overreaction. (Though I don't mind it usually, because I don't mind people getting pissed when the team looses.) But there are people in between...who don't need to be reminded of the long game every time they question a decision.

 

But in that scenario you are making 5 changes to a line-up that is at or near the top of most every offensive category.

 

When healthy, and facing right handers, the 1-4 have been pretty consistent.

 

What Nick said. Plus those lineups include different players (e.g. Marisnick changing places with Aoki) but you know that.

 

That was his OBP.. .not his BA.

Also, does a lead-off hitter for the game often leadoff an inning more or less for the rest of the game?

Finally, how do we know that number is not a direct reflection of who he has batting behind him?