I think I understand. You're someone who wants to tinker and seek perfection, and you tend to prefer the broad (sometimes vague) picture over specifics--totally get that in the product world. I think there are a few issues in baseball vs. audio that present issues with that mentality: 1) Because people aren't things/computers, switching and then reverting doesn't always mean you get the same result you once had. People are finicky and have so many elements to their brains, physical attributes, personalities. So there is inherently more risk with tinkering/tweaking here vs. in a world where you can always revert. When accounting for that risk from a place of success, you have to take extreme caution even if you have many reasons to try something. 2) While we can say that there are a million variables in baseball and success is subjective (i.e. stolen bases, OBP, WAR, hot streak, whatever)...baseball boils down to winning / scoring runs / preventing runs. There is an objective metric that matters above all others. When you combine those 2 things, I think you're in a world (given the extreme success thus far, with zero underlying signs of it being crazy luck) where you tweak when you see massive upside to doing so, and/or have historical reasons based heavily in data. You are slower to react and look more to changing after it's obvious rather than before (which I know you said earlier you prefer)--especially when it comes to the major reasons for success (Springer, Altuve, Correa, Keuchel, McCullers, Devenski, Giles, Marwin, Marisnick).
I can live with that assessment. I agree. The analogy fails in many ways. But consider this. In audio, even when you get the system to virtual perfection for say one song or one album, you can then queue up another song or album which was recorded completely different, mixed and mastered completely different, and come to the realization that optimizing your audio system acoustics for one isnt optimal for another. A fully realized sound system set up for rock music may not (probably not) sound best for classical music. And so on. Agreed. But a more optimized lineup will on the whole will win the games they win by a bigger margin and turn a certain amount of losses into wins. Historically speaking, there have always been precedents. Some things that are part of the game now would have never been considered in the past, defensive shifting for example. Analytics have changed the game as well. To your point, certainly, at least now, you wouldn't change the BO for every game based on the opposing pitcher and team. But their may come a day where the data reservoir is so great, so detailed, and so convincing that teams will try it. How fast or slow you react depends a lot on how it looks. When things are looking obviously bad, its a no brainer to change something. Its when things are good when change is questioned. I am not sure everyone will agree, but I think this observation to reaction ratio has changed over the course of baseball history. If one looks at the moves, how many of them are made, under what context, things are much more reactive now than they were in the past. Certainly vs the deep past, say the 20's.
Except.... we kinda do because we have years of data - that you seem to want to ignore in favor of 50 games worth of data.
I dont ignore (ive said this before) it, I just weigh it differently. The past cannot predict the future. That is a indisputable fact. Therefore, whether looking at 50 games of history or 300, the best you can do is derive tendencies. Your point, seemingly, is that the longer the history sample, the better the prediction. While that is sometimes true, it certainly isn't always. History, whether we are talking about baseball or not is full of examples of events that happen without precedent. How many guys have thwarted their history by moving to a different team, gotten needed surgery, or for no apparent reason at all gotten really bad or really good in contradiction to their history? You wouldn't even be able to name them all. I can make the same argument for teams. I can make the same argument for the amount of history you consider in one case vs the amount considered in another. This said, my thinking says that the recent past is a better predictor for the near future than the deeper past is for the far future. Now, how large the samples to be considered are or should be in each case is a point of controversy, I agree.
While the past cannot predict the future, it can certainly give us insight into the future. Ignoring that insight would be a totally irresponsible things to do. We know Springer has been successful in the leadoff spot in the past. To drop all of that, literally based on a 14 game slump (a slump in which he still reached base in 11 of those games), would be ridiculously irresponsible. So, right now, today, you say the Astros may be better off if they would make your dramatic lineup changes (and shuffling 4 of the top 5 positions is dramatic). Furthermore, you would rather have had your "may be better" lineup changes over the past month (or entire season for that matter), than the factual results they have produced. I believe that is a simple yes or no question. Your lineup this year (or since you first posted), or the Astros lineup.
Now your putting words in my mouth. I say now, and I say it for the last time, I am considering the whole of the 2017 season in my thinking. I am considering the player I envision Springer to be (which may differ from yours) and imagine where his best placement would be in the lineup. I dont think its the leadoff spot. Thats it.
OK, forget opinions posted in a forum... this last series - in which the Astros scored more runs than in any other series in the franchise's history, including any and every playoff series - *that* didn't dent your POV? Here's what Springer did leading off: .533/.588/.933/1.522. I mean... this kind of reminds me of the post-Schaub Texans forum, where people - while actively watching objectively inferior QBs play - continued to bag Schaub. There's a degree of unmovable stubbornness that sometimes just mystifies me...
You do realize that Minnys bullpen was beatup and exhausted when we faced them and thats where we did most of our damage? Right?
There are dozens of other opinions I hold that I haven't started a thread on also. Just because I began a thread at a particular point in time doesn't mean it hadn't crossed my mind before.
You didn't answer my question from my previous post. For the first two months of this year should the Astros have used your lineup or their lineup? Furthermore Should the Astros switch to your lineup starting tonight?
Your right, I didn't. You want to know why? Because I smell an ambush. You already know how I feel about my line-up so you already know how I would answer. You already have a response waiting for my anticipated response. So your question isnt really a question, is it?
You have either one of two answers and I think we would all respond in the same way 1. You'd choose the Astros lineup to which we would respond "you answered your own question. Springer should not be moved out of the leadoff spot" 2. Your lineup should be used to which we would respond "really? change the lineup that has led the Astros to the best record and most runs scored? that's crazy talk"
What other response could there be? And as I said before...it is baffling to me that anyone would want to retroactively or proactively change the lineup that has produced as theirs has.
Then why ask the question other than to try and take my point of view down a notch? And ive already answered that question as well. I am not answering it again.
The tough part to grasp is that he thinks they can potentially go from 95% to 96% (random #'s, but marginally increase something great) of the best offense. And he believes in tinkering to find that 1% increase because that 1% increase can result in the difference in important games (in theory). IMO, he's failing to recognize that the risk of going from 95% down to 90% is much higher (i.e. more likely), that you may not be able to come back up to 95% after that, and that 95% is also very likely to be enough to win most series. He has a very different risk/reward perspective for some reason. They can fall much further than they can rise with lineup changes.
It was mentioned in this thread how when opposing arguments are made, it could change one's opinion. I was curious if the arguments made and the factual data we have seen since you created this thread has changed your mind.
