Of all of the stats/eye tests etc.... This stat is all that really matters. Yep, Springer batting leadoff seems to be working out quite well.
But that is the fallacy of your argument. There is no need to pretend. There is actual factual data that supports Springer leading off and Altuve hitting third. Both have numbers at their current batting positions that are better than your proposed positions. Over the past 3 years, Springer has 200 at bats at three and is hitting .215 with a .346 OBP, at cleanup only 66 at bats and hitting less than .200. It appears clear he is comfortable (important) and the team is successful with him leading off. It's silly to say, let's pretend this season has not happened and move players the way jim1961 wants to move players for the simple fact that this season HAS happened and Springer HAS a proven track record leading off. If that is your criteria, then let's pretend Carlos Gomez had no precedent. He has the tools of a good CF. Let's pretend that Chris Carter has no precedent. Prototypical DH. Using your criteria, the Astros should not have cut ties with those players. That is why history as well as current performance as well as team performance are mitigating factors when Hinch and Luhnow assemble a team and a lineup.
The fallacy of your counter argument is that all data prior to this year doesn't include the players we have now. This 2017 team is constructed very different from those 2015 & 2016 teams. How guys produced at specific BO positions prior to this year is almost apples to oranges to how they might produce in this lineup. The strength of this 2017 lineup is so superior to those of the recent past that I dont think you can make direct correlations. For example, protection. In prior years, there was a steep drop off after the number 4,5 or 6 guy in the lineup. Surely an opposing pitcher pitches differently to a producing guy when he is followed by a Mendoza Line guy. Much less several of them. So, in my way of thinking, the data you use to make your argument is skewed by having a very different set of players around guys like Springer, Altuve and Correa. This 2017 team is producing at a better rate than the two prior years more because of the influx of new players than because of where they are batting. You cant take all the new guys out of the equation and make predictions on how the older players would perform without them.
Yet using the past data has led to this current lineup that is factually producing runs at a historic level, rather than maybe improving if the Astros used your lineup. it continues to be baffling to me how you continually keep trumpeting your argument. (probably baffling to others why I continue to respond). The only other time, prior to May 25, 2017, you had any post concerning Springer at leadoff is when someone (last year), wrote "Springer is really embracing the leadoff role". Your response to that was something like "that's why the worst hitter (Marisnick), should not bat 9th." So, your implied complaint last year seemed to be that you were OK with Springer leading off as long as the guy(s) in front of him are getting on base. Well, the Astros 7-9 hitters are doing just that for the most part. You started this thread - coincidentally - at a time when Springer was in a 10 gamer or so slump.
This is the part of your argument that I think is in error. Our historic production this year has more to do with McCann, Reddick, Beltran and Aoki being added to the line-up than it does the current BO. Not to mention guys like Marwin and Jake having career years which again, has nothing (IMO) to do with the BO. But also, I find it odd that you and some others think I should just change my mind just because I have been presented with counter arguments. I know you and the others think your right. I think I am right. Why should either of us expect the other to easily change their minds? Different minds do not think alike. Also, what does what I have said or didn't say in the past matter? Often times, opinion is built over time. Perhaps it is true that years ago, I hadn't concluded that someone else should lead-off? Hell, those earlier teams had so many problems, there were a myriad of them that took priority over who was leading-off. But just for clarity, I dont see Springer leading-off as a problem per say. More, I just see Springer as a better fit latter in the line-up.
Yes, thats true. But you guys seem to think that my entire argument is performance based, and so you therefore conclude that my point of view falls apart because now his numbers are good again. Wrong. Its also the type of player he is. How well he hits WRISP, How well he runs the bases and steals them. Base running IQ. None of those have improved in his recent hot streak. He had two base running blunders in the last game alone. Yes, his power numbers have improved dramatically lately. But again, I think all that power would be better placed later in the BO.
Anyway...I'm out. It's obvious as was pointed out a number of pages ago that you have your opinion and you don't let facts and results get in the way. It is incomprehensible why anyone would want to make any significant lineup changes to the top 4 or 5 in the Astros lineup at this point in the season. Hey...the Astros need Keuchel to be fresh for the playoffs. Perhaps he should quit striking out guys and force them to hit early in the count to save pitch count. That seems like a good plan. The Astros don't bunt enough. They are 29th in sacrifice bunts. Clearly they should bunt more since they are 5th in GDP. That seems like a good plan. I am sure there are all sorts of things they could do, because they obviously should be better than 42-16 and at the top of the league in most every offensive category. I mean, we all agree that a guy at the bottom of the lineup should be bunting in the 9th inning of a 4-3 game with 2 on and nobody out, don't we? That's what baseball should look like, shouldn't it?
I have enjoyed sparring with you. I respect your baseball knowledge. So on some level, I take it as a compliment that you have come at me again and again. Another place, another time.
I voted No initially but have changed my thinking. If this were the National League then I'd say we have an argument. The Astros have the best 7-9 hitters in baseball and they are table setters for Springer, versus Springer being the table setter for typical the RBI producing spots 3-5.
He also said his belief that Springer should move down was based on trends in his quality of hitting over the last 3 years. Yet when the trends turned out to be completely false, his beliefs didn't change at all. Generally when people do that, they are simply building the justifications for their pre-existing beliefs after the fact.
If my arguments were based on that alone, you would have a point. But their not. And so, of course my beliefs haven't changed. As far as people simply building the justifications for their pre-existing beliefs after the fact, to varying degrees, that is what everyone in this thread seems to be doing. Having said that, I dont think its wrong to do so as long as those justifications still support their original premise. Think of it like spokes in a wheel. Even when your able to marginalize a spoke or two, the wheel still exists if it is comprised of numerous spokes. So this pertains to this discussion in the sense that some of you act like if you diminish or even discredit one of my arguments, its means you have won the day. Sorry, but I am aware of all the parts of my thinking, and when you have eliminated enough of the substantial ones, then I will let you know my mind has been changed. So far, this discussion has only brought into question some of my weaker arguments. If you want to win here, you will have to show me why a proto-typical leadoff guy like Altuve would be a worse option at lead-off than Springer is. This is at the heart of my thinking. So far, that shell in un-dented.
It also helps that they are one of the worst at hitting HRs this year. Losing Big papi hurt more than expected apparently
Yep, it sure did. But I still think they end up making the playoffs. Han Ram has started to turn it up a bit lately and their outfield is stellar. Another thing that has really hurt them is their third base situation. The Sandoval signing has been disastrous. And in the most recent offseason they traded 3B Travis Shaw for the Milwaukee reliever Thornburg who ended up needing season-ending surgery. Shaw is having a big year for the Brew Crew. They probably thought that they could get by for a year until their young stud 3B prospect Rafael Devers was ready(doesn't turn 21 until October and has a .970 ops at AA with 18 bombs...maybe he gets called up this season?). Though I doubt they thought that they'd be starting Devon Marrero at third. I'd be remiss not to mention Porcello and Price way underpeforming expectations as another big issue too. They better hope Sale doesn't slow down. Article from 2016- http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/...d_sox_knew_pablo_sandoval_had_shoulder_issues Dombrowski: Red Sox knew Pablo Sandoval had shoulder issues when they signed him Spoiler Pablo Sandoval might one day get a chance to redeem himself and the Red Sox’ front office for signing him to a five-year, $95-million contract. But in light of information learned yesterday, the Sox’ decision to sign Sandoval in November 2014, is only getting more confusing. The Red Sox front office knew about "labral effects" in Sandoval’s left shoulder when they signed him, president of baseball operations Dave Dombrowski said before last night's game against the White Sox. Earlier in the day, Sandoval had successful shoulder surgery to repair a torn labrum and was deemed out for the season with a minimum recovery time of six months. Dr. James Andrews performed the surgery. Dombrowski was still the general manager of the Detroit Tigers at the time the Red Sox originally signed the third baseman, so those in the current front office who were present when former GM Ben Cherington signed the original paperwork must have told Dombrowski what they knew. They just didn't know his shoulder issues would require surgery. “He had labral effects in his shoulder, like most players do,” Dombrowski said. “They saw that a couple of years ago when they signed him. But as you can see, the Giants tried to sign him at that time so it was not a thought process that this would develop." Despite being well-informed about Sandoval's shoulder and having four years of declining statistics at their disposal, the Red Sox still gave Sandoval a contract that will pay him $17 million this year and next year, $18 million in 2018 and 2019 and a $5 million buyout in 2020, assuming they choose not to pick up his $17 million option that season, when he’ll be 33 years old. To further complicate the situation, the Red Sox still can’t say what exactly caused Sandoval’s injury. “I don't really know what happened," Dombrowski said. "One day he wakes up and he couldn't lift his shoulder, but that was really the first indication at that point that he was hurt.” The third baseman admitted in April that he felt something when he dove for a grounder and landed on his shoulder during a game against the Blue Jays in his first and only start of the season on April 9. But he didn’t mention the injury until a few days later when he said he woke up with pain in his arm. He also spent all winter taking swings right-handed, which may have put more stress on his left shoulder. “I can't say that it didn't have an effect,” manager John Farrell said. “Even after the onset of the injury, Pablo and I had conversations daily. There was a play in Toronto where he dove to the line, saved a run. Whether the impact there created or moved along the injury, that's a possibility. But even in the conversations with him, there was not one event that he could recall saying, 'This is definitely where I felt it.'" Sandoval's wife is due to have a child in two weeks, according to Dombrowski. After his child his born, Sandoval will begin rehabbing in Florida. He’s expected to make a full recovery and the Red Sox can eventually try to re-assess Sandoval next spring. Perhaps he’ll lose some weight over the offseason and come into camp in better shape. “He already has (lost weight),” Dombrowski said. “I'm not going to give specific weights, but he has already dropped weight during the season once he's been under our care on a daily basis. I think he's committed to doing that, and we're committed to doing that. We'll have a very thorough program to address a lot of different issues between now and the next spring training.”
