With everyone talking about support in the batting order makes it easier to point out just how good this trade could be for the Astros. Huff has been on a horrid team the last few years, but still has managed to get a decent amount of homers. With no quality hitters around him I bet her rarely saw many good pitches to hit. If you can stick him in behind Berkman in the line up he is going to see a great deal more hitable pitches and thus his numbers should go up for us. 2B- Biggio SS- Burke RF - Berkman 3B - Huff 1B - Lamb LF - Wilson CF - Willy T C - Ausmus P -
Uh, no. The job of the 2 hitter is typically to move the leadoff hitter up or to get on base if the leadoff guy doesn't. If your theory is correct, why don't Albert Pujols, A-Rod, Joe Mauer, Ortiz, or Nomar hit 2nd or 4th? Because you put your most productive hitter 3rd. You want an early lead if possible.
I'm facinated by baseball statistics to some degree. Even the ones that seem to be impossible, like the wisdom that says except for strikeouts, walk rates and home runs allowed there is little difference between Roger Clemens and Jose Lima or Scott Elarton. I am curious to see what happens if a team ever puts some of these revolutionary ideas into practice and bats a Pujols or a Berkman leadoff...to get him more at bats etc. But isn't the point of doing this that except for the first inning the lineup isn't usually 1, 2 then 3.....Cause I am not sure that Ausmus, Everett and Pitcher would give Berkman much chance to drive in runs...which seems to be one of his strengths.
Uh, lets pick a few random teams Atl - Chipper Fla - Cabrera St L - Pujols (maybe you have heard of him) Chisox - Thome Bosox - Ortiz LAA - Vlad Phil - Abreu LAD - Nomar Minn - Mauer Col - Helton Cubs - Lee Its ok, we all make mistakes.
Then please explain your position. Saying that it is "simply wrong-headed" is simply wrong-headed. I know, you just love to get a rise out of people...especially when there is no rational excuse for your position.
The funny thing is that even the moneyball people don't use that philosophy. Giambi didn't bat 2nd or 4th in Oakland - he batted 3rd.
Batting order optimization is worth about 3 wins a year. Since no one is using it, no team is at a competitive disadvantage.
Why does Pujols bat 3rd? While youre at it, why did Willie bat 2nd all thru last yrs playoffs when Biggio was clearly the better hitter....although not as good as Berkman who batted 3rd.
No its not.. You put your best hitter third and a good power hitter (many times your second best hitter) 4th. The idea is to protect your 3rd hitter. Putting him in the 4th spot means that a lesser hitter is stuck protecting him and thus teams have an easier decision to make when it comes to pitching around the 3rd hitter. That's why Derrek Lee has Aramis Ramirez, Big Papi has Manny (although those two are interchangable), Berkman had Ensberg last year, Pujols has Rolen, etc.. etc.. It's all about protecting your best hitter and forcing the other team to pitch to him. That's why the Cardinals were going crazy when Rolen and Edmonds weren't hitting (Edmonds still isn't for that matter) because there wasn't anyone who could protect Pujols and consequently it was an easy decision to pitch around him during crunch time.
I'm not saying I agree with gwayneco, but just because teams put Pujols third or Taveras second doesn't make it necessarily right. Yes, there's a reason those managers put them there. Again, it doesn't make it necessarily right. Again, don't lump me into that thinking or accuse me of saying I disagree with putting Pujols third. I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that when debating managerial philosophy, can you actually discuss why you think that strategy is correct? Saying "because so and so team/player does it" doesn't in and of itself prove anything. Baseball evolves over time, and teams think now very differently than they did several decades ago. There are things about those lineups that many of us would find very wrong. So, while I'm not necessarily saying teams are wrong, it is in fact possible. They've been wrong before (at least by the widely accepted standards of today).
just to be clear - the moneyball people are, by and large, executives, not field managers. it's a new way to look at an old game. right? wrong? who knows. it does challenge some ideas that have been around a loooooong time that could maybe use a fresh coat of paint. and it is interesting to note that the astros took off in '04 once they applied the moneyball approach - beltran in the 2-hole, berkman hitting fourth with a declining jeff bagwell sandwiched between them. it would have been interesting last year to see the astros try taveras, berkman, biggio, ensberg, just to shake it up and see what might've happened. problem is berkman's not very fast; i think the 2-guy should be fast. beltran was perfect for that role, and the astros scored run in bunches with him hitting second. god, that was a good team - how did it not make the WS??? f'ing jim edmonds....
