Completely disagree!! Precedent is a perfectly reasonable and logical tool to use, especially when the precedent employed is from people who know more about the given topic than you do. Of course teams and managers can be wrong. But it's much more possible that your given rotogeek or armchair GM is wrong than 30 organizations.
All I'm asking for is an open mind. Forty years ago the notion of a one inning, ninth inning closer didn't exist. Does that mean that the GMs and managers of that era and the several eras before it were idiots?
No, it means pitchers could actually pitch nine innings and the magical "100-pitch" limit didn't exist.
Not when similar precedents have continually been proven wrong in previous generations. More than any other sport, baseball is one where philosophy within organizations has consistently evolved over the years. When organizations have made the mistakes that baseball teams have over the last century, the least fans should do (imo, of course) is keep an open mind and formulate opinions based on their own analysis and reasoning instead of blindly following simply because someone else says so. Yes, they know more than we do, but it doesn't make them automatically right. For example, Carroll Dawson probably knows more about scouting talent than any of us, but that hasn't stopped almost all of us from criticizing him over draft night. I know, I know - that's one team vs. 30. But the principle is very similar.
But game evolution is different from bad strategy. The strategies used today wouldn't have worked as well with the players from 30 years and vice-versa. The game evolved as things changed in terms of player quality, health, conditioning, depth, free agency, etc. Those organizations weren't all wrong for what they did 30 years ago - it worked best in that environment. As the environment changed, they changed with it.
Baseball certainly has evolved philosophically. Now, name a batting order precedent that has changed "continually" (meaning more than once) in previous generations. See, I have a real problem with this. Just because someone arrived at a conclusion that concurs with general thought does NOT make that "blindly following". Unless you're inside someone's head, you do *not* know how he arrived at his opinions.
but that's the point - they haven't changed. teams still employ long-held conventions that may or may not still be relevant, such as your best hitter should bat third. well, the astros proved that theory wrong in '04. as i said in an earlier post, it's a new way to look at an old game. the problem is people like gwayeco and burzmali and the cat can get so caught up in stats that they remove the element of touch andfeel and those intangiables no one can quantify. and, frankly, the number-crunching comes off as holier-than-thou. still, there's merit in discussing new approaches.
This post sounds very reasonable. But, what do you suggest? Batting Berkman first? Who's he going to drive in?
Why do you have to limit it to batting order? Anyway, I used the term "blindly following" because gwayneco consistently asked for an opinion as to why the best hitter should bat third, and certain posters did nothing but point to "but so and so did this!" and act as if that qualifies. When you refuse to analyze the situation yourself and instead continually point to someone else, that to me qualifies as blindly following. If you feel that's too strong a term, though, I apologize and I'll use something different.
no; gwayneco is referencing a notion of putting your best hitters 2 and/or 4; everyone else is screaming, "no!" because of the long-held notion your best hitter bats third, forgetting that the astros did this very thing in '04 to remarkable results (beltran second, berkman fourth with bagwell hitting third - bagwell was the fifth best hitter on that team that year). i'm not saying i agree with moneyball; but i do agree with exhausting every conceivable angle to find the best line-up to fit your talent, and that may include thinking outside the box. berkman is, heads and tails, the team's best hitter. how do you maximize that? let's just not assume its by hitting him third. might be...
Whoa... when did I ever agree with gwayneco or burzmali? How am I in that group? If I had the power to set the Astros lineup, I'd probably put Berkman at three. But I'm open to the idea that it may be because that's the culture I've been brought up in - one where we're taught that the best hitter goes third. I also know that baseball teams have had many strategies in previous generations that we now would find silly... even if we had similar personnel. I've said it many times, and apparently I need to say it again. I don't necessarily agree with gwayneco or burzmali. I only believe that we should keep an open mind, because more than any other sport, this is one where strategies have continually evolved and ideas have consistently changed over the decades. The right answer... is we don't know. But I don't think that their ideas should be dismissed because they're semi-complex statistics... and that's what too many people seem to do. People look at numbers that aren't as simple as tallying RBIs and homers and batting average and immediately dismiss them as the formulation of some computer geek who doesn't understand how the game is really played.
The Astros didn't necessarily prove anything wrong with that season. Another school of thought is that you alternate L-R-L-R where possible to prevent pitchers from getting into comfort zones. Sticking Bagwell between Beltran and Berkman accomplished that. It's not like every team always bats their best hitter 3rd - we're putting Berkman 4th right now, in fact. But barring other unusual circumstances (like the L-R-L thing), there's a reason that teams put their overall most solid hitter at #3.
No, people are screaming "no" because it makes no sense, and pointing out that 30 teams seem to be say the same thing. gwayneco simply said it is how it is, and he's right simply because. People pointed out plenty of other reasons earlier in the discussion, but gwayneco's response is simply "no, you're wrong". So in the fact that overwhelmingly powerful logic, the response is "30 teams say differently".
It will be interesting to see how Garner handles the lineup (which to this point, he's been very proactive about moving guys around, attempting to find the ultimate mix). The lineup he seems to like the most is Biggio, Lamb, Burke, Berkman... it makes sense to split up Lamb and Berkman, because then you can't bring in the lefty to face Mike AND turn around Berkman at the same time. But, then again, there's the possibility that Chris Burke ends up with more AB's in a game than Lance Berkman. That was his pet lineup, until he moved Ensberg in front of Berkman, in an attempt to get his much needed bat going. The move backfired, and thus the trade had to be made. Now, since Huff should provide a little bit more run support to the everyday lineup, I don't think you have to worry as much about another team's lefty reliever getting to face Lamb and Berkman back to back.... and having Burke in the 2 hole (where you can move the runners over, or get on base and make some noise before the big hitters) will be a nice luxury. With all the debate over here about which philosophy to use for your 3 hitter... its getting a little ridiculous. Lets just simplify it for now. I LOVE having Lamb bat right in front of Berkman. While Lance is our best overall hitter, no matter where he is, I do believe that Lamb is our best at DRILLING mistake pitches, or pitches in the heart of the K zone. If you bat Lamb behind Berkman, he doesn't get as many good pitches to hit... and his overall value as a hitter would be slightly diminished. Batting him ahead of Berkman (whether its 2-3, or 3-4) makes this team far more dangerous. 1.) Biggio 2.) Burke 3.) Lamb 4.) Berkman 5.) Huff 6.) Wilson 7.) Everett 8.) Ausmus
From page 128 of The Book: (*For example, a single is worth .515 runs by a #2 guy and .493 runs by a #3 guy - gwayneco)
What lineup do you guys think we're looking at tonight? Keep in mind we're facing a lefty. I'm thinking: 1. Biggio 2B 2. Burke CF 3. Ensberg 3B 4. Berkman 1B 5. Huff RF 6. Wilson LF 7. Everett SS 8. Ausmus C Thoughts? I'd have a hard time imagining Ensberg out of the lineup tonight, given that Garner doesn't like to play Lamb against lefties and we don't have a right-hander like Jason Lane to put in the OF (moving Huff to third).
and here you are, all knowing and everything, NOT working for a MLB team in the slightest capicity. you rotogeeks are f'ing hilarious.
