I was going to post something about how managers rely on the lefty-righty, or lefty-lefty way of thinking too much in determining lineups (since Mike Lamb hasn't been bad against lefties at all this year... OPS of .881).... but then I realized that Ensberg has an OPS of 1.165 against lefties. Ensberg stays in... although the club may not be batting him 3rd.
And obviously, you have to work for a MLB team to understand anything about the philosophy of the sport.
i dont think i've ever seen anyone suck the fun out of baseball faster than you have. if i wanted a statistics course i'd go back to school. remind to never watch a baseball game with you.
Eh... for me the fun in baseball is winning. If utilizing those statistics gives us a greater probability for winning, I'm all about doing that.
The Pujols argument is actually pretty funny... especially since there are many CARDINALS fans who are dumbfounded as to why TLR doesn't bat him 4th, behind Rolen. In addition to that, they looked at Houston as an example of why you could do that (when Lance was driving in runs consistently during the last 4 game series). I know there's the risk that if you bat Pujols behind Rolen, you no longer have to pitch to him... but I think that's an argument that's really only true on paper. In reality, teams are always going to be selective with Albert, Lance, or any other good hitter if they come up in a position where they can hurt you... but if they're not in that situation (ie - nobody on base, or a runner at first base with 2 outs), it's rare that teams still decide to pitch around you (unless you're Barry Bonds during a big-time roid year). Hell... if Babe Ruth was so much greater than anybody else around, why did teams pitch to him? Thus, if you get a good hitter like Rolen on first base, somehow, in front of Albert (by a walk, single, error, etc.)... more times than not, they're still going to try to get Albert out as if there was nobody on base. When Albert gets that XBH (like he's so awesome at doing), you would then have a better chance of getting a run out of it... or a 2 run HR, instead of a solo shot. And, if you pitch around him, you then have two men on base for somebody (with one now in scoring position)... and most teams will take that scenario for an inning every time, no matter what the quality of hitters are behind those guys.
gwayneco, Have you read Three Nights in August by LaRussa? It's a great read, and he uses the heck out of statistics and splits and probabilities. And he's not afraid to buck tradition. Hell, he tried to get rid of dedicated starting pitchers. If it were statistically better for him to bat Pujols 2nd or 4th, he would.
I need to get that one. One thing that I'm leary of is when an announcer says "So and So is .333 hitter against pitcher A" and it's based on a small sample size like 12 ABs. This is one area managers misuse stats. Don't know if LaRussa succombs to that or not.
right, and the astros refused such conventional thinking in 2004 and succeeded because of it. in fact, they didn't even put their second, third or, if you want to argue biggio was a better hitter than bagwell that year, fourth best hitter in the 3-hole. and whatever the reason (R-L-R-L), it still flew in the face of convention and represented the possibilities of thinking beyond a long-held strategy (put your best hitter in the 3-hole). and that's all these moneyball people are ultimately preaching; they just have a tendency to be a little holier-than-thou about it. but don't let the messenger dilute a relevant message.
mainly in regards to the ensberg situation. no biggie. it's not like i considered that an insult; i enjoy both sides of the thinking and believe there's some merit to bucking long-held ideals when it makes sense to do so.
I have problems with both sides....the Traditional guys who say it won't work because no one has done it. And the stat guys who say it automatically will work....because I have a page full of numbers that proves it. Until Managers try some of these unorthodox ideas over some length of time we simply won't know.... Berkman bats second...he is gonna bat a little more often...probably less in RBI situations...especially considering how inept our bottom part of the order is...but he is gonna be on base more for the guys behind him Since the only stat I care STRONGLY about is team W/L I would have to see it on the field to tell you if its working.
Oh give me a break Brett. Moneyballers? So is that anybody that enjoyed the book Moneyball? Or plays fantasy baseball? Or reads Baseball Prospectus? Or agrees with gwayneco? Would you call me a "moneyballer"? Because I think the best hitter should be hitting 3rd in the lineup. Guess the generalization fails right out of the gate. And tons of teams use advanced statistical analysis. Bill James and Voros McCracken are both employed by major league clubs. Don't act like it's some bs cultish nonsense that nobody uses. There is a degree of arrogance involved with "all this", but equally as irritating is the arrogance from the other side. And the fact is, that logic supports the side that believes in the value of VORP. The entire anti-moneyball movement just seems steeped in the most wretched bitterness imaginable when dealing within the framework of baseball fanship. It's a complete rejection of any new ideas, with the old support that "rofl these people never played pro ball they automatically don't know as much." That thinking is inherently illogical. 1. Exactly right. Hitters should be judged on the same criteria, that criteria being offensive production. Offensive production results from the hitters skill at various aspects of the game. Hitting for power, not striking out, being selective, stealing bases, etc. Saying that a player should decrease his skill in being selective, and that it will increase his production, is absurd. 2. Wrong. Only gwayne is saying this. It's certainly a possibility, but I don't think it makes sense. I'd have to look into it further. Billy Beane bats his best hitter 3rd. 3. Who said that it was equally as good as driving in a run? 4. I've asked you before. Please outline a logical explanation of why you think the replacement player baseline is an illogical comparison. Do you think that 30% is a better arbitrary number? Because alot of people think that if you hit .300, that means something.
i think you flip-flop huff and ensberg. and i think they should keep berkman in right everyday and let ensberg and lamb platoon, with huff either at 3B or 1B. so i'd have him at 1b tonight. and again, i champion giving ensberg a shot at occupying the 2-hole. he's walking enough to justify it and can be a weapon with huff, berkman and wilson following him. and i think he'd see far more pitches. whether he continues to watch them zip by... ensberg needs to play against left-handers because he thrives against them. he needs to have his confidence restored and he needs to turn it around, otherwise, the huff deal is essentially a zero net gain over last year's line-up, with him essentially replacing ensberg's production and wilson covering for lane. but if ensberg gets on track, this becomes a much-improved offense with a lot of flexibility.
