2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[User Name]

If this optimization was as good an idea as its advocates claim that it is, someone would have done it by now.

 

The team leadership may not entertain new thoughts lightly, but they're not idiots. If they felt that a sufficient competitive advantage existed to justify trying a given method to improve run production do you really think they'd risk weakening their chances in the playoffs, or even to get to them, by not playing the lineup to its best possible advantage? Come on now people, think through the real implications of what you're actually suggesting.

 

Tony LaRussa. Do you people not read?

[Bellhorn04]

Tony LaRussa. Do you people not read?

 

But what specific examples are there of LaRussa's optimization?

[Spudboy]

No I am not. I am suggesting that there are still many different ways of looking at potential problems and solving them. IMO - No one way is the right way.

 

And that is what Username said by suggesting there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

It is interesting what Kimmi has said. Certainly there is much data to support what she said.

 

It seems that gaining 15 runs and 2 win is not enough to sway managers from their traditional decision making methods.

[User Name]

But what specific examples are there of LaRussa's optimization?

 

Batting Larry Walker (His actual best hitter behind Pujols by OBP standards) second instead of putting Pujols cleanup to bat him fifth instead of Rolen). Conventional wisdom would have dictated he bat Womack first, and Renteria second. While he insisted too much with Renteria at leadoff on the heels of his monster 2003, the strategy was fundamentally sound. He even hit Walker first on several occasions.

[Kimmi]

Does it now? Unless a theory has been proven by experience and replicated it is still an untested theory.

 

As I said, the data supports an unconventional line up. It has been tested many times with actual game data and with countless simulations.

 

Most fans are not going to buy into it because traditional line ups have been so ingrained into their thinking that it's sounds blasphemous to suggest otherwise.

[Northern Star]

Remember when the Pirates used a computer to optimize batting order and it came out with Tike Redman third? I LOL'd.

[Northern Star]

Pfffft, what did that goober ever win?!?

 

Most Calls to the Bullpen Award, every year. It got to the point where I would flat out refuse to watch a Cardinals' game.

[Kimmi]

Thanks for the article Kimmi. I especially agree with the article and the role of the closer. I've never come to grips with the best bullpen pitcher not being used in situations earlier in the game when things start to go bad.

 

You're welcome. I'm glad you took the time to read it.

 

I agree with you about using the best relievers in key situations earlier in the game. One reason managers say they don't use a closer in the 7th inning, for instance, is because relievers like/need to have a specific role. I can understand that, but I also think that you could get relievers used to the idea of being ready to come into a game at any point that he is most needed if you just started doing it.

[Kimmi]

Of course, if all managers adopted lineup optimization, nobody would be any further ahead, relatively speaking. So what's the point?

 

LOL Bell. Apparently, there is no point.

[Kimmi]

Pfffft, what did that goober ever win?!?

 

You crack me up MVP.

[Kimmi]

1. Common sense to me has little to do with the past but much to do with doing what I think is the right thing after collecting and considering various opinions and points of view. Change for change sake doesn't work particularly well in my world.

 

2. I am glad that there is and has been a great deal of data supporting what you consider to be unconventional ideas. If the ultimate effect of much of it is as small as you have said it is, i would not fault anyone from not embracing it wholeheartedly too soon.

 

3. You have no idea how open minded I am. I am very hesitant to admit that I am absolutely right about anything until I consider a great deal of information pertinent to the questions I am looking for answers to.

 

4. It sounds like you have arrived at some sort of epiphany. This is a fun conversation and for me something to do. I love the games just clearly not to the extent that I am going to advocate for major changes that really don't seem to amount to much in the grand scheme of things.

 

1. I am by no means advocating change for change's sake. I am advocating change in lineup construction because it will improve a team's offense.

 

2. If a manager is not willing to completely go against conventional wisdom, then any changes to the lineup are probably not worth it. OTOH, if a manager would be willing to go with the optimal lineup, that could be worth 1-2 wins. Do you think 1-2 wins is worth it?

 

3. Fair enough, I have no idea how open minded you are. I am confident in what I am posting because I have looked into this topic very thoroughly. It's what I do.

 

4. I don't know what epiphany you speak of, but I was absolutely enlightened when I was introduced to the world of sabermetrics. There's no turning back.

[Kimmi]

 

 

Are you suggesting that Kimmi is advocating for "major change" in baseball?

The NL adopting the DH is a major change.

 

Managers using sabermetrics to attempt to optimize a lineup is about as far from a major change as you can get.

 

Perhaps I should become the next MLB commissioner. Then I could really institute some change.

[Kimmi]

If this optimization was as good an idea as its advocates claim that it is, someone would have done it by now.

 

The team leadership may not entertain new thoughts lightly, but they're not idiots. If they felt that a sufficient competitive advantage existed to justify trying a given method to improve run production do you really think they'd risk weakening their chances in the playoffs, or even to get to them, by not playing the lineup to its best possible advantage? Come on now people, think through the real implications of what you're actually suggesting.

 

No, there are any number of reasons why it hasn't been done yet. Mainly, most of the managers are old school. While there has been a shift in the sourcing of GMs, away from being former players and field managers, this is not true of managers. Almost all, if not all, managers are former players.

 

Most GMs are going to let their managers manage the game, including determining the lineup. GMs will supply the managers with data and offer certain suggestions, but they aren't going to dictate to their managers how to manage a game.

 

Also, can you imagine both the fans' and the players' reactions to batting Papi in the leadoff spot?

 

You can tell just by the posts on this board that a decision like that would receive all kinds of criticism from the fans, from the media, and probably from the players themselves. Even if a manager agreed with the thinking, I don't think he'd think it would be worth the backlash.

[Kimmi]

And that is what Username said by suggesting there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

It is interesting what Kimmi has said. Certainly there is much data to support what she said.

 

It seems that gaining 15 runs and 2 win is not enough to sway managers from their traditional decision making methods.

 

There certainly is more than one way to skin a cat, and some ways are better than others. There is even an optimal way.

 

For all the talk about the overuse of the sac bunt, there are still managers who are overusing it and sacrificing in situations in which it is completely uncalled for. Almost everyone understands how important not giving away an out is, and yet managers still do it. Old habits die hard.

[jung]

This post is not really directed at anybody. But to be honest having read the piece that discusses the entire issue of the batting order and sabermetrics a few times since it was written, I am impressed more by the writing skills of the author than with the contents. It is a skillful mix of ambiguity, expressed confidence in an opinion and overstates some things to the point of misstatement.

 

It talks about the traditional method of choosing a lineup from 1-9 with definitions that either went out at least a decade or more ago or simply imply more meaning than exists in fact.

 

A traditional 1 hitter is defined as a "speed guy that can hopefully get on base". What I see is high OBP guys that can hopefully get down the first base line without the aid of a wheelchair. It describes the traditional 2 hitter as "a good bat handler". While there are many good hitters that are not good bat handlers I do not know of a good bat handler that is not a good hitter. The traditional 3 hitter is described as the team's best hitter and this one still does seem to exist and has existed now for quite some time. However when you get down to 3, 4 and 5 in the order, you are starting to get to high OPS guys who can often end up really very close to each other unless a team only has one truly good all around hitter and only one true power hitter with a big disparity between the two. As I pointed out earlier, there is movement on this issue and I would say it is likely half and half now across the 30 teams of MLB depending on the year and the availability of power.

 

What the piece completely misses is that while it lauds the work of FO's that have adopted systems dependent on Sabermetrics, it does not in any way deal with the issue of teams simply not having perfect or in its terms "optimized" candidates to put even in the 1-5 slots in the lineup. It does not deal at all with the transitions that players go through from young player groping with trying to establish an MO for themselves in a ML lineup to mature players that have landed somewhere. They often mature from early careers as "good bat handling" all around hitters to added muscle and maturity as a hitter turning them more and more toward power and pulling the ball. It is still rare for hitters to come to the majors fully developed into what they are going to be through an entire career.

 

The article makes a big deal out of crediting a manager for putting a slow high OBP guy in the 1 hole. That is just stupid, at least as stupid as choosing a 1 hole hitter for speed. In fact the piece completely misconstrues speed and dead slow. There are teams that one might consider speed teams or teams that use speed more than others. However IMO, the use of speed as a team wide offensive weapon is not nearly as prominent nor as critical as what happens to teams that are dead slow. Teams that are dead slow simply can't get out of their own way and struggle to generate enough offense before they run out of outs in an inning. The team of dead slow hitters becomes over dependent on power because it just can't play AT ALL station to station.

 

Power hitting is not for the most part simply good hitting that results in the ball going a long way. Power hitters more often have or develop the physical attributes needed and then fashion themselves to be power hitters. Pitchers have an easier time identifying where they need to pitch to reduce the chances of the power hitter hurting them and that is even more the case with pretenders that are power hitting wannabe's. If an entire team of hitters tried to hit the ball over the wall every AB, that team would be easy meat for ML pitchers.

 

It devotes a whole section on trading outs for bases when it rarely happens and has rarely happened for a long time now. It either happens late in games playing for one run or late in counts when some hitters feel their options have been cut by being down in the count and they begin looking at the possibility of making a productive out as opposed to just making an out.

 

The article's big punch line on lineups is the possibility of an optimized line up scoring 5-15 more runs than a traditional lineup. Well show me one lineup that you can contend is entirely put together "traditionally" even if you buy the author's use of that term in the precise way he means to use it? There are so many issues that drive the lineup that you don't end up with a lineup that is all one way or all the other.

 

As for relief pitchers and closers.....the closer is for the most part being handed a clean but high leverage inning. A fireman is being handed a high leverage situation as well but it is a situation with runners on....not at all the same thing. So a manager in this day and age that is making the his decision about closers and firemen thinking they are the same thing needs to have his head examined.

 

Frankly I think the Sabermetrics proponents are starting to become a bit strident because they really do not have good, reliable data points on defense and MLB is going back to where it was in the 60's and 70's. This trend has been on now for a few years. The existence of more power in lineups and less capable pitching created a hay day for the Sabermetrics crowd. The resurgence in pitching plus the dynamic way the shift is being used has really put a kink in their armor and I think they are starting to panic a bit.

 

In closing, I have always thought it a very professional piece of authorship and not a whole lot more.

[Bellhorn04]

Batting Larry Walker (His actual best hitter behind Pujols by OBP standards) second instead of putting Pujols cleanup to bat him fifth instead of Rolen). Conventional wisdom would have dictated he bat Womack first, and Renteria second. While he insisted too much with Renteria at leadoff on the heels of his monster 2003, the strategy was fundamentally sound. He even hit Walker first on several occasions.

 

That's a good example, so maybe we can say Larussa bought into part of the optimal order theory. But when I look at the game logs of the 2011 postseason, Larussa's last hurrah, he had Furcal hitting leadoff, after a .298 OBP season, and of course Pujols in the 3 spot. So he didn't follow the theory very systematically.

[cp176]

And that is what Username said by suggesting there is more than one way to skin a cat.

 

It is interesting what Kimmi has said. Certainly there is much data to support what she said.

 

It seems that gaining 15 runs and 2 win is not enough to sway managers from their traditional decision making methods.

 

I just love the game. That's it. i do not think that there two distinctly different approaches to the game in effect today. i think that most coaches or managers would do anything they could do to get an edge in any game they could. i really do not know nor do I even care what someone thinks conventional thinking is. I respect Kimmi's right to her own opinions. The study of saber metrics certainly has a place in the game like everything else that makes this game great. I'm pretty sure that I don't see them as being as valuable as lots of other people do. I hope that I never do. I'm just going to have to live with the fact that one of the reasons I love this game is because it does represent tradition to me. Hey - I have finally accepted the dh. What more can I say.

[SoxHop]

As for relief pitchers and closers.....the closer is for the most part being handed a clean but high leverage inning. A fireman is being handed a high leverage situation as well but it is a situation with runners on....not at all the same thing. So a manager in this day and age that is making the his decision about closers and firemen thinking they are the same thing needs to have his head examined.

 

What does that mean in 1 paragraph or less? More than 1 paragraph and I'm not reading your reply. Closers shouldn't be used with a people on because they aren't firemen? Closers are only closers because they need to start the inning with no one on? Why during playoff time does that get abandoned then?

 

Also, there isn't a high leverage inning. A run is a run in any inning. Why wait until the 9th to really protect a lead?

[jung]

Nobody can follow it systemically to the max although I am not sure Larusso was as much governed by any stats based system as much as he relied upon his own instincts.

 

Managers are the guys that get stuck dealing with all the anomalies and random variables that make up a team and have to try to turn all those guys into a reliable offense. For all the talk of FO's now being fully bought in, they don't much provide their managers with player options that can roll up into one of these "optimized" lineups.

[jung]

You know I never speak in absolute terms and if you knew how to read you would know that. How do you like that answer?

[User Name]

That's a good example, so maybe we can say Larussa bought into part of the optimal order theory. But when I look at the game logs of the 2011 postseason, Larussa's last hurrah, he had Furcal hitting leadoff, after a .298 OBP season, and of course Pujols in the 3 spot. So he didn't follow the theory very systematically.

 

That's why I have said several times that it has a lot to do with the roster you have. If you don't have an optimal leadoff hitter or cleanup hitter, you make do with what you have.

 

I know he had Berkman and Holliday, but Holliday had some injury issues (and he's a vulnerable hitter) and Berkman's production forced his insertion into the cleanup spot, even though he had some platoon issues.

Edited February 6, 2016 by User Name?

[jung]

Runs allowed late in games do not leave your team much of a chance to come back. As such runs given up late in games are in fact more of an issue than runs given up early in games. You have more innings to come back early in a game. Your opponent has more innings within which to score as well. But if you end up giving up the lead late who cares. You are now the team behind and you have little time to come back.

 

As for more flexibility in how relief pitchers are used, this is pretty much a new era for relief pitching. The relationship between starters and relievers was never like this before and teams that stick to the old way of building bullpens will likely find themselves behind the eight ball. One of those behind the eight ball decisions is where do I use my relief pitchers based on their individual talents and the caliber of pitchers in the pen. Once we have teams fielding more guys that are quality relievers we can see how Managers handle that asset. We have some teams like that now but not that many. As for post season...nothing is the same between post season and regular season...starters are often trimmed back to the best guys a team has with guys that regularly started during the year dropped into relief rolls or just plain dropped off the end of the roster. Situational baseball is played almost from 1st inning to last. That is what creates anomalies between regular season and post season play. The rosters are not the same in the post season either as they are designed to give managers more assets to use in situational opportunities.

[SoxHop]

You know I never speak in absolute terms and if you knew how to read you would know that. How do you like that answer?

 

Personally I think the closer roll is garbage and over rated. Why wait to save a game before it's not possible to save?

 

I would think a manager may want to bring in their best reliever early when there is trouble, it would be the best way to get out of trouble and avoid what way me a big inning. Why save the best reliever? If the best reliever falters, then the game may be down the drain..... might as well now use junk relievers and save the better relievers for a game where it is tight.

 

How comfortable someone feels in a batter order probably equates to about the same thing as when a reliever comes in. Personally, I think players being moved around would get over it after a while. They would step up to the new role.

 

Thanks for condensing a post.

[SoxHop]

Runs allowed late in games do not leave your team much of a chance to come back. As such runs given up late in games are in fact more of an issue than runs given up early in games. You have more innings to come back early in a game. Your opponent has more innings within which to score as well. But if you end up giving up the lead late who cares. You are now the team behind and you have little time to come back.

 

As for more flexibility in how relief pitchers are used, this is pretty much a new era for relief pitching. The relationship between starters and relievers was never like this before and teams that stick to the old way of building bullpens will likely find themselves behind the eight ball. One of those behind the eight ball decisions is where do I use my relief pitchers based on their individual talents and the caliber of pitchers in the pen. Once we have teams fielding more guys that are quality relievers we can see how Managers handle that asset. We have some teams like that now but not that many. As for post season...nothing is the same between post season and regular season...starters are often trimmed back to the best guys a team has with guys that regularly started during the year dropped into relief rolls or just plain dropped off the end of the roster. Situational baseball is played almost from 1st inning to last. That is what creates anomalies between regular season and post season play. The rosters are not the same in the post season either as they are designed to give managers more assets to use in situational opportunities.

 

Two runs in the six are the same as two runs in the night. The score at the end of the game, usually 9 innings, dictates the winner.

 

Why not use your best pitcher when things start to look like they can get out of control, instead of when they already have, or wait to a perfect opportunity to use them as they sit on the shelf or waste using them just to keep them fresh.

 

The old way of building bullpens is pretty much the same way they are now. Get the best arms you can, maybe with a couple of specialists. There's no magic in it.

 

I agree with the article Kimmi posted. Statistically it's correct. I agree it would work in real life situations during a season.

[cp176]

For everyone's reading pleasure, this article expresses my point of view nicely.

 

 

 

 

And if you're so inclined to learn about the other ways in which managers are doing things wrong, here's a link to the full article:

 

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2011/4/14/2110082/why-dont-sabermetric-gms-have-sabermetric-managers-and-shouldnt-they

 

I enjoyed reading the article. Gave verification to many of the baseball beliefs that I have always had. Turning the clock back a bit to when the relief pitchers role was a bit more fluid has always made sense to me. I have always believed in winning the game first as opposed to designating who your 7th, 8th, and 9th inning pitchers are. And most of us know that Earl Weaver believed in the 3 run homer as opposed to the sacrifice bunt. Optimal lineup concept game in and game out? Using stats to determine it? It makes sense don't you think to put your best team on the field in every game. I don't see huge differences in the way most managers set up their lineups here to the ones suggested to be optimal. Much of this article tended to make me think that much of what is done and what should be done does not call for a degree in rocket science. To me, once again, it is commons sense. Good article. I hope that I am just not so numb that I missed some new ways of looking at things here. If I did, then it is obvious that I see what I want to see when I read something like this. That would make me very set in my ways.

[Elktonnick]

I enjoyed reading the article. Gave verification to many of the baseball beliefs that I have always had. Turning the clock back a bit to when the relief pitchers role was a bit more fluid has always made sense to me. I have always believed in winning the game first as opposed to designating who your 7th, 8th, and 9th inning pitchers are. And most of us know that Earl Weaver believed in the 3 run homer as opposed to the sacrifice bunt. Optimal lineup concept game in and game out? Using stats to determine it? It makes sense don't you think to put your best team on the field in every game. I don't see huge differences in the way most managers set up their lineups here to the ones suggested to be optimal. Much of this article tended to make me think that much of what is done and what should be done does not call for a degree in rocket science. To me, once again, it is commons sense. Good article. I hope that I am just not so numb that I missed some new ways of looking at things here. If I did, then it is obvious that I see what I want to see when I read something like this. That would make me very set in my ways.

 

Managing a full season in the major leagues requires the husbanding of resources. Remember this is a marathon not a sprint. Expect in the post season, successful managing is not about managing a day or a game at a time. This is why the concept of role is so important in baseball. A player must know his role, whether it be starter, middle reliever or closer. While even the average major leaguer is an exceptional ball player compared to the average player of his age, he is still a human being who must understand his role. This is why the game and use of pitchers has evolved to the way it has today.

[cp176]

Managing a full season in the major leagues requires the husbanding of resources. Remember this is a marathon not a sprint. Expect in the post season, successful managing is not about managing a day or a game at a time. This is why the concept of role is so important in baseball. A player must know his role, whether it be starter, middle reliever or closer. While even the average major leaguer is an exceptional ball player compared to the average player of his age, he is still a human being who must understand his role. This is why the game and use of pitchers has evolved to the way it has today.

 

I do understand this. It has always been important for players to know their roles. The post season certainly has become a season of its own. Adds a great deal of time to a regular season time frame. What I am finding to be very confusing is that when an article such as the one I read extolls the virtues of Managers and strategies of days gone by, who is enlightened and who isn't? According to the author of this article, the Red Sox might even be one of the 5 teams in mlb who are taking advantage of saber metrics to the extent that they should. If the results of the last few years are indicative of the fruits of that particular plan, it might not be a bad idea to at least be open to all different ways of looking things. I am a believer in amassing a team comprised of the best players available. If they have the right mental approach and outwork their opponents, over the long haul, they will win. Maybe not all of the time but certainly most of it. I can honestly say now that with respect to many of our forum discussions over this past winter, I am confused by what some see as new and unique and by what others see as very traditional. The past has a nasty habit of reappearing I think. I am anxious for real baseball to start.

[cp176]

I'll just add that as the steroid era hopefully grows dim in the rear view mirror and fewer runs are scored, could it possibly be that a limited return to the proverbial "small ball" approach might make a return as well? We will all have to wait and see.

[Dojji]

Personally I think the closer roll is garbage and over rated. Why wait to save a game before it's not possible to save?

 

I would think a manager may want to bring in their best reliever early when there is trouble, it would be the best way to get out of trouble and avoid what way me a big inning. Why save the best reliever? If the best reliever falters, then the game may be down the drain..... might as well now use junk relievers and save the better relievers for a game where it is tight.

 

With respect, this is a false dichotomy, it's only a valid question if you have only one top quality reliever, and that should never be an issue for a team seeking to contend. you can't use your best releiver everywhere, ideally you need 3-4 really good relief pitchers, and exactly which one you use when then becomes academic. And if you don't have those 3-4 strong relievers and have to use crappy relievers instead, it doesn't really much matter where you let the damage happen either. So if you have a pitcher who performs better and is more comfortable in a role called "Closer" I don't see the harm.

 

Furthermore the tactics you're describing are absolutely impossible in a world where time files in only one direction. It's all very well to say use a reliever in the highest leverage situation possible, but how do you determine when that is during a live game? It's beyond most manager's talents to be that prophetic.

 

It's already been confirmed by statistical study that the closer's role is about 85% effective in securing the highest leverage possible in the game. I'll grant you readily that 85% is not 100% and there is potential room for improvement, but 85% is likely better than most humans can accomplish in real time with guesswork.

 

Do you really think that most managers intend to play Miss Cleo and try to outguess that number in realtime with games on the line? When they don't have to? When a model exists that allows them to be 85% effective at this without any need for the kind of backbiting and hindsight games they already get quite enough of to be going on with?

Edited February 6, 2016 by Dojji

[Kimmi]

I just love the game. That's it. i do not think that there two distinctly different approaches to the game in effect today. i think that most coaches or managers would do anything they could do to get an edge in any game they could. i really do not know nor do I even care what someone thinks conventional thinking is. I respect Kimmi's right to her own opinions. The study of saber metrics certainly has a place in the game like everything else that makes this game great. I'm pretty sure that I don't see them as being as valuable as lots of other people do. I hope that I never do. I'm just going to have to live with the fact that one of the reasons I love this game is because it does represent tradition to me. Hey - I have finally accepted the dh. What more can I say.

 

So, after all this time telling me that you don't like the label "traditionalist", you're now telling me that you're a traditionalist?