2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Kimmi]

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.

 

The problem is that managers have an incorrect perception of what an optimal leadoff hitter is. I'm sure LaRussa could have found someone with an OBP better than .298 to put in the leadoff spot, but those batters didn't fit the prototypical stereotype of a leadoff hitter.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

A man after my own heart.

 

These guys are professional statisticians. They study and test baseball theories for a living. If one group of guys come up with results that don't seem valid for any reason, another group of guys will not just let it fly. Even it the results do seem valid, another group of guys will test it again, or test it in a different way. Their data and results are heavily scrutinized by others in the sabermetric community.

 

And yes, they even understand the shortcomings of their data and the human element of things. Even with that, there is an overwhelming consensus that managers are getting it wrong in some areas.

 

You can't ignore the human element, but baseball is by and large a data driven game.

[cp176]

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?

 

I guess I must be although how is that possible? My traditional views appear to be very much in line with what I read in this article. I really didn't see much there Kimmi to cause me to think that I need to be rewired. Maybe a tweak or two in the way a lineup is constructed? Maybe not. They don't really seem like revolutionary changes to me. I might fall in to the category of people that might not be able to be categorized. I just want to win. The author suggests that a lineup determined from a saber metric perspective might get you 1 maybe 2 more wins over the course of season? If you had posted this article sooner, I would never have been bantering back and forth over this. I'm really ready for some real baseball. I am not too sure how long you have taught but I bet you know enough not throw away all of what might seem to be your old and outdated plans and materials. You never know when the cycle will swing back and all of that old stuff will seem brand new to someone.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I am glad you read and enjoyed the article. You may not see huge differences in the way managers set their lineups and the optimal way of doing so, but they exist. They might not be huge, but they exist enough to the point where the managers are possibly costing their teams one or two wins.

 

What would your reaction be to seeing someone like Ortiz or Pujols batting leadoff?

 

What would your reaction be to Swihart batting 3rd last season?

[Kimmi]

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.

 

The crazy sabermetric folk test and update their data constantly. They know as well as anyone how things change over time, from year to year, from league to league. The end of the steroid era has absolutely changed the value of various aspects of the game. For instance, the break even point on stolen bases has dropped from roughly 75% to roughly 69%. The sac bunt is still wrong in pretty much every game situation in the AL, except for late in a game when a team needs 1 run, and there is a runner on 2nd with 0 outs. Bunting with a runner on first base only and 0 outs? Don't do it!!!

[cp176]

I am glad you read and enjoyed the article. You may not see huge differences in the way managers set their lineups and the optimal way of doing so, but they exist. They might not be huge, but they exist enough to the point where the managers are possibly costing their teams one or two wins.

 

What would your reaction be to seeing someone like Ortiz or Pujols batting leadoff?

 

What would your reaction be to Swihart batting 3rd last season?

 

I would not have Ortiz or Pujois ever leading off. Granted if you just look at their compiled data exclusively and tried to guess where they fit into a lineup you might conclude based upon this model that they could lead off. If you had any kind of a team, you probably have someone else in there with an equally high obp which would allow you to put your "big" hitters - your sluggers with the high obp's as well right where they belong. Swihart had a very good second half of the season. I'm not sure where I wold fit him. The beauty i think of having a good hitting team is that even using this saber metric model there would be plenty of debate as to where your hitters could be best utilized.

[Kimmi]

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?

 

How many times have we heard that the "real" save situation in the game came in the 7th or the 8th inning? If it's the 8th inning of a one run game, with no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and the big bats coming up, I'd want my closer out there to get those 3 outs in the 8th. I'll worry about the 9th inning when I get there.

 

Those situations might not come up often, but when they do, I don't think that a manager should be so set in his BP roles that he'll throw a lesser pitcher out there rather than his best guy.

 

As I posted before, I understand about relievers wanting to know their exact roles. Relief pitchers, in particular, seem to be wired differently than the rest of humanity. That said, if the dynamics of BPs changed to where there were no set roles, relievers would adapt to it.

[cp176]

The crazy sabermetric folk test and update their data constantly. They know as well as anyone how things change over time, from year to year, from league to league. The end of the steroid era has absolutely changed the value of various aspects of the game. For instance, the break even point on stolen bases has dropped from roughly 75% to roughly 69%. The sac bunt is still wrong in pretty much every game situation in the AL, except for late in a game when a team needs 1 run, and there is a runner on 2nd with 0 outs. Bunting with a runner on first base only and 0 outs? Don't do it!!!

 

 

The intentional walk as well although sometimes a good move is very often over used. I do still believe that time and score (a classic bb consideration) situations have to be very clear before you intentionally walk someone, try to move them over via a bunt, or attempt to steal a base. There still are situations that call for each of these moves.

[cp176]

How many times have we heard that the "real" save situation in the game came in the 7th or the 8th inning? If it's the 8th inning of a one run game, with no outs, runners on 1st and 2nd, and the big bats coming up, I'd want my closer out there to get those 3 outs in the 8th. I'll worry about the 9th inning when I get there.

 

Those situations might not come up often, but when they do, I don't think that a manager should be so set in his BP roles that he'll throw a lesser pitcher out there rather than his best guy.

 

As I posted before, I understand about relievers wanting to know their exact roles. Relief pitchers, in particular, seem to be wired differently than the rest of humanity. That said, if the dynamics of BPs changed to where there were no set roles, relievers would adapt to it.

 

I agree with you here but why do I think that is the way that good managers used to manage? One other thing that I have noticed is that I have too much time on my hands.

[Kimmi]

I would not have Ortiz or Pujois ever leading off. Granted if you just look at their compiled data exclusively and tried to guess where they fit into a lineup you might conclude based upon this model that they could lead off. If you had any kind of a team, you probably have someone else in there with an equally high obp which would allow you to put your "big" hitters - your sluggers with the high obp's as well right where they belong. Swihart had a very good second half of the season. I'm not sure where I wold fit him. The beauty i think of having a good hitting team is that even using this saber metric model there would be plenty of debate as to where your hitters could be best utilized.

 

Well that's the thing CP. You would never have Ortiz or Pujols leading off despite what the data says.

 

Truth be told, Ortiz and Pujols would both fit in the #4 spots better, but let's say for argument's sake that Ortiz and Pujols are on the same team and are by far your two best hitters. None of the other hitters has OBPs good enough to compare to these two. One of them should go in the #4 spot, and the other should go in the #1 spot.

 

However, I can guarantee you that most managers would bat them 3 and 4, regardless of what the data says. I would bet that no manager would bat one of them in the leadoff spot. Where would you put them?

[cp176]

Well that's the thing CP. You would never have Ortiz or Pujols leading off despite what the data says.

 

Truth be told, Ortiz and Pujols would both fit in the #4 spots better, but let's say for argument's sake that Ortiz and Pujols are on the same team and are by far your two best hitters. None of the other hitters has OBPs good enough to compare to these two. One of them should go in the #4 spot, and the other should go in the #1 spot.

 

However, I can guarantee you that most managers would bat them 3 and 4, regardless of what the data says. I would bet that no manager would bat one of them in the leadoff spot. Where would you put them?

 

I'm being very serious here - I would not take that bet! But if that were the case, my guess is that that particular manager wouldn't last very long simply because the overall team really could not be that good. If I was coaching a team that said based on the model you showed me, that Ortiz or Pujols should be leading off, I would quit before they could fire me. To have no one on a major league roster that had a high enough OBP to allow putting Ortiz or Pujols where they belonged goes beyond my imagining levels. You better have one of the best pitching staffs of all time if you plan to compete in that scenario.

[cp176]

i should have said that I would never have Ortiz or Pujois lead off if I could absolutely help it. It would be a dark day for me.

[Dojji]

I would not load up my XBH ability into the first 2 brackets no matter what the numbers say. I want men on base when my best extra base hitters are up. The best chance for that is to put other hitters in the 1 and 2 spots and then put your best extra base hitters in the next spots in the lineup

[Kimmi]

The intentional walk as well although sometimes a good move is very often over used. I do still believe that time and score (a classic bb consideration) situations have to be very clear before you intentionally walk someone, try to move them over via a bunt, or attempt to steal a base. There still are situations that call for each of these moves.

 

There are certainly situations that call for each of these moves. The point is that these moves are largely being overused to the detriment of the team.

[Kimmi]

I'm being very serious here - I would not take that bet! But if that were the case, my guess is that that particular manager wouldn't last very long simply because the overall team really could not be that good. If I was coaching a team that said based on the model you showed me, that Ortiz or Pujols should be leading off, I would quit before they could fire me. To have no one on a major league roster that had a high enough OBP to allow putting Ortiz or Pujols where they belonged goes beyond my imagining levels. You better have one of the best pitching staffs of all time if you plan to compete in that scenario.

 

I would not load up my XBH ability into the first 2 brackets no matter what the numbers say. I want men on base when my best extra base hitters are up. The best chance for that is to put other hitters in the 1 and 2 spots and then put your best extra base hitters in the next spots in the lineup

 

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but this is the exact type of traditional thinking that has been deeply ingrained into everyone's beliefs. The thought of batting Papi or Pujols is unheard of. Any manager would be crazy to do such a thing.

 

And yet, it would be the right thing to do if they were your two best hitters on the team. Your best hitters should bat 1,2 and 4, with the higher SLG batting 4th and the higher OBP batting 1st. Even though it seems like you're wasting XBH ability by batting a big bat 1st, you'll get more overall production by him in the leadoff spot than you would with a lesser hitter there, by the simple facts that 1. he will be getting on base more often and that 2. he will get more at bats.

[SoxHop]

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?

Ok, sure. If you have three of the same caliber of pitchers to the closer, then yes. What does it really matter. I agree.

 

I'm trying to think about this being comfortable in a spot discussion with batting order and relieving. When I played ball, it was ingrained in me that I had a place in the batting order and when I pitched. But, really thinking about it, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have effected me one way or another if I was moved around in the spot. You're either dialed in for a game or you aren't. I think these gets into the "ballplayers are superstitious" category.

 

We'll closers aren't securing anything if they are already down a run or more. What if they were used to plug the whole before the damage was done?

 

You're right, managing a bullpen is maybe the toughest thing a manager has to do. But you, I and managers can tell when things are starting to get out of hand. One man on no outs is danger, two men on no outs is really dangerous. It's these times that I think you could bring in a closer in the right situation and stop the big inning before it starts.

 

To me the closer roll seems like a good arm goes to waste quite a bit. Sometimes they have to be brought in just to "get their work in". Or some games they sit on the shelf because it's a blowout either way. Or maybe the closer comes in to shutdown the 7-8-9 hitter when a reliever not as good could have been used.

[SoxHop]

A man after my own heart.

 

These guys are professional statisticians. They study and test baseball theories for a living. If one group of guys come up with results that don't seem valid for any reason, another group of guys will not just let it fly. Even it the results do seem valid, another group of guys will test it again, or test it in a different way. Their data and results are heavily scrutinized by others in the sabermetric community.

 

And yes, they even understand the shortcomings of their data and the human element of things. Even with that, there is an overwhelming consensus that managers are getting it wrong in some areas.

 

You can't ignore the human element, but baseball is by and large a data driven game.

 

The closer position never really sat well with me. I always thought that something was off about it, especially seeing games go down the toilet in the 6th when our best person is hanging out waiting for the ninth. I'm glad I have something else backing up my opinion.

[SoxHop]

And yet, it would be the right thing to do if they were your two best hitters on the team. Your best hitters should bat 1,2 and 4, with the higher SLG batting 4th and the higher OBP batting 1st. Even though it seems like you're wasting XBH ability by batting a big bat 1st, you'll get more overall production by him in the leadoff spot than you would with a lesser hitter there, by the simple facts that 1. he will be getting on base more often and that 2. he will get more at bats.

 

I wonder how many at bats each slot from 1 to 9 each averages out to in a year. That must have been part of the equation.

[cp176]

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but this is the exact type of traditional thinking that has been deeply ingrained into everyone's beliefs. The thought of batting Papi or Pujols is unheard of. Any manager would be crazy to do such a thing.

 

And yet, it would be the right thing to do if they were your two best hitters on the team. Your best hitters should bat 1,2 and 4, with the higher SLG batting 4th and the higher OBP batting 1st. Even though it seems like you're wasting XBH ability by batting a big bat 1st, you'll get more overall production by him in the leadoff spot than you would with a lesser hitter there, by the simple facts that 1. he will be getting on base more often and that 2. he will get more at bats.

 

 

I do not think that you are being disrespectful here at all. I am not saying that your overall philosophy is wrong. What I am saying is that you are creating a scenario around Ortiz and Pujois that would not and does not exist. If it ever does, that team is in serious trouble. I don't think that the saber metric concept of the best situation for a batting order is bad at all. What I am objecting to is the hypothetical that you have created. It's kind of like saying if either Ortiz or Pujols were the only players that could hit at all would you object to them batting first? Why would I care? If that were the case, I think that you could hit them anywhere you want to. I don't think that in this case it has anything to do with traditional thinking or conventional thought at all.

[jacksonianmarch]

Can we move this to the dead horse topic?

[cp176]

Can we move this to the dead horse topic?

 

Why? - gives some of us something to do. You think that right now there is just so much else to discuss? Personally, talking about the actual configuration of a lineup gets me closer to the game. I don't mind beating that horse just a bit.

[mvp 78]

I wonder how many at bats each slot from 1 to 9 each averages out to in a year. That must have been part of the equation.

 

Each slot has about 18 less ab's than the one ahead of him in the order. The 9th hitter would have about 140 less at bats than lead off.

[SeanJohn93]

Do you guys think Trey Ball has been a bust so far?

[Kimmi]

The closer position never really sat well with me. I always thought that something was off about it, especially seeing games go down the toilet in the 6th when our best person is hanging out waiting for the ninth. I'm glad I have something else backing up my opinion.

 

The role of the closer is overrated, IMO, which is not the same thing as saying that bullpens are overrated. I really do understand the idea of a relief pitcher wanting to know what his specific role is, but the idea that your best reliever can only pitch in the 9th inning because he's your closer is kind of silly.

[Kimmi]

I wonder how many at bats each slot from 1 to 9 each averages out to in a year. That must have been part of the equation.

 

The number of PAs that each slot gets is absolutely a part of the equation.

 

Here's the data on the average number of PAs per game and roughly the number of PAs for the year for each slot in the batting order:

 

1 4.83, 782

 

2 4.72, 765

 

3 4.61, 747

 

4 4.49, 727

 

5 4.39, 711

 

6 4.26, 690

 

7 4.14, 671

 

8 4.02, 651

 

9 3.90, 632

 

 

Here is a link to an article containing some of the data, organized neatly into tables, that goes into optimal lineup construction.

 

http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/10/12/3490578/lineup-optimization-part-1-of-2

[Kimmi]

Can we move this to the dead horse topic?

 

Again with the "dead horse" stuff. Seriously, what else is so pressing for us to talk about that we're taking time away from those valuable discussions? We are not hijacking any other conversations in this thread. There is nothing else being discussed.

[Kimmi]

Each slot has about 18 less ab's than the one ahead of him in the order. The 9th hitter would have about 140 less at bats than lead off.

 

You are correct, sir.

[Kimmi]

Do you guys think Trey Ball has been a bust so far?

 

Who is Trey Ball? j/k

 

I haven't followed his progress that closely, but my understanding is that he hasn't progressed like the FO was hoping he would. So I guess you can say that his progress has been disappointing so far. I guess you could also call him a bust so far.

 

That said, it is far too early to give up on him. How old is he? Early 20s? He is still young enough that he can turn it around.

[Dojji]

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but this is the exact type of traditional thinking that has been deeply ingrained into everyone's beliefs.

 

Yes and there's a reason why. Because teams using that formula have won games and championships for decades. I'm not against the idea of statistical analysis helping the decision making process but basing the decisionmaking process entirely on the world of statics and numbers to the exclusion of giving experienced managers their heads, is where I stop the bus to get off.

 

Statistical analyses miss a lot. They ignore psychological factors, assume average distributions and frequently forecast from hindsight. Emotions and experience do count for something.

[Dojji]

We'll closers aren't securing anything if they are already down a run or more. What if they were used to plug the whole before the damage was done?

 

Because there is no realtime situation in which this debate matters.

 

If you have 2 or more relievers who could close or plug holes, it does not matter which does what because you've got acceptable arms in every necessary slot

 

If you only have 1 reliever you can count on to hang a 0 up in an inning, it still doesn't matter where you use him because whichever area you DON'T use him will be occupied by a substandard arm that will lose you ballgames.

 

It really does not matter in the slightest.