Dipre

Incorrect. It's much easier to identify a career "average" or "trend" using career numbers than a single-season outlier. One-season performances are bound to be affected by a number of factors, such as BABIP and other flukes, that tend to even out over a career. Adrian Gonzales (who you're touting to possibly be able to hit .300 against lefties next year) is a perfect simple, and the reason why you don't use single-season stats to judge a player. He had a .371 BABIP vs lefties last year, and there's about a 0% chance that repeats itself next year. Come on now. And if you make the point of "cherry picking the best years" that's exactly what you did there. If taking stats from the most recent year is the best way to predict future performance, then do you expect Jose Bautista to hit 50 bombs again? i don't, and that's why it's dishonest. It's a massive flaw in logic. I'll also ask if you've watched much baseball, because managers are reluctant to give the green light to their base-stealers (Tito is specially guilty) when they have their big boppers swinging.

Two of them, since McDonald is part of the 40-man roster, yet people talk as if he's not part of the team anymore. Cameron punishes lefties, and should be healthy to start the season, so how do you justify the following series of events: 1)Trade Dice-K to Mets for Beltran, exceeding the luxury tax and creating a hole in the rotation. 2) Move Doubront from the bullpen to the rotation, creating a hole in the bullpen. 3) Scramble to find another lefty for the bullpen. Doesn't make any sense at all. Also, are we talking about the same Dice-K? Because the one i know posted a 4.69 ERA in 153 IP last year. Given the fact that the average 5th starter in this league has an ERA+ much closer to 50 than to Dice-K's 93 (and the fact that neither Doubront nor Wakefield is a safe bet to duplicate those numbers) i don't see any reason to get rid of him.

Crawford career OPS with RISP: .843. Using his absolute best season (which could be an outlier) is intellectually dishonest. It's like using Beltre's 2004 numbers to justify his next contract. Gonzales has a career OPS of .783 against lefties. Using his 2010 (a clear outlier) to justify having him behind a lefty is also dishonest. The bottom line is that you can't maximize Crawford's potential (speed) by hitting him directly in front of Gonzales and Youkilis, since his opportunities to run will be diminished, not to mention his platoon issues as well as overall lack of power and OBP skills make him a poor choice to hit 3rd.

Ellsbury Crawford Pedroia Gonzales Youkilis Ortiz Lowrie Drew Salty Ellsbury has no platoon issues (and he's a slapper anyway) so i think that lineup actually makes sense. I'd be toying around with the "Pedroia bats 3rd" idea actually.

If by "third" you meant "first" because not only is he not a three hitter, but there are better options on the team, then i agree. Also stacking lefties in the middle of the lineup is asking to be torn apart by lefty specialist in the later innings of a ballgame, specially when Crawford is so vulnerable against them (another reason he shouldn't hit third by the way) I also agree on Pedey hitting second, which is why Crawford should lead off. And also you're not completely right on Ortiz, he still has solid patience (82 BB last year), but his high K numbers are exacerbated by his inability to hit lefties.

lol like clockwork lol.

Crawford has a .744 hitting leadoff and .790 hitting third, and the sample size for hitting third is skewed since he's obviously superior now than he was back when he hit leadoff. To those who say "he can't perform hitting lead-off" that is bull. He's getting paid 20 mill and he'll hit where he's told to hit.

Neither batting average nor the double lineup theory should be used to construct a major league lineup. You hit Crawford fifth, you essentially take the bat away from whoever's in front of him in a key situation.

"Last year" being the operative word. Career .830 OPS with RISP. Not even close to A-Gon's .994, Youk's .989 or Ortiz' .933, who seem like the obvious candidates to hit 3rd, 4th and fifth. You also have Crawford hitting 5th against lefties.....with his .697 career OPS against them. The best way to maximize Crawford's offensive potential is to have him hit first or second (and near Ellsbury) so they can create havoc in the basepaths.

If you're talking about talent that would transcend eras then Maddux, Smoltz and Glavine should be up there as well. But if we're comparing a specific year, its pertinent to note how well that rotation did when compared to the rest of the league. And while i agree those pitchers would have been successful in the middle of the steroid era, i doubt they would have been so to the same extent. I have a question: Which season do you consider more "dominant": Jim Palmer's 1975 season or Greg Maddux' 1998 season? I ask this because they had similar seasons (albeit Palmer had a shitload more IP) but i personally consider Maddux' year to be more impressive given the environment they were pitching in. Take their ERA+, for instance (it measures a pitcher's performance to the rest of the league) Palmer's was 169, while Maddux' was 187, and that's a reflection of generational differences. In fact, let's use ERA+ to compare both rotations: 1998 Braves: Maddux: 187 Glavine: 168 Smoltz: 144 Neagle: 117 Milwood: 102 1971 Orioles: Palmer: 126 Cuellar: 116 Dobson: 109 McNally: 117 Compared to their peers, the 1998 Braves rotation was superior, and that has a lot to do with everyone hitting HR's left and right, and the inflation of run-scoring to a degree never before seen by baseball.

Crawford career SLG%: .444, but let's him in one of the main spots to bring runs in in the lineup. I have an idea.....why not just hit him cleanup and have three lineups on top of each other instead of two?

Sure, they had better peripherals, but: They didn't play in the middle of the steroid era, and the league average in runs scored was right about 720 runs, while in 1998 it was about 795, as usual, let's not touch pitcher wins as an accurate way to measure a pitcher's effectiveness (See: Hernandez, Felix) and also, sOPS+ (which in a pitcher's case evaluates a pitcher's performance compared against the rest of the league) gives a clear edge to the 1998 Braves at 71, compared to the Oriole's 86. Different eras, but compiling those numbers against much tougher (and 'roided) competition needs to be taken into consideration.

1993 (Glavine-Maddux) and 1997 (Maddux-Smoltz) Atlanta Braves.

Hey Chris, i know you have a boner for Crawford and all, but with Youkilis, Ortiz and Gonzales there is no way to justify hitting him either third or fifth. His main attribute is speed, hence he should be in a spot where he helps score runs, not drive them in. The only reason he hit third in TB last year is because Ben Zobrist (unsurprisingly to everyone in the universe except Kilo and Doiji) regressed massively and Carlos Pena disappeared, forcing them to put Crawford in the three spot with Longo cleaning up.

1998 Atlanta Braves. 3.06 ERA, .653 OPS against, 1,074 IP, 1.18 WHIP, all in the middle of the year of juicer heaven.

Three lefties in a row would be a late-inning matchup dream. Pedroia hitting 7th is also a waste. He's a better hitter than Ellsbury, and better from a matchup standpoint as well. I'll post my thoughts on the ideal lineups in a bit.