cp176

Trust me - I won't be the one who says that there is better way. What you have for personnel has to shape to a great extent how you use them.

It does make some sense to me. There have been many great points brought up here. Not the least of which for me is that some of the old ways are actually recognized to be somewhat new and creative to some of the people who have not been around the game "forever". I say that whatever works is what needs to be used. If what works can be supported by data and statistics, all the better for people for whom the use of metrics represents a game changer. I'm probably not in that camp - If it is new and works, I probably will use it. If it is old and works better, i probably will stick with it.

Like I said in my previous post, I think that I was a master in new age, unconventional thinking when I started Radatz when playing strato back in the 60"s. The stats supported my position very well. It was an unconventional no brainer to use the "monster" as a starter. LOL

In all sincerity correct me if my interpretation of what you are saying is wrong. Your approach seems to be that you would bring your closer in during any game, at any time that you think the situation dictated it regardless of the inning that the game was in? By closer, i assume that you mean the guy that you feel is your best shut down guy in a fairly short relief stint? If that is what you are saying, although I like your theory, I do not think that it holds up over the course of a 162 game season. There are some games that seem more important than others over the course of a year. In those games, I think that you do what you can do to win. I do think that a back of the rotation late inning guy is very valuable. I find myself questioning what is going on more now as managers in general try to create 7th and 8th inning specialty guys in addition to a late game stopper. I also will add that I do not think that a failure to use your "closer" at any time during a game, in any way is an example of conventional, traditional, do it the way it has always been done thinking. If you are using statistics to justify your position on this one then you are doing what I did when I was 13 and playing start-o-magic baseball. I started Dick Radatz! Now there was a 20 game winner for sure that was supported statistically if I ever saw one!LOL- This debate isn't about a new way of dong things at all. Still a good debate.

Oh did I ever like what I just read about E-Rod. Sounds like he just wants to hang off of Price and learn all that he can. Talented - motivated - wants to learn from the best - We are so very lucky.

i hope not. Yankees can have him. With what we have in the minors, I think that kind of $could be used differently.

I bet that there would be a whole bunch of us who would be willing to take what he gives us this year and then be willing to say see you later.

Ok - I admit it. I hope that he pitches well for us this year but I am really not much of a fan. In all honesty I think that he is a numbskull but it makes little difference what I think of him.

Your last sentence is the primary point that I was trying to make. I think that the good ones do.

it was a good article about E-Rod. Glad we have him.

Did he actually say that he vowed to? I know that he sees that as his target. What I thought was kind of revealing was that he said that this was a year big year for him contractually and would give him extra incentive to stay healthy and perform better. I guess you get to relax when you know you have inked the big deal. No sense of urgency - let it slide - pitch half a year and call it good. Life should be so nice for us all. Oh well - if he actually sees life this way maybe it means he will have a great year for us.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

Fangraphs must be assuming that The Red Sox are going optimize their saber metric approach to lineup building thus the one more win. LOL - Just kidding- I would do anything short of cheating I imagine to get that win. For the record, I still think a lot has to go right in order for us to get to 90 wins.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Agree!

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.