cp176

Pretty much, I go with this one. Traditional thinking does not necessarily mean unyielding or old fashioned. Sometimes it really does mean that the common sense rule is being applied. I'm beginning to think that with respect to many things not simply related to baseball, people that constantly advocate for "new" ways of looking at things are unwilling to accept that everything has just not been recently discovered. Over the years, I have found that being open to many different ways of looking at things be they new or old is pretty much the way to go. Now Kimmi - although you do lean in toward one direction - i am not specifically talking about you even though my statement is a bit of a generalization.

You are absolutely right. The but here is that the best way to set up a lineup is not currently being used. Whatever you think the traditional way of looking at things really might not be that much different from what you might think the optimal way of setting up a lineup might be. You do have an aversion to the terms themselves. I truly believe that the majority of team owners and managers have been "enlightened". I do not believe that the people doing it today are getting it all wrong.

You can call it anything that you want - common sense, tradition, new age thinking, etc., etc., etc. - There is not one best way to set a lineup. There are and will continue to be many ways to get the job done. For those who want to put their best hitter at the top of your lineup, what criteria are you using to define your best hitter. The ideal player to plug in to each of the spots in a lineup does not exist. I think that I will defer to the professionals on the field. My assumption will be that they have used many pieces of available information to determine their lineup and that it is not set in one particular way just because that is the way that it has always been set. If who you consider to be your best hitter possess a combination of skills - the ability to get on base as well as the ability to produce runs, and you choose to slot him at the top of your order, go for it. If I slot him in the 3 or 4 hole and get up on you early because I have some pretty good OBP guys in the 1 and 2 slots, I like my odds of winning better than yours. I still appreciate not over thinking things too greatly. My approach may be to simplistic but oh well - It has worked, it works, and it will work continue to work. Oh by the way, if my pitchers are better than yours, you can set your lineup any way that you like but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I am going to beat you anyway most of the time.

I think traditionally (I don't really like to use that word here) that is the way lineups have been put together. In general, talent hits nearer the top of the order. If your first two high OBP hitters can run and move runners along in any way possible, I would think that is a plus. Who hits where may not be as important to some as it is to others but in an era where pitching importance keeps gaining steam and the use of artificial substances might be somewhat behind us, I would think that most teams would want to score as many runs as they could possibly score as early as they could score them. My RBI producers would still be in the middle of my lineup and not at the very top.

I do think that it is just a matter of personal preference and the way you approach things. I learned over the years to be very careful with how I worded things. I think that Farrell would be better off in the long run if he said less and made fewer statements that seem like promises. Calling Kelly and telling him not to worry about being traded. Telling Swihart before spring training starts that he is going to be your opening day starter. These sound like good things but sometimes words come back to haunt a person to easily. Even though Swihart starting might seem obvious, you really never know and my feeling is the less said the better. I think that you are right about Dombrowski. I hope you are. In addition, I would add that if when Vasquez is ready, he will be our number one catcher. If the plan is to keep Swihart, it only makes sense to get him working in an additional position. I don't see him as a backup catcher at all.

I've brought him up once or twice.

I like John Farrell but he does make me uneasy. Most of us would have bet that Swihart would be our opening day catcher but to make that statement right now before camp starts seems too early. There is nothing wrong with players competing for spots. No one really knows what kind of physical shape Vasquez will be in come the latter part of February. Come to think of it, a healthy Hannigan isn't the worst thing that could happen. Farrell has a history of doing things like this as well as his tendency to hang on to players long after it becomes apparent that they can no longer get the job done. it is good news for Swihart but I think it could have waited another month or so. Maybe just to have him think that he needs to earn the job.

I too am concerned over what we might get out of outfielders initially this year. They still represent a big ? mark to me but going forward I am not at all concerned. I believe that Andrew Benintendi is going to be a long time fixture in our outfield or someone elses. A potential all-star. I also know all about the pitfalls of moving players to quickly through the system but we have 2 big exceptions in Moncada and Benintendi. Huge years with respect to both Castillo and JBJ. They will be hearing footsteps soon if they don't get it going early.

And that is the way it is supposed to be. If those two guys up top had a little speed, all the better. if they had good bat control and could hit behind runners even better.

I don't have the facts but I bet he hit somewhere close to where Ted, Carl, and Jim Ed hit in their primes.

You're absolutely right which means that in most situations with respect to good teams saying that a player slots into a specific place in a batting order really gets dictated by what a team needs. If 10 people are asked what makes a team's best hitter, I would guess that you are going to get a few different answers.

Just a question - How about if your best hitter also is your best power hitter as well as your best run producer?

First of all let me set the record straight for you. I am full of BS and not afraid to admit it. I value all of the opinions that are clearly stated that I read here. Some I value more than others. Your statements and opinions seem quite definitive and I am just not that way. Even if I do not agree with some of what you say, I do not consider what you say to be bullhshit. I think that it takes all types of opinions in order to come up with an educated approach to anything. I tend to get a little nervous when people lean heavily in one direction or another. Doesn't mean that I consider what they say BS. No one individual has all of the answers any more than one"s opinion normally is either right or wrong.

Everything that is being written leans toward it not being Moncada who ultimately replaces Pedroia. If they keep them both, they will ultimately want both Moncada and Benintendi out there. Benintendi will be in the outfield. Moving Betts back to second might not look bad at all if our young guys develop the way we hope they will. If someone else comes along and can replace Pedroia both in the field as well as at the plate, then of course you would want to keep Betts in the outfield. It is going to come down to using what you have as well as you can to put the best lineup that you can put out there on a daily basis. Moncada and Benintendi I'm betting will play their ways into our lineup sooner than people think they will.

I think that Pedroia's health could be a very real issue for us this year and beyond. I'm trying not to just give him a pass because I like him and am sincerely pulling for him. That is probably one of the reasons why I am not sold on the idea of Betts being a full time outfielder. Other than Holt or possibly Marrero I guess, I don't see a clear long term backup plan for him if he goes down. i think that Sandoval and Ramirez get covered easier than Pedroia does. Moncada could be ready to help as soon as the late stages of this year but not as a second baseman. Benintendi - who knows- he has been one of the best if not the best player at every level he has played at. He will be in our outfield (I hope not someone else's) sooner than people think. I might be giving DD too much credit but I think that he has a pretty clear understanding of how things work and that he won't hesitate to make moves that people might not necessarily agree with if they are in what he thinks are the best interest of his team. In the mean time, heres hoping for Pedroia's good health.

In many instances, people create their own luck. In the case of the Red Sox signings - If you count on major contributions from people that have proven track records of being injured, you can't be surprised when one of them goes down again. You have to expect it and be prepared to deal with it. I would consider it very good and unexpected good luck if all of a sudden a player of this nature plays and stays healthy.

I might not have been talking about you. In my world, I get to determine what is and what is not BS. Once again, not all of my comments and observations are directed at you and your views.

this is a common sense approach and totally unacceptable

I think that what you are saying here is why I like DD.

I thought that I was a fairly bright guy but now I realize that I am just stupid. I would think that if your first two hitters were good it could possibly make the role of the number 3 hitter fairly important. To me that is common sense. All that being said, numerous high school teams experimented with placing their best hitter at the top of the order in the late 80's and 90's. It is not such a new concept.

Oh boy oh boy- with just a little chuckle I am out of here for the night.

You're killing me here once again. Right down the goddam drain I go.

Absolute truth!!! There are some very bright people here but probably one of the reasons I do like DD is that he will not suffer from the classic "paralysis via analysis" that seems to be the theme of the day.

thanks for noticing that one. I was thinking that my attempt had gone all for naught.

Or it could be that I was just being a tad facetious. You want some clarity from me I will say this - You obviously have some inside scoop on Sandoval that I don't have access to you. 2 a day workouts and great cars plus a desire to be better this year is what I have heard. If he in fact has been doing 2 a days and gaining weight, then he is not the only one to blame. i know something about fitness. Before I got to critical, I would have to know what his workouts looked like. Just sos you know - My comment about Porcello was meant to be a joke. I just post here and read the board for something to do. I have yet to see a poster who has stunned me with their brilliance. I have been baffled by the ******** though.