cp176

hey where is our poster boy ben hanging out these days? lol

Oh boy Bellhorn, don't you start with this worn and tired refrain. You know what comes next. i could start softly with my belief about where your best hitter should be which might gradually morph in to all of the ridiculous sighnings that can be directly attributed to Ben Cherington.

hang in there - love reading your posts that often relate to a time before baseball for me.

I really don't have any ideas. I don't follow the big picture particularly well.

I agree with you about Barnes. He has proven to be a very valuable set up guy. The but is that good closers imo are special animals. We had one of the best if not the best playing for us in Kimbrel. In my mind, his value is now obvious. I think that bullpens in general can be built in many different ways but when it comes to the back end not so much. They aren't going to be successful every game but you have to have someone out there that you can count on when the game is on the line.

Like I said, there are plenty of people here who after last year were suggesting Alex Cora for near sainthood. We'll see how he deals with this year. How you respond with a little adversity is a true test.

You are never as good as you look when playing at the top of your game. you are never as bad as you look when playing as badly as you can play. Same applies to Alex Cora and the rest of us. If memory serves, there were a whole bunch of people here willing to project him to the top of our leaderboard with respect to managers after last season. It's a process. Time will tell how he is going to turn out. Life is easy when everything is going well. This is a good test for him.

My argument about having your best run producing bat in the number 3 spot is exactly that. A run producing bat! This argument has always been about producing runs via the bat. Everyone who knows anything about the game at all understands that there are other ways to produce runs. If one single second i thought that the argument has been about anything other than the bat, maybe i would feel differently. I don't. My best run producing bat, is in the 3 spot. It is becoming much like a political debate. Some don't like the obvious so they change the rules as they go in an effort to prove a pointless point. Eliminate that first inning and since I have seen no data to dispute the claim - that guy hitting third takes on some serious level of importance.

Your approach is too logical and makes too much sense. We need to find some old stat master to support us.

Oh wait, i forgot to add something for Slasher. I'm not googling it because I'm just not in to that sort of thing, but I would be pretty surprised if I found out that in the world of the ancients that there weren't studies proving that the earth was flat. theories are proven and disproven everyday. maybe if more intelligent people really gave a s***, there would be theories out there proving that the best hitter in your lineup should bat third. It just doesn't seem to carry as much weight as proving that the sun is the center of our solar system did. Oh well! lol

I apologize up front. blame Bellhorn he has led me here. Discounting the first inning, what hitter comes to the plate more frequently than the rest with runners on base? I want my best hitter - what ever this might actually mean - to have the greatest chance to come to the plate in high leverage situations with runners on base. To say that it is the #2 hitter in your lineup, gives more credit to the guys at the back of our order I guess than i do. Our #8 and #9 guys don't seem to hit so good. For the record, think I'll go along with Cora on this one but once again, i think that JD is our most productive hitter. third or fourth seems to work pretty well.

I'm sorry Bell - I just saw the thread. Everything I said goes for the other thread as well! I could have added that I am stubborn as well.

I am okay with the information coming out of the NTMC. The organization's (I'm sure) flawless reputation for precise accuracy is one that I can live with. i'll go with this and be at peace although i'm petty sure that soon that some other malcontent will be giving their interpretation of solid data explaining why there is justification for batting your "best hitter" (whatever the hell that might mean) wherever they happen to think he should be. Oh and just as an aside - I'm all about the no actual research part of this.

I appreciate your taking the time to respond to my question in a thoughtful way. And personally, I am going to say that yes I would keep JD in either the 3 or the 4 hole. I just think that there are so many factors affecting what constitutes a "best" hitter projection. My bet is that you can find data to support just about any idea that you might have. I do find it kind of odd that there isn't available data to answer the initial question that I asked - once you get by the first inning, who gets to the plate the most and who in all likelyhood would have the greatest opportunity to come up in high leverage situations. I understand that to some this might seem like a silly question but unless it can be answered, I will always have a hard time understanding how anyone can be so goodamn sure that they know precisely where the best hitter in any lineup should be placed. If you are the one picking an choosing the data that you like, i guess that it is easy. Not so much for me. I also understand what comes next from some - let it go, who cares, it doesn't make much difference. I get all of that as well - in the meantime, I guess I'll go along with the manager's decision. thanks again Moon!

the numbers used aren't new. people have just found more and more and more ... ways to use the numbers. beauty is that the ball still has to be hit and caught. i still believe that too much of anything is not really good for us. hey i'm much more of a literature guy though.

Oh for god's sake notin. I'm just funnin with you I'm a traditionalist with respect to some things (see Moon) and I will freely admit that I am extremely stubborn. now with that being said, if I had seen just one argument to change my thinking about certain things, I would freely admit that I am wrong. I haven't so i won't. I'm also pretty proud of my intellect as well - lol. Much of what I see the analytics pushing as being new and unique, I just don't see. More than likely it just provides another job for someone.

That would be my friend. i've been found out.

I think that that is good but I still want to know how a lineup changes once you get through the first inning.

Watch it now Moon - that could be me you are talking about. I consider you a non-traditional stat geek! lol

What goes around does indeed come around. My career was in education. I saw this old adage proven true over and over again.

You think I might be a little stubborn Bellhorn?

Thank you notin. I just think that there are so many studies that have been done and so much research that it is tough to definitively come right and say that anyone still thinking that batting your best hitter in the 3 spot is old school minded and wrong. That bugs me. Maybe it is because I do seem to be wrong quite often, and normally not 100% sure that I am right when I think that I am. I just don't like people who can't admit that it is possible that they might on occasion be wrong. Now with respect to me googling anything - that it is what I rely on you for and i do appreciate that. My mind just is in a litltle different world. I am a liberal thinking conservative.

I remember those damn Germans. I agree with you too about the math thing. Even if we don't make the playoffs, somebody here will be able to find statistical evidence that we actually did. LOL

We will be in a battle for the second wildcard and should get it. We saw a very much improving young Tampa Bay team have a very good season last year. They are good and have picked up right where they left off. New York was good and got better during the off season. it is looking likely that almost holding a pat hand and going with what got us there last year minus a couple of key role players isn't going to be enough to beat the Yanks and the Rays over the long course of the season. it wouldn't be a bet I'd take that we will catch either of them. I think that we will get that second wc and anything obviously can happen form there. Reality sucks but there you go.

The reason that I suggested eliminating the first inning is simply because I think that it could skew overall results. I still like my best hitter third or fourth I guess and to date I have seen no clear definitive evidence to prove that what I like is antiquated old school and simply done because that is the way that it has always been done and that is that. That is horribly condescending to my way of thinking. I think that it is fairly obvious that in the first inning the number 3 guy is often coming to the plate with no one on base. I like him getting to the plate in the first inning with any chance of having runners on ahead of him. when do people think the highest pressure situations occur in most games? when are your best hitters likely to hit better - first time - second time - or third time through? There are lots of little pieces of information that could be thrown in. for the record, I really could give a s*** where any manager decides to bat his better hitters. What I have tough time with is anyone definitively claiming that they are right about anything simply because they have completed some statistical information. Most normal people realize that numbers can be interpreted in many different ways. You find that the stats to support your statements. It doesn't mean that you are always right. I consider it a very narrow way way to look at anything. My stats say so, so it must be right - ********! thank you for responding to my questions. In many cases it isn't the statistical evidence that bugs me but simply the way it is presented by the people doing the presenting. FTR - I happen to like the way Moon presents his material. It serves a purpose as opposed to trying to prove a personal point.