cp176

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.

So I'm not surprised that the statistical gurus here aren't responding to my question so I will lob you another one. If you eliminate the first inning, what becomes the position in the batting order from which the most production comes? Now remember - eliminate the first. After the first inning , what do the stats say becomes the guy with the most at bats as well as the position in the batting order from where the most RBI's come from? Production to me equates to the most RbI's. I don't care how they are produced.

I believe in using anything available to help your team win within reason of course but some of the current trends that are driven by statistics really have not done anything to improve attendance in the game today. I realize that it is unlikely that we are going back anytime soon but for some the game was much more interesting just a few short years ago. There are lots of reasons for attendance drop-offs of course that have nothing to do with the stats. As a matter of fact though - what do the "stat geeks" suggest the future interest in the game will be? there must be reliable analytical evidence to shed light on where this game is heading.

This one seems appropriate! lol

hey now hey now - if someone wants to crawl back into their little black and white hole of ciphering, you just let them! They don't believe in such silly stuff as even the "Velveteen Rabbit'! LOL

Don't go down that Santa road with me Moon - "Yes Virginia, there is a Santa Claus" - I read it in the times! lol

This is what troubles me about this entire argument which i will admit is somewhat ridiculous. Are you comparing drastic change proven by science to whether or not your best hitter should be hitting third in a batting order? i do realize to some here that if you do not accept their concepts and ideas with regard to their statistical information, you must be a stumbling bumbling old fool. i get that but really, with respect to the number 3 hitter in the lineup, some of us old fools still believe that if you get by that first inning, the chance of that guy coming to the plate with runners on base might not be too bad. For the record, I do not feel that all true believers in all things statistical live on a more enlightened plane than i do. I actually think that they tend to be rather close minded.

but it is still tough to criticize DD if he is doing exactly want numerous people have wanted him to do with respect to putting a bullpen together. It kind of seems as though this concept of quantity over quality has been tried once or twice before. Sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. i like what Barnes has done and for the most part Workman as well. The but for me is that I am a quality as opposed to quantity kind of guy. I do not like the theory of throwing enough s*** at the wall and hoping that something might stick. Although I do not believe that Kimbrel should be signed for anywhere near what he wants, if you want anything that resemble s real quality where do you turn? Our bullpen it appears could use a little more quality as opposed to the hope that springs for some with respect to quantity.

hair of the dog theory has certainly been disproven over the years i guess.

I loved me some Pete Runnels. A few others at least worthy of mention - Mike Andrews '67 and Doug Grifin to follow. Most of us felt that Griffin was going to be that guy for a long time and then of course the beaning. Jerry Remy wasn't too bad around that bag for us either. I have to admit though that one of my old favorites was Chuck Schilling - all glove no hit. Bet you could guess why I liked him. He gave me a reason to think that I still had a chance.

It can be a nasty slimy world don't you think. Adding to it is the fact that everybody gets to voice an opinion without hesitation these days. For those of us who were around when Buckner broke in and were still aware of his accomplishments 20+ years later, there has likely been no question that without Buckner in "86 doing his thing, we would have been ultra longshots just to get to the World Series. On a different note, I have read that there are some who think that Pedroia could be considered as a HOF candidate. Regardless of what he did for us, I still just don't see that. Now if your talking about Buckner, I feel a little differently. With his 2700 and some hits, he has to at least be worthy of mention. Unlikely that he would ever get in, but what a great career over a long period of time.