jad

OK. Then let's go back to facts: you think in a workplace, you are entitled to throw f-bombs publicly at other members of your organization (or those related to the organization) as long as you are being paid enough? I don't. We disagree, that's all.

Do you really think so? That the amount of money an employee gets paid entitles them to privileges less well paid employees do not enjoy? So you would tolerate, say, sexist or racist crap in a MLB clubhouse because it is "unlike the regular workforce"?

What was the count on Dave Roberts a few years back?

Price isn't 'whiny'; he's a belligerent a-hole, who gathered a bunch of other a-hole team-mates to publicly berate a 65 year old hall of famer. THAT'S what most fans don't like about him. It's the kind of unprofessional behavior that wouldn't be tolerated in any work-place that most of us have had to deal with.

I'm sure I couldn't even see one of those pitches. Nor could I hit a golf ball out of Fenway. But, given Chapman's mental breakdown, I'm pretty sure, even at more than 3x Devers' age, I could have made third on that play.

Yeah, since he went down, (or went back to sulk in his tent, giving his armor to his good buddy Erod), the RS have been in a nose-dive. No way they can win without him.

Wow. I expected to see some enthusiasm here after checking the box. Instead, all I see are people complaining about to what particular degree everyone sucks! In any case, seeing the "we-have-the-best-fans-we-play-baseball-the-right-way" Cardinals implode and lose on an error after their manager is ejected for acting like a child is very fulfilling. Now their fans can go back to their rich, culturally advanced lives in that s***-hole state of theirs.

I love it when a fan (or anyone) argues about the 'rational way' for their opponents to proceed. The thing about your enemies? they don't think the way you do. That's why they are opponents or enemies.

Ha ha! We have a GREAT player whom we think is overpaid. I've got an idea. Let's trade him for another overpriced, injury prone player and a bunch of mediocre or even minor league players who are also being overpaid.

Has JBJ gotten back into the grove again? The same one Holt finds himself in (who seems not to have fully recovered from the concussion).

Except that statistics capture this perfectly! If a guy has the ability to hit bloop singles every game over a 162-game period, then that's the guy you want on your team--not the guy who hit line drives for nothing but outs over the 162 games, ending up with a .000 BA. (That's the whole point of statistics: you don't extrapolate from one case, e.g., 'oh, the coin flip came up heads, THEREFORE statistically coin flips always come up heads'.)

That was astonishing.

Finally took his last one for the team. RIP

Fenway, KC, Dodger Stadium and the old Yankee Stadium. I'd go more, but the tedium and hassle of getting to and from the stadium more than matches any enjoyment I could get from watching (this is esp. true of Dodger Stadium--they may now have a bus from Union Station, and if so, Ill try again). I thus prefer minor league baseball: you pay nothing, you sit close, you drive in with no problem, you rarely have to deal with belligerent a-hole fans, and everyone hits like crazy.

Oh, I agree with that. It's the same silliness that argues: "You have to have a #2 hitter" or "He's a good #2 starting pitcher, but not a legitimate #1,"--where the only conceivable difference in the regular season MIGHT be one more start (but likely won't be even that). I'm just wondering what the statistics on order actually are: in part, because I want to hear the loopy arguments of the traditionalists who will deny that facts make any difference!

I think I disagree. You could go to the roulette table and decide "The optimal strategy is to bet always on red" But you would not be able to support this with any reasonable set of statistics. You COULD of course support it with anecdotal evidence.

OK. Do you know the results? I assume it would simply be "put the hitters in the order of OBP or OPS." (since the only thing of importance would be to get your best hitters up as many times as possible.) Has anyone actually run the numbers on this?

Right. 9! I assumed the actual number was on that order. What I want to know is whether this is feasible to be handled by a modern computer.

Not sure about that. The 'traditional' guys can always circle back to 'tradition'. You know, as in "if there weren't anything to it, then why is there anything to it?" My question is the the stat and computer geeks. Isn't there a relatively simple calculation to perform about batting order? (simple as in the sense of 'easily conceived'--I don't know whether it's feasible, and that's my question). All you would have to do is take the performance of 9 starters over ... a season?, and ask: which is the most productive order in which they should hit, given that performance over a year (and 3 outs per inning, etc.)? (I have no idea whether this is too onerous for modern computers-- there are, I think, a finite and easily conceivable number of possible orders: it's 9! (9 factorial), right? COuldn't a computer churn out the answer fairly easily? (I am also aware that the traditional crowd wouldn't accept the results, claiming that hitters hit differently in different situations--fine. I'm only asking whether the computer could provide an answer in its own terms).

Well, no bad baserunning on that one. Clearly the coaching has improved.

Yeah, that two strike high fastball just never works.

Oh God no! I don't want any guys who prove their 'toughness' by cheapshotting a hitter rightly objecting to a brush-back pitch, by going after him bravely armored in full catching gear.

1 for 4 last night. We really can't have a bunch of .250 hitters in the lineup. Send him down or trade him for a proven utility guy.

"Rebuild" is a common term promoted by front offices to disguise failure. Nor does 'not rebuilding' or its variant "not rebuilding jes' reloading" guarantee any short term success (e.g., RS last place finishes 3 of 4 years). I imagine it's also helped by fans who believe that their silly notion "anything less than a championship is a failure ..." somehow proves that they have more lofty standards than the rest of us.

And again.