Kimmi

Here's a quote from The Hardball Times which I think answers your questions very well: The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions. That’s why they recommend putting your fifth-best hitter in the three spot. It's not just about RBIs. It's about generating runs and run value. If your best hitter (or any hitter) gets on base with 2 outs, he is a lot less likely to score than if he gets on base with 0 outs.

Correct. The 3rd spot is the least important out of the top 5.

You (and that is the collective you) are mocking me and my opinions in a feeble attempt to discredit what I'm saying. I find it disrespectful and condescending. I get it, it's what people resort to when that's all they have. Excuse me if I expect better from you guys. Don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Carry on.

Despite his splits, Crawford had WARs of 5.9 and 7.7 the two years prior to signing with us. Much like with Price, I didn't like the contract, but I thought he would help the team and was happy to have him.

You forgot Scioscia. I think this young pitcher is going to be tough, but I think Sale and our offense will be up to the task. Advantage - Sox. Let's go!

As you posted in your next post, Farrell seems really high on the Marrero/Lin tandem. And it's working. I can't imagine that they'd send either one down, but if I had to guess, it would be Marrero before Lin. It will be interesting to see what happens once Pablo and Holt are healthy.

It should be a touch pitching matchup tonight. The Rays pitcher is a youngster with a lower ERA than Sale in, I believe, his first 5 starts.

Of course the managers aren't stupid and I have never even hinted at such. Baseball managers have done certain things certain ways because that's the way it's always been done, with no proof whatsoever that it was the correct or the best way to do those things. Those decisions are now being challenged. I understand completely that those who have been around the game for a long time do not like it. As far as OBP goes, the 'out' is the most precious commodity in baseball. Avoiding making outs, therefore, is a valuable skill. No one said that a batter has to do that by taking strike 1 down the middle of the plate.

It's very obvious that most people think the big RBI spot is the #3 spot. I'm not denying that. Does that necessarily make it right? Most people once thought the world was flat.

People can find certain stats to make a player look good or bad by cherry picking or using invalid samples. Most people know to take that with a grain of salt. Studies are not like that unless they are done by crackpots, which would never fly in the sabermetric community. Believe me when I say that if one person or group does a study and concludes something like not batting your best hitter in the 3rd slot, that study is going to be reviewed and scrutinized under a microscope. If there is any fault to the study, others will point it out. If there is any way to improve upon it, others will point it out. Additionally, they will not be satisfied. They will continue to slice up the data and expand upon said study in many different ways. It's what these guys live for. You seem to be under the impression that stat geeks are trying to prove traditional thinkers wrong, and that they are 'fudging' their data to do so. That is not the case at all. They're not trying to prove anyone wrong. They just want answers to their questions, which IMO, is far better than accepting what has been done for the past 100 years just because that's the way it's always been done.

Comments like these are really not necessary. You and Emp can do better.

Two problems with this data: 1. You cannot measure the success of batting positions by RBIs alone. You have to look at how many runs are created or generated by each batting slot. Fact: Hits by the 1st or 2nd batter generate more runs than hits by any other batting slot. Hence, you want 2 of your best hitters in those slots. 2. The data you posted is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. In other words, a big reason why the 3rd and 4th slots are high RBI slots and the 1 and 2 slots are not as high is because of the way the managers set their line ups. If a manager places his best hitter first, for instance, I am positive, that the # of RBIs would decrease for the #3 hitter and increase for the #1 hitter, and the overall net gain in run production would be positive.

Obviously, you and other managers have had success batting their best hitter 3rd. Is it possible, however, that managers could have more success by batting their best hitter in the 1,2 or 4 slots? When several people, working independently of each other, come up with pretty much the same conclusions, I think you have to listen. At least consider it. So a team scores 780 runs in a season and wins 95 games. Very successful season. Perhaps they might have scored 800 runs and won 97 games with a more optimal line up?

Honestly, I don't know if that's the case or not, but either way, that's not what I said. I said the #3 hitter comes up to bat with 2 outs and 0 men on more than any other position. That's a fact. Another fact, which is part of the problem: A #3 hitter will never lead off the 2nd inning. The 2nd inning is the lowest scoring inning out of all of them. For that reason, it's better to put your best hitter 4th. He will either come up in the first inning with men on base, or he'll lead off the 2nd inning. Win-win.

My understanding is that one of the big reasons the Sox wanted Dempster was for his professionalism and his leadership. IMO, he contributed more to the team than what his numbers say, not that I'm criticizing his on field performance. Like you, I have nothing bad to say about Dempster.

I obviously did not like the contract, but I really liked the idea of having Crawford on our team. In terms of the player, I thought he was a good pick up. Sadly, it's not the first time I've been terribly wrong.

I don't think anyone can complain about winning 5 of 6 on the road so far. Win 3 of 4 in Tampa, and call it a very successful road trip to end the first half. Nice run d-money and SoxHop!

As PA said, this weekend series with the Devil Rays is now a 'thing'. We have a fair lead on them, but we do not want to let them have any glimmer of hope that they can overtake us. Fister will stay in the rotation through the break because the team will need 6 pitchers the week after the break, due to a double header make up game.

You are forgetting the counter effects of not having Mookie in the lead off spot. Mookie might get more RBIs in the 3rd spot. The team, on the whole, will score fewer runs.

Pete Abraham‏Verified account @PeteAbe 17m17 minutes ago Sox are 6-0 in games started by Tzu-Wei Lin. He is 9 of 22 in those games with 2 triples, 5 runs, 2 RBIs, 3 walks and a sacrifice. Rob Bradford 3m July third base intrigue: When Marrero and/or Lin starts, the Red Sox are now a combined 29-12

Fair point.

Well said.

I have never seen or heard about a statistical study that says put your best hitter 3rd, nor have I seen any stats supporting that idea. That doesn't mean that one doesn't exist, but I've researched the topic pretty thoroughly. And I'm sorry, but your statement that "if someone wants to prove something, there will be studies to confirm it" is a false statement. On the idea that the best OBP guy should be hitting first, I can agree with that. That is why it is not a ridiculous idea to bat Papi first.

I don't have to crunch the numbers. They've already been crunched, over and over and over. With probably every combination of good, bad, and average hitters. It's what the stat geeks live for.