What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
So a 1-hole is superior person than 2-hole? In my country if you said someone was a 2-hole that would an affront. This terminology is very confusing to me. In my new job here at SMU I work late in the lab but I really want to catch the second half of some games. Sometimes when you write Joe it is very confusing to me but you usually write your articles long enough that I can find the answers. So bascically you line your players up in ability 1-9? Thnx for your response.
Did someone just say cricket is a 'real' sport? Lmao
I dont't know why you choose to make light of cricket. At least we don't have #2 holes like you Anic.
Hahaha 2-hole is slang for 2nd hitter. What do you not understand about that? Isn't there a wickets or IPL blog you can go read?
In baseball, the 1st and second hitters are roughly equivalent to both openers and the 3rdd through 5th hitters would be roughly equivalent to top order batsmen. 6th and 7th hitters are roughly equivalent to middle order batsmen and 8th and 9th hitters are roughly equivalent to the tail.
(Grew up in South Africa so I can also translate the american football into sevens or nines and ice hockey into field hockey)
It is not so simple as your best hitters are 123 and your worst hitters are 789. That is only one element. There is a whole philosophy of how you should arrange your batting order so that you can optimize run production.
Your 1st hitters should be able to get on base a lot. He should be fast, a good contact hitter, and a guy who walks a lot. He should be a guy you want on base with your best hitters coming up in the 2-5 holes. Your 4th hitter is the "cleanup" hitter meaning you wish he can clean the bases for you. He is your best power hitter, a guy who hits a lot of doubles and home runs that create RBI's, and drive in the guys on base. So your 1-2 guys are good at getting on base and your 3 4 and 5 guys are good at driving the guys who get on base in, around to home plate. Your 6-9 guys are usually your weaker hitters. Does that help? You can read here for more information about lineup philosophy.
Wait a minute Joe...Speed up top, best hitter through the heart of the order and the lesser hitters at the bottom? What happened to your reinventing the game of baseball by alternating strong and weak to protect people?
Turning the original premise of the thread to the opposite approach: By doing what was originally proposed, that would also mean you'd be putting two weak hitters on either side of the strong hitter. IMHO, all that would do would be to ensure your strong hitters are pitched around even more than they would be now.
Again, I never said I was reinventing anything. I simply introduced a discussion of a consideration that I never meant to be the only consideration in how one would create a batting order. Obviously, there are many considerations all of which are important. I am simply talking about one that I have not heard discussed much.
I'm not sure why you are so adamant to misrepresent what I am saying.
It probably has something to do with your general obnoxious attitude as you are a very sarcastic and bombastic poster whose interest in your own ego obviously outweighs your interest in baseball.
Again, I never meant to say our weaker hitters are weak, only that they are weaker than our strong hitters.
I think your point would carry much more weight if our weaker hitters were poor hitters but they aren't. Pitching around Hamilton so you can pitch to Beltre is going to be a tenuous proposition if he performs anywhere close to what is capable of. But Beltre (who I have said is a weaker hitter because he is not as strong as Hamilton Cruz Kinsler and Napoli against LHP) still reaps the benefits of batting between Hamilton and Cruz which may well optimize his run production (the same for Andrus and Young).
Again, I never meant to introduce this as the central consideration in how one might go about organizing an order. I think if anyone actually reads what I wrote they will see that is an oversimplification and misrepresentation of my discussion here. I simply think protecting your relatively weaker hitters is one important consideration in determining your optimal lineup especially if you have a very strong lineup as we do. If you only have a few strong hitters then by all means protect them with each other and stack them at the top of the order. But we have so many strong hitters and so many almost-elite hitters that it increases the benefit of protecting our weaker hitters. Our strong hitters will likely not suffer that much from this and the optimization of run production from guys like Andrus, Young, and Beltre could make the implementation of this consideration worth it.
Thanks for the personal attacks, Joe. Interesting for sure, but much like your "cool experiment" earlier in the thread, it rings hollow regardless of the sheer force of word count you use to present it.
Prime Focus~ Speed and bat control has major input in a good lineup .Of course 'game situation'. You have to project in thought.Moving the runner and scoring is the 'prime focus theory'.There's not much weakness in the lineup that I see.Borbon is still learning, but his speed in the back and hisability to bunt, makes him very valuable, in Prime Focus.
@Jimi~ Most managers play by 'the book', or so called etiquite thereof.That un-official book(s) are written by John J. McGraw, a noted great player and manager of the early 20th Century. He is far and abovethe greatest tachtician of American Baseball. Most other noted greatmanagers were under his tutolidge, mentorship or learned knowledge.Find his books to read & study and you will find many tangents thereafter.
To Pull T
You obviously stepped on Joe's toes. He seems to think this is his site. Anyone who writes as many words as him and knows as little about baseball as him obviously will contradict himself at some point. It's just his pattern or MO. Others have been banned from here for less but for some reason he gets away with it. Life goes on! I on the other hand enjoy most of your posts
Thanks for reading lifer!
As usual you misinterpreted my post. I enjoy readong PULL T'S post. Yours are dull and boring and seem to be just you wanting to ramble on about a subject you seem to have little knowledge of.
LOL, seriously, I really got a good laugh out of this.
I misenterpreted your post.
Sorry, next time I will need to pay much better attention to know when you are bashing me and when you are not, since its such a mystery and all.
I'm always in muse, when someone tries to reinvent the wheel or Baseball
That's not what I tried to do here Enstein. I simply brought up a point that I think is interesting and worth considering.
Thanks for reading!
@Joe - chill dude. It was a play on words anyway. I even misspelled (Enstein),thinking in muse. Seeing you take yourself in high esteem, while you teach us all Baseball 21st Century, I'll pay more attention to your next Novel.
If you can't take one's opinion or retort. I'd think you might wear more kevlaras a flak jacket. Biting one's lip might work, but you'd have to shut your pie hole.
My next novel will demand your utmost attention sir. Thanks for reading and reading well.
I onder if we can set up some sort of pool or something and take bets on the next topic that turns into a Joe vs the world diatribe?
I'm just glad that I am not the only reader who gets worn down by Joe's rediculously long posts about nothing or his unflapable need to immediately argue any counter points.
Pull T, very impressive cricket translation...your game is transcedant. But I'm still confused...will a pitcher throw a weaker hitter more strikes if he has protection from a better hitter in front of and behind him? Or since he's a weaker hitter, does it matter if he gets more strikes? I mean, he's a weak hitter right? Isn't the point of providing protection for your better hitters to get the pitcher to throw them more strikes to hit instead of simply walking them and dealing with the mutt in the on deck circle? I only have 30 years playing, coaching and watching baseball tho so there's still much to learn...
I've already addressed most or all of the points you've made...sort of late in the game on this thread.
I'm sure there is not a worthwhile thought about baseball that you have not yet had Mr. Baseball.
My bet: Using nine "8th inning setup men" for a game along with a couple of long men for blowouts.
The faulty logic and defenses for that one are legion.
You are a genius Pull T!
Instead of the traditional split between starters and bullpen guys you just keep 12-13 one or two inning pitchers.
6 guys pitch two innings, take a day off, and then pitch two more inning after their day off. That's 6 innings a game pitched by your two inning guys.
Then you have 6 other guys who pitch one inning, the 7, 8, and 9 frames, and then take one day off before doing the same again.
That's brilliant. You wouldn't even have to worry about starters anymore and the opposing hitters wouldn't have any time to adjust to your pitchers.
You really should think creatively more often and you too Adam.
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.