What is your opinion of the A.J. Pierzynski signing?
MJH on accountability
A friend asked me a question that I'm about to have some time to investigate, but I wanted to throw it out here in hope that some of the more saber minded people can provide some insight. The question is this: if Kins had such a down year last year in terms of getting on base (obp down from .382 and .355 the last two years to .326) but still had a relatively stable number of runs scored (on pace to score around 110 R in a full season in 2010, 121 R in 2011, 105 R in 2012), is this evidence that obp might not matter as much as we think it does for a leadoff hitter. I know this is Wash's excuse for keeping in the leadoff spot whenever he's asked: "Look, he had a down year, but he's still scoring runs at the same pace and my confidence in him is not shaken. At the end of the day, all that matters is how many times we cross the plate, and Kins is still doing that, so I'm gonna keep sending him out there at the top of my lineup." Something about this seems fishy, but I always have a tough time putting a finger on what it is, so I'm wondering what everyone's thoughts are on the matter.
Wash and SABR don't mix. Ian usually leads the team in runs, and that's the justification that Washington gives for that. But runs scored is an entirely team dependent thing, so it's hard to have an accurate predictor. Same as RBI, if the guys in front of you are not getting on base you cannot knock them in. In the end it's better to get on base though, because obviously that is more of a chance to score.
There are other factors besides OBP that would matter for his runs scored. Particularly,
1. What the hitters behind him did when he was on base.
2. Number of plate appearences.
3. How well he was running the bases, including stolen bases.
It's pretty simple, he gets on base more than Elvis, so his chances to be driven in are better,,,but the guys behind him still have to get the hits....why would you say it's Wash's excuse? I don't see a better option....He is the manager and doesn't need an excuse...
I see it more as a predictor that you're a "nerd turd".
OBP is usually the best indicator of offensive efficiency. But again, like Keystone said, scoring runs is context dependent: Did the people behind you drive you in once you were on base?
Ian Kinsler should be the leadoff hitter, not because he's our most disciplined hitter (although he's probably 2nd), but because he's one of our 3-best hitters. If anything, I'd argue that we should have a different #2 hitter than Elvis Andrus, who is not one of our 3-best hitters.
Splits do matter, but if I was managing I'd slide Lance Berkman to the 2-hole behind Ian, keep Adrian Beltre as the cleanup hitter, and bat Nelson Cruz 3rd.
Maybe you should get a job managing. Wouldn't that be an upgrade over flipping burgers?
Maybe you should get a job flipping burgers. Wouldn't that be an upgrade over sitting around unemployed at your mom's house trying to "troll" forums all day?
I assume you're getting your "put your three best hitters in the 1,2, and 4 holes" from The Book by Tom Tango. It's a really great idea, but I'm a little confused about why there are so many managers that don't seem to follow it. Pujols and Cabrera are just two of many hitters that are clearly the best on their team that sit in the 3 hole. I guess it's just a sign that sabermetrics hasn't caught on with all the old school managers. Maybe Joe Madden will clone himself and solve the problem.
Somebody research this theory:
The higher the team is in their respective division standings, the more runs their highest OBP player has scored.
I'm confident you'll find your correllation there.
Let me expand that thought a little:
The higher the team is in their respective division standings, the more runs their highest OBP player has scored....COMPARED TO every other team's highest OBP player.
My hypothesis is that there is a direct correllation but the answer to the original forum question would be "It depends on the team."
OBP is the necessary first step to scoring a run. If we have a higher OBP player in Kinsler's place, barring a massive difference in speed, you would expect the player with the higher OBP to score more runs. That being said Kinsler is one of our higher OBP players most years so batting him first makes sense.
My understanding of lineup theory right now is that the best hitter should be second, the second best hitter should be fourth, and the highest OBP hitter other then those two should be lead off. Best second means most ABs with runners potentially on base. Second best 4th means that he comes up with either a runner on base or a clean inning his first time around. But the other thing is that lineup construction is considered to be worth very little compared to the talent level of the players on the team. Maximizing our lineup would be interesting, because you also do want to stagger hitter side when you can. Battling Berkman second would actually aid that somewhat. But our bigger issue is Wash's tendency, at least at the start of the year, to bat AJP, Murphy, and Moreland in a solid block, allowed a guy normally used as a LOOGY to blow apart 3 batters.
Mom's house jokes-wow is that all you got?
I like how you never even deny that you are an unemployed loser who mooches off his parents, JD. I guess its hard to make an excuse when you post on this forum all day every day. I guess you need some way to feel like a big shot, seeing as you apparently don't have much of a social life.
Can I give you a tip? Why don't you take some time off from the forum to work on some new material? Some of your stuff is soooo worn out. Examples include "l m f a o", "i d i o t s", and "insert insult- wow, is that all you got?" Also, some of your jokes like making sandwich jokes when a woman posts (this isn't 2005) and "TB? Tuberculosis?" are pretty lame.
Wow she's PISSED!
Thats a start, JD!
Here's something you could cstart on. Learning about baseball!
The only thing that you have posted on here vaguely related to baseball is that you think the new President of the Astros will be making trades and negociating contracts. Which raises the question: what does their GM do?
Pretty amazing. You never talk about baseball, tell everyone that they know nothing, and the one moment you open your mouth to mention something somewhat related to baseball you fail pretty hard.
JKolar writes: My understanding of lineup theory right now is that the best hitter should be second, the second best hitter should be fourth, and the highest OBP hitter other then those two should be lead off.
I prescribe to the Tom Tango way of setting up a lineup. The differences are minimal, like I think you mentioned, but from my perspective this is how a lineup should look:
1 - 2nd or 3rd best hitter2 - 2nd or 3rd best hitter3 - 4th best hitter4 - best hitter5-9 - doesn't really matter
In this case, you'd have two of your three-best hitters leading off the game, and if the 1, 2, and 3 hitters all go down in order in the 1st, the #4 hitter -- theoretically the best hitter on the team -- would lead off the 2nd with nobody out. Tango's thesis is that the first two hitters of the game are often retired in order, so why put your best offensive weapon in a position to hit with no one on base and two outs? That generates the lowest probability of scoring one run.
Instead, the #4 hitter leads off the 2nd, where obviously the team would have a better chance of scoring than if he were hitting with 2 outs and no one on base.
Whichever way we slice it, we're probably only talking about 5-10 runs of a difference over the course of a season, which really only equates to about +1.0 win, if that.
Last year, I would think Trout had the best OBP as a leadoff hitter in the league. Angels did not make the playoffs. OBP was nullified by the lack of support in the 3 - 4 hitting positions.
ozzie writes: Last year, I would think Trout had the best OBP as a leadoff hitter in the league. Angels did not make the playoffs. OBP was nullified by the lack of support in the 3 - 4 hitting positions.
Okay, first of all, OBP is never nullified. According to FanGraphs the Angels had the best offense in the American League last year, so nothing Mike Trout did went to waste. The pitching staff crippled that team, not the inability of the middle of the lineup to drive in Trout.
As for the "put your best OBP guy in the leadoff spot" argument, I'm not comfortable with that. Take the Rangers for instance -- you wouldn't want Lance Berkman batting leadoff, would you?
As JKolar writes,[b]ut the other thing is that lineup construction is considered to be worth very little compared to the talent level of the players on the team, which I agree with 100%. Regardless of who is batting where in the lineup, it matters more who is in the lineup.
With TB, Joe Maddon makes out a different lineup almost every day, but he consistently keeps Evan Longoria hitting cleanup, and typically bats Ben Zobrist right ahead of him.
It's all preference, really. And again, we're talking about gaining the most minimal of advantages over the course of a 162 game season.
Nerd Turd !
Btw-how's that WAR thing working out for Josh? LMFAO
Notify me of follow-up comments via email.