Astros fans

[nolanfan34]

That's one hell of a lineup they have going today.

O. Palmeiro cf
T. Self rf
J. Vizcaino 2b
L. Berkman lf
M. Lamb 1b
M. Ensberg 3b
A. Everett ss
R. Chavez c
W. Rodriguez p

[mantasm]

I'm a fan and I don't know who these people are. This season has been a huge letdown. The playoff lineup last year was sweet.

9 runs tonite so far. Maybe this lineup ain't so bad.

[Jack of Arcades]

Should be:

Orlando Palmeiro
Lance Berkman
Morgan Ensberg
Mike Lamb
Todd Self
Adam Everett
Jose Vizcaino
Raul Chavez.

That's a pretty bad lineup once you get past the 5 spot.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Should be:

Orlando Palmeiro
Lance Berkman
Morgan Ensberg
Mike Lamb
Todd Self
Adam Everett
Jose Vizcaino
Raul Chavez.

That's a pretty bad lineup once you get past the 5 spot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Berky in the 2?

[Jack of Arcades]

Yes, your best hitter should be batting second. Your best non-HR hitter should be batting leadoff.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, your best hitter should be batting second. Your best non-HR hitter should be batting leadoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. What is your criteria for 3-6? I respect your baseball knowledge, so I am curious. Should Bonds be a 2 hitter?

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, your best hitter should be batting second. Your best non-HR hitter should be batting leadoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. What is your criteria for 3-6? I respect your baseball knowledge, so I am curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

After you place your best non-HR hitter in leadoff, you simply put them in the order of their value. so your best hitter is 2nd, then the next best 3rd, etc.

You can change orders around if you're paranoid about having two or three lefties in a row, which is a good idea if your opponent carries a good lefty in the pen; most teams do, nowadays, and even bad lefties are better at getting our LHBs than good righties.

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Yes, your best hitter should be batting second. Your best non-HR hitter should be batting leadoff.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. What is your criteria for 3-6? I respect your baseball knowledge, so I am curious.

[/ QUOTE ]

After you place your best non-HR hitter in leadoff, you simply put them in the order of their value. so your best hitter is 2nd, then the next best 3rd, etc.

You can change orders around if you're paranoid about having two or three lefties in a row, which is a good idea if your opponent carries a good lefty in the pen; most teams do, nowadays, and even bad lefties are better at getting our LHBs than good righties.

[/ QUOTE ]

So is the underlying theme to increase ABs for your best hitters, with the leadoff being the exception?

So Bonds, Pujols, Beltran, etc., should hit second? Please.

And what about speed. When Piazza was the Mets' best hitter you would have argued for him to hit second? And clog up the bases?

[Jack of Arcades]

Yes, when you move someone up into the order, they get approximately 20 more PA. Plus, the better hitters consume less outs, to keep innings going.

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds, Pujols, Beltran, etc., should hit second? Please.

And what about speed. When Piazza was the Mets' best hitter you would have argued for him to hit second? And clog up the bases?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes. This gets them more plate appearances. Why would you want your best hitter hitting #4 and getting 40 less PA? The only reason you don't bat them leadoff is to cut down on solo home runs.

Last year Bonds batted fourth, behind three mediocre hitters. Unsurprisingly, there were many 1-2-3 first innings, and Bonds was IBB'd to leadoff the second.

2) Would you rather have Jose Vizcaino batting #2? He won't clog up the bases. He won't reach base, either. Yes, Piazza should've been batting 2nd (Edgardo Alfonzo should've been batting first).

Tell me why you shouldn't bat your best hitter 2nd so I can deconstruct everyone of your points with maniacal glee.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds, Pujols, Beltran, etc., should hit second? Please.

And what about speed. When Piazza was the Mets' best hitter you would have argued for him to hit second? And clog up the bases?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes. This gets them more plate appearances. Why would you want your best hitter hitting #4 and getting 40 less PA? The only reason you don't bat them leadoff is to cut down on solo home runs.

Last year Bonds batted fourth, behind three mediocre hitters. Unsurprisingly, there were many 1-2-3 first innings, and Bonds was IBB'd to leadoff the second.

2) Would you rather have Jose Vizcaino batting #2? He won't clog up the bases. He won't reach base, either. Yes, Piazza should've been batting 2nd (Edgardo Alfonzo should've been batting first).

Tell me why you shouldn't bat your best hitter 2nd so I can deconstruct everyone of your points with maniacal glee.

[/ QUOTE ]

You obviously have figured out what thousands of people haven't in more than 100 years of baseball. Evidently everyone has been putting a lineup together wrong, from John McGraw, to Leo Durocher, Gil Hodges, Joe Torre, and Tony LaRussa. Congratulations. When is your interview for the Kansas City job.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Bonds, Pujols, Beltran, etc., should hit second? Please.

And what about speed. When Piazza was the Mets' best hitter you would have argued for him to hit second? And clog up the bases?

[/ QUOTE ]

1) Yes. This gets them more plate appearances. Why would you want your best hitter hitting #4 and getting 40 less PA? The only reason you don't bat them leadoff is to cut down on solo home runs.

Last year Bonds batted fourth, behind three mediocre hitters. Unsurprisingly, there were many 1-2-3 first innings, and Bonds was IBB'd to leadoff the second.

2) Would you rather have Jose Vizcaino batting #2? He won't clog up the bases. He won't reach base, either. Yes, Piazza should've been batting 2nd (Edgardo Alfonzo should've been batting first).

Tell me why you shouldn't bat your best hitter 2nd so I can deconstruct everyone of your points with maniacal glee.

[/ QUOTE ]

The response actually is quite simple. You said it yourself pretty much. I'd rather have my 3 and 4 hitters have 40 fewer total plate appearances if a significant % more of the total appearances are with men on base, than have 40 additional plate appearances but the overall % of them being with the bases empty being much lower.

Would you rather have a single and then a home run or a home run and then a single?

[Jack of Arcades]

Who got over 100 PA in the #2 hole last year for the Yankees? A-Rod, who also hit 2nd in one of his best seasons (1996).
Who bats second for the Cards? Larry Walker, who, as a Card, had a higher OPS than either Jim Edmonds or Albert Pujols last year. That worked out well, didn't it?
Who batted second for the Braves in 2002? Their best hitter, Marcus Giles.
Who batted second for nearly his entire career with the Cubs? I'll give you a hint: he's a going into the Hall of Fame, and he's one of the best second basemen ever.

[jakethebake]

Jebus you're a moran.

[Jack of Arcades]

I'm rubber and you're glue.

[jakethebake]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm rubber and you're glue.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dammit! Everyone knows there's no legitimate comeback to that. I'll get you next time, you bastard! /images/graemlins/mad.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[tbach24]

[ QUOTE ]
Would you rather have a single and then a home run or a home run and then a single?

[/ QUOTE ]

The first, which is what you get out of getting a guy with OBP 1st and then the best hitter 2nd.

[ QUOTE ]
Who got over 100 PA in the #2 hole last year for the Yankees? A-Rod, who also hit 2nd in one of his best seasons (1996).
Who bats second for the Cards? Larry Walker, who, as a Card, had a higher OPS than either Jim Edmonds or Albert Pujols last year. That worked out well, didn't it?
Who batted second for the Braves in 2002? Their best hitter, Marcus Giles.
Who batted second for nearly his entire career with the Cubs? I'll give you a hint: he's a going into the Hall of Fame, and he's one of the best second basemen ever.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, no, no. Don't go changing what you said. You said put the best hitter second. Larry Walker is the best hitter on the Cards? Please. He may be the most appropriate #2 hitter, I don't disagree. But he's not the best hitter on that team, you know that. And you think Marcus Giles is the best hitter on the Braves? Again no. He had 8 HRs in 550 ABs last year. The best hitter on that team is Chipper Jones, even with his off-year last year (and if you thought Cox hits his best hitter #2, then he should have moved Jones up there this year, no?). Oh and PS, A-Rod is hitting mainly 5th this year. Who's hitting second? Future hall of famer Tony Womack.

[Jack of Arcades]

Well, the problem with this scenario is that more often than not, the #2 hitter can't reach base.

Say you have a leadoff hitter, one of the best in the game. We'll call him, I dunno, Derek. Derek reaches base around 38.5% of the time.

Now, say he reaches base. Hitting behind him is a guy named Tony. Tony doesn't even reach base 32% of the time.

What are the likely outcomes?

No one on base for the #3 hitter: 44%. Not accounting for GIDP.
Derek reaches base, Tony doesn't: 25%.
Tony reaches base, Derek doesn't: 20%
Both reach base: 11%. This is not accounting for the fact that Derek may double/triple and score on a single, or score on the unlikely double of Tony.

So the #3 hitter comes up to bat, say, 10% of the time with two of them on base in the first inning, 45% of the time with a runner on and one out, and 45% of the time with no one on and two outs.

If the #2 hitter was their best, here's how he'd hit:

36% of the time, runner on, no one out (since sometimes the leadoff guy will homer).
64% of the time, no one on and one out.

Now, at first glance, the first option seems better, since your best hitter is hitting with more on base, right?

The problem with the first scenario is thus: 45% of his PAs come with 2 out, and another 45% come with 1 out. Outs are the currency of baseball. The team that makes the least amount of outs per plate appearance is the team that scores the most runs, almost unequivocally.

A-Rod hitting with 1 on, 0 out is a *lot* more valuable than A-Rod hitting with 1 on, 1 out.

Batting a hitter that can't get on base at #2 is hurting your offense. The idea isn't to maxiize RBI for your best hitter, but maxmize runs scored for your team. This is done by consuming the least amount of outs per plate appearance, which means batting your weakest hitters at the bottom of the order, not the top, even if they are "speedy."

[Jack of Arcades]

[ QUOTE ]
You said put the best hitter second. Larry Walker is the best hitter on the Cards?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was, last year.

[ QUOTE ]
And you think Marcus Giles is the best hitter on the Braves?

[/ QUOTE ]

He was in 2003, when they were first in runs scored. (Actually, he was more or less tied with Chipper, who batted 3rd).

[Paluka]

Batting your best hitter 2nd in the NL is a bad idea unless you are going to hit your pitcher 7th or 8th.

[James282]

niss, what you don't understand is that managers through the years have simply got it wrong. Even the ones who got it right often did so without even knowing why what they were doing was right. "Clogging up the bases" is a simple fancy perpetuated by intuition alone. It absolutely pales in comparison to run expectation given up by not getting your best hitters more PA. Just because people are doing something doesn't make it right. Listen to JoA, he's a wise man.
-James

[tbach24]

How was Walker better than Pujols last year?

[Jack of Arcades]

Anyway, your arguments are this:

1) It's always been done this way.
2) You want your best hitter hitting with more men on base
3) You don't want them clogging up the bases.

#1 is largely irrelevant. Baseball's never exactly been shy about changing things; starters rarly go more than 100 pitches now (Spahn and Marichal once both went to 200 in the same game!), TLR brought about the "closer," we have the DH, the Wild Card, Interleague Play, one home run per 9 innings, a smaller amount of stolen bases, sac bunts, etc. Strategy changes, and more and more people are starting to look at statistics, sims, etc.

Furthermore, managers are looking out for themselves. If a manager does something revolutionary or even uncommon and there are bad short term results, they're more likely to catch hell for it than if they just do what's always been done and it fails. This is pervasive throughout sports where teams are afraid to "try something new" no matter what evidence to the contrary.

#2 I've addressed. Men on base increase, but so do outs made, and not making outs is the most important part of an offense.

#3 has merit, but a large number of the "speedy" guys just simply can't get on base in the first place. Furthermore, one of the greatest leadoff hitters of all time - elected to the HOF by 95% of the voters - was Wade Boggs, who hardly was a blistering speedster.

Surely, not batting your best hitter 2nd isn't the worst mistake you can make, as long as you have a competent hitter there. The problem is that more often than not, the #2 hitter is the second or third worst hitter on a team (like Tony Womack - who's getting over 100 more PA than he should be).

[Jack of Arcades]

Oh, hey, you're right, I misread that (I saw his COL line which is for some reason listed last on ESPN). The larger point is that one of the biggest reasons their offense was so good last year was that TLR was willing to use such a good hitter in the #2 hole instead of using Edgar Renteria, who, while not a horrible hitter, is nowhere near as good as Larry Walker, yet he'd usually be used there.

I'd also like to add that, especially in the American League, it's not too common for a leadoff hitter to lead off an inning that isn't the first...

To put it this way, shifting Tony Womack from #2 to #9 would then make about 140 PA to be distributed equally among everybody else in the lineup.

[nolanfan34]

OK, wtf.

Enough with the hijack, you are all ruining a perfectly good thread to make fun of how much the Astros suck. God you guys are lame. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
9 runs tonite so far. Maybe this lineup ain't so bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's that, like, 8 more runs than they've scored in all of Clemens' starts combined?

[Jakesta]

Maybe the Stros will deal Clemens to a contending team at the break, to try and save some dough. I don't really feel bad for him or his lack of run support though. He has had a great career.

[ttleistdci]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Stros will deal Clemens to a contending team at the break, to try and save some dough. I don't really feel bad for him or his lack of run support though. He has had a great career.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel bad for him either. Not because he's had a great career, but because he's a shmuck.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Maybe the Stros will deal Clemens to a contending team at the break, to try and save some dough. I don't really feel bad for him or his lack of run support though. He has had a great career.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't feel bad for him either. Not because he's had a great career, but because he's a shmuck.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I totally agree. Clemens is completely classless. The Piazza incidents proved that about him. But he still has a great arm, and I'm sure that the Yankees would love to have him back. I don't think Houston would deal him to a division rival like the Cubs or Reds, but they might consider a deal with New York.

[Jack of Arcades]

Why the hell would Clemens go to the Cubs or Reds? They're toast.

[Jakesta]

Ok, then he might go to the Yankees. They are a team that can afford to pay the rest of this year's salary to him, and their pitching is somewhat shaky.

[DCJ311]

[ QUOTE ]

You obviously have figured out what thousands of people haven't in more than 100 years of baseball. Evidently everyone has been putting a lineup together wrong, from John McGraw, to Leo Durocher, Gil Hodges, Joe Torre, and Tony LaRussa. Congratulations. When is your interview for the Kansas City job.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poor argument. NFL coaches consistently kick field goals on 4th and goal from the 1, when going for it is hugely more +EV. I believe teams get into the end zone about 1/2 the time on 4th and goal from the 1 last I read (correct me if I'm way off), making the EV models very simple:

Going for it: 7*.5 = 3.5 points in equity
Kicking FG: 3*1.0 = 3.0 points in equity

This also is not including the hugely important 'field position' equity your team gains when you go for it and don't get there, essentially coffin cornering your opponent the same way a punt would.

Having the other team start from their own 1 or 2 yard line when you don't get your TD gives you a ton of equity that you give up when you kick your FG and allow the other team to start at around the 30 yard line on average.

So, why don't teams always go for it in these situations, if it's so mathematically obvious? The short answer is that coaches are more concerned with their own jobs and making the 'obvious' and seemingly safe play rather than the hugely +EV one. I also think most NFL coaches are borderline idiots when it comes to any type of game theory or basic math.

The best case in point of coaching stupidity is the following situation:

Jacksonville playing Cleveland, with the Jaguars up 3 points with approximately 1 minute remaining. Cleveland has 1 timeout left. Jacksonville has a 4th and goal from the CLE 2 yard line. What does Tom Coughlin (Jacksonville coach) do? He sends out the FG unit, and they increase the lead to 6.

The ensuing joke of a squib kick allows Cleveland to get the ball around their own 45 yard line. Jacksonville plays prevent defense (a horrible idea almost always) and allows several 7-8 yard out routes which let the Cleveland receivers get out of bounds, thereby minimizing clock time. Cleveland scores with about 10 seconds left in the game and wins by 1.

Now, if Jacksonville had simply gone for it, they probably get into the endzone roughly 35-40% of the time and win the game on the spot. Worst case, they give the ball up on downs, and force Cleveland to go the length of the field in under 1 minute, which is quite a bit harder than in the first situation. At this point, the chances of cleveland scoring a TD are remote, but even if they had a 1/3 chance of getting within FG range and making it, the game still goes into OT where each team has about a 50/50 shot.

So, in the instances where Jacksonville does not score (lets say 65% of the time), Cleveland only has about a 16% chance of winning the game, and the realistic chances are probably even less than that. So, conservatively, if this situation arose 100 times and you went for it each time, Jax would win 35 times immediately, win 55 times by playing defense or winning in overtime, and lose 10 times when Cleveland wins in regulation via a TD or a FG in OT. Going for it gives you a 90% chance of winning and kicking the FG and playing prevent defense gives you a much lower than 90% chance of winning IMO, because the other team 'knows' they have to go for a TD and teams tend to play worse defense in this situation as well.

I had Jacksonville -2 in that game on the spread, and lost a lot of money, so I was pissed when Coughlin made that coaching decision. That was one of the few times that I believe a dumbass coach cost me money, and if I ever see him I will let him know he is an idiot. Anyways, my point is that coaches are not always geniuses and their decisions should not be considered gospel.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
OK, wtf.

Enough with the hijack, you are all ruining a perfectly good thread to make fun of how much the Astros suck. God you guys are lame. /images/graemlins/mad.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't worry, I'm quietly enjoying their implosion.

[ThaSaltCracka]

haha, 2 weeks till Clemens gets traded.

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
haha, 2 weeks till Clemens gets traded.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the Yankees, I assume. They need another reliable pitcher and they are one of the few teams that can afford him. The question is, who will the Yankees give up for him? I assume that the Astros would ask for Cano in addition to another prospect.

[nolanfan34]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha, 2 weeks till Clemens gets traded.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the Yankees, I assume. They need another reliable pitcher and they are one of the few teams that can afford him. The question is, who will the Yankees give up for him? I assume that the Astros would ask for Cano in addition to another prospect.

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably Eric Duncan. Maybe that Wang guy who has been starting as well. Dumb, dumb, dumb. If the Astros won't give Chris Burke a sustained shot at playing 2B, I don't know why they'd want Cano.

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha, 2 weeks till Clemens gets traded.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the Yankees, I assume.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible that the Yankees have any quality players at all in their farm system?

[Jakesta]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
haha, 2 weeks till Clemens gets traded.

[/ QUOTE ]

To the Yankees, I assume.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it possible that the Yankees have any quality players at all in their farm system?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is a joke, Mr. Clarkmeister?

Cano was overlooked by the Diamondbacks, who chose Navarro instead. Cano is a very versatile player with a good bat and superb defensive skills. I can think of lots of teams who would love to have him as a second baseman or third baseman.

And let us not forget Mr. Chien Ming Wang, who has become a very decent pitcher, currently sporting a 4.09 ERA in the AL East.

The Yankees have prospects to offer, but I hope that they do not trade either of these two guys for half a season of Clemens and all the issues that go along with that. /images/graemlins/frown.gif

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
This is a joke, Mr. Clarkmeister?


[/ QUOTE ]

No. I don't follow the Yankees farm system. It just seems to me with all the picks they must lose from FA signings and all the midseason trades they make annually, it's hard for me to imagine there's a ton in their system, even with all the money they spend on it.

[Jakesta]

I see.

Well, if the Yankees want Clemens, they will get him.

But most people who follow the Yankees closely would be strongly against such a trade.

Cano is only 22 years old, and Wang is only 25. Clemens, on the other hand, is 42, and he will likely retire after this season(but you never know). It would just be an awful trade. Do you see why? The Yankees have hurt themselves trading away what prospects they have for overpaid, aging free agents.

The Yankees won their 4 recent world championships because they had a good combination of free agents and homegrown prospects(Jeter, Posada, Pettitte, Williams).

[Clarkmeister]

[ QUOTE ]
The Yankees have hurt themselves trading away what prospects they have for overpaid, aging free agents.

[/ QUOTE ]

That was my point. Namely that it would seem so, making it unlikely they have the prospect base left to just go willy-nilly trading for big name players.