Quote:
Originally Posted by Hootie
then talking about Alex Gordon we have to throw out his first few seasons...he's not that player anymore
it's the same thing with Alex Smith
on a stacked team...you're right, perhaps he's an ideal #2
on this team? He has to hit #3.
and alnorth, I just don't see it
I understand that the math probably shows that Barry Bonds would have been best served as leadoff since he got on base 60% of the time (that's a real stat one year)...
but it just defies logic IMO
I don't look at a lineup as an extrapolation over a 162 game season
every single game the objection is to win
are you going to win more games with your best .OPS guy at #1 or at #3 behind guys who are better hitters and get on base more than Jeff Francouer and Chris Getz?
I just don't understand how, potentially 1 MORE AB PER GAME (and that rarely works out that way) where, in the very same scenario it GUARANTEES one at bat with your best hitter hitting with no one on base no matter what...is a lineup that guarantees more victories over putting your best hitter who had over 50 doubles the previous year #3 behind two superior hitters and on base guys than the black hole of our lineup
I just don't see how you can argue when EVERY SINGLE MAJOR LEAGUE MANAGER EVER, even the forward thinking GM's like Billy Beane, never used this math to submit a lineup
Miguel Tejada batted 3rd.
|
Major league managers are very conservative in their approach to the game. They've always been years behind the statistical community, but you are starting to see them catch up.
I'd compare the lineup thing to 4th downs in football. All the math shows that coaches should be going for it on 4th down much more often. However, it is still being under-utilized due to years of conventional wisdom, and because no coach wants to risk their job doing something different.