small ball

On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:51:17 -0400, Kevin McClave
<kmcclave RemoveThis @SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:54:17 GMT, tom RemoveThis @nomail.please (JustTom) wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:20:42 GMT, John Kasupski <kc2hmz RemoveThis @verizon.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
>>>come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
>>>batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
>>>there last night.
>>
>>If it's based on performance, why would you put a rookie there who's
>>main question has been whether he can handle the bat well enough to be
>>MLer?
>>
>>He's only had 3 starts and 12 at bats.
>
>Because it "feels" right.
>
>Forget that it isn't right.

With Patterson, Janish, and this version of Griffey, I'd guess we
have the worst top 3 in the league, maybe of historic proportions.

I've seen claims/discussions saying lineup doesn't effect runs enough
to worry about, but I've got believe that with the extremes that we
have, that it damn sure does for us and Dusty was absolutely the worst
choice for this team because he can't understand it.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:49:42 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
<johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:

>On May 22, 11:30 am, David Short
><David.no.Sh....DeleteThis@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I know John's hates to hear the name, but one of the things James used
>> to harp on regularly is the notion that baseball folks do things not
>> because it makes sense, but because they percieve that's the way it
>> should be done.
>>
>The specific example he cited was Mark Grace and Ryne Sandberg.
>
>Grace's skills were obviously better suited for the 2nd slot
>than Sandberg's. But second-basemen bat second, so ...

I thought SS batted second.

I guess "middle infielder" counts, so we could at least justify
keeping Morgan in the 2 hole, but do you realize if Dusty were there
instead of Sparky we may have seen Geronimo followed by Concepcion.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:42:23 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
<johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:

>On May 22, 12:48 pm, t....DeleteThis@nomail.please (JustTom) wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:51:17 -0400, Kevin McClave
>>
>>
>>
>> <kmccl....DeleteThis@SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:54:17 GMT, t....DeleteThis@nomail.please (JustTom) wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:20:42 GMT, John Kasupski <kc2....DeleteThis@verizon.net>
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> >>>Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
>> >>>come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
>> >>>batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
>> >>>there last night.
>>
>> >>If it's based on performance, why would you put a rookie there who's
>> >>main question has been whether he can handle the bat well enough to be
>> >>MLer?
>>
>> >>He's only had 3 starts and 12 at bats.
>>
>> >Because it "feels" right.
>>
>> >Forget that it isn't right.
>>
>> With Patterson, Janish, and this version of Griffey, I'd guess we
>> have the worst top 3 in the league, maybe of historic proportions.
>
>I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Rangers. (Who would have
>been my first guess for historically bad 1-3)
>
>While I know you can find worse at any one of the three spots
>they're pretty impressive for the combined totals.
>
>Roughly .246/.305/.333 (with the #3 slot being the worst
>of the group. The 1972 Rangers are amazing in that they're
>so consistent.
>
>Batting
>1 .241/.331/.300 SS Toby Harrah
>2 .207/.285/.256 2B Len Randle
>3 .236/.325/.357 RF Ted Ford
>4 .258/.320/.349 1B Frank Howard
>5 .204/.281/.315 LF Tom Grieve
>6 .237/.308/.325 C Dick Billings
>7 .227/.293/.283 3B Dave Nelson
>8 .194/.260/.235 CF Joe Lovitto
>9 .135/.187/.174 last hurrah of the al pitcher (maybe what they used to get the DH)
>

Just for fun just because it's a slow afternoon before a holiday for
me tomorrow, thought I'd try to match up the lineup they used the
majority of the time based on player stats.

Am I close?
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
<johnson RemoveThis @ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>
>They thought Williams was a grouch. WIthin a year Billy Martin
>was their manager.

Yeah, he was much more easy going...
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"JustTom" <tom.RemoveThis@nomail.please> wrote in message
news:4835d3b0.540129150@newsgroups.comcast.net...
> On Thu, 22 May 2008 12:58:59 -0700 (PDT), Ron Johnson
> <johnson.RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote:
>>
>>They thought Williams was a grouch. WIthin a year Billy Martin
>>was their manager.
>
> Yeah, he was much more easy going...

Sober?
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.TakeThisOut@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:960474b2-8726-4481-9b5e-c4bae356cdd5@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 12:48 pm, t....TakeThisOut@nomail.please (JustTom) wrote:
>> On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:51:17 -0400, Kevin McClave
>>
>>
>>
>> <kmccl....TakeThisOut@SPAM666twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> >On Thu, 22 May 2008 11:54:17 GMT, t....TakeThisOut@nomail.please (JustTom) wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 21 May 2008 21:20:42 GMT, John Kasupski <kc2....TakeThisOut@verizon.net>
>> >>wrote:
>>
>> >>>Unfortunately, Keppinger is now on the DL and will be for some time to
>> >>>come. Based on performances so far this season, I'd have Hairston
>> >>>batting second right now. Or Janish, which is exactly who Dusty had
>> >>>there last night.
>>
>> >>If it's based on performance, why would you put a rookie there who's
>> >>main question has been whether he can handle the bat well enough to be
>> >>MLer?
>>
>> >>He's only had 3 starts and 12 at bats.
>>
>> >Because it "feels" right.
>>
>> >Forget that it isn't right.
>>
>> With Patterson, Janish, and this version of Griffey, I'd guess we
>> have the worst top 3 in the league, maybe of historic proportions.
>
> I'm old enough to remember the 1973 Rangers. (Who would have
> been my first guess for historically bad 1-3)
>
> While I know you can find worse at any one of the three spots
> they're pretty impressive for the combined totals.
>
> Roughly .246/.305/.333 (with the #3 slot being the worst
> of the group. The 1972 Rangers are amazing in that they're
> so consistent.
>
> Batting
> 1 .241/.331/.300
> 2 .207/.285/.256
> 3 .236/.325/.357
> 4 .258/.320/.349
> 5 .204/.281/.315
> 6 .237/.308/.325
> 7 .227/.293/.283
> 8 .194/.260/.235
> 9 .135/.187/.174

Give us the 82 Reds that lost 101 games, or was it the 83 Reds? I remember
my Topps sticker album saying that Oester led the team with 58 RBI or
something like that.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

In article <j6ednXNSS_UrWqjVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d.DeleteThis@comcast.com>,
oxinfla.DeleteThis@hotandsunnymail.com says...
> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven, selfish
> athlete. You don't see guys in a two-strike hole, turn slightly toward the
> pitcher and shorten their swing a bit. I was taught that striking out was
> bad, and taking a called strike three, a sin.

I think you still want to teach that. While there's no real evidence
that strikeouts are going to hurt your team's scoring, but you also
don't want to players to get in a mindset where they're too passive.

--
Dan Szymborski
dan.DeleteThis@baseballprimer.REMOVE.com

"A critic who refuses to attack what is bad is
not a whole-hearted supporter of what is good."
- Robert Schumann
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"Dan Szymborski" <dan.TakeThisOut@baseballprimer.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.22a005f03aedebeb989729@news-server.woh.rr.com...
> In article <j6ednXNSS_UrWqjVnZ2dnUVZ_t7inZ2d.TakeThisOut@comcast.com>,
> oxinfla.TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com says...
>> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven,
>> selfish
>> athlete. You don't see guys in a two-strike hole, turn slightly toward
>> the
>> pitcher and shorten their swing a bit. I was taught that striking out
>> was
>> bad, and taking a called strike three, a sin.
>
> I think you still want to teach that. While there's no real evidence
> that strikeouts are going to hurt your team's scoring, but you also
> don't want to players to get in a mindset where they're too passive.

Yes, very true.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On May 22, 9:39 pm, "RJA" <r... RemoveThis @nospam.cinci.rr.com> wrote:

> Give us the 82 Reds that lost 101 games, or was it the 83 Reds? I remember
> my Topps sticker album saying that Oester led the team with 58 RBI or
> something like that.

It's a weirdly memorable team I specifically recalled that their
#3 spot was one of the worst I've ever seen. Mostly Concepcion.

You do remember correctly about Oester by the way. But he was
only 1 of 3 guys who played virtually every game. Redus
for instance would have obviously driven in more runs had he
played more.

Anyhow:

(Also SB/CS Runs and RBI)

1. .270/.356/.441 59 19 120 63
2. .237/.321/.322 29 15 76 47
3. .227/.298/.300 19 11 64 73
4. .272/.351/.435 10 5 81 88
5. .239/.327/.368 17 11 76 66
6. .263/.336/.398 11 4 60 78
7. .240/.308/.373 5 8 53 60
8. .229/.299/.318 2 1 53 57
9. .162/.211/.234 2 3 40 45

Note that Redus and company scored 30 more runs than the
leadoff hitters for the 1961 Yankees. Hell, the leadoff
hitters for the 1976 Reds only scored 17 more runs and
the lineup behind Rose and company was a teeny bit
better than the guys on the 1983 team.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On May 22, 3:21 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> --
>
> "David Short" <David.no.Sh....TakeThisOut@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:g14gch$1ko$2@posting.glorb.com...
>
>
>
> > Bob Braun wrote:
> >> Ron or Dan
>
> >> I can't find this stat.
>
> >> K/plate appearance ratio by team.
>
> >> Yes, the 1976 Reds may have had a lot of K's, but they batted a helluva
> >> lot.
>
> >> It would be interesting to compare the K/PA rate of the '76 Reds vs. say
> >> the 2006 Reds.
>
> >> Or tell me where to look, and I'll find it.
>
> > Looks like team plate appearances is the tough one.
>
> > Under the league sections at baseball reference you can get a teams season
> > K's, AB and BB. Something like K/(AB+BB) would give you a decent
> > approximation.
>
> > It will certainly show the modern reds are striking out far more than the
> > 76 team, but that's a league wide thing that's been going on since at
> > least 1993. K's have been steadily rising in that time.
>
> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven, selfish
> athlete.

More like selection of players. One class of player that has been
largely driven from the game by today's high offensive context
is what Doug Drinen used to call the slapping swifty.

Further, pitchers aren't pacing themselves the way they used
to. The change in pitching style is at least as important as
offensive player selection in driving this trend.

> You don't see guys in a two-strike hole, turn slightly toward the
> pitcher and shorten their swing a bit.

I've been looking at count data going back to the 80s. I've seen
little to no change in how things play out with two strikes
since then.

There's only one reliable way to avoid Ks. Resolve the plate
appearance before reaching two strikes. And that
carries with it other issues.

> I was taught that striking out was
> bad, and taking a called strike three, a sin.

For any level of play below AA that's absolutely true.

And it may not be a bad thing to instill in your players.
The absolute best is what makes Albert Pujols so good.
He can swing hard and still make contact 85% of the time
(an excellent figure). And still have a good notion
of what the strike zone is.

Of course setting Pujols as any kind of batting standard
makes as much sense as setting Vince Coleman as the
standard for base stealing. Special gifts.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

On May 23, 3:46 pm, "David Short"
<David.No.Sh....RemoveThis@Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote:
> "Ron Johnson" <john....RemoveThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> > On May 22, 3:21 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....RemoveThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
> >> "David Short" <David.no.Sh....RemoveThis@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
> >> > It will certainly show the modern reds are striking out far more than
> >> > the
> >> > 76 team, but that's a league wide thing that's been going on since at
> >> > least 1993. K's have been steadily rising in that time.
>
> >> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven,
> >> selfish
> >> athlete.
>
> > More like selection of players. One class of player that has been
> > largely driven from the game by today's high offensive context
> > is what Doug Drinen used to call the slapping swifty.
>
> Why is that?

Looks like it's simply an intelligent response to the changing
conditions.

Might even be something you can credit Bill James for at
least partially. The specific type of player that was being
driven from the game is the guy who took up switch-hitting
to take advantage of his speed.

James speculated that this rarely worked well (and was often
a career limiter), and when I was researching the matter a
decade or so later I was struck at how fast these guys were
going away.

> I'm honestly curious. The only reason I can come up with is that fielding
> has become as good as it can possible be for just about everybody and the
> deciding factor in who plays is who has more pop.

I think the changes in the game favored power. New parks were
generally good places to hit -- often replacing lousy places
to hit (Chicago AL being a good example) and a lot of older
parks came up with better backgrounds to hit against.

> > Further, pitchers aren't pacing themselves the way they used
> > to. The change in pitching style is at least as important as
> > offensive player selection in driving this trend.
>
> Is it a change in pitching style or is it a response to the fact that
> hitters 1-8 can ALL pop the long ball these days?

Probably a bit of both. One thing that's clear is that elite
pitchers are being asked to work less frequently. For this
to pay off, you have to get better results in the innings
they do work.

> You can't pitch to the shortstop as if he were a pitcher because the
> shortstop is A-Rod or Ripken or Larkin and he's just as likely to pop one
> out as the left fielder.
>
> The reds secondbaseman put up a 30-30 year last year and the reaction around
> the league was...yawn. It only translated to a about a 105 OPS+! That seems
> insane, but it's what the translation works too. Everybody can pop it out.
> The pitcher doesn't pace himeself because he can't.

Yup.
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.TakeThisOut@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
> On May 22, 3:21 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....TakeThisOut@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>> "David Short" <David.no.Sh....TakeThisOut@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
>> > It will certainly show the modern reds are striking out far more than
>> > the
>> > 76 team, but that's a league wide thing that's been going on since at
>> > least 1993. K's have been steadily rising in that time.
>>
>> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven,
>> selfish
>> athlete.
>
> More like selection of players. One class of player that has been
> largely driven from the game by today's high offensive context
> is what Doug Drinen used to call the slapping swifty.

Why is that?

I'm honestly curious. The only reason I can come up with is that fielding
has become as good as it can possible be for just about everybody and the
deciding factor in who plays is who has more pop.

> Further, pitchers aren't pacing themselves the way they used
> to. The change in pitching style is at least as important as
> offensive player selection in driving this trend.

Is it a change in pitching style or is it a response to the fact that
hitters 1-8 can ALL pop the long ball these days?
You can't pitch to the shortstop as if he were a pitcher because the
shortstop is A-Rod or Ripken or Larkin and he's just as likely to pop one
out as the left fielder.

The reds secondbaseman put up a 30-30 year last year and the reaction around
the league was...yawn. It only translated to a about a 105 OPS+! That seems
insane, but it's what the translation works too. Everybody can pop it out.
The pitcher doesn't pace himeself because he can't.

dfs
 >> Stay informed about: small ball 

--

"Ron Johnson" <johnson.DeleteThis@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca> wrote in message
news:555366bb-d269-46ae-a656-3a0291f68c6b@k13g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On May 22, 3:21 pm, "Bob Braun" <oxin....DeleteThis@hotandsunnymail.com> wrote:
>> --
>>
>> "David Short" <David.no.Sh....DeleteThis@Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote in message
>>
>> news:g14gch$1ko$2@posting.glorb.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Bob Braun wrote:
>> >> Ron or Dan
>>
>> >> I can't find this stat.
>>
>> >> K/plate appearance ratio by team.
>>
>> >> Yes, the 1976 Reds may have had a lot of K's, but they batted a
>> >> helluva
>> >> lot.
>>
>> >> It would be interesting to compare the K/PA rate of the '76 Reds vs.
>> >> say
>> >> the 2006 Reds.
>>
>> >> Or tell me where to look, and I'll find it.
>>
>> > Looks like team plate appearances is the tough one.
>>
>> > Under the league sections at baseball reference you can get a teams
>> > season
>> > K's, AB and BB. Something like K/(AB+BB) would give you a decent
>> > approximation.
>>
>> > It will certainly show the modern reds are striking out far more than
>> > the
>> > 76 team, but that's a league wide thing that's been going on since at
>> > least 1993. K's have been steadily rising in that time.
>>
>> Well, I've voiced my theory on that. That's today's money-driven,
>> selfish
>> athlete.
>
> More like selection of players. One class of player that has been
> largely driven from the game by today's high offensive context
> is what Doug Drinen used to call the slapping swifty.
>
> Further, pitchers aren't pacing themselves the way they used
> to. The change in pitching style is at least as important as
> offensive player selection in driving this trend.
>
>> You don't see guys in a two-strike hole, turn slightly toward the
>> pitcher and shorten their swing a bit.
>
> I've been looking at count data going back to the 80s. I've seen
> little to no change in how things play out with two strikes
> since then.

But you can't watch the hitter to see if he adjusted his stance or approach
with two strikes. I'm buying stats as a reliable tool. It lets me see if I
can believe my lying eyes. But I can't go stats as the wholesale panacea.
I've really narrowed my view on bunting, when looking at the price of giving
up the out.

> There's only one reliable way to avoid Ks. Resolve the plate
> appearance before reaching two strikes. And that
> carries with it other issues.

Absolutely! My hitting window at 0-1, 1-1, and most 2-1's was the entire
strike zone. The best way to avoid having to make two-strike adjustments
is, don't get two strikes on you.

But I watch MLB players that could cut down on their K's with adjustments.
I don't want to see an Adam Dunn changing his approach with two strikes.
But I would like to see him cut down the PA's where he reaches the
two-strike count.

Digging up the Kearns-Hamilton references........Kearns frustrates me
because he won't hit to his strengths. Hamilton asstounds me how can handle
about any pitch in the zone and hit it hard. He hit another game winning HR
last night, to the opposite field.


>> I was taught that striking out was
>> bad, and taking a called strike three, a sin.
>
> For any level of play below AA that's absolutely true.


And I was a mere 'A' player. Called strike three was a $25 fine. When you
make a little over $300/mo, you can't afford many!
 >> Stay informed about: small ball