9/14 GDT Kershaw at Zeets

[tzill]

No lineup yet, but you've got to figure Ross starts in CF given Gamer's lack of production vs. lefties. My guess:

Ross CF
Franchez 2b
Huff 1b
Posey C
Burrell LF
Guillen RF
Panda 3b
UUU SS
Zeets P

n.b. Panda is hitting pretty well at home.

 

[calsnowskier]

Of all the players to go down, Torres may have been the WORST possible person to go. We have amazing flexibility in where we can play our guys EXCEPT at CF. We are now stuck with a $60M paper-weight and a waiver-wire block attempt that went bad (although, to be fair, I kinda like Ross).

Posey is the only other player that would have hurt more (position-wise) had he gone down.

 

[tzill]

Of all the players to go down, Torres may have been the WORST possible person to go. We have amazing flexibility in where we can play our guys EXCEPT at CF. We are now stuck with a $60M paper-weight and a waiver-wire block attempt that went bad (although, to be fair, I kinda like Ross).

Posey is the only other player that would have hurt more (position-wise) had he gone down.

C'est la guerre. Ross/Row/Ford will have to step up. If we're not good enough to survive Torres going down, we don't deserve to make the playoffs.

 

[gp956]

Of all the players to go down, Torres may have been the WORST possible person to go. We have amazing flexibility in where we can play our guys EXCEPT at CF. We are now stuck with a $60M paper-weight and a waiver-wire block attempt that went bad (although, to be fair, I kinda like Ross).

Posey is the only other player that would have hurt more (position-wise) had he gone down.

Torres was pretty awful at the plate lately, though. Defensively, it's a downgrade to go to Rowand, but given what Torres was putting up lately, Rowand might actually do better if the asshole can just revert to career norms. Ross more of the same - just intensify each point.

 

[filosofy29]

Not saying I know better (nor that it will happen), but here's a lineup home and away that I wouldn't mind seeing:

Home (I value defense more here):

Ross/Rowand - CF (preference to Ross)
Sanchez - 2B
Huff - 1B
Posey - C
Burrell - LF
Uribe - SS
Sandoval - 3B
Schierholtz - RF
Pitcher - P

Away:

Ross/Rowand - CF (preference to Ross)
Sanchez - 2b
Huff - 1B
Posey - C
Guillen - RF
Burrell - LF
Uribe - 3B
Renteria - SS
Pitcher - P

 

[tzill]

This came up on the junior board, but it might be worth kicking around here:

What do y'all think of the LaRussa hitting the pitcher eighth idea?

 

[gp956]

This came up on the junior board, but it might be worth kicking around here:

What do y'all think of the LaRussa hitting the pitcher eighth idea?

What knowledge has that discussion developed?

 

[calsnowskier]

This came up on the junior board, but it might be worth kicking around here:

What do y'all think of the LaRussa hitting the pitcher eighth idea?

IIRC, Boch already did that once this year. Dont remember the outcome, though...

 

[filosofy29]

I hate the Dodgers and I hate LaRussa.....that is all.

 

[tzill]

What knowledge has that discussion developed?

none, to my recollection.

 

[tzill]

Here's my two cents: It turns out that pinch hitters negate much of the advantage gained by switching the No. 8 and No. 9 hitters. While switching a poor hitting pitcher and a decent No. 8 hitter can add about 0.1 runs per game, when you factor in the other players who bat in the pitcher’s spot, there is not enough difference between the eighth and ninth hitters to increase scoring noticeably.

I was hoping GP might chime in.

 

[gp956]

none, to my recollection.

Well, here's the thought process:

One of the reasons LaRussa has used for the pitcher hitting eighth: Batting Pujols third guarantees he will hit in the first inning of every game and batting a position player ninth provides Albert with additional RBI opportunities the rest of the game.

And here is a sabermetric tool that calculates the runs generated by various lineups.

To me the question is still wide open for debate.

 

[tzill]

Well, here's the thought process:

One of the reasons LaRussa has used for the pitcher hitting eighth: Batting Pujols third guarantees he will hit in the first inning of every game and batting a position player ninth provides Albert with additional RBI opportunities the rest of the game.

And here is a sabermetric tool that calculates the runs generated by various lineups.

To me the question is still wide open for debate.

I understand, but it seems pretty clear that any advantage you get from a legit hitter in front of the top of the order is negated by the increased plate appearances of the pitcher, and mitigated by the fact that a PH is going to be used pretty often.

 

[tzill]

Tonight's lineup:

Ross RF
F.Sanchez 2B
Huff 1B
Posey C
Burrell LF
Uribe SS
Sandoval 3B
Rowand CF
Zito P

So, BOTH Row and Ross in -- guess Bochy didn't want to see Row between the Buffalos on defense. I hope UUU or Panda can get hot.

 

[iHATEdodgers]

I hate the Dodgers and I hate LaRussa.....that is all.

Yeah but I really fucking hate the dodgers!

 

[gp956]

Here's my two cents: It turns out that pinch hitters negate much of the advantage gained by switching the No. 8 and No. 9 hitters. While switching a poor hitting pitcher and a decent No. 8 hitter can add about 0.1 runs per game, when you factor in the other players who bat in the pitcher’s spot, there is not enough difference between the eighth and ninth hitters to increase scoring noticeably.

I was hoping GP might chime in.

What if your starters go deep into games consistently? The thing is, if one strategy is better, even if it's operational for only one time through the lineup, then it makes sense to do it. Now, that assumes a lot of things about human nature. Mostly, that no one will be upset by this new strategy.

But, lets make that assumption:

Using the baseball musing lineup tool and the Cardinals lineup, we can see the standard lineup produces about 4.824 runs per game, and 5.064 for an optimal lineup that includes the pitcher batting 8th. That translates to 38.88 more runs per year, and using the Pythagorean Rule, about 3.74 more wins per year in the current run environment.

Realistically though, you're only going to be getting 1 to 2 times through that lineup a lot of the time, and not all of that run per game differential is due to the pitcher hitting 8/9th. So the upside might be as low as one game or less. The key here is, so long as everyone in the clubhouse is cool with it, it seems to make sense. With the caveat that we're basing expected runs on a run environment that is not necessarily static. I'd have to run some sensitivity analysis to test for robustness of the result given run environments and also differing ways to quantity offensive production.

 

[filosofy29]

Yeah but I really fucking hate the dodgers!

Your handle is a misnomer.....

 

[filosofy29]

What if your starters go deep into games consistently? The thing is, if one strategy is better, even if it's effective only one time through the lineup, then it makes sense to do it. Now, that assumes a lot of things about human nature. Mostly, that no one will be upset by this new strategy.

But, lets make that assumption:

Using the baseball musing lineup tool we can see the standard lineup produces about 4.824 runs per game, and 5.064 for an optimal lineup that includes the pitching batting 8th. That translates to 38.88 more runs per year, and using the Pythagorean Rule, about 3.74 more wins per year in the current run environment.

Realistically though, you're only going to getting 1 to 2 times through that lineup a lot of the time, and not all of that run per game differential is due to the pitcher hitting 9th.

Here goes my uneducated attempt (or at least no actual research done on my part.....so excuse me if I go horribly awry). I think this strategy is "pretty" severely dependent upon lineup (not that you guys were saying/thinking otherwsie). If you have a hitter like Bonds/Pujols/Cabrera/Votto/ManRam (in his prime) or someone of that ilk, I kind of like the strategy. If you had a lineup similar to the Oakland A's (but as a National League team obviously), I don't think this lineup is as beneficial as the standard rule of thumb one. But I could be very, very wrong.

 

[gp956]

BTW, did anyone notice my new member designation?

 

[gp956]

Here goes my uneducated attempt (or at least no actual research done on my part.....so excuse me if I go horribly awry). I think this strategy is "pretty" severely dependent upon lineup (not that you guys were saying/thinking otherwsie). If you have a hitter like Bonds/Pujols/Cabrera/Votto/ManRam (in his prime) or someone of that ilk, I kind of like the strategy. If you had a lineup similar to the Oakland A's (but as a National League team obviously), I don't think this lineup is as beneficial as the standard rule of thumb one. But I could be very, very wrong.

I think that's a good assumption. It's worth looking into.