Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]What about the idea that CC will see better pitches with better hitters behind him moon? I think one of the things that really hurt him last year was that pitchers didn't really have to pitch to him. Carl is notorious for not taking a lot of pitches, and if pitchers have to throw him more strikes he's going to hit a lot better. And Pedey could easily hit in the 3 hole, when he had to hit cleanup he carried the club.
    Posted by carnie[/QUOTE]

    That would be the logic, but there is no real way to make it work without backing up two lefties in Ellsbury and Crawford at the top which helps lefties and managers using their pens late in games.

    Also, Crawford's OB% doesn't really justify the #2 hole. He'd actually be a good #5 guy here if the #6 was good, like a Youkilis, but Youkilis is too valuable higher up.  He'd be like a Willie McGee #5 hitter where McGee was moved down a bit because of his age and lesser OB%.  So, if you hit Youkilis 6th and Ortiz 7th, that would work.  Problem is, we don't want Ortiz hitting that low, or Youkilis, for that matter.

    If Ross or Sweeney somehow had  good year hitting 7th, 6th would make sense for him.

    Essentially, this is the suggested lineup with Crawford 2nd:

    Ellsbury
    Crawford
    Pedroia
    Gonzalez
    Youkilis
    Ortiz
    Ross/Sweeney/Kalish
    Saltalamacchia
    Iglesias/Punto/Aviles

    I would let Crawford prove his rest is good and let him hit his way into the 2 hole.
     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I would let Crawford prove his rest is good and let him hit his way into the 2 hole.

    Crawford will likely never approach Pedey's .390+ OBP, so it's not going to ever happen. He'll never even get 100 points within Pedey's OBP vs LHPs, so let's not even go there.
     
  3. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]What about the idea that CC will see better pitches with better hitters behind him moon? Better than what? His career high? That's not even good enough for the #2 slot on this team. Secondly, aren't you just transferring the problem to the new 6th hitter? Papi vs LHPs and maybe Youk vs RHPs? Now they have the same guys behind them that CC would have had. I have never stated that CC may or may not hit better up 2nd. I don't think that is a major factor in this decision. I have also said I have no problem moving Pedey, since he has shown he hits well up #4. That doesn't mean it's the best idea. My line-up philosophy goes like this: 1) You fill in the 3 slot first: he should have a great OBP and also a nice Slg%.   To me, this is clearly AGon vs LHPs and maybe Youk or Pedey vs LHPs (Agon also) 2) Choose your clean-up and lead off hitters next. Leadoff should have a high OBP with speed secondary but important. Ellsbury fits that role perfectly vs LHPs and RHPs. Cleanup: vs RHPs: Papi  & vs LHPs Youk or Pedey. 3) The 4th & 5th slots to fill are #2 and #5. The #2 should be a high OBP, with good bat control, low Ks, and maybe some decent speed. The number 5 should have power and BA skills for RBIs. 4) After this, it basically is by order of total offensive skills by L/R splits combined with overall numbers. If even, put a speed guy up 9th. I go with this as the optimal line-ups (assuming no Iggy):     RHPs   LHPs 1)   Ells    Ells 2)   Ped   Ped 3)   Gon   Youk 4)   Papi  Gon 5)   Youk  Papi 6)   CC     Ross 7)   Salty  Aviles 8)   Swe   Shopp 9)   Aviles  CC I'm OK with this: 1)  Ells     Ells 2)  CC      Ped 3)  Gon    Gon 4)  Ped    Youk 5)  Papi   Papi 6)  Youk   Ross 7)  Salt     CC 8)  Swe    Shop 9)  Avil     Avil
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    It's actually preferable to have a guy like Youk or Papi in the 6 slot, because they have the patience to lay off pitches out of the zone.  If you put Crawford in the 2 slot with all that firepower behind him, you might get his career best, whereas in the 6 slot he might not do much better than last year.  If you move Papi from 5 to 6, his SLG might go down, but his OBP goes up.  

    It's not that I want Crawford to have more ABs than Papi or Youk - it's that I think his ABs in the 2-hole will be a lot better than his ABs in the 6-hole, and that's not so much the case for the other guys.  I think the net result is positive, and worth giving it a shot for 6 weeks.



     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Crawford would need to prove his wrist is ok, then hit well from the 7th hole.  If for some reason Ortiz struggles in the 5th hole, just switch them around, which I don't want. But, one step at a time. Don't unseat guys who are great in their spots to accomodate a gy who has struggled a bit.  If anything, we should be looking for ways to protect the #6 hole, which is the key hole.

    Cody Ross mashes lefties, is weaker against righties, but if Kalish can ascend, you just plop one or the other in the #6 hole, and protect them with Ortiz and Crawford.   Crawford needs to relax and pull up the big-boy panties. 

    The slot arugment is overrated for Crawford. He pressed too much last year. Just get him to relax, try to work the count, see your pitch and go to that part of the field, just like you'd be doing in the #2 hole.    He actually had incredible value in the #7 hole. It's like the second version of a lead off spot in this lineup. HE should take pride in that and do his best to help within that idea.

    It's a huge advantage through 9 innings, IMO, to have a L/R or a R/L lineup. I don't feel we shoudl lose that to accomodate guy with a bloated salary.  A lot of teams don't have the L/R or R/L thing, especially in the NL. The AL gives you a good chance to devise a lineup with that. So, why take it away?

    He can HELP and justify his salary by treating his #7 hole slot like a leadoff or #2 slot position when the inning starts.  So, maybe he hits 1st or 2nd in the 2nd inning. Ok, now, you're our #1 or #2 hitter, which is what you were in TB.
     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd : It's actually preferable to have a guy like Youk or Papi in the 6 slot, because they have the patience to lay off pitches out of the zone.  If you put Crawford in the 2 slot with all that firepower behind him, you might get his career best, whereas in the 6 slot he might not do much better than last year.  If you move Papi from 5 to 6, his SLG might go down, but his OBP goes up.   It's not that I want Crawford to have more ABs than Papi or Youk - it's that I think his ABs in the 2-hole will be a lot better than his ABs in the 6-hole, and that's not so much the case for the other guys.  I think the net result is positive, and worth giving it a shot for 6 weeks.
    Posted by slomag[/QUOTE]

    For years all this team needed was a lead off guy with SPEED. Now we have it. His name is Ellsbury. Just check it off the list.

    Perdoia is a very good #2 hitter, because even though he's aggressive, he works the count. Same with Gonzalez at #3. Average, works the count, can drive in runs.

    Youkilis is the #4 guy and is a righty, so he has to go there, because you know he has power, the average and RBI capability. 

    I just don't see why you mess with a slamdunk 1-5 lineup that goes L/R, just to accomdate the new guy whose salary is the main reason you're tying to make these moves.

    In TB, it made sense to hit Crawford #2 or #3, because of what their lineup was.  It was a growing, up and coming offense. Meanwhile, this one is very much entrenched, especially with Ellsbury progressing in his role.

    I think this is completely over-analyzed.

     
  6. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    It's actually preferable to have a guy like Youk or Papi in the 6 slot, because they have the patience to lay off pitches out of the zone.  

    I disagree. I want these guys getting up in the first inning as often as possible. Moving them down diminishes that chance, and putting a low OBP guy up 2nd diminishes it even more.

    If you put Crawford in the 2 slot with all that firepower behind him, you might get his career best, whereas in the 6 slot he might not do much better than last year.  

    The problem is thatb his career best still pales when compared to Pedey. (And, there's no reason to expect a career best in 2012.)

    If you move Papi from 5 to 6, his SLG might go down, but his OBP goes up.  

    His RBI chances will go down too. If Papi hits like 2012, we should be talking moving him to the 4 slot not the 6th. Plus, he's likely to pout if demoted in the line-up.

    It's not that I want Crawford to have more ABs than Papi or Youk - it's that I think his ABs in the 2-hole will be a lot better than his ABs in the 6-hole, and that's not so much the case for the other guys.  

    Well, the fact is, he will get about 70-90 more PAs batting 2nd instead of 6th vs RHPs and 9th vs LHPs. And, Pedey, AGon, Youk and papi all get about 20 less each.

    I think the net result is positive, and worth giving it a shot for 6 weeks.

    ...and if he has his career high of maybe a .365 OBP, you still want him second with his .325 best OBP vs LHPs? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. His career best is still likely to be 30 points below Pedey and 70 points less vs LHPs.
     
  7. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    ...It's a huge advantage through 9 innings, IMO, to have a L/R or a R/L lineup...

    While I agree with your position on NOT moving CC to the 2 slot, I disagree with this reason.

    The L-R-L philosphy is a paradigm long overdue to be busted up. It is actually a disadvantage for most of the game, and possibly a slight advantage late in games as managers play the lefty-righty relief pitcher game.

    It is not an advantage through 9 innings.

    Having 9 straight lefties vs a RH'd started is an advantage.

    Allowing your best hitters the chance to get the most PAs vs opposite-armed pitchers is a distinct advantage. The only plus is for the few games that the game is still close late in the game, and a manager can bring in a lefty to face 3-4 straight lefties and not have to make several moves. I have never seen even this as a reason to sacrifice 3-4 early gamne PAs for the chance that one late game PA might be decided by what arm the relief pitcher throws from.
     
  8. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]It's actually preferable to have a guy like Youk or Papi in the 6 slot, because they have the patience to lay off pitches out of the zone.   I disagree. I want these guys getting up in the first inning as often as possible. Moving them down diminishes that chance, and putting a low OBP guy up 2nd diminishes it even more. If you put Crawford in the 2 slot with all that firepower behind him, you might get his career best, whereas in the 6 slot he might not do much better than last year.   The problem is thatb his career best still pales when compared to Pedey. (And, there's no reason to expect a career best in 2012.) If you move Papi from 5 to 6, his SLG might go down, but his OBP goes up.   His RBI chances will go down too. If Papi hits like 2012, we should be talking moving him to the 4 slot not the 6th. Plus, he's likely to pout if demoted in the line-up. It's not that I want Crawford to have more ABs than Papi or Youk - it's that I think his ABs in the 2-hole will be a lot better than his ABs in the 6-hole, and that's not so much the case for the other guys.   Well, the fact is, he will get about 70-90 more PAs batting 2nd instead of 6th vs RHPs and 9th vs LHPs. And, Pedey, AGon, Youk and papi all get about 20 less each. I think the net result is positive, and worth giving it a shot for 6 weeks. ...and if he has his career high of maybe a .365 OBP, you still want him second with his .325 best OBP vs LHPs? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. His career best is still likely to be 30 points below Pedey and 70 points less vs LHPs.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Crawford's career best OBP vs LHP was .350.  But his performance vs. LHP varies wildly from year to year, and it's not unreasonable to suspect a correlation between this performance and the presence of a valid right-handed threat hitting behind him.  If that's the case, I'd much rather have Crawford get 730 PAs at .850 OPS than 650 PAs at .750 OPS.

    FYI, I think Ellsbury is in the same vein - push him down the lineup (or put him in the Tampa Bay lineup) and his OBP drops dramatically.  Your argument would put Ellsbury and Crawford hitting 6th & 7th.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]. ..It's a huge advantage through 9 innings, IMO, to have a L/R or a R/L lineup... While I agree with your position on NOT moving CC to the 2 slot, I disagree with this reason. The L-R-L philosphy is a paradigm long overdue to be busted up. It is actually a disadvantage for most of the game, and possibly a slight advantage late in games as managers play the lefty-righty relief pitcher game. It is not an advantage through 9 innings . Having 9 straight lefties vs a RH'd started is an advantage. Allowing your best hitters the chance to get the most PAs vs opposite-armed pitchers is a distinct advantage. The only plus is for the few games that the game is still close late in the game, and a manager can bring in a lefty to face 3-4 straight lefties and not have to make several moves. I have never seen even this as a reason to sacrifice 3-4 early gamne PAs for the chance that one late game PA might be decided by what arm the relief pitcher throws from.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    Well, it depends on your bench.  If you have the opposite hitting player on the bench who is equally as good or your current starter hits the same against Rs or LS, ir there isn't a dropoff, it's not much of an issue, obviously.

    For example, if Ross was facing a lefty for 7 innings, that starter was bounced in a 6-4 or 5-3 game, and they bring in a really good RHer, you'd just send in Kalish, for example, to hit for him.

    Then, you've played the odds and possibly outmanuevered the other manager, obviously.  But, if you're stacking Ellsbury and Crawford back to back against a lefty? I wouldn't expect each batter to have a good night against a quality lefty in this league.  It's easier for that staring lefty to get into a groove, especially if he's facing each lefthanded hitter back to back in the same inning.

    Make the pitcher constantly adjust both through the at-bat based on what side and through the game.

    I think it has huge value and forces the other manager's hand earlier than he would want. There is no way it's a disadvantage when most teams and managers try to get it that way.

    It may be not be as necesssary, as I mention above, because a great hitter may not care whom he faces in what part of the lineup.
     
  10. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Well, it depends on your bench.  If you have the opposite hitting player on the bench who is equally as good or your current starter hits the same against Rs or LS, ir there isn't a dropoff, it's not much of an issue, obviously.

    It's a huge drop off.  If a righty is up, you put your best hitters (probably mostly Lh'd batters) early in the line-up. Over time, they all get more PAs than had they batted lower. When a righty is up, you do the same. 

    I would try to avoid 4 straight lefties or righties, unless they are clearly better than the alternative choice. 

    In terms of our bench, I don't see what your point is. I wouldn't have anyone on the bench who is better than someone on the field unless his fielding made up for the offense. If the opponents switch pitchers and bring in the other handed pitcher, there will be at least a couple players who can PH if the situation warrants.

    For example, if Ross was facing a lefty for 7 innings, that starter was bounced in a 6-4 or 5-3 game, and they bring in a really good RHer, you'd just send in Kalish, for example, to hit for him.

    Ross would probably already have 4 or 5 PAs by the 7th inning if the score was 6-4. If they bring in a RHP early, I wouldn't pinch hit right away, but if a key situation came up, I'd PH Sweeney vs a RHP.

    Then, you've played the odds and possibly outmanuevered the other manager, obviously.  But, if you're stacking Ellsbury and Crawford back to back against a lefty? I wouldn't expect each batter to have a good night against a quality lefty in this league. 

    I'd have CC 9th and Jacoby 1st vs LHPs, so yes they would be back-to-back vs LHPs, but you are missing a key point: Jacoby hits LHPs well and almost the same as RHPs (except for 2012). Not all lefties have problems with LHPs, and same with RH'ers.

     It's easier for that staring lefty to get into a groove, especially if he's facing each lefthanded hitter back to back in the same inning.

    This is a minimal factor compared to getting your best hitters up more often. That extra AB is crucial.

    Also, the flip argument could be made: a RH'd stack could knock out a starter early and get to the middle relief guys who are usually the worst pitchers on most staffs.

    Make the pitcher constantly adjust both through the at-bat based on what side and through the game.

    It's not rocket science for pitchers to face a L-R-L stretch.

    I think it has huge value and forces the other manager's hand earlier than he would want. There is no way it's a disadvantage when most teams and managers try to get it that way.

    There is merit to putting L-R-L, but not if one hitter is way better than the other.

    It may be not be as necesssary, as I mention above, because a great hitter may not care whom he faces in what part of the lineup.

    We have plenty of righties who hit righties well, and a few lefties that have had successes vs lefties.

    The flip side is true of our relief pitchers. Many are calling for a lefty specialist even though many of our RH'd relief pitchers have excellent records vs lefties.

    It's not the 2 lefties in a row that bothers me about putting CC 2nd (esp against LHPs), it is the fact that he is not even close to Pedey in OBP, and Pedey is an excellent baserunner anyways.
     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    So, if you force a team to use a lefty relivers, against say, Kalish in the 6th or 7th inning, you don't just pinch hit for Kalish with Cody Ross who mashes lefties?  If you can force a manager to move an inning earlier based on matchups, you do it.

    All the L/R or R/L thing does is puts more pressure on the other manager of when to use his situational relievers.  If you force them to use them in the 7th, they can't match up in the 8th or 9th, etc.

    I don't understand why this is so confusing. Managers love to have a L/R or a R/L lineup. Of course. 
     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    If that's the case, I'd much rather have Crawford get 730 PAs at .850 OPS than 650 PAs at .750 OPS.

    1) This is assuming CC will equal his career best year.
    2) .350 is still about 40-50 points lower than Pedey.
    3) Would you also rather have 20 less PAs of Pedey, AGon, Youk and papi who all will be over .850? (Plus, why not also assume your choice of our new 6th hitter will have radically lower OBP?)

    I can see your reasoning if you really think CC will have a 100 point higher OPS because he bats 2nd not 6th and everyone else stays the same after being dropped down, but at the very best, with everything going right in your argument, we might still just barely breal even: (vs LHPs only)
    CC + 100 points and +80 PAs (@ .850 OPS)
    Pedey  even - 20 PAs @ .900+ OPS
    AGon   even -20 PAs  @.820+ OPS
    Youk    even -20 PAs @ .920+ OPS
    Papi    even -20 PAs  @ .900+ OPS

    I still see it basically like this:

    Assuming these numbers vs LHPs (~ career/recent  OPS vs LHPs):
    CC       .690
    Pedey . 850
    AGon   .820
    Youk    .920
    Papi    .820

    Batting order with CC up 2nd and net OPS + or -
    1) 785 PAs +.0  (same)
    2) 770 PAs  -160   (CC < Pedey)
    3) 750 PAs +30 (Pedey > AGon)
    4) 730 PAs -100 (AGon<Youk)
    5) 715 PAs +100 (Youk>Papi)
    6) 700 PAs +130 (Papi > CC)

    If CC has an .850 OPS and all others stay the same, except for Papi up 6th with nobody behind him may dropping 100 pts vs LHPs):
    1) same
    2) +30 I find it hard to believe CC will ever have a better OPS than Pedey vs LHPs
    3) +30
    4) -100
    5) +100
    6) -30 (Papi at .720 > CC at .750)

    At best (meaning CC actually hits .850 vs LHPs) I see this as about breaking even.

     
  13. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    So, if you force a team to use a lefty relivers, against say, Kalish in the 6th or 7th inning, you don't just pinch hit for Kalish with Cody Ross who mashes lefties?  If you can force a manager to move an inning earlier based on matchups, you do it. 

    I don't see how having a line-up like this vs a RHP:
    L-R-L-R-L-R-L-R-L
    is going to force a reliever to come in earlier than this line-up:
    L-L-L-R-L-R-L-R-R
    In fact, the second line-up is more likely to force a mangeres hand when the 3straight lefty stretch comes up in the 5th, 6th or 7th inning of a close game. The L-R-L method actually re-tards early manager moves.

    All the L/R or R/L thing does is puts more pressure on the other manager of when to use his situational relievers.  If you force them to use them in the 7th, they can't match up in the 8th or 9th, etc.

    The main idea is to get the opps to go the pen as soon as possible, since almost all team's worst pitchers are their middle and long relief guys (pitchers that are not good enough to start). Having stretches of 3 straight lefties (vs a RH'd starter) or 3 straight righties (vs a LH'd starter) will more likely cause an early pitching change than L-R-L-R...)

    I don't understand why this is so confusing. Managers love to have a L/R or a R/L lineup. Of course. 

    I'm not confused by why managers do it, I'm confused by your reasoning that L-R-L line-up force early moves. It makes no sense.

    The advantage of the L-R-L lin-up philosophy is really only realized in late innings of close games (which doesn't happen often), and only if the opposing team has quality  specialists and we have no viable PH'ing options.

    My point is, that by stacking a line-up with your best hitters up 1-6 regardless of L-R alternations for 3-5 PAs each, the chances that more runs will be scored my way, vs hoping a late inning, one at bat situation occurs in a close game where the L-R alternating line-up messed up the opposing team is way better than the traditional paradigm many mangers are slaves to.

    I have never heard one shread of evidence to suggest that a L-R-L-R line-up messes up a starting pitcher because of having to adjust and counter adjust every PA. With all due respect, I find that notion absurd. 

    I'm not saying the L-R-L idea is baseless. If 2 batters are close, I'd choose to alternate L & R. If you see my line-up suggestions, there is only 1 time that there is 3 in a row of like-handed batters and 2 times for 2 in a row (which would happen in your plan too for the 9 & 1 hitters).

    Vs RHP:
    L Ells
    R Pedey
    L AGon
    L Papi
    R Youk
    L CC
    S Salty
    L Sweeney (R Ross vs certain righties)
    R Iggy/Aviles

    vs LHPs
    L Ells
    R Pedey
    L AGon
    R Youk
    L Papi
    R Ross
    R Shopp
    R Aviles (CC if Iggys starts)
    L CC  (Iggy)

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from BassFishing. Show BassFishing's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Close games in late innings don't happen often? We must watch different sports.

    I am flummoxed why managers try to stagger lineups L/R or R/L, as much as possible in my years of watching baseball, and it having no value like you claim. 

    You want to move Crawford to the 9 hole against lefties?  Why?  Crawford is a worse hitter than Iglesias or Aviles/Punto?

    So basically you are choosing the best hitters to go 1-9, basically not caring how to structure 7-9, and only basing 7-9 or 6-9 on how well the hitter does against a righty or lefty?  I don't know anyone would put the Iglesias, Salty, Shoppach, Punto or Aviles above Carl Crawford in this lineup at any time, other than it being necessary due to a massive slump for CC.

    I disagree. I would use the 6th slot as the slot that needs protection because of the obvious drop off from slot 5 (Oritz) to slot 6. Crawford can actually be used well as a way to help protect the 6th slot which would be Ross against lefties or hopefully a healty Kalish (later on) against righties.

    The 1-5 is as good as any in baseball and 6-9 COULD be as good as anyone's if thigns breaks right.  Crawford has more value in the 7th hole with a righty (either Ross or Saltalamacchia (S) in that slot).

    If Sweeney gets time in RF, it's going to back end a bit anyway with Crawford in the 6th hole most likely following Ortiz.   I am more talking about when Ross starts.

    I am hoping Ross does well enough where he plays against both lefties and righties.   Kalish's health is a big deal.

    I'd rather use the protection concept and still keep a L/R rotation than not.
     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from slomag. Show slomag's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]If that's the case, I'd much rather have Crawford get 730 PAs at .850 OPS than 650 PAs at .750 OPS. 1) This is assuming CC will equal his career best year. 2) .350 is still about 40-50 points lower than Pedey. 3) Would you also rather have 20 less PAs of Pedey, AGon, Youk and papi who all will be over .850? (Plus, why not also assume your choice of our new 6th hitter will have radically lower OBP?) I can see your reasoning if you really think CC will have a 100 point higher OPS because he bats 2nd not 6th and everyone else stays the same after being dropped down, but at the very best, with everything going right in your argument, we might still just barely breal even: (vs LHPs only) CC + 100 points and +80 PAs (@ .850 OPS) Pedey  even - 20 PAs @ .900+ OPS AGon   even -20 PAs  @.820+ OPS Youk    even -20 PAs @ .920+ OPS Papi    even -20 PAs  @ .900+ OPS I still see it basically like this: Assuming these numbers vs LHPs (~ career/recent  OPS vs LHPs): CC       .690 Pedey . 850 AGon   .820 Youk    .920 Papi    .820 Batting order with CC up 2nd and net OPS + or - 1) 785 PAs +.0  (same) 2) 770 PAs  -160   (CC < Pedey) 3) 750 PAs +30 (Pedey /> AGon) 4) 730 PAs -100 (AGon<Youk) 5) 715 PAs +100 (Youk>Papi) 6) 700 PAs +130 (Papi > CC) If CC has an .850 OPS and all others stay the same, except for Papi up 6th with nobody behind him may dropping 100 pts vs LHPs): 1) same 2) +30 I find it hard to believe CC will ever have a better OPS than Pedey vs LHPs 3) +30 4) -100 5) +100 6) -30 (Papi at .720 > CC at .750) At best (meaning CC actually hits .850 vs LHPs) I see this as about breaking even.
    Posted by moonslav59[/QUOTE]

    I'm not sure if I believe it whole-heartedly, but looking at Crawford's splits you do notice pretty wild fluctuations against left-handers year to year, and it's not necessarily a direct correlation to how well he does on average for those years.  If I had more time, I would like to know how well Crawford did with certain people batting behind him, because I did look at some game logs from 2010, and noticed that against righties, the tendency was that Crawford / Longoria would bat either 2/3 or 3/4 but against lefties a Kapler or a Zobrist would bat between them.  What if the difference was more about the pitcher knowing he could afford to try to make Crawford chase a bad ball than it was about Crawford being unable to hit lefties?  Don't know if it's true, but it could be.

    The PA discrepancy always comes at the end of the game.  So if the game is already decided, I could care less if Crawford gets the last AB.  If we're down and facing a righty, I don't mind him up there.  If we're down and facing a lefty, he probably doesn't bat.  So I don't see it as a huge downside, and the PA that Ortiz would not have seen would go to Youk, which would go to Gonzalez, which would go to Pedroia, so there's nothing there that makes me cringe either.  



     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    1) We may lose by one game again this year. The experiment may help us do it again.

    I wouldn't call it an experiment, but it’s a valid point. Every run helps.

    2) What are you hoping will happen? CC have his best career year vs LHPs this year?
    Better to expect his career norm or slightly better and be wise about it.

    I'm hoping for better than career norm numbers. I don’t expect him to suddenly own LHP, but I don’t think it’s out of the realm of possibility for him to have his best year against LHP. He’s made a tweak to his stance, and as I’ve stated before, hitting with Ells in front of him and all those great hitters behind him should help. Part of a manager’s job is to put the players in a position where they can succeed.

    3) With all due respect, the comfort argument is thin. To make CC feel comfy, we risk making Pedey, AGon, Youk, and Papi uncomfy by moving them to unfamilar slots, and wondering what they did to be demoted. What if they start "pressing too hard" to try and win back their deserved slot?

    Fair point, but the only one of those 4 that I would be the least bit concerned about feeling uncomfortable would be Papi. IMO, we need Crawford to feel comfortable and confident, not just for this year, but for the long haul. He also needs to feel like he has a defined role or a spot in this line up. How many times has he heard that he wasn’t/isn’t a good fit for this team? That may be true, but he’s here on a long term contract, so the team should do what they can to make him feel otherwise as soon as possible.

    4) CC is not that much of a better baserunner (if at all) than Pedey, and when we are talking LHPs, CC's speed in highly minimized by the fact that he won't be on base enough to make a difference.

    While I like the idea of having speed at the top of the line up, I don’t believe I have ever given Crawford’s speed a reason for I like Crawford hitting 2nd. I actually feel there is a strong argument for putting a speedy guy in front of you singles hitters at the bottom of the line up versus putting him in front of the power guys. OTOH, you also don’t want your speedy guys hitting behind the likes of Gonzalez and Papi.

    Vs RHPs an argument can be made, but vs LHPs the answer is clear: he barely even belongs in the line-up at all. I say that with all seriousness. DMac has a 100 point OPS advantage on CC vs LHPs. The only 3 hitters on the probable opening day roster who are close or worse than CC vs LHPs are Sweeney, Salty & Punto.
    I understand your opinion there, but whether he belongs in the line up or not, the chances of him being a platoon player are nil. I understand that you want your best hitters at the top of the line up, getting the most at bats. Like I said, I won’t complain if Crawford is hitting 6th or lower, but IMO, he will be a better hitter if he bats 2nd.
     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from RedSoxKimmi. Show RedSoxKimmi's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    These studies are not the be all end all to batting line ups, as they cannot take the human element into account either from the pitcher’s or the batter’s standpoint, but here are some things that have been supported by years of studies on line ups, at least as far as I can gather from what I've read:
    The main point is, batting order just doesn’t matter as much as many people think it does.
    The difference between the absolute worst line up a team could use and the optimal line up, which managers never use, is about 40 runs or 4 games. The difference between a traditional line up and the optimal line up is 5 to 15 runs, anywhere from ½ a game to 2 games.
    Even the most blatant of batting order errors will “only” cost the team 1 ½ to 2 games. Moving a #6 to the #2 hole will make a difference of about ½ a game.
    Even though it doesn’t matter much, you don’t purposely bat a guy like Gonzalez 9th. OTOH, you don’t bat Ellsbury lead off just because he fits the prototype of a lead off hitter. Ego, confidence, comfort, L-R-L, and protection all make some difference, perhaps more so than putting a batter in his correct mathematical slot.
    Your best hitters should be placed at the top of the line up. The #1, #2, and #4 slots are the most important, with the #1 slot having more emphasis on OBP and the #4 slot having more emphasis on SLG. The #3 and #5 slots should be filled next. The #3 hitter comes up more often than any other batter with 2 outs and none on, hence making it not as important as the 1,2, or 4 slots.
    More runs are scored in the first inning than any other inning, which makes sense. The fewest runs are scored in the 2nd inning. If you average the runs scored in the first and second innings, the average is less than the overall average # of runs scored per inning. This perhaps indicates that managers do not pay enough attention to the likely batting scenarios of the 2nd inning when making out line up cards.
     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Close games in late innings don't happen often? We must watch different sports.

    You missed the point. Again. Yes, there are several close games every year. A very significant percent of the games, but how many of those will come down to the specific part of the line-up where we are in disagreement over and the fact that 3 lefties or righties in a row makes it easy for the opposing manager to pitch to us?

    My major point is that by having the better line-up for the first 6-8 innings, we will increase our odds of being ahead, more ahead, or closer if losing, thereby outweighing the effects of the few times the advantage is realized by the opponents.

    I am flummoxed why managers try to stagger lineups L/R or R/L, as much as possible in my years of watching baseball, and it having no value like you claim.  

    I should give up. I have clearly said it has value. I'll continue arguing with you, once you can understand my position.

    There is a long list of baseball traditions that have fallen by the roadside. It had to start somewhere and sometime.

    You want to move Crawford to the 9 hole against lefties?  Why?  Crawford is a worse hitter than Iglesias or Aviles/Punto?

    Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! He is much worse than Aviles VS LHPs. 
    (I said if Iggy starts, Iggy bats 9th. Punto will not be starting unless there is an injury.)

    Aviles career vs LHPs: .299/.344/.470/.814 ('11: .318/.348/.576/.924)
    Crawf career vs LHPs: .262/.308/.375/.684 ('11: .195/.249/.317/.566)

    Going by just offensive numbers, a strong argument could be made for CC to be on the bench and you want this guy promoted to the 2 slot vs LHPs.

    DMac vs LHPs:    .285/.348/.451/.799
    '10-'11 (w Bos): .280/.347/.467/.814


    So basically you are choosing the best hitters to go 1-9, basically not caring how to structure 7-9, and only basing 7-9 or 6-9 on how well the hitter does against a righty or lefty?  I don't know anyone would put the Iglesias, Salty, Shoppach, Punto or Aviles above Carl Crawford in this lineup at any time, other than it being necessary due to a massive slump for CC.

    Shoppach kills LHPs. He's got about 200 points on CC. That's not some imaginary number that means nothing. That is based on years and years and years of him doing way better than years and years and tears of CC's doing poorly vs LHPs. 

    Yes, players have spikes here and there, and CC could possibly have a better year vs LHPs than Aviles and Shoppach, but the odds are strongly in my favor. As for Punto and Iggy, I'd bet CC will do better than both vs LHPs, but it might be close.

    By the way, did you notice I left Ells up 1st vs LHPs and still had AGon in a nice slot vs LHPs? It's not about whether you hit lefty or righty, it's how well you hit overall and vs that night's particular handed pitcher. I will also adjust slightly for one-on-one pitcher-hitter split's histories if the sample size is large enough.

    I disagree. I would use the 6th slot as the slot that needs protection because of the obvious drop off from slot 5 (Oritz) to slot 6. Crawford can actually be used well as a way to help protect the 6th slot which would be Ross against lefties or hopefully a healty Kalish (later on) against righties.

    I'm not sure what you are saying here.

    The 1-5 is as good as any in baseball and 6-9 COULD be as good as anyone's if thigns breaks right.  Crawford has more value in the 7th hole with a righty (either Ross or Saltalamacchia (S) in that slot). 

    Crawford is way better vs RHPs than Ross. I don't get why you think a weaker hitter up behind Papi will protect him more. 

    If Sweeney gets time in RF, it's going to back end a bit anyway with Crawford in the 6th hole most likely following Ortiz.   I am more talking about when Ross starts.

    I am hoping Ross does well enough where he plays against both lefties and righties.   Kalish's health is a big deal.

    Kalish is still just a dream. I'm not saying he won't be goo. I think he will, but I wouldn't count on him doing great this year. Even if he does, he will do so by batting 8th or 9th until he proves something. My guess is that Ross and Sweeney will be doing so well together in RF and as back-up OF'ers that Kalish will not get a chance this year.

    I'd rather use the protection concept and still keep a L/R rotation than not.

    If you look at my line-up which I based almost totally on performance overall combined with L/R splits, you'll see that my line-up vs RHPs has only 1 place where just 2 lefties bat together (3 & 4) and yours will have one as well. If you look at my line-up vs LHPs, I have L-R-L for the first 6 slots. Switching CC and Aviles in the 8/9 slots would not a big issue with me, but I prefer the better hitter 8th and having 2 speedsters in a row (CC and Ells). 

    I guess you big disagreement is over that little 8-9 swap? 
     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    I understand your opinion there, but whether he belongs in the line up or not, the chances of him being a platoon player are nil. I understand that you want your best hitters at the top of the line up, getting the most at bats. Like I said, I won’t complain if Crawford is hitting 6th or lower, but IMO, he will be a better hitter if he bats 2nd.

    The problem is that the decision goes way beyond just this factor. I don't doubt that he might be better batting 2nd rather than 6th. He probably would. That's not all to it. I'd probably say Aviles would hit better in the 2 slot than the 8 or 9 slot also, but that doesn't mean he should be put there and mess up everyone else.

    Pedey is an awesome #2 hitter. Maybe the best in MLB (especially vs LHPs). He doesn't strike out and makes contact. He runs the bases well. He gets on base. In other words, he doesn't make the first or 2nd out and allows more opportunities for the 4th and 5th hitters to get up with men on base.  CC will shorten more innings. I don't think that is oversimplifying the issue.
     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from moonslav59. Show moonslav59's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Here's an interesting look at some numbers vs LHPs:

    Top 90 OF'ers vs LHPs from 2010 to 2011 (210+ PAs):

    37) DMac  .814
    38) Ellsb   .812
    42) Ross   .805
    81) Craw  .638
    86) Drew  .597

    Top 90 since 2008 (400+ PAs)

    14) JBay   .891
    15) Cam   .890
    20) Ross   .877
    44) Ellsb   .781
    61) Drew  .741
    69) Crisp  .720
    85) Craw  .657

    85th out of 90 and you guys want this guy up 2nd vs LHPs? PLEASE!!!!

    (By the way, CC was 85th in OBP as well at .297)
     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Crawford: He use to bat leadoff in TB and excelled

    Not really.  He mostly batted 2nd, and he was pretty bad at leadoff.  His career OBP at leadoff is only .319, and that's pretty low.

    And the position in the TB lineup has more to do with the team than with CC.  They simply have had less hitters than we do.  CC is not nearly as good as any of our 1-5 hitters.
     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Studies have shown that lineups are generally overrated. You want your best players to get the most at-bats. But beyond that, it's a waste of time to plot.

    It's never a waste of time to maximize your resources.  Kind of like chaulking your windows.  Not going to make a huge difference, but why wouldn't you want to do it?
     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from dannycater. Show dannycater's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    Not that this matters, but I said more than a month ago that CC's wrist injury is a lot worse than people want to believe. It's not that easy to come back from, and frankly I think his best days are over as a MLB player. It's a 142 million dollar albatross that hangs on the Sox regime for eternity. CC is already doing exactly what he did last year--pressing to impress, and in doing so getting injured or not being patient. He ought to learn to let time heal and worry about coming back when he's healthy. Instead, even CC knows his contract is hanging high over his mantle and he wants desperately to prove his worth as a Sox. It just isn't going to happen. Maybe he should talk to JD Drew about the idea of a man has to know his limitations.
     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from BosoxJoe5. Show BosoxJoe5's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]Crawford: He use to bat leadoff in TB and excelled Not really.  He mostly batted 2nd, and he was pretty bad at leadoff.  His career OBP at leadoff is only .319, and that's pretty low. And the position in the TB lineup has more to do with the team than with CC.  They simply have had less hitters than we do.  CC is not nearly as good as any of our 1-5 hitters.
    Posted by Joebreidey[/QUOTE]
    This is only true if Crawford is closer to 2011 than 2010. If he is like 2010 at all this year he should bat second.
     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from Joebreidey. Show Joebreidey's posts

    Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd

    In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd:
    [QUOTE]In Response to Re: Gordon Edes says bat Crawford 2nd : This is only true if Crawford is closer to 2011 than 2010. If he is like 2010 at all this year he should bat second.
    Posted by BosoxJoe5[/QUOTE]

    If he hit like 2010, which was his best season by a fair bit, it would still likely not be a better hitter than our current #2.  And most of his 'good seasons' are typically in the range of .800-.830, which is likely to be lower than any of our other 1-5 hitters.

    Let's say the single issue at hand is whether you wanted pedey to hit 2nd, or CC to hit 2nd, which would it be?
     

Share