Jump to content


Recent Topics




Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays


Photo

Rizzo?


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#1 Nate

Nate

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

Posted 22 August 2013 - 06:39 AM

Ok, so last night was a good night.  He's been up and down and who knows.  But what if this is the start of a turn around?  He hit a ton of homers in April, 2 or 3 amonth since until August with 5 so far.  His average has been bad.

 

But let's say he finish strog.  Hits 300 or so and 5 or ten more home runs and ends up around .250 with 25 to 30 HR and maybe 85 to 95 RBI.  Do you think that is a successful season for a guy in his first full season?



#2 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,365 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 22 August 2013 - 07:02 AM

I will say he had a successful season even if his average doesn't come up. We are talking about his singles rate. The bloop singles and ground balls haven't found their spots. That's nothing that a player can control. His xbh have been great and he is hitting HR too as well as walking (increased by 4%) and keeping his K% down (up slightly by 1.7%). He is going to do just fine. He has been adjusting back to what the pitchers are doing to him.


"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#3 patg006

patg006

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 08:54 AM

Ok, so last night was a good night.  He's been up and down and who knows.  But what if this is the start of a turn around?  He hit a ton of homers in April, 2 or 3 amonth since until August with 5 so far.  His average has been bad.

 

But let's say he finish strog.  Hits 300 or so and 5 or ten more home runs and ends up around .250 with 25 to 30 HR and maybe 85 to 95 RBI.  Do you think that is a successful season for a guy in his first full season?

 

I honestly think it wont happen.  Sorry, but his yearly trend shows the next 5 day forecast will be two days of 0-fer-4 with a walk, one day of 1-3 with a single and a walk, one 0-5 day with no walk, and an 0-3 day with 2 walks.

 

The beginning of the season was bad, he has made minor improvements, but--I dont see him finishing around .250.

 

Soriano getting traded really is screwing him, nobody is backing him up in the line up now...Nate sees all the pitches.



#4 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:10 AM

Soriano getting traded really is screwing him, nobody is backing him up in the line up now...Nate sees all the pitches.

 

Oh, please, please, show some evidence for this claim.  I'd love to see it.

 

The myth of lineup protection continues...



#5 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,798 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 22 August 2013 - 09:48 AM

Soriano getting traded really is screwing him, nobody is backing him up in the line up now...Nate sees all the pitches.

 
Oh, please, please, show some evidence for this claim.  I'd love to see it.
 
The myth of lineup protection continues...
But but but Myths are what make bad assumptions easy

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#6 patg006

patg006

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:12 AM

 

Soriano getting traded really is screwing him, nobody is backing him up in the line up now...Nate sees all the pitches.

 

Oh, please, please, show some evidence for this claim.  I'd love to see it.

 

The myth of lineup protection continues...

 

 

Right, Soriano batted 4th in the line up pre-trade because it was good for his health....masterful logic there

 

If you dont think a line up is constructed to cause fits to a pitcher, you miss a fundamental part of baseball.

 

Why not bat Prince Fielder lead off then instead of behind Miggy Cabrera by this piece of genius?! 

 

Evidence?  Post Soriano trade (July 26,) Rizzo has had 93 at bats, 16 hits, with a whopping .172 average and 13 walks; so a .311 obp.

 

Those are the kinds of stats I want for my potential future at 1B and 3rd in the line up.

 

That's twice you've asked me for evidence and twice you've looked like a fool.  Cant wait for round 3



#7 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,365 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:24 AM

Actually, lineup construction isn't about protection, it's about creating as many runs as possible.

 

1st batter - highest OBP because only 36% of the time is someone on base for him

2nd batter - best hitter with high OBP

3rd batter - 5th best hitter

4th batter - Best hitter with power

5th batter - 4th best hitter

6th - 9th - decreasing OBP, but it is good to have a speed guy batting 6th.

 

The order of importance is: 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9


"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#8 jh03

jh03

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Twitter:@jh_03

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:33 AM

I may be misremembering the exact numbers... but if the Giants had Barry Bonds batting leadoff, rather than 3/4, in 2003, then they would have scored 17 more runs that year. Or maybe it was 17 for each position in the lineup he moved up... It's been too long. I can't remember exactly lol.



#9 Nate

Nate

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:33 AM

 

 

Soriano getting traded really is screwing him, nobody is backing him up in the line up now...Nate sees all the pitches.

 

Oh, please, please, show some evidence for this claim.  I'd love to see it.

 

The myth of lineup protection continues...

 

 

Right, Soriano batted 4th in the line up pre-trade because it was good for his health....masterful logic there

 

If you dont think a line up is constructed to cause fits to a pitcher, you miss a fundamental part of baseball.

 

Why not bat Prince Fielder lead off then instead of behind Miggy Cabrera by this piece of genius?! 

 

Evidence?  Post Soriano trade (July 26,) Rizzo has had 93 at bats, 16 hits, with a whopping .172 average and 13 walks; so a .311 obp.

 

Those are the kinds of stats I want for my potential future at 1B and 3rd in the line up.

 

That's twice you've asked me for evidence and twice you've looked like a fool.  Cant wait for round 3

 

 

I have had that feeling as well but the numbers don't really back you up as much as you think.  He went 9 for 28 the week after the trade then tanked but he had be steadily dropping before then.  I do believe in protection in the line-up.  I'm just not convinced he wouldn't have put up the same numbers with Sori behind him.  His BA has pretty much been in free fall since mid-May and most of his power came in April



#10 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:37 AM

Actually, when it comes to the Tigers, it would probably be to their advantage if Cabrera and Fielder were #1 an #2 in the lineup.  More at-bats by their best OPS guys = more runs = more wins.

 

If you dont think a line up is constructed to cause fits to a pitcher, you miss a fundamental part of baseball.

 

Well, kid, you're wrong about that.  Pitchers (and their coaching staffs) have long scouting reports on all the hitters they face.  They pitch (or attempt) to a hitter's cold zones.  If Hitter A can't hit an inside fastball to save his life, and has a tendency to swing wildly at the low, out-of-the-zone pitches, that's what he's gonna see regardless of whether it's Barry Bonds or Darwin Barney on deck.

 

Evidence?  Post Soriano trade (July 26,) Rizzo has had 93 at bats, 16 hits, with a whopping .172 average and 13 walks; so a .311 obp.

 

That's not evidence.  Those are just numbers.  Rizzo has struggled since late July.  That is a fact.  You claim that it's because pitchers are pitching to him differently.  Prove it.  Look at the logs of pitches that Rizzo has seen since July 26 and tell he how they differ from those during the first half of the season.  That is where you've staked your claim.  Let's see what you've got before you start congratulating yourself on how much you've "shown me up".  Please try to stay on task.



#11 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:40 AM

I may be misremembering the exact numbers... but if the Giants had Barry Bonds batting leadoff, rather than 3/4, in 2003, then they would have scored 17 more runs that year. Or maybe it was 17 for each position in the lineup he moved up... It's been too long. I can't remember exactly lol.

 

*AGHAST*  So Bonds would have been a better hitter with the pitcher protecting him?!?!

 

I can't vouch for your exact numbers, but your inclination is entirely correct.

 

You want your best hitters 1, 2, and 4 in the lineup (or 1, 4, and 2, depending on who you ask).  Your #3 hitter should be a line-drive-type (fewer GIDPs).



#12 MichiganGoat

MichiganGoat

    Give me a BEER

  • Moderators
  • 3,798 posts
  • Twitter:MichiganGoat
  • Facebook:michigangoat
  • LocationGrand Rapids, MI

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:42 AM

Okay everyone please read this before talking about lineup protection

http://www.hardballt...-around-batters

and everyone should buy, read, digest, and re-read "The Book."

MichiganGoat on Twitter

"There are a lot of guys who are respected but not liked" - Ron Santo


#13 jh03

jh03

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 260 posts
  • Twitter:@jh_03

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:50 AM

 

I may be misremembering the exact numbers... but if the Giants had Barry Bonds batting leadoff, rather than 3/4, in 2003, then they would have scored 17 more runs that year. Or maybe it was 17 for each position in the lineup he moved up... It's been too long. I can't remember exactly lol.

 

*AGHAST*  So Bonds would have been a better hitter with the pitcher protecting him?!?!

 

I can't vouch for your exact numbers, but your inclination is entirely correct.

 

You want your best hitters 1, 2, and 4 in the lineup (or 1, 4, and 2, depending on who you ask).  Your #3 hitter should be a line-drive-type (fewer GIDPs).

 

Found it: 

 

The year was 2001, not 2003. My bad. And my numbers were off. This is a quote from 'Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong'

 

"If Barry Bond lead off instead of hitting fourth, he would see about 54 more PA per year, adding perhaps 10 runs to the Giants' offensve output. Teams without a plalyer of Bonds's caliber could gain about 10 runs (1 win) a year by routinely batting their players in order of descending OBP."

 

Also- "Protection is overrated. There's no evidecne that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the inital batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."

 

- That chapter was written by James Click



#14 TWC

TWC

    Hippie

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 4,052 posts
  • Twitter:@thomaswconroy
  • LocationHMB, CA

Posted 22 August 2013 - 10:55 AM

This is a quote from 'Baseball Between the Numbers: Why Everything You Know About the Game is Wrong'

 

"If Barry Bond lead off instead of hitting fourth, he would see about 54 more PA per year, adding perhaps 10 runs to the Giants' offensve output. Teams without a plalyer of Bonds's caliber could gain about 10 runs (1 win) a year by routinely batting their players in order of descending OBP."

 

Unless you're Patg006, in which case everyone else is wrong, because we're all "miss[ing] a fundamental part of baseball".



#15 Nate

Nate

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 67 posts
  • LocationLincoln, NE

Posted 22 August 2013 - 11:13 AM

Ok, It seems to me the 3rd hitter in an order has the best power (used to 4 but it seems to have changed).  Bonds, Sosa, McGwire, Cabrera, etc.  Also, you want your next best guys 4th and 5th.  Its not really to protect the 3rd hitter but to increase runs.  If your 1 and 2 are your OBP guys you want your power hitters hitting with guys on base.

 

Bonds is an exception not the rule though.  He changes the arguement because of his gaudy OBP (he walked a lot).  This could potential be skewd though because he had guys on base (Aurila batting second with a .369 OBP) in front of him and his HR would have lead to more actual runs.  Normally you would want you best OBP guys higher but the type of walks change things.

 

I don't know why you think the fifth best hitter goes in the 3 hole.  Can someone explain this.  I just can't see why there is so much importance on the 4 hitter.  That spots seems to have slipped in recognition over the years.  Also, order of importance seems arbitrary.  Is it more important to get on base or hit a guy on base in.  You need them both to get the run.  Also, some would argue your 8 is more important than you 7.  They might be pitched around to get to the pitcher in a run scoring situation or you need them to hit to get your pitcher up so you don't start the next inning with an out.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).