Master Index of Archived Threads


Callaway

Elster88 Aug 30 2019 08:17 PM

Today Callaway put the NL home run leader (co-leader?) and Met home run record holder second in the order so other batters could drive HIM in. Callaway shits all over analytics and then (possibly unknowingly) tries to manage using said analytics. And gets it ass backwards of course. Other than that how's everyone been?

Edgy MD Aug 31 2019 06:28 AM Re: Callaway

Good to see you around, Ellie.

kcmets Aug 31 2019 07:22 AM Re: Callaway

I don't know, Pete kinda looked pretty happy batting second last night. Desperate short lived lucky tinkering genius maybe?

Chad ochoseis Aug 31 2019 08:14 AM Re: Callaway

I think one of the counterintuitive ideas the statheads push is that your big power guy should bat first or second rather than the traditional third through fifth spots. The thought is that the extra at-bats that come from batting earlier are more valuable than the marginal increase in RBI opportunities.

Chad ochoseis Aug 31 2019 08:22 AM Re: Callaway

This article says that second is about as good as fourth.

Elster88 Aug 31 2019 08:43 AM Re: Callaway

Edgy MD wrote: Good to see you around, Ellie. Thank you. It's good to be around.

Elster88 Aug 31 2019 08:44 AM Re: Callaway

Chad ochoseis wrote: This article says that second is about as good as fourth. I didn't follow the link, but if I'm wrong then there is certainly a lot of egg on my face.

batmagadanleadoff Aug 31 2019 09:20 AM Re: Callaway

The Two Hole The old-school book says to put a bat-control guy here. Not a great hitter, but someone who can move the lead-off hitter over for one of the next two hitters to drive in. The Books says the #2 hitter comes to bat in situations about as important as the #3 hitter, but more often. That means the #2 hitter should be better than the #3 guy, and one of the best three hitters overall. And since he bats with the bases empty more often than the hitters behind him, he should be a high-OBP player. Doesn't sound like someone who should be sacrificing, does it? I couldn't agree more with this one. I always thought the #2 hole was the most butchered botched up spot in the batting order even though the leadoff slot draws the most strategy talk. You really need a stud here if you got one. Old school managers would often put the 2nd worst hitting starting position player here -- the leftover guy -- the guy who's not as bad a hitter as the guy batting eighth -- on the premise that you could use his "bat control" to bunt the runner over to second base -- now compounding the error by not only having a crappy hitter in the two hole but then using him to play one run baseball in the first inning -- with supposedly your most lethal hitters due up after the crappy hitting #2 guy. Of course, as the article points out, none of this is supposed to matter much anymore according to the modern research so long as a manager isn't making a ridiculously absurd lineup.

Edgy MD Aug 31 2019 11:01 AM Re: Callaway

I don't think the "stat heads" are in agreement. The #2 hitter may come to bat in situations as important as the #3 hitter, but they may well be important in different ways, and there are important distinctions between the National League and American League with regard to how lineups perform and how players complement each other in the lineup.

ashie62 Aug 31 2019 11:08 AM Re: Callaway

I thought this way a fire Calloway thread

batmagadanleadoff Aug 31 2019 11:16 AM Re: Callaway

Edgy MD wrote: I don't think the "stat heads" are in agreement. The #2 hitter may come to bat in situations as important as the #3 hitter, but they may well be important in different ways, and there are important distinctions between the National League and American League with regard to how lineups perform and how players complement each other in the lineup. Sure. But either way and to the extent that it matters, you don't put a crappy hitter or a struggling hitter or the guy that's the sixth best hitter among your starting position players in the #2 hole no matter what league you play in.

Edgy MD Aug 31 2019 11:54 AM Re: Callaway

Certainly agree there. Edgard Alfonzo was a terrific number two hitter. Hitting the ball to the right side is a useful skill, and he did it well. If that's your main skill, though, enjoy batting seventh. Edgardo Alfonzo was a terrific number two hitter mostly because he was a terrific hitter. Most Questionable Decisions by the Mets to Regularly Bat #2 [list] [*]Miguel Cairo [*]Bob Bailor [*]Dick Schofield [/list] All of them seemed like a two-ish type of hitter, but none of them deserved that spot. The 1984 Mets increased their scoring by 13.4% over their 1983 counterparts. The main change Davy Johnson made in the lineup was replacing Bailor and Brian Giles with Backman and Chapman.

Edgy MD Aug 31 2019 02:16 PM Re: Callaway

Maybe the best thing Callaway did this season was announce that Nido would be catching 40% of the time, caddying for both deGrom and Syndergaard. Ramos has hit like a runaway train ever since.

Frayed Knot Aug 31 2019 04:11 PM Re: Callaway

The whole 'bat control/bunt' guy as the second hitter dates to the time when teams typically had two or three hitters in their lineup that simply weren't very good, or at least were in little danger of taking a pitcher out of the park. So you'd stick your 'contact guy' into the #2 slot so as to minimize Ks, execute hit-and-runs, hit behind the runner, and all other sorts of outcomes which were 'productive outs' at worst and singles w/the runner in motion if you were lucky which was often the best upside you could hope for from a 165-lb middle infielder. The philosophy changed--too slowly in many cases but habits die hard--both because the stats revolution showed that the upside was never as good as folks thought it was and because those wiry 165-lb glove men now lift weights and clock in at 220 and are capable of taking even good pitchers out of the park to the opposite field.