Any chance we can take this to its own thread???

 

Sorry.......

Then I shall do likewise. That simply isn't correct. First off you aren't talking about hitting the opposite way per se. Most major league hitters can hit the ball from say, the shortstop position to the right field line for a lefty or the reverse for a righty. It isn't as though the hitter has to hit a spot down the opposite foul line--part of every team's BP every day has to do with hitting to hole on a hit and run play. Secondly, if you have the pitcher locate his pitches to prevent the hitter from hitting the ball to the middle infield gap aren't you limiting his options and making it more likely that he throws the ball middle in? If, by your reasoning, hitters struggle to hit it the opposite way then by trying to keep the pitch away from that spot aren't you actually throwing to the hitter's strength and increasing the chance that he gets a hit--particularly an extrabase hit or homerun? Add that to the fact that if the hitter is left-handed as was the case today you are giving him a much better chance to hit the ball by the firstbaseman. Is a meaningless run worth those risks for a 1 in 3 chance that you get the baserunner? I actually did make one mistake in my thinking--it was Kevin Cash at catcher not Bako. Cash has thrown out 20 % of basestealers so the chance goes down to 1 in 5. Keep in mind it was a Hall of Famer with 600 career homeruns at the plate, I'd rather my pitcher be focuse on him. As for trying to get Cabrera at 3rd that's already been explained--there was no thirdbaseman, the shift was on. Most teams would have thrown the ball to third if there was someone there to receive it so under normal circumstances Cabrera would have stayed at second.

 

As for the Moneyball type of thinking, that is employed to draft and sign players. You are comparing apples to oranges.

 

I do recognize proper thought put into your argument.

 

Take Griffey out of the equation. Its some batter who isn't a dead pull hitter. Runner steals third today. Do you throw to 3rd?

 

The Moneyball point was in response to someone saying essentially "that's how its always been done." Moneyball proves that conventional thinking is not inherently correct.

 

Lastly, we all agree that a MLB pitcher (especially a closer type) has a huge advantage over EVERY MLB hitter simply from a % standpoint, correct? So, with that, if I've got my pitcher pitching to where my defense is logic says I have a high probability of winning that battle, right?

Any chance we can take this to its own thread???

 

What ? We can't talk baseball strategy in a Reds thread? Is that in the rules somewhere?

OK we are playing the percentages game. Fine.

 

Yes the percentages are higher for a single than a double down the line. But which hit has a higher percentage of SCORING?? A single still leaves you with a lot of work to do.

 

What has a higher chance of scoring? The out you would have gotten playing straight up or the double?

You can only throw the runner out at 3rd if you A) hold him, and B) don't put the shift on Griffey. What is more likely to result in an out, holding the runner or putting the shift on?

 

And Sean Casey and Hatteberg are solid BENCH players with defensive liabilities, nothing more. I think solid MLBer is a bit of a stretch.....

 

They are true professionals which every team would love to have. But they are not everyday players.

 

To be fair Sean Casey is more than a solid bench player. He's been an everyday player for 9 seasons, has 1500 career hits and has a .303 lifetime batting average. He'd be a starting first baseman for more a few ML teams this season, I'm very glad to have him on the Sox. He filled in more than capably earlier this season when Lowell was on the DL until he was hurt himself.

The funny part is that your taking Sabermetrics and it's application of percentages and holding it up as the holy grail. Yet in the same breath you completely disregard the percentages of a runner scoring from first rather than second. So which one is it?

 

See #439.

What ? We can't talk baseball strategy in a Reds thread? Is that in the rules somewhere?

This would be better as a separate thread. Simple as that...

Boys, its been fun. I'm old and its past my bedtime.

 

Good stuff.

To be fair Sean Casey is more than a solid bench player. He's been an everyday player for 9 seasons, has 1500 career hits and has a .303 lifetime batting average. He'd be a starting first baseman for more a few ML teams this season, I'm very glad to have him on the Sox. He filled in more than capably earlier this season when Lowell was on the DL until he was hurt himself.

 

 

Casey is a very solid player. That's exactly what role players are supposed to do, fill in for injured players. I loved Casey while he was here. He brought energy to the team, but I don't think any team would ever win a championship with him playing full time 1B

Casey is a very solid player. That's exactly what role players are supposed to do, fill in for injured players. I loved Casey while he was here. He brought energy to the team, but I don't think any team would ever win a championship with him playing full time 1B

 

Ever hear of Mike Epstein and the 72 As?

Ever hear of Mike Epstein and the 72 As?

 

Can't say that i have.

I do recognize proper thought put into your argument.

 

Take Griffey out of the equation. Its some batter who isn't a dead pull hitter. Runner steals third today. Do you throw to 3rd?

 

The Moneyball point was in response to someone saying essentially "that's how its always been done." Moneyball proves that conventional thinking is not inherently correct.

 

Lastly, we all agree that a MLB pitcher (especially a closer type) has a huge advantage over EVERY MLB hitter simply from a % standpoint, correct? So, with that, if I've got my pitcher pitching to where my defense is logic says I have a high probability of winning that battle, right?

 

If you take Griffey and the shift out of the equation then the runner wouldn't have been going. However, if he does go then yes you throw to third because the thirdbaseman plays much closer to third than a middle infielder does to second so he can wait long enough to break not to create a hole. Runners know this and won't take a chance on it but if third is unoccupied it changes things--like today.

 

As for your last point, you're just reaching now. If I accept your logic about the advantage the pitcher has against hitters wouldn't it make more sense to not limit your pitch location; and since you earlier stated that most hitters have a harder time going the opposite way then it would stand to reason that they have a harder time with pitches on that side of the plate, correct? If you pound a guy away from his strength you usually get a harmless grounder or weakly hit ball, why give that a chance to be a hit? Keep the fielders in their positions, let the pitcher concentrate on the hitter and use the whole plate or create defensive holes that inherently raise the hitter's average and limit your pitch location to the hitters strong suit? Pretty much a no-brainer.

Casey is a very solid player. That's exactly what role players are supposed to do, fill in for injured players. I loved Casey while he was here. He brought energy to the team, but I don't think any team would ever win a championship with him playing full time 1B

 

In 2004 the Red Sox won with Kevin Millar as their primary firstbaseman. Last season they won with Kevin Youkilis. Except for Youkilis' prowess with the glove neither are that much different from Casey.

In 2004 the Red Sox won with Kevin Millar as their primary firstbaseman. Last season they won with Kevin Youkilis. Except for Youkilis' prowess with the glove neither are that much different from Casey.

 

In 2004 Millar hit 18 HR's...Last year Youk hit 16. That last time Casey hit more than 10 was 2004. He's out of his prime. He's a solid bench player now, and nothing more.

Yeah, Sean Casey was a full time player on the Reds. You saw where that got them. Now's hes a bench player for the Sox and they are winning Championships.

 

Casey is a very solid player. That's exactly what role players are supposed to do, fill in for injured players. I loved Casey while he was here. He brought energy to the team, but I don't think any team would ever win a championship with him playing full time 1B

 

In 2004 Millar hit 18 HR's...Last year Youk hit 16. That last time Casey hit more than 10 was 2004. He's out of his prime. He's a solid bench player now, and nothing more.

 

Your posts are confusing. You seem to be switching between the Cincinnati Sean Casey and today's Casey. You make it sound as though no team with Casey at first could ever have won a Championship. In 2004 he had better power numbers than Millar so I'm pretty sure that they'd have been okay with him. If you're just talking about now, if Papi, Schill and Dice-K come back healthy I think the Sox would still have a legitimate shot to win it with him at first. Remember he was the primary firstbaseman for Detroit in their World Series only 2 seasons ago and he hit over .500 for the Series. Hatteberg was the definition of a role player, Casey has been more than that and is better than just a bench player now. While losing Youk or Lowell for an extended period would hurt, I don't think the Red Sox would be forced to make a deal to fill the gap--because of Casey. I guess it is just schemantics but Casey is a bench player that can still play everyday if needed.