PDA

View Full Version : *Tinker* *Tinker* *Tinker*


RKMeibalane
08-13-2003, 03:17 PM
From the Sun-Times:

HOMECOMING: Manuel is planning to rest outfielder Carl Everett today against Angels lefty Jarrod Washburn. Aaron Rowand, who attended Cal State-Fullerton five miles from Edison Field, will start in center field.

This is yet another example of Manuel placing too much emphasis on lefty-righty matchups. Everett has been swinging the ball extremely well over the past ten days. He should be in the lineup as long as this continues. But of course, Jerry "The Tinkerer" can't let that happen.

:firejerry

Hangar18
08-13-2003, 03:26 PM
I didnt get to watch the rest of last nites game....has Everett really been swinging the bat? It seems he gets alot of meaningless hits (I know, he had an rbi in the first...) maybe its
just me, and my angst over his lack of playing a decent CF

bobj4400
08-13-2003, 03:36 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
has Everett really been swinging the bat?


He is the hottest hitter in the AL over the last 10 days according to yesterday's Cubune sports section. Hitting .468 or something before last night. His avg. (I know sometimes a meaningless stat) has risen from .263 to .283 over the past 2 weeks. And the intensity he brings to the game is contagious.

I think the bigger problem is the qualifying statement made that Rowand is getting the start 'because he went to Cal-Irvine which is less than 5 miles away.' Who cares??? We are in a pennant race. This isnt the time to massage egos. Tinkerbell seems to do this all the time. I feel like everytime we go to a new city we are playing the guys who grew up around there.

SoxxoS
08-13-2003, 03:43 PM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I didnt get to watch the rest of last nites game....has Everett really been swinging the bat? It seems he gets alot of meaningless hits (I know, he had an rbi in the first...) maybe its
just me, and my angst over his lack of playing a decent CF

I thought quite the contrary. This guy hits a TON with RISP.

RK-I rather see the arrow pointing to Jerry Manuel saying "****ing idiot". So true, so funny and so sad at the same time.

Risk
08-13-2003, 03:52 PM
Let's just get this over with.

Fire him now--don't wait till the end of this season.

Rowand is the fourth outfielder--he comes off the bench. Period.

Everett is an All-Star--he should be playing everyday and he's swinging a hot bat.

While your at it. Why don't you relegate Thomas to full-time DH, even though he was hitting the cover off the ball while playing 1B. Oh wait, you already did that.

Matchups my foot!!!!

Risk

daveb816
08-13-2003, 03:56 PM
I guess Rowand would never start a game if you guys all had your way. Check out the Giants lineup - it changes daily!!

Besides, the lineup vs. righties has been the same for a month now. No tinkering there.

LASOXFAN
08-13-2003, 03:56 PM
I'll stick my neck out and say I think it's a good move, although not for the reasons stated by JM. I don't care if Rowand was born in section C at the Ed, the best players should be on the field. That said, Carl is bad from the right side and Rowand needs some AB's to keep him sharp. He's an upgrade at defense in what should be a low scoring game and he has been playing well when he sees playing time.

voodoochile
08-13-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by daveb816
I guess Rowand would never start a game if you guys all had your way. Check out the Giants lineup - it changes daily!!

Besides, the lineup vs. righties has been the same for a month now. No tinkering there.

That's just not true. Everett has NOT been benched for every L/H pitcher. This is simply Manuel being Manuel.

Tragg
08-13-2003, 04:15 PM
Originally posted by LASOXFAN
I'll stick my neck out and say I think it's a good move, although not for the reasons stated by JM. I don't care if Rowand was born in section C at the Ed, the best players should be on the field. That said, Carl is bad from the right side and Rowand needs some AB's to keep him sharp. He's an upgrade at defense in what should be a low scoring game and he has been playing well when he sees playing time.
Fine, then let Carl play DH and let frank play first; why bench our hottest hitter?

Jerko
08-13-2003, 04:15 PM
The Giants have had injury problems for quite a while now. Durham, Cruz, Santiago, Snow, Aurelia have all been injured. Plus they have a huge lead.

Jerko
08-13-2003, 04:18 PM
My question is why is Lee taken out of the 2 hole when we have the Rowand/Graff or Rowand/Harris lineup in?

Tragg
08-13-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
My question is why is Lee taken out of the 2 hole when we have the Rowand/Graff or Rowand/Harris lineup in?
Hell, Alomar is bumped from lead-off to accomodate the .190 hitting Harris - that Speed!!

kempsted
08-13-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by daveb816
I guess Rowand would never start a game if you guys all had your way. Check out the Giants lineup - it changes daily!!

Besides, the lineup vs. righties has been the same for a month now. No tinkering there.
The Giants linup has changed mainly because (a) They have had a lot of injuries and (b) They are NOT in a race - they have it locked up.

Also they really don't change the lineup much.
Cruz rf
Snow 1b
Grissom cf
Bonds lf
Alfonzo 2b
Santiago c
Perez ss
Feliz 3b

Sometimes he has Ransom in instead at ss. Most of Alou's lineup changes have been due to injuries and slumps. He occasionally rests people but not as frequently as Manuel and not in as important games as Manuel (The Giants have no such important games right now).

CHISOXFAN13
08-13-2003, 04:51 PM
Rowand has been hot of late. This is a stretch where we don't have an off day for a while.

I have no problem with this. But then again, I don't complain about tinkering daily.

Mammoo
08-13-2003, 05:34 PM
Everett has been "hitterish" lately and for Manuel to sit him is a joke. :angry:

daveb816
08-13-2003, 05:40 PM
The Giants changed their lineup long before they built their big lead. The Cardinals also change their lineup all of the time and they're not exactly running away with anything.

delben91
08-13-2003, 05:44 PM
For one night, I don't mind having Rowand in the game, he hasn't started in over two weeks. It's what fourth outfielders do, they get a start once a fortnight. Granted, with Everett, and Lee hot, and Ordonez getting back his swing, I don't know if I'd choose now to do it.

Oh well, let's get the FOC out here. And Randar too for that matter and make a grand ole' debate out of it!

GO SOX!

voodoochile
08-13-2003, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by delben91
For one night, I don't mind having Rowand in the game, he hasn't started in over two weeks. It's what fourth outfielders do, they get a start once a fortnight. Granted, with Everett, and Lee hot, and Ordonez getting back his swing, I don't know if I'd choose now to do it.

Oh well, let's get the FOC out here. And Randar too for that matter and make a grand ole' debate out of it!

GO SOX!

He started Saturday when the Sox lost 7-2. He went 1-3 with 2 K's. Then he started the Sunday before that when the Sox lost 8-2 he went 1-4 with a K and a solo homer in the 7th when the game was decided. He stranded 4.

delben91
08-13-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
He started Saturday when the Sox lost 7-2. He went 1-3 with 2 K's. Then he started the Sunday before that when the Sox lost 8-2 he went 1-4 with a K and a solo homer in the 7th when the game was decided. He stranded 4.

Ah, well, I'd forgotten about Saturday (repressing memories, the healthy way to be a Sox Fan!).

And as for last sunday...well..er.....I can't count! :D:

RKMeibalane
08-13-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by delben91
For one night, I don't mind having Rowand in the game, he hasn't started in over two weeks. It's what fourth outfielders do, they get a start once a fortnight. Granted, with Everett, and Lee hot, and Ordonez getting back his swing, I don't know if I'd choose now to do it.

I agree. Rowand needs to play, but now is not the time for Jerry Manuel to empty his bench again. The Sox to win every game they can, and that means putting the starters out there each night. If JM is so concerned about letting his bench guys getting into a game, he can use them as pinch-hitters or defensive replacements- in the event that the game in question has more or less been decided.

bobj4400
08-13-2003, 05:58 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
He started Saturday when the Sox lost 7-2. He went 1-3 with 2 K's. Then he started the Sunday before that when the Sox lost 8-2 he went 1-4 with a K and a solo homer in the 7th when the game was decided. He stranded 4.

Notice both those games were losses...and both those games were played with Sunday concede a loss lineups.

delben91
08-13-2003, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
Notice both those games were losses...and both those games were played with Sunday concede a loss lineups.

I've noticed that Sunday lineups do tend to be "empty the bench and get the guy from the first row to DH" lineups. A thought....

Up at University of Delaware, the student union has a food court, and among the eateries therein, is a Chik-Fil-A. On Sundays, I've noticed that it's always closed, and there is a sign in front of the counter. The sign has a picture of Chik-Fil-A's CEO and a story about how the chain promotes family togetherness and thus closes on Sundays to give their employees one day a week that they know they can always spend with their family. A nice philosophy indeed.

Perhaps Jerry is just trying to get his starters the chance to know that one day every week, they can lounge at home with the missus and the kids. Heck, with JM, it wouldn't surprise me.

:jerry
"And I still take Roycie out for ice cream Sunday nights!"

:hitless
"And that mean Frank Thomas has been at home all day and isn't around to be mean to me!"

maurice
08-13-2003, 06:11 PM
For the record, Rowand has posted a 1.000+ OPS in every month since his June recall despite seeing only very limited action. Everret has hit very well in 33 ABs this month, after sucking up the joint in June and July.

TraderTim
08-13-2003, 06:17 PM
Gee...maybe he's trying to rest ONE starter in the middle of a road trip so he doesn't have to rest three at a time...

Raise your hand if you chirped about him resting three players at once last week.

Again, JM is damned by the majority no matter what he does. We're in a division race. Can't any of you folks take one ounce of enjoyment out of this run since the All-Star break? They're the hottest team in baseball.

Sit back and have a few cold ones and enjoy the games! We're in it to win it!

Forkit!

bobj4400
08-13-2003, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Gee...maybe he's trying to rest ONE starter in the middle of a road trip so he doesn't have to rest three at a time...

Raise your hand if you chirped about him resting three players at once last week.

Again, JM is damned by the majority no matter what he does. We're in a division race. Can't any of you folks take one ounce of enjoyment out of this run since the All-Star break? They're the hottest team in baseball.

Sit back and have a few cold ones and enjoy the games! We're in it to win it!

Forkit!

I would agree if it werent for the fact that Graffanino is starting tonight as well. That is two starters out...

PaleHoseGeorge
08-13-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by daveb816
The Giants changed their lineup long before they built their big lead. The Cardinals also change their lineup all of the time and they're not exactly running away with anything.

Manuel is sitting his hottest-hitting batter for only one reason: he likes to tinker even though it usually doesn't work. (His own words.)

After telling us the truth over a year ago, he now finds himself in hot water with the Sox brass for his tinkering. So now we are treated to a series of excuses that alternate between foolish ("Rowand played ball in school near here") and delusional ("I can't imagine any reason short of an emergency playing Frank at 1B").

He is either lying or needs psychiatric help. Either way, he needs to be fired.

voodoochile
08-13-2003, 06:52 PM
Originally posted by TraderTim
Gee...maybe he's trying to rest ONE starter in the middle of a road trip so he doesn't have to rest three at a time...

Raise your hand if you chirped about him resting three players at once last week.

Again, JM is damned by the majority no matter what he does. We're in a division race. Can't any of you folks take one ounce of enjoyment out of this run since the All-Star break? They're the hottest team in baseball.

Sit back and have a few cold ones and enjoy the games! We're in it to win it!

Forkit!

Now we are back to the resting starters excuse. Didn't all of them just have a day off last Thursday? Rowand isn't better than Everett, period.

I want the Sox to win as badly as you do and am not a pessimist by nature, but JM is a freakin' idiot. I hope they stay hot, but with JM and his constant abuse of power, the team is rudderless...

JUGGERNAUT
08-13-2003, 07:15 PM
Graff in for Jose at SS & Rowand in for Everett at CF.

Jose has a 444 OPS vs LH & 839 vs RH.
If Jose would just agree to bat from the left tonight JM would probably stick with him. But Jose believes he's a switch hitter. Would someone please tell him that a 658 OPS avg as a RHB over the last 3 yrs does not a switch-hitter make?

It's a shame because we'll never know what he would have done as a LHB vs LH.

Graff has a 972 OPS vs LH this yr & a 3 yr avg of 807 OPS. Any questions?


Everett also believes he's a switch hitter. 676 OPS as a RHB & a 937 OPS as a LHB says otherwise. He's better than Jose, but a 646 OPS vs LH is not going to cut it. His last 3 yrs does paint a better picture though (720 v LH, 887 v RH).

Is Rowand an upgrade? Unless Everett wants to try hitting LH's as a LHB the answer is yes. Rowand is on fire!
Jun OPS 1148
Jul OPS 1071
Aug OPS 1000

Even with Everett sporting a 1179 OPS at Edison this year, I'd go with Rowand if Carl insist's on being a RHB.

FoulTerritory
08-13-2003, 07:21 PM
Originally posted by JUGGERNAUT
Graff in for Jose at SS & Rowand in for Everett at CF.

Jose has a 444 OPS vs LH & 839 vs RH.
If Jose would just agree to bat from the left tonight JM would probably stick with him. But Jose believes he's a switch hitter. Would someone please tell him that a 658 OPS avg as a RHB over the last 3 yrs does not a switch-hitter make?

It's a shame because we'll never know what he would have done as a LHB vs LH.

Graff has a 972 OPS vs LH this yr & a 3 yr avg of 807 OPS. Any questions?


Everett also believes he's a switch hitter. 676 OPS as a RHB & a 937 OPS as a LHB says otherwise. He's better than Jose, but a 646 OPS vs LH is not going to cut it. His last 3 yrs does paint a better picture though (720 v LH, 887 v RH).

Is Rowand an upgrade? Unless Everett wants to try hitting LH's as a LHB the answer is yes. Rowand is on fire!
Jun OPS 1148
Jul OPS 1071
Aug OPS 1000

Even with Everett sporting a 1179 OPS at Edison this year, I'd go with Rowand if Carl insist's on being a RHB.

But statistics don't tell the whole story here. The key reason thatresting Everett tonight is a stupid move is because he is obviously seeing the ball extremely well right now. Just watching him hit last night you could tell he's on everything. When a guy is starting to feel a grove, let him hit, period. Don't worry about what side of the plate he's on, just make sure the guy stays in the lineup and keeps building on that feel. If he was still hitting mediocer as he had been for the past month or so, I'd have no problem with the use of the platoon ideology here, but come on, this guy is starting to feel it. At least let him ride it out.

RKMeibalane
08-13-2003, 07:34 PM
Originally posted by FoulTerritory
But statistics don't tell the whole story here. The key reason thatresting Everett tonight is a stupid move is because he is obviously seeing the ball extremely well right now. Just watching him hit last night you could tell he's on everything. When a guy is starting to feel a grove, let him hit, period. Don't worry about what side of the plate he's on, just make sure the guy stays in the lineup and keeps building on that feel. If he was still hitting mediocer as he had been for the past month or so, I'd have no problem with the use of the platoon ideology here, but come on, this guy is starting to feel it. At least let him ride it out.

Exactly. As Crash Davis said in the movie Bull Durham, you "never **** with a winning streak." Everett is on a streak of his own, a hot streak, and it's not smart to screw around when that's going on. We've already seen this happen once this season. Frank was tearing up Major League Baseball during the month of June. He was keeping the Sox afloat before the rest of the offense came around. He did this while playing the majority of his games at first base.

So how did Manuel respond to this situation?

:jerry

*TINKER* *TINKER* *TINKER*

By putting Frank back at DH, Manuel turned Superman back into Clark Kent. That's not good, especially for a team in the middle of a pennant race. If the same thing happens to Carl Everett, I will be calling for Manuel's head even more than I already am. The man has no clue to how to manage a baseball team. If he did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

JUGGERNAUT
08-13-2003, 08:19 PM
Because I think that's what really counts in this debate. If he's still a dead RHB then hot streak or not he either hits as a LHB or sits.

voodoochile
08-13-2003, 08:20 PM
Originally posted by JUGGERNAUT

Is Rowand an upgrade? Unless Everett wants to try hitting LH's as a LHB the answer is yes. Rowand is on fire!
Jun OPS 1148
Jul OPS 1071
Aug OPS 1000

June 32 AB
July 30 AB
Aug 8 AB

This is a sample size?

Daver
08-13-2003, 08:21 PM
Originally posted by JUGGERNAUT
Because I think that's what really counts in this debate. If he's still a dead RHB then hot streak or not he either hits as a LHB or sits.

May I remind you that numbers do not actually play the game?

voodoochile
08-13-2003, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by JUGGERNAUT
Because I think that's what really counts in this debate. If he's still a dead RHB then hot streak or not he either hits as a LHB or sits.

When Rowand doesn't hit a home run, he isn't worth crap offensively. Everett still has a higher OBP than Rowand. Of course that won't stop Manuel from batting Rowand second...

JUGGERNAUT
08-13-2003, 08:47 PM
That a seemingly useless RHB suddenly becomes filled with life when a so-called switch hitter gets hot as a LHB?

Did you know that Everett has a below 600 OPS vs every LH in the last month & 1/2 with the exception of Mulder & Moyer?
To be honest I don't even know if he was a RHB in those abs. There are 9 abs vs LH that he was a LHB.

It's very simple. Carl & Jose you basically suck as switch-hitters. So if you give up this joke and accept that you are a LHB you can play vs LH. Otherwise GRAB SOME BENCH!!!!!

TornLabrum
08-13-2003, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by JUGGERNAUT
Graff in for Jose at SS & Rowand in for Everett at CF.

Jose has a 444 OPS vs LH & 839 vs RH.
If Jose would just agree to bat from the left tonight JM would probably stick with him. But Jose believes he's a switch hitter. Would someone please tell him that a 658 OPS avg as a RHB over the last 3 yrs does not a switch-hitter make?

It's a shame because we'll never know what he would have done as a LHB vs LH.

At the July WCSF luncheon somebody asked Jose about going lefthanded against lefthanded pitchers. He said that it would not be something he'd try in the middle of the season unless it was a pitcher he had absolutely no success against. He did leave open trying it in spring training, though.

Jerko
08-13-2003, 10:37 PM
Originally posted by daveb816
The Giants changed their lineup long before they built their big lead. The Cardinals also change their lineup all of the time and they're not exactly running away with anything.

THEY have had injuries too! Vina, Edmonds, Marrero, Drew, Rolen for a while, come on now. And that's our point anyway. The Cardinals change their lineup all the time and ARE NOT IN FIRST in a worse division than ours are they? Don't use the Cardinals as the prototype for why tinkering works.

Jerko
08-13-2003, 10:45 PM
Can't anybody 'make' Jose bat lefty vs. a lefty? Pretty sad that our "leader" would rather be benched vs. lefties instead of trying something new.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 01:34 AM
i've already done this numerous times but, here it is yet again: many of you are hyporcrites who simply can't follow common sense in this scenario. everyone complained non-stop about tinkering on a regular basis in the first half. everyone claimed all we needed to win games was a set lineup vs. lefties and a set lineup vs. righties. manuel delievered and now every single time we play a lefty and graffanino and rowand are in the lineup, everyone screams tinkering. you got exactly what you wanted, what is the problem?!

for those of you (palehosegeorge) that claim this is not consistent with our regular lineups and that manuel is tinkering, show me!! i am quite certain that graff has started every game against lefties in the second half (and crushed the ball). with the exception of one game everett played against a lefty, he has sat every single game against lefties since the break. show me that everett has started a large portion of the time against lefties and manuel suddenly decided to tinker tonight.

it'd be one thing if these moves had backfired but rowand and graffanino have absolutely annihilated left handed pitching whereas the three guys they replace, alomar, jose, and everett, have not hit lefties worth a lick. the argument that everett is hot is ridiculous. he's hot batting from the left side. given the fact that he's a switch hitter and the large difference between his splits throughout the year there's absolutely no reason to suggest his hot hitting would carry over against lefties. jose has an 800+ ops against righties and a sub .500 ops against lefties, you're telling me that if he has a hot game against a righty we need him to start against a lefty the next night?!?! clearly there are no similarities between jose batting righthanded and lefthanded and while the splits aren't quite as drastic with everett, the same principle still applies.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 01:42 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i've already done this numerous times but, here it is yet again: many of you are hyporcrites who simply can't follow common sense in this scenario. everyone complained non-stop about tinkering on a regular basis in the first half. everyone claimed all we needed to win games was a set lineup vs. lefties and a set lineup vs. righties. manuel delievered and now every single time we play a lefty and graffanino and rowand are in the lineup, everyone screams tinkering. you got exactly what you wanted, what is the problem?!

for those of you (palehosegeorge) that claim this is not consistent with our regular lineups and that manuel is tinkering, show me!! i am quite certain that graff has started every game against lefties in the second half (and crushed the ball). with the exception of one game everett played against a lefty, he has sat every single game against lefties since the break. show me that everett has started a large portion of the time against lefties and manuel suddenly decided to tinker tonight.

it'd be one thing if these moves had backfired but rowand and graffanino have absolutely annihilated left handed pitching whereas the three guys they replace, alomar, jose, and everett, have not hit lefties worth a lick. the argument that everett is hot is ridiculous. he's hot batting from the left side. given the fact that he's a switch hitter and the large difference between his splits throughout the year there's absolutely no reason to suggest his hot hitting would carry over against lefties. jose has an 800+ ops against righties and a sub .500 ops against lefties, you're telling me that if he has a hot game against a righty we need him to start against a lefty the next night?!?! clearly there are no similarities between jose batting righthanded and lefthanded and while the splits aren't quite as drastic with everett, the same principle still applies.

0-3 the last three times he has gone to this lineup. You can continue to defend the move all you want, but the proof is in the bottom line.

What's really pissing you off, jeremy? The fact that all of your wonderful stats are proving to be meaningless in the end results?

THIS ISN'T FANTASY BASEBALL! WHEN A TEAM HAS SCORED 18 RUNS THE PAST 18 INNINGS, YOU DON'T MESS WITH IT!

How hard is that? I for one don't want one lineup for leftys and one for rightys, I just want one lineup. I won't even complain if he plays Graffanino instead of Valentin, so long as he doesn't mess with the order of the lineup - Graff can bat 7th just like Valentin.

0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3. Say it with me now, jeremy, I know you can. Stats aren't the same as wins and wins are the bottom line...

Lip Man 1
08-14-2003, 01:45 AM
My definition of "tinkering" is ANY change from a starting lineup not caused by injury.

You play the same guys at the same positions and in the same spot in the batting order.

You don't get consistency any other way and please spare me the mumbo jumbo about lefty vs. righty, OPS and all that other ca-ca. If you have good players they can hit anybody.

You play your bench guys in mop up spots. There is a reason they are considered "bench" guys and that's because they aren't good enough to replace your starters... if they were they wouldn't be on the bench in the first place. If they get upset at this arrangment tough.

It's not rocket science folks. Manager Gandhi's ego dictates that he show everybody how "smart" he is (even when he publicly admits that his moves don't work.)

Seriously can someone please explain to me (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic) what he is trying to prove? He says his moves don't work but he keeps doing them. That's either the height of ego or stupidity and you can't have either in a manager especially one with a track record like Gandhi's.

So please can someone explain this to me.

Lip

TornLabrum
08-14-2003, 02:01 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
My definition of "tinkering" is ANY change from a starting lineup not caused by injury.

You play the same guys at the same positions and in the same spot in the batting order.

You don't get consistency any other way and please spare me the mumbo jumbo about lefty vs. righty, OPS and all that other ca-ca. If you have good players they can hit anybody.

You play your bench guys in mop up spots. There is a reason they are considered "bench" guys and that's because they aren't good enough to replace your starters... if they were they wouldn't be on the bench in the first place. If they get upset at this arrangment tough.

It's not rocket science folks. Manager Gandhi's ego dictates that he show everybody how "smart" he is (even when he publicly admits that his moves don't work.)

Seriously can someone please explain to me (and I'm not trying to be sarcastic) what he is trying to prove? He says his moves don't work but he keeps doing them. That's either the height of ego or stupidity and you can't have either in a manager especially one with a track record like Gandhi's.

So please can someone explain this to me.

Lip

I can think of one situation in which your definition of tinkering is legitimate, and that is when the manager uses a platoon. Casey Stengel used to platoon players like crazy in the '50s. I don't see what Manuel is doing as utilizing the platoon advantage in any way, except perhaps with Graffanino, except that when he's used, it's to replace switch hitters (Alomar and Valentin).

All I know is the last three times he's used his alternate lineup, we're 0-3. (Thanks for that info Voodoo.)

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 02:02 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
0-3 the last three times he has gone to this lineup. You can continue to defend the move all you want, but the proof is in the bottom line.

What's really pissing you off, jeremy? The fact that all of your wonderful stats are proving to be meaningless in the end results?

THIS ISN'T FANTASY BASEBALL! WHEN A TEAM HAS SCORED 18 RUNS THE PAST 18 INNINGS, YOU DON'T MESS WITH IT!

How hard is that? I for one don't want one lineup for leftys and one for rightys, I just want one lineup. I won't even complain if he plays Graffanino instead of Valentin, so long as he doesn't mess with the order of the lineup - Graff can bat 7th just like Valentin.

0-3, 0-3, 0-3, 0-3. Say it with me now, jeremy, I know you can. Stats aren't the same as wins and wins are the bottom line...

we did this before though. you're being completely illogical. you never explain how manuel's change to the lineup is measured by wins and losses. according to your argument if rowand starts a game and hits four home runs which are the sox only four hits in the game and we lose 5-4, manuel lost the game by starting rowand. please explain to me how that makes sense. explain to me how stats such as on base percantage and slugging percentage specifically measuring rowand's hitting production do not accurately describe his perfoance yet our won loss record does describe his hitting performance.

if a starting pitcher throws a no hitter yet the defense makes several errors allowing a run to score, did the pitcher blow the game? he started and allowed the runs and we lost the game so by your logic, it can be blamed on the starting pitcher, right? by your logic any player on the 25 man roster is the reason we won or lost a game based on whether he did or did not play and how he performed. baseball simply isn't that simple which is why its such a wonderful game. there are an incredibly large number of factors which go into the end result of a game, you can't reduce an entire baseball game to "rowand is in the lineup so not matter how he performs we will most likely lose the game". if that's the case why watch?

you want to know the reason i'm angry? i'm angry because people continuously spout out arguments like this. no one seems to ever consider the meaning and the implications of what they are arguing before they post. this argument you're making here is the equivalent of saying "we lost the last two games hawk didn't wear a hat" and i'm not getting through to most people that it makes no sense, that there is no logic, and that the arguments the same people were making last week directly contradict with teh arguments they are making this week.

Jerko
08-14-2003, 02:04 AM
I wish I could Lip, I wish I could. He manages like a 5 year old playing a video game and in the game the 5 year old is at the edge of a cliff, knowing if he jumps he will die, then he does it anyway just to see what happens.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
My definition of "tinkering" is ANY change from a starting lineup not caused by injury.

You play the same guys at the same positions and in the same spot in the batting order.

You don't get consistency any other way and please spare me the mumbo jumbo about lefty vs. righty, OPS and all that other ca-ca. If you have good players they can hit anybody.

lip, if you're going to insist on dismissing the only effective tools we have to measure a players performance, there's no way to have this conversation. you're simply right because you say so. if that's the way you want it to be fine, but if you won't use any objective means of describing and measuring a player's performance you can't possibly ever explain why you're correct.

graffanino hits lefties very well while jose valentin hits them very poorly. the difference between graffanino's outstanding hitting against lefties and jose's horrendous hitting against lefties allows the team to score more runs when graff replaces jose in the lineup which allows us to win more games against left handed pitching. however, if you refuse to allow me to demonstrate to you and explain to you how i know that graffanino hits lefties much, much, much better than jose then, you're simply right because you say you're right and that's as far as this discussion can every possibly progress.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 02:11 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I can think of one situation in which your definition of tinkering is legitimate, and that is when the manager uses a platoon. Casey Stengel used to platoon players like crazy in the '50s. I don't see what Manuel is doing as utilizing the platoon advantage in any way, except perhaps with Graffanino, except that when he's used, it's to replace switch hitters (Alomar and Valentin).

All I know is the last three times he's used his alternate lineup, we're 0-3. (Thanks for that info Voodoo.)

using a platoon is exactly what manuel is doing. he's platooning everett with rowand since everett has not traditionally hit well against lefties and is hitting particularly poorly against lefties this season whereas rowand has been hot ever since his recall and hits lefties quite well. graffanino is being platooned with alomar/valentin since graffanino would be an all-star if he had 500 at bats against lefties each year while alomar/valentin would be out of baseball if they faced only lefties.

i already explained the absurdity of that cute little 0-3 stat. in addition to all the other problems with using won-loss as a stat to examine very minute factors in a game, the sample size of three games is also horrendous. what if we'd surrendered an average of 10 runs in all three of those games? the problem would still be that we started graff and rowand? if frank is 2 for 10 over his next three games is he destined to be a .200 hitter or close to it for the rest of his career? if we lose three games in a row are we out of the playoffs? this is all just completely nonsensical.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2003, 02:33 AM
Jeremy:

Because I don't accept your "statistical proof" as being good for anything but fantasy leagues and lining the bottom of bird cages.

This is the real world Jeremy not some made up theories by pointy headed geeks with nothing better to do.

All the numbers in the world can't validate how hard it is to play the game at this level and play it well when there is constant chaos around you.

I guess if there were people like you back in the 20's, 30's, 40's 50's, and 60's a bunch of fairly good players would never have had the chance to show that they were good. They'd be benched because their OPS or XYZ or WHIP or *** would have prevented them from getting on the field enough.

What matters to you is being "right" what matters to me is winning a friggin' World Series.

All the numbers in the world can't change a won / loss record when the guys who supposedly have the "numbers" aren't worth crap. Numbers can be deceiving just like ratings in TV.

If Tony Graffinino was worth a damn the Braves wouldn't have canned him, if he was a solid starter a bad team like Tampa bay wouldn't have released him (or traded him I'm sorry I don't remember)

If Aaron Rowand was a starting outfield the Sox wouldn't have benched him and sent him down. He's been around for about three years now and has never been anything more then a decent reserve.

Sorry if I was a little hard on you I don't mean to get personal...I don't like it when I have personal attacks on me but it's just frustrating as hell that you and your ilk refuse to see reality. Reality is not based on numbers somebody concocted in a classroom who never hit a curve ball or actually knows what an exploding slider looks like.

Lip

Paulwny
08-14-2003, 07:33 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
I can think of one situation in which your definition of tinkering is legitimate, and that is when the manager uses a platoon. Casey Stengel used to platoon players like crazy in the '50s. I don't see what Manuel is doing as utilizing the platoon advantage in any way, except perhaps with Graffanino, except that when he's used, it's to replace switch hitters (Alomar and Valentin).

All I know is the last three times he's used his alternate lineup, we're 0-3. (Thanks for that info Voodoo.)

Agree, Stengel had the luxury of having bench players who would have been starters on any other team. Rowand, Graff, Harris would not be starters on other teams. This sox team needs to hit and Graff should be the only one used as a spot starter.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-14-2003, 07:39 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1

for those of you (palehosegeorge) that claim this is not consistent with our regular lineups and that manuel is tinkering, show me!! i am quite certain that graff has started every game against lefties in the second half (and crushed the ball). with the exception of one game everett played against a lefty, he has sat every single game against lefties since the break. show me that everett has started a large portion of the time against lefties and manuel suddenly decided to tinker tonight.

Well, besides failing to type legibly, your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired, too. There are plenty of people here complaining about Manuel's lineup changes, many of them focusing on lefty/righty matchups and bullpen misuse. I've pretty much limited myself to Manuel playing ballplayers out of position and sitting those who are hot in favor of lesser-skilled benchwarmers.

I have a HUGE problem with Manuel's nonsensical public comments pre- and post-game about his reasoning for these moves, which of course are 100 percent bull****, especially his excuse that major league ballplayers need several days "rest" every 2 weeks or so. Go back and re-read what I've written and you'll find your beefs lie elsewhere.

bobj4400
08-14-2003, 09:43 AM
Since the AS Break:

WS record with starting lineup:

16-5

WS record with Sunday "concede a loss" lineup:

2-3 (victories v. TB & Det)


Enough said. There needs to be no more argument. Like Lip says, statistics lie.

There is such thing as a rhythm and feel for the game. When you go out to the field with the same guys everyday you begin to feel more comfortable (play better) than when your surroundings are constantly changing. Anyone who has ever played organized sports on any level will acknowledge this.

Tinkerbell just cannot allow this to happen for some reason. Our team is going to miss the playoffs with the best team in the second worst division b/c of him. Hopefully KW is reading this board, and JM's days as manager will be limited to the final 6 weeks of this season.

Mighty4
08-14-2003, 09:47 AM
That's even too long

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 10:46 AM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
we did this before though. you're being completely illogical. you never explain how manuel's change to the lineup is measured by wins and losses. according to your argument if rowand starts a game and hits four home runs which are the sox only four hits in the game and we lose 5-4, manuel lost the game by starting rowand. please explain to me how that makes sense. explain to me how stats such as on base percantage and slugging percentage specifically measuring rowand's hitting production do not accurately describe his perfoance yet our won loss record does describe his hitting performance.

if a starting pitcher throws a no hitter yet the defense makes several errors allowing a run to score, did the pitcher blow the game? he started and allowed the runs and we lost the game so by your logic, it can be blamed on the starting pitcher, right? by your logic any player on the 25 man roster is the reason we won or lost a game based on whether he did or did not play and how he performed. baseball simply isn't that simple which is why its such a wonderful game. there are an incredibly large number of factors which go into the end result of a game, you can't reduce an entire baseball game to "rowand is in the lineup so not matter how he performs we will most likely lose the game". if that's the case why watch?

you want to know the reason i'm angry? i'm angry because people continuously spout out arguments like this. no one seems to ever consider the meaning and the implications of what they are arguing before they post. this argument you're making here is the equivalent of saying "we lost the last two games hawk didn't wear a hat" and i'm not getting through to most people that it makes no sense, that there is no logic, and that the arguments the same people were making last week directly contradict with teh arguments they are making this week.

Look, you want it to be all about the numbers. It isn't. That's all I can say. See the post by bobj4400 a few above mine.

My beef lies as much with his shuffling of the lineup whenever he goes to his platoon as the players he uses themselves. I agree that Graff is a much better hitter from the right side than Valentin. I conceded that point. I don't think Aaron Rowand is a much better hitter than Everett from the right side - but that is a point we can agree to disagree on.

The Rowand/Everett platoon causes Manuel to completely change the 1-7 hitters, leaving only #3, 4, 8, 9 in their everyday slot. Then the team doesn't score. With the "regular" lineup this team has been scoring WAY more runs since the ASG - a trend that seems to mysteriously stop when Manuel goes to his "leftie-wrecking crew". Whatever the reason it happens, those are the facts. This team score 18 runs M&T, then on Wednesday, they score 1. What changed? The lineup did. And that same lineup generated 2 runs on Saturday and 2 more the Sunday before that.

Again, see bobj's post about records with the two lineups. Those 3 losses are the last 3 in a row for this "brainstorm" of Manuel's. It isn't the same as Hawk's hat, not even close. It is about changing the protection players have in the lineup so teams pitch them diffeently. It is about taking the hottest hitter on the team the last 10 days and not even letting him pinch-hit in a 1-run game. Those are the things I have problems with.

You can be angry with me for not accepting your stats, but for me the stats that matter are wins and losses. Manuels LWC lineup has a much worse record than the regular lineup. Whatever the reasons -loss of protection, loss of leadership, loss of energy, loss of batting slots - it still equals a loss. Just win, baby.

I don't even care if we stop call it tinkering. Jerry "the platooner" Manuel is equally distressing, IMO.

kempsted
08-14-2003, 10:54 AM
:angry: OK give all the lefty righty stuff you want. Why did Manuel not pinch hit with Everett for Rowand when KROD was in. Rowand looked terrible in that at bat. KRod did not even throw a strike and Rowand struck out. Even if you say he was right to START Rowand with a left handed pitcher why doesn't he realize a right hander has been brought in??? :angry:

bobj4400
08-14-2003, 11:19 AM
Did anybody see Tinkerbell's quote in the Cubune today? If you didnt, it went something like this, "I was looking at the AL leaders statistics and saw that guys with 80+ RBI are in the top 10 in the league. Then I thought, 'I wonder if any of our guys have that many, before seeing Carlos' name in the top 10.'"


Are you kidding me? This guy is our manager and doesnt know if ANY of his players have that many RBI. I think he really is sleeping all the time.

RKMeibalane
08-14-2003, 11:23 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I don't even care if we stop call it tinkering. Jerry "the platooner" Manuel is equally distressing, IMO.

:jerry

*PLATOON* *PLATOON* *PLATOON*

Mammoo
08-14-2003, 11:30 AM
Ken Williams must blow a gasket every time Manuel does that. :angry:

Maybe American League managers feel the need to justify their existence or something. I say, just leave well enough alone. Just sit there like Bob Lemon did in 1977. He knew what he had and he went with it. He didn't "tinker" like some half assed mad scientist.

Oh, well...Go Sox!!! :gulp:

SoxxoS
08-14-2003, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Mammoo
Ken Williams must blow a gasket every time Manuel does that. :angry:

There is an easy solution to that problem that should have been done long ago:

:firejerry

Hangar18
08-14-2003, 12:48 PM
Ive got a Good Complaint. WHY THE HELL ISNT FRANK THOMAS PLAYING 1B REGULARLY ?? I understand Paulie needs to play some, but CMON,,,,,FRANK SHOULD BE THERE 5 of the 7 days of the Week. Paulie can DH those 5 days, play First the other 2.

Lip Man 1
08-14-2003, 01:22 PM
Let's put this another way...a very simple way so that even the stat heads can understand.

In fact we'll even use numbers to illustrate things, OK?

The numbers say (and we must all bow down to numbers!) that Carlos Lee hits the best when he is in the 2nd spot in the batting order. (It's in today's Tribune, under the Teddy Greenstein story)

Yet Manager Gandhi had him hitting 5th last night? WHY???

The numbers say that Frank Thomas clearly hits better when he's playing 1st base.

Yet Manager Gandhi refuses to play him there even after Thomas has mentioned (according to a story before the start of the road trip) that he'd like to get some time in at 1st base. WHY???

(and please don't start with the "but Konerko's a better fielder" stuff. We've all seen his nimbleness around the bag...)

and here's one more thing that Greenstein mentioned in his recap story. Buehrle HAD to pitch to Salmon because Gordon wasn't warmed up and ready yet. WHY WASN'T HE???

OK I'm ready to hear your answers.

Lip

maurice
08-14-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
you're being completely illogical. you never explain how manuel's change to the lineup is measured by wins and losses. according to your argument if rowand starts a game and hits four home runs which are the sox only four hits in the game and we lose 5-4, manuel lost the game by starting rowand. please explain to me how that makes sense.

J, you do one heck of a good Lisa Simpson impersonation.

Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, dad. That's like saying that this rock repels tigers."

Homer: "What do you mean, Lisa?"

Lisa: "Well, you don't see any tigers around, do you?"

Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Lisa was pretty frustrated too, but at least she made some cash off of the rock. I'm sure there's a lesson in there for you, but unfortunately I have no idea what it is. I'd really appreciate it if you'd start using initial caps once in awhile, though. Your posts make my eyes hurt.

Paulwny
08-14-2003, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Your posts make my eyes hurt.

Thank God, I thought it was only me.

Brian26
08-14-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:
This is the real world Jeremy not some made up theories by pointy headed geeks with nothing better to do.
Lip

A little harsh, Lip. Chill out, daddy. No need for that kind of hate.

Randar68
08-14-2003, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Brian26
A little harsh, Lip. Chill out, daddy. No need for that kind of hate.

Glad to see I am not the only one fed up with him.

maurice
08-14-2003, 01:54 PM
Voodoo:

You're trying to have it both ways. In an earlier post, you reject 70 ABs as statistically insignificant, yet later you trumpet three games as significant. They're both statistics, and 70 is a lot better sample size than three.

Sorry for singling you out, as you're clearly not the Flat Earth Luddite on this board. You have a very legitimate gripe about shuffling the order. I'm a long-time advocate of CLee in the two hole. There's no reason to move him down in the order against lefties. You can platoon your #5 hitter and your #7 hitter without screwing up the lineup as much as JM does, and he surely should pinch hit Everett against RHPs. Unfortunately, we're talking about a manager who thinks Willie Harris is a good PH.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-14-2003, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by kempsted
:angry: OK give all the lefty righty stuff you want. Why did Manuel not pinch hit with Everett for Rowand when KROD was in. Rowand looked terrible in that at bat. KRod did not even throw a strike and Rowand struck out. Even if you say he was right to START Rowand with a left handed pitcher why doesn't he realize a right hander has been brought in??? :angry:

Well that's easy to answer, Kemp. Manuel didn't pinch-hit because it's not really a platoon that he has with Everett and Rowand. All the wishin' and prayin' jeremy can muster won't change this fact. If you find yourself confused, just consult Manuel for the reasoning behind all of this. If you weren't puzzled before he explained it to you, you most definitely will be perplexed afterwards.

bobj4400
08-14-2003, 02:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
If you find yourself confused, just consult Manuel for the reasoning behind all of this.

:jerry


"I like to tinker...even though it usually doesnt work."

Lip Man 1
08-14-2003, 02:18 PM
Brian:

Your right there's no need for that just... like there's no need to personally attack me because I'm in the media, as if that's something to be ashamed of.

Just like there's no need to attack me (and I'm not accusing you) because I used an incorrect syntax after midnight or make a typo.

Just like there's no need to accuse me of being so "negative." If that's the case put me on an "ignore" list, then you don't have to read it.

That's the way I feel...if my critics don't like it, T.S. Get used to it because I'm NEVER leaving this site.

Lip

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Voodoo:

You're trying to have it both ways. In an earlier post, you reject 70 ABs as statistically insignificant, yet later you trumpet three games as significant. They're both statistics, and 70 is a lot better sample size than three.

Sorry for singling you out, as you're clearly not the Flat Earth Luddite on this board. You have a very legitimate gripe about shuffling the order. I'm a long-time advocate of CLee in the two hole. There's no reason to move him down in the order against lefties. You can platoon your #5 hitter and your #7 hitter without screwing up the lineup as much as JM does, and he surely should pinch hit Everett against RHPs. Unfortunately, we're talking about a manager who thinks Willie Harris is a good PH.

Um, in the middle of a pennant race, 3 losses ARE significant. That's only recently too. You can look at the whole first half of the season when regular lineup changes led to the Sox almost falling completely out of the race. I am not willing to wait and see if the losses are a blip in an otherwise excellent decision (yeah, right) or directly related to Manuel's platoon. The time to end it is NOW and let the guys who have been churning out runs at 6.4/game play every day. Of course, that is JMHO.

The point about the 70 AB's was that people are saying that based on this sample (what 2.5 weeks of a full-time starters season) Rowand CLEARLY should be starting over Everett against LHP. I disagree, but my reasons aren't strictly based on stats. I think a team leader like Everett should be playing all the time except for a few days off every year.

Randar68
08-14-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Just like there's no need to accuse me of being so "negative." If that's the case put me on an "ignore" list, then you don't have to read it.


Gladly, unfortunately, ignore-lists went out the window with the old ESPN system (not sure if Rivals ever really had one)

It'd be a nice feature to have.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 02:23 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
That's the way I feel...if my critics don't like it, T.S. Get used to it because I'm NEVER leaving this site.

Lip

And it wouldn't be the same without you, Lip. :D:

Randar68
08-14-2003, 02:27 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Brian:

Your right there's no need for that just... like there's no need to personally attack me because I'm in the media, as if that's something to be ashamed of.

Just like there's no need to attack me (and I'm not accusing you) because I used an incorrect syntax after midnight or make a typo.

Just like there's no need to accuse me of being so "negative." If that's the case put me on an "ignore" list, then you don't have to read it.

That's the way I feel...if my critics don't like it, T.S. Get used to it because I'm NEVER leaving this site.

Lip

BTW, If you're gonna cry about every move/non-move, no matter what, I'm gonna call you on it every time. It's not an attack, per se, just as me constantly complaining about your negativity isn't really any worse than your bitchin' and moanin' about everything that ever happens.

Nobody has attacked you because "you're in the media." Frankly, I could care less, as I already don't have much appreciation for it. It's not like you're Mark Shenowski (i spelled that wrong, I know), and 99% of people here have not read anything you have ever done that didn't appear on this site.

That is you being full of yourself and overestimating your own percieved fame, which, IMO, is next-to-none.

I also won't be leaving the site any time soon, so if you wish to continue on the 100%-negative slant on everything you post, I will continue to call you on it every damn time. As you say, "T.S."

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Gladly, unfortunately, ignore-lists went out the window with the old ESPN system (not sure if Rivals ever really had one)

It'd be a nice feature to have.

WSI has ignore feature. All you have to do is click on the username and then scroll to the bottom of their profile page. Look carefully in the bottom black border below their actual info.

Jerko
08-14-2003, 02:36 PM
Yeah, but if somebody quotes the person on your ignore list, you can still see it throughout the thread.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 02:38 PM
Originally posted by Jerko
Yeah, but if somebody quotes the person on your ignore list, you can still see it throughout the thread.

Man, you people are never satisfied... :D:

TornLabrum
08-14-2003, 02:49 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The point about the 70 AB's was that people are saying that based on this sample (what 2.5 weeks of a full-time starters season) Rowand CLEARLY should be starting over Everett against LHP. I disagree, but my reasons aren't strictly based on stats. I think a team leader like Everett should be playing all the time except for a few days off every year.

A player like Everett should, barring injury, play a minimum of 150 games per year.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
A player like Everett should, barring injury, play a minimum of 150 games per year.

:jerry
"Preposterous... What would you need a manager for if not to shuffle the lineup 2 or 3 times a week?"

maurice
08-14-2003, 03:12 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Um, in the middle of a pennant race, 3 losses ARE significant.

Of course you are right that every win or loss is significant in a pennant race. Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about statistical significance. As you may know, "statistically significant" is a term of art meaning that the number of occurrences is not large enough to form a logical conclusion. For example, despite his current AVE, Jamie Burke is not likely to hit .667 over a full ML season, because his three ML ABs is not a statistically significant sample size.

Brian26
08-14-2003, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Brian:
Your right there's no need for that just... like there's no need to personally attack me because I'm in the media, as if that's something to be ashamed of.
Lip

Well, if you're calling yourself the lead media man in Chubblefudge, Idaho....I'd be ashamed of that. Hell, I'd be embarrassed to say I was working the weekend gig here on CLTV. You're in Idaho for crying out loud.

In all seriousness, you do a good job with the interviews on the site, and I enjoy your work. I don't consider you to be "in the media" though, and I do think you take yourself a bit too seriously in that respect.

I do get on your ass. You're the typical Jim Grey type of guy. If the Sox win the World Series this year, you'll be the first one on here bitching that we're going to suck next year because we can't resign Frank or Colon or Alomar.

maurice
08-14-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
WSI has ignore feature.

Thanks for the tip and consider it done. If I wanted to hear incessant pessimism and illogic, I'd call one of my in-laws.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by maurice
Of course you are right that every win or loss is significant in a pennant race. Sorry for being unclear. I was talking about statistical significance. As you may know, "statistically significant" is a term of art meaning that the number of occurrences is not large enough to form a logical conclusion. For example, despite his current AVE, Jamie Burke is not likely to hit .667 over a full ML season, because his three ML ABs is not a statistically significant sample size.

I know that, but like I said, I don't want to wait until the Sox are 4-6, 8-12, 2-10 or whatever to pull the plug on the lineup platoon, tinker, system, whatever you want to call it. There isn't time. Manuel knows the regular team scores runs in bunches and 16-5 IS statistically significant, IMO.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Jeremy:

Because I don't accept your "statistical proof" as being good for anything but fantasy leagues and lining the bottom of bird cages.

This is the real world Jeremy not some made up theories by pointy headed geeks with nothing better to do.

All the numbers in the world can't validate how hard it is to play the game at this level and play it well when there is constant chaos around you.

I guess if there were people like you back in the 20's, 30's, 40's 50's, and 60's a bunch of fairly good players would never have had the chance to show that they were good. They'd be benched because their OPS or XYZ or WHIP or *** would have prevented them from getting on the field enough.

What matters to you is being "right" what matters to me is winning a friggin' World Series.

All the numbers in the world can't change a won / loss record when the guys who supposedly have the "numbers" aren't worth crap. Numbers can be deceiving just like ratings in TV.

If Tony Graffinino was worth a damn the Braves wouldn't have canned him, if he was a solid starter a bad team like Tampa bay wouldn't have released him (or traded him I'm sorry I don't remember)

If Aaron Rowand was a starting outfield the Sox wouldn't have benched him and sent him down. He's been around for about three years now and has never been anything more then a decent reserve.

Sorry if I was a little hard on you I don't mean to get personal...I don't like it when I have personal attacks on me but it's just frustrating as hell that you and your ilk refuse to see reality. Reality is not based on numbers somebody concocted in a classroom who never hit a curve ball or actually knows what an exploding slider looks like.

ok. we'll disregard statistics from the conversation. i'm going to argue to you that tony graffanino is the best power hitter to ever play the game of baseball, now you - without using any statistics whatsoever prove to me that i'm wrong. you think bonds or aaron or ruth were better power hitters because they hit more home runs? well then i say you're just using statistics which are competely worthless according to you. you say you see bonds hit the ball further, well i disagree i think graffanino hits the ball further and hits the ball far more often, how can i be wrong without statistics? even the distance the ball travels in feet is a statistic.

you have no other way of analyzing the ability of baseball players. i guess you're arguing that general managers are always, right. graffanino isn't good because the braves traded him, but if that's the case then todd ritchie is better than kip wells and josh fogg since we traded him for them? there's no reason to believe that general managers are always right other than you're arguing so. theoretically general managers could be the stupidist people in the world when it comes to baseball, it wouldn't matter someone has to win a world series.

no statistic has any bearing on baseball whatsoever. i'll accept that argument. now lip, tell me how i can evaluate a player. we're both critical, rational human beings right? it must be possible for us to evaluate baseball players performance, how do we do it?

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Well, besides failing to type legibly, your reading comprehension skills leave a lot to be desired, too. There are plenty of people here complaining about Manuel's lineup changes, many of them focusing on lefty/righty matchups and bullpen misuse. I've pretty much limited myself to Manuel playing ballplayers out of position and sitting those who are hot in favor of lesser-skilled benchwarmers.

I have a HUGE problem with Manuel's nonsensical public comments pre- and post-game about his reasoning for these moves, which of course are 100 percent bull****, especially his excuse that major league ballplayers need several days "rest" every 2 weeks or so. Go back and re-read what I've written and you'll find your beefs lie elsewhere.

i have problems with comprehension? how? please explain, i explained why the moves made sense and you've now changed the subject to manuel's various comments on the lineups. first and foremost i was defending the moves, not manuel's reasoning behind them. i don't know what his reasoning is for certain, how could i? what i know is that the team is vastly better with graffanino and rowand in the lineup against lefthanded pitching and i doubt manuel has started graff against lefties (he's only started once against a righty) since the break just by coincidence.

RKMeibalane
08-14-2003, 05:35 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
ok. we'll disregard statistics from the conversation. i'm going to argue to you that tony graffanino is the best power hitter to ever play the game of baseball, now you - without using any statistics whatsoever prove to me that i'm wrong. you think bonds or aaron or ruth were better power hitters because they hit more home runs? well then i say you're just using statistics which are competely worthless according to you. you say you see bonds hit the ball further, well i disagree i think graffanino hits the ball further and hits the ball far more often, how can i be wrong without statistics? even the distance the ball travels in feet is a statistic.

you have no other way of analyzing the ability of baseball players. i guess you're arguing that general managers are always, right. graffanino isn't good because the braves traded him, but if that's the case then todd ritchie is better than kip wells and josh fogg since we traded him for them? there's no reason to believe that general managers are always right other than you're arguing so. theoretically general managers could be the stupidist people in the world when it comes to baseball, it wouldn't matter someone has to win a world series.

no statistic has any bearing on baseball whatsoever. i'll accept that argument. now lip, tell me how i can evaluate a player. we're both critical, rational human beings right? it must be possible for us to evaluate baseball players performance, how do we do it?

I think you misunderstood what VC was saying. Voodoo's point is that when someone is swinging the bat well, his statistics no longer matter, because he is playing above and beyond his normal level of play.

Case and point: Carl Everett. Everett has been swinging a hot bat lately. Therefore, even though he may not hit for as high an average against a particular team or pitcher, it is still a good idea to have him in the lineup, in spite of what his numbers might say. That's the point that voodoo was trying to make.

Statistics tell only part of the story. Sometimes you have to watch players as they go about the business of playing the game in order to know who to put in the lineup on a daily basis.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 05:37 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i have problems with comprehension? how? please explain, i explained why the moves made sense and you've now changed the subject to manuel's various comments on the lineups. first and foremost i was defending the moves, not manuel's reasoning behind them. i don't know what his reasoning is for certain, how could i? what i know is that the team is vastly better with graffanino and rowand in the lineup against lefthanded pitching and i doubt manuel has started graff against lefties (he's only started once against a righty) since the break just by coincidence.

VASTLY BETTER? VASTLY? So they should just be killing the ball and winning all these games. It shouldn't even be close. They would be averaging MORE than 6.4 runs/game. MUCH MORE!

*****! The hyperbole is getting WAY out of hand around here...

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 05:40 PM
Originally posted by bobj4400
Since the AS Break:

WS record with starting lineup:

16-5

WS record with Sunday "concede a loss" lineup:

2-3 (victories v. TB & Det)


Enough said. There needs to be no more argument. Like Lip says, statistics lie.

There is such thing as a rhythm and feel for the game. When you go out to the field with the same guys everyday you begin to feel more comfortable (play better) than when your surroundings are constantly changing. Anyone who has ever played organized sports on any level will acknowledge this.

Tinkerbell just cannot allow this to happen for some reason. Our team is going to miss the playoffs with the best team in the second worst division b/c of him. Hopefully KW is reading this board, and JM's days as manager will be limited to the final 6 weeks of this season.

"statistics lie." what a complex response to my several paragraph long explanation of how using won loss record to determine the effectiveness of minor moves is completely illegitimate.

so answer me this, if players collapse any time the same 9 guys don't start a game, then why don't teams lose whenever a trade is made or a player is injured. why haven't we collapsed in gary glover's absence? since he hasn't been in the bullpen every day those players must be distraught and unable to perform their jobs leading to many bull pen implosions and therefore numerous losses. why don't contending teams collapse every time they make a deal to improve their team at the deadline? why don't players always fall apart when they're called up from the minors and must play with an entirely new set of teammates. every other team in baseball uses their bench players relatively often. most major league bench players receive at least 150 at bats per season, why do their teams do it if they lose most every game a bench player starts?

your only argument here is your personal opinion about the effect of substituions in the lineup. we have no way of verifying this other than that you believe it is true. these are professional baseball players that play at different levels with different teammates who come and go and different bench players all the time. do you even have any quotes from baseball players that say "oh, with our backup catcher in the lineup today i really struggled." on the contrary you'll quite often find players lobbying for bench guys to get in the lineup (as happened with leifer some last season) when they don't play in a long time. why on earth would dauchbach starting for carlos lee in left field throw paul konerko's game all out of whack so that he's no longer effective. there may be a minimal effect fine but how can you suggest its the difference between players performing well and not performing well and teams winning and losing ball games. you have zero support for your argument.

RKMeibalane
08-14-2003, 05:43 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
"statistics lie." what a complex response to my several paragraph long explanation of how using won loss record to determine the effectiveness of minor moves is completely illegitimate.

so answer me this, if players collapse any time the same 9 guys don't start a game, then why don't teams lose whenever a trade is made or a player is injured. why haven't we collapsed in gary glover's absence? since he hasn't been in the bullpen every day those players must be distraught and unable to perform their jobs leading to many bull pen implosions and therefore numerous losses. why don't contending teams collapse every time they make a deal to improve their team at the deadline? why don't players always fall apart when they're called up from the minors and must play with an entirely new set of teammates. every other team in baseball uses their bench players relatively often. most major league bench players receive at least 150 at bats per season, why do their teams do it if they lose most every game a bench player starts?

your only argument here is your personal opinion about the effect of substituions in the lineup. we have no way of verifying this other than that you believe it is true. these are professional baseball players that play at different levels with different teammates who come and go and different bench players all the time. do you even have any quotes from baseball players that say "oh, with our backup catcher in the lineup today i really struggled." on the contrary you'll quite often find players lobbying for bench guys to get in the lineup (as happened with leifer some last season) when they don't play in a long time. why on earth would dauchbach starting for carlos lee in left field throw paul konerko's game all out of whack so that he's no longer effective. there may be a minimal effect fine but how can you suggest its the difference between players performing well and not performing well and teams winning and losing ball games. you have zero support for your argument.

Nevermind. I don't have it in me to respond to this post.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 05:45 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
"statistics lie." what a complex response to my several paragraph long explanation of how using won loss record to determine the effectiveness of minor moves is completely illegitimate.

so answer me this, if players collapse any time the same 9 guys don't start a game, then why don't teams lose whenever a trade is made or a player is injured. why haven't we collapsed in gary glover's absence? since he hasn't been in the bullpen every day those players must be distraught and unable to perform their jobs leading to many bull pen implosions and therefore numerous losses. why don't contending teams collapse every time they make a deal to improve their team at the deadline? why don't players always fall apart when they're called up from the minors and must play with an entirely new set of teammates. every other team in baseball uses their bench players relatively often. most major league bench players receive at least 150 at bats per season, why do their teams do it if they lose most every game a bench player starts?

your only argument here is your personal opinion about the effect of substituions in the lineup. we have no way of verifying this other than that you believe it is true. these are professional baseball players that play at different levels with different teammates who come and go and different bench players all the time. do you even have any quotes from baseball players that say "oh, with our backup catcher in the lineup today i really struggled." on the contrary you'll quite often find players lobbying for bench guys to get in the lineup (as happened with leifer some last season) when they don't play in a long time. why on earth would dauchbach starting for carlos lee in left field throw paul konerko's game all out of whack so that he's no longer effective. there may be a minimal effect fine but how can you suggest its the difference between players performing well and not performing well and teams winning and losing ball games. you have zero support for your argument.

Originally posted by bobj4400
Since the AS Break:

WS record with starting lineup:

16-5

WS record with Sunday "concede a loss" lineup:

2-3 (victories v. TB & Det)

Yeah, that W-L record argument makes NO sense at all to me either.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Look, you want it to be all about the numbers. It isn't. That's all I can say. See the post by bobj4400 a few above mine.

My beef lies as much with his shuffling of the lineup whenever he goes to his platoon as the players he uses themselves. I agree that Graff is a much better hitter from the right side than Valentin. I conceded that point. I don't think Aaron Rowand is a much better hitter than Everett from the right side - but that is a point we can agree to disagree on.

The Rowand/Everett platoon causes Manuel to completely change the 1-7 hitters, leaving only #3, 4, 8, 9 in their everyday slot. Then the team doesn't score. With the "regular" lineup this team has been scoring WAY more runs since the ASG - a trend that seems to mysteriously stop when Manuel goes to his "leftie-wrecking crew". Whatever the reason it happens, those are the facts. This team score 18 runs M&T, then on Wednesday, they score 1. What changed? The lineup did. And that same lineup generated 2 runs on Saturday and 2 more the Sunday before that.

Again, see bobj's post about records with the two lineups. Those 3 losses are the last 3 in a row for this "brainstorm" of Manuel's. It isn't the same as Hawk's hat, not even close. It is about changing the protection players have in the lineup so teams pitch them diffeently. It is about taking the hottest hitter on the team the last 10 days and not even letting him pinch-hit in a 1-run game. Those are the things I have problems with.

You can be angry with me for not accepting your stats, but for me the stats that matter are wins and losses. Manuels LWC lineup has a much worse record than the regular lineup. Whatever the reasons -loss of protection, loss of leadership, loss of energy, loss of batting slots - it still equals a loss. Just win, baby.

I don't even care if we stop call it tinkering. Jerry "the platooner" Manuel is equally distressing, IMO.

well i agree with you that lineup order is a completely different argument and i haven't really made any arguments regarding that. i agree that in theory manuel doesn't necessarily need to change the batting order when he platoons player but at the same time it doesn't really make sense to bat rowand fifth ahead of konerko one of the hottest hitters on the team and a player with more power than rowand just to keep everyone in the same spot in the lineup. it also doesn't make a ton of sense to waste graff's .400 obp against lefties at the bottom of the lineup when he can serve as a catalyst at the top of the order.

the problem with the argument about won loss record is that you're not answering my arguments about correlation at all. there is an important scientific principle that correlation does not equal caustation, meaning that just because two things occur at the same time that does not necessarily mean one thing causes the other. for instance it often rains when it gets dark out during the day. however, it does not rain because it gets dark out during the day. it rains because storm clouds gather which cause it to become dark and also cause it to rain. by the same token, just because we lose when manuel platoons graffanino and rowand, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that it rains because he platoons rowand and graffanino. we could lose in those games because we're facing lefties and the rest of the team does not hit lefties or a completely different reason. until someone demonstrates specifically how graffanino and rowand's presense in the lineup is the reason we lose these games, i don't see the point in debating this further.

also, even more importantly than correlation vs. causation, i've explained that you can't assume anything whatsoever based on three baseball games. three games is not a significant sample size (neither is five) and therefore there's absolutely no reason to believe we don't win games with rowand and graff in the lineup against lefties. if it rains when i walk to the bank two days in a row, that does not mean that me walking to the bank causes it to rain. it was most likely just coincidence. you're telling me that the reason we're losing the games is because the lineup has been changed and not because hawk didn't wear his hat but your reason is "because i say so" and that means nothing to me.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Let's put this another way...a very simple way so that even the stat heads can understand.

In fact we'll even use numbers to illustrate things, OK?

The numbers say (and we must all bow down to numbers!) that Carlos Lee hits the best when he is in the 2nd spot in the batting order. (It's in today's Tribune, under the Teddy Greenstein story)

Yet Manager Gandhi had him hitting 5th last night? WHY???

The numbers say that Frank Thomas clearly hits better when he's playing 1st base.

Yet Manager Gandhi refuses to play him there even after Thomas has mentioned (according to a story before the start of the road trip) that he'd like to get some time in at 1st base. WHY???

(and please don't start with the "but Konerko's a better fielder" stuff. We've all seen his nimbleness around the bag...)

and here's one more thing that Greenstein mentioned in his recap story. Buehrle HAD to pitch to Salmon because Gordon wasn't warmed up and ready yet. WHY WASN'T HE???

OK I'm ready to hear your answers.

Lip

the topic of this thread in my opinion is manuel's platoons of graffanino and rowand against left handed pitchers so i see that as completely unrelated. i'm not sure i disagree with you at all on those accounts but it doesn't matter whether or not i do in this thread because its completley off topic. you should start specific threads for those issues if you want to but i know there have been about a dozen "frank at 1B" threads and personally i feel as though its beating a dead horse at this point. i personally would rather see frank at first, i don't think anyone on the board has argued otherwise at any other time so i don't see the point in discussing it.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 06:00 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
well i agree with you that lineup order is a completely different argument and i haven't really made any arguments regarding that. i agree that in theory manuel doesn't necessarily need to change the batting order when he platoons player but at the same time it doesn't really make sense to bat rowand fifth ahead of konerko one of the hottest hitters on the team and a player with more power than rowand just to keep everyone in the same spot in the lineup. it also doesn't make a ton of sense to waste graff's .400 obp against lefties at the bottom of the lineup when he can serve as a catalyst at the top of the order.

the problem with the argument about won loss record is that you're not answering my arguments about correlation at all. there is an important scientific principle that correlation does not equal caustation, meaning that just because two things occur at the same time that does not necessarily mean one thing causes the other. for instance it often rains when it gets dark out during the day. however, it does not rain because it gets dark out during the day. it rains because storm clouds gather which cause it to become dark and also cause it to rain. by the same token, just because we lose when manuel platoons graffanino and rowand, you have not presented any evidence whatsoever that it rains because he platoons rowand and graffanino. we could lose in those games because we're facing lefties and the rest of the team does not hit lefties or a completely different reason. until someone demonstrates specifically how graffanino and rowand's presense in the lineup is the reason we lose these games, i don't see the point in debating this further.

also, even more importantly than correlation vs. causation, i've explained that you can't assume anything whatsoever based on three baseball games. three games is not a significant sample size (neither is five) and therefore there's absolutely no reason to believe we don't win games with rowand and graff in the lineup against lefties. if it rains when i walk to the bank two days in a row, that does not mean that me walking to the bank causes it to rain. it was most likely just coincidence. you're telling me that the reason we're losing the games is because the lineup has been changed and not because hawk didn't wear his hat but your reason is "because i say so" and that means nothing to me.

You keep bringing up causation arguments and then coming up with really wierd meaningless examples of how causation and effect are mis-used.

The lefty-platoon lineup has scored 5 runs in it's last 3 games. How can that NOT be an effect of the lineup changes when the regular lineup is smacking the ball around all over the place. Do the Sox as a team have time to figure this out right now? Maybe give the regular lineup a couple of starts agaisnt LHP and see how they do. Then figure it out. Right now, the regular lineup isn't broken. You can keep throwing out your stats and ignore the human element of the game if you want to, but it doesn't make you right.

You are right, annecdotal eveidence is always open to interpretation. You can keep blaming it on Hawks hat or the color of the sky or the phase of the moon, but at least mine has a chance of being right. Do you have a genuine reason for why the lefty half of the platton is failing big time to score runs when called on? Just a fluke? Okay, do you feel they Sox can afford to take that chance? I don't...

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Um, in the middle of a pennant race, 3 losses ARE significant. That's only recently too. You can look at the whole first half of the season when regular lineup changes led to the Sox almost falling completely out of the race. I am not willing to wait and see if the losses are a blip in an otherwise excellent decision (yeah, right) or directly related to Manuel's platoon. The time to end it is NOW and let the guys who have been churning out runs at 6.4/game play every day. Of course, that is JMHO.

The point about the 70 AB's was that people are saying that based on this sample (what 2.5 weeks of a full-time starters season) Rowand CLEARLY should be starting over Everett against LHP. I disagree, but my reasons aren't strictly based on stats. I think a team leader like Everett should be playing all the time except for a few days off every year.

he doesn't mean whether its significant whether we win or lose three games he means whether or not a three game sample size is significant data, if you can detect a trend from three games. personally i don't think anyone would tell you that it is. if three games is significant that would mean if a player doesn't have a hit in three games, he is more or less a .000 hitter which is obviously completely absurd. the point is that you can't detect any meaningful trends from only three games.

as far as waiting to see if graff and rowand in the lineup against lefties somehow helps us win games, why would the benefit of the doubt go towards not putting them in the lineup. again unless you're 100% rejecting the use of any and all statistics, its completely clear that graffanino destroys left handed pitchers and valentin doesn't hit them at all. would you refuse to wait to see that replacing a .180 hitter on the team with a .330 hitter helps the team win games?

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I think you misunderstood what VC was saying. Voodoo's point is that when someone is swinging the bat well, his statistics no longer matter, because he is playing above and beyond his normal level of play.

Case and point: Carl Everett. Everett has been swinging a hot bat lately. Therefore, even though he may not hit for as high an average against a particular team or pitcher, it is still a good idea to have him in the lineup, in spite of what his numbers might say. That's the point that voodoo was trying to make.

Statistics tell only part of the story. Sometimes you have to watch players as they go about the business of playing the game in order to know who to put in the lineup on a daily basis.

i discussed this in another post in this thread. i agree that you play the hot hand if a guy is hitting well assuming he's hitting in a similar circumstance under which he has hit the ball well. however, everett is a switch hitter who traditionally does not hit so well from the right side. no one has presented any argument whatsoever as to why his hot hitting from the left side against righties would carry over batting from the right side against lefties. it hasn't elsewhere in his career or he'd hit equally from both sides so there isn't a reason to expect it would now.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
VASTLY BETTER? VASTLY? So they should just be killing the ball and winning all these games. It shouldn't even be close. They would be averaging MORE than 6.4 runs/game. MUCH MORE!

*****! The hyperbole is getting WAY out of hand around here...

not vastly better with graff and rowand in the lineup vs. lefties than with everett and valentin in the lineup vs. righties. i'm arguing that the lineup is vastly better against with rowand and graffanino facing lefties than it would be with everett and valentin in the lineup against lefties. so, theoretically if we score 6 runs a game with our normal lineup against righties, 4 runs a game with everett and valentin against lefties and five runs a game with rowand and graff against lefties i'd be absolutely correct.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 06:07 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i discussed this in another post in this thread. i agree that you play the hot hand if a guy is hitting well assuming he's hitting in a similar circumstance under which he has hit the ball well. however, everett is a switch hitter who traditionally does not hit so well from the right side. no one has presented any argument whatsoever as to why his hot hitting from the left side against righties would carry over batting from the right side against lefties. it hasn't elsewhere in his career or he'd hit equally from both sides so there isn't a reason to expect it would now.

Yes, but "traditionally" Rowand has been a crappy hitter all the way around, so by that logic he shouldn't be playing on the basis of one 70 AB hot streak scattered over 3 months...

I don't think Everett is a Great RH bat, but Rowand isn't either and Everett brings other things to the table (leadership, hustle, do whatever it takes attitude, etc.)

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yeah, that W-L record argument makes NO sense at all to me either.

way to prove my argument wrong piece by piece.

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
not vastly better with graff and rowand in the lineup vs. lefties than with everett and valentin in the lineup vs. righties. i'm arguing that the lineup is vastly better against with rowand and graffanino facing lefties than it would be with everett and valentin in the lineup against lefties. so, theoretically if we score 6 runs a game with our normal lineup against righties, 4 runs a game with everett and valentin against lefties and five runs a game with rowand and graff against lefties i'd be absolutely correct.

That's a BIG "IF" and it hasn't worked out that way recently has it?

voodoochile
08-14-2003, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
way to prove my argument wrong piece by piece.

What argument? Near as I can tell you keep rehashing the same points and none of them make sense to me...

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You keep bringing up causation arguments and then coming up with really wierd meaningless examples of how causation and effect are mis-used.

The lefty-platoon lineup has scored 5 runs in it's last 3 games. How can that NOT be an effect of the lineup changes when the regular lineup is smacking the ball around all over the place. Do the Sox as a team have time to figure this out right now? Maybe give the regular lineup a couple of starts agaisnt LHP and see how they do. Then figure it out. Right now, the regular lineup isn't broken. You can keep throwing out your stats and ignore the human element of the game if you want to, but it doesn't make you right.

You are right, annecdotal eveidence is always open to interpretation. You can keep blaming it on Hawks hat or the color of the sky or the phase of the moon, but at least mine has a chance of being right. Do you have a genuine reason for why the lefty half of the platton is failing big time to score runs when called on? Just a fluke? Okay, do you feel they Sox can afford to take that chance? I don't...

haha. its obvious from this post that you're completely failing to understand my arguments. no biggie i'll try to explain them to you just don't put it on my by saying my analogies don't make sense, they relate perfectly to what you're saying.

as i said before scoring 5 runs in three games is not significant data meaning there is not enough evidence to show a trend. that was the bank example i used. if i walk to the bank two days in a row and it rains that does not mean it rained because i walked to the bank. just because we didn't score well three times this lineup was used it does not mean that the fact that rowand and graff played, it could be for a million different reasons. it could be because we happened to face three really good pitchers on those days, because a few guys were out too late partying the night before and didn't hit well, because magglio hurt his hand in batting practice and didn't hit well for two games, because players that are in the lineup haven't hit lefties well this season, and most of all like me walking to the bank when it rains it could be complete and utter coincidence!!! there are a million different reasons why a team could score poorly in three games.

as far as giving the regular lineup a shot against lefties players like jose and everett have been given starts against lefties their entire careers and haven't had them. also simply giving the regular lineup a shot for a few games would pose the exact same problems as juding the effectiveness on the platoon lineup in three games, its not significant data!! frank could start swinging a really hot bat hit several home runs and we'd score a bunch of runs and then you'd be screaming from the rooftop about how the regular lineup is much better when in reality valentin and everett could've contributed absolutely nothing and we still would've scored more runs!!!

wait, here's the part where you accuse me of ignoring the human element of the game. i'm not arguing against your human element argument because how can i? what evidence can either of us use here? all i know is that as two rational people we should be able to agree that a team that averages 6 runs per game couldn't average less than two runs per game simply because a guy like thomas has a different hitter hitting in front of him. if putting better hitters in the lineup results in a team scoring 70% fewer runs per game i'm going to have to shoot myself in the face because the world just doesn't make enough sense for me. aruge the human element all you want but to take it to the extent that you are is utterly absurd.

here we are again with the sox taking the chance. how is it taking a chance when all reasonable objective evidence points to the platoon as the best way to score runs. can you take the chance not to play the lottery today? you could have the winning ticket. personally when everything tells me that i have a better chance being struck by lightening than winning i would say i was taking a chance playing - the chance that i'll waste my money - not that i'm taking a chance by not playing.

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Yes, but "traditionally" Rowand has been a crappy hitter all the way around, so by that logic he shouldn't be playing on the basis of one 70 AB hot streak scattered over 3 months...

I don't think Everett is a Great RH bat, but Rowand isn't either and Everett brings other things to the table (leadership, hustle, do whatever it takes attitude, etc.)

in 153 career at bats against lefties rowand is hitting .281 with an .816 ops. over the past three seasons (i don't have his career splits) everett is hitting .259 with a .720 ops against lefties. also, the argument a lot of people are making is that everett should've played last night because he's swinging a hot bad (against righties). well rowand is swinging a hot bat against everyone, especially lefties so why should he be in the lineup?

spanishwhite
08-14-2003, 06:25 PM
Originally posted by maurice
J, you do one heck of a good Lisa Simpson impersonation.

Lisa: "That's specious reasoning, dad. That's like saying that this rock repels tigers."

Homer: "What do you mean, Lisa?"

Lisa: "Well, you don't see any tigers around, do you?"

Homer: "Lisa, I want to buy your rock."

Lisa was pretty frustrated too, but at least she made some cash off of the rock. I'm sure there's a lesson in there for you, but unfortunately I have no idea what it is. I'd really appreciate it if you'd start using initial caps once in awhile, though. Your posts make my eyes hurt.

Gotta love that Simpsons reference.

There was an episode where Burns fielded a softball team vs. Shelbyville. In the bottom of the ninth the bases were loaded with two outs and Darryl Strawberry was up. Darryl had about 10 hrs in the game. Burns comes in and takes out Darryl because he was a lefty. Darryl had a confused look and said Ive hit 10 homers. Burns said he was going to play the numbers and he brought in Homer S. He gave Homer a million signs on what to do, and when Homer was up to bat he looked like he had a brain seizure when he was trying to give the sign. Homer got confused and got hit with the ball. Game winning run came in.

That is what Manuel reminds me of. The game where he pulled Garland early really reminded me of Burns. Garland had the same look that Strawberry had.

He makes moves against the grain and if it works, its usually because something else happens.

maurice
08-14-2003, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The lefty-platoon lineup has scored 5 runs in it's last 3 games. How can that NOT be an effect of the lineup changes when the regular lineup is smacking the ball around all over the place.

Very easily. In light of the extremely small sample size, the possibilities are virtually limitless. For example, the lefthanded pitchers we faced (e.g., Washburn) may be significantly better than the righthanded pitchers we smacked around (e.g., Ortiz). An even more likely possibility is pure chance, as in the Jamie Burke example from my earlier post. There are literally hundreds of other possibilities, and it's impossible to rule all of them out. That doesn't mean you're necessarily wrong, but you do have a pretty big causation problem.

J, you're killing me with the no-caps, bro. Can ya help a fella out?

maurice
08-14-2003, 06:46 PM
:tomatoaward

RKMeibalane
08-14-2003, 06:46 PM
Maurice beat me to it. :D:

PaleHoseGeorge
08-14-2003, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
VASTLY BETTER? VASTLY? So they should just be killing the ball and winning all these games. It shouldn't even be close. They would be averaging MORE than 6.4 runs/game. MUCH MORE!

*****! The hyperbole is getting WAY out of hand around here...

I'm speechless over this last bit from jeremy. I'm suppose to answer for something I never said? And then the righteous indignation... oh, brother...

jeremyb1
08-14-2003, 09:50 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I'm speechless over this last bit from jeremy. I'm suppose to answer for something I never said? And then the righteous indignation... oh, brother...

i have no clue what you're talking about.

RKMeibalane
08-14-2003, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i have no clue what you're talking about.

I'm sure there are more than a few people who could say the same about you. And by the way, please use capital letters. It is extremely difficult to read your posts sometimes.

PaleHoseGeorge
08-14-2003, 09:58 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
i have no clue what you're talking about.

That's your problem, jeremy. I'm not drawing you a picture.

TornLabrum
08-15-2003, 12:18 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I'm sure there are more than a few people who could say the same about you. And by the way, please use capital letters. It is extremely difficult to read your posts sometimes.

Maybe his shift key is broken. Or maybe he just wants to look like an illiterate.

jeremyb1
08-15-2003, 03:21 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I'm sure there are more than a few people who could say the same about you. And by the way, please use capital letters. It is extremely difficult to read your posts sometimes.

well then please explain to me where i was unclear and i will write with greater detail to attempt to explain it to you instead of insulting you instead. if i don't make any sense, how don't i make sense? what part of my argument wasn't logical? where does point a not necessarily lead to point b? explain to me how i'm wrong and what doesn't make sense, don't just tell me i'm an idiot over and over again, that's not good debate nor is it constructive.

jeremyb1
08-15-2003, 03:25 AM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
That's your problem, jeremy. I'm not drawing you a picture.

well, if i'm going to type paragraph after paragraph sincerely doing my best to explain my argument to you and why i feel that you're mistaken by referring to each specific argument you put forth in your posts, i would appretiate it if you would share the same courtesy with me. its frustrating to argue all your points in great detail and then have someone tell you "you're wrong, but i'm not going to tell you why or how, if you don't get it now you never will." that sort of "your clueless and everyone knows it, i'm right because i've told you so" argumentation is a complete waste of everyone's time. so, in the future if you want to argue points with me, that's great i'd just appretiate it if you'd have the courtesy to put forth a legitimate effort and at least try to explain to me what you feel is incorrect about my arguements. if i misunderstood your point, then i apoligize, please explain to me how i misinterpreted your arguments.