sfgdood
Long time member 
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 3, 2019 21:34:24 GMT -5
Well done, Fargeek
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 4, 2019 9:20:49 GMT -5
According to Flan and Estes and Kelly on the Giant Pregame show, GM's have been influencing lineups more and more over these last few years.
Flan said that Bochy sees the writing on the wall and wants no part of it.
GM's influencing lineups is so ridiculous that I'm floored than any baseball man would listen.
They know numbers, not the game, because they've never played.
Which brings us back to your comments about stats-geeks, Randy.
They don't get it, and never will.
Makes me think of the Viet Nam war. The more the front off (politicians) dictated policy, the more Americans died.
That's one reason I never, EVER want to see the Viet Nam wall.
I know too many people on it.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3 
|
Post by rog on Apr 4, 2019 10:54:09 GMT -5
Well done, Fargeek
Rog -- Another knee jerk! Derek Holland recovered from the lead off home run that precipitated this no-brainer comment to limit the Dodgers to one tainted run the rest of the way. The only added run the Dodgers scored could easily have been prevented by Joe Panik with an on-target throw. Teams send runners much more aggressively with two outs, since the odds of the runner's scoring from third with two outs are maybe one in three. With one out, sending the runner probably would have been a bad move, even though it would have worked out.
Brandon Crawford would likely have thrown the runner out by 15 feet, and to be honest, even with two outs it would have been folly to challenge him.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 4, 2019 11:11:19 GMT -5
According to Flan and Estes and Kelly on the Giant Pregame show, GM's have been influencing lineups more and more over these last few years. Rog -- But you already knew that, since you read this board, right? And it's for much the better, despite your reaction. As long as the manager has the final say -- and I've heard of no case in which he didn't, although it's possible there have been instances -- why do you care? Well, you SHOULD care, since one would assume that you believe that the more facts the manager has at his discretion, the better his lineup will be. Here is the thing: Managers have their own prejudices; facts do not. The more facts the manager has at his disposal, the better choices he can make. What you see as intererence, I see as cooperation. I have an idea. Why doesn't everyone here make out his own lineup for tomorrow night's game? Then let's post our lineups with our reasons for the lineup. You know, the variances we considered and why we chose the direction we went? Chances are we'll each come up with a slightly different lineup, and Bruce himself will likely play a lineup that is slightly different than the ones we come up with. But to me the important thing will be the rationale we have for our lineups. Bruce will be in better position to make out the lineup than we are, since he has both inside information, direct contact with the players, scouting reports and analytics. But that doesn't mean we can't each come up with a lineup that is logical based on the knowledge we have access to. The Giants will be facing 6-foot-8 right-hander Tyler Glasnow. Glasnow is a former top prospect who hasn't quite found himself but still has a ton of potential. One thing I would like to mention is that Mark and I enjoy the advantage of practice. We don't make out batting orders per se, but each day we choose lineups for our fantasy teams based on factors such as pitchers, park factors, weather and who is hot and cold. Not the same as making out a batting order, but there are similarities. So have at it. I doubt that any of us will post the same batting orders, and it's quite possible none of us will agree completely with Bruce's lineup. But what should be intriguing and educational is the reasoning behind our decisions. This should be a lot of fun! Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5214/excellent-choice-2-starting-pitcher?page=1#ixzz5k8uCV8YoRead more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5214/excellent-choice-2-starting-pitcher?page=1#ixzz5k8u54Swq |
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 4, 2019 11:18:39 GMT -5
By the way, I'm fortunate enough in that as far as I am aware, only two people I know are on the Wall. One of the two I knew closely from our church youth group; the other was a classmate whom I knew a little but not closly. Most of my friends had college deferments, and most ultimately got high draft lottery numbers.
My son visited the wall over a decade ago and called me when he saw the name of one of the two and wondered if I had known him.
A very close friend of mine lost his only son in Afghanistan about a decade ago. He told me how proud his son was to be a Ranger and that he was also able to have fine discussions with one of my friend's pacificist friends. Sounds like quite a fine young man. If he took after his dad or mom, he truly was.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 4, 2019 12:14:14 GMT -5
I will give credit where it's due...Holland looked razor sharp after the first inning. I thought there was no way he'd survive 3 last night...he was just all over the place. Missing outside the zone and inside. He was lucky to get out of the first down just 2-0. He was fantastic after that.
That said...he's not a #2. He's got just 9IP in two starts with a 5.0 ERA.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 4, 2019 12:53:39 GMT -5
One really can't properly judge a pitcher after just two starts. I don't normally think of Holland as a #2 starter either, but in 2018 he pitched like one.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 4, 2019 13:21:59 GMT -5
According to Flan and Estes and Kelly on the Giant Pregame show, GM's have been influencing lineups more and more over these last few years.
Rog -- But you already knew that, since you read this board, right?
***boly says**
Rog, please go back and re read what I said: more and more "over these last few years."
These last few years means that it has increased exponentially.
Unacceptable if I'm the manager, and I'm guessing, based upon Flan's comments, unacceptable for Bochy, too.
Non-baseball people influencing lineups is beyond ridiculous.
Beyond stupid.
Beyond dumb!
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 4, 2019 16:17:21 GMT -5
I'm eager to see how our batting orders compare.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 6, 2019 9:31:42 GMT -5
I agree with you for the most part, Boly. But does it really matter who puts the Giants lineup together, they seem not able to hit regardless of who's hitting where. Also, I love Bochy, but in my opinion his lineups are his weakness. For instance, we all have presented lineups that I would have probably preferred over the lineups Bochy rolls out there on a daily basis.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 6, 2019 9:53:28 GMT -5
Your point is a valid one, boagie.
And as to Bochy's lineups...haven't I been complaining about them going back to 2010?
I believe the word I used on many, many occasions was "confounded."
As in, "His line up confounds me!"
As I posted in another thread, when your lineup features Solarte in the 3 hole, you're in trouble.
His recent lineups, IMHO, are just as ridiculous.
Panik in the 8 hole?
Belt, 2 hole?
To ME, that's nuts.
I know what he's trying to do, but I disagree with it.
My line up?
Duggar
Panik
Belt/Longoria
Posey
Longoria/Belt
Crawford
Parra
Pillar
Speed at the bottom, speed (well, what for us passes as speed), at the top.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 6, 2019 10:37:13 GMT -5
we can disagree with Bochy's lineups all we want and I have done my share of headscratching also...but Boch has gotten results! I trust him more than a stats dork who never played the game
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 6, 2019 10:50:47 GMT -5
See, I'd take that lineup over most of what I've seen thus far, and you're not as qualified to set a lineup as Bochy is, neither is any of us, but I like our lineups better. In Bochy's defense, he hasn't had much to work with. It's hard to set a lineup when most of your lineup is struggling.
On the other hand, I think it's important to be consistent. Players need to know their role. You approach at bats much differently if you're leading off compared to batting 5th or 6th. When that player is in the batting cage he needs to know what to work on. The lead off hitter would work on bunting for hits, not hitting the ball in the air as much, and fine tuning his ability to just reach base. A leadoff hitter would probably like to develop a swing that allows him to leave the box earlier.
2nd place hitter would work on making contact and situational hitting. Hit and runs and bunting.
3rd would work on being patient and waiting on a pitch to drive.
4th-7th work on many of the same things as the 3rd hitter, with slightly more urgency.
The 8th hitter would work on expanding the zone and defensive swings.
Moving your lineup around daily is like asking a player who's been shagging balls in the outfield all day to play second base, or vice versa.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 13:22:34 GMT -5
On the other hand, I think it's important to be consistent. Players need to know their role. You approach at bats much differently if you're leading off compared to batting 5th or 6th. When that player is in the batting cage he needs to know what to work on. The lead off hitter would work on bunting for hits, not hitting the ball in the air as much, and fine tuning his ability to just reach base. A leadoff hitter would probably like to develop a swing that allows him to leave the box earlier. 2nd place hitter would work on making contact and situational hitting. Hit and runs and bunting. 3rd would work on being patient and waiting on a pitch to drive. 4th-7th work on many of the same things as the 3rd hitter, with slightly more urgency. The 8th hitter would work on expanding the zone and defensive swings. Rog -- I understand what you're saying here, Boagie, but regardless of where a hitter is hitting, he simply needs to accumulate bases and avoid making outs. I like the idea of a leadoff hitter bunting -- if there are no outs, and he's good at it. I also like that idea for the other batters in the lineup. But the primary focus should be on ... accumulating bases and avoiding making outs. It's nice if the #2 hitter moves up runners, and he certainly hurts when he hits into double plays, but mostly he needs to ... accumulate bases and avoid making outs. Once in a while the 8th-place hitter might expand the zone, but for the most part, if he takes a walk instead of taking his chances with hitting outside the zone, the team will wind up scoring as many runs or more. His primary job is to ... accumulate bases and avoid making outs. Teams rarely get rich by manufacturing outs. In 2017 the Giants led the majors in manufactured runs -- but they were either 29th or 30th in runs scored. They were GREAT at manufacturing runs, but were we happy with their offense? Quite the contrary. We think of Brandon Crawford as a pretty good #8 hitter. I think he's decent there, but his slugging percentage is 34 points higher when he bats elsewhere in the order. If he's going outside the zone in order to avoid having the pitcher hit, he's not getting very good results in doing so. And he has still walked more batting 8th (once every 10.0 plate appearaces) than when he hits elsewhere in the order (once every 12.5 plate appearances). I'm not sure it's helped him with driving in runs, either. Batting eighth, he's driven in only a run every 10.7 plate appearances compared to an RBI every 8.3 plate appearances batting elsewhere in the order. With most hitters, going outside the zone doesn't help the team -- even with a runner on second and two outs and the pitcher coming up next. Maybe you can come up with something that says otherwise, Boagie. But the facts don't seem to point in your direction on this one. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5214/excellent-choice-2-starting-pitcher#ixzz5kL44xige |
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 6, 2019 14:17:21 GMT -5
On the other hand, I think it's important to be consistent. Players need to know their role.
Dood - sounds like a good argument against an opener
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 15:19:39 GMT -5
The Giants will be facing an Opener today. I'm not sure they've faced on before.
As far as your argument that knowing one's role is an argument against the Opener, Randy, you realize the fallacy, right? If pitcher is an Opener, he has a consistent role. If he's a normal starter who now follows an Opener, he has a consistent role.
Clearly the Opener isn't a popular concept here, but no one has really posited a solid argument against it. The intitial argument was that teams would have to go with 15 pitchers in order to facilitate the Opener, but in reality, we found that the Rays didn't keep more pitchers on their roster last season than did the Giants.
Now this consistency thing, which is an inconsistent argument.
We know the Rays went to the Opener concept because they didn't have very good starting pitching. And we know that once they went to the Opener, they went from having virtually the same record as the Giants to winning about as many games as the Giants lost the rest of the season.
In other words, while the sample has been small, it's worked. Last September the Rays used Stanek (who is Opening today) and Castillo as Openers in 15 games. The Rays went 12-3 in those games.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 6, 2019 15:24:42 GMT -5
As far as your argument that knowing one's role is an argument against the Opener, Randy, you realize the fallacy, right? If pitcher is an Opener, he has a consistent role. If he's a normal starter who now follows an Opener, he has a consistent role.
my understanding is, the way Tampa Bay employs the opener, nobody knows who will replace the opener or when. I see that as abusing the rules and should be changed.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 15:37:46 GMT -5
I believe you might feel somewhat differently if you knew the facts, Randy.
As far as the rules go, in 2020 a rule will be changing in that if a reliever comes in in the middle of an inning, he will be forced to face three hitters or complete the inning, whichever comes sooner. That though is directed as LOOGY's and ROOGY's, not Openers. And I think the purpose of the rule is to speed up the game, not to take advantage of perceived rules abuse.
By the way, Randy, unless I've got you pegged wrong, you're one of those who believes that if you don't get caught, it ain't cheatin'. Pretty inconsistent to take that position and then disparage someone for being creative while staying WITHIN the rules.
Personally, I believe it's cheating whether you're caught or not, and that it makes great sense to take full advantage of the rules as long as one stays within them.
But then, you and I disagree on most things.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 6, 2019 18:01:02 GMT -5
I did know those facts, and it doesn't change how I feel. In fact the more I think of it, I think an opener should be forced to stay in until he pitches 5 innings or gives up 5 runs, whichever comes first.
By the way, if someone doesn't get caught cheating with 4 blind mice on the field, he earned it. But if a rule allows a loophole for managers to cheat the spirit of the game, then it needs to be immediately changed.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 18:34:18 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 18:35:17 GMT -5
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 18:39:50 GMT -5
The Giants beat the Opener today.
I would be intrigued to know why the Rays used two relievers for two innings each before bringing in Ryan Yarbrough. I'm sure they had a reason, but I don't know what it was.
Yarbrough hasn't lost many games as what I'm going to call the Extender following the Opener, but he certainly wasn't ready today.
|
|
sfgdood
Long time member
stats geeks never played the game...that's why they don't get it and never will
Posts: 90
|
Post by sfgdood on Apr 6, 2019 20:34:15 GMT -5
once again...bad for the game
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 6, 2019 20:47:28 GMT -5
That's your opinion, Randy, but you haven't give us valid reasons why it's bad for the game.
I'm thinking football should probably go back to having players play both ways too. This specializing in offense or defense isn't the way the game was designed. The old timers must be rolling over in their graves knowing these guys can't play full time. Heck, some of the defensive linemen even have to be rotated in and out.
What a bunch of pansies.
And why do basketball players have to be rested? Why can't they average more than 48 minutes per games like Wilt Chamberlain did in 1960-61? Buncha wimps if you ask me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Islandboagie on Apr 6, 2019 22:51:13 GMT -5
Some people like tradition, why is that so goddamn hard to understand, Rog?
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 7, 2019 9:28:40 GMT -5
I like tradition, too, Roger.
But that's only one reason why I don't like the opener.
Flan mentioned a couple more on the pregame show.
Today cost the Rays 4 pitchers that WON'T be available for today's game.
That's another reason.
|
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 7, 2019 10:50:47 GMT -5
Some people like tradition, why is that so goddamn hard to understand, Rog? Rog -- It's not hard to understand at all, Boagie. And baseball probably has more tradition than any of the other major sports. But just for a few of the changes baseball has made: . Starting pitchers once completed almost every game they started. Now the most effective pitching is done in one-inning stints. . One league now has a designated hitter. (Oh, and players no longer leave their gloves on the field while their team is at bat.) . The ball is no longer dead, but instead extremely live. . Batters no longer bring oak trees to the plate, having replaced them with twigs. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5214/excellent-choice-2-starting-pitcher#ixzz5kQPpPV6m |
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 7, 2019 10:57:25 GMT -5
Today cost the Rays 4 pitchers that WON'T be available for today's game. Rog -- Yet somehow the Rays will get by with the other eight pitchers on their roster. The Giants used six pitchers, but because they're carrying an extra pitcher, they have seven who remain unused from yesterday. Here is what I believe we may be missing here, Boly. The Rays aren't using the Opener because they have a great rotation. They didn't use it, for instance, with their one outstanding pitcher Blake Snell, and he won the AL Cy Young Award. They're using it because they have a weak rotation. And it's NOT causing them to need to keep more pitchers. The Giants have three starters who have thrown 213 or more innings in a season, while the Rays have only a couple who have thrown more than 150. Yet the Rays are getting by with a dozen pitcher, while the Giants are carrying 13. It's true that the Rays may be without four pitchers today, but they still have plenty left -- even with one fewer pitcher on the roster than the Giants. The Opener is a strategy used to help make up for not having a good rotation. It isn't being used to replace the good starters a team has. I think we may be misunderstanding the strategy's design, purpose and expectations. Read more: sfgiantsmessageboard.proboards.com/thread/5214/excellent-choice-2-starting-pitcher?page=1#ixzz5kQQuwHHn |
|
rog
New Member
Posts: 3
|
Post by rog on Apr 7, 2019 11:00:34 GMT -5
I found it intriguing that your batting order and mine were closer together than the Giants' actual lineup, Boly. We approach batting order design differently, yet we came up with very similar results.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaiggeb on Apr 7, 2019 12:26:36 GMT -5
No, you can't say they have 8 other pitchers to get them by because at least 3 or 4 of them are starters, and Glasnow already pitched.
|
|
