Such as leaving in Latos in Game 5 until he gives up six runsQuote:
Originally Posted by M2
Pulling Chapman in Game 3
Certainly gave the Giants a competitive advantage ;)
Printable View
Such as leaving in Latos in Game 5 until he gives up six runsQuote:
Originally Posted by M2
Pulling Chapman in Game 3
Certainly gave the Giants a competitive advantage ;)
No, it's mixing actual RC/27 (the theoretical run value of the Reds offense accrued during the season) with the actual team rpg. There's no projection involved. The Reds had an RC/27 of 4.5 and rpg of 4.31.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEye
You can spend a lot of time optimizing your lineup and not get it more optimal than that.
FWIW, it is intuitive that giving more PAs to your better hitters will help and perhaps that would have lifted the RC/27 and rpg evenly. Yet lineups tend to be stubborn, counterintuitive things. Lineup optimization is a bit of cryptid.
Fair enough. But that's precisely the point, isn't it? We actually don't know what would have happened in that case, because the Reds lineup was so obviously not optimal for such a large chunk of the 2013 season. Yes, there is a lot of noise in all of this. But it stands to reason that, all else being equal, the team is better served by putting its best hitters in position to get more AB's.Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
I mean, sure, we could just throw up our hands and say "It's all a crapshoot with this lineup thing, let's just bat Cozart leadoff and be done with it." Except that we do have data that suggests rather strongly that we'd better off at least trying to perfect the order as best we can. You know, control what you can control and then let the chips fall where they may. No?
This differs from other "what if?" hypotheticals. For instance, if you were to replace a Darwin Barney type of hitter with someone who's functional at the plate, then your team will score more runs.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEye
However, lineup optimization clearly isn't quite so linear. For instance, the Reds may have optimized their lineup as much as anybody really can by hitting Choo leadoff, Votto 3rd and Bruce either 5th or 4th. Beyond that, it might just be a navel gazing exercise.
If you wanted more runs from this team, the answer more likely involves different bodies rather than tweaking which lesser hitter bats up top with Choo/Votto/Bruce.
4.50 minus 4.31 = 0.19 RC/27Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
0.19 RC/27 *162 = 30.78 Runs
That's the "non-optimal lineup" shortfall. With an optimal lineup, we could assume additional PA that represent additional RC/27 value.
If we boost the variance by just 0.08 to 0.25 RC/27 via lineup optimization, we're looking at a ballpark of 40 Runs per season offensively. That's a bunch.
First, the difference between RC/27 and the actual runs a team creates can be explained by numerous other factors, most importantly, the margin of error of RC/27, which actually could explain all of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelSD
Second, the point is that the difference between the Reds RC/27 and their actual runs scored is right in line with the rest of the league. Which means that the author is incorrect in accusing Baker of making out lineups that are drastically more stupid than the average managers. He's just as stupid as the average manager.
And the average MLB team was 0.23 rpg behind its RC/27. Most teams did worse than the Reds.Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelSD
In theory you're right. The problem is year after year teams apply that theory and they get no discernible efficiency from their supposed optimization.
You touched on the real potential gain, kicking up the RC/27 and dragging the rpg with it. Yet swapping out some Zack Cozart PAs for Xavier Paul isn't going to goose those numbers in any significant way (and I say that as someone who thinks Cozart has no business near the top off a lineup).
Once you get the big pieces in the right places - or at least in good places - you're about as optimized as you're going to get. After that, more runs really requires upgrading your personnel.
Steel post! :beerme:Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelSD
LTNS, buddy.
I'd like to see a smart manager for once. This argument that Dusty is "just as stupid" as other managers doesn't have legs. We should expect more.Quote:
Originally Posted by 757690
Xavier Paul has no business at the top of a lineup either, really. Look, I agree that the Reds have a crappy bunch of secondary hitters to choose from. But you've got to use what you have to the best advantage. Having either Cozart or Paul bat second is not ideal. Putting Votto or Bruce there would make more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
Dusty Baker only sac bunted 27 times in his career
Must have had smart managers.Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
Go on..Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEye
Code:NATIONAL LEAGUE
CAREER
1976-1980
SACRIFICES SAC
1 Padres 534
2 Giants 474
3 Dodgers 464
4 Astros 407
5 Braves 382
6 Cubs 374
7 Mets 365
8 Reds 353
9 Nationals 349
10 Pirates 347
Though that's just pushing on the balloon. When you've only got three bats you really like then you've got to make a few sub-optimal choices. And going L-L-L-R-R-R-R-R is a recipe for getting a steady diet of specialist relievers, which is going to reduce that team RC/27.Quote:
Originally Posted by RedEye
Joey Votto is a great answer for "Who would you bat in the X slot?", but as soon as you slot him there, then he's not available for any other slot.
The fear of the almighty LOOGY!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by M2