Originally Posted by RFS62
No offense, but that blackjack analogy is simply terrible.
The Reds moved Alex up when they saw that he was locked in.
Look at his splits since St. Louis. He's been tearing the cover off the ball.
And stats aren't the only factor used to make these decisions. Very often a player can be raking but be BABIP unlucky. You're rarely playing exactly the way your numbers reflect. A .300 hitter doesn't always hit .300. He has hot and cold streaks. That's why advance scouting is so important. You want to know who's hot and who's not at the CURRENT TIME.
It's the difference between macro and micro evaluation. Both have their place. You have to take full advantage of the times when a player is hot to get the full effect of his abilities. That's one reason changing lineups around doesn't bother me much.
I didn't think the blackjack theory was all that bad. I think looking at splits and all are good. I have no problem with moving a guy up in the line up if he has a history of hitting a team or a particular pitcher well. I think it's good to adapt your lineup taking into consideration of whether you're facing a righty or a lefty.
However, I'm not a fan of moving a guy up just because he's got a "hot bat," especially if he's not normally a good hitter. I feel that when you do that, you are essentially reacting to short term results without considering likely future performance. If you move a guy up because he appears "locked in," how long do you keep him up there while he reverts back to his norm? Assuming guys hit in hot and cold cycles, by the time you realize someone has a "hot bat," he's already getting close to the high point in the cycle or else he has already started his decline back towards the mean.