Perhaps this is a tread that has been hashed to death, I hope not. Has there ever been any statisical analysis to support why the ever changing line-up is a good/bad idea? Does trying to play every last possible match-up really pay off? Or is it an example of being too clever for ones own good?
My perception of history is that teams of old had a set line up that rolled out day after day barring injury, trade or the odd day of rest. Is this accurate? If so, has the game changed in some fashion to demand changing line ups?
My opinion is that we've been through enough of the season to get a feal for our mix of vets and youngsters and their capabilities (slumps asside). I'd like to see a realtivley set line up, maybe with some variation for righty/lefty matchups or to give enough playing time to keep the utility guys fresh.
Based on the comments of various players over the years, my impression is that they too would rather have a set line up, know where they are playing on a given day and generally be given a role to play.
So my questions are:
1) Is there statistical analysis to support/dissprove the ever changing line up (assuming it's even possible)?
2) Historicially have teams really had "cast in stone" line ups?
3) Has something about the game changed to force the fluid line up, or is it the flavor of the month?
4) What is your opinion of using them?