How did Walt do?

[M2]

That's an artificial construct.

No, it's the way game works. The team plays 162 games a season. That's 162 games that need a starting lineup and 162 games that need a starting pitching.

Really valuable 2/3 of the time leaves a gaping hole.

WAR is an artificial construct.

[jojo]

No, it's the way game works. The team plays 162 games a season. That's 162 games that need a starting lineup and 162 games that need a starting pitching.

Really valuable 2/3 of the time leaving a gaping hole.

WAR is an artificial construct.

Dominating 150 innings is valuable no matter how it's sliced.

Being significantly above average is a plus for your team even if it's for "only" 450-500 PA's and 900-1000 defensive innings.

Showing up is only part of baseball.

[M2]

Dominating 150 innings is valuable no matter how it's sliced.

Being significantly above average is a plus for your team even if it's for "only" 450-500 PA's and 900-1000 defensive innings.

Showing up is only part of baseball.

It's valuable, but the missed time is also injurious to the team, sometimes severely so.

[TheNext44]

I think that's absurd.

if the Reds plan on replacing the injured Rolen with, oh I don't know-- Javy Pornstache comes to mind -- then that's on Rolen, just as it was on Larkin when he missed many games and his replacement was Juan the Magnificent. Juan's "production" may have been gravy on toast to you, but to me he was s+@# on a shingle.

a hole in the lineup is disastrous, especially in the NL where there's already a pitcher in the lineup.

That the fault in your logic. A hole in your lineup only has a small effect on your ability to win games.

One batter represents 11% of the offense, say 12% if you don't count the pitcher. Let's give a worst case scenario, and have Rolen's replacement be half as productive as he would be. That's basically having a guy worse than Taveras's bat replace him.

Rolen, at best, would be productive around 40% of the time he bats. So he would be responsible for around 5% of the teams offense in each game. A player half as good, would be productive 20% of the time he bats, or be responsible for around 2.5% of the team's offense in each game.

So putting in a bat that is worse than Taveras' in to replace Rolen would result in around a 2.5% decrease in offense per game.

Not something that you want, but not devastating either.

[princeton]

That the fault in your logic.

I think that it's the part that you least understand. you only get 27 outs to score, and if you just give enough of those away, then your scoring drops precipitously. similarly, if you consistently give the opposition 28 or 29 outs, they blast you. Reds give so many lineup spots away these days, and look at them. they can't score even while playing in a bandbox.

three outs per inning. somebody designed this game perfectly.

[M2]

That the fault in your logic. A hole in your lineup only has a small effect on your ability to win games.

One batter represents 11% of the offense, say 12% if you don't count the pitcher. Let's give a worst case scenario, and have Rolen's replacement be half as productive as he would be. That's basically having a guy worse than Taveras's bat replace him.

Rolen, at best, would be productive around 40% of the time he bats. So he would be responsible for around 5% of the teams offense in each game. A player half as good, would be productive 20% of the time he bats, or be responsible for around 2.5% of the team's offense in each game.

So putting in a bat that is worse than Taveras' in to replace Rolen would result in around a 2.5% decrease in offense per game.

Not something that you want, but not devastating either.

And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

[Cyclone792]

And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Yep, and typically the guiding principles behind good and better teams is that black holes anywhere are to be abhorred and eliminated. Star players are nice, but the teams that really excel are the teams that just don't have any weaknesses to speak of.

And yet, the guiding principle of the Cincinnati Reds these last few seasons is to give as much playing time as possible to players who represent black holes.

[Stormy]

And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Dusty and Walt must have read that principle to state "adored and elevated."

[TheNext44]

And yet the guiding principle behind the Boston Red Sox's offense is that black holes in the lineup are to be abhorred and eliminated.

Yep, and typically the guiding principles behind good and better teams is that black holes anywhere are to be abhorred and eliminated. Star players are nice, but the teams that really excel are the teams that just don't have any weaknesses to speak of.

And yet, the guiding principle of the Cincinnati Reds these last few seasons is to give as much playing time as possible to players who represent black holes.

First, that problem is solved in this case with a decent back up at 3B, which should cost the league minimum. If you really think that a back up 3B for Rolen is that important, then go and get one. Not hard to find a league average backup 3B at or near league minimum.

Second, the Red Sox have had plenty of black holes lately and have done quite well. Julio Lugo, Nick Green, Jason Varitek, CoCo Crisp, Julian Taveras, Alex Gonzalez, Mark Loretta, Pokey Reece. They are able to overcome them because they do have the big stars that every team needs.

This is true of every winning organization. They might have a few black holes, but they also have the stars.

Look at the winning organizations, teams that always seem to be in contention. The Yankees, Red Sox, Phillies, Mets, Cardinals, Dodgers, White Sox, Angels, Cubs, Brewers, even the Twins have their stars to overcome their black holes. Heck, the A's, which really started this theory, were at their best when they had Giambi, Tejada, Mulder, Zito, Hudson and Harden. Since they lost their stars, it's been near the basement for them.

I agree with that theory, but in reality, teams that win consistently, do so as much because they have the stars, then because they don't have the suck.

[TheNext44]

I think that it's the part that you least understand. you only get 27 outs to score, and if you just give enough of those away, then your scoring drops precipitously. similarly, if you consistently give the opposition 28 or 29 outs, they blast you. Reds give so many lineup spots away these days, and look at them. they can't score even while playing in a bandbox.

three outs per inning. somebody designed this game perfectly.

I agree that the game is designed brilliantly, one of the reason why I love it.

But lets do the math using this concept of 27 outs.

Again, using the worst case scenario, where Rolen's replacement is half as good as he is offensively. And Rolen is productive in a whopping 40% of his PA's, and his replacement, 20%.

A player averages around 4.2 PA's per game played. That means that Rolen does something productive in 1.6 of his PA's per game, and his replacement in .8 of his PA's per game.

So with a player playing worse than Taveras in place of Rolen, he makes an out, or doesn't do something productive, .8 times more times per game than Rolen would. I just don't see how .8 of an out a game is so destructive.

And in reality, the difference between Rolen and his replacement would be something like 35% to 30%, which is .21 outs or non productive PA's a game. That leads to around 3-4 runs a season, less than half a win's worth.

Again, it's not something good, but something that a team can easily overcome, and definitely, not something to worry to much about.

[Ltlabner]

Again, it's not something good, but something that a team can easily overcome, and definitely, not something to worry to much about.

So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

[jojo]

So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

I think the argument is that focusing upon the 30% of patchwork production can lead to undervaluing the 70% of superior production.

Obviously the 30% is a problem if it's logged by a guy who can't hit or field and thus completely drags the position down but a talented FO shouldn't have a hard time finding a player that may not be average but certainly is better than replacement.

In 450 PAs worth of playing time, Rolen is projected to be a win better than EE's production over 600 PAs worth of playing time. A replacement level player would have 0 value (ie. neither add nor subtract a marginal win). Thus Rolen + replacement level player is still a win better than EE.

The Ms picked up Jack Hannahan for nothing and he gave them positive production over 65 PAs at third while Beltre was out. He's not a good hitter but his elite defense allowed him to make an impact and allowed the Ms to keep their head above water while waiting for Beltre. The Ms found a way to get better than replacement level out of their compromise and all it took was a quick phone call.

[TheNext44]

So you're arguing that giving away outs is not something to worry about?

First, it's early and I don't have tons of time but I really need to wrap my head around your numbers. Mathematically they may be true, but I'm not sure the numbers you've show us relate to...well...anything. You are talking percentages of total PA's when percentages of total outs is far more important.

If you avoid the outs, the number of PA's a player gets per game increases (theoretically to infinity). So worry about the outs. Number of PA/game is flexible, number of outs is not.

Focusing on the outs, if you give up one you've just trashed 33% of the outs you have that inning. Also, avoiding outs has a cascading effect not unlike compound interest (which increases the statistical relevance of the individual at bat).

Ultimately, if you are arguing that giving away outs is no big deal, I don't think you're going to get very far.

First... what Jojo said.

Second, giving up outs it always worrisome. My point is about how worrisome.

If you replace Rolen with a true replacement level player, say Jerry Hairston, then you are giving up .2 outs a game. A league average player even less.

So in those 50 games you are giving up an out once every 5 games on average. That's 10 games where you are giving up on extra out. That's worth about 4 runs over those 50 games.

Again, not something you want, but not something that destroys the offense. That's my main point with these numbers.

And has Jojo pointed out, Rolen more than makes up for that during the other 110 games. In fact, on offense alone, Rolen should be worth around 20 more runs than a replacement player just during those 150 games. Throw in his defense, and it's closer to 30 runs.

[princeton]

So in those 50 games you are giving up an out once every 5 games on average. That's 10 games where you are giving up on extra out. That's worth about 4 runs over those 50 games.

I think that it's a lot worse. I think that you're making things a lot easier on a particular pitcher; he basically gets to go easy for three more atbats, which is huge. pitching to an easy lineup makes an easy day for a pitcher.

I also suspect that scoring becomes much more variable from game to game when a lineup has a lot of easy outs. to win games at a reasonable rate, I think that you want dependable scoring, not variable scoring.