this lineup's been workin lately.. eventho mezzy sucks horribly against lefties..

That's what I am saying.

 

Time to stop bitching about the lineups since things SEEM to be working.

That's what I was trying to say when people wanted Olivo to start more

 

I'm not a fan of the logic that if it works keep it. Did you ever stop to think that it might be working despite a player being completey unproductive (which Amezaga, who I like, has been against lefties)?

 

Perhaps it is working because that sturrling player adds something to the lineup dynamic. Something that causes pitchers to change their game plans to suit other batters (it ain't just about protection, if a pitcher spots a free-swinger struggling, he'll throw more sliders off the plate and will be less likely to throw sliders for the rest of the inning less give the opposing team a really good look at one of his key pitches, or if the pitcher has day to day injuries because it hurts to throw too many breaking balls). Something that causes felders to shift in such a position to help baserunners. Something that causes batters try to direct balls to a certain direction or arc. Or opposing managers to call on certain strategies. Granted NOT game changing events, but neither is an extra single or walk most times.

 

Do you honestly think Amezaga has this intangible effect against lefties that makes him considerably more valuable than his sub .100 BA and .313 OPS would lead you to believe?

Like I said it's likely not to ahve a game changing impact. However, consider what his replacement would do. Perhaps he'll change the dynamic for the worse. If he gets an empty hit and maybe a walk, we'll claim he had a good game, but did he really help the team? It's an interesting thought to consider. Anyone who watchs baseball closely knows that player performances don't operate in a vacuum, they affect other players.

 

If a player has an OPS of .313, like Amezaga does against lefties, it seems impossible to think that his intangibles make up for that.

I'm talking about at the micro level. In the context of a game. Players don't hit their seasonal average every game. They don't hit their seasonal average in every situation. If say Eric Reed comes in, provides good defense, grabs an extra out and gets a hit but he disrupts the dynamic that has helped other players perform in the way they have, did he really help the team more than Amezaga? The variables need to be filled in, but it is certainly possible that he doesn't help the team.

 

Besides it's not like any of the alternatives offer considerably better on base ability vs. lefties than that .313. Atleast not without accounting for who is filling in for Hermida.

looks good. Olivo's avg. has reaaally slipped, he's down to .268.

this lineup's been workin lately.. eventho mezzy sucks horribly against lefties..

That's what I am saying.

 

Time to stop bitching about the lineups since things SEEM to be working.

 

Madman you might as well admit defeat. You aren't getting your CF this season so might as well deal with Mezzy. Like SkyJuice said, it's working, and no sense screwing with that. :thumbup

Amezega has had absolutely ZERO to do with any of this lineups success the past week and it's not as if his defense is any better than having Borchard, Ross, or Aguila in CF.

I want to see Aguila get a chance. He's gonna suck with the bat, that's a given, but he can at least play solid defense. remember the defense game he had in chitown last year? I think he snagged the #1 and #2 webgems.

even though he's hit righties decently in the majors in his short stint this year he's crushed lefties in AAA, so I'd like to see him tried in CF/RF against them along with Ross.

this lineup's been workin lately.. eventho mezzy sucks horribly against lefties..

That's what I am saying.

 

Time to stop bitching about the lineups since things SEEM to be working.

That's what I was trying to say when people wanted Olivo to start more

 

I'm not a fan of the logic that if it works keep it. Did you ever stop to think that it might be working despite a player being completey unproductive (which Amezaga, who I like, has been against lefties)?

 

Perhaps it is working because that sturrling player adds something to the lineup dynamic. Something that causes pitchers to change their game plans to suit other batters (it ain't just about protection, if a pitcher spots a free-swinger struggling, he'll throw more sliders off the plate and will be less likely to throw sliders for the rest of the inning less give the opposing team a really good look at one of his key pitches, or if the pitcher has day to day injuries because it hurts to throw too many breaking balls). Something that causes felders to shift in such a position to help baserunners. Something that causes batters try to direct balls to a certain direction or arc. Or opposing managers to call on certain strategies. Granted NOT game changing events, but neither is an extra single or walk most times.

 

Do you honestly think Amezaga has this intangible effect against lefties that makes him considerably more valuable than his sub .100 BA and .313 OPS would lead you to believe?

Like I said it's likely not to ahve a game changing impact. However, consider what his replacement would do. Perhaps he'll change the dynamic for the worse. If he gets an empty hit and maybe a walk, we'll claim he had a good game, but did he really help the team? It's an interesting thought to consider. Anyone who watchs baseball closely knows that player performances don't operate in a vacuum, they affect other players.

 

If a player has an OPS of .313, like Amezaga does against lefties, it seems impossible to think that his intangibles make up for that.

I'm talking about at the micro level. In the context of a game. Players don't hit their seasonal average every game. They don't hit their seasonal average in every situation. If say Eric Reed comes in, provides good defense, grabs an extra out and gets a hit but he disrupts the dynamic that has helped other players perform in the way they have, did he really help the team more than Amezaga? The variables need to be filled in, but it is certainly possible that he doesn't help the team.

 

Besides it's not like any of the alternatives offer considerably better on base ability vs. lefties than that .313. Atleast not without accounting for who is filling in for Hermida.

 

What otherwordly dynamic are you talking about? Is it like the butterfly effect? Perhaps not seeing Amezaga in the lineup causes Josh Willingham to have a brain cramp and not be able to see breaking balls. Maybe when the pitcher sees Amezaga flailing as he's on deck it makes him think that he can't hit any worse than this guy so he's more confident when it's his turn to bat?

I'm talking about something you obviously have no clue of. It's when what one player does that effects another player directly or indirectly through the opposing team's reaction to that player and the overall team. Next time you're at the ballpark, put down the beer or cotton candy, tell your friends to shut up and watch as the sequence of events that take place on the field begin to blur.

I'm talking about something you obviously have no clue of. It's when what one player does that effects another player directly or indirectly through the opposing team's reaction to that player and the overall team. Next time you're at the ballpark, put down the beer or cotton candy, tell your friends to shut up and watch as the sequence of events that take place on the field begin to blur.

 

 

Well you haven't given one actual example of what intangible a player could bring that affects his teammates. If a player is a good hitter then the person in front of him might get better pitches, of course. Amezaga is terrible against lefties. Working the count?

Actually I listed quite a couple: http://www.marlinbaseball.com/forums/index...amp;pid=1286105

Your examples with a player affecting what a pitcher throws makes it sound as if you think it would benefit the team having a struggling free swinger lead off an inning because of the pitches the hitters who follow him will see, rather than actually having a superior hitter lead off. Although I'm sure that's not what you meant, I still don't see how that whole argument holds water. Day to day injury? Come on.

 

What significant shifts would the fielders make because of Amezaga? The outfielders come in because he doesn't have much power?

 

I just don't see how any of those things you mentioned outweighs him having an OPS of .313 against lefties.

How does not a future batter benefit if they've had advance viewing of a pitch? Is it possible that batter may be a particularly good fastball or offspeed hitter and benefit from rarely being thrown a breaking ball that was shown too often to a preceding batter and/or used too often by a pitching with an ailing arm? Or if the following batter has a good batting eye and the pitchers struggles to find the strike zone after throwing 4-5 sliders in the dirt to tempt the preceding struggling batter?

 

There's a number of defensive shifts that teams perform for Amezaga, the outfield moves in casuing them to be in poor position to throw out runners on fly balls. As does the infield for their throws to beat him to first, lessening the chance that not only of a groundout being reached by the infielder but also that any groundout can be turned into a doubleplay. Batting righthanded, the shortstop no longer covers secondbase allowing the baserunner to take a greater lead off the base (especially if there's also a runner on firstbase as the 2Bman will have to cover more of the right side).

Or when that struggling player is in the field. He's been having problems so players are less willing to trust his ability. They may shift themselves into a position that increases their ability to reach balls that neither they, the struggling fielder or the best alternative may have gotten to.

 

Now who helped cause such possible circumstances? Was it not the struggling player who we all view as having a bad game because he went hitless and is mired in a terrible slump?

 

My point was not that it is the case in this, that or any other specific game or that's it's likely, only that's possible. It's possible that despite putting up zeros and misplaying balls, a player can be an asset to a club. You have to remember players are simple a combination of skills which they train and utilize to their best abilities for the situation at hand with teammates who are utilizing their trained set of skills against opponents who are utilizomg their trained set of skills. Change one variable in the equation and you can change the whole result!!!

 

Like I said none of these are likely game changing plays. And over an entire season, it can't possibly be measured but any benefit a player adds probably balances out and worth a fraction of a run. However in the context of an individual game, it can be meaningful. It can mean the difference between that runner being stranded at second or scoring on a sacrifice fly. Or a batter striking out versus hitting a home run. A player has value outside of the box score. Even outside of a 0/5 4K 1 E night in the midst of a slump. We just don't see it. And we certainly don't give him credit for any result (not that I'm arguing we should, only that we should explore how he may be helping OTHERS perform in ways to help the team).

How does not a future batter benefit if they've had advance viewing of a pitch? Is it possible that batter may be a particularly good fastball or offspeed hitter and benefit from rarely being thrown a breaking ball that was shown too often to a preceding batter and/or used too often by a pitching with an ailing arm? Or if the following batter has a good batting eye and the pitchers struggles to find the strike zone after throwing 4-5 sliders in the dirt to tempt the preceding struggling batter?

 

But you're saying that it's worth the advantage to the following hitters, if the previous struggling hitter sees a lot of one pitch off the plate (in this case sliders). Because Amezaga is struggling so much against LHP's, he's in all likelihood going to produce an out. So you're saying that the benefit of giving the proceeding batters a better look at one particular pitch is worth an out. I don't agree with that if that's the case.

 

There's a number of defensive shifts that teams perform for Amezaga, the outfield moves in casuing them to be in poor position to throw out runners on fly balls. As does the infield for their throws to beat him to first, lessening the chance that not only of a groundout being reached by the infielder but also that any groundout can be turned into a doubleplay. Batting righthanded, the shortstop no longer covers secondbase allowing the baserunner to take a greater lead off the base (especially if there's also a runner on firstbase as the 2Bman will have to cover more of the right side).

 

By moving in against Amezaga, why would that put the outfielders in poor position to throw out runners? On the rare occasion that AA hits it deep over their heads, I could see the case. But as evidenced by his tremendous struggles against lefties, that's not likely.

 

Now who helped cause such possible circumstances? Was it not the struggling player who we all view as having a bad game because he went hitless and is mired in a terrible slump?

 

Yeah, maybe in these very specific circumstances he might be helpful, I still fail to see how this is enough to overcome the fact that he's a .313 OPS guy against LHP's.

 

My point was not that it is the case in this, that or any other specific game or that's it's likely, only that's possible. It's possible that despite putting up zeros and misplaying balls, a player can be an asset to a club. You have to remember players are simple a combination of skills which they train and utilize to their best abilities for the situation at hand with teammates who are utilizing their trained set of skills against opponents who are utilizomg their trained set of skills. Change one variable in the equation and you can change the whole result!!!

 

Oh, so your argument is that anything is possible. Ok, why am I even discussing this with you?

 

Like I said none of these are likely game changing plays. And over an entire season, it can't possibly be measured but any benefit a player adds probably balances out and worth a fraction of a run. However in the context of an individual game, it can be meaningful. It can mean the difference between that runner being stranded at second or scoring on a sacrifice fly. Or a batter striking out versus hitting a home run. A player has value outside of the box score. Even outside of a 0/5 4K 1 E night in the midst of a slump. We just don't see it. And we certainly don't give him credit for any result (not that I'm arguing we should, only that we should explore how he may be helping OTHERS perform in ways to help the team).

 

It makes sense that maybe some of these little things might help, but I still don't see how it is enough to overcome how mightily he has struggled against lefties.