The latest oxymoron!

[BC867]

Move over, Jumbo Shrimp! The latest oxymoron is "Matt Williams, cleanup".

As our bats came to life to avoid a sweep by the Brewers, Williams stunk up the cleanup spot by getting no RBI's, hitting into our only double play, and leaving a team-high 4 runners on base.

He didn't 'clean up' any runners. As desperately as we need a solid cleanup hitter, so Gonzo can return to 3rd in the order as he did tonight, it looks like Matty's surprisingly good start is coming to an end.

Even our third-string Catcher showed him how to do it!

I'll say again . . . I hope that Joe Garagiola, Jr., has been working behind the scenes to obtain a solid middle-of-the-lineup hitter, as he had before Williams quashed the Larry Walker deal!

Do I not like Matt Williams tying up our cleanup spot -- in more ways than one? Damn right!

 

[Smolder]

yeah, get matty out of there. even his fielding stinks. (note: im biased coz i want cc to start)

 

[Ryanwb]

Watch out! My 89 year old grandmother is a huge Matt Williams fan and will kill anyone with in the radius of her walker who bashes Matty

 

[DWKB]

Wow BC.... Your bias against Matty is overwhelming and incredibly skewed IMO.


Lets look at the game log and see what happened durring each of Matty's PAs.

ARIZONA 2ND
-Bottom of the 2nd inning
-M Williams singled to left.
-M Grace grounded out to pitcher, M Williams to second.
-D Bautista grounded out to second, M Williams to third.
-S Finley singled to left, M Williams scored.
-R Hammock grounded into fielder's choice to second, S Finley out at second.

1 run, 2 hits, 0 errors
Milwaukee 0, Arizona 1

Look at Gracie and Danny using those productive outs to score Matty. Well maybe both of them weren't needed as a Finley single most likely would have scored Matt from 2B.

ARIZONA 4TH
-Bottom of the 4th inning
-L Gonzalez doubled to right.
-M Williams lined out to third.
-M Grace flied out to shallow left.
-D Bautista singled to right, L Gonzalez scored.
-S Finley doubled to right center, D Bautista to third.
-R Hammock homered to left, D Bautista and S Finley scored.
-E Dessens singled to right.
-C Counsell flied out to center.

4 runs, 5 hits, 0 errors
Milwaukee 2, Arizona 5

Matty Lined out to 3B, but if you saw the play it was a hard shot just withen the reach of Wes Helms. 6 inches higher and he knocks in Gonzo with that drive. Grace, following him is alos unable to drive in or even advance Gonzo.

ARIZONA 5TH
-Bottom of the 5th inning
-J Spivey hit a ground rule double to right center.
-L Gonzalez singled to center, J Spivey scored.
-M Williams grounded into double play, third to second to first, L Gonzalez out at second.
-M Grace singled to right.
-D Bautista doubled to left center, M Grace scored.
-S Finley fouled out to third.

2 runs, 4 hits, 0 errors
Milwaukee 2, Arizona 7

Well this is the "killer" PA that BC867 is refering to. Definately a PA I can't defend.

ARIZONA 6TH
-Bottom of the 6th inning
-S Nance relieved * Rusch.
-K Ginter at third base.
-R Hammock singled to center.
-R Hammock to second on wild pitch by S Nance.
-E Dessens struck out looking.
-C Counsell singled to right center, R Hammock to third.
-C Counsell stole second.
-J Spivey struck out swinging.
-L Gonzalez reached on infield single to shortstop, R Hammock scored, C Counsell to third.
-L Gonzalez stole second.
-M Williams struck out swinging.

1 run, 3 hits, 0 errors
Milwaukee 2, Arizona 8

Matty struck out swinging to end the inning. Of course, the game was basically decided.

ARIZONA 8TH
-M Ford relieved L Vizcaino.
-Bottom of the 8th inning
-J Spivey flied out to center.
-L Gonzalez flied out to deep center.
-M Williams fouled out to first.

0 runs, 0 hits, 0 errors
Milwaukee 2, Arizona 9

Matty was the 3rd out in a 1-2-3 inning against a RHP. I don't see this as a big deal.

I, honestly, don't see why you'd choose to point out the "failure" of one of our players in a blowout win. You kept quiet about Grace's 0/5 with 4 LOB in a 6-4 extra inning win against LAD, or the Spivey 0/6 with 5 LOB in the same game (Matty went 1/3 with 1 R), you kept quiet about Finley's 0/4 with 4 LOB in a 3-4 loss to COL (Matty went 2/3 with 1 R and 1 RBI). Seems these are the performances you'd be up in arms about.

 

[BC867]

Originally posted by DWKB
Wow BC.... Your bias against Matty is overwhelming and incredibly skewed IMO.

I, honestly, don't see why you'd choose to point out the "failure" of one of our players in a blowout win. You kept quiet about Grace's 0/5 with 4 LOB in a 6-4 extra inning win against LAD, or the Spivey 0/6 with 5 LOB in the same game (Matty went 1/3 with 1 R), you kept quiet about Finley's 0/4 with 4 LOB in a 3-4 loss to COL (Matty went 2/3 with 1 R and 1 RBI). Seems these are the performances you'd be up in arms about.

Bob Brenly did not bat them cleanup. And that was the subject of this thread!

No RBI's, a double play, and a team high 4 LOB from our cleanup hitter!

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by BC867
Bob Brenly did not bat them cleanup. And that was the subject of this thread!

No RBI's, a double play, and a team high 4 LOB from our cleanup hitter!

Lets see, the cleanup hitter...

led off an inning
hit 2nd in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning
hit 6th in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning again

Lineups don't matter!!!

To reitterate:

the leadoff hitter....

led off an inning (surprise)
hit 2nd in an inning
hit 8th in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning
hit 6th in an inning

 

[Ryanwb]

Originally posted by DWKB
Lets see, the cleanup hitter...

led off an inning
hit 2nd in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning
hit 6th in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning again

Lineups don't matter!!!

To reitterate:

the leadoff hitter....

led off an inning (surprise)
hit 2nd in an inning
hit 8th in an inning
hit 3rd in an inning
hit 6th in an inning

Sorry dude, you are wrong, lineups to matter. Why don't you ask the Giants how important a hitter to protect Bonds in the lineup is. Barry Bonds owes a lot of his success to Jeff Kent.........not that you would admitt to ever being wrong, but I gave it a shot

 

[Forrestham]

Once again you are making excuses for MAtt Wiliams. Thought CC was going to be the 3rd baseman. Gonzo will consantly get walked if Williams keeps hitting after him. Since we could not unload him we are weaker in both RF and 3b. With the problems scoring runs. Walker would look good hitting before or after Gonzo. This was a typical Matt Williams game. He gets hits when nobody is on base and failiing miserably when there are base runners. Didn't he leave 4-5 runners on base in Saturdays game.
MAybe our 3rd string catcher needs to give him tips on how it is done.

 

[moviegeekjn]

Originally posted by Forrestham
MAybe our 3rd string catcher needs to give him tips on how it is done.

Using a one game example (or even a 2-3 game illustration) is not statistically accurate, causing your arguments to lose credibility.

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by Smolder
yeah, get matty out of there. even his fielding stinks. (note: im biased coz i want cc to start)

Since this thread was just using Sunday as our one-game example...

Two "facts"/strong opinions.

1. On Sunday both Craig Counsell and Matt Williams started.

2. Matt Williams' fielding doesn't stink.

But neither does Craig Counsell's. Sunday lineup probably had our strongest infield defense--a good thing behind Elmer Dessens*

3B--Matty
SS--CC
2B--Junior
1B--Gracie

arguably CC would be the best defender at 3 or 4 of those positions. It wouldn't be a wise alignment however.

*Credit DWKB for raising the idea that it makes sense to use your best infielders behind your groundball pitcher (Elmer Dessens)--especially Mark Grace to field grounders & scoop throws

Credit Bob Brenly for being able to fold together a "Sunday" lineup after a Saturday night game that for Elmer's 2nd start that has Mark Grace in the lineup, as well as one that rested Tony Womack vs. a LHP (Glendon Rusch) considering Tony & Matty's platoon splits.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
Sorry dude, you are wrong, lineups to matter. Why don't you ask the Giants how important a hitter to protect Bonds in the lineup is. Barry Bonds owes a lot of his success to Jeff Kent.........not that you would admitt to ever being wrong, but I gave it a shot

Protection:

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

http://www.thediamondangle.com/marasco/opan/protect.html

Batting Order:

http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~raj/writing/BattingOrder.html

....and from Bill James Managers Book (borrowed from unc84Steve):

...given a set of twenty-five players, there are 741,354,768,000 (741 billion, 354 million, 768 thousand) different ways to choose nine players from those 25...On the one hand, you have the barroom experts, the traditional sportswriters, the couch potatoes, and the call-in show regulars, all of whom believe that batting orders are important. And then, on the other hand, you have a few of us who have actually studied the issue, and have been forced to draw the conclusion that it doesn't make much difference what order you put the hitters in, they're going to score just as many runs one way as another.

These, of course, aren't my studies so it isn't really a matter of me being "right" or "wrong" (nice try at a goad anyways). Take em or leave em. I don't care, but at least they have something behind them besides obtuse conjecture.

 

[schillingfan]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
not that you would admitt to ever being wrong, but I gave it a shot

It's not that DWKB wouldn't ever admit he was wrong. He would if Bill James & Co. told him he was wrong. What he won't admit is wrong is any disciple of Bill James and the Baseball Prospectus crew.

DWKB you would also have a better shot of convincing someone you were right if you didn't argue by linkage to articles that very few people can understand. Myself included.

That was what was great about the link you provided to the article on the Yes Network website. I posted it on my Phillies Board and labeled it "Bill James for Dummies" because it was written in a common sense, simple way that people could understand.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
It's not that DWKB wouldn't ever admit he was wrong. He would if Bill James & Co. told him he was wrong. What he won't admit is wrong is any disciple of Bill James and the Baseball Prospectus crew.

I would very much admit I'm a Bill James "disciple" (since that's the nomenclature you want to use).

This is just one reason why I'm a Bill James "disciple":

Baseball men have not yet reached the revelation of Sir Francis Bacon, which was in essence that since all men live in darkness, who believes something is not a test of whether it is true or false. I have spent years trying to get people to ask simple questions: What is the evidence, and what does it mean?

James makes me think, he makes me question. Bill James taught me that an outsider can be knowledgable about this game. That I don't have to just take the word of these baseball men who tell me things are the way they are. A Bill James disciple is an oxymoron (since that was the topic of the thread.)

Originally posted by schillingfan

DWKB you would also have a better shot of convincing someone you were right if you didn't argue by linkage to articles that very few people can understand. Myself included.

Well my intention wasn't to "convert". That never has been my intention. I don't understand the religious context in your response, are you hinting at something? Ryan's never gonna change his view, he has no interest in it. On the baseball board he's basically a hit and run kinda poster, so why would I waste my time trying to convert him to anything. I posted it for anyone who was curious and wanted to look through the links. Hell that's how I discovered them, somebody showed me a link, I went to it and read it.

Originally posted by schillingfan

That was what was great about the link you provided to the article on the Yes Network website. I posted it on my Phillies Board and labeled it "Bill James for Dummies" because it was written in a common sense, simple way that people could understand.

Glad you enjoyed it. Of course, those were simple ideas with simple explinations. They didn't offer any proof and if you really, really, don't want to believe them, you can easily dismiss them (not that you can't and probably will dismiss these too). The fact is that if you want to believe in the power of "protection" without even looking at the other side or at the objective analysis then I've gotta ask, who is the real "disciple"?

 

[Ryanwb]

Sorry about the cheap shot, I was in a bad mood at that second.

 

[Ryanwb]

Ryan's never gonna change his view, he has no interest in it. On the baseball board he's basically a hit and run kinda poster, so why would I waste my time trying to convert him to anything.

To be honest, some of the topics and retorts in some of these threads are nothing I would want to touch. I don't understand why people throw out the opinions of other people like Bill James and others when debating baseball? I am not looking for their opinions, I am looking for the average fans point of view....because that is what I am. Why even watch the games if you are using the opinions of others to express your thoughts. That is just the way I look at it.

Sure baseball is a cooky game. You could have one base hit in 162 straight games and still be only a .250 hitter....that is just crazy! Don't regurgitate someone elses thoughts, give me your own, it goes off much better than sending me to a link. I have been a hardcore baseball fan for 15 years and have found that baseball is almost philisophical as it is statistical.

 

[unc84steve]

On any discussion board we have a choice what to do. We can argue points; we can bash players or posters; we can try to learn things; we can other things; we can do multiple things.

I bet the "Bill James for Dummies" is a good thread and I hope you'd post a link to it if that were possible

In the meantime, to advance the discussion about batting orders, Bill James often mentioned that one of the most important spots wasn't the cleanup spot, but the #5 spot. His reasoning after doing lots of simulations was that the most common inning led off was the #1 spot because every game starts with the leadoff man, but so many innings end with the pitcher, right?

Managers & fans think about the perfect innings where Speedy Joe gets on and steals 2nd, then Punch Pete drives the ball to advance him Angels style over to 3rd. Then Teddy Studgame gets a double or walk while Clint Cleanup clears the bases with a clout. The 5 hole usually is a former Clint Cleanup, now a "Sluggardly" Sam Slugger who will pick up the pieces if Clint can't.

Now, if lots of innings start with the #1 spot, what's the 2nd most common batting order spot to start innings? It turns out in most years it's the #5 spot because it's common for one hitter to reach base. Thus Sam Slugger with his .275 AVE (.315 on-base & .490 slugging pct.) is a good guy when there's 2 on & 2 out. But Consistent Carl with his .300 AVE (.380 OBP and .440 SLG) is also good with 2 on & 2 outs, but Consisten Carl's .380 OBP is so much better to lead off those innings from the #5 hole.

"Sam Slugger" is Matt Williams & "Carl Consistent" is Mark Grace.

SUMMARY: to the extent batting order matters, and of course it does, Matty probably does more "damage" in the #5 hole than he does in the #4 spot.

(for goodness sakes, at least Matty is right at his lifetime BA & OBP levels. Check some other D'backs)

Link to Sortable D'back Batting stats on ESPN.com

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
To be honest, some of the topics and retorts in some of these threads are nothing I would want to touch. I don't understand why people throw out the opinions of other people like Bill James and others when debating baseball? I am not looking for their opinions, I am looking for the average fans point of view....because that is what I am. Why even watch the games if you are using the opinions of others to express your thoughts. That is just the way I look at it.

Sure baseball is a cooky game. You could have one base hit in 162 straight games and still be only a .250 hitter....that is just crazy! Don't regurgitate someone elses thoughts, give me your own, it goes off much better than sending me to a link. I have been a hardcore baseball fan for 15 years and have found that baseball is almost philisophical as it is statistical.

I gave you my own take on the subject. You told me I was wrong, what do you want me to do? Say "nu-uh"?

 

[Brian in Mesa]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
Watch out! My 89 year old grandmother is a huge Matt Williams fan and will kill anyone with in the radius of her walker who bashes Matty

Of course your Grandma likes Matty...he's nearly her age.

 

[Ryanwb]

Originally posted by DWKB
I gave you my own take on the subject. You told me I was wrong, what do you want me to do? Say "nu-uh"?

No, you gave me links to another site with someone elses opinions. If you want everytime I want to debate something with you I will e-mail him because I would be receiving the same opinions either way.

 

[Smolder]

how come some people here are so antagonistic? i mean, we're all diamondbacks fans, so why aren't we on the same side? come on, guys, lighten up. we're here to cheer the dbacks, not to prove my Bill James method is better than yours, or even to change other people's minds. so what if people have their own beliefs, let em enjoy life that way. let's keep it friendly, ok?

 

[unc84steve]

Originally posted by Ryanwb
No, you gave me links to another site with someone elses opinions. If you want everytime I want to debate something with you I will e-mail him because I would be receiving the same opinions either way.

Well that's one way to look at it--seriously you have a point. Just getting a link or three might seem cold and the equivalent of a tape recording when you wanted a "real conversation"

On the other hand, DWKB, might think he's presenting "evidence". You know like in court, but think about where the word comes from: something that is "evident"--something that speaks for itself.

In fact, to some, it's a compliment to let someone read and decide what such data means instead of being told.

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by unc84steve
Well that's one way to look at it--seriously you have a point. Just getting a link or three might seem cold and the equivalent of a tape recording when you wanted a "real conversation"

On the other hand, DWKB, might think he's presenting "evidence". You know like in court, but think about where the word comes from: something that is "evident"--something that speaks for itself.

In fact, to some, it's a compliment to let someone read and decide what such data means instead of being told.

Exactly, I formed my opinion based on the information out there, some of it being the links I've provided. I considered it a courtesy to make those studies and that evidence available for you or anyone else to evaluate and make of it what you will.

Really, all I'm doing is what James did to me. Ask "What is the evidence and what does it mean"?

So if you want to get back on the subject of protection. Then I'll ask youthe first question: What is the evidence?

 

[schillingfan]

A good trial lawyer does not let the evidence "speak for itself" He explains the evidence to the jury. He emphasizes the critical evidence. Facts are overrated anyway. It's all about interpretation.

 

[Cheesebeef]

Originally posted by Smolder
how come some people here are so antagonistic? i mean, we're all diamondbacks fans, so why aren't we on the same side? come on, guys, lighten up. we're here to cheer the dbacks, not to prove my Bill James method is better than yours, or even to change other people's minds. so what if people have their own beliefs, let em enjoy life that way. let's keep it friendly, ok?

Smolder - a word of advice - don't ever go to Cardinal board . . .

 

[DWKB]

Originally posted by schillingfan
A good trial lawyer does not let the evidence "speak for itself" He explains the evidence to the jury. He emphasizes the critical evidence. Facts are overrated anyway. It's all about interpretation.

Well then it's a good thing I'm not a trial lawyer trying to "win a case" on a message board. If I were doing that I would be pretty silly.

Look this has been made into way too big a deal. The links are there, consider me a road sign. You can take the detour or not, it's really your choice.

I find it odd that someone as smart as yourself claims not to be able to understand a couple of studies where the most complicated stat is SLG% and that are less than 10 pages each. If I didn't know better (well I really don't), I would interpret a plea of ignorance as really just an attempt to get by with laziness.