A Few Shots At Baseball Conventional Wisdom From The Wall Street Journal

Not sure I agree with any or all of this, but the ideas are worth discussing.

7 months ago Al 5 comments 0 recs |

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

I don't see anything particularly earth shattering about this

For all its traditions, baseball has always had teams/managers who fiddle with the usual rules….

Because when it comes to sports, we die harder than Bruce Willis.

by halfblindcubbiegirl on Apr 16, 2009 6:07 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

And the Cubs...

… with power at the leadoff spot, are exactly the kind of team that would benefit from batting their pitcher 8th. In fact… this site says based on last year’s numbers the Cubs should have their pitchers bat 6th. I don’t think their methodology is sound, but it’s food for thought.

As far as the article goes… it’s not a very good article. It jumps around from old trends to new trends to things a team tried once that didn’t work out. Just anything the author felt like criticizing. It doesn’t bring the stats, or even bring a coherent argument most of the time. Typical “oh shit there’s a deadline coming up” material.

by aldimond on Apr 16, 2009 8:56 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

(to clarify)

For that link I entered the Cubs’ lineup based on Lou’s “OMG R-L ALTERNATION OF DOOM” lineup and last year’s stats. And I will say again, I think the methodology of that particular site is completely bogus because it assumes that the reason each lineup slot historically contributes differently to a team’s total run production is inherent to the number of the slot, and not the way that lineups have historically been structured. It also ignores situational hitting… cue the argument about whether it exists or not. Something based on Markov chains would have a chance of working. I do think, however, that the methodology is sufficient to point out inefficiencies in traditional lineup construction.

by aldimond on Apr 16, 2009 9:03 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wow! Is this a lame read, or what?

The WSJ should just stick to what it does best. When it ventures into sports, it usually….flops…but what happened to the Mr. Ortiz and the Mr. Gardenhire?

Do athletes not deserve the formal “titles” the WSJ usually uses in their articles?

by San Diego Smooth Jazz Man on Apr 16, 2009 11:19 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs

I read this on the train last night.

I thought John Dewan’s comment was particularly cogent to a recently (sorta) hotly debated Cubs topic:

By probability, the most crucial moment in a game — the one where an out is the most valuable — often comes earlier, sometimes closer to the seventh inning.

So, again, let’s leave Marmol right where he is.

I've committed to tweeting about the Cubs for the rest of the season. (Does that sound as ridiculous as I think it does?) Anyway, if you're on Twitter, you can follow me here.

by dat cubfan daver on Apr 17, 2009 10:16 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs