221 replies to this topic

[scotian1]

Much ado about nothing, courtesy of Nick Cafardo. The Sox handled it well. Aviles got some competitive juices flowing instead of being told at the very beginning that the job was his and he responded with a very alert and steady ST effort. He's ready to go. Iglesias was shown that Sox management thinks a lot of him, is watching his development carefully, sees him as part of their future, and needs him to REALLY work hard on his hitting. And hardly anyone outside of this board was talking about Nick Punto all ST. Win-Win-Win.

Right on Pumpsie. It sounds like Jose while disappointed about the demotion seems to understand what he needs to work on and the desire is there to do it.

[24JoshuaPoint]

Woo hoo; maybe it won't be the worst off-season after all!

Seriously though; this seems to be the best outcome for everyone. Flashy glove and all it's just not the right time. There is enough pressure on the team.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

Starting at SS..... Mike Aviles

So what are reasonable expectations for Aviles? I'd think .290/.330/.450 would be close and would make Aviles very hard to shake from the job when and if Iglesias is ready.... I guess a lot depends more on defense than his slash line anyway.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Starting at SS..... Mike Aviles

So what are reasonable expectations for Aviles? I'd think .290/.330/.450 would be close and would make Aviles very hard to shake from the job when and if Iglesias is ready.... I guess a lot depends more on defense than his slash line anyway.

Somewhere between .700-.725 OPS seems to be the standard for projections on Aviles. Obviously these are all based primarily on his overall spotty career line rather than only on those seasons where he received regular at bats (and performed better).

• .264/.303/.391 (Marcel)
• .273/.301/.417 (ZIPS)
• .283/.311/.424 (Fangraphs Fans)
• .276/.311/.415 (RotoChamp)

[rembrat]

Starting at SS..... Mike Aviles

So what are reasonable expectations for Aviles? I'd think .290/.330/.450 would be close and would make Aviles very hard to shake from the job when and if Iglesias is ready.... I guess a lot depends more on defense than his slash line anyway.

That would put him Top 5 of all SS and I don't think that is likely. A .780 OPS would be his second best season. Bill James, who is always bullish, is calling for a .736OPS.

I think Nick Punto is our starting shortstop before the Summer gets here.

[Savin Hillbilly]

He hit .325/.354/.480 in that incredible rookie year, but that was goosed by a .357 BABIP that he hasn't come close to since--except in his time with the Sox last year, when he was at .361. Fenway likes him, but it's hard to say how much it will like him over a whole season. His career BABIP is .316, so let's use that.

Looking at the other component pieces, looks like we can count on him for about a 14% K rate and (gulp) 4% walk rate. He had an 8% HR/FB during his time with the Sox, which seems plausible given that he was at 8.3% in his rookie year. If he hits 150 FB, he'll have about 12 HR. Say 20 doubles and 4 triples to go along with that, in 500 PA.

Put all that together and I'm getting.286/.312/.423, for a .735 OPS--just about what James is projecting. I think that's a solid midline projection, not an especially bullish one. And he could easily move into the territory CET was talking about by upping the BABIP, walk rate and XBH just slightly. For instance, if he walks 25 times instead of 20, and his BABIP is .325 and his XBH numbers are 22/5/14, then we're looking at .298/.331/.459. That seems optimistic, but not silly optimistic.

(Of course, he could also tank on the BABIP and wind up in .260/.290/.390 territory....but that's probably about the worst case.)

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

My guesstimate is based more on seeing him be more than adequate offensively with seemingly better AB's the more PA's he gets. It is definitely Optimistic, but I think if he can stick defensively he could be a top 10 offensive SS. The questions really are ..

A. can he adequately field the position on an everyday basis
B. can he remain healthy playing everyday (at ss)
C. will he begin to be exposed as a everyday player, how will teams pitch him as the "book" on him grows and how does he adjust.

ST so far has shown that he seems to be able to make all the routine plays with average range. His arm has looked adequate and his footwork around the bag has been good. Can he replicate his ST performance over the grueling 162 game schedule?

[Eric Van]

Adding to the list of projections:

.283 / .311 / .424 (Fangraphs Fans)
.279 / .311 / .423 (Bill James)
.279 / .310 / .422 (PECOTA)
.276 / .311 / .415 (RotoChamp)
.273 / .301 /. 417 (ZIPS)
.273 / .304 / .410 (Steamer)
.264 / .303 / .391 (Marcel)
.258 / .285 / .382 (Ron Shandler)

[rembrat]

My guesstimate is based more on seeing him be more than adequate offensively with seemingly better AB's the more PA's he gets. It is definitely Optimistic, but I think if he can stick defensively he could be a top 10 offensive SS. The questions really are ..

A. can he adequately field the position on an everyday basis
B. can he remain healthy playing everyday (at ss)
C. will he begin to be exposed as a everyday player, how will teams pitch him as the "book" on him grows and how does he adjust.

Man that book has been read cover to cover and passed around. Here it is.

-can hit LHP
-can not hit RHP
-zero plate discipline.

There it is.

Career:
.283/.307/.396 vs RHP (909 PA)
.299/.344/.470 vs LHP (416 PA)

2011
.229/.263/.338 vs RHP (216 PA)
.318/.348/.576 vs LHP (93 PA)

The only way Avilies succeeds (.780 OPS +) in 2012 is if he breaksout.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Man that book has been read cover to cover and passed around. Here it is.

-can hit LHP
-can not hit RHP
-zero plate discipline.

There it is.

Career:
.283/.307/.396 vs RHP (909 PA)
.299/.344/.470 vs LHP (416 PA)

2011
.229/.263/.338 vs RHP (216 PA)
.318/.348/.576 vs LHP (93 PA)

The only way Avilies succeeds (.780 OPS +) in 2012 is if he breaksout.

Are you defining "succeed" in general as putting up .780+ OPS or are you saying the only way he succeeds in putting up a .780+ OPS is to have a break out season?

Because you're right to say he'll have to have a break out season to put up a .780+ OPS.

But you're incorrect to say succeeding in general requires a .780+ OPS.

Scutaro in 2010 was satisfactory putting up a .721 OPS (2.5 bWAR, 2.4 fWAR). If the Sox get that out of Aviles this season, as many projections seem to think, they should be fine.

[rembrat]

Are you defining "succeed" in general as putting up .780+ OPS or are you saying the only way he succeeds in putting up a .780+ OPS is to have a break out season?

Yea. That. Sorry about that.

[Sprowl]

Do these projections assume that Aviles will see the standard league proportion of at-bats vs. right- and left-handed pitchers (about 5 to 2)? I'm thinking that Aviles is not so much the starting shortstop as a platoon specialist in tandem with Punto. While Aviles might start against some RHP, I'd imagine that Punto will get half or more of the starts against RHP, and Aviles will hit roughly half the time against RHP, but not more, thereby getting an equal split of opportunities against righties and lefties. Using rembrat's career splits for Aviles, and rounding up for a Fenway effect, that would project to a line of .290/.325/.435. An OPS of .760 is not quite Scutaro 2011 but it is substantially better than Scutaro 2010, and it does lengthen the lineup.

[Plympton91]

Do these projections assume that Aviles will see the standard league proportion of at-bats vs. right- and left-handed pitchers (about 5 to 2)? I'm thinking that Aviles is not so much the starting shortstop as a platoon specialist in tandem with Punto. While Aviles might start against some RHP, I'd imagine that Punto will get half or more of the starts against RHP, and Aviles will hit roughly half the time against RHP, but not more, thereby getting an equal split of opportunities against righties and lefties. Using rembrat's career splits for Aviles, and rounding up for a Fenway effect, that would project to a line of .290/.325/.435. An OPS of .760 is not quite Scutaro 2011 but it is substantially better than Scutaro 2010, and it does lengthen the lineup.

I was going to post this same thought. My guess is they'll try to keep Aviles healthy and productive, and Punto happy, by using Punto twice a week against righthanders, especially on the road. That means Aviles will have an at bat distribution slanted somewhat toward lefthanders and somewhat toward home games, goosing his overall numbers a bit above the midpoint of those projections EV posted.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Yea. That. Sorry about that.

Except it seems kind of silly to say that a guy would have to have a breakout to hit .780 when he's already hit .833. He's only had two seasons with 400+ PA, and his OPS marks for those seasons are .833 and .748.

Granted, the .833 was his age 27 year, and probably his peak. But he's already established abilities that would make a .780 season a very good year, but an in-career-context good year, not a breakout.

I'm thinking that Aviles is not so much the starting shortstop as a platoon specialist in tandem with Punto.

This might make sense in terms of keeping the Aviles fresh and Punto happy, but the Sox probably wouldn't gain much offense by it, since Punto's career wOBA vs. righties is worse than Aviles' (.295 to .307).

[Rasputin]

Do these projections assume that Aviles will see the standard league proportion of at-bats vs. right- and left-handed pitchers (about 5 to 2)? I'm thinking that Aviles is not so much the starting shortstop as a platoon specialist in tandem with Punto. While Aviles might start against some RHP, I'd imagine that Punto will get half or more of the starts against RHP, and Aviles will hit roughly half the time against RHP, but not more, thereby getting an equal split of opportunities against righties and lefties. Using rembrat's career splits for Aviles, and rounding up for a Fenway effect, that would project to a line of .290/.325/.435. An OPS of .760 is not quite Scutaro 2011 but it is substantially better than Scutaro 2010, and it does lengthen the lineup.

So Punto would start 55-60 games?

Can you convince me this is a good thing?

Please?

Pretty please?

[TFisNEXT]

If they give Punto some of the right handed pitcher games, then the overall SS production won't change too much I'd imagine. Aviles' personal line will look better but the team line at SS will still probably be in the low 700s OPS range which is what we really care about in the long run.

It would probably be better that way though as it would keep Aviles fresher and healthier. So having him start 125-130 games vs 155 is probably the best way to maximize what they have.

[Savin Hillbilly]

So Punto would start 55-60 games?

Can you convince me this is a good thing?

He's probably a better defensive shortstop than Aviles? That's all I've got.

And for that reason, it might make the most sense to slot him in when one of the ground-ball pitchers (Lester, Buchholz, Bard) is facing an especially tough righty. That would probably happen about once a week. That would make sense. 25-30 starts for Punto would be enough to give Aviles plenty of rest and give Punto a little more to do than come in for Youk at the end of games.

[SoxScout]

bradfo: Valentine said he can see hitting Aviles leadoff some.

[Sprowl]

This might make sense in terms of keeping the Aviles fresh and Punto happy, but the Sox probably wouldn't gain much offense by it, since Punto's career wOBA vs. righties is worse than Aviles' (.295 to .307).

I agree that an Aviles-Punto partial platoon would be a wash for the Sox in terms of offense, but it would also mean superior defensive performance from the shortstop position. If we assume that Aviles is league-average as a defender (UZR/150 ~ 0, probably a generous assessment, but not implausible) and Punto is UZR/150 ~ +8 at most infield positions, then Punto would save the Red Sox more runs at shortstop, while not costing the team any on offense against RHP.

edit: basically, what you just wrote

So Punto would start 55-60 games?

Can you convince me this is a good thing?

Please?

Pretty please?

I'm sorry Dave, I'm afraid I can't do that.

I'm more or less reconciled to the Sox spending 1.75m x2 for a ute, but neither Aviles nor Punto is more than a stopgap at short. Grow Iggy Grow!

[Buzzkill Pauley]

With the amount of innings Aviles has been given in ST at shortstop, I just don't think he'll be platooning with Punto. This month was the test to see whether he was still capable of playing short with solid defense, and he appears to have passed.

I think Punto was brought aboard in case Aviles was not defensively capable of playing SS and Iglesias wasn't ready (thus making Aviles the UT). Otherwise, to primarily spell Kevin Youkilis at 3B as much as needed to keep him productive.

And also to be a good presence on the bench as a character/career depth guy.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

The only way I see Aviles leading off is if Ellsbury and Crawford are both out with injury....And if pedroia flat out refuses..... Then only against a tough lefty

[rembrat]

The only way I see Aviles leading off is if Ellsbury and Crawford are both out with injury....And if pedroia flat out refuses..... Then only against a tough lefty

Get use to it. Valentine has been leading off Punto and Avilies with Ellsbury at #2 all spring long. Until Crawford gets back one of our two spectacular shortstops will get a good chunk of the leadoffs.

[Div School Sox Fan]

So Punto would start 55-60 games?

Can you convince me this is a good thing?

Please?

Pretty please?

Sure thing. Using a combination of ZiPS and CAIRO hitting projections, and projected platoon splits from CAIRO, these are projected wOBA numbers vs. RHP and vs. LHP for Aviles and Punto:

vs RHP
.312 Punto
.310 Aviles

vs LHP
.309 Punto
.336 Aviles

An average shortstop, projected to Fenway, should hit for a little better than a .310 wOBA, so Little Nicky Punto actually projects as nearly an average hitter for a shortstop. Against RHP, he projects as a better hitter than Aviles. Obviously he projects as a better fielder.

By the numbers, Punto should be the primary shortstop, not Aviles. There are reasons to be skeptical of extrapolating Punto's projections to full-time play - his best seasons have all come in part-time play, and his worst seasons have been when he was given an everyday job. But I think a job-sharing arrangement should allow LNP to produce up to his projections, and if he does so, he projects as an asset playing 50-80 games.

Edited by Div School Sox Fan, 27 March 2012 - 04:24 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Get use to it. Valentine has been leading off Punto and Avilies with Ellsbury at #2 all spring long. Until Crawford gets back one of our two spectacular shortstops will get a good chunk of the leadoffs.

Yep -- BobbyV has mentioned the fact that he wants a LHH batting 2nd.

So until Crawford comes back to reclaim his #2 binky, we're probably going to see a lot of Aviles-Ellsbury-Pedroia as the top of the lineup. And probably plays put on to pressure the pitcher and defense.

Afterwards, I can only hope we get Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia, with Aviles/Punto getting banished back to the 9-hole, and the two speedsters just given the green light to cause havoc instead of putting on plays.

[aron7awol]

Yep -- BobbyV has mentioned the fact that he wants a LHH batting 2nd.

So until Crawford comes back to reclaim his #2 binky, we're probably going to see a lot of Aviles-Ellsbury-Pedroia as the top of the lineup. And probably plays put on to pressure the pitcher and defense.

Afterwards, I can only hope we get Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia, with Aviles/Punto getting banished back to the 9-hole, and the two speedsters just given the green light to cause havoc instead of putting on plays.

*barf* To have 5 hitters as great as Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz, Ellsbury, and Pedroia, and to bat any of them 6th or lower in the lineup, is an atrocity. There's no way anyone who isn't in the same class as these guys should be pushing any of them down.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

*barf* To have 5 hitters as great as Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz, Ellsbury, and Pedroia, and to bat any of them 6th or lower in the lineup, is an atrocity. There's no way anyone who isn't in the same class as these guys should be pushing any of them down.

Obviously, this issue has been gone over a ton of times before. I doubt it will be the last time.

I recognize it's not optimized by production, and I'm not arguing that it's much more than an olive branch to keep Crawford and some other people close to where they "like" to hit.

But optimized or not, Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Youkilis-Ortiz-Ross-CPlatoon-Aviles looks good to plate 875+ runs (if they can just stay on the field).

[TFisNEXT]

Obviously, this issue has been gone over a ton of times before. I doubt it will be the last time.

I recognize it's not optimized by production, and I'm not arguing that it's much more than an olive branch to keep Crawford and some other people close to where they "like" to hit.

But optimized or not, Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Youkilis-Ortiz-Ross-CPlatoon-Aviles looks good to plate 875+ runs (if they can just stay on the field).

There seems to be something seriously wrong with Ortiz hitting 6th. Especially with Crawford taking the extra at bats.

[Alcohol&Overcalls]

There seems to be something seriously wrong with Ortiz hitting 6th. Especially with Crawford taking the extra at bats.

Most research shows that the difference between optimal lineups and suboptimal is a handful of runs ... which could easily be made up by something as simple as "Aviles learns to take a pitch because he feels he has to at the top of the order" or the simpler "everybody's comfortable."

Turned ankles and flaky shoulders will undoubtedly have a bigger influence on the 2012 Red Sox than batting order.

[TFisNEXT]

Most research shows that the difference between optimal lineups and suboptimal is a handful of runs ... which could easily be made up by something as simple as "Aviles learns to take a pitch because he feels he has to at the top of the order" or the simpler "everybody's comfortable."

Turned ankles and flaky shoulders will undoubtedly have a bigger influence on the 2012 Red Sox than batting order.

Oh I agree...I know the biggest determining factor in scoring runs is who is in the lineup, not the order in which they hit. But if you can gain a handful of runs, why not do it? Especially in what is likely to be a heavily contested playoff race in this division. Giving away a few runs could be the difference between missing by one game and getting in.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Oh I agree...I know the biggest determining factor in scoring runs is who is in the lineup, not the order in which they hit. But if you can gain a handful of runs, why not do it? Especially in what is likely to be a heavily contested playoff race in this division. Giving away a few runs could be the difference between missing by one game and getting in.

Because, if you believe a manager can both actually impact a game as well as manage personalities, you may want him to use the roster such that each player's skills be maximized to the greatest possible extent. Rather than simply assume the scatter from that theoretical handful of runs will be distributed in such a way to actually impact the standings.

Batting Crawford 7th rather than 2nd might net the Sox an additional 10 runs due to lineup optimization of OPS factors, but Pedroia (a +30 wFB hitter last year) and Gonzalez (+28.2) are superlative hitters with a basestealing threat on ahead of them. Hitting fastballs hard is what they do.

So is it better to give each one an additional 1 PA per week by shifting them up one spot each in the lineup, or to try maximizing the number of mistake fastballs in fewer plate appearances by having both Crawford and Ellsbury as possibilities to distract the pitcher? How much better? And in what circumstances would we expect to see that difference expressed -- blowouts, walkoffs?

What is the impact on the standings if Crawford can return to being no less than the .300/.350/.450 level of hitter that he was from 2006-10 by gaining a level of "comfort" after Bobby's inks him into the 2-hole? What if the other option is a 275/325/425 baseline because he feels "trapped" in the lowest third of the order?

I honestly don't know the answers -- and I hope everyone who reads this realizes I'm not trying to claim I do. I simply believe "the five best hitters should be batting 1-5" is the starting point for analysis, not an ending point.

By far the most important part is that all the regulars play 120+ games each. After all, the best Sox offense I've ever seen usually batted its weakest hitters 1-2 and its best hitter 4th.

[Savin Hillbilly]

After all, the best Sox offense I've ever seen usually batted its weakest hitters 1-2 and its best hitter 4th.

Which offense are you talking about? I'm having trouble figuring it out.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Which offense are you talking about? I'm having trouble figuring it out.

2003: Damon and Walker were the weakest-hitting regulars on the team.

Damon-Walker-Nomar-Manny-Papi-Millar-Nixon-Mueller-Varitek was not the best lineup -- led off L-L-R-R, too.

Sub-optimal!

[EddieYost]

Which offense are you talking about? I'm having trouble figuring it out.

I was going to guess the 1978 team, with Burleson and Remy at the top, and power hitters like Boomer, Dewey and Hobson in the bottom third of the lineup. Or maybe 1977 with Denny Doyle? I don't think he batted at the top though. I think they used to bat Lynn or Fisk second.

edit - nope I was wrong

Edited by EddieYost, 28 March 2012 - 09:39 AM.

[OttoC]

Home Team's Winning Percentage When Leading (>), Tied (=), Trailing (<) After 1,2, etc.,Inning

S/I aft1   aft2   aft3   aft4   aft5   aft6   aft7   aft8
---------------------------------------------------------
>   .719   .744   .773   .805   .836   .873   .911   .954
=   .535   .532   .528   .527   .524   .520   .523   .520
<   .345   .316   .280   .240   .201   .158   .110   .059

based on Retrosheet data from 1920-2009

Batting your weakest hitters 1-2 would seem to reduce the chances that 4th spot will bat in the 1st inning and increase his chances of leading off in the 2nd. Scoring first is good, historically

[Savin Hillbilly]

2003: Damon and Walker were the weakest-hitting regulars on the team.

Not in terms of career stats heading into the season, they weren't. Varitek and Mueller both had worse career OPS's (.762 and .769, respectively) than Damon and Walker (.775 and .784) going into 2003. So this is a bit of a hindsight thing.

The truth is that that team was so loaded with good hitters top to bottom that any random batting order would have been almost as good as any other, though orders with Manny, Papi and Nomar in the top 5 would certainly have done better.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Not in terms of career stats heading into the season, they weren't. Varitek and Mueller both had worse career OPS's (.762 and .769, respectively) than Damon and Walker (.775 and .784) going into 2003. So this is a bit of a hindsight thing.

The truth is that that team was so loaded with good hitters top to bottom that any random batting order would have been almost as good as any other, though orders with Manny, Papi and Nomar in the top 5 would certainly have done better.

Yeah, but heading into the season MLB-All-Star Shea Hillenbrand was broadly expected to be starting over soon-to-be-batting-champion Bill Mueller.

And lots of other things also changed throughout the season. Yet wire-to-wire the lineup usually featured those two sub-.350 OBP LHH's in the first two spots. I recall speculation that Mueller and Nixon -- both better candidates based on statistics -- were simply less comfortable batting at the top of the order. And so they almost never did.

It's obviously not my call to make, and I obviously don't have all the information that BobbyV does, but if Crawford actually needs the psychological pillow of batting 2nd in order to play wire-to-wire like his last four years in TB -- as various writers with inside-the-clubhouse information have suggested this offseason -- then I'd ink him in there and not look back.



I guess I'm just not one of those people who think Crawford needs to "earn" the #2 spot by outhitting Pedroia or Ellsbury. All three of them staying on the field for ~140 games would be enough for me.

[Rasputin]

Yeah, but heading into the season MLB-All-Star Shea Hillenbrand was broadly expected to be starting over soon-to-be-batting-champion Bill Mueller.

You know what? The trade for Byung-Hyun Kim is almost nine years old and it still makes me hot.

[Pumpsie]

You know what? The trade for Byung-Hyun Kim is almost nine years old and it still makes me hot.

What really pisses me off is trading Cecil Cooper.

[Dogman2]

What really pisses me off is trading Cecil Cooper.

The Cliff Floyd deal does this for me.

[Rasputin]

What really pisses me off is trading Cecil Cooper.

The Cliff Floyd deal does this for me.

I meant hot as in "I'd fuck that trade if I could."

I think it's a tossup between that and the Lowe/Tek trade for my favoritest trade of all time.

[twothousandone]

I guess I'm just not one of those people who think Crawford needs to "earn" the #2 spot by outhitting Pedroia or Ellsbury. All three of them staying on the field for ~140 games would be enough for me.

But are you prepared for Aviles, Crawford, Ellsbury as the first three?

[EddieYost]

I meant hot as in "I'd fuck that trade if I could."

I think it's a tossup between that and the Lowe/Tek trade for my favoritest trade of all time.

OK, that makes more sense. I considered Kim for Hillenbrand to be a good trade for the Red Sox.

[EddieYost]

But are you prepared for Aviles, Crawford, Ellsbury as the first three?

Aviles was batting 9th today, so I wouldn't worry about it.

[Dogman2]

I meant hot as in "I'd fuck that trade if I could."

I think it's a tossup between that and the Lowe/Tek trade for my favoritest trade of all time.

I still would give the Lowe/Tek trade a handjob with my mouth.

Edited by Dogman2, 29 March 2012 - 02:58 PM.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

But are you prepared for Aviles, Crawford, Ellsbury as the first three?

That thought never even crossed my mind.

If Aviles started the year leading off ahead of Ellsbury (which he probably won't be), it would only be as a placeholder until Crawford came back -- when the lineup would more sensibly start off Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia.

The idea would be to make everyone except Ellsbury and Aviles more "comfortable" by hitting them in the same spot in the lineup before and after Carl's return. However, Ellsbury would still have gotten experience hitting behind Aviles -- for whatever that might be worth.

Frankly, I know it sounds more than a little silly, but I was trying to look at how "Now Leading Off for the Boston Red Sox, Number 3, Shortstop Mike Aviles" could make any rational sense, and that was all I could come up with.

[Plympton91]

2003: Damon and Walker were the weakest-hitting regulars on the team.

Damon-Walker-Nomar-Manny-Papi-Millar-Nixon-Mueller-Varitek was not the best lineup -- led off L-L-R-R, too.

Sub-optimal!

Remy, Burleson, Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Lynn, Scott, Evans, Hobson/Brohammer

I wonder if batting Evans and Lynn first and second with Burleson 8th and Remy 9th would have avoided a 1 game playoff?

If you assume that the last batter of the game is randomly distributed across the lineup during the season (I have no idea if that's true), then moving Crawford up to second from 6th gives him 4 extra at bats every 9 games that are taken away from the 4 batters that each move down one spot. Those 4 batters average line is very roughly equivalent, so let's just say that Crawford is taking 4 at bats every nine games away from "Ortiz." So, here's the thought experiment. Suppose the Red Sox had a backup DH that was as good a offensive value as Carl Crawford (Lavarnway?). Would you bench Oritz 17 extra times each season (17*9=153 games) in order to get "Crawford" more at bats in that role?

[tims4wins]

Maybe I'm in the minority, but I wouldn't mind seeing Aviles leading off against lefties and dropping Crawford to the bottom of the order.

Something like Aviles-Ellsbury-Pedroia-AGonz-Youk-Papi-Ross-C-Crawford

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Remy, Burleson, Rice, Yaz, Fisk, Lynn, Scott, Evans, Hobson/Brohammer

I wonder if batting Evans and Lynn first and second with Burleson 8th and Remy 9th would have avoided a 1 game playoff?

If you assume that the last batter of the game is randomly distributed across the lineup during the season (I have no idea if that's true), then moving Crawford up to second from 6th gives him 4 extra at bats every 9 games that are taken away from the 4 batters that each move down one spot. Those 4 batters average line is very roughly equivalent, so let's just say that Crawford is taking 4 at bats every nine games away from "Ortiz." So, here's the thought experiment. Suppose the Red Sox had a backup DH that was as good a offensive value as Carl Crawford (Lavarnway?). Would you bench Oritz 17 extra times each season (17*9=153 games) in order to get "Crawford" more at bats in that role?

That's a terrible analogy, for three main reasons off the top of my head:

• the lost plate appearances from the opportunity cost are not equivalently distributable in that manner;
• the in-game situations where the final plate appearance is crucial are actually rather infrequent; and
• the opportunity cost from Crawford's 2008-2010 OBP (.349) to Ortiz' OBP (.356) is totally insignificant.

I understand the logic from the argument that a team's best hitters should be guaranteed a plate appearance in the first inning. I disagree that its conclusions should be taken as absolute truth, not least because people are people rather than infinitely-malleable statistics. I do not understand the logic from this kind of argument.

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 30 March 2012 - 11:39 AM.

[twothousandone]

If you assume that the last batter of the game is randomly distributed across the lineup during the season (I have no idea if that's true),

162/9=18

I always thought Ripken and Murray helped provide evidence for the theory in 1984, but it looks as though Ripken only had 9 more PAs than Murray, batting right in front of him. Maybe they got the games played count wrong, and Ripken sat out a couple of games?

[Buzzkill Pauley]

162/9=18

I always thought Ripken and Murray helped provide evidence for the theory in 1984, but it looks as though Ripken only had 9 more PAs than Murray, batting right in front of him. Maybe they got the games played count wrong, and Ripken sat out a couple of games?

Please re-read that last sentence again....