Batting Order. Topic

schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
Posted by mitchrapp on 6/26/2010 4:46:00 PM (view original):
It's not all about Math. If it was then the .250 hitter year after year you'd keep playing and paying because the same exact player with the same ratings is batting .300 year after year.but eventually you'll drop that player or bench or trade him. It makes sense.

Or more importantly why does a career .300 hitter, hit .222 one year with the same ratings and park. Saying Math is saying they will allays be consistent. And that is not always the case, we've all seen it. I get what you want to believe but it's not all about anything. It's about many different things.
What does that mean?
6/26/2010 6:34 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I find this a bit interesting only because I think you have chosen a position and will not budge.  So I'll present this situation:

You have a switch-hitter with 70/70 splits.  You know, from experience, that you will only get 148 games at 100% from him.  At game 100, he has an OPS of .500 vs LHP and an OPS of .900 vs RHP.   Knowing that he's going to have to sit 14 of the next 62 games if you only want him to play at 100%, how do you choose which games to sit him?

Edit:  I better add this.   His replacement is also a switch-hitter with identical splits.
6/26/2010 6:40 PM (edited)
schuyler101
Posts: 257 (0)
Hall of Famer
113 6 21
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I find this a bit interesting only because I think you have chosen a position and will not budge.  So I'll present this situation:

You have a switch-hitter with 70/70 splits.  You know, from experience, that you will only get 148 games at 100% from him.  At game 100, he has an OPS of .500 vs LHP and an OPS of .900 vs RHP.   Knowing that he's going to have to sit 14 of the next 62 games if you only want him to play at 100%, how do you choose which games to sit him?

Edit:  I better add this.   His replacement is also a switch-hitter with identical splits.
Same splits?  That's easy I choose the lineup that is stronger (am I stronger versus righties or lefties) and remove him from that, leaving him in the weaker one to help bolster it. 




6/26/2010 6:42 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 6:40:00 PM (view original):
I find this a bit interesting only because I think you have chosen a position and will not budge.  So I'll present this situation:

You have a switch-hitter with 70/70 splits.  You know, from experience, that you will only get 148 games at 100% from him.  At game 100, he has an OPS of .500 vs LHP and an OPS of .900 vs RHP.   Knowing that he's going to have to sit 14 of the next 62 games if you only want him to play at 100%, how do you choose which games to sit him?

Edit:  I better add this.   His replacement is also a switch-hitter with identical splits.
Is this for me?

Ignoring the fatigue issues (if he can play only 148 at 100%, then that can't be the first 148), then my decision is based on 1) his other ratings (e.g., if he's a middle of the road SB guy, maybe I give him the extra starts against poor catcher); 2) my opponent (he'd be more likely to play against a division opponent or WC threat); 3) the opposing SP (one of the funky reverse split pitchers?) and 4) perhaps most importantly, the ratings of the guy replacing him.

There may be other things too, those are just the 4 that come to mind, and yes - in theory - if EVERYTHING ELSE is identical, sure I'll go with season OPS before I go to a coin flip, but with so many variables in HBD, everything else is never identical in practice.


EDIT - saw the edit with the replacement's splits, but 4) still stands, based on speed, SB, Power (against HR pitchers or in certain parks, etc.).
6/26/2010 6:44 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Well, zbrent actually admitted that, if EVERYTHING WAS THE SAME, he'd look at stats.    I don't think shuyler did.  So there's really no point in continuing forward with shuyler. 

So, zbrent, WHY would you look at stats?  The ratings didn't change.   And that seems to have been your position all along.   If you truly believe the ratings will eventually produce the expected results(which, by they way, I do too.  I'm just not willing to "waste" a season because I think, over his career, his ratings will match his stats), why base anything on stats?   Wouldn't he be more apt to start hitting lefties?
6/26/2010 6:48 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by schuyler101 on 6/26/2010 6:34:00 PM (view original):
Posted by mitchrapp on 6/26/2010 4:46:00 PM (view original):
It's not all about Math. If it was then the .250 hitter year after year you'd keep playing and paying because the same exact player with the same ratings is batting .300 year after year.but eventually you'll drop that player or bench or trade him. It makes sense.

Or more importantly why does a career .300 hitter, hit .222 one year with the same ratings and park. Saying Math is saying they will allays be consistent. And that is not always the case, we've all seen it. I get what you want to believe but it's not all about anything. It's about many different things.
What does that mean?
It means that mitch stopped paying attention in math class before they got to algebra.
6/26/2010 6:54 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 6:48:00 PM (view original):
Well, zbrent actually admitted that, if EVERYTHING WAS THE SAME, he'd look at stats.    I don't think shuyler did.  So there's really no point in continuing forward with shuyler. 

So, zbrent, WHY would you look at stats?  The ratings didn't change.   And that seems to have been your position all along.   If you truly believe the ratings will eventually produce the expected results(which, by they way, I do too.  I'm just not willing to "waste" a season because I think, over his career, his ratings will match his stats), why base anything on stats?   Wouldn't he be more apt to start hitting lefties?
Read what I wrote more carefully Mike.

I said I'd go to stats in theory before coin flip. In reality, I'll never get there because things are never identical in HBD.

It's still a take on the Gambler's Fallacy. Try this - 

If the roulette wheel hits black on spin 1, I ignore that totally for spin 2 (as I'm sure you do too) because each spin is an independent event.

If the roulette wheel hits black on spins 1-1000, there are 2 ways to look at spin 1001. 1 way is to assume everything is fair and so it's still equal chance of red or block on that spin. Another is to think there is something else going on, maybe the spindle is broken somehow or something, and since it is (at worst) an even chance of red or block, why not choose black, just in case something else is going on?

So yea, at the end, if everything else was identical, I'd go stats before a coin flip. But things are never identical in HBD, so basing decisions on stats is just choosing to ignore something you don't fully understand.
6/26/2010 6:55 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
I read what you wrote.   And I asked a follow up.  Both of us believe that the stats will eventually equal the ratings.  Maybe we disagree on the time frame but I think we agree on that.   So, if that's correct, and the player is a .700 OPS player, one would think that he's "due" to raise his .500 OPS and lower his .900 OPS.   It just seems to me that a "ratings-rule" guy would play him differently than the "stats are telling me what  I need to know" guy.
6/26/2010 7:07 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 7:07:00 PM (view original):
I read what you wrote.   And I asked a follow up.  Both of us believe that the stats will eventually equal the ratings.  Maybe we disagree on the time frame but I think we agree on that.   So, if that's correct, and the player is a .700 OPS player, one would think that he's "due" to raise his .500 OPS and lower his .900 OPS.   It just seems to me that a "ratings-rule" guy would play him differently than the "stats are telling me what  I need to know" guy.
Well, the last part if definitely true.

The "ratings-rule" guy (me) will play him if his ratings dictate that he has a spot in my lineup.

The "stats are telling me what i need to know" guy will bench him in favor or a player with lesser across the board if he's hitting better after 40 games.


6/26/2010 7:11 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Trust me, I don't want to change your mind.  I'm hoping that you can make a convincing argument that the people I play against will see.  I'm hoping that they'll keep that .200 hitter batting 3rd because his ratings dictate it and that they'll keep starting that pitcher with the 6 ERA because the ratings say he's an All-Star.
6/26/2010 7:12 PM
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/26/2010 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 7:07:00 PM (view original):
I read what you wrote.   And I asked a follow up.  Both of us believe that the stats will eventually equal the ratings.  Maybe we disagree on the time frame but I think we agree on that.   So, if that's correct, and the player is a .700 OPS player, one would think that he's "due" to raise his .500 OPS and lower his .900 OPS.   It just seems to me that a "ratings-rule" guy would play him differently than the "stats are telling me what  I need to know" guy.
Well, the last part if definitely true.

The "ratings-rule" guy (me) will play him if his ratings dictate that he has a spot in my lineup.

The "stats are telling me what i need to know" guy will bench him in favor or a player with lesser across the board if he's hitting better after 40 games.


And now you're misrepresenting what I've said.  I've said I won't bench a guy who is clearly better, based on ratings, than his back-up.  I've said I'd change his spot in the order.   You're usually better than that.

6/26/2010 7:14 PM
antonsirius
Posts: 2567 (0)
Hall of Famer
167 135 9 20
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 7:07:00 PM (view original):
I read what you wrote.   And I asked a follow up.  Both of us believe that the stats will eventually equal the ratings.  Maybe we disagree on the time frame but I think we agree on that.   So, if that's correct, and the player is a .700 OPS player, one would think that he's "due" to raise his .500 OPS and lower his .900 OPS.   It just seems to me that a "ratings-rule" guy would play him differently than the "stats are telling me what  I need to know" guy.
No, Mike, that's the Gambler's Fallacy.

Anyone who believes that a player's ratings indicate he's a 700 OPS player willshould expect him to be a 700 OPS player going forward, regardless of how hot or cold he is at the moment.
6/26/2010 7:25 PM (edited)
MikeT23
Posts: 58012 (0)
Hall of Famer
87 1 47 1 189
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 6:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/26/2010 6:03:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 5:59:00 PM (view original):
It takes a lot for me to bench a stud.   Not so much to move him in the line-up. 
http://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerProfile.aspx?pid=1469204 has hit 2nd for me for the last two seasons.  He's hitting second for me against lefties this season.  But, vs RH, he's .225/.298/.346.   It makes no sense to keep him hitting 2nd.    If those numbers get better, I'll move him back up.  If not, I'm more than happy to have someone else fill that slot in the order.
Next game vs RH, your stud's ratings make him no less worthy of batting 2nd than they did the game before. If you are replacing him with someone with *different* ratings (better in one thing or another) because you have determined that you were over-valuing one aspect of the stud's ratings, that's one thing. If you are hitting someone with lesser ratings 2nd based on stats, you're falling prey to an aspect of the Gambler's Fallacy, just as much as the person who defends keeping the stud 2nd because he is "due" to hit .400 the rest of the season to even things out. You're both equally wrong.

The only aspect of a player that directly impacts success or failure in HBD is his ratings. Accepting that and still basing decisions on anything else is willful ignorance.
There comes a time in every player's season when his ratings don't determine where he bats in the line-up.   His stats do.  As I said, I'm not benchng a guy I believe is better than his replacement because he's not producing.  But I'm not hitting him at the top of the line-up because his ratings say "He's my two hitter."    I believe, at some point, you have to get results.   
Right here.  One hour ago.
6/26/2010 7:15 PM
zbrent716
Posts: 1970 (0)
Hall of Famer
90 1 58 77
Prospect
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 7:14:00 PM (view original):
Posted by zbrent716 on 6/26/2010 7:11:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 6/26/2010 7:07:00 PM (view original):
I read what you wrote.   And I asked a follow up.  Both of us believe that the stats will eventually equal the ratings.  Maybe we disagree on the time frame but I think we agree on that.   So, if that's correct, and the player is a .700 OPS player, one would think that he's "due" to raise his .500 OPS and lower his .900 OPS.   It just seems to me that a "ratings-rule" guy would play him differently than the "stats are telling me what  I need to know" guy.
Well, the last part if definitely true.

The "ratings-rule" guy (me) will play him if his ratings dictate that he has a spot in my lineup.

The "stats are telling me what i need to know" guy will bench him in favor or a player with lesser across the board if he's hitting better after 40 games.


And now you're misrepresenting what I've said.  I've said I won't bench a guy who is clearly better, based on ratings, than his back-up.  I've said I'd change his spot in the order.   You're usually better than that.

I didn't identify you as the stats guy, just in general. There are those who rely on stats in this thread who have indicated they would bench someone.

That said, it begs the question, if you believe it makes sense to bump a guy down in the order, why don't you think it makes sense to bench him as well?
6/26/2010 7:15 PM
This post has a rating of , which is below the default threshold.
Show
◂ Prev 1...4|5|6|7|8 Next ▸
Batting Order. Topic
△Top△Bottom

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2026 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.