Or Gorman Thomas!

Quote: Originally Posted By disaacs on 12/16/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By tropicana on 12/15/2009
Obama's health care plan is terrible, this update sucks.



Last time I checked, the President didn't write the health care plan bill. So, maybe you should transfer your disgust to the people who actually wrote the bill.

But, on topic, I have a 78 power hitter who generally averaged about 25-28 HRs per year. He has 3 HRs and we're just slightly over halfway through the season. This update sucks.

Oh for God's sake...it was a joke. You're as dim as swamp is.

Gorman Thomas would not be my type of 4th spot hitter. I need a higher average than .240 for my 4th spot hitter.

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 12/16/2009Gorman Thomas would not be my type of 4th spot hitter. I need a higher average than .240 for my 4th spot hitter

I assume we all want the best player possible.

The question is where would you want 40 HRs playing if you didnt have another solid power guy?

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/17/2009

Quote: Originally Posted By plague on 12/16/2009
Gorman Thomas would not be my type of 4th spot hitter. I need a higher average than .240 for my 4th spot hitter.

I assume we all want the best player possible.

The question is where would you want 40 HRs playing if you didnt have another solid power guy?

Hitting .240 with 40 HRs is not great. There were probably were better options available.

The player I want to bat 4th would be someone I could trust to be able to drive the ball for hits to drive in runs. Someone who can hit the longball, but still have a above average batting average. Someone who will drive the ball into the gaps for doubles. There is a reason that the Tigers batted Magglio Ordonez 4th until this past season. Yes, he was among the Tigers leaders in HRs. But more importantly, he was often among the Tigers leaders in batting average. He won a batting title. He had over 100 RBIs one season because he could hit the longball and hit the RBI single to the opposite field. This is someone who can drive in the runs or keep a rally/threat going for the #5 hitter.

As for where I would bat someone with power and a low batting average, probably 6th or 7th, depending on my other personnel. That way he could come up to the plate with my real sluggers on base and maybe get a hit. This way, the extra outs that he produces will not kill a rally with a good player on deck.

We all "want" Gehrig 27 batting 4th. Most of us will not get it.

Are you really going to put a .290 20HR guy 4th over .240 40 HR guy?

The answer is easy. The .290 hitter is the better choice. He will drive in more runs, whereas the .240 will leave them stranded. Alan Trammell was the Tigers #4 hitter in the late 80s because he could get a hit when needed and did not strikeout often.

Who would you rather have?

Player A
career BA: .312
career OBP: .371
career SLG: .513
1HR every 23 AB
# of 100 RBI season: 7
Lowest individaul season BA: .282
# of season 100+ Ks: 0

Player B
career BA: .225
career OBP: .324
career SLG: .448
1 HR every 17.5 AB
# of 100 RBI seasons: 3
# of 100+ Ks: 7 (Led league twice)
highest season BA: .259
not one season with more hits than Ks

Remember, Ks kill rallies.

The year Alan Trammel batted 4th he hit 28 homers. The team leader in homers hit 34. If Alan Trammel was a 10 home run hitter unlikely he would of been batting 4th.

Quote: Originally posted by bfkfraser on 12/17/2009The answer is easy.  The .290 hitter is the better choice. He will drive in more runs, whereas the .240 will leave them stranded.   Alan Trammell was the Tigers #4 hitter in the late 80s because he could get a hit when needed and did not strikeout often.Who would you rather have?....

Remember, Ks kill rallies.

Outs kill rallies. Especially 3rd outs.

I don't think there is much recent empirical evidence that strikeouts are measurably more damaging an outcome than a batted ball resulting in an out, ..or two. But I stand willing to be corrected in the face of evidence.

But I am with you on the .290 hitter over the .240 hitter, assuming they have similar walk rates, and slugging pcts.

Quote: Originally Posted By eayappert on 12/18/2009

Quote: Originally posted by bfkfraser on 12/17/2009
The answer is easy. The .290 hitter is the better choice. He will drive in more runs, whereas the .240 will leave them stranded. Alan Trammell was the Tigers #4 hitter in the late 80s because he could get a hit when needed and did not strikeout often.

Who would you rather have?....

Remember, Ks kill rallies.

Outs kill rallies. Especially 3rd outs.

I don't think there is much recent empirical evidence that strikeouts are measurably more damaging an outcome than a batted ball resulting in an out, ..or two. But I stand willing to be corrected in the face of evidence.

But I am with you on the .290 hitter over the .240 hitter, assuming they have similar walk rates, and slugging pcts

You have a zero to next to zero chance to get on base after a strikeout. That percentage rises some when the ball is put in play.

On the flip side you cant hit into a double play with a strikeout.

Quote: Originally Posted By swamphawk22 on 12/18/2009
On the flip side you cant hit into a double play with a strikeout.

Strike them out, throw them out double play is still possible

In Ron Cey, teams are averaging .93 HRs/game during S14 spring training. In S13, teams averaged 1.37 HRs/game.

#s may not hold up in the regular season, but wanted to throw this out there.

Quote: Originally Posted By sanderbear on 12/18/2009
In Ron Cey, teams are averaging .93 HRs/game during S14 spring training. In S13, teams averaged 1.37 HRs/game.

#s may not hold up in the regular season, but wanted to throw this out there.

An interesting thought, but its inferior offenses AND defenses playing there...the end result would be a serious crapshoot.

Not saying there's nothing to it, but sample size is obviously small and fairly tainted.

Moneyball (just past the All-Star break) is down to 1.01 hr/9IP from 1.44 the previous season.