Wally Whitetail

"So if you ask me these kinds of studies are pointless and mean absolutely nothing." That is my opinion, just because you don't like it that gives you no right to insult me. It wasn't a malicious attack against you or even directed at you in any way. I offered up my opinion. It has to do with your disregarding studies you know nothing about yet think are worthless. Did you not read that I said that I read every word of the first link you provided and now I've read every word of the second "study" you provided. They don't measure human interaction in any way or even attempt to. That leaves a HUGE hole in the study doesn't it? And since they can't measure it they disregard its importance. Why is it so hard to believe that someone would find little value in a study that does that? Doing a study on OPS or VORP, etc. is one thing, combining statistics (which many already have flaws in them in the first place) in a complex interaction such as a batting order to find the "optimal" batting lineup doesn't hold any weight and isn't a good study in my opinion. If you think statistical analysis of baseball has absolutely no merit, start a thread in this forum explaining why you think that. Hold on here. I would like you to quote me as to when exactly I said statistical analysis of baseball has absolultey no merit. You're assuming things out of thin air to make an argument. I said THESE studies are leaving out a huge element. You can't measure the optimal lineup the way they are trying to. Sorry, it's not possible. I find GREAT value in many statistical studies...not this one. You seem frustrated that I don't see it your way and are lowering yoruself to belittling me and my knowledge of statistical studies although having no idea whether I do or not. You might want to think twice when assuming things about people.

He has a .399 OBP vs. lefties......Oh sorry...my bad...thats his OPS. I've had about 9 beers during this game, and this comment got a combination hiccup-burp-laugh. It hurt.

Yes Daron, that would (partly) be Dusty Baker's fault. If your player is walking to first base because he thinks he hit a HR, you admonish him so he doesn't do it again. Ramirez does that all the time and hasn't ever been called out on it, so can we stop the "It's not Dusty Baker's fault" show? Thanks. THANK YOU! If players slacking to first ISN'T the manager's fault, then what the heck is the manager there for? Just for setting the lineup and making strategy moves? I LOVE Bill and Daron, but their enthusiasm for believing this along this line is annoying. They stick up for opposing players and managers WAY too much. It's disgusting.

Inman is an s-t-u-d STUD! 5ip 3h 0r 0er 1w 10k. Dude belongs in AA I tell ya. I'm in love...manlove. Consider Inman my mancrush. Come on Inman, make me dance crazyman!

You haven't even offered up that. I've given plenty of reasons within this thread why I believe my theory is correct. Again, you believe your theory is "right" because there isn't any physical evidence to support mine. That doesn't make it right, it just makes it different. You can't agree to disagree without insulting? I doubt you have never read a single word from any of these studies yet you disregard them with a wave of the hand. With a comment like the above, I can't say I'm suprised. What gives you the right to talk that way to me?!? Because I don't agree with you you are now going to insult my intelligence? Get off your pedestal. I read every word of the link you provided by the way. I just find many holes in the argument. I'm sorry that disturbs you so. Again, if you consider them zero evidence than you are in the wrong forum. Sounds like you want anyone that comes into this forum to roll over and bow to every word you say. Apparently everybody should take the things that go in this forum as gospel. Is this a place for ideas to not be challenged? I didn't think it was supposed to be.

way to jinx it

When is it ok to not even look at Mark's boxscore because you know what it looks like? It's like going to the 4th of July fireworks and they all come out duds....again, and again, and again. Ugh.

I think many researchers were suprised when they couldn't find any real statistical evidence of protection and other related phenomena. There is just as much evidence that they do have an effect on the amount of runs scored as there is that they don't have an effect. And that amount of evidence is zero evidence which is exactly why these studies don't hold any weight. They are making guesses and their logical guesses are just as good as mine that say they have a big effect on a particular batter's production. They are trying to prove something that can't be measured and since it can't be measured they just assume that it has little effect. I don't know how they can come to that conclusion, in fact, it's impossible to come to that conclusion without any hard evidence. It's a theory, not fact. I don't agree with that theory and you mentioned to the gentleman who started this thread like it is fact when it isn't.

If you are unswayed by statistical evidence than you are in the wrong part of this forum. I didn't know that I have to be a stat geek to have anything meaningful to say in this forum I guess. I would have thought you would want views from both sides of the coin. My question is how can you do lineup optimization without human interaction? And since there isn't human interaction how can you meansure it's importance? You can't just automatically say there isn't much coorelation because there isn't anything out there that says otherwise. Isn't it pretty much just a guess that it doesn't? I guess I just don't see how giving Chad Moeller and the pitcher's spot 100 more at bats per season and taking 100 at bats away from Carlos Lee and Prince Fielder isn't going to have much of an effect. For example if this example leads to 50 less runs (which wouldn't be significant persay) that could mean the difference in wins in potentially every 1 run game, most 2 run games and even some 3+ run games we won. You could also say that those 50 runs would be distributed even in games where we won by 5+ or so...but how can you determine when those runs would have disappeared and what effect that would have on the rest of the game and that strategy of the team or opposing team at those points? You can't. So if you ask me these kinds of studies are pointless and mean absolutely nothing. It's just someone playing devil's advocate because they have numbers to play with.

How did Jenkins have an assist on Dunn at 1st? Was it a linedrive out or amazing catch and a DP at 1st or something or did Dunn round 1st too far and Jenkins threw behind him?

The difference between the best and worst lineup isn't all that much. How can you say that? Yeah, if you put straight up statistics into a simulator that would work. These are human beings not robots. Some players do not hit well in certain slots in the lineup and hitters are handled differently depending on where they are hitting. A guy like Ryan Howard batting in the 8 hole isn't going to put up the power numbers he did in the heart of the lineup because he will be pitched around much more often. Also, that person getting almost 100 less atbats per year is going to kill your offensive production. Not to mention that the people getting the most at bats in your lineup won't even be the guys who have the best obp, that will have a HUGE effect on how many runs you score in a season. Here is a good resource setting your batting order: Setting a Batting Order

The only thing that sucks about this win is that I have both Turnbow and Coffey on my fantasy team. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/embarassed.gif

If I were Jenkins I would crowd the plate and hope to be hit so I could get on base. Horrible.

ATTA BOY BILLY!!!! He is a Red's Masher.

Hasn't Wise shown all year that he is uncapable of pitching more than one inning?