No, that's just not right, and exemplifies why people have such different conceptions of the roles of different lineup spots. The job of the 4th and 5th place hitters isn't to hit sac flies, or ground runners to 3rd. If they are among the team's best hitters, they will be getting on base as well as driving runners in. If the 4th and 5th hitters are doing their jobs, the 6th hitter will see tons of runners on base.

JA/83, good post

***

So, are you suggesting the Yankees would be better off with Robinson Cano hitting third?

As a moderate OBP, good power hitter (relative to his team), he probably would make sense batting #3. The advantages to be gained by batting him there are so slight that there's no reason to do it if the rest of the team won't be comfortable with it.

***

I've got a cool stat for newstat folks, Team RBI's.

You've just proven you have no understanding of how this game works. Whenever I've seen telecasts showing where a particular team ranks in RBI, I've mocked it, and I won't give you any leeway in this. Team RBI means nothing. Runs, runs, runs, all that matters is runs. Whenever someone tries to look at team RBI, I have to assume they just don't get it. That's OK, we can talk about whatever misunderstandings you have, but please stop spreading "team RBI" as an explanation of anything.

***

The clock towards free agency starts when the player is drafted. So a team like Oakland is much better off drafting college players since those players are closer to being Major League ready than high school players are.

That's not quite right. Chuck is quite correct in stating that the best draft picks have been high schoolers. Now Oakland hasn't recently had the top pick in the draft, so they're not necessarily missing out on the best players if they purposely avoid HSers. But younger players can be protected for longer depending on the age when they were drafted. (I don't know the exact rules, but some players can be protected for 4 years instead of 3.) Moreover, if a college player hasn't proven himself worthy of a 40-man roster spot after 3 years, he's probably not worth protecting anyway.

Mike Schmidt came to the plate 329 times with runners on 1st and 3rd. He batted .316 and slugged .623. In those 329 PAs, he walked 39 times, hit 20 homers and had 39 Sac Flies.

Thank you for your response and expanded explanation of your opinions expressed earlier.

As I said earlier, I don't take things personally, I wasn't offended as an individual about a couple of the comments you made, but moreso the implication or attitude statheads are somehow smarter than us non-believers because they read a book.

I agree with you on one thing.

Once an article falls off the front page, the "thread is dead" so to speak, and it's time to move onto something else.

I enjoyed are little debate, and if I came across harshly that was not my intent.

Thanks,

Chuck

But whatever concept I had of Joe Carter being a "clutch" player disappeared when he played for the O's in 1998.

I think you could have plugged any number of early '90s sluggers into the Jays lineup in Carter's place and they would have had over 100 RBI. Carter had some power but I wouldn't say he stood out as a top player at any one time, just a bunch of pretty good years with a ton of RBI.

Uh, I didn't Bill James to figure that one out either. While we're at it, can someone inform the same sabermetricians who "know better and are no longer ignorant" to stop debating (or even thinking) that Abreu will be a borderline HOF candidate when eligible? Let's give credit WHEN credit is due.

I do not feel my posts here have either been insulting or condescending. I remind you that in post #67 that I used the word "Ignorant" to mean "lacking in knowledge and NOT meaning stupid." I used it mean simply not knowing something. It's okay to not know something. It's not okay to call someone stupid.

"I still hear baseball announcers make reference to the book Moneyball, and admit that they have never read it. Are you kidding me? Your job is (to) broadcast the game to the masses and you have not read the most important baseball book written in recent history?"

How is that comment insulting to you Chuck? Are you a baseball announcer? Whether you agree with what is in Moneyball or not, I think it should be required reading for anyone who works in baseball at the announcer level simply because of how much it has been talked about since its release. If you are selling beer at the concession stand or directing people in the parking lot or tearing tickets at the gate then you get a pass. But if your job is to talk about the game, and bring insight to those listening or watching and you have not read a book as talked about as Moneyball then you are going to leave me scratching my head. It would be like a film critic, a person who talks about movies for a profession, admitting he never got around to seeing Titanic.

For the record, Joe Morgan SHOULD feel insulted. Your comment Chuck read:
"So, the suggestion is Joe Morgan would have been a better announcer if he had read Moneyball?"
I never said it would have made him a better announcer, but it would have made him a more INFORMED announcer - since Moneyball was the book everyone, including Joe Morgan, was talking about. Again, this would be like Roger Ebert talking (or typing) about the year's most talked about movie without seeing it.

"Moneyball has made such an impact in professional baseball that the term itself has entered the lexicon of baseball." (wikipedia)

The fact that Morgan on numerous occasions was critical of the book even though he had not read it leaves him open for harsh criticism.

And for the record the announcer that made the comment about Moneyball that elicited the, "Are you kidding me comment?" from me was not Joe Morgan. It was John Sterling - the radio voice of the Yankees.

Another comment by Chuck I must take issue with is from post #99
"And whether a player is a high school or college product has no bearing on his free agent 'clock'."
Yes it most certainly does - for teams that cannot afford a player once he becomes a free agent.

"A player is bound to the team that drafts him for three seasons in the minor leagues. Contracts are automatically renewed on a year-to-year basis. After three years, a player must either be on a team's 40-man roster (as he is then considered as having a major-league contract) or he is eligible for what is called the Rule 5 draft." (baseball.about.com)

"The first three years of a player's major league career are considered the 'league minimum' years, in which the player's organization can pay the player anything close to the league minimum salary. After three years of service time, the player is eligible for arbitration." (buccofans.wikispaces.com)

The clock towards free agency starts when the player is drafted. So a team like Oakland is much better off drafting college players since those players are closer to being Major League ready than high school players are.

I will close by saying that flame wars are also not my thing either Chuck. I come to this site specifically because it does not have the kinds of exchanges that dominate other sites. I honestly do not know how my comments are insulting to you or anyone else, but if you feel insulted, then I apologize.

For me, this puts this thread to rest. One of the cool things about this blog is that each blog thread only stays on the main page for couple of days or so. Then, it's the next man's turn to bat.

"Batter up... Let's play ball!!!"