(03-13-2013 10:50 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:57 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  After reading this thread, It sounded like a very different game than the one I watched.

I love the passionate "musts" and other terms of endearment. Very entertaining read, but doesn't translate well to the actual game viewed in person.

Nice win. Simms was a stud. Enjoyed the confidence shown by the defense.

If the two Freshman (Kop and Teykl) continue to have nice games at the plate, this might become a trend. Color me hopeful.

BTW, the double play ball was pure luck as the third baseman was almost surprised that he stopped the ball, the tagged third and then barely beat the runner with a nice throw.

Surely the third baseman's positioning or skill had something to do with it?

Alternatively, if the ball had been hit just a few inches beyond the fielder's diving grasp and had gone down the line, would one say that the resulting double and RBIs were pure luck?

Nope. Rice homer here. Pure luck. If Ratt's screamer had skipped by the thirdbaseman, it would have been skill. Just being honest.

Well, meta-objectivity is not quite the same as objectivity, but it's better than none at all!

(03-13-2013 10:28 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  I understand your bias for the bunt and the constant desire to have a #2 hitter that will bunt successfully. I look at our stats and see 1 hitter that can fill the 3,4 and 5 hole. With 5 positions were you can typically stash a hitter (DH; 1B; 3B; LF; RF), we have managed to find kid who can drive the ball well.

*Warning* the paragraphs below represent my opinion, they don't represent the opinions of Mrs. 13thOwl, Section F, any Grumpy Old Men, the Coaching Staff, or any living persons...

I think Teykl will be a 3 hole hitter before his Rice career ends. As he physically and mentally matures, gets used to D1, gets used to Rice classrooms, gets used to traveling, and gets used to having to become efficient with his time, it is my belief that his hitting skills will become more consistent and there will be a power component. As of now, he ought to be happy every time Wayne writes his name in the line up (no matter where in the batting order). I like the swing and he has what appears to be very quick wrists. Tall kid with good leverage, the power will come. This year, Stringer and Aquino will make him look better, as they carry most of the hitting burden. In the future, he will provide others protection.

He might be a part of the line up jigsaw puzzle this year. It is up to him to work hard and provide some production.

BTW, the above has been my belief since the announcement of his signing - it is not a reaction to his nice game yesterday. Coatza and Owl91 can confirm (as well as probably anyone that reads this message board).

My apologies to Teykl, Teykl's family, and the Coaching Staff if such talk makes them uncomfortable. Heck, he plays at Rice, of course their are expectations...

I have high hopes even expectations for all the Baby Owls, espeically Byrd. His ceiling is very high. Fox and Kop are very interesting to me also. I am a pitching first guy, so I am rooting for McCanna to blossom. I think the Baby Birds will work their way into important roles this year.

There was some angst earlier about RPI and hosting a regional. I am more concerned watching the Baby Owls make the most of their opportunity. If they mature and gain some consistency, this could be the start of something. It just may not look like previous glory years.

(03-13-2013 10:59 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 10:50 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 10:38 AM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-12-2013 09:57 PM)13thOwl Wrote:  After reading this thread, It sounded like a very different game than the one I watched.

I love the passionate "musts" and other terms of endearment. Very entertaining read, but doesn't translate well to the actual game viewed in person.

Nice win. Simms was a stud. Enjoyed the confidence shown by the defense.

If the two Freshman (Kop and Teykl) continue to have nice games at the plate, this might become a trend. Color me hopeful.

BTW, the double play ball was pure luck as the third baseman was almost surprised that he stopped the ball, the tagged third and then barely beat the runner with a nice throw.

Surely the third baseman's positioning or skill had something to do with it?

Alternatively, if the ball had been hit just a few inches beyond the fielder's diving grasp and had gone down the line, would one say that the resulting double and RBIs were pure luck?

Nope. Rice homer here. Pure luck. If Ratt's screamer had skipped by the thirdbaseman, it would have been skill. Just being honest.

Well, meta-objectivity is not quite the same as objectivity, but it's better than none at all!

Perhaps objectivity will come later in the year?

I am currently in the puppy love stage with this year's team. I think their journey is very interesting. I find that I am more interested in their journey than just where they end up. How can you not be a romantic about baseball?

I am glad objectivity is not a necessary requirement of fandom.

(03-13-2013 11:27 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 10:28 AM)owlsfan Wrote:  I understand your bias for the bunt and the constant desire to have a #2 hitter that will bunt successfully. I look at our stats and see 1 hitter that can fill the 3,4 and 5 hole. With 5 positions were you can typically stash a hitter (DH; 1B; 3B; LF; RF), we have managed to find kid who can drive the ball well.

*Warning* the paragraphs below represent my opinion, they don't represent the opinions of Mrs. 13thOwl, Section F, any Grumpy Old Men, the Coaching Staff, or any living persons...

I think Teykl will be a 3 hole hitter before his Rice career ends. As he physically and mentally matures, gets used to D1, gets used to Rice classrooms, gets used to traveling, and gets used to having to become efficient with his time, it is my belief that his hitting skills will become more consistent and there will be a power component. As of now, he ought to be happy every time Wayne writes his name in the line up (no matter where in the batting order). I like the swing and he has what appears to be very quick wrists. Tall kid with good leverage, the power will come. This year, Stringer and Aquino will make him look better, as they carry most of the hitting burden. In the future, he will provide others protection.

He might be a part of the line up jigsaw puzzle this year. It is up to him to work hard and provide some production.

BTW, the above has been my belief since the announcement of his signing - it is not a reaction to his nice game yesterday. Coatza and Owl91 can confirm (as well as probably anyone that reads this message board).

My apologies to Teykl, Teykl's family, and the Coaching Staff if such talk makes them uncomfortable. Heck, he plays at Rice, of course their are expectations...

I have high hopes even expectations for all the Baby Owls, espeically Byrd. His ceiling is very high. Fox and Kop are very interesting to me also. I am a pitching first guy, so I am rooting for McCanna to blossom. I think the Baby Birds will work their way into important roles this year.

There was some angst earlier about RPI and hosting a regional. I am more concerned watching the Baby Owls make the most of their opportunity. If they mature and gain some consistency, this could be the start of something. It just may not look like previous glory years.

+1...and I like your "baby birds" terminology better than the "kiddie corp" I've been using. I do so think we need to include Ewing and Williamson with these guys as neither saw action last year (aside from a couple ABs for Skyler). And even Stainback, who played regularly the second half of last season, is still learning and maturing as a player. Though I have ragged on his lack of range at SS a bit, his defense has definitely improved this year. All these guys will be with us for the next several seasons...and in all likelihood, Hoelscher Cook and Aquino will be back next year for their Senior season. (I presume Connor can play 2B?) And we have several genuine offensive studs committed to us for next year, if we can get them on campus. I do think the future remains bright...and I'm even a bit more optimistic about this year than many, as I think we've already seen the low point of the season.

(03-13-2013 11:31 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  How can you not be a romantic about baseball?

Indeed. After all:
"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart."
-- A. Bartlett Giamatti, "The Green Fields of the Mind", YALE ALUMNI MAGAZINE, 1977.

(03-13-2013 11:40 AM)waltgreenberg Wrote:  And even Stainback, who played regularly the second half of last season, is still learning and maturing as a player. Though I have ragged on his lack of range at SS a bit, his defense has definitely improved this year.

There was a play last night which may not have translated well on OwlVision. The La Tech batter hit a comebacker past a stabbing Simms, the ball bounces to Stainback. Ford sort of has trouble getting a handle on the ball, but just momentarily, before snaping off a throw to first. The throw got the runner by about half a step. Stainback didn't rush anything and it just seemed like he was so confident. It was quite reassuring to this Rice fan. I think he is solid.

:badger::badger::lock::dance::dirtyvegas::moon2:

(03-13-2013 03:32 PM)mort goldblatt Wrote:  :badger::badger::lock::dance::dirtyvegas::moon2:

The stinky carrots, really?

The badgers made me check out an old favorite. http://www.badgerbadgerbadger.com/

:ugaexams:[quote='13thOwl' pid='9087136' dateline='1363207217']

(03-13-2013 11:27 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  I think Teykl will be a 3 hole hitter before his Rice career ends.

That would be too bad, considering the 3-hole comes up significantly more often with 2-outs and no runners on base (the least productive position possible) than any other spot in the order...

(03-13-2013 05:09 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  ... the 3-hole comes up significantly more often with 2-outs and no runners on base (the least productive position possible) than any other spot in the order...

A pretty damning statement about Nos. 1-2!

(03-13-2013 11:27 AM)13thOwl Wrote:  *Warning* the paragraphs below represent my opinion, they don't represent the opinions of Mrs. 13thOwl, Section F, any Grumpy Old Men, the Coaching Staff, or any living persons...

I think Teykl will be a 3 hole hitter before his Rice career ends. As he physically and mentally matures, gets used to D1, gets used to Rice classrooms, gets used to traveling, and gets used to having to become efficient with his time, it is my belief that his hitting skills will become more consistent and there will be a power component. As of now, he ought to be happy every time Wayne writes his name in the line up (no matter where in the batting order). I like the swing and he has what appears to be very quick wrists. Tall kid with good leverage, the power will come. This year, Stringer and Aquino will make him look better, as they carry most of the hitting burden. In the future, he will provide others protection.

He might be a part of the line up jigsaw puzzle this year. It is up to him to work hard and provide some production.

BTW, the above has been my belief since the announcement of his signing - it is not a reaction to his nice game yesterday. Coatza and Owl91 can confirm (as well as probably anyone that reads this message board).

I can so attest. And by the way, I concur - big Tekyl fan.

Note: The preceeding DOES represent the opinion of me, a living person.

(03-13-2013 05:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 05:09 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  ... the 3-hole comes up significantly more often with 2-outs and no runners on base (the least productive position possible) than any other spot in the order...

A pretty damning statement about Nos. 1-2!

Just a quirk of baseball. All but the very best hitters get out more often than they reach base, so the most likely situation for the third batter in any inning is two-outs/none on. Since the top of the order leads off more innings than any other group (mostly due to leading off every 1st inning but also because they get the most plate appearances), the 3-hole is the most common third batter in an inning. Combine those two facts together and the 3-hole is actually a fairly undesirable spot in the line-up.

The flip side? The 4-hole reaps all of the benefits. There's a relatively very good chance to lead off an inning (mainly due to the 2nd inning), and if the 4th batter does come up in the 1st then it's an important time to be at bat, because it means at least one of the previous three batters reached base and needs to come home (excluding home runs or some sort of triple/sac-fly combo that cleared the bases).

Of course, in the end line-up order doesn't make THAT big of a difference, but ideally you want a better hitter in the 4th spot than the 3rd.

Depends on who hits 1 and 2. If you have two guys with OBP's of say, .380, then there is a 62% chance that the first guy won't reach, followed by a 62% chance that the second guy won't reach, or about a 60/40 chance in favor of having at least one of them on base for the 3-hole hitter.

What really happens with current lineup construction is that the first inning is the one where the most runs are scored, suggesting that there is something right about current lineup construction, but the second inning is the one where the least runs are scored, suggesting a problem. After that it's pretty random. And in the aggregate, the first and second innings produce slightly fewer runs than the average inning doubled. Why is the second so bad? Who's probably the worst guy to lead off an inning? A slow power hitter. If he jacks it you score one run, anything else and he probably slows down everyone who hits behind him. And what inning is the #4 hitter most likely to lead off? The 2nd. Plus, if you get a guy or two on base, you're down to the bottom of the order to drive them in.

Former Astro Doug Rader had an interesting take on batting orders when he managed Hawaii in the AAA Pacific Coast League, with the DH. Leadoff hitter was a guy who could get on base and run, #2 hitter could handle the bat and do a lot of situational stuff, #3 was a guy with power. Repeat the same sequence 4-5-6, and again as best you could 7-8-9. After trying it for a while, Rader commented that it was amazing how that sequencing seemed to bring the right guy to the plate with amazing frequency. He never managed in the bigs, so never tried it there, but the idea has intrigued me since I read the interview.

Trivia of the day--What team won the world series with the highest OPS for any player with over 125 plate appearances belonging to a pitcher?

(03-14-2013 11:42 AM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 05:11 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(03-13-2013 05:09 PM)NicevilleWRC Wrote:  ... the 3-hole comes up significantly more often with 2-outs and no runners on base (the least productive position possible) than any other spot in the order...

A pretty damning statement about Nos. 1-2!

Just a quirk of baseball. All but the very best hitters get out more often than they reach base, so the most likely situation for the third batter in any inning is two-outs/none on. Since the top of the order leads off more innings than any other group (mostly due to leading off every 1st inning but also because they get the most plate appearances), the 3-hole is the most common third batter in an inning. Combine those two facts together and the 3-hole is actually a fairly undesirable spot in the line-up.

The flip side? The 4-hole reaps all of the benefits. There's a relatively very good chance to lead off an inning (mainly due to the 2nd inning), and if the 4th batter does come up in the 1st then it's an important time to be at bat, because it means at least one of the previous three batters reached base and needs to come home (excluding home runs or some sort of triple/sac-fly combo that cleared the bases).

Of course, in the end line-up order doesn't make THAT big of a difference, but ideally you want a better hitter in the 4th spot than the 3rd.

It is not balanced by more RBI chances and overall plate appearances compared to other spots in the lineup?

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Former Astro Doug Rader had an interesting take on batting orders when he managed Hawaii in the AAA Pacific Coast League, with the DH. Leadoff hitter was a guy who could get on base and run, #2 hitter could handle the bat and do a lot of situational stuff, #3 was a guy with power. Repeat the same sequence 4-5-6, and again as best you could 7-8-9. After trying it for a while, Rader commented that it was amazing how that sequencing seemed to bring the right guy to the plate with amazing frequency. He never managed in the bigs, so never tried it there, but the idea has intrigued me since I read the interview.

Edited to discuss the specific part I wanted to talk about: Rader did manage in the bigs (Rangers before Bobby V, Angels in the late 80's/early 90's).

Wikipedia doesn't discuss how he handled lineups once he got to the bigs; however, his records suggest that he was quite good at one-year turnarounds, before teams either backslid to where they were when he got there, or hovered at wherever they got to in the first year.

My guess is the 1918 Red Sox with Babe Ruth.

Depends on who hits 1 and 2. If you have two guys with OBP's of say, .380, then there is a 62% chance that the first guy won't reach, followed by a 62% chance that the second guy won't reach, or about a 60/40 chance in favor of having at least one of them on base for the 3-hole hitter.

What really happens with current lineup construction is that the first inning is the one where the most runs are scored, suggesting that there is something right about current lineup construction, but the second inning is the one where the least runs are scored, suggesting a problem. After that it's pretty random. And in the aggregate, the first and second innings produce slightly fewer runs than the average inning doubled. Why is the second so bad? Who's probably the worst guy to lead off an inning? A slow power hitter. If he jacks it you score one run, anything else and he probably slows down everyone who hits behind him. And what inning is the #4 hitter most likely to lead off? The 2nd. Plus, if you get a guy or two on base, you're down to the bottom of the order to drive them in.

Former Astro Doug Rader had an interesting take on batting orders when he managed Hawaii in the AAA Pacific Coast League, with the DH. Leadoff hitter was a guy who could get on base and run, #2 hitter could handle the bat and do a lot of situational stuff, #3 was a guy with power. Repeat the same sequence 4-5-6, and again as best you could 7-8-9. After trying it for a while, Rader commented that it was amazing how that sequencing seemed to bring the right guy to the plate with amazing frequency. He never managed in the bigs, so never tried it there, but the idea has intrigued me since I read the interview.

Trivia of the day--What team won the world series with the highest OPS for any player with over 125 plate appearances belonging to a pitcher?
[/quote]

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Former Astro Doug Rader had an interesting take on batting orders when he managed Hawaii in the AAA Pacific Coast League, with the DH. Leadoff hitter was a guy who could get on base and run, #2 hitter could handle the bat and do a lot of situational stuff, #3 was a guy with power. Repeat the same sequence 4-5-6, and again as best you could 7-8-9. After trying it for a while, Rader commented that it was amazing how that sequencing seemed to bring the right guy to the plate with amazing frequency. He never managed in the bigs, so never tried it there, but the idea has intrigued me since I read the interview.

he did manage in the bigs. didn't follow his teams and don't recall how he ran lineups
http://www.baseball-reference.com/manage...do02.shtml

Damn, I forgot that he did make it that far. That's what I get for not checking baseball-reference.com before posting. He didn't exactly have a lot of success. I don't remember that he used that lineup strategy. It would have almost certainly drawn comment if he had, because the "cleanup" hitter in his lineup was more like a leadoff hitter than a traditional #4 batter.

(03-14-2013 11:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  the first and second innings produce slightly fewer runs than the average inning doubled. Why is the second so bad? Who's probably the worst guy to lead off an inning? A slow power hitter. If he jacks it you score one run, anything else and he probably slows down everyone who hits behind him. And what inning is the #4 hitter most likely to lead off? The 2nd. Plus, if you get a guy or two on base, you're down to the bottom of the order to drive them in.

The worst guy to lead off an inning is obviously a low power, low OBP hitter. A slow power hitter is still a great option because they're likely to get on base and with an XBH be in scoring position, thus making it easier to score. Also, it's very rare that a slow runner will clog up the bases for a fast runner behind them. Think how rare the situations are for this to happen: you'd need a slow runner on second, a fast runner on first, and a single or double where the fast runner would otherwise take the extra base (1st to 3rd or 1st to home). How often does this situation occur? Very, very rarely; Tangotiger estimates a slow runner would clog up the bases about once in an MLB season.

Here's a good summary article for my last post for the whole line-up. Though as I said before, line-up order rarely makes a difference.