Ick

[TheIncredibleRox]

Spring opens with a nice reminder that our manager has little idea how to effectively play baseball;

so Hurdle is going to let Taveras and several other Rockies who have speed, judgment or a combination of those traits be aggressive. With Garrett Atkins (120 RBIs in 2006), Matt Holliday (114 RBIs) and Todd Helton in the middle of the order, Taveras and second basemen Kazuo Matsui and Jamey Carroll -- who will occupy the top two spots of the order in some combination -- can feel free to run, since getting thrown out does not necessarily kill an inning.

Just Spring, and it wasn't a quote. But you get the idea that the author is paraphrasing Hurdle's logic.

Vomit.

[Heltonfan]

I've spent the past 15 minutes trying to come up with a witty remark that would do justice to that. I can't do it. That is just stupefyingly idiotic.

[hiaspire]

The icky part to me is taking someone else's writing and using it to criticize someone else. I know you said it wasn't a Hurdle quote but then made it all about Hurdle criticism.

I take tremendous issue with a traditional lineup with speed emphasized at the top of the order means someone has "little idea how to effectively play baseball". If that's the case, for centuries almost no effective baseball has ever been played.

I know there are philosophical differences here, but I try very hard not to stoop to the point of saying the other side has no idea about baseball. And I certainly wouldn't do it about people in the game for years on the field from either side of the arguement (while I sat in my living room judgemental) even if I took a different philsophical opinion than they do. Maybe it is that whole respect thing. I can disagree but still have respect for other opinions in the game.

In truth, our most successful teams EVER were by far the most aggressive in franchise history. Baylor wasn't so terrified of running out of an inning as people studying odds are. He played damn aggressive baseball and it was the most successful we've ever been. I wouldn't watch that aggressive team running all over the bases at will (even with guys who didn't do that well in their careers otherwise) and say that manager had no idea how to play effective baseball. It was the MOST effective we have ever been.

[RMF]

Same song 587th verse.

[Heltonfan]

The problem with that quote isn't that it advocates traditional lineup construction. It's that it suggests that the damage done by a CS is mitigated by the presence of excellent hitters lower down in the lineup. That's preposterous. This isn't an issue of philosophical difference, it's an issue of common sense.

[bedir than average]

Are any of those three guys that should be able to succeed more than 75% of the time?

[Heltonfan]

Taveras and Matsui are, absolutely. Carroll has decent speed, but is blessed with the baserunning acumen of a goat.

[bedir than average]

The break even point for SB ad CS is 75%, though high leverage situations can be lower, as it might be more appropriate close and late to go for the extrabase.

This is smart. Be glad you don't have Mike Hargrove who runs with everyone, steals/extrabases. That kills a team.

[Heltonfan]

No one is saying that Taveras and Matsui shouldn't be running. I have no idea why people are defending "aggressive baseball", when none of us in this thread are criticizing it. The problem isn't the conclusion, it's the mind-numbingly stupid logic used to arrive at the conclusion (whether it really comes from Hurdle or not, it's still absurd).

And since you mentioned it... Mike Hargrove would be an upgrade for us. The Mariners stole 106 bases last year, against 37 CS; the Rockies stole 85, with 50 CS. That's a clear edge for the M's, even considering that they have Ichiro and the Rockies don't.

[bedir than average]

You have the player most like Ichiro though. I hadn't read this quote when posting and so was a bit confused to the objection

The problem with that quote isn't that it advocates traditional lineup construction. It's that it suggests that the damage done by a CS is mitigated by the presence of excellent hitters lower down in the lineup. That's preposterous. This isn't an issue of philosophical difference, it's an issue of common sense.

That makes sense.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

The problem with that quote isn't that it advocates traditional lineup construction. It's that it suggests that the damage done by a CS is mitigated by the presence of excellent hitters lower down in the lineup. That's preposterous. This isn't an issue of philosophical difference, it's an issue of common sense.

It certainly isn't preposterous from the point of view in the piece in terms of something still being able to be accomplished within an inning. It depends upon what you are looking at there. That's how I read it. If you nearly ran yourself out of an inning with Clint Barmes up, then all hope would be lost. But not so much if you still have Helton up (with huge OBP) and your best hitters behind him. Sure, it isn't as good as if you didn't get caught running, but the point of that it sounded like was that even if that worst case did happen that you weren't completely down and out with no possibilities either.

I wasn't getting around the point of CS, though. I addressed it directly in terms of Baylor's aggressive style in which he ran with Big Cat and Bichette and everybody. The point wasn't to limit CS as some might on paper according to the odds, but to play a different STRATEGY that put the other team on the heels that never relented. And it was dang successful in the context of Rockies history. Sometimes playing not to fail isn't as successful in reality on the field, no matter how the math works out. Attitude and momentum are very real and can create drastic difference in results even if you are dealing with the same talent level and players from time to time.

Hurdle's numbers vs. Hargrove aren't all that relevant IMO in terms of SB success. I expect those numbers for Hurdle will be VASTLY different this year with a real SB weapon. Those compared numbers will definitely shift, but that won't have any bearing at all on a change in Hurdle, though, as it could be used in such analysis. It is just an example of getting someone who fits better in to a strategy preference. Players make a big difference.

[Heltonfan]

Sure, it isn't as good as if you didn't get caught running, but the point of that it sounded like was that even if that worst case did happen that you weren't completely down and out with no possibilities either.

Yes, but all that proves is that having good hitters in the 3-4-5 spots is very helpful, which is about as exciting as proving that the sun rises in the east. It says nothing about how different situations affect the value of the CS.

The question is whether the CS costs us fewer runs when followed by Helton/Holliday/Atkins than when followed by three random schmucks. The quoted statement seems to argue that it does. But all logic suggests that the CS costs us at least as many runs when followed by Helton/Holliday/Atkins... probably more, because the CS reduces the leverage of our stars' plate appearances, and as we all know, we want to entrust our best players with the highest-leverage situations.

[hiaspire]

Originally Posted by Heltonfan

as we all know, we want to entrust our best players with the highest-leverage situations.

Exactly... like turning a walk or bloop single into a runner in scoring position.

[Heltonfan]

Again, no one here is saying that Taveras and Matsui shouldn't be running. I don't know why you can't separate the issue I'm talking about from the larger topic of whether "aggressiveness" helps, but I'm done repeating myself.

[RMF]

I don't care if Taveras and Matsui run but I'd like to see those guys "running" towards the bottom of the order.

I'm very tempted to think Helton should be hitting lead off this season, Iannetta Second Atkins 3rd Holliday 4th etc...

If those speed demons can't get on base, keep them away from the top of the order.