Streaky players do streaky things, thats why you let them play through a slump. There's no notification for when a guy's slump is gonna stop, or when a hot streak is gonna start. You just have to have faith in your best players that water will find it's level. His numbers for the postseason overall are a not terrible .250/.339/.423. Now we wait and hope it was the start of one of his molten hot stretches where everything off his bat is a missile.
Hinch's *strategy* was to have faith in his best players showing up. Because his best players are really, really, really good. And if he was going to die, it'd be their blood he spilled. You don't start messing with the dynamic before game #175.
Springer made a case against the knee-jerk reactions. I understand being frustrated and wanting to switch things around when a guy is struggling. I know the feelings well. But sometimes it's just better to fight off those initial urges and not give in to those reactions. Springer showed why sometimes it's better to trust in players when you know of their potential and skill set. Either way, nothing is 100%.
So, every time Springer has a good game, I should change my opinion, and every time he has a bad game, I should change it back? Rubbish.
DIdn't we go over this months ago? One good game should not change one's thinking just like a bad week shouldn't change one's thinking. Fortunately, Hinch (and most other managers) err on the side of historical perspective.
I was responding to AC, not you. History teaches many things. Many hold up over time. Some are displaced.
Right...but the message is still relevant. You and others want to change something that has worked quite successfully over the entire course of two seasons due to a bad week.
That is a total miss-interpretation of my reasoning. Ive been saying this since May, not just the last week. And my reasons, in a nutshell, is that I prefer a prototypical leadoff guy as opposed to Springer, who isnt. If you want to try to characterize my thinking, please make a better attempt at it.
I agree you've been saying this since May. I have been arguing my point since May. You prefer a prototypical leadoff man...that's great. Hinch doesn't and his strategy has been well explained and has been very successful for the past two years. I'm glad he's the manager.
To further the point. Springer led all AL leadoff hitters (300+ at bats) in OBP and OPS this season and was second in 2016 (in OBP). The job of the 'prototypical' leadoff hitter is to get on base. He's pretty good at that.
He is. Not so good running the bases or stealing them though. But to further my point (here we go), his tools and traits fit neatly into a prototypical cleanup guy (anywhere in the 4-6th spot) also.
No; you should stop focusing on small, insignificant sample sizes and, instead, rely on the much larger one that tells a much more complete story. None of us who advocated patience were doing so randomly; we weren't perched on a flimsy limb. We've watched him for two years now be really, really, really, really good & knew him busting out was far more likely than not.
Man..... the depth of the hole you've dug with your heels is truly staggering..... You are officially the only person on planet Earth who is nitpicking the steal total of a player that hit 34 HR and scored 112 runs.
No, that is not what I am doing. I am further defining what I think the tools of a prototypical leadoff guy should be. Are you feeling ok today? I mean, your misunderstanding or missing the context of most everything I am saying.
But as Hey Now said....he scored 112 runs. Seems to be another important aspect of a 'prototypical' leadoff man. Here is his slash line leading off an inning: .302/.393/.600/.993 Aside from stolen bases, what other traits does the prototypical leadoff man need that Springer lacks? If it's 'working the count' Springer was 3rd among all leadoff hitters (300+ at bats) in pitches per plate appearances and led all Astros in that stat except for Marwin.
You're defining a prototypical lead-off guy for 1980s National League baseball. It's an antiquated approach. The days of Vince Coleman are long gone.
