Comments on: Seamheads Historical League Preview – Part 2 of 7 – National Association Division http://seamheads.com/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/ Sun, 12 Feb 2012 21:10:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Brian Joseph http://seamheads.com/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/comment-page-1/#comment-4822 Brian Joseph Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:16:50 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/#comment-4822 These lineups aren't easy to come up with and the Robinson/Foster thing was just a miss on my part. Oops! Thankfully, I'm not in control of deciding who actually had to play... I never could do it with these rosters!<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4822','Brian Joseph'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4822','Brian Joseph','These lineups aren\'t easy to come up with and the Robinson\/Foster thing was just a miss on my part. Oops! Thankfully, I\'m not in control of deciding who actually had to play... I never could do it with these rosters!'); return false;">Quote</a></div> These lineups aren’t easy to come up with and the Robinson/Foster thing was just a miss on my part. Oops! Thankfully, I’m not in control of deciding who actually had to play… I never could do it with these rosters!
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Mike Lynch http://seamheads.com/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/comment-page-1/#comment-4817 Mike Lynch Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:08:35 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/#comment-4817 Bob wrote: "To my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?" According to the simulation, Robinson has a much better rating in right field than Foster (18 vs. 8), with a slightly better arm (15 vs. 13), and the same range (12 each). The owner hasn't confirmed his starting lineups yet, but here's what the simulation has with some tweaking by me: Vs. RHP 1. Roush (CF) 2. Rose (3B) 3. Morgan (2B) 4. Robinson (RF) 5. Kluszewski (1B) 6. Bench (C) 7. Crawford (LF) 8. Larkin (SS) Vs. LHP 1. Roush (CF) 2. Rose (3B) 3. Morgan (2B) 4. Mitchell (LF) 5. Robinson (RF) 6. Perez (1B) 7. Bench (C) 8. Larkin (SS) Bench should probably be higher in the order and you'll notice that Kevin Mitchell is starting over George Foster. Foster was with Cincinnati much longer, but Mitchell's numbers with the Reds were pretty impressive, so he gets the nod. Out of curiosity, how would you compose the lineup? I'd love to get multiple opinions from our readers and I'm anxious to see how all of you would construct these lineups if given the chance.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4817','Mike Lynch'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4817','Mike Lynch','Bob wrote: \"To my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?\"\r\n\r\nAccording to the simulation, Robinson has a much better rating in right field than Foster (18 vs. 8), with a slightly better arm (15 vs. 13), and the same range (12 each). \r\n\r\nThe owner hasn\'t confirmed his starting lineups yet, but here\'s what the simulation has with some tweaking by me:\r\n\r\nVs. RHP\r\n1. Roush (CF)\r\n2. Rose (3B)\r\n3. Morgan (2B)\r\n4. Robinson (RF)\r\n5. Kluszewski (1B)\r\n6. Bench (C)\r\n7. Crawford (LF)\r\n8. Larkin (SS)\r\n\r\nVs. LHP\r\n1. Roush (CF)\r\n2. Rose (3B)\r\n3. Morgan (2B)\r\n4. Mitchell (LF)\r\n5. Robinson (RF)\r\n6. Perez (1B)\r\n7. Bench (C)\r\n8. Larkin (SS)\r\n\r\nBench should probably be higher in the order and you\'ll notice that Kevin Mitchell is starting over George Foster. Foster was with Cincinnati much longer, but Mitchell\'s numbers with the Reds were pretty impressive, so he gets the nod.\r\n\r\nOut of curiosity, how would you compose the lineup? I\'d love to get multiple opinions from our readers and I\'m anxious to see how all of you would construct these lineups if given the chance.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Bob wrote: “To my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?”

According to the simulation, Robinson has a much better rating in right field than Foster (18 vs. 8), with a slightly better arm (15 vs. 13), and the same range (12 each).

The owner hasn’t confirmed his starting lineups yet, but here’s what the simulation has with some tweaking by me:

Vs. RHP
1. Roush (CF)
2. Rose (3B)
3. Morgan (2B)
4. Robinson (RF)
5. Kluszewski (1B)
6. Bench (C)
7. Crawford (LF)
8. Larkin (SS)

Vs. LHP
1. Roush (CF)
2. Rose (3B)
3. Morgan (2B)
4. Mitchell (LF)
5. Robinson (RF)
6. Perez (1B)
7. Bench (C)
8. Larkin (SS)

Bench should probably be higher in the order and you’ll notice that Kevin Mitchell is starting over George Foster. Foster was with Cincinnati much longer, but Mitchell’s numbers with the Reds were pretty impressive, so he gets the nod.

Out of curiosity, how would you compose the lineup? I’d love to get multiple opinions from our readers and I’m anxious to see how all of you would construct these lineups if given the chance.

Reply – Quote
]]> By: Justin Murphy http://seamheads.com/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/comment-page-1/#comment-4816 Justin Murphy Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:45:56 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/#comment-4816 Those Pirates are loaded- I was surprised to see Andy Van Slyke in the starting lineup ahead of Waner, but sure enough, he had some monster years. Waner and Kiner have to get into the lineup somehow, not to mention Arky Vaughn.<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4816','Justin Murphy'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4816','Justin Murphy','Those Pirates are loaded- I was surprised to see Andy Van Slyke in the starting lineup ahead of Waner, but sure enough, he had some monster years. Waner and Kiner have to get into the lineup somehow, not to mention Arky Vaughn.'); return false;">Quote</a></div> Those Pirates are loaded- I was surprised to see Andy Van Slyke in the starting lineup ahead of Waner, but sure enough, he had some monster years. Waner and Kiner have to get into the lineup somehow, not to mention Arky Vaughn.
Reply – Quote
]]> By: Bob R. http://seamheads.com/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/comment-page-1/#comment-4814 Bob R. Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:20:50 +0000 http://seamheads.com/blog/2009/01/20/seamheads-historical-league-preview-part-2-of-7-national-association-division/#comment-4814 I am curious why you have Frank Robinson in LF and Foster in RF on the Reds team. Robinson did play more LF while in Cincinnati, but there were years when he played almost exclusively in RF there, and for his career he played more RF. And Foster was almost exclusively a left fielder for most of his career. During his big years with the Reds, he played LF most of the time. To my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?<div class="comment-remix-meta"><a href="#" class="replyto" onclick="replyto('4814','Bob R.'); return false;">Reply</a> - <a href="#" class="quote" onclick="quote('4814','Bob R.','I am curious why you have Frank Robinson in LF and Foster in RF on the Reds team. Robinson did play more LF while in Cincinnati, but there were years when he played almost exclusively in RF there, and for his career he played more RF. And Foster was almost exclusively a left fielder for most of his career. During his big years with the Reds, he played LF most of the time.\r\n\r\nTo my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?'); return false;">Quote</a></div> I am curious why you have Frank Robinson in LF and Foster in RF on the Reds team. Robinson did play more LF while in Cincinnati, but there were years when he played almost exclusively in RF there, and for his career he played more RF. And Foster was almost exclusively a left fielder for most of his career. During his big years with the Reds, he played LF most of the time.

To my knowledge, Robinson was considered a good right fielder. Was Foster considered superior there?

Reply – Quote
]]>