MLB Off-Topic

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I had a thought while playing the Show that I want to ask you guys about because I don't follow baseball as closely as I do other sports. Conventional wisdom puts typically your fastest guy batting lead off. Have there been managers who put their speed guy at second, swapping first and second in the batting order? I don't mean guys that happen to have good speed along with other tools, I mean the Billy Hamiltons and Ricky Hendersons of the world. What about the strategy of putting your best OB% guy at first, and your fastest guy at second? Pros: Almost removes the threat of GIDP, meaning higher likelihood of #3 batter having a guy on. Excellent bunting scenario. Lead off guy gets on, fast 2 drops a bunt. Better than average chance of 2 on no out Cons: Speed is lost if he is behind a slow runner Regarding the con of lost speed, really I think you only lose chances at stealing bases. Billy Hamilton can score from first almost any hit to the outfield, but I think on any hit that allows him to score from first, most #2 hitters would be able to score from 2nd. So he'll just be riding the hip of the lead runner. I think it boils down to the prospect of lost steal opportunities vs the benefit of more RBI chances for your #3 hitter. Thoughts? Any MLB managers past or present that did this? (the reason I bring this up is because building a prototypical lead off guy calls for a guy with good speed and a high OB%, but I've followed baseball enough to know that speed often trumps plate discipline)

According to SABR theory, your best hitters should bat 2nd and 4th (with the 3/1/5 spots somewhat close behind) because, empirically speaking, they should see the largest amount of high value opportunities over the course of a long season (read The Book by Tom Tango et al for more info).

According to traditional theory, you want a guy with good contact skills, decent speed, and someone who can work a walk at times while batting 2nd.

So, no, I don't think there's any orthodoxy out there that would put the speed-only guy into the 2 hole. Ideally you have a guy who is a good hitter and also fast for every spot in the lineup.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by WaitTilNextYear

According to SABR theory, your best hitters should bat 2nd and 4th (with the 3/1/5 spots somewhat close behind) because, empirically speaking, they should see the largest amount of high value opportunities over the course of a long season (read The Book by Tom Tango et al for more info). According to traditional theory, you want a guy with good contact skills, decent speed, and someone who can work a walk at times while batting 2nd. So, no, I don't think there's any orthodoxy out there that would put the speed-only guy into the 2 hole. Ideally you have a guy who is a good hitter and also fast for every spot in the lineup.

I know all about the common approaches to constructing a batting order, but I've lost count of the times I've seen managers put weak hitters at lead off because of their speed. Back when I watched baseball more the Mets had Jose Reyes there even though he couldn't work a count to save his life. Reds do the same thing with Hamilton and his career .247 BA.

Prior to posting a quick google search turned up a manager Bobby Bragan who put his best hitter first, only he ordered the rest of his lineup by descending batting average.

There is no arguing Henderson as the best lead off hitter, but would any manager bat Rose #1 and Raines #2? Conventional wisdom says put Raines 1st.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

I know all about the common approaches to constructing a batting order, but I've lost count of the times I've seen managers put weak hitters at lead off because of their speed. Back when I watched baseball more the Mets had Jose Reyes there even though he couldn't work a count to save his life. Reds do the same thing with Hamilton and his career .247 BA. Prior to posting a quick google search turned up a manager Bobby Bragan who put his best hitter first, only he ordered the rest of his lineup by descending batting average.

Most managers still put their fastest player that can hit a little at the top of the order, but more and more are bucking that trend.

Maddon has put Schwarber, Rizzo, Zobrist, and Contreras all in the leadoff spot this year. George Springer started hitting leadoff for the Astros mid-way through last year. Ian Kinsler has hit leadoff for the Tigers most of the last two seasons. There are plenty more examples, but those are just off the top of my head.

Managers are slowly starting to evolve their views when it comes to lineup construction.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

Most managers still put their fastest player that can hit a little at the top of the order, but more and more are bucking that trend. Maddon has put Schwarber, Rizzo, Zobrist, and Contreras all in the leadoff spot this year. George Springer started hitting leadoff for the Astros mid-way through last year. Ian Kinsler has hit leadoff for the Tigers most of the last two seasons. There are plenty more examples, but those are just off the top of my head. Managers are slowly starting to evolve their views when it comes to lineup construction.

Outside of the Orioles and a few big name players, I know very little about current rosters and lineups. Of the teams that do buck the trend of speed at 1st, where do they tend to put the guy that others would put 1st? I'd assume 9th.

[Jr.]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Outside of the Orioles and a few big name players, I know very little about current rosters and lineups. Of the teams that do buck the trend of speed at 1st, where do they tend to put the guy that others would put 1st? I'd assume 9th.

In the case of the Astros, I think they're hitting Jose Altuve 2nd. He's what you would consider a "prototypical" leadoff hitter (career batting average well over .300 and averages over 30 SBs per year). Joe Maddon likes having a "leadoff at the bottom" kind of lineup, so he's used guys that could hit leadoff in the 9 hole and hit the pitcher 8th fairly frequently the last 3 years in Chicago.

I would guess that most teams are hitting them at the bottom of the order somewhere. Speed isn't really utilized offensively in a traditional sense. Stolen bases are way down, and bunting is nearly non-existent.

[ggsimmonds]

Quote: Originally Posted by Jr.

In the case of the Astros, I think they're hitting Jose Altuve 2nd. He's what you would consider a "prototypical" leadoff hitter (career batting average well over .300 and averages over 30 SBs per year). Joe Maddon likes having a "leadoff at the bottom" kind of lineup, so he's used guys that could hit leadoff in the 9 hole and hit the pitcher 8th fairly frequently the last 3 years in Chicago. I would guess that most teams are hitting them at the bottom of the order somewhere. Speed isn't really utilized offensively in a traditional sense. Stolen bases are way down, and bunting is nearly non-existent.

Ah I knew bunting was not as frequent as in the past but didn't realize it was that rare. The threat of a drag bunt would presumably be a factor in putting a speedster at 2nd. Putting a guy with speed who knows how to drop a bunt would be a excellent way to put a runner in scoring position for your 3 and 4 hitters, and the chance of him reaching safely would be a good boon as well.

Back in the late 90s-early 2000s when I watched baseball more it seemed like an NL game was good for 3 bunt attempts, and that was not counting the pitchers.

[WaitTilNextYear]

Quote: Originally Posted by ggsimmonds

Ah I knew bunting was not as frequent as in the past but didn't realize it was that rare. The threat of a drag bunt would presumably be a factor in putting a speedster at 2nd. Putting a guy with speed who knows how to drop a bunt would be a excellent way to put a runner in scoring position for your 3 and 4 hitters, and the chance of him reaching safely would be a good boon as well. Back in the late 90s-early 2000s when I watched baseball more it seemed like an NL game was good for 3 bunt attempts, and that was not counting the pitchers.

It's also a good way to turn a potential "big inning" (TM) into a 1-run inning by gifting the defense an out. Most managers and SABR people don't really want to give that out up simply to move a guy 1 base. It's a losing deal for all but the worst hitters/GIDP candidates, unless that is the winning run in extra innings or the situation really dictates it.

[Majingir]

One thing I would've liked to see from MLB Network is them replaying past games/events in MLB history. Doesn't have to be a full 2-3 hour show, but like sum it up in 30 mins-1 hour.

Like this time of year for example, just showing highlights of past home run derbys or all star games would've been a cool thing to have.