2011 Lineups Thread

[Dipre]

Dipre' date=' I'm new at this. Can you say more about the second point in your last post?[/quote']

 

If you're managing an opposing team and you have a man at second with two outs, Youk at bat, Crawford on deck, do you pitch to Youk knowing that Crawford is a slap hitter?

 

"Protection" is overrated but it is a strategic factor too commonly overlooked as well.

[Dipre]

Crawford has a .744 hitting leadoff and .790 hitting third, and the sample size for hitting third is skewed since he's obviously superior now than he was back when he hit leadoff.

 

To those who say "he can't perform hitting lead-off" that is bull. He's getting paid 20 mill and he'll hit where he's told to hit.

[SoxFanForsyth]

...which will be 3rd. You're not going to move Pedroia from the 2 hole, and Francona has already said that he believes the line up is best with Ellsbury leading off. Pedroia is the best 2 hole hitter in the game - low strike outs, high walks, high on base, high average, high contact. No way Pedey gets moved.

 

It's only logical that Pedroia hits in the 2 hole, which would mean Crawford 3, Gonzo 4.

 

One thing I am a bit worried about is that Ortiz may have a bit of a fall off this year. His plate discipline is lacking, and he's going to have minimal protection behind him, which will allow pitchers to throw around him and he'll probably chase.

 

The good thing about having him hit 6th, though, is that he provides Youk and ultimately Gonzo with protection.

 

Man, though. Gonzo could be good for 45-50 HR and 140 RBI's this year hitting in front of Youk and behind Ells/Pedey/Crawford.

 

And Youk, behind the 4 of them, could be in for 30-35 HR/120 RBI's.

[Dipre]

If by "third" you meant "first" because not only is he not a three hitter, but there are better options on the team, then i agree. Also stacking lefties in the middle of the lineup is asking to be torn apart by lefty specialist in the later innings of a ballgame, specially when Crawford is so vulnerable against them (another reason he shouldn't hit third by the way)

 

I also agree on Pedey hitting second, which is why Crawford should lead off.

 

And also you're not completely right on Ortiz, he still has solid patience (82 BB last year), but his high K numbers are exacerbated by his inability to hit lefties.

[Plumpamania]

If by "third" you meant "first" because not only is he not a three hitter, but there are better options on the team, then i agree. Also stacking lefties in the middle of the lineup is asking to be torn apart by lefty specialist in the later innings of a ballgame, specially when Crawford is so vulnerable against them (another reason he shouldn't hit third by the way)

 

I also agree on Pedey hitting second, which is why Crawford should lead off.

 

And also you're not completely right on Ortiz, he still has solid patience (82 BB last year), but his high K numbers are exacerbated by his inability to hit lefties.

 

I am Plump, leader of Plumpamania, and I approve of this message.

[RedSoxfanforlife305]

I am Plump' date=' leader of Plumpamania, and I approve of this message.[/quote']

 

Cool guy over here

[example1]

Having Gonzalez or Youkilis at the plate means that good things are going to happen. Not only do they get on base (i.e., not make an out) roughly 40% of the time they bat, they also regularly put a charge into the ball and are among the game's best power-hitters.

 

There isn't any scenario in any game where I see a point in choosing to have Crawford bat instead of either Gonzalez or Youkilis. For that reason he should hit first or second.

 

I like the arguments about Pedroia as the best #2 hitter in baseball. Strongly agree. That said, I can't help but wonder if there aren't factors we are missing with our traditional view of how the lineup should be constructed. What would be the harm in having Pedroia bat #3? I think he's a better hitter than Crawford (his OBP is consistently higher) and he has tremendous zone control. He can make things happen offensively and make productive outs.

 

In my mind I toy around with:

 

 

1. Ellsbury

2. Crawford

3. Pedroia

 

Three of the most electric players in the game.

 

4. Gonzalez

5. Youkilis

6. Ortiz

 

Three of the best power hitters in the game.

 

Lowrie

Drew

Salty

 

Two switch hitters with power and a high OBP guy with 20HR power in between.

 

I wonder if the benefit of having Ellsbury and Crawford hit back to back 4 times per-game rather than 3 (on average) would outweigh the gain the opposing team would have by platooning in late innings of close games. Dipre, I definitely share your concern about late inning matchups for sure, but also wonder if they would be able to find effeciency elsewhere to allow for one of the most thrilling duos at the top of an order in many, many years.

 

I can't help but wonder, what happens if Ellsbury hits really well and deserves to hit leadoff?

[sandiegosoxfan]

This is why I think it's worth considering alternating speed-power, speed-power through the batting order.

[Dipre]

Having Gonzalez or Youkilis at the plate means that good things are going to happen. Not only do they get on base (i.e., not make an out) roughly 40% of the time they bat, they also regularly put a charge into the ball and are among the game's best power-hitters.

 

There isn't any scenario in any game where I see a point in choosing to have Crawford bat instead of either Gonzalez or Youkilis. For that reason he should hit first or second.

 

I like the arguments about Pedroia as the best #2 hitter in baseball. Strongly agree. That said, I can't help but wonder if there aren't factors we are missing with our traditional view of how the lineup should be constructed. What would be the harm in having Pedroia bat #3? I think he's a better hitter than Crawford (his OBP is consistently higher) and he has tremendous zone control. He can make things happen offensively and make productive outs.

 

In my mind I toy around with:

 

 

1. Ellsbury

2. Crawford

3. Pedroia

 

Three of the most electric players in the game.

 

4. Gonzalez

5. Youkilis

6. Ortiz

 

Three of the best power hitters in the game.

 

Lowrie

Drew

Salty

 

Two switch hitters with power and a high OBP guy with 20HR power in between.

 

I wonder if the benefit of having Ellsbury and Crawford hit back to back 4 times per-game rather than 3 (on average) would outweigh the gain the opposing team would have by platooning in late innings of close games. Dipre, I definitely share your concern about late inning matchups for sure, but also wonder if they would be able to find effeciency elsewhere to allow for one of the most thrilling duos at the top of an order in many, many years.

 

I can't help but wonder, what happens if Ellsbury hits really well and deserves to hit leadoff?

 

Ellsbury

Crawford

Pedroia

Gonzales

Youkilis

Ortiz

Lowrie

Drew

Salty

 

Ellsbury has no platoon issues (and he's a slapper anyway) so i think that lineup actually makes sense. I'd be toying around with the "Pedroia bats 3rd" idea actually.

[example1]

Ellsbury has no platoon issues (and he's a slapper anyway) so i think that lineup actually makes sense. I'd be toying around with the "Pedroia bats 3rd" idea actually.

 

I suspect the notion of having your best hitter 3rd comes from the assumption that any team has only a limited number of potential candidates, and all things being equal the best hitter should be there.

 

However, if a team theoretically had a hitter who couldn't hit a lick but got on base 100% of the time, wouldn't it only be logical to move your best power hitter behind him? If you have guys who aren't going to make outs but who can't drive themselves in, they should be lined up before the mashers... even if that pushes the mashers back beyond where they might traditionally be in the 3/4 slots.

 

I think this is the logic about having Crawford hit 3rd too, but I like it much better with Pedroia there. Overall, this lengthens the lineup and offers a very touch stretch of alternating hitters in Pedroia/Gonzalez/Youkilis/Ortiz with either Crawford or Ellsbury on the bases.

 

In theory, you basically give two great leadoff hitters a chance to get on base in front of Pedroia, who would function as a hybrid #2 hitter, moving the ball around, looking to work a walk or get a hit to drive in the runner. I think we would all trust him with that responsibility. With the speed of Ellsbury and Crawford, Pedroia should have a lot of RISP and should get good pitches to hit in front of Gonzalez.

 

I have no way of knowing if this is what they will do but I like it better than moving Pedroia down further in the lineup. He, Ellsbury and Crawford are all 'top of the lineup' type players.

[SoxFanForsyth]

I can definitely see the Ellsbury - Crawford - Pedey top 3. And, in all honesty, is there really that much difference between having Crawford bat 2nd and Pedey 3rd vs Pedey 2nd and Craw 3rd?

 

I will admit, though, that right before Pedroia got hurt last year, when Francona was hitting him in the 3 hole, I really really liked that idea. It's not unreasonable to think Pedroia will hit 18-20 HR, and hitting behind Ells and Crawford, he could drive in 90-100.

 

Here's my take on it, though. If you're dead set on hitting Pedey or Crawford 3rd, and you really can't go wrong with either of them, I would look at stats with RISP as the decision maker.

 

Pedroia (2009, last healthy full season)

.327/.418/.440/.858, 3 HR, 55 RBI. 150 AB's.

 

Crawford (2010 obviously)

.359/.400/.538/.938 2 HR, 63 RBI, 156 AB's.

 

Like I said, you really can't go wrong either way, but I think Crawford may be the better option in the 3 slot.

 

As far as the whole LOOGY vs your 3rd and 4th hitter (CC and Gonzo), well Gonzo last year hit .337 vs LHP, better than he did vs RHP, so a lefty specialist isn't going to be that effective against him, and if the biggest thing we're worried about is getting into the 8th or 9th inning and having Crawford - Gonzo - Youk up, and we're worried because they're bringing in a LOOGY, I think we're going to be fine.

 

Gonzo's 2010 stats vs LHP

.337/.424/.513/.937 8 HR, 33 RBI, 199 AB's.

 

Youk's 2009 stats vs LHP

.309/.435/.518/.953, 6 HR, 22 RBI, 139 AB's.

 

So Gonzo hit lefties just as well as Youk hit lefties, so throwing a lefty vs Gonzo is going to be about as effective as throwing a lefty vs Youk.

[Dipre]

Crawford career OPS with RISP: .843.

 

Using his absolute best season (which could be an outlier) is intellectually dishonest. It's like using Beltre's 2004 numbers to justify his next contract.

 

Gonzales has a career OPS of .783 against lefties. Using his 2010 (a clear outlier) to justify having him behind a lefty is also dishonest.

 

The bottom line is that you can't maximize Crawford's potential (speed) by hitting him directly in front of Gonzales and Youkilis, since his opportunities to run will be diminished, not to mention his platoon issues as well as overall lack of power and OBP skills make him a poor choice to hit 3rd.

[Palodios]

Even though A-gon had a good split in 2010, and Ellsbury may have hit balanced in his career so far, I'd avoid a L/L combo at any point at the top of the order. And I bet that's what Francona is thinking as well.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Crawford career OPS with RISP: .843.

 

Using his absolute best season (which could be an outlier) is intellectually dishonest. It's like using Beltre's 2004 numbers to justify his next contract.

 

Gonzales has a career OPS of .783 against lefties. Using his 2010 (a clear outlier) to justify having him behind a lefty is also dishonest.

 

The bottom line is that you can't maximize Crawford's potential (speed) by hitting him directly in front of Gonzales and Youkilis, since his opportunities to run will be diminished, not to mention his platoon issues as well as overall lack of power and OBP skills make him a poor choice to hit 3rd.

 

 

For both Crawford and Gonzalez, I took their most recent stats. I take those because those are generally a better indication of how they will perform than career stats when players are entering their prime. It's not comparable to using 2004 stats, because these are the most recent, I'm not cherry picking stats.

 

It's actually almost more dishonest to use career stats because you're using stats from when Crawford was 20 years old and learning how to play in the MLB.

 

Taking stats from the most recent healthy season is a very clear, honest indicator of future performance, barring future injury obviously.

 

Cherry picking the best years would be a dishonest way to look at stats, however Gonzo has been steadily improving his stats vs LHP, as is indicated by his lines from 2007-2010, so while he may not hit .340 next year, it's not outrageous to believe that he will be over .300 vs LHP.

 

As far as limiting Crawford's steal opportunities, I don't see how hitting him in the 3 hole would decrease his opportunities by a significant enough amount to justify moving him to the 2 hole instead. Not to mention the fact that having Crawford on base in front of Gonzo, Youk, or Ortiz would take focus off the hitter and put it on Crawford (at least a portion of it), and would have the pitcher leaking more pitches across the middle of the plate for our power hitters. That's one of the intangible assets that Crawford has, and our big boppers should take advantage of this.

[BSN07]

Crawford career OPS with RISP: .843.

 

Using his absolute best season (which could be an outlier) is intellectually dishonest. It's like using Beltre's 2004 numbers to justify his next contract.

 

Gonzales has a career OPS of .783 against lefties. Using his 2010 (a clear outlier) to justify having him behind a lefty is also dishonest.

 

The bottom line is that you can't maximize Crawford's potential (speed) by hitting him directly in front of Gonzales and Youkilis, since his opportunities to run will be diminished, not to mention his platoon issues as well as overall lack of power and OBP skills make him a poor choice to hit 3rd.

 

But you want him to lead off?

 

I still think he's best suited to be #5. You can't tell me Ortiz wouldn't benefit from having him running around the bases. He's also a good enough hitter to clean up what Agon and Youk leave behind(or Youk and Agon themselves).

 

My lineup(s) take into account both production and maintaining players happiness while putting them in a position to succeed.

 

Ellsbury(Tito wants him their)

Pedroia(arguably the best #2 hitter in the game, why change it?)

Agon(Your new big bopper right where he belongs)

Youk(Excellent protection, plenty of opportunities)

Crawford(Cleans up the left overs, reset's the table for Papi and Drew, doesn't have to lead off, hitting in the middle of the order justify his contract more then a LOH.)

Lowrie/Scutaro(Continuing the L-R-L pattern, excellent capabilities of moving Crawford into scoring position if need be, and a player it may be ok to take the ba out of his hand and sacrifice, good overall OBP skills)

Ortiz(Will be presented with plenty of RBI opportunities, will benefit from the distractions of Crawford/Lowrie/Scuataro. Likely to get more FB mistakes)

 

Then 8th or 9th can go either Drew or Salty.

[SoxFanForsyth]

But you want him to lead off?

 

I still think he's best suited to be #5. You can't tell me Ortiz wouldn't benefit from having him running around the bases. He's also a good enough hitter to clean up what Agon and Youk leave behind(or Youk and Agon themselves).

 

Fifth would be a bad option for him. You're putting him behind Youk and Gonzo. Youk will get pitched around to get to Crawford, especially because Youk is slow and won't go 1st to 3rd on a single, which means if Crawford gets on base, it will be Crawford on 1st, Youk on 2nd. Well no longer is Crawford taking any attention off the pitcher because Youk is prohibiting him from stealing a base because he's too slow to go 1st to 3rd on a single.

 

You're taking way too much away from Youk and Crawford by hitting him 5th.

[BSN07]

Fifth would be a bad option for him. You're putting him behind Youk and Gonzo. Youk will get pitched around to get to Crawford, especially because Youk is slow and won't go 1st to 3rd on a single, which means if Crawford gets on base, it will be Crawford on 1st, Youk on 2nd. Well no longer is Crawford taking any attention off the pitcher because Youk is prohibiting him from stealing a base because he's too slow to go 1st to 3rd on a single.

 

You're taking way too much away from Youk and Crawford by hitting him 5th.

 

Half my post didn't go through, I went back and wrote it again and try to explain why I set the lineup the way I did.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Half my post didn't go through' date=' I went back and wrote it again and try to explain why I set the lineup the way I did.[/quote']

 

Well I still hate to see Crawford 5th because you're taking away his two biggest assets - speed and the ability to take the focus off the hitter. I think Gonzo is going to thrive when Crawford is on base because he's going to see mistake pitches that are a result of Crawford's speed.

 

The only thing worse than having Gonzo up to bat is having him up with RISP and when Crawford gets on first, that's the one thing you're trying to avoid.

 

I do, however, see your point about trying to reset the line up with a power hitting leadoff type guy, and I think that's an interesting point, but I just think you'd be limiting his base stealing threat too much by hitting him behind two guys who he could catch and could potentially prohibit him from scoring from first.

[BSN07]

Well I still hate to see Crawford 5th because you're taking away his two biggest assets - speed and the ability to take the focus off the hitter. I think Gonzo is going to thrive when Crawford is on base because he's going to see mistake pitches that are a result of Crawford's speed.

 

The only thing worse than having Gonzo up to bat is having him up with RISP and when Crawford gets on first, that's the one thing you're trying to avoid.

 

I do, however, see your point about trying to reset the line up with a power hitting leadoff type guy, and I think that's an interesting point, but I just think you'd be limiting his base stealing threat too much by hitting him behind two guys who he could catch and could potentially prohibit him from scoring from first.

 

He's already going to receive that with Ellsbury. Why not try and provide Ortiz with that advantage as well? Why give it only to Agon? Does Agon really need the extra help?(of course it's nice, but out of everyone in the lineup I could think of a couple other players that could use the advantages of distraction on the base paths more then Agon)?

 

I think the only difference in what you all are suggesting and what I have suggested it's that you want to load the top half of the lineup. I want them to spread it out and create a deeper lineup. Look at it like this, you want the top half of the lineup to be a 10/10 and the bottom half to be about a 6/10. I see my lineup as more having an 8/10 all the way through. In the end it will probably amount to the same, jut two different ways of dispersing the wealth

[SoxFanForsyth]

He's already going to receive that with Ellsbury. Why not try and provide Ortiz with that advantage as well? Why give it only to Agon? Does Agon really need the extra help?(of course it's nice, but out of everyone in the lineup I could think of a couple other players that could use the advantages of distraction on the base paths more then Agon)?

 

I think the only difference in what you all are suggesting and what I have suggested it's that you want to load the top half of the lineup. I want them to spread it out and create a deeper lineup. Look at it like this, you want the top half of the lineup to be a 10/10 and the bottom half to be about a 6/10. I see my lineup as more having an 8/10 all the way through. In the end it will probably amount to the same, jut two different ways of dispersing the wealth

 

Yeah it's definitely an interesting concept of kind of reinventing/restarting the line up in the 5th hole, I'm just more of a fan of getting our run scorers all opportunities to get on base before our 3 big boppers. Imagine having the bases juiced with Gonzo/Youk/Ortiz coming up. Oh. My. God. :thumbsup:

[Dipre]

 

It's actually almost more dishonest to use career stats because you're using stats from when Crawford was 20 years old and learning how to play in the MLB.

 

Taking stats from the most recent healthy season is a very clear, honest indicator of future performance, barring future injury obviously.

 

 

As far as limiting Crawford's steal opportunities, I don't see how hitting him in the 3 hole would decrease his opportunities by a significant enough amount to justify moving him to the 2 hole instead. Not to mention the fact that having Crawford on base in front of Gonzo, Youk, or Ortiz would take focus off the hitter and put it on Crawford (at least a portion of it), and would have the pitcher leaking more pitches across the middle of the plate for our power hitters. That's one of the intangible assets that Crawford has, and our big boppers should take advantage of this.

 

Incorrect.

 

It's much easier to identify a career "average" or "trend" using career numbers than a single-season outlier. One-season performances are bound to be affected by a number of factors, such as BABIP and other flukes, that tend to even out over a career.

 

Adrian Gonzales (who you're touting to possibly be able to hit .300 against lefties next year) is a perfect simple, and the reason why you don't use single-season stats to judge a player. He had a .371 BABIP vs lefties last year, and there's about a 0% chance that repeats itself next year.

 

Come on now. And if you make the point of "cherry picking the best years" that's exactly what you did there. If taking stats from the most recent year is the best way to predict future performance, then do you expect Jose Bautista to hit 50 bombs again? i don't, and that's why it's dishonest. It's a massive flaw in logic.

 

I'll also ask if you've watched much baseball, because managers are reluctant to give the green light to their base-stealers (Tito is specially guilty) when they have their big boppers swinging.

[Dipre]

BSN, fifth would be an even worse option than third, for several reasons:

 

1) It's an RBI spot. Crawford is a slap hitter.

 

2) There's a reason why lineups have been used the way they have been used for years, and part of that has to do with lineup protection. Notice Albert Pujols' IBB%, which has been significantly lower since the Cards got Holliday, it works in your softball team, but in real baseball the manager will put on whoever's ahead of Crawford ten times out of ten on base so they can face Crawford (who can't hit lefties) and even worse if he has Ortiz behind him (who can't hit lefties either) rendering the thought of hitting Crawford ahead of Ortiz worse than injecting your penis with cocaine.

 

3) Crawford's main asset is speed, speed is better utilized near the top of the lineup, where he will also have more opportunities to bat and create situations per day. I'm glad your double lineup idea worked in softball, but it doesn't seem so effective when applying it to the big boy league for a multitude of reasons.

[example1]

I can definitely see the Ellsbury - Crawford - Pedey top 3. And' date=' in all honesty, is there really [i']that[/i] much difference between having Crawford bat 2nd and Pedey 3rd vs Pedey 2nd and Craw 3rd?

 

I will admit, though, that right before Pedroia got hurt last year, when Francona was hitting him in the 3 hole, I really really liked that idea. It's not unreasonable to think Pedroia will hit 18-20 HR, and hitting behind Ells and Crawford, he could drive in 90-100.

 

Here's my take on it, though. If you're dead set on hitting Pedey or Crawford 3rd, and you really can't go wrong with either of them, I would look at stats with RISP as the decision maker.

 

Pedroia (2009, last healthy full season)

.327/.418/.440/.858, 3 HR, 55 RBI. 150 AB's.

 

Crawford (2010 obviously)

.359/.400/.538/.938 2 HR, 63 RBI, 156 AB's.

 

Like I said, you really can't go wrong either way, but I think Crawford may be the better option in the 3 slot.

 

Like I said before, I think the Sox may look to get out of the mindset of the #3 guy driving in a ton of runs, or at least the notion of him having to drive in a lot of runs. I like Pedroia #3 because I trust his OBP to be a more accurate representation of his skill set than Crawford's .400 OBP in the same situation. If Pedroia bats 3rd and does nothing but get on base it is just additional runs for Gonzalez or Youkilis or Ortiz to drive in. He wouldn't have to swing for the fences. Yes, it is nice if a guy can hit HRs, but I don't doubt that Gonzalez and Youkilis will get plenty of ABs with lots of men on base even if they are hitting 4th and 5th.

[Dipre]

Like I said before' date=' I think the Sox may look to get out of the mindset of the #3 guy driving in a ton of runs, or at least the notion of him [i']having to[/i] drive in a lot of runs. I like Pedroia #3 because I trust his OBP to be a more accurate representation of his skill set than Crawford's .400 OBP in the same situation. If Pedroia bats 3rd and does nothing but get on base it is just additional runs for Gonzalez or Youkilis or Ortiz to drive in. He wouldn't have to swing for the fences. Yes, it is nice if a guy can hit HRs, but I don't doubt that Gonzalez and Youkilis will get plenty of ABs with lots of men on base even if they are hitting 4th and 5th.

 

If you're going to stray away from power in the three, then OBP is the clear choice. But it's not nearly as bad as the idea to have him (Crawford) hit fifth IMO.

 

The more i think about it, the less i like the Crawford signing.

[sandiegosoxfan]

I think BSN07 has a more eloquent explanation of the lineup I've been advocating.

 

One of the best things is that we don't "waste" too many stolen bases in front of guys that are going to double or homer a lot anyway and we distract the pitcher for the batters that can most benefit from it.

[sandiegosoxfan]

fifth would be an even worse option than third, for several reasons:

 

1) It's an RBI spot. Crawford is a slap hitter.

 

2) There's a reason why lineups have been used the way they have been used for years, and part of that has to do with lineup protection. Notice Albert Pujols' IBB%, which has been significantly lower since the Cards got Holliday, it works in your softball team, but in real baseball the manager will put on whoever's ahead of Crawford ten times out of ten on base so they can face Crawford (who can't hit lefties) and even worse if he has Ortiz behind him (who can't hit lefties either) rendering the thought of hitting Crawford ahead of Ortiz worse than injecting your penis with cocaine.

 

Dipre, I disagree that Crawford is a slap hitter--he had over 90 RBI's last year and 19 homers. I concede the lefty split point but I do not think in the "Crawford bats 5th" scenario I would have Ortiz in the lineup against lefties--more like Lowrie or Cameron.

[SoxFanForsyth]

If you're going to stray away from power in the three, then OBP is the clear choice. But it's not nearly as bad as the idea to have him (Crawford) hit fifth IMO.

 

The more i think about it, the less i like the Crawford signing.

 

Why?? Because he adds speed, 15-20 HR power, incredible defense, and extends our line up??

 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm crazy for liking a guy who has had a 12.6 WAR over the past 2 years.

 

As far as Gonzalez goes vs LHP, I didn't notice his BABIP vs LHP was so high last year, although his career BABIP of .291 equates to a career average of .262, which I could see both improving to a BABIP of around .310 and a 2011 average of around .280, as he has an inside out swing that will be able to drive the ball to the opposite field, a short opposite field I might add. Last year, a 310 foot pop fly to LF was an out. This year, it's a double.

 

I was looking to see if I could find a spray chart for Gonzo vs LHP because I believe he had a lot of opposite field hits vs LHP, but I could be mistaken. If that's the case, then I would assume that his average would not drop more than 40 points vs LHP going to Fenway.

[Dipre]

Allow me to explain the issue of hitting Crawford third or fifth instead of first or second in a more detailed manner.

 

This is taken from an article in The Hardball times which details the nuances of lineup construction:

 

First, the guys in the first two slots bat most often during the year; why waste those appearances on below-average hitters, or even average ones?

 

Secondly, The Book's key analysis was an assessment of the potential run value of each batting event in a lineup. They found that hits by the leadoff and second batters will typically generate more runs than hits from any other lineup position (other than cleanup). Hard to believe? I think most fans underappreciate the importance of power in these first two positions. These guys are only guaranteed to start an inning once, the first inning. Many other times, particularly in the American League, they will bat with runners on base.

 

In a nutshell, the first two positions bat most often and their hits create more runs than those in most other positions. This is why The Book recommends that you place two of your three best hitters in the first two lineup positions.

 

In the 1988 Baseball Abstract, Bill James found that teams score the most runs in the first inning and the fewest runs in the second. This makes sense when you think about it, because lineups are structured to score the most when the leadoff batter bats first. But he also found that the overall average of the two innings was less than the average of every other inning. In other words, the typical lineup was overemphasizing the first inning at the expense of the second inning.

 

One of the problems is that teams often put their highest OBP batter in the third position, but the #3 spot is the one LEAST likely to lead off the second inning. James said it, others agreed, and The Book confirms it. In addition, The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions.

 

This directly contradicts my idea that an OBP hitter should bat third, but it does make sense.

 

The article does not mention the importance of speed (Crawford's specialty) in the manufacturing of runs, which is why the more AB's the guys who feature the most speed in the lineup directly impact the amount of runs scored as well, it's one of the main principles of the "lead-off hitter".

[Dipre]

[/b]

 

Why?? Because he adds speed, 15-20 HR power, incredible defense, and extends our line up??

 

I'm sorry, maybe I'm crazy for liking a guy who has had a 12.6 WAR over the past 2 years.

 

As far as Gonzalez goes vs LHP, I didn't notice his BABIP vs LHP was so high last year, although his career BABIP of .291 equates to a career average of .262, which I could see both improving to a BABIP of around .310 and a 2011 average of around .280, as he has an inside out swing that will be able to drive the ball to the opposite field, a short opposite field I might add. Last year, a 310 foot pop fly to LF was an out. This year, it's a double.

 

I was looking to see if I could find a spray chart for Gonzo vs LHP because I believe he had a lot of opposite field hits vs LHP, but I could be mistaken. If that's the case, then I would assume that his average would not drop more than 40 points vs LHP going to Fenway.

 

Nope, because he's a tweener. He has excellent speed and defense, but middling power and OBP skills.

 

I have stated several times however (understandable you haven't read that, since you're new here) that there's a legit chance he follows the career path of Johnny and develops mid-20's HR power to go with his speed, which would make him something else.

[SoxFanForsyth]

Nope, because he's a tweener. He has excellent speed and defense, but middling power and OBP skills.

 

I have stated several times however (understandable you haven't read that, since you're new here) that there's a legit chance he follows the career path of Johnny and develops mid-20's HR power to go with his speed, which would make him something else.

 

I think the thing that Theo see's in him, which would compliment your opinion about his power development, is that he's not a Tim Raines, or a Kenny Lofton type player.

 

Crawford has amazing speed, yes, but Tim Raines was 5'8, 160 and Kenny Lofton was 6'0, 180.

 

Crawford is 6'2, 215. That's a big boy. Now, given, size doesn't always convert to power, but Damon was 6'2, 205.

 

I looked up some stuff just now on HitTracker - Carl Crawfords average HR distance last year - 411.6 feet. Johnny Damon's average HR distance in 2006 (when he hit 24) - 384.4. So the power is definitely there, it's just getting the consistency.

 

I think Crawford will become a 20-25 HR player over the next few years, especially if he's playing LF at Fenway where it's two steps back, 3 steps forward and you cover 80% of the grass.