2016 Red Sox Hot Stove Discussion Thread

[Bellhorn04]

What do you mean by that is the way it is supposed to be?

 

As far as speedy guys go, it is more advantageous to put them in front of your singles and doubles hitters rather than at the top of the lineup. They would probably serve a better purpose batting 6th or 7th than they would batting 1st or 2nd, unless they are also high OBP guys.

 

One of the most errant slots in the batting order is the #2 guy. Here's a quote from Mitchel Lichtman on the topic:

 

"Probably the worst lineup offense that managers commit is putting a scrappy, speedy, bunt-happy, bat-control, but poor overall offensive player in the two hole."

 

This would be Jerry Remy on the 1978 team. And the leadoff hitter that year was Burleson, who had the worst OBP on the entire team.

[Bellhorn04]

Looks like Fred Lynn should have been the leadoff hitter on the 1978 team.

[jung]

Probably not here because I did not post here much last year, but I argued all last year that if they were going to play Holt as much as they did, Holt should have been bating lead off with Mookie behind him in the 2 hole. As I expected Holt's OBP was just a tick under Mookies...hardly a dif worth discussing yet Mookie was exactly that beast I referred to earlier that should have been in the 2 hole. To make matters worse, while being the fastest guy on the team, Mookie was not as yet a smart base runner and ran into useless outs. Holt bats from the left giving him an extra step and a half down the line and is at this point a more seasoned, smarter base runner. Though I expect Mookie to have learned something about base running, I expect Mookie to be even more of a hitting beast this year. Mookie is wasted batting lead off. Typical Farrell lunacy.

 

One of the reasons our batting order was such a mess last year is because it was a mess right from the 1 hole. If you screw up there, it is hard to recover.

 

I have an ulterior motive here. IMO, fat Panda is likely to fail again. Holt while not being a great 3rd baseman goes to 3rd and Panda starts riding pine until he gets the message. If it takes the whole year ....FINE. We are stuck with this misery for another five years and I am already sick of this pandering horse s***.

 

Holt might be worth considering as lead off with Mookie in the 2 this year as the effect would ripple through the entire order and might change this lumbering hippo of an offense into the juggernaut people thought they were getting, especially if it sends the Panda bear to the woods...I mean the pine.

Edited February 2, 2016 by jung

[Dojji]

If the fast guys can get on base, otherwise it's an exercise in futility, with weird ass exceptions like Alcides Escobar noted.

 

Alcides Escobar isn't really an exception. They led off with Escobar because their good OBP hitters were also their leading run producers and Ned Yost is a bit of a traditionalist. The Royals made a lot of brilliant decisions with their roster last year but leading off with Escobar is, let's just say it, not one of them.

 

I actually think they had him leading off mostly because that way their worst hitter wasn't going to bat with men on base.

[jacksonianmarch]

The guy at the top of the lineup will come to the plate the most. Traditional lineups don't make sense. Have your best hitter leading off guarantees he has to bat more, which actually increases your win prob. And the only time the lineup makeup really matters in terms of who follows who is the first time around.

[Sandlot]

Regarding a few postings by Spud and others about Sox outfield concerns, I wanted to share a comment about who I think is a key outfield prospect. As the # 1 pick (7th in first round) Andrew Benintendi is a name you’ve all heard but may not have followed. I like so many things about this 20 year old, lefty/lefty, has speed and really brings the lumber. His sophomore season he won the college player of the year at U of Arkansas. This is SEC baseball and if you dominate there at such a young age it’s likely you have the necessary tools. While prospects are prospects, I am excited about this player and looking forward to him starting in A ball with a move to AA by year’s end. I think Andrew may be a PLAYER! Edited February 2, 2016 by Sandlot

[mvp 78]

Beninterdi

 

I love this.

[cp176]

Regarding a few postings by Spud and others about Sox outfield concerns, I wanted to share a comment about who I think is a key outfield prospect. As the # 1 pick (7th in first round) Andrew Beninterdi is a name you’ve all heard but may not have followed. I like so many things about this 20 year old, lefty/lefty, has speed and really brings the lumber. His sophomore season he won the college player of the year at U of Arkansas. This is SEC baseball and if you dominate there at such a young age it’s likely you have the necessary tools. While prospects are prospects, I am excited about this player and looking forward to him starting in A ball with a move to AA by year’s end. I think Andrew may be a PLAYER!

 

I've brought him up once or twice.

[Sandlot]

Just saw the unfortunate misspelling. Edited. I do that often, usually bastardizing someone's name... Sorry Andrew. Just keep hitting!

[jung]

The guy at the top of the lineup will come to the plate the most. Traditional lineups don't make sense. Have your best hitter leading off guarantees he has to bat more, which actually increases your win prob. And the only time the lineup makeup really matters in terms of who follows who is the first time around.

 

That is far too absolute a position to take. Your best hitter might also be your best power source. In fact that is probably more and more likely and an issue given the sparsity of real power in baseball right now. 1 run HR's win nothing. So really you want your best OBP guy hitting 1st. That may not be and in fact is not likely to be your best hitter....certainly not your most dangerous hitter.

 

I would have preferred Holt to Mookie because Holt's OBP was something like 348 and Mookie was I think up into the high 350's....better but not enough better for a team that at least in its division was having trouble scoring enough to keep up with its division mates. Mookie recorded an incredible number of RBI's for a guy that had just mush hitting in front of him for most of the year. When JBJ had his little mini-run he and Mookie were just about in the middle of every run scoring opportunity they had in that 3 week period. Moving Mookie to 2 in the order is not miles better. But Holt will get on more than the guys we had at the bottom of the order and I expect Mookie to be even more of a hitting beast this year than last. Panda will get his shot at 3rd. But if he stumbles....unfortunately likely, then I would not hesitate to throw Holt in there and put him at the top of the order as well. No matter how you slice it, this team plays better with Panda sitting. Not expecting that to change by much if at all.

[User Name]

What the hell are you talking about? The only team that really outpaced the Sox in the East last year was Toronto (and they outpaced everyone). The Yanks scored a mere 16 runs more than the Sox, and that was with Panda being the living impersonation of Turd Ferguson, and Hanley injured a significant portion of the year.

 

Also, the phrase "1-run homers win nothing" is really really really dumb, specially considering how many 1-0 games we see in today's pitching-dominated environments. Dear Lord.

[User Name]

Alcides Escobar isn't really an exception. They led off with Escobar because their good OBP hitters were also their leading run producers and Ned Yost is a bit of a traditionalist. The Royals made a lot of brilliant decisions with their roster last year but leading off with Escobar is, let's just say it, not one of them.

 

I actually think they had him leading off mostly because that way their worst hitter wasn't going to bat with men on base.

 

Actually, they had him leading off because, for some statistical oddity, their w% was like .200 better with him leading off, a phenomenon not even Ned Yost could explain.

 

http://www.kansascity.com/sports/mlb/kansas-city-royals/article38121003.html

 

Your entire premise on why Yost hit Escobar first is 50 shades of wrong.

[Kimmi]

Not sure what anybody is talking about here. Bunters go to the bottom of the lineup or the bench. Bat-control is one characteristic of a good hitter but not a power hitter. Everybody can't be a power hitter. In fact there are few of them anymore. Scrappy is not actually something one would often ascribe to a hitter. Most teams have a beast in the 2 hole if they have one. Look at the guys the Cards have had in the 2. We have had Mueller, Pedrois, Vic....not exactly chop liver. Free swinging, power hitting pull hitters are feast or famine......Not exactly what you want there. We have had Holt there on occasion but Farrell does not appear to know a batting order from a Mack Truck and we have not had the strongest lineups of late in the first place. If XB had been using his new inside out swing from 2014 on, he might have been a perfect 2.

 

The 3 is what worries me because Pedroia has had a hard time staying on the field of late and I have a suspicion that Farrell is going to try to stick Hanley there especially if he has some misgivings about Pedroia. Hanley in the 3 which would be just plain bad IMO. The "noise" coming out of Fenway about Hanley worries me and I don't trust either Hanley to be effective nor Farrell who might reach and throw his confidence behind him.

 

Most teams do not have a beast in the 2 hole. Managers are still gravely mismanaging lineups. The #2 hitter should be one of your best 3 hitters. Here is a graphic of what the #2 hitters look like in comparison to the other spots. It hasn't changed much since 1913. Also notice that managers are still putting their best hitter in the #3 spot because that's what traditional wisdom tells them to do.

 

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/u/images/Lineup.jpg

[User Name]

Scioscia hit Trout second with the Angels a lot. The only reason he's hitting him third now is because of a lack of offensive depth. Other managers have adopted the idea of hitting their second-or-third best hitter second (Scioscia with Larry Walker, Pedroia hitting second for the Sox during his MVP heyday). Offensive depth has a lot to do with it, but the idea of hitting either your best OBP (non-power guy) second, or hitting him third (Pujols) but only giving two true OBP threats in front. There are many ways to skin a cat, is what I'm trying to say here.

[cp176]

And that is the way it is supposed to be. If those two guys up top had a little speed, all the better. if they had good bat control and could hit behind runners even better.

 

You can call it anything that you want - common sense, tradition, new age thinking, etc., etc., etc. - There is not one best way to set a lineup. There are and will continue to be many ways to get the job done. For those who want to put their best hitter at the top of your lineup, what criteria are you using to define your best hitter. The ideal player to plug in to each of the spots in a lineup does not exist. I think that I will defer to the professionals on the field. My assumption will be that they have used many pieces of available information to determine their lineup and that it is not set in one particular way just because that is the way that it has always been set. If who you consider to be your best hitter possess a combination of skills - the ability to get on base as well as the ability to produce runs, and you choose to slot him at the top of your order, go for it. If I slot him in the 3 or 4 hole and get up on you early because I have some pretty good OBP guys in the 1 and 2 slots, I like my odds of winning better than yours. I still appreciate not over thinking things too greatly. My approach may be to simplistic but oh well - It has worked, it works, and it will work continue to work. Oh by the way, if my pitchers are better than yours, you can set your lineup any way that you like but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I am going to beat you anyway most of the time.

[Dojji]

Looks like Fred Lynn should have been the leadoff hitter on the 1978 team.

 

With 3-4 different sucking chest wounds in the lineup in 78 it really wouldn't have mattered very much where Lynn hit.

[jung]

Yup....it's one of the things that makes baseball such a great game.

 

People who are all over and all into the stats claim it to be a game of individuals...playing down the team aspects of the game because it suits their purposes to do so. It is in fact a game of individuals....hitter confronting pitcher with bit players on either side supporting. But the simple fact is that your individual players and their offensive stats must roll up into enough meaningful offense. In order to do that there must be a meaningful, concerted effort at establishing a relevant offensive intent that runs 1-9. It must roll up into a real baseball team. If you don't have that...you have a Fantasy Baseball Team, at best. If you don't have players willing to cooperate or simply ignore the need for it, forget it.....play your 162 and prepare for next year.....try to do better.

Edited February 3, 2016 by jung

[Kimmi]

Scioscia hit Trout second with the Angels a lot. The only reason he's hitting him third now is because of a lack of offensive depth. Other managers have adopted the idea of hitting their second-or-third best hitter second (Scioscia with Larry Walker, Pedroia hitting second for the Sox during his MVP heyday). Offensive depth has a lot to do with it, but the idea of hitting either your best OBP (non-power guy) second, or hitting him third (Pujols) but only giving two true OBP threats in front. There are many ways to skin a cat, is what I'm trying to say here.

 

I was reading one article that stated that it did seem like more managers have put one of their best hitters in the #2 spot the past couple of years. Maybe they're finally starting to come around.

[Kimmi]

You can call it anything that you want - common sense, tradition, new age thinking, etc., etc., etc. - There is not one best way to set a lineup. There are and will continue to be many ways to get the job done. For those who want to put their best hitter at the top of your lineup, what criteria are you using to define your best hitter. The ideal player to plug in to each of the spots in a lineup does not exist. I think that I will defer to the professionals on the field. My assumption will be that they have used many pieces of available information to determine their lineup and that it is not set in one particular way just because that is the way that it has always been set. If who you consider to be your best hitter possess a combination of skills - the ability to get on base as well as the ability to produce runs, and you choose to slot him at the top of your order, go for it. If I slot him in the 3 or 4 hole and get up on you early because I have some pretty good OBP guys in the 1 and 2 slots, I like my odds of winning better than yours. I still appreciate not over thinking things too greatly. My approach may be to simplistic but oh well - It has worked, it works, and it will work continue to work. Oh by the way, if my pitchers are better than yours, you can set your lineup any way that you like but I wouldn't lose too much sleep over it. I am going to beat you anyway most of the time.

 

But there is a best way for teams to set their line ups. The line up would likely change based on whether the opposing pitcher is right or left handed, but there is a best way to set a team's line up. It's not going to make much of a difference, but the difference between an optimal line up and a traditional line up is about 15 runs, IIRC, which could be the difference between making the playoffs or not in a tight race.

 

The idea that "it works and has always" worked is traditional thinking at its best.

[cp176]

But there is a best way for teams to set their line ups. The line up would likely change based on whether the opposing pitcher is right or left handed, but there is a best way to set a team's line up. It's not going to make much of a difference, but the difference between an optimal line up and a traditional line up is about 15 runs, IIRC, which could be the difference between making the playoffs or not in a tight race.

 

The idea that "it works and has always" worked is traditional thinking at its best.

 

You are absolutely right. The but here is that the best way to set up a lineup is not currently being used. Whatever you think the traditional way of looking at things really might not be that much different from what you might think the optimal way of setting up a lineup might be. You do have an aversion to the terms themselves. I truly believe that the majority of team owners and managers have been "enlightened". I do not believe that the people doing it today are getting it all wrong.

[Elktonnick]

But there is a best way for teams to set their line ups. The line up would likely change based on whether the opposing pitcher is right or left handed, but there is a best way to set a team's line up. It's not going to make much of a difference, but the difference between an optimal line up and a traditional line up is about 15 runs, IIRC, which could be the difference between making the playoffs or not in a tight race.

 

The idea that "it works and has always" worked is traditional thinking at its best.

 

Kimmi, it is one thing to second guess a manager for a particular game or even over the entire season. However, you are questioning the entire baseball establishment. I don't recall a single successful manager who has managed the way you are suggesting over an entire season. BTW I presume you have never managed, or am wrong about that assumption.

[a700hitter]

[h=2]Orioles, Hideki Okajima Agree To Minor League Deal[/h] By Steve Adams | February 3, 2016 at 6:58pm CST

The Orioles and left-handed reliever Hideki Okajima have agreed to a minor league contract, reports Eduardo A. Encina of the Baltimore Sun (via Twitter). Back in December, during the Winter Meetings, it was reported that Okajima was seeking a return to the Majors.

The 40-year-old Okajima’s deal marks his return to American baseball after spending the past two seasons in Japan. Were he to make the Orioles’ roster, it’d be Okajima’s first appearance in the Majors since a brief stint with the Athletics in 2013. Of course, Okajima is known much better for his time with the Red Sox, for whom he pitched from 2007-11. In parts of those five seasons, Okajima worked to a 3.11 ERA with 7.9 K/9 against 3.1 BB/9 to go along with a 36.8 percent ground-ball rate. Okajima was lethal against left-handed batters, holding them to a paltry .216/.277/.323 batting line in his time with the Red Sox. While right-handed batters fared better against Okajima, their collective .246/.323/.397 batting line wasn’t exactly impressive in its own right.

Okajima returned to Japan following the 2013 season and posted outstanding numbers with the Fukuoka SoftBank Hawks — a 2.11 ERA with 36 strikeouts against 14 walks (four of which were intentional) in 42 1/3 innings. This past season, though, he threw just 7 1/3 innings with the Yokohama Bay Stars and surrendered seven runs.

Okajima will presumably compete for a spot in the Baltimore bullpen, although the team’s relief corps isn’t exactly lacking in terms of left-handed pitching. Southpaw Zach Britton has emerged as one of the game’s most effective closers, and the O’s have a number of left-handed options to bridge the gap from rotation to Britton in the form of Brian Matusz, T.J. McFarland and C.J. Riefenhauser.

 

I wonder if he has anything left other than a need for a paycheck.

[Dojji]

But there is a best way for teams to set their line ups.

 

No, there isn't a best way, there's an ideal way, there's a difference. The ideal way presumes that every event and even every team's baseball season conforms to average numbers, and we all know it doesn't, you should know Kimmi, you've argued yourself redfaced with a700 over this very point all winter.

 

If the ideal way in theory isn't demonstrably sufficiently better than the conentional way to prompt adoption among the minds of the 30 teams of leaders who stake their paychecks on this game and whose job it is to secure the best possible advantage for their team, then there must be some disadvantages, real or perceived, to pursuing the theoretical ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst

Edited February 4, 2016 by Dojji

[jung]

Even my earlier post regarding some teams switching out their 3 hitter to a 4 and discussion of the kind of hitter often found in the 2 is an example of the differences between teams and Managers, not suggesting the existence of some sort of lock step structured approach to lineups. I seriously doubt that will ever happen because Managers are often groping for a batting order that can or will coalesce into an offense. Now more than ever that also means dealing with single minded players that decide for themselves how they are going to approach their plate appearances based on what they believe to be best for them as individual players.

 

Look how single minded Hanley got about swinging for the fences in 2015. By the end it was pathetic. Pitchers adapt. If they know what you are going to do each time you come to the plate, you are just meat and they will chew you up. Didn't stop Hanley. So noticeable that his Pres of Baseball Ops has felt compelled to comment publicly which still may not have an effect on Hanley as he has his money now for at least three more years.

 

If there is some similarity between the way different Managers set their batting orders it is that they are looking for the best way to get the most runs across before they run out of outs in an inning...which is sort of a different way of saying groping for an order that can coalesce into an offense. That requires guys willing to try to fit into an offensive approach. That is what KC has....they have an approach that is particularly well suited to the place where they play 81 games a year and they have had players that both have the physical attributes and the belief in that approach to cooperate. Took them 30 years to get there but that is where they got. The reason the stats guru's keep sticking them in 4th place in their division is because compilations on individual player stats misses too much of what makes a team a team.

 

That is not ever going to be the same thing for 30 different teams and we are not even talking here about teams that need better defensive players because they see their wins coming from a higher percentage content of pitching and defense (run prevention) which creates anomalies in their batting order when their turn in the inning comes. When you really consider all of the variables that might invade a manager's thinking with regard to a batting order, the idea of a proposed best order building process is nonsense. Another opinion based on the belief that stats and worse these various compilations of stats should drive your thinking as opposed to guiding your thinking. A player's individual numbers IMO should guide an organization's decisions about that player and that is about where it ends. Beyond that....you are kidding yourself.

Edited February 4, 2016 by jung

[cp176]

No, there isn't a best way, there's an ideal way, there's a difference. The ideal way presumes that every event and even every team's baseball season conforms to average numbers, and we all know it doesn't, you should know Kimmi, you've argued yourself redfaced with a700 over this very point all winter.

 

If the ideal way in theory isn't demonstrably sufficiently better than the conentional way to prompt adoption among the minds of the 30 teams of leaders who stake their paychecks on this game and whose job it is to secure the best possible advantage for their team, then there must be some disadvantages, real or perceived, to pursuing the theoretical ideal lineup, and in that case any way in which it might be meaningfully termed "best" is irrelevant, academic at best, pedantic at worst

 

Pretty much, I go with this one. Traditional thinking does not necessarily mean unyielding or old fashioned. Sometimes it really does mean that the common sense rule is being applied. I'm beginning to think that with respect to many things not simply related to baseball, people that constantly advocate for "new" ways of looking at things are unwilling to accept that everything has just not been recently discovered. Over the years, I have found that being open to many different ways of looking at things be they new or old is pretty much the way to go. Now Kimmi - although you do lean in toward one direction - i am not specifically talking about you even though my statement is a bit of a generalization.

[Bellhorn04]

There are psychological factors in baseball that can never be measured or explained.

 

With regard to the batting order, one thing that always sticks out in my head is what happened in 2008 when Ellsbury was going through a rough stretch leading off.

 

Tito tried Pedroia at leadoff and then he tried Drew.

 

Pedroia had a .520 OPS in 17 games. His overall OPS for the year was .869.

 

Drew had a .596 OPS in 8 games. His overall OPS for the year was .927.

 

Meanwhile Ellsbury put up big numbers hitting at the bottom of the lineup and finally got his old spot back.

[cp176]

There are psychological factors in baseball that can never be measured or explained.

 

With regard to the batting order, one thing that always sticks out in my head is what happened in 2008 when Ellsbury was going through a rough stretch leading off.

 

Tito tried Pedroia at leadoff and then he tried Drew.

 

Pedroia had a .520 OPS in 17 games. His overall OPS for the year was .869.

 

Drew had a .596 OPS in 8 games. His overall OPS for the year was .927.

 

Meanwhile Ellsbury put up big numbers hitting at the bottom of the lineup and finally got his old spot back.

 

What i like the most about your post is your last statement. Whether ninth or first was the best place for Ellsbury to bat, isn't really the important thing here. He worked hard to get his name back at the top of the order. Sometimes you still have to actually work to get what you want. You aren't entitled to it. Some would debate whether or not it made any difference whether he batted either first or ninth. Personally, I have always seen him as a top of the order kind of guy. Obvious that he saw himself there as well. Oh well - i am also the guy that doesn't like the idea that Farrell has already told Swihart that he will be our opening day catcher.

[jung]

But who else would it be? Farrell might be trying to cool Vaz's jets a little. Vaz impresses me as just the kind of guy that would push it too hard to get back. As much as it would be nice to have him there for opening day, I doubt it is likely unless he pushes himself past what makes much sense. I have to admit I am interested to see what Vaz looks like 25 lbs lighter. Maybe Farrell wants to take opening day out of the equation for Vaz. Does not mean he won't be there but it likely won't be a goal Vaz tries to hit at all costs.

[cp176]

But who else would it be? Farrell might be trying to cool Vaz's jets a little. Vaz impresses me as just the kind of guy that would push it too hard to get back. As much as it would be nice to have him there for opening day, I doubt it is likely unless he pushes himself past what makes much sense. I have to admit I am interested to see what Vaz looks like 25 lbs lighter. Maybe Farrell wants to take opening day out of the equation for Vaz. Does not mean he won't be there but it likely won't be a goal Vaz tries to hit at all costs.

 

I don't think that there is really much question that it was and will be Swihart come opening day. I'm old fashioned. It may seem silly but I still believe that competing and knowing that you have to compete for something is a good thing. I gave out my share of "coaches" awards over the years also but I think that these guys are paid well and I'm not sure I want them to know coming in that a job is theirs before spring training begins. You might be right about the idea of taking Vazquez out of the equation but still if I am Hannigan I want that job. He might know that he is going to be a "backup" but I certainly would not want him approaching spring training with that mindset.

[jung]

Now I got it. I figured you were talking about Swihart v Vaz. I think the only real chance Hannigan would have outside of injury is if Price (have to figure him for opening day starter) said he wanted Hannigan. Hannigan has to have caught Price. I suppose it is possible that Price just up and says..."Hey this is my first start here, I would like to be as comfortable as I can be.....give me Hannigan please,"