How Long Does JF Go With Hanley in the 5 Hole?

[bosoxmal]

Granted he's being nicely absorbed by the others, but that situation can only go on for just so long. Another month like he just had and he'll be down around .240. What would be wrong by stocking down in the 8 hole? See, maybe, he starts to come around.

[Thunder]

This is an example of a pointless thread.

 

But if you insist, he stays there as long as he wants.

[Jasonbay44]

I would move JBJ up, but why put Hanley 8th? It's a slump, they happen, and its not like Shaw is on fire at the moment either.

[Maxbialystock]

Granted he's being nicely absorbed by the others, but that situation can only go on for just so long. Another month like he just had and he'll be down around .240. What would be wrong by stocking down in the 8 hole? See, maybe, he starts to come around.

 

What a super idea. Finally, finally, a way out of the hitting and scoring woes for the Sox this year. Hanley batting 5th must explain why the Sox lead MLB in scoring--oh, wait, that wasn't your point was it?

[mvp 78]

Granted he's being nicely absorbed by the others, but that situation can only go on for just so long. Another month like he just had and he'll be down around .240. What would be wrong by stocking down in the 8 hole? See, maybe, he starts to come around.

 

I agree with you. Your thread is not pointless. Just because they lead the league in scoring doesn't mean adjustments can't be made during the season.

[S5Dewey]

What a super idea. Finally, finally, a way out of the hitting and scoring woes for the Sox this year. Hanley batting 5th must explain why the Sox lead MLB in scoring--oh, wait, that wasn't your point was it?

 

The case can be made that the team is leading the league in scoring in spite of Hanley's being in the 5 hole. .717 OPS isn't exactly great 5-hole stuff. I'm not sure I'd move him down to 8th but if his name were almost anything but "Hanley Ramirez" he'd have been moved before now.

 

If one thinks Hanley's reputation/potential makes him worthy of the 5 spot then he'd be protection for JBJ if JBJ were 5 and Hanley 6.

[bosoxmal]

THAT'S nonsense! Does he own the club?

[bosoxmal]

No, it wasn't. The point is to TRY and help Hanley GET OUT of the"slump". Or, it is a slump, or the end of a great career. I think the latter.

[Dojji]

Reference my post that a700 quotes in his sig.

 

Lineup optimization is so minimally effective in increasing runs scored as to be practically pointless. Once you have your 9 guys, they'll score practically the same number of runs in any order. Batting orders are a little more important win the playoffs when every little extra chance to score a run might mean something, but in the regular season, the only consideration of lineup construction is who gets slightly more plate appearances. Once you get past the 4th place hitter it literally. Does. Not. Matter.

[Emp9]

Hanram is at least walking some, getting on base, hitting the occasional sac fly. He's definitely contributing in small ways during his undeniable slump. Slumps are always more tolerable when others are hot and carrying the team. When others start to cool down, hopefully the cold bat starts to wake up. Hope he snaps out of it soon, or snaps out of it when we really need him to, ideally. He was looking really good the first quarter of the season not focusing on HRs. I'm pretty confident he'll start to come around again.

[mvp 78]

The difference between 5th and 8th is about 50 plate appearances in a year. Moving an underperforming guy down is not pointless.

[Yaz Fan Since 67]

Still trying to figure out why the thread is being critized. The fact that the rest of the lineup has picked up the slack does not mean moving an unproductive hitter out of the 5 spot should not be considered. What exactly has Hanley Ramirez done here to acquire "as long as he wants to" status again?

[Spudboy]

He has been one of the best RHH hitters in the game and appears to be in decent shape.

 

I am of the opinion that hitters do not forget how to hit overnight.

 

I say ride it out unless he becomes a black hole.

[a700hitter]

He has been one of the best RHH hitters in the game and appears to be in decent shape.

 

I am of the opinion that hitters do not forget how to hit overnight.

 

I say ride it out unless he becomes a black hole.

It will be a good thing for the team if he gets hot down the road when other players cool off. Not everyone can be hot at the same time.

[Bellhorn04]

If he continues to slump he'll be moved down. Management has more patience than the fans. That's usually a good thing.

[devildavid]

No, it wasn't. The point is to TRY and help Hanley GET OUT of the"slump". Or, it is a slump, or the end of a great career. I think the latter.

 

Unfortunately I think you are right. I didn't expect Hanley to ever get close to being the player he was in his prime. But now he isn't really as productive as he should be. Move him down until he starts to produce at a higher level.

[jacksonianmarch]

I disagree with Dojji about the lineup construction. It stands to reason that guys hitting higher in the order get more at bats than guys lower than them. Therefore, the more ABs you give to your most productive players, the more runs you'll score.

 

162/9 is 18. Assuming the law of averages and every game ends at a position in the lineup randomly, 18 games will end after the full lineup has hit an equal amount of time. 18 times, the 9 hitter will be left on deck, 18 times the 8 hitter will be left on deck, etc. In all but 18 games, the lead off hitter will hit once more than the 9th hitter. That's 144 more AB's for a lead off vs a 9 hitter. Dropping Hanley 3 spots is akin to cutting his AB's by 54 over a full year. 54AB's for someone OPS'ing .950 vs someone OPS'ing .717 has to be worth some runs.

 

This is why I'm a fan of what Gibbons is doing in Toronto. His highest OBP guy just happens to be his most powerful hitter. But by giving him the equivalent of 54 more AB's over hitting him 4th has allowed him to reach base much more than a guy like Pillar, who was leading off. Their offense responded

Edited June 13, 2016 by jacksonianmarch

[seannybboi]

Bigger problem right now is Shaw. Last 24 games .551 OPS, .483 OPS vs lefties, .359 OPS, .142 BAbip, 1 RBI in June. Not sure how long this offense will last if Hanley and Shaw don't bound back.

[devildavid]

I disagree with Dojji about the lineup construction. It stands to reason that guys hitting higher in the order get more at bats than guys lower than them. Therefore, the more ABs you give to your most productive players, the more runs you'll score.

 

162/9 is 18. Assuming the law of averages and every game ends at a position in the lineup randomly, 18 games will end after the full lineup has hit an equal amount of time. 18 times, the 9 hitter will be left on deck, 18 times the 8 hitter will be left on deck, etc. In all but 18 games, the lead off hitter will hit once more than the 9th hitter. That's 144 more AB's for a lead off vs a 9 hitter. Dropping Hanley 3 spots is akin to cutting his AB's by 54 over a full year. 54AB's for someone OPS'ing .950 vs someone OPS'ing .717 has to be worth some runs.

 

This is why I'm a fan of what Gibbons is doing in Toronto. His highest OBP guy just happens to be his most powerful hitter. But by giving him the equivalent of 54 more AB's over hitting him 4th has allowed him to reach base much more than a guy like Pillar, who was leading off. Their offense responded

 

Gibbons certainly is one of the few managers I have seen go against conventional baseball wisdom with his batting order. And Toronto's offense has been coming on strong lately. Maybe there is something to it.

[devildavid]

Bigger problem right now is Shaw. Last 24 games .551 OPS, .483 OPS vs lefties, .359 OPS, .142 BAbip, 1 RBI in June. Not sure how long this offense will last if Hanley and Shaw don't bound back.

 

This may be an opportunity for guys to come off the bench and produce. Look at what Young has done. I still think our offense is pretty deep, including the bench potential.

[Kimmi]

I disagree with Dojji about the lineup construction. It stands to reason that guys hitting higher in the order get more at bats than guys lower than them. Therefore, the more ABs you give to your most productive players, the more runs you'll score.

 

162/9 is 18. Assuming the law of averages and every game ends at a position in the lineup randomly, 18 games will end after the full lineup has hit an equal amount of time. 18 times, the 9 hitter will be left on deck, 18 times the 8 hitter will be left on deck, etc. In all but 18 games, the lead off hitter will hit once more than the 9th hitter. That's 144 more AB's for a lead off vs a 9 hitter. Dropping Hanley 3 spots is akin to cutting his AB's by 54 over a full year. 54AB's for someone OPS'ing .950 vs someone OPS'ing .717 has to be worth some runs.

 

This is why I'm a fan of what Gibbons is doing in Toronto. His highest OBP guy just happens to be his most powerful hitter. But by giving him the equivalent of 54 more AB's over hitting him 4th has allowed him to reach base much more than a guy like Pillar, who was leading off. Their offense responded

 

The fact of the matter is that if you switch 2 positions in the lineup like the #1 and #3 guys, the difference over the course of the season will be about 2 runs. The most egregious of errors, like putting a pitcher into the cleanup spot will make a difference of 15 runs over the season, if I recall correctly.

 

In other words, the advantage you might gain by moving Bogaerts to the leadoff spot will very likely be less than the disadvantage that is created by moving batters into spots where they don't feel comfortable.

 

Unless a manager is willing to completely buck traditional thinking, line up changes have very little impact.

[S5Dewey]

 

Lineup optimization is so minimally effective in increasing runs scored as to be practically pointless. Once you have your 9 guys, they'll score practically the same number of runs in any order. Batting orders are a little more important win the playoffs when every little extra chance to score a run might mean something, but in the regular season, the only consideration of lineup construction is who gets slightly more plate appearances. Once you get past the 4th place hitter it literally. Does. Not. Matter.

 

Deleted

[Kimmi]

Deleted

 

I hate to break it to you, but really.

[Kimmi]

Still trying to figure out why the thread is being critized. The fact that the rest of the lineup has picked up the slack does not mean moving an unproductive hitter out of the 5 spot should not be considered. What exactly has Hanley Ramirez done here to acquire "as long as he wants to" status again?

 

I don't think the topic is pointless, but IMO, this topic could have been discussed in the "Offense" thread. As it is, there are discussions about line up construction taking place in 2 threads simultaneously. It's difficult to follow discussions that are spread out in different threads. My 2 cents, which really doesn't mean much.