Betts Hitting 2nd in Batting Order

[notin]

Batting leadoff isn't necessarily about OBP. Its about seeing pitches, making a pitcher work...which eventually leads to getting on base. I don't care if we have a guy that gets on base at a .333 clip as long as he is making the pitcher throw 6/7 pitches an AB and getting him closer to the 100 mark.

 

I like the value of making the pitcher work, but getting on base is very important.

 

There is a huge drop off in the percentage of innings where a run is scored if the first batter reaches base vs makes an out...

[SCM33]

I like the value of making the pitcher work, but getting on base is very important.

 

There is a huge drop off in the percentage of innings where a run is scored if the first batter reaches base vs makes an out...

 

Not disagreeing, but, is there a metric that shows the value of making a pitcher throw 20-30% (20+ pitches) of his pitches to a leadoff hitter that doesn't get on base?

 

There are a number of different ways to look at it. What is worth more? Getting on base and being stranded, or making a pitcher throw pitches.....and getting him out of the game?

 

I guess it depends on the value you place upon it. If you are getting on base, you always have the opportunity to score. But if you get in to the other teams bullpen, your opportunity to score inscreases significantly as those arms arent as talented (generally).

[S5Dewey]

I like the value of making the pitcher work, but getting on base is very important.

 

There is a huge drop off in the percentage of innings where a run is scored if the first batter reaches base vs makes an out...

 

According to Bill James some years ago, a team is 140% more likely to score if the leadoff hitter gets on base than if he doesn't.

[Slasher9]

There are a number of different ways to look at it. What is worth more? Getting on base and being stranded, or making a pitcher throw pitches.....and getting him out of the game?

no SP goes past 6/7 innings anymore anyways. s***, some teams are not even using SP in games.

getting on base > pitch count.

[Bellhorn04]

Not disagreeing, but, is there a metric that shows the value of making a pitcher throw 20-30% (20+ pitches) of his pitches to a leadoff hitter that doesn't get on base?

 

There are a number of different ways to look at it. What is worth more? Getting on base and being stranded, or making a pitcher throw pitches.....and getting him out of the game?

 

I guess it depends on the value you place upon it. If you are getting on base, you always have the opportunity to score. But if you get in to the other teams bullpen, your opportunity to score inscreases significantly as those arms arent as talented (generally).

 

When you're playing the Yankees now it's pretty much the reverse strategy. Try to score as many runs as possible off the starter while not making Aaron Doofus yank him too quickly.

[Kimmi]

Batting leadoff isn't necessarily about OBP. Its about seeing pitches, making a pitcher work...which eventually leads to getting on base. I don't care if we have a guy that gets on base at a .333 clip as long as he is making the pitcher throw 6/7 pitches an AB and getting him closer to the 100 mark.

 

I have to disagree with you. The single most important criteria for a leadoff hitter is to get on base. If he can do so while making the pitcher throw 6 or 7 pitches, then even better.

 

But it is better for the leadoff guy to get on base and only see two pitches than it is for him to see 6 or 7 pitches and not get on base.

[Kimmi]

I like the value of making the pitcher work, but getting on base is very important.

 

There is a huge drop off in the percentage of innings where a run is scored if the first batter reaches base vs makes an out...

 

Correct.

 

Also, the out is the most precious commodity in a baseball game. The ability not to make one is huge, especially for the guy who will get more at bats during the season than anyone else in the line up.

[Kimmi]

Not disagreeing, but, is there a metric that shows the value of making a pitcher throw 20-30% (20+ pitches) of his pitches to a leadoff hitter that doesn't get on base?

 

There are a number of different ways to look at it. What is worth more? Getting on base and being stranded, or making a pitcher throw pitches.....and getting him out of the game?

 

I guess it depends on the value you place upon it. If you are getting on base, you always have the opportunity to score. But if you get in to the other teams bullpen, your opportunity to score inscreases significantly as those arms arent as talented (generally).

 

There is value in making a pitcher throw a lot of pitches. There is more value in getting on base.

 

Getting a starter out of the game early is not as important as it once was.

[Station 13]

The difference is negligible. For every move a manager makes to improve the offense, there is an almost equal negative effect.

 

It's almost like one of Newton's Laws.

 

What negative effect you think will result from Mookie hitting 1 spot lower?

[Bellhorn04]

What negative effect you think will result from Mookie hitting 1 spot lower?

 

He'll lose about 15-20 plate appearances.

 

Those will be games he's standing in the on-deck circle when we make our last out.

[notin]

He'll lose about 15-20 plate appearances.

 

Those will be games he's standing in the on-deck circle when we make our last out.

 

 

But hopefully 60% of those on-deck appearances are in the bottom of the 8th or top of the 9th in games the Sox are winning...

[dgalehouse]

Betts is better than Benintendi at each and every spot in the order . Take your pick . Betts at leadoff worked very well last year . I don't see any reason to change that . But advanced analytics says to put your best hitter in the two spot . And that seems to be what is dictating decisions these days . No big deal .

[Slasher9]

He'll lose about 15-20 plate appearances.

 

Those will be games he's standing in the on-deck circle when we make our last out.

 

we should track this for this season.

[Kimmi]

He'll lose about 15-20 plate appearances.

 

Those will be games he's standing in the on-deck circle when we make our last out.

 

Plus, he may get more RBIs, but he'll likely score fewer runs. That more or less balances out.

[Kimmi]

Batting Mookie 1st versus 2nd will really not make much of a difference over the course of a season.

 

Seriously, maybe 2 runs all season, all other things being equal.

[fxkatt]

A lead off hitter should have minimum .360 on base per. and be a speed merchant. My problem with Mookie leading off is a fear of injury... you don't want your top stars sliding into second all season long.

 

So, another quality in your speedy lead off hitter is durability and toughness. Someone who can steal 30 bases and can go from first to third (smart base runner).

[notin]

A lead off hitter should have minimum .360 on base per. and be a speed merchant. My problem with Mookie leading off is a fear of injury... you don't want your top stars sliding into second all season long.

 

So, another quality in your speedy lead off hitter is durability and toughness. Someone who can steal 30 bases and can go from first to third (smart base runner).

 

 

So you didn’t like Wade Boggs as a leadoff hitter?

[fxkatt]

So you didn’t like Wade Boggs as a leadoff hitter?

 

I recall that he walked a lot. (what I say pertains more to the NL, of course)

 

As in Pete Rose.

[notin]

I recall that he walked a lot. (what I say pertains more to the NL, of course)

 

As in Pete Rose.

U

It works in both leagues.

 

Boggs didn’t steal bases, but he did hit over 40 doubles nearly every year. He did have a great OBP (.428 in 11 seasons in Boston). But don’t forget it was bolstered by his 0.338 batting average in Boston...

[Kimmi]

A lead off hitter should have minimum .360 on base per. and be a speed merchant. My problem with Mookie leading off is a fear of injury... you don't want your top stars sliding into second all season long.

 

So, another quality in your speedy lead off hitter is durability and toughness. Someone who can steal 30 bases and can go from first to third (smart base runner).

 

Speed is not that important for a lead off hitter. The reason is that you have the big lumber coming up behind the lead off guy, and they can get the runners in with home runs more often than the bottom of the order can.

 

Kevin Youkilis would have been a great leadoff hitter.

[notin]

Speed is not that important for a lead off hitter. The reason is that you have the big lumber coming up behind the lead off guy, and they can get the runners in with home runs more often than the bottom of the order can.

 

Kevin Youkilis would have been a great leadoff hitter.

 

Requiring speed for the leadoff hitter is the 1980's style of baseball, when stolen bases were king.

 

It actually makes more sense to have the speediest player - particularly if he has limited OBP - batting 6th, 7th or 8th in the lineup, when the weaker hitters who are less likely to hit extra base hits are coming up and stealing a base to get into scoring position is more valuable. People like the 6th spot to still have some power potential. However, if you better SLG bats are hitting 2 through 5, you might not have anyone left by the 6th position anyway. And in that case, a speedy hitter who can start a rally in front of the weaker hitters does make sense.

 

Stolen bases at the top of the lineup are an unnecessary risk. If the SB is part of the strategy, it makes more sense to use it when you actually need it...

[jad]

Too bad a leadoff hitter doesn't lead off every inning. It's rather like worrying over who your #1 starter is as opposed to your #2 or #3. Until the post-season, it hardly matters (since there is only about a 1 in 5 chance that he will start more games than whoever is behind him.)

[fxkatt]

U

It works in both leagues.

 

Boggs didn’t steal bases, but he did hit over 40 doubles nearly every year. He did have a great OBP (.428 in 11 seasons in Boston). But don’t forget it was bolstered by his 0.338 batting average in Boston...

 

Boggs, Betts, and Benns can hit 1,2, or 3 any day for me. I wouldn't truly argue against any one of these lineup placements. But in the NL I would not want Betts leading off--injury a little more likely, and he would be leading off more times per game as in 1.9 over 1.4 (my estimate)

[cp176]

Boggs, Betts, and Benns can hit 1,2, or 3 any day for me. I wouldn't truly argue against any one of these lineup placements. But in the NL I would not want Betts leading off--injury a little more likely, and he would be leading off more times per game as in 1.9 over 1.4 (my estimate)

 

I would absolutely love to see how two relatively equal teams would compare - one determined by current standards ( not sure if I can say metrics ) and one from a vintage 60's way of looking at things. Speed at the top - a mover of baserunners next - and third a very good hitter capable of knocking them in with number four right behind. The yap about aligning everyone according to "modern standards" might likely prove moot. Makes no difference!

[Kimmi]

Requiring speed for the leadoff hitter is the 1980's style of baseball, when stolen bases were king.

 

It actually makes more sense to have the speediest player - particularly if he has limited OBP - batting 6th, 7th or 8th in the lineup, when the weaker hitters who are less likely to hit extra base hits are coming up and stealing a base to get into scoring position is more valuable. People like the 6th spot to still have some power potential. However, if you better SLG bats are hitting 2 through 5, you might not have anyone left by the 6th position anyway. And in that case, a speedy hitter who can start a rally in front of the weaker hitters does make sense.

 

Stolen bases at the top of the lineup are an unnecessary risk. If the SB is part of the strategy, it makes more sense to use it when you actually need it...

 

I am with you 100%, Sir Notin.

[Kimmi]

Too bad a leadoff hitter doesn't lead off every inning. It's rather like worrying over who your #1 starter is as opposed to your #2 or #3. Until the post-season, it hardly matters (since there is only about a 1 in 5 chance that he will start more games than whoever is behind him.)

 

It is true that your leadoff hitter doesn't lead off every inning. But it is also true that your leadoff hitter will get more at bats over the season than any other spot in the order.

[jad]

It is true that your leadoff hitter doesn't lead off every inning. But it is also true that your leadoff hitter will get more at bats over the season than any other spot in the order.

 

Yup, so have your best hitter lead off. But let's see the bizarre result: 162/9 is what, 18 more ABs? But in those particular games where the no. 1 gets more ab's than the no. 2., to do that, he must either make the last out, or hit a game winning walk-off. Given the rarity of walk-offs, this means that the majority (the vast majority?) of those extra ABs the lead-off guy gets (over the #2 guy) are going to be outs. That's a head-scratcher. I'm going with the notion that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference who bats where, or, if it does, it's beyond human comprehension!

[Kimmi]

Yup, so have your best hitter lead off. But let's see the bizarre result: 162/9 is what, 18 more ABs? But in those particular games where the no. 1 gets more ab's than the no. 2., to do that, he must either make the last out, or hit a game winning walk-off. Given the rarity of walk-offs, this means that the majority (the vast majority?) of those extra ABs the lead-off guy gets (over the #2 guy) are going to be outs. That's a head-scratcher. I'm going with the notion that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference who bats where, or, if it does, it's beyond human comprehension!

 

First off, I agree with you 100% that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference who bats where. That's a point I've been trying to make, ad nauseum I'm sure, since forever.

 

That said, while it's true that in those 20 or so extra bats that the lead of hitter gets over the #2 guy, he likely makes the last out far more than he hits a walk off, he is also the guy who is most likely to extend the game to the next batter if he has the highest OBP.

 

I'm not trying to argue whether Mookie should bat 1st or 2nd. It doesn't make much of a difference and I trust Cora's judgment. My main argument here is that in determining the lead off hitter, OBP is king, and speed does not matter much for a lead off hitter.

[jad]

First off, I agree with you 100% that it doesn't make a whole lot of difference who bats where. That's a point I've been trying to make, ad nauseum I'm sure, since forever.

 

That said, while it's true that in those 20 or so extra bats that the lead of hitter gets over the #2 guy, he likely makes the last out far more than he hits a walk off, he is also the guy who is most likely to extend the game to the next batter if he has the highest OBP.

 

I'm not trying to argue whether Mookie should bat 1st or 2nd. It doesn't make much of a difference and I trust Cora's judgment. My main argument here is that in determining the lead off hitter, OBP is king, and speed does not matter much for a lead off hitter.

 

Ha ha! Right. Because then the math would likely be that the #2 has fewer walk-offs than #1 (because he's not as good); and #3 fewer than #2 and so on ... IF, that is, the hitters are ordered according to 'quality' (which of course is likely unmeasurable, or there at least is no consensus on how to measure it exactly!) But I'll bet that statistic is readily available--does the number of walk-offs correlate w/ order in the lineup? If order in the lineup is as crucial as some claim, then there should be a strong correlation. If it doesn't, then perhaps there's something wrong with the lineup? (or perhaps not!)

 

Of course I agree w/ you: the cliche's about what you 'need' in a #1, or the absurd qualities sometimes cited for a #2 are silly.

[Kimmi]

Ha ha! Right. Because then the math would likely be that the #2 has fewer walk-offs than #1 (because he's not as good); and #3 fewer than #2 and so on ... IF, that is, the hitters are ordered according to 'quality' (which of course is likely unmeasurable, or there at least is no consensus on how to measure it exactly!) But I'll bet that statistic is readily available--does the number of walk-offs correlate w/ order in the lineup? If order in the lineup is as crucial as some claim, then there should be a strong correlation. If it doesn't, then perhaps there's something wrong with the lineup? (or perhaps not!)

 

Of course I agree w/ you: the cliche's about what you 'need' in a #1, or the absurd qualities sometimes cited for a #2 are silly.

 

There is ample research that suggests that a team's batting order is just not that important. The most egregious error, like batting a pitcher in the cleanup spot, will cost the team 16 runs over the entire season. Switching a batter from #1 to #2, #5 to #6, or something along those lines may amount to a difference of about 2 runs over a full season. It's really not worth fretting about, though that will not stop the endless line up discussions (which I participate in) on baseball forums.