Batter's Box Interactive Magazine - The Unbearable Rightness of Being A Leadoff Man

The Unbearable Rightness of Being A Leadoff Man

What's the going rate for a good leadoff hitter these days? How about $252 million?

Only one name is associated with that particular contract number, so you've probably already jumped ahead in this little logic game and will be a little less surprised than I was to read that The Dallas Morning News is reporting that The Buck Stops Here Showalter "is toying with the notion of batting Alex Rodriguez [in the leadoff spot]."

This comes on the heels of recent news that, as Unkle Robby Neyer put it this week, "Bob Boone, the Boy Genius himself, is considering using Adam Dunn as a leadoff man."

What in the world of Omar Moreno is the world of traditional baseball thinking coming to? Well, think about it for a minute ...

... just what is wrong with having your best hitter lead off and maybe pick up an extra 30-40 plate appearances a season?

Especially a team like the Rangers, which has no "natural" leadoff hitter now that Frank Catalanotto has departed for Toronto, but is loaded with potential RBI guys ... why not A-Rod first? (And why, all of a sudden, has Little Cat moved from being seen as an "unorthodox choice" to lead off two years ago to being one of the few "legitimate leadoff hitters" in the game?

Dunn is even a less orthodox choice, but Neyer's breakdown is a fair one, and unless you buy Unkle Robby's conclusion that 87-year-old Barry Larkin should lead off for the Redlegs, Dunn really might be a good choice.

But consider the reality -- make that plural, realities -- of the situation ...

- Fans in The Queen City and The Metroplex would howl if their perceived superstar sluggers were "reduced" to being leadoff men.
- There would be a media circus; how often would Alex have to reassure Evan Grant and Peter Gammons that he was "OK" with leading off?
- The players themselves would be a hard sell; there is no question -- none -- that Derek Jeter would be the best possible choice to lead off for the Yankees right now. He doesn't want to. Why make the de facto team captain unhappy?

This last point would particularly be a problem with Dunn, by all accounts a good guy, whose agent would be whispering, "Adam, buddy, arbitration in '05. You go in there with 40 homers and 87 RBI and nobody gonna care if you lead the leagues in runs scored. It's all about the bee-eyes, bay-bee." A-Rod isn't really concerned about playing for contract numbers, natch.

I'm guessing this topic has been covered extensively elsewhere, but it's been percolating for a few days and I thought it was worth tossing out -- er,make that "tossing around" -- with a couple of questions:

- Where are other resources looking at best-possible scenarios for teams and their current or recent leadoff situations? I know there was talk two years ago about Bonds hitting leadoff to get a few extra at-bats while chasing the home run record, if necessary, and I think that led to some idle speculation about how just maybe Barry Bonds would be more valuable to the Giants if he led off all the time.

(I happen to disagree with that ... call me traditionalist, but leave Bonds and A-Rod and Garciaparra in power/production slots -- specifically the three-hole, where they are assured of hitting in the first inning every day anyway.)

- What teams out there are totally missing the boat on leadoff options? Pick a team or three and review their current leadoff man (or most likely leadoff man) and other options. Remember to take into account all the player/fan/media backlash issues. Don't pick the Blue Jays; their best leadoff man is Catalanotto, and it's not even close (anyone taking the bait?) -- but he probably won't lead off, as I understand it. Don't pick Detroit because their best leadoff hitter is their manager.

Where would Rickey Henderson be a good fit?
What about Dunn? And A-Rod?
Where have you gone, Omar Moreno?

Posted by Mick Doherty on Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:10 AM EST.

The Unbearable Rightness of Being A Leadoff Man | 33 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.

_Rob Neyer - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:12 AM EST (#33520) #

Mick, this is genius. I get it now. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

_Jurgen Maas - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 03:31 AM EST (#33521) #

I think the idea of a player like Bonds batting leadoff isn't the worst idea in the world--it's a better plan than Cruz batting ahead of him. And it doesn't have anything directly to do with him chasing Ruth. Isn't it worth a shot when a player sets the single season record for BB and OBP and leads the league in AVG, and doesn't even come close to obliterating the league in runs scored?

Sure, the Giants could trade for Giles or Manny Ramirez or cut a deal with Ted Williams' son and get clonin' to keep Bonds in the traditional three spot. But Giants ownership would rather change the rules than address their needs.

Bonds at the top of the order might be the best way to maximize his value with the players they've already got.

I think I've posted this link on BB about a thousand times now. It's worth reading if you haven't already.

Dave Till - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 09:39 AM EST (#33522) #

Some people who have studied the subject are convinced that lineup order doesn't matter very much. The important thing is to find guys like A-Rod and Bonds and put them in the lineup; where they bat isn't important.

Lineup order matters to rotisserie owners, though: if you're looking for RBI's, you'd want to know who will be batting behind Barry Bonds (or Carlos Delgado).

_Jordan - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 09:50 AM EST (#33523) #

I recall hearing about, but not personally seeing -- kind of like a Progressive Conservative -- a sabrmetric study that said batting lineups had no more than a nominal impact on run production. Since I haven't seen it, I'm not going to rely on it, but if anyone has a reference to said study, I'd definitely follow the link to read it.

It's difficult to judge where in the lineup your best batter should hit, for any number of reasons:

* Who's your best hitter? On some teams (Giants, Pirates), it's obvious; on others (Braves, Astros), it's harder to tell, especially when batting order position itself may affect your judgment as to who's better. If Gary Sheffield batted third all year and Chipper Jones hit cleanup, how would their final stats differ than if Larry hit third and Sheff followed him? It gets painfully circular in a hurry.

* Similarly, how do you separate the batter from the position? Let's say that you decided to set your batting order based on which batting positions saw the most runners on base over the course of a year. So, for instance, the leadoff hitter saw 0.6 men on base, the cleanup guy saw 1.9, the number-six hitter saw 2.4. Were that the case, you'd want your best hitter batting sixth, wouldn't you, to maximize his RBI opportunities? Well, maybe not -- what if the number-six position produced 2.4 batters precisely because the big bruiser hitting cleanup gets walked a lot? Put the brusier in the #6 slot and suddenly all the men-on-base opportunities he himself presented disappear. Like I said, circular.

* As already pointed out, real-life lineups aren't Roto constructs, and the reality is you can't slap a Jeter or Bonds into the leadoff spot because they'll very probably resent it. If front offices are woefully behind the times in figuring out that OBP, not speed, is the first criterion for leadoff, then the players themselves (and their egos) are even more so.

I think that the ideal leadoff hitter gets on base at a minimum .360 clip, with enough speed to steal a base 15 to 20 times a year and enough power to reach 2nd or 3rd all by himself. The runner anchored at first because he didn't have the power to drive the ball for extra bases, or because he hasn't the speed and baserunning ability to advance to 2nd or 3rd (the money positions), is of lesser value to the team. Interestingly, both Shannon Stewart and Frank Catalanotto would fit that leadoff profile very well.

_Matthew Elmslie - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 10:24 AM EST (#33524) #

What about the Bill James idea that speed is less important at the top of the order because the 3-4-5 guys, with their power, were better able to drive in runners without benefit of stolen bases? If you want to score and Ken Huckaby's coming up behind you, that's when you need the stolen base.

I once argued that John Olerud could have been used in the leadoff spot. I still think it's not that bad of an idea, but the people I was arguing with thought I was an idiot. They also thought I was an idiot because I thought Alomar would be better used in the leadoff spot than in the second spot. Apparently the number two-hitter is the most important batter in the lineup; silly me.

Mike D - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 10:50 AM EST (#33525) #

I wrote this about Adam Dunn in the recent Shannon Stewart thread...

>I think that this idea makes less sense in the NL than it might in the AL.

1) Hitting after the #8 hitter and pitcher limits Dunn's ability to make things happen with men on. Good OBP is most useful if a hitter is likely to get on base in innings in which lots of hitters will get on base.

2) Admittedly, Dunn should lead off a lot of innings. But when he doesn't, he will likely be getting on base with 1-2 outs.

3) Will Dunn see a lot of fastballs without the protection of other sluggers?

4) Most importantly, won't Dunn be intentionally walked a ton, given the fact that first base will open up when the pitcher bunts? And if the pitcher doesn't bunt, are the Reds prepared to accept increased K's and double plays? And if the pitcher should miraculously get on, won't that negate Dunn's speed by clogging the basepaths in front of him?>

I think that batting order *does* matter at least in the NL -- how can it not with a pitcher hitting? Having said that, if Bonds were to lead off, OH BABY would the Giants pitcher see some fastballs in his wheelhouse! You lead off Bonds against me, and I will beat you by walking him every inning except those in which he leads off -- because he will more often than not come up with the bases empty and 1-2 outs.

I especially agree with Jordan's second and third bullet points, and with his conclusion. I'd like to add that perception of a hitter and a situation is very important to pitchers (and I'm sure that Coach, as a coach, would back me up on this.)

We could argue about how to apportion the greatness of Rickey Henderson as a leadoff hitter between his OBP, power and speed. But I think it was his *disruptiveness* that made him the best. Even if you try to calmly try and explain to a pitcher about the overrated effect of the stolen base on run creation, he'll never be able to ignore Henderson, 1989 vintage, dancing off the bag with the heart of the order coming up. That created a tremendous advantage for his team and the hitters after him, and it's not one that can be discounted by running a computer program (based on Henderson's statistics accumulated in the leadoff spot) and announcing that Henderson could have batted anywhere.

Joe Carter was overrated, but this "perception" argument is why the Joe-Carter-was-below-average thread bothered me. Regardless of Joe's statistical performance, hitters in front of him always put up enormous numbers and were never intentionally walked, because Joe was *feared*. That has to add some value, doesn't it?

_Jurgen Maas - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 11:59 AM EST (#33526) #

It's probably quite true that batting order makes little difference in the end statistically, although I haven't seen the numbers to back it up.

I hate all this talk about players "resenting" it. "Oh, don't try that, it'll make Cry Baby unhappy." Frank Thomas used to whine if the Sox had him batting 4th, and Stew sure didn't like batting 3rd. But most players and most managers understand that the goal is winning, and I think it's an interesting sign that Showalter is contemplating the move with A-Rod.

Bonds is in a unique player in a unique situation. I'm not advocating all high OBP sluggers to lead off. Bonds is slugging at a rate no player has ever before, and he's getting on base at a rate no player has ever before. Right now, he's the best hitter in the history of the game. Naturally, one's first instinct is to take advantage of that power and put batters ahead of him. That's been a failure, so much so that people are starting to talk about ridiculous rule changes. So why not bat Bonds first, and let a good slew of above average hitters try to knock Bonds in?

OBP and SLG are great stats, but aren't they useless if they don't translate into R and RBI (which translate into wins)? And if Bonds is setting all-time highs in OBP and SLG, shouldn't he be at least leading the league in R and RBI? And if opposing managers are taking the Dierker approach, throwing Bonds at the top of the order at least gives him a new wrinkle.

Coach - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 12:12 PM EST (#33527) #

The Roto effect of whether Cat gets R hitting second or or RBI from sixth is of relatively little concern to me; it's all good. Same with Alfonzo -- great pick, whether he's ahead of Barry or behind him. But predicting a bigger year for Delgado between Hinske and Phelps than between Cruz and Mondesi is real life, not just fantasy.

I obsess about batting orders when I'm filling them out. Last year my 0-2 high school team turned around when our second-string C, not the swiftest runner, started getting on base in practice. He became the regular C and leadoff man, our #2 and #3 guys caught fire, and we went on a roll into the playoffs.

I'm sorry Mick, this only relates to the Blue Jays a little. Delgado leading off? Not if you have a better option. Someone who can drive in runs (Dunn, Bonds) should hit behind a guy with a comparable OBP and less power; whether they can run or not is the next thing to consider. If you have three (or more) .350+ OBP guys, you go speed-contact-"best"-power, and #5 is ideally a three-in-waiting.

King Kaufman's opinion is entertaining, but I might hit Bonds second if he was healthy and in the mood to run; third most of the time, and fourth if he was gimpy. Dunn's a great five-hitter trying to move up to a four or even a three. You lose that production (and "protection" value) if he leads off, but perhaps the Reds can make up for it, if Junior's healthy. So it's not completely insane. In Texas, with A-Rod's baserunning, the DH and no P spot, it actually makes more sense; they have a couple of decent bats to partially replace him in the 3-hole.

Matthew, I was also ridiculed for touting Olerud as a leadoff man, and I still think he'd be a dandy #2. Unless you had, say, Ichiro and Winn on the same team.

I think it's a shame when a player is too much of a prima donna to accept anything the manager asks and do that job to the best of his ability; if Shannon Stewart agreed to hit second behind Cat, it would help with Toronto's L-R rotation issues. And Bobby Abreu, an ideal leadoff man with Thome and Burrell behind him, is simply being a jerk, putting his personal RBI stat ahead of his team's welfare.

_Ryan - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 12:27 PM EST (#33528) #

\If front offices are woefully behind the times in figuring out that OBP, not speed, is the first criterion for leadoff,\

Somewhat unrelated to the current topic, but the OBP for leadoff hitters has actually declined in the last two years. Throughout the 1990's, OBPs for AL leadoff hitters were normally in the .340-.350 range. In 2001 and 2002, the OBPs were .330 and .333, respectively. There's a similar trend in the NL. I'm not sure what I make of this.

_Gwyn - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:02 PM EST (#33529) #

I recall hearing about, but not personally seeing -- kind of like a Progressive Conservative -- a sabrmetric study that said batting lineups had no more than a nominal impact on run production

I have seen the same thing said, but, likewise never a study. Just for interest I thought I would spend a few minutes on a very quick and dirty study.

I found a nice little tool at the weekend though, and this seemed like a good place to try it out. Its a simple baseball simulator (http://www.geocities.com/ResearchTriangle/Thinktank/4884/).

It included the stats for the 1998 season. SO I played 162,000 games as the 1998 Blue Jays with three line-ups. The 'normal' one (or a close approximation), descending OBP and ascending OBP.

That gave these lines up.

NORMAL

Stewart LF .377
Fernandez 2B .387
Delgado 1B .385
Canseco DH .318
Green RF .334
Sprague 3B .280
Cruz CF .354
Fletcher C .328
Gonzalez SS .281

DESCENDING OBP
Fernandez
Delgado
Stewart
Cruz
Green
Fletcher
Canseco
Gonzales
Sprague

ASCENDING OBP
Sprague
Gonzalez
Canseco
Fletcher
Green
Cruz
Stewart
Delgado
Fernandez

The normal teams produced 864 runs, the descending team 867 and the ascending 848.

I cannot vouch for the accuracy of the program, but it does tend to bear out that for the 1998 Jays batting order was not that important. It is 19 runs a year between the 'best' and 'worst' lines-ups.

Dave Till - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:24 PM EST (#33530) #

Ryan: the first factor I thought of was the strike zone: in 2001, the umps were supposed to actually call pitches in the strike zone strikes. (Instead of calling everything above the belt a ball, and calling pitches half a foot outside strikes if a veteran pitcher was on the mound.)

Mike D - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:29 PM EST (#33531) #

Nice work, Gwyn.

But again, I'd like to add my objection that these simulators, projectors, etc. are based on statistics accrued in particular batting slots, with particular hitters hitting before and after them. Delgado simply wouldn't put up the same numbers hitting before Tony Fernandez. He just wouldn't.

I really question the validity of these statistical "it doesn't matter where you hit" studies, since no batter has experience hitting in slots 1-9 before and after each teammate. Nothing short of a study with that kind of actual (not speculative) data would be required to convince me that batting order doesn't matter.

_Jurgen Maas - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 01:40 PM EST (#33532) #

For the record, I like the idea of trying Bonds 2nd behind Durham (a traditional leadoff guy), unless Alfonzo starts leading the league in GIDP batting 3rd. Whatever it takes. I guess I look at Sosa's 2001 season with 160 RBI and 146 Runs, and think Bonds should be producing even better than that.

I think it'll be an interesting experiment with Dunn at the top if Griff is healthy, and likewise in Texas with A-Rod.

_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 02:01 PM EST (#33533) #

Will Dunn see a lot of fastballs without the protection of other sluggers?

This business about "seeing a lost of fastballs" is said a lot, but what does it mean? If you follow a .400 OBP hitter instead of a .300 OBP hitter, you'll see more fastballs in those 10% of your AB where you're batting with a man on ahead of you?

And is this "see more fastballs" even a legitimate concern? When told he'd see a lot of fastballs because of Vince Coleman's speed, I think it was Willee McGee or Tom Herr who once said, "yeah, but you still have to hit them."

Dunn clearly has a terrific batting eye. If he doesn't see fastballs, but instead sees breaking stuff out of the strike zone, my guess is he'll just walk. Dunn doesn't need to be spoonfed fastballs to succeed.

I confess that the word protection causes my neck hairs to stand.

In the early 1980's, the Atlanta Braves were kind enough to serve as a test case for Bill James to allow him to study the notion of batting order protection. The Braves featured two excellent hitters: the very healthy Dale Murphy, and the very brittle Bob Horner. The thinking was that sans Bob Horner's protection for 70 games every year, Dale Murphy's stats must surely take a tumble during those periods when he was not protected. It turns out they never did. That in itself did not categorically prove that protection did not exist, but it did serve as a counter-example to the then unchallenged notion that protection did exist. Bill James discussed protection on occasion in his post-Abstract days, most recently (to my recollection) arguing against the claim that George Bell would serve as protection for Frank Thomas when, in the prior year, he clearly did little to prop up hitters ahead of him as a Cub.

Even if you try to calmly try and explain to a pitcher about the overrated effect of the stolen base on run creation, he'll never be able to ignore Henderson, 1989 vintage, dancing off the bag with the heart of the order coming up. That created a tremendous advantage for his team and the hitters after him, and it's not one that can be discounted by running a computer program (based on Henderson's statistics accumulated in the leadoff spot) and announcing that Henderson could have batted anywhere.

Don't forget that Henderson "dancing off the bag" also had a big downside. Hitters behind him, and I'm thinking of Dwayne Murphy in Rickey's runningest of days, often had to take pitches and work deep in the count to give Henderson a chance to steal. Deciding you're not going to swing the bat until the count's 1-2 is extremely hurtful to an offense.

Regardless of Joe's statistical performance, hitters in front of him always put up enormous numbers and were never intentionally walked, because Joe was *feared*. That has to add some value, doesn't it?

If we accept the tenuous notion that Carter was a feared hitter, you're going to have to provide proof that his fearsomeness helped hitters ahead of him pad their stats. Such a wild claim cannot be accepted as a given without some manner of evidence. Just because it sounds plausible to you, doesn't necessarily make it so.

_Geoff North - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 02:25 PM EST (#33534) #

Perhaps the most important thing in determining "best" lineup order is not so much exactly where a hitter is slotted (I do recall several threads on Primer showing that changing lineup slots has minimal runs scored impact), but where a hitter is slotted in relation to the other hitters. To put that (hopefully) more clearly, the best lineup is going to be one that stacks the teams best hitters together, and ideally gets them the most at bats. That way you maximize the chances of having your best hitters come up, both with runners on base and no outs. The importance of doing this I imagine will become less and less, the more evenly balanced the lineup is.

Thoughts?

_Ryan - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 02:26 PM EST (#33535) #

\Ryan: the first factor I thought of was the strike zone: in 2001, the umps were supposed to actually call pitches in the strike zone strikes.\

I hit the post button too early. I forgot to add that the OBPs for leadoff hitters was also declining relative to the league OBP. Right now the OBPs for leadoff hitters are around the league average, while throughout the early- and mid-90's there was usually a difference of 10-20 points. I thought that was a surprising trend.

Front offices seem to be getting smarter when it comes to OBP, but are field managers going in the opposite direction?

Mike D - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 02:51 PM EST (#33536) #

I understand what you're saying, Chuck. Some quick responses:

1) "Seeing fastballs" is more of a proxy, or euphemism, for the idea that pitchers need to challenge particular hitters because walking that hitter would do more harm than good, given the run-creating ability of the hitter on deck. It doesn't literally mean "seeing fastballs," although pitchers tend to have better control of fastballs and tend to throw fastballs when a strike is required, and hitters tend to prefer hitting fastballs.

Look at last year, when Barry Bonds broke walk and intentional-walk records. Accordingly, he did not "see many fastballs." Teams pitched around him and denied his power when Benito Santiago hit behind him. That's not conjecture, that's fact. Barry Bonds was a better hitter in 2002 than in 2001, and hit 27 fewer home runs!

A Brian Giles or Manny Ramirez -- or, for that matter, an Edgardo Alfonzo or *even a Jeff Kent in the playoffs* -- hitting behind Barry would have made managers at least think twice before the reflexive, automatic intentional or pseudo-intentional walk. I think it was self-evident in last year's postseason that the presence of Santiago in the on-deck circle led to Bonds intentional walks. Hence, the problem of "protection."

2) Fair point, but I think Rickey became a more "disruptive" (and offensively useful) hitter when he was actually stealing somewhat fewer bases, such as his Yankee era and his A's stint #2 (and especially in his MVP year). This is a subjective assessment, of course, and open to debate. But he sure scored a lot of runs in his prime, and isn't that what it's all about?

3) Here's "some measure of evidence": Joe Carter made multiple All-Star appearances and batters in front of him were never intentionally walked. Does this make him a legend? A Hall of Famer? Underrated?

Of course not. But does it provide evidence of his being "feared"? Absolutely. Let's look at the converse: for him not to have been "feared," but rather recognized by all as a joke of a hitter for a corner outfielder, why weren't Alomar and Molitor intentionally walked in key situations? And why did Joe bat #3 and #4 for very good offensive clubs? I'm not saying that his reputation didn't outstrip his value, but my whole point was that his reputation itself was somewhat valuable. I'm also not saying that Carter was solely responsible for "padding" Alomar and Molitor's stats, but neither did he have a Santiago-like "pitch around" effect on the stars ahead of him in the lineup.

Respectfully, I don't make "wild claims." You may disagree, even vehemently, but my points are not crazy or dumb. In fact, I think my comments are usually quite benign and non-controversial. I apologize, Chuck, if I've ever come off as impolite on these threads.

Mike D - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 02:54 PM EST (#33537) #

And I think Geoff North's hypothesis makes a lot of sense.

_Jacko - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 03:46 PM EST (#33538) #

It's a much bigger issue in the NL. Leadoff men in the AL don't have an automatic out batting before them 85% of the time.

Nomar drove in 100 runs (ok., 98) from the leadoff spot in his rookie season, so it's hard to argue his power was wasted that year.

And why not bat your best hitter leadoff? He'll get more AB over the course of the season. Better than giving them away to some speedster who burns up outs.

robertdudek - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 04:00 PM EST (#33539) #

I think that Dunn will walk less often if he leads off. Put simply, pitchers will be less careful with him. He will get more balls to hit and thus will hit more homeruns. The shape of his stats will change - his OBP will probably go down slightly, but with more good pitches to hit, his slugging should go up a bit. It's hard to say whether that will help or hurt the team.

In a certain sense this is obvious - almost all players, over time, have different walk rates with men on base versus bases clear.

What we need to look at is at how players who had at least 150 in 2 or more lineup spots in a given year did. How did their stats change? That would be a very interesting study.

_Jacko - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 04:07 PM EST (#33540) #

BTW, Nomar's listed weight at Baseball Reference is 165 lbs., which is pretty humourous :)

jc

Dave Till - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 04:19 PM EST (#33541) #

One traditional lineup issue that hasn't been raised yet is double plays. Managers usually want to put a fast guy ahead of their slow right-handed hitting slugger.

My memory may be faulty, but I seem to recall that Jim Rice hit into an enormous number of double plays when he had Tony Armas batting in front of him.

The Jays shouldn't have that problem: Phelps isn't that slow yet (though I suspect he soon will be).

_R Billie - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 04:28 PM EST (#33542) #

Double plays usually depend on the speed of the second runner. The lead runner will most often be out before he can disrupt the play unless the manager chooses to start him.

Fast guys like Stewart and Catalanatto though will likely hit into their fair share of double plays since they play on turf and hit a lot of groundballs to begin with.

_Chuck Van Den C - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 05:56 PM EST (#33543) #

Comments from Mike D.

"Seeing fastballs" is more of a proxy, or euphemism, for the idea that pitchers...

My comment about not being sure what the expression really meant was meant to be rhetorical. I am well aware of the expression's intent. To my mind, it is an expression that is used indiscriminately as if it were a truism. I am merely challenging it's merit.

I think it was self-evident in last year's postseason that the presence of Santiago in the on-deck circle led to Bonds intentional walks. Hence, the problem of "protection."

This is one way in which "protection" manifests itself -- the shape of one player's OPS can be affected by the player hitting behind him. Bonds/Santiago is about as drastic a contrast as you'll ever see between a #4 and #5 hitter. Were Bonds followed by a better hitter, I agree that he would not have been walked as much. His OBP would have gone down but his SLG likely would have gone up. Whether the loss/gain in OBP/SLG would have been a wash is subject to conjecture.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Bonds always used to bat #3, ahead of Kent, until partway through last season? If so, he walked 177 times in 2001 batting ahead of an awfully good hitter.

[re Rickey Henderson] But he sure scored a lot of runs in his prime, and isn't that what it's all about?

I am not questioning his greatness. He was easily the greatest leadoff hitter in the history of the game. I'm just saying, all that play-by-play announcer yakkety yak about the positive effects of the running game disrupting the pitcher need to be tempered with the knowledge that would-be base stealers can have is a disruptive influence on their own team as well.

Here's "some measure of evidence": Joe Carter made multiple All-Star appearances and batters in front of him were never intentionally walked.

Batters in front of a #4 hitter are rarely intentionally walked, no matter how unexceptional said #4 hitter might be. To do so would be a poor strategy.

I don't really care whether Carter was feared or not (though it's hard to imagine that someone who's getting walked only 30 times a year is really scaring pitchers) I just don't buy into his presence positively affecting the players ahead of him in the order.

Does this make him a legend? A Hall of Famer? Underrated?

Is Carter a legend? His WS HR will fuel that forever. If a HoFer? I wouldn't hold my breath. Is he underrated? Maybe in the same way that Pauly Shore is.

I'm also not saying that Carter was solely responsible for "padding" Alomar and Molitor's stats, but neither did he have a Santiago-like "pitch around" effect on the stars ahead of him in the lineup.

Can't argue that. But as I said above, I defy anyone to historically find #4/#5 hitters with a greater disparity than Bonds/Santiago.

Respectfully, I don't make "wild claims." You may disagree, even vehemently, but my points are not crazy or dumb. In fact, I think my comments are usually quite benign and non-controversial. I apologize, Chuck, if I've ever come off as impolite on these threads.

I'm not suggesting you've been impolite and I hope I haven't been either. This is a very respectful blog, even among those sharing opposing opinions.

You had previously claimed:
Regardless of Joe's statistical performance, hitters in front of him always put up enormous numbers and were never intentionally walked, because Joe was *feared*. That has to add some value, doesn't it?

Whether Carter was feared is subjective and entirely beside the point. I don't care about that.

But it appears to me that you are trying to suggest that somehow Carter had something to do with the big numbers put up by the players in front of him. That, to my mind, is an extremely wild claim. It's not an impolite one, or a dumb one, or a disrespectful one. But it is a wild one and needs to be defended by a proper study if it is to be taken seriously. While the claim may sound reasonable to some, 20 years' worth of studies refuting the protection myth say otherwise. You've got a tough road to hoe if you want resurrect protection as a viable theory.

_steve - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 05:58 PM EST (#33544) #

Breaking News: Josh Phelps won't be catching at all this year (or ever again, for that matter!)

_steve - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 06:03 PM EST (#33545) #

On second thought, the aforementioned piece of news did not necessitate "Breaking News" status, but that has never stopped CNN, has it?!

Coach - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 06:05 PM EST (#33546) #

...his reputation itself was somewhat valuable

If opposing managers and pitchers believe it's true, then it is -- the presence of a "dangerous" hitter on deck alters strategy. Pitch selection, for sure. It isn't how many fastballs a guy sees, but how many are down the middle. Same for a Rickey-in-his-prime baserunner; you can't measure the threat or the degree of disruption, but it has an impact. In the dugout, intangibles are real.

_Jurgen Maas - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 07:09 PM EST (#33547) #

Phelps won't be catching? I guess Hinske won't get any time at short either.

_jason - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 09:18 PM EST (#33548) #

Spicol is going to be dissappointed.

_Spicol - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 09:25 PM EST (#33549) #

Nope, not if it's due to a legitimate medical concern and Tosca intimated it was.

_Mick - Thursday, February 20 2003 @ 11:58 PM EST (#33550) #

Let's go to the phones ...

Getting back to the original question, what current leadoff situations are most interesting/debatable/irritating? I'm going to take a quick look at the AL Central, a division with five teams who share only one thing in common -- no obvious leadoff hitter, in the traditional sense.

I am doing these lists off the top of my head at a roster glance, with no statistical backing, and trying to take into account the whole player attitude, fan reaction, media blowup trifecta. Please feel free to point out my massive errors in judgment and/or to take the ball and toss another division (or series of teams) up here for discussion.

Alphabetically ...

CHICAGO
Where "leadoff," means... Minnie Minoso
But this year just might mean ... D'Angelo Jiminez
Shouldn't it really be ... Frank Thomas?

CLEVELAND
Where "leadoff," means... Kenny Lofton
But this year just might mean ... Omar Vizquel
Shouldn't it really be ... Matt Lawton?

DETROIT
Where "leadoff," means... Ty Cobb
But this year just might mean ... Bobby Higginson
Shouldn't it really be ... Dmitri Young?

KANSAS CITY
Where "leadoff," means... Willie Wilson
But this year just might mean ... Desi Relaford
Shouldn't it really be ... Joe Randa?

MINNESOTA
Where "leadoff," means... Rod Carew
But this year just might mean ... Jacques Jones
Shouldn't it really be ... Doug Mientikiewicz?

Divisional apologies to ...
Corey Koskie, Carlos Beltran and Carlos Pena

Get out the "BB" guns and fire away ...

Gitz - Friday, February 21 2003 @ 12:34 AM EST (#33551) #

OK. I was wrong. Drugs aren't better in Canada. They're obviously superior in Texas.

_snellville jone - Friday, February 21 2003 @ 08:12 PM EST (#33552) #

I guess Mr. Reaggravated Hernia Injury could lead off the first couple of games for Detroit...

The Unbearable Rightness of Being A Leadoff Man | 33 comments | Create New Account

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.