Cards Lineup Optimization -- Tango Style
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 1:59 AM EDT
in News
125 comments
First, some background. It should be pointed out initially that Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andy Dolphin extensively researched the number of plate appearances, the likelihood of runners being on base, and the run probabilities of each lineup position. They showed, conclusively, that the traditional method managers have of distributing their hitters in the batting order does not maximize the number of runs produced. Now, I’ll allow that there’s not going to be a huge difference over the course of a season between the way a traditional manager will distribute his hitters and the optimal way to distribute the batters. However, if you can gain 10-15 runs over the course of a season by optimizing your batting order, shouldn’t you?
Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin demonstrate in their book that the leadoff hitter needn’t be a one who steals a lot of bases, as has traditionally been done. In fact, the best basestealers are wasted in front of your power hitters. They need to be pushed down in the order in front of the singles hitters. The leadoff hitter should be a high OBP guy. Homeruns will be wasted in this spot b/c the leadoff hitter bats w/ a runner on base much less frequently than other hitters in the lineup.
The #2 hitter should, again, be a high OBP guy, not a Jay Bell or Aaron Miles. (No one batted 2nd more often for the Cards last year than Aaron Miles. Miles should’ve been either 6th, 7th, or 9th.) Traditional managers have always placed their best hitters in the 3 hole. The Book tells us that they’re wasting their best hitters by batting them 3rd b/c they bat w/ runners on base much less frequently than the #4 and #5 hitters. They’re also poorly placed b/c the #2 spot comes up much more frequently over the course of a season than the 3 hole. Among the top 5 spots in the order, the #3 hole is probably the worst spot for Pujols.
The cleanup hitter should be, along w/ the #1 and #2 hitters, one of your best 3 hitters. He comes up to bat w/ more runners on base than the #2 hitter, but much less frequently than the #2 hitter. Power is essential in the 4 spot. The #5 spot is much like the #3 spot but can be more valuable than the #3 hitter as long as he’s not an all-or-nothing homerun hitter. The pure-homer guy would be a better fit in the 3 hole whereas a guy who gets on base more frequently would fit better at #5.
The rest of the batting order should, basically, be allocated in decreasing order by their hitting ability w/ 2 small exceptions. First, if any of these 4 players is an above average basestealer, he belongs in the 6 hole in front of the other singles hitters. Teams can best take advantage of that basestealing ability at the bottom of the order (unless the basestealer’s also one of your best 4 or 5 hitters, ala Jimmy Rollins). The other caveat is that the pitcher should bat 8th rather than 9th. Yes, the #8 hitter bats more frequently than the #9 hitter. However, it should be pointed out that pitchers only bat about twice a game. The pinch hitter often isn’t going to be considerably worse than the worst hitting position player. Even if he is, the benefit of having the slightly better position player in the 9 hole, in terms of providing the best hitters at the top of the order w/ another runner on base, is greater than the cost in terms of having the #8 hitter bat more often during the course of the season.
This other stuff, pointed out by Dan yesterday, from Tony about only batting the pitcher eighth when there is an ideal "second leadoff hitter" is simply hogwash. Rasmus belongs in this spot b/c he has speed? No, not according to The Book. Tony was right in batting the pitcher 8th last year and will be right when he does it this year. Not doing it b/c Duncan’s in the OF instead of Rasmus is…well, hogwash.
The problem w/ trying to optimize our lineup is that we’ll have so many of them. Sometimes Duncan will play and sometimes Rasmus will play. Skip has no business playing against lefties (and maybe Duncan or Rasmus don’t either) so we should see Ryan at 2nd against southpaws. Freese/Mather will play 3rd until Glaus gets healthy. So let’s look at the optimal lineup against righties w/ Duncan in the OF instead of Rasmus. The first problem w/ optimizing this lineup is that the 3 best hitters – Pujols, Ludwick, and Glaus are the best power hitters as well and it’s reasonable to wonder if any of them belong in the 1 hole. The 4th highest OBP guy last year was Skip Schumaker. Unfortunately, he’s only projected to have a .341 (Chone) or .344 (PECOTA) OBP this year. That’s just not good enough for the leadoff spot. There’s Duncan, who’s been a high OBP guy when healthy, but he, too, has power and you’d be wasting homers. If Skip can put up a .359 OBP again, he would be a decent fit in the 1 hole. Still, your top 3 hitters should bat in the leadoff, #2, and cleanup spots and there’s no doubt that Skip is distinctly NOT one of the Cards’ 3 best hitters. Therefore, I’m going w/ Glaus. He’s not an ideal fit, but he’s better than Skip (when healthy).
Pujols belongs either in the 2 hole or the cleanup spot. The cleanup spot bats more frequently w/ runners on base while the #2 hitter bats more often, period. Since Pujols is so good, he’s just not pitched to as often as we’d like – runners on base or not – so I’m going to put him in the 2 hole so that he gets more PAs. Plus, we know that Tony likes to see him hit in the first inning and this guarantees him a PA in the opening inning. Therefore, I’m putting Ludwick in the cleanup spot. He hit as many homers last year as Pujols, so Pujols doesn’t have a distinct power advantage. He’s a better hitter, but doesn’t necessarily have more power. There’s a good argument for swapping Pujols and Ludwick but, since Pujols walks so much more frequently than Ludwick, he belongs in the 2 hole.
The 3 spot hitter holds an advantage over the 5 hole hitter w/ homers and the 5 hole hitter has an advantage w/ avoiding outs. Thus, Ankiel goes in the 3 spot w/ Duncan in the 5 hole. They both have a ton of power but, when healthy, Duncan’s simply a better OBP guy. Putting Ankiel 3rd and Duncan 5th also helps our lineup by having us go R-L-R-L in spots 2 through 5. Any manager who wants to bring in a lefty to face Ankiel and Duncan’s going to have to have him face Ludwick as well. (Ludwick was much better vs. lefties -- .929 OPS – last year than previously and he’d certainly be better than either Ankiel or Duncan, reverse splits or no.)
6, 7, 8, and 9 should be Skip, Greene, the pitcher, and Yadi though there’s an argument to be made that Greene should bat 6th, w/ Skip 7th so that you continue staggering the lefties and righties. Skip’s better at getting on base. Greene’s better w/ power so it probably doesn’t make a lot of difference. Therefore, I’m going w/ Greene 6th and Skip 7th.
- Glaus
- Pujols
- Ankiel
- Ludwick
- Duncan
- Greene
- Schumaker
- Pitcher
- Molina
- Glaus
- Pujols
- Ankiel
- Ludwick
- Skip
- Greene
- Rasmus
- Pitcher
- Molina
What about vs. lefties? I’ll assume here that Glaus/Freese plays 3rd, Ankiel plays CF, Mather plays LF, and Ryan plays 2B. That’s probably the way it should play out unless we’re better off w/ Rasmus in CF b/c of his defense vis-à-vis Ankiel’s. Here, we can’t consider Ryan in the leadoff spot. We’ll stay w/ Glaus, Pujols, and Ludwick in the 1, 2, and 4 spots. Mather’s always mashed against lefties in the minors, though he struggled some in limited PAs last year against southpaws at the major league level. Greene’s always been stronger against lefties than righties at the major league level but there’s an argument to be made that Ankiel’s still as good or better than Greene against lefties. Last year, in 123 PAs against lefties, Ankiel’s OPS was .717. It’s a small sample, but it’s worse than he fared in 2007 against lefties (just 51 PAs). Greene’s career OPS against lefties is .758. Since Ankiel’s the only lefty in the lineup, it doesn’t much matter where he goes in terms of forcing the manager’s hand late in the game. Still, I like Greene’s chances against a lefty better than Ankiel’s so we’ll put Ankiel in the 3 hole w/ Greene in the 5 hole. There’s not much difference between Ryan and Molina – either could bat 7th or 9th. Molina’s career OPS against lefties is slightly higher (.746 to .732) but Ryan has slightly more speed and is easier for the pitcher to sacrifice so we’ll put Ryan 7th and leave Molina at the bottom of the order.
- Glaus
- Pujols
- Ankiel
- Ludwick
- Greene
- Mather
- Ryan
- Pitcher
- Molina
The more I look at this, it’s hard to like our lineup a lot against lefties – at least until Glaus gets healthy. Hopefully Freese and Mather will hit a little – Chone likes both of them quite a lot, actually. But they won’t hit like Glaus. April could be a long month. In fact, we should face 3 lefties in that first series against the Pirates. Oh dear! Cross your fingers.
4 recs |
125 comments
Email
Print
Comments
oh my
i just wrote a long, fanpost about the same things. That’s just…wow. Good stuff Chuck. I wasn’t sure you’d post on that but I should’ve known. :)
by erik on Mar 28, 2009 3:17 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
oh no. it's your blog
i didn’t know if i wanted to cry or laugh, so i opted for the laugh. this is interesting stuff.
by erik on Mar 28, 2009 11:41 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
my lineup came out a little different, too
1. Glaus
2. Pujols
3. Ankiel
4. Ludwick
5. Duncan
6. Skip
7. Yadier
8. P
9. Greene
I guess I figure I’d rather have Greene’s all or nothing power later on down the row.
by erik on Mar 28, 2009 3:20 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Greene's not used too well in the nine spot, since he doesn't get on base enough for Glaus/Pujols and won't have the pitcher on base to drive in with runs too often.
He’s the idea 7 hitter, as long as he doesn’t project that much worse than Skip or Yadier. I’d put Greene 8th with a similarly talented hitter with high OBP ninth.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 28, 2009 8:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And I like
the righty-lefty-righty-lefty-righty-lefty going from Pujols to Ankiel to Ludwick to Duncan to Greene and then Skip.
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 11:11 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that would
put greene and skip in front of a sac bunting pitcher. both have much better basepath speed than yadier, who forces the pitcher to hit when on first.
by ball in play on Mar 28, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes
w/ Molina on first, it’s much more difficult to sacrifice using the pitcher, which means he should swing the bat more frequently — something he (as a pitcher) doesn’t do well.
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
is there a reason why Glaus
is better leading off than Duncan? I know you don’t like putting Duncan there because you don’t want to waste homers, but isn’t that the same problem with Glaus? Is that a bad thing anyway? You get a reasonably high OBP guy in the leadoff spot, and the downside is you occasionally get a leadoff homer instead of a multiple run shot. Since it is only applicable the first time through the order, I wonder if the odds show it is really that much of a deterrent.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 11:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
the premise
is that your 3 best hitters go in the 1, 2, and 4 spots. To me, Glaus is a better hitter than Duncan. Other than that, you’re right — they’re basically the same. Since Glaus is a little better than Duncan, though, I went w/ him 1st and Duncan 5th.
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 11:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so switching spots
in the lineup depending on LHP or RHP would make sense in that Duncan is much better against RHP.
I really do wish that Tony would try this lineup out at least once, I think he would fall in love with it.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
when we look at
skip or duncan leading off, shouldn’t we also consider they need a platoon? isn’t there a stability lost and a lesser players #‘s that also have to be factored in that lineup slots production (mather/rasmus or ryan).
i’d rather the first 4 guys, not needing a platoon. the later the platoon guys bat, the better.
by ball in play on Mar 28, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if Tony's lineups over the years have taught us one thing
it is that stability is a non-factor. Don’t you just have to say screw stability and put the best lineup out there every game?
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yes, the best lineup
which is why i’d prefer a glaus leading off than a bench player.
by ball in play on Mar 28, 2009 11:56 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
why pitch to pujols?
Thanks for the great post. I’m intritued by it all and like almost all of your lineups except one thing: Why would anyone ever pitch to Pujols with the protection (lack thereof) behind him?
watching from Belgium
by waffle on Mar 28, 2009 6:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
The Cardinals should be THRILLED to have Pujols on base even more often if Ankiel, Ludwick, and Duncan are all coming up after him.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 28, 2009 8:53 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Using Spring Training Stats
and assuming that Greene will continue to produce as he currently is makes this an entirely different team. I think you also have to consider L/R splits.
Schumaker – L
Greene -R
Pujols -R
Ankiel -L
Ludwick -R
Glaus -R
Molina-R
Pitcher -R
Rasmus – L
by Warcard on Mar 28, 2009 7:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
if we're going to assume that people produce like they do in ST
then ludwick’s gonna be our fifth outfielder. there’s a reason not to disregard many years of track record and to just go by ST stats.
by tom s. on Mar 28, 2009 6:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
going by ST stats
then Glaus won’t be playing at all
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 6:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm not an expert on The Book but...
I think the problem with this analysis is that it is based on the data available. In other words, all the information that says the #4 & #5 hitters see more runners in scoring position are based on the available data, which includes the pitcher hitting #9 almost all the time. Slide a better hitter in the #9 spot and the #3 hitter is likely to see a higher number of runners in scoring position. It would seem to me that all this data is highly context-sensitive. Since most managers have formed their lineups in very similar ways, the data reflects that. Move just one guy to a non-traditional spot in the lineup and it can have all sorts of effects on the data – from a minimal effect to a major effect that completely invalidates the data for all (or most) other lineup positions.
by rthorat on Mar 28, 2009 11:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Right.
Did Tango, etc., do this analysis separately for the rare teams that did bat the pitcher eighth?
by StanTheManFan on Mar 28, 2009 11:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is a good point you bring up but
you really should read The Book , or at least the chapter entitled “Batting (Dis)Order.” I’m not being condescending. Here’s why — for their model, they didn’t use the traditional hitters. They assumed that every hitter in the order was exactly the same — precisely to avoid the problem that you mentioned. You’re right, if we put a better hitter in the 9 hole, there’s more opportunities for the 3 hitter. However, they controlled for that by making every batter in the order exactly the same and the model still produced these results. They determined the number of PAs each spot in the order would receive and used the run values in the 24 base-out states, and determined that this sort of order would produce more runs — even if each person in the lineup had equal ability — than the traditional lineup.
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 11:25 AM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
I believe they did it with Markov chains
Using each hitter’s probability distribution of events (K, BB, 1B, HR etc). I doubt they did it with a regression analysis empirically.
Not afraid to nitpick
by joker24 on Mar 28, 2009 11:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
what?
All I can say is thank god the regular season is almost here so maybe we can talk about something that actually has a chance of happening. That being said I agree with the cow, any major league manager who chose to bat Troy Glaus leadoff would not be a manager for long.
by Chuckiep on Mar 28, 2009 11:18 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I would bet real money
that Tony has a lineup with Glaus in the leadoff spot. I think I remember him saying something about wanting to put Glaus in that spot last year when he put Glaus in the 2-hole, but he didn’t quite let himself do it.
Also, nice first comment .*
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 11:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
b/c the way the lineup card should be written has no business being a topic of discussion here. Only what is, not what should be.
And I agree w/ matty — way to come strong w/ that first comment!
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 11:40 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Spring Training
It seems to me that Spring Training is exactly the spot to experiment with ideas like this. I don’t know how long it would take to get an idea for whether or not a given manager would like this but man, that’s an opportunity to play with a lineup in the last week or two!
by OldieWan on Mar 28, 2009 7:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Ryan Ludwick batted (bat?) leadoff once last year
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
by jd is legend on Mar 28, 2009 11:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I just use "hit" in...
…this instance. That would just avoid the confusion.
On a related note- rather than just check it out, I spent about a year of life occasionally trying to intuit if “a lot” was one word or two.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 7:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if I remember correctly
went 0-for that day.
by Evilfrog on Mar 28, 2009 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Alot is two words, but I hate spelling it that way
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
by jd is legend on Mar 29, 2009 6:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
1978 Kansas City Royals
used George Brett in the leadoff spot 39 times , including a 21 game stretch in which he led off every game(they went 16-5 ). They finished first in the division and that crazy manager did not get fired. That crazy manager happened to be none other than Whitey Herzog.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 12:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Didn't know that
Odd season for Brett:
25 y.o.
23 SB
under .300 BA
9 HR but hit 3 in one ACLS game off Catfish Hunter
lowest OBP between 21 y.o. & 38 y.o. seasons
by random on Mar 28, 2009 5:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
"any major league manager who chose to"
Even if his team gained a modest run scoring advantage over the managers who would bat glaus in the wrong place because it’s traditional?
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 7:24 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes, even THOSE managers.
After all, we all know that managers aren’t hired and fired based upon how well their teams actually PERFORM, they’re hired and fired based upon how closely they adhere to Time Honored Baseball Traditions and doing things The Way They’ve Always Been Done.
I mean, just think about it: If they’ve been doing things a certain way for decades, then it CLEARLY must be the best and only way to do things, right? Otherwise, why would they keep doing it that way?
And that’s why we still use the centuries old practice of sacrificing virgins to the volcano gods to keep them from erupting, rely upon the tried and true use of bloodletting to cure all illnesses, and continue to exclude minorities from playing alongside the superior white athletes in major league baseball. DUH.
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
by Mr Clean on Mar 28, 2009 8:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A ML manager
who runs his team in a traditional manner with a traditional lineup philosophy can blame 3rd place on inadequate players. Making radical lineup changes and finishing 3rd leaves him open to the charge that his goofy new ideas caused 3rd place.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2009 9:08 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
As an unemployed volcanologist
I would like to encourage any VEB readers who still sacrifice virgins to the volcano gods to cease and desist in this activity. A couple of good eruptions might do wonders for my job prospects.
by MotherTruckinSteve on Mar 29, 2009 4:25 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
That's what she said?
Not afraid to nitpick
by joker24 on Mar 29, 2009 7:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well played
It’s all true in a literal sense, but I suppose my wording had to be taken as a setup at some point in time.
by MotherTruckinSteve on Mar 29, 2009 11:01 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Willie Mays
hit leadoff for the later part of a season because his manager thought he had a shot at breaking Maris’ record.
by Hardcore Legend on Mar 28, 2009 9:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
not overly concerned vs lhsp's
during 2008, lhsp’s were credited with a 14-23 w/l record vs stl. 19 ND’s, pulled ahead 6 games, tied 6 games and behind 7 games. it was our bullpen that produced the poor team record vs games where a lhp started, for me.
by ball in play on Mar 28, 2009 11:54 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Nine games under .500
versus nineteen games over .500 vs RHPs doesn’t concern you? What am I missing here?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Mar 28, 2009 1:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
you are missing
14-23 was the opposing lhsp’s “pitchers record”, vs stl.
by ball in play on Mar 28, 2009 3:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
While I'll concede "the Book"
is statistically accurate, this ol’-timer just thinks the Tango-ized lineup just feels “wrong”.
Part of the problem would be getting the players to buy into the concept… and these guys (no matter which team you’re talking about) have played all their lives with “the best batter hits third” lineups. Ballplayers may be even more thoroughly “creatures of habits” than the civilian population; players are certainly more “tradition-bound” than the sabermetric community.
I don’t recall all the details, but I remember the 1950’s Pittsburgh Pirates (who were pretty bad) taking their best hitter, and putting him in the leadoff spot to maximize his plate appearances. It didn’t work (probably because the Pirates were pretty bad, anyway,) and the Buccos went back to the “traditional” lineup before mid-season.
Somehow, I don’t think Glaus would be comfortable in the leadoff spot, even if he would be more effective there!
The problem with batting Yadi 9th would be “clogging the bases”; you’d need extra-base hits from your #1 and #2 hitters to chase Yadi home from first!
Interesting analysis, though!
"In this game, don't nobody know nuthin' about nuthin'." -- attributed to Lawrence Peter "Yogi" Berra
by The Ol Goaler on Mar 28, 2009 12:30 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
those guys at the top of the order
are the extra base hit hitters. They can get him home w/ 1 swing. If you leave him 6th or 7th, it takes 2 hits to get him home. Believe me, when I pondered Yadi vs. Greene in the 7and 9 holes, Yadi’s speed was a primary concern. He’s better off hitting in front of Glaus, Pujols, Ankiel and Ludwick than he is the pitcher and Khalil Greene.
by chuckb on Mar 28, 2009 1:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yadi at 9
I thought this through at first and believed that Yadi should be 7th instead of 9th for the reason that he’d clog the bases. The comment above that Yadi would be more difficult to sacrifice by the pitcher and Chuck’s comment that Yadi could get home with one swing of the bat I think changes it all. It also seems that it might all be different in a DH league but I don’t think so. It would work out the same way.
by OldieWan on Mar 28, 2009 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Exactly
The logic does not take into account psychology. I can see all these guys changing their habits because of being in an unfamiliar spot. One only needs to look at bullpen guys to see that when you change around where they pitch that you can get sub-optimal individual results. Leading off is like closing. Not everyone can do it well.
A couple things i do like are putting a speed guy 6th if you have one and I like the pitcher hitting 8th but more for the reasons that LaRussa uses. If LaRussa didn’t want the pitcher to hit 8th I’d rather have Albert in the number 4 spot.
Also, I like the speed/power combo in the number 1 slot. I love it when your number one guy can jack a home run the 1 AB. Seems like a great way to try to knock the air out of the opposing team.
Just win
by The Duke on Mar 28, 2009 3:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
FWIW
I can’t find much detail on the 1950 Pirates leadoff man experiment, but they scored 4.7 runs/game the first half, and 4.2 runs/game the second half…
Not a VERY useful bit of information, I know. FWIW, the Pirates’ best hitter in 1950 was Johnny Hopp, who played several seasons as the lead off man for STL and NYG in the 40’s, so batting him lead off wasn’t a huge “experiment”, anyway.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
it doesn't "feel" right because tradition has trained your Adaptive Unconscious
add that to our preference for narrative stories over empirical data. That anecdote regarding the PIRATES (of all teams) in addition to tradition creates a “gut feeling” that’s “just not right”.
“Laser”
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Mar 28, 2009 8:49 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
so what you're saying is, dr evil would bat glaus leadoff?
I like it!
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 8:52 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
if there was a way to pur some frickin lazer's on the players heads,
the Cardinals would never lose!
BEN MOTHERHUSHYOURMOUTH SHEETS
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Mar 29, 2009 12:17 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
An interesting exercise,
though I’ll admit if I was a manager (especially one who has at least some chance of being fired), I’m not sure I’d have the guts to do this. It would certainly be a lot easier, of course, to take a rookie who has Glaus-type skilz and plug him into a leadoff spot right away—i.e., w/o giving him a chance to build a reputation as a middle-order hitter first. If Rickey Henderson had been pegged as a #3 or #5 hitter at the beginning, would any manager have switched him to leadoff later?
One element that isn’t addressed here (and I’m not saying it would or would not have an effect—because I just don’t know) is whether teams would change the way they pitch to different spots in the order.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2009 12:42 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
To follow up,
it would be kind of cool if you had a veteran, established star mid-lineup hitter who agreed to switch to leadoff and accept the tradeoffs—lower RBI totals, less MVP consideration from pinheaded old-school baseball writers, etc.—in return for a new life as a different kind of player, just for the fun of it. This is the kind of thing I could even imagine Albert trying at some point in his career.
by MdRedbirdFreak on Mar 28, 2009 12:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Bingo!
I think MdRedbird hit the nail on the head. While most of us here have realized that RBI’s are not a good measurement of a player’s productivity, the national media still celebrates the “RBI guys”. More exposure means more money (contracts and endorsements) so you would have to assume that Glaus would object to having a 60 RBI season in his contract year.
by thp0344 on Mar 28, 2009 2:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Add to that that Glaus is a streaky hitter
and the second he hits a cold spell, what do you think he’s going to blame it on if he’s batting leadoff?
by TheBirds on Mar 28, 2009 2:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
but look at the fact he is hitting in front of Pujols
better pitches should equal fewer cold streaks
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 2:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about a certain third baseman
Try Wallace as leadoff in September. Whether the teams in contention or not, September is Tony’s favorite time of year to mess with the lineup.
by ubeddie on Mar 28, 2009 2:39 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think given the projected roster, Colby should absolutely hit against lefties.
Career vs LHP
0.371 0.455 0.826
Career vs. RHP
0.364 0.496 0.860
While it’s try that he slugs quite a bit better against righties, he’s not ineffective against LHP having an OPS of .826. He does have higher BABIP while having a lower LD% against lefties though. But still, I think if he can still get on base against lefties pretty well his speed and overall numbers make him worth it when you consider the other options. Especially when you would like to get his glove in the OF as much as possible.
I just don’t like the idea that we have to dismiss Rasmus against lefties automatically, I see him as an everyday player.
by TheBirds on Mar 28, 2009 1:57 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Anyone keeping track of the game today?
Freese is playing like a man possesed.
He is 3 for 3 with 2 RBIs today.
I guess he isn’t kidding about making the most of his few ABs before the season starts.
*Rasmus is to CF as Longoria is to 3B*
by Red Blazer on Mar 28, 2009 2:22 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think Freese is our starting 3B
Given that no one else impressed at 3B and given Freese’s season last year, I think the job is his unless he shows he cannot handle it in these last games of ST. He is showing that he can handle it, so I think he will probably be the starting 3B when the season begins.
by rthorat on Mar 28, 2009 4:19 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maholm - Pirates Opening Day starter
Announced today, LHP Paul Maholm will start Opening Day against the Cards. RHP Ian Snell & LHP Zach Duke look to be # 2 & # 3 starters and RHP Ross Ohlendorf was added to the rotation with the fifth spot still up for competition between RHP Jeff Karstens and RHP Virgil Vasquez.
So it looks like the first four game series against the Pirates will be against two lefties and two righties. Bet Tony’s very excited about turning out four different lineups in four days.
by ubeddie on Mar 28, 2009 3:14 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Maholm has looked very good during the spring
I’ve watched him 3 times now and he’s been pretty dominate. With our lefty-heavy OF, I would be lying if I wasn’t a tad worried.
At least So Taguchi isn’t getting an Opening Day start, though. Baby steps.
by Hardcore Legend on Mar 28, 2009 9:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
13 runners left on base
by st. louis so far today. i hope this won’t be an issue this year like it was in 2008.
by adiueordie on Mar 28, 2009 3:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Where does Fred Bird bat in this scheme?
Man, that’s wild stuff. I love it. It would pretty cool to find a relatively safe place in the schedule to try something like that out for a week or two. Maybe next year in ST.
One downside I would think would come up is disrupting patterns. I’ve been told that, but have no actual first hand knowledge, many ball-players are creatures of habit when it comes to playing the game. So, a shift like this might mess with their fragile wittle heads.
I suppose my second concern would be that these funky looking lineups are put together assuming that each players production while positioned in a “traditional” lineup would be the same in the funkified lineup.
Hahahaha- even if this does generate a handful of extra runs, can you imagine what the reaction around baseball would be to lineups like that? TLR decided to bat the pitcher 8th and everyone freaked out for a bit.
No matter if it worked like gangbusters or fell flat, the general reaction from the baseball world would be really entertaining!
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 7:05 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Outstanding post!!!
I could not agree more with the analysis and makes me want to re-read The Book. Sadly I have loaned it to someone else and have not gotten it back…One day there will be a manager that understands all of this and it will be a glorious day for baseball…one thing I cannot understand is why people are so afraid of change? To come out publicly and say how stupid this is because it has always been done another way is really ignorant. Every single thing was done a certain way until there was a better way figured out on how to do it. As I get older the one thing I wish more than anything is to not end up like this because it seems to be an age thing more then anything…
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 28, 2009 8:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
If TLR wasn't the manager of this team
how many people would be calling the pitcher hitting 8th stupid?
I still think that it is not beyond possible Tony runs out a lineup like this one day.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 8:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
your point about...
… resistance to change is well taken, but lets not assume this would work. It may, or may not. As it stands The Book presents untested hypotheses. Granted, someone would have to take the plunge to give this a shot to see if it would work, which is where your point about comfort over change comes in.
However, with any hypothesis, we can assume that testing would bring about some level of change to the original idea.
What I’m getting at is; “glorious day for baseball” might be a touch too strong; a manager would be putting his job on the line in order to test a hypothesis; it seems if nobody is suggesting this sort of lineup would radically enhance a team’s production – “10 to 15 runs a year.”
I think if someone wants to give this a try, the minors is the place to do it. That’s where things are tried out and developed.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 8:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
good idea regarding the minors
but, again, the problem is how to measure success? Who will notice if a minor league team consistently scores 20 runs more than “expected”? What is “expected”, for a bunch of guys who haven’t proven anything yet?
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 8:42 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I was just thinking that...
I suppose we’d even have the same trouble with a “proven” MLB team. It would be difficult to conclusively prove that an extra 10-20 runs wouldn’t have happened with a traditional lineup any given year.
I suppose we see things like this on a individual player basis: who would have been able to PROVE Ludwick’s year last year, or some other player who tremendously underperformed based on past production.
I guess that’s the underlying problem with evaluating this concept- we’re talking about a minimal potential enhancement. If the claim was 50 runs or something, then it would be much easier to evaluate.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 8:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Perhaps you could scatter the alterned lineup games randomly in the season
then in the end compare the offensive statistics from the different lineup configurations.
This would probably work if you lineup was stable.
by TheBirds on Mar 28, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
to put it in perspective...
… do you think another 15 runs would’ve gotten the Cards to the playoffs last year?
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 8:28 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
so are you saying
just because it wouldn’t get them into the playoffs and only one extra win they shouldn’t try it? And i dont think anyone has said it WILL work…what we are saying based on the evidence at hand it would be worth trying…
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 28, 2009 8:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
fair enough...
… but I was responding to the gentleman’s “glorious day for baseball” quote from the above post. OK, that’s not specifically saying “it WILL work,” but is essentially the same thing.
But, I think perhaps I didn’t make myself clear with what you are responding to. The meat of my argument is above that reply. What you are replying to is, as I said, for perspective.
I would still argue that this hypothesis is best ran in the minors until there are results that it can do what it claims- create an extra 10-15 runs a year.
Isn’t that why the minors are there? To develop untested players (or in this case- lineups) until they have to accepted or rejected in the Majors?
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 8:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
perhaps my quote was a bit
hyperbolic but I got excited…and I do agree about the minors being the ideal place for this to come to fruition but there is really no reason that it couldn’t start in MLB.
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 28, 2009 8:47 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
It would be asking...
… quite a bit for a MLB manager to buck tradition so strongly.
In other words, if a team failed to produce above last year, and that lack of production had nothing to do with the new lineup matrix (sometimes players do fail to produce up to expectations for whatever reason), then I would guess that the new lineup matrix and the manager who put it in place would receive the brunt of the blame.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 8:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see thats why I think it will come
from the Oakland/Fremont A’s where the front office would encourage it. In reality, I think they are the closest team to doing this now looking at their lineups from last year. I would say the BoSox but the media and fans are so rabid I don’t see it taking off there. Washington with Manny Acta and nothing to lose could be the first.
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 28, 2009 9:02 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah, the A's...
… might the absolute best team to give this a shot, what with the longstanding tradition of freewheelingness. It’s true, in the spirit of the discussion I’ve decided to try out a new noun- freewheelingness.
If the new lineup didn’t produce results by the All-Star break they could ditch it and put their base coaches atop donkeys instead- which they might try anyway.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 9:09 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah...the first GM to really buck the system was Beane (moneyball).
and most of us know how he revolutionized the game.
Bruce Lee faced ostracization and real physical danger (and if buying into conspiracy theories he did pay the ultimate price) to buck the system…I’m sure he had no regrets going by his famous quote "The key to immortality is first living a life worth remembering".
regards testing a unproven hypothesis in a MLB setting just isn’t feasable due to sample size. You can’t play 10,000 games so you need to create a theory, test the predictability and try to disprove it with computer sims.
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Mar 28, 2009 9:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I have no disagreement with your points...
… but let us not forget the exploits of Branch Rickey- besides Jackie Robinson, hence integration, he can also point to spring training and the minor leagues as accomplishments.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 9:16 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Rickey and ST
now that I think about it, ST could have been due to Leo Durocher (sp). But the minors was Rickey, while with the Cards no less.
Can someone confirm the creator of ST?
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 9:26 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah
Branch Rickey established dodgertown, which was the first spring training facility in existence. he was also the first GM to hire a full-time statistician.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 9:33 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
reference
“the numbers game”, allen schwartz. Great book.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 9:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
eh, schwarz.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 9:38 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
A's and nonconformity
thanks for the ST confirmation.
I have been thinking about the A’s some more after nomar34’s observation.
The designated hitter, the (thankfully failed) designated runner, day-glo unis, the organizationally encouraged motley crew in the early 70’s, Mike Morgan making his MLB debut two weeks after graduating from high school.
By comparison, Beane is Ronald Reagan to Finley’s FDR.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 9:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
well, it might be wrong, i guess, depending on definition
matty’s links indicate that ST happened long before branch rickey was a player. OTOH, dodgertown, as an integrated training facility sponsored by a club, rather than a barnstorming event, was the first of it’s kind. So it was more evolutionary rather than revolutionary, like the Robinson siging and the Allan Roth bit.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 9:53 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a quick search
here and here shows that ST had it beginnings in 1870 when Cincinnati and Chicago teams of the old National Association held a camp in New Orleans. It goes on to say that by 1910 teams had set up facilities throughout the south and there were established preseason schedules. It says at about that time writers had begun calling it the Grapefruit League, and that name has stuck until today.
I have no idea if this is all true, but interesting nonetheless.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 28, 2009 9:43 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
thanks...
… I also seem to remember hearing that African-Americans were playing pro-ball before the turn of the 20th century, were banned from playing, then given the chance again via Robinson and Doby.
So old it’s new.
by Scarecrow7775 on Mar 28, 2009 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
a minor defense of TLR's usage last year
chuckb, love what you’ve done with this article, and fully agree that the lineups that you presented will be pretty close to optimal, and definitely closer to optimal than the typical traditional lineup. The point that “Among the top 5 spots in the order, the #3 hole is probably the worst spot for Pujols” cannot be made often enough; it’s a huge pet peeve for me. OTOH, I have one minor quibble. You state:
The #2 hitter should, again, be a high OBP guy, not a Jay Bell or Aaron Miles. (No one batted 2nd more often for the Cards last year than Aaron Miles. Miles should’ve been either 6th, 7th, or 9th.)
Last year, Aaron Miles had a .390 OBP, with an .834 OPS, in the #2 spot. Now, Glaus or Luddy (who had the second-most PA’s w/146) would likely have been better; Ludwick had a .407 OBP with a 1.108 OPS while batting second, which is almost the definition of the “perfect” #2 hitter, but Miles wasn’t bad. 3rd most PA’s was rick ankiel, 78 PA’s, with a .295 OBP and a sub-.800 OPS (booo!), and 4th-most was a tie between that jerk Chris Duncan, who had a .388 OBP/.913 OPS, and joe mather, who failed miserably (.513 OPS) (67 PA’s). Lopez (.476 OBP, 1.093 OPS, 63 PA), kennedy (.407 OBP, .889 OPS, 59) and barton (.310, .580 OPS, 43 PA) bring up the rear.
So, regardless of “theory”, TLR got very, very good production out of #2 last year (.315/.371/.493 overall), whether by luck or by design.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 28, 2009 11:13 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
It's the Pujols Effect
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
by giveml on Mar 29, 2009 10:36 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
this is why VEB is hot
nice work as usual chuck
BEN MOTHERHUSHYOURMOUTH SHEETS
I'm going to go try to find a puppy and kick it. - Brad Thompson AND THAT'S A WINNER!
by gdm426 on Mar 29, 2009 12:19 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
ok
I dont mean to act as though I am a major league baseball coach, but that is a ridiculous lineup. I wonder what it would look like with Glaus and Pujols chugging around that bases after Ankiel hits a single. I’m sorry but there is a reason why guys like aron miles got that play in the second spot most of the year. He can actually run! I have never seen a professional ball club bat there power hitting third baseman who hit .270 at leadoff. Then your raining MVP who is not known for his wheels to say the least at the second spot! I realise that you are taking into accnt to many statistical aspects, But if Matt Stairs batted .330 I wouldnt bat him before the third spot If my life depended on it.
My lineup would look a little more like it is going to look.
With Duncan in the outfield
1. Shumaker
2.Ankiel
3.Pujols
4.Ludwick
5.Glaus
6.Duncan
7.Yadi
8.Pitcher
9.Greene
With Rasmus
1.Schumaker
2.Ankiel
3.Pujols
4.Ludwick
5.Glaus
6.Greene
7.Yadi
8.Pitcher
9.Rasmus
by mattscards77 on Mar 29, 2009 1:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
You bring up valid points*
stupid slow runners clogging up MY bases!!
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Mar 29, 2009 1:59 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
stupid slow runners that are more likely to get on by way of extra base hits
thereby nullifying their lack of blazing speed clogging up MY bases!!!
Especially the ones like Pujols, that slacker on the basepaths!
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
and....BEN SHEETS!!! **
**not that BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment, just BEN SHEETS!!!
(BEN SHEETS might be involved in this comment)
by mattyfrommo on Mar 29, 2009 2:03 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
btw thks for the *. Comedy Gold.(no *)
"How depressing is it being you? Would you equate it to being a lifelong Cubs fan?"
by rocKStark5 on Mar 29, 2009 2:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i have a vision of a blend of homer simpson and dusty baker managing a baseball team.
it’s not pretty.
by tom s. on Mar 29, 2009 2:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
yeah those speedy runners do a lot of good
when they are on the bench after making all of those outs…
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 29, 2009 2:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
see: bourns, michael.
and
I wonder what it would look like with Glaus and Pujols chugging around that bases after Ankiel hits a single.
do you remember what albert looked like chugging from second around third to home on a dribbler groundout by ankiel?
by tom s. on Mar 29, 2009 2:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
a man about to tear his calf muscle for the umpteenth time.
by Hardcore Legend on Mar 29, 2009 11:04 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
albert brings the rain
according to bill james online, albert is about 10% more likely to score from second on a single than aaron miles (73 percent versus 63 percent), and only about 3% less likely to go first to third on a single (38 percent vs 35 percent of the time).
I think he is not as slow as he looks.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 29, 2009 12:30 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
compare to skip schumaker
he goes first to 3rd only 29 percent of the time, and second to home just 48 percent of the time. Both glaus (26, 55) and pujols are “faster” base runners than skip, by objective measures.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 29, 2009 12:35 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
i dont believe that for a second
Skip and Miles are both little scrappy white guys, they have to be better real baseball skill like baserunning, sac bunting, productive outs and fouling off pitches…
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 29, 2009 1:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That could
have more to do with who’s following Pujols vs. who hit behind Miles. We already know the big sticks hit behind Pujols.
by OldieWan on Mar 29, 2009 10:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well Miles hit 2nd last year more than anyone
so it would be the same players pretty much…
"Baseball is dull only to dull minds." - Red Barber
by nomar34 on Mar 29, 2009 10:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
How does he come up with those numbers?
Are those just the statistics of their careers? In other words, did he just look at every time a player was on second base, the player at the plate got a single, and then the number of times the player scored on the single?
Seems like that could be skewed by a number of different factors. It could be a matter of hit placement, number of outs, aggressiveness of the runner, etc. Maybe Miles had an inordinate number of hard-hit singles when he was on second, or maybe he’s on second with fewer than two outs alot.
I think the discrepancy between the situation percentages could be explained by Pujols’ aggressiveness on the basepaths. He’ll be more aggressive with the chance to score than just getting from second to third.
The artist formerly known as...
Mr Redbird @ Viva El Birdos
PowerOfDixieland @ Track Em Tigers, other SEC blogs
by jd is legend on Mar 29, 2009 6:23 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
like most things on the BJO site, it's not well-explained
but that’s the gist of it, I think. OTOH, I can’t think of any reason to assume that a 5’ 8" guy would be faster than a 6’ 3" guy just because he’s smaller.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 29, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
per rotoworld: I am not crazy
Brian Barden tripled, singled and walked Saturday as the Cardinals’ No. 9 hitter.
Today was apparently supposed to mark the climax of the Cardinals’ third-base competition. All five options started in the game, with Barden at shortstop, Joe Thurston at second, David Freese at first, Brendan Ryan in right and Joe Mather, the weakest defender in the group, actually playing third. Barden has seemed to be the forgotten man in the competition, even though he’s probably the top defender and is hitting .371/.436/.548. He can also serve as that second leadoff man that manager Tony La Russa wants in the ninth spot in the order. It’d make sense to have him and Freese share time.
somebody tell me what I’m missing here. somebody. yet i know that mather, freese, and ryan are all gonna end up on that 25-man.
by tom s. on Mar 29, 2009 3:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
just that barden hasn't ever been
a good hitter, even in the minors. He could succeed, could even be as good as aaron miles offensively, but the other guys could be much, much better. Even brendan ryan probably has a higher offensive upside than barden.
Now, defensively he might be something really special. That’s his reputation, at least.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 29, 2009 12:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
If the biggest thing we're worried about....
is whether Brendan Ryan or Brian Barden fills out the 25-man roster as the RH-hitting 2B/utility guy, I think we’re doing ok.
by Willie McGee's Twin on Mar 29, 2009 12:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't agree that ryan has a higher offensive upside..
ryan has only twice had an ops of over .700 – once during that freak half-season in the majors, and once in high A ball. barden had an ops of .839 for the d-backs in 06 at AAA, and an ops of .770 for the cards last year at AAA.
admittedly, barden doesn’t have ryan’s ML level record of success in 2007, but he also doesn’t have the ML level record of a .596 OPS in 2008.
by tom s. on Mar 29, 2009 5:05 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that's fair.
They both have a lot to prove.
- So, to ease his pain, you're supposed to take him to a ball game?
- Yes.
by SleepyCA on Mar 29, 2009 9:22 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
very interesting concept having Glaus bat leadoff
would Freese also bat leadoff?
the interesting thing about Glaus leading off is that he would have the power to very quickly put your team on top (isn’t there some kind of percentage that says that the first team to score usually wins?) and his OBP would quickly put a runner on base, especially since he doesn’t strike out much. at first I had the same attitude of some of the other posters, such as, that is absolutely ludicrous, but in reality it is just going against tradition, and sometimes, that is the best thing to do
by Cards Fan in Chitown on Mar 29, 2009 10:51 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Rickey Henderson
is lauded as the quintessential leadoff man. High OBP, hit for power and so forth. He’s in the HOF because he hit in the right spot in the lineup. He led off many games with a homerun to put his team on top. That puts the pressure on the other starting pitcher from the beginning.
Additionally, it seems to me that the high OBP guys at the top of the lineup would construct the lineup in a way that would put added stress on an opposing pitcher. Maybe they throw more pitches earlier in the game, maybe the high stress situations takes it toll earlier and you get into the opposing bullpen sooner. This is all hypothetical but I would like to see this approach taken in the minors at least. You’d really have nothing to compare it to but at least you have a basis for evaluation. Today…you have nothing but conjecture.
by OldieWan on Mar 30, 2009 1:40 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Homeruns in the first spot tend to be a waste.
Nobody on base in the first inning, and many fewer players expected to be on base in later innings because of the crappy bottom of the order. Not saying homeruns are bad (they never are), but a prototypical leadoff hitter by The Book would have a high OBP, some gap power, good speed, but not many HRs or SBs.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 30, 2009 6:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- D12: Whee! The Y! fantasy baseball operation is armed and ready
- Create-a-Caption: Albert wants to become one with the gun
- Be like Lincecum: Little Leaguer copies Timmy's windup
- Stewards Debate! Does Bud Selig deserve a Miller Park statue?
- Ask Alex: Will Ben Zobrist replicate his outstanding '09 season?
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
