Lead off or manager problems?

[NoDak]

There is all this talk about "The Cubs need a lead-off hitter" and I don't know if I buy it. CHC had HORRIBLE production out of their lead-off spot, but when I look at the numbers, I think I see why.

 

I will confess that I will assume that batting lead-off will not, in a statistically significant sense, change such rate stats as OBP, SLG, BA.

 

With that in mind, let's look at what CHC had leading off last year (I will limit this to players who batted #1 for 5+ games):

Hairston---78 games, 335 PAs

Patterson---32 games, 136 PAs (and most ofhis walks! :wink:)

Macias---26 Games and 116 PAs

Lawton---18 games and 77 PAs

Macias---9 games, 37 PAs.

 

While we can rightfully judge that all of these sample sizes are probably too small to judge by their output in just that situation (batting lead-off) if we include their full season stats (see: Assumption listed above) This looks pretty bleak.

 

Hairston: .261/.336/.368 was BY FAR the best and is certainly at the bottom end of acceptable. Perez is second in OBP with .298! That is unacceptable.

 

My question is: WHY NOT PUT MURTON/WALKER in the #1-2 slots? While both of them have power their ability to get on base in front of Lee/Ramirez would be WELL worth it. Besides, power wasn't the problem for CHC offense last year. It was having guys on base when those extra base hits occured so I would be willing to sacrifice their SLG in the middle of the line-up to gain guys on base at the top (getting fewer outs/100 ABs out of the guys that will contribute the most ABs is also good)

 

I think all of this talk about CHC needing a "lead-off" hitter is misguided. What we need is a manager able to take advantage of the lead-off hitters he has rather than some archaic archetype of the "slap hitting" lead-off man. If we had a great slap hitting lead-off hitter (like Brett Butler in his prime) I would be fine with it, it is just when he gets dogmatic about it that I have a problem.

[jjgman21]

as stated by another poster in another thread

 

What really boggles my mind is this:

 

Ask yourself, what makes a leadoff hitter?

 

IMO, the answer is this, in order of importance:

 

1. The ability to get on base.

 

2. The inability to hit for much power.

 

3. Speed.

 

The only one of those three that applies exclusively to leadoff hitters is #2. That is the one unique characteristic of leadoff hitters. For example, Bobby Abreu gets on base a lot, and actually steals bases very efficiently. But he also hits for power, so they don't lead him off. He hits in the middle of the order.

 

So really, what makes a leadoff hitter a leadoff hitter is that they're pretty much useless anywhere else in the lineup; it's a deficiency, not a strength, that classifies them as leadoff hitters. And yet, somehow, this deficiency gets turned into (by people like Hendry, Dusty, and others) a strength, and players who fit this profile wind up being vastly overvalued.

 

And the worst part of it is, Dusty's criteria for a leadoff hitter consists of only 2 and 3, plus the following:

 

4. Being small

 

5. Not being white.

[BigbadB]

There is all this talk about "The Cubs need a lead-off hitter" and I don't know if I buy it. CHC had HORRIBLE production out of their lead-off spot, but when I look at the numbers, I think I see why.

 

I will confess that I will assume that batting lead-off will not, in a statistically significant sense, change such rate stats as OBP, SLG, BA.

 

With that in mind, let's look at what CHC had leading off last year (I will limit this to players who batted #1 for 5+ games):

Hairston---78 games, 335 PAs

Patterson---32 games, 136 PAs (and most ofhis walks! :wink:)

Macias---26 Games and 116 PAs

Lawton---18 games and 77 PAs

Macias---9 games, 37 PAs.

 

While we can rightfully judge that all of these sample sizes are probably too small to judge by their output in just that situation (batting lead-off) if we include their full season stats (see: Assumption listed above) This looks pretty bleak.

 

Hairston: .261/.336/.368 was BY FAR the best and is certainly at the bottom end of acceptable. Perez is second in OBP with .298! That is unacceptable.

 

My question is: WHY NOT PUT MURTON/WALKER in the #1-2 slots? While both of them have power their ability to get on base in front of Lee/Ramirez would be WELL worth it. Besides, power wasn't the problem for CHC offense last year. It was having guys on base when those extra base hits occured so I would be willing to sacrifice their SLG in the middle of the line-up to gain guys on base at the top (getting fewer outs/100 ABs out of the guys that will contribute the most ABs is also good)

 

I think all of this talk about CHC needing a "lead-off" hitter is misguided. What we need is a manager able to take advantage of the lead-off hitters he has rather than some archaic archetype of the "slap hitting" lead-off man. If we had a great slap hitting lead-off hitter (like Brett Butler in his prime) I would be fine with it, it is just when he gets dogmatic about it that I have a problem.

 

Where's Neifi? I know he hit lead off on numerous occasions.

[NoDak]

Oops, BBB, I accidentally put Macias name twice. Plz substitute Perez for the Macias with 26 games and 116 PA. Right stats, wrong name.

 

I included him later to point out he had the second best OBP of all the lead-off hitters, if that makes you feel any better! :shock:

[UK1679666180]

To answer your question, both. Baker has found an inability to look at OBP at the top. The Cubs have not a high enough OBP at the top since Lofton when he was performing well, Grudielanek's OBP was around .360 if I'm not mistaken, which wasn't bad.

 

Ideally, I don't consider Walker an ideal #2, he's more a 7th or 8th hitter in a perfect lineup or a team with a high enough payroll to get one (Cubs). His OBP hasn't been high enough to merit hitting in front of Lee, Ramirez, but he's the best avail. and should hit up there given what they've had.

 

I'd love to see a couple .380+ OBPs at the top.

 

Michaels, Castillo could've brought that. :)

 

Well, Michaels still can.

[NoDak]

as stated by another poster in another thread

 

What really boggles my mind is this:

 

Ask yourself, what makes a leadoff hitter?

 

IMO, the answer is this, in order of importance:

 

1. The ability to get on base.

 

2. The inability to hit for much power.

 

3. Speed.

 

The only one of those three that applies exclusively to leadoff hitters is #2. That is the one unique characteristic of leadoff hitters. For example, Bobby Abreu gets on base a lot, and actually steals bases very efficiently. But he also hits for power, so they don't lead him off. He hits in the middle of the order.

 

So really, what makes a leadoff hitter a leadoff hitter is that they're pretty much useless anywhere else in the lineup; it's a deficiency, not a strength, that classifies them as leadoff hitters. And yet, somehow, this deficiency gets turned into (by people like Hendry, Dusty, and others) a strength, and players who fit this profile wind up being vastly overvalued.

 

And the worst part of it is, Dusty's criteria for a leadoff hitter consists of only 2 and 3, plus the following:

 

4. Being small

 

5. Not being white.

 

I disagree that "not being able to hit for much power" is EVER a good thing. I would rather have power guys in the middle of the line-up, but to sacrifice ANYONE being on base when they hit for extra bases just to keep the "power" down at lead-off isn't a good thing. Like I said, hitting for power was not CHC shortfall last year and will likely not be this year either (#2 in the NL to the Bandbox Reds).

 

To me the job of a lead-off hitter is to be ON BASE. The second most valuable asset is for them to be ON BASE. Third, is the ability to not get caught stealing any more than is absolutely necessary. Come to think if it, I disagree with everything in that post, with the exception of #1, 4, 5, but I am pretty sure the last two are facetious (but accurate). I think lead off is as important of a spot in the order as anywhere else and more important than any except maybe #3. By definition the lead-off hitter gets as many or more PA as possible, so why not maximize the good (getting on base) while minimizing the bad (like making outs). If batting lead-of is due to deficiency and is primiarily the inability to hit for power then Neifi Perez must be a dream come true.

 

Personally, I think that description is more what I want in a #8 hitter (getting up as LITTLE as possible).