Barrett batting second

[goonys evil twin]

I've never believed the argument that batting order has very little effect on run production.

 

How many more RBI would Derrek Lee have had last year with 2 .400 OBP guys hitting 1st and 2nd in the order? How many more RBI would Neifi Perez have had? How many more RBI would Burnitz have had? Good OBP gets wasted when it is followed by poor AVG/SLG.

 

There is a particular reason that it makes sense to have good OBP guys hitting first in the game. There is also a particular reason that it makes sense to have your biggest boppers hitting directly behind those guys.

 

And just less than 1 run is a significant increase offensively. Just less than a run a game would propel this Cub team from 30th in the league to 10-12th in run production. That is very significant.

 

Derrek Lee's 2005 is the exact reason I don't buy it. I wonder if the assumption was that each position was filled with players performing right at the league average. I don't remember.

 

Anyway, I believe the assertion was that the difference was a handful of runs over the course of a season, not a single run per game.

 

Derrek Lee's RBI total may have been higher with higher OBP in front of him, but the team's run production probably would not have been. That is what matters. Lee's RBI goes up if you flip a better OBP from the bottom to the top, but the run production at the bottom goes down.

 

What matters is those extremely low OBPs were on the team, not where they hit.

[CubColtPacer]

I've never believed the argument that batting order has very little effect on run production.

 

How many more RBI would Derrek Lee have had last year with 2 .400 OBP guys hitting 1st and 2nd in the order? How many more RBI would Neifi Perez have had? How many more RBI would Burnitz have had? Good OBP gets wasted when it is followed by poor AVG/SLG.

 

There is a particular reason that it makes sense to have good OBP guys hitting first in the game. There is also a particular reason that it makes sense to have your biggest boppers hitting directly behind those guys.

 

And just less than 1 run is a significant increase offensively. Just less than a run a game would propel this Cub team from 30th in the league to 10-12th in run production. That is very significant.

 

Derrek Lee's 2005 is the exact reason I don't buy it. I wonder if the assumption was that each position was filled with players performing right at the league average. I don't remember.

 

Anyway, I believe the assertion was that the difference was a handful of runs over the course of a season, not a single run per game.

 

Derrek Lee's RBI total may have been higher with higher OBP in front of him, but the team's run production probably would not have been. That is what matters. Lee's RBI goes up if you flip a better OBP from the bottom to the top, but the run production at the bottom goes down.

 

What matters is those extremely low OBPs were on the team, not where they hit.

 

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case. Let's say you have 9 hitters, 3 of them have an OBP of 1.000, and the other 6 have an OBP of 0. If you put the 3 hitters who have 1.000 at 1, 4, and 7-they are not going to score nearly as many runs as if you put the hitters at 1,2,3. A smaller version of the same effect happens with a team like the Cubs. If a person batting 7th gets on at a good clip, but the hitters at 8 and 9 are terrible, then that hitter will never be driven home. If he hits in front of Lee though, then he will sometimes be driven home. The difference is that in one inning, we will get 2 hits and a run, instead of getting 1 hit and 1 LOB every inning.

[goonys evil twin]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

[CubColtPacer]

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~raj/writing/BattingOrder.html

 

The only problem I see with that study is that batting order affects so many managerial decisions that he can't account for. What reliever to bring in is affected by who is coming up. Do you intentionally walk somebody-Bonds is a perfect example of this for years. Where your pitcher hits and how many times he gets to sacrifice versus how many times he comes up where he has to hit makes a difference. All these, and many other things affect the game, and are directly related to batting order that a computer analyzing statistics cannot measure.

[CubColtPacer]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

[chopsx9]

The difference between the best possible order and the worst possible order above is just less than 1 run. Dusty's orders, as ridiculous as they are sometimes, don't approach the level of stupidity of leading off with the pitcher, batting Pierre cleanup, etc.

 

Dusty's batting orders might be able to cost us a third of a run or half a run sometimes, but, as others have said, who is in the lineup is more important than the batting order. That's where Dusty really fails.

 

I've never believed the argument that batting order has very little effect on run production.

 

How many more RBI would Derrek Lee have had last year with 2 .400 OBP guys hitting 1st and 2nd in the order? How many more RBI would Neifi Perez have had? How many more RBI would Burnitz have had? Good OBP gets wasted when it is followed by poor AVG/SLG.

 

There is a particular reason that it makes sense to have good OBP guys hitting first in the game. There is also a particular reason that it makes sense to have your biggest boppers hitting directly behind those guys.

 

And just less than 1 run is a significant increase offensively. Just less than a run a game would propel this Cub team from 30th in the league to 10-12th in run production. That is very significant.

 

 

But your points really come back to WHO is in the order. They did't/don't have two .400 obp to put in front of Lee. If they did and put them behind Lee then production would increase as well. Yes I agree it would be better to bat them infront of Lee (unless one of them was Dunn), but the Cubs current problems are who is in the order and no amount of lineup manipulation is going to overcome that.

[Fred Hornkohl]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

 

How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ???

 

Percentage of baserunners driven in

 

04/03 - 07/18      BDI  LOB   RBI%
Restovich            1    2  0.333
Perez               20   59  0.253
Blanco              15   45  0.250
Walker              31   96  0.244
Jones               33  112  0.228
Barrett             26   89  0.226
Ramirez             37  136  0.214
Murton              23  103  0.183
Lee                 10   55  0.154
Nevin                9   51  0.150
Mabry                6   36  0.143
Bynum                4   25  0.138
Cedeno              20  130  0.133
Hairston             4   27  0.129
Pagan                2   16  0.111
Pierre              12  101  0.106
Womack               1   14  0.067
Theriot              0    3  0.000

CUBS               267 1172  0.186

[jmajew]

I thought this was fascinating simply for the fact that maybe Dusty has realized how valuable a guy with an OBP of 390 is in front of guys like Lee and Ramirez. They need guys on base in front of them in order to drive in runs.

 

Barrett by the way is the perfect number 2 hitter, even better than Walker (Who should bat sixth). Pierre, Barrett, Lee, Aramis, Jones/Murton(situational), Walker, Jones/Murton, Cedeno.

 

To be honest I don't think this Cubs offense is as bad as its numbers say. If Dusty were to use players in good spots for them this offense should be in the middle of the pack. Assuming Lee was healthy all year.

 

Anyone agree or disagree?

 

I disagree that the lineup order would improve this team much.

 

Wow Thanks for the insight.

 

OBP off all of those spots in the lineup with current players and splits included.

Pierre (320), Barrett (399), Lee (396), Aramis (324), Jones/Murton (372), Walker (356), Jones/Murton (287), Cedeno (280).

 

 

no need for the sarcasm just because your argument has been proven wrong by dozens of people who do nothing but analyze baseball.

 

You didn't prove anything. You just made a statement as if it was a fact. That was the reason for the sarcasm.

 

Every year certain managers are hailed for putting their players in a position where they can best succeed. Dusty Baker does not do that. That was my point with the lineup. If you put players in a role they can best succeed in the team will be better. Batting Murton 5 or 6 and expecting big numbers is lunacy. He is not ready for that type of role. AT this point in his career he is a 2 hitter or a 7 hitter. Cedeno is nothing more than an 8 hitter.

 

With Corey Patterson forcing him to bat leadoff was not helping him to succeed. By arranging a lineup in a certain fashion you put your players in a better position to succeed.

 

If players are comfortable with their roles they will play better. That is why Bobby Cox is so good.

 

Just for the record I forgot how terrible the Cubs offense was statistically speaking this year. But moving up to 29th in the league in runs scored when we are like 20 or so runs behind is a big difference and would probably have added a few more wins to our total.

 

Then add in a healthy DLee it is reasonable to assume we could have been around 25-20 in offensive production. Which is a huge improvement and would have put us about 5-10 games below 500 right now. That is a maked improvement

[Magnetic Curses]

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~raj/writing/BattingOrder.html

 

The only problem I see with that study is that batting order affects so many managerial decisions that he can't account for. What reliever to bring in is affected by who is coming up. Do you intentionally walk somebody-Bonds is a perfect example of this for years. Where your pitcher hits and how many times he gets to sacrifice versus how many times he comes up where he has to hit makes a difference. All these, and many other things affect the game, and are directly related to batting order that a computer analyzing statistics cannot measure.

 

the sample size in baseball is more than sufficient to measure accurately and account for a good number of different situations.

 

if the situations are roughly even over the course of a season for every team, then there is really no problem measuring.

[UK1679666180]

Int BB walk rates, pitching changes, and sacrifice bunts have a much smaller impact on radical batting order changes than player egos. That is why you'll never see a radical batting order in the majors, maybe a collegiate coach could get away with it, but you'll never a team listed in OBA form.

 

Everything has to go towards modification in a traditional batting order sense. The idea is to make the most out of what you have in two aspects; 1st is getting the 8 pos. players most likely to be the most productive (adjusting for injury/rest, splits, etc) and the 2nd is using those in the order that would yield the best results.

 

Many managers have different evaluation skills as far as determining which are his best 8 on that given day and what he uses to evaluate that in the same manner as to what order they would go.

 

You could bring in the 29 managers at the start of the season for any line-up and on July 17th, you would not see many of the same 8 as well as many in the batting order.

[CubColtPacer]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

 

How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ???

 

Percentage of baserunners driven in

 

04/03 - 07/18      BDI  LOB   RBI%
Restovich            1    2  0.333
Perez               20   59  0.253
Blanco              15   45  0.250
Walker              31   96  0.244
Jones               33  112  0.228
Barrett             26   89  0.226
Ramirez             37  136  0.214
Murton              23  103  0.183
Lee                 10   55  0.154
Nevin                9   51  0.150
Mabry                6   36  0.143
Bynum                4   25  0.138
Cedeno              20  130  0.133
Hairston             4   27  0.129
Pagan                2   16  0.111
Pierre              12  101  0.106
Womack               1   14  0.067
Theriot              0    3  0.000

CUBS               267 1172  0.186

 

Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

 

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality.

[CubColtPacer]

 

Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

 

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality.

 

Why would you say that?

[minnesotacubsfan]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

 

How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ???

 

Percentage of baserunners driven in

 

04/03 - 07/18      BDI  LOB   RBI%
Restovich            1    2  0.333
Perez               20   59  0.253
Blanco              15   45  0.250
Walker              31   96  0.244
Jones               33  112  0.228
Barrett             26   89  0.226
Ramirez             37  136  0.214
Murton              23  103  0.183
Lee                 10   55  0.154
Nevin                9   51  0.150
Mabry                6   36  0.143
Bynum                4   25  0.138
Cedeno              20  130  0.133
Hairston             4   27  0.129
Pagan                2   16  0.111
Pierre              12  101  0.106
Womack               1   14  0.067
Theriot              0    3  0.000

CUBS               267 1172  0.186

 

 

 

thats easy, Fred, hes clutch, and saves us many many times

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

 

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality.

 

Why would you say that?

 

After reading several strawman arguments based on imposible premises, I believe I've accurately charachertized your recent work on this board.

[Fred Hornkohl]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

 

How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ???

 

Percentage of baserunners driven in

 

04/03 - 07/18      BDI  LOB   RBI%
Restovich            1    2  0.333
Perez               20   59  0.253
Blanco              15   45  0.250
Walker              31   96  0.244
Jones               33  112  0.228
Barrett             26   89  0.226
Ramirez             37  136  0.214
Murton              23  103  0.183
Lee                 10   55  0.154
Nevin                9   51  0.150
Mabry                6   36  0.143
Bynum                4   25  0.138
Cedeno              20  130  0.133
Hairston             4   27  0.129
Pagan                2   16  0.111
Pierre              12  101  0.106
Womack               1   14  0.067
Theriot              0    3  0.000

CUBS               267 1172  0.186

 

 

 

thats easy, Fred, hes clutch, and saves us many many times

 

Yeah, and if you throw out a couple of 1 game wonders in Theriot and Barrett, he's also been our best option in the number 2 slot. :wink:

 

04/03 - 07/18      AB    R    H   2B   3B   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Theriot             4    2    2    1    1    0    5    0    1    0  0.500  0.600  1.250  1.850
Barrett             4    1    2    1    0    0    3    1    0    1  0.500  0.500  0.750  1.250
Perez              54    6   18    4    0    0   22    4    1    4  0.333  0.339  0.407  0.747
Walker            109   14   30    6    1    2   44   10    8   14  0.275  0.319  0.404  0.723
Murton             12    1    3    0    0    0    3    0    1    4  0.250  0.308  0.250  0.558
Cedeno             97    6   25    1    2    1   33    5    2   20  0.258  0.273  0.340  0.613
Hairston           27    4    5    1    0    0    6    0    0    6  0.185  0.185  0.222  0.407
Pierre             13    2    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Bynum              13    1    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Pagan               4    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000

[minnesotacubsfan]

By using a stretched out extreme example, you can see this is simply not the case.

 

Using a stretched out extreme example negates any value in your example.

 

It's pretty interesting to note that in nearly everyone of your diatribes about what is and is not worthwhile, you use extreme examples that have no basis in reality.

 

I use extreme examples because it easier to see my point. So let's use a real life example. The Cubs sign somebody who has a .400 OBP, and bat him 7th. He gets on base 40 percent of the time, but he dies on first because Neifi and the pitcher strike out everytime he is on base. So this guy never scores even though he gets on base a great deal. If you moved him to 2nd in the order though in front of Lee, this person would be driven in 30 percent of the time. Therefore, run production would go up.

 

How do you account for the fact that Neifi Perez has arguably been our best RBI man this year ???

 

Percentage of baserunners driven in

 

04/03 - 07/18      BDI  LOB   RBI%
Restovich            1    2  0.333
Perez               20   59  0.253
Blanco              15   45  0.250
Walker              31   96  0.244
Jones               33  112  0.228
Barrett             26   89  0.226
Ramirez             37  136  0.214
Murton              23  103  0.183
Lee                 10   55  0.154
Nevin                9   51  0.150
Mabry                6   36  0.143
Bynum                4   25  0.138
Cedeno              20  130  0.133
Hairston             4   27  0.129
Pagan                2   16  0.111
Pierre              12  101  0.106
Womack               1   14  0.067
Theriot              0    3  0.000

CUBS               267 1172  0.186

 

 

 

thats easy, Fred, hes clutch, and saves us many many times

 

Yeah, and if you throw out a couple of 1 game wonders in Theriot and Barrett, he's also been our best option in the number 2 slot. :wink:

 

04/03 - 07/18      AB    R    H   2B   3B   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Theriot             4    2    2    1    1    0    5    0    1    0  0.500  0.600  1.250  1.850
Barrett             4    1    2    1    0    0    3    1    0    1  0.500  0.500  0.750  1.250
Perez              54    6   18    4    0    0   22    4    1    4  0.333  0.339  0.407  0.747
Walker            109   14   30    6    1    2   44   10    8   14  0.275  0.319  0.404  0.723
Murton             12    1    3    0    0    0    3    0    1    4  0.250  0.308  0.250  0.558
Cedeno             97    6   25    1    2    1   33    5    2   20  0.258  0.273  0.340  0.613
Hairston           27    4    5    1    0    0    6    0    0    6  0.185  0.185  0.222  0.407
Pierre             13    2    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Bynum              13    1    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Pagan               4    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000

 

ok....now your starting to scare me.......

[CubColtPacer]

 

Sorry Fred..I actually don't mind Neifi, but I know most people can't stand him and he has a low OBP, so I thought using him would ground it more in reality.

 

Forgive me if this sounds unkind, but one thing you are not is grounded in reality.

 

Why would you say that?

 

After reading several strawman arguments based on imposible premises, I believe I've accurately charachertized your recent work on this board.

 

Ok, let me try to explain. I use extreme examples sometimes because it i s easier to see that there is actually a difference by inflating the difference to a ridiculous level. Obviously there would be no team that would have players with a 1.000 OBP and 0 OBP. Instead, though, by seeing how that team would have a large difference by what batting order does, it is made easier to see how batting order does make a difference even using real life numbers. If my extreme examples are not working, I will stop. Here is a real life example that my friend and I were just discussing. Let's say that the Giants with Barry Bonds of the previous few years moved him to the 8th spot in the lineup with the pitcher batting behind him, and move the 8th place hitter into Barry's spot. They make no other changes besides this. What do you think would happen? Now many times Barry might come up with runners on-but pitchers will never pitch to him with the pitcher on deck. If there are two outs, Barry gets walked, and the pitcher makes an out that will end the inning. Therefore, Barry's production in the order is partially wasted, and the Giants run production goes down. The same thing happens at the top of the order. The 8th place hitter, with a worse OBP, cannot drive the runners at the top of the order in with regularity. Therefore, switching two people in the lineup makes the run production at the top and the bottom suffer.

[frostwyrm]

Derrek Lee's RBI total may have been higher with higher OBP in front of him, but the team's run production probably would not have been. That is what matters. Lee's RBI goes up if you flip a better OBP from the bottom to the top, but the run production at the bottom goes down.

 

What matters is those extremely low OBPs were on the team, not where they hit.

How about Aram and Pierre, batting adjacent in the order? Aram has excellent ability to advance baserunners, Pierre has very poor ability to advance baserunners. Aram hits home runs, Pierre does not. Aram is a very slow runner who clogs basepaths, Pierre is a very fast runner who does not clog basepaths. How can it not make a difference which of these guys bats first?

[Sarcastic]

 

Yeah, and if you throw out a couple of 1 game wonders in Theriot and Barrett, he's also been our best option in the number 2 slot. :wink:

 

04/03 - 07/18      AB    R    H   2B   3B   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
Theriot             4    2    2    1    1    0    5    0    1    0  0.500  0.600  1.250  1.850
Barrett             4    1    2    1    0    0    3    1    0    1  0.500  0.500  0.750  1.250
Perez              54    6   18    4    0    0   22    4    1    4  0.333  0.339  0.407  0.747
Walker            109   14   30    6    1    2   44   10    8   14  0.275  0.319  0.404  0.723
Murton             12    1    3    0    0    0    3    0    1    4  0.250  0.308  0.250  0.558
Cedeno             97    6   25    1    2    1   33    5    2   20  0.258  0.273  0.340  0.613
Hairston           27    4    5    1    0    0    6    0    0    6  0.185  0.185  0.222  0.407
Pierre             13    2    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Bynum              13    1    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    2  0.154  0.154  0.154  0.308
Pagan               4    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    0    1  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000

 

Does anyone actually believe that where a player hits in the batting order has a major affect on how they hit?

[dalgreen]

A lot of these kinds of discussions wouldn't have to take place if the Cubs had high OBP up and down the lineup vs. just one or two guys. I don't know why people only talk about high OBP in the 1-2 spots vs. tallking about OBP for the whole lineup. Having high OBP from only your 1-2 hitters doesn't help if your leading off every inning but the first with your 4-9 hitters.

[Fred Hornkohl]

 

Yeah, and if you throw out a couple of 1 game wonders in Theriot and Barrett, he's also been our best option in the number 2 slot. :wink:

 

 

Does anyone actually believe that where a player hits in the batting order has a major affect on how they hit?

 

Generally, no. But not without exception, and particularly in the short term.

 

Case in point.....

 

Perez              AB    R    H   2B   3B   HR   TB  RBI   BB   SO     BA    OBP    SLG    OPS
batting 1st         1    0    0    0    0    0    0    1    0    0  0.000  0.000  0.000  0.000
batting 2nd        54    6   18    4    0    0   22    4    1    4  0.333  0.339  0.407  0.747
batting 4th         4    0    1    0    0    0    1    0    1    0  0.250  0.400  0.250  0.650
batting 5th         7    2    2    0    0    0    2    2    0    0  0.286  0.286  0.286  0.571
batting 6th         6    1    1    0    0    0    1    1    0    0  0.167  0.167  0.167  0.333
batting 7th        27    3    5    2    0    0    7    2    0    4  0.185  0.185  0.259  0.444
batting 8th        57    7   16    3    1    2   27   12    2    6  0.281  0.300  0.474  0.774
batting 9th        18    1    2    0    0    0    2    0    0    3  0.111  0.111  0.111  0.222

overall           174   20   45    9    1    2   62   22    4   17  0.259  0.272  0.356  0.629

[UK1679666180]

A lot of these kinds of discussions wouldn't have to take place if the Cubs had high OBP up and down the lineup vs. just one or two guys. I don't know why people only talk about high OBP in the 1-2 spots vs. tallking about OBP for the whole lineup. Having high OBP from only your 1-2 hitters doesn't help if your leading off every inning but the first with your 4-9 hitters.

 

But how many line-ups in MLB have high OBPs up and down the lineup? If it was the norm rather than the exception, I think that could have merit.

 

That doesn't equate to a team settling for a lack of guys who can't get on base, one can almost assume that a good team (espec. a NL team) will have 2-3 spots in the order where they might have a lower than normal OBP. Of course, what that hitter also does (speed, power, running, decent avg with low BBs) and those that surround him (6-7 higher OBPs) can dictate how much of a potential liability that player might be and how much what else he does well impact the team.

 

Boston appears to be the best at balancing a team with a good overall OBP.

 

The White Sox have had no OBP come from CF and SS and they can score with the best of them because of their core on offense (Thome, Dye, Konerko) and the productive supporting cast (Crede, Pierzynski).

Edited July 19, 2006 by UK

[dalgreen]

A lot of these kinds of discussions wouldn't have to take place if the Cubs had high OBP up and down the lineup vs. just one or two guys. I don't know why people only talk about high OBP in the 1-2 spots vs. tallking about OBP for the whole lineup. Having high OBP from only your 1-2 hitters doesn't help if your leading off every inning but the first with your 4-9 hitters.

 

But how many line-ups in MLB have high OBPs up and down the lineup? If it was the norm rather than the exception, I think that could have merit.

 

That doesn't equate to a team settling for a lack of guys who can get on base, one can almost assume that a good team (espec. a NL team) will have 2-3 spots in the order where they might have a low OBP. Of course, what that hitter also does (speed, power, running, decent avg with low BBs) and those that surround him (6 higher OBPs) can dictate how much of a potential liability that player might be and how much what else he does well impact the team.

 

I think there have been quite a few teams with four, five or six hitters with OBP above .350, especially teams who seem to play in October.

[wastra]

A lot of these kinds of discussions wouldn't have to take place if the Cubs had high OBP up and down the lineup vs. just one or two guys. I don't know why people only talk about high OBP in the 1-2 spots vs. tallking about OBP for the whole lineup. Having high OBP from only your 1-2 hitters doesn't help if your leading off every inning but the first with your 4-9 hitters.

 

There was a show about Bill James on the science channel during the homerun derby. He showed, statistically, that a team will, over the course of a season, score significantly more runs if the best hitters are together at the top of the order than if they are interspersed. But flip-flopping similar OBP guys, or guys who are even mildly close in terms of obp does very little.

 

For example, he showed a team with 4 Babe Ruths (one of the best hitters) and 5 Sandy Koufaxes (one of the worst). The best lineup was the 4 Ruths at the top, minor flip-flopping of one or two guys with a Koufax did almost nothing, so long as the Ruths were more or less bunched at the top. It was significantly higher than having them at the bottom, as well.

 

So if you have a lineup with good hitters and bad ones, you want the good ones at the top of the order and bad at the bottom. Statistically, that's really the only definite.