Soriano as leadoff.

[Sarcastic]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

Do we really need to re-debate clutchiness? Very few hitters consistently bat better or worse from year to year than their season numbers over the course of their careers. They may have a great OPS w/RISP for a year, but it is very common for the same player to be terrible in said situations the next year. Soriano's career numbers with show that, year to year, he has not been consistently better or worse with runners on base than he has been overall.

 

All this said, I don't have a problem batting Soriano leadoff. It is far more important to get your best players in the lineup than it is to find the perfect batting order. As most people here know, studies suggest batting your hitters in order of decreasing OPS is actually slightly better for producing runs than the traditional lineup anyway, so let Soriano bat where he wants.

Edited June 30, 2007 by Sarcastic

[Skyballer]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

So if it's so easy to get at least 2 hits in 6 at bats then why doesn't everyone have at least a .333 batting average? And anyone that doesn't, they must not be "clutch".

it's not about ba it's because he was 0-5 before that

[rocket]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

So if it's so easy to get at least 2 hits in 6 at bats then why doesn't everyone have at least a .333 batting average? And anyone that doesn't, they must not be "clutch".

it's not about ba it's because he was 0-5 before that

 

so it wouldn't be as bad if he started the game 1-5 and he made an out in the bottom of the 9th? i don't get the point you're making.

 

is it a problem if someone doesn't get a hit their 1st 3 at bats, but finishes the game 2-5?

[Drew Doughty]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

So if it's so easy to get at least 2 hits in 6 at bats then why doesn't everyone have at least a .333 batting average? And anyone that doesn't, they must not be "clutch".

it's not about ba it's because he was 0-5 before that

 

and he was 1/6 after that.

[Skyballer]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

No, it's still ginormous.

darn on my computer it's down to size, any ideas as to what to do

 

take it off completely would probably be one solution.

it's fixed now

[jkrapfl]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

So if it's so easy to get at least 2 hits in 6 at bats then why doesn't everyone have at least a .333 batting average? And anyone that doesn't, they must not be "clutch".

it's not about ba it's because he was 0-5 before that

 

So what. Every player in baseball is going to have days where they don't get a hit. It says nothing about how good or "clutch" that player is. The no-hit days are balanced out with multiple hit days over the course of the season.

Edited June 30, 2007 by jkrapfl

[Skyballer]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

So if it's so easy to get at least 2 hits in 6 at bats then why doesn't everyone have at least a .333 batting average? And anyone that doesn't, they must not be "clutch".

it's not about ba it's because he was 0-5 before that

 

so it wouldn't be as bad if he started the game 1-5 and he made an out in the bottom of the 9th? i don't get the point you're making.

 

is it a problem if someone doesn't get a hit their 1st 3 at bats, but finishes the game 2-5?

When i talked about clutch it's because Andy said he can't hit clutch then they made the argument about the walkoff hit, 1-6 isn't a good day.

But i had no intention of talking about that i was making reference to andy sayin he can't it in the clutch

[B]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

No, it's still ginormous.

darn on my computer it's down to size, any ideas as to what to do

 

take it off completely would probably be one solution.

it's fixed now

 

NO

[Skyballer]

strange try refreshing you pc it worked for me and rocketsauce is seeing it regular

[abuck1220]

ninth try is a charm.

[Sarcastic]

for the love of god change your avatar

 

anyways, isn't that the definition of clutch? getting a hit when it's important? wouldn't the other at-bats be unimportant?

 

and soriano had a "clutch" 5 for 5 day on june 4th

i changed it, did it work?

and yes 5-5 is clutch no matter how you put it still 1-6 isn't a good day even with a game winner

 

No, it's still ginormous.

darn on my computer it's down to size, any ideas as to what to do

 

take it off completely would probably be one solution.

it's fixed now

 

NO

 

That is some serious delayed reaction time.

 

He fixed it a couple minutes ago.

 

EDIT: Or just a computer problem. I said nothing.

[CubmanPi]

Are we seriously having a debate over the value of the '1' in Sori's 1 for 6 the other night??

 

"Walkoff" ... "Game over" ... "Cubs win" ... "after the blowpen gives up the 5-run lead"

 

Sori was the only Cub with six plate appearances that night, and seeing as how he won the game on the 6th one, leadoff seemed to have worked out alright.

 

Wasn't one of the big problems last year with Pierre that, when the bottom of the order was playing over their heads, the black hole at the top of the order kept wasting RBI opportunities?

 

It goes both ways enough times that I think we can safely conclude that a higher OPS appearing more often in the game will ultimately prove to be a good thing.

[Skyballer]

Are we seriously having a debate over the value of the '1' in Sori's 1 for 6 the other night??

 

"Walkoff" ... "Game over" ... "Cubs win" ... "after the blowpen gives up the 5-run lead"

 

Sori was the only Cub with six plate appearances that night, and seeing as how he won the game on the 6th one, leadoff seemed to have worked out alright.

 

Wasn't one of the big problems last year with Pierre that, when the bottom of the order was playing over their heads, the black hole at the top of the order kept wasting RBI opportunities?

 

It goes both ways enough times that I think we can safely conclude that a higher OPS appearing more often in the game will ultimately prove to be a good thing.

You know you may have just persuaded me.

[soccer10k]

Are we seriously having a debate over the value of the '1' in Sori's 1 for 6 the other night??

 

"Walkoff" ... "Game over" ... "Cubs win" ... "after the blowpen gives up the 5-run lead"

 

Sori was the only Cub with six plate appearances that night, and seeing as how he won the game on the 6th one, leadoff seemed to have worked out alright.

 

Wasn't one of the big problems last year with Pierre that, when the bottom of the order was playing over their heads, the black hole at the top of the order kept wasting RBI opportunities?

 

It goes both ways enough times that I think we can safely conclude that a higher OPS appearing more often in the game will ultimately prove to be a good thing.

 

Well stated.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

he should bat 1st and 6th

[snoodmonger]

I'm using this poll because i'd like to see how many people are eager to see Sori stop leading off.

 

 

I love how the question is phrased. Not an ounce of bias in that, is there?

[vance_the_cubs_fan]

I'm using this poll because i'd like to see how many people are eager to see Sori stop leading off.

 

 

I love how the question is phrased. Not an ounce of bias in that, is there?

 

It would be better phrased, "I'm using this poll because I'd like to see how many people erroneously are eager to see Sori stop leading off."

[Tracer Bullet]

derrek "mr singles" lee would be a great leadoff man.

 

Or a number two hitter...

or 3, where he is and perfect

 

He lacks the power that is usually preferred in a number three hitter.

 

This is fantastic. Lee lacks the power to hit 3rd, so you think he should hit 2nd. But you don't think we should move Soriano from the leadoff spot, even though he has 40-HR power.

 

So your lineup is Soriano, Lee, ______, ARam...

[Tracer Bullet]

generally i'd say no. but the fact is soriano is obviously more comfortable hitting #1, for whatever reason, and the statistics back that up. plus, he's been arguably the best cubs offensive player, and he's getting the most at-bats.

 

are solo home runs really a bad thing anyways?

 

Actually a couple weeks ago, when we last had the "Soriano shouldn't be leading off" debate, Jon had some great posts that showed that the stats don't prove anything about whether he should lead off. He's been very up and down throughout his career.

[seanimal]

There is one obvious answer. It begins with a 'Y'.

[rocket]

generally i'd say no. but the fact is soriano is obviously more comfortable hitting #1, for whatever reason, and the statistics back that up. plus, he's been arguably the best cubs offensive player, and he's getting the most at-bats.

 

are solo home runs really a bad thing anyways?

 

Actually a couple weeks ago, when we last had the "Soriano shouldn't be leading off" debate, Jon had some great posts that showed that the stats don't prove anything about whether he should lead off. He's been very up and down throughout his career.

 

i thought the stats showed that, except for one season, his numbers as a leadoff hitter were significantly better than the other spots in the batting order.

 

maybe you're right though.

[CubColtPacer]

generally i'd say no. but the fact is soriano is obviously more comfortable hitting #1, for whatever reason, and the statistics back that up. plus, he's been arguably the best cubs offensive player, and he's getting the most at-bats.

 

are solo home runs really a bad thing anyways?

 

Actually a couple weeks ago, when we last had the "Soriano shouldn't be leading off" debate, Jon had some great posts that showed that the stats don't prove anything about whether he should lead off. He's been very up and down throughout his career.

 

i thought the stats showed that, except for one season, his numbers as a leadoff hitter were significantly better than the other spots in the batting order.

 

maybe you're right though.

2001 I don't have figures for

No, you're right. 2002 he didn't have enough at-bats in any other slot to really count (I'm counting 35 AB's as a decent sample).

2003 he was much better at leadoff than at 3rd

2004 he was much better at leadoff than batting 3rd or 5th

2005 he was best at 5th, then leadoff, then 4th

2006 he was much better at leadoff than batting 4th

2007 he doesn't have enough of a sample (although he has 28 AB's and was almost 400 points lower at the 3 spot than leadoff, so he would have to be unbelievable at the 3 spot later in the year to possibly catch leadoff).

 

Add to that from 2002-2007, Soriano has had 4 years above an 850 OPS, and 2 years below. The 4 years he had an 850 or above were all batting leadoff primarily, and the 2 years he didn't he batted primarily lower in the order. There are possible other explanations for this (something else in Texas may have caused it, since there isn't a year where Soriano batted leadoff in Texas), but the fact that Texas is a great hitters park and Soriano was batting around great hitters lessens the chance that it was another factor.

[Mephistopheles]

140+ Ks a season

35 HRs a season

only 30 RBI in 72 games.

 

No. End of thread.

[NCCubFan]

140+ Ks a season

35 HRs a season

only 30 RBI in 72 games.

 

No. End of thread.

There you go with your condescending attitude again.

[Sarcastic]

140+ Ks a season

35 HRs a season

only 30 RBI in 72 games.

 

No. End of thread.

There you go with your condescending attitude again.

 

I think Meph has decided to be bizarro Meph for a while, taking all of the exact opposite opinions (same attitude, though). He's argued the opposite before, making much better points than the number of RBI's Soriano has in 72 games. He also recently argued that CERA was important because 4 of the last 6 WS teams had good defensive catchers. That should be an obvious sign that he is kidding.

 

As most here know, and I mentioned before, studies on this show that the order batters hit in doesn't matter much as long as the best hitters are in the lineup, and batting orders with hitters ranked in decreasing order of OPS tend to be slightly more productive than the traditional lineup anyway.