%5B1%5D.gif)
Redux Dilemma?
OK, say it's late May, early June.
Cubs still haven't solved their leadoff problem (Soriano doesn't belong there.) Cubs still down a legitimate player in the OF, say CF even. Pie not making it or Fukudome or Alfonso get hurt.
And they have the opportunity to get a proven veteran leadoff hitter, who hit .295 last year with 23 SB and 7 homers to boot. Has the proven intangibles of an igniter and of helping teams win division titles and championships. In fact, this player helped his team close the door on winning one of the deepest divisions in baseball last year.
Should the Cubs go grab this guy? I'd think, on paper, based upon what I just described, most of us would say -- hell, yes.
Well, Cubs fans, Kenny Lofton is out there. Available. And he indeed posted those numbers and, after being traded to Cleveland mid-season (hmmm, sound familiar) helped them win their division and stand only one game and one incredible choke (hmmm, sound familiar) from the World Series.
Can't argue with the track record even if your head and all logic says it's crazy.
He's out there. That's all I'm saying.
Posts
13 comments:
if aramis gets hurt, they also should sign mike schmidt.
if derosa gets hurt, they should bring ryno back.
if DLee gets hurt, bring back gracie (that'll piss you off).
if woody gets hurt, lee smith can be found at a menard's somewhere in the midwest (search for lee smith above for explanation).
There's a reason Kenny Lofton plays a new team each year and usually two teams each season. His teammates cannot stand him. I really couldn't care less about so-called chemistry, but if that's your thing, Lofton is a terrible choice.
Furthermore, Soriano is just fine leading off. The Cubs had a lead 53 times after the first inning last season, more than any other team in the NL (and maybe the AL as well). Isn't that the leadoff man's job? To get his team a lead in the first inning?
All I really care about in the leadoff spot is runs produced or runs created or whatever you want to call it and you aren't going to find a leadoff man with a higher RC/27 than Soriano.
This whole idea that he isn't a leadoff hitter is based on a preconceived idea of what a leadoff hitter is (speedy, black, etc.). The goal of any spot in the lineup isn't to do what you or I or anyone else thinks that spot in the lineup is supposed to do...it's to create runs.
Leadoff for this team is just fine. So is number 3 and 4 and if their number 5 hitter moves into the 2 pretty much the entire lineup is pretty solid, even with Ryan Theriot in it who should 8th.
Furthermore, you absolutely have to give Felix Pie a chance in CF. The Cubs cannot continue this trend of bringing a player up and giving him almost no time to prove whether or not he can handle the position. Based on what we know of Felix Pie (his minor league career) there's no reason he shouldn't succeed. Will he? I have no idea. Nobody does, but I want this team to make smart decisions and the smart decision is to stick with Pie in 2008.
To give you an example of how our preconceived ideas of what certain spots in the order are supposed to do and how it compares to reality (facts)...the 2nd spot in the lineup. We all think this guy has to make contact, hit the ball to RF (hit behind the runner), and all this other stuff. Guess what. The 2nd spot in the lineup, predictably, gets the most at-bats with a runner on 1st base...the most opportunities to ground into a double play. What's better than a double play? A strikeout. Strikeout hitters naturally ground into fewer double plays for a couple of reasons: they don't make as much contact and strikeout hitters tend to be fly ball hitters. Having a strikeout hitter in the 2-hole can save a team about 10-12 double plays per season. That's 10-12 additional at-bats...chances to drive that runner in.
Another example: leadoff hitter should be able to steal bases. Why? He's being followed in the order by the power hitters on this team...the guys most likely to hit doubles and home runs. A leadoff hitter on 1st base scores on a double about 80% of the time. The leadoff spot is the worst place in the lineup to have stolen bases from because it's simply not necessary. You want to steal bases in front of singles hitters...steal a base to get to 2nd so you can score on a single. Basically, you want to steal bases in front of the bottom part of the order (the 5th spot is the ideal spot for a base stealer).
We could go through each spot in the order like this, but the point is that our preconceived ideas of what certain spots are supposed to do are often wrong to some extent. The goal of each spot in the lineup is to create runs.
Lee Smith can still bring the heat!
And nobody -- nobody -- in Cubs history or baseball history has a better 'do.
Maddog, I like to buck preconceived notions.
That's why I'm just fine with slow, white, Cajuns leading off.
In fact, got one of those on the Little League team I coach.
On the serious side, since we're talking unconventional, I am in favor of the NL manager who has the guts to hit the pitcher 8th and put a speedy contact hitter in the 9 hole. Move the 7 man over and let the 9 man turn the lineup over. There's not a college, HS or Little League coach out there today who still hits his worst batter 9th (unless his team really sucks and well, then someone has to hit 9th.)
this is in stark violation of the wv23 "must mock everything ned yost does" rule.
demerit.
You know, Dusty, the pitcher hitting 8th is both interesting and amusing to me. It's interesting because statistical studies have shown that there actually is an improvement in a team's offense by hitting the pitcher 8th (Tango says this is about 2-4 runs per 162 games). So there is a logical reason to do so.
However, I just can't get on board with giving the pitcher, the lineups worst hitter, the most at-bats UNLESS you stick to a strict routine of removing the pitcher before his 3rd at-bat. If you give the pitcher 2 at-bats and a pinch hitter 2-3 at-bats you probably increase the offense that way, but you probably do the same thing with the pitcher hitting 9th as well.
I say interesting because it does appear to be legitimate (an improvement in offense albeit a very small one), but amusing because I laugh whenever I see a lineup with the pitcher batting 8th.
with the brewers rotation, that may make sense then - other than sheets, when healthy.
MD -- You gotta look at the 9th hitter as a second lead-off hitter...or even a second No. 2 hitter. Turns the lineup over in a dynamic way, rather than sacrificing outs to get to the top of your order.
This is why most HS and college coaches do this now -- to great effect. I've done it for the last 15 years of coaching, unless, again, my team just sucks and I don't have a guy who can do the job.
WV: I thought Torre was doing the flip?
Don't worry -- Yost will get plenty of mocking from Dusty.
i don't know about torre. ned yost had the pitcher batting 8th the whole series. kendall batting 9th.
I'm not sure I buy the whole 2nd leadoff hitter thing (I don't really buy the one leadoff hitter thing). A team's number one hitter will leadoff an inning about 42% of the time he bats. The other 58% are divided, unequally, to the other 8 slots in the order.
The spot that leads off an inning the 2nd most? the clean-up hitter. And I believe followed by the number 5 hitter.
Look at it like this: the higher you bat in the order the more chance you have to make outs. This is why bad hitters hit lower in the order--they'll make fewer outs that way and give more at-bats to the better hitters.
I'm willing to accept that they're might be a marginal gain in run scoring over 162 games--somewhere in the range of 2-5 runs. But I want the best hitters getting the most plate appearances.
And in the NL, batting the pitcher 8th only increases a team's run scoring if they pinch hit for that pitcher sooner than they would if he hit in the 9-spot. I don't see MLB managers doing that so I'm not sold that this 2-5 run improvement is real. Theoretically it is.
It would seem to me that if the goal is to add a 2nd leadoff hitter into the order then he should bat clean-up since that spot leads off an inning more than any other spot except the number 1 spot.
It's more about how you're turning that over the lineup and getting back to your better hitters. I shouldn't even use just the HS and College game (where that 9 hitter truly does tend to be a strong hitter).
AL does it too. Remember Cano hit 9 for Yanks, Melky doing it now, Eckstein for Angels, etc., etc.
If Yost is doing this with Kendall, he's an idiot. Wrong type of guy to do it with. You want a guy who can handle the bat -- so he can hit-and-run or slap ball behind runners, or bunt for a hit...a guy more likely to hit line-drives or gap grounders than fly balls, AND has above average speed ....so he's going from 1st to third on the leadoff's single, or 1st to home on a leadoffs gap double. Speed is a very important element to this strategy. Doesn't need to be your fastest guy, but a guy who can take the extra base in most situations.
And if you support Soriano as a leadoff, then the Cubs definitely should be doing this (DeRosa or a more disciplined Pie at 9). Gives more opportunties with runners on base for one of your best hitters to do damage.
You actually get better flow in your lineup when you put a capable hitter/bat-handler with speed in 9 hole.
It's also buying into not so much getting hung up in at-bats for a solid player -- particularly for a player who may be hitting 7th or 8th anyway -- it's about how efficient and productive those at-bats are.....and how productively you turn that lineup over to the guys with the better chance to do something more productive with more at-bats.
Dusty, I agree with you that speed would be a very important element of this 2nd leadoff strategy. Franly, it seems to me that would be the most valuable skill in that spot if you're to make this switch. Most leadoff hitters are singles hitters so you'd want a guy who can get himself into scoring position via stolen base so he can score on a single or someone who can go first to third on a single or first to home on a double. That being said, Rickie Weeks isn't your typical leadoff guy. He'll hit for more power than your average leadoff hitter so speed isn't as important for the Brewers as it would be for the Cardinals last season who had David Eckstein leading off.
I guess the question that it comes down to for me is this: does making this decision improve your offense significantly enough to off set the possible negatives (having to pinch hit for your pitcher earlier which would actually be a positive, but the way these teams are run it's not going to happen). I think the answer to that is no. Then there is always this human element that people keep telling me about. What is a hitter going to think who hits after the pitcher? You'd have to be a pretty bad hitter for a team to be willing to do that. If you weren't, you'd be higher in the order.
So, for me anyway, it comes down to the theoretical evidence that the improvement in offense because of this kind of shift is worth only 2-5 runs whereas you run the risk of letting your pitcher bat too frequently which diminishes that 2-5 run gain and how that 9th hitter feels. I'd leave it alone. I don't think there's enough gain in offense to justify making the change when we know teams are going to be unwilling to pinch hit for their pitcher sooner than usual and we don't know how it could affect the hitter moved behind the pitcher.
These are the types of improvements I think should be deferred to Lou's managerial expertise. If Yost thinks it's best for his team, so be it. I'll trust Lou to make whatever decision he feels is right.
except batting theriot leadoff, of course.
Post a Comment