Loading ...How in the world, you may ask yourself, did Brandon Phillips get over 600 PA in the number 3 and 4 spots in the Reds lineup and still fall 2 RBI short of the 100 mark? For crying out loud, over 500 of those PA were in the number 4 spot batting, most often, behind Joey Votto, who put up an incredible .414 OBP. Well, basically, it’s because Dusty Baker is simply bad at building a batting order.
The number 1 and 2 spots in the Reds lineup each ranked 15th in the NL in OBP.
Group OBP Reds Overall .318 NL Overall .330 Reds #1 .302 NL #1 .340 Reds #2 .302 NL #2 .337
Who were the big contributors that were selected by Dusty to put up the atrocious OBP numbers above in the #1 and #2 spots in the order?
Batting 1st PA OBP Taveras 368 .275 Stubbs 186 .330 Dickerson 126 .365 Hairston 46 .217 Batting 2nd PA OBP Hairston 243 .316 Janish 162 .310 Dickerson 92 .330 Gonzalez 71 .279 Taveras 62 .300
Chris Dickerson and Drew Stubbs are predictably the only two players to put up at least league-average OBP for the Reds this season in the top two spots in the batting order. These two aside, Dusty Baker made some obviously horrendous choices to populate the top two spots of the Reds batting order.
So how did these bad choices affect the RBI opportunities for the #3 and #4 hitters in the Reds lineups? The numbers below show how many baserunners the Reds top two spots in the order produced in 1489 PA, and how many they would have produced at both a league average OBP and at the league average OBP for the top two spots in the order.
Group OBP BR Reds #1+#2 .302 450 NL AVG OBP .330 492 NL AVG #1+#2 .339 504
So the Reds top two spots in the order produced 42 fewer baserunners than they would have with a league average OBP and 54 fewer baserunners than they would have with the league average OBP for number 1 and 2 hitters. Anybody think that with another 40+ baserunners on base ahead of him that Brandon Phillips would have picked up 2 extra RBI this season to get him to the 100 RBI mark?
Now why was Phillips batting #4 in the first place? Well, basically it’s because Dusty Baker is simply bad at building a batting order. Lather, rinse, repeat…….
CF and SS must bat 1 and 2.
Due to this type of lineup construction, the answer to whether Dusty’s job is safe or not should be a no.
Just more evidence showing why Dusty is an idiot and should not be a manager.
I don’t mind the CF batting leadoff provided that CF can actually, you know, get on base. But even when Dusty had a chance to play Dickerson over Taveras, he really didn’t. It wasn’t until Drew Stubbs played so well that Dusty couldn’t ignore him that something actually changed, and we might see that change back in the spring when Taveras has a “fresh start” or some such nonsense. My guess is Stubbs hasn’t won the CF job for good just yet.
The SS thing…the Reds simply do not have a SS who can bat second effectively, but Dusty doesn’t care. Terribly frustrating to watch this manager just give games away.
Speaking of Dusty’s job being safe – ESPN’s Baseball Tonight was (once again) talking about rumors of both LaRussa and his pitching coach going to the Reds for next season…
Strong (and depressing) analysis.
Imagine how many more base runners we would have had with Dickerson batting first all year (when healthy) considering his OBP was substantially above league average.
And then throw Ryan Hanigan in the #2 slot and the numbers keep piling up.
Heck, Joey Votto, even with the games he missed, might have reached 100 RBI.
This board’s love affair with OBP is pretty hilarious. Nevermind skill sets, just stack ‘em up, eh?
So, in all the times when Dickerson WASN’T healthy, who do you propose to bat lead off?
And after the league caught up with Hanigan and pitchers very quickly pitched him completely different when the Reds moved him out of the 8-hole, who do you propose to bat in the 2-hole?
They signed Taveras for $6.25 mil to bat leadoff, so they weren’t giving up on that after 30-60 games. He was going to play. They never had a natural 2-hitter and what they tried to accomplish with the shortstops was batting them in front of Votto, hoping they could hit fastballs. Managers will do this often with struggling hitters. Problem was, Reds’ shortstops couldn’t hit fastballs or anything else.
Not exactly like they had roster construction, especially with all the injuries, that allowed them to do very much in the first place.
And oh, how many LOBs did Phillips have the last month swinging from his heels trying to reach the 100 mark? The guy had opps. He choked. For the season, Phillips with 2 out and RISP: 84 PAs, .237-4-27. Phillips late and close: 92 PAs, .188-2-11.
I predicted before the season that no Reds would drive in 100, because of Dusty’s lineup construction. For all that, Phillips very nearly did. If Votto hadn’t been injured, or if Dickerson had led off every day or nearly every day, it would have been enough.
On the other hand, I am glad that Phillips did not reach 100 RBI, because that would have contributed to the illusion that he is a real cleanup hitter when he is not: he is a #6 hitter stuck into the cleanup spot.
Well, Brandon also hit into something like 1,400 double plays. Ok, it was 21, but that was more than twice the next guy… Hannigan at 9. So if Dusty could construct a line-up, and BP didn’t mow down baserunners, he might have been the league leader in RBI.
@Mr. Redlegs: Cherry pick stats much?
With the bases empty, Phillips hit
.263/.332/.453 in 319 plate appearances
He had 197 plate appearances with RISP
.291/.333/.459
@Mr. Redlegs: How many times did Hanigan bat 2nd?
@GregD: Miss the point much?
Phillips had ample opps to get to 100 RBI when the game was close, late or when there were two out—in essence, the most critical times. Plus, in eight games between Sept. 25-Oct. 3, he had no RBI and left 13 runners on base in 35 PAs. He also had just one walk in that period, reflecting what our eyeballs told us—swinging from the heels.
So yeah, sure, OBP at the top of the order and Dusty Baker killed his chances at 100 RBI.
He choked.
Mr. Redlegs, I disagree. Dickerson had 250 ABs but only half of them were as a leadoff hitter. He had some injuries but if he bats first for all his ABs, and if he takes some ABs away from Taveras, then that would have been an improvement. Hanigan in the 2 hole would have been an improvement over Gonzalez and Janish. Rolen and, when healthy, EdE would have been an improvement in the 2 hole. Ramon Hernandez would have been an improvement in the 2 hole. Adam Rosales would have been an improvement in the 2 hole.
Obviously, outside of Votto, this team didn’t have OBP machines. But there were a lot of things Dusty could have done to get league average OBPs (or close to it) out of the 1 and 2 holes. Instead, he routinely batted first and second two of the worst hitters in the entire NL.
@per14:
So what you’re saying is regardless of how a player handles the bat, or his (lack of) speed or proclivities to hit double-play grounders, or the bigger need for him in the 5-6-7 slots . . . just because his OBP is higher he should automatically slot in the 2-hole?
And again and again, Taveras was signed to be the leadoff hitter and that’s where he was going to play for at least two months, and obviously longer. That’s what he was paid $6.25 mil to do and most managers will give a veteran player that time to get untracked.
I don’t what Hanigan you guys saw but the one I watched couldn’t hit if he was playing Wiffleball. Once he got around the league, defenses took away those little liners and dinks to right field he got early by shortening up the outfield on him, and since he doesn’t have an ounce of power they stopped throwing him fastballs. he has a pretty good eye and does a good job with contact—except he can’t hit. He plays a lot of pepper.
Yes, you did miss the point. He hit .291 with runners in scoring position. Why does the number of outs in that situation matter? Or whether it was “late” or “close”?
The post is about (lack of) opportunities to drive runners in. Phillips lacked those opportunities relative to other players in the league because of who was batting ahead of him.
Mr. R, I don’t get it. You have a problem with Hanigan batting #2, but not with Gonzales or Janish?
OBP may not be the everything, but it sure is more important than “bat handling” or some other un-proveable.
Could Phillips’ have knocked in 100 with a better close? Obviously, yes. But the point is that with ANY kind of hitters batting ahead of him, he’d have been much higher.
How much? BP knocked in 78 guys (98 RBI – 20 HR). By my math, he had 449 runners on base when he hit. That’s a 17.4% rate, which ranked 26th, among the 143 major leaguers with 500 PA.
As noted, the Reds had a .302 OBP in both the leadoff (757 Plate appearances) and #2 (732 PA) spots. Even a .020 point improvement in each spot – still nowhere near league average – would’ve resulted in 30 more times on base. Obviously, BP wasn’t going to be able to knock all those guys in – Votto would’ve gotten a bunch, some would’ve been doubled up, and some would’ve just allowed Votto to make the 3rd out.
But it’s probably safe to guess that BP would’ve gotten 2 more RBI. And the other thing to remember – the most important reason why OBP is vital – is that it’s 30 fewer outs. That’s a couple dozen more times that Votto bats, several more PA for Brandon, and a handful more for Rolen.
OBP is a pyramid; the effects of two huge sinks are exponential, and they’re even worse at the top of the order.
A couple last things: I could give two figs if Brandon Phillips hit some arbitrary round-number milestone. My concern with the stupid lineups is with their effect on TEAM offense, and thereby WINS.
I agree that Taveras WAS GOING TO PLAY for a while, regardless. As with Patterson, Dusty took that too far by at least a month – and showed no sign that he was EVER going to bench Willy, but that die was cast in the off-season. (All that does is shift the responsibility for the stupid decision, though – from “100% Dusty” to “Walt with Dusty’s approval and aggravation”)
@GregD:
No, YOU missed the point and you keep missing points unless it satisfies your subjective arguments. This isn’t subjective: Phillips had PLENTY of opps for those other TWO RBI, especially at the most critical points of games. Instead of comparisons to what other teams had and didn’t have, look at what Phillips actually did—and didn’t do—in his own situations, and he choked. Spin it all you want, but the bold, cold fact is backed up by his numbers—he gagged like the Lincoln Conspirators.
@Chris Garber: Mr. R, I don’t get it. You have a problem with Hanigan batting #2, but not with Gonzales or Janish?
Not saying that at all, except for Hanigan. Like a lot of new Reds players, fans fall in love with these guys long term over a couple of good weeks or months, but when the league catches up with them they refuse to accept the realities of the player’s abilities. At least people finally quit begging for Norris Hopper.
What I AM saying is that I UNDERSTOOD what Baker was trying to accomplish in the 2-hole. This has been done for 100 years. If your leadoff guy has speed and he’s on base, that opens up the right side of the infield and the hitter will see many more fastballs. MLB hitters are presumed to be able to hit the fastball, and the slot has traditionally been used by managers to help break slumps.
Janish may have hit just .227/.310 in the 2-hole, but good god, he had 17 doubles and 23 runs in just 35 starts. He would have never seen that many fastballs batting in the 8-hole.
But again and again, I challenge you to find managers who pyramid their lineups based on OBP. It’s a combination of factors—yes, OBP included—but the skill sets are primary, and just because you can’t measure these sets with numbers doesn’t mean they don’t exist in reality. Intangible factors are real, they’re scoutable and they critically applicable.
@Chris Garber: . . . but that die was cast in the off-season. (All that does is shift the responsibility for the stupid decision, though – from “100% Dusty” to “Walt with Dusty’s approval and aggravation”)
Yabba.
There is an infatuation on this board with OBP because there is a direct correlation between OBP and runs scored.
You put your people with high OBP in front of the people with a high SLG and what do you get?
RUNS!!!!
Mr. R., I’m as huge a proponent of OBP as anyone you’ll find on this board, and even I will admit that focusing *only* on OBP in formulating a roster and doing some sort of perfect “highest to lowest OBP” lineup would be simple-minded and would probably lead to some very strange-looking things. I’m not advocating that as the strategy to go with here.
HOWEVER – and this is what frustrates me – I truly do think that even that strange “I look at nothing but OBP” strategy would’ve given us a better roster and better lineups than we saw on the 2009 Reds. We would’ve scored more runs than we did. I’m convinced of it.
The “speed at the top regardless of anything else” strategy is old, tired, and almost all agree that it isn’t the best way. Even 35-40 years ago, Pete Rose was placed at the top of the order (of some historically great teams), and it worked b/c he got on base, not b/c he was fast… and of course b/c the rest of the lineup was pretty damn strong too!
I really do hope we see more of an emphasis on OBP on future Reds rosters, b/c we’re falling further behind the rest of baseball by (seemingly) ignoring it.
@Dan:
@Mr. Redlegs:
I would absolutely scale the line-up based on highest to lowest OBP, with some leniency given to power stats. You give your best hitters more at bats and that WILL score you more runs. I’m not talking about flash in the pan OBP like Hanigan, but if you adhere to long-term production you’ll be in good shape.
so…(more or less)
Dickerson
Votto
Rolen
and then whatever (Bruce, Gomes maybe).
Over time, that line-up will score more runs than one constructed in a more classical sense. And to suggest that because someone has done something for “100 years” or whatever is silly. In all walks of life the conventional wisdom is often wrong, and that certainly includes baseball.
@Mr. Redlegs: So, you’re singling out at least 2 of his 463 outs and saying that it is his fault he didn’t have more RBI?
Is it his fault because he didn’t hit 22 homeruns? Or is it his fault that there were not as many runners on base when he hit his 20 homeruns?
FACT: his sOPS+ (which compares his OPS to others in the league for the same split) for RISP w 2 out is 109, which means he was 9% better than the league in RISP w 2 out.
This isn’t subjective either: with more runners on base at the top of the order, he would have had more opportunities in April thru August and passed 100 RBI in the first half of September.
Mr. R – “If your leadoff guy has speed and is on base…” Can you steal first? No, getting on base comes first, speed is secondary if relevant at all.
In my opinion, roster construction should be based upon OBP for hitters 1-2 and SecA or wOBA (OPS as a shorthand) for your 3, 4, 5 hitters without regard to speed. Here’s the Brewers’ standard lineup (based on most plate appearances 1-5)
1. Felipe Lopez .414 OBP as #1 batter
2. Craig Counsell .388 OBP as #2 batter
3. Ryan Braun .933 OPS as #3 batter
4. Prince Fielder 1.014 OPS as #4 batter
5. Casey McGehee .829 OPS
This is perfect roster construction. Is it straight OBP pyramid? No. It favors high on base hitters in the first and second spots. It favors high avg. hitters in spots 3, 4, 5 where hits are more important than walks in order to drive in runs (not as bad as an out but a walk doesn’t do much with RISP). Ken Macha knows sabermetrics, and he HAD to working for Beane. So there you go, a manager who constructs a lineup as we’ve suggested.
By the way, the Brewers scored the third most runs in the NL could give a rip about Lopez and Counsell’s lack of speed (nine stolen bases between them).
@GregD: So, you’re singling out at least 2 of his 463 outs and saying that it is his fault he didn’t have more RBI?
You got it Bubba. He had plenty of opps, especially the last two weeks, and he choked. If he came up 15-20 short then you can legitimize the silly lineup construction argument because we all know that the razor-thin difference in winning and losing in baseball is the all-important lineup construction (coff-coff).
But two RBI? Sure, blame the manager when a guy who played all but nine games choked. Puh-leez.
@David: . . . The Brewers scored the third most runs in the NL could give a rip about Lopez and Counsell’s lack of speed.
Speed isn’t merely distinctive by stolen bases. Lopez and especially Counsell, like Rolen, are excellent baserunners, first-to-thirders, guys who can run and score from first on a double. Counsell is in the 2-hole role why? Not just his OBP. Because he’s one of the best contact guys around and perhaps the best in MLB at hitting behind runners.
Counsell is actually better without runners on over the past three years. .234/.325/.291 with runners on as compared to .238/.340/.343 without. By the way .234/.325/.291 is hardly the best in the majors. It’s hardly halfway decent. League average contact percent is a touch higher than 82%. Counsell’s contact percent a sign of a good contact guy is 88.3% tending to above average but not one of the best around.
Counsell was in the two hole because of his OBP, in 2008 only Fielder and Durham had a higher OBP. I’ve listened to the Macha interviews on WSSP. He played counsel because he could get on base. Period.
some specific #s that exactly match this statement
Phillips had exactly 17 more chances with runners in scoring position than your average player. This is NOT 17 more chances with runners in scoring position for your average #4 hitter. This includes leadoff hitters, etc. That’s NOTHING
equaling out Phillips to 644 PA here is an interesting comparison
runners on base (averaged out to 644 PA) when the player came to bat
Runners on Base
458 Howard (Phi)
454 Fielder (Mil) and Dunn (Was)
449 Phillips
437 Pujols (Stl)
380 Votto
the player that was hurt was not Phillips the player that was hurt by the bad lineups was Votto
neither Votto or Phillips were great in the clutch but they were both average.
Phillips had the benefit of Votto getting on base, Votto had nobody on base
since you know everything Mr Redlegs, do you have proof of this “see more fastballs” theory?
@mike: since you know everything Mr Redlegs, do you have proof of this “see more fastballs” theory?
Do you have proof it’s not true?
@David:
Counsell the past five years:
42 walks, 54 strikeouts, 459 PAs
46 walks, 42 strikeouts, 302 PAs
41 walks, 47 strikeouts, 334 PAs
31 walks, 47 strikeouts, 415 PAs
78 walks, 69 strikeouts, 670 PAs
There’s nothing average about that contact rate, so what’s your point?
sorry, you are the one who stated it and like all civil discourse, I’m not doing your math for you.
totally lame
the problem of course is that you the numbers you show don’t actually indicate contact rate.
Counsell is above average when it comes to contact
the average major league ball player is around 80% contact rate
Counsell’s average is 88.3%. 89.4% this year
49 qualified hitters had over 85% this year, 8 qualified hitters were over 90%
WOW! Now THAT is striking.
Poor Votto… His RBI numbers (84 RBI in 469 AB — 1 per 5.58 AB) don’t look low. Compare that RBI rate to Phillips’s rate (98 RBI in 584 AB — 1 per 5.96 AB)and they don’t look that different.
But this is only b/c Votto was SUCH a stud this year, despite his low number of chances.
Nice find, Mike.
I suspect that neither of you really knows whether this is true or not. I sure don’t.
I also suspect that Mr. R is inclined to believe conventional wisdom, whereas Mike tends to question conventional wisdom… The truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
But here are two things that are not in question:
1) The #2 hitter in an order comes to the plate a lot more than the #8 hitter does over the course of a season. More often than not, it’s an extra plate appearance per game. In 2009, the Reds #2 hitter got 732 PA, the Reds #8 hitter got 637 PA, a difference of 95 PA.
2) The #2 hitter is directly affecting how many baserunners are on base for the #3 hitter (usually Votto), and often the #4 hitter. The #8 hitter rarely has a chance to be on base for the #3 and #4 hitters.
For those reasons, I don’t want to put some slumping hitter (or just plain crappy hitter) in the #2 hole in hopes that he’ll get more fastballs (which may or may not even be true) and hit better.
I’d much rather bury a bad hitter in the #8 slot and minimize his opportunities for badness.
In the #2 slot (just like leadoff), just give me someone who will get on base as often as possible.
You know Mr. R, there can be more than one proximate cause of something. Maybe, just maybe, BP didn’t get 100 RBIs because he BOTH choked a bit down the stretch (as you claim) AND because Dusty can’t construct a lineup.
That’s what I was thinking.
@mike: the problem of course is that you the numbers you show don’t actually indicate contact rate.
WHAT? Do you watch baseball or just read a stat sheet? If a player is NOT striking out, he’s either walking or making contact. There is such a thing as productive outs. Unlike strikeouts, contact can move up runners, score runners, put things in motion. What’s next, telling us DiMaggio wasn’t a great contact hitter either?
There are 750 players in MLB. But someone in the top 49 of contact and closer to the top 10 isn’t considered one of the best in the game in contact? Dude, whatever game you watch doesn’t jibe with your numbers. Talk about lame.
@per14:
We’re talking about TWO RBI. TWO! Repeat: TWO!
He hits a couple sac flies. A couple of fielder’s choices instead of double plays. He gets ONE hit someone along the way that plates TWO runners. Hell, he left runners on base with regularity for three weeks in Sept.-Oct. He was swinging at first pitches, bad pitches, every pitch within a foot trying to get those RBI. If you had HD, you could hear him cuss and scream when he made an out with runners in scoring position, he was trying so hard.
Players often talk about guys approaching milestones getting selfish to pad or reach their numbers in the final weeks of the season if their teams are out of the race. It’s understandable. It happens. But Phillips was one of the most obvious I’ve seen in a while trying to get those last TWO RBI.
Again, he had opps, plenty of opps, to reach 100. All you had to do was watch the games instead of some cock-eyed theory about Baker’s lineups costing a patently selfish player TWO RBI.
@Mr. Redlegs: Fixating on the 98 RBI total vs. 100 RBI is getting us away from the point, I think.
When the two spots in the batting order directly in front of our best hitter (Votto) have season-long OBP’s of .302 and .302… THOSE are terrible lineups.
I mean, the NL average OBP was .330 and that includes backups and pitchers. We didn’t come anywhere near that with the two main guys who are supposed to set up Votto (and others) for RBI’s. Just terrible.
Mr. Redlegs,
Now you’re talking about how great productive outs are and “putting things in motion”. Are you Dusty Baker?
Maybe BP didn’t get 100 RBI because he swung at stupid pitches in September. But if Dusty constructs a lineup properly, he would have had more “opps” from April through September, would have gotten 105 or 110 RBIs and we wouldn’t be having this discussion.
And there it is. Thank you Per14. As has been pointed out many times to no significant resolution, the main idea of this thread is NOT BP’s RBI total, but the poor use of lineup construction by Baker that resulted in fewer runs scored than should have been.
In this case a “name brand player” did not make it to a “name brand milestone” average fans and sportswriters fawn over. We could insert anybody’s name with BP’s and have the same logic apply.
I don’t see how anybody can refute the idea that Baker did a poor, poor job recognizing flaws in his lineups. While a little critical prodding is a good thing, being a contrarian for the sake of it is, well, something Dusty Baker would do.
@per14: Also, after careful consideration and analysis, Mr. Redlegs is not Dusty Baker. Baker would have been unable to avoid using the phrases “big time,” “speed,” “marinate,” and “Hank Aaron” in his posts. The post by Mr. Redlegs talking about the century long practice of fast guys leading off and second hitters getting fastballs was close, but not in fact Dusty.
I agree with everything Matt WI, Dan, and Per14 have said, but it is still fun to point out that he technically only had two opportunities to get those last two RBI’s. For that last week, he was 5 RBI’s away from 100.
1. In the 5th inning of the last game, he was 3 RBI’s away with two runners on base. If he hits a HR instead of a double, he finishes the season with 100.
2. In the 6th inning of the last game, he had the bases loaded with 1 out and hit into an inning ending double play.
He had 10 RBI the last three weeks of the season.
.276 – Phillips AVG from 2006-2008 in CIN
.276 – Phillips AVG in 2009
.275 – Phillips AVG w RISP from 2006-2008
.291 – Phillips AVG w RISP in 2009
Two more hits w RISP in 2009 would be a .302 AVG which he’s never done in a single season in aggregate AVG or AVG w RISP.
So yes, hitting into a GIDP in the 6th inning of the last game of the season ended his year at 98. But the bigger issue was the 54 fewer base runners (aka opportunities) that a league average #1/2 hitter would have provided.
@Mr. Redlegs: Maybe you missed this. I realize David doesn’t have “inside information” or “clubhouse access” but he gives his source:
1. Dusty’s lineups were not good therefore fewer opportunities than a normal 4 hitter.
2. Phillips swings out of his shoes too often and often swings at bad pitches (although this year was much better).
3. The organization as a whole doesn’t understand the problem, as they are stuck in “old style” type of ways.
4. To me 100 RBI’s doesn’t mean anything unless that means more wins and leading the team to the playoffs.
I would like to see this lineup next year:
1. Stubbs/Dickerson
2. Rolen
3. Votto
4. Gomes
5. Bruce
6. Phillips
7. Janish
8. Hanigan
If you want to sit Gomes or Bruce, just move Rolen to their spot and have Dickerson/Stubbs bat 1-2. I like Hanigan batting 8th over Janish because he gets on base more often and then the pitcher can sacrifice him over plus Janish has better doubles power. I like Phillips there because he protects Bruce and sandwiching Bruce between two lefty killers is a good thing.
I don’t see the team spending too much money this offseason, and I think this would be the best lineup they could put out there. I would ink Gomes to a 1 year deal at maximum because I still don’t have that great of confidence in him.
we all know mr. redlegs has the direct line to the baseball gods, but…
i will say, i’ve never heard of the time-tested practice of moving your crappiest hitters into the heart of the order so they can hit fastballs.
i’ve certainly heard managers say that they moved a hitter down in the order to take some pressure off of them. another argument for hitting janish 8th.
and i’ve heard of protecting hitters, but that’s usually guys who can do something with a fastball, guys with power, not slap hitting beanpoles.
just sayin, even for mr. r’s standard conventional wisdom, that doesn’t make baseball sense to me. i probably need to listen to more van morrison.
These stats are not evidence of your previous position.
First you wanted to see whether managers construct a lineup based on an OBP pyramid. What I showed was Ken Macha’s standard lineup. Macha constructs a lineup the way most sabermatrician’s would advocate i.e. OBP, OBP, OPS, OPS, OPS. It’s a little more complex than that, but that’s the gist. OBP is obviously a component of OPS, but slugging weighs more heavily in the 3, 4, 5 hitter.
Second you claimed Counsell was one of the best contact hitters around and one of the best in the league hitting behind runners. I provided you with stats showing Counsell’s contact rate (a stat which measures the percentage of time a swing makes contact i.e. best at making contact). The stats show Counsell is above league average but is not one of the best around. I also showed that Counsell is worse hitting with runners on than with the bases empty.
I don’t know what these stats show except that he is a low strikeout average walk guy which contributes to his OBP.
Implicit in your argument is that Counsell was in the two hole for other reasons. I can’t prove it because I have no access to the transcripts, etc. However, I live in Milwaukee and I have listened to the radio interviews in which Macha says directly Counsell is at the top of the order because of his ability to get on base, his obp, the fact he doesn’t make outs. Make of that what you want.
Maybe Phillips should have had 5 RBI in the last two weeks. However, if Phillips has more opps he isn’t put in a position to choke, thus negating your entire argument. Afterall, isn’t a manager’s job to put player’s in a position to succeed? Did Baker put Phillips in the best position to succeed using Gonzalez, Janish, and Taveras in the spots he did? The entire point of the thread, is no.
BTW, I still think Janish was batting second for all those games to maximize his AB’s to see how he could handle ML pitching to decide if he was the answer for next year. The season was lost by the time he finally took over, so it really didn’t matter at that point. Dusty should have been giving him more starts over the whole season. Of course with Dusty filling out the lineup card who really knows what he was thinking…
“Of course with Dusty filling out the lineup card who really knows what he was thinking…”
Let me help you with that: “I’m just Short Line Railroad away from that new entertainment system, and I got a free Big Mac. Life is good.”
I think one way to have solved the lineup issues was just to have shifted 3-7 up to 2-6. I’m not saying it’s ideal to have Votto at #2 but there’s not much benefit to having Gonzalez or Janish ahead of that group of hitters. I think the benefits could have outweighed the “hypothetical” extra man on base in front of Votto/Phillips.
As for next year, I think Dickerson and Stubbs can be 1-2 if healthy. If they’re not successful, I’d recommend the same thing until someone else really bubbles up to a consistent obp. I was disappointed with Hanigan in the second half. You have to take some obp points away from 7 and 8 hitters due to the situational pitching if you want to move them up to 1 or 2. Hanigan will have to make a step forward to be considered for that 2 slot. He certainly was a better choice than Gonzalez.
Phillips was not perfect but I think the evidence tilts towards (easily) over 100 rbi. The choke arguments, even if taken into consideration, would not overtake the increased opportunities. BP had 29 rbi in May. A lot of those came when he and Hairston were hot at the same time. But as the numbers show, the 1 and 2 hitters overall were too inconsistent to provide steady ducks.
I know this thread is basically dead, but I’ll post this here anyway… seems most relevant here…
This is a paragraph pulled from an article by Joe Sheehan of Baseball Prospectus, wrapping up some of the LDS’s.
Here’s a paragraph about assessing the Cardinals, as a whole. I thought this seemed relevant to our discussing who bats ahead of Votto and Phillips (or whoever’s going to bat cleanup). Keep in mind the OBP’s the Reds had batting #1 and #2: .302 and .302.
“The word ‘protection’ keeps coming up, so let me throw something out here: you protect a great hitter from the front, not from behind. You protect Albert Pujols by having the guys ahead of him be on base all the time, which forces the opposition to pitch to him in a way that no amount of batters behind Pujols ever will. The Cardinals failed badly at this in 2009, getting a .360 OBP from the leadoff spot—not bad, not great—but just a .316 mark from the second spot. More than anything, the Cardinals need an OBP guy, preferably an infielder, to bat high in the lineup so that Pujols bats with runners on base that make walking him intentionally a non-starter.”
The Reds this year decided to value speed and defense, and they actually did it pretty well. Team defense by most measures was vastly improved.
But they basically gave the finger to OBP, and their offense as a result was one of the worst in baseball, and that’s even with a breakout season by Votto.
I love the emphasis on defense, but until we put together a lineup with, say, .350 OBP’s up and down the order, we will not be good enough.
OBP is CRUCIAL to building a good offense, and no amount of ragging by Mr. R. will change my mind on that. It HAS to become an organizational emphasis if we care to be competitive not just for occasional wild card relevance, but for actual championships.
Putting up a team OBP of .318 in today’s era is embarrassing. It’s an organizational failure and I hope to see noticeable changes on this front.
For comparison, here are the OBP’s of the 4 teams who could still win the 2009 World Series:
Yankees – .362 OBP (1st in AL)
Angels – .350 OBP (3rd in AL)
Dodgers – .346 OBP (1st in NL)
Phillies – .334 OBP (8th in NL)
The Phillies, it should be noted, score runs more with slugging. Their team slugging is .447, 1st in the NL.
And as a sad reminder again…
Reds – .318 OBP (14th in NL)
also, while hannigan isn’t a world beater, he has posted a high obp consistantly through the minors. he has little to no pop, but he has great plate discipline and good defense behind the plate.
for a team that’s strapped for cash, that’s pretty alright. he was on base 22 more times than janish in 5 fewer plate appearances. i see no good argument why they shouldn’t have been flipped in the order.
Dan – I agree and disagree with you. Protection certainly comes from the front with guys getting on base. However, the whole concept of money ball was looking at statistical analysis to get a leg up on the competition. OBP was it. At this point, even the high market teams rely on OBP to construct a lineup. For the Reds to be competitive in this day and age, the Reds have to find the “new OBP.”
@David: Well, I agree that the Reds should be trying to get AHEAD of the curve (have they EVER done that in the last 25 years??) and finding the “new OBP.”
But are you implying that it’s no longer worth it to focus on OBP when constructing a roster? It may not be much of a competitive advantage compared to the rest of the field anymore, but if you disregard OBP (see, e.g., the 2009 Reds), you fall behind basically the whole league.
To me, when you take stock of the 2009 Reds, 2 things jump off the page at you:
1) Terrible at scoring runs. (Cure: first and foremost, in my opinion, improve team OBP)
2) Terrible at staying healthy. (Cure: I’m not sure, but I hope they’re studying it, questioning everything, and trying to get better at this!)
I don’t disagree that the Reds’ placement of little to no value on OBP, especially in lineup construction, is a fundamental flaw. I disagree with your statement that OBP HAS to become an organizational EMPHASIS if we care to be competitive not just for occasional wild card relevance, but for actual championship(S).
OBP alone will not lead to sustainable relevance, though it certainly will help.
My belief is that OBP is a weight better associated with your one and two hitters. When you get into your 3-5 hitters the major emphasis should be on SecA or wOBA.
Here’s my take. Walks are an overrated statistic for batters 3-5. While certainly not as bad as an out, a walk does not have the same value as a hit with RISP. A walk, unless the bases are loaded, will not plate a runner. Using lineal weighted measurements adjusts for this.
Here’s the example, you’ve got two guys with identical OBP of .350. One has an avg. of .250. One has an average of .310. Who plates more runners given the same number of opportunities? The guy with the higher average has the higher chance of plating a runner with RISP. While the two players will get on base equally, one does it with a greater likelihood of producing a run.
Now… extend the hypothetical. What happens if this is your five hitter and the guy hitting behind him is .260/.320/.410? The point being, the further down the lineup, the more likely a high hitter produces an out. So in the 3, 4, 5 hitter I care less about OBP and more on some lineal weight like SecA or wOBA.
You have to adjust. I have advocated batting a guy like Ichiro third or fourth for years. The problem is, it just doesn’t happen because people are obsessed with the HR. It would seem outlandish to have Adam Dunn batting first with Ichiro fourth, but this is the enigma that may allow a team like the Reds to be relevant.