Lineup movement

[Panzram]

Jeff Bagwell
The Astros moved Jeff Bagwell to the second spot of the batting order on Sunday, putting him between Craig Biggio and Carlos Beltran. It's unclear if the change will be permanent.

[Toy Cannon]

Well aware of it Koz. It's not permanent, IT'S JIMY!:bonehead

[PopTop]

Of all the players you could plug into the 2-hole, Bagwell makes the least sense. :hmm: Chunky Chavez would make more sense batting second! :angry:

Speaking of Chunky, what a peg he made to 2B today! :thumbsup: (Give some credit to Dellucci for bunting through a good strike)

[Sandy]

What do you WANT in a #2 hitter?

What *I* want is someone who will take pitches. This obviously works best if you have a leadoff hitter who steals bases. And the Astros don't have a legit SB threat outside of Beltran (and do you REALLY want to bat Beltran leadoff?!?)

Personally, I think Bags in the #2 slot makes a LOT of sense. Biggio and Bags are two of the better OBP guys on the team, and having them at the front of the lineup makes a great deal of sense. Bags' power numbers have been slipping for a number of years, but his OBP is still solid. He doesn't have the speed to bat him leadoff.

Makes a LOT of sense to me to have Beltran, Berkman and Kent in the 3-5 slots (I'd eventually move Beltran to the #4 hole, so after a 1-2-3 1st, he'll be an ersatz leadoff hitter in inning #2 -- but I can definitely see putting him in the #2 slot initially, to offer him the best protection possible (Berkman), while he's adjusting to NL pitchers and umps.

LF - Biggio
1B - Bags
CF - Beltran
RF - Berkman
2B - Kent
3B - Lamb/Ensberg
SS - Everett
CA - Ausmus/Chavez

I can't see much to improve on that lineup (other than actually playing those guys together more frequently).

I could buy an argument that Lamb would be a decent #2 hitter against righties. I've always had a personal preference to have a lefty-hitter hitting in the #2 slot, so potentially take advantage of the bigger hole on the right side of the infield when the leadoff hitter it on. But Bags is UP to 4.2 pitches per PA this season, while Lamb is DOWN to 3.65. Of course, this seasons is WAY out of whack for Lamb, so I'd rather leave him at the bottom of the order, in the event reality strikes.

[PopTop]

Sandy, yours is a sound argument, hard to poke too many holes, if any, in your reasoning. But why stop at #2 for Bagwell, why not put him leadoff since his OBP stats are better than Biggio's? Biggio might nip Bagwell in a 60-yard dash, but I seriously doubt Bidge gets around the bases any faster than Baggy these days, and he's long been the most instinctive and efficient baserunner I've seen in an Astros uniform.

I'm not really advocating this, just playing devil's advocate a bit with your logic. The reasons I think Bagwell makes the least sense in the 2-hole have roots in my traditional approach to having a "prototypical lineup," and I must agree with you that we really don't have the personnel for that (at least it doesn't seem like we do) ... If it was Biggio from 10 years ago stealing 30-40-50 bases, maybe ... But we don't really have that traditional leadoff guy these days.

It's going to be hard to run your leadoff hitter (assuming he gets on) with Bagwell in the box, hard to do anything but just swing away as a matter of fact ... You're obviously not going to have him bunt, he's really not a good hit-&-run guy, even though he does take pitches, you're still not going to run your leadoff hitter and possibly turn a 2-run Bagwell bomb into a solo blast ... That's why I was saying he doesn't make much sense in that slot, just takes to many facets of the "traditional" game away ... That's my hardheaded, old school opinion, and I'm sticking to it. :D

Bill Brown and Jim Deshaies were actually talking about this on FSN during the game yesterday, sure some of you heard it ... Deshaies brought up the Rangers lineup, an excellent example of a lineup that really doesn't take that traditional approach yet has been quite successful ... I believe Deshaies' exact words during the broadcast were, "(Hank) Blalock is anything BUT a prototypical number two hitter."

So I think we're in agreement that we don't have that "old style" lineup with a basestealer at the top, a hit-&-run stick #2, yada-yada-yada, feet of clay catcher batting eighth ... The more I really think about it, the more I keep wanting to compare Beltran with Cesar Cedeño, and the more I want to stick Beltran in the 3-hole ... And as crazy as this sounds, the more I want to try Kent in the 2-hole between Biggio and Beltran.

You're still not going to bunt or call a straight steal with Kent batting and your leadoff hitter on first ... But Kent, in my eyes, is a better option to at least put the runner in motion on a hit-&-run or run-&-hit than Bagwell.

The way Jimy is, I'm sure he will try about 83 different lineups over the next 87 games :hmm:

[barzilla]

Pops and Sandy,

I agree wholeheartedly with Sandy so I think Jimy is anything but a bonehead in this instance. In fact, I think he changed the lineup at the direction of the people upstairs. (Which I might add, when the GM and owner are dictating lineups to you then what in the hell are you there for?) If you look at the tradition of the Astros lineup since Biggio and Bagwell have been there, the two spot has not be reserved for players with speed, but hitters that the Astros wanted to get the most out of with the protection of Biggio and Bagwell (now Biggio and Berkman). I think the dumbest thing Jimy ever did was change the lineup he had from last year. He should have left Ensberg in the number two slot because he got pitches to hit there. He spent the first month looking for pitches to hit (his walks were up in April if you'll notice) because no one was going to give him a pitch to hit with the homeless man hitting behind him (I'll now call Ausmus the homeless man because I think a homeless man could have a similar SLG). Why do you think Collins and Dierker put Derek Bell in the two hole? Is it because he was a great bunter? No, it's because they knew he was a flawed hitter who might thrive with pitches to hit. If you notice, 1998 was Derek Bell's best season and he spent it almost exclusively as the number two hitter.

The problem with Everett in that spot is that he does not have the pop to take advantage of those pitches to hit. Yes, he is hitting twenty points higher than last season, but that is only good enough to get him a .310 OBP. If I know anything about building a lineup I know that you could be Brett "Frickin" Butler as a bunter and it still wouldn't make sense to hit him there. Now, as far as I'm concerned you have three viable options at the number two spot:

1. Bagwell is a viable option. He has the second best OBP on the team and being in between Biggio and Berkman/Beltran might get him some pitches to hit.

2. Putting Ensberg back in the two hole might make sense. He had all of his success there last year and I'm still scratching my head on that one. Many of you will recall me questioning that from the get go and what I thought would happen has happened (although I would never dream that Ensberg would have ZERO home runs). Only a jackass or the world's biggest idiot would take someone who was on pace to hit forty home runs and move him back to hit in front of the homeless man. Putting back in the second hole would work because Ensberg does take pitches (although I don't know his pitches seen per plate appearance) and he has a better OBP than Everett. In other words, it might give him a jump start.

3. Beltran is a viable option. He gives you that lefty bat you like in the second spot when facing righties and he gets on base nearly forty percent of the time. He also gives you the bonus of speed. The only downside is that he might be your second or third best RBI man right now (he would be close to Kent if you move the AL stats over). I can see wanting to keep that kind of production in the middle of the order.

Listen guys, there isn't that much of a science to building a lineup. Take a look at my MLBcenter article thread and see where Jimy ranks among managers with five or more seasons. What it shows you is that he obviously deficient in some way and this is one of the main ones. Don't overthink your lineup. If you put someone that can't get on base high in the order you will suffer no matter what skill sets he brings to the table. Why do you think the Reds were toying with leading off Adam Dunn a couple of years ago? Look at the OBPs and SLGs and do the best you can to put the highest OBPs near the top and the highest SLGs in the middle. The rest should go at the bottom where they belong.

[Sandy]

Pops,

I can understand your general view. And Maybe Kent would be a better #2 hitter from a pure stats points of view. But I think from a psychological perspective, Kent simply wouldn't go for it. Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always gotten the impression that Kent's ego gets in the way of his performance in many cases. If he's unhappy, he sulks, and under-performs, and I think he'd be about the most likely Astro to tank his production of any of the obvious choices.

The concept of 'protection' helping Ensberg out is an interesting one to consider. Of course, I look at 2003, and see Ensberg with a .908 OPS hitting 2nd, and a .907 OPS overall, (that's with roughly 2/3 of at-bats coming in the #2 hole). Looking at his 3-year numbers, there's more of a delineation. Of course, this might be one of those ego-based plunges I was ascribing to Kent. In general, I've never much subscribed to the entire concept of "protection." I think the value of 'protection' is more likely to be 'situational', and likely, a fairly small percentage of all at bat -- but that's just my own generalized feeling.

Mostly, I've always believed the most important aspect of lineup building is simple - get your best hitters to the plate as often as possible. It irks me to no end the way managers all over baseball place a defensive specialist in the #2 slot with a 3-nothing OBP, because he bunts well. The fact is, 60% of the time or more, the hitter is NOT going to have a guy to bunt over.

While I recognize you want to place your RBI guys (which I prefer to call ball in play guys), behind your OBP guys (which I prefer to call your base-on-ball guys), but every manager is stuck with dealing with the talent he's got, which rarely (if ever) exactly matches the concept of the 'dream' lineup.

The fatal flaw in most lineup constructions is that they are built on best case only scenarios. IF the leadoff hitter gets on, then ... I don't have the math skills to determine statistically that having a quality bunter in the upside 40% of the cases is better than having a .370 OBP guy instead of a .310 OBP in the 60% of the downside cases - but my intuition says that, when you've got a choice between batting a .310 OBP guy #2 or #7 - you're MUCH better off putting him in the bottom third of the lineup, than allowing him to eat up that #2 slot - and move 4-5 other superior hitters down a slot.

In all honesty, as long as the killer "B"s and Kent are hitting 1-5, I don't much care WHAT the order is.

If I'm manager, I probably ask Bags to take over the #2 slot in the short term (just like Jimy), and install Beltran at #3 with Kent or Berkman behind him. Bags gives Carlos a chance to watch a lot of pitches while on-deck, and he's got protection (for whatever value it is), as he learns the league.

After a month or so, I'll probably juggle the lineup, and might very well ask Beltran if he'd prefer hitting #1 or #5. The #5 hole probably gives the best of both worlds in terms of RBI chances, plus SB threat. I can see the logic in many different permutations for the top of the lineup, though I'm not on board with shoving Ensberg into the top 5.

[PopTop]

Lots of great points that only make me think more and more...

Don't overthink your lineup.
Ooops! Too late! ;)


(I'll now call Ausmus the homeless man because I think a homeless man could have a similar SLG).
:eek:

:laff:



Maybe I'm wrong, but I've always gotten the impression that Kent's ego gets in the way of his performance in many cases.
Don't think you're wrong at all, something I didn't factor into my original thinking. Another problem I failed to consider was his penchant for the deadly GIDP which means you'd likely be wanting to start your runner(s) more than maybe your talent/speed on the bases suggests you should.



...get your best hitters to the plate as often as possible.
Can't remember the exact number, but I recall hearing a stat once that calculated how many times each position in the order comes to the plate over the course of a season ... Seems like it was something like the leadoff hitter gets 60 more plate appearances than the #2 hitter who gets 60 more than #3, etc. etc., etc ... So stacking your lineup with your best hitter, your 2nd-best, 3rd-best and so on, with no real regard for strategy (i.e., bunting, hit-&-run, etc), does make the most sense ... This is what Deshaies was hitting on since neither Houston nor the Rangers really have that "traditional lineup" that we're all used to seeing.




Sandy, if and when you moved Beltran to leadoff, would you drop Biggio to #2 or even lower?

[Sandy]

Hmm, if Beltran were leading off ...

Honestly, I'd like Bags in the #2 slot better. Biggios pitch-per-PA numbers have been dropping, while Bags have risen. This makes Bags a better choice to me, since I think he can afford Carlos a better shot at stealing.

Biggio in the #5 hole costs you HR power, but he becomes a psuedo lead-off man for the bottom half of the lineup. He's more likely to steal hitting 5th to create RBI chances for the weaker hitters. No, he's not exactly Bobby Abreu - but he's gonna swipe more than Bags.

It's important to note that Biggio has rediscovered his power stroke, while Bags' seems to be waning - (if you look at the 2B totals, Biggio actually may give you MORE power in the #5 slot than Bags at this point).

The more I look at it, the more I like the idea of Beltran as a lead-off hitter, but as I noted above, as a manager you need to know how to play the egos to get the most out of everyone. Considering his SB%, Beltran makes a LOT of sense as a leadoff guy. It's just a question of where do you want to put him initially, as he adapts to the league. Most of your transplants take a little while to adjust.

I might well see if I could sell Beltran on the idea of hitting 5th initially in order to take the pressure of being the season savior off his shoulders, with the understanding (for everyone), that his eventual destination is gonna be leadoff.

CF - Beltran
1B - Bags
RF - Berkman
2B - Kent
LF - Biggio
3B - Lamb/Ensberg
SS - Everett
CA - Ausmus/Chavez

====

I've often heard 60-at bats bandied about as the step-down by batting order. But I've always suspected (though I have no data to back it up), that most teams have a 'critical mass' point somewhere in the middle of the order that results in a bigger gap in PAs. (My general feeling is that there's a major drop after the #5 hole - but this is just a guess). It's fairly obvious that a better team will tend to send more guys to the plate (on average), so the Yankees 'big gap' might be between the 7/8 hitters, while the Expos might be petering out in the 3/4 hole. Just something I've always wondered about, but never seen any hard numbers for.

[barzilla]

Interesting thinking there Sandy. See, that's creativity and rational thinking put together. I'm not sure if I would be daring enough to do it, but then again I have to admit that it makes total sense.