PDA

View Full Version : Why not bat the .400 OBP guy first?



919191
08-01-2009, 06:00 PM
With a plus .400 OBP, why not have Hanigan lead off?

BuckeyeRedleg
08-01-2009, 06:12 PM
It's been brought up before. Not in Dusty's little book.

pahster
08-01-2009, 06:17 PM
With a plus .400 OBP, why not have Hanigan lead off?

Catcher bats 8th, dude; CF bats first.

RedsManRick
08-01-2009, 06:24 PM
No kidding. I know lineup order isn't a huge deal in the big picture, but why give away runs by batting your two worst hitters at the top of the lineup. It's just stupid.

alloverjr
08-01-2009, 06:47 PM
No kidding. I know lineup order isn't a huge deal in the big picture, but why give away runs by batting your two worst hitters at the top of the lineup. It's just stupid.

Wait 'til you see tonight's lineup :mooner:

SirFelixCat
08-01-2009, 06:47 PM
No kidding. I know lineup order isn't a huge deal in the big picture, but why give away runs by batting your two worst hitters at the top of the lineup. It's just stupid.

This has been the Reds managers MO for the better part of a decade. It doesn't matter which manager it is/was, either.

deltachi8
08-01-2009, 08:14 PM
He'd just clog up those bases

Highlifeman21
08-01-2009, 08:16 PM
He'd just clog up those bases

The Dusty won't have any of that

Rojo
08-01-2009, 08:20 PM
I cut him some slack on this one. I wouldn't bat a slow catcher lead-off either. And its not like the Reds have a ton of power in the middle of the line-up.

Always Red
08-01-2009, 08:31 PM
I cut him some slack on this one. I wouldn't bat a slow catcher lead-off either. And its not like the Reds have a ton of power in the middle of the line-up.

Not lead-off, but I would hit him 2nd, on this team right now.

Until he shows that he cannot do it. This season is done- the rest of this year is try-outs for 2010.

The guy has .391 OBP for his career thus far.

He deserves it as much, if not more, than Sutton or Gonzalez.

WMR
08-01-2009, 08:32 PM
Getting on-base is worthless if you're not fast.

Or something like that.

UKFlounder
08-01-2009, 08:43 PM
Is this any different than Bob Boone's suggestion to hit Dunn 1st or 2nd? That was ridiculed quite a bit on here. I know Dunn has more power, but the same basic thought applies regarding OBP

RedsBaron
08-01-2009, 08:53 PM
No kidding. I know lineup order isn't a huge deal in the big picture, but why give away runs by batting your two worst hitters at the top of the lineup. It's just stupid.

Tradition.
The concept of OBP has been firmly rejected by the Reds for the last decade.

BCubb2003
08-01-2009, 11:57 PM
Is this any different than Bob Boone's suggestion to hit Dunn 1st or 2nd? That was ridiculed quite a bit on here. I know Dunn has more power, but the same basic thought applies regarding OBP

That's the first thing I thought of, too.

redsfandan
08-02-2009, 01:06 AM
Is this any different than Bob Boone's suggestion to hit Dunn 1st or 2nd? That was ridiculed quite a bit on here. I know Dunn has more power, but the same basic thought applies regarding OBP
Hanigan makes more sense at the top of the lineup than Dunn. I agree that it makes sense to have the higher OBP at the top of the lineup but if Dunn is at the top who is he gonna drive in with his power? Whatever boost there would be to him scoring runs would likely be more than offset by lower rbi #'s. That's part of why I think the AL makes more sense to me for Dunn. Since the pitcher is replaced by the DH in the batting order it would be easier to get away with Dunn at the top. Hanigan has no power. He just get's on base again and again and again.

919191
08-02-2009, 01:47 AM
Tradition.
The concept of OBP has been firmly rejected by the Reds for the last decade.

That's the Power of Tradition, I guess.:)

GAC
08-02-2009, 10:52 AM
I cut him some slack on this one. I wouldn't bat a slow catcher lead-off either.

I don't cut any manager slack who bats a guy lead-off with a .279 OB%.

As much as I like speed at the top of the order, batting lead-off, IMO, has far less to do with speed as much as it has everything to do with getting on base and getting more ABs. I want production there.

No, Hanigan ain't no speedster; but he's no a Sean Casey either.

The bigger question is then finding a #2 hitter that isn't a GIDP machine. So that takes BP out of the picture. ;)

Rolen may be a good candidate, looking at what we have to work with...hit into 2 DPs all year with the Jays, and avg 8/season over his career.... but then that lack of speed again enters into the equation.

Then Votto follows with Phillips.

You'd not only have your high OB% guys in the first three slots, but also guys who are hitting for average, and, other then Hanigan, providing you with some power and SLG%.

And batting Hanigan and Rolen as your 1-2 may (and I say "MAY") prevent Baker from then taking risks and calling for steals, because he doesn't have that speed there. And that would give him fits! ;)

chicoruiz
08-02-2009, 11:04 AM
I like the idea of Hannigan batting 2nd. He seems like he'd be a good guy to hit and run with- makes contact, hits to right a lot.

Of course you can't hit and run unless the leadoff hitter gets on, so I guess it's pretty moot...

nate
08-02-2009, 11:58 AM
I like the idea of Hannigan batting 2nd. He seems like he'd be a good guy to hit and run with- makes contact, hits to right a lot.

Of course you can't hit and run unless the leadoff hitter gets on, so I guess it's pretty moot...

Your wish looks to be granted today.

919191
08-02-2009, 12:30 PM
Your wish looks to be granted today.

Dusty must have read this thread. Hanigan's second today.

VR
08-02-2009, 12:44 PM
With Rolen here, I'd prefer to sandwich he and Rolen around Votto....something like this.




Sutton
Phillips
Votto
Rolen
Gomes
Hanigan
Nix
Gonzo

Big Klu
08-02-2009, 01:08 PM
A good buddy of mine, who is a Cardinals fan and self-professed Scott Rolen aficionado, thinks that the best spot in the order for Rolen to bat is fifth.

Tony Cloninger
08-02-2009, 01:12 PM
Best lineup Dusty has made since.........

RedsBaron
08-02-2009, 02:54 PM
When I was 15 years old, way back in 1970, I played my only season of Babe Ruth ball and had a Norm Cash in '61 type of year---I hit much better than season than I ever did before or since. Our team's head coach finally had me batting leadoff, but not because of my average. He had checked our scorecards and then told me that I was walking far, far more often than anyone else on the team and that was why he was making me the leadoff hitter. Now he didn't use the term "on base percentage" but he grasped the concept.
My coach that season ran a small grocery store. As far as I know, coaching Babe Ruth was as high a level of competiton as he ever reached as a coach. But he grasped the importance of getting on base.
At the time I was barely 15. I didn't understand much of anything about life, especially girls (still don't ;) ). But I read Ted Williams's "My Turn At Bat" that spring and I grasped Teddy Ballgame's theories of hitting. I was a low ball hitter. As long as I wasn't given a take sign, whatever the count, if I got my pitch I was swinging. However, with less than two strikes, unless the pitch fooled me I wasn't going to swing at even a strike that wasn't in the zone where I did best. If I walked, great. Age 15--but I grasped the importance of getting on base.
During the 1980s the Reds have had a series of managers, who, whatever their experience and other talents, seemingly have been unable to grasp that elementary concept. We do not need another Adam Dunn thread, but manager after manager couldn't figure out that a guy with a near .400 OBP should bat near the top of the order so that his talent of getting on base could produce more runs by having someone else knock him in. Instead, too often he batted 5th or 6th as Reds managers sought not to have someone "clog" the bases.
Meanwhile the Reds had GMs who gave us speedsters such as Taveras, ignoring that whatever talents he otherwise had didn't matter if he could not consistently get on base.
The great Yankee teams during most of Joe Torre's era there always had a high OBP and worked a count. Those Yankees sometimes would manage to get Pedro Martinez out of a game, not by getting base hits, but by running up his pitch count so that Pedro was done after 5 or 6 innings.
My grocery store owner-coach understood on base percentage.
At age 15 I understood on base percentage, long before I ever read anything by Bill James or before the term "sabermetrics" was invented.
Why can't the Reds understand on base percentage?

RedsManRick
08-02-2009, 02:55 PM
I really hope Hanigan has a good day today and makes it hard for Dusty to move him back down. I'm guessing this is just a temporary thing in Dusty's mind -- only until AGon "gets going"...

RANDY IN INDY
08-02-2009, 03:02 PM
When I was 15 years old, way back in 1970, I played my only season of Babe Ruth ball and had a Norm Cash in '61 type of year---I hit much better than season than I ever did before or since. Our team's head coach finally had me batting leadoff, but not because of my average. He had checked our scorecards and then told me that I was walking far, far more often than anyone else on the team and that was why he was making me the leadoff hitter. Now he didn't use the term "on base percentage" but he grasped the concept.
My coach that season ran a small grocery store. As far as I know, coaching Babe Ruth was as high a level of competiton as he ever reached as a coach. But he grasped the importance of getting on base.
At the time I was barely 15. I didn't understand much of anything about life, especially girls (still don't ;) ). But I read Ted Williams's "My Turn At Bat" that spring and I grasped Teddy Ballgame's theories of hitting. I was a low ball hitter. As long as I wasn't given a take sign, whatever the count, if I got my pitch I was swinging. However, with less than two strikes, unless the pitch fooled me I wasn't going to swing at even a strike that wasn't in the zone where I did best. If I walked, great. Age 15--but I grasped the importance of getting on base.
During the 1980s the Reds have had a series of managers, who, whatever their experience and other talents, seemingly have been unable to grasp that elementary concept. We do not need another Adam Dunn thread, but manager after manager couldn't figure out that a guy with a near .400 OBP should bat near the top of the order so that his talent of getting on base could produce more runs by having someone else knock him in. Instead, too often he batted 5th or 6th as Reds managers sought not to have someone "clog" the bases.
Meanwhile the Reds had GMs who gave us speedsters such as Taveras, ignoring that whatever talents he otherwise had didn't matter if he could not consistently get on base.
The great Yankee teams during most of Joe Torre's era there always had a high OBP and worked a count. Those Yankees sometimes would manage to get Pedro Martinez out of a game, not by getting base hits, but by running up his pitch count so that Pedro was done after 5 or 6 innings.
My grocery store owner-coach understood on base percentage.
At age 15 I understood on base percentage, long before I ever read anything by Bill James or before the term "sabermetrics" was invented.
Why can't the Reds understand on base percentage?

Funny you say that. When I was in Babe Ruth, I had a coach who grasped the concept and he was an "everyday Joe" as well. My high school coach placed a lot of emphasis on the same thing. I have always used it in my coaching. It really is nothing new.

11larkin11
08-02-2009, 03:05 PM
Hanigan missed a hit and run. The Dusty isn't going to like that very much. Back to the bottom with you Hanigan!

RedsManRick
08-02-2009, 03:06 PM
I just said it elsewhere but I really think it's true -- often too much information can make it harder to tell what matters from what doesn't. Both at an organizational level and a managerial level there are 100's if not 1000's of little pieces of info being factored in to a decision -- personality traits, minor injuries, yesterday's game, etc. In some ways it easier for us spectators to stay focused on the really big factors. We don't get lost in the weeds. What can seem plainly obvious from 30,000 feet can seem like a quite confusing, nuanced issued up close.

Tony Cloninger
08-02-2009, 03:14 PM
That was a ball he had to swing at......it looked like an AG/JHJ type swing.
That should IMPRESS Dusty.


I looked at OBP closer when i saw the A's had such a low BA but 2nd most runs back in 74-76 days..... they walked and hit homer runs more than the average AL team. They did though steal a lot .....I mean even Sal Bando stole 20 bases one year. So they were a different type of team in regards to how most high OBP teams work but it did work for them.

GAC
08-02-2009, 08:17 PM
With Rolen here, I'd prefer to sandwich he and Rolen around Votto....something like this.

Sutton
Phillips
Votto
Rolen
Gomes
Hanigan
Nix
Gonzo

I wouldn't put BP in the #2 slot. He's a GIDP machine. ;)

Big Klu
08-02-2009, 08:47 PM
This is the lineup I would use right now:


vs. RHP
Sutton rf
Hanigan c
Votto 1b
Phillips 2b
Rolen 3b
Gomes lf
Nix cf
Janish ss
<pitcher>

vs. LHP
Taveras cf
Hanigan c
Votto 1b
Phillips 2b
Rolen 3b
Gomes lf
Balentien rf
Janish ss
<pitcher>

Against lefties, I realize that Taveras is not the optimal solution in CF (or the leadoff spot), but then neither is Nix. I would work Wlad (who I suspect has a big hole in his swing) in slowly against LHP's, and expand his role if he does well. If he flops, then give RF back to Sutton. (And yes, I would flip-flop Gomes and Sutton defensively. Jonny should only play LF.)