PDA

View Full Version : Who does Stubbs compare to, where should he hit?



icehole3
03-25-2010, 05:01 AM
I know this is nuts he reminds me of Eric Davis and should be batting 3rd with Votto in the cleanup spot, anyone agree?

Ron Madden
03-25-2010, 05:04 AM
No.

Not yet.

reds44
03-25-2010, 06:03 AM
So a guy with a career .765 minor league OPS (including a .401 slugging) and a .762 career major league OPS some how means he is a three hitter?

Yeah, no.

List of guys I'd hit 3rd before Stubbs:
Votto
Bruce
Phillips
Rolen
Gomes

Hit him leadoff unless both he and Dickerson are in the lineup, in which case I'd hit him 2nd.

fearofpopvol1
03-25-2010, 06:39 AM
no offense, but do we really need 3 different Stubbs threads (that are all pretty similar) on the first page?

icehole3
03-25-2010, 07:59 AM
no offense, but do we really need 3 different Stubbs threads (that are all pretty similar) on the first page?

I dont know what do you think?

Tornon
03-25-2010, 10:34 AM
I've always thought he might follow a career path similar to that of Aaron Rowand

Spring~Fields
03-25-2010, 10:53 AM
So a guy with a career .765 minor league OPS (including a .401 slugging) and a .762 career major league OPS some how means he is a three hitter?
Yeah, no.

List of guys I'd hit 3rd before Stubbs:
Votto
Bruce
Phillips
Rolen
Gomes

Hit him leadoff unless both he and Dickerson are in the lineup, in which case I'd hit him 2nd.

But is he with the numbers that you posted, a leadoff batter? Or for that matter is Cabrera with his numbers a number two batter? What is the main point of a batter like Votto if when he comes to the plate, if that the number of times that men are on base is limited?

Bumstead
03-25-2010, 11:50 AM
Personally, I think Dickerson is the Red's best chance to have someone bat leadoff and get on base consistently. I think Stubbs should bat 7th for now, play a mean CF and continue to develop his skills at the plate. All this means Dusty would have to play Dickerson most of the time in LF, which is probably not going to happen.

Bum

RedEye
03-25-2010, 12:49 PM
I just read an analysis somewhere comparing Stubbs to Hanley Ramirez in that scouts have always liked his power, but it just didn't really show up while he was in the minor leagues. I'm not sure he's a #3 hitter right now, but I honestly do see Stubbs becoming a more middle-of-the-lineup type hitter as he matures.

RedsManRick
03-25-2010, 01:07 PM
I'd compare him to BJ Upton. Or perhaps Carl Crawford or Jose Reyes with a lot less contact.

- Lot's of power potential, but only seen sporadically.
- Tons of speed
- Low contact rates
- Good plate discipline

I really love guys like this in the 5-7 spots in the order. Their OBP tends to be too low to justify them as "table setters". However, their power makes them good "RBI guys" and their speed means they're able to play small ball with the weaker hitters behind them. It's why I like Phillips in this range as well.

KoryMac5
03-25-2010, 01:42 PM
Eric Davis had some of the quickest wrists I have ever seen. The speed of his swing going through the zone was fast, although speed didn't always translate to contact. Stubbs has a longer swing than Davis ever did but I am sure that Stubbs will continue to refine his game.

Body types are similiar as both Davis and Stubbs must have only 5% body fat.

bucksfan2
03-25-2010, 02:14 PM
I have heard Stubbs compare his game to Torii Hunter before. Not a bad comparison if you ask me, especially considering Stubbs MLB power.

TheNext44
03-25-2010, 03:35 PM
I'd compare him to BJ Upton. Or perhaps Carl Crawford or Jose Reyes with a lot less contact.

- Lot's of power potential, but only seen sporadically.
- Tons of speed
- Low contact rates
- Good plate discipline

I really love guys like this in the 5-7 spots in the order. Their OBP tends to be too low to justify them as "table setters". However, their power makes them good "RBI guys" and their speed means they're able to play small ball with the weaker hitters behind them. It's why I like Phillips in this range as well.

Completely agree. James has been making this argument for decades. I remember him saying that Willie McGee was the perfect #5 hitter, for all the reasons you stated, plus the fact that for some bizarre statistical randomness, the #5 hitter leadsoff innings the second most often after the #1 hitter.

Stubbs at #5 makes a lot of sense, much more sense than him leading off.

dougdirt
03-25-2010, 03:39 PM
Placing Stubbs in the 5th spot would really help him in my opinion.

Spring~Fields
03-25-2010, 03:54 PM
I really love guys like this in the 5-7 spots in the order. Their OBP tends to be too low to justify them as "table setters". However, their power makes them good "RBI guys" and their speed means they're able to play small ball with the weaker hitters behind them. It's why I like Phillips in this range as well.


Completely agree. James has been making this argument for decades. I remember him saying that Willie McGee was the perfect #5 hitter, for all the reasons you stated, plus the fact that for some bizarre statistical randomness, the #5 hitter leadsoff innings the second most often after the #1 hitter.

Stubbs at #5 makes a lot of sense, much more sense than him leading off.


Placing Stubbs in the 5th spot would really help him in my opinion.

:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Thank God, some of the voices of reason that I count on, have spoken.

Now I can go soak my head in the sauna and relax. Mr. Baker has been told by some of the best, the rest is on him.

Edd Roush
03-25-2010, 03:58 PM
If Stubbs were to bat in the five hole as many have suggested, who leads off? Do you start Dickerson every day in left and bat him lead-off?

icehole3
03-25-2010, 04:54 PM
What would LaRussa do?

Sea Ray
03-25-2010, 05:01 PM
Who do you bat leadoff vs LHPs when Gomes is in LF?

Stubbs could make this easy on us and just raise his OBP :)

KronoRed
03-25-2010, 05:22 PM
What would LaRussa do?

Give them human growth hormone?

nate
03-25-2010, 05:22 PM
Who do you bat leadoff vs LHPs when Gomes is in LF?

Stubbs could make this easy on us and just raise his OBP :)

That would be awesome.

Spring~Fields
03-25-2010, 08:39 PM
If Stubbs were to bat in the five hole as many have suggested, who leads off? Do you start Dickerson every day in left and bat him lead-off?

:) Take your pick :) Me, I would take the 30/30 man who can hit and get on base against left handed pitching. (though he has declined the past two years a little bit) Against Left handed pitching is not so difficult, against right handed pitching, that's a bit harder.



Against Left Handed Against Right Handed
Brandon Phillips Brandon Phillips
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .378 .606 .984 2007 .310 .428 .738
2008 .358 .586 .944 2008 .293 .383 .676
2009 .342 .541 .883 2009 .324 .416 .740

Orlando Cabrera Orlando Cabrera
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .369 .474 .843 2007 .339 .376 .715
2008 .354 .400 .754 2008 .327 .361 .688
2009 .327 .362 .689 2009 .311 .400 .711

Joey Votto Joey Votto
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .296 .346 .642 2007 .387 .638 1.025
2008 .365 .497 .862 2008 .370 .510 .880
2009 .400 .531 .931 2009 .419 .583 1.002

Johnny Gomes Johnny Gomes
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .376 .542 .918 2007 .302 .429 .731
2008 .281 .424 .705 2008 .286 .309 .595
2009 .369 .545 .914 2009 .320 .539 .859

Scott Rolen Scott Rolen
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .306 .311 .617 2007 .341 .429 .770
2008 .370 .390 .760 2008 .342 .445 .787
2009 .459 .591 1.050 2009 .338 .411 .749

Drew Stubbs Drew Stubbs
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 ------------- 2007 -----------
2008 ------------- 2008 -----------
2009 .333 .500 .833 2009 .320 .420 .740

R. Hernandez R. Hernandez
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 .327 .427 .754 2007 .334 .366 .700
2008 .316 .372 .688 2008 .305 .421 .726
2009 .348 .400 .748 2009 .332 .348 .680

R. Hanigan R. Hanigan
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 ------------ 2007 --------------
2008 .293 .342 .635 2008 .421 .383 .804
2009 .381 .364 .745 2009 .355 .321 .676

Jay Bruce Jay Bruce
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 ------------- 2007 -------------
2008 .263 .299 .562 2008 .340 .529 .869
2009 .313 .330 .643 2009 .299 .527 .826

Wladimir Balentien Wladimir Balentien
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 ------------- 2007 -------------
2008 .274 .346 .620 2008 .239 .339 .578
2009 .239 .291 .530 2009 .333 .425 .758

Chris Dickerson Chris Dickerson
Vs. Left OBP SLG OPS Vs. Right OBP SLG OPS
2007 ------------- 2007 -------------
2008 .423 .429 .852 2008 .411 .654 1.065
2009 .326 .297 .623 2009 .378 .385 .763

BoydsOfSummer
03-25-2010, 08:52 PM
Hit him seventh and let him steal 50 bags. Same with Phillips.

dougdirt
03-25-2010, 10:18 PM
Hit him seventh and let him steal 50 bags. Same with Phillips.

How can we hit both of them 7th?

REDblooded
03-25-2010, 10:31 PM
How can we hit both of them 7th?

Simple. If 7 ate 9, then 7 doubled his strength. now you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.... duh.

REDblooded
03-25-2010, 10:34 PM
all non-funny humor aside, I really can't see the benefit of hitting Stubbs 5th. In that case, do you slide Bruce to 6th, with Rolen, Hernandez, P following? I really don't like the idea of sliding Bruce further down the order... Even if you bat Phillips lead-off, and have Votto/Bruce/Stubbs 3/4/5, you now have 2 lefties in the middle of your order.

RedsManRick
03-25-2010, 10:38 PM
all non-funny humor aside, I really can't see the benefit of hitting Stubbs 5th. In that case, do you slide Bruce to 6th, with Rolen, Hernandez, P following? I really don't like the idea of sliding Bruce further down the order... Even if you bat Phillips lead-off, and have Votto/Bruce/Stubbs 3/4/5, you now have 2 lefties in the middle of your order.

Votto hasn't shown much a platoon split. Back to back lefties isn't that big of a deal.

REDblooded
03-25-2010, 11:04 PM
Votto hasn't shown much a platoon split. Back to back lefties isn't that big of a deal.

Very true

CesarGeronimo
03-26-2010, 12:38 AM
It is so frustrating to have these conversations when you know that where Stubbs will hit in the order is more based on what position he plays defensively than where he could be most productive. This is a ridiculous situation - hardly an original idea, I know, but it's all I can think about in reading this thread. What do you get other than frustration in trying to discern the best batting order for the Reds when you know what Dusty's plan is going to be: 1) centerfielder even if he's bad at getting on base, 2) shortstop even if he's bad at getting on base, 3) Joey who teams will try to pitch around, 4) Brandon who will be swinging for the fences and trying to pull too many pitches because he's the cleanup hitter, 5) Rolen even though he doesn't hit for power anymore, 6) Bruce, 7) leftfielder who should be hitting higher in the order, and 8) catcher

Spring~Fields
03-26-2010, 02:48 AM
It is so frustrating to have these conversations when you know that where Stubbs will hit in the order is more based on what position he plays defensively than where he could be most productive. This is a ridiculous situation - hardly an original idea, I know, but it's all I can think about in reading this thread. What do you get other than frustration in trying to discern the best batting order for the Reds when you know what Dusty's plan is going to be: 1) centerfielder even if he's bad at getting on base, 2) shortstop even if he's bad at getting on base, 3) Joey who teams will try to pitch around, 4) Brandon who will be swinging for the fences and trying to pull too many pitches because he's the cleanup hitter, 5) Rolen even though he doesn't hit for power anymore, 6) Bruce, 7) leftfielder who should be hitting higher in the order, and 8) catcher

You certainly nailed that. I can see that you have been following Reds baseball the past two years very closely. It still should not be so predictable. With all the scenarios, situations in baseball, with all the different players with different skills and abilities, it actually should take a little more thought than to just plug and play by position, shouldn't it?

Ever notice that it doesn't matter whether that position, forget the players name, but, ever notice if that position has poor performance numbers or good, it, that position gets the same billing by this manager. (That is a dumb question, as I can see that you already have.)

It's as if that is all that he really knows or recognizes.

He will be quoted as having said something like this down below, which makes sense at first read, but as you have pointed out, it will be what you have written instead, he says a lot of things, but he is always going in the same direction, and he dances this way, and dances that way with words, but he is heading right to what you wrote above, everytime. Even if it failed several times prior to trying the same thing again.

As a character he is an interesting study.


"We'll see," Baker said. "Certain guys are more conducive to hit than other guys. Certain days I might need a better defensive team out there [depending] on who's pitching for us. There are a lot of different factors when you make the lineup out every day. You put guys in a position where they're most likely to succeed. They might not like it sometimes."


You put guys in a position where they're most likely to succeed.
I honestly don't think he really knows how to do that.

Ron Madden
03-26-2010, 03:58 AM
Dusty Baker will tell us that he looks at all the numbers and statistical information and places his players in roles in which they can best succeed.

The cold hard facts of evidence tells a different story.

reds44
03-26-2010, 06:10 AM
Simple. If 7 ate 9, then 7 doubled his strength. now you have 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 7, 8.... duh.
Most intellegent post in this boards history.

icehole3
03-26-2010, 10:04 AM
anyone remember where Davis batted in 1990???

Big Klu
03-26-2010, 10:19 AM
anyone remember where Davis batted in 1990???

1st: 3 games
3rd: 11 games
4th: 106 games
5th: 1 game

membengal
03-26-2010, 10:20 AM
And he had just finished his 7th (6th?) season with the big club.

Sea Ray
03-26-2010, 10:48 AM
As I recall ED hit leadoff early in his career

Sea Ray
03-26-2010, 10:49 AM
I'm not as hard on Dusty for who he hits leadoff as some around here because of the simple fact that he doesn't really have a bonafide leadoff guy. There are flaws with whoever we choose so why make a big deal over it?

icehole3
03-26-2010, 10:52 AM
1st: 3 games
3rd: 11 games
4th: 106 games
5th: 1 game

not sure where you get your stats but I was wondering did Davis have years where he batted in the 3 hole or was it Larkin who batted 3rd all those years

Hoosier Red
03-26-2010, 11:08 AM
He batted 3rd for about half the games in 1987. I had it up than the page froze on me.

Baseball-reference.com has a lot of great information detailing where guys batted when. You just have to dig through it.

Spring~Fields
03-26-2010, 12:22 PM
I'm not as hard on Dusty for who he hits leadoff as some around here because of the simple fact that he doesn't really have a bonafide leadoff guy. There are flaws with whoever we choose so why make a big deal over it?

What is a bona fide first batter, bona fide second batter, and so forth?

When I take a minute to think about it, I am not really sure that I know what a “bona fide leadoff guy” or number two batter is.

How would we define them?
What characteristics are evident in them?
What supports that they are such?
What are their primary purpose?
What is their primary roles, and how do we know when they are doing well in that role?
What is their key importance?
If you don’t have “bona fide” what is the next best alternative?
Are they even necessary?
How much do they effect runs scored on the season, if at all?

What if we dropped the term “leadoff” and just called them the first and second batter that the opposition faces the most times in PA or AB. Do those first and second batters have an objective effect on runs scored? Are runs scored important to the game of baseball?

I don’t know, I guess we have traditional assumptions passed on or down to us, but are they true? Does any of the outcomes to the questions above have any value tangible or intangible to the outcomes in the game of baseball?

Why not just place the easiest outs in the first batter, second batter, and third batter role for that matter, and just get them out of the way, and to speed the game up? Why do I assume that would speed up the game?

What is a bona fide leadoff guy, and what are their primary characteristics, so that we can recognize them.

What is a bona fide first batter, bona fide second batter, and so forth?


There are flaws with whoever we choose so why make a big deal over it?

Is it a "big deal" ? Why?

For the sake of expediting discussion, really to shorten it. What if we followed this guys input, having no idea who he is or whether he knows what he is talking about, but, what if what he says is applied in comparison to the “why worry about, it‘s no big deal group”? Or worse yet, the one that says CF bats first, and SS bats second group, regardless of their skills, abilities, past history in performance numbers?


The model equations, which are not shown, can be interpreted to characterize the desirable abilities for each batting order position:

1) Getting on base is everything. To much lesser extent, home run hitters should not lead off. Stolen base ability is irrelevant.

2) Similar to the leadoff hitter, but not quite as crucial to get on base; some power is also desirable.

3) Should have fair power, be able to draw walks, and not strike out much.

4) Highest slugging average; also has a good on base percentage and is not necessarily the best home run hitter.

5) Good power; secondarily puts ball in play (i.e. does not walk or strike out a lot).

6) Hardest spot to characterize and probably least critical. Probably want to use player who doesn’t fit well in other positions. Base stealing ability is a small plus.

7-9) Decreasing overall abilities as hitters as characterized by on base percentage and measures of power hitting.

One clear result from this and prior studies is the importance of having the right batters at the top of the order. This follows from the finding that most of the difference in expected runs between high and low scoring lineups using the same players occurs in the first inning. In particular, the leadoff batter must have a high on base percentage. Also, the second hitter must be good.

The practice of leading off a fast runner who can steal bases, but doesn’t get on base much, and putting a weak hitter with good bat control who can bunt or hit behind the runner second is a perfect prescription for a lower scoring batting order.
http://www.pankin.com/markov/btn1191.htm


Some of the models that I have read about and some of the guys that applied them, indicate that the order of the nine really doesn't matter.

Yet, often I see them say something about the batters with the highest OBP or OBA being at the top of the order. Which for me seems to be a bit of a contradiction, on one hand the order of the lineup doesn't matter, yet, on the other, it might be said that who or what is batting one and two with their higher OBP does. Why is that since it doesn't matter?

REDblooded
03-26-2010, 01:16 PM
not sure where you get your stats but I was wondering did Davis have years where he batted in the 3 hole or was it Larkin who batted 3rd all those years

Just go to sites like baseball reference or thebaseballcube... if you go to splits it'll usually show where they batted.

RedsManRick
03-26-2010, 01:24 PM
I'm not as hard on Dusty for who he hits leadoff as some around here because of the simple fact that he doesn't really have a bonafide leadoff guy. There are flaws with whoever we choose so why make a big deal over it?

Even given flaws, some options are better than others. Given the choice of the slow guy with a solid OBP or the fast guy with a poor OBP, he's opted for the latter time and again.

To your point, at the end of the day it only costs the Reds something on the order of a win or two. But I'd rather not adhere to the logic that says if a better solution isn't perfect we should just ignore the choice.

CesarGeronimo
03-26-2010, 02:53 PM
Even given flaws, some options are better than others. Given the choice of the slow guy with a solid OBP or the fast guy with a poor OBP, he's opted for the latter time and again.

To your point, at the end of the day it only costs the Reds something on the order of a win or two. But I'd rather not adhere to the logic that says if a better solution isn't perfect we should just ignore the choice.

I agree with this. Another factor to consider, I think, is that where a player hits in the order can impact the season that a player has. Leading off might not be the best spot for a rookie like Stubbs, for instance, because it will put extra attention and pressure on him if there are periods that he struggles as he adjusts to major league pitching. Additionally, guys like Patterson and Tavares might not have been quite as horrendous at the plate as they were for the Reds if they had been at the bottom of the order, instead of at the top, where their career-worst seasons drew maximum response from the home fans.

In addition, I believe that Dusty's need for a centerfielder who is a base stealer and will lead off and for a shortstop who will bat second has influenced the Reds' personnel decisions at those two positions and not in a good way. The Reds, for instance, could have in my opinion signed a centerfielder last year who was better a fielder than Tavares and who was better at getting on base, but the emphasis was clearly on getting the speed Dusty wants at the top of the order. They surely could also have found someone to sign with a better track record at the plate then Corey Patterson the previous year, but Patterson was believed to fit the mold that Dusty wants in a CF/leadoff hitter.

People talk about the Reds not having someone who fits the mold of a true leadoff hitter. I would argue that the biggest reason for that is that Dusty Baker has sought a different mold for that spot than what many of us would define as a true leadoff hitter and that such a player might well have been on the roster by now if that was one of Dusty's priorities since the day the Reds hired him.

So, to me, the cumulative impact of Dusty's approach to filling the leadoff hitter spot has cost the Reds more than a game or two per season.

Spring~Fields
03-26-2010, 05:09 PM
I agree with this. Another factor to consider, I think, is that where a player hits in the order can impact the season that a player has. Leading off might not be the best spot for a rookie like Stubbs, for instance, because it will put extra attention and pressure on him if there are periods that he struggles as he adjusts to major league pitching. Additionally, guys like Patterson and Tavares might not have been quite as horrendous at the plate as they were for the Reds if they had been at the bottom of the order, instead of at the top, where their career-worst seasons drew maximum response from the home fans.

In addition, I believe that Dusty's need for a centerfielder who is a base stealer and will lead off and for a shortstop who will bat second has influenced the Reds' personnel decisions at those two positions and not in a good way. The Reds, for instance, could have in my opinion signed a centerfielder last year who was better a fielder than Tavares and who was better at getting on base, but the emphasis was clearly on getting the speed Dusty wants at the top of the order. They surely could also have found someone to sign with a better track record at the plate then Corey Patterson the previous year, but Patterson was believed to fit the mold that Dusty wants in a CF/leadoff hitter.

People talk about the Reds not having someone who fits the mold of a true leadoff hitter. I would argue that the biggest reason for that is that Dusty Baker has sought a different mold for that spot than what many of us would define as a true leadoff hitter and that such a player might well have been on the roster by now if that was one of Dusty's priorities since the day the Reds hired him.

So, to me, the cumulative impact of Dusty's approach to filling the leadoff hitter spot has cost the Reds more than a game or two per season.

Good post.

bucksfan2
03-26-2010, 05:25 PM
I agree with this. Another factor to consider, I think, is that where a player hits in the order can impact the season that a player has. Leading off might not be the best spot for a rookie like Stubbs, for instance, because it will put extra attention and pressure on him if there are periods that he struggles as he adjusts to major league pitching. Additionally, guys like Patterson and Tavares might not have been quite as horrendous at the plate as they were for the Reds if they had been at the bottom of the order, instead of at the top, where their career-worst seasons drew maximum response from the home fans.

I think you always want to maximize a team's overall value. I do think we tend to dismiss the mental aspect of different batting order slots. I think BP is a perfect example of having a slot and its preconceived demands change his batting style. I don't know about Stubbs. He did ok, better than I thought, last year in the lead off role.


In addition, I believe that Dusty's need for a centerfielder who is a base stealer and will lead off and for a shortstop who will bat second has influenced the Reds' personnel decisions at those two positions and not in a good way. The Reds, for instance, could have in my opinion signed a centerfielder last year who was better a fielder than Tavares and who was better at getting on base, but the emphasis was clearly on getting the speed Dusty wants at the top of the order. They surely could also have found someone to sign with a better track record at the plate then Corey Patterson the previous year, but Patterson was believed to fit the mold that Dusty wants in a CF/leadoff hitter.

One of my complaints about Dusty is his CF 1, SS 2. I think it is more of a philosophy that Dusty has built based upon sketchy data. In theory it sounds apt. The CF has the largest amount of ground to cover and in most cases is one of the fastest players on a given baseball team. SS had always been considered the same way. They needed to be quick with a strong arm. Most of them were undersized but good bat handlers. Until the recent wave of power hitting SS's it has mostly been true.


People talk about the Reds not having someone who fits the mold of a true leadoff hitter. I would argue that the biggest reason for that is that Dusty Baker has sought a different mold for that spot than what many of us would define as a true leadoff hitter and that such a player might well have been on the roster by now if that was one of Dusty's priorities since the day the Reds hired him.

So, to me, the cumulative impact of Dusty's approach to filling the leadoff hitter spot has cost the Reds more than a game or two per season.

I think too much is made out of lineup formations. And I do think that any thoughts of Dusty costing the Reds more than a couple of games a season because of lineup formation is based more upon anti-Dusty biases. Having Taveras batting lead off wasn't as much of an issue as having Taveras on the team.

Sea Ray
03-26-2010, 06:13 PM
To your point, at the end of the day it only costs the Reds something on the order of a win or two. But I'd rather not adhere to the logic that says if a better solution isn't perfect we should just ignore the choice.


My logic is a little different. I would put it that there isn't a good solution so he'll get criticized no matter who he chooses. I certainly don't think we should ignore the choice. You sure wouldn't see me ignoring him if he started putting Scott Rolen in the leadoff spot...;)

RedsManRick
03-26-2010, 06:39 PM
My logic is a little different. I would put it that there isn't a good solution so he'll get criticized no matter who he chooses. I certainly don't think we should ignore the choice. You sure wouldn't see me ignoring him if he started putting Scott Rolen in the leadoff spot...;)

And I would argue with your definition of good as it seems to actually mean ideal. Sure, I'd love to have a guy with a .400 OBP and Willy Taveras' speed, but how many of those guys exist?

I'd say a guy who gets on base at a .350+ clip, doesn't slug much, and runs the bases well is a good solution. Not perfect, but good. The problem with that solution is one of perception, that Rolen is an "RBI" guy and that 3B should be "RBI guys".

Will Dusty get criticized by somebody regardless of what he does? Of course. But I'd much rather him get criticized while making decisions that lead to winning more ballgames. Not ones that merely minimize the amount of critique.

Sea Ray
03-26-2010, 07:23 PM
I agree with Dusty that Rolen should be in the middle of the lineup where there's likely to be men on base and he can give me professional ABs and (hopefully) drive them home.

He's also too slow to hit leadoff. I want a guy like Stubbs so when he gets on his running skills can distract the pitcher and cause more fastballs to be thrown and basically unnerve the pitcher. If Rolen gets on as a leadoff hitter it won't bother the pitcher a bit. They'll say "thank you Dusty". And when Stubbs gets on while hitting 6th or 7th it won't bother the pitcher nearly as much because if he steals 2nd the pitcher only has to retire the #7 hitter. If he's on 2nd with the #8 hitter up the pitcher will merely walk the #8 hitter and pitch to Aaron Harang or Homer Bailey...Big deal.

Stubbs or Dickerson represent the best choice of leadoff hitters on this team and I'm on the same page as Dusty here.

Spring~Fields
03-26-2010, 07:31 PM
Will Dusty get criticized by somebody regardless of what he does? Of course. But I'd much rather him get criticized while making decisions that lead to winning more ballgames. Not ones that merely minimize the amount of critique.

Yes, it would certainly help if Mr. Bakers decisions led to more wins, which to date, they have not of any worthy note, in spite of excuses and dismissals out of hand, by the passive fan base who struggle to see any relevance in the acronym OBP and how it is applied. Clearly one has to reach first base, first, before they can benefit from touching home.

It’s not a new revelation that winning results would go a long ways toward quieting critiques and criticisms of losing from failed choices, and decisions. The Reds and the media boast a new year, a year of young prospects, veteran presence and an increase in talent. Still, we shall see how Mr. Baker fairs without Barry or Sammy and without a preexisting prefab talent packed team that any professional baseball manager could have won with.

Big Klu
03-26-2010, 07:36 PM
not sure where you get your stats but I was wondering did Davis have years where he batted in the 3 hole or was it Larkin who batted 3rd all those years

I got my information from baseball-reference.com. As Hoosier Red and REDblooded mentioned, it's a good site for finding that kind of info if you have time to do a little looking.

As for your question, Davis hit 3rd in 94 games in 1987, and 72 games in 1989 (most of which were after Larkin suffered his season-ending injury at the All-Star festivities).

BoydsOfSummer
03-27-2010, 02:25 AM
How can we hit both of them 7th?


Not at the same time, dipstick. They are both 7 hitters is what I mean. :p:

Ron Madden
03-27-2010, 03:33 AM
And I would argue with your definition of good as it seems to actually mean ideal. Sure, I'd love to have a guy with a .400 OBP and Willy Taveras' speed, but how many of those guys exist?

I'd say a guy who gets on base at a .350+ clip, doesn't slug much, and runs the bases well is a good solution. Not perfect, but good. The problem with that solution is one of perception, that Rolen is an "RBI" guy and that 3B should be "RBI guys".

Will Dusty get criticized by somebody regardless of what he does? Of course. But I'd much rather him get criticized while making decisions that lead to winning more ballgames. Not ones that merely minimize the amount of critique.

Yes!

It aint that hard.

Captain Hook
03-27-2010, 03:44 AM
My logic is a little different. I would put it that there isn't a good solution so he'll get criticized no matter who he chooses. I certainly don't think we should ignore the choice. You sure wouldn't see me ignoring him if he started putting Scott Rolen in the leadoff spot...;)

I'm much more concerned with who Dusty has playing everyday then I am the order he bats them.Last season he seemed way too committed to playing Willy,Gonzo and Hernandez while they struggled.I really got sick of hearing him explain how things always even out over the course of the year when questioned about continued playing time for them.

As far as Stubbs go.Leading off is fine unless he hits 5 or 6 HR in April but is only getting on base at a .320 or less clip.Use your brain and put him where those kind of numbers dictate he should be batting.Considering the power he showed last season a first month of the year like that should be enough evidence imo to say that he belongs 5th or 6th.

icehole3
04-10-2010, 07:41 AM
Stubbs looking more and more like ED

kaldaniels
04-10-2010, 09:26 AM
Stubbs looking more and more like ED

I don't agree quite yet on that...but that is an interesting comp to say the least.

HokieRed
04-10-2010, 10:28 AM
I think Stubbs is hitting in just the right spot now. The more important lineup question remains, IMHO, why a roughly .700 OPS guy against righthanders continues to bat 4th against them.

Sea Ray
04-10-2010, 10:46 AM
Stubbs would have fit in real well with Vintage Reds teams because he's so clean cut. Reminds me of the days the Reds had a no facial hair policy. Put him in those high top red socks and he'd fit right in