Originally Posted by BigKlu
My main problem with that analysis is that each of the three you listed have very small sample sizes. Take Dunn for example. You wanna critisize what he's done in only 36 at-bats?
My post isn't meant as a critique of any individual player. If that was the case, I wouldn't be recommending Encarnacion for a quasi-permanent role batting No. 5. After all, he has fared worse there (in an admittedly small number of plate appearances) than Hatteberg, Kearns or Dunn.
But I like the idea of Encarnacion hitting No. 5 because he is one of the few Reds (in addition to Griffey) who really turns up his offense a notch when he bats with runners in scoring position. Encarnacion's results in those instances: 57 AB, 18 H, 23 runs, 31 RBI, .316 BA, .596 SLG. So I would give Encarnacion an extended tryout hitting No. 5, to hopefully plug the gap I mentioned.
I would leave Kearns hitting No. 6. This year, he has thrived there, but wilted when inserted into more pressure-packed situations. Dunn, I'd bat No. 3 or No. 4, most likely No. 3. I think he would benefit hitting ahead of Griffey, and his OBP, if not his BA, justifies the placement.