"Billy Hamilton and other really fast guys"

[VR]

It seems like a Red hasn't stolen 3rd base since Barry and ED were the kings of it. I am looking forward to the havoc that will be wreaked by one Mr. Hamilton.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Raisor

Because guys on first are already in scoring position when Votto is up.

2012: Votto had 14 HR, 0 triples
2011: Votto had 29HR, 3 triples.
Let's be optimistic and say Joey repeats 2011 in 2013

Let's take a simple scenerio.. Assume the leadoff guy has an OBP 350 (maybe that's too optimistic). For simplicity, we will assume 600 plate appearances for both Joey and the leadoff guy. We will also ignore cases where the inning ends between Joey and the leadoff guy..

Seems like of Joey's 29 HR and 3 triples (total 32), the leadoff guy will only be on base for about 11 of them.. The other 199 times the leadoff guy is on base, he's not automatically in scoring postion if he's on 1b. Yes, I am ignoring when the leadoff guy gets an extra base hit, but your point that "anyone on base is automatically in scoring position for Votto" is flawed.

[kaldaniels]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

2012: Votto had 14 HR, 0 triples
2011: Votto had 29HR, 3 triples.
Let's be optimistic and say Joey repeats 2011 in 2013

Let's take a simple scenerio.. Assume the leadoff guy has an OBP 350 (maybe that's too optimistic). For simplicity, we will assume 600 plate appearances for both Joey and the leadoff guy. We will also ignore cases where the inning ends between Joey and the leadoff guy..

Seems like of Joey's 29 HR and 3 triples (total 32), the leadoff guy will only be on base for about 11 of them.. The other 199 times the leadoff guy is on base, he's not automatically in scoring postion if he's on 1b. Yes, I am ignoring when the leadoff guy gets an extra base hit, but your point that "anyone on base is automatically in scoring position for Votto" is flawed.

That's what I was thinking. I was gonna break down the numbers like you did this weekend. Though I would be inclined to include doubles.

I think the result is gonna be something to the effect that runners on first are in "scoring position-lite" when Votto is up. If we are talking about that one at bat, I think an average hitter plates a runner from second fairly more often than Votto does a runner on first.

[Cant Touch This]

Originally Posted by kaldaniels

That's what I was thinking. I was gonna break down the numbers like you did this weekend. Though I would be inclined to include doubles.

I think the result is gonna be something to the effect that runners on first are in "scoring position-lite" when Votto is up. If we are talking about that one at bat, I think an average hitter plates a runner from second fairly more often than Votto does a runner on first.

I think you have to include doubles...Hamilton will likely score from first base on most doubles. However, I still disagree with the argument of the leadoff hitter not stealing bases in front of Votto.

In truth, Hamilton would be stealing bases in front of the #2 hitter first. As much as I value Votto's bat, there's still a greater-than 60% chance that Votto won't drive home a runner from first (or second) base. Why take Phillips or whoever is hitting second out of the equation? I have no problem with Phillips driving home the leadoff hitter instead of Votto, or at least moving him to third where the chances of Votto driving him home increase exponentially. Someone else can calculate those odds...

[klw]

The argument against stealing in front of Votto is that it opens up first and Votto would just be walked. This is reduced if Bruce and/or Ludwick is next and is hitting well. What may really reduce this, however, is if Hamilton also takes third. I don't know why but it seems that guys are less likely to get walked with a runner on third that when the runner is on 2nd but I could be wrong. In theory you would really want the lineup (Post-Choo) to be:

BHAM
Hannigan
Votto
Lud
Bruce
Frazier
Phillips
Cozy
Price/Chapman/Latos /Cueto/ Leake

This way you have the extra bat control/ contact abilities of Hanigan in place. Though if Mes is in the lineup, flip the C and Phillips.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by klw

In theory you would really want the lineup (Post-Choo) to be:

BHAM
Hannigan
Votto
Lud
Bruce
Frazier
Phillips
Cozy
Price/Chapman/Latos /Cueto/ Leake

I assume that's David Price in the rotation... or does our pitching coach take an unexpected late-career detour?

[Brisco]

Originally Posted by klw

The argument against stealing in front of Votto is that it opens up first and Votto would just be walked. This is reduced if Bruce and/or Ludwick is next and is hitting well. What may really reduce this, however, is if Hamilton also takes third. I don't know why but it seems that guys are less likely to get walked with a runner on third that when the runner is on 2nd but I could be wrong. In theory you would really want the lineup (Post-Choo) to be:

BHAM
Hannigan
Votto
Lud
Bruce
Frazier
Phillips
Cozy
Price/Chapman/Latos /Cueto/ Leake

This way you have the extra bat control/ contact abilities of Hanigan in place. Though if Mes is in the lineup, flip the C and Phillips.

Billy will not bat second... if he is at the front of the order, he will lead off. He will run during the AB of the next hitter. Simply put, the issue of "stealing second in front of Votto" is only an issue when BP flies out on the first or second pitch, because Billy will be running in the first three pitches to BP.

Why? Because he can.. and because BP is a DP machine (69 since 2008 is way more than anyone else except Ludwick who is at 66).
If they think he will go, the 1B has to stay close to first, and when a runner does go, either the 2B or SS cheat towards second... that opens up some holes in the infield defense so that some of BPs DP balls can sneak through.

If BP is the #2 hitter next year with BHam leading off... I hope he works on his bunting skills. BP hits the ball pretty hard, so the INF has to respect that and play deep. That plus the defenders focusing on BHam leads me to believe that he would have a big increase in success to bunt for a hit.
I also think that Billy rounds second faster than anyone I have ever seen.
If BP bunts to the 3B side (easier for a right hander) and Hamilton was going on the pitch, he will be hitting second at full speed when the 3B is throwing to first. I simply do not think the 1B can catch and get the throw to third and the tag down before Billy gets there.

[klw]

Originally Posted by RedEye

I assume that's David Price in the rotation... or does our pitching coach take an unexpected late-career detour?

I wondered if anyone would catch that Bailey + X for Price move.

[Vottomatic]

Originally Posted by Raisor

I'd rather Hamilton hit at the bottom of the lineup when the time comed. Don't really want him stealing bases ahead of Votto.

YMMV

Baseclogger.

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Brisco

Billy will not bat second... if he is at the front of the order, he will lead off. He will run during the AB of the next hitter. Simply put, the issue of "stealing second in front of Votto" is only an issue when BP flies out on the first or second pitch, because Billy will be running in the first three pitches to BP.

Why? Because he can.. and because BP is a DP machine (69 since 2008 is way more than anyone else except Ludwick who is at 66).

Because he can... and because it will improve the Reds' chances of scoring.

Hamilton in scoring position improves that, as does opposing teams decision to walk Votto in front of Ludwick and Bruce.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by klw

I wondered if anyone would catch that Bailey + X for Price move.

Miracles do happen, I suppose. If Hamilton isn't part of the deal, I would assume it would have to be Bailey + Winker, if not Bailey + Stephenson, to land the reigning AL Cy Young winner.

[klw]

Originally Posted by RedEye

Miracles do happen, I suppose. If Hamilton isn't part of the deal, I would assume it would have to be Bailey + Winker, if not Bailey + Stephenson, to land the reigning AL Cy Young winner.

Yeah, probably not a match.

[membengal]

Maybe this is a generational i thing. I grew up watching baseball in the 70s/80s.The guys with the crazy speed were terrifying. They could ruin games and get in pitchers's heads from the outset. Coleman/McGee in st. louis. Raines in Montreal. Henderson in Oakland. Wilson in KC. Etc. nobody in kc, for instance, ever.worried for a second about wilson getting thrown out ahead of george brett. They were too busy focusing on the help he gave brett by being such a terror on the basepaths.

IF hamilton could reach the wilson level, i would probably cry a little from joy. Rare stuff.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

[bigredmechanism]

Originally Posted by VR

It seems like a Red hasn't stolen 3rd base since Barry and ED were the kings of it. I am looking forward to the havoc that will be wreaked by one Mr. Hamilton.

Freel did from time to time.

My cousin, who doesn't watch any baseball, put a game on when I was over one time. Freel walked or got a basehit. Then stole second. Then stole third. I think he scored on a sac fly.

My cousin was convinced that Freel must have been the best player in the majors because he scored a big run seemingly single handed, and his reasoning was (and I quote) "that's what you want to do."

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by membengal

Maybe this is a generational i thing. I grew up watching baseball in the 70s/80s.The guys with the crazy speed were terrifying. They could ruin games and get in pitchers's heads from the outset. Coleman/McGee in st. louis. Raines in Montreal. Henderson in Oakland. Wilson in KC. Etc. nobody in kc, for instance, ever.worried for a second about wilson getting thrown out ahead of george brett. They were too busy focusing on the help he gave brett by being such a terror on the basepaths.

IF hamilton could reach the wilson level, i would probably cry a little from joy. Rare stuff.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I think it is. Today, we know that OBP is king. In the 70's and 80's we didn't. Outs weren't valued the same way then as they are now. Also, runs were actually more important then (lower run scoring environment, making each run more valuable) than they are now, so the risk was perhaps a little more worth it.