Thread: Opening Day Lineup

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

It's funny to me when people just want OBP in the 2-spot, because the ultimate goal is to score runs. If a high On-Base guy doesn't come around to score, what is the value in having them on base in the first place?

What you've apparently never "heard explained" is that sometimes high on base guys can be high on base clogs. If a speedy guy gets on base less, but yet comes around to score much more often due to his speed, it would seem to be a clear indication of why a manager would prefer the speed guy hitting number 2 in his order.

That being said, Tolbert is obviously not a poster child for this argument, as his time in the 2-spot seemed to usually have to do with maintaining the "lineup continuity" that you mentioned. While I wouldn't prioritize continuity over the best man for the job, I wouldn't belittle it as completely insignificant either. When hitting has much to do with comfort and confidence in repeating a successful approach, I would think there is at least some sense in trying to make that comfort level more likely. I would definitely not say it makes a big enough difference to forego more sound lineup construction, but I would submit that it might make some difference.

IMO, that is backwards.
If that slow footed, base clogging high OBP guy is going to be in the lineup either way, doesnt it make sense to bat him in front of the high power guys who are normally hitting #3,4, and 5?
It seems to me the best opportunity for that slow footed guy to score runs is to have guys behind him who hit doubles and HR's, which also seems like the best way to keep him from clogging the bases.

And the faster, lower OBP guys dont need power guys behind them. They should be able to use their speed to steal 2nd, then score on a single, so it would make sense to bat them in front of the weak, singles hitters, rather than batting the slow footed base cloggers in front of the singles hitters.

Originally Posted by Shane Wahl

Keep in mind that there is absolutely no legitimate way for Mauer not to be batting second this year. Anything else will point to Gardenhire being incompetent about his lineup.

Hicks and Carroll are the only real contenders to adequately leadoff for the Twins. I guess it is *possible* that if Carroll is getting on base at the .345+ level as a starter, then maybe Mauer as the three-hitter makes sense?

Anyway, I really like the idea of Willingham batting third because there are often 2 outs in that first inning and in such a circumstance the most likely way to score a run is by hitting a homer (instead of stringing two extra base hits or three singles together, etc.). I am really not sure why lineups aren't--for the most part--basically just OBP from top to bottom, but whatever.

Note: Hicks might not start out with a good enough OBP, but it will happen eventually.

To take your perspective to its logical end, you wouldn't understand why OBP isn't the most important consideration when determining which players are placed on your roster in the first place. On Base fanatics seem to view "getting on base" as the ultimate end. Yes, you have to get on base to score runs. That doesn't mean that a guy who gets on base more often is necessarily likely to score runs more often. It also doesn't mean that they are more likely to drive in more runs. Balance throughout a lineup is a somewhat nebulous concept, but to me it seems to have value when you consider that the ultimate goal is to score runs.

To be clear, I'm not in the camp that thinks that OBP is the most important consideration in getting a guy into the lineup or not.
My stance is that once a guy is already in the lineup, OBP should be the most important factor (not the only) in determining the #1 and #2 hitters.

First of all, I am not arguing that high On-Base guys are slow footed and clogging up base paths. What I am saying is that getting on base is important in that it makes scoring a run possible in the first place, but it doesn't guarantee the On-Base guy of scoring at a higher rate than a somewhat lower On-Base guy who could steal a base or go from first to third, or first to home.

Your assumption is that the slow footed on base guy and the power guy are not one-in-the-same. Morneau comes to mind as a guy who fits this description. I would rather have Morneau hitting a double with a fast guy on first. I know that your argument is that you would rather have Morneau hitting with a GUY ON FIRST period. I understand that, and in a vaccuum I would choose the same. Keep in mind that I am not arguing for low On-Base guys in the two spot, I am simply saying that a significant amount of speed could potentially outweigh a somewhat higher OBP when in regards to the actual reality of bringing a guy around to touch home plate.

I also tend to think that throughout the history of Baseball, managers have tried many different approaches. An approach that seems to have been settled on, presumably due to its higher level of effectiveness, is to balance a lineup with a combination of speed and OBP guys in front of RBI threats.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

First of all, I am not arguing that high On-Base guys are slow footed and clogging up base paths. What I am saying is that getting on base is important in that it makes scoring a run possible in the first place, but it doesn't guarantee the On-Base guy of scoring at a higher rate than a somewhat lower On-Base guy who could steal a base or go from first to third, or first to home.

Your assumption is that the slow footed on base guy and the power guy are not one-in-the-same. Morneau comes to mind as a guy who fits this description. I would rather have Morneau hitting a double with a fast guy on first. I know that your argument is that you would rather have Morneau hitting with a GUY ON FIRST period. I understand that, and in a vaccuum I would choose the same. Keep in mind that I am not arguing for low On-Base guys in the two spot, I am simply saying that a significant amount of speed could potentially outweigh a somewhat higher OBP when in regards to the actual reality of bringing a guy around to touch home plate.

I also tend to think that throughout the history of Baseball, managers have tried many different approaches. An approach that seems to have been settled on, presumably due to its higher level of effectiveness, is to balance a lineup with a combination of speed and OBP guys in front of RBI threats.

Sure, I can buy that, but it depends on how big of a gap we are talking in both OBP and speed.
If its only 5 points difference and one guy is billy hamilton and the other guy is matt lecroy, well I think that one is fairly obvious.
My original point was taken somewhat off the rails though, and that was this:
The lack of speed shouldnt rule out an otherwise obvious choice.
If a guy is a .385 OBP'er, with minimal power, I think its absurd to say, "I can't bat him #2 because he doesnt have the speed to move around the bases like Matty Tolbert does." And to an extent, I honestly think that is how Gardy considers his lineup construction sometimes.
Same goes for "being able to handle the bat and lay down a bunt."
But I'll save my bunting in the AL rant for another day.

We could only wish to have too many problems with "base-cloggers" in the lineup.

Originally Posted by snepp

We could only wish to have too many problems with "base-cloggers" in the lineup.

The only way your statement makes any sense is if you take my comments completely out of context.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

Sure, I can buy that, but it depends on how big of a gap we are talking in both OBP and speed.
If its only 5 points difference and one guy is billy hamilton and the other guy is matt lecroy, well I think that one is fairly obvious.
My original point was taken somewhat off the rails though, and that was this:
The lack of speed shouldnt rule out an otherwise obvious choice.
If a guy is a .385 OBP'er, with minimal power, I think its absurd to say, "I can't bat him #2 because he doesnt have the speed to move around the bases like Matty Tolbert does." And to an extent, I honestly think that is how Gardy considers his lineup construction sometimes.
Same goes for "being able to handle the bat and lay down a bunt."
But I'll save my bunting in the AL rant for another day.

Our conversation got me thinking and doing some math. I wondered what the threshold would be for preferring speed over OBP. I thought about it this way:

Take Hypothetical Player A, who has a very good .380 on base percentage. Let's say he's reasonably competent on the base paths, and that the speed he has allows him to score 50% of the time. This means that out of 600 plate appearances Player A will be on base 228 times and will score a run 114. Not bad at all, the on base machine gets the job done.

Now take Hypothetical Player B, with an average .325 on base percentage. Let's say Player B is a pretty darn fast runner, however, and that his speed helps him to score 60% of the time, ten percent more than the high on base guy. In 600 plate appearances Player B gets on base 195 times. His skill-set doesn't include the high on OBP of Player A, but he does have that 10% more scoring per time on the base paths due to the skill-set he does have. Player B scores a run 117 times, three more runs per 600 plate appearance than the On-Base guy.

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

Our conversation got me thinking and doing some math. I wondered what the threshold would be for preferring speed over OBP. I thought about it this way:

Take Hypothetical Player A, who has a very good .380 on base percentage. Let's say he's reasonably competent on the base paths, and that the speed he has allows him to score 50% of the time. This means that out of 600 plate appearances Player A will be on base 228 times and will score a run 114. Not bad at all, the on base machine gets the job done.

Now take Hypothetical Player B, with an average .325 on base percentage. Let's say Player B is a pretty darn fast runner, however, and that his speed helps him to score 60% of the time, ten percent more than the high on base guy. In 600 plate appearances Player B gets on base 195 times. His skill-set doesn't include the high on OBP of Player A, but he does have that 10% more scoring per time on the base paths due to the skill-set he does have. Player B scores a run 117 times, three more runs per 600 plate appearance than the On-Base guy.

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

Your completely made-up and non-fact-based situation certainly does point to you being correct.

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Your completely made-up and non-fact-based situation certainly does point to you being correct.

Actually, it does. It illustrates that the ability to score can come from different skill-sets. One type is the skill-set of getting on base very often and converting that on base situation into a run often enough to score a significant amount of runs. Another skill-set puts you on base at a less often percentage, but yet results in converting a higher percentage of on base situations into runs. Of course converting on base situations is in large part based on the hitting that occurs subsequently in the lineup, but if you don't believe that a speedy player with a lower on base percentage like Cristian Guzman could convert more on base situations into runs than a slower player with a higher on base percentage like Doug Mientkiewicz, then you are truly unable to see the actual Baseball forest due to blocked view from the statistical trees.

I just want to see a lot of guys touch third base this season. I don't care if they steal it, get bunted over, hit triples/homers, whatever. I want to see Joe Vavra tear a rotator cuff from throwing up too many stop signs and keep-going signs.

Originally Posted by spideyo

I just want to see a lot of guys touch third base this season. I don't care if they steal it, get bunted over, hit triples/homers, whatever. I want to see Joe Vavra tear a rotator cuff from throwing up too many stop signs and keep-going signs.

Joe Vavra been taunting you, bragging about his impressive rotator cuffs, and you want to take away his point of pride?

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

Actually, it does. It illustrates that the ability to score can come from different skill-sets. One type is the skill-set of getting on base very often and converting that on base situation into a run often enough to score a significant amount of runs. Another skill-set puts you on base at a less often percentage, but yet results in converting a higher percentage of on base situations into runs. Of course converting on base situations is in large part based on the hitting that occurs subsequently in the lineup, but if you don't believe that a speedy player with a lower on base percentage like Cristian Guzman could convert more on base situations into runs than a slower player with a higher on base percentage like Doug Mientkiewicz, then you are truly unable to see the actual Baseball forest due to blocked view from the statistical trees.

Yet, strangely, the MLB runs leaderboards aren't dominated by low OBP fast guys. I wonder why that is?

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

Yet, strangely, the MLB runs leaderboards aren't dominated by low OBP fast guys. I wonder why that is?

Some people choose to make straightforward statements, while some other people opt for sarcastic questions. I don't wonder why that is. I've learned that communication is nuanced, and sometimes people feel more comfortable communicating things in the way you have chosen to.

No, MLB runs leaderboards tend to be dominated by HIGH OBP guys that also have A LOT OF SPEED. Obviously, both of these qualities in combination can often result in the elite type of run scoring that we see on the leaderboards. Do players like cabrera and hamilton occupy the runs leader board despite relative lack of speed? Yes, of course super high on base percentages, not to mention high homerun numbers, lead to more opportunities to score runs. This was never the argument. If you review the thread you would see that I am contending that OBP should not neccessarily be the top consideration when constructing a lineup. To say it more clearly, there is a threashhold of speed that results in more conversions of On Base opportunities into runs than just pure OBP does.

Mauer, fielder, and posey were the three top leaders in OBP this year. Strangely, the first time any of them, fielder, shows up on the runs leader board, is at number 50. Obviously because they were driven in less than some other players higher in the list. Why though? The prowess of the hitters behind them clearly has the most to do with it. Neglecting to acknowledge that their speed and ability to get around the basepaths, however, is absurd. Players with baserunning abilities, a large part of which is SPEED, have an augmented ability convert their On Base opportunities more often than players who aren't as skilled on the basepaths.

None of this is to say that speed should be prioritized over OBP. Obviously the elite combination of both is most desirable. All I am saying, straightforward, is that speed can definately help players who don't get on base as often come around to score at a higher rate per on base opportunity than players with higher OBP who are slower-footed. Therefore, speed should be a consideration when constructing lineups. Sometimes, a slightly lower OBP, combined with greater speed, can result in more runs actually scored during the course of a season.

You're using a straw-man argument. I never said "Low OBP fast guys" should be batted higher in the order. I am simply saying that a very fast guy with an OBP that may be somewhat lower than another player could potentially, and often times does, end up scoring more runs during the course of a season.

First off, Gardy has used Mauer in the two spot before, and when he did, the offense exploded. I don't remember why he stopped, or why he never returned to that experiment, but it did happen.

Second, I don't see Dozier making the team given how he's playing. I'm not sure, if Gardy wants pop off the bench that he should be keeping 4 middle infielders either. Dozier needs to play every day, and at this point, I think he should ply his trade in Rochester.

Third, the whole point of an at bat is to not make an out. I really don't care how the players go about doing it, whether it be a hit or a walk, but a team will score more runs and wear down the opposing pitchers by not making outs. You absolutely need high OBP guys in the top of the order. Those guys see the most at bats and they will be on base more than low OBP guys when the power hitters come up. I didn't mind batting Mauer 3rd when you have 2 decent OBP guys in front of him, but there have been way too many times in Gardyland where the 2 hitter barely has an OBP over .300 making outs in front of Mauer and Morneau, all because they are a scrappy middle infielder that bares the illusion of speed. Mauer isn't going to hit 20 HRs in a season, so batting him second does make a ton of sense. He's not exactly slow footed either, so I don't get what the debate is.

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

First off, Gardy has used Mauer in the two spot before, and when he did, the offense exploded. I don't remember why he stopped, or why he never returned to that experiment, but it did happen.

Second, I don't see Dozier making the team given how he's playing. I'm not sure, if Gardy wants pop off the bench that he should be keeping 4 middle infielders either. Dozier needs to play every day, and at this point, I think he should ply his trade in Rochester.

Third, the whole point of an at bat is to not make an out. I really don't care how the players go about doing it, whether it be a hit or a walk, but a team will score more runs and wear down the opposing pitchers by not making outs. You absolutely need high OBP guys in the top of the order. Those guys see the most at bats and they will be on base more than low OBP guys when the power hitters come up. I didn't mind batting Mauer 3rd when you have 2 decent OBP guys in front of him, but there have been way too many times in Gardyland where the 2 hitter barely has an OBP over .300 making outs in front of Mauer and Morneau, all because they are a scrappy middle infielder that bares the illusion of speed. Mauer isn't going to hit 20 HRs in a season, so batting him second does make a ton of sense. He's not exactly slow footed either, so I don't get what the debate is.

You must not have read the entire post either then, because I said that Mauer in the 2 hole would be a good option if there were no decent On Base guys to put in front of him.

In 2012 Joe Mauer's OBP was .416. He scored 81 runs. ben revere's OBP was .333. He scored 70 runs. The difference between the two run totals was basically Mauer's 10 home runs to revere's 0. Your argument that high OBP guys should be at the top of the order is pointless, as nobody here seems to be arguing against that. I'm certainly not. Of course I want high On Base guys at the top of the order. My argument is that greater speed and somewhat lower OBP can result in higher run totals than higher OBP and lower speed.

Not making an out, getting on base, etc. are all means by which players eventually score runs. So, scoring runs is actually the objective, right? If that's the case then refusing to acknowledge that players with lower OBP's can actually score more runs per On Base opportunity due to their speed is plain and simple ignoring the obvious. Sometimes higher OBP guys don't score as many runs as lower OBP guys who convert the opportunities at a higher rate.

Would you rather have a team that scores more runs, or stubbornly insist that OBP is the end-all-be-all of lineup construction considerations?

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

Actually, it does. It illustrates that the ability to score can come from different skill-sets. One type is the skill-set of getting on base very often and converting that on base situation into a run often enough to score a significant amount of runs. Another skill-set puts you on base at a less often percentage, but yet results in converting a higher percentage of on base situations into runs. Of course converting on base situations is in large part based on the hitting that occurs subsequently in the lineup, but if you don't believe that a speedy player with a lower on base percentage like Cristian Guzman could convert more on base situations into runs than a slower player with a higher on base percentage like Doug Mientkiewicz, then you are truly unable to see the actual Baseball forest due to blocked view from the statistical trees.

It only illustrates that if your math is factual data.
You just made those percentages up, so it doesnt illustrate anything.

Couple things, I have and always will think Mauer should bat 2nd. Worley has looked awful so far this spring. Hope it's just him easing his way in after the off season surgery. I like that you want Escobar over Florimon though. I think the Twins should start Deduno in game #1 of the regular season but I know that isn't going to happen. Of all the candidates to make the rotation Deduno is the only one other than DeVries that is experiencing real success this spring.If you really think about it though who else on the Twins staff has the stuff to go head to head with Verlander? I Vote Deduno for Opening Day Starter!

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

It only illustrates that if your math is factual data.
You just made those percentages up, so it doesnt illustrate anything.

Yes, it does. It clearly illustrates the concept. It does it in a way that is easily digestable. I was simply trying to show you how it is CONCIEVABLE that a player with lower OBP scores more runs due to factors like speed. I would think that instead of saying it illustrates nothing, that you would first say something like: "I understand the concept that you illustrated. But have you seen it anywhere in factual occurences?" That would suggest that you're interested in seeing if the concept is viable, not just in simply looking for a reason to outright dismiss my hypothetical scenario.

If I showed you a situation in which it actually was feasible that it occured, would you state that my findings "prove everything"? I doubt it.

I'll show you a scenario like that anyhow, in hopes that an objective observer would admit I have done so and begin to lesson their stubborness about the ultimate importance of OBP. Since this is Twins Daily, and Gardy we're talking about, I chose some names we're all familiar with.

From 2001-2002 Cristian Guzman and Doug Mientkiewicz played on the same team, both often hitting at the top of the lineup, and mostly against the same pitchers and defenses. They also had a conveniently similiar amount of plate appearances.

During this time, Mientkiewics made 1180 plate appearances and posted an excellent .376 on base percentage. Mientkiewicz was a pretty slow runner, even in his prime. I don't think anybody would really argue that point, but I wouldn't put it past the posters on this board. Anyhow... Mientkiewicz was decent at getting around the basepaths, and scored a run at about 31% of the time.

During that same time period, Guzy made 1183 plate appearances. He posted a mediocre .312 on base percentage. The thing of it is, Guzy was a very fast runner. Not neccessarily a great base stealer even, but he was undeniably fast. Guzy scored 43% of the time.

Who would you rather have? Dougie, the slower, high OBP guy? Or Guzy, the much faster, much lower OBP guy?

During this time, Mientkiewicz scored 137 runs. Guzman scored 160 runs.

Obviously the rest of the lineup, the situations in which each player was on base and many other factors went into the difference in runs being scored. With the huge advantage Mientkiewicz had in amount of scoring opportunities (444 to 369) it would be foolish to not see that speed was very likely a substantial factor resulting in a very good OBP guy who was slower footed scoring less actual runs than a pretty mediocre OBP guy who was pretty darn fast.

Does it always work out like this? No. Just look down the batting order a bit and you'll find Corey Koskie, who made 1225 plate appearances with a very good .365 OBP. Koskie wasn't a speed demon by any accounts, but he scored more than both Mientkiewicz and Guzman, 171 times. The homerun numbers helped Koskie, but it shows a slower OBP guy scoring quite a bit, facing many of the same pitching and defense conditions. See? I'm fair with my arguments about the "Get to Know 'Em" Twins...

Anyhow, even if you're not, I'm confident that I have proven there is at minimum very likely more than just a "billy hamilton to Matthew Lecroy" validity to my perspective on this subject.

Originally Posted by Nick Nelson

Not sure how even Gardy could justify sticking Dozier in the 2-spot unless his bat picks up in the final weeks of spring training. The guy has simply done nothing to show he can handle that role. I'm thinking at this point there's a very good chance Mauer opens as the No. 2 hitter.

Totally agree, only problem is Gardy. for some ?? reason why does he always bat a weak hitting middle infielder 2nd. drive me nuts!!!