Opening Day Lineup

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

You can view the post with the whole roster explanation here:

 

My Opening Day Lineup - Blogs - Minnesota Twins News & Rumors Forum

 

Here is the batting order:

 

Starting Lineup

 

 

CF. Aaron Hicks

2B. Brian Dozier

C. Joe Mauer

LF. Josh Willingham

1B. Justin Morneau

DH. Ryan Doumit

3B. Trevor Plouffe

RF. Chris Parmelee

SS. Eduardo Escobar

 

 

Opening Day Starting Pitcher

Vance Worley

 

 

What does everybody think?

[spideyo]

Pretty close to what I posted a while back, except I thought the twins might sign Podsednik and had Dozier hitting 8th (with everyone above him sliding up)

 

http://twinsdaily.com/minnesota-twins-talk/5000-opening-day-lineup.html

 

Saw your bench guesses. I don't think Thome and Colabello both make it. If Escobar is the emergency catcher, they're going to want two guys that can cover 2b/3b/SS

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Yes, pretty similar. I don't think Gardy will be likely to go for Mauer batting second. And really when I think about it, with Hicks' potential OBP and as long as Dozier can have close to average OBP I don't mind them one and two at all. Your lineup didn't seem very optimistic regarding Hicks. Podsednick never seemed very likely to me, but then again neither did Hicks looking so well.

 

Your scenario in which both Mauer and Doumit are unable to catch and therefore Escobar is needed to catch AND one of Carrol/Dozier/Plouffe are unavailable to play the infield seems unlikely at best. And am I remembering correctly that Mastro is said to be able to play a little bit of 2B in an emergency? In your scenario occurred, then Mastro at 2B would be the least of my worries. I would rather have the nice pinch hitting balance of R/L, but that doesn't mean Gardy won't agree with you.

[spideyo]

To be fair, I posted that pre-spring training and had no idea Hicks would come roaring out like he has. I think if Colabello could at least cover 3B in a pinch, there might be a chance they'd carry both him and Thome, but as it stands they are both just too limited in what they could cover on the field. A day-to-day injury from Hicks, Dozier, Escobar, Carroll, Plouffe or Mastroianni would completely hamstring Gardy's lineup options.

 

Now, if we could get a 5 man rotation that could get 6+innings every game, we theoretically could carry 6 guys in the pen, and have a bench of Mastro, Flori, Carroll, Thome and Colbello. That would be pretty sweet. Chances of it happening are incredibly small though

[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.

[Top Gun]

As far as I know Florimon is still the Twins startin ss.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Nick,

 

Thanks for the response. This was my first post here. Nice to have one of the big guys make me feel part of the community right off the bat.

 

While in principle, I agree about Dozier not earning the number 2 spot in the order during Spring Training, I'm still not convinced that Gardy will ultimately see it that way. Odd as it may sound, Dozier might be earning his spot in the order with his solid defense. Clearly his defense has gotten people talking and has made his spot as the starting 2B more likely. If we assume he wins the 2B position we can then nitpick about the choice between Carrol, Florimon, and Escobar. If Carrol were to be given the start at SS, I would see Gardy batting him number 2. In my lineup, however, I am guessing that Escobar ends up as the starting SS. Given this, I just don't see Gardy stacking up the middle infielders at the bottom of the order. He really seems to love to put a "speed guy" in the number 2 spot in the lineup. Going on my roster assumptions, I then choose between Escobar and Dozier for the number 2 spot. While Dozier hasn't been lighting it up, I believe the perception exists that his offensive upside would be make him much more palatable at the number 2 spot than Escobar. Even if Florimon beats out Escobar for the SS spot (which I believe he won't because of Escobar's emergency catching potential) I still would expect to see Dozier number 2 and Florimon number 9.

 

As far as Gardy batting Joe 2nd; I said in my blog post that I may be likely to try it, but I've just not seen enough evidence that this is a likely option given years of witnessing Gardy's style of constructing batting orders. "A very good chance" of Joe batting 2 seems overconfident on the subject unless you know something I don't know (which is very much likely). If I were to bet Monopoly money, I would wager that Joe Mauer bats third on Opening Day and beyond.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Spideyo,

 

Yes, you went on the record with you lineup substantially before I did. I still would have been shocked to see Podsednick signed as it would have indicated very little faith in the Hicks/Mastroanni/Benson combination on the part of the front office and coaching staff. To me, it seemed pretty clear even in early February that the Twins believed their CF would come from inside the organization. Like I stated, to be fair I did not foresee Hicks making the choice of the three as easy as it seems like it is going to be.

[Mr. Brooks]

You guys are over complicating this.

With Gardy its "play 2nd, bat 2nd." Thats it.

[CDog]

You guys are over complicating this.

With Gardy its "play 2nd, bat 2nd." Thats it.

 

Ben Revere plays what?

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Ben Revere plays what?

 

Agreed. This slight against Gardy that he only bats second basemen in the 2-spot has always rubbed me the wrong way. What he does prefer is a "speedy guy who can run around and steal some bases" in the 2-spot. I don't blame him for that either. The fact that the Twins' speed guys have tended to be Second Basemen has simply made that occurrence more often. Now, arguing that he should pay more attention to these speed guys' On Base numbers before he puts them in the 2-spot would be a more fair criticism.

[CDog]

Agreed. This slight against Gardy that he only bats second basemen in the 2-spot has always rubbed me the wrong way. What he does prefer is a "speedy guy who can run around and steal some bases" in the 2-spot. I don't blame him for that either. The fact that the Twins' speed guys have tended to be Second Basemen has simply made that occurrence more often. Now, arguing that he should pay more attention to these speed guys' On Base numbers before he puts them in the 2-spot would be a more fair criticism.

 

That was a much more complete stating of my thoughts. From whether it's a "rule" of his, to why it may have happened a lot, to why it maybe shouldn't. Nice work.

 

I've mentioned it elsewhere before, but my preference leans toward batting Mauer 2nd based on the likely lineup, and I cling to some hope that it may happen because it's happened in the past (a smallish, but not insignificant amount). I don't know if I'd go so far as expecting it, but hoping it. And if he doesn't, it wouldn't cause me too much angst, either.

[Mr. Brooks]

Agreed. This slight against Gardy that he only bats second basemen in the 2-spot has always rubbed me the wrong way. What he does prefer is a "speedy guy who can run around and steal some bases" in the 2-spot. I don't blame him for that either. The fact that the Twins' speed guys have tended to be Second Basemen has simply made that occurrence more often. Now, arguing that he should pay more attention to these speed guys' On Base numbers before he puts them in the 2-spot would be a more fair criticism.

 

I guess I never looked at Matt Tolbert as a big time base stealer.

 

Obviously I was only partially serious about my previous comment. Of course he hasnt hit a 2B'man at #2 every time, but its no secret that he likes to put them there.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

CDog,

 

I agree that Mauer in the 2-spot is sometimes tempting, but in general my perspective has been that it should have been done during certain stretches of time when injuries and roster considerations have made that option the most desirable. Generally speaking, Gardy hasn't done this during times when 'just sliding everybody up' has seemed the most obvious choice. For Gardy to choose to do so when he theoretically has the entire roster to choose from would be even less likely than him doing it in the aforementioned scenarios.

 

That being said, if Dozier, Escobar, Florimon or Carrol were to hit well enough and have decent On-Base numbers then I would rather see Mauer stay as the number 3 hitter. Carrol not having great speed seems to decrease the desirability to have him in the 2-spot despite his usally solid OBP. Still, I am not so sure Carrol in the 2-spot would be a bad thing. In my projection, Carrol is the utility man, so that is a moot point.

 

I also really like to see runners on base with Mauer coming to the plate. People who desire Mauer at 2 don't seem to see him as quite the RBI threat that he can actually be. One good and one decent OBP guy gives Mauer and his plate discipline an opportunity to select a pitch to drive in some runs if he gets one, or to draw a walk and let the big guys swing it. Mauer at 3, with his combination of OBP and ability to drive the ball sounds pretty darn good to me.

[Mr. Brooks]

CDog,

 

I agree that Mauer in the 2-spot is sometimes tempting, but in general my perspective has been that it should have been done during certain stretches of time when injuries and roster considerations have made that option the most desirable. Generally speaking, Gardy hasn't done this during times when 'just sliding everybody up' has seemed the most obvious choice. For Gardy to choose to do so when he theoretically has the entire roster to choose from would be even less likely than him doing it in the aforementioned scenarios.

 

That being said, if Dozier, Escobar, Florimon or Carrol were to hit well enough and have decent On-Base numbers then I would rather see Mauer stay as the number 3 hitter. Carrol not having great speed seems to decrease the desirability to have him in the 2-spot despite his usally solid OBP. Still, I am not so sure Carrol in the 2-spot would be a bad thing. In my projection, Carrol is the utility man, so that is a moot point.

 

I also really like to see runners on base with Mauer coming to the plate. People who desire Mauer at 2 don't seem to see him as quite the RBI threat that he can actually be. One good and one decent OBP guy gives Mauer and his plate discipline an opportunity to select a pitch to drive in some runs if he gets one, or to draw a walk and let the big guys swing it. Mauer at 3, with his combination of OBP and ability to drive the ball sounds pretty darn good to me.

 

I guess I've never understood the reason why a #2 hitter needs to have speed as part of his game?

I mean if you are giving me the choice between two different guys with equal OBP's, sure I'll take the one with more speed.

But, the lack of speed shouldnt be a reason to keep a guy out of the 2 hole, and I'm not sure I've ever heard it explained why it should.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

Mr. Brooks,

 

I understood your jest, and did not think you would die by your ascertation about Gardy batting 2nd Baseman in the 2-spot, but I believe that it is a perception that exists.

 

Baseball Referance has Tolbert's stolen base numbers at an 11 per 162- Game clip. While not exactly a burner, Tolbert could steal a base when called upon. A player with a grand total of 680 plate appearences doesn't seem to have been blocking anybody from the 2-spot, more like just filling in during injuries. This brings me to my conversation with CDog, in which I stated that when a guy like Tolbert is the other option, Mauer batting second seems like a better choice.

 

I would be interested to see somebody with a better mastery of stat-sorting do a study of how often Gardy has batted the 2nd Baseman in the 2-spot compared to the frequency across the league. Noting the OBP of these players on average would also help to confirm or deny actuality of tis perception.

 

Dont look now, but Dozier switched his jersey number. New number: 2. It's meant to be!

[Mr. Brooks]

Mr. Brooks,

 

I understood your jest, and did not think you would die by your ascertation about Gardy batting 2nd Baseman in the 2-spot, but I believe that it is a perception that exists.

 

Baseball Referance has Tolbert's stolen base numbers at an 11 per 162- Game clip. While not exactly a burner, Tolbert could steal a base when called upon. A player with a grand total of 680 plate appearences doesn't seem to have been blocking anybody from the 2-spot, more like just filling in during injuries. This brings me to my conversation with CDog, in which I stated that when a guy like Tolbert is the other option, Mauer batting second seems like a better choice.

 

I would be interested to see somebody with a better mastery of stat-sorting do a study of how often Gardy has batted the 2nd Baseman in the 2-spot compared to the frequency across the league. Noting the OBP of these players on average would also help to confirm or deny actuality of tis perception.

 

Dont look now, but Dozier switched his jersey number. New number: 2. It's meant to be!

 

IMO, the ONLY qualifications you should look at for your top 2 hitters is OBP.

Obviously there would be some exceptions to this, I think it would be a waste to put a 30 HR power hitter at leadoff even if he had the best OBP on the team, but those are extreme exceptions.

Its pretty simple, the #2 hitter is going to get one more PA than the #9 hitter in the vast majority of games.

So, unless Matt Tolbert had one of the 2 best OBP's on the team in those instances that he was penciled in at #2, then yes, he was blocking someone.

My original comment was more or less an attempt to mock Gardy's fascination with "lineup continuity", as if somehow when a guy is at the plate, he's actually thinking, "oh boy, I usually hit 8th, but today I'm hitting 7th, i cant concentrate!!".

I have no idea if Gardy hits 2nd basemen more often #2 than other managers.

And FWIW, I think Gardy is a good manager, but that doesnt mean he's perfect and to me lineup construction is one of his biggest flaws.

I understand that lineup construction has a minimal effect, but even if it loses you 1 or 2 games versus the "optimal" lineup over a season, that can prove to be a very significant amount in some seasons.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

IMO, the ONLY qualifications you should look at for your top 2 hitters is OBP.

Obviously there would be some exceptions to this, I think it would be a waste to put a 30 HR power hitter at leadoff even if he had the best OBP on the team, but those are extreme exceptions.

Its pretty simple, the #2 hitter is going to get one more PA than the #9 hitter in the vast majority of games.

So, unless Matt Tolbert had one of the 2 best OBP's on the team in those instances that he was penciled in at #2, then yes, he was blocking someone.

My original comment was more or less an attempt to mock Gardy's fascination with "lineup continuity", as if somehow when a guy is at the plate, he's actually thinking, "oh boy, I usually hit 8th, but today I'm hitting 7th, i cant concentrate!!".

I have no idea if Gardy hits 2nd basemen more often #2 than other managers.

And FWIW, I think Gardy is a good manager, but that doesnt mean he's perfect and to me lineup construction is one of his biggest flaws.

I understand that lineup construction has a minimal effect, but even if it loses you 1 or 2 games versus the "optimal" lineup over a season, that can prove to be a very significant amount in some seasons.

 

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.

[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.

[Shane Wahl]

Further note: Hicks has a .379 career OBP and even in his weaker seasons he was above .350. That's damn impressive. Hicks at .360 and Mauer at .410 is a *remarkable* top of the lineup, especially when followed by Willingham, Morneau, Doumit, and Plouffe.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

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.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

[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.

[Mr. Brooks]

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.

[snepp]

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

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

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.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

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.

[FrodaddyG]

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.

[10PagesOfClearBlueSky]

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.