Who's Up First?

I like the philosophy of getting that first run and putting the pressure on the opposing team through small ball and putting pressure on the opposing team to execute. I think that getting the first run of the game is very important and it does not seem to get talked about that much any more.  

For me, I lead off with Santana because he is fast and is in a favorable righty/lefty matchup no matter who the opposing pitcher is.

Second is Dozier. He can handle the bat, lay a bunt down, go to the right side and has a good chance to avoid hitting in to a double play because he is quick. Once in a while he can go yard and get you off to an early lead as well.

I like Mauer 3rd putting the ball in play and getting the speed guys running around the bases forcing the other team to make plays. He sees a lot of pitches too and runs the pitch count up while allowing the opportunity to advance runners via pass ball or wild pitch.

If batters 1-2 3 do well, your cleanup guy is seeing a pitcher who is already 20-25 pitches in to the inning and beginning to tire. I like the savvy of a veteran guy like Hunter here to make the most of the opportunity.  

Vargas is an emerging masher and a switch hitter. I like him here in the on deck circle cleaning up Hunter's leftovers while observing Hunter's approach from the on deck circle.

Plouffe is my guy at the 6 spot. Lots of doubles and has developed in to more of a hit to all fields guy with power to boot.

Arcia is my 7. He keeps the righty/lefty thing alternating through the lineup with power to boot.

Suzuki, a rightey hits 8th.

Hicks a switch hitter with speed turns the lineup over to the top of the order with speed on the base paths. (If he wins the spot in center that is).

Summary-

Santana

Dozier

Mauer

Hunter

Vargas

Plouffe

Arcia

Suzuki

Hicks

Shane--I read your linked article, and I'll raise you--I have a copy of The Book on my shelf!

I have long thought Mauer should lead off.

Shane--I read your linked article, and I'll raise you--I have a copy of The Book on my shelf!

 

I have long thought Mauer should lead off.

Haha. Nice.

Maybe I should too. I abandoned that idea since that last "manager" was in charge. It still might be too much for Molitor though! Of course, if Santana falls significantly at all, there is no one left, in my view, but Mauer, unless Hicks starts hitting.

According to your article, the 3-hole is for a team's 5th best hitter...

Barely below the 5th guy. One reason for this is control over the lineup in the first few innings is obviously more possible. If 1st and 2nd are the two best, it makes sense that 4th and 5th are next two, and with more power. The 3rd spot being a power guy makes a lot of sense, especially given how often he will bat in the first with 2 outs and no one on base--a home run threat is a much more efficient way to score than to have Joe Mauer up with 2 outs and no one on base.

I can't get all that excited about the idea of Mauer batting leadoff. I have no gawdy stats to back it up or anything. I do like the idea of taking new and unique approaches to setting up a lineup though. If they tried it, it might be kind of interesting. I just prefer a base stealing threat on first base in the first inning. I'm kind of a get the lead the first time through the order guy. Maybe I have Rickey Henderson with the A's in years past stuck in my head or something. If we bunt Mauer over to second can he score on a medium depth base hit with one out? I suppose maybe but do you want him in that role when Santana could steal second and Dozier hits with no outs and a guy in scoring position with Dozier, Mauer and Hunter all three getting a hack at scoring him? Also, can Mauer score from first on a gapper?

So if moving runner over is what is important, why have him bat first when the batters in front of him are the 8 & 9 hitter instead of batting 3rd and having the first 2 hitter in front of him?  I would think he would "create more runs" in the 3rd hole than as a leadoff hitter.

 

His avoiding outs will be just a valuable in both spots.

I have not argued for Mauer to bat leadoff.

 

 

In 2013, with players over 500 PA, he was 15th in wRC+, but when you look at the actual runs created (runs+RBI-HR) per PA, he was 94 place. 

That's 'runs produced' not 'runs created', two different stats. And that stat uses two stats heavily dependent on other player's actions.

The actual runs created stat, he was 50th in the majors in 2013 even though he missed the last 6 weeks.  RC= on-base factor times advancement factor divided by opportunity factor. Which, in it's easiest calculation (one that uses info we grew up knowing) is: (H+BB)X TB divided by AB+BB.

H=hits, BB= walks, TB= total bases.  

I agree that if Hicks can maintain a .341 OBP, that's a good leadoff guy.

 

I'm more than a little skeptical Hicks can maintain a .341 OBP in regular appearances.

Maybe he gets better with regular appearances.  We tend to forget that he's only played 150 big league games and that in 2014 he raised his batting average 23 points and his OBP 82 points from 2013.  I'm more concerned by his power drop in 2014 but would be less so if he were batting leadoff. 

Mauer's not a horrible idea for the leadoff spot.  Whitey Herzog batted George Brett, whose career numbers are not terribly dissimilar to Mauer's, in the top spot 132 times.  His reasoning was that doing so got his best hitter to the plate more times than any other spot.

That's 'runs produced' not 'runs created', two different stats. And that stat uses two stats heavily dependent on other player's actions.

 

The actual runs created stat, he was 50th in the majors in 2013 even though he missed the last 6 weeks.  RC= on-base factor times advancement factor divided by opportunity factor. Which, in it's easiest calculation (one that uses info we grew up knowing) is: (H+BB)X TB divided by AB+BB.

 

H=hits, BB= walks, TB= total bases.  

I get it, he creates runs we just can't see it in his stats.  Sound like my first financial planner, he created wealth - I just never saw it.

I get it, he creates runs we just can't see it in his stats.  Sound like my first financial planner, he created wealth - I just never saw it.

Yes, like he's very much involved in creating a run when his single/double gets a guy from 1st to 3rd so the next guy can make an out with a ball deep enough to score the guy now sitting on 3B.  Was his contribution to the run scoring not key even though he didn't get a run scored or an RBI?

Might take a little while for Buxton's power to come to fruition. So he probably projects better initially as a leadoff guy where you can utilize his speed. But, yeah, definitely looks like a 2-3 hitter down the road.

Yeah, I'm fine with Buxton starting off in the leadoff spot but I hope he becomes more than that at some point.

I'm also hoping that Buxton becomes more than a (stereotypical) leadoff hitter...but when the power comes, I'm also optimistic that the Twins will have the right players hitting behind him to keep Buxton at the top of the order.

Rickey Henderson started off as a leadoff hitter and stayed there when the power came, and Buxton has that ceiling...then again, Henderson's Oakland and Yankees lineups were pretty deep, so they could afford to keep him #1. Henderson's one of the GOATS imho, particularly as a leadoff hitter, so I'd be stoked if Buxton came anywhere close to resembling Henderson...you know, without referring to himself in the third-person.

We'd be more than stoked if Buxton turned out anything like Rickey Henderson.

I shouldn't have bothered with the imho caveat, but I do love Rickey almost as much as Rickey loves Rickey. I wrote, "I'd be stoked if Buxton came anywhere close to resembling Henderson"; are you taking issue with my not using the first person plural?

Bill James did a study on Rickey Henderson's 1982 or 1983 season in regards to stolen bases.  I'm going by memory and it been a long time since I read the article.  Used to be a simple google search to find and now I can't find it for the life of me.  Perhaps that's because ESPN's Ralph Miley decided to basically call James a racist because of that study. 

Edit, found it: 'Yet for all the fame they're bringing him, Henderson's stolen-base exploits this year have done virtually nothing to help his team from a dismal fate. Why? Despite the attention they command, stolen bases are not, I repeat, very important. Picture a vast desert. A single tumbleweed blowing across the landscape will attract the eye because it's the only thing moving. A runner stealing bases draws attention not because what he's doing is important, but because he is moving.'

'How important are stolen bases? In an article in the 1976 Journal of the Society of American Baseball Research, George Wiley reported on many years of study to determine the correlation between records in each statistical category and team success. He found the correlation between stolen bases and team wins "so low as to conclude that in themselves they have little or no effect on final team standing."

http://www.si.com/vault/1982/09/06/624392/so-whats-all-the-fuss

Henderson had a ridiculous 80% success rate and is +500 stolen bases over second place, Lou Brock. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at but you'd be hard-pressed to find statistics that show those steals didn't have a huge impact over the course of his career.

 

He also managed to scrape together a paltry 297 homers over the course of his career.

 

And then there's the .401 career OBP.

I'm not hard pressed to get at anything, I'm sharing info. Something interesting I read a long time ago.  I'm not downgrading Henderson as a player and neither is Bill James. Just talking about the stolen base. Not Home Runs, Not OBP.

It's not hard to believe that many stolen bases don't actually result in a lot of runs. Steal 2nd base, 3rd out happens right after, guy is left at 2B. Stolen base didn't result in anything.

 

 

There's a lot of value in the stolen base if it's used correctly (and successful the vast majority of the time).

Potential value, not value for sure.  Value only if the stolen base results in scoring. Like it's likely good strategy if playing for one run towards the end of the game if the stolen base gets the runner in scoring position AND THEN he's knocked in.  But if he steals 2B and get stranded, no value at all, even if it was considered good strategy.

And a double has no value over a single if nobody is on base and the hitter doesn't score. yet we count them all as doubles.

True.  But over the course of the a season, we have to factor in the caught stealing numbers too and how that affected things.  Since the stolen base attempt has a chance to fail too. 

And we do count them as doubles, just like we do count successful stolen bases as stolen bases.  Did I suggest we shouldn't?  It's a stat.  The question is the value of the stolen bases stat.

Again, just passing info on studies done by people over years and years.

Which is why success rate is so important. Most stats I've seen have an over/under of around 70%. That's the zone when the stolen base turns from detriment to a positive.

and the study done over years didn't say there was NO value and NO positive, just that the positive is negligible over the course of the season to a team's wins and losses when factoring in stolen bases and caught stealing.

Bill James did a study on Rickey Henderson's 1982 or 1983 season in regards to stolen bases.

The article you're referencing was published in September of 1982 and, while I sincerely appreciate, acknowledge and respect early SABR work, statistical analysis has come a long way over the past quarter century...and I kinda suspect that James, an intelligent and relatively humble man, would at the very least qualify some of the assertions he came to 33 years ago.

The use and effectiveness (in context) of stolen bases has changed over the past 33 years as the game has evolved...and devolved, if you want to call it that, and then gone back again...a couple times over, back and forth, across leagues and individual team dynamics.

My only real concern (and hope, and trust) is that Molitor & co will be forward-looking and dynamic when it comes to the running game and the top of the order; I want the Twins to be ahead of the curve for once as baseball continues to evolve.

The article you're referencing was published in September of 1982 and, while I sincerely appreciate, acknowledge and respect early SABR work, statistical analysis has come a long way over the past quarter century...and I kinda suspect that James, an intelligent and relatively humble man, would at the very least qualify some of the assertions he came to 33 years ago.

Just a question. Has there been a new study that says other-wise?  I haven't seen one.  Has anyone else?

Similar to the potential value of base on balls? It ups the batter's OBP, but is only valuable if somebody else knocks him in.

right, but as long as we remember that a base on balls extends the inning by one batter, adds another a potential run to the basepads, and there isn't much of a chance of the batter/runner getting thrown out on a base on balls:-) 

again, the study I provided is just something to CONSIDER if we're going to start pushing our team to start attempting to steal a lot. I'm not sure I buy it but I appreciate the people who puts years into the study to give us an actual study's result as opposed to just saying they have value because we've been told forever they do or cause we think it does. I can't PROVE the study is wrong, nor have I read any studies that make a better argument saying it's wrong, so I'm not going to for sure say it is wrong. I'm going to allow for the possibility that what I was told most of my life and what I believed for some of my life might be wrong.