Or conversely, how often did Roger Mantle come up with men on base...if Bobby Richardson was your leadoff man

you JUST can't leave it alone, can you, Repoz

How often does a leadoff man come up with no one on base?

My first answer: Every half-inning.

you JUST can't leave it alone, can you, Repoz

No...he killed my Challenge the Yankees team...he destroyed my scribble-in Strat-O-Matic team...and he ruined my thoughts on how an athlete's body should look.

Kubek sucked too.

F the N.L.

Post Out.

Looks like Hanley is going to be batting third this year.

Come on, Richardson "only" batted first 117 times in 1961.

Anyway, I wonder if there's a significant difference between leagues, since NL leadoff hitters are batting behind the pitcher once their first PA is out of the way.

I don't think anybody has too much room to complain about Ramirez's RBIs as long as he scores 120 runs.

Come on, Richardson "only" batted first 117 times in 1961

"only" 117 times

706 PAs

for a team that set a new record in HRs

and he scored a grand total of (drum roll please) 80 runs

(that's eight-zero)

I've always thought that's one of the more astonishing "records" in the history of MLB

Well, that's why only was in quotes in the first place. But it is still a fact that 160 of those PA came in the eight hole, for whatever that's worth. He'd have probably scored 85 or 86 runs if he'd hit first every game.

134 of the 240 HRs were solo shots. I don't really know how unusual that is/was.

If you swap out Richardson for Rickey!, what sort of numbers, individual and team, emerge from that?

If you swap out Richardson for Rickey!, what sort of numbers, individual and team, emerge from that?

Second base defense would get worse.

If you swap out Richardson for Rickey!, what sort of numbers, individual and team, emerge from that?

I think Bobby Richardson is faster than Branch Rickey.

When did Rickey Henderson start getting the exclamation point here? I consider that an Ichiro joke that is almost ten years old now, and thus disrespectful. Rickey deserves something better.

If you swap out Richardson for Rickey!, what sort of numbers, individual and team, emerge from that?

Sounds like a Diamond Mind project. OMG I COULD DO THATT!!!1

Primey for #3.

When did Rickey Henderson start getting the exclamation point here? I consider that an Ichiro joke that is almost ten years old now, and thus disrespectful. Rickey deserves something better.

How about, Rickey!!?

BR had 117 games at the leadoff spot. Scoring a wopping 65 runs. Rickey would of scored at least a hundred.

According to the Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis, the best 1961 Yankee lineup would have been Howard-Mantle-Skowron-Maris-Berra-Boyer-Richardson-Kubek-pitcher. That would have scored 5.258 runs per game, compared to the 5.105 they did score.

Replacing Richardson with Rickey's career OBA and slugging would give them 5.596 runs per game for a lineup of Henderson-Mantle-Berra-Howard-Maris-Kubek-Boyer-Skowron-pitcher. 1990 Rickey would make it 5.846.

How about, Rickey!!?

I'm not following you. Is that Rickey!!??, or Rickey!!?

Scoring a wopping 65 runs.

"What did I just say about ethnic slurs?"

According to the Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis, the best 1961 Yankee lineup would have been Howard-Mantle-Skowron-Maris-Berra-Boyer-Richardson-Kubek-pitcher. That would have scored 5.258 runs per game, compared to the 5.105 they did score.

Replacing Richardson with Rickey's career OBA and slugging would give them 5.596 runs per game for a lineup of Henderson-Mantle-Berra-Howard-Maris-Kubek-Boyer-Skowron-pitcher. 1990 Rickey would make it 5.846.

So, that gives us, per 162-game season:
1990 Rickey vs. real Yankees: +120 runs
1990 Rickey vs. optimal Yankees: +95.3 runs
Career Rickey vs. real Yankees: +79.5 runs
Career Rickey vs. optimal Yankees: +54.8 runs

Also, Optimal Yankees vs. real Yankees: +24.8 runs.

So, that gives us, per 162-game season:
1990 Rickey vs. real Yankees: +120 runs
1990 Rickey vs. optimal Yankees: +95.3 runs
Career Rickey vs. real Yankees: +79.5 runs
Career Rickey vs. optimal Yankees: +54.8 runs

What plays second?

What plays second?

If Rickey can time travel, he should be able to play second. If you want to replace Yogi with Rickey and leave Richardson in, it's:
1990 Rickey vs. real Yankees: +84.7 runs
Career Rickey vs. real Yankees: +44.2 runs

What plays second?

I don't think Rickey is 100 runs worse than Richardson.

Scoring a wopping 65 runs.

No, that was the DiMaggio-Berra-Rizzuto teams.

When did Rickey Henderson start getting the exclamation point here? I consider that an Ichiro joke that is almost ten years old now, and thus disrespectful. Rickey deserves something better.

RICKEY~!

What plays second?

I don't know.

In evaluating career leadoff hitters, you really ought to change the weighting of the on-base vs. slugging aspects of offence in the usual formulas used.

134 of the 240 HRs were solo shots. I don't really know how unusual that is/was.

Not very. That's actually a little below the typical range. Normally, between 56 and 58% of HRs are solo shots; the Yankees were at 55.8%.

-- MWE

Not very. That's actually a little below the typical range. Normally, between 56 and 58% of HRs are solo shots; the Yankees were at 55.8%.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn you already had this knowledge in your head. You're a scary man, Mike. I mean that in a good way.

The '61 Yankees were first in league in HRs but were middle of the pack in OBP. So you would expect that they would be a little above average in solo HRs.

I don't think Rickey is 100 runs worse than Richardson.

You do realize that Rickey Henderson threw with his left hand? I'd say it's quite possible that Richardson was 100 runs better than giving away 90% of your double plays.

Rickey plays left field, Yogi catches, and Elston Howard plays second base. If you're scoring 5.846 runs per game, you can live with that.

Elston Howard playing second base would be pretty entertaining, if you're a sadist. At least Rickey would beat the baserunners to the bag for the forceouts.

Come on, Richardson "only" batted first 117 times in 1961

"only" 117 times

706 PAs

for a team that set a new record in HRs

and he scored a grand total of (drum roll please) 80 runs

(that's eight-zero)

I've always thought that's one of the more astonishing "records" in the history of MLB

Possibly even more astonishing is the fact that Richardson and Kubek were on base together just ONE MOFO time for a '61 Mantle/Maris HR.

That was a 3-run Maris HR.

They were nevah on base together for a Mantle HR.

Richardson and Kubek cost Mantle over 6,000 RBI's and cost me a busted nose from a violent pro-Mays gang beating.

Thanks.

You do realize that Rickey Henderson threw with his left hand? I'd say it's quite possible that Richardson was 100 runs better than giving away 90% of your double plays.

You're not giving away the ones Rickey starts.

Or, Rickey can just throw righty. Since he hit righty, I wouldn't be suprised if he was close to ambidexterous. He'd still net out to a better player than Richardson.

It would not surprise me in the least to learn you already had this knowledge in your head.

Nope. In my Retrosheet DB. Baseball-Reference's Play Index is a wonderful thing, but nothing beats access to the raw data.

-- MWE

Richardson and Kubek cost Mantle over 6,000 RBI's and cost me a busted nose from a violent pro-Mays gang beating.

Police believe alcohol was involved. And alcohol bottles.

What if you move Boyer to second, and see who, between Berra, Howard, and Skowron, handles third better? If it's Skowron, alternate Howard/ Berra at catcher/first base. Late inning defense,move Skowron to first, Boyer to third, Richardson to second. Maybe Blanchard also works out at third? Had a pretty good year, too. Hector Lopez is better option at third, even second, than any of the others, but had maybe a crappier year with the bat than Bobby did.

Elston Howard playing second base would be pretty entertaining, if you're a sadist

Howard was a gifted (multi-sport) athlete, though I agree nobody's idea of a second baseman, and by 1961 the catching had worn him down somewhat. In his youth he would have been a decent player at any position; he wasn't a born-to-catch kind of guy. Anyway I will take him at second over Yogi or Mickey or Roger :)

"Police believe alcohol was involved. And alcohol bottles."

And over-the-shoulder catches of said bottles. When you're a Jet...

He'd still net out to a better player than Richardson.

Yeah, and if I had eight Babe Ruth's I'd go with an all left-handed defense. But if I'm managing the 1961 Yankees plus Henderson, I think I'd start by giving Rickey Hector Lopez' 273 PA, seeing as Lopez was actually a worse hitter than Richardson. Although Bob Cerv hit well in limited time, he'd also be superfluous with Rickey on the roster, so that's another 131 PA for Henderson. And although I'm not sure that Skowron could have handled third, I'd certainly think about some of the other options in #36 before I played a left-handed second baseman.

Howard was a gifted (multi-sport) athlete...

Yes, despite the fact that he really never could run. But I'm not so sure he was worn down from catching by 1961, since he wasn't the primary catcher until 1960.

I don't know.

Third base!

Yeah, and if I had eight Babe Ruth's

Only eight? I'd have nine in the NL and ten in the AL. No, I'll take 200 Ruths so I can stock the minor leagues too.

and ten in the AL.

You're going to have Ruth DH for Ruth????

With 9 Ruths, you really only need maybe 1 guys on the bench in case of injury, and 1 RP for mid-inning pitching changes. Otherwise, when one Ruth gets tired on the mound, cycle in another. Of course, your stadium needs to have the dimensions of the old Yankee Stadium.

You're going to have Ruth DH for Ruth????

Well, if Ruth the pitcher gets knocked out, you don't want to lose Ruth the hitter too... Of course, if you have an entire bullpen of Ruth, that's not an issue.

I wonder if pitching is detrimental to hitting performance. (That is, would Ruth the DH be a better hitter than Ruth the pitcher?) Too bad there haven't been enough dual-use players in the Retrosheet era to compare hitting-when-pitching to hitting-when-fielding. It'd be a cool research idea if someone didn't mind digging though 100-year-old-boxscores, though.

Well, if Ruth the pitcher gets knocked out, you don't want to lose Ruth the hitter too...

Ruth (SP) just goes to LF (e.g.) and Ruth LF comes in to pitch. It's only a problem with mid-inning changes. So, if we have only 9 Ruth's we need 1 RP, who can pitch every day, so Hoyt Wilhelm.

How often does a leadoff man come up with no one on base? 67% of the time. Or conversely, 33% of the time with at least one man on base. Overall, MLB hitters come up with at least one man on base about 45% of the time. Here’s the breakdown by lineup position:
Batting
Order Slot Percentage of Time
At Least One Man on Base
1 33%
2 43
3 48
4 50
5 48
6 46
7 46
8 46
9 45

anyone know these stats broken down by league? Seems very strange to lump them together given the pitcher hitting...

better not let Ed Barrow manage this team of Ruth clones, he would pinch-hit for him with a lefty pitcher every time a southpaw faced them...

I wonder if pitching is detrimental to hitting performance.

This came up in some old Hall of Merit discussions. We did see a number of players who started out as pitchers and switched to the field later in their careers. I didn't see enough such cases to make any kind of valid study, but I did get at least a tentative impression.

Before 1893 (the 60'6" pitching distance), it didn't seem to make much difference - guys like Bob Caruthers and Monte Ward hit just about as well either way. But after 1893, it seemed to make a large difference - the dual-use players were better hitters when they didn't pitch and worse hitters when they did. Understand that this is at the level of whole seasons, not single games.

And it even applies to Babe Ruth.

As a full-time pitcher in 1915-1917, his OPS+ was 189, 121, 162. Outstanding, of course, but ...

As his pitching usage gradually ramped down in 1918 and 1919, his offensive output ramped up - 194, 219.

And then when he stopped pitching altogether in 1920, his OPS+ topped out in the neighborhood of 250.

Of course, that's confounded by his age - you'd expect a power hitter to be better at 25 than at 22 - but it's consistent with what I see from several other players.

anyone know these stats broken down by league?

Yes, thanks to the aforementioned Retrosheet DB. I think Dewan was counting ABs; I counted PAs and my numbers are a little different.

AL PAs with runners on base by BOP, 2008:


And for the NL:


-- MWE

I thought we'd agreed that Ichiro! stays that way and Rickey!! gets 2 '!!'.

OCF, thanks for the info.

I would expect the single-game effects, if there are any, to be different from full-season effects. A full-time position player focuses much more effort into hitting than a pitcher (full or part time) does. Within the same season, that would be controlled for pretty well.

better not let Ed Barrow manage this team of Ruth clones, he would pinch-hit for him with a lefty pitcher every time a southpaw faced them...

Son, it's called playing the percentages. It's what smart managers do to win ballgames.