Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Gonfalon Cubs > Discussion
Gonfalon Cubs
— Cubs Baseball for Thinking Fans

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

   1. Walt Davis Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:12 AM (#2033036)
Maybe MacPhail's a closet stathead. He's right -- the Cubs can't get clutch hits. You know the ones -- the ones that lead off innings and the ones that go for extra bases.

overall: 245/301/364
runners on: 251/318/385
RISP: 232/311/373
RISP, 2 out: 136/240/247
close & late: 250/337/406 (opponents: 194/306/266)

God forbid ESPN would have leading off or nobody out splits!

Anyway, the RISP, 2-out numbers are bleak, but all those other ones are better than the overall numbers (though still bleak). If we'd "come through" in those RISP 2-out situations like we have overall, we might have 12-15 more runs!!

On the rotation, three of them have been doing just fine. The rest have stunk -- whether old (Rusch, Wood) or "young" (Hill is 26, Guzman and Williams 24). The bullpen has been fine and the important guys have been excellent.

And of course more of that frustrating rhetoric -- everyone is stinking it up therefore no one person is to blame therefore no one is accountable.
   2. Walt Davis Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:27 AM (#2033041)
And of course the Cubs have been shutout 6 times in the last 23 games -- must be close to a 21st century record. :-)

You can add another 5 games with just 1 run.

That's nearly half their games with 1 or fewer runs -- that's amazing.

13 of their 18 losses have been by more than 3 runs. At least other teams aren't racking up saves against us! :-)

For comparison, the Royals have only been shutout 4 times and scored 1 in 8. They have lost 15 by more than 3 runs. That's all season.

The Cubs' run differential is -62 runs. That's 28 runs worse than Washington, 25 runs worse than the Os, 23 runs worse than Pittsburgh, 21 runs worse than Florida, 11 runs worse than the Angels, 6 runs worse than the D-Rays. Thank god for the Royals.

We are now scoring fewer runs per game than the Royals. But that's not a fair comparison because they have the DH in that league. :-)
   3. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:45 AM (#2033046)
Ross hits on the big point, but what jumped out to me was the same thing that has always jumped out over the last month -- accountability.

We've heard nothing but excuses and explanations for the past 3 years (if not for the past century). In early December, Jim Hendry said on public airwaves that 79 wins wasn't acceptable and wouldn't be acceptable as long as he's GM . . . and that was in a season where both Prior and Wood spent substantial time on the DL and they lost one of the team's best hitting stars in April.

This team is clearly not even going to meet that level, yet whenever the issue of change comes up, everyone in the Cubs organization consistently says "you can't blame <u>(insert name)</u> because of all the injuries." Here's MacPhail's latest version of this:

"We need to get at full strength and have everybody play to their accustomed level and see how we go from there and find out how good we can be."

Of course, if everyone was playing at what the organization figured to be "their accustomed level," there would be no need for change -- the team would be comfortably in first place. Meanwhile, hostilities would be over in Iraq and Osama bin Laden would be found and brought to justice. It ain't happening soon.

I thought the whole point of getting rid of a management team was because they aren't enabling their subordinates to perform at their optimal level. That isn't happening, hasn't happened in weeks, and doesn't appear to be happening anytime soon, yet we continue to hear this "wait and see" crap.

When will there actually be repercussions? I mean, beyond the punitive demotion of guys like Rich Hill, Jerome Williams, and Angel Guzman? When will the team do something that might actually address a real problem?
   4. 100 Years is Nothing Posted: May 23, 2006 at 10:56 AM (#2033062)
The three blind mice don't see any problems on the Cubs. McFail is happy they sell out every game, Hendry has some insane man-love for Dusty, and Dusty feels bunting with two out and the tying runs on in the ninth is a great move. How can you not like that?

Dusty was brought here because he got the best out of his players, yet since he has been here the Cubs have been among the worstst fundamental teams in baseball, and from what I have seen, none of the boneheaded plays seem to be discussed with either the team as a whole or the player in question, as these problems continue to happen.

It is too late this year to do much to plug this stinkhole of a team, but to even consider an extension for should be a capital offense. This team needs to be blown up, starting with McFail, and ending with whoever coaches down in the Dominican Summer League.

The "let's make excuses for everyone" philosophy of this team needs to go, but that won't happen with this trio. It is a shame there is no accountability in this organization, and until there is, this team will continue ro flounder. Time for me to find a new team to watch, because I can't put up with this organization any more.
   5. dcsmyth1 Posted: May 23, 2006 at 11:09 AM (#2033063)
“You just have to do better with runners in scoring position,” MacPhail said Monday before the Cubs’ game against the Florida Marlins. “It’s something they’re certainly aware of and certainly working on, we just have to continue it through into the game.”


Although he is literally correct, as Walt points out, the second part of the quote is BS. You can't "work" on hitting better (than your expected norm) with RISP. The Cubs appear to simply be having bad luck in the timing of their hits. But McFail doesn't want to be appearing to blame bad luck, so he makes up the idea that they're working on it.
   6. Andere Richtingen Posted: May 23, 2006 at 12:19 PM (#2033083)
Although he is literally correct, as Walt points out, the second part of the quote is BS. You can't "work" on hitting better (than your expected norm) with RISP.

Well, that's what you and Walt think. Working on hitting with RISP might not be your way of getting out of a slump, but it IS the Solid, Slow and Unspectacular™ way. MacPhail estimates that with the proper drills and preparation, the Cubs should be coming out of this hitting slump some time around 2009.

Our starting left fielder is in a truly monumental slump. It hasn’t been discussed much, but Murton has been awful all May. His approach at the plate has deteriorated, and he hasn’t had an extra base hit in almost a month. Ronny Cedeno has average 3.35 pitches per plate appearance, one of the lowest rates in the league.

Should this be surprising in an organization that hasn't developed a star position prospect since the Reagan Administration? We all had (and still do, I suppose) hope that Murton was fundamentally strong enough to overcome the malaise which permeates every cubic inch of the Cubs clubhouse, but we have to look at the track record and be skeptical of that.
   7. Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan Posted: May 23, 2006 at 02:36 PM (#2033172)
"We all had (and still do, I suppose) hope that Murton was fundamentally strong enough to overcome the malaise which permeates every cubic inch of the Cubs clubhouse, but we have to look at the track record and be skeptical of that."

I'm not a Cubs fan by any stretch (White Sox fan), but the criticisms of this organization are becoming ridiculous. During the off-season, everyone around here ####### and moaned about how Dusty's love of Veteran Presence meant that Murton probably wouldn't get a chance to play. Apparently, everyone was wrong -- the Cubs play Murton everyday (he's been in 43 of the team's 44 games), he's just not that good. And THAT'S the team's fault as well?
   8. God can’t be all that impressed with Charles S. Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:11 PM (#2033197)
And THAT'S the team's fault as well?

Yes, Dusty's handling of Murton and of young players in general is causing the problem. With Murton specifically, through April, he was doing fine. Not much power yet, but a solid on-base percentage and he was going deep in counts. Meanwhile, every time he would go a game or two without a hit, Dusty would say he needs to get more aggressive. As the May slump developed, Murton started swinging earlier in the count and the slump got worse. Based on Dusty's history and that of his coaches, I think they have encouraged Murton to be more aggressive at the plate which is exactly the wrong way for a young player to get out of a slump or to better learn the pitchers in the league. It also takes away a major strength of Murton's offensive game which was his ability to work the pitcher.

Secondly, Dusty's history of benching young players at the drop of a hat for his "guys" seems to have scared Hendry away from going after a decent fourth outfielder in the off-season. You're Jim Hendry. You know you need a solid righthand hitting veteran OF (a Jay Payton type) to spell Jones against lefties and provide the occasional day off for Pierre and Murton. You also know that if that player has any history at all in the big leagues, Baker will throw him into left field five times a week the minute Murton has an 0-10 slump. Weighing your options, you decide that getting playing time for Murton is more important than having that good fourth outfielder. Pretty soon, you have a roster with 5 middle infielders (6 if you count Bynum), 12 pitchers and no one with any pop on the bench.
   9. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:15 PM (#2033199)
I like that Juan Pierre stat. The apologists may claim it to be unfair or irrelevant because he's the lead-off man, but this just introduces a point that's always irked me...THE BATTING ORDER CONCEPT REALLY ONLY MATTERS IN THE FIRST INNING!!!! Am I the only person who's figured this out?! After the first, the top of the order just represents the guys who get the most AB's and most RISP chances. And for the second consecutive year, we've got one of our absulute sh**tiest hitters on the ENTIRE ROSTER up there more than anyone else (he doesn't even get a day off)! But that's Dustyball. Blind, thoughtless routine, like he's playing a game of Sorry! For this team, whoever's got the highest BA on any given day should lead off. I know, sacrilege, but it would indisputably better this team's chances of getting a clutch hit.

Dusty: "Baseball's a game of breaks, and I know we've got to have a bunch coming our way." There you go, give that man another contract!

Question: did the three ex-Cub Marlin pitchers who shut the Cubs down yesterday all leave in the same trade, or different trades last offseason?
   10. Neil M Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:16 PM (#2033200)
he's just not that good. And THAT'S the team's fault as well?

Arguably, yes.

When Murton came up last summer, he was a breath of fresh air - a patient hitter, willing to go deep in the count, look for his pitch and, if it didn't come, then he'd walk. He also showed some opposite field pop and a willingness to hit to all fields. His short demotion to Iowa, when injury to Hairston brought the recall of Corey Patterson, was accompanied by an expressed desire on the part of Dusty Baker that he (Murton) would work on pulling the ball more.

This year, Baker has spoken of wishing Murton showed more 'aggression' at the plate. Now we're seeing the results of this strategy. It angers me that this young guy came up looking good and from the get-go the pressure has been put on him to be something he's not. It's the same thinking that all but finished Corey Patterson and it's plain stupid.
   11. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:20 PM (#2033204)
I do not blame Dusty for Murton. Maybe Dusty is telling him to be more aggressive maybe they haven't. What I do know is they are not telling him to stop being so darn powerful gosh darn it. The league has adjusted to Murton, it is now Murton’s turn to adjust. Maybe a better manager would help it along quicker but if he can’t figure it out for himself then he never was going to have a chance up in the bigs anyway. I am expecting a good second half from Murton, the only think I want Dusty to do is keep putting him out there.
   12. Neil M Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:21 PM (#2033205)
Question: did the three ex-Cub Marlin pitchers who shut the Cubs down yesterday all leave in the same trade, or different trades last offseason?

Nolasco and Pinto represent two thirds of the bounty the Cubs coughed up for Juan Pierre (the third, Sergio Mitre, is also in the Marlins' rotation). Wellemeyer was a separate deal.
   13. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:32 PM (#2033215)
the top of the order just represents the guys who get the most AB's and most RISP chances.
Apparently you are the only person seeing the lead-off hitter getting the most RISP chances.
   14. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2033218)
"Apparently you are the only person seeing the lead-off hitter getting the most RISP chances."

I don't get it, was that sarcasm? In case it wasn't here's the line again in full context:

"After the first, the top of the order just represents the guys who get the most AB's and most RISP chances."
   15. God can’t be all that impressed with Charles S. Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:35 PM (#2033219)
I think you are on the right track, Chizzle, but in the NL, where the #9 hitter is significantly worse than the rest of the line-up, the lead-off hitter will lead off more often. After all the pitcher will make a lot of outs, thus a lot of third outs. Thus, the on-base percentage of the leadoff hitter is really the key, not his batting average or ability to drive in runs. The top OPS guy should still probably hit 3rd, one would hope behind the top two OBP guys.
   16. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:40 PM (#2033222)
"After the first, the top of the order just represents the guys who get the most AB's and most RISP chances."
You cannot ignore the first inning to make your case. Plus you might be right about the "after the first" remark but I would actually want to see where you got your data from.
   17. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:44 PM (#2033226)
but in the NL, where the #9 hitter is significantly worse than the rest of the line-up, the lead-off hitter will lead off more often.


Ok, but this is the Cubs. I was keeping in mind the fact that our #1, and #7/8 is hitting much like the garbage you would expect from a #9. At least our pitchers can stay out of the DP. In general, I agree with a traditional batting order with the exception of the speed factor for the #1 and #2 spots, unless of course your roster is built like the '87 Cardinals, which we will not likely ever see again.
   18. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:47 PM (#2033229)
You cannot ignore the first inning to make your case. Plus you might be right about the "after the first" remark but I would actually want to see where you got your data from.


I got it from a well-thumbed journal of statistical baseball trends shared by Gene Clines and Dusty Baker.
   19. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:48 PM (#2033230)
WDTWT: Apparently, everyone was wrong -- the Cubs play Murton everyday (he's been in 43 of the team's 44 games), he's just not that good. And THAT'S the team's fault as well?

Charles S: Yes, Dusty's handling of Murton and of young players in general is causing the problem.



I disagree. I'm not saying that Dusty handles his young players well, but I'm certainly not blaming him for Murton not hitting.

Murton has less than a year of MLB experience. It seems to me that it is quite possible that the league has figured Murton out and that Murton needs to make adjustments as a result. While Dusty and his staff can help, it's ultimately up to Murton to make the changes necessary.

In any event, it's too soon to tell what he'll end up being in the long run. Personally, I doubt he'll be a real impact player, but whether he turns out to be a legitimate regular or a fringe guy like Brant Brown remains to be seen.

Furthermore, if he does turn out to be a fringe guy, I don't necessarily blame Dusty for that either. Murton is what he is, and IMO the only people that were touting him with legitimate star potential were/are looking at him through tinted, rose-color Cubbie glasses.

If Murton doesn't pan out, perhaps it's fair to (once again) observe how the Cubs can't seem to scout/acquire/develop any meaningful position players, but I don't really see how this is all Dusty's fault.
   20. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:54 PM (#2033239)
Secondly, Dusty's history of benching young players at the drop of a hat for his "guys" seems to have scared Hendry away from going after a decent fourth outfielder in the off-season. You're Jim Hendry. You know you need a solid righthand hitting veteran OF (a Jay Payton type) to spell Jones against lefties and provide the occasional day off for Pierre and Murton.

I also disagree with this and think it gives Hendry far more credit than he deserves. Yes, Dusty has been known to bench young players at a moment's notice, but I've never seen anything to indicate that this deterred Hendry from getting another OF -- in fact, I've never seen any indication that Hendry doesn't feel the same way as Dusty.

Likewise, while we all can see that Hendry needed to get a platoon partner for Jones, I've never heard Hendry recognize this at all . . . including when he signed Jones in the first place. Put another way, when you say "[y]ou know you need a solid righthand hitting veteran OF," I'm not convinced Hendry knew this at all.
   21. Andere Richtingen Posted: May 23, 2006 at 03:55 PM (#2033242)
Apparently, everyone was wrong -- the Cubs play Murton everyday (he's been in 43 of the team's 44 games), he's just not that good. And THAT'S the team's fault as well?

First off, playing Murton every day and Murton developing as a major leaguer are two separate issues.

Second, I again point to the Cubs track record developing position players.
   22. God can’t be all that impressed with Charles S. Posted: May 23, 2006 at 04:05 PM (#2033250)
Murton has less than a year of MLB experience. It seems to me that it is quite possible that the league has figured Murton out and that Murton needs to make adjustments as a result. While Dusty and his staff can help, it's ultimately up to Murton to make the changes necessary.


Certainly it's up to Murton to make adjustments. That's true of any young player. But he has gotten worse at the one thing he was definitely good at. That happens to be the one thing Dusty's Cubs have been consistently weak at, patience at the plate and the ability to work the pitcher. I don't think its a huge stretch to lay much of the blame for this regression in Murton's game on Dusty and his staff.

I also disagree with this and think it gives Hendry far more credit than he deserves.


The only other possibility is that Hendry has very little idea of how to put together a big league bench. Oh wait, okay, you win that one.
   23. Kiko Sakata Posted: May 23, 2006 at 04:08 PM (#2033251)
Put another way, when you say "[y]ou know you need a solid righthand hitting veteran OF," I'm not convinced Hendry knew this at all.

Well, in Hendry's defense (and this is the only Hendry defense you'll get from me today - more than one a day and I feel dirty), he did give NRIs to Spring Training to Restovich and Marquis Grissom.
   24. Spahn Insane Posted: May 23, 2006 at 04:11 PM (#2033254)
I saw this mentioned elsewhere, but I figure I'll repeat it:

Ricky Nolasco drove in as many runs in last night's game as Juan Pierre has driven in all season.

Get your own damn Prozac.
   25. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 04:39 PM (#2033287)
Since my headache's already in full swing, how about some split stats for our tireless everyF***ingday leadoff hitter:

vs. LHP -- AVG .170, OBP .200, SLG .189

at Wrigley -- AVG .183, OBP .221, SLG .220

RISP -- AB 26, AVG .115, OBP .179, SLG .115

By contrast Todd Walker has 30 AB with RISP for a .333/.410/.367 line. I hope that sheds some light on the lineup concept nonsense. <u>Our leadoff hitter has had almost as many chances to drive in runs as our #3</u>, albeit helped in part by his own uselessness.
   26. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: May 23, 2006 at 04:51 PM (#2033293)
Here's the data from MGL and Tango's little tome:

Percentage of PAs with men on base by position in the batting order:

1st - 36%
2nd - 44%
3rd - 48%
4th - 51%
5th - 48%
6th - 46%
7th - 47%
8th - 46%
9th - 45%

This is not NL specific and I didn't see any NL specific data when flipping back through the chapter.
   27. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 05:02 PM (#2033305)
I hope that sheds some light on the lineup concept nonsense.

No, it doesn't. While the majority of Walkers AB have been in the 3 hole he has a significant amount in the two hole. He has 30 AB's with 5 walks and 1 HBP with RISP in 94 AB's in the 3 spot. While Pierre with 171 AB's in the #1 spot has 29 AB's and 2 walks with RISP. If you add DLee's 44 AB's in the 3 spot you can add 10 more AB's with 4 walks with RISP to the mix.

So in 171 AB's in the #1 spot Pierre has 31 plate appearances with RISP. With Lee and Walker in the 3 spot you have in 138 AB's with 50 plate appearances with RISP. In 44 games that's a lot.
   28. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 05:04 PM (#2033309)
Thank's for the data Pops
   29. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 05:56 PM (#2033348)
Certainly it's up to Murton to make adjustments. That's true of any young player. But he has gotten worse at the one thing he was definitely good at. That happens to be the one thing Dusty's Cubs have been consistently weak at, patience at the plate and the ability to work the pitcher. I don't think its a huge stretch to lay much of the blame for this regression in Murton's game on Dusty and his staff.

First, let me observe that for all of Murton's struggles, his plate discipline is not as lousy as you think. In May, he's had 61 ABs and has drawn 6 walks, striking out 11 times. These are adequate numbers -- I'd love to see similar patience by Ronny Cedeno (1 BB/18 K in 80 ABs this month) or Jacque Jones (3 BB/9 K in 68 ABs this month). Indeed, only two Cubs have drawn more walks this month -- Barrett and Walker.

Still, Murton has slumped, there's no question about that, and has had virtually no power whatsoever. But to put this on Dusty? Please don't make me list all the people who initially have a run of success, then struggle after a few months. The list of players would run into the thousands, even under the best managers in the history of the game.

Dusty may not be helping Murton get out of it, but it's quite a stretch to say that Murton's problems are the result of Dusty.
   30. Cooper Teenoh Posted: May 23, 2006 at 06:46 PM (#2033385)
I heard it reported somewhere (I'm sorry to not remember, but it was an actual major media outlet) that Gene Clines has been working with Murton on turning on the ball; the person who pointed it out noted that Murton has not been going to right field as much of late. I'm not sure if either of those things are true, and I want to be clear about that, but working with Murton on pulling pitches could explain a slump. It could also be either the training which helps him take a step forward as a player, or the step that hopelessly screws up his approach. Unfortunately, only hindsight will provide the answer.
   31. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 06:55 PM (#2033391)
My point is that sometimes a slump is just a slump, and that it's also something quite common for a young player to experience when he's just breaking into the big leagues.

It isn't necessarily something to pin on the manager, even if it's one I dislike.
   32. Biscuit_pants Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:03 PM (#2033397)
I heard it reported somewhere (I'm sorry to not remember, but it was an actual major media outlet) that Gene Clines has been working with Murton on turning on the ball;
This makes sense because pitchers have been getting him out inside lately. If he can learn to turn on the ball he might pick up those power numbers.
   33. God can’t be all that impressed with Charles S. Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:06 PM (#2033404)
It isn't necessarily something to pin on the manager, even if it's one I dislike.

But we're Cubs fans, piling on is what we do. I'm so fed up with Dusty, I'd blame him for a rainy day if I didn't already know it was Steve Garvey's fault.
   34. CFiJ Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:07 PM (#2033405)
Remember how laid back and, dare I say, even a little optimistic we were in those heady days before Deracles went down? Holy crap, I'm getting vibes from 1999. One game, and the team goes from contenders into a vicious air show disaster downward spiral vortex of suck.

Based on this, I definitely think Lee was screwed last year in the MVP voting. Look what happens when he's taken out of the line-up! The Cubs go from an 81-85 win team to the Bad News Bears.
   35. Luke Jasenosky Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:15 PM (#2033412)
I agree that Murton has been focusing on pulling the ball over the past few weeks, and I find it heartening that this might be something he is legitimately working on with Clines. This might help explain his impatience at the plate, as he is concentrating on a zone on the inner half of the plate and any pitch in that zone he attacks. In all honesty, with this team, I don't really mind so much if he is learning "in game".

On another note, it looks like Scott Williamson is finding his groove. In his last 11 innings he has only given up six base hits and four walks, while striking out 11. He is also the only guy on the staff with significant innings who has yet to give up a long ball.
   36. Jerry Mumphrey Posted: May 23, 2006 at 07:50 PM (#2033444)
Percentage of PAs with men on base by position in the batting order:

1st - 36%
2nd - 44%
3rd - 48%
4th - 51%
5th - 48%
6th - 46%
7th - 47%
8th - 46%
9th - 45%

This is not NL specific and I didn't see any NL specific data when flipping back through the chapter.


This is almost useful for general lineup construction. To make it actually meaningful you would need to factor in the expected number of plate appearances for each position in the batting order, and maybe also some info about what base the runners are standing on. If you could find the number of plate appearances with men on and with RISP per nine innings, we could just about scientifically calculate the best batting order for each given set of starting nine players, based on past performances.
   37. Andere Richtingen Posted: May 23, 2006 at 09:44 PM (#2033530)
I agree that Murton has been focusing on pulling the ball over the past few weeks, and I find it heartening that this might be something he is legitimately working on with Clines. This might help explain his impatience at the plate, as he is concentrating on a zone on the inner half of the plate and any pitch in that zone he attacks. In all honesty, with this team, I don't really mind so much if he is learning "in game".

I don't mind it in theory, but I'll believe the Cubs successfully improving a young hitter's skills when I see it.
   38. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 09:49 PM (#2033534)
My God you're a cynical sumbich, Andere. I love it.
   39. Andere Richtingen Posted: May 23, 2006 at 09:59 PM (#2033541)
My God you're a cynical sumbich, Andere. I love it.

Cynical to be sure, but am I being unfair?
   40. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 23, 2006 at 10:07 PM (#2033550)
Absolutely not.
   41. Pops Freshenmeyer Posted: May 23, 2006 at 10:16 PM (#2033555)
This is almost useful for general lineup construction. To make it actually meaningful you would need to factor in the expected number of plate appearances for each position in the batting order, and maybe also some info about what base the runners are standing on. If you could find the number of plate appearances with men on and with RISP per nine innings, we could just about scientifically calculate the best batting order for each given set of starting nine players, based on past performances.

Someone did and they included a lot more into that as well. Find it here.

I was merely trying to answer the specific question under discussion.
   42. Walt Davis Posted: May 24, 2006 at 08:02 AM (#2035105)
Percentage of PAs with men on base by position in the batting order:

1st - 36%
2nd - 44%
3rd - 48%
4th - 51%
5th - 48%
6th - 46%
7th - 47%
8th - 46%
9th - 45%


Note that, given the leadoff hitter has 20-25% of their PAs leading off the game that, after the first inning, they also have about 45-50% of their PAs with men on base. I'm a little surprised there's not a little more variation in those numbers given the #8 and #9 hitters (in both leagues) usually don't have high OBPs.
   43. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 24, 2006 at 01:14 PM (#2035159)
Update: Between 1900-2005, there have been 91 teams that have gotten off to an 18-27 start. Two (2.2%) have made the post-season (the '74 Pirates and '89 Blue Jays).
   44. Dan The Mediocre is one of "the rest" Posted: May 24, 2006 at 01:55 PM (#2035181)
Note that, given the leadoff hitter has 20-25% of their PAs leading off the game that, after the first inning, they also have about 45-50% of their PAs with men on base. I'm a little surprised there's not a little more variation in those numbers given the #8 and #9 hitters (in both leagues) usually don't have high OBPs.

If the two people ahead of you both have OBPs of .300, and you're the third hitter, there's an average of a 45% chance of someone being on base when you bat.
   45. Tony Horn-kaiser Posted: May 24, 2006 at 05:03 PM (#2035344)
Update: Between 1900-2005, there have been 91 teams that have gotten off to an 18-27 start. Two (2.2%) have made the post-season (the '74 Pirates and '89 Blue Jays).

Shouldn't you be including teams that were as bad or worse than 18-27, like the 2005 Astros?
   46. Fred Garvin is dead to Mug Posted: May 24, 2006 at 05:06 PM (#2035347)
I could, but then I'd also have to include the hundreds of teams that had records as bad as (or worse than) the '05 Astros, which would be even more misleading.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Dynasty League Baseball

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Traderdave
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

Syndicate

Page rendered in 0.4852 seconds
35 querie(s) executed