PDA

View Full Version : Frank Thomas to Bat 4th, Maggs 3rd


Realist
03-23-2004, 06:53 PM
Just heard Ozzie on the radio. He said that Frank came to him and said he'd be willing to bat 4th if it would be better for the team. Ozzie welcomed the suggestion. It sounds like that's the new order.

RichFitztightly
03-23-2004, 06:58 PM
I wouldn't automatically say it's the new order. There's some merit in keeping Thomas at the third spot. For instance the prospect of not starting out the game with a double play.

Mickster
03-23-2004, 06:58 PM
Frank has been incredible this spring I will NOT say that he has a whole new attitude b/c I believe that this "bad attitude/selfish" bs will restart the 300 post thread of a month ago. That being said, I'm excited that things are completely blowing up in the media's face this spring. Shows that he's a team player! :smile:

Mickster
03-23-2004, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by RichFitztightly
I wouldn't automatically say it's the new order. There's some merit in keeping Thomas at the third spot. For instance the prospect of not starting out the game with a double play.

Actually, according to Ozzie, it is. Done deal.

jeremyb1
03-23-2004, 07:10 PM
Originally posted by Mickster
Actually, according to Ozzie, it is. Done deal.

They're both about equal hitters but Frank (at least the one from the first half before he went homer crazy) tends to have a higher OBP so I'd rather see him third.

munchman33
03-23-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
They're both about equal hitters but Frank (at least the one from the first half before he went homer crazy) tends to have a higher OBP so I'd rather see him third.

Frank is also the better RBI man, and for that reason I'd rather see him hitting cleanup.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-23-2004, 07:15 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
They're both about equal hitters but Frank (at least the one from the first half before he went homer crazy) tends to have a higher OBP so I'd rather see him third.

I agree. The only positive thing I can see from having Maggs bat #3 rather than #4 is to possibly cut back on the number of double-plays he would otherwise hit into. Frank definitely gets on base more and that makes him the better choice for #3.

I'm also curious to see how this effects Lee's numbers batting #2. He doesn't figure to get a steady stream of fastballs to mash if Frank isn't in the on-deck circle.

We'll see...

RKMeibalane
03-23-2004, 07:20 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
I agree. The only positive thing I can see from having Maggs bat #3 rather than #4 is to possibly cut back on the number of double-plays he would otherwise hit into. Frank definitely gets on base more and that makes him the better choice for #3.

I'm also curious to see how this effects Lee's numbers batting #2. He doesn't figure to get a steady stream of fastballs to mash if Frank isn't in the on-deck circle.

We'll see...

I agree. Both Lee and Valentin have benefitted from hitting in front of Frank in the order. With Maggs now in the number three spot, things are going to change somewhat. I would still expect pitchers to give the number two hitter good pitches to hit, but I don't know how this move is going to affect the rest of the lineup.

It looks like Konerko will be hitting behind Frank, which means that Thomas should be amungst the league leaders in walks, unless Konerko starts hitting.

And just for kicks...

:ozzie

*TINKER* *TINKER* *TINKER*

Paulwny
03-23-2004, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


I'm also curious to see how this effects Lee's numbers batting #2. He doesn't figure to get a steady stream of fastballs to mash if Frank isn't in the on-deck circle.

We'll see...

Also interesting will be Maggs' numbers batting in front of Frank. He may have a huge year.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-23-2004, 07:27 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Also interesting will be Maggs' numbers batting in front of Frank. He may have a huge year.

Yeah, just in time to be traded for a minor league pitcher July 31. Sigh...

:KW
"We can't afford to re-sign 'em..."

mantis1212
03-23-2004, 07:31 PM
WOW This is a huge change in Frank's attitude this year, I'm amazed. Doesn't everyone remember the stink he use to make about not batting third?? Whether or not Frank actually bats 4th or not, I for one think this attitude change along with Ozzie's approach to managing is going to have a great effect on this team.
Not to mention Maggs will have an awesome year if Frank hits behind him...

guillen4life13
03-23-2004, 07:36 PM
Could someone explain clearly what qualities a cleanup hitter should have, as compared to what qualities the 3rd hitter is supposed to have?

Is 3 supposed to be the power and OBP threat, and 4 is the RBI man?

Pretty much, what I'm getting to is this: would there be a huge difference if Maggs and Frank were to switch places in the order? As of now I consider them to be around equal hitters. What qualities does Maggs have that make him more suited for the 3rd spot, or the fourth spot?

Thanks.

ondafarm
03-23-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
They're both about equal hitters but Frank (at least the one from the first half before he went homer crazy) tends to have a higher OBP so I'd rather see him third.


Frank GIDPs much less often and walks more often. Frank has always had a great eye for balls and strikes, note that his Q numbers are much better: OBP fifty points higher. Maggs is definately a better #4 hitter and Frank the better #3 especially if #1 and #2 can steal.

voodoochile
03-23-2004, 07:54 PM
Originally posted by Paulwny
Also interesting will be Maggs' numbers batting in front of Frank. He may have a huge year.

Wouldn't you expect him to have a huge year this year anyway? I mean this is his contract year...

PaleHoseGeorge
03-23-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
Could someone explain clearly what qualities a cleanup hitter should have, as compared to what qualities the 3rd hitter is supposed to have?

Is 3 supposed to be the power and OBP threat, and 4 is the RBI man?

Pretty much, what I'm getting to is this: would there be a huge difference if Maggs and Frank were to switch places in the order? As of now I consider them to be around equal hitters. What qualities does Maggs have that make him more suited for the 3rd spot, or the fourth spot?

Thanks.

The qualities of an ideal #3 vs. a #4 hitter aren't too far apart compared to the differences between other spots in the line up. There is no true consensus about the proper strategy among managers either. However it is generally accepted that the #3 hitter ought to be your best all-around hitter, capable of getting on base, hitting behind the runner, and swinging with power. The #4 hitter is less likely to have to get on base to generate offense and more likely to have rbi opportunities. Thus the general emphasis placed on batting #4 is on slugging.

Though Frank Thomas has OBP to compare with lead-off men, and his power numbers are good enough to be a #4 or #5 hitter, his ability to put all of these skills together make him an ideal #3 hitter. Regardless of where you bat him, the entire offense will rotate around the skills he delivers. In this respect it doesn't matter whether he bats #2, #3, #4, or even #5. It depends on who the other ballplayers in the line up are and who is the guy filling out the line up card.

Now whether batting Frank #3 is best for the team is an entirely different question. Personally I think the whole team does better with him batting #3, but Maggs definitely figures to do better if Frank is the guy in the on-deck circle when Maggs is at bat.

Lip Man 1
03-23-2004, 08:08 PM
Late in the broadcast Farmer and Rooney were talking about the change and also added that Ozzie told them that the 'next step' and what you'll be seeing a lot more of starting next week is that he is going to put the first three guys in motion on the bases more. Specifically to stay out of double plays.

Lip

guillen4life13
03-23-2004, 08:10 PM
I have another question.

In Cleveland, why did Robby Alomar bat 3rd? What qualities made him the best option for them in the third spot instead of Ramirez or Thome, or even Justice for a while?

As I remember, this was the top 4 hitters in the Cleveland lineup:

CF Lofton
SS Vizquel
2B Alomar
1B Thome/RF Ramirez (can't remember)

Oh yeah and thanks PHG for that explanation.

nodiggity59
03-23-2004, 08:17 PM
I think what people are forgetting is that Frank's high OBP leaves him on 1st alot with Maggs up. Whoever bats 2nd is likely to have a lower OBP than Frank, therefore Maggs will have less GIDP opportunities.

guillen4life13
03-23-2004, 08:19 PM
Originally posted by Lip Man 1
Late in the broadcast Farmer and Rooney were talking about the change and also added that Ozzie told them that the 'next step' and what you'll be seeing a lot more of starting next week is that he is going to put the first three guys in motion on the bases more. Specifically to stay out of double plays.

Lip

With that strategy, switching Frank and Maggs doesn't seem like a bad idea at all.

It's time to teach Lee how to get his head out of his cornhole when he's on the basepaths. Hopefully Ozzie can do that.

Huisj
03-23-2004, 08:29 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13
I have another question.

In Cleveland, why did Robby Alomar bat 3rd? What qualities made him the best option for them in the third spot instead of Ramirez or Thome, or even Justice for a while?

As I remember, this was the top 4 hitters in the Cleveland lineup:

CF Lofton
SS Vizquel
2B Alomar
1B Thome/RF Ramirez (can't remember)

Oh yeah and thanks PHG for that explanation.

I think the point there was almost that they sort of had two leadoff style hitters who got on base a lot and could run. Alomar was also a guy who got on base a lot and could run, but he also had a lot more pop in his bat than vizquel or lofton. He was a great all around hitter for those years in that he had some power and could also hit for high average and move those "two" leadoff hitters around the bases. Basically, this gave them more guys who could get on base right in front of thome and ramirez. it made for a very very dangerous lineup. It gave them three speedy guys right away who could get on and around the bases in a hurry, and then some big mashers who could drive them all in.

A. Cavatica
03-23-2004, 08:41 PM
This is one of those cases where the conventional wisdom has been proven wrong by statistical analysis. Both #3 and #4 need to slug, but it's more important for #4 to have a high OBP. It's not a huge difference -- a few runs over the course of the season -- but it is real.

Explanation: the first inning is the one where the order is most predictable. Very often [and particularly with the 2004 Sox who have no OBP guys], the first two guys make outs, so the #3 comes up with the bases empty. If #3 walks or singles with two out, he'll probably be stranded, so his OBP will be wasted. And if #3 makes the third out, then at least the #4 (with the higher OBP) will lead off the second inning, increasing the team's chances of scoring in the second.

Remember, if any of the first three guys get on, the #4 will still bat in the first inning, so Frank will still get his first-inning RBI opportunities.

This is a tremendous decision by Ozzie -- the first one that's obviously an improvement over Manuel. Hallelujah!

Palehose13
03-23-2004, 08:45 PM
This is a tremendous decision by Ozzie -- the first one that's obviously an improvement over Manuel. Hallelujah!
Are you still convinced that we don't have a manager? ;)

A. Cavatica
03-23-2004, 08:50 PM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Are you still convinced that we don't have a manager? ;)

This is the first ray of sunshine in my winter. :smile:

Now let's see how he handles pitching...

Palehose13
03-23-2004, 09:08 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
This is the first ray of sunshine in my winter. :smile:

Now let's see how he handles pitching...

Fair enough. I'm just happy that you are finally feeling a little sunshine!

I also agree that batting Frank 4th would be great for the reasons that you listed. Could Maggs hit .400 if batting 3rd???

kittle42
03-23-2004, 09:51 PM
I actually thought this:

Do we possibly, outside of the Yankees, have the best 2, 3, 4 hitters in baseball (on days Lee hits 2nd)?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-23-2004, 09:51 PM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
This is one of those cases where the conventional wisdom has been proven wrong by statistical analysis. Both #3 and #4 need to slug, but it's more important for #4 to have a high OBP. It's not a huge difference -- a few runs over the course of the season -- but it is real.

Explanation: the first inning is the one where the order is most predictable. Very often [and particularly with the 2004 Sox who have no OBP guys], the first two guys make outs, so the #3 comes up with the bases empty. If #3 walks or singles with two out, he'll probably be stranded, so his OBP will be wasted. And if #3 makes the third out, then at least the #4 (with the higher OBP) will lead off the second inning, increasing the team's chances of scoring in the second.

Remember, if any of the first three guys get on, the #4 will still bat in the first inning, so Frank will still get his first-inning RBI opportunities.

This is a tremendous decision by Ozzie -- the first one that's obviously an improvement over Manuel. Hallelujah!

It seems to me you're indicting our lousy #1 and #2 hitters more than attributing any real value to batting Frank #4. The whole point of using your best hitter in the #3 spot is because the #1 and #2 hitters are to be counted on to get on base. Without solving the problems at #1 and #2. moving Frank or Maggs (or anyone else for that matter) does NOTHING to solve this problem.

In fact you're probably making matters worse because you're delaying the at-bat of your best OBP hitter till further down the line up. You're wasting even more outs waiting to get to him. This makes no sense.

If anything, what you've noted above doesn't make the case for moving Frank down in the line up. To the contrary you've made the case for moving him *up* in the line up. We need somebody to be on base when our power hitters come to the plate.

If nobody else can do it, bat Frank #2. We're sure not going to get what we need depending on Willie Harris and Aaron Rowand to set the table.

StepsInSC
03-23-2004, 09:53 PM
You all might know this but according to Yahoo Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-diamondbacks-whitesox&prov=ap&type=lgns) Thomas said he wanted to bat 4th.

RKMeibalane
03-23-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by StepsInSC
You all might know this but according to Yahoo Sports (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-diamondbacks-whitesox&prov=ap&type=lgns) Thomas said he wanted to bat 4th.

Yes, he did. I think his wanting to bat fourth may be due in part to his recent desire to focus more on driving the ball than on hitting for average. If that's the case, then the number four spot is a better place for him. I honestly don't know if it's what's best for the team, though. We'll have to wait and see.

Daver
03-23-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It seems to me you're indicting our lousy #1 and #2 hitters more than attributing any real value to batting Frank #4. The whole point of using your best hitter in the #3 spot is because the #1 and #2 hitters are to be counted on to get on base. Without solving the problems at #1 and #2. moving Frank or Maggs (or anyone else for that matter) does NOTHING to solve this problem.

In fact you're probably making matter worse because you're delaying the at-bat of your best OBP hitter to further down the line up. You're wasting even more outs waiting to get to him. This makes no sense.

If anything, what you've noted above doesn't make the case for moving Frank down in the line up. You've made the case for moving him *up* in the line up. We need somebody to be on base when our power hitters come to the plate.

If nobody else can do it, bat Frank #2. We're sure not going to get what we need depending on Willie Harris and Aaron Rowand to set the table.

You have just made stunningly clear the lack of a lead off hitter in the Sox lineup,if they had one the case could be made to bat C Lee second,followed by Thomas,Ordonez,then Valentin.

Their lack of a leadoff hitter makes it more logical to bat Valentin second,followed by Ordonez and Thomas,at the very least Jose is a smart baserunner,and would help minimize the Ordonez GIDP factor.

RKMeibalane
03-23-2004, 10:10 PM
:reinsy

"If you come to the park, we will get a leadoff man."

rmusacch
03-23-2004, 10:12 PM
Originally posted by Realist
Just heard Ozzie on the radio. He said that Frank came to him and said he'd be willing to bat 4th if it would be better for the team. Ozzie welcomed the suggestion. It sounds like that's the new order.

I guess I am not following it but how is Frank batting cleanup better for the team? Why does it matter?

PaleHoseGeorge
03-23-2004, 10:14 PM
Originally posted by Daver
You have just made stunningly clear the lack of a lead off hitter in the Sox lineup,if they had one the case could be made to bat C Lee second,followed by Thomas,Ordonez,then Valentin.

Their lack of a leadoff hitter makes it more logical to bat Valentin second,followed by Ordonez and Thomas,at the very least Jose is a smart baserunner,and would help minimize the Ordonez GIDP factor.

Rickey Henderson was a great leadoff man because he was the best on his team for getting on base. What made him the greatest leadoff man in the history of the game was his basestealing ability *and* his ability to hit dingers, too.

Rickey could have been a #3 hitter on nearly any team in the majors. However he was more valuable as a #1 precisely because of his unique skills.

The Sox have nobody to hit at the top of the line up. I'm afraid arguing over who should bat #3, #4, or #5 is something akin to debating how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

batmanZoSo
03-23-2004, 10:20 PM
Originally posted by Realist
Just heard Ozzie on the radio. He said that Frank came to him and said he'd be willing to bat 4th if it would be better for the team. Ozzie welcomed the suggestion. It sounds like that's the new order.

I don't agree with it at all. Frank gets on base at a higher clip. Magglio has never come close to .400. In fact his average is only .360 something while Frank's is the 12th best of all time. And the gap isn't much smaller now with Maggs in his prime and Frank nearing the end of his career. Ordonez's highest walk tally is 70, Frank averages over 100. It's silly.

Daver
03-23-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Rickey Henderson was a great leadoff man because he was the best on his team for getting on base. What made him the greatest leadoff man in the history of the game was his basestealing ability *and* his ability to hit dingers, too.

Rickey could have been a #3 hitter on nearly any team in the majors. However he was more valuable as a #1 precisely because of his unique skills.

The Sox have nobody to hit at the top of the line up. I'm afraid arguing over who should bat #3, #4, or #5 is something akin to debating how to rearrange the deck chairs on the Titanic.

Rickey right now beats anything the Sox have to offer for a lead off hitter.

Randar68
03-23-2004, 10:33 PM
Originally posted by Realist
Just heard Ozzie on the radio. He said that Frank came to him and said he'd be willing to bat 4th if it would be better for the team. Ozzie welcomed the suggestion. It sounds like that's the new order.

Personally, I think it's stupid. You don't take your best OBP and bury him 4th BEHIND the best hitter (by average) in your order...

Frank may not be the fastest runner in the world, but he makes konerko look like he's standing still???

Seriously, why do this? I'd be more willing tot make Maggs 2nd and Frank 3rd or vice a versa.

Railsplitter
03-23-2004, 10:52 PM
I maintain that your best hitter should bat third, so he's assured a time up in the first inning, with the possibility of a runner or two on base.

jeremyb1
03-23-2004, 10:58 PM
First of all the concept of an RBI man is pretty ridiculous. RBIs are dependent on support. If the guy ahead of you doesn't get on you won't have so many RBIs.

Generally, it makes the most sense to have the guys with the highest on base percentage towards the top of your lineup so that you have good hitters behind them to drive them in. For example if Frank gets on at a .400 clip and Maggs .370 then Frank will be on base more often than Maggs but he'll only have Paully to drive him in while Maggs will have an All-Star driving him in.

A. Cavatica
03-23-2004, 11:07 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
It seems to me you're indicting our lousy #1 and #2 hitters more than attributing any real value to batting Frank #4. The whole point of using your best hitter in the #3 spot is because the #1 and #2 hitters are to be counted on to get on base. Without solving the problems at #1 and #2. moving Frank or Maggs (or anyone else for that matter) does NOTHING to solve this problem.


You are correct that the problems at #1 and #2 are much greater than any rearrangement at #3 and #4 will fix. But just forget about the #1 and #2 hitters for a minute -- assume they're league average -- because the analysis of #3 and #4 stands on its own.

You realize, I'm sure, that getting the leadoff man on base is far and away the easiest way to score a run. Well, the #4 hitter leads off more innings than anyone but the #1 hitter, because he leads off the second after a 1-2-3 first. Therefore, you need a good OBP from your #4 hitter.

You also realize, I'm sure, that getting a runner on first with two outs isn't very helpful. When #1 and #2 don't get on base, if your #3 guy gets on he's probably going to be stranded. His chances are a bit better if he can get himself into scoring position, so slugging (and speed) is more valuable than raw OBP.

When #1 and/or #2 gets on base, then both the #3 and #4 hitters are (usually) going to bat in the inning. When #3 gets on with two outs, your #4 is going to bat. In this case you might prefer the #3 to have the higher OBP and the #4 have the higher SA, but you're going to score some runs either way.


In fact you're probably making matters worse because you're delaying the at-bat of your best OBP hitter till further down the line up. You're wasting even more outs waiting to get to him. This makes no sense.


It makes perfect sense, because the #4 hitter will frequently lead off the second. The at-bats that you're taking away from the guy (by moving him down) come with two outs and are likely to be unproductive.

Seems to me that Frank hit an awful lot of solo homers, especially in the first inning...seems like a sign of a dysfunctional batting order to me.

Realist
03-23-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by jeremyb1
First of all the concept of an RBI man is pretty ridiculous. RBIs are dependent on support. If the guy ahead of you doesn't get on you won't have so many RBIs.

Generally, it makes the most sense to have the guys with the highest on base percentage towards the top of your lineup so that you have good hitters behind them to drive them in. For example if Frank gets on at a .400 clip and Maggs .370 then Frank will be on base more often than Maggs but he'll only have Paully to drive him in while Maggs will have an All-Star driving him in.

Well, I've always thought of Frank as good hitter, period. Now he's come out and says he's gonna emphasize swinging for the fences. If that's the case, I don't expect his OBP to be as high as it has been in the past. That may be why he's suggesting he bat 4th.

When Carlos Lee isn't batting 2nd, I expect him to be batting 5th. After the year he had last year, I don't expect many teams to be pitching around Frank to get to Carlos. That'd be like asking for the Sox to put up a big crooked number.

I think at this point there's very little difference in what order Frank, Maggs, and Carlos bat. On any given day they can carry the team or stink up the joint.

Our problem is going to be the 1 and 2 hitters. The lead off hitter can't steal first base so that could be a problem and I'm not very comfortable having Valentin and Lee alternating in the 2 spot depending on the arm of the starting pitcher. I'm worried the team may not be able to get into a consistant rhythm with the shuffling. It's a shame Valentin can't hit .280 from both sides of the plate.

Realist
03-23-2004, 11:16 PM
How many solo shots did Frank hit last year? Wasn't it something like 80% of his dingers at one point? That hurts.

owensmouth
03-23-2004, 11:37 PM
I have a feeling that if Frank stays healthy, he's going to have a monster year. This is his best ST in years. I think he's both physically and mentally over the injury from two years ago. Clearly, he's happy to be rid of JM and he's anxious to prove he belongs in the HOF.

And finally, he wants to BE here. He wants to STAY here. And, he wants to WIN here.

At his best, he's a #3 hitter. But, Magglio batting ahead of him will have an increased average and Frank will do fine behind him.

The White Sox will only do as well as Frank Thomas does. He'll do fine.

voodoochile
03-23-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Railsplitter
I maintain that your best hitter should bat third, so he's assured a time up in the first inning, with the possibility of a runner or two on base.

This is the time honored tradition, not only because of that but because the higher you are in the order the more likely you are to see extra bats over a given game/season.

Batting your best guy third is so he not only gets more at bats, but so he has a chance to drive people in as you pointed out. In theory, how many at bats might this cost Frank this season? Supposing the last out of the game distributes randomly over the course of a season, it would mean the 3rd and 4th batters will each make the final out of the game 18 times this year. That is 18 extra at bats that the #3 hitter will get this year over #4. Probably won't matter that much in terms of team run production, but it is at least a fun stat to think about... :D:

Huisj
03-24-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by A. Cavatica
Well, the #4 hitter leads off more innings than anyone but the #1 hitter, because he leads off the second after a 1-2-3 first. Therefore, you need a good OBP from your #4 hitter.



Is there anywhere that we can find evidence that 1-2-3 first innings are the most common sort of first inning? I'm not convinced that first innings tend to be 1-2-3 more often than being innings with baserunners. What are the odds that 3 guys in a row who each get on base a third of their times at the plate all make outs?

It's been a long time since i did any probability statistical stuff, so this might be way off, but it seems to me that a 1-2-3 inning is not as common as an inning in which at least one batter reaches base.

Let's each of the first three hitters has a .333 OBP--they get on base a third of the time. This means that the probability that they don't get on base is 2/3. The probability that all three in a row do NOT get on base then is (2/3)^3, with is 8/27. This means that probability-wise, 8 out of every 27 innings would be a 1-2-3 inning with the afore made assumptions. That leaves 19 innigs out of 27 in which at least one batter does reach base.

Using the same idea, the odds of different things happening can all be calculated. The odds that all three of the first 3 batters reach base is (1/3)^3, or 1/27. The odds that two of the three batters reach base is (1/3)^2*(2/3)*3, or 6/27. The odds that one of the three reaches base is (1/3)^1*(2/3)^2*3, or 12/27 (almost 50%).

This is all theoretical and based on total random statistical probability, but it in no way supports the idea that a 1-2-3 first inning is the most common type of first inning.

voodoochile
03-24-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
Is there anywhere that we can find evidence that 1-2-3 first innings are the most common sort of first inning? I'm not convinced that first innings tend to be 1-2-3 more often than being innings with baserunners. What are the odds that 3 guys in a row who each get on base a third of their times at the plate all make outs?

It's been a long time since i did any probability statistical stuff, so this might be way off, but it seems to me that a 1-2-3 inning is not as common as an inning in which at least one batter reaches base.

Let's each of the first three hitters has a .333 OBP--they get on base a third of the time. This means that the probability that they don't get on base is 2/3. The probability that all three in a row do NOT get on base then is (2/3)^3, with is 8/27. This means that probability-wise, 8 out of every 27 innings would be a 1-2-3 inning with the afore made assumptions. That leaves 19 innigs out of 27 in which at least one batter does reach base.

Using the same idea, the odds of different things happening can all be calculated. The odds that all three of the first 3 batters reach base is (1/3)^3, or 1/27. The odds that two of the three batters reach base is (1/3)^2*(2/3)*3, or 6/27. The odds that one of the three reaches base is (1/3)^1*(2/3)^2*3, or 12/27 (almost 50%).

This is all theoretical and based on total random statistical probability, but it in no way supports the idea that a 1-2-3 first inning is the most common type of first inning.

Your odds are for baseball as a rule since the average OBP in the majors is around .333 - or close enough for spitting distance. In reality, since teams tend to put their best obp guys at the top of the lineup, the odds are lower that a first inning will go 1-2-3 than an "average MLB inning".

I think the average OBP for leadoff hitters is around .370. Let's pick a number for #2 hitters of .350 and for the third hitter (traditionally a teams best) of .370 also.

That means the odds of a team going 1-2-3 in the first are .630*.650*.630 = .258, while the league average you calculated is .296. So, the first inning is actually less likely to go 1-2-3 than an average MLB inning - roughly 13% less likely in fact. :D:

Huisj
03-24-2004, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Your odds are for baseball as a rule since the average OBP in the majors is around .333 - or close enough for spitting distance. In reality, since teams tend to put their best obp guys at the top of the lineup, the odds are lower that a first inning will go 1-2-3 than an "average MLB inning".

I think the average OBP for leadoff hitters is around .370. Let's pick a number for #2 hitters of .350 and for the third hitter (traditionally a teams best) of .370 also.

That means the odds of a team going 1-2-3 in the first are .630*.650*.630 = .258, while the league average you calculated is .296. So, the first inning is actually less likely to go 1-2-3 than an average MLB inning - roughly 13% less likely in fact. :D:

So to conclude, it seems that it would be most likely that the #5 hitter will actually lead off most often after the leadoff guy . . . but I don't think anyone ever has had the idea to put a high OBP hitter in the 5 spot like what A. Cavatica suggested about the 4 spot.

voodoochile
03-24-2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by Huisj
So to conclude, it seems that it would be most likely that the #5 hitter will actually lead off most often after the leadoff guy . . . but I don't think anyone ever has had the idea to put a high OBP hitter in the 5 spot like what A. Cavatica suggested about the 4 spot.

Yeah, that is probably most likely, actually the league average is 4 batters per inning - not hard to see why with a league averge .333 OBP - which is darned close to saying 1 guy will reach base per inning on average. Which again ties into the WHIP for pitchers where 1.0 means you are doing a good job, but 1.25 means you are pretty average and by the time you get to 1.5+, you are starting to see much higher ERAs.

Just different ways of looking at the same stats really...

Mohoney
03-24-2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by ondafarm
Frank GIDPs much less often and walks more often. Frank has always had a great eye for balls and strikes, note that his Q numbers are much better: OBP fifty points higher. Maggs is definately a better #4 hitter and Frank the better #3 especially if #1 and #2 can steal.

Good point, but Maggs getting a 2 out hit and stealing 2nd can really open the door for Frank to either pick up a boatload of 2 out RBIs with base hits, or walk a lot and start some 2 out rallies with Carlos Lee batting 5th.

Since Ozzie says that there will be more running this year, I can see both Maggs and C Lee stealing 30+ bases if given the green light with 2 out.

Scoring runs with 2 outs always seems to be the key with this team. Since Willie seems to be anointed as our leadoff guy, and Valentin will be batting second, I anticipate a lot of 2 out 1st inning at-bats for our 3rd hitter this year.

As of right now, I would bat Rowand 2nd and Valentin 8th.

SEALgep
03-24-2004, 02:42 AM
Maggs is going to greatly benefit from this move, and so will the team with Frank's generous, unselfish, smart move. Maggs can afford to be even more patient and should see better pitches being protected by Frank. Also, we have enough guys with power behind Frank where he should continue to have protection as well. Afterall, he walks all the time now and had Maggs behind him. And if he indeed does walk the same or more, it keeps the inning alive, or after a 1-2-3 inning he will start us off with a man on. I'm not worried about this move, because for me it makes sense, but even more importantly, it was Frank's idea. I'm on board Frank. :smile:

Mohoney
03-24-2004, 02:44 AM
I also am enticed by the prospect of Frank seeing a few more pitches before his first at-bat every day. I think he'll be better suited to make adjustments throughout the course of a game, and I think this will be a big boost to his late-game (7th, 8th, and 9th inning) production. We might even see the .300+ batting average return.

I just don't want to be as dependant on the home run as we have been the past 3 years.

jeremyb1
03-24-2004, 02:53 AM
Originally posted by Realist
Well, I've always thought of Frank as good hitter, period. Now he's come out and says he's gonna emphasize swinging for the fences. If that's the case, I don't expect his OBP to be as high as it has been in the past. That may be why he's suggesting he bat 4th.

Yeah, well if he sticks with that approach we have far greater problems than anything related to our batting order.

Veeky
03-24-2004, 03:34 AM
Rickey Henderson was a great leadoff man because he was the best on his team for getting on base. What made him the greatest leadoff man in the history of the game was his basestealing ability *and* his ability to hit dingers, too.

What made Rickey Henderson the greatest lead-off hitter in history is LONGEVITY. There have a few hitters over the years who came close to stealing 70 bases with less CS. Thre have been hitters with comparable high OBP and who could slap singles and doubles all day long.....NONE of them, however, could do it for almost 25 years. Not even close. But I digress.

This move? I guess Thomas is finally a team player, eh? Although, that has everything to do with him moving away from the "unsexy" walks/OBP and towards "sexy" RBI/Slugging. He'll be in for a rude awakening -- pitchers will sense his eager-ness to hit, hit, hit, pull, pull, pull and will feed him nothing but garbage in front of Konerko. Ooops.

Magglio, meanwhile, should stop swinging at junk. Last year he took a step backwards. I am afraid that his 2002 break-through may have been the direct result of the team dropping out of contention so early. I am afraid that deep down he is more of a 900 OPS hitter than a 1000 OPS one; his eye is simply not good enough and last year he really made an effort to distance himself from an all-field approach which was his trademark.......But hey, if batting in front of Frank nets him more low fastballs that he loves, more power to him and the Sox. Oh the restorative nature of change, er, line-up shuffling.

And y'all are 100% right -- our biggest problem is the lead-hitter/OBP 1-2 punch setting the table . Paging Robbie, paging D'Angelo......No, really -- it doesn't matter much if it is Magglio walking up to the plate with 2 outs and no-one on or Frank.

I guess Harris-Jose can be used as 1-2 against RHP and Rowand-Lee against LHP. :whiner:

I am seriously regretting losing Robbie over a few lousy 100K. He could come quite handy against RHP....Damn.

voodoochile
03-24-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Mohoney
Good point, but Maggs getting a 2 out hit and stealing 2nd can really open the door for Frank to either pick up a boatload of 2 out RBIs with base hits, or walk a lot and start some 2 out rallies with Carlos Lee batting 5th.

Since Ozzie says that there will be more running this year, I can see both Maggs and C Lee stealing 30+ bases if given the green light with 2 out.

Scoring runs with 2 outs always seems to be the key with this team. Since Willie seems to be anointed as our leadoff guy, and Valentin will be batting second, I anticipate a lot of 2 out 1st inning at-bats for our 3rd hitter this year.

As of right now, I would bat Rowand 2nd and Valentin 8th.

Please, no. Maggs is a terrible base stealer. He had an awful percentage last year before having his privledges taken away (I am guessing, because he stopped running). I think Lee and Maggs are max 20 SB a year guys any more than that is just a pipe dream.

Paulwny
03-24-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Wouldn't you expect him to have a huge year this year anyway? I mean this is his contract year...
\

You actually believe some players try harder in the last year of their contract?

voodoochile
03-24-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by Paulwny
\

You actually believe some players try harder in the last year of their contract?

They try harder to put up big numbers. Sometimes that leads to more K's and less hits as they try to crush everything. Hopefully Maggs stays with what made him successful - slapping doubles into the gaps and doesn't develop a loop in his swing.

jabrch
03-24-2004, 09:11 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
What made Rickey Henderson the greatest lead-off hitter in history is LONGEVITY. There have a few hitters over the years who came close to stealing 70 bases with less CS. Thre have been hitters with comparable high OBP and who could slap singles and doubles all day long.....NONE of them, however, could do it for almost 25 years. Not even close. But I digress.


I disagree Veeky - Henderson had the speed/power combination that almost nobody in the history of the game had. The ability to have 70+ SBs and 20+HRs is amazing. The .400 OBP is awesome. Had Henderson cut his career 5 years earlier (30 less SBs and 20 less HRs) his numbers would be no less impressive.

Dadawg_77
03-24-2004, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by Palehose13
Are you still convinced that we don't have a manager? ;)

It depends, if he has this running like first 1/4 Marlins under Torberg did, yes. That will kill the Sox.

Dadawg_77
03-24-2004, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by jabrch
I disagree Veeky - Henderson had the speed/power combination that almost nobody in the history of the game had. The ability to have 70+ SBs and 20+HRs is amazing. The .400 OBP is awesome. Had Henderson cut his career 5 years earlier (30 less SBs and 20 less HRs) his numbers would be no less impressive.

True but that is still 20 years. While Rickey put some of the greatest seasons in history Baseball, longevity is some nice icing on his inner circle hall of fame career.

Mickster
03-24-2004, 10:23 AM
SEAL, where have you been lately? :?:

Deadguy
03-24-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by Realist
Just heard Ozzie on the radio. He said that Frank came to him and said he'd be willing to bat 4th if it would be better for the team. Ozzie welcomed the suggestion. It sounds like that's the new order.

I'm not to excited about this. However, on the bright side, if there is a 1-2-3 1st inning, a leadoff walk from Thomas was be much more valuable to the offense then one of those useless 2 out walks with nobody on base. Plus, if Frank bats in the 1st inning, this guarantees that there will be a man on base, which increases the likelyhood of a 2 run homerun, which is something Magglio hasn't capitalized on much with having a guy with a high OBP in front of him.

On the downside, Thomas has less protection, which could mean an increase in IBBs.

SEALgep
03-24-2004, 10:52 AM
Originally posted by Mickster
SEAL, where have you been lately? :?: Lol, Phoenix for 12 days. Lot of fun and saw a good amount of games, visited my friends, and said hi to my old school- ASU. I went to Tucson for the Cubs/Sox game- oh ya baby! Sat by hella Cubs fans, and they were all being stupid. Go figure. I had fun though. I saw the Giants beat the Cubs in Scottsdale. I went to the Oakland/Sox game on St. Patty's day. That was cool too, but we lost, and I went with A's fans because most of my buddies there are from Oakland. No rivalry though, we just drank and had fun. I saw a bunch of Giant's games since they were free because we know a guy who does their video tape editing for all the coaches. We sat right behind home plate with the scouts. My one buddy got real ripped and the scouts were letting him use the radar and calling out the numbers for them. It was a great trip. :smile:

MisterB
03-24-2004, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by Realist
When Carlos Lee isn't batting 2nd, I expect him to be batting 5th. After the year he had last year, I don't expect many teams to be pitching around Frank to get to Carlos. That'd be like asking for the Sox to put up a big crooked number.

More teams will pitch around Frank with Carlos behind him than they would with Magglio behind him because Ordonez is still a better hitter than Lee. The only saving grace may be that Lee is less likely to GIDP than Ordonez because Lee's more of a flyball hitter.

Realist
03-24-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Deadguy
I'm not to excited about this. However, on the bright side, if there is a 1-2-3 1st inning, a leadoff walk from Thomas was be much more valuable to the offense then one of those useless 2 out walks with nobody on base. Plus, if Frank bats in the 1st inning, this guarantees that there will be a man on base, which increases the likelyhood of a 2 run homerun, which is something Magglio hasn't capitalized on much with having a guy with a high OBP in front of him.

On the downside, Thomas has less protection, which could mean an increase in IBBs.

If they want to pitch around Frank to get to Lee, I'd be very happy. Last year I would have just as soon had Lee come up with "ducks on the pond" than any other player on the Sox.

We've got the potential to score a big pile of runs with this team, but we're gonna need to see some of that timely hitting that we really haven't seen since 2000. That'll be key.

Harris (our most glaring hole)
Valentin
Ordonez
Thomas
Lee
Konerko
Crede (I'd rather he batted 6th)
Rowand
Olivo

Even with our monster sized "question mark" leading off, that's still a line-up that will put up some big crooked numbers. It remains to be seen just how many times it happens, but we're gonna find out really soon! :smile:

A. Cavatica
03-24-2004, 12:18 PM
Originally posted by Huisj
So to conclude, it seems that it would be most likely that the #5 hitter will actually lead off most often after the leadoff guy . . . but I don't think anyone ever has had the idea to put a high OBP hitter in the 5 spot like what A. Cavatica suggested about the 4 spot.

I never said 1-2-3 was the commonest outcome of the first inning. I said it was a common outcome, so the #4 needs a high OBP more than the #3 does. The #4 definitely leads off more innings than the #3.

In the statistical analysis I remember, the #5 was also called out as needing a high OBP. The #4 leads off more innings than #5, though, when the probabilities are carried through 9 innings.

Deadguy
03-24-2004, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Realist
How many solo shots did Frank hit last year? Wasn't it something like 80% of his dingers at one point? That hurts.

With no one on base, Frank hit .221, with 23 homeruns and an .814 OPS in 354 PAs. He also had 72 Strike Outs.

With runners on base, Frank hit .326, with 19 homeruns, a 1.121 OPS, and 43 SOs in just 304 PAs.

What those numbers suggest is that when there are ducks on the pond, and pitchers can't pitch around Thomas, Thomas puts up great numbers. When there is no one on base, pitchers aren't giving Thomas much to hit, and Thomas may be getting out of his comfort zone, and chasing bad pitches, an assertion which would be backed up by the higher strike out total and the lower BA.

It also may indicate that Thomas is simply a better situational hitter, and gets the job done when there is a guy on base, and he may simply be swinging for the fences when there is no one on. Magglio is the only guy on the squad that has an OBP close to FT, so having Magglio on base a lot may help Thomas' overall numbers, and the team in general. Without much protection behind him, however, when no one is on, Thomas' numbers are probably going to be brutal.

Realist
03-24-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Deadguy
With no one on base, Frank hit .221, with 23 homeruns and an .814 OPS in 354 PAs. He also had 72 Strike Outs.

With runners on base, Frank hit .326, with 19 homeruns, a 1.121 OPS, and 43 SOs in just 304 PAs.

What those numbers suggest is that when there are ducks on the pond, and pitchers can't pitch around Thomas, Thomas puts up great numbers. When there is no one on base, pitchers aren't giving Thomas much to hit, and Thomas may be getting out of his comfort zone, and chasing bad pitches, an assertion which would be backed up by the higher strike out total and the lower BA.

It also may indicate that Thomas is simply a better situational hitter, and gets the job done when there is a guy on base, and he may simply be swinging for the fences when there is no one on. Magglio is the only guy on the squad that has an OBP close to FT, so having Magglio on base a lot may help Thomas' overall numbers, and the team in general. Without much protection behind him, however, when no one is on, Thomas' numbers are probably going to be brutal.

Great post and argument for Ordonez to bat 3rd.

Dadawg_77
03-24-2004, 01:07 PM
Originally posted by Deadguy
With no one on base, Frank hit .221, with 23 homeruns and an .814 OPS in 354 PAs. He also had 72 Strike Outs.

With runners on base, Frank hit .326, with 19 homeruns, a 1.121 OPS, and 43 SOs in just 304 PAs.

What those numbers suggest is that when there are ducks on the pond, and pitchers can't pitch around Thomas, Thomas puts up great numbers. When there is no one on base, pitchers aren't giving Thomas much to hit, and Thomas may be getting out of his comfort zone, and chasing bad pitches, an assertion which would be backed up by the higher strike out total and the lower BA.

It also may indicate that Thomas is simply a better situational hitter, and gets the job done when there is a guy on base, and he may simply be swinging for the fences when there is no one on. Magglio is the only guy on the squad that has an OBP close to FT, so having Magglio on base a lot may help Thomas' overall numbers, and the team in general. Without much protection behind him, however, when no one is on, Thomas' numbers are probably going to be brutal.

Also could be just completly random.

batmanZoSo
03-24-2004, 01:48 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Please, no. Maggs is a terrible base stealer. He had an awful percentage last year before having his privledges taken away (I am guessing, because he stopped running). I think Lee and Maggs are max 20 SB a year guys any more than that is just a pipe dream.

Maggs isn't bad, I think it was all the coaches fault. In 2001, he stole 25 and only seven CS. If you can do that one year, you can do it every year, or close to it. But it won't really work if he's batting in front of Frank. It throws everything off.

Veeky
03-24-2004, 02:01 PM
I disagree Veeky - Henderson had the speed/power combination that almost nobody in the history of the game had. The ability to have 70+ SBs and 20+HRs is amazing. The .400 OBP is awesome. Had Henderson cut his career 5 years earlier (30 less SBs and 20 less HRs) his numbers would be no less impressive.

While he was probably the best, there have been a bunch of basestealers who could muster 60-100 swiped bags a season or through the years.

There have also been a few with better % -- Paul Molitor at 37-38 years of age stole 35 bases in a row and Tim Raines stole 55 in 60 attempts once I think. Etc.

400 OBP too while very impressive in any era, in and of by itself, was not super-great and quite a few folks had 400 OBP seasons.

And his supposed ability to hit 3rd in the line-up? In 25 seasons, he topped 20 homer mark 4 times. With career slugging of about 400. Let's not overstate.

So in any given season, RH was not as dominant as people make him out to be...save for that one season in late 80's with Oakland......But when you add up his seasons and feats over 3 decades, he is TOWERING over everybody.

Veeky
03-24-2004, 02:32 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
They try harder to put up big numbers. Sometimes that leads to more K's and less hits as they try to crush everything. Hopefully Maggs stays with what made him successful - slapping doubles into the gaps and doesn't develop a loop in his swing.

Bingo!

I willing to bet Paul Konerko and Billy Koch tried their HARDEST last season.

Staying light-n-loose and within your limitations is the best approach to hitting.

Magglio's desire to be Sammy Sosa 2.0 last season screwed him up and helped in costing the team the division.

Less is more.

guillen4life13
03-24-2004, 04:47 PM
With the Sox as they stand now, I think that 3 up, 3 down first innings are pretty likely when you factor GIDP's into the equation.

Maggs grounds into lots of double plays, and by the looks of things, Harris won't be getting on base too frequently.

If the top three hitters are going to be in motion more to prevent double plays, then that gives Frank a few more RBI opportunities, which is where I think he flourishes. And it's much more valuable to hit homers with men on base than to hit solo shots.

I think it's a move that will pay off nicely.

RKMeibalane
03-24-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by Realist
How many solo shots did Frank hit last year? Wasn't it something like 80% of his dingers at one point? That hurts.

Nine of his first ten home runs were solo shots.

stillz
03-24-2004, 06:15 PM
This switch will pay huge dividends if Harris can find a way to get on base, and if Paul Konerko can come out smoking, we're gonna have some big 1st innings.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-24-2004, 06:56 PM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
Nine of [Frank Thomas'] first ten home runs were solo shots.

Fine, but what I'm hearing in this thread is that somehow it's Frank's fault that they were solo dingers. That's nonsense. He was batting #3. The reason they were solo shots was because neither the #1 or #2 hitters were doing their job to get on base. Getting on base is their single-biggest job!

Rearranging Frank and Maggs in the #3/4 spots does nothing to fix this "problem" everyone keeps talking about.

RKMeibalane
03-24-2004, 08:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge
Fine, but what I'm hearing in this thread is that somehow it's Frank's fault that they were solo dingers. That's nonsense. He was batting #3. The reason they were solo shots was because neither the #1 or #2 hitters were doing their job to get on base. Getting on base is their single-biggest job!

Rearranging Frank and Maggs in the #3/4 spots does nothing to fix this "problem" everyone keeps talking about.

I agree, and that's why I'm not convinced this is what's best for the team. As has been said many times on this board. Frank Thomas remains the best hitter the Sox have. Moving him down in the order could do a lot of good, but it may also cause a lot of problems. The one concern I have is that Frank may not see that many pitches to hit if Lee hits in the number two spot, because Konerko would then be hitting behind Frank in the order.

Veeky
03-24-2004, 09:31 PM
Fine, but what I'm hearing in this thread is that somehow it's Frank's fault that they were solo dingers.

Maybe it wasn't, maybe it was.

D'Angelo had a good OBP in all months but that horrible June and Valentin/Lee were around 320, which is very mediocre but not that bad (wait till you see Harris at work)

That's nonsense. He was batting #3.

When he was hitting his first 10 homers, he wasn't exactly swinging the bat as well as after going on a tear around late-June all the way through August. (For instance, Frank had 45 RBI through first 90 games not only becuase he had unspectacular 1-2 OBP in front of him, but also because he was hitting around .235 with RISP before catching fire.) That could partially account for not so much 9 solo shots but for the LACK of 3-run jacks and grand slams.

Rearranging Frank and Maggs in the #3/4 spots does nothing to fix this "problem" everyone keeps talking about.

Maggs is a low fastball hitter. He's gotten more pull-conscious but can still cover outside corner with authority, hitting his share of ground balls. He is a .375 OBP player at this point and has decent speed.........Frank is a mistake/flyball hitter, especially on the inside part of the plate and has next to no power to RCF-RF. At this point, he is probably a 380 OBP presence -- partly because he doesn't WANT to be an OBP machine anymore. Slow as on the pads, too.

Now.......Magglio will see more fastballs in front of Frank than he would in front of Konerko/Lee, no? Since their OBP's would be comparable in the #3 hole, you'd also want the faster player on base, correct? With no outs, Magglio will tag up from 2nd on shallow RF fly-outs that Frank would not. He could also handle hit-n-runs better with his level swing, not to mention stay out of a DP by swiping a base or 10, which you couldn't say for Frank. Etc.

Of course this brings us to Frank. He will not see lots of fastballs with Koney/Lee on deck, true, but I think at 35yo (probably not as quick anymore) he would prefer to see more change-ups curves and hanging sliders. I mean, just because he is no longer interested in taking walks doesn't mean his superior eye can't recognize the breaking spin early anymore....right? It seemed Magglio was frustrated with all the junk he got thrown last season.

And yeah, I DO realize that a lot of this is pure speculation and that just how successful this move will be is directly proportional to how well 1-2 hitters get on base and how Konerko/Lee will fare protecting the clean-up hitter......Worst comes the worst, it was worth a try and Ozzie can always switch it back.

1/50 of a $

Mohoney
03-24-2004, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by kittle42
I actually thought this:

Do we possibly, outside of the Yankees, have the best 2, 3, 4 hitters in baseball (on days Lee hits 2nd)?

You can put it on the board!

When C Lee hits 5th, we have the best 3-4-5 hitters.

How about Rowand batting 2nd? Then C- Lee can settle into the 5 spot, and Konerko can benefit from ALWAYS having a bona fide threat in the 5 hole.

Rowand 2, Maggs 3, Hurt 4, Carlos 5, Konerko 6, Crede 7, Jose 8, Olivo 9.

Kenny, get us a leadoff man that can play 2nd.

Wait...we already had one!

Maybe Vidro will be available July 31?

Randar68
03-25-2004, 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Mohoney
You can put it on the board!

When C Lee hits 5th, we have the best 3-4-5 hitters.

How about Rowand batting 2nd? Then C- Lee can settle into the 5 spot, and Konerko can benefit from ALWAYS having a bona fide threat in the 5 hole.

Rowand 2, Maggs 3, Hurt 4, Carlos 5, Konerko 6, Crede 7, Jose 8, Olivo 9.



Why don't we just take anyone with a piss-poor OBP and put them at the top of the order? That would be great, right?

batmanZoSo
03-25-2004, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by Veeky


Frank is a mistake/flyball hitter, especially on the inside part of the plate and has next to no power to RCF-RF. At this point, he is probably a 380 OBP presence -- partly because he doesn't WANT to be an OBP machine anymore. Slow as on the pads, too.





Frank gave up on being a high average hitter, but he still drew 100 walks. Had his horrible first half not taken place, he'd be well over .400 in on-base. If you ask me he's back to being a machine in that respect and I doubt Maggs will ever take walks and reach .400 so it's best that Frank stays in the three hole.

Mohoney
03-25-2004, 02:26 AM
Originally posted by RKMeibalane
I agree, and that's why I'm not convinced this is what's best for the team. As has been said many times on this board. Frank Thomas remains the best hitter the Sox have. Moving him down in the order could do a lot of good, but it may also cause a lot of problems. The one concern I have is that Frank may not see that many pitches to hit if Lee hits in the number two spot, because Konerko would then be hitting behind Frank in the order.

C Lee would be hitting 5th, unless the "powers that be" are COMPLETELY STUPID!

Rowand 2, Maggs 3, Hurt 4, C Lee 5, PK 6, Crede 7, Jose 8, Olivo 9.

All we need is Robbie Alomar!

What? We HAD Robbie Alomar?

Mohoney
03-25-2004, 02:42 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
Why don't we just take anyone with a piss-poor OBP and put them at the top of the order? That would be great, right?

I GUARANTEE that Konerko's "OBP" (which, I guess, is the sole measure of a players' greatness) is .365+ this year. I GUARANTEE that Rowand and Crede BOTH have "OBP" higher than .340.

A high OBP SUCKS if you don't score runs.

With Rowand batting 2nd, we'll MASH!

Since when did pitching automatically win the Comedy Central?

The Indians won 5 times in a row with NO PITCHING AT ALL!

Our rotation BLOWS AWAY the rotation of the late '90s Tribe, and they played in 2 WORLD SERIES!

Wait until at LEAST June 1st before you COMPLETELY write the Sox off.

Veeky
03-25-2004, 03:00 AM
Had his horrible first half not taken place, he'd be well over .400 in on-base

And had 5 months of the season not taken place, Magglio's OBP would be .450.

Too bad it DID take place -- seasons are composed of good halves and bad halves and halves in between.

And, please.....with Frank's speed his value is not -- and has never been -- 400 OBP. His primary value is 600 + Slugging.

And all those 100-walk seasons were before Frank made a conscious effort to HIT, HIT, HIT, SLUG, SLUG, SLUG, pretty much admitting what's on his daily agenda in numerous interviws last year.

I stated all of this in the previous post, so why amI repeating myself?

Veeky
03-25-2004, 03:04 AM
Is it me, or are Randar and Rowand having a one-way love affair?

Nah.....it's just a stray cat.

voodoochile
03-25-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Mohoney


I GUARANTEE that Konerko's "OBP" (which, I guess, is the sole measure of a players' greatness) is .365+ this year. I GUARANTEE that Rowand and Crede BOTH have "OBP" higher than .340.

A high OBP SUCKS if you don't score runs.

With Rowand batting 2nd, we'll MASH!

Since when did pitching automatically win the Comedy Central?

The Indians won 5 times in a row with NO PITCHING AT ALL!

Our rotation BLOWS AWAY the rotation of the late '90s Tribe, and they played in 2 WORLD SERIES!

Wait until at LEAST June 1st before you COMPLETELY write the Sox off.


You guarantee that Konerko will have a.365 OBP? Rowand will be .340? Based on what? Have they ever even come close to those numbers? Take off the Sox colored sun glasses. This isn't about being right and wrong, it's about wha't best for the team and...

OBP may not be THE sole factor when deciding a players worth, but it IS the sole deciding factor in who bats 1st and 2nd in your lineup.

and...

Just to turn this around. How are you going to score lots of runs if you don't have lots of guys on base?

Originally posted by Veeky


And had 5 months of the season not taken place, Magglio's OBP would be .450.

Too bad it DID take place -- seasons are composed of good halves and bad halves and halves in between.

And, please.....with Frank's speed his value is not -- and has never been -- 400 OBP. His primary value is 600 + Slugging.

And all those 100-walk seasons were before Frank made a conscious effort to HIT, HIT, HIT, SLUG, SLUG, SLUG, pretty much admitting what's on his daily agenda in numerous interviws last year.

I stated all of this in the previous post, so why amI repeating myself?

That's funny I must have missed all those seasons when Frank scored well over 100 runs. Yeah, that had nothing to do with his OBP and didn't have nearly the value that his slugging does.

Your Magglio reference makes no sense. Frank had a bad start to the season then started to get in a groove in May. It's not hard to see how he might have an OBP over .400 when he is healthy AND comfortable for an entire season.

voodoochile
03-25-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Veeky
Is it me, or are Randar and Rowand having a one-way love affair?

Nah.....it's just a stray cat.

Is this intended to add something to the conversation?

Randar68
03-25-2004, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by Mohoney
I GUARANTEE that Konerko's "OBP" (which, I guess, is the sole measure of a players' greatness) is .365+ this year. I GUARANTEE that Rowand and Crede BOTH have "OBP" higher than .340.

A high OBP SUCKS if you don't score runs.


You don't score runs without one of the 2 following:
1) tremendous clutch hitting
2) excellent OBP

Sorry, it's been that way for 100+ years.

Aaron Rowand has never had a .350 OBP in any full season league IN HIS CAREER! He's 27 years old, what makes you think it's suddenly going to happen?

Friendly wager on those Konerko and Rowand numbers? Would you like to put money or a nice bottle of Scotch on those "GUARANTEE'S" or are they what I think they are, useless wind?

SEALgep
03-25-2004, 11:10 AM
Originally posted by Randar68

Friendly wager on those Konerko and Rowand numbers? Would you like to put money or a nice bottle of Scotch on those "GUARANTEE'S" or are they what I think they are, useless wind? You're going to have to risk more Randar. That looks like a two player parlay to me.

Randar68
03-25-2004, 11:17 AM
Originally posted by SEALgep
You're going to have to risk more Randar. That looks like a two player parlay to me.

Risk more? IMO, there aren't many fine bottles of Scotch that don't cost at least 50-100 bucks... Seems like a considerable "friendly wager" to me.

I'll make it a 18 year Macallan. How about that? That's about 90-100 bucks.

Mahoney, where you at with your Guarantees?

Dadawg_77
03-25-2004, 01:55 PM
Originally posted by Randar68
Risk more? IMO, there aren't many fine bottles of Scotch that don't cost at least 50-100 bucks... Seems like a considerable "friendly wager" to me.

I'll make it a 18 year Macallan. How about that? That's about 90-100 bucks.

Mahoney, where you at with your Guarantees?

I would take Mahoney action, also. But for rule number one on sports betting never bet on your team. I would have to root for the Sox to fail for me to win the bet, and I just can't do that.

I think a lot of people are making this out to be more then it really is. The change will only cause an effect of a couple of runs either way, not enough to factor in the race. The biggest thing about this move is that it came from Frank and it seems the team is working out clubhouse issues very well this season.

The problem is the Sox need 1 and 2 guys to get on base. For the person who says OBP doesn't mean much if you don't score, you are correct for the fact nothing really means anything if you don't score and win. What you are ignoring is the very fact OBP causes scoring more then anything else.

maurice
03-25-2004, 02:23 PM
Me three. This is an ideal bet, because: (1) I'm very likely to win, and (2) I'd still be pretty happy even if I lost.