Comments on: Leading Off: The Number 2 hitter http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299 This and that about baseball stats. Tue, 16 Jul 2013 17:01:55 +0000 hourly 1 https://wordpress.org/?v=4.6 By: Raphy http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6318 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:05:38 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6318 They only combined as a 1-2 punch for a quarter of the season, but Henderson-Mattingly in 1985 (and some in subsequent years) has to rank up there.

]]>
By: TheGoof http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6308 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 16:38:54 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6308 I said "very good," not great. But the Indians' lineup was so potent and successful, I don't think there was any need to alter it. Where they fell short was always pitching. Whitaker and Trammell? That's great. Two should-be Hall of Famers and the greatest all-around combination at short and second I've ever seen. They could beat you hitting, running or fielding. I'm not knocking the selection of Mazeroski and Smith to the Hall, but these guys were far more qualified.

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6307 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 15:40:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6307 Buckley, you can look that up on both the individual player pages and on the team pages. Whitaker spent most of his career batting 1st or 2nd. Looks like he was mostly leadoff from '83 to '87. He batted 2nd in the late '70s and then again in the late '80s/early '90s. Trammell batted mostly 2nd, with solid chunks of time batting 3rd ('88, '90, '91), 4th ('87-'89), or 9th ('78, '79, '82). Anyway, from '83 to '86, the Tigers' most common lineup had Whitaker and Trammel batting 1-2.

]]>
By: buckley http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6305 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 13:14:08 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6305 Whitaker / Trammel hit 1 - 2 for a long time also, if I recall. Trammel eventually moved to #3 spot. Can anybody look that up?

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6304 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:58:04 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6304 Those '90s Indians had some frightening offenses. Could they have been even better if Thome or someone was batting #2 instead of Vizquel? Seems quite possible. Of course, who knows if Thome would have taken it as a dis that he wasn't in a "run-producing" spot, and consequently didn't play as well. On the other hand, perhaps his taking to the spot and succeeding in it would have led to other teams doing the same thing.

Apreziosi, I think it's a good idea to split your lefties, if possible. This is probably why the Yankees are flipping Damon and Jeter, because they anticipate lefty Brett Gardner batting 9th. Of course, if you have a LH who can handle LHP, it doesn't make a big difference. But most lefties do seem to have big platoon splits.

]]>
By: ZimJim http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6303 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:27:58 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6303 apreziosi, i have to agree with the goof.

lofton has always been an underrated hitter in my mind and was very consistent plus a threat on the basepaths.

and visquel was known more for his glove but hit aroun 290 during his tenure with the indians and stole around 35 bases a year.

id say they were a formidable one-two punch

]]>
By: apreziosi http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6302 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 23:18:09 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6302 Some perspective please:

Lofton/Vizquel? Give me a break.

]]>
By: TheGoof http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6301 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 20:01:45 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6301 Lofton/Vizquel combo led off for the Indians from 1994 through 1996 and in 1998 and 1999. Five years for a very good two-some, including two pennants. I wonder how many combos have had more games at 1-2 than Lofton/Vizquel.

]]>
By: apreziosi http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6300 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 17:26:53 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6300 You could argue the value of the leadoff hitter, since he is only guranteed to lead-off one inning. The bigger argument is lineup construction.

Phillies manager Charlie Manuel is a big believer in splitting up his left and right-handed hitters (starting pitchers too, but that's another matter). I suppose he thinks it limits the options for the opposing manager. (There's a link to your one-third inning pitched list)

I think it's more important to put guys in an order that makes sense rather than just what side they hit from, but whatever order you decide, they're only going to be successful 30% of the time (the good ones) and the chances of all of them being successful at the same time make lineups even less important.

How many decent hitters were stuck in the 8-hole and never had an opportunity to see good pitches? There's another list for you - highest averages by #8 hitters.

]]>
By: JohnnyTwisto http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/1299/comment-page-1#comment-6298 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 16:32:55 +0000 http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/?p=1299#comment-6298 The difference in hitting ability between those two lists is striking. While acknowledging that there's probably not too much difference in scoring between any "reasonable" lineups, the insistence of managers to fill the #2 spot with a "contact" hitter rather than one of their best hitters is annoying. Ironically, as Michael Kay would say, Jeter is probably the best of the #2 hitters and Damon the worst of the leadoff guys.

]]>