Neither of them are setting the world on fire, but Betancourt (the #9 hitter) has a clear advantage over Vidro (the DH who usually bats 2nd or 3rd :eek: ).
Betancourt: OBP=.287, SLG=.401
Vidro: OBP=.263, SLG=.320 :eek: :eek: :eek: :barf:
La Russa’s record with the Cardinals (12 full seasons and to date for this year) .544
The Cardinals record for the 12 seasons before LaRussa .491
That workds out to about 7.5 wins per year with LaRussa than in the prior 12 years. And the managers for more than 10 of those 12 prior years were Whitey Herzog and Joe Torre.
Well, uh, I don’t think that’s true at all. In the decades before Moneyball, your 3 and 4 hitters were almost invariably your biggest home run hitters.
I’m willing to see evidence to the contrary, but historically, players with high batting averages but few home runs have almost always batted leadoff or #2, at least after home runs became a going concern. I can’t think of any exceptions, except maybe when a team had no power hitters at all. You didn’t see Pete Rose or Richie Ashburn batting cleanup.
Eh, I’m not invested enough in the point to try and figure out how to get any stats on the matter. Just that my recollection of lineups growing up usually had the fastest guy who stole the most bases in the leadoff spot and the idea of on-base percentage was almost never mentioned. Vince Coleman was the model for a leadoff hitter in NL in those days and his OBP sucked ass. When you look at this random year I pulled up you can see that all the top OPB and BA guys were 3 or 4 hitters with the exception of Tim Raines and they aren’t all power guys. Gwynn, Molitor, Trammell, Boggs and Mattingly most commonly batted in the 3-4-5 spots as I recall and none were really power hitters.
I realize that it’s a long ways from evidence since it’s just a top 10 list for one season but it seems like the 80’s was filled with Boggs/Grace/Gwynn types who were slow and weak but had great OBPs and they very rarely batted outside of the 3-4-5 slots. Boggs might have led off on occasion but it was considered unconventional and probably had reporters screaming.
I’d say that back then Grace hitting in the 3 spot based on his .310+ BA was far from uncommon even if he was only good for 15 dingers.
I remember Boggs batting leadoff almost exclusively. My memory isn’t always reliable, though.
Looking at this link Boggs batted 1st, 2nd, and 3rd regularly.
I realize it is a minor quibble. But, i would disagree that Vince Coleman was ever the model for a leadoff hitter. He was a great base stealer and known for it, and that took the slack from his lack of hitting skills, so he worked out as a good leadoff hitter. But, I seem to remember even at the time that Tim Raines and especially Rickey Henderson were looked at at the true model lead off hitters. They had speed and they got on base often.
Getting past that my memory of the 80s is different than yours. Boggs and Gwynn were, for the most part, number 2 hitters with a leadoff spot here or there. I seem to remember Mattingly having more power than those two, and I still think he hit 3 in that lineup, with Winfield or Baylor at cleanup. He hit 20 or so home runs a year. Same with Molitor he hit for some power as well.
Ok. So, I based most of that on my hazy memories. But, then I went to retrosheet.org and did some random clicking. It seemed to mostly back me up. I am not really interested enough to totally prove my point. So, I guess what it comes down to is that we are both goint to say we are correct because we are too lazy to find out either way. Ignorance truly is bliss.
pat
Well, yes, they were certainly elite lead-off hitters. I guess what I’m saying that those two guys were put in the lead off spot because of their base stealing abilities. The fact that they were excellent OBP guys was considered gravy if it was considered at all. I remember every team seemed to be desperately seeking out the next SB king to stick into the top of their order even if the struck out 100 times. There were a lot of John Cangelosi’s, Davey Lopes’ and Mookie Wilson’s batting leadoff year after year because they could run.
I know there are exceptions and some managers got it right (not to mention guys that were so great at everything they could bat anywhere), but I still think the general consensus through the bulk of the 80s and early 90s was that your SB guy led off and your BA guys hit 3-4 and your HR guys hit 4-5. A lot of SB guys led off when a better OBP guy was batting all over the lineup behind them.
They cloned him? 
Traditionally, your highest average hitter batted third and your slugger 4th. Mantle hit for higher average than Maris, so he batted third. Ruth’s lifetime BA is slightly higher than Gehrigs (OBA didn’t matter back then), so he batted third.
Your leadoff hitter was your main base stealing threat, while your number 2 would be a guy with good bat control who didn’t strike out a lot and who could hit behind the runner.
The plan was for the first batter to get on base, go to second on a steal (though the steal stopped being an offensive strategy through the 40s and 50s) or a ground ball to first, then a single by the #3 to drive in the run and a big blow from the #4 to score another run or two.
Simulations have been made showing that certain unconventional lineups would score more runs than traditional (or modified traditional), but they don’t take into account how one batter affects another. If there’s a good hitter behind you, you’ll see a few more good pitches (and fewer intentional walks) than if then next two batters are a pudding and a cake.
Cite? (Unless you mean literally a pudding and a cake or any other baked goods.) What I dislike about this particular always-unsupported argument is how it nelects to account for the obvious fact that SOMEONE is going to bat in front of the pudding (instead of in front of a better hitter) and that his performance would be decreased to the same exact degree that your good hitter would have his performance enhanced (if that factor even exists, which as I say hasn’t begin to be demonstrated).
Boggs was a leadoff hitter for the great bulk of his career, and when he wasn’t leading off he batted second. He was Boston’s more-or-less everyday leadoff man for six or seven years, at least. Dewey Evans usually batted third, Rice cleanup, until Rice got old.
Trammell batted first or second for most of his career; the Tigers often went 1-2 with Whitaker and Trammell, actually. (Which made sense.) Gwynn started out batting second, behind Alan Wiggins - remember him? Drug problems - and was usually 1-2 until later in his career. Molitor was a leadoff hitter for most of his time with Milwaukee - hence his nickname “The Ignitor,” because he started it off - and didn’t move down until later, and Mattingly certainly was a power hitter (as well as a batting champion) at least until he got hurt.
Because baseball suffers from old think. thats why it stays to the old order system. There was a time when games were low scoring and playing for a run or two was the proper way to play. Now that games are higher scoring they should rethink. Number one power hitter should bat 4th. Second 7th or 8th.
But then you face egos. Boinds would be insulted to bat 8th. How do you keep him happy?
Seems like a simple “bat in order of your percentage” or some other transparently objective measure would solve that problem. Want to bat earlier? Then improve your game.
If I remember his stats right, Wade Boggs (along with legendary Mariners DH Edgar Martinez) saw more pitches per at-bat than most players, and struck out less often than average. Those alone are good enough reasons for him to get plenty of time at the top of the order.
As I said before, the guys at the top of the order always get more at-bats. It stands to reason you want those guys to be more productive.
I don’t accept that giving Shlabotnik more good pitches increases his average the same amount as giving Mantle those same pitches. Mantle is a better hitter, and able to do more with them. Shlabotnik is probably hoping for bad pitches, so he can get a walk.
Again, cite?
Beyond the fact, of course, that you “don’t accept that.” It’s just as likely that Shlabotnik can handle a cripple pitch but can’t deal with stuff on the black well, while Mantle can do damage with a pitch anywhere. The fact that you (generic “you”) keep asserting the virtues of putting Mantle in front of the good hitters and Shlabotnik in front of the bad hitters doesn’t begin to make it virtuous. What studies I’ve read have shown no difference at all, but even if you could show a slight edge, like .010 in OPS, would that offset the advantage in moving bad hitters up in the lineup ahead of better hitters? (I’m assuming Shlabotnik bats leadoff and Mantle #3–if Joe S. bats further down, like #6 or 7, then of course you’d bat a bad hitter behind him–that’s just good sense having bad hitters bast #7 or #8.) The poor hitter, by definition, has an OPS that’s way worse than .010 of a good hitter.
Here’s one :
I was at a poker table one night last year, seated next to a fellow Mets fan, with a Mets game playing on an overhead TV. At one point, this person declared that Paul Lo Duca (.277/.311/.378 last year) was the only No. 2 hitter the Mets should use, because he’s a good bunter who doesn’t strike out much, and the No. 2 hitter’s job is to move the runner over.
What I actually said was: “Well, I don’t know. I think that might not be quite as true today as it used to be, you know?”
What I wanted to say was: “Buddy, what the fuck? Paul Freakin’ Lo Duca? Bunting the runner over? Have you been in a coma since WWI? It’s people like you, inside and outside of baseball, that cause the Mets to actually bat that schlub (or Endy Chavez) 2nd.”
The worst No. 2 hitters of all time. (Harball Times)