Jayson Werth? OK this is very interesting.
On one hand - this barely matters. As counter intuitive as it may seem the order of your lineup isn't as make or break as you would think it is. Even if you were an idiot and set the exact worst lineup out everyday, something like Pudge, Pitcher, etc. etc. it wouldn't kill your team. Oh you'll lose a few more games, but it wouldn't be like 20. It'd be more like 5, maybe 10. You might see a bigger difference because of luck in 1-run games. (I can point you to some analyses if you like - who doesn't love Markov Chains? Probably the people he locked up in them... ha! Where's my ALF picture?)
And that's comparing your worst lineup to your best. The normal lineup - scrappy fast guy, good BA no power, best hitter maybe, or else best hitter here (usually the guy with more power between the two), decent hitter with power, last guy you have with power left, dregs... - is only going to be a win or two different from the "best" lineup. There are a ton of things that can effect a season a game or two. In other words, what's been used for 100 or so years really is good enough.
On the other hand, you might as well get every win that you can and going with a strategy that puts your high OBP guys up first is a step toward optimizing runs. Werth is a high OBP guy and batting him 2nd is a ballsy move. A GOOD ballsy move. The Nats should get more runs out of it. Sure he might drive in fewer runs, but not that much fewer since some of that loss of people to drive in will be mitigated by the increase in at bats he should see. At the same time Werth should also SCORE more runs batting second. I don't love it, but I do like it.
Two things though:
(1) I wonder how long this will actually last. Generally new and different ideas in baseball only last as long as the team is successful and the Nats don't have the talent to be that successful. It's the culture. It's fine to fail with old ideas. Hundreds of teams have done it before. You're just one of us. But fail with something new, even if it should be better in the long run, you are screwed. Who do you think you are? You think you're smarter than John McGraw? That you're better than Stengel?
(2) What happens to Desmond? I've said before I think he needs to be in a position where he sees a lot of fastballs to succeed. If the Nats truly are concerned with OBP then he can't bat first so that puts him....6th protected by Ramos or Espinosa? I'm not putting money in Desmond futures if this is the case
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
11 comments:
I do kind of respect Riggle for going with the ballsy move that, as you point out, will likely subject him to all kinds of second-guessing if the Nats offense struggles. Rizzo will also come in for second-guessing of the "You spent $126 million on a number two hitter?!?" variety.
Perhaps my strongest reaction though is the sudden realization that we do not have a very tough lineup. I know, stop the presses, but with a Zim, Werth, LaRock 3-4-5 in some order you can lull yourself into a false sense of "hey, that's pretty solid!" If I take a look at Werth second, my inclination would be to hit LaRock 3rd to break up the righties, and then I'm slapped in the face by the fact that I just suggested hitting Adam LaRoche 3rd. Holy crap. Not enough weapons.
I wonder if this was also done in order to move Morse up to the 5-hole. The dude has been absolutely RAKING. If he keeps it up in the regular season, suddenly you've got a very formidable 2-5 followed by two other guys capable of hitting at least 15 dingers themselves.
For all the handwringing about the loss of Dunn and Willingham, this has the potential to be the most powerful and fun to watch Nats lineup yet.
I assume Desmond bats leadoff, Espinosa drops to seventh, and Ankiel hits sixth. Desmond makes too many out to hit leadoff, but the only better candidate is . . . wait for it . . . Werth, which isn't going to (and shouldn't) happen. But Desmond will see fastballs hitting leadoff in front of Werth and Zimmermann. And maybe Desi's OBP will go up with an additional year of seasoning.
3 reasons this makes sense
1) I took this move as further confirmation that Morgan won't be in leadoff. It's like Dez with Ankiel likely at 6 or maybe 7.
2) Morse's awesome bat has to be moved up at this pt. He's just crushing and at some pt spring stats do matter. (Remember Joel Hanrahan's one amazing spring?) When you're at the top in dingers in the spring and a solid year last year, you get a chance to show what you can do in April a bit higher than expected.
3) It puts LaRoche in the more natural 4 spot without batting Werth/Zim 5th. So as you mention, you're maximizing your best hitters while moving your hottest hitter up in the lineup and getting the l/r split.
John O' Connor - Just curious, why not consider Werth first? Are you thinking that the advantage of more OBP in the leadoff spot is outweighed by having a guy who hits a lot of balls hard and in play hitting with no one on base most of the time?
Dammit they erased my long replies.
OK quick
Sec 220 / bdrube - I think you're both right. Best bet would be on the lineup being same as usual, but it has the best odds of being something better than average as well. If that makes sense. I can try again later
JOC - I'd like to see Espinosa bat first, he can take a walk. But if they aren't back into Morgan then yeah - you're right - looks like Desmond despite what I said.
Hoo - 1) Boo! (i want morgan) 2) Agree 3) technically you want like your 5th best hitter in the 3 hole but we're splitting hairs here
Sec 220 - because the pitcher is an automatic out and you don't want to waste that power on empty bases and leading off. Though it shouldn't matter that much
Thankfully they stopped Markov before he could start on his centipede project ....
Section 220 -- Yeah, basically what you and Harper said. In the NL, the leadoff hitter has way too many at bats (including, by definition, his first at bat) where nobody is on base.
Basil are you sure - I saw some lineup in 2007 that would make me think otherwise.
For those who understand baseball better than I do: Will Werth at two make Desmond a better hitter at the lead-off spot? Won't they be more likely to give him fast-balls if they are worried about the hitters behind him (Werth and Zimmerman)? And what exactly is the other option, assuming that Morgan is gone?
@Tom -- Werth at #2 only makes Ian better at #1 if you assume that the alternative is Ian at #1 with some schmo at #2. If the alternative is Ian at #2 and Werth at #3, it's a push.
Post a Comment