Questions about baseball

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 7, 2004, 1:40 pm

Ok so I am trying to get into baseball.. not sure why really, but it is something to watch during the day. I got the rules etc down, but am currently learning the strategies etc. So here is my question:

The first hitter's main job is to get on base, right? Even if it is just to 1st? That is more important than having a heavy hitter there? Would that then make Ichiro the best first hitter in baseball now? He doesn't hit with that much power but hits a lot to get on base..

But what about Bonds then? He gets walked a lot, but is his homerun threat enough to keep him further down? And why move Sosa to 5th since he is having a bad hitting run? Is that because you put your best hitters second and third? And A-Rod to second because of that?

Thanks in advance for helping out a lost Norse!

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 7, 2004, 1:51 pm

Ok, teams usually put their best hitters (with good speed) as the number one guy in the lineup. Thats to get on base and score early runs. The number 3 and 4 slots are usually reserved for your power hitters. Yes, Ichiro is one of the best leadoff hitters, but there are many other good ones. (Damon, Crawford just to name a few).

People walk Bonds because they would rather pitch to the guy behind him because statistically, they have a better chance of not giving up a HR.

As for Sosa, being 5th in the order still gives him good opportunities to drive in runs, but usually, if the #1,2,3,4 guys went up, there is nothing left for him to drive in. They moved him there because he isn't getting the job done, this is a way to punish him without hurting the team's rbi total.

Edit to add: In the case of Bonds, he SHOULD be hitting number 3 in the lineup making it difficult for pitchers to walk him, only if they have another strong hitter batting cleanup (4th)

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 7, 2004, 2:17 pm

Sosa has been sucking it up. He really shouldn't even be 5th in the order.

If your clean up hitter is your best batter, you want some protection for him in the 5th spot. If you have a decent hitter in the 5th spot, it's harder to pitch around the cleanup hitter. That really goes for any spot in the batting order though.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 7, 2004, 3:44 pm

Baseball is all about run manufacturing. You want your leadoff hitter to get on base, but more importantly, you want him to score a run, so more skills than just singles are useful. If your leadoff guy is on first, he still won't score on a single unless it's a hell of a single. You want to get him to second or third, where he can most likely score off a hit. Thus, a leadoff hitter who hits a ton of singles is good, but you'd rather have a leadoff hitter who hits singles, doubles, and can steal bases to get himself in the appropriate position. If he hits home runs too, that's fine, but if he hits too many, it's a waste-- you'd rather have him batting in a position where there will be people on base when he hits those home runs. Rickey Henderson was the greatest leadoff hitter to play the game because, even though his batting average is not as high as Ichiro's, he hit for significantly more power and he was a far better base stealer.

The second spot in the lineup is more versatile. One of the keys is not being a fly ball hitter. The second batter often has the responsibility of moving the leadoff man from first to second base. This can be done via base hit, well positioned ground ball, bunt, etc. It can virtually never be done on a fly ball, because second base is so far out into the field. Most outfielders have the arm to gun down a runner trying to advance from first to second on a fly. The second hitter should also be prepared for RBI situations, with the runner on second or third. If the runner is on second with no outs (leadoff double or single + steal or whatever), it is absolutely imperative that the second batter get the baserunner to third. One out and a runner on third is almost a guaranteed run-- the batter simply has to hit a fly ball to the outfield, or a groundball to an awkward position and the runner will score, so if there's a runner on second with no outs, there's no excuse for not moving him over. The versatility demanded by the position is a main reason that guys like Derek Jeter fit in so well there.

Third, fourth, and fifth batters are the big run producers, and are manned by guys who bat for a high average and can hit for power, so they can drive in those who bat before them.

Of course, most of this doesn't really matter, because you only run through the lineup starting from number 1 the first time you bat. Every batter in the lineup needs to be prepared to fill any role, which is why multi-dimensional players (like Vladimir Guerrero or Carlos Beltran) are valuable while one dimensional players (like Alex Sanchez or Rob Deer) are basically worthless. It's also a reason why, for instance, Manny Ramirez is a better offensive player than David Ortiz. Manny's triple crown stats are .317/38/111. Ortiz' are .303/36/122. Virtually even. However, Ortiz is about as slow a motherfucker as you will find playing professional sports. Manny, while not real fast, is much more capable of beating out double plays or scoring from second on a close play.

A good example of baseball strategy was demonstrated in the Red Sox - A's game last night. The Sox were up 4-2 (I think), with runners on second and third base and one out. Manny Ramirez was batting, with Ortiz on deck. The A's chose to intentionally walk Ramirez to bring up Ortiz with the bases loaded. This certainly wasn't because Ortiz is a lesser hitter than Manny-- it was because Ortiz is really slow, and they thought the following things:

1. The runner on first creates a double play situation, and Ortiz is slow enough that turning one is a significant possibility.
2. If he hits a sacrifice, whether it be flyball or groundball or whatever, one run will score, same as if Manny had hit it.
3. If he hits a single, two runs will score, same as if Manny had hit it.
4. If he hits for some power, we're fucked.

So basically, they traded the risk of an extra run scoring on a big hit for the chance of a double play. Of course, Ortiz hit a three-run rocket into the gap, so the strategy backfired on them, but that is sort of a long rambling description of some baseball strategy.

Oh: and the batters of course have to go out into the field and play, so an excellent hitter with a cannon arm (like Guerrero or Ichiro) or stellar defense (like Scott Rolen) are the best of all.

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 7, 2004, 3:56 pm

hum ok thanks, it fits reasonably well in with what I had worked out on my own heh. From what I have seen Ichiro has the arm, he gets on base a LOT and is fast enough to run.. but if he hit a few more doubles he might be perfect. And yeah, I love how Jeter plays. He plays with so much passion and heart.

masteen · Post by **masteen** » September 7, 2004, 4:39 pm

You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. It's a really simple game

XunilTlatoani · Post by **XunilTlatoani** » September 7, 2004, 6:24 pm

If you really want to get into baseball, I recommend trying to get into a fantasy baseball league of some sort next year. I really think it's the best way to get involved with your sport of choice and keep up to date with the who's who.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 7, 2004, 6:28 pm

masteen wrote:You throw the ball, you catch the ball, you hit the ball. It's a really simple game

Not compared to soccer where you just kick the ball : )

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 7, 2004, 7:46 pm

Jesus Seuv, that was pretty frikken well put. Making runs is the goal. Plain and simple. Cetain players are able to do so because, 1. they get on base 2. they can get into scoring position because of, either speed, being able to get multi base hits, 3. the opposing team would rather face the batter behind you because they pose less of a threat.

In addition to what he said from an outfield fielding standpoint, the right fielder has to have the gun of an arm while the center fielder needs to be able to cover the most territory. The former is becuase you need to keep the man on first from scoring at all costs and from a distance standpoint, hitting to the right field will get you there. A guy that can gun you out and prevent you from getting home or even to third is why you see massive arms sitting out there, ie. Guerrero, Ichiro, Sheffield, etc

Not being an immediate fan of baseball, it was tough for me to get into. Because there were so many games, each one seemed irrelevant, the players fight by swinging haymakers instead of the hockey fights I was taught (player since 4 years of age and learned how to pull down a jersey at 7), and I really just didn't think the games were exciting.

Following this season from the getgo, I can say that it's almost the perfect game with almost the perfect season and season length. The more you watch it, the more you get amazed at how specific plays work only because of the well-honed rules.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 7, 2004, 8:30 pm

Bonds is no longer quick enough to hit in the 3hole, the reason he hits in the 4 hole is because with runners on base his chances of being walked are lessoned, sadly only slightly (someone intentionally walked him with 2 strikes a few weeks back which is bullshit). Leadoff hitters are all about On Base %, batting average means shit on a shingle if they know how to take pitches and draw walks. Different parks play different but the general rule is the right feilder has a gun, now I am in SF, the RF also has to be able to get on his horse because we have death valley there of 421 in right center.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 7, 2004, 10:59 pm

Most teams put their best hitter....or most dangerous hitter in the 3rd spot in the lineup. That gives them the oppurtunity to get more at bats and give a greater chance for scoring runs. You also guarantee that your best hitter gets to bat in the first inning.

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 8, 2004, 1:04 am

Hmm unless I'm mistaken hasn't Bonds usually hit 4th or 5th in the order for most of his career I don't remember him ever hitting in the 3rd spot. In Pittsburg it was Van Slyke, Bonilla and then Bonds. I don't remember in San Francisco, but for some reason I keep thinking Reggie Sanders, Kent then Bonds batting 3rd, 4th and 5th. Pretty much put in the 5th spot so that people would have no choice but to pitch to the 3rd and 4th hitters since none of the other players would really act as much protection for Bonds if he was in either of those two spots.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 8, 2004, 2:40 am

Crav wrote:Hmm unless I'm mistaken hasn't Bonds usually hit 4th or 5th in the order for most of his career I don't remember him ever hitting in the 3rd spot. In Pittsburg it was Van Slyke, Bonilla and then Bonds. I don't remember in San Francisco, but for some reason I keep thinking Reggie Sanders, Kent then Bonds batting 3rd, 4th and 5th. Pretty much put in the 5th spot so that people would have no choice but to pitch to the 3rd and 4th hitters since none of the other players would really act as much protection for Bonds if he was in either of those two spots.

Bonds started as a leadoff hitter, when he came to SF he went to the 3hole, then in 91 (Kent's last year) he went into the 4hole because Kent's numbers were down. He has lived there since

Crav · Post by **Crav** » September 8, 2004, 3:42 am

Hmm I thought in 93 it was Will Clark, Matt Williams, then Bonds. I'm not a big SF fan so I'll take your work for it

. It's always funny looking at the number of MVPs who hit in front of Bonds.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 4:08 am

2001 World Series Winning Diamondback Lineup:

1. Tony Womack
2. Jay Bell
3. Luis Gonzalez
4. Matt Williams
5. Steve Finley
6. Travis Lee
7. Damian Miller
8. Kelly Stinnett
9. Randy Johnson

How in the hell did we win the world series with that lineup?

Oh yeah...pitching : )

Mak · Post by **Mak** » September 8, 2004, 5:02 am

Winnow wrote:2001 World Series Winning Diamondback Lineup:

1. Tony Womack
2. Jay Bell
3. Luis Gonzalez
4. Matt Williams
5. Steve Finley
6. Travis Lee
7. Damian Miller
8. Kelly Stinnett
9. Randy Johnson

How in the hell did we win the world series with that lineup?

Oh yeah...pitching : )

Damian Miller and Kelly Stinnett are both catchers. I think Stinnett was gone by then, and I want to say Travis Lee had been traded by then as well. Mark Grace should be in there somewhere too.

Lynks · Post by **Lynks** » September 8, 2004, 8:38 am

Womack was a decent hitter and Gonzalez was a HR God that season. Williams still had some juice left in him.

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 8, 2004, 11:24 am

Crav wrote:Hmm I thought in 93 it was Will Clark, Matt Williams, then Bonds. I'm not a big SF fan so I'll take your work for it . It's always funny looking at the number of MVPs who hit in front of Bonds.

ACK....`01! sorry I am now officially feeling old, And yah, hitting anywhere near Bonds adds to your numbers

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 12:44 pm

Mak wrote:
Winnow wrote:2001 World Series Winning Diamondback Lineup:

1. Tony Womack
2. Jay Bell
3. Luis Gonzalez
4. Matt Williams
5. Steve Finley
6. Travis Lee
7. Damian Miller
8. Kelly Stinnett
9. Randy Johnson

How in the hell did we win the world series with that lineup?

Oh yeah...pitching : )
Damian Miller and Kelly Stinnett are both catchers. I think Stinnett was gone by then, and I want to say Travis Lee had been traded by then as well. Mark Grace should be in there somewhere too.

Well there was a lot of switching of players in the lineup but you're right. Travis Lee wasn't there I think and Craig Counsel and others were key role players. I'll have to find a better list! ESPN let me down.

Winnow · Post by **Winnow** » September 8, 2004, 12:46 pm

Bah. Double.

Aevian Dreaklear · Post by **Aevian Dreaklear** » September 8, 2004, 2:18 pm

If you are really interested in learning more about baseball, I recommend picking up Moneyball by Michael Lewis. It follows Billy Beane, owner of the Oakland Athletics and shows how he put together a team with a small budget by placing move emphasis on things such as on base percentage, on base plus slugging, and pitcher ground outs. Worth a read.

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 8, 2004, 8:13 pm

You definitely didn't have Travis Lee at that point, you had traded him to the Phillies for Curt Schilling. Man, being a Phillies fan fucking rules.

Kilmoll the Sexy · Post by **Kilmoll the Sexy** » September 8, 2004, 9:12 pm

Sueven wrote: Man, being a Phillies fan fucking rules.

It must be great to save money on playoff tickets.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 9, 2004, 12:36 am

Aevian Dreaklear wrote:If you are really interested in learning more about baseball, I recommend picking up Moneyball by Michael Lewis. It follows Billy Beane, owner of the Oakland Athletics and shows how he put together a team with a small budget by placing move emphasis on things such as on base percentage, on base plus slugging, and pitcher ground outs. Worth a read.

If anything, you'll learn how to put together a team that can't win it all. It's ok, I'm sure he wasn't just incredibly lucky. Hell, I don't think any of Billy's teams even made it to the world series. Little hint Billy, closers are really important, I mean it buddy

Is Vida Blue still alive?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 9, 2004, 1:33 am

Chidoro wrote:
Aevian Dreaklear wrote:If you are really interested in learning more about baseball, I recommend picking up Moneyball by Michael Lewis. It follows Billy Beane, owner of the Oakland Athletics and shows how he put together a team with a small budget by placing move emphasis on things such as on base percentage, on base plus slugging, and pitcher ground outs. Worth a read.
If anything, you'll learn how to put together a team that can't win it all. It's ok, I'm sure he wasn't just incredibly lucky. Hell, I don't think any of Billy's teams even made it to the world series. Little hint Billy, closers are really important, I mean it buddy

Is Vida Blue still alive?

Foulke is a helluva closer, too bad moneyball sometimes doesn't afford the 6 million dollar closer, even if he did develop him

Sueven · Post by **Sueven** » September 9, 2004, 11:54 am

He didn't develop him, he got him in a lopsided trade for Billy Koch after Foulke bombed one year with the White Sox. Foulke only played in Oakland for a year or two in his career.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 9, 2004, 7:10 pm

amazing, I was beaten to the punch.

Note Pherr, Billy, inherently, didn't believe in the importance of a closer until he watched multiple post seasons meltdown

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 9, 2004, 7:47 pm

He was not a farm hand, but he got into their system in a year and look what he did, and has done since. Also note, the A's lost their pitching coach this year, and notice the lack of total dominance. Foulke was developed in 1 year by Rick Peterson much in the way the Braves can take a nobody and make him somebody, the A's did the same with Foulke. And chid, just because you see the importance of a closer, with your run of the mill closer making over 5 mill and a anual salary in the neighborhood of 35 mill, affording a real closer becomes an impossibility.

Chidoro · Post by **Chidoro** » September 9, 2004, 9:33 pm

Don't get me wrong, it's not that they aren't worth the extention of cash, it's that Billy didn't want to invest in one because of his predetermined caps. His three man staff, more than any philosophy, is the reason Billy looked so smart in his championship run.

As far as Peterson goes, I will say this (save for Atlanta), a pitching coach is as good as his pitchers. Peterson has had the perfect, I mean perfect opportunity to craft the young Mets arms, and all of them retained their problems. The guys from Rice should have just gone to grad school by his estimation and Kazmir sure looked pretty good even though his delivery was deemed "violent".

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 12:03 pm

Thanks for the info

A side question: When a guy is thrown out at 1st and in some other occassions (like pitcher strikes a batter out) they throw the ball around the bases. Any particular meaning to this or is it just to stay warm/attentive/etc?

Pherr the Dorf · Post by **Pherr the Dorf** » September 13, 2004, 12:06 pm

Kelshara wrote:Thanks for the info A side question: When a guy is thrown out at 1st and in some other occassions (like pitcher strikes a batter out) they throw the ball around the bases. Any particular meaning to this or is it just to stay warm/attentive/etc?

Tradition and superstition mostly, you toss it "around the horn" kinda a high 5

Kelshara · Post by **Kelshara** » September 13, 2004, 12:24 pm

Ah thanks

Yeah I've noticed that baseball players seem insanely superstitious..