All the Way with JBJ - 2016

simplicio · May 22, 2016

WRC+ at 177, behind only Altuve and Cespedes at 178.

Defensive numbers are still bad. Someone mentioned those could be taking a hit from him regularly ceding plays in right center to Mookie in addition to a few misplaced balls; has anyone really looked into that? Dot com folks?

MyDaughterLovesTomGordon · May 22, 2016

He made at least two great plays last night: the ball coming in at the shoetops and the ball going across toward the gap, which he somehow made look like a Texas leaguer.

The defensive numbers don't tell the story (which isn't surprising for a 1/4 season).

Buzzkill Pauley · May 22, 2016

Mookie's made 30 plays on balls out of the RF zone.
Holt and Young combined have made 30 plays on balls out of the LF zone.
JBJ's only made 21 plays on balls out of the CF zone.

The numbers confirm what I've eyeballed: the 2016 Red Sox are using JBJ in CF to back up both corner outfielders, on balls hit to either RCF or LCF.

I think it's an excellent strategic decision (a second good thing due to Amaro's coaching, in addition to the improved baserunning?), since this paradigm allows the team to leverage JBJ's superior arm in case the primarily-assigned corner outfielder is unable to make the play. And, if JBJ is assigned to "back up" plays in the gaps as a general rule, such an arrangement should also significantly reduce the risk of possibly season-ending injury due to collision.

There doesn't appear to be any significant overall impact on the team, either. The Red Sox are 7th in MLB on OOZ plays made, and 3rd in the AL behind the premier defensive outfields of Houston and KC.

However, since this strategy goes opposite the conventional wisdom that "it's the CF's ball" there's an absolute devastation of JBJ's defensive "value" in comparison to other teams' CFs, at least according to WAR. On the field it may work great, but on the spreadsheet, it reads like JBJ's being passive and slow.

Just like a swinging bunt that doesn't squib foul looks the same as a screaming liner off the wall -- both end up marked down as a single.

That being said, JBJ appears to have had a handful more misplays than he did in 2014-15, and he certainly looks to me significantly heavier this year than in 2013-14. But those are entirely unsupported and anecdotal observations. If he's not playing every chance absolutely balls-out, and also has put on offseason muscle, in order to hit better on a day-in-day-out basis...I'm okay with that.

This would make a great piece for the .com, though, if someone wanted to look more carefully into the hit charts and game logs.

Bergs · May 23, 2016

Batting order has come up in a couple of game threads, specifically as pertains to JBJ. I also heard Byrnes going off about it on the MLB Network, though his point was more focused on preserving the hitting streak by getting him more ABs.

While it would be super-awesome to see JBJ hit 57, I consider it unlikely enough to ignore it for now. That said, he needs protection, and Shore sure isn't getting it done (and it forces 2 lefties in a row, which may or may not be important depending on who you talk to). Personally, I would like to see him in the 2-hole, with Pedey sliding to 5 (or 9) and Hanley to 5, 7, or 9. If Hanley was showing more power I might not feel the same, but he isn't.

Betts
JBJ
Xander
Ortiz
Pedroia
Shaw
Hanley
LF
C

or something like this if you like the 9-hitter to act as a pre-leadoff leadoff guy:

Betts
JBJ
Xander
Ortiz
Hanley
Shaw
LF
C
Pedroia

Does anyone else have any compelling thoughts about why JBJ - currently playing the part of one of the best hitters in baseball - shouldn't be higher up in the order?

wilked · May 23, 2016

I think it's well-understood that 80% or more of setting a lineup is assuaging egos. If I'm Pedroia I might not be as excited at moving down in the order from 'my spot' because a young guy is on a hot streak (same for Hanley, etc).

I think the best way to look at it is ask if the same conversations would be taking place if JBJ had gone 0-4 instead of 1-4 two weeks ago.

I can see it from Farrell's perspective, that he not let the hit streak influence any change. However, if we get to the all-star break and JBJ is still a top-10 hitter in the league you use that as your 'marker' to make a change

Bergs · May 23, 2016

wilked said:
I think it's well-understood that 80% or more of setting a lineup is assuaging egos. If I'm Pedroia I might not be as excited at moving down in the order from 'my spot' because a young guy is on a hot streak (same for Hanley, etc).

Good point.

I think the best way to look at it is ask if the same conversations would be taking place if JBJ had gone 0-4 instead of 1-4 two weeks ago.

From my perspective it would, which is why I mentioned that the streak is unlikely enough so as to be irrelevant in the decision-making process...but what if he gets to 35? 40? In a way, I'm looking forward to the streak ending.

I can see it from Farrell's perspective, that he not let the hit streak influence any change. However, if we get to the all-star break and JBJ is still a top-10 hitter in the league you use that as your 'marker' to make a change

I don't disagree, expect to point out he's already moved JBJ up from 9th (where he did have theoretical protection in the form of Betts) to 6th, which indicates to me he wants to get him more ABs.

Either way, it's a good problem to have.

geoduck no quahog · May 23, 2016

Let's look at all the teams and their #2 hitters. Traditionally, the #2 was a guy who could move a runner along and set things up for the #3 and #4 hitters. That philosophy has kind of gone by the wayside. #2's now seem to be better hitters rather than sacrificial lambs.

Here's a look at several current stats for the 2nd spot in the lineup:

TEAM OPS

Baltimore (Machado)
Colorado (Story)
St. Louis (Piscotty)
Toronto (Donaldson)
Boston (Pedroia)

TEAM OBP

Baltimore (Machado)
Boston (Pedroia)
Texas (Mazara)
Mets (Wright)
St. Louis (Piscotty)

RUNS SCORED IN THE FIRST INNING

Washington
Boston
St. Louis
Mets
Kansas City

RUNS SCORED

Boston
St. Louis
Cubs
Arizona
Colorado

What's to be made of that snapshot? Boston and St. Louis are in every leader category. Boston and St. Louis also rank 2/3 in first inning runs (when theoretically the #2 hitter has the most pertinent stats).

I'm speculating that Pedroia and Piscotty are today the best #2 hitters in baseball...that Machado, Story and Donaldson are the most powerful, and that despite Machado's remarkable statistics, they lag in production (which, of course, is a product of who hits in front of them and behind them).

Why fuck with success? (I expect to hear why...)

Snodgrass'Muff · May 23, 2016

geoduck, I have no idea what you are looking at but your team OPS and OBP lists are way off. Sox are top in both, Baltimore isn't top five in either.

effectivelywild · May 23, 2016

Snodgrass'Muff said:
geoduck, I have no idea what you are looking at but your team OPS and OBP lists are way off. Sox are top in both, Baltimore isn't top five in either.

I think he's looking at the OPS and OBP ranking for the 2nd hitter in the lineup, not for the whole team.

MadStork · May 23, 2016

Bergs said:
Batting order has come up in a couple of game threads, specifically as pertains to JBJ. I also heard Byrnes going off about it on the MLB Network, though his point was more focused on preserving the hitting streak by getting him more ABs.

While it would be super-awesome to see JBJ hit 57, I consider it unlikely enough to ignore it for now. That said, he needs protection, and Shore sure isn't getting it done (and it forces 2 lefties in a row, which may or may not be important depending on who you talk to). Personally, I would like to see him in the 2-hole, with Pedey sliding to 5 (or 9) and Hanley to 5, 7, or 9. If Hanley was showing more power I might not feel the same, but he isn't.

Betts
JBJ
Xander
Ortiz
Pedroia
Shaw
Hanley
LF
C

or something like this if you like the 9-hitter to act as a pre-leadoff leadoff guy:

Betts
JBJ
Xander
Ortiz
Hanley
Shaw
LF
C
Pedroia

Does anyone else have any compelling thoughts about why JBJ - currently playing the part of one of the best hitters in baseball - shouldn't be higher up in the order?

Do not kill his confidence. Leave him in the #7 hole. Let's not forget it wasn't long ago this player struggled mightily to hit ML pitching.

Last thing you need is Farrell over managing like he did a few games back moving JBJ to #2 in the order.

Teams pitch around him so be it.

Curt S Loew · May 23, 2016

MadStork said:
Do not kill his confidence. Leave him in the #7 hole. Let's not forget it wasn't long ago this player struggled mightily to hit ML pitching.

Last thing you need is Farrell over managing like he did a few games back moving JBJ to #2 in the order.

Teams pitch around him so be it.

Over managing? Pedroia had the day off. That's the perfect time to put JBJ there. 7 is the worst spot for him. If you are going to bat him down in the order, leave him at #9.

geoduck no quahog · May 23, 2016

effectivelywild said:
I think he's looking at the OPS and OBP ranking for the 2nd hitter in the lineup, not for the whole team.

Yep. I should have been more clear. The players in parenthesis are the main contributors to that team stat.

MadStork · May 23, 2016

Curt S Loew said:
Over managing? Pedroia had the day off. That's the perfect time to put JBJ there. 7 is the worst spot for him. If you are going to bat him down in the order, leave him at #9.

Leave him at 9 then.
It's all about confidence.
If JB had a track record of great production, absolutely move him up. He doesn't.

Farrell's the perfect manager to over manage this player.

Dogman · May 23, 2016

MadStork said:
Leave him at 9 then.
It's all about confidence.
If JB had a track record of great production, absolutely move him up. He doesn't.

Farrell's the perfect manager to over manage this player.

Can you provide some reasons as to why he should be left in the 9 spot instead of the 7th?

How is it all about confidence? Can you elaborate on why you feel "confidence" is a measure of what being a hitter is all about?

Bradley since the 2014 AS Break in 157 games (136 starts), 535 PA: .248/.316/.457 30 2B, 8 3B, 18 HR. That's pretty decent (and posted in this thread)

This season: 1.035 OPS (.342/.411/.624.) in 43 games and 152 PA. 10 2B, 4 3B, 8 HR Add in his defense and he is a top 5 player in all of baseball at the moment. He has a "track record" and it screams great production so I am not sure what you are talking about. Essentially, JBJ has a longer "track record" of producing than not producing.

Throw in your parting shot at Farrell and lack of context and to how Farrell will mismanage JBJ, and we have enough evidence to not place much weight behind your post.

Please take the time to put thought, effort, context, and, where necessary, statistical evidence to back up any claims you would like to make and defend. Thanks.

jasail · May 24, 2016

Dogman2 said:
Can you provide some reasons as to why he should be left in the 9 spot instead of the 7th?

I can see both sides of this. The Sox two worst hitters are whoever is in LF and whoever is at C. If you bat JBJ 7th these guys fill in behind him at 8 and 9. This gives JBJ no protection and as we saw in the Indians series he gets pitched around. Getting pitched around likely lowers his productivity because he is seeing far fewer good pitches to hit. Pitching around JBJ also likely impacts overall team run expectancy because RBI opportunities are being taken away from JBJ and given to LF and C. However, if you bat him 9th, he gets some protection from the top of the lineup and probably sees better pitches to hit. However, he also LF and C in front of him, so he may have fewer run producing opportunities because the hitters in front of him. Moreover, LF and C hitting 7 and 8 may end up with the Sox leaving men on base more often, thereby also reducing their overall run expectancy. Plus, JBJ will get fewer ABs over the season hitting 9th than he would hitting 7th and considering how he's hitting that's not a good thing.

The question really is, given the Sox lineup, where does JBJ provide the most value to the team in terms of run expectancy? Is it when he likely gets to hit more often and likely more often with runners on base but may also be pitched around in those situations? Or is it when he gets to hit less often but sets the table for the top of the order. I haven't a clue how to analyze this, but I think it's a very interesting question. Ideally, Swihart or Holt start hitting a bit and Bradley can hit 7th with a modicum of protection behind him.

Rasputin · May 24, 2016

MadStork said:
Leave him at 9 then.
It's all about confidence.
If JB had a track record of great production, absolutely move him up. He doesn't.

Farrell's the perfect manager to over manage this player.

They aren't paper dolls, they're ballplayers. I can't be the only one that thinks the notion of a ballplayer losing confidence because he's moved around in the lineup is stupid. It doesn't matter what spot in a lineup you're in, hitting is hitting. It's not like moving him up to seventh is like asking him to play second base. Plus, there's a pretty good argument that batting the guy with the third best OPS in the game where he's going to get the fewest plate appearances aint that bright.

But some people seem to want to take every single thing this manager does and use it as a source of criticism.

alwyn96 · May 24, 2016

A possible reason Bradley could be left at 9 is that he's doing great there, and moving him up to 7th just wouldn't matter very much. Having a perfectly optimized lineup is usually estimated to be worth around 5-10 runs over the course of a season, although of course you can't always know if your lineup is optimized until after the fact since it's hard to know a player's true talent with a lot of precision at any given moment. And the most optimized can go so hard against baseball tradition (say hello to your new leadoff man - David Ortiz!) that there might be a fan/player revolt. Plus most teams generally use over 100 different batting orders in a season anyway. So under most realistic scenarios, unless you're moving Bradley up to like 5th or higher, the difference is probably like a tiny fraction of a run over a full season.

The amount of attention batting order receives compared its actual impact is pretty disproportionate. I mean, might as well get the guy a few more PA if you can, but I doubt it makes much difference.

kieckeredinthehead · May 24, 2016

Rasputin said:
Plus, there's a pretty good argument that batting the guy with the third best OPS in the game where he's going to get the fewest plate appearances aint that bright.

But some people seem to want to take every single thing this manager does and use it as a source of criticism.

You're the one calling him not that bright.

smastroyin · May 24, 2016

You really have to ask the question of what the goal is. If you want to give him a better shot to extend the hit streak (through getting more PA), then move him up.

The problem is that, even as a guy who doesn't think Farrell is that great, there is no win here. You move him up and he goes 0-5 it was you put too much pressure on him. You leave him 9th and he goes 0-3 with the last out being made by the guy in front of him you didn't give him a chance. You bat him 7th and he goes 0-1 with 3 BB you screwed him with no protection.

Personally, without knowing personalities myself, I do think ballplayers find lineup moves to be a promotion of sorts, so I think you move him up to give him some more PA and to reward his streak. I would also consider swapping Ortiz and Bogaerts and hitting JBJ 5th and Hanley 6th to get a L-R-L-R thing going. But I also don't think this really matters that much.

DJnVa · May 24, 2016

Rasputin said:
They aren't paper dolls, they're ballplayers. I can't be the only one that thinks the notion of a ballplayer losing confidence because he's moved around in the lineup is stupid. It doesn't matter what spot in a lineup you're in, hitting is hitting. It's not like moving him up to seventh is like asking him to play second base. Plus, there's a pretty good argument that batting the guy with the third best OPS in the game where he's going to get the fewest plate appearances aint that bright.

Well, stupid or not, players do look at things like that.

And "hitting is hitting" but players are asked to do different things in different spots in the order and are pitched differently. JBJ hitting 9th with Betts, Pedroia, and Bogaerts behind him presents a different challenge for a pitcher than JBJ with maybe Holt or Vazquez behind him. He's going to see a different complement of pitches.

Otis Foster · May 24, 2016

I'd leave him where he is. 2 reasons:

Don't screw up what's working unless there's a more compelling reason to do so. To me, the possibility of missing a final at bat further down the batting order isn't compelling.
A pitcher who knows that B/P/B are coming up behind JBJ will have to find a way to deal with JBJ, not just step around him. As Dawg just indicated, an entirely different scenario if Holt (or whoever) and Vasquez are coming next.

luckysox · May 24, 2016

Yeah, I really, really liked him in the 9 hole. The 7 hole seems to make the offense sputter to a stop...JBJ gets walked or pitched to very carefully, then LF and C happen. I did not like him there on Saturday. With JBJ at 9, whoever is in front of him might get a few more fastballs, and the pitcher can't then pitch so carefully to JBJ as to put him on 1st because of the next 5 in the order. I know it "feels" wrong to have a guy with his hot streak and numbers at 9, but 9 is the spot where he started this run. I don't think it's broke, and therefore it musn't be fixed.

begranter · May 24, 2016

Bat him leadoff until he cools off (say a weekish). Ride the streak as long as you have it and I'd like to see Xander moved up as well. The fact Pedroia might get one less at-bat may be the prudent long-term strategy.

If I were doing the lineup, because it's fun.
Bradley
Bogaerts
Ortiz
Pedroia
Ramirez
Shaw
Betts
Swihart/Young
Vazquez/Hannigan

FWIW Season To-Date sorted by OBP

CF Jackie Bradley* 0.413
DH David Ortiz* 0.408
SS Xander Bogaerts 0.397
3B Travis Shaw* 0.374
1B Hanley Ramirez 0.365
2B Dustin Pedroia 0.353
RF Mookie Betts 0.324
LF Brock Holt* (7-day dl) 0.310

When you have a team OPS+ of 124, can you really go wrong anyway?

Rasputin · May 24, 2016

kieckeredinthehead said:
You're the one calling him not that bright.

Nope. I was pointing out that the argument could be made. I, personally, don't give a shit. If he were batting Christian Vazquez leadoff, I'd give a shit because that's an egregious misuse of resources.

DrewDawg said:
Well, stupid or not, players do look at things like that.

Stupid players do.

And "hitting is hitting" but players are asked to do different things in different spots in the order and are pitched differently. JBJ hitting 9th with Betts, Pedroia, and Bogaerts behind him presents a different challenge for a pitcher than JBJ with maybe Holt or Vazquez behind him. He's going to see a different complement of pitches.

Being pitched differently based on who is batting before and after is not the same thing as being pitched differently based on position. Also, it's been a while since I checked, but every time I've looked for people who have looked at the issue in anything resembling depth they have concluded that the differences are trivially small.

kieckeredinthehead · May 24, 2016

Rasputin said:
Nope. I was pointing out that the argument could be made. I, personally, don't give a shit. If he were batting Christian Vazquez leadoff, I'd give a shit because that's an egregious misuse of resources.

How are the two situations not just two sides of the same coin?

Hoodie Sleeves · May 24, 2016

alwyn96 said:
Having a perfectly optimized lineup is usually estimated to be worth around 5-10 runs over the course of a season....

Just nitpicking here, but the 5-10 run difference often cited is between the true optimal lineup (highest OBP in #1 spot, etc) and the typical-optimal lineup (best hitter at 3, best HR hitter at 4, high obp low power at leadoff, etc) - but the difference between an optimal lineup and a 'worst' lineup can be as much as 50 runs a year, so a screwy lineup can be really significant.

The idea of getting JBJ protection is basically the same argument as the intentional walk discussion - its really hard to find situations where a guy getting walked a lot is a bad thing.

Rasputin · May 24, 2016

kieckeredinthehead said:
How are the two situations not just two sides of the same coin?

Two reasons. One, it's much clearer that Christian Vazquez is the worst hitting everyday player we have right now than it is that Jackie Bradley is an MVP level hitter. I think we're all enjoying the ride but I rather suspect most people think Jackie's going to cool off and hit something less stratospheric. Two, the notion that you want someone better than your worst hitter batting 9th has some merit. Yes, it means getting a few more plate appearances to someone who's less good, but it also means giving more plate appearances to good hitters--the top of your lineup--with someone on base.

alwyn96 · May 24, 2016

Hoodie Sleeves said:
Just nitpicking here, but the 5-10 run difference often cited is between the true optimal lineup (highest OBP in #1 spot, etc) and the typical-optimal lineup (best hitter at 3, best HR hitter at 4, high obp low power at leadoff, etc) - but the difference between an optimal lineup and a 'worst' lineup can be as much as 50 runs a year, so a screwy lineup can be really significant.

The idea of getting JBJ protection is basically the same argument as the intentional walk discussion - its really hard to find situations where a guy getting walked a lot is a bad thing.

Oh, totally. I didn't get into the 'worst' lineup, which would include things like batting the pitcher leadoff and the best hitter 9th, because I'm not sure it's ever happened in one game, let alone over the course of an entire season. I doubt a team could even put out a 'worst possible' lineup over the course of a season, because the manager would likely be fired the second or third time he did it, and then investigated for dementia and/or placing bets against his own team. I just don't think it would ever happen, so its usefulness as a referent seems very limited to me. The 'traditional' lineup is the one that actually gets used, and while they don't tend to be 'best possible' (given many run-modelling assumptions) they do get you pretty far from 'worst possible.'

On average, I think you'd usually take the walk because it guarantees a 1.000 OPS from that PA. Of course, every walk that Bradley takes actually lowers his OPS, because he's over 1.000 at the moment. But taking context, run expectancy matrices, and the feeling that maybe Bradley might not actually be Willie Mays into account, things get a hell of a lot more complicated.

Ramon AC · May 24, 2016

alwyn96 said:
every walk that Bradley takes actually lowers his OPS, because he's over 1.000 at the moment.

I think you've said this a couple of times. When a batter walks, his SLG stays the same and his OBP goes up. Therefore OPS increases as well.

Hoodie Sleeves · May 24, 2016

alwyn96 said:
Oh, totally. I didn't get into the 'worst' lineup, which would include things like batting the pitcher leadoff and the best hitter 9th, because I'm not sure it's ever happened in one game, let alone over the course of an entire season. I doubt a team could even put out a 'worst possible' lineup over the course of a season, because the manager would likely be fired the second or third time he did it, and then investigated for dementia and/or placing bets against his own team. I just don't think it would ever happen, so its usefulness as a referent seems very limited to me. The 'traditional' lineup is the one that actually gets used, and while they don't tend to be 'best possible' (given many run-modelling assumptions) they do get you pretty far from 'worst possible.'

I agree - but I wasn't clear on my point - the current lineup isn't the 'traditional-optimal' - because that doesn't have a guy as good as JBJ appears to be hitting 7-9 - it has them hitting 3 or 4, so the current lineup's 'possible improvement' is quite a bit larger than 5-10 runs.

I plugged the lineup from Sunday (with Swihart replaced with Holt - JBJ 6th) into Baseball Musings lineup calculator (which is admittedly a blunt tool) and there's actually almost 105 runs per year difference between the optimal and worst lineups (about 5.5x to 6.1x r/g - they're currently scoring 5.8x/predicted 5.9). When you've got an offense this good, small tweaks can pay big dividends - these things tend to snowball, and the Red Sox are way outside the fat part of the bell curve. Even at the 'worst order' prediction they're still in the top 3 in the league in runs.

The Red Sox current lineup projection falls about 35 runs below optimal (.21 runs/game). Even just swapping JBJ and Pedroia gets you almost 10 runs. That's a big deal. The biggest problem though is Mookie and his .324 OBP leading off when there are 6 guys in the lineup with an OBP above .350, and 4 guys above .370. His combination of lower OBP/high SLG makes him particularly unsuited for leading off in this lineup.

(And sorry for derailing - the 'lineups don't really matter' thing is a pet peave of mine - I'd like to see JBJ hitting a lot higher)

alwyn96 · May 24, 2016

Ramon AC said:
I think you've said this a couple of times. When a batter walks, his SLG stays the same and his OBP goes up. Therefore OPS increases as well.

You must be confusing me with someone else - I've never said this before, but now I can see why! I totally spaced on how SLG was calculated - not on PA, but AB. So weird - in most situations I would think that adding 1 PA of 1.000 OPS to many PAs of 1.033 (or whatever) OPS would lower the overall, but not necessarily when the components have different denominators. I think I might have gotten the idea from a NESN broadcast and never really thought too hard about it.

Anyway, Jackie Bradley is good.

DJnVa · May 24, 2016

alwyn96 said:
So weird - in most situations I would think that adding 1 PA of 1.000 OPS to many PAs of 1.033 (or whatever) OPS would lower the overall, but not necessarily when the components have different denominators. I think I might have gotten the idea from a NESN broadcast and never really thought too hard about it.

Yeah, technically, until you actually have a SLG, you can't add it to the OBP. And you need an AB to calculate SLG. One plate appearance that ends in a walk isn't *really* an OPS of 1.000 because you can't generate a SLG off of 0 ABs.

dwainw · May 24, 2016

Didn't Bill Mueller hit 9th for a good portion of '03 and '04 while competing for batting titles? I recall people likening it to "having 2 leadoff hitters" and generally feeling like "if it ain't broke don't fix it." This lineup seems pretty comparable to those juggernauts right now. Are there any apt comparisons between that situation and this one, both in what they had and have to offer offensively and the intangible factors involved in lineup construction?

smastroyin · May 24, 2016

These things are easy to look up, but no. In 2003, when Mueller won the batting title, he had 7 PA hitting 9th. He split his time hitting mostly 2nd (188), 7th (156), and 8th (147).

In 2004 he had 27 PA hitting 9th. He split his time fairly evenly between 8th (182 PA) and 2nd (141 PA)

effectivelywild · May 24, 2016

dwainw said:
Didn't Bill Mueller hit 9th for a good portion of '03 and '04 while competing for batting titles? I recall people likening it to "having 2 leadoff hitters" and generally feeling like "if it ain't broke don't fix it." This lineup seems pretty comparable to those juggernauts right now. Are there any apt comparisons between that situation and this one, both in what they had and have to offer offensively and the intangible factors involved in lineup construction?

He did. He said that it was where he felt most comfortable, and I think the general consensus is that the benefit his "comfort" provided (in terms of getting to see more pitches from the opposing starter to the batters ahead of him in the order, IIRC) outweighed the theoretical loss of runs caused by him being at a suboptimal place in the lineup.

Cumberland Blues · May 24, 2016

Um...the post directly above yours says otherwise. Ignore facts at your own peril.

smastroyin · May 24, 2016

In 2003, the Red Sox used the following hitters in the 9 spot:

Jason Varitek: 68 GS, 290 PA
Doug Mirabelli: 28 GS, 103 PA
Damian Jackson: 31 GS, 100 PA
Gabe Kapler: 18 GS, 82 PA

Then scrubs and pitchers to fill out the other 17.

Bill Mueller never started a game hitting ninth. His 7 PA came over the course of 4 games.

dwainw · May 24, 2016

smastroyin said:
These things are easy to look up, but no. In 2003, when Mueller won the batting title, he had 7 PA hitting 9th. He split his time hitting mostly 2nd (188), 7th (156), and 8th (147).

In 2004 he had 27 PA hitting 9th. He split his time fairly evenly between 8th (182 PA) and 2nd (141 PA)

My apologies. He hit toward the bottom of the order much of that time, which my memory distorted, but I should have at least done the quick and dirty research before posing my question. Thanks for setting me straight. Hopefully I'm not misremembering that there was a fair amount of discussion in those days about where he should hit, and I love that we are in a similar situation this year. I especially find it interesting to compare JBJ to a guy like Bill Mueller--one of the last Red Sox on earth who would have come to mind when thinking about JBJ at the start of the season.

smastroyin said:
In 2003, the Red Sox used the following hitters in the 9 spot:

Jason Varitek: 68 GS, 290 PA
Doug Mirabelli: 28 GS, 103 PA
Damian Jackson: 31 GS, 100 PA
Gabe Kapler: 18 GS, 82 PA

Then scrubs and pitchers to fill out the other 17.

Bill Mueller never started a game hitting ninth. His 7 PA came over the course of 4 games.

Absolutely amazing to think that Jason Varitek hit 9th the majority of the time that year. 25 HR and an OPS of .863.

MadStork · May 24, 2016

Rasputin said:
They aren't paper dolls, they're ballplayers. I can't be the only one that thinks the notion of a ballplayer losing confidence because he's moved around in the lineup is stupid. It doesn't matter what spot in a lineup you're in, hitting is hitting. It's not like moving him up to seventh is like asking him to play second base. Plus, there's a pretty good argument that batting the guy with the third best OPS in the game where he's going to get the fewest plate appearances aint that bright.

But some people seem to want to take every single thing this manager does and use it as a source of criticism.

Please, smell the coffee.
It's not about being critical of Farrell. It's about a young hitter who is off to a great start after a terrible run the last few years where most had him involved in every fantasy trade scenario.

If you think Bradley could continue the pace hitting cleanup, your dillusional.

It's all about confidence as a young player. Don't let him try to be who he is not. Leave him in the lower third of the order much like they did Bill Mueller years ago.

NoXInNixon · May 24, 2016

I just don't understand how a player's spot in the batting order could have any effect on his approach, except perhaps for the #1 spot. Everyone other than the #1 hitter doesn't know what situation they will find themselves in when they come to the plate, and even the #1 hitter only knows for the very first at bat of the game. I thought the concept of protection had long ago been thoroughly debunked, so the only relevant aspect of lineup construction I care about is that best hitters should be close to the top of the order in order to maximize their at bats per game.

Perhaps everyone isn't yet sold on JBJ being the best or second best hitter in the lineup. But at this moment he's hitting like it. Batting him seventh is just wrong. Batting him seventh and Chris Young sixth is absolutely insane.

Buzzkill Pauley · May 24, 2016

If the concept of protection had long ago been thoroughly debunked, perhaps it's time to re-examine the topic with some fresh data gained in the last 28 days.

It's stunning how few good pitches Bradley has gotten to hit, when he's batting ahead of hitters like Hanigan, Vazquez, and Rutledge. Most all of his damage appears to be coming early in at-bats. In contrast, no one is pitching around Bogaerts, who has been just about as hot with the bat, but who has consistently batted ahead of Papi.

NoXInNixon · May 24, 2016

So if he sees fewer strikes, he just has to respond by taking more pitches and walking more. Getting on base is never a bad outcome of a plate appearance.

Buzzkill Pauley · May 24, 2016

A walk's not bad, but it's still suboptimal in relation to a hit, and very much suboptimal in relation to an extra-base hit.

Especially when the next hitter is significantly worse than average at not-making-outs.

Savin Hillbilly · May 24, 2016

Buzzkill Pauley said:
A walk's not bad, but it's still suboptimal in relation to a hit, and very much suboptimal in relation to an extra-base hit.

Especially when the next hitter is significantly worse than average at not-making-outs.

But when you're talking about an IBB (or virtual IBB), the contrast is not between a walk and a hit; it's between a 100% probability of a walk and a 30-to-40 percent probability of a hit.

Dogman · May 24, 2016

MadStork said:
Please, smell the coffee.

It's not about being critical of Farrell. It's about a young hitter who is off to a great start after a terrible run the last few years where most had him involved in every fantasy trade scenario.

If you think Bradley could continue the pace hitting cleanup, your dillusional.

It's all about confidence as a young player. Don't let him try to be who he is not. Leave him in the lower third of the order much like they did Bill Mueller years ago.

Let's try again.

If it isn't about being critical of Farrell, why were you critical of him in your last post in this thread about JBJ?

JBJ was not good in 2014. He was not good for some of 2015. He was very good for some of 2015 and he has been nothing short of top 5 player in baseball in 2016. Most people who had JBJ in every trade scenario were really silly for wanting to give up on a young player with plenty of signs of being a .800 OPS player with fantastic defense. Why trade that guy?

Nobody in this thread thinks JBJ will continue the torrid pace, hit streak, or playing like a 25m/year player. Not one person. Most of us think he is an .800-.850 OPS player with fantastic defense, kinda similar to how we felt when you wanted to trade him last year.

I've asked you this once so please answer now that I am asking a second time. How is it all about confidence? How do you measure that? Why are you advocating leaving him in the lower third of the lineup? Please expand on that thought. Why isn't hitting 6th a better spot where he has some lineup protection and will see more pitches a bad thing? Why compare him to Mueller's use 10+ years ago? Mueller was neither a young player nor a delicate flower whose 'confidence' needed coddling. I'm confused because the batting champ in 2003 hit predominately in 3 spots. One of those spots was not in the bottom third and that didn't seem to affect that very easily measured 'confidence" you keep talking about. Do you remember that team in 2003? There was a reason Mueller hit where he did. Fortunately, we are seeing comparable signs of very strong lineups both years.

Please put more thought, more evidence backing your assertions, and more work into your posts so that we are confident you will be a valuable contributor here.

Rasputin · May 24, 2016

MadStork said:
Please, smell the coffee.
It's not about being critical of Farrell. It's about a young hitter who is off to a great start after a terrible run the last few years where most had him involved in every fantasy trade scenario.

If you think Bradley could continue the pace hitting cleanup, your dillusional.

It's all about confidence as a young player. Don't let him try to be who he is not. Leave him in the lower third of the order much like they did Bill Mueller years ago.

Coffee is disgusting.

I'm pretty sure I had Bradley in precisely zero fantasy trades. I am pretty down on fantasy trades and I've been pretty much opposed to trading prospects for the past couple years.

If you think I think Bradley can keep up this pace, you didn't read the post up above where I indicate otherwise. Also, learn how to spell and punctuate.

The notion that moving Bradley up to 7th for one day is going to destroy his confidence is stupid. The notion that moving him up two spots is going to destroy his confidence is stupid.

Unless we're talking about a lineup that is horrifically sub optimal, I really don't care that much what the lineup is. With the current guys in the lineup, that pretty much just means batting Vazquez 8th or 9th and batting Holt pretty low. Other than that, I don't care. If we're all wrong and JBJ still has an OPS of .950 or higher come the playoffs, I'm gonna want him hitting higher than 9th.

Hagios · May 24, 2016

Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ? It seems like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi (who jumped up to #6 on Keith Law's latest top 100 list). Given that they'd end out with three center fielders, another team would value one of those guys higher than the Sox. Benintendi is the youngest with the most team control, although he also has the most risk so I could see trading him as well.

I'm biased, but Mookie is my favorite player on the team so I want to keep him. His bowling makes me think he's just one of those people with freakish hand-eye even by pro ballplayer standards.

mt8thsw9th · May 25, 2016

Hagios said:
Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ?

Yes.

JohntheBaptist · May 25, 2016

It is completely crazy to trade one of the three or so best players in the league right now because of Andrew Benintendi, yes.

Rasputin · May 25, 2016

Hagios said:
Is it completely crazy to want to sell high on JBJ? It seems like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts, or Benintendi (who jumped up to #6 on Keith Law's latest top 100 list). Given that they'd end out with three center fielders, another team would value one of those guys higher than the Sox. Benintendi is the youngest with the most team control, although he also has the most risk so I could see trading him as well.

I'm biased, but Mookie is my favorite player on the team so I want to keep him. His bowling makes me think he's just one of those people with freakish hand-eye even by pro ballplayer standards.

Why, exactly,does it seem like they have to trade one of Bradley, Betts or Benintendi? There's three of them. There are three outfield positions.

Also, yes it's crazy.

All the Way with JBJ - 2016

Member

Member

Member

funky and cold

Member

funky and cold

not particularly consistent

oppresses WARmongers

Member

New Member

SoSH Member

not particularly consistent

New Member

Yukon Cornelius

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

simpering whimperer

Dorito Dawg

rex ryan's podiatrist

Indiana Jones

Couldn't get into a real school

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry

Member

Member

Member

Member

Dorito Dawg

Member

simpering whimperer

Member

Moderator

simpering whimperer

Member

New Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

loves the secret sauce

Yukon Cornelius

Will outlive SeanBerry

New Member

anti-SoSHal

Member

Will outlive SeanBerry