171 replies to this topic

[SoxScout]

Valentine yesterday:

“The only thing we can define is that in 162 games, he would definitely hit 162 times with no one on base if he’s the leadoff hitter. That’s the only thing we can define,” Valentine said yesterday. “That has to be considered, if in fact we wanted to give him a chance to have those 162 (plate appearances) with someone that he can drive in with an extra-base hit.”

[glennhoffmania]

No, because the 2-5 spots seem to have better candidates and I don't know who he should replace. Plus there's the issue of who else could/would lead off.

[Toe Nash]

No, because the 2-5 spots seem to have better candidates and I don't know who he should replace. Plus there's the issue of who else could/would lead off.

I think I agree with this, but it kinda depends on how crappy or not the bottom of the lineup is. If Punto / Aviles / Sweeney / Salty / whatever are getting on base, Ellsbury is going to have plenty of opportunities to drive in runs beyond those 162 PA. If not, then he'd have a lot of XBH with few RBI. But that's not the worst thing in the world either with Pedroia and Adrian coming up after him.

As we know, it ultimately doesn't matter a whole lot. Ellsbury seems comfortable at leadoff, there's no obvious high OBP / lower SLG option, and you'd be giving the most PA to one of the team's best hitters. I'd leave him there for those reasons.

[Hendu for Kutch]

No, because replacing Ellsbury in that sentence with Pedroia creates the exact same problem. All the other guys have as much power but way less speed (Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz) or don't get on base enough (Salty, Crawford, Ross, Sweeney, Aviles).

The only guy who could maybe fit that spot is Punto if he's getting on base like he did last year, but I certainly wouldn't count on that. And I pray to all that is holy that I never see Nick Punto pushing everyone else down the lineup just so we can avoid Ellsbury getting an AB with nobody on each game.

Edited by Hendu for Kutch, 23 February 2012 - 09:37 AM.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

I voted other. No way would I do it to start to the season. But if Crawford is healthy and really takes off with at least a .350 OBP (and were open to moving to leadoff), if Ellsbury continues to slug, and if say Youkilis is slumping a bit, then maybe: Crawford, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Gonazalez, Ortiz,Youkilis ... That's a whole lot of "ifs" though.

[CreightonGubanich]

I voted no, at least for the time being. I'd consider it if Ellsbury continued to hit for power AND Carl Crawford rebounded and became a .360-ish OBP guy again. That would lengthen the lineup and allow Crawford to hit where he seems to be most comfortable. But the Sox have had so much trouble finding a guy who can thrive in the leadoff spot that I'd rather just leave Ellsbury where he is. Like others have mentioned, any other reasonable candidate to lead off, other than vintage Crawford, just leaves the team with the same "problem".

[Plympton91]

As we know, it ultimately doesn't matter a whole lot. Ellsbury seems comfortable at leadoff, there's no obvious high OBP / lower SLG option, and you'd be giving the most PA to one of the team's best hitters. I'd leave him there for those reasons.

Exactly. If they had Brett Butler, then you'd move Ellsbury down, but, nobody in the bottom part of the order makes sense. Perhaps moving Ross to leadoff against a lefthanded starter would make sense in Strat-o-Matic, with everyone sliding down 1 spot, especially if Ortiz regresses against lefties, but I don't think it's worth the disruption or the extra at bat for Ross/Sweeney against a righthanded reliever later in the game.

[Corsi]

If Aviles can get on base at a ~.340 clip, is he a candidate to lead off?

[Foulkey Reese]

I'm not sure where I stand, but I'm happy to hear that kind of talk from Valentine. Having him lead off would be the easy, painless thing to do and nobody would really question it. Nice to see him thinking about stuff that's a little bit outside the box.

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 23 February 2012 - 09:49 AM.

[TomRicardo]

If Aviles can get on base at a ~.340 clip, is he a candidate to lead off?

No. There is more of a win difference between .340 Aviles hitting lead off over Ellsbury.

The only person I would consider is Youkilis. However then you run into having two lefties in a row later in the order.

[Savin Hillbilly]

This doesn't say much for Valentine's thinking. Of course we all know that batting order doesn't make that much difference anyway, but to the extent it does, it makes all kinds of sense to have Ellsbury batting leadoff. If you move him, you're either swapping him with another 20-30 HR hitter (and probably a slower one who won't be able to take as much advantage of those unclogged basepaths), or else giving more PAs to a worse hitter in order to solve a non-existent problem. This is the worst kind of old school, Joe Morgan thinking.

Damn, I had just stopped being depressed.

[Foulkey Reese]

This doesn't say much for Valentine's thinking. Of course we all know that batting order doesn't make that much difference anyway, but to the extent it does, it makes all kinds of sense to have Ellsbury batting leadoff. If you move him, you're either swapping him with another 20-30 HR hitter (and probably a slower one who won't be able to take as much advantage of those unclogged basepaths), or else giving more PAs to a worse hitter in order to solve a non-existent problem. This is the worst kind of old school, Joe Morgan thinking.

Damn, I had just stopped being depressed.

Isn't plugging the fast guy into the lead off spot regardless of anything else Joe Morgan thinking?

[drbretto]

Pedroia gets on base and hits ~15 HR, is intelligent on the basepaths and can steal a base or two when needed. It should be Pedroia 1, Ellsbury 2 and it should start from day one.

[TomRicardo]

Isn't plugging the fast guy into the lead off spot regardless of anything else Joe Morgan thinking?

Then we plug in a bloated contract of a money player Crawford.

Edited by TomRicardo, 23 February 2012 - 10:01 AM.

[TomRicardo]

Pedroia gets on base and hits ~15 HR, is intelligent on the basepaths and can steal a base or two when needed. It should be Pedroia 1, Ellsbury 2 and it should start from day one.

Except it forces your hand to L-L at some point.

[Doctor G]

I would flip Pedroia and Ellsbury in the line-up. Pedroia was the best on the team in P/Pa last year with 4.21. he has good enough speed to hit in front of Ellsbury, plus he is a doubles machine in Fenway.

This would be a similar 1-2 to the Jeter Granderson tandem in NY.

Edited by Doctor G, 23 February 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[rembrat]

Would have been nice to have Scutaro. If Ells power is for real I want him out of the leadoff spot but only if there is a viable replacement.

[drbretto]

Except it forces your hand to L-L at some point.

Is that really an issue though? Or at least more of an issue than Ellsbury hitting with the bases empty? I was watching clubhouse confidential on this very subject. Ellsbury hit 50 extra base hits with the bases empty last year. I just can't see the slight vulnerability for a loogy coming in for Ortiz/Crawford in the 8th inning every 10th game being worth more than that.

[OCD SS]

It seems like this really depends on whether or not he continues to hit like he did last year, which I think is both far from certain and something that might be being taken as a given a bit too much…

[drbretto]

It seems like this really depends on whether or not he continues to hit like he did last year, which I think is both far from certain and something that might be being taken as a given a bit too much…

I'm not sure it's that far from certain. Maybe I watch too much MLB network, but everyone who has tried to explain Ellsbury's season seems convinced that it's a legitimate change in his approach/swing and not just a fluke. I see no reason not to begin the season as if this is for real until he shows otherwise.


(Edit: That is to say that he may or may not replicate last season's numbers, but he will go into the season with the skillset of a power hitter and I don't see any reason to doubt him after being the offensive MVP of the league last season)

Edited by drbretto, 23 February 2012 - 10:19 AM.

[Laser Show]

Another thing to keep in mind is Crawford. Especially his comments this week, I think it's important to try to keep him towards the top, hopefully jump-starting his rebound and allowing him to make better use of the skills that got the Sox to give him $140 million.

Crawford, Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkilis, Gonzalez, Ortiz, Ross, Salty, Aviles

I don't like having Gonzalez hit that low though... I suppose it's a good problem to have.

EDIT: Of course this is all contingent on Ellsbury hitting like last year.

Another thought, moving Crawford to the 9 hole, where he can still let loose on the basepaths:
Pedroia, Ellsbury, Youkilis, Gonzalez, Ortiz, Ross, Salty, Aviles, Crawford

I think I like this one better.

Edited by Laser Show, 23 February 2012 - 10:51 AM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Isn't plugging the fast guy into the lead off spot regardless of anything else Joe Morgan thinking?

What about my post says "regardless of anything else"?

Sheesh.

[Bucknahs Bum Ankle]

354 PA, 253/318/375

That is Pedroia hitting from the lead off spot (and approaching a reasonable sample size). If he could hit like he does batting 2nd in the lead off spot, it would be a no-brainer to switch him and Ellsbury. But he can't, or at least hasn't been able to yet.

Edited by Bucknahs Bum Ankle, 23 February 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Foulkey Reese]

What about my post says "regardless of anything else"?

Sheesh.

I was trying to say that the Joe Morgan school of though is to stick the speedy guy up front regardless of his OBP or whatever. I know that you didn't say that, but what Valentine said just didn't seem like it was Morgan-esque to me. Seemed like he was thinking about it as opposed to just doing what managers usually do.

Edited by Foulkey Reese, 23 February 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[twothousandone]

“The only thing we can define is that in 162 games, he would definitely hit 162 times with no one on base if he’s the leadoff hitter. That’s the only thing we can define,” Valentine said yesterday. “That has to be considered, if in fact we wanted to give him a chance to have those 162 (plate appearances) with someone that he can drive in with an extra-base hit.”

I'm not sure about his use of "define," but we can also be certain that moving Ellsbury down in the order for all 162 games will result in fewer at-bats (it should be 18 fewer at-bats per season, over time). Without someone at the top of the order who will avoid outs at the same clip -- and probably one who can't do as much damage as Ellsbury with a runner on -- it seems silly to consider this. I'll be happy if Pedroia is up with a runner on second in the first inning. I won't bother lamenting that no one was on when Ellsbury led off with a double.

I entered the spring hopeful Bobby V. would be good for the team. If this is just talk, and he can convince the players to not let it effect them in any way, I guess I'm okay with it. But it almost seems as though he wants to play mental, SABR-type games with the press and/or public (and maybe himself). If it spills over to the players, it CAN end us as a negative. It can be a positive, as well, but I wonder if he can make that conclusion at this point.

Edit: Pedroia had 19 more extra base hits in 2009. He had 22 fewer last year. Pedroia's extra base hits are equally "wasted" aren't they?

Edited by twothousandone, 23 February 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[EddieYost]

I think this is a prelude to Crawford batting leadoff. I hope I am wrong, but that's what it seems like to me.

[TomRicardo]

Edit: Pedroia had 19 more extra base hits in 2009. He had 22 fewer last year. Pedroia's extra base hits are equally "wasted" aren't they?

No because Ellsbury is on base in front of him.

Edit - The runs wasted with having Ellsbury bat first are more than made up for by having a superior bat take more at bats as well as having his speed on the base path with superior hitters up.

I saw one person have Gonzalez batting fifth? Why in god's name would you want to do that with the best hitter on the team.

I love Crawford in the bottom of the line up.


Ellsbury
Pedroia
Gonzalez
Youkilis
Ortiz
Ross/Aviles
Crawford
Salty/Stoppach
Aviles/Sweeney

Edited by TomRicardo, 23 February 2012 - 11:08 AM.

[pokey_reese]

As of right now, I would not move him. Having Ells at the top followed by Pedroia has been working for one of the top offenses in baseball, so I don't think you mess with it if you don't have to. Of all the spots in the line-up, I have a hard time thinking that 1-2 is where we stand to find the biggest incremental gain. It ain't broke.

Not to mention that while I think Ellsbury will remain a good power threat, I won't believe that 30 hrs is his new baseline until I see it happen at least once more. If he is collecting a ton of extra base hits at the top of the order, than while he might not drive in a ton of runs, he will score a lot in front of Pedroia and Gonzo, who should have a combined .330 average.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think if we had a Tony Phillips/Chone Figgins type in the lineup--a high-OBP, low-ISO hitter--then there might be something to be gained by replacing Ellsbury with that guy at the top of the order. But we don't really have that guy; the closest thing is Pedroia, but as has already been noted, he has a poor track record in the leadoff spot, and switching him and Ellsbury adds to the "cluster of LHH" factor. And he's not exactly a banjo hitter anyway--at the end of the year we'd be moaning about all the XBH he hit with nobody on.

Basically, Valentine has two choices: (1) give the alleged problem a new name and uniform number, or (2) "solve" it by putting one of our weaker hitters in the leadoff spot--a cure clearly worse than the disease.

[Plympton91]

As TRic said, I would consider it ridiculous to have Gonzalez hitting 5th. He's a 400+ OBP guy and you're buying him where only the second-tier hitters have a chance to drive him in. Plus, those second-tier hitters are worse than they've been in a freakin' decade. Gonzalez, Youk, and Ortiz need to be ordered by OBP, and that means Gonzalez hits first among them.

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youkilis, Ortiz, Salty (vs. R) / Ross (vs. L), Crawford, Sweeney (vs. R) / Shoppach (vs. L), Aviles/Punto.

Imagine how much freakin' better and more balanced that lineup would be if it was Matt Holliday hitting 6th, instead of Crawford hitting 7th.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

FWIW, The Baseball Network addressed this a couple of days ago on Clubhouse Confidential and ran simulations on a couple of things. Flip-flopping Ellsbury and Pedroia resulted in 6 more runs over the course of the year, and the most productive lineup they found produced 23 extra runs based on 2011. It looked like this:

Pedroia
Gonzo
Youk
Ortiz
Ellsbury
Crawford
Lowrie
Saltalamacchia
Drew

The podcast:

http://mlb.mlb.com/v...ent_id=20101753

No mention of Pedroia's history of mediocrity as a leadoff guy, but the point does get made that his flip-flop with Ells netting an extra 6 runs could have meant one more win, which would have been rather significant, perhaps even changing the offseason around a bit. Unlikely, but food for thought on the significance of a few extra runs here or there. Also no explanation of where Scutaro went, or how their simulation addressed missed games and R/L matchups. Seems like that would have eaten into a pile of those 23 extra runs.

Starts of pretty rudimentary, but interesting stuff as usual. If Valentine actually trotted out a lineup like that, my guess is he'd catch a lot of shit for it, but if anyone were going to do it...

That said, Scutaro would have made the best leadoff alternative in 2012, and in his absence the above lineup is probably the only way to avoid breaking up the potent best 5 hitters being at the top where they belong. Throwing an average OBP guy into the top spot makes no sense.

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 23 February 2012 - 11:59 AM.

[maufman]

Ellsbury is going to bat 1st, because the other options are worse.

Has anyone ever evaluated the relative value of the extra PAs a #1 hitter gets compared to a #5 or #6 hitter, relative to the extra RISP opportunities the #5 or #6 hitter presumably gets? Even if the Sox had a good leadoff alternative, I question whether moving Ellsbury down in the lineup would be wise.

[redsox2020]

There's no way I wanna take at bats away from Ellsbury, especially after he just put up a monster season. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Al Zarilla]

There's no way I wanna take at bats away from Ellsbury, especially after he just put up a monster season. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Also if he got off to a slow start, leaving a few men on base hitting, say, third, he may start pressing. Even though I personally felt last year he may be a bit of a waste at leadoff (drive in more runs batting a bit lower), right now I'd rather see one less variable to this season and leave him first. Thing is, when would you ever move him from leadoff with that philosophy.

[snowmanny]

I think this is a prelude to Crawford batting leadoff. I hope I am wrong, but that's what it seems like to me.

Well Carl Crawford IS much less likely to have an extra base hit with the bases empty than Ellsbury or Pedroia.

[absintheofmalaise]

There's no way I wanna take at bats away from Ellsbury, especially after he just put up a monster season. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

How many PAs would it take away from Ellsbury if you moved him to the #2 spot or the #5 spot? Would that move be offset by the number of times he would get an extra base hit with men on or would there be less runs scored because the person in the lead off spot would be getting on fewer times and not be in scoring position as often?

[The Gray Eagle]

If Valentine's as bad as certain people have predicted, then his lineup will be:

Crawford, LF: he's very fast, gotta have a guy like that at the top
Punto, SS: the little scrapper is a good bunter, and can really handle the bat.
Youkilis, 3B: Big power hitter can knock in the runs
Ortiz, DH: The big man has got to bat cleanup
Gonzalez, 1B: Another big slugger goes next
Ellsbury, CF: He's got more power now, so he'll be able to get lots of RBIs batting there
Pedroia, 2B: The little man can hit better than you'd probably think
Ross, RF: he's won the job and is the everyday man in right. Could flipflop with Pedroia if we need more RBIs
Saltalamcchia, C: When Shoppach and Varitek start, they will also bat ninth.

I don't actually think Valentine would do that, but he was an announcer last year, and that is how announcers think about lineups...

[rembrat]

I think Valentine is bad but I don't think he is that bad. Pedroia would be beside himself and rightly so.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

I would not move Ellsbury out of the leadoff spot, but I would move Pedroia out of the 2-hole.

After various comments this week, it really does seem like getting Crawford back to the top of the order may be a priority. Whatever it takes to get Crawford back to the pitcher-terrorizing menace he was in Tampa.

[TomRicardo]

I would not move Ellsbury out of the leadoff spot, but I would move Pedroia out of the 2-hole.

After various comments this week, it really does seem like getting Crawford back to the top of the order may be a priority. Whatever it takes to get Crawford back to the pitcher-terrorizing menace he was in Tampa.

Last year it was moving Crawford to 7th where he put up a line .315/.364/.551. Moving him up the line up to where he sucked to try to make him better is not a logical decision.

[gammoseditor]

I voted no because I don't want him changing his approach at the plate.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Last year it was moving Crawford to 7th where he put up a line .315/.364/.551. Moving him up the line up to where he sucked to try to make him better is not a logical decision.

Umm, sample size bias? I can't imagine you really think 150 plate appearances is sufficient basis for a logical decision. Perhaps a decision that gets lucky, but certainly not a logical one. There's no reason to think that his line batting seventh is any more indicative of his future success there, than his 196 plate appearances batting 6th do.

Crawford's success was achieved as a hitter at the top of the order, able to "cause havoc and do the things that [he] does." That's the hitter he is: talented, aggressive, and not particularly cerebral. Moving him up the line -- where he succeeded in 2700 plate appearances over 7 years -- is more logical than basing the decision on a month of at-bats.

[Sausage in Section 17]

There's just about nothing better than having Ellsbury get on leading off, and then watch the other team's starter having to go to the stretch with one eye toward first while he tries to pitch to Pedroia, Youk, and Gonzo. Pedroia's good on the bases, but he can't disrupt the pitcher quite the same way, and Crawford doesn't get on base well enough to hit him first.

I don't know what studies have been done trying to measure the benefit to the batter when you have an especially speedy/distracting guy on first, but my eyes tell me it's significant. The Sox have not had a guy with this skill set who is also a good hitter in decades, so moving him out of there, to me, minimizes the advantage those skills offer.

[rembrat]

And there is just about nothing that sucks more than having Ellsbury belt 20 dingers that result in only 20 runs.

Last year the AL OBP'd .323 and leadoff hitters OBP'd .326. Crawford can manage something a few points higher than that, right? I think it is worth a shot. I'd also like to see Crawford steal 50 bases again but that ain't happening hitting out of the bottom of the lineup.

[SoxScout]

Crawford doesn't get on base well enough to hit him first.

In his last 3 healthy seasons he has got on 355, 364, 356

In Ellsbury's 3 healthy seasons he has got on 336, 355, 376

Sure, if he has more than 1 all-world season, awesome, but I think it's far from a foregone conclusion Ells will even get on base more than Crawford this year.

[Marbleheader]

Why mess with his success there? This team has enough problems without creating one.

[TomRicardo]

And there is just about nothing that sucks more than having Ellsbury belt 20 dingers that result in only 20 runs.

Last year the AL OBP'd .323 and leadoff hitters OBP'd .326. Crawford can manage something a few points higher than that, right? I think it is worth a shot. I'd also like to see Crawford steal 50 bases again but that ain't happening hitting out of the bottom of the lineup.

Why would Crawford have less steals in the bottom of the order where you are more inclined to steal?

[Sausage in Section 17]

And there is just about nothing that sucks more than having Ellsbury belt 20 dingers that result in only 20 runs.

Taking this further, say he hits 30 again this year. On average, figuring 4+ AB's/game, this would end up being something like 7 homers/year leading off the game. And we can't assume that if we exchanged the leading off the game homers with ones he would have otherwise hit batting elsewhere, that there necessarily would have been anyone on base.

But the benefit gained by disrupting the pitcher as he faces our best hitters is one that can recreate itself everytime he gets on.

Speed seems like a more fleeting and rare commodity. Three or four years from now when he has lost a step, I could see it.

[Manramsclan]

Why would Crawford have less steals in the bottom of the order where you are more inclined to steal?

From Crawford's comments yesterday it would appear that he felt like he ran less when hitting at the bottom of the order because he didn't want to make an out with the top of the order coming up.

I am inclined to agree with you, but that was his rationale.

[lexrageorge]

I don't side with the Chicken Little's here. I see Valentine's comments as just that he is still evaluating the best way to make use of Ellsbury's bat and speed in this lineup. Some of this may very well depend upon what type of season Ellsbury has; it wasn't that long ago that most folks here felt that Ellsbury was due for a major regression this season. There's a big difference between Valentine's comments and his endorsing Nick Punto batting first and Gonzalez fifth.

I still voted no, as I really don't see any better spot for Ellsbury in this lineup, but that could change by June.