171 replies to this topic

[BucketOBalls]

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".

If Crawford does that, him and Ellsbury would be(for this purpose) the same guy. Lefty hitters with pretty good power and speed. Would be a good problem to have though.

[rembrat]

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

Then there was Crawford's perception that hitting where he typically found himself hitting, either sixth, seventh or eighth, was limiting what he could do.

"You can't do nothing," he said of living life hitting lower in the order. "You can't really steal. A lot of times there were two outs and I didn't want to run into the last out in important games. I found myself thinking about stuff I never thought about. I never really had to think a lot. I don't want to sound like a dumb ballplayer, but my game is strictly using the ability that God gave me. Now I'm thinking about stuff that never really mattered to me. I learned a lot. … I learned a lot."

http://www.weei.com/...an-cause-havoc-

[SoxScout]

Just quickly looked to see if there was a dramatic difference last season...

AL HR %

58% solo
28% 2-r
11% 3-r
2% 4-r

1.567 R/HR

Ellsbury HR %

63% solo
19% 2-r
19% 3-r
0% 4-r

1.563 R/HR

[TomRicardo]

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.

So he is pretty dim. You would run less as the lead off man trying not to make outs in front of Pedroia, Youkilis, Gonzalez, and Ortiz.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

[edit: beaten to it by rembrat]

So he is pretty dim. You would run less as the lead off man trying not to make outs in front of Pedroia, Youkilis, Gonzalez, and Ortiz.

Crawford about taking a different approach when batting lower in the order:

"It's just natural for you to go up there and swing for the fences to validate the contract, and I think I just got caught in that a little bit," he said. "Then you're hitting seventh and you feel like you can't do anything else."

"As you get into the year you realize you're stuck in the seven hole and you aren't going to be back up, so now I have to do something extra to try and show the manager I need to be back at the top, and that was a disaster trying to do that. Now you're getting out of what you normally do. When you do that, it's downhill from there."

Also, talking about his offensive impotence affecting his defense:

Crawford also now admits that all the "thinking" didn't just alter his offensive production.
"I'm pretty sure it did," he said when asked if his defense suffered because of the uneasiness. "A lot of guys think about their hitting and take it out on the field with them. And in Fenway, with the short porch, with the low line drives, you can't be thinking about anything but the ball."

So yeah, maybe he's dim. However, that's who he is, so BobbyV has to make the best possible use of him. If Crawford's going to play that scared and hesitant on both sides of the ball when hitting lower in the lineup, then he has to be moved up. And let someone who might be less concerned about the idea {hitting lower in the order = demotion} hit lower in the order.

Ironically, that's what made Drew a great #7 hitter.

Edited by Buzzkill Pauley, 23 February 2012 - 02:30 PM.

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

Look, no one wants to have Ellsbury hit 20 dingers with no one on, but how do you solve the problem without making it so either a: you have someone hitting first who's on base far less or b: someone else who's going to hit 20 HRs hit first?

Crawford is the only logical option to replace him at leadoff, but if last year is indicative of what he'll do going forward, you've got a guy who can't OBP .300 leading off. That's bad. And if it's not, and he returns to the player he was, well, then he's Jacoby Ellsbury, isn't he?

Maybe if Punto is your everyday shortstop and he can be expected to reliably OBP .350 you consider that, but he's a lifetime .323 OBP in the AL. I think you at least install Jacoby at the #1 spot for the first 30 games or so, and then you can reassess if Punto looks legit or Carl comes out of the gate walking a little bit more.

[nvalvo]

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.

Okay, that's interesting, but I don't see a great way to make it work, unless we decide we don't care about LRL-alternation. The following proposal is the best I can work out.


Against RHP:

Ellsbury (L)
Crawford (L)
Pedroia ®
Gonzalez (L)
Youkilis ®
Ortiz (L)
Saltalamacchia (S)
Sweeney (L)
Punto (S)

Against LHP:

Ellsbury (L)

Crawford (L)
Pedroia ®
Gonzalez (L)
Youkilis ®
Ortiz (L)
Ross ®
Shoppach ®
Aviles ®

Both of these look like fine lineups to me. If we decide that Crawford's psyche can handle it, I'd drop him to seventh against LHP, moving everyone else up:


Ellsbury (L)
Pedroia ®
Gonzalez (L)
Youkilis ®
Ortiz (L)
Ross ®
Crawford (L)
Shoppach ®
Aviles ®

Edited to add this quote: "I would rather hit ninth than seventh. Definitely at the top of the order, where I can cause havoc and do the stuff that I do." Maybe it's time for the patented second leadoff hitter.

Edited by nvalvo, 23 February 2012 - 02:28 PM.

[lexrageorge]

So he is pretty dim. You would run less as the lead off man trying not to make outs in front of Pedroia, Youkilis, Gonzalez, and Ortiz.

It's the responsibility of the coaching staff, not the player, to dictate the score/inning/out situations where Crawford should best run. If anything, his comments are more damning to the coaches than to his approach on the bases. I also wouldn't be surprised, given his difficulties getting on base in the first place, that he perhaps grew extra cautious even when given the green light. But, if that was the case, it still lies on the coaches to correct it.

[TomRicardo]

Wow Crawford is really dumb. He didn't notice he was doing much better in the 7 hole? I mean wow.

[rembrat]

2 years ago Gardner had more steals out of the 8th and 9th hole than he did the leadoff spot so Ricardo is right. I think Rajai Davis has done it too. But all that matters is that Crawford thinks he can't work down there.

[lexrageorge]

2 years ago Gardner had more steals out of the 8th and 9th hole than he did the leadoff spot so Ricardo is right. I think Rajai Davis has done it too. But all that matters is that Crawford thinks he can't work down there.

And, if that's indeed the case, it's on the coaching staff to change that.

[SoxScout]

FWIW, Crawford has said in every interview that he is fine if they send him down there this year and that no matter where he is hitting, he is going to be the same guy and not worry about it. It's not like he is saying "BAT ME SECOND OR ELSE".

[Buzzkill Pauley]

FWIW, Crawford has said in every interview that he is fine if they send him down there this year and that no matter where he is hitting, he is going to be the same guy and not worry about it. It's not like he is saying "BAT ME SECOND OR ELSE".

It's easy to say the right words before the season starts, but the subtext of his comments implies "BAT ME SECOND OR ELSE" anyway.

[HangingW/ScottCooper]

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

I know Crawford's awful year last year, and historically mediocre OBP mean that he shouldn't be hitting in the top two spots in the order. However, if he is hitting in the top 2 spots in the order, I would prefer it if he hit leadoff and Ellsbury hit 2nd.

Crawford - L
Ellsbury - L
Pedroia - R
Gonzalez - L
Youkilis - R
Ortiz - L
Ross - R
Salty/Shoppach - S/R
Aviles - R

[Savin Hillbilly]

If we're going to bump Ellsbury out of the leadoff spot to give him more RBI opps, might as well bump him one step further down and leave Pedroia where he's happy and successful:

Crawford
Pedroia
Ellsbury
Gonzalez
Youk
Ortiz
Sweeney/Ross
Salty
Aviles

I don't think this would be an improvement, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. But hasn't Crawford said he doesn't like to lead off?

[TomRicardo]

I don't think this would be an improvement, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. But hasn't Crawford said he doesn't like to lead off?

Yea, he wants to bat in the middle of the order like he did in Tampa. The only problem is his bat isn't close to being a middle of the order bat with Pedroia, Youkilis, Gonzalez, and Ortiz on the team. Even at his best, he really isn't in their caliber as a hitter.

[EddieYost]

If we're going to bump Ellsbury out of the leadoff spot to give him more RBI opps, might as well bump him one step further down and leave Pedroia where he's happy and successful: Crawford Pedroia Ellsbury Gonzalez Youk Ortiz Sweeney/Ross Salty Aviles I don't think this would be an improvement, but I wouldn't have a problem with it. But hasn't Crawford said he doesn't like to lead off?

Yes, I believe he has said he doesn't care for batting leadoff. If they intend to move Crawford to the top part of the lineup they are going to need to move away from the L-R-L-R thing, unless you want Ellsbury or Gonzalez batting 5th. Is having three of your first 4 batters bat lefty going to be a problem late in games? Is that a bigger problem than having a power hitter bat leadoff?

[Plympton91]

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.

But he has no problem making an out with the middle of the order coming up? File under, athletes say a lot of really dumb things.

Some people here are making a mistake of evaluating just the switch of Ellsbury from leadoff without evaluating the effect on the whole lineup. The way to think about this is that Valentine suggested that Crawford, Aviles, Ross, or Saltalamacchia should lead off. Only Crawford even warrents a serious discussion, and unless you're just flipping Ellsbury and Crawford, not only Ellsbury but many of the top five hitters will get less at bats and anything other than simply flipping Ellsbury and Crawford makes the L-R balance worse, not better (* see below). Unless Crawford is capable of replicating his 2010 season out of the leadoff spot, that makes no sense. Further, Crawford's 2010 season still might only make him the 6th best hitter on the team unless Ellsbury or Ortiz regresses (I pick them because they're probably the two highest probability regression candidates; Pedy hit at his established level last year, while Youk and Gonzo were a little below).

*Compare these top-6 options:

Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youk, Ortiz, Crawford

Crawford, Pedroia, Gonzo, Youk, Ortiz, Ellsbury (only difference is the better hitter and basestealer is hitting 6th instead of first)

Crawford, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez, Youk, Ortiz (none of your three best power hitters guaranteed to hit in the 1st, back-to-back lefties leading off, neither Pedroia nor Youk is as good a hitter as Gonzalez, but you need to break up the lefties with one of them)

The should spend spring training getting Crawford comfortable with the idea that he's not one of the best 5 hitters on the team, and therefore will not be hitting at the top of the order. (And yet they paid him $20 million a year. Ugh.)

[Laser Show]

After reading this throughout the day, I think the best bet is to keep Ellsbury at leadoff, where he's had success, and bat Crawford 9th, so he can serve as the "2nd leadoff man."

[Zedia]

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.

I know he did wacky and infuriating things occasionally, but leadoff batters' OBP under Morgan:

88 .425 (couldn't split up Morgan and McNamara's time.)
89 .398
90 .381
91 .403

Boggs lead off the bulk of the time, and the second option, Jody Reed, had a respectable OBP.

EDIT:

Just for comparison, OBP under McNamara's previous 3 season:

85 .363
86 .382
87 .337

Edited by Zedia, 23 February 2012 - 04:11 PM.

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I know he did wacky and infuriating things occasionally, but leadoff batters' OBP under Morgan:

88 .425 (couldn't split up Morgan and Macnamara's time.)
89 .398
90 .381
91 .403

Boggs lead off the bulk of the time, and the second option, Jody Reed, had a respectable OBP.

I could be wrong, but I think Foulkey was referencing Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and former color guy on ESPN, not Walpole Joe.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

Yes, I believe he has said he doesn't care for batting leadoff. If they intend to move Crawford to the top part of the lineup they are going to need to move away from the L-R-L-R thing, unless you want Ellsbury or Gonzalez batting 5th. Is having three of your first 4 batters bat lefty going to be a problem late in games? Is that a bigger problem than having a power hitter bat leadoff?

No - not when two of those three hit against LHP's at .780+ OPS for their career (and there's no reason to expect a collapse).

No - having a power hitter bat leadoff is not a problem at all, when there are three other, even more powerful, power bats in the lineup.

_______

I, for one, hope BobbyV makes this devil's deal with Crawford -- he'll get the 2-hole all year (barring injuries) but he has to accept being PH-for against LHRP's when the game's on the line.

[Zedia]

I could be wrong, but I think Foulkey was referencing Joe Morgan, the Hall of Fame second baseman and former color guy on ESPN, not Walpole Joe.

Oh, yeah, the "other" Joe Morgan. Sorry about that!

[Savin Hillbilly]

EDIT--nm. Already covered.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 23 February 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[twothousandone]

Look, no one wants to have Ellsbury hit 20 dingers with no one on, but how do you solve the problem without making it so either a: you have someone hitting first who's on base far less or b: someone else who's going to hit 20 HRs hit first?

Crawford is the only logical option to replace him at leadoff, but if last year is indicative of what he'll do going forward, you've got a guy who can't OBP .300 leading off. That's bad. And if it's not, and he returns to the player he was, well, then he's Jacoby Ellsbury, isn't he?

Crawford'd lifetime OBP is .333. Ellsbury last year was .376, for his career he's .354.That's your option a above.

The only better options for batting lead-off (that is, guys who maximize the skill of not making outs) are Gonzalez, Pedroia, Youkilis, Ortiz. They are your option b above.

The only problem is his bat isn't close to being a middle of the order bat

Can't we just call 6 "the middle of the order?"

[Hendu for Kutch]

Last year Ellsbury went .309/.368/.522 when leading off an inning and homered 4.0% of the time. Pedroia went .331/.391/.579 leading off an inning and homered 5.3% of the time.

So Pedroia was more "wasted" in leadoff opportunities than Ellsbury was last year. Honestly I don't know how much difference it's going to make, so why not leave everyone where they're comfortable and where our best hitters get up the most times?

[Manramsclan]

But he has no problem making an out with the middle of the order coming up? File under, athletes say a lot of really dumb things.

Well he also said that he "didn't want to sound like a dumb ballplayer", and the unspoken "but" was readily apparent.

[lexrageorge]

I draw two conclusions after reading this thread:

1.) Crawford will never, ever catch a break, even if he puts up a 0.900 OPS with 60 steals next season.

2.) Every move and quote that Valentine makes will be put in context of how Valentine subscribes to the Joe Morgan (the 2B/announcer one) theory of baseball, despite Valentine's actual knowledge of sabermetrics.

[Savin Hillbilly]

2.) Every move and quote that Valentine makes will be put in context of how Valentine subscribes to the Joe Morgan (the 2B/announcer one) theory of baseball, despite Valentine's actual knowledge of sabermetrics.

I think I was the first one in the thread to reference Morgan, and I was expressing unhappy surprise. I don't generally think of Valentine that way.

As for Crawford, if he has a monster season I think 90% of us will come around.

[Manramsclan]

I draw two conclusions after reading this thread:

1.) Crawford will never, ever catch a break, even if he puts up a 0.900 OPS with 60 steals next season.

2.) Every move and quote that Valentine makes will be put in context of how Valentine subscribes to the Joe Morgan (the 2B/announcer one) theory of baseball, despite Valentine's actual knowledge of sabermetrics.

I think this is a great point, and this just may be the case where the human being comfortable trumps any idea of "ideal" batting order. Not to mention the statistical evidence that an "optimal" lineup has been shown to only add one or two wins per season over a less optimal one.

The addition of two wins is likely not significant enough to risk batting Crawford where he does not feel comfortable. Whether moving him upsets others (in particular Pedroia and Ellsbury) is an even bigger issue in my opinion.

I've seen Adrian bat third and fourth without issue, and Youk and Ortiz don't seem to have an issue batting in that 4-6 area.

I think the real question is this:
Will making Carl more comfortable and moving Pedroia and/or Ellsbury, be worth more wins and less risky for the Sox than maintaining the status quo and hitting Carl lower in the order after being more prepared to do so after last year?

One could argue that empowering him to be the disruptive force on the bases that he can be hitting out of the second spot will result in more pitches from the starter, and more distractions when facing the heart of the Red Sox order. They may get more mistakes to hit.

This is a really interesting challenge, and one that was never solved last year. I think we can all agree that getting a pre-2011 Carl Crawford producing in our lineup will be a seismic change for the 2012 Red Sox. How Valentine chooses to deal with this will be very interesting.

[JakeRae]

If Crawford will perform better hitting 3rd, let's do it. The problem is, it's really hard to know if it was batting order discomfort or something else that caused his struggles. But, if that is the issue, optimal lineups just aren't worth enough to tinker with player comfort.

Ellsbury
Pedroia
Crawford
Gonzalez
Youkilis
Ortiz

Is the best top 6 I can come up with that has Crawford in a comfort zone, doesn't create too much lefty exposure (Ellsbury and Gonzalez hit lefties fairly well and Ortiz might be learning too although there isn't sufficient data to really make that claim yet). The bottom of the order would go RF, C, SS although this order isn't terribly important. I'd rather bat Crawford third than mess with the good thing we've got going on in the 1-2 holes with Ellsbury and Pedroia and Crawford would probably rather bat third than 1st or 2nd too. Granted, Crawford has no business batting that high in the order, but if it gets him back to being Tampa Crawford, the slightly less than optimal lineup will be well worth it.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

FWIW, Crawford has said in every interview that he is fine if they send him down there this year and that no matter where he is hitting, he is going to be the same guy and not worry about it. It's not like he is saying "BAT ME SECOND OR ELSE".

It's worth reinforcing this point. Taking the realist approach that making Crawford comfortable to optimize his value makes plenty of sense of that level, but in the broader perspective, enabling a player's historical preference for where he hits to take precedence over his responsibility to do what's best for the team is a really bad priority to reinforce.

If he's said he will put the over-thinking behind him and just go out and play to his strengths, take him at his word and let him follow through on it. If he's getting on base at his best (36-37% of the time) through early June, then consider moving him to the top of the order if it looks like the lineup could use a boost. It's not worth moving a bunch of 850+ OPS guys into spots that don't maximize the number of at bats they get until he demonstrates he's approaching that level. Enabling any player, especially one getting paid a boatload of money, to have his personal preferences catered to against what the current evidence says the better interests of the team are is bad news short term and worse news long term.

edit- clarity.

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 23 February 2012 - 07:57 PM.

[Savin Hillbilly]

Taking the realist approach that making Crawford comfortable to optimize his value makes plenty of sense of that level, but in the broader perspective, enabling a player's historical preference for where he hits to take precedence over his responsibility to do what's best for the team is a really bad priority to reinforce.

If he's said he will put the over-thinking behind him and just go out and play to his strengths, take him at his word and let him follow through on it. If he's getting on base at his best (36-37% of the time) through early June, then consider moving him to the top of the order if it looks like the lineup could use a boost. It's not worth moving a bunch of 850+ OPS guys into spots that don't maximize the number of at bats they get until he demonstrates he's approaching that level. Enabling any player, especially one getting paid a boatload of money, to have his personal preferences catered to against what the current evidence says the better interests of the team are is bad news short term and worse news long term.

You make a good case here, and I agree with most of it, but the bolded part misses the point slightly, I think. Nobody's suggesting we should give a free pass for Crawford to prioritize his own comfort level above winning (and I assume Crawford would be the first to agree). But if that comfort level translates into better performance, then the dichotomy between it and winning becomes a false one (assuming it isn't going to cause offsetting problems with other people).

Players aren't machines. Crawford might be absolutely sincere in his intention to put his preferences and mental habits aside, but that's not the same thing as saying he can do it. It's Valentine's job to figure all this stuff out and strike the right balance between what logic and analysis would dictate and what will get the most out of each player.

[PrometheusWakefield]

I love the fact that Ellsbury lead the league in plate appearances last year. The one thing I'm sure of when it comes to lineup construction is that the higher in the order you hit, the more plate appearances you get. It would be one thing if we didn't have a #3 hitter and if we didn't move Elllsbury we'd have a mediocre bat in that spot. But we do, and I'm happy to see Ellsbury hit another 30 home runs in the leadoff spot. The bottom of our batting order would give him plenty of oppertuntiies to turn that into another 105 RBI season.

[reggiecleveland]

Wow Crawford is really dumb. He didn't notice he was doing much better in the 7 hole? I mean wow.

Fuck that guy. He should also figure out you can't steal when you are never on base. I am waiting to hear why it wasn't his fault he couldn't field. This fucking guy is dim. Christ he was the worst player on the team last year and he comes to camp and complains.

[Toe Nash]

Fuck that guy. He should also figure out you can't steal when you are never on base. I am waiting to hear why it wasn't his fault he couldn't field. This fucking guy is dim. Christ he was the worst player on the team last year and he comes to camp and complains.

We found the 10% who won't give Carl a break even if he has a .900 OPS with 60 SB...

And we heard you the first 50 times.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

Players aren't machines. Crawford might be absolutely sincere in his intention to put his preferences and mental habits aside, but that's not the same thing as saying he can do it. It's Valentine's job to figure all this stuff out and strike the right balance between what logic and analysis would dictate and what will get the most out of each player.

So that begs the question - what skills do batting lower in the order with more guys on base in front of him require that he might have difficulty fulfilling even if his heart is in it? The bat control to hit behind runners? Will his speed really be wasted? Some of it's a coaching issue, some of it is a skill set issue. I agree they are factors worth adding into the calculus. I'd love to know exactly what they are. But I won't concede 'comfort level' is specific enough.

That said, the point is there's a break even point that his OBP has to hit for him to be justified in hitting first or second. At his best he's less of a hitter than five guys who hit ahead of him last year. Getting on base and making pitchers uneasy is something he's shown he can do, so maybe 2nd could work. But I'd rather wait to show he can rather than risk the team's well being hoping he will.

On the other hand, making him out to be a whiner is just ridiculous talk show level drivel this place's got to be above. If he's overpaid he has the same obligation to give his best to the team paying him. But calling him out for wasting energy worrying about how it's best done is asking him to stop being human. Give him a break. His heart's in the right place and he's the last guy we can accuse of being lazy. So he's the perfect candidate for different coaching guidance. That's not Tito's fault, but Valentine is in a prime spot to take advantage of the chance to get him going in the right direction. I'm optimistic he can. Same for a bunch of other players. At least for a while, even if it's not as long as Tito did.

[OCD SS]

I draw two conclusions after reading this thread:

1.) Crawford will never, ever catch a break, even if he puts up a 0.900 OPS with 60 steals next season.

Probably not true. If anything SoSH has shown itself as a population to be incredibly influenced by the most recent performance sample. If you had told anyone here at this time last year that a bunch of people would be worried that Crawford's contract would be an impediment to giving Ellsbury $100M, everyone would've wondered how the crazy crack whore on the corner hacked your account.

Fuck that guy. He should also figure out you can't steal when you are never on base. I am waiting to hear why it wasn't his fault he couldn't field. This fucking guy is dim. Christ he was the worst player on the team last year and he comes to camp and complains.

OTOH this shows that he's got a long way to go. And that Reggie is overly concerned about what ball players say, when the Sox have had such well spoken luminaries as Manny and Damon on the squad recently.

[reggiecleveland]

We found the 10% who won't give Carl a break even if he has a .900 OPS with 60 SB...

Yeah because he's done that already and I still am on his case. If Carl puts up a 900 ops and 60 steals you throw this back at me when I bash him. How can people talk about a guy never getting a break "no matter how great he plays" when he hasn't played well, let alone great, yet. I am praying the guy can still play because we are stuck with him.

And I heard you guys tell me he was statistically assured to break out over a 1000 times last year. So maybe 50 times hearing you were wrong is getting off cheap.

There are more than 10% of the people that post about Crawford that are embarrassing apologists. I don't know what was more infuriating, the way Carl played, or the way people on Sosh kept saying he was fine.

Damon and Manny never said things that hinted they lacked confidence or got rattled. Damon's idiot speech was the opposite of Crawford's concerns about the order. Damon was pointed out they ignored problems and just went out and played.

The one thing I admire about Crawford was the stoic way he sucked. He didn't whine, throw bats, say he was hurt, etc. If big mouth Carl can put up a .340 OPA I will take him over quite professional .290 OBA guy.I fully expect Bobby will use Jedi Tard tricks on him and get him playing this year.

Lastly I will say it is strange I am accused of irrational dislike of Crawford. What player in Red Sox recent history is it more rational to be pissed off about?

Edited by reggiecleveland, 24 February 2012 - 02:07 AM.

[CSteinhardt]

At one point a few years ago (I think around 2004) I ran a simulation of this kind of question, as part of trying to frame an argument that Barry Bonds should really be hitting leadoff. I discovered two main things:

1) The difference between an optimal and completely sub-optimal arrangement of 9 players is in the 25-30 runs per year range, depending upon your collection of hitters. So, platoons, available pinch hitters, bullpen matchups, etc. are of a similar enough size that they should be part of your thinking. This also means that if there are substantial man-management differences when choosing your lineup, those might turn out to be the biggest effect.

2) You generally do best giving your most PA to your best hitters, even without men on base. In particular, when I ran this simulation on MLB lineups from that year, about 3/4 of them performed better if you just rotated them to start with the #2 hitter, and every AL lineup performed better if you rotated it to start with the #3 hitter.

Ultimately, here's the way I'd think about it. The first inning is the only one you can guarantee that you get to determine what part of the lineup comes up. As as fan, who are you most excited to see as due up in the next inning? For, say, the 2004 Sox, any answer to that question involved both Ortiz and Manny, and lineups in which both were part in the top three indeed performed better than lineups where one or both wasn't. To me, Ellsbury, Pedroia, Gonzalez is is the right combination based upon what I expect this year, and I might hit Crawford 9 where he'll be coming up in front of Ellsbury every time but the first.

[geoduck no quahog]

I think the wrong questions are being asked. It's not, "where in the batting order is so-and-so more comfortable". It should be, what batting order makes "opposing starter of the day" most uncomfortable.

That could change with every game and every ballpark. It could change with who's hot and who's not.

Who gives a shit about set lineups. The only given should be that Gonzalez gets as many ab's as possible over the course of the season - hopefully with as many people on base as possible.

Other than that, the manager should decide what type of hitters are most problematic to the starter, whether or not he holds people on base, his l-r splits, his repertoire, etc. - and then assemble a batting order that creates the most headaches and stress for him.

[Savin Hillbilly]

I think the wrong questions are being asked. It's not, "where in the batting order is so-and-so more comfortable". It should be, what batting order makes "opposing starter of the day" most uncomfortable.

I don't really care whether the opposing pitcher is comfortable or not. He can be in a state of total, yogic, mellowed-out bliss for all I care, as long as we're pounding his ass. So I want the batting order that maximizes the likelihood of pounding his ass. The comfort level of certain hitters with certain batting order slots may, whether we like it or not, be an important factor in determining that likelihood. Exactly how important it is, in comparison to other factors, is not something I think any of us has enough information to judge. That's one of the things Valentine is paid for.

Put it this way: a reasonably informed voice tells us that the difference between a typical batting order and an optimal one is worth about 10 runs a year. The difference between Crawford's offense in 2010 and 2011 was about 40 runs. Of course batting order issues were only one piece of the puzzle there, and probably even a small piece. We have no way of knowing for sure that batting Crawford in the 2 or 3 hole would have improved his performance, or by how much. But it seems obvious to me that the scoring benefit from optimizing a batting order on purely analytical grounds could easily be dwarfed by the benefit from putting each player where he believes he can be most successful.

Edited by Savin Hillbilly, 24 February 2012 - 10:11 AM.

[Carl Everetts Therapist]

I don't want an obviously bulked up Ellsbury out there trying to hit home runs (or feeling that he has to, because we shifted the whole order because he did last year).

After the year Crawford had last year he needs to realize (an I think he does) that he needs to earn a move up in the order. In Tampa for years he was a Big fish in a small pond. Here in Boston he is just another one of the star-caliber hired hands.

That being said, if Crawford is tearing it up come mid-May , I'd say think about moving him then. Then we'll know who is hurt, who is doing what and what the optimal line-up is.

Until then you keep the majority of the best offense in baseball in the order it was when they put up those numbers.

[Dewy4PrezII]

I would keep Ellsbury in the first spot and put Crawford in the 9 spot so he can be a second top of the order guy after the first time through the order.

Ellsbury (L)
Pedroia ®
Gonzalez (L)
Youkilis ®
Ortiz (L)
Ross ®
Salty (S)
Aviles ®
Crawford (L)

[rembrat]

I would keep Ellsbury in the first spot and put Crawford in the 9 spot so he can be a second top of the order guy after the first time through the order.

Ellsbury (L)
Pedroia ®
Gonzalez (L)
Youkilis ®
Ortiz (L)
Ross ®
Salty (S)
Aviles ®
Crawford (L)

That's fine if this were a video game.

[SoxScout]

Speaking of video games,

Lineup Optimization using 2010+2011 seasons (and Ells's last 3)


Youkilis Gonzalez Ellsbury Ortiz Pedroia Saltalamacchia Crawford Aviles Ross

[Toe Nash]

Lastly I will say it is strange I am accused of irrational dislike of Crawford. What player in Red Sox recent history is it more rational to be pissed off about?

Lackey.

I think it comes down to the fact that last year was the worst of his career. He's not poised to "break out," he's poised to return to his normal level of production because if he didn't it would be very strange as he's just 30 years old. One can argue that his normal level isn't particularly good, but it's significantly better than what we got last year.

I'm not going to go any deeper than that since you've supposedly heard it a thousand times. But when you're just repeating "he sucks" over and over you're not adding anything either. Everyone knows he sucked last year. But we have him for 6 more so it would be nice to have some rational expectations. Expecting him to continue to be a replacement level player is not rational unless you have some reasons why. I haven't seen you post any beyond what he's been saying which is dubious to draw conclusions from.

[Buzzkill Pauley]

That's fine if this were a video game.

Or a fantasy baseball league. Crawford's saying that he'd rather hit ninth means that his mindset is still to "make things happen" ahead of the big boppers, not stealing bases so that the 8-9 hitters can play small-ball. And frankly, I'm good with that. Because to me it means he's cleared out some baggage from last year's lost season and can be back to the aggressive player that was really good down in Tampa. Now bat him #2 again.

Because clearing out the baggage doesn't mean the best way to keep him in that aggressive, positive frame of mind is to actually bat him ninth. The studies on batting order posted above show less than 2 wins benefit from the most optimal lineup to the least. But if the drawback to having the most optimal lineup is Crawford losing 5 WAR in value from over-thinking things, then there's no question it's the wrong thing to do.

Unless moving Pedroia out of the 2-hole means he'll lose 3 WAR by being bumped down. But does anyone really think Pedroia would let that move affect him the way Crawford did? I certainly do not. Ortiz is the only other personality on the team that I could see being so emotionally affected by moving down the order.

Ellsbury-Crawford-Gonzalez-Youkils-Ortiz-Pedroia is the way I would build the top two thirds of the lineup. Maybe it's not the best lineup in theory, but it's not the worst the Sox could do, either.

[EddieYost]

Ellsbury-Crawford-Gonzalez-Youkils-Ortiz-Pedroia is the way I would build the top two thirds of the lineup.

I don't mind moving Crawford up to 2nd as a sign that they believe in him, and its a new year and all that. I would do Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Youk-Ortiz though. Three lefties in a row is just begging for a LOOGY late in the game, and I really don't want Pedroia batting 6th.

Edited by EddieYost, 24 February 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[SoxScout]

I would do Ellsbury-Crawford-Pedroia-Gonzalez-Youk-Ortiz

This is how it's going to break, I believe.