Biggio

[BudGirl]

Was there a theory a while back that showed the team won depending on how Biggio played?

Just thought maybe it isn't Bagwell missing but Biggio's play instead.

[EasTexAstro]

Just real quick and ugly:

The Astros are 5-6 in games where Biggio doesn't have an official AB (though he might have had a plate appearance).

In the games where he has an AB:
In Astros wins, he is hitting roughly .343
In Astros losses, he is hitting roughly .195

I would expect most of the team to kindof follow that trend, though.

[Limey]

Last night, it was Berkman they missed.

[MusicMan]

Well, that and a single fucking clue among them of how to approach an at-bat.

[Holly]

If it is approach (and I haven't watched much of this season at all... more pressing personal stuff to deal with, when I'm not at work), then how do grown men who have played this game professionally for at least 5 years suddenly not have a clue? That confounds me. Is hitting really that much a touchy-feely thing with a groove that can get knocked outta whack so easily? This is an honest question (laced with a bit of exasperation, as a fan).

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
If it is approach (and I haven't watched much of this season at all... more pressing personal stuff to deal with, when I'm not at work), then how do grown men who have played this game professionally for at least 5 years suddenly not have a clue? That confounds me. Is hitting really that much a touchy-feely thing with a groove that can get knocked outta whack so easily? This is an honest question (laced with a bit of exasperation, as a fan).

Approach can be effected by several things:

1. Injury - in the case of Ensberg for instance, he was compensating for a hurt shoulder and altered his approach.  His stance was changed almost on every pitch because of how he felt each at bat.  Made for some crazy approach to hitting a pitcher, which leads to the next item...

2. The Opposing Pitcher - You have hard throwers, you have soft tossers, you have lefties, you have righties, you have sinker ball pitchers, you have pitchers who spot corners, you have guys who challenge up in the zone with four seamers (and make you pop out weakly).  With all those *types* of pitchers... you cannot, shall not have *one* approach to hitting.  If the opposing pitcher is a soft tossing lefty who spots the outside corner a lot and you're a right handed hitter (see: Knepper, Bob), you might want to take an approach up to your at bat of taking the outside pitch to right field instead of rolling over it for a weak ground ball to 3rd or short.  You tailor your approach somewhat without altering your strength as a hitter.  Namely, if you are going to drive in runs, then look for certain types of pitches in certain situations, which leads us to the next item...

3. The situation - a runner at third with less than two outs is different than a situation where you might be looking to get on-base to start a rally.  Hitting a ball up the middle or going with a pitch is two differing approachs, and what may designate what you're trying to do is the situation itself.

4. The Book - most major league hitters hit a wall in their second or third year (see: Lane, Jason).  Most believe that that wall is because of the proverbial *book* that pitchers will develop on a hitter.  In Lane's case, they found a hole in his swing that they've been exploiting for several months.  It seems to be up and in (a similar book was developed on Jeff Bagwell late in his career).  Lane's approach never compensating for what a pitcher was doing to him.  You think too much as a hitter, you will develop some bad habits.  But you do have to have some amount of clue as to what a pitcher is doing to you.

5.Mechanics - sometimes your hitting mechanics get out of whack because you've changed your approach.  The chicken/egg thing applies here.  Your approach then morphs because you don't feel you can get the bat through the zone having approach A as opposed to approach B.

The major leagues are all about the ability to change while maintaining a semblance of consistency.  Rather weird concept, but one that fits naturally in the scheme of being a superstar by failing 7 times out of 10.  The ones who fail and get washed out at this level are the ones who cannot, will not, do not change while keeping a firm grasp of their own strength as a hitter.  Albert Pujols is such a beast of a hitter because he will figure out what a pitcher is trying to exploit almost every at bat.  He may look weak on one particular outside pitch, but he won't miss it if you try it twice.  He ability to recognize a pitch and wait on it and get full extention and power on said pitch is freaking amazing.  That is when you know that you've got a total natural hitter.  All others need to work on developing a good set of parameters to work within to win at least 2 to 3 times out of 10 to stick in the majors.

Having a sound approach developed from good habits is one thing, have a sound approach developed from good habits plus an ability to recognize and adapt is where the men get seperated from the boys.

[Arky Vaughan]

Excellent post, Noe. Lays it out very clearly and understandably.

[jaklewein]

Thanks Noe.  Got noth'n but love for this website.

[WulawHorn]

back to the original question re bidge- that has long been my theory (and I might have posted it here) that as Craig Biggio goes, so go the astros.  It has been this way for years.  The reason, I think, is b/c you have certain more or less constants, both positive and negative.  You know Berkman's going to mash, you know Ausmus and Everett are going to struggle etc. etc.  Biggio is thus a key ignitor and run producer all rolled into one.  When he doesn't hit the astros offense has very little chance to do anything productive.  When he does hit they generally look ok.

That's always been my thought anyway.  Who knows, maybe its just b/c bidge is my favorite player so I'm more keyed into him.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:
back to the original question re bidge- that has long been my theory (and I might have posted it here) that as Craig Biggio goes, so go the astros.  

I think you'd find this generally true of anyone who bats leadoff or 2nd, and does it well.

[Holly]

Danke schoen, Mr. Noe I'm still left wondering, though, about where that "fucking clue" went, on a team-wide level. You'd think Derek Bell had been schooling some of them on Random Approach or something.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:

Quote:
back to the original question re bidge- that has long been my theory (and I might have posted it here) that as Craig Biggio goes, so go the astros.  

I think you'd find this generally true of anyone who bats leadoff or 2nd, and does it well.

I'm not trying to bash Biggio but I can't help but wonder if maybe it's time for him to hand over the leadoff spot to someone better suited to it.  I know it takes more than a high OBP to lead off but from what I've seen, he simply isn't the best person for the job anymore.

Hypothetically speaking, I'd like to see what this lineup produces:
Burke
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Wilson
Biggio
Ausmus
Everett
P

I'm not sure how that bottom portion of the lineup compares to league average but it might give the Astros more scoring opportunities, with fewer outs, at the top of the lineup, at least in their first at bat.

[jaklewein]

In regards to Biggio's performance vs. Astros record...do with it what you will:

 2004
PreAS Biggio .301avg .360obp - Stros go 44-44
PosAS Biggio .256avg .308obp - Stros go 48-26

 2005
PreAS Biggio .288avg .351obp - Stros go 44-43
PosAS Biggio .256avg .308obp - Stros go 45-30

 2006
PreAS Biggio .280avg .345obp - Stros go 43-46
PosAS Biggio .088avg .139obp - Stros go  4-7

[Froback]

Noe that was so well done, I hope the powers that be here, find a way to capture it and put it in one of the many locations here where such descriptions can be stored, allowing us to point newbies and interested parties to it.

[No? in Austin]

Quote:
Danke schoen, Mr. Noe I'm still left wondering, though, about where that "fucking clue" went, on a team-wide level. You'd think Derek Bell had been schooling some of them on Random Approach or something.

That one usually happens when your *mindset* to hitting is one of "I've had success hitting a sinkerballer by opening up a little, putting a slight upper swing on the ball and trying to get out in front of the pitch before it sinks".  And boom, the guy throws a slider at you and said approach works against you.

Sometimes you'll hear a broadcaster opine that "they're seeing this pitcher the second time around" or in the case of a rookie they've never seen "well, they don't know what he throws, so...".  All that is true.  You have a mindset first off to do what you best and work your way from there.  Richard Hidalgo use to frustrate me because he had the very long swing and pull hitter mentality that works against a select few pitchers and a select few situations.  Some say he had said approach because he was compensating for a very slow bat speed (probably brought on by the extra muscle he put on and he never was able to get his bat speed back).  So consequently, it was the approach Reeshard used that did him in, even though he was able to change his mechanics a little in New York to help him generate bat speed, eventually the pitchers compensated and started dominate him again.

So in regards to not have a fucking clue, it's pretty much a mindset of "my general approach has worked before, it will work now" on a player's part.  Change is hard to undertake as a player because of the supersitious nature of a ballplayer and of course a frame of reference of previous success hitting one certain way.

[Andyzipp]

Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

[BudGirl]

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Sounds like the Astros need to trade for a lead off hitter.

[Froback]

Quote:

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Sounds like the Astros need to trade for a lead off hitter.

While that may or may not be true, they are not easy to find, nor cheap to get.

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Burke is getting on base this year at a .366 clip.  That surprised me.  I thought it was in the .315-.320 range which is about where Biggio is.

How's 'bout:
Burke
Everett
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

or when/if Ensberg returns

Burke
Everett
Berkman
Ensberg
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

[jaklewein]

Quote:

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Burke is getting on base this year at a .366 clip.  That surprised me.  I thought it was in the .315-.320 range which is about where Biggio is.

How's 'bout:
Burke
Everett
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

or when/if Ensberg returns

Burke
Everett
Berkman
Ensberg
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

I've been waiting for Gar to give Burke an extended go at leadoff for sometime now.  I don't know about Everett in the 2-hole...I'd still like to see Bidge there, with Berkman behind him.  Bidge has histoically done well in the 2-hole (IIRC).

[Jacksonian]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Burke is getting on base this year at a .366 clip.  That surprised me.  I thought it was in the .315-.320 range which is about where Biggio is.

How's 'bout:
Burke
Everett
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

or when/if Ensberg returns

Burke
Everett
Berkman
Ensberg
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

I've been waiting for Gar to give Burke an extended go at leadoff for sometime now.  I don't know about Everett in the 2-hole...I'd still like to see Bidge there, with Berkman behind him.  Bidge has histoically done well in the 2-hole (IIRC).

I liked Everett in the 2nd spot under 1 M and still do.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Thanks.  Honestly, I didn't think I was being brilliant with this conclusion.  However, what am I missing in thinking Burke is performing at the level necessary to take over the critical role of batting lead off?

[JimR]

anything to get him out of the 3 hole.

[JGrave]

Quote:
anything to get him out of the 3 hole.

Of all the decisions Garner makes that are second guessed, it boggles my brain that his writing Burke in the 3 hole isn't questioned seemingly at all.

Another vote for Bidge in the 6 spot.  Someone get Justice on the horn so we can get this done.

[Arky Vaughan]

Burke is hitting like a mini-Biggio of Old this season, with a good OBP and decent power. He would probably be a good fit at leadoff. Right now Biggio has roughly the same OBP and slugging average as Wilson, so either of them seems suited to the lower-middle of the line-up.

I'd probably stack 'em up like this:

CF Burke
1B Lamb
RF Berkman
3B Huff
LF Wilson
2B Biggio
SS Everett
C Ausmus

[astrox]

[quote
How's 'bout:
Burke
Everett
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

or when/if Ensberg returns

Burke
Everett
Berkman
Ensberg
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P



I like that line up.  It seems like the Astros have had a black hole in the bottom of the order for a while, and these lineups would have 1 and 2 seeing better pitches to hit.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
I like that line up.  It seems like the Astros have had a black hole in the bottom of the order for a while, and these lineups would have 1 and 2 seeing better pitches to hit.

I can't understand the love affair with batting Everett second, unless your central organizing principle in filling out a line-up card is to turn the black hole at the bottom of the batting order into a black hole at the top of the batting order, getting 70 or 80 more plate appearances per season right in front of your most productive hitters.

[Arky Vaughan]

"#2 - another on-base spot, should be a good bunter, must be willing to take pitches in steal situations, an ability to hit behind the runner is helpful because this is a hit and run spot"

[Jacksonian]

Quote:
"#2 - another on-base spot, should be a good bunter, must be willing to take pitches in steal situations, an ability to hit behind the runner is helpful because this is a hit and run spot"

Maybe I see him in a different way than others but that seems like what AE gives you if he's in the 2 spot.

[JimR]

me, too. i have been yelling "AE in the 2 hole" for years, but no one is listening.

[loganck]

Quote:
me, too. i have been yelling "AE in the 2 hole" for years, but no one is listening.

Jimy did.

[VirtualBob]

Quote:
me, too. i have been yelling "AE in the 2 hole" for years, but no one is listening.

A lot of us are listening and some of us even agree ... but none of us has been asked to manage the 'stros.

[astrox]

Quote:
A lot of us are listening and some of us even agree ... but none of us has been asked to manage the 'stros.

Yeah, but you never know...in a deserate move, Scraps may occasionally visit OWA to get the lineups.

Talk like someone's listening.

[Zan]

Quote:

Quote:
Tom,

I've thought that Biggio should be batting 6th for the better part of the last 6 seasons.

You're not alone in this.  However, he appears to be the best option because even if Burke and Everett (among a scad of others) seem better suited to it, the performance level isn't there.

Burke is getting on base this year at a .366 clip.  That surprised me.  I thought it was in the .315-.320 range which is about where Biggio is.

How's 'bout:
Burke
Everett
Lamb
Berkman
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

or when/if Ensberg returns

Burke
Everett
Berkman
Ensberg
Huff
Biggio
Wilson
Ausmus
P

I don't pretend to know a lot about baseball, but it would take a lot for me to believe that AE is a solid #2 choice, even in the Astros mediocre lineup. IMHO, whatever he brings in terms of sac bunts and speed is more than cancelled out by the prospect of giving an impotent bat dozens of additional plate appearances.

[EasTexAstro]

Are we headed back to the discussion of roles for hitters? You know, the one where  the approach of the 2 hitter is different from the approach of the 7 hitter or 8 hitter? The one that says you can't predict exactly what a hitter will do at a certain spot in the lineup until he is there? Would Adam take a different approach as a 2 hitter?

[JGrave]

Quote:
Are we headed back to the discussion of roles for hitters? You know, the one where  the approach of the 2 hitter is different from the approach of the 7 hitter or 8 hitter? The one that says you can't predict exactly what a hitter will do at a certain spot in the lineup until he is there? Would Adam take a different approach as a 2 hitter?

Not sure if these were meant to be rhetorical but I would say most definitely his approach would change.  He wouldn't have to be as aggressive.  I think one of his problems is that he feels like he has to make something happen because the pitcher is on deck.  But, I think he tries too hard and it leads to pop-ups.  He would also see much better pitches.

[Gizzmonic]

Everett's been tried as a 2-hole hitter before.  Unless everyone's clamoring for Jimy-ball and heavy use of the sac bunt, I'd prefer that Everett hit 7th or 8th.

Hate to say it, but I'm with Zan on this one.  Everett would get better pitches if he was batting second, but Burke would certainly do more with those pitches.

That's not to say that I don't think Everett is capable of hitting better than he is, I just don't believe his success at the plate (or lack thereof) is as important as the reactionary talk show callers think.

Quote:
Are we headed back to the discussion of roles for hitters? You know, the one where  the approach of the 2 hitter is different from the approach of the 7 hitter or 8 hitter? The one that says you can't predict exactly what a hitter will do at a certain spot in the lineup until he is there? Would Adam take a different approach as a 2 hitter?

[JimR]

i prefer Burke there too, but until last night, he was in the 3 hole.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:

Quote:
"#2 - another on-base spot, should be a good bunter, must be willing to take pitches in steal situations, an ability to hit behind the runner is helpful because this is a hit and run spot"

Maybe I see him in a different way than others but that seems like what AE gives you if he's in the 2 spot.

Another on-base spot?

Must be willing to take pitches in steal situations?

Ability to hit behind the runner?

Everett's career high in OBP is .320. In his career, he has struck out 2.7 times for every walk.

So he's not an on-base guy.

Taking pitches, for him, would seem to enhance, even more, his chances of striking out. Also, there's nothing like a strike-'em-out throw-'em-out double play on a botched hit-and-run.

Has he demonstrated the bat control to hit behind the runner?

The only skill as a No. 2 hitter that Everett would bring to the table is the ability to bunt. For a team that's struggling to score more than one or two runs a night, designing the top of your order to look like it's from Ty Cobb's era isn't such a great idea.

Everett's glove is fantastic, and watching him in the field is pure pleasure. He can stroke a double every once in awhile, and he runs well. But putting him in a place where he gets 70 or 80 more plate appearances a season, where the line-up's supposed to get jump-started, is a bad idea.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
i prefer Burke there too, but until last night, he was in the 3 hole.

I like Burke at No. 2. The way he's hitting this year, he's something of a prototype at No. 2.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Everett's been tried as a 2-hole hitter before.  Unless everyone's clamoring for Jimy-ball and heavy use of the sac bunt, I'd prefer that Everett hit 7th or 8th.

Hate to say it, but I'm with Zan on this one.  Everett would get better pitches if he was batting second, but Burke would certainly do more with those pitches.

That's not to say that I don't think Everett is capable of hitting better than he is, I just don't believe his success at the plate (or lack thereof) is as important as the reactionary talk show callers think.

Funny thing is, in his career he's .290/.331/.400/.731 as a No. 2 hitter. Noe and I had a long chicken-and-egg argument about this over the offseason. If he could do that again as a No. 2 hitter, he'd be effective there. Problem is, there's only one way to find out.

[jaklewein]

Quote:

Quote:
Everett's been tried as a 2-hole hitter before.  Unless everyone's clamoring for Jimy-ball and heavy use of the sac bunt, I'd prefer that Everett hit 7th or 8th.

Hate to say it, but I'm with Zan on this one.  Everett would get better pitches if he was batting second, but Burke would certainly do more with those pitches.

That's not to say that I don't think Everett is capable of hitting better than he is, I just don't believe his success at the plate (or lack thereof) is as important as the reactionary talk show callers think.

Funny thing is, in his career he's .290/.331/.400/.731 as a No. 2 hitter. Noe and I had a long chicken-and-egg argument about this over the offseason. If he could do that again as a No. 2 hitter, he'd be effective there. Problem is, there's only one way to find out.

Then why not Bidge in the 2-hole?  Last year he went .280/.342/.495 there in 400 ABs.  We know that he can still hit a fastball.  Why not put him in a postion where he'll see alot more of them with Berkman behind him?

[strosrays]

Quote:
Are we headed back to the discussion of roles for hitters? You know, the one where  the approach of the 2 hitter is different from the approach of the 7 hitter or 8 hitter? The one that says you can't predict exactly what a hitter will do at a certain spot in the lineup until he is there? Would Adam take a different approach as a 2 hitter?

I don't think the role of a #2 hitter has ever been clearly defined, at least in a way that was widely accepted and used, in all of baseball history; post WWII, anyway, which is what I have been looking at for awhile.

The only traits of a #2 that have been laid out and more-or-less universally accepted across the last 50 or so years are in a sense reductive.  They define what an ideal #2 doesn't do.  He is not a power hitter or RBI man.  He is not typically a speed/stolen base guy, but also not a slow guy who will "clog the basepaths".  And so on.  Keeping in mind in baseball there are exceptions to every "rule", and batting order construction is often as idiosyncratic as the guy making out the lineup.

Back before burgeoning pitching staffs made regular platooning less and less practical, #2 was sometimes used as a place to park your good LH hitter against a top LHP (or RH against RHP), if the guy could still hit lefties some (or otherwise get on base), just not for much power.  Which was fairly common.  

Makes sense.  If Sudden Sam McDowell turns Carl Yastrzemski into Rod Carew, well, you still want that guy in your batting order, just not hitting #3.  So you move him up to #2, drop a RH basher like George Scott (who crushed lefties) or someone like that into the #3 hole, and then sit back and watch Scott hit 'taters', with Yaz on base in front of him.

Arky's definition is interesting in that it has seemingly contradictory elements in it on the surface - OBP guys aren't generally also thought of as small-ball types. It is at least an extreme ideal, a guy you might find once or twice in a generation.  Then again, maybe some guys who have been used at leadoff a lot but don't seem quite right for it, a Juan Pierre say, would be more than decent at #2.  If you had someone better to put at #1.

Adam Everett may or may not be a good choice for #2.  The idea that he will be a black hole because of his OBP is somewhat influenced by the (fantasy/rotisserie) concept of constructing a lineup that looks good on paper, stacking all your non-pure power hitter, high OBP guys at the top of the order4.  And while I find the idea that giving a guy like AE more plate appearances (which of course he absolutely would get moving up 5-6 places in the batting order) is a bad thing to be a compelling point, the fact is that when the extra ABs occur and in what situations (and what the effect of him hitting 2nd has on the AB situations of the guys lower in the order) is more important than just how many more at bats he gets.

Which is why it should also be mentioned whenever the virtues of a #2 are discussed that the #2 has also traditionally been used (in a batting order not stacked 1-7 or 8 with good hitters) to spread out the good hitters in a lineup.  While it may look good on paper to bunch all your best hitters toward the top for maximum ABs and hopefully production, it also raises the question of which sort of batting order would be more effective over time - one with good hitters 1-6, and then a drastic fall-off 7-9?  Or one with production spread out from 1 thru 7 or 8?  Is it better to have three non-productive hitters in a row, or one non-productive hitter here and there?  Also, in some ways it makes less sense to have a small ball guy (AE?) hitting 7th or 8th, where he cannot really use the few offensive skills he does have, than it does at #2, where he pushes the run  producers one spot further down in the order, and can still be a positive bunting, hit-and-running, hitting behind the runner, etc.  Not than anyone would mind if he got on base a dozen times more a season, or developed a bit more pop.

Anyway, I don't know how you can have a productive discussion on roles for hitters if you can't agree on the definition of what a particular role is.

Needless to say, Garner is trying to use what assets he has in the most productive way possible.  In an ideal situation, Everett would hit 8th and just run down grounders all day.  I think it is fair to say the Astros batting order c. 2006 is somewhat less than ideal, however.

What drove me crazy about Jimy was not so much batting AE #2, but having him sac bunt in the 1st inning - which it seems to me he did a few times - before he even had a real sense of what sort of game it would be... a 2-1 nailbiter, or a 10-8 slugfest.  If it turned out to be the latter, you'd sure hate to think later on you were giving away outs early in the game, trying to scratch out a single run.  Something like that wasn't even common when Jimy played, back in the deadball-era late 1960's.  It made even less sense (to me) in 2003.

[JimR]

Arky's definition was mine, i think: The Link

[Arky Vaughan]

I think of a typical No. 2 as a guy who has a good but not necessarily great OBP and medium, doubles-type power. He is someone who could be a leadoff hitter, although typically he has a little less speed, a little less OBP and a little more power than you'd want to put at No. 1.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Arky's definition was mine, i think: The Link

Yes indeed. That breakdown is an extremely useful guide. Anybody who hasn't read it should.

[Taras Bulba]

Carlos Beltran was a pretty fair hitter to have in the #2 slot.

[ybbodeus]

Quote:
Carlos Beltran was a pretty fair hitter to have in the #2 slot.

No kidding.  He'd be good in darn near ANY spot.

Is there any possibility that Craig stays in the lead-off position until he gets to 3,000?  Silly notion, I know, since I suppose he could do it from the 2 spot, too, but I just wonder if an organization would be that dedicated to a player.  

I mean, if the genious Charlie Casserly was truthful in telling us that the first thing they'd do every week in preparation for the next game was design a play to keep Art Monk's fake streak going (can you tell I'm a Cowboy fan?), then would a baseball team show a similar "COMMITMENT", try to do something along similar lines, short of taking the at bat for him, obviously?

Great show, and I'll hang up and listen.


"You're nothing but a butt-fucking quitter!!!"

[Andyzipp]

If there were better, more consistent options than Biggio, (in Pupura & Garner's opnions...not ours) I gotta think Biggio would be hitting down in the order.

Next year however, I fully expect McLane to "suggest" that Biggio is limited on road games to try to get 3000 at MMPUS.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Is there any possibility that Craig stays in the lead-off position until he gets to 3,000?  Silly notion, I know, since I suppose he could do it from the 2 spot, too, but I just wonder if an organization would be that dedicated to a player.

Why? What kind of dedication would this show? I don't think batting leadoff has anything to do with getting 3,000 hits.

[Andyzipp]

Quote:

Quote:
Is there any possibility that Craig stays in the lead-off position until he gets to 3,000?  Silly notion, I know, since I suppose he could do it from the 2 spot, too, but I just wonder if an organization would be that dedicated to a player.

Why? What kind of dedication would this show? I don't think batting leadoff has anything to do with getting 3,000 hits.

Speaking for someone else here, but I think the implication was that Biggio gets more at-bats at the top of the order, and maybe it was mandated so that the odds of Biggio's reaching 3,000 are improved.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Speaking for someone else here, but I think the implication was that Biggio gets more at-bats at the top of the order, and maybe it was mandated so that the odds of Biggio's reaching 3,000 are improved.

I thought it was some kind of nostalgia thing, but I must have been off.

Plate appearances by line-up spot for the 2006 Astros:

1 -- 475 (4.70 per game)
2 -- 466 (4.61)
3 -- 458 (4.54)
4 -- 450 (4.46)
5 -- 443 (4.39)
6 -- 426 (4.22)
7 -- 415 (4.11)
8 -- 402 (3.98)
9 -- 391 (3.87)

With a hit every 4.2 plate appearances, that means it would take 46.8 games for batting No. 2 rather than No. 1 to cost Biggio one hit.

Batting him No. 6 rather than No. 1 would cost him a hit every 8.6 games.

[ybbodeus]

I am a rank ameteur here in terms of observation, but Mr. Zipp "interpreted my feelings correctly" and Mr. Vaughn provided the numbers.

It was just one of those things that occurs to people who watch too much SpongeBob and SuiteLife with Jack and Cody.  Can't get the kids into Brit Hume, yet.

thanks, again.

[jaklewein]

Quote:

Quote:
Speaking for someone else here, but I think the implication was that Biggio gets more at-bats at the top of the order, and maybe it was mandated so that the odds of Biggio's reaching 3,000 are improved.

I thought it was some kind of nostalgia thing, but I must have been off.

Plate appearances by line-up spot for the 2006 Astros:

1 -- 475 (4.70 per game)
2 -- 466 (4.61)
3 -- 458 (4.54)
4 -- 450 (4.46)
5 -- 443 (4.39)
6 -- 426 (4.22)
7 -- 415 (4.11)
8 -- 402 (3.98)
9 -- 391 (3.87)

With a hit every 4.2 plate appearances, that means it would take 46 games for batting No. 2 rather than No. 1 to cost Biggio one hit.

but most are talking about him moving further down in the order than 2.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
but most are talking about him moving further down in the order than 2.

Just edited the above. Here's the difference per spot:

1 to 2 -- 1 hit lost every 46.8 games
1 to 3 -- 1 hit lost every 24.8 games
1 to 4 -- 1 hit lost every 16.8 games
1 to 5 -- 1 hit lost every 13.2 games
1 to 6 -- 1 hit lost every 8.6 games
1 to 7 -- 1 hit lost every 7.0 games
1 to 8 -- 1 hit lost every 5.8 games
1 to 9 -- 1 hit lost every 5.0 games

[WulawHorn]

If Bidge would have gone 0-4 last night the astros lose that ball game.  I don't think the stros can win with him having one hit per series as he did during the road trip.

If bidge hit 6 or 7 instead of 1 then that is probably about 15 hits a year I would bet.  Really, maybe less b/c who would pitch to biggio in any kind of run producing situation if the pitcher was facing ausmus and pitchers slot after bidge.

[strosrays]

Quote:
Arky's definition was mine, i think: The Link

I don't disagree with it.  In fact, it comes pretty close to what a #2 aprroximately has been in a very general sense.  Most new-age stat guys would not even mention "good OBP" and "hit behind the runner", "bunt", etc., in the same paragraph, so I should have known.

I haven't done an entirely comprehensive study, but looking at close to 30 seasons, there is an interesting distribution among individual players regarding starts in a batting order.  Basically, in very many cases if a guy who hits a significant amount of time out of the #2 slot isn't hitting there, he is moved to #7 or #8, not #1 or anywhere in the middle of the order.

There are always, always exceptions; but maybe a very broad definition of #2 could start with something like "A hitter with varying but generally narrowly-defined offensive skills who can nonetheless play an integral part in and make a contribution to a batting order, though it may not be immediately apparent on a stat sheet.

[jaklewein]

Quote:

Quote:
Arky's definition was mine, i think: The Link

I don't disagree with it.  In fact, it comes pretty close to what a #2 aprroximately has been in a very general sense.  Most new-age stat guys would not even mention "good OBP" and "hit behind the runner", "bunt", etc., in the same paragraph, so I should have known.

I haven't done an entirely comprehensive study, but looking at close to 30 seasons, there is an interesting distribution among individual players regarding starts in a batting order.  Basically, in very many cases if a guy who hits a significant amount of time out of the #2 slot isn't hitting there, he is moved to #7 or #8, not #1 or anywhere in the middle of the order.

There are always, always exceptions; but maybe a very broad definition of #2 could start with something like "A hitter with varying but generally narrowly-defined offensive skills who can nonetheless play an integral part in and make a contribution to a batting order, though it may not be immediately apparent on a stat sheet.

Isn't a left-handed bat sought after as well...if possible?  I've always heard this in regards to taking advantage of the hole on the right side of the infield when the 1st baseman is holding a runner on.

[strosrays]

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:
Arky's definition was mine, i think: The Link

I don't disagree with it.  In fact, it comes pretty close to what a #2 aprroximately has been in a very general sense.  Most new-age stat guys would not even mention "good OBP" and "hit behind the runner", "bunt", etc., in the same paragraph, so I should have known.

I haven't done an entirely comprehensive study, but looking at close to 30 seasons, there is an interesting distribution among individual players regarding starts in a batting order.  Basically, in very many cases if a guy who hits a significant amount of time out of the #2 slot isn't hitting there, he is moved to #7 or #8, not #1 or anywhere in the middle of the order.

There are always, always exceptions; but maybe a very broad definition of #2 could start with something like "A hitter with varying but generally narrowly-defined offensive skills who can nonetheless play an integral part in and make a contribution to a batting order, though it may not be immediately apparent on a stat sheet.

Isn't a left-handed bat sought after as well...if possible?  I've always heard this in regards to taking advantage of the hole on the right side of the infield when the 1st baseman is holding a runner on.

Except that most guys who otherwise fit the definition we are working with here are also spray hitters, and might even have some difficulty getting in front of a pitch to pull it through the hole on demand.

All else being equal you are probably right, but most of your pull hitters are also middle-of-the-order types.

[Arky Vaughan]

Quote:
Most new-age stat guys would not even mention "good OBP" and "hit behind the runner", "bunt", etc., in the same paragraph, so I should have known.

I don't have a problem with bunting or hitting behind the runner, but I think being able to get on base is a pretty important thing too.

Quote:
I haven't done an entirely comprehensive study, but looking at close to 30 seasons, there is an interesting distribution among individual players regarding starts in a batting order.  Basically, in very many cases if a guy who hits a significant amount of time out of the #2 slot isn't hitting there, he is moved to #7 or #8, not #1 or anywhere in the middle of the order.

There are always, always exceptions; but maybe a very broad definition of #2 could start with something like "A hitter with varying but generally narrowly-defined offensive skills who can nonetheless play an integral part in and make a contribution to a batting order, though it may not be immediately apparent on a stat sheet.

Here are the averages at each slot for the National League, 2001-2005:

Slot   Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  3B  HR    R  RBI  SB  CS
----------------------------------------------------
#1    .270  .333  .389  33   6  12  102   59  25  10
----------------------------------------------------
#2    .272  .332  .401  34   4  15   99   67  13   4
----------------------------------------------------
#3    .290  .378  .503  38   3  30  106  103  10   3
----------------------------------------------------
#4    .283  .369  .502  37   2  31   98  110   6   3
----------------------------------------------------
#5    .269  .343  .450  34   2  24   86   96   7   4
----------------------------------------------------
#6    .265  .329  .434  33   3  21   75   86   7   4
----------------------------------------------------
#7    .255  .318  .397  31   3  16   65   73   6   3
----------------------------------------------------
#8    .245  .315  .367  28   3  12   61   64   4   2
----------------------------------------------------
#9    .184  .234  .255  18   1   6   44   42   2   1

[jaklewein]

 but most of your pull hitters are also middle-of-the-order types

Good point...that kind of made me think...so who in today's game best fits the criteria listed in this thread?  Then take it a step further and throw out the best name you can come up with that has "retired" next to it.

I'll go with Jeter for the present, although he's right-handed and I don't know much about his bunting skills.

Roberto Alomar would be my pick from the retirees.  He was a player.  He hit for a high average and got on base.  He possessed better than average power, could bunt and was an excellent base stealer.

[MusicMan]

Quote:
but most of your pull hitters are also middle-of-the-order types

Then take it a step further and throw out the best name you can come up with that has "retired" next to it.
 

Pete Rose.

[Lefty]

Always liked Loretta.

Pissant Vina woulda been perfect.

[austro]

Quote:
Here are the averages at each slot for the National League, 2001-2005:

Slot   Avg   OBP   Slg  2B  3B  HR    R  RBI  SB  CS
----------------------------------------------------
#1    .270  .333  .389  33   6  12  102   59  25  10
----------------------------------------------------
#2    .272  .332  .401  34   4  15   99   67  13   4
----------------------------------------------------
#3    .290  .378  .503  38   3  30  106  103  10   3
----------------------------------------------------
#4    .283  .369  .502  37   2  31   98  110   6   3
----------------------------------------------------
#5    .269  .343  .450  34   2  24   86   96   7   4
----------------------------------------------------
#6    .265  .329  .434  33   3  21   75   86   7   4
----------------------------------------------------
#7    .255  .318  .397  31   3  16   65   73   6   3
----------------------------------------------------
#8    .245  .315  .367  28   3  12   61   64   4   2
----------------------------------------------------
#9    .184  .234  .255  18   1   6   44   42   2   1

This makes the Astro's course of action clear: they need to find one of those #3 hitters and trade for him!  Put Justice on it; he's a sneaky little shit.

[ybbodeus]

You sayin' the time has come for someone to put his foot down?

[strosrays]

In case anyone was interested:

Code:

    
      Astros Primary #2 Hitters, 1962-2005 
            
  YR   PLAYER              AB    AVG   OBP   SLG 
 1962  Spangler, Al*     (227)  .291  .398  .374 
 1963  Temple, Johnny    (207)  .251  .332  .290 
 1964  Fox, Nellie*      (429)  .271  .321  .327 
 1965  Morgan, Joe*      (312)  .240  .340  .321 
 1966  Jackson, Sonny*   (576)  .293  .342  .330 
 1967  Jackson, Sonny*   (327)  .239  .291  .294 
 1968  Torres, Hector    (302)  .209  .239  .242 
 1969  Morgan, Joe*      (317)  .249  .394  .385 
 1970  Morgan, Joe*      (373)  .260  .363  .383 
            
 1971  Morgan, Joe*      (579)  .256  .350  .408 
 1972  Cedeno, Cesar     (426)  .336  .392  .566 
 1973  Metzger, Roger#   (447)  .282  .335  .356 
 1974  Metzger, Roger#   (524)  .256  .298  .319 
 1975  Gross, Greg*      (216)  .333  .415  .403 
 1976  Cabell, Enos      (366)  .254  .291  .317 
 1977  Cabell, Enos      (585)  .280  .309  .434 
 1978  Cabell, Enos      (201)  .264  .299  .348 
 1979  Reynolds, Craig*  (549)  .266  .292  .335 
 1980  Cabell, Enos      (271)  .280  .309  .351 
            
 1981  Reynolds, Craig*  (241)  .241  .268  .382 
 1982  Puhl, Terry*      (238)  .290  .360  .416 
 1983  Puhl, Terry*      (408)  .311  .358  .453 
 1984  Reynolds, Craig*  (347)  .251  .275  .354 
 1985  Reynolds, Craig*  (237)  .249  .258  .367 
 1986  Hatcher, Billy    (231)  .277  .304  .351 
 1987  Doran, Billy*     (312)  .285  .373  .407 
 1988  Hatcher, Billy    (262)  .275  .325  .370 
 1989  Ramirez, Rafael   (194)  .253  .276  .351 
 1990  Doran, Billy*     (209)  .292  .417  .450 
            
 1991  Biggio, Craig     (260)  .288  .345  .350 
 1992  Finley, Steve*    (580)  .295  .359  .416 
 1993  Finley, Steve*    (469)  .258  .298  .360 
 1994  Finley, Steve*    (366)  .276  .330  .437 
 1995  Biggio, Craig     (380)  .313  .407  .476 
 1996  Biggio, Craig     (570)  .298  .395  .428 
 1997  Bell, Derek       (154)  .364  .421  .636 
 1998  Spiers, Bill*     (232)  .280  .358  .392 
 1999  Bell, Derek       (259)  .243  .299  .378 
 2000  Biggio, Craig     (217)  .286  .369  .429 
            
 2001  Lugo, Julio       (295)  .251  .321  .325 
 2002  Biggio, Craig     (435)  .267  .340  .416 
 2003  Blum, Geoff#      (345)  .261  .298  .377 
 2004  Everett, Adam     (338)  .290  .330  .402 
 2005  Biggio, Craig     (400)  .280  .342  .495 

[jaklewein]

Quote:
In case anyone was interested:

Code:

    
      Astros Primary #2 Hitters, 1962-2005 
            
  YR   PLAYER              AB    AVG   OBP   SLG 
 1962  Spangler, Al*     (227)  .291  .398  .374 
 1963  Temple, Johnny    (207)  .251  .332  .290 
 1964  Fox, Nellie*      (429)  .271  .321  .327 
 1965  Morgan, Joe*      (312)  .240  .340  .321 
 1966  Jackson, Sonny*   (576)  .293  .342  .330 
 1967  Jackson, Sonny*   (327)  .239  .291  .294 
 1968  Torres, Hector    (302)  .209  .239  .242 
 1969  Morgan, Joe*      (317)  .249  .394  .385 
 1970  Morgan, Joe*      (373)  .260  .363  .383 
            
 1971  Morgan, Joe*      (579)  .256  .350  .408 
 1972  Cedeno, Cesar     (426)  .336  .392  .566 
 1973  Metzger, Roger#   (447)  .282  .335  .356 
 1974  Metzger, Roger#   (524)  .256  .298  .319 
 1975  Gross, Greg*      (216)  .333  .415  .403 
 1976  Cabell, Enos      (366)  .254  .291  .317 
 1977  Cabell, Enos      (585)  .280  .309  .434 
 1978  Cabell, Enos      (201)  .264  .299  .348 
 1979  Reynolds, Craig*  (549)  .266  .292  .335 
 1980  Cabell, Enos      (271)  .280  .309  .351 
            
 1981  Reynolds, Craig*  (241)  .241  .268  .382 
 1982  Puhl, Terry*      (238)  .290  .360  .416 
 1983  Puhl, Terry*      (408)  .311  .358  .453 
 1984  Reynolds, Craig*  (347)  .251  .275  .354 
 1985  Reynolds, Craig*  (237)  .249  .258  .367 
 1986  Hatcher, Billy    (231)  .277  .304  .351 
 1987  Doran, Billy*     (312)  .285  .373  .407 
 1988  Hatcher, Billy    (262)  .275  .325  .370 
 1989  Ramirez, Rafael   (194)  .253  .276  .351 
 1990  Doran, Billy*     (209)  .292  .417  .450 
            
 1991  Biggio, Craig     (260)  .288  .345  .350 
 1992  Finley, Steve*    (580)  .295  .359  .416 
 1993  Finley, Steve*    (469)  .258  .298  .360 
 1994  Finley, Steve*    (366)  .276  .330  .437 
 1995  Biggio, Craig     (380)  .313  .407  .476 
 1996  Biggio, Craig     (570)  .298  .395  .428 
 1997  Bell, Derek       (154)  .364  .421  .636 
 1998  Spiers, Bill*     (232)  .280  .358  .392 
 1999  Bell, Derek       (259)  .243  .299  .378 
 2000  Biggio, Craig     (217)  .286  .369  .429 
            
 2001  Lugo, Julio       (295)  .251  .321  .325 
 2002  Biggio, Craig     (435)  .267  .340  .416 
 2003  Blum, Geoff#      (345)  .261  .298  .377 
 2004  Everett, Adam     (338)  .290  .330  .402 
 2005  Biggio, Craig     (400)  .280  .342  .495 

Wow, impressive.  Thanks.