I understand the argument for getting the most at-bats and PAs possible for your best hitter or two, but aside from not liking the practice, now pretty much universal, of hitting your best power hitter second in the lineup for aesthetic reasons, I think that teams are missing out on run-production by not going with the more traditional approach, and are limiting their tactical options.
Take the Yankees for example, who bat Anthony Volpe first, and with the year he is having that is a good thing, and Volpe is a great base-stealer as well. But then the lineup is Soto, Judge, Verdugo, and then Stanton or Rizzo.
Now, it is true that the Yankees don't have a traditional number 2 hitter which compounds things, but let's say - admittedly hypothetical- that when DJ LeMahieu comes back he is back to being a good hitter with sold OBP. Or else that Oswaldo Cabrera or John Berti prove to be good contact hitters with good OBP and good bunting skills.
The would mean you could have a lineup of Volpe, then DJ or Cabrera or Berti, then Soto, Judge cleanup, Verdugo and then on...
Why do that?
First of all, often Volpe does not steal because Juan Soto is up and you don't want to get thrown out in case Soto hits one out. But Soto is also a .300 hitter (remember them?), and so Volpe in scoring position would be a good thing in case Soto only gets a single or double. And if Volpe gets on base, and steals, or wants to run, a good hit-an-run man would give you extra options. If Volpe steals second or doubles, a good bunter can move him to third with Soto and Judge coming up.
The knock on RBI as a stat is that it depends on your teammates. That is actually a GOOD thing and makes it a good baseball stat - so have players who can get on base and move people over in front of the RBI guys. We used to even talk about Runs scored as a big stat, we still should. It is a TEAM stat.
Now, there is a further consideration: If you have a guy with a .333 OBP on base ahead of a Soto or a Judge, you have a one-in-three chance to have someone on base when Soto or Judge homes or hits a double. If you have TWO guys with .333 OBPs ahead of Soto and Judge, I admit I don't have sophisticated math skills, but it seems to me that the likelihood that ONE person is on base when Soto and Judge come up is now .666 or two out of three!
Why would not make it more likely that someone is on base when those two guys get up than not? Because you will get a few more ABs for Soto and so maybe 5 more homers in a season? Isn't it better to have more chances to score runs all season long?
Also, I don't have the math skills to calculate the likelihood that of two .333 OBP players that BOTH will be on base in any given inning, but maybe someone here does.
I think teams should rethink the value of the traditional lineup construction.
Now, I know that one argument is that in any case, your lineup only matters for the first inning. But aside from the fact that the first inning happens in every game, so you have 162 team opportunities minimum with the traditional structure, with only a modest increase in at-bats for your best hitter hitting number 2 instead, consider the following:
Who is more likely to make the last out of an inning? Your leadoff hitter or your number nine hitter? So this means that there is some likelihood of your leadoff hitter leading off more than once.
Also, if your best hitter hits third, and you have two have two even just decent OBP hitters ahead of him, you have three .333 OBP hitters ahead of your cleanup hitter which means a .999 or 999 out of 1,000 chance to have at least ONE player on base when your number 4 hitter comes up, which also means a somewhat greater likelihood of your number 4 hitter getting an extra at-bat, in fact a near-certainty of it. And with people on base!
5/25/2024 6:30 AM (edited)