Who's the #2 hitter

[ThunderBolt]

Yeah, a balanced team that bunts and plays good fundamental baseball doesn't win games. That's absurd!

Traditonally, a team that doesn't waste any outs by moving runners over at the expense of at-bats tends to score more runs then a team that does.

[rockren]

Traditonally, a team that doesn't waste any outs by moving runners over at the expense of at-bats tends to score more runs then a team that does.

 

Traditionally, you have to play small ball in September/October.

 

The pitching is too good to just get on base and hope your power comes through. If you get a leadoff man on with nobody out, you should almost always bunt him to 2nd giving your lineup two chances to hit him in while avoiding a double play.

 

Over the course of the season if you want to look at it as "wasting out" that's fine. But when it's the pitcher's time of year and your taking every run you can get...you've gotta be able to bunt.

[BearSox]

If we put AJ back in the 2-hole, Ozzie should be fired on the spot. It was understandable last year as we had absolutely no one else, but if we actually go into the season with AJ batting 2nd, I'm gonna puke.

[rockren]

If we put AJ back in the 2-hole, Ozzie should be fired on the spot. It was understandable last year as we had absolutely no one else, but if we actually go into the season with AJ batting 2nd, I'm gonna puke.

 

Agreed. The 2 spot needs to be a table setter...we took the bat out of AJ's hands by batting him 2nd.

[BaseballNick]

Traditonally, a team that doesn't waste any outs by moving runners over at the expense of at-bats tends to score more runs then a team that does.

 

That would be a great theory if the Sox weren't a team requiring four base hits to score a run. With a team this slow and prone to the rally killing double play, it's incredibly valuable to move the runners up a base. I'm a purist and think every player on the team should be able to bunt, but that's just me.

[DaTank]

That would be a great theory if the Sox weren't a team requiring four base hits to score a run. With a team this slow and prone to the rally killing double play, it's incredibly valuable to move the runners up a base. I'm a purist and think every player on the team should be able to bunt, but that's just me.

 

I agree. Every player on a team should be able to put a good bunt down. The thing is, in the minors they only teach them what they need based on their skills. Power hitters that are slow (like a lot of our lineup is) just aren't taught how to bunt or steal bases.

Edited December 14, 2008 by jenks45monster

[SouthsideDon48]

Who cares about bunting? It's a stupid play designed to give outs away, which is not something we should be doing in front of our sluggers.

 

Bunting with the leadoff batter on base is EXACTLY what the #2 batter should be doing while batting in front of the sluggers! Why take a chance at risking a potential double-play with a possible groundout when you can safely bunt the leadoff hitter over to 2nd base? Having a runner in scoring position with one out increases the chances of the sluggers to bring the runner home. Too many people think the only way to score runs is by trying to hit the home run, it's not, because we all saw that it only lead to station-to-station baseball last season.

[caulfield12]

1.Giving up outs any time before the 7th inning is stupid and unnecessary.

2.No bunt is ever "safe". The only guarantee with a bunt is you are guaranteed to take the bat out of a hitters hand.

3. More specific to the Sox, like it or not, the core of the offense is still built around power. Play to the strength of the team.

4. The Cell is a bandbox, and the Sox play 81 games in it. Why not take advantage?

 

 

There are certain times for a bunt. When you use the bunt, you are playing for the one run. Playing for one run in the 1st inning is beyond idiotic. Oh, and save the "Getting into the head of the other team in the 1st is a must". I'm pretty sure a 3 run jack in the 1st will do the trick just fine.

 

But then why does the first team to score first in baseball win a huge majority of the games, even if that first inning run is only ONE run? All you need to do is look back to 2005 and 2006 (first three-four months) to understand why...whether it's with "small ball/execution/fundamentals/stolen bases" or by pounding the opponent into submission with the big boppers. You need balance, and we haven't had enough of it recently.

 

I really think had we lost to the Twins in 2008, had their "Piranha/Twins' Way" philosophy once again "won out" over ours...that many more fans would be open to this, instead of the Earl Weaver-ish three yards a cloud of HR's approach. That would have given the Twins five AL Centrals in the span of eight seasons. As it is now, they have 4/8 and we have 3/9. But 5/8 versus 1/8 would be very difficult to argue with in terms of needing a change in offensive philosophy, especially considering the disparity in payroll. And, the "trump card" often cited, 2005, that year had ALMOST nothing to do with offense and much more to do with spectacular/consistent starting pitching.

 

Yes, you will always need to be overweighted towards sluggers playing in USCF, but to be completely overloaded or one-sided results in 2001-2004 and 2006-2007 campaigns more typically, especially without the pitching to fall back on.

Edited December 14, 2008 by caulfield12

[Balta1701]

Yes, you will always need to be overweighted towards sluggers playing in USCF, but to be completely overloaded or one-sided results in 2001-2004 and 2006-2007 campaigns more typically, especially without the pitching to fall back on.

There was nothing bad about the 2006 offense. The 2006 offense did it's job excellently. The 2006 pitching staff fell apart.

[ptatc]

But then why does the first team to score first in baseball win a huge majority of the games, even if that first inning run is only ONE run? All you need to do is look back to 2005 and 2006 (first three-four months) to understand why...whether it's with "small ball/execution/fundamentals/stolen bases" or by pounding the opponent into submission with the big boppers. You need balance, and we haven't had enough of it recently.

 

I really think had we lost to the Twins in 2008, had their "Piranha/Twins' Way" philosophy once again "won out" over ours...that many more fans would be open to this, instead of the Earl Weaver-ish three yards a cloud of HR's approach. That would have given the Twins five AL Centrals in the span of eight seasons. As it is now, they have 4/8 and we have 3/9. But 5/8 versus 1/8 would be very difficult to argue with in terms of needing a change in offensive philosophy, especially considering the disparity in payroll. And, the "trump card" often cited, 2005, that year had ALMOST nothing to do with offense and much more to do with spectacular/consistent starting pitching.

 

Yes, you will always need to be overweighted towards sluggers playing in USCF, but to be completely overloaded or one-sided results in 2001-2004 and 2006-2007 campaigns more typically, especially without the pitching to fall back on.

 

you'll never convince the majority of the people on this board that bunting is a good thing let alone bunting in the first inning. I've tried for the last few years. They don't believe that putting that type of stress on a pitcher early in the game does anything to the pitcher.

 

[SouthsideDon48]

you'll never convince the majority of the people on this board that bunting is a good thing let alone bunting in the first inning. I've tried for the last few years. They don't believe that putting that type of stress on a pitcher early in the game does anything to the pitcher.

 

Yea, it seems like that. I know for a fact that I'd never want some of the people here to manage my baseball team. A one-minded offense where the only goal is power is not as devastating as a multi-dimensional offense that uses timely shock and awe tactics with bunts.

 

The role of the #2 batter should be to move the lead-off batter to the next base as often as possible, even if it means using the bunt. By bunting and avoiding a double play, teams still have a chance to score the speedy lead-off runner from 2nd base to home with a deep flyball to the gap that might just barely miss the fences from the power hitters in the heart of the order. Any run scored is valuable, games are won by a difference of one run.

 

Honestly, don't give up on championing the usefulness of the bunt, don't let other people's ignorance get the better of you. It's glaringly obvious how simple-minded some people are on this board when they can't comprehend the strategic aspect of baseball and that they should probably just stick to playing recreational league baseball where swinging for the fences is the norm.

Edited December 14, 2008 by SouthsideDon48

[ThunderBolt]

The role of the #2 batter should be to move the lead-off batter to the next base as often as possible, even if it means using the bunt. By bunting and avoiding a double play, teams still have a chance to score the speedy lead-off runner from 2nd base to home with a deep flyball to the gap that might just barely miss the fences from the power hitters in the heart of the order. Any run scored is valuable, games are won by a difference of one run.

A hitter should have a singular goal in mind having the most productive bat possible. With a runner on, a batter needs to be trained on how best to drive him in, we should never settle for getting him to second, when our goal is to home.

[SouthsideDon48]

A hitter should have a singular goal in mind having the most productive bat possible. With a runner on, a batter needs to be trained on how best to drive him in, we should never settle for getting him to second, when our goal is to home.

But in all fairness, bunting the leadoff man to 2nd base is part of the goal of bringing the runner home in that inning. It's all about teamwork, and that's what the White Sox needs, more teamwork and stringing along a timely and cohesive attack as a team rather than having 9 batters swinging the bats as individuals.

 

So if the best way to drive a runner in is by bunting him over, for the more powerful batters behind the #2 batter to do their jobs, then everyone did their jobs, everyone served their purpose. Then what difference would it make if a bunt was used if it ended up satisfying the singular goal of the team to score runs?

Edited December 14, 2008 by SouthsideDon48

[103 mph screwball]

But then why does the first team to score first in baseball win a huge majority of the games, even if that first inning run is only ONE run? All you need to do is look back to 2005 and 2006 (first three-four months) to understand why...whether it's with "small ball/execution/fundamentals/stolen bases" or by pounding the opponent into submission with the big boppers. You need balance, and we haven't had enough of it recently.

I agree 100% and I really think scoring a run in the first inning helps our pitcher. I've argued this in another tread a while ago, but I thought I'd chime in again in support of small ball. The Sox need to be able to manufacture a run during three types of games. In April when the big boppers are cold and hitting .190 to get the team off to a good start, when the Sox a playing another teams ace (or a pitcher they have never faced before that they make seem like an ace), in Sept/Oct for must win games. Even with a stolen base guy leading off and a bat handler batting second, the Sox still have enough lumber in the lineup to crush the ball into the stands all summer long. One more game in April last year when TCQ was the only guy hitting would have avoided the one game playoff last year.

 

However, this is a topic that Soxtalk may have to agree to disagree.

[caulfield12]

But in all fairness, bunting the leadoff man to 2nd base is part of the goal of bringing the runner home in that inning. It's all about teamwork, and that's what the White Sox needs, more teamwork and stringing along a timely and cohesive attack as a team rather than having 9 batters swinging the bats as individuals.

 

So if the best way to drive a runner in is by bunting him over, for the more powerful batters behind the #2 batter to do their jobs, then everyone did their jobs, everyone served their purpose. Then what difference would it make if a bunt was used if it ended up satisfying the singular goal of the team to score runs?

 

 

Not because Hawk creams his pants, but a team executing against the opposition can be very demoralizing. Remember the ending to the 2000 ALCDS against the Mariners with Carlos Guillen laying down the bunt to push across the winning run?

 

I think teaching players situational baseball, putting team wins over individual statistics...the Japanese attitude of fundamentals and execution, it just makes for a better clubhouse and atmosphere around the team.

 

Compare this with the teams that had D'Angelo Jimenez, Lofton, Carlos Lee, Ordonez, Thomas...there were some pretty selfish or "me first" players on those teams, and that's why the Twins' approach blunted our superior talent, because they waited around for the White Sox to beat themselves, they played better defense and they had a consistently reliable bullpen.

Edited December 14, 2008 by caulfield12

[ThunderBolt]

Not because Hawk creams his pants, but a team executing against the opposition can be very demoralizing.

You know what's really demoralizing? A 3-run homer, a double to the gap, a single down the line, a batter working the pitcher for a walk, etc. How's a batter giving the opposition a free out, demoralizing? I'd welcome it.

[Leonard Zelig]

You know what's really demoralizing? A 3-run homer, a double to the gap, a single down the line, a batter working the pitcher for a walk, etc. How's a batter giving the opposition a free out, demoralizing? I'd welcome it.

 

So are GIDPs which the Sox led the league in last year.

[ThunderBolt]

So are GIDPs which the Sox led the league in last year.

We also scored 811 runs, and won the division.

[Leonard Zelig]

We also scored 811 runs, and won the division.

 

True, although 811 was still 3rd in the division. The Twins scored more runs and hit less than half as many homeruns as us.

[Felix]

But in all fairness, bunting the leadoff man to 2nd base is part of the goal of bringing the runner home in that inning. It's all about teamwork, and that's what the White Sox needs, more teamwork and stringing along a timely and cohesive attack as a team rather than having 9 batters swinging the bats as individuals.

 

So if the best way to drive a runner in is by bunting him over, for the more powerful batters behind the #2 batter to do their jobs, then everyone did their jobs, everyone served their purpose. Then what difference would it make if a bunt was used if it ended up satisfying the singular goal of the team to score runs?

Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out.

[bigruss]

Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out.

Good data.

 

Personally, through my own baseball experience, bunting is useful in very limited situations, unless you have an absolute burner who has as much of a chance to get a hit as he is to bunt safely. Even then, you have to play to the defense, they can line up specifically to stop a bunt, unless it is so perfectly laid down which rarely happens, even with alot of good bunters.

 

The second hitter should be one who can move the leadoff man over, but it is much more effective if this can happen with a double, single, homerun, etc. I believe a Roberts type #2 hitter would be much more effective than any bunting #2 hitter. And you have to look at how the #2 hitter will be without the guy on before him, does he have enough other skills to make him effective? If the leadoff man gets out, the #2 guy has a lot of pressure to get on. For if he gets out, then its 2 outs for your big hitters and they arent as effective with no one on (duh). Those guys are supposedly RBI machines, so give them the tools to work with. Give them high OBP hitters. Sacrificing an out only to have a 3/4/5 hitter smash a homer is pretty bad, you couldve had another guy on base, and having the runner at second makes no difference. This offense needs two OBP guys in front of the 3/4/5.

[BaseballNick]

Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out.

 

I don't think anyone on here is saying we should bunt every time the leadoff hitter reaches base to start an inning. Certain situations dictate a bunt (maybe 1st and 2nd no outs when trailing by a run). It's sad how few Sox players can execute the task when asked to do so.

[ptatc]

Incorrect. When you have a runner on first and no outs, you are expected (based on empirical data from 1999 to 2002) to score .953 runs. That number drops to .725 with a runner on second and one out. Simply said, you are more likely to score with a runner on first and no outs than you are with a runner on second and one out.

 

you're using a false assumption in your data. Both situations start with a runner on first and no outs.

 

The bunting the guy over is included in those results.

 

To have a logical progression you need to start with the runneron first and no outs then start the analysis.

 

Does the batter bunt next: this is one possible scenario, does he hit inot a doulble play, this is the another scenario.

 

Saying a guy on first with no outs scores more often isn't valid because that includes all of the subsequent scenarios

 

[103 mph screwball]

Runner on with no outs bunt play

Probability of Score = 2 x avg risp

 

Runner on with no outs =

Probability of Score= (chance of xbh + chance of advancing runner - GIDP) x 2 + chance of xbh x 1)

 

Ok this needs some work I think. I actually think this can be calculated by someone smarter than me. Let's get John Dowon on it.

[daa84]

Runner on with no outs bunt play

Probability of Score = 2 x avg risp

 

Runner on with no outs =

Probability of Score= (chance of xbh + chance of advancing runner - GIDP) x 2 + chance of xbh x 1)

 

Ok this needs some work I think. I actually think this can be calculated by someone smarter than me. Let's get John Dowon on it.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statisti....php?cid=204022