Brother Bill Goes Ya-Ya

[weams]

 

[TonySoprano]

His brother hit in the 3 spot ahead of Eddie Murray, so maybe that also went into his analysis.  Maybe. 

[weams]

1 hour ago, TonySoprano said:

His brother hit in the 3 spot ahead of Eddie Murray, so maybe that also went into his analysis.  Maybe. 

He had the maths. 

[Brion McClanahan]

I've never understood the fascination with the best hitter at #2. Ripken is spot on. It used to be you wanted a guy at #2 that could get the leadoff man to third if that guy got on base and stole second.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, Brion McClanahan said:

I've never understood the fascination with the best hitter at #2. Ripken is spot on. It used to be you wanted a guy at #2 that could get the leadoff man to third if that guy got on base and stole second.

Oh indeed. But then the game changed and Brian Kenny got his oats. 

[Can_of_corn]

4 minutes ago, Brion McClanahan said:

I've never understood the fascination with the best hitter at #2. Ripken is spot on. It used to be you wanted a guy at #2 that could get the leadoff man to third if that guy got on base and stole second.

Because giving up outs is bad and scoring runs is good.

[weams]

4 minutes ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because giving up outs is bad and scoring runs is good.

Giving up any outs is bad. 

[TonySoprano]

10 minutes ago, weams said:

Oh indeed. But then the game changed and Brian Kenny got his oats. 

 

[DrungoHazewood]

18 hours ago, Brion McClanahan said:

I've never understood the fascination with the best hitter at #2. Ripken is spot on. It used to be you wanted a guy at #2 that could get the leadoff man to third if that guy got on base and stole second.

Back then they didn't think through things so much.  That was the prototypical #2 hitter in the deadball era, back when your cleanup hitter might hit three homers a year and your team OPS'd .612.  In typical baseball fashion it took them 75 years to realize the deadball era was over and not everyone was Cesar Izturis.

Today putting a slap-hitting, bunting guy who slugs .344 #2 guarantees that one of your worst hitters gets the 2nd-most plate appearances.  That might not kill your team if you're going to have that guy in the lineup somewhere, but it's not exactly optimizing things either.

[DrungoHazewood]

1 hour ago, Can_of_corn said:

Because giving up outs is bad and scoring runs is good.

Occasionally giving up an out to put the winning run at third in a tie game in the 9th inning can be justifiable with the right combination of batters coming up.  

Also, bunting early and often can be a reasonable strategy if your run context is about two per team per game.

[OsFanSinceThe80s]

[TonySoprano]

9 minutes ago, OsFanSinceThe80s said:

 

[weams]

15 hours ago, DrungoHazewood said:

... if your run context is about two per team per game.

Then your team is a non starter. 

[DrungoHazewood]

11 minutes ago, weams said:

Then your team is a non starter. 

Two was a stretch.  How about three?  243 sac bunts, including 232 by non-pitchers, and a winning record.

[Bahama O's Fan]

I never got the fascination with this. After the first inning, none of it mattered.