Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 15, 2006
Two B or Not Two B

The issue of Barry Bond batting second is not yet settled:

Alou said he will have a sit-down with Bonds to discuss not only the idea of hitting second, which all along the skipper said he would not do unless Bonds was on board, but also how best the left fielder should prepare in Arizona for what the Giants pray is his first full season back after his 2005 arthroscopy tour.

Bonds should be receptive to this idea. It appears to me that Barry is after two goals; winning the World Series and setting a home run record. Batting second allows the Giants to take advantage of Bonds two strengths; he gets on base to set up the power hitters behind him (if any) and can use his power with a good setup man in front. (Maybe Alou should bat the pitcher 8th to give Barry more RBI opportunities.) With Bonds playing time probably limited, Alou will be able to take Barry out earlier in games. This strategy should help the Giants win more.

And if the second spot give Barry an extra 10 plate appearances, that another home run.

My only real question regarding this strategy is if Bonds is better off playing half a game every day, or taking a couple of days off a week? Which is going to be better for his knee?


Posted by David Pinto at 03:13 PM | Strategy | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Not to be snarky, but your comment "Maybe Alou should bat the pitcher 8th to give Barry more RBI opportunities.)" confused me because isnt that why a Barry Bonds type hits in the 3 hole. I'm open minded and just curious on the rational of Bonds hitting in the 2 spot. I agree he would get more at bats, but I feel over the course of the season, he would get more RBIs in the 3 hole which would help the team more (better chance of more men on base, 1-2 hitters as opposed to 9-1 hitters)

Posted by: Trey at February 15, 2006 04:32 PM

Trey,

There have been studies that show teams are better off if they were to bat the pitcher 8th. The idea is that you put more men on base for the #3 hitter. With Bonds batting 2nd, it makes even more sense.

Bonds walks so much at this point in his career that he almost more useful as a table setter than a power hitter, since the bat is usually taken out of his hands with men on base. Batting fourth, the best hitters already had their chance. Batting 2nd, they're yet to come.

Posted by: David Pinto at February 15, 2006 04:39 PM

Actually, I think if you're to follow statistical studies of batting order, you pretty much order your team from best hitter to worst hitter... with "best" and "worst" being defined by essentially OPS or something to the effect of 1.5OBP+SLG. So while it might be more beneficial to bat a pitcher 8th in a traditional lineup, better still would be ordering your lineup in descending skill.

I often wonder whether a career record is more or less impressive if accomplished today versus ages ago. On the one hand, Bonds has so much more medical help available to him to prolong his career. On the other hand, competition is so much more fierce these days that even if you're VERY talented, once you pass your peak you could easily and cheaply be replaced by an inferior talent who's just younger.

Posted by: Mike at February 15, 2006 05:07 PM

FYI, Giant no. 2 hitters received 646 ABs last year, while their no. 4's got 603. 43 ABs is quite a difference.

Posted by: Anonymous at February 15, 2006 10:16 PM

Yes, but you need to look at plate appearances. #2 hitters drew 53 walks, #4 hitters 77. That brings the difference down to 19. And if Bonds is only playing part time, that difference goes down even more.

Posted by: David Pinto at February 15, 2006 10:29 PM

I think career records are a little easier to attain these days because players are able to play longer, because of medical help, sure, but also because we just understand so much more about the human body and conditioning than we did in the 1920s or 30s. Having said that, however, it's also fair to say the game is harder now than it was when Babe Ruth or Ty Cobb played (or even when Hank Aaron played). The trend line is measurable athletic sports (like running or cycling or swimming) proves that athletes are better now, by far. The times that won Olympic gold medals in the 20s in running wouldn't even qualify for the Olympics today.
Of course, this isn't to say Bonds is better than Ruth, although he may be. But you have to accept that athletes, and athletic competition, is better and harder now. And that most of these career records will be broken and broken again. It's just the nature of sports.

Posted by: david at February 16, 2006 12:53 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?