Braves Baseball Updates

[Olympic Fan]

Sure, if you could have everything, speed AND OBP is the ideal situation for a leadoff hitter -- that's why Rickey Henderson is the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. He was not only a great runner, but he had a career .401 OBP.

But of the two qualities, OBP is FAR more valuable for a lead off hitter. As for why so many teams have speedy leadoff hitters, I would argue that it's one of those innate myths (like having a bat handler batting second) that managers buy into. The very idea that anybody could use Pierre as a leadoff hitter is as ludicrous as the idea that for almost a decade, the Pirates used Omar Moreno -- an incredibly fast runner with a career OBP barely over .300 -- as a leadoff hitter. He "looked" like a leadoff hitter ... he just wasn't.

This is a sore subject for me as a Yankee fan (the Braves are amy second-favorite team). When I was a kid back in the early 1960s, I worshipped Mickey Mantle. I could never understand why he didn't drive in more runs.

Then I learned a little about baseball and understood what an idiot Ralph Houk was when it came to constructing a lineup. Take a look at the top of the order for the 1961 Yankees:

2B Bobby Richardson -- .295 OBP. He was the fastest guy on the team (other than Mantle) and a great defensive second baseman, but he couldn't get on base! He played in all 162 games, batting in front of two guys who combined to hit 115 home runs -- and he scored just 80 runs.

SS Tony Kubek -- .306 OBP. The classic "good bat handler in the second spot", he barely got on base more than Richardson. He scored the grand total of 84 runs batting ahead of Mantle and Maris.

RF Roger Maris -- .372 OPB. There was a lot of talk about how batting him in front of Mantle gave him a lot more opportunities to hit. He still walked 96 times -- he scored 132 runs.

CF Mickey Mantle -- .448 OBP! Okay, he walked a lot. He also scored 132 runs in 80 less plate appearances than Maris. It's not like you could pitch around him with Berra (.330 OBP, .466 SLG) Howard (.387 OBP, .549 SLG) and Skowron (.318 OBP, .472 SLG) at the bottom of the order.

That happened to Mantle a lot in his career -- one reason he only drove in 100 runs four times (his injuries had something to do with it, but he still played in at least 144 games 12 times -- Stengel and Houk's lineups cost him).

The best evidence I can find as to the impact a poorly constructed lineup can have on run production involves Rogers Hornsby in 1924. He battled .424 that year with a .507 OBP and a .696 SLG. It wasn't a short season either -- he played in 143 games and rapped out 227 hits, including 43 doubles, 14 triples and 25 home runs.

As near as I can figure, he battled third all season and drove in 94 runs. Can you believe that -- just 94 RBIs off 227 hits, including 83 extra base hits?

[Dukerati]

How would you have constructed that lineup differently Olympic? If I remember correctly, the Maris and Mantle lineup scored a lot of runs that year... and what would have happened if you moved someone like Howard into the leadoff spot? I think it could be argued that a lineup like that could have created a black hole of outs in the bottom third of the lineup and then result in less RBIs for the men up top...

Part of baseball is maximizing the output from the "sluggers" which is why players with incredibly high OBPs (such as Bonds, Ortiz, etc) do not bat in the leadoff spot. In a sense, it would be a "waste" of extra-base hits as no one would be on base. For argument's sake, let's take this year's Yankees team. Using your argument, shouldn't Giambi bat leadoff? I mean, the man's OBP is consistently great every year and the Yankees certainly have the power to compensate...

[Olympic Fan]

Interesting suggestion -- putting Giambi at the top of the lineup because of his high OBP. It's not as crazy as you imply -- the California Angels has great success a few years ago with catcher/DH Brian Downing as a leadoff hitter. At age 36, Downing had a .400 OBP and scored 110 runs in 155 games.

As a matter of fact, years before Bill James emerged, an MIT professor (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) crunched the numbers and argued that teams would score more runs if they shaped their rosters with in order of productivity -- with the most productive hitter to the least. He ws writing in the early 1960s and he argued that the Giants should bat Willie Mays first. So yes, Barry Bonds would be a far more effective leadoff hitter than a cleanup hitter -- especially during that period when nobody would pitch to him.

As for the current Yankees, Jeter is a perfect top of the order guy -- he has a .444 OBP this year with a career .390. Plus he brings good (if not great) speed.

Damon is a marginal leadoff guy. His .373 OBP this year is decent, although for his career, he's a mere .354 (pretty low for a leadoff guy).

As for the 1961 Yankees, you put your finger on the first solution -- Howard definitely should have been batting in one of the top two spots. I'd have flipped Mantle and Maris -- Mantle didn't walk 126 times because he didn't have anyone behind him ... he ALWAYS walked 120-plus times. He would have walked 120-plus times with Maris hitting behind him -- think of the RBI situation that would have set up for Maris. And with Berra/Skowron coming next, it's not like Maris would have gotten nothing to hit. He walked 90 times with Mantle behind him ... if that had gone up even as high as 120, that would have merely given the Yankees 30-plus more baserunners and created more opportunities for Berra and Skowron to drive in runs.

Houk didn't have a lot of choice with his other top of the order guy -- Boyer was virtually as poor OBP as Koubek (although better than Richardson). In hindsight, the big mistake was letting Gil McDougald go in the expansion draft. He was just 32 years old and he was a superb defender at three infield positions (to this day, the only man to start all-star games at short, second and third) and he had a career .356 OBP.

As for creating "a black hole" at the bottom of the order ... a few years ago, Bill James ran a study to measure whether a team was better off grouping its best offensive players together in the order or spreading them out evenly ... his conclusion was that it was BY FAR more productive to group the best hitters together, even if it led to "black holes" in the lineup.

So, in 20-20 hindsight, I'd argue that the 1961 Yankees should have had a lineup of:

SS Tony Koubek
C Elston Howard
CF Mickey Mantle
RF Roger Maris
1B Moose Skowron
LF Yogi Berra (note, since Skowron was a righthander and Yogi a lefty, I'd have flipped them depending on the starting pitcher).
3B Clete Boyer
2B Bobby Richardson

If they had been smart enough to keep McDougald, I'd have let him battle Boyer-Koubek-Richardson and whichever one he beat out, I'd bat him leadoff ... Mantle and Maris each would have driven in 150 runs and the 61 Yanks would have led the lead in runs scored.

As it was, the 1961 Yankees averaged just 5.07 runs a game, finishing behind the Detroit Tigers (5.16) in runs scored -- despite the 115 home runs by the M&M boys and the 20-plus from Howard, Berra, Skowron and Blanchard.

So they definitely could have done better!

[CMS2478]

Interesting suggestion -- putting Giambi at the top of the lineup because of his high OBP. It's not as crazy as you imply -- the California Angels has great success a few years ago with catcher/DH Brian Downing as a leadoff hitter. At age 36, Downing had a .400 OBP and scored 110 runs in 155 games.

As a matter of fact, years before Bill James emerged, an MIT professor (I'm sorry I can't remember his name) crunched the numbers and argued that teams would score more runs if they shaped their rosters with in order of productivity -- with the most productive hitter to the least. He ws writing in the early 1960s and he argued that the Giants should bat Willie Mays first. So yes, Barry Bonds would be a far more effective leadoff hitter than a cleanup hitter -- especially during that period when nobody would pitch to him.

As for the current Yankees, Jeter is a perfect top of the order guy -- he has a .444 OBP this year with a career .390. Plus he brings good (if not great) speed.

Damon is a marginal leadoff guy. His .373 OBP this year is decent, although for his career, he's a mere .354 (pretty low for a leadoff guy).

As for the 1961 Yankees, you put your finger on the first solution -- Howard definitely should have been batting in one of the top two spots. I'd have flipped Mantle and Maris -- Mantle didn't walk 126 times because he didn't have anyone behind him ... he ALWAYS walked 120-plus times. He would have walked 120-plus times with Maris hitting behind him -- think of the RBI situation that would have set up for Maris. And with Berra/Skowron coming next, it's not like Maris would have gotten nothing to hit. He walked 90 times with Mantle behind him ... if that had gone up even as high as 120, that would have merely given the Yankees 30-plus more baserunners and created more opportunities for Berra and Skowron to drive in runs.

Houk didn't have a lot of choice with his other top of the order guy -- Boyer was virtually as poor OBP as Koubek (although better than Richardson). In hindsight, the big mistake was letting Gil McDougald go in the expansion draft. He was just 32 years old and he was a superb defender at three infield positions (to this day, the only man to start all-star games at short, second and third) and he had a career .356 OBP.

As for creating "a black hole" at the bottom of the order ... a few years ago, Bill James ran a study to measure whether a team was better off grouping its best offensive players together in the order or spreading them out evenly ... his conclusion was that it was BY FAR more productive to group the best hitters together, even if it led to "black holes" in the lineup.

So, in 20-20 hindsight, I'd argue that the 1961 Yankees should have had a lineup of:

SS Tony Koubek
C Elston Howard
CF Mickey Mantle
RF Roger Maris
1B Moose Skowron
LF Yogi Berra (note, since Skowron was a righthander and Yogi a lefty, I'd have flipped them depending on the starting pitcher).
3B Clete Boyer
2B Bobby Richardson

If they had been smart enough to keep McDougald, I'd have let him battle Boyer-Koubek-Richardson and whichever one he beat out, I'd bat him leadoff ... Mantle and Maris each would have driven in 150 runs and the 61 Yanks would have led the lead in runs scored.

As it was, the 1961 Yankees averaged just 5.07 runs a game, finishing behind the Detroit Tigers (5.16) in runs scored -- despite the 115 home runs by the M&M boys and the 20-plus from Howard, Berra, Skowron and Blanchard.

So they definitely could have done better!

I have suggested having Barry Bonds lead off many times. They would either have to pitch to him or lead off the game with a walk and like the Giants chances in either of those two scenarios. Sure he would miss out on some RBI opportunities, but if there are runners on they don't usually pitch to him anyway.

[Dukerati]

I like your theory Olympic and hope you become a GM someday so I can see this theory in practice I do see some problems though. I agree with the clumping = more runs theory as does every other major league team as their 3-4-5 hitters are usually their best. However, you seem to be advocating that they should move up to 1-2-3 if their OBP is higher than the previous 1-2 combination. The problem is that "good" hitters are a decidedly finite resource and the potential for wasted RBI opportunities are enormous if the rest of the lineup is not up to snuff. What good is OBP if no one can drive them in? Where do you draw the line?

[throatybeard]

I'm all for letting Andruw walk, but I don't understand why Salty should be traded. He seems like as close to an untouchable trade demand as the Braves have. I have trouble believing we'll get equal value if we trade him for an arm.

[Dukerati]

The problem throaty is that the pitching is in a lot more trouble than our offense. We have multiple young stars in the field (Franceour, McCann, Johnson) but essentially none on the mound. We need some "untouchables" on the pitching side (this is what the Braves are founded on after all) and will probably have to give up a lot to get them... I love Salty but how are we going to get the arms otherwise?

[CMS2478]

The problem throaty is that the pitching is in a lot more trouble than our offense. We have multiple young stars in the field (Franceour, McCann, Johnson) but essentially none on the mound. We need some "untouchables" on the pitching side (this is what the Braves are founded on after all) and will probably have to give up a lot to get them... I love Salty but how are we going to get the arms otherwise?

Well as a Braves fan I guess we will do what we always do the past 3 years or so......wait til' next year when Hampton returns again and say that he will solidify our rotation and get us to the playoffs.

[Dukerati]

Haha, hopefully we make the playoffs this year... but if Hampton is a solid #3 and we win the world series next year, all will be forgiven in my book

[Duvall]

Haha, hopefully we make the playoffs this year... but if Hampton is a solid #3 and we win the world series next year, all will be forgiven in my book

Mike Hampton's career is almost certainly over.

[ugadevil]

i'll admit that i'm nowhere near a die hard braves fan. i go to school in the area so i take an interest and i pull for them, but i don't understand the fan support. i was at the game last night and there were TONS of empty seats. i think the crowd total ended up being something around 35,000, which was 15,000 more than when i went for the padres game a few weeks ago.

still...it was a game between the two best teams in the national league, featuring two possible hall of fame starters, and there were still entire sections of seats that were empty! this is a good young team in atlanta with a lot of home grown talent, and i just don't understand why they can't come even close to selling out a game. i know that atlanta is known as a horrible sports town, but i can tell you that plenty of those atlanta people will flock to athens for a uga football game or go to a falcons game. even if they're just fickle sports fans, now would be the time to go to a braves game since they're showing great improvement from last season and a serious shot at representing the national league in the world series.

however, i must say that there is always a great showing of college students at games. it's probably b/c the braves have to figured out how to market to us by offering buy one get one free tickets if you show your college id. my friend and i pay $6 each everytime we go to the game. great deal to see a great team. so where are the rest of the fans?

[Dukerati]

i hear you ugadevil. I was listening to the post-game interview of John Smoltz and he made it a particular point to thank the "great" fans that always come out to the games and I privately snickered that the "great" fans could not even fill out the stadium during playoff time. The people who actually go to the games are great but for one of the consistently great teams in the modern era, the Braves have horrible fan support.

I live in the DC area but still manage to catch 5-15 games in Atlanta and another 5-10 here (when they play the Nationals). I remember the Braves had a promotion a few years ago (and I think it lasted all summer but I can't remember) where you could get into the game for one dollar for the bleacher seats at game time. One dollar! The sad part is that the Braves could actually use the money. We operate under a much tighter budget than we used to which in part is due to the lackluster attendance. It's a problem but one I really have no idea how to solve...

[Dukerati]

Mike Hampton's career is almost certainly over.

I choose to keep the faith. The last I heard, Hampton had successful surgery for a torn tendon on his elbow and was expected to resume throwing in about six months. I don't recall any mention on anybody's part about ending his career...

[CMS2478]

I choose to keep the faith. The last I heard, Hampton had successful surgery for a torn tendon on his elbow and was expected to resume throwing in about six months. I don't recall any mention on anybody's part about ending his career...

Even if he does come back (and I hope it's not with the Braves) he is still just a mediocre pitcher who won't have that great of an impact. His Cy Young days are long gone.

[ugadevil]

[QUOTE=Dukerati;23009]
I remember the Braves had a promotion a few years ago (and I think it lasted all summer but I can't remember) where you could get into the game for one dollar for the bleacher seats at game time. One dollar! The sad part is that the Braves could actually use the money. QUOTE]


I don't know if this is the same thing that you're talking about, but they do offer the "Skyline" section at all games. It's in the upper deck and near the foul poles on both sides, but tickets are only $1. I don't think you even have to wait until game time anymore to get them. The worst part about it is that every time I've been to a game, there are maybe 50 people in those seats. I sat in that section once and there were probably 15 other people in the entire section. They certainly aren't the best seats, but Turner is not a field where it's tough to get a good view of the game. It's not like weather is an issue seeing how it's normally high 70's/low 80's and comfortable for the majority of the night games.

[Dukerati]

That is exactly what I was talking about. Thanks ugadevil! I just read this article on ESPN about Andruw and wow, it certainly leaves a lot of room for thought...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2880979

[tbyers11]

Those $1 seats are sold out almost every home game. They only go on sale the day of the game at the box office at a certain time (~4-5 hrs before game time). The reason that you normally don't see people sitting in those seats is because the people that buy those tickets primarily hang out in the ChopHouse (the restaurant in right-center field) or the patio above it eating and drinking for the entire game. Anyone with a ticket (whether its a $1 skyline ticket or a Lexus level ticket) can get a table and watch the game from there.

[Dukerati]

I lost this thread in the mix but thanks for the explanation tbyers. I know this thread has been talking a lot about how we would replace Andruw if we left.

Answer: Kosuke Fukudome

Who is he you ask? A 30 year old center fielder and free-agent-to-be for the Chunichi Dragons. He's coming to the states next year and these were his stats last year:

In 2006, he batted .351 with 31 homeruns and 104 RBIs

The power doesn't translate well from Japan to the US, but the average should....

[Channing]

What is the scoop on this Escobar kid? I hadnt really heard of him before today, and he had a great showing, offensively AND defensively. Is he a higher rated infield prospect than Prado? It looks like the future in Atlanta is bright, with a young core of Franceur, McCann, Escobar, Prado, and Saltalamachia all looking to be around for years to come.

[Dukerati]

I do not remember seeing his name in the Baseball America prospect rankings for the Braves and then there is this from ESPN...

"A .295 career minor league hitter, Escobar could adequately fill an NL-only corner or middle infield spot for the short term. However, don't count on much else from him; in 223 career minor league games he has only 10 home runs and 14 stolen bases"