Earlier this week, I suggested that the Yankees flip Johnny Damon and Derek Jeter in the batting order. My suggestion was based on the idea that you want your batter who makes more contact and hits fewer grounders batting second rather than first, if the two players are similarly skilled at reaching base. Dave Cameron of Fangraphs has an article up now that challenges the traditional notion of the #2 hitter as a high contact hitter:
So, since leadoff hitters are going to be stealing far more than any other line-up spot, we can infer that the #2 hitter will be at the plate most often when SB attempts occur. What’s the common wisdom on how pitchers defend against stolen bases? Throw fastballs. So which line-up spot should see the most fastballs? The #2 hitter.
Given that assumption, it would then follow that teams could setup a dilemma for pitchers by having a #2 hitter who pitchers do not want to throw fastballs too. If you had a high power #2 hitter, who pitchers only wanted to throw fastballs too 55% of the time, then you’d be forcing the pitcher to base his pitch selection on either the hitter or the runner. If you have a low power #2 hitter, then his desire to throw fastballs would align with both runner and hitter strategies, and there would be no conflict.
Despite this, #2 hitters had the second lowest ISO of any line-up spot in baseball last year, ahead of only #9 hitters. Indeed, the classic #2 hitter is a high contact hitter who is valued for his ability to give the manager confidence to call a hit and run or hit the ball to the right side if the leadoff hitter is able to steal second on his own. The current archtype #2 hitter is exactly the opposite of the kind of hitter that would force a pitcher to choose between pitching to the batter or the runner.
I think this is fascinating stuff, as it really gets you thinking about what the optimal Yankees lineup would be. As I mentioned in another article last week, Damon already sees plenty of fastballs, which suggests that he may be wasted in the two hole. Then again, if he is batting behind Jeter, the stolen base factor does not really come into play. I think a lot depends on Brett Gardner and Joe Girardi’s willingness to ruffle some feathers. If Gardner could get his OBP to around .380, he could make sense at the top of the order. Then you might bat someone who could really benefit from seeing more fastballs, such as Cano, Swisher, or Nady. I am not really sure where you would go from there, but there are various permutations that can be formed using this concept as the baseline. Maybe Gardner, Cano, Teixeira, Rodriguez, Posada, Damon, Jeter, Matsui, and Nady/Swisher?
Do you have any ideas for a lineup that would serve the purpose Cameron speaks about in his article?
Related posts:
You know Moshe thats a good idea. At least you’re thinking outside the box. The only problem I can think of with that is Jeter it seems at times goes up to the plate hacking, which is really not something we want the leadoff man too do. Damon is very good at working the count, or at last it appears that way.
I probably should have done some research on this first, as the numbers may tell us Jeter sees more pitches per plate appearance, which would then prove my point above to be useless.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
No, you were right, Damon sees more pitches, but I think that that shouldn’t matter that much if they OBP the same and we are just flipping them (so the less pitches doesnt affect anyone else).
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
You know, Moshe, a few weeks ago I wondered why the Yankees needed Damon if they believed in Brett Gardner enough to give him a starting job. Damon is bound to regress this year and with Gardner’s OBP (hopefully it’ll translate to the bigs) in mind, I offered the idea of trading JD since he was different when compared to the other FA OF’s available (e.g. Dunn, Burrell, Manny). A lineup of Gardner, Jeter (I think he could still hit there), Tex, A-Rod, Matsui, Posada, Cano, Swisher could work. Of course, the Yankees don’t really need to trade anyone, anymore — not without any glaring holes.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 2:11 pm
Yeah, I would keep everyone. Depth is important, hopefully the Yankees have learned that.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
What about Arod in the 2 hole? Maybe something like this…..
1. Dammon
2. Arod
3. Jeter
4. Teixeira
Arod has as much power as anyone and he did well in the 2 hole in 2004. Just a thought, I doubt it happens. After that idk. I mean Tex is a better hitter than Jeter, but I don’t think Joe would hit him cleanup, or drop him much further down the order.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
I dont like Jeter batting behind Alex. If you are going to do something like this, you might as well just slot Jeter in at 1 and move everyone else down one.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Alex Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Agreed on Jeter batting behind Alex and I think a lot of people would just pitch around him, although that’s not really a bad thing. If you already have Dammon on, then you put on Arod, really no matter what Jeter does there will be men on base for Tex, and Jeter is a .300 hitter. I’m just saying as far as getting a power hitter in the 2 spot Arod is the perfect example, and Jeter really isn’t a speed threat that would get Arod thrown many fastballs. But this wont happen. It would also cause a lot of trouble amongst fan/media as it would be seen as Arod taking Jeter’s spot or something stupid like that.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
We could also really lengthen the lineup by going:
1. Gardner
2. Dammon
3. Jeter
4. Arod
5. Tex
But I think we need to get as many at bats as possible out of Tex so that might not be a great idea.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
I think if Gardner could have an obp of .380 it wouldn’t matter because this lineup would be stacked. I was hoping of a obp around .350, but I wasn’t even sure if that is possible.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
February 24th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
Yeah, I’n not predicting that at all. It is more of a wishful thinking thing, a perfect world scenario.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]