Master Index of Archived Threads


batfrazierleadoff

Chad Ochoseis Feb 16 2018 07:29 PM

Apparently, Todd Frazier in the leadoff spot is a thing. It's not a bad idea. Nimmo is the clearer choice, but with Cespedes, Bruce, and Lagares, it's not clear that Nimmo is going to be in the lineup every day. Frazier's OBP was .344, not far out of line with Cabrera's .351 and a whole lot better than Reyes or anyone else on the team other than Nimmo. And Frazier was in double figures in steals in 2014, 2015, and 2016, which should satisfy the traditionalists. And I believe there have been some sabermetric studies that say that the leadoff hitter should have some power, though I can't find any online. It makes some intuitive sense, particularly if you bat the pitcher eighth and a Reyes/Rosario type ninth. Rosario is the leadoff hitter of the future, but he has in no way demonstrated that he's ready to be the leadoff hitter of 2018. Maybe the leadoff spot goes to Nimmo vs righties and Frazier vs lefties. Either way, I'm glad that Mickey is willing to make some bold choices.

metirish Feb 16 2018 07:53 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Props on the thread title ....thumbs up

Edgy MD Feb 16 2018 07:59 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

I think I've had enough of trying to force a .220s-hitting, former-Yankee-heart-of-the-order batter into the leadoff spot, but if they want to experiment with him in that role exclusively against lefties, I won't set myself on fire or anything. Here's to Lagares coming on strong and making the righthanded part of the role his own.

cooby Feb 16 2018 09:15 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

metirish wrote: Props on the thread title ....thumbs up yes!

Benjamin Grimm Feb 16 2018 09:20 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Apparently Topps wasn't doing traditional "manager cards" in 1976 and 1977, so Joe Frazier never got a dedicated card of himself as a Mets manager.

Vic Sage Feb 16 2018 09:33 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: I think I've had enough of trying to force a .220s-hitting, former-Yankee-heart-of-the-order batter into the leadoff spot, but if they want to experiment with him in that role exclusively against lefties, I won't light myself on fire or anything. Here's to Lagares coming on strong and making the righthanded part of the role his own. Even if he hits for more power this year, i don't see how changing the plane of Lagares' swing will make him a more selective hitter with a good enough OB% to bat leadoff. It might increase his power, so he could hit in Frazier's spot and Frazier could hit leadoff. But i don't think it matters, ultimately. Most pitchers are RHPs. Nimmo should bat leadoff and play CF against RHPs. On the few days where they face a LH starter, Lagares or Frazier or even Rosario or Cabrera could hit there... it won't matter after April anyway, when Conforto returns in May. As for April, with 26 games scheduled for the first month, a cursory glance at the teams and their projected rotations show: StL (4 games, 0 LHPs), Phil (3 games, 0 LH), Wash (6 games, 1 LHP), Mia (3 games, 2-3 LHPs), Milw (3 games, 1 LHP), SD (3 games, 2 LHP) and ATL (4 games, 1-2 LHP). So we could see maybe 9 games started by a LHP at most, and as few as 1. We're likely to see around 5. So for 5 games, we can have Lagares or Frazier bat leadoff and it won't matter very much over the course of the season, as long as Nimmo's .370 OB% is starting the other 20+ games.

Edgy MD Feb 16 2018 09:50 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

As discussed in the Juan Lagares thread, the idea (if only the idea) of guys adding that uppercut to the swing is not just to garner more homers, but more base hits overall. And if one benefit leads to another benefit, more selective pitchers and more opportunities for free passes. It's all wishful, of course, and I'm happy with opportunities granted to Rosario, Cabrera, Reyes, even d'Arnaud, maybe

batmagadanleadoff Feb 16 2018 10:19 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 16 2018 10:52 PM

But what does that have to do with battingfrazierleadoff? The uppercutting technique aims to improve slugging (power and hrs) at the expense of OBP. Almost nobody is a Daniel Murphy who can double his power output to 20-30+ HRs a year while simultaneously remaining one of the toughest to strikeout in all of baseball.

Chad Ochoseis Feb 16 2018 10:34 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

It sounds like Edgy is saying that it would lead to better OBP as well as more home runs, which sounds like a new idea. I'm skeptical. New discoveries arising from more powerful computing techniques and advances in statistical analysis because sabermetrics is still a young science are one thing. But people have been swinging bats since Abner Doubleday didn't invent the game back in the 1830s. I have difficulty believing that we'd just be figuring out now that an uppercut swing leads to more hits (and therefore more walks, I guess, if it makes batters better hitters overall) than a level swing.

Zvon Feb 16 2018 11:44 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Good contact with an uppercut swing, if not solid and launched into the air, has the ability to create more and sometimes wicked spin on a batted ball. Especially on hard hit liners and sharp ground balls.

Edgy MD Feb 16 2018 11:45 PM Re: batfrazierleadoff

I'm skeptical of the whole thing, but I'm certain the idea isn't to improve homerun output at the expense of on-base percentage. As noted in the Lagares thread: Centerfield wrote: Yeah, I think the added power is only part of it. The whole uppercut swing adds a lot of advantages. 1. Bat stays in the hitting zone longer rather than a downward plane swing which only has one point of contact. So more contact, fewer strikeouts. Also, the idea is more foul balls when you are fooled, so it could lead to more walks. 2. Soft line drives fall in. Soft ground balls rarely find holes. 3. More HR's. Again, I have my own ideas, but take, for instance, Justin Turner, Uppercut Monthly's favorite cover-boy. He upped his batting average by 38 points and still found room to raise his walk rate on top of that, for an overall upgrade of .052 on the old OBP. It's certainly a best-case scenario, but that's the idea, and Lagares has said as much, telling folks not to look for prodigious power output, but hopefully more overall productivity.

Ceetar Feb 17 2018 12:53 AM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Chad Ochoseis wrote: It sounds like Edgy is saying that it would lead to better OBP as well as more home runs, which sounds like a new idea. I'm skeptical. New discoveries arising from more powerful computing techniques and advances in statistical analysis because sabermetrics is still a young science are one thing. But people have been swinging bats since Abner Doubleday didn't invent the game back in the 1830s. I have difficulty believing that we'd just be figuring out now that an uppercut swing leads to more hits (and therefore more walks, I guess, if it makes batters better hitters overall) than a level swing. well I mean, there was in fact a common parlance about hitting the ball level and hard. It's only recent that we've been able to measure angle of swing, so it'd be easy to lose that 20-30 degrees is good but too high is bad. defense/ability gets better every year. equipment/gloves/etc. defense is better which means that simple balls in play don't necessarily lead to the same results. shifting, etc. and then there's the juiced ball. we're living in an extreme home run environment which absolutely amplifies the effects of more balls hit hard in the air. Daniel Murphy is the perfect example of this.

Edgy MD Feb 17 2018 01:08 AM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Ted Williams said a nice level swing was a great way to ground out to short. Ralph Kiner may have said the same thing about second. But, you know, trends are trends. I'm all about different strokes for different folks. I rarely get to use that expression literally.

Fman99 Feb 17 2018 03:57 AM Re: batfrazierleadoff

Edgy MD wrote: Ted Williams said a nice level swing was a great way to ground out to short. Ralph Kiner may have said the same thing about second. But, you know, trends are trends. I'm all about different strokes for different folks. I rarely get to use that expression literally. Well played, there.