What should the Sox do with Ellsbury?
by Drugs Delaney on Apr 7, 2009 9:26 PM EDT
Email
PrintIs anyone else worried about Ellsbury as the Sox' lead-off hitter? In 670 career AB (including today's game), Jacoby's OBP is just .346. That's barely adequate for a tablesetter. Last year his OBP was a putrid .336
Many here at OTM have questioned the wisdom of hitting Ellsbury first. Speed doesn't matter if you can't get on base. But, it's more than that. Taco Boy just isn't a patient hitter. He doesn't work counts and, too often, he tries to hit the long ball. I'm beginning to think Ellsbury just doesn't get it. He doesn't understand his role on the team.
Today was a perfect example. While I won't fault Jacoby for being the only Boston player without a hit, three of his four at-bats were just plain awful. Here's what he did:
First inning: Strikeout (looking) - 5 pitches
Second inning: Groundout to 2B - 3 pitches
Fourth inning: Groundout to 2B - 3 pitches
Sixth inning: Groundout to 3B - 1 pitch
As far as seeing pitches, that's a pretty typical night for Ellsbury. In 2008, Jacoby was near the bottom of the AL in pitches per plate appearance. He averaged 3.59 P/PA, just ahead of Ichiro. Ellsbury was only slightly better than the famously impatient Robinson Cano (3.35 P/PA).
Ellsbury has value because of his speed and good defense. But I'm not sure he'll ever get on base well enough to be a top-of-the-order hitter. I hope I'm wrong.
42 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Bat him 9th now so that we don't lose a game because he comes up 1 too many times.
If he improves, then he can work his way back up.
That was my idea, too
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
Know what this reminds me of?
Sure, he pressed in his rookie season, and again on Opening Day of his sophmore season.
Give him a week or two.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
by tommy.otm on Apr 7, 2009 10:37 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Okay.
Put him in 9th, and let him prove that he can get on base w/o hurting us like crazy when he doesn’t. And don’t overreact when he goes 3-4 and immediately put him in leadoff again. At this point, it wouldn’t be an over reaction to move him down b/c the risks outweigh the benefits.
This spring
Ellsbury had an OBP of .329, 30th best on the Sox. I want him to succeed but I have some doubts.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Apr 7, 2009 11:04 PM EDT up reply actions
He's pressing.
In 2007, between AA, AAA and the Majors, he had a .417 OBP. (You have to do the math.
) He knows how to gt on base, he’s just got to relax. He’s never going to have Drew’s “isolated patience” – he’s more in the Ichiro model.
Another comp – notice it took Damon til he was 25 to start getting on at an impressive clip.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Damon
Had a .434 OBP as a 21-year old in Double-A, his last minor league year. Ellsbury had a .360 OBP as a 23-year old in Triple-A, his last year in the minors. Damon was younger when he came up to the majors, and played on worse teams. Damon also was a more patient hitter in the minors (he had a better minor league walk rate—as a younger hitter).
As for Ichiro, he has a career .377 OBP. If Jacoby can get on base 37% of the time, I’d be very happy.
Look, I’d love to see Ellsbury develop into a consistent on-base threat. I’m just not sure that will happen. Jacoby was benched in favor of Coco in the playoffs because he was trying to drive the ball and ended up flying out all the time. Ellsbury likes to swing for the fences, even though he doesn’t have much power. He has to understand his role. With his speed a walk or IF single can easily turn into a double.
Until he changes his approach, I don’t see him improving.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Apr 7, 2009 11:47 PM EDT up reply actions
I agree he's got to adjust his approach.
And I think he can.
But the worst thing that ever happened to him was slugging .510 after his call-up in 2007.
Manny ain't the only bad man.
Doubles aren't home runs.
He’s swinging for the fences, when he could easily get doubles with his speed.
We should've made him to push ups every time he flew out.
Then we’d be even closer to being the Indians in Major League 2: a catching prospect with a mental block, an aging catcher/team leader, an outfielder who hits like crazy but is crazy over his bats, an young Japanese player (Lin), and a speedy outfielder who is trying to hit homers.
Can't we just shift everybody up a spot?
Pedey-Ortiz-Youk-Drew-Bay-Lowell-Lowrie-Tek-Ells?
Or maybe switch Lowrie and Lowell because Lowell is slower and can’t necessarily be driven in as easily as he drives in others.
Much as Drew is a good leadoff hitter candidate, I’d rather have him in the middle of the order than the top behind Tek and Ells for future turns through the lineup.
No no no no no
The best thing for them to do is to try and get Ells to improve at the lead. Teams, time and time again have shown that two guys with high OBP and speed at the front of the order cause fits for the D. Ells and Dusty gettin on and stirring things up is the only way to get bigger run production this season.
...things go well I might be showing my O face...O...O...O...you know what I'm talking about.
To be honest,
I have the same worries, Drugs. Howver, it probably does not make much of a difference where he hits in terms of total runs per the year. I do agree it would be nice to insure that at least once a game (the first inning) a guy who can get on base does, so I would have him hit 7th ahead of lowrie and carcass (speed in front of nominal slugging), but the bigger worry is Ellsbury, not where he hits (of course).
The only difference between the top or bottom of the order
Is the number of AB per game (and season). I want my best hitters getting the most AB. If Ellsbury isn’r able to get on base consistently, he should get fewer AB.
I gotta go 'cause I'm probably definitely gonna nod out again.
by Drugs Delaney on Apr 8, 2009 12:23 PM EDT up reply actions
It's big enough to be statistically significant
We had a thread on it last year, I think. Maybe 2 years ago.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
I
don’t think it does. The caltech study (the one you might have discussed) shows statistical significance between the optimal and worst order. It suggests that if you simply cange the order of only 2 players, the results are not statistically significant. I could try to do the work to write a similar script and run the simulations if one cared (including me-this takes time!).
since we all love Drew
I’ll use him as a comparision…small sample size yes but in 40 plate appearances where he batted lead off last year he had an OBP of 385…he is always tooling around the 400 OBP range…so in a game where is batting leadoff and could see 5 at bats…he’ll be on base for two of those plate appearances…with Ellsbury leading off in the same situation (324 OBP in slightly* more PAs) …he’d be on base at least once and maybe a second time…
In the bottom of the 9th with two outs and the top of the order coming up I’m going to want somebody with an above average chance of getting on base to extend that inning and get to pedruggernaut, papi and youk…I dont think we should move Ellsbury out now, but if he can’t learn to walk more (Drew had a little under twice as many walks as Ellsbury in 150 fewer plate appearances) then he will need to be moved down in the order.
Point is…if you give more Plate Appearances to someone with a 400 OBP as opposed to someone with a 330 OBP, you’ll see the difference maybe not in the long run, but in individual games where it should matter
*Ellsbury batted leadoff in 544 plate appearances (so 500 more than Drews leadoff stint in 08)
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Apr 8, 2009 6:00 PM EDT up reply actions
Hmm
These things are obvious, I agree. The question is, what is the net runs per season (and its translation into wins), and is it statistically significant. Of course it makes sense to optimize your order (note on this, Ellsbury stole 50 bases last year, that needs to be factored in to your analysis too. I am not saying Drew is not the better lead-off hitter though), but it is not clear how much impact this has. An older study showed the difference in wins on average between an optimized lineup and an anti-optimized one is like 6 wins. Maybe a newer analysis would yield a different result-I will look. Anyway, if this is true, then it is hard to believe that simply swaping 2 players in a nearly optimized lineup results in anything statistically significant (compared to, say, the size of fluctuations as measured by the difference of pythagorean wins verse real ones).
Neyer just posted on this. Basically he quotes a study where A-Rod is batted 9th in last year’s Yankee lineup. The result was 40 less runs (and 4 wins) for the Yanks. This is definitely significant, but he is moving one of the best players in the league to a spot he would never actually be batted. The difference that we have been discussing here is certainly smaller. The conclusion is basically that differences in any reasonable lineups are not going to cause an important difference in runs scored. But it still annoys me that our 7th best hitter gets the most AB’s.
i mean...we're still pretty good either way
and i think we can agree on that
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
reply to buzzy
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Apr 8, 2009 7:12 PM EDT up reply actions
Remember in the 2007 offseason
When we couldn’t wait to get rid of Coco? And then in the 2008 offseason we didn’t really care one way or the other, and then we actually traded him? I say we put Ells in the #9 spot for now. If he improves, great, bring him back to leadoff and see how he does. If he still struggles at #9, give him a year or so, then consider a trade for Coco or the like.
Well, I'll appreciate for you to keep my zingers outta your mouth!
a trade for Coco?
is there supposed to be a /sarcasm tag there?
Homer: Kids, you tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is, never try.
by DougieWentDeep on Apr 9, 2009 11:42 AM EDT up reply actions
Ellsbury's Bunt
What happened to that bunt/swinging bunt that Ellsbury so effectively used to get on base at the end of 2007 and at the beginning of last year.
"We're not going to give up," It doesn't happen, so who cares? There's always next year. It's not like it's the end of the world."
According to baseball musings lineup analysis
The order should be:
1. Drew
2. Youk
3. Ellsbury
4. Ortiz
5. Pedroia
6. Lowell
7. Bay
8. Lowrie
9. Varitek
Personally I think switch Ellsbury and Bay and you’ve struck gold.
by Gnick on Apr 13, 2009 8:55 PM EDT reply actions
I agree with your assessment G.
"You know you're having a bad day when the fifth inning rolls around and they drag the warning track." - Mike Flanagan, Baltimore Orioles pitcher, 1992.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Mitch Mustain puts football behind him, signs reported rookie deal with White Sox
- Robinson Cano and Denzel Washington face off in Jay Leno’s Yankees trivia contest
- Shane Victorino lands role on ‘Hawaii Five-0′
- Have you criticized Hanley Ramirez on Twitter? Your name may be on his bat!
- U.S. senator cries foul over Nationals plans to take back park from Phillies fans
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
