The Unresolved Bullpen Angst Thread

[Kermit, B.]

He has two far superior options at 1-2 in the lineup than Theriot and Soriano.  I don't fault Lou for sticking with Gregg for so long, because I really don't feel like he has substantially better options in the bullpen.  But he has stuck a 5-6 hitter and a 7-8 hitter (with the two worst OBPs of the guys who have played at least 80 games) at the top of his lineup for the better part of the year, and that's pretty inexcusable, in my opinion.  No matter how much Theriot looks like a top-of-the-order guy, he just isn't.

In defense of his Soriano-at-leadoff play, Lou clearly believed that Soriano would be worse out of the leadoff spot than in it (for whatever reason).  He did have a career OPS of .877 leading off which was his best OPS by batting slot.  His career OPS is .837 and his next best OPS by batting slot was .819 batting 5th.

Do you risk giving up 50 points of OPS to move a guy down in the order?  On a guy making as much money for as long as you are going to have him?  Do you risk Soriano getting pissy?  For 8 years?

What would I do?  First, I'd be smart enough to realize that Soriano isn't going to change his approach no matter WHERE he hits in the lineup.  Then, I would contemplate the fact that he is no longer a legitimate running threat on the bases.  Nextly, I'd use that knowledge to put Soriano in the most appropriate lineup spot for a free-swinging, low-OBP power hitter.  Penultimately, I would sit back and watch his numbers return to their statistical norm as he compiled more at-bats in that spot in the lineup.  Finally, profit!

[R-V]

Instead of swinging at a close pitch with a 3-1 count and the bases loaded to drive in runs, he'd rather spin in and take a walk. I saw it too many times this year. More concerned about drawing a walk. It did wonders for his batting average and RBI, didn't it?

If you're at the plate with the bases loaded and a 3-1 count, you shouldn't be looking at "swing at anything close."  A hitter should look for a ball in a certain spot and if the pitch isn't there, take it.  A walk means an RBI in that spot.  Swinging at "something close" usually results in an out.

And batting average?  Who cares?

It's never going to happen Eli. Just let it go.

I don't know how you can hate on a guy for not swinging at a ball just to get his batting average and RBI numbers up. That makes zero sense.

But then again, maybe that's why Ryan Theriot has such a following. He'd happily roll a grounder to short when he's ahead in the count because it's scrappydoolicious.

Way to twist it all around, and even bring Theriot into it. Good job at generalizing.

If you guys actually think Bradley had a good year, then I'd like to know what games you were watching.

My point was that Bradley's offense came nowhere close to meeting the expectations we or (hopefully) Hendry had when they chose to sign him. They were determined to get more "left-handed" at the plate and this is the option they chose. If you simply looked at his OBP over the years, it was pretty good. But when you actually watch all of the games and see that there are numerous occasions when he's more concerned with taking a walk in RBI situations, it gets frustrating. And how many games did he miss due to injury, or more importantly, for Lou taking him out of the line-up because he wasn't hitting? Top all of that off with being a selfish, brooding prick and you can have your guy who's "pretty good at baseball". I guarantee they got more out of the 500K they paid Theriot than the 10 million they paid Miltie.

Would you classify Theriot's complete lack of awareness on the basepaths (and to a lesser extent in the field) as lazy/selfish/prickish?

[Ghost of Dave Rosello]

Instead of swinging at a close pitch with a 3-1 count and the bases loaded to drive in runs, he'd rather spin in and take a walk. I saw it too many times this year. More concerned about drawing a walk. It did wonders for his batting average and RBI, didn't it?

If you're at the plate with the bases loaded and a 3-1 count, you shouldn't be looking at "swing at anything close."  A hitter should look for a ball in a certain spot and if the pitch isn't there, take it.  A walk means an RBI in that spot.  Swinging at "something close" usually results in an out.

And batting average?  Who cares?

It's never going to happen Eli. Just let it go.

I don't know how you can hate on a guy for not swinging at a ball just to get his batting average and RBI numbers up. That makes zero sense.

But then again, maybe that's why Ryan Theriot has such a following. He'd happily roll a grounder to short when he's ahead in the count because it's scrappydoolicious.

Way to twist it all around, and even bring Theriot into it. Good job at generalizing.

If you guys actually think Bradley had a good year, then I'd like to know what games you were watching.

My point was that Bradley's offense came nowhere close to meeting the expectations we or (hopefully) Hendry had when they chose to sign him. They were determined to get more "left-handed" at the plate and this is the option they chose. If you simply looked at his OBP over the years, it was pretty good. But when you actually watch all of the games and see that there are numerous occasions when he's more concerned with taking a walk in RBI situations, it gets frustrating. And how many games did he miss due to injury, or more importantly, for Lou taking him out of the line-up because he wasn't hitting? Top all of that off with being a selfish, brooding prick and you can have your guy who's "pretty good at baseball". I guarantee they got more out of the 500K they paid Theriot than the 10 million they paid Miltie.

Would you classify Theriot's complete lack of awareness on the basepaths (and to a lesser extent in the field) as lazy/selfish/prickish?

I'd classify it as Jacque-ish.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Instead of swinging at a close pitch with a 3-1 count and the bases loaded to drive in runs, he'd rather spin in and take a walk. I saw it too many times this year. More concerned about drawing a walk. It did wonders for his batting average and RBI, didn't it?

If you're at the plate with the bases loaded and a 3-1 count, you shouldn't be looking at "swing at anything close."  A hitter should look for a ball in a certain spot and if the pitch isn't there, take it.  A walk means an RBI in that spot.  Swinging at "something close" usually results in an out.

And batting average?  Who cares?

At least Mark DeRosa had the guts to GIDP against Livan Hernandez in a similar situation.

You may be just a simple caveman, but you're the tops in my book.

Scoff at OBP as an unsexy stat all you want, Dave, but one of Bradley's best assets has turned out to be his eye at the plate. He should continue to do what he's best at, as that's his best chance at success.

[Dave B]

He has two far superior options at 1-2 in the lineup than Theriot and Soriano.  I don't fault Lou for sticking with Gregg for so long, because I really don't feel like he has substantially better options in the bullpen.  But he has stuck a 5-6 hitter and a 7-8 hitter (with the two worst OBPs of the guys who have played at least 80 games) at the top of his lineup for the better part of the year, and that's pretty inexcusable, in my opinion.  No matter how much Theriot looks like a top-of-the-order guy, he just isn't.

In defense of his Soriano-at-leadoff play, Lou clearly believed that Soriano would be worse out of the leadoff spot than in it (for whatever reason).  He did have a career OPS of .877 leading off which was his best OPS by batting slot.  His career OPS is .837 and his next best OPS by batting slot was .819 batting 5th.

Do you risk giving up 50 points of OPS to move a guy down in the order?  On a guy making as much money for as long as you are going to have him?  Do you risk Soriano getting pissy?  For 8 years?

What would I do?  First, I'd be smart enough to realize that Soriano isn't going to change his approach no matter WHERE he hits in the lineup.  Then, I would contemplate the fact that he is no longer a legitimate running threat on the bases.  Nextly, I'd use that knowledge to put Soriano in the most appropriate lineup spot for a free-swinging, low-OBP power hitter.  Penultimately, I would sit back and watch his numbers return to their statistical norm as he compiled more at-bats in that spot in the lineup.  Finally, profit!

Yeah, because he's really piling up the numbers in the 6-spot as the season rolls along. Check out the the last 2-3 weeks.

And I never said OBP was unsexy. I'm just saying that a guy with the overall offensive numbers he had in the past few years didn't do that this year, at least as far as everything BUT OBP.

[Kermit, B.]

He has two far superior options at 1-2 in the lineup than Theriot and Soriano.  I don't fault Lou for sticking with Gregg for so long, because I really don't feel like he has substantially better options in the bullpen.  But he has stuck a 5-6 hitter and a 7-8 hitter (with the two worst OBPs of the guys who have played at least 80 games) at the top of his lineup for the better part of the year, and that's pretty inexcusable, in my opinion.  No matter how much Theriot looks like a top-of-the-order guy, he just isn't.

In defense of his Soriano-at-leadoff play, Lou clearly believed that Soriano would be worse out of the leadoff spot than in it (for whatever reason).  He did have a career OPS of .877 leading off which was his best OPS by batting slot.  His career OPS is .837 and his next best OPS by batting slot was .819 batting 5th.

Do you risk giving up 50 points of OPS to move a guy down in the order?  On a guy making as much money for as long as you are going to have him?  Do you risk Soriano getting pissy?  For 8 years?

What would I do?  First, I'd be smart enough to realize that Soriano isn't going to change his approach no matter WHERE he hits in the lineup.  Then, I would contemplate the fact that he is no longer a legitimate running threat on the bases.  Nextly, I'd use that knowledge to put Soriano in the most appropriate lineup spot for a free-swinging, low-OBP power hitter.  Penultimately, I would sit back and watch his numbers return to their statistical norm as he compiled more at-bats in that spot in the lineup.  Finally, profit!

Yeah, because he's really piling up the numbers in the 6-spot as the season rolls along. Check out the the last 2-3 weeks.

And I never said OBP was unsexy. I'm just saying that a guy with the overall offensive numbers he had in the past few years didn't do that this year, at least as far as everything BUT OBP.

He's an unbelievably streaky hitter, which is exactly why I said that, given more at-bats in the middle of the order, I think his numbers will look more like his numbers in the leadoff spot.

[Canadouche]

I fail to understand the "he's not hitting better elsewhere, so he might as well be getting more at bats than anybody else on the team" argument. 

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Bradley by the numbers...

.263/.392/.394/.786, 104 OPS+ on the season (364 PA)
.310/.425/.425/.850, 126 OPS+ since the break (108 PA)
.326/.426/.413/.839, 118 OPS+ in August (56 PA)
.394/.459/.515/.975, 154 OPS+ in the 2 hole (38 PA)

And, for Dave in particular...

.429/.444/.571/1.016 in 9 PA with the bases loaded, for a 161 OPS+ versus the rest of the league in the same split.

[CBStew]

At least Gregg understands the problem.  As he stated in today's Tribune,



"It sucked," Gregg said. "I wasn't pitching. I went away from what I wanted to do, didn't executive my pitches and cost us the game."

[Chuck to Chuck]

He's an unbelievably streaky hitter, which is exactly why I said that, given more at-bats in the middle of the order, I think his numbers will look more like his numbers in the leadoff spot.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=soriaal01&year=Career&t=b#lineu

He has 2,197 plate appearances, the equivalent of nearly 3 and a half seasons, that say he bats worse elsewhere in the order compared to leadoff.

I think his non-leadoff numbers will look more like his non-leadoff numbers.  I think Lou thought that as well.

[Quality Start Machine]

I think his non-leadoff numbers will look more like his non-leadoff numbers.  I think Lou thought that as well.

You just blew my mind.

[PenFoe]

I hear a former ace closer might be available today, having recently been released by the Red Sox.

Joe Strauss of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch quotes a Cardinals official as saying the team has "very serious interest" in John Smoltz.

[Weebs]

He's an unbelievably streaky hitter, which is exactly why I said that, given more at-bats in the middle of the order, I think his numbers will look more like his numbers in the leadoff spot.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=soriaal01&year=Career&t=b#lineu

He has 2,197 plate appearances, the equivalent of nearly 3 and a half seasons, that say he bats worse elsewhere in the order compared to leadoff.

I think his non-leadoff numbers will look more like his non-leadoff numbers.  I think Lou thought that as well.

A majority of those ABs came in 2004 and 2005.

In 2004, out of the 3 spot, he hit pretty close to his career norm, with a lower SLG%.  He still hit 22 HR and drove in 76 RBI in only 116 games out of that spot.

In 2005, when he got 479 ABs hitting 5th, his numbers were right in line with his career numbers batting leadoff, except then he hit 30 HR and drove in 93 runs in 123 ABs.

The only other spot he's had a significant number of ABs is 8th and 9th, and that was during his rookie year in 2001.  So basically you have a guy hitting almost the exact same down in the order as he does leading off, but then he's able to drive in more runs than he can in fewer games (and therefore ABs) leading off.  The "Soriano hits better as a leadoff hitter" talk is as idiotic as Lou was for keeping him there.

[Kermit, B.]

He's an unbelievably streaky hitter, which is exactly why I said that, given more at-bats in the middle of the order, I think his numbers will look more like his numbers in the leadoff spot.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=soriaal01&year=Career&t=b#lineu

He has 2,197 plate appearances, the equivalent of nearly 3 and a half seasons, that say he bats worse elsewhere in the order compared to leadoff.

I think his non-leadoff numbers will look more like his non-leadoff numbers.  I think Lou thought that as well.

Oh, so we're just lumping the batting order into two categories?  "Leadoff" and "non-leadoff"?  That's...retarded.

I'm going to compile his stats in the odd-numbered spots in the lineup and compare them with his stats in the even-numbered spots and see how THOSE play out.

[Chuck to Chuck]

He's an unbelievably streaky hitter, which is exactly why I said that, given more at-bats in the middle of the order, I think his numbers will look more like his numbers in the leadoff spot.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/split.cgi?n1=soriaal01&year=Career&t=b#lineu

He has 2,197 plate appearances, the equivalent of nearly 3 and a half seasons, that say he bats worse elsewhere in the order compared to leadoff.

I think his non-leadoff numbers will look more like his non-leadoff numbers.  I think Lou thought that as well.

Oh, so we're just lumping the batting order into two categories?  "Leadoff" and "non-leadoff"?  That's...retarded.

I'm going to compile his stats in the odd-numbered spots in the lineup and compare them with his stats in the even-numbered spots and see how THOSE play out.

Guess who started it.