Quote:
Originally Posted by kq76
I gather you're talking about this article? I'd like to see the quote of what James said because, while I agree with the general idea, I struggle with the details. And by that I mean, if someone is on base and the opposition's best hitter is at the plate, I'm being extremely selective with my pitches. But if they're leading off, I'm not worrying too much as a solo shot isn't going to kill me. And even if they only just get on base there's a decent chance they'll get knocked in by someone behind them. So I won't be as selective in that situation. However, if there are 2 outs and no one on base, I might be a little selective as even if they only just get on base, there's a good chance I'll get out of the inning unscathed by getting a follow up batter out.
I did find the following quote from another article:
I do wonder if it's a misquote or if James did say exactly that. If the two got on before him (or even if just 1 did) I'd think Anson would want to bat. If they didn't get on, however, then I think he'd wait so he'd like get better pitches to hit and have a better chance of someone driving him home. |
Yes that is the article I was referring to. Selective was my term but maybe not a good one. The main point I was getting to is
“One of the problems is that teams often put their highest OBP batter in the third position, but the #3 spot is the one LEAST likely to lead off the second inning. James said it, others agreed, and The Book confirms it. In addition, The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions.”
I do agree with Brad that this might not apply so much to OOTP though.