The importance of a leadoff hitter

[homer]

A lot has been made about OBP as it relates to the lead off hitter. Some say Weeks needs to get on base more often to be successful in that spot in the lineup, others say Hart doesn't get on base enough to bat there, some have suggested batting Kendall leadoff to take advantage of his OBP. My question is: does OBP really matter for leadoff in particular? I think too much emphasis is placed on this spot in the order. Does a leadoff man lead off that many innings other than the first? Wouldn't you want a good overall hitter there since that guy is going to get more ABs per game?

 

Your thoughts are appreciated.

[And That]

In that the leadoff hitter will be guaranteed to lead off at least one inning a game (the only player who can do that) and in that the leadoff spot comes up more than any other spot in the lineup, it's relatively important to have a good OBP guy batting leadoff because he'll have more chances than anyone to get one base (assuming he doesn't get taken out of the game).

 

It's relative importance is pretty small, though, especially as compared to the other good batters at the top of the lineup. The guy batting #1 in the lineup comes up about 16-20 more times per year on average than the guy batting #2, about 50 more times than the guy batting #4 and about 140 more times than the guy batting #9. So the difference between the #1 and #2 spot is only nominal, and even the difference between #1 and #4 is statistically pretty insignificant. As you compare it to guys batting after #4, the difference obviously increases, but then again so does the quality of the batter (at least, that's a general assumption).

 

So I don't think it makes a huge difference if you have a .360 OBP guy batting #1 and a .340 guy batting #2, or vice versa. As you move past #4 or #5 the difference becomes greater.

[Ennder]

I'd say it is probably more important in the NL where the pitcher makes the last out a little more frequently. Obviously the leadoff hitter leads off in at least 20% of his ABs and I bet it is more than 25% so in general with the bases empty I'd like high OBP and don't care as much about SLG. It isn't hugely important but I think the way teams prefer to set it up works ok.

 

It is the low OBP but fast guys that have no business leading off.

[chuckiehacks]

I don't think the importance stems from leading off innings or getting more at bats, rather that the 1 and 2 guys in the lineup are the ones that are on base for your best run producers.

[crock921]

I want a guy who can bat around 300, have a higher OBP, and have a lot of speed since these are going to be the guys who will have more opportunities to be on base than people further down the lineup. Personally, Weeks has been a disappointment and although Hart is streaky, he was very solid when he was consistently leading off a few years ago. I would like to see him back in that spot.

[logan82]

Batting average matters even less for lead off guys than most other spots in the order. A single and a walk with nobody on base is exactly the same result. As others have stated, the lead off guy comes up with the bases empty more often than any other spot in the order. Other than Hardy, Weeks is probably the best option to lead off.(I would prefer Braun or Fielder actually, but people probably think that is crazy) He should be expected to have a higher OBP than everyone other than Fielder and maybe Braun/Hardy.

[rluzinski]

OBP is more important in the leadoff spot than in other sports, certainly. It's not going to make some dramatic difference, however. And I agree that WAY too much emphasis is placed on the leadoff hitter. he's most important because he gets the most PAs. That's about 95% of it.

[dlk9s]

OBP is more important in the leadoff spot than in other sports, certainly.

Hmm, I've never really considered the importance of OBP in football or basketball. I'll have to do some analysis. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[sbrylski]

OBP is more important in the leadoff spot than in other sports, certainly. It's not going to make some dramatic difference, however. And I agree that WAY too much emphasis is placed on the leadoff hitter. he's most important because he gets the most PAs. That's about 95% of it.

 

I somewhat disagree. I feel an increase in ability from the leadoff hitter is more valuable than the same increase in any other batter. The results of the leadoff hitter's AB carry over more than any other position, given that the leadoff hitter bats the most often with zero outs, and bats immediately ahead of the best power hitters in a lineup. Also, ideal leadoff hitters are rather rare. On observation only, it always seems nearly all teams have pretty good 3-4-5 hitters, decent guys hitting 2 and 6, maybe 7, and then a stooge. But leadoff hitters seem to vary more widely in ability. Just speculation here though.

[logan82]

There is probably way to much importance put on batting order in general. As long as your better guys hit towards the top and your bad hitters hit towards the bottom you should be ok.

[istanbultaye]

some have suggested batting Kendall leadoff to take advantage of his OBP.

I may be wrong, but isn't the strength of Kendall's OBP nowadays not so much that he carries a very high OBP, but that his OBP is better than the average #8 hitter?

 

A stat of note: Only Bill Hall and Corey Hart had lower OBPs than Kendall among Brewers that had more than 100 at bats. Weeks' OBP was .342 vs. Kendall at .327 last year. Even with the terrible year Weeks had last year, he was probably still our best option over the course of the season at leadoff.

[JimH5]

In 2008, the Cubs lead the NL in runs scored with Alfonso Soriano hitting leadoff (.344 OBP). The Rangers lead the AL in runs with Ian Kinsler (.375 OBP) most often hitting leadoff.

 

In 2007, Johnny Damon hit leadoff for the Yanks (league leaders in runs), and his OBP was .351. In the NL, the Phillies lead the league in runs, and Jimmy Rollins was their leadoff hitter (.344 OBP).

 

So based on these 4 teams--all league leaders--I would say that the leadoff hitter's OBP isn't all that important. Or probably better said, it's possible to score a lot of runs even if your leadoff hitter isn't near the top of the league's OBP leaderboard.

[sbrylski]

I was wrong on both counts earlier - I ran the numbers for the NL over the past three seasons.

 

 

Claim #1 - The leadoff hitter is the most important position in the lineup.

 

I charted the correlation of each teams' lineup spot to their total runs scored per game:

 

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d175/sbrylski06/CORRSLUP.jpg

 

Looks like, in general, you can take a look at a team's #5 hitter and get a pretty solid handle on how good their offense is. My best guess on why this is: having a good #5 hitter doesn't only mean you have a good #5 hitter, but also great #3 and #4 hitters. Otherwise he'd be hitting higher in the order.

 

 

Claim #2 - In a given year, leadoff hitters are the most varied in ability.

 

Just focus on the last colum...

 

Standard deviation of OPS by lineup position:

 2006 2007 2008 AVG ---- ---- ---- ---- 1st .061 .079 .071 .070 2nd .054 .068 .064 .062 3rd .105 .084 .086 .092 4th .066 .066 .068 .067 5th .068 .062 .043 .058 6th .066 .049 .066 .060 7th .075 .051 .076 .067 8th .051 .049 .073 .058 9th .044 .052 .069 .055 

Standard deviation of OBP by lineup position:

 2006 2007 2008 AVG ---- ---- ---- ---- 1st .018 .021 .023 .021 2nd .019 .026 .023 .022 3rd .034 .029 .034 .032 4th .024 .029 .024 .026 5th .021 .026 .020 .023 6th .024 .020 .025 .023 7th .024 .022 .025 .024 8th .020 .018 .029 .022 9th .014 .021 .029 .022 

#3 hitters are clearly the most varied in ability. Leadoff hitters were the second most varied in OPS over the last three years, but surprised me by being the least varied in OBP.

 

 

I'd still like to see a good leadoff hitter, and OBP is still clearly the most important skill for a successful #1 hitter to have. But I'll step down from my aggressive statements and go with the opinion that the influence of lineup structure on runs scored is generally overrated.

[chansen]

While I have been very disappointed with Weeks and his ability to lead off, Tom H. made a good column on the issue of Weeks. Seems like Melvin is more concerned about runs scored from the lead off position. Here is the column from Tom:

Weeks has value

By Tom Haudricourt of the Journal Sentinel

Feb. 3, 2009 3:29 p.m.

 

I am the first to admit that I have been very hard on Rickie Weeks at times, especially on this blog. Much of that comes from the fact that he is maddeningly inconsistent, both in the field and at the plate.

 

Weeks makes costly errors, such as he did against the Cubs in the middle of last season and also in Game 1 of the NLDS vs. Philly. And he struggles with the passive/aggressive nature of batting leadoff, sometimes taking too many good pitches and putting himself into a hole.

 

A lot of this stems from the fact that Weeks was rushed to the big leagues before he was ready, in part because of necessity. But he does have value and here are some numbers to support that:

 

*Since Weeks arrived in the big leagues in June 2005, the Brewers are 215-198 (.521) when he starts at second base and 114-121 (.485) when he doesn't.

 

*Over the past three seasons, the Brewers are 146-130 (.529) when Weeks bats leadoff and 102-108 (.486) when someone else hits first.

 

*Weeks was the only 2009 first-time salary arbitration eligible player to post four consecutive seasons of at least 95 games, 400 plate appearances, 50 runs scored, 85 hits, 15 steals and .330 OBP.

 

*Despite being prone to errors thus far, his 5.02 range factor last season was sixth best among NL second basemen.

 

*Weeks has a .362 on-base percentage as a leadoff hitter since 2005, the ninth-best percentage from the leadoff spot in the major leagues (minimum 600 plate appearances).

 

*The Brewers scored 123 runs from the leadoff spot in 2008, fourth best in the major leagues…They also ranked third in the majors with 90 walks from the leadoff spot.

 

*Weeks scored 46.6% of the time he reached base in 2008 (89 runs, 191 times on base), the second-best percentage in the National League and sixth-best in the majors.

 

*Weeks tied the National League record by scoring runs in 17 consecutive games, Sept. 18, 2007 - April 4, 2008. It fell one game short of matching the major league record.

 

*Weeks led the Brewers with 22 Manufactured Runs. A Manufactured Run is defined by the Bill James Handbook as: a) any run on which two or more of the bases come from something other than playing station- to-station baseball, or b) a run that scores without a hit, or with only infield hits.

 

So, as those numbers show, Weeks does have value. Does he make errors that drive you nuts at times? Yes, he does. Does he need to raise his batting average and get on base more often? Yes, he does.

 

But he does have value. And you have to hope he continues to improve after being rushed to the majors and undergoing on-the-job training.

 

As someone who has been very hard on Weeks at times, I thought it only fair to point out those ways in which he has value.

 

And, let's get his new deal straight. He can make more than the previously reported $75,000 in incentives.

 

Beyond his $2.45 million salary as a first-time eligible player for arbitration, Weeks can make $25,000 for reaching each of these levels in plate appearances: 575, 600, 625 and 650. Last year, he had 560 PAs in 129 games.

Added link; please include them when available. --1992

[CheezWizHed]

I've hear it said here that comparing one players RBIs to anothers is useless because it has more to do with opportunity than ability. Has anyone done an analysis of RBIs as a function of a players BA and the OBP of the three people in front of him? Or you could do the opposite: Runs as a function of the BA of the three players behind you.

 

Basically, that is the jist of the discussion here, right? You put high OBP players at 1 and 2 to give more opportunity to your best hitters (generally at 3&4). Runs are the name of the game. OBP is the means to an end.

[bjkrautk]

I don't think the importance stems from leading off innings or getting more at bats, rather that the 1 and 2 guys in the lineup are the ones that are on base for your best run producers.

I think it's a little from Column A, and a little from Column B. It's important that your 1-2 hitters don't make outs, because that translates to more PAs for your sluggers....and that more of those ABs will come with runners on base.

 

Over the past 3 years, Weeks has led off an inning in 38.8% of his total PAs; Assuming that Weeks was batting leadoff in every game he started over that span (ESPN doesn't give games started while batting #1 as a split), the number only drops to 21.75% once you cut out the times he leads off a game. He's been nearly twice as likely to start an inning than the 'average' for the lineup (1/9 PAs would be 11.1%).

 

 

I think the TH-noted stat that Weeks scored 46.6% of the times he reached base highlites the importance of OBP in the leadoff spot, particularly with two legitimate sluggers in the 3-4 spots. You can't hit a 2-run homer with the bases empty. To me, it's a matter of your team's makeup: if your squad doesn't have as-high of SLG guys in the heart of its order, the leadoff hitter's SLG becomes more of a contributing factor (since the probability of scoring on an XBH would go down), relative to OBP (which is always important for the leadoff hitter). While I respect and understand the arguments in the abstract, I think there's room to make micro-scale analysis as well as the macro-scale work usually found at the heart of SABRmetrics.

[rluzinski]

You don't have to come up with a bunch of obscure, semi-relevant numbers to see that Weeks has offensive value. Just comparing his OBP and SLG to his peers gives you a pretty good view.

 

On a side note, Tom H. made the claim last weekend that Weeks may not be in the Brewers plans past 2010, which I find pretty unbelievable.

[vacin8r]

I remember a post a long time ago on the statistical analysis page about trying to come up with a be-all-end-all statistic for leadoff hitters. I dont remember anyone really agreeing on everything but we all know that we want a guy who gets on base, has enough speed to score more than the average runner when given opportunities as well as take free bases when available, and enough smarts to not lose the ability to score by getting picked off, caught stealing, or staying at a base when he has the definate ability to advance. The runs dont seem to matter as much because they are such a large product of the guys hitting after him. The batting average isnt as important because in the NL you are often batting after the pitcher and sometimes the catcher(or i guess any suck hitter you want to plug in the 8th spot if you have a catcher who can hit/run) before him, so RBIs and advancing runners isnt as big of a deal.

 

I feel like Weeks does a pretty good job on most of these criteria. The knocks on him seem to be that his defense isnt all that good, especially on turning the double play which is fair, and his low batting average, which I dont see as important as the casual fan does. It may also be that when we drafted Weeks, and through his years in the minors, we thought we were getting a legitamte all-star who would put up .300/.380/.500 lines and its hard for many to live up to that kind of hype.

 

It is also tough to get certain sterotypes beaten out of our skulls. Growing up watching baseball, thanks in part to Ricky Henderson, stolen bases came to be associated with success as a leadoff hitter. So I, as many other people, got it in my head a little as far as what a prototypical leadoff hitter is. That is why some would have been thrilled to get Dave Roberts or Juan Pierre a couple seasons ago. Anyone still wish either of them had been signed? How about trading for a guy like Michael Bourn? OBP has replaced stolen bases as the stat by many to view leadoff success, but it doesnt help that various media outlets still use a lot of the old criteria.

 

I guess I do feel it as simple as many have said. I know Braun will hit well including many home runs. I know Fielder will hit well with many home runs. I know JJ and Corey will hit OK with some home runs. Id like someone on base when all this stuff happens so OBP is all I really look at. Stealing 2nd before a 2-run jack job doesnt mean a whole hell of a lot to me. Id probably also like to see a good analysis comparing leadoff guys on teams that score a lot with a lot of home runs vs. leadoff guys on teams that score a lot without a lot of home runs as I am guessing the speed and stolen base type guys factor in a lot more statistically on a small ball team than one where you know 2-5 in the order can knock him in from any base.

[topper09er]

I think in general in baseball the best way to score runs is to have your leadoff hitter of the inning get on base. This should be the goal of every team, but it seems like no one gets it. It doesnt matter who is up, if they are the first hitter on an inning they should act like a "leadoff hitter" and take pitches and try to have a high OBP, even if that means that Corey Hart actually sees 4 pitches in an at bat. If I was a manager I would preach this to my team and I think it would lead to a very productive offense.

[TooLiveBrew]

"*Since Weeks arrived in the big leagues in June 2005, the Brewers are 215-198 (.521) when he starts at second base and 114-121 (.485) when he doesn't.

 

*Over the past three seasons, the Brewers are 146-130 (.529) when Weeks bats leadoff and 102-108 (.486) when someone else hits first.

 

...

 

*Weeks scored 46.6% of the time he reached base in 2008 (89 runs, 191 times on base), the second-best percentage in the National League and sixth-best in the majors.

 

*Weeks tied the National League record by scoring runs in 17 consecutive games, Sept. 18, 2007 - April 4, 2008. It fell one game short of matching the major league record."

 

Oh, Tom... What would we have to talk about if you weren't still stuck on crediting players for team stats? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

 

As someone who has been very hard on Weeks at times, I thought it only fair to point out those ways in which he has value.

 

A tip o' the hat to you, there, TH. Why do I not expect this levity to remain in your reporting on Weeks once the season gets underway?

[RU Rah Rah]

Oh, Tom... What would we have to talk about if you weren't still stuck on crediting players for team stats? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Hey, Rickie produces runs and wins in a total vacuum!

 

(I will say that his overall OBP from the leadoff spot is something that I tend to overlook.)

[nate82]

I think in general in baseball the best way to score runs is to have your leadoff hitter of the inning get on base. This should be the goal of every team, but it seems like no one gets it. It doesnt matter who is up, if they are the first hitter on an inning they should act like a "leadoff hitter" and take pitches and try to have a high OBP, even if that means that Corey Hart actually sees 4 pitches in an at bat. If I was a manager I would preach this to my team and I think it would lead to a very productive offense.

A leadoff hitter does not need to see more pitches to be successful. I still can't understand why anyone still believes this old saying that leadoff hitters need to see a lot of pitches to be a good leadoff hitter. If this were true Weeks would be the greatest leadoff hitter of all time. Weeks takes a lot of pitches and this is his downfall right now. Rickie is not being aggressive enough at the plate and swinging at the pitches he can drive.

 

I don't care when someone swings at a pitch. If a batter gets a pitch they can drive they should be swinging at it. The only time a hitter should be taking a pitch is when the count is 3-0 . That is the only time a hitter should ever take a pitch they could drive. Watching a pitch you can drive just to wait so you can swing at the next two pitches does not make any sense to me at all especially when the count is 0-0.

 

If a batter falls behind in the count the pitcher doesn't have to throw a strike again untill the count goes to 2-1. If a player is taking pitches how does that make them a better leadoff hitter? Someone please explain this how you can be a better leadoff hitter by simply just seeing more pitches.

[CheezWizHed]

I wasn't really thinking about Weeks or lead-off hitters in general. I was just trying to figure out a way to represent how many runs you produce (or contribute) to the team. This could be due to runs or RBI. And since both stats are dependant on the players around you (to some degree), I was trying to "normalize" the numbers to take out the team dependancy.

 

But as I verabalize it, I realize there are stats for that already.

[rluzinski]

If I was a manger, I'd instruct my batters to swing and the good pitches and take the bad ones. It amazes me that no other manager has thought of this. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[topper09er]

I don't care when someone swings at a pitch. If a batter gets a pitch they can drive they should be swinging at it. The only time a hitter should be taking a pitch is when the count is 3-0 . That is the only time a hitter should ever take a pitch they could drive. Watching a pitch you can drive just to wait so you can swing at the next two pitches does not make any sense to me at all especially when the count is 0-0.

 

If a batter falls behind in the count the pitcher doesn't have to throw a strike again untill the count goes to 2-1. If a player is taking pitches how does that make them a better leadoff hitter? Someone please explain this how you can be a better leadoff hitter by simply just seeing more pitches.

That is not what taking pitches means, it does not mean let a piped fastball go because your only goal is to see 6 pitches this at bat. It means you are only looking for one specific pitch until you have 2 strikes, which is usually a fastball middle in. This means if the pitcher throws an offspeed pitch for a strike you dont care you let it go, even if it is a drivable strike. You are not up there looking to swing at any pitch in the zone. If there is an outside fastball you could maybe drive oppo field, you let it go because you are being very selective, of course until you have 2 strikes then everything changes.

 

Taking pitches does lead to a higher OBP because just because a pitcher throws strike 1 does not mean he will automatically throw 2 and 3, so if you are always hacking at the first strike you will never be able to walk unless you get 4 straight balls. Taking curveball strikes and fastball strikes on the black does lead to more walks because you are making the pitcher do this to you multiple times, and it makes the pitcher throw more pitches which is always good for the offense because pretty much whoever replaces a starter from the pen is not as good.

 

I am saying whoever is first up every inning should have this type of approach, instead of the Jim Skalaan try to hit HR with every swing you ever take approach. That means even though Corey "I am not going up there looking to walk," swing at the first pitch after the pitcher just walked the bases loaded and ground into a double play Hart needs to look for one pitch to drive if he is leading off an inning instead of taking massive swing at curveballs and striking out standing on his front foot with one hand on the bat.

 

I think Rickie does a good job of this except for one thing which is the reason i think he struggles, he does not change his approach with 2 strikes. He just needs to learn that things change when you have 2 strikes and you are not going to get fastballs anymore and you cannot try to drive everything, yet he constantly strikes out with huge swings on sliders in the dirt instead of slapping it to right. Hopefully Svuem will work the hitters on this because they all have this problem.