Article: Leadoff Candidate Conundrum

[Doomtints]

Why would you put the speedier Buxton behind Polanco?  The dude could hit 40-50 doubles + triples a year if no one is in front of him.  That's a hell of a leadoff guy.

Edited March 14, 2017 by Doomtints

[Mike Sixel]

 

Why would you put the speedier Buxton behind Polanco?

 

because Polanco gets on base, and Buxton doesn't?

[Dave The Dastardly]

 

I'm with the let-Dozier-leadoff-to-begin-until-Buxton-gets-more-comfortable crowd.

Is that a Catch-22?

[TheLeviathan]

Polanco. At this point he is the best choice by a decent margin IMO.

[Dave The Dastardly]

 

I remember Rick Monday leading off in the 70's....

I can remember LB Windschitl leading off for us in the 1950's. In other words, who's Rick Monday? Did he play other days of the week?

[Dr. Evil]

 

Why would you put the speedier Buxton behind Polanco?  The dude could hit 40-50 doubles + triples a year if no one is in front of him.  That's a hell of a leadoff guy.

My reasoning is that Polanco appears to be a more poised hitter with better ability to get on base at this juncture. I get what you are saying though.

[Lee-The-Twins-Fan]

Even if Buxton bats leadoff, someone will be batting in front of him most of the time. 

 

I'd probably lead off with Mauer vs. right-handers, and Dozier vs. lefties. 

[Old Twins Cap]

The 'numbers people' have their thoughts about who the lead-off guy should be, whether OBP or OPS or generic threat that puts pressure on the other team.

 

But, what about what makes sense for the culture of the team you are trying to create?

 

Who deserves it?  Who has earned it?  Who goes down to mat and fights for your sides' ABs?

 

As much as numbers matter in baseball, and they are the ultimate arbiter of W/Ls, you still need to run a team, manage, have an aspirational culture below decks -- a sense of what matters to the proletariat that feeds on possibility.

 

Dozier has earned it and said he prefers batting leadoff.  Buxton is hopefully the future.  Personally, I like Polanco because he can do a lot of things, bats either handed and will drive the ball.

 

But, this is the stuff of forming a new alchemy for the Twins and let there be some real choices to debate.

[Rhino and Compass]

I see a lot of Carlos Gomez' development in Buxton. Yes, he's fast, but also, there is a lot of lean strength and the potential for power. Let his skills across the entire range on offense develop. I like that there is an open competition for the top of the order, and Buxton will be given the opportunity to be a middle of the order bat just as much as a traditional lead off hitter.

[DocBauer]

Bill James has demonstrated that your best OBP guys should lead off and hit 4th and that your expected runs from an inning skyrocket if you get the leadoff guy on base.

 

James also has demonstrated that most major league managers don't understand the 3rd spot in the order, believing that spot should be reserved for your premier hitter, when in fact, it is almost the opposite.  Instead, it should be the spot you slip your power hitting guy that strikes out a lot (unless you aint got those).

 

I think the Twins lineup should be:

 

1.   Mauer/Grossman    Let them work the pitchers deep into counts and get on base.  They have enough power to keep the pitchers honest.

2.   Polanco

3.   Dozier

4,   Sano

5.   Kepler

6.   DH Platoon

7.   Rosario

8.   Casto

9.   Buxton  Hopefully he develops the OBP to move to the top of the order.

Nice post, and interesting. And I like your lineup and can't argue with it. Especially since I stated myself why Mauer/Grossman could be a nice fit there, lol.

 

But I have never heard anything regarding the James theory regarding the #3 hitter. Not your best hitter but a power guy who strikes out a lot? Seems to fly in the face of everything I've ever seen, heard or personally believed. This would seem to indicate Sano hitting 3rd and Dozier 4th. Would you care to expound on this idea? I'd love to hear more!

[DocBauer]

I am old school.  I like speed.  I like the disruption.  I remember the Rickey Henderson, Maury Wills batters that distract and worry the pitcher, hurry up the defense and generally make the other team uncomfortable.

I guess I'm also old school in this regard. Now, of course, it depends on who you have on your team. Speed with no OB isn't always that effective, unless your entire team is built on speed, contact, etc. If you don't have speed but rather a team built on hitting and power, you go the OB guy first, period.

 

Buxton, as I have said before, could very easily be the guy who slides down to the 3 hole one of these days as the "best" overall hitter and perhaps most dynamic player on the team, driving them in and setting them up for hitters behind him. But for the foreseeable future, I really like he and Polanco in some combination of 1 & 2. Sometime in the very near future, both of these guys are going to hit their stride. As much as I love Polanco, Buxton will always be the more "dynamic" player due to his incredible speed and budding power potential. And, in time and based on past numbers, he will hit and provide OB. But Polanco has such a nice, we'll rounded game...potentially. he can hit, get OB, steal a few bases, take the extra base, leg out doubles and triples, and I believe he has the potential for double digit HR.

 

So which combination is better? The dynamic Buxton leading off with the bat control and all around game of Polanco hitting behind him? (Remember, Polanco has rather extensive experience as a #3 hitter in the minors). Or Polanco and his all around game hitting ahead of the dynamic Buxton, providing scoring opportunities? Nobody ever said your #2 hitter HAS to be the "give it up and move runners over" type of hitter.

[DocBauer]

In what universe does it make sense to give Buxton more PAs than Dozier?

Sorry Willi, I understand the sentiment, but don't understand or agree with the arguement here. If Buxton hits leadoff, as the debate would seem to indicate, and Dozier hits 3rd, again as implied, then even if all else batters to begin the game fail to produce, all 3 would have made a PA. The only way I could see Buxton having more total PA than Dozier would be a number of games ending in the 9th inning with Buxton or the unnamed #2 hitter making the final out with Dozier on deck or in the hole. There is simply no way to correlate how many times this could potentially happen, but even over a 162 game schedule, with 9 lineup spots and 3 outs per inning, I simply can't see a large discrepancy of PA in Buxton's favor over Dozier.

 

I guess I would have to add, if and when Buxton is deserving of the leadoff spot, wouldn't he be one of the teams best and most dangerous hitters? Again, I appreciate the sentiment, and there are a lot of ways to construct a lineup, I just don't see the arguement here.

[Doomtints]

 

My reasoning is that Polanco appears to be a more poised hitter with better ability to get on base at this juncture. I get what you are saying though.

I'm not disagreeing. As of today, Polanco is more likely to be able to handle the job over Buxton. But is that ideal? This means Buxton still isn't playing as advertised.

 

Regardless, neither of them have yet proven themselves well enough to do it. In the ideal world you would want Buxton to be the guy who is good enough with his bat to be the #1. He has the tools to be a high OBP guy if he ever calms down in the batter's box.

 

Almost all of the responses here are pie in the sky lineup cards. Right now, the only guy who has proven he can hit leadoff is Dozier, and Dozier's run production is wasted at that position in the order. My pie in the sky dream is for Buxton to be good enough to hit lead-off. I'm as skeptical of that happening as the next guy, but it's still what this team needs regardless of my opinion of whether he will ever live up to expectations.

 

If Buxton still isn't good enough to be hitting lead-off by the end of 2017, he's a bust. Full stop.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Doomtints

[Willihammer]

 

Sorry Willi, I understand the sentiment, but don't understand or agree with the arguement here. If Buxton hits leadoff, as the debate would seem to indicate, and Dozier hits 3rd, again as implied, then even if all else batters to begin the game fail to produce, all 3 would have made a PA. The only way I could see Buxton having more total PA than Dozier would be a number of games ending in the 9th inning with Buxton or the unnamed #2 hitter making the final out with Dozier on deck or in the hole. There is simply no way to correlate how many times this could potentially happen, but even over a 162 game schedule, with 9 lineup spots and 3 outs per inning, I simply can't see a large discrepancy of PA in Buxton's favor over Dozier.

I guess I would have to add, if and when Buxton is deserving of the leadoff spot, wouldn't he be one of the teams best and most dangerous hitters? Again, I appreciate the sentiment, and there are a lot of ways to construct a lineup, I just don't see the arguement here.

Do you think Buxton should bat leadoff before or after he deserves to?

Do you think he deserves to now?

 

There is a tradeoff for moving hitters around in the lineup. An example, the 1998 Twins. 

 

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/SNG0X

 

Otis Nixon played center field and was a "speed" guy, so he owned the leadoff spot while Matt Lawton played (mostly) in a corner and batted third or lower. Lawton hit .864. Nixon hit .705. The leadoff man had 66 more PAs than the 3 hitter. Almost a hundred more than the #6 guy, where Lawton spent 29 games. I don't know how many runs batting Nixon ahead of Lawton cost the Twins that year, but it certainly cost them some. In the first inning they scored 90 runs. In the 4th and 7th they scored 95 and 98. Why? Could it be that Nixon got a much smaller share of the PAs in those innings?

 

In every other sport the best players are given the most minutes. Not in baseball. Baseball is uniquely able to think itself into keeping its best players on the bench longer than absolutely required. Its mind boggling.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Willihammer

[DocBauer]

Do you think Buxton should bat leadoff before or after he deserves to?

Do you think he deserves to now?

 

There is a tradeoff for moving hitters around in the lineup. An example, the 1998 Twins. 

 

http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/SNG0X

 

Otis Nixon played center field and was a "speed" guy, so he owned the leadoff spot while Matt Lawton played (mostly) in a corner and batted third or lower. Lawton hit .864. Nixon hit .705. The leadoff man had 66 more PAs than the 3 hitter. Almost a hundred more than the #6 guy, where Lawton spent 29 games. I don't know how many runs batting Nixon ahead of Lawton cost the Twins that year, but it certainly cost them some. In the first inning they scored 90 runs. In the 4th and 7th they scored 95 and 98. Why? Could it be that Nixon got a much smaller share of the PAs in those innings?

 

In every other sport the best players are given the most minutes. Not in baseball. Baseball is uniquely able to think itself into keeping its best players on the bench longer than absolutely required. Its mind boggling.

I admit to not sitting down and doing research. And thusly, I am choosing to debate rather than argue, lol. But 66 PA is closer to 50 than a hundred. You also stated that Lawton moved around in the lineup, which would affect the total numbers vs a static lineup. Also, it is one season vs number of seasons for proper context. Puckett, for example, didn't always walk a lot, but as a #3 hitter, he was always 500+ AB and I believe he may have hit 600 once or twice?? I'm just saying, overall, being separated by 1 or 2 spots in the order, over an average season, I'm not sure you'd see a very large discrepancy in PA between the 1 and 3 holes in the order.

 

As to your other question, I can see Buxton getting an audition for the leadoff spot, but of course, he also has to produce there to hold the spot. He shouldn't just automatically be given the spot if not ready. I have always believed in trying to stagger your lineup, as best as possible, for a mix of LH/RH, power vs speed vs hitting vs OB, etc, to "deepen" your lineup 1-9.

 

So let me ask you this...as I stated previously, Buxton, in this scenario, is deserving of hitting leadoff due to his overall ability and skill set as an exciting player. Even if he did have 66 more PA than Dozier over an entire 162 game season, and we're not talking Nixon now, what would be more valuable? Dozier hitting 1st? Or Dozier with fewer PA, in theory, but with more dynamic players OB ahead of him to be moved along or driven in?

[hybridbear]

I like the idea of Grossman leading off against LHP only. And then once the game goes to the bullpen you pull him and put in Mauer or someone else to face the RHP from the bullpen. I could live with Mauer leading off against RHP only as long as he sustains an OBP at least as high as his .363 from last year.

[Doomtints]

 

I admit to not sitting down and doing research. And thusly, I am choosing to debate rather than argue, lol. But 66 PA is closer to 50 than a hundred. You also stated that Lawton moved around in the lineup, which would affect the total numbers vs a static lineup. Also, it is one season vs number of seasons for proper context. Puckett, for example, didn't always walk a lot, but as a #3 hitter, he was always 500+ AB and I believe he may have hit 600 once or twice?? I'm just saying, overall, being separated by 1 or 2 spots in the order, over an average season, I'm not sure you'd see a very large discrepancy in PA between the 1 and 3 holes in the order.

As to your other question, I can see Buxton getting an audition for the leadoff spot, but of course, he also has to produce there to hold the spot. He shouldn't just automatically be given the spot if not ready. I have always believed in trying to stagger your lineup, as best as possible, for a mix of LH/RH, power vs speed vs hitting vs OB, etc, to "deepen" your lineup 1-9.

So let me ask you this...as I stated previously, Buxton, in this scenario, is deserving of hitting leadoff due to his overall ability and skill set as an exciting player. Even if he did have 66 more PA than Dozier over an entire 162 game season, and we're not talking Nixon now, what would be more valuable? Dozier hitting 1st? Or Dozier with fewer PA, in theory, but with more dynamic players OB ahead of him to be moved along or driven in?

 

Yes. Ideally Buxton is the lead off hitter. But he has to be ready. No one is done any favors with him batting leadoff but failing. If he's not ready within a year, he's a bust. Being a high OBP guy is the only scenario where has a long career. 

Edited March 15, 2017 by Doomtints

[Doomtints]

 

I like the idea of Grossman leading off against LHP only. And then once the game goes to the bullpen you pull him and put in Mauer or someone else to face the RHP from the bullpen. I could live with Mauer leading off against RHP only as long as he sustains an OBP at least as high as his .363 from last year.

 

The Twins tried Mauer at leadoff last year and he responded by hitting .156 at the position. They won't put him there again. He will be batting 2nd or 3rd for the rest of his career as long as he can still hit.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Doomtints

[Doomtints]

Seeing as the real question here is who should bat leadoff until Buxton is ready, here's the problem.

 

- Buxton probably won't be ready -- but maybe he will surprise us.

- The only person on team who has shown he can do it is Dozier, and he is wasted there.

 

This means the Twins have to take the plunge based on whoever exits spring training on a hot OBP streak. This isn't ideal, but it's all they've got. This team is young and the Twins don't know who can handle the job and they simply need to roll the dice on someone.

 

This means these would be the candidates right now:

 

1) Matt Hague. Will he make the team? Who knows. If he does, we will have to listen to a lot of criticism about the Twins having their DH hit leadoff.  (.524 OBP right now, which will surely drop dramatically).

2) Robbie Grossman. (.355 OBP).

3) Buxton (.333 OBP).  Hm.  Maybe he will be ready soon after all, or at least he is better than the rest of the candidates.

 

High OBP players in ST so far who the Twins should not slide into the leadoff spot:  Rosario, Park, Mauer.  Rosario K's too much (though less than Dozier, who is the reigning leadoff hitter...), Park (power guy), Mauer (couldn't do it).

[Ernestfickle22]

Am I the only one that would sort of like to see Granite and Buxton eventually fight for the lead off spot.

[Doomtints]

 

Am I the only one that would sort of like to see Granite and Buxton eventually fight for the lead off spot.

 

I can only imagine White Sox players boxing over who gets to go into the batter's box first.

[Wizard11]

To me for 2017 I think Joe Mauer is ideal as a lead off hitter against most pitchers. He still does a good job of working pitchers and seeing a lot of pitches. I do think this would turn him into an asset as opposed to the liability he is as a 3 hitter. The strategy of using a non-speed guy at the top of the order is not really that new. A good compo for Joe Mauer would be Wade Boggs who spent much of his career as a lead off hitter. Although probably none of us expect batting titles from Joe anymore. I would rather see Dozier in the 3 spot.

[mikelink45]

 

I guess I'm also old school in this regard. Now, of course, it depends on who you have on your team. Speed with no OB isn't always that effective, unless your entire team is built on speed, contact, etc. If you don't have speed but rather a team built on hitting and power, you go the OB guy first, period.

Buxton, as I have said before, could very easily be the guy who slides down to the 3 hole one of these days as the "best" overall hitter and perhaps most dynamic player on the team, driving them in and setting them up for hitters behind him. But for the foreseeable future, I really like he and Polanco in some combination of 1 & 2. Sometime in the very near future, both of these guys are going to hit their stride. As much as I love Polanco, Buxton will always be the more "dynamic" player due to his incredible speed and budding power potential. And, in time and based on past numbers, he will hit and provide OB. But Polanco has such a nice, we'll rounded game...potentially. he can hit, get OB, steal a few bases, take the extra base, leg out doubles and triples, and I believe he has the potential for double digit HR.

So which combination is better? The dynamic Buxton leading off with the bat control and all around game of Polanco hitting behind him? (Remember, Polanco has rather extensive experience as a #3 hitter in the minors). Or Polanco and his all around game hitting ahead of the dynamic Buxton, providing scoring opportunities? Nobody ever said your #2 hitter HAS to be the "give it up and move runners over" type of hitter.

I like them 1 and 2 and even if Buxton raises his power numbers, I like the havoc on the base the most.  I loved the 1959 Go Go White Sox with Aparicio in lead off and Nellie Fox batting second.  They really set the stage for Landis and Klusewski and others, but they also upset the other team, and disruption is important.  I prefer them on base before Dozier and Sano come up because they will score on almost any hit and perhaps take an extra base when the sluggers whiff. 

 

White Sox Lineup from world series scorecard: http://www.baseball-cards-and-collectibles.com/1959-World-Series.php  Roster: http://www.baseball-reference.com/teams/CHW/1959.shtml#site_menu_link

and a nice bio of Nellie Fox - http://sabr.org/bioproj/person/46572ecd

 

[Oldgoat_MN]

 

Why would you put the speedier Buxton behind Polanco?  The dude could hit 40-50 doubles + triples a year if no one is in front of him.  That's a hell of a leadoff guy.

 

If Polanco is on first he has a 100+ foot head start on Buxton.

I think he's fast enough to make that work.

 

It's not like Kennys Vargas, who kept Buxton from a triple last year because he wasn't fast enough to score. Polanco has speed.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

What about Kepler?  Career minors .363 OBP (and .302 AVG / .376 OBP leading off an inning). Averages 15 steals / 162 games at 82% clip.  These are better lead-off numbers than Polanco.  Are we only against this because of the fluky 17 homers he hit in 400 MLB AB last year?

 

Also I predict that by some point next season, Granite will be our primary leadoff hitter.  Long-term I see Buxton hitting in RBI slots.

Kepler, if he pans out, looks more like a three hitter to me. He has the OBP and power and everything to succeed in that role.

 

Whereas Polanco doesn't have the power, which makes him a better candidate for the top of the lineup.

[Doomtints]

 

If Polanco is on first he has a 100+ foot head start on Buxton.

I think he's fast enough to make that work.

 

It's not like Kennys Vargas, who kept Buxton from a triple last year because he wasn't fast enough to score. Polanco has speed.

 

Don't be so sure. Buxton was the fastest runner in the league last year. Blink at the wrong time and you may miss one of his triples.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

If Polanco is on first he has a 100+ foot head start on Buxton.

I think he's fast enough to make that work.

Yes, exactly. Polanco isn't going to get in anyone's way. He's fast enough to stay ahead of Buxton given a one base headstart.

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Don't be so sure. Buxton was the fastest runner in the league last year. Blink at the wrong time and you may miss one of his triples.

No one is doubting Buxton's speed but if Byron can leg out a triple on a hit, Polanco should be able to score. Not only does Polanco get a 10 foot headstart (6-7 feet on the basepath, 2 feet more from Buxton starting from the RH batter's box), he starts out running (not coming out of a swing), and the distance to throw to home is usually a bit farther than a throw to third.

 

If Buxton can catch up to Polanco on the bases, that means Jorge is a lot slower than what I've seen from him thus far.

[Doomtints]

 

No one is doubting Buxton's speed but if Byron can leg out a triple on a hit, Polanco should be able to score. Not only does Polanco get a 10 foot headstart (6-7 feet on the basepath, 2 feet more from Buxton starting from the RH batter's box), he starts out running (not coming out of a swing), and the distance to throw to home is usually a bit farther than a throw to third.

 

If Buxton can catch up to Polanco on the bases, that means Jorge is a lot slower than what I've seen from him thus far.

 

Fair enough, but which is better:

 

1) Buxton hitting a single or double with Polanco on base

2) Polanco (or anybody else) hitting a single or double with Buxton on base

 

Remember, Buxton is as fast as it gets. Buxton could score on hits when anybody else ends up at 3rd.

Edited March 15, 2017 by Doomtints

[Brock Beauchamp]

 

Fair enough, but which is better:

 

1) Buxton hitting a single or double with Polanco on base

2) Polanco (or anybody else) hitting a single or double with Buxton on base

 

Remember, Buxton is as fast as it gets. Buxton could score on hits when anybody else ends up at 3rd.

That's fair and I guess I don't really care that much either way... what I care most about right now is that Buxton is nowhere near the top of the lineup. I want to see his OBP get well over .300 before I put him anywhere near the top of the lineup.