What kind of player should I look for to be a leadoff hitter on my teams? Does it help you score more runs when you have the perfect type of leadoff hitter?

The goal for a leadoff hitter for me is to get in scoring position for the 3, 4, and 5 guys. He's got to be able to get on base #1, the second thing I look for is speed and br. Ive had leadoff guys that stole 100 bases, and guys that stole 0 and have been successful both ways but theyve got to get on base.

To be clear that means im looking for a combination of Eye first then contact/splits and Speed+BR

I like Contact, VsR, Eye then Speed/base running.

Same as deuce. If my leadoff guy can get on first, then steal second, I'd say 90% of the time it leads to a run.

I dunno about you, but starting every 4th game with a run in the first inning is a big step to success.

Highest combo of OBP and speed hits 1, next best hits 2 for me. Base stealing is a plus, but ultimately I just want the table set for the heart of my lineup. Speed helps reduce GIDPs.

I've used a slow *** C at lead-off several times. They seem to have the highest eye, on average, and their OBP might lead the team. Not a fan of DP but, if my lead-off is on 40% of the time, I'll take it.

There are a lot of variables at play such as ballpark, roster context, team strategy, ballpark, and AL/NL, so there's not necessarily a right answer. Your primary goal is for your leadoff to score a lot of runs, so guys who get singles/walks then can either go 1st to 3rd on a single and home on a sac fly, or steal second and score on a single, those are obviously useful things. BR IQ + speed, contact + splits, eye are all key attributes. Imo IQ is better than speed

Player Profile: Christian Ross on my AL SF team is your more traditional high-speed, low-ish power, .285/.350/.390 role guy. Ross is kind of platoon-ish, but he does a decent job bunting his way on base against LHP so it offsets itself a bit ... doubles seem very low for his vR but triples are good because AT&T is +3 for the asymmetric geometry. SB volume is excellent but SB % is not great, getting a little unlucky there maybe. That team is stacked with speed guys throughout the lineup so I go 5-stealing 5-aggressiveness and lead the league. I would expect better run volume from him, never had a 100-run season, but he is limited by low DUR and platooning. A little disappointing that he isn't manufacturing more effectively but oh well. [As for IQ > pure speed, Player Profile: Omar Flores is 58 speed and 99 BR and is super efficient, career 194 SB to 21 CS, but I do not use him as leadoff because his OBP .323 is too low for my taste. His ratio of OBP to runs is strong, he does have a 100-run season, and he's pretty good as a #2 or a #6/#7 hitter (AL)]

On my best NL team I prefer using Player Profile: Nick Holmes as leadoff, he is a much more well-rounded, complete 5-tool hitter. The speed is there- he can swipe 40 bags, the power is there- he has 70+ extra base hits two seasons in a row, the IQ is there- he has scored 110 runs five times. At different points I have tried him at #2, #3, #4 and #5, but he simply is not as good in those roles as he is at leadoff. He actually kind of sucks in those other roles, even at #3 where he should theoretically be great.

In the NL I am more likely to play a traditional #3 hitter at #1 because the team is only getting production from 8 spots instead of 9, so it's a bit more important for me to accelerate my lineup and get runs right away. In terms of roster context, Player Profile: Nick Terry was an excellent complement in the #2 spot, .297/.357/.426 was a bit of a dream for his skillset, he's a switch-hitting singles guy who chips in his share of doubles, so he was persistently moving Holmes from 1st to 3rd and from 2nd to home plenty of times on singles, and 1st to home on doubles, and getting on base himself. In the #3 spot, teams were simply refusing to pitch to Player Profile: Jesus Espinosa in any context- .448 OBP is just ridiculous, but he was punishing teams when they did with .335 avg and .543 slugging. When your #1 and #2 guys are already on base, a walk for the #3 is worth up to 3 total bases instead of just 1, and when a guy is standing on 3rd a flyout is an RBI. Simmy actually nominated him as its primary choice for MVP even though he only had 99 RBI on his own. Behind those three guys were Player Profile: Hughie Jakubauskas putting the ball in play and moving everybody around (80 XBH and 128 RBI), and Player Profile: Michael Ni smashing home whoever was left over (37 HR and 110 RBI).

None of those players are "perfect" by any means (Holmes is by far the most well-rounded of them all but still not "perfect"), but we were able to use Holmes in a way that made the rest of our context more successful. I was definitely sacrificing Holmes' individual RBI potential, but in exchange for making Terry wayyy more useful, enhancing the threat of Espinosa, and allowing Hughie and Ni to thrive by just swinging away with tons of guys on base

I've been starting to set my lineups by DUR with the exception of 1) platoons at the top and 2) defensive noodle bats hitting at the bottom. Reason being I run $0 Med and don't want to run the risk of anyone going below 100% rest, increasing the likelihood of injury. (My other reason for this strategy is I believe player development is tied to games played rather than at bats, so I want the younger guys playing 162 games, but I can't prove that theory)

This is the best way I can think of to get the most at bats while keeping my guys at 100%. Instead of sitting my studs every 10/15/20 games or whatever, they get fewer at bats spread throughout the season. It's also easier to manage since I can't forget to sit guys.

I would think any games I lose due to a less than ideal batting order could be made up by the fact that my starting lineup should play in all 162 games.

Holes in this strategy?

Posted by brianplath on 1/9/2017 11:54:00 PM (view original):
I've been starting to set my lineups by DUR with the exception of 1) platoons at the top and 2) defensive noodle bats hitting at the bottom. Reason being I run $0 Med and don't want to run the risk of anyone going below 100% rest, increasing the likelihood of injury. (My other reason for this strategy is I believe player development is tied to games played rather than at bats, so I want the younger guys playing 162 games, but I can't prove that theory)

This is the best way I can think of to get the most at bats while keeping my guys at 100%. Instead of sitting my studs every 10/15/20 games or whatever, they get fewer at bats spread throughout the season. It's also easier to manage since I can't forget to sit guys.

I would think any games I lose due to a less than ideal batting order could be made up by the fact that my starting lineup should play in all 162 games.

Holes in this strategy?

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. In case it's not -

I don't think the %s correlate to how many ABs a player has had. Playing a low DUR guy at the bottom of your lineup will not prevent him from getting tired. Batting order is incredibly important, and you will win more games if you set your lineup strategically and not by sorting by DUR descending.

My only straying away from my fast leadoff strategy is I love having

https://www.whatifsports.com/HBD/Pages/Popups/PlayerRatings.aspx?pid=5817675

leadoff. He is an on base machine. Only problem is he also loooooves to clog up the base paths. Now that I lost my 40 HR 3rd slot guy, I may not have this guy bat leadoff anymore. All stuff to consider.

I can't tell if this is a joke or not. In case it's not -

I don't think the %s correlate to how many ABs a player has had. Playing a low DUR guy at the bottom of your lineup will not prevent him from getting tired. Batting order is incredibly important, and you will win more games if you set your lineup strategically and not by sorting by DUR descending.

AB's play a role in a player's %, as does player position.

As to your second point, here is a Harvard study concluding optimized batting order is worth UP TO 4 wins a season. The study also concludes that how to optimize is also up for debate. Now up to 4 wins should not be dismissed, but I may be willing to give up a win or 4 for some of the benefits I mentioned in my original post.

I don't know how accurate the Harvard study is or how well HBD correlates to real life with regards to the study but I'm more inclined to rely on that over your word that it is "incredibly important".

Yes, AB and position do play a role. However, I think each spot in your order is worth about 15-20 AB over the course of a season. If you're best hitter is batting last because of his low DUR, you're costing yourself 110-150 AB from your best. I'll be shocked if anyone else is doing what you're doing.

My thoughts:

1/ Speed and baserunning don't matter if you set your guys to not run. If you don't have a good running team you can definitely run yourself into too many extra outs in this game, just check your SB/CS ratio.

2/ Regardless of whether I have "ideal" players, I want OBP at the top of the order. (I've been willing to fiddle with it a bit if I do have an actual SB threat.) Sometimes when all else fails, I've run out a batting order that's entirely OBP based, just to try something different.

3/ I've seen the studies brianplath cites. Your "up to 4 wins a season" may vary. May seem like a lot, may not in the grander scheme of things. The main takeaway I get from them is to make sure your good hitters are getting more plate appearances. I think it's something like each higher batting position gets an extra 40 or 50 plate appearances over the course of the season, so you don't want out-making guys taking up all the extra at bats. I think the Sabermetrician's POV is that the most important spot is actually the Two Hole, where classic baseball managers always put a "contact/move the runner over" guy there. SABR says you maximize runs scored when you put your best hitter there.

I believe you and I both read something about AB per spot in order but 40-50 seems way too high. If #1 is 750, #8 is 470 at 40 per.

Simple math:

162 games. Nine slots in the batting order. A purely even distribution would have each slot getting 18 more PA's per season than the one after it