Nomar batting leadoff
Apparently, the Matt Kemp experiment has died a noble death, because Garciaparra is batting in the leadoff spot for the first time since July 15-16, 2002, for Boston at Detroit. According to the Dodgers' PR staff, he batted there exclusively in 1997 and started out there in '98 before he was moved down the order to provide pop in the middle (you may recall he had pop in those days). Kemp batted .255 (12 for 47) leading off, albeit with a home run, two doubles, a triple and six walks. He has struck out 32 times in his past 90 plate appearances, not exactly the numbers you look for in a leadoff man. Haven't seen the rest of the lineup yet.
Through 7/10:
Matt Kemp batting leadoff, 2008: .263/.364/.447 (.811 OPS)
Juan Pierre batting leadoff, 2008: .256/.294/.290 (.583 OPS)
I would be surprised if Kemp's name is anywhere in the line up tonight, after watching his final at bat last night when he swung at an 0-2 pitch that bounced at least four feet in front of home plate I have a feeling we are going to see Young in left field.
Nomar, SS
Ethier, LF
Martin, C
Kent, 2B
Jones, CF
Loney, 1B
Kemp, RF
DeWitt, 3B
Kuroda, P
I'm sure Matt Kemp's success or lack thereof is more than just a function of his place in the order. However, I recall that last year he spent a lot of time in the 3rd spot, and do not remember him doing so at any time this year. Given his success last year, at least it should be considered.
It does seem as if Kemp has regressed some. It looked for a while that he was beginning to chase a lot less, and had learned to better hand handle breaking balls. Fastballs away also seem to have become a problem. Kemp hits best when he's trying to hit the ball up the middle. It's when he tries to pull everything that he gets into trouble. It's not unusual for a player (or anyone for that matter) to take a step backward before taking two forward. Maybe Mattingly's return will help. We can only hope.
In case anyone is interested. Kershaw pitched 7 shutout innings of 2 hit ball today for Jacksonville. 1 BB, 5 SO. Updated ERA = 2.08. First win of the year, anywhere. I don't know the particulars, but he didn't start the game. Jesus Castillo pitched a scoreless first inning, and Kershaw took over in the 2nd.
Congrats Kershaw! Finally.
This was actually the continuation of yesterday's rain suspended game (which is why Kershaw isn't credited with starting).
Did anyone--INCLUDING TONY--read ontape's comment. Screw the strikeouts, a .364 on-base percentage is EXACTLY what you want in a lead-off hitter. GETTING ON BASE.
The numbers that are NOT what you want in a lead-off hitter is a guy whose OBP is 70 points lower and has ZERO pop.
Lee: I read it and try to preach it to anyone who will listen. However, antiquated (and false) baseball axioms are universally accepted by the mainstream media and never questioned.
OBP isn't the sole stat in deciding who the better leadoff hitter is, though it's the most important. The leadoff hitters gets more PAs than anyone else in the lineup. Stats prove that teams with a runner on 2nd and no outs score more often than a runner on first with no outs. Of course, when leading off an inning with a HR, a team scores 100% of the time. Kemp's extra base ability makes him much more valuable in the leadoff spot than Pierre, even if their OBPs were comparable (which they aren't). Pierre has to waste pitches and take risks to put himself at 2nd with no outs.
65% of Pierre's (and most leadoff hitters) come when they are not leading off an inning. So for Torre to insist (and Tony to nod along) that Pierre is a "true leadoff hitter" is ridiculous because it's based on the assumption that only 35% of his PAs matter or are more important than the other 65%. The notion that Pierre is even equipped for those 35% of leadoff appearances is even more faulty.
The other faulty notion at play here is the K's. Would it be better if Kemp led the inning off by popping to 3rd? Flying weakly to left? Rolling over a slow ground ball to 2nd? How he makes his outs doesn't really matter. It's what he does when he doesn't make outs that is relevant. It's why people lazily try to run Adam Dunn down by comparing him to Dave Kingman. They're nowhere close to the same type of hitter.
Trying to hold journalists responsible for calling baseball people on their decision-making is a fruitless pursuit. They need access, so they can't ruffle feathers (unless it's your tired shtick like Simers). Studying and research takes too much effort (i.e. Bill Plaschke). Thus, baseless baseball axioms go largely unchallenged by the mainstream press because it's a matter of job security and effort.
It is just another sign of how bad sports journalism has become. Papers will insist their revenue is down because of the internet, but the reality is that their sports page (which is the true anchor of any large market newspaper) is such a poor product that it’s repelling readers. Readers are turning to the internet because they are finding the type of coverage they want at other online sources that they can’t find in the mainstream sports pages. Instead of getting genuine analysis and insight, they’re getting guys like Plaschke flat out making things up (he said Depo was fired for not pursuing Scioscia) in a continuing quest to justify the firing of a general manager three years ago. So next time someone bemoans the decline of print sports journalism, understand that they did it to themselves and have no one (or in the case of the internet, nothing) else to blame.
Kemp's strikeouts as a leadoff hitter don't matter, but they do matter in relation to his progress as a hitter. When he puts the ball in play, his BA is .380+. It's not all that far off what it should be either, since his LD% is around 23-25%.
Yes, Juan Pierre has no business playing at all, but Kemp batting leadoff is far from ideal for the Dodgers or for his progress as a hitter, IMO.
More pertinent of a question is why Kent and Jones are batting 4th and 5th.