Archive of SportingNews.com's old SOM Baseball forum

When one talks about a #3 hitter being the best all round hitter, what is meant by this? Is it purely the one with the most hit chances? Or high hit chances coupled with good OB and TB chances? Are BPHR's or natual homeruns important or less so and more important at #4.

Might be alot of disagreements here, but I love Casey, as #3 hitter, more then alot of other hitters.

[quote:1711a7f559="Shankly 81"]When one talks about a #3 hitter being the best all round hitter, what is meant by this? Is it purely the one with the most hit chances? Or high hit chances coupled with good OB and TB chances? Are BPHR's or natual homeruns important or less so and more important at #4.[/quote:1711a7f559]

Normally Lou Piniella would put his best hitter at #3. Some of Lou's #3's:

K. Giffey Jr.
A-Rod
Edgar Martinez

Not a bad group. I think he had Olerud there before at times before he (Olderdude) went into his descent.

The best natural hitter on your squad.

Casey is a good example.

BPHR's are nice but not a rerquirement.

Vs. RHSP, I like Mora.

slugging % and extra bases. Like Casey, but prefer him at 5 due to his clutch.

The third batter, in the three-hole is generally one of the best hitters for batting average on the team, but not necessarily very fast. Part of his job is to help set the table for the cleanup hitter, and part of it is to help drive baserunners himself.

Definitition from Wilkapedia I find pretty much sums it up.

I like a high AVG guy with pop as my #3 hitter. That way if your table setters (1 & 2) do as they should, he comes up with at least one runner in scoring position. Also, he is guaranteed to be up in the first inning. A couple of runs in the first inning never hurt nobody :P Used Helton at #3 for my last '05 team and he helped slug me to a championship.

cpl5454

In real life, it's the best combination of BA (and also OBP) and power. The lazy way to do it is the guy with the best OPS. I have never understood why the Giants insist on hitting Bonds fourth.

I agree et about Bonds.....I always thought they were to blame for all the walks by insisting on putting Kent or whomever at 3 and Bonds at 4 instead of the other way around.

I often wonder if you shouldn't have your best hitter (OPS, SLG, AVE) hit FIRST. Yes, he's not a table setter, but that circumstance occurs only in the first inning. Batting first guarentees that this player will BAT MORE TIMES in a game than the other eight. I've been a giant's fan for many years, and I can't tell you how many times the game ended with Bonds in the on deck circle. Giving your best hitter five at-bats a game instead of four can make a huge difference over the course of a season. Table setters? Bat your .290-hitting, low-power "leadoff hitter" eighth and your "number two" hitter ninth. That way, it is only in the first inning that Bonds (or whoever) will not be in an optimal RBI situation. Guarentee your best players the most at-bats: that's my theory.