by bomp helium » Tue Nov 15, 2005 7:28 pm
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.