PDA

View Full Version : What's your batting order, part 2



RedSoxtober
05-15-2013, 02:30 PM
Sox offense was held under 5 hits for the eighth time this season. While their OBP remains solid (#2 in MLB) their inability to produce runs (hitting .169 in their last 11 games with RISP) has led to a feast or famine offense that is currently starving to death.

How would you adjust the lineup to kick start things?

RedSoxtober
05-15-2013, 02:36 PM
My instinct would be to drop Victorino down in the order on a consistent basis and get Pedroia back to his comfort zone in the 2-hole. Victorino's numbers (.297/.358/.378) might be useful to jump start the second half of the lineup, getting on base with a little speed. Put some of the more free-swinging guys with power behind him and it's almost like the second half of the lineup could be a repeat of the first half.

Ellsbury, CF
Pedroia, 2B
Ortiz, DH
Napoli, 1B
Nava/Gomes, LF
Victorino, RF
Drew, SS
Middlebrooks, 3B
Salty et al., C

bagwell368
05-15-2013, 03:03 PM
My instinct would be to drop Victorino down in the order on a consistent basis and get Pedroia back to his comfort zone in the 2-hole. Victorino's numbers (.297/.358/.378) might be useful to jump start the second half of the lineup, getting on base with a little speed. Put some of the more free-swinging guys with power behind him and it's almost like the second half of the lineup could be a repeat of the first half.

Ellsbury, CF
Pedroia, 2B
Ortiz, DH
Napoli, 1B
Nava/Gomes, LF
Victorino, RF
Drew, SS
Middlebrooks, 3B
Salty et al., C

Pedroia is a bit better in the #3 slot then the #2 slot career wise (he has 120 GS in the 3 hole, and 595 in the #2). He's best in the #4 hole (30 GS).

Victorino is best in the #6 hole, but good in the #2 & #5.

How about:

Ells (leadoff #1)
Pedey
Ortiz
Naps
Victorino (leadoff #2)
(vs RHP) - (vs LHP)
Nava - WMB
WMB - Gomes
Drew (leadoff #3 - and once the C makes an out, than he's first leadoff hitter in front of Ells. Normally you put the fast guy in at #9, but the Catches have meh OBP, but decent SLG), Drew first gets you more runs long term.
C

Nomar
05-15-2013, 03:05 PM
Pedroia has no business hitting 3rd anyways. He has only 10 XBH all year and is hitting .338. That's almost no power.His FB% is 23% compared to his career average of 36%. His LD% are the same, but his ISO is about half of what were used to seeing too. He's playing well but he is the typical 2 hitter right now.

I agree with RST's lineup exactly.

Celticsfan2007
05-15-2013, 05:54 PM
Peedy needs to go back to his #2 spot. The problem is, this team really lacks one real middle of the order power bat. Even though WMB has been struggling of late, I'd put him right in the thick of the order (#6) and let him work it out. He's far to good to continue his struggles all season.

Here's my twist... Even though Ellsbury hasn't shown his power from a few years back, he could potentially be a great #3 hitter on this team and be the middle of the order bat we have been missing.

Here's my line-up

Victorino RF
Pedroia 2B
Ellsbury CF
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
Will Middlebrooks 3B
Gomes/Nava LF
Salty C
Drew SS

I kept Drew down at 9th to round out the line-up and perhaps get on base for the top of the order in later innings.

bagwell368
05-15-2013, 08:17 PM
Peedy needs to go back to his #2 spot. The problem is, this team really lacks one real middle of the order power bat. Even though WMB has been struggling of late, I'd put him right in the thick of the order (#6) and let him work it out. He's far to good to continue his struggles all season.

Here's my twist... Even though Ellsbury hasn't shown his power from a few years back, he could potentially be a great #3 hitter on this team and be the middle of the order bat we have been missing.

Here's my line-up

Victorino RF
Pedroia 2B
Ellsbury CF
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
Will Middlebrooks 3B
Gomes/Nava LF
Salty C
Drew SS

I kept Drew down at 9th to round out the line-up and perhaps get on base for the top of the order in later innings.

WMB is killing the line-up. No way 6th, lower 3rd only

Ells has historically hit better outside of lead-off except in 2011. He could be argued from 6th-9th, but 3rd is ridiculous.

Victorino like Pederoia isn't a good lead-off hitter. Pretty much stuck with Ells.

bagwell368
05-15-2013, 08:30 PM
Pedroia has no business hitting 3rd anyways. He has only 10 XBH all year and is hitting .338. That's almost no power.

A #3 hitter should be an excellent hitter with balanced OBP & SLG, or better OBP than SLG. Pedroia is at .346/.435/.431 midway through todays game.

That's good for:

4th in OBP
4th in BA
52nd in SLG
23rd in OPS+

Given that the line-up isn't blessed with great hitters this year (Pedroia is either the #1 or #2 best hitter on the team) #3 is just fine. I had him at #2 in my mock, but it was more to get Victorino down for a 2nd leadoff guy, not to diss Pedroia.

Last year at the #3, Pedroia was: .316/.368/.504, and in the #2: .268/.329/.404

Looks like he had plenty of business being there last year - and more than enough comfort.

goshhhjosh
05-15-2013, 08:38 PM
Just off the top of my head:

1. Victorino
2. Pedroia
3. Ortiz
4. Napoli
5. Nava
6. Ellsbury
7. Middlebrooks
8. Drew
9. Salty

Ellsbury is really starting to piss me off. He's been a terrible leadoff hitter this year. His AVG has been decreasing (7 for his last 42), his power seems to be gone, and he hits so many weak grounders to 1st or 2nd base. I don't know, kinda can't wait for him to be gone. Still don't think he's going to get the huge contract Boras and he want.

RedSoxtober
05-15-2013, 10:55 PM
How about:

Ells (leadoff #1)
Pedey
Ortiz
Naps
Victorino (leadoff #2)
(vs RHP) - (vs LHP)
Nava - WMB
WMB - Gomes
Drew (leadoff #3 - and once the C makes an out, than he's first leadoff hitter in front of Ells. Normally you put the fast guy in at #9, but the Catches have meh OBP, but decent SLG), Drew first gets you more runs long term.
C
I like this a lot. I wavered on the Victorino/Nava spots at 5 & 6. Ultimately I pushed Nava up a spot based on his power relative to Victorino. I tend to think of #5 as more of a power guy.



Ellsbury is really starting to piss me off. He's been a terrible leadoff hitter this year. His AVG has been decreasing (7 for his last 42), his power seems to be gone, and he hits so many weak grounders to 1st or 2nd base. I don't know, kinda can't wait for him to be gone. Still don't think he's going to get the huge contract Boras and he want.

Ellsbury is (a) doing a good job of convincing the Sox not to pursue him and (b) preparing us for his speedy singles/doubles replacement. FWIW, 1 HR from CF/RF this season puts the Sox... um... last in MLB.

Nomar
05-16-2013, 03:32 AM
I like this a lot. I wavered on the Victorino/Nava spots at 5 & 6. Ultimately I pushed Nava up a spot based on his power relative to Victorino. I tend to think of #5 as more of a power guy.



Ellsbury is (a) doing a good job of convincing the Sox not to pursue him and (b) preparing us for his speedy singles/doubles replacement. FWIW, 1 HR from CF/RF this season puts the Sox... um... last in MLB.

We have 3. Ells with 1, Victorino with 2. Span and Revere are the only CF without HRs though (among starters).

goshhhjosh
05-16-2013, 08:24 AM
Ellsbury is (a) doing a good job of convincing the Sox not to pursue him and (b) preparing us for his speedy singles/doubles replacement. FWIW, 1 HR from CF/RF this season puts the Sox... um... last in MLB.

I don't know. He's in a contract year and he's playing like this? Usually, a contract year pushes players to you know, perform. I don't think the Red Sox try to pursue him, let some other team overpay for the schmuck.

Where has his power gone? 32 HR's in 2011 and only 1 in 2013. Of his 44 hits on the year, 7 are doubles, 4 are triples, and 1 is a home run. 32 of his hits are singles! Also it hardly seems as though he's getting on base to use his speed. So much of his game is built on speed, and when you aren't getting on base to use said speed, you're ineffective.

Even if JBJR is his singles/doubles replacement, at least he'll be less expensive. Good riddance.

RedSoxtober
05-16-2013, 09:00 AM
I don't know. He's in a contract year and he's playing like this? Usually, a contract year pushes players to you know, perform. I don't think the Red Sox try to pursue him, let some other team overpay for the schmuck.
We seem to be saying the same thing. The (a) part was convincing the Sox not to pursue him. Even after the fawning praise in 2011 I (and a few others) wanted to see him repeat before committing money and years to him.


Even if JBJR is his singles/doubles replacement, at least he'll be less expensive. Good riddance.
Exactly what I had in mind. Despite his numbers to this point I don't see JBJr as a long term power threat. However, if he is able to make enough contact to pull off a .280-.300BA then his patience at the plate and BB rate will be well worth it as a replacement of Ellsbury the singles hitter.

RedSoxtober
05-16-2013, 09:02 AM
We have 3. Ells with 1, Victorino with 2. Span and Revere are the only CF without HRs though (among starters).

Weird. I got the line from the press. I must have misread; it may have only meant CF but they did mention the CF/RF combination in the same breath. Maybe it was Ellsbury with 1 and the CF/RF combination has the least (though greater than 1).

goshhhjosh
05-16-2013, 09:45 AM
We seem to be saying the same thing. The (a) part was convincing the Sox not to pursue him. Even after the fawning praise in 2011 I (and a few others) wanted to see him repeat before committing money and years to him.


Exactly what I had in mind. Despite his numbers to this point I don't see JBJr as a long term power threat. However, if he is able to make enough contact to pull off a .280-.300BA then his patience at the plate and BB rate will be well worth it as a replacement of Ellsbury the singles hitter.

What I meant with the, "I don't know" was more of a "I don't know what's up with Ellsbury." My bad. Who knows the Red Sox FO may try to keep Ellsbury seeing that he's probably considered one of the "sexy" players.

Nomar
05-16-2013, 11:12 AM
The only way they keep Ellsbury is if Ellsbury takes a one year deal here to try to build his value up again.. Like if we give him a QO and he accepts it. I really can't see us trying to sign him to a multi-year deal when we have Bradley and he isn't hitting near enough to play LF.

todu82
05-16-2013, 12:36 PM
Ellsbury
Pedroia
Napoli
Ortiz
Nava/Gomes
Drew
Victorino
Salty
Middlebrooks

RedSoxtober
05-17-2013, 03:50 PM
Ellsbury
Pedroia
Napoli
Ortiz
Nava/Gomes
Drew
Victorino
Salty
Middlebrooks

Hm.. Why would you put lower OBP/SLG in Napoli in front of Ortiz? #3 often has the better hitter with the power of #4 providing protection.

Celticsfan2007
05-19-2013, 02:22 PM
WMB is killing the line-up. No way 6th, lower 3rd only

Ells has historically hit better outside of lead-off except in 2011. He could be argued from 6th-9th, but 3rd is ridiculous.

Victorino like Pederoia isn't a good lead-off hitter. Pretty much stuck with Ells.

Fair enough, drop WMB lower if you like, but when he gets hot his power should slot right behind Napoli at #6.

Ellsbury hasn't really got the go as a #3 but he's still the best overall hitter in this line-up outside of peedy and Ortiz. Who knows but with his combination of speed, hitting style and power (non existent this year, I know) he could flourish in that spot.

It still baffles me that some people refuse to accept that victorino can be a lead off hitter. He consistently has a nice OBP, has a steady bat and has some decent speed. Not to mention he's a really good base runner. I guess Farrell agrees considering he's leading off today in ellsburys absence.

Either way, if your not comfortable with ellsburys as a 3 why not put him at 2? I think keeping your best hitters together could really help this line up (ells, Pedroia, Ortiz and Napoli)

Victorino
Ellsbury
Pedroia
Ortiz
Napoli
Gomes/nava
WMB
Salty
Drew

bagwell368
05-20-2013, 06:52 AM
Fair enough, drop WMB lower if you like, but when he gets hot his power should slot right behind Napoli at #6.

Which he appears to be doing.


Ellsbury hasn't really got the go as a #3 but he's still the best overall hitter in this line-up outside of peedy and Ortiz.

Absolutely wrong. He's currently hitting at a below replacement level. His OBP is .309, and SLG is .342. That's a #9 hitter. He's the worst regular hitter we have, only Gomes and WMB are in the same range and both of them are showing signs of life.


Who knows but with his combination of speed, hitting style and power (non existent this year, I know) he could flourish in that spot.

No. #9 or #7 if they can find anyone better at the #1. I suggest Victorino.


It still baffles me that some people refuse to accept that victorino can be a lead off hitter. He consistently has a nice OBP, has a steady bat and has some decent speed. Not to mention he's a really good base runner. I guess Farrell agrees considering he's leading off today in ellsburys absence.

Victorino:

Career wise at leadoff: .251/.320/.411
Career wise at #2: .285/.350/.431
Career wise at #6: 307/.362/.500

right now those figures are Ellsbury's best defense at being #1.


Either way, if your not comfortable with ellsburys as a 3 why not put him at 2? I think keeping your best hitters together could really help this line up (ells, Pedroia, Ortiz and Napoli)

Maybe, in limited PA's, he's much better then #1. Victorino and Pedroia are also great options. Ells is NOT one of the 4 best hitters on this team, even adding in the the SB's - at least not the way he hits this year/in the #1 slot career wise.

AI
05-21-2013, 08:35 PM
Nava LF
Victorino RF
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
Ellsbury CF
Middlebrooks 3B
Drew SS
Saltalamacchia C

I'd give that lineup a try. If Ells gets on-base, WMB should see more FB's. Nava at leadoff is a good option to replace Ellsbury because he grinds out AB's, walks a good amount and see's a lot of pitches. It also breaks up the guys who are prone to strike out in Napoli/WMB/Salty. It's unorthodox, but I believe it could work.

mooz
05-22-2013, 09:04 AM
Nava LF
Victorino RF
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
Ellsbury CF
Middlebrooks 3B
Drew SS
Saltalamacchia C

I'd give that lineup a try. If Ells gets on-base, WMB should see more FB's. Nava at leadoff is a good option to replace Ellsbury because he grinds out AB's, walks a good amount and see's a lot of pitches. It also breaks up the guys who are prone to strike out in Napoli/WMB/Salty. It's unorthodox, but I believe it could work.

I actually like this lineup a lot. While like you said unorthodox, I could see it being very effective. I really like the concept of a "2nd leadoff man" batting 5th or 6th that a lot of people have been floating around in this thread.

bagwell368
05-22-2013, 10:31 AM
Nava LF
Victorino RF
Pedroia 2B
Ortiz DH
Napoli 1B
Ellsbury CF
Middlebrooks 3B
Drew SS
Saltalamacchia C

I'd give that lineup a try. If Ells gets on-base, WMB should see more FB's. Nava at leadoff is a good option to replace Ellsbury because he grinds out AB's, walks a good amount and see's a lot of pitches. It also breaks up the guys who are prone to strike out in Napoli/WMB/Salty. It's unorthodox, but I believe it could work.

First of all - not bad.

1. Nava blows vs LHP - so does Victorino, might have to have Ells on top vs LHP.
2. I know you're trying to break up R-L, but I would not bat Drew after WMB, but go Drew after Ells then WMB, if you're going to have production hitters driving in guys low in the order then put two "on base" guys together, and two boppers after that (and both of the boppers have meh OBP in general, so it's RBI's or outs more then Runs).

Nava due to his late arrival in the Majors reminds of Boggs a bit, the leadoff thing could make him more patient and raise his OBP in that slot. It happens.

RedSoxtober
05-22-2013, 12:56 PM
First of all - not bad.

1. Nava blows vs LHP - so does Victorino, might have to have Ells on top vs LHP.
2. I know you're trying to break up R-L, but I would not bat Drew after WMB, but go Drew after Ells then WMB, if you're going to have production hitters driving in guys low in the order then put two "on base" guys together, and two boppers after that (and both of the boppers have meh OBP in general, so it's RBI's or outs more then Runs).

Nava due to his late arrival in the Majors reminds of Boggs a bit, the leadoff thing could make him more patient and raise his OBP in that slot. It happens.

Maybe getting more regular shots at LHP is doing him good. This year Nava's line vs LH starters is .382/.425/.676. That's subject to all the usual SSS warnings (40PA) but it might be well worth taking the chance.

Daniel Nava = The Little Engine That Could

goshhhjosh
05-22-2013, 01:59 PM
Daniel Nava = The Little Engine That Could

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5UqlS9C3Bw

RedSoxtober
05-22-2013, 03:18 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c5uqls9c3bw
ftw!

bagwell368
05-22-2013, 06:10 PM
Maybe getting more regular shots at LHP is doing him good. This year Nava's line vs LH starters is .382/.425/.676. That's subject to all the usual SSS warnings (40PA) but it might be well worth taking the chance.

Daniel Nava = The Little Engine That Could

Career wise in 170 PA's vs LHP he's: .204/.310/.345

In 39 PA's vs LHP this year he's: .250/.333/.438

I believe the stat you quote (40 PA's) is for games when the Starter was a LHP, with no guarantees of who comes in after (RHP or LHP).

If Nava had 39 PA's vs LHP, how could he have 40 with much stronger stats against only LHP?

RedSoxtober
05-23-2013, 08:37 AM
Career wise in 170 PA's vs LHP he's: .204/.310/.345

In 39 PA's vs LHP this year he's: .250/.333/.438

I believe the stat you quote (40 PA's) is for games when the Starter was a LHP, with no guarantees of who comes in after (RHP or LHP).

If Nava had 39 PA's vs LHP, how could he have 40 with much stronger stats against only LHP?

I puzzled over that a bit. The two possibilities are what you mentioned AND him batting LH vs LHP. The split with 39 PA is specifically as LHB vs LHP. Regardless of which is true, you make your lineup knowing whether the SP is LH or RH and this year's results suggest that he'd be pretty effective leading off in a game started by a lefty. It's well outside his career averages but I'd be willing to try him until he comes back to earth.

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 10:30 AM
I puzzled over that a bit. The two possibilities are what you mentioned AND him batting LH vs LHP. The split with 39 PA is specifically as LHB vs LHP. Regardless of which is true, you make your lineup knowing whether the SP is LH or RH and this year's results suggest that he'd be pretty effective leading off in a game started by a lefty. It's well outside his career averages but I'd be willing to try him until he comes back to earth.

I've seen other hitters that batted the "wrong" way vs Wakefield, have it called out on BR. I dunno, hate to use your own logic against you, but that's a pretty small sample size facing a larger fairly weak history spanning his career of 4 years.

Well, the choice is more complex than that IMO.

If the Sox are thinking of dealing Ells at the deadline, he probably needs to stay at leadoff and mount up those SB's and increase that OBP (by Mgr/GM logic)

If the Sox won't deal him at the deadline (unless the offer is nuts), then as I've written about 43 times in the past he's better out of the leadoff slot, so he could be good at #2, #6-9.

The other issue of moving Nava to 1st is it implies that he won't platoon with Gomes anymore. Most Mgr's don't like to platoon leadoff guys. So Gomes can play LF/RF when SV is out (sadly too often), or Ells is dealt or sitting and SV moves over to CF, and of course PH. Given the way Gomes is going it might be a good idea to give him less net PA's, that's one advantage of Nava at leadoff right there.

Nava is living a dream, in a way like Boggs when he first showed up. Nobody believe in Boggs early on either. Maybe Nava has a touch of Manny in him in that he doesn't let the situation mess with his sangfroid - perfect for a leadoff guy.

We do know that Ells, Victorino, Pedroia, Drew, Salty, Napoli , Ortiz, Middlebrooks either do worse at leadoff, or are not physically fit to be leadoff, or are too good, or have too low a OBP in general. So if its anyone other than Ells it's Nava or SV - but both of them historically at least have more problems with LHP than Ells.

Damn Ells. If he was a .300/.370/.430, 50/6 SB/CS, near GG player like it looked like he might become, he'd be worth the $20.7M per CC got. As is, for 5 years? He's worth like $8M per but will probably get $12.5-15M per.

RedSoxtober
05-23-2013, 01:46 PM
I've seen other hitters that batted the "wrong" way vs Wakefield, have it called out on BR. I dunno, hate to use your own logic against you, but that's a pretty small sample size facing a larger fairly weak history spanning his career of 4 years.

You wouldn't really be using my logic against me. I completely agree that his (apparent) success is running well against his norms. I'm simply suggesting that, since it seems to be working in the sort term that I'd be willing to run with it until his luck turns. If his luck doesn't turn then we might be able to say either than 2013 is an outlier or that 2013 is the year he finally got reps vs LHP regularly enough to make the adjustments (2014 would sort that out). If his luck does turn then I'd make a change when the lineup seems to be failing.

Still, getting on base six times in the last two games may render the question moot. In true Bull Durham fashion Ells explained that he is "just sticking to the game plan." It's almost comical how many times he repeated it.

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 03:34 PM
You wouldn't really be using my logic against me.

I had in mind the days of 2010 when I was ripping Ells with his slashes outside of the leadoff slot, even though some small samples. Don't tell me you forgot that?

I have no doubt that Nava and Victorino are the only obvious candidates for leadoff in lieu of Ells, and with SV being out a lot, Nava logically could/should get the call first.

RedSoxtober
05-23-2013, 04:39 PM
I had in mind the days of 2010 when I was ripping Ells with his slashes outside of the leadoff slot, even though some small samples. Don't tell me you forgot that?

Didn't realize that's what you were referring to. Even with that in mind I'd say there's a difference between 40 PA that represents 25% of his current season and 40PA spread out over 3 seasons with no consistent "connective tissue" in between. IIRC some of Ells' BOP splits were, in my opinion, skewed by the fact that they came at the tail ends of a hit streak, etc. I don't think the same factors are at play here because the PA in question represent Nava as a day-in, day-out player.

bagwell368
05-23-2013, 10:18 PM
Didn't realize that's what you were referring to. Even with that in mind I'd say there's a difference between 40 PA that represents 25% of his current season and 40PA spread out over 3 seasons with no consistent "connective tissue" in between.

IIRC some of Ells' BOP splits were, in my opinion, skewed by the fact that they came at the tail ends of a hit streak, etc. I don't think the same factors are at play here because the PA in question represent Nava as a day-in, day-out player.

Wasn't quite that bad. In 2010 I wrote:


Ellsbury has 77.6% career PA's at leadoff: .284/.335/.386

Ellsbury has 22.4% of his PA's at #2-9: .346/.401/.532*

* (spread out over different parts of his 2007, 2008, and 2009 season - 280 PA's)

As of now:

Ellls leadoff: .287/.340/.422 (2357 PA's)
Ells other: .320/.385/.488 (428 PA's)

With a larger sample size over a longer period of time, and Ells titanic 2011 fueling his leadoff stats, he still hits better out of leadoff. For someone that is pushing for Nava in leadoff you'd think you'd welcome the data....

RedSoxtober
05-24-2013, 09:58 AM
Sorry, I thought we were discussing Nava not Ellsbury.

With regard to Ellsbury the following four time periods, totaling about 2.5months, represent the only times that he hit outside the leadoff spot on a regular basis.

9/23-9/30/2007
7/27-8/12/2008
5/31-7/12/2009
4/8-4/21/2011

The strangest stretch was the long stint in 2009 because he was hitting pretty well at the time (.299/.335/.369) and he'd just lost a 23-game hitting streak a few days before. He improved his slash slightly over the five weeks (.294/.343/.395 cumulative) and got reinserted at the top of the order. With so little difference in performance over the span I never really understood that move.

At any rate, I personally have a hard time applying these particular short samples to him today. I think they're a bit dated. I'd be glad to give it a shot, though, and put Ellsbury in to that #7 slot. The downside would be losing 1PA/G when he's hitting well.

bagwell368
05-24-2013, 11:23 AM
Sorry, I thought we were discussing Nava not Ellsbury.

Sure, but reasons are needed for a move. The most direct is Nava is hitting, a secondary one is Ells approaches the ball differently when he leads off then when he's not.

Ells leading off inning (1014 PA's): .281/.327/.427
Ells not leading off in (1775 PA's): .302/.362/.438

That's a sample size, and that's a clear indicator. That .035 rise in OBP (and .011 in SLG) is worth more than the lost SB's in terms of runs. If Nava hits better then Ells at leadoff, then there is more runs.

Hence, two very good reasons for the move. Getting Gomes's bat out of the line-up more is the 3rd good reason for it.


With regard to Ellsbury the following four time periods, totaling about 2.5months, represent the only times that he hit outside the leadoff spot on a regular basis.

9/23-9/30/2007
7/27-8/12/2008
5/31-7/12/2009
4/8-4/21/2011

The strangest stretch was the long stint in 2009 because he was hitting pretty well at the time (.299/.335/.369) and he'd just lost a 23-game hitting streak a few days before. He improved his slash slightly over the five weeks (.294/.343/.395 cumulative) and got reinserted at the top of the order. With so little difference in performance over the span I never really understood that move.

At any rate, I personally have a hard time applying these particular short samples to him today. I think they're a bit dated. I'd be glad to give it a shot, though, and put Ellsbury in to that #7 slot. The downside would be losing 1PA/G when he's hitting well.

OK, but see above and his leadoff the inning numbers.