The Case For Rajai As Leadoff Hitter -- Even With A .300 OBP
by Nico on May 31, 2010 6:20 PM PDT
Email
PrintQuestion ... Which would you rather have your team do, with RISP, on an average night: go 3/9 or go 4/16? In the first scenario, your hitters are coming through at a .333 clip whereas in the second one you are frustrated by failure 75% of the time. So in the first scenario it feels like your team is actually pretty darn good in those RISP situations, while in the second one it feels like they aren't and you have to endure 12 times/game that your team fails with RISP. Ouch.
It's a trick question, of course, because in the first scenario your team is getting 3 hits/game with RISP while in the second one your team is getting 4. You're going to score a lot more runs getting 4 hits/game with RISP than you are getting 3 hits/game.
We're used to gauging numbers as percentages, not absolutes, for example preferring -- for good reason -- a player with a .333 OBP to one with a .250 OBP. Yet Bob Geren said something really interesting on the manager's show the other day, explaining why he liked having Rajai Davis leadoff, and the more I think about it the more intelligent it sounds to me.
Geren said, essentially, that if Rajai Davis came up 5 times in a game, instead of 4, there were that many more chances for him to reach base and do his thing -- which even his most ardent detractors would have to admit he has done well this season, stealing a league high 22 bases while being caught only twice, and creating several "Rajai runs" in other ways. Let's look at this a bit closer...
Let's assign Rajai a .300 OBP. That's on the low side, as his career OBP is .330 and even this season, as bad as he has hit for most of it, he now has his OBP up over.300. But let's go with .300, as a reasonable "worst case scenario."
With a profoundly uninspiring .300 OBP, if Rajai bats 5 times, instead of 4 times, there is a 5% better chance (31%-26%) that he will reach base twice, a 5% better chance (41%-36%) that he will reach base once, and a 7% less chance (17%-24%) that he won't reach base at all. Each time he reaches, Rajai has a chance to seriously create, to disrupt, to skidaddle around the bases as only Rajai can do.
What Geren is saying is that while on a percentage basis, Rajai's odds of reaching don't justify batting him leadoff, on a "number of total times reaching base" basis, it can still be worthwhile. And this actually makes sense if you consider two things: How much good Rajai does when he reaches, and the fact that the PAs he takes away from others are mostly being taken away from less-than-great batters (e.g., Pennington, Ellis, Patterson, Gross) who don't even slug well enough to justify making sure they get another PA.
It's really the RISP example: Geren is arguing that even with Rajai's low success rate of reaching, if he gives Rajai more chances (more PAs), he'll come out ahead because Rajai will be on base more times. And let's look at an example where Pennington, or Ellis, or Gross, or whoever, can maintain a .350 OBP, but gets fewer PAs because he's batting lower in the order so that Rajai can leadoff. What about the fact that Rajai is taking PAs away from a hitter who gets on considerably more often than Rajai does?
If over the course of, say, 22 games or so, Rajai gets on 30 times out of 100 (.300 OBP), and the guy bumped to the lower part of the order reaches 32 times out of 91 (.350 OBP), it's better than that guy reaching 35 times of 100 (.350 OBP) while Rajai reaches 27 times out of 90 (.300 OBP). Because in both scenarios you wind up with 62 times reaching base -- but in the first one you have Rajai as the baserunner 3 more times.
It's counter-intuitive to put a .300ish OBP guy leadoff and a .350ish OBP guy in the bottom 1/3 of the order -- and that isn't even a risk, as the only batters capable of maintaining a .350 OBP are probably Barton, Sweeney, and Cust, all of whom can bat in the 2-6 spots where Rajai won't be anyway -- but Geren's point about worrying about Rajai's "times on base" instead of "rate of getting on base" is well taken, especially on a team that doesn't have a lot of ways to score runs.
Current Series
3 game series vs Red Sox @ Fenway Park
|
Oakland Athletics Tuesday, Jun 1, 2010, 4:10 PM PDT Partly cloudy,rain. Winds blowing out to left field at 5-15 m.p.h. Game time temperature around 75. |
||
| Wed 06/02 | 4:10 PM PDT | |
| Thu 06/03 | 10:35 AM PDT | |
130 comments
|
3 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
It makes SOME difference -- most specifically
who gets more PAs and who gets fewer. This is an example of where it actually DOES matter.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The best hitter should get the most PA's
But in Raj’s case, he’s so deadly on the basepaths we really should be having him hit leadoff, and by the way, over Raj’s last 15 games, he’s sporting a pretty awesome .407 OBP/887 OPS. .
-The president of the "Sign Elijah Dukes" fan club.
I don't see the value in the best hitter always getting the most PAs
This probably assumes your best hitter is also the guy who reaches base the most and/or has the most power. What good is it batting that guy leadoff when the people after him aren’t as good? There will be many cases where he gets on and nobody does anything behind him, or he might get up with someone on base when the order goes back to the top.
Better, I say, to have your best hitters 3 or 4 in the lineup. They can still do some damage with or without others on base, and their benefit will be maximized when the top of the order IS on.
It’d be simple if the batting order went top to bottom with the people who get on the most down to the ones who get on the least, but there has to be better balance to it than that. In the scenario where you have your best hitter leading off to get the most PAs possible, wouldn’t you also want someone in the 8 or 9 spot who’s also good at reaching, so the best hitter isn’t batting with nobody on much of the time?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Well, the numbers don't suggest the best hitter should bat first in most situations
Because, as you say, a lot of his offense is wasted by coming up with nobody on (first at bat/coming up after the 8 and 9 hitters made outs).
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on May 31, 2010 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions
Right
That’s why I’d rather have above-average OBP guys hitting 1/2 with your best hitters 3/4 (which may mean either of both of them even have a higher OBP), with your #1 hitter also one of the fastest and best baserunners you’ve got.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
To shorten it up, it's not about best hitters getting the most PAs
It’s about the opportunities they have when they do step to the plate and what they do with them.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
No, its just not.
Its all about not making outs. Those who make the least amount of outs should get the chance to be up at the plate the most times. I mean unless you are talking about a team with no power who has to manufacture runs, then your point rings true. But traditionally, a team with all its best hitters getting the most PA’s is going to score more because they will be on base when a lesser hitter comes to the plate and the run can score on an out. If outs have already been given by having an out-machine like Orlando Cabrera hit second, then the pitcher can battle through it easier, its just not a smart way to do business. Also not to mention the best hitters are usually patient, and can get a really good pitcher (Like, say, a Verlander) out of the game faster instead of having a Cabrera who swings on the 1st pitch all the time and making an out, wasting the PA completely.
-The president of the "Sign Elijah Dukes" fan club.
Nobody's advocating having your best hitters 7-8-9, though
There’s nothing wrong with them being in the top four or five spots. The best hitter doesn’t have to be #1 for your offense to be good.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
What about late inning situations though?
I’d rather lose the game knowing our best hitters at least had a shot at creating a rally. Nothing more frustrating than watching a bad hitter use the final PA and predictably make a crappy out. Placing a bad hitter like Cabrera at 2 led to quite a few times where we would have runners on in the 9th and he’d come up and I’d yell “welp, game’s over” before he predictably hit his 300th shitty dribbler to second.
-The president of the "Sign Elijah Dukes" fan club.
What about them?
It’s practically a given that everyone in the lineup is going to see 4 PAs unless they’re really getting shut down. Much of the time you’re likely to see your top four guys get 5 PAs as well on an average night. It balances out.
The problem with Cabrera in 2009 (and I only see the full season splits right now) is that while he was actually all right in late/close, 8th/9th situations overall, he was at his worst in high leverage situations.
I know we want more than just “all right” for someone toward the top of the order. I wouldn’t have hit Cabrera #2 anyway, so you don’t need to convince me of that one. I’m looking at putting better hitters toward the top, more than I’m looking at having the very best #1.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
And yeah, I also know batting Cabrera #2 would have a trickle-down effect at times over the course of the game
He should have been an 8/9 guy.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
In fact, let's get away from this best hitter stuff
If we’re talking about one guy being head and shoulders above the rest, you’re already in trouble from the start. In fact, that scenario isn’t that far removed from reality for the A’s.
It’s more about having a handful of exceptional hitters in that lineup. That’s where you’ll see the biggest differences.
The 2007 Yankees and Jeter/A-Rod are a pretty easy example to cite, knowing already that their offense was what you’d expect it to be when filled with above-average hitters.
Jeter primarily batted out of the #2 spot and had 714 PAs in 156 games. A-Rod hit two spots after him, #4, and had 708 PAs in 158 games. Granted, with that lineup chances were if Jeter got an extra AB so would A-Rod, but over the course of the season there was a minimal difference – Jeter had 4.58 PAs per game, A-Rod 4.48. Jeter’s hit leadoff 29.4% of the time over his career and second 57.2% of the time.
Just one quick example because I found a recent season where they both played almost the same number of games and I know they both hit high in the order. The probability of someone a spot or two higher in the lineup getting a measurably significant number of PAs more than someone a couple spots after him is, I doubt, that great. You may have the occasional game where the better hitter doesn’t get that extra PA, but how many times does it actually result in a loss?
At least in Rajai’s case, we’re not talking about the difference between him hitting #1 vs. #3. If he’s not batting leadoff he’s going to be your 8/9 hitter. Someone like Barton? One of the team’s best hitters in regard to how he can handle the bat, but you don’t want him leading off. You ought to at least have someone with good speed #1 to maximize the chance to score on fewer hits or even just an out compared to someone who’s slower.
Would you honestly want Jack Cust in the #1 spot?
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Why wouldn't you want Barton (or Cust) leading off?
www.zekeishungry.com
by thejd44 on May 31, 2010 12:40 PM PDT up reply actions
I've kinda given my reasons, I think
I don’t think their abilities are maximized hitting #1. Batting leadoff to me is about more than just how often you reach base. It’s also about what you’re capable of doing when you are on base.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Um... no
While he’s batting way the hell over his head, sure it’s worth it. But at .300 OBP, absolutely NOT worth it regardless of what he does on the basepath. He should not be getting the most PAs while he’s hitting normally.
Ask me about my squirrel.
Especially with the way he’s hitting now, Davis should be batting atop the lineup. I think he’s the most important player on the offense. Like you said, a .300 OBP for him is low and he more than likely won’t post that. He has a .329 OBP in May after a terrible April, so he’s coming around especially in the last few weeks. (His OBP has increased by 47 points from May 13 to May 30.) He’s walked seven times in his last eight games as well. I think Davis has earned the top spot in the lineup and he’ll hold onto that.
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2010 11:10 AM PDT reply actions
He's a super star if he hits like this.
"You see, in this world there's two kinds of people, my friend: Those with loaded guns and those who dig. You dig."
It's an interesting point, one that does make some sense
He’s the biggest threat to do something on the bases that this team has, so if he gets those extra PAs and even gets on base just a handful more times than someone else, it’s worth it. Even if it’s even, it’s probably worth it because of the speed.
Of course, this is only an issue if his OBP is hovering around the .300 mark. It’s about .400 in the past two weeks, which has a lot to do with the A’s winning some games again as well.
Even then, I’d probably take a .333 OBP from him at the top of the order compared to someone else with a .350 OBP who doesn’t run much. If Davis can get on base at a .350 clip or better, it’s not even a debate.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
Here's the problem with the argument
If he’s only getting on at .300 OBP, that means he’d need that extra PA a game to even be relevant on the basepath ONCE a game. That’s a horrible reason to give it to him. During the rare times he’s playing insanely like he is now, then yeah, it makes perfect sense to get him in there. But the moment he returns to normal, he absolutely should be hidden in the back of the lineup where he belongs and get little you can from him.
Ask me about my squirrel.
I disagree
Even at a .300 OBP if you get him 5 PA’s he will literally reach base 1.5 times on average per game, still relevant.
Especially given that no one is ever on base in that 1st PA and given the A’s crappy bottom of the lineup, he rarely has someone blocking him on the basements. (Hey Geren stop hitting Landon Powell 9th you jackass.)
Chad Gaud really blows now, sad.
I went through the trouble to do the Math, DMOAS,
to show that your first sentence simply isn’t true.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I have to admit you really have me thinking on this one
Can you compare the probability of scoring per plate appearances?
I don't know I'd do it
I’d need to know the exact probabilities of each of Barton’s and Sweeney’s distribution of PAs (including grounding a runner over vs. hitting into a FC, etc.), plus it’s not like the A’s always bat the same guys in the same order.
All I can say is it’s better by “3 more times on base by Rajai instead of by __” per 22 games. Or so.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Raja stands out but
A simple comparison of R/(AB+BB) using Yahoo data (FWIW) gives the lead to, wait for it, Ellis at 0.175, followed by Buck at 0.167, then Davis at 0.136. Barton surprisingly comes in all the way down at 0.107. I haven’t checked for significance, but these results suggest that Ellis or Buck are better choices for lead off than Davis since they are typically backed up with lesser hitters and still score more often. I think Buck is the better choice over Ellis or Raja and that masks some kind of intuitive sense. Strangely Barton is a standout in the other direction given his OPS if these numbers are significant. It suggests that he should be moved up in the lineup to be protected. I don’t know what do you think?
Ellis' numbers are just a SSS phenomenon
as he currently sports a .385 OBP. I’ll believe Buck gets another PA for Oakland when I see it. He’s currently behind Crisp and Gross on the depth chart and his return has no timetable.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I agree, and the numbers do support your notion
that Raja is the better lead off hitter. You were right all along. Nice concept Nico.
The math "looks" pretty but it's fatally flawed
So what if giving him an extra PA will get him on base more? Why the hell would you let him fail more often when you have guys who will take that extra PA and do MORE with it? You almost have to give him that extra PA just so he can actually get on. That’s just a ridiculous approach to take. Instead, give those PAs to a guy who gets on at .360+ obp and you’re getting on base significantly more over an entire season. What you’re doing is your sacrificing 100-150+ worth of PAs for a single PA in the hopes that the ONE time he will get on it’s with less than 2 outs and worth it. In other words, doing this is like asking Barton to bunt Raj to third.
Ask me about my squirrel.
Did you actually read the post?
Because everything you ask/say is answered and explained.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
the idea is that rajai is more likely to score
it’s what he does when he gets on base that justifies giving him the extra PA he needs to get on base.
Zito: You ever think about the space time continuum?
Huddy: Uh... no.
It's also, I think, that the difference
between, say, a .320 and .350 OBP isn’t as much as it sounds. We call one “meh” and one “pretty darn good” but in fact it’s one time on base out of 33 PAs, otherwise known as a week.
So when you reverse the PAs and give “.350 OBP guy” 100 of them and Rajai only 90, instead of the other way around, you don’t wind up with some bonanza of base-reaching.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Nice and refreshing point of view
I like it for being original. However, the math you used to back it up is overly simplistic. If a casual reader reads this, he/she might come to a conclusion that placing the low OBP guy in front of high OBP guys will lead to the same number of bases reached, which is wrong.
First of all, the question is – where from do you move Rajai when you place him in the leadoff spot. Is it from the 9th spot where he has been living often? If that is the case you are giving him roughly 150 PA more over the course of the year, 150 PA that are taken away from one or more hitters with supposedly higher OBP. If one is to assume .300 for Rajai and .330 for everyone else, the direct cost of it is 5 less people on base and 5 more outs.
Given, these are not huge numbers, as they rarely are when rosterbating, but the cost is there. Your example makes it sound that there is none, which, again, might be a little misleading.
Now, I agree with the idea that Rajai on base is worth more than anyone else, and that there might be a point in it being a fair trade-off. But it’s a trade-off, not a win-win situation.
Agreed. The idea is that maybe
Rajai would be batting 7th, 8th, or 9th and he takes those extra PAs away from “higher OBP but not terrific” hitters like Gross, Ellis, Pennington. I think the trade-off is worth it, there, since it does affect Barton, Sweeney, Cust, Sukuki, or Kouzmanoff.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
One other point
It is not entirely accurate, but add 23 stolen bases to his current as of 6/1 total bases of 59. And, you get 72. Giving a SLG of .410.
Does anyone else think our recent success is due in some part to Rajai being good right now?
He’s gotta go up there because he does so much damage on the basepaths. No, a .300 OBP isn’t lighting anything up, but it’s not like he’s taking away PAs from someone who could really destroy pitching. I say leave him for a long time, until someone can steal as good as he can.
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
Athletics Nation - WE'RE ALL GONNA MRIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!! - danmerqury
That’s not cool. He’s on my fantasy team and I need stolen bases. (Cue the graphic.)
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on May 31, 2010 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions
he's on mine, too!
But I figure with CS it means they’re still trying, so it’ll pay off eventually. It’s when they stop attempting steals that I worry. And no one cares, I know.
Not only was he caught stealing twice, but badly
Once on a pitchout, the other on a straight steal. Lou Marson may be a bad hitting catcher, but he has a cannon for an arm.
BEER IS GOOD. BEER IS GOOD. BEER IS GOOD, AND STUFF.
If we use numbers that reflect the number of PA per lineup slot, and assume that we are choosing between the first and sixth-ninth slots in the lineup, then we would find that batting Rajai leadoff would lead to a net decrease in the number of baserunners. However, those numbers are extremely small, however, ranging from 4.3 to 7.2, over the course of the season, for swapping Rajai out of the sixth-ninth spots. (This assumes that Rajai = .300 OBP and alternative = .350). So there really is very little difference here.
Another question you want to ask yourself, if you are Bob Geren, is whether you want Rajai Davis batting in front of the heart of the order or the bottom. You could make an argument either way – eg, that Rajai’s baserunning skills are better leveraged in front of bad singles hitters, since only someone of his speed would be able to advance more than one base at a time when they get hits, or would be able to advance on sacrifice flies and the like.
Another question you want to ask yourself, if you are Bob Geren, is why the fuck Billy Beane gave you such shitty hitters to begin with.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on May 31, 2010 12:10 PM PDT reply actions 1 recs
your middle point is compelling...
if the a’s are going to require mulitple hits/walks to score a run, it might make more sense to have your higher slg % guys hit in front of your lower obp guys. why? it might remove the need for a third hit to score because the the higher slg % guys don’t require as many sacrifices or smart ball to get into scoring position. maybe it’s a catch 22 (your low obp guys never drive in the the high slg % guys or the high slg % guys have nobody to drive in) but its not obvious to me which is smarter – batting daric barton 1st, 2nd or 3rd. no matter the way, it’s gonna take lots of hits to score and the a’s combo of low obp and low slg % makes it hard to score.
if anything it seems to confirm that batting pennington 1st is not a good idea at even a mildly superior obp to davis.
Per inbillywetrust... your middle point is compelling
but your last point is the $64,000 question.
The monster at the end of this blog.
A few more things about this scenario.
While the total number of men on base is essentially a wash, I should point out that batting a .300 OBP Rajai first will result in 38 fewer men on base from the leadoff slot over the course of the year. It is up to you to decide whether taking away 38 RBI opportunities from the heart of the order is worth having Rajai waste outs at the top of the lineup wreak havoc on the basepaths.
In the most extreme case, where you are swapping .300 Rajai for .350 alternative between the 1 and 9 spots, you lose 7 men on base over the course of a year in order to allow Rajai on base 43 additional times. Something like 33% of baserunners score, so those 7 lost men on base represent about 2-3 runs. Can Rajai provide 2-3 runs of extra baserunning value in his 43 times on base than the alternative can in 50 times on base? A stolen base is worth something like 0.2 runs. If Rajai can steal ~10 bases more than what the alternative .350 player would, without getting caught, in seven fewer times on base then batting Rajai leadoff might make sense.
In the extreme case, imagine that the alternative player steals no bases. Then Rajai would have to steal 10 bases without getting caught per 43 times on base (a rate of 52 steals per season for .300 OBP Rajai). Now, Rajai can make up bases in other ways, too – going first to third, taking the extra base, etc. But I really doubt that Rajai is a good enough basestealer and baserunner to make up the difference. If, per 162 games, .300 Rajai is 10-15 runs better on the basepaths (SB+baserunning) than the .350 alternative, then it is a wash. Since, to my eye, Rajai is prone to act like a fucking idiot on the basepaths, I have trouble seeing how this could be true.
Children, until we have taught them better, will be perfectly happy with a seasonal round of games in which conkers succeeds hopscotch.
by salb918 on May 31, 2010 8:12 PM PDT up reply actions 2 recs
He does have an amazing knack for causing
pickoff errors, throws into CF, and balks, but you’re right — he also has an amazing knack for rounding 2B and falling down for no reason.
The good news (since he’s batting leadoff) is that his true OBP is actually higher than .300. And let’s face it — there ain’t no .350 OBP guys down in the order. So it’s in fact a question of Rajai at .320+ and someone else at .330+, which is why it might actually be worth it.
I’d actually be ok with batting Rajai leadoff against LHP and batting Gross leadoff against RHP, because Gross has decent speed and is a .254/.346/.413 career hitter vs. RHP.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Thank you salb918!
ATHLETICS + I = THEISTICAL
the more I think about it the more intelligent it sounds to me.
Bob Geren said something intelligent… This is Breaking news.
I think there is a big flaw in this logic
You can’t consider Rajai in a vacuum. At-bats in a game are a limited commodity, so you have to consider who he is taking them away from and whether that person might be a better use of the at-bat (granted, the A’s don’t really have that many amazing hitters who would be losing out here).
But to say that we should bat Rajai leadoff so that he has more chances to get on base with a crappy OBP is not that different from pointing out that the A’s would score more runs on average if they got an extra three outs at the end of the game. Rates are important because you only have 27 outs and you need to make sure that each one goes as far as possible.
I'm not necessarily against Rajai leading off
I think that he will get on base more than 30% of the time, and his baserunning clearly has a lot of value. Plus, the A’s don’t have a lot of other good alternatives.
So maybe it is a good decision. I just don’t think this is a good argument for it.
What's the stat for getting in scoring position?
Even if Rajai’s OBP isn’t great, once he is on base, with his speed, he’s more likely to be on 2nd or 3rd, one way or another. That should translate into more runs scored. No point in putting him behind a better hitter who’s only going to hold him on base.
"One time Rickey Henderson ran so fast that Rickey Henderson went into the future."
When Your Other Option is Cliff Friggin Pennington
Then Rajai leading off sounds awesome…
I suppose against a RHP, it could also be Gross,
against a LHP (or either if you prefer), Rosales or Ellis.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Except it's not
You can easily run Barton Cust as your 1 – 2 and leave Raj in the nine spot and have more baserunners per game. Why are we assuming we have to move someone else from the 6 – 9 dry rot into the position instead of just shifting people up a little?
Ask me about my squirrel.
based on what evidence?
Barton-Cust as a 1-2 could make it so much easier for opposing pitchers, no speed to worry about in the first inning, and not much power later in the line-up if someone does get on base.
We can at least agree the A’s have not had a permanent lead-off hitter in recent years, and whoever Geren bats lead-off tends to slump there.
The fact that Rajai has had moderate success (on average), combined with the fact there’s nobody else well suited for lead-off that hitters better than him, it just makes sense to leave him there.
I could see Crisp being a good alternative for lead-off if he gets (and stays) healthy, because then we could see some lead-off home runs. Sweeney could provide pop and speed, too, but then we’re weaker in the heart of our order.
True, but Geren seems to have had a bizarre fascination with batting the team’s worst hitter leadoff, which will hopefully now stop not jsut because of rajai’s recent resurgence but also because Pennington is starting to make us fantasize about getting to see Jack Hannahan bat everyday…Personally if the “bad Rajai” starts showing up again I’d bat Sweeney leadoff..
Sweeney wouldn't be the worst guy to hit leadoff
It’d cut down on some double plays and it’s not bad with his singles hitting. Won’t do too much running though, especially with his knees sounding like they’ll need surgery this off-season.
But yeah, if Davis is playing like he is now you don’t need to ask.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
that's an interesting comment from Geren
Last season when Davis was getting on base and stealing at a terrific clip despite Adam Kennedy usually batting leadoff, Geren was asked why he didn’t bat Rajai leadoff. He replied that he really liked batting Kennedy leadoff instead….and that was it.
Really interesting way to think about things...
The overall metric shouldn’t be Rajai on-base vs someone else on-base – it should be expected runs from Rajai batting 1st and Cliffy batting 9th vs. Rajai batting 9th and Cliffy 1st.
Does anyone know where to find numbers on chances of scoring from 2nd vs. being on 1st and then tie that into Rajai’s basestealing success rate/rate of attempts? Then of course, instead of looking at percentages, we’d want to look at totals, so calculate the number of times they are each on base, how many more times Rajai would steal 2nd, factoring in the success rate and how often he attempts to steal, and then calculate some kind of expected runs from each of the two lineup positionings.
What makes it difficult is that
just looking, say, at SB% you have Rajai’s career success rate and this year’s success rate (so far), which are pretty different — and hard even to predict going forward since the more often he tries the lower the percentage will likely be. There are so many factors and variables that a lot of it comes down to “educated guesswork.”
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
All I know is when Davis is on base I'd like there to at least be one open bag ahead of him, preferably two
Stealing second and third in the same inning like he did today is not the most common thing but it’s great when it happens. I don’t want slower runners clogging the bases ahead of him. At least Pennington has some speed, though.
Last of the Ninth - Photography
That doesn't really make sense....
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on May 31, 2010 9:42 PM PDT up reply actions
Everytime Rajai's on first base
Outside of the first inning, I want there to be runners on both second and third.
Even in the 1st inning, it's what I want
But I also want to be invisible and to be able to fly, so I’m probably not the best analyst on this point.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Nah, those are good things to wish for as well
It’s just that actively wishing for bases to be empty so Rajai can run seems to be a bit on the odd side to me.
Makes sense to me
Not going to get into any mathematical validity arguments about it though.
Something not mentioned was how critical ANY runs are to the A’s. They are a team that must give up 3 runs or fewer every night if they are going to have a chance at winning the game.
With that being said, if batting Davis leadoff gives the A’s a better shot of scoring to win a close game, then it makes perfect sense. Besides as others have said the lineup is pretty craptacular, not like he’s taking an AB away from superstars.
"Who's this Seagon guy? Is he in A-ball or something?" - Billy Beane
by pickinmachine on May 31, 2010 8:53 PM PDT via mobile reply actions
The no "opportunity cost" argument is a good one
If he was keeping a 360 OBP person on the bench, I think it would be a different story, but without going into the math, the few basis points you give up on OBP versus someone else seems more than paid off in the base running havoc.
The question of course is when Crisp is back does this argument still hold true. I think it does, but it’s much more marginal then.
I was thinking about Crisp
He’s a career .330-.340 OBP guy who’s fast — but doesn’t wreak near the havoc Rajai does. In that way, he’s Rajai’s not inspiring OBP without Rajai’s havoc-wreaking base running. That’s why I’d sooner bat Rajai leadoff and Crisp 8th than vice-versa. And I’d never bat them 1-2 because of the OBPs.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The bottom line is that the A's have 2 good hitters -- Barton and Cust, and even those
are marginal for being the best hitters on a team. You can’t have those two bat 1-5, so you’re going to have crappy hitters at 3 of those spots. Rajai is as good/bad as anyone else on the team to man one of those.
That sounds like some sort of sexual metaphor. - iglew
Exactly
The context of this team is essential to the argument. Unquestionably, he bats 9th for the Red Sox, Yankees, Blue Jays, etc.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
The bottom line is that the A's have 2 guys who walk a lot - Barton and Cust
Since when did walking a lot solely on its own merits constitute “good hitters.”
I think you can argue that Barton is a good hitter this year because his OPS is .825 or thereabouts. Cust, on the other hand, in a limited sample size, has a slugging percentage of .282. He’s not a good hitter, and I suspect that because he’d rather walk than hit the ball, umpires are squeezing him late in the count.
Alrighty.
Barton has a wOBA of .361. Well above average. Good hitter number one.
Cust has a wOBA of .349. Also above average. And he was projected by damn near every projection system to hit well above that. Good hitter number two.
I'm walking out in a force ten gale.
Birds thrown around, bullets for hail.
Looking at the stat wOBA
I’m not sure I buy it.
Why's that?
It’s simple to understand and you can calculate it yourself.
It’s significantly better than just about any “single” stat out there when evaluating a hitter.
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
I'm not comfortable with the formula
I’m seeing a lot of buzzwords in how it was generated, and it looks fairly arbitrary. I’m more comfortable with EqA, but I have no idea where Barton and Cust sit in that statistic.
"Arbitrary" is one of the last words that would come to mind when talking about the wOBA formula.
I’m not quite sure where you’re getting that.
I'm walking out in a force ten gale.
Birds thrown around, bullets for hail.
The only thing "arbitrary" is that it's scaled to OBP.
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
It bugs me that we call Jack Cust a "good hitter" only because he walks a lot.
I understand that he’s good at getting on base – he and Barton are the “best” on our team — so I have no problem with him in the lineup and the criticisms (usually) re: his strikeouts are misinformed.
However, stop calling him a good hitter. I think some on this site only do it to prove a point. He’s a mediocre hitter with a decent eye. Someone his size and in his spot (DH) ought to have a much higher sluggin pct. I can’t remember the last time he hit a double, let alone a home run. He’s like a 7’10" center who can’t dunk.
I’m glad we’ve got him we don’t have anyone better — but he isn’t a good “hitter”.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
Cust has also led the A's in homers every year he's been on the team
In 2007, playing only 124 games, he outhomered Swisher, 26 to 22.
In 2008, he hit 33 HRs. Emil Brown was 2nd on the team. With 13.
In 2009, he again led the team, this time with 25. 2nd on the team? Kurt Suzuki, with 15.
A good hitter to me is a hitter who helps your team score runs. For the last 3 years, Jack Cust has done that better than anyone else in the lineup, and it hasn’t really been close. And despite being in a HR drought in the few weeks he’s been up from Sacto (where he was hitting HRs), he’s still one of the most productive hitters in the lineup.
If the 7’10" center leads your team in scoring, fieldgoal %, rebounds, and blocked shots, he’s a good player, even if he can’t dunk. Unless your team is the Harlem Globetrotters.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
He hit a double on Sunday.
You can’t remember 2 days ago?
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
Did I piss you off somewhere along the line, mikev?
If so, tell me when so that I can apologize. If not, stop tryin’ to be a dick. Be kinder. God, I hate internet bullies. You buried that poor kid, oakland9, even though he’s probably about 15. It’s like you try to be a sarcastic a-hole.
Nick, thanks for the info – I confess that my memory is selective at times, to be sure. In your opinion — you, too, mikev – how does his slugging pct. measure up with other guys who primarily bat DH? Above average, subpar? Is slugging pct. even a decent stat to look at anymore? (Honest question, by the way, not sure if there’s another one that might be better in order to guage power numbers.)
A good hitter, in my opinion, is a guy who consistently hits the ball, either for average, or extra base hits. Ichiro is a good hitter – Ryan Howard is a good hitter – not sure Cust is simply because he’s the “best” we have.
I needed a team so I wouldn’t turn into one of the eighty million pink hat-wearing Bud Light-drinking mulleted idiots at Fenway.
The problem is you're basically baiting the stat-heads by quibbling over the word "hitting"
Jack Cust has been our best player offensively for several years. In common baseball parlance, the players are called “hitters” while they’re on the offensive side of the ball. Even if they’re striking out, or walking, or getting hit by the ball – they’re still “hitting.”
So when you, or oakland9, or whoever comes in and starts bitching about how Cust isn’t a great hitter, he just walks and strikes out a lot – you’re going to draw the ire of some people who are really tired of trying to explain why getting on base is really valuable skill to have offensively. Ya, he may not be the best guy at making contact with the ball, and thus technically hitting it. But most people use the word hitter( i.e. Designated Hitter ) in place of player-on-offense. So when people make claims like “Kust shouldn’t be teh designated hitter because he doesn’t HIT well,” it’s just going to annoy the hell out a bunch of people.
181. 199. 199. 186.
Ryan Howard’s last 4 years worth of strikeout totals. And 53 in 51 games this year. And you just said he’s a good hitter.
Why? Cause he hits 50 homers? This is what’s maddeningly frustrating about people who say things like this. What basis do you have for saying it? WHY is Howard a good hitter and WHY is Cust “mediocre with a good eye”? He (Howard) averages 148 hits and 82 walks per season – 230 times on base. Cust, in the 3 full seasons he’s played, averages 112 hits and 102 walks – 214 times on base. Their OBPs are almost identical, but Howard hits way more homers. Do you see how it makes little sense to call Ryan Howard a good hitter and then to say Cust is mediocre, when Cust would BE Ryan Howard if he hit 45 homers instead of 25?
I can’t recall anything you did to piss me off. I pay very little attention to WHO is posting something, but really what kind of response are you expecting to get when you post hyperbole like “I don’t even remember the last time he hit a double!” or compare him to a 7’10" center who can’t dunk?
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
Pitcher's going on a tilt
Has anybody ever done any statistical research on pitchers constantly worried about people on base and throwing over to first and also the effect it has on them when they give up a steal
As for the data that it disrupts the hitter more,
the way around that is to give Rajai the red light some of the time, and at times where you want Rajai running you give the hitter the take sign. Today, for example, Rajai stole 2B and 3B on the first two pitches, which Barton was taking all the way. No distraction to the hitter there.
Personally, a lot of the time I’d give Rajai the “red light” for Barton’s AB since Barton walks a lot anyway. With an out or two in the inning, I might give him the go ahead to steal — with the take sign on for Sweeney, Suzuki, etc.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I'm not necessarily sure it's distraction that causes hitters to do badly
How about starting in an 0-2 count? If the pitcher had thrown two straight strikes to Barton and he was taking all the way, then yeah I would say it negatively affects him.
"Loyal? I'm the most loyal player money can buy." - Don Sutton
Yeah
that is why that effect (or the lack of an effect) exists. If the batter is taking pitches that he would otherwise swing at, that will lower his odds of doing something good in the at bat, and that effect cancels out whatever negative impact the distraction has on the pitcher. I think it’s probably pretty much always wrong to give a hitter the take sign for steal unless the hitter has great contact skills/hits well with two strikes, and even then it’s a little dubious.
Obviously I don’t know for sure, but I assume Rajai just has a green light and is not getting a “steal now” sign. In that case, it is absolutely essential to have the hitter just not worry about it and hit normally, because the runner usually won’t go on the first pitch and you don’t want the hitter having to take the first three.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
If the "behind in the count" is the main issue then we might be hosed.
It shows that the best way for a pitcher to neutralize the running game is throw strikes, not throw to 1B.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
well, no, it's a separate issue
the pitcher is trying to keep the runner at first and get the hitter out. Throwing strikes with a take sign on doesn’t keep the runner on, it just helps get the hitter out. I wouldn’t even think of it in terms of getting behind in the count as much as potentially wasting a pitch that could have been hit hard.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
"If the batter is taking pitches that he would otherwise swing at, that will lower his odds of doing something good in the at bat"
Well unless it is an outside curveball to Crosby. Or to Rajai for that matter.
Minnesota beat Seattle. They're 8.5 games back now.
I hope by the end of June, Seattle is definitively out of the race (eh, about 13+ games back). One less team to worry about.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
I'd prefer they hang in there...
…by sweeping the Angels and Rangers.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
wtf, I can't believe the Rangers and the Angels get to play them while we have to play the Red Sox and Twins
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on May 31, 2010 9:52 PM PDT up reply actions
They may not -- I didn't check the schedule
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
I know we're filling time here
But this just seems like a horrible argument. Someone broke down above just how much Rajai would have to do on the bases to make up for the loss of actually being on base.
But then again, you created the worst case scenario and tried to make it plausible. The truth is we aren’t flush in leadoff men. Frankly, we’re only flush in #2 in the order men—if you count having one guy. So given what we’ve got, Rajai is a pretty good choice—especially stealing at the rate he is this year. It’s his job to lose again, though he’s already shown this year that he’s fully capable of losing it.
Finally, those numbers often cited for what a steal is worth probably aren’t precise for the A’s. Given the offense we have, a steal seems to be worth much more this year. Eight or nine years ago, I wouldn’t have thought a steal mattered much at all. But with this squad when Rajai gets on with less than two out I think to myself, “My God, we might actually have a shot at scoring this inning.” I know some of the rest of you feel this way as well.
That's certainly true.
A steal certainly has more value on a team with no offense and good pitching. A steal on this team has more potential value than on a team that hits a lot of home runs, like the ‘01 A’s.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
by lenscrafters on May 31, 2010 9:56 PM PDT up reply actions
Yes -- this is an important point I should have emphasized more directly
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Now that the A's are winning games by playing "small ball"...
the value of steals and base-running really does go up.
It also means we just became more like the National League.
(sorry – call em like I see em)
:O
The a's style is more rightly described as "Luck ball"
This road trip has been more like the others, but with better bounces. Like people being thrown out at the plate, catches over the wall, double plays and the like.
"The ego, the super-ego, and the Ed" - dannycakes
They're not winning games because of "small ball"
They’re winning games because their pitching has like a 1.50 ERA over the last ten games, their defense has been stellar, and their bullpen has been lights out. Also, they’ve managed to somehow win a LOT of one run games. A lot of that is luck however, and it’s debatable whether it’s repeatable or not.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
To add to my point....
The A’s scored the LEAST amount of runs in the AL in May while stealing the 5th most amount of bases and sacrificing 11 times, second in the league. They’re playing plenty of small ball. It’s just not leading to runs.
The A’s have been not been winning because of anything the offense is doing. They’re winning in spite of it.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
but the A's style of offense IS working
Even with phenomenal pitching and defense, you still need to score to win.
In past seasons we watched the A’s squander so many great pitching performances, by now being able to score runs in a close game. That was so incredibly frustrating! But this season, they’re finding ways to score just enough runs to win.
Sure we’d like to see less runners left in scoring position each game, and it’d be nice to see a HR more often, but they gotta build off what’s working for them now. And Rajai’s speed IS leading to more runs.
Generally, it's not a good idea to build an argument....
by insisting that the very opposite of what the numbers are saying is true.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
+1
Agreed back in 2001 the mantra was, walk walk HR.
If the guy behind you is a big HR threat it doesn’t matter if you’re on 1st 2nd or 3rd, but when we struggle to hit anything but singles, it’s a big freekin deal
Nico, you're making this more complicated than it is.
Bob Geren put forth an interesting idea: that even though Davis may be slightly less likely to get on base, he’s a more valuable person to have on base when he does get there.
But all your calculations trying to quantify how much that possible extra at-bat is worth are for nought because, as Colin noted above, it’s meaningless to just consider Rajai in a vacuum. You have to compare him against Other Guy who might be leading off instead.
All that you’ve shown in your post is that leading off might give Rajai one more at bat, and that five Rajai at-bats is more valuable than four Rajai at-bats. Well, of course it is. But five Other Guy at-bats is more valuable than four Other Guy at-bats, too. What your math needs to be calculating is not whether Rajai leading off is better than Rajai not leading off, but whether Rajai leading off is better than Other Guy leading off.
This is actually easier than what you’ve tried to figure, because most of the numbers wash out from both sides of the equation. Either the change in lineup results in one more at-bat for the lead-off guy or it does not. If it does not, then the two guys get the same number of at-bats so it makes no difference. If it does, then that’s one more at-bat for the lead-off man, and all the other times through the order are a wash.
Suppose that Rajai’s OBP is .300 and Other Guy’s OBP is .350. In one at-bat Rajai is only 6/7 as likely to get on-base. But our hypothesis is that Rajai on base is more valuable than Other Guy on base. How much more valuable? As you noted elsewhere, there are too many variables to really quantify this so it’s just educated guesswork. OK, so educatedly guess then. Is Rajai on base more than 7/6 as valuable as Other Guy on base? If it is, then batting him leadoff makes sense; if it is not, then it does not. It’s as simple as that.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
yeah, you just combine his baserunning value with his hitting line against the other options
It’s hard to know what his baserunning value is going forward, but it probably makes him similar enough to the other plausible options that it’s not really a big deal one way or another.
With stout hearts, and with enthusiasm for the contest, let us go forward to victory. ----Hero Defector Montgomery
What I was also setting out to show is that
a .350 OBP guy doesn’t reach that much more than a .300 OBP guy — so that over 90-100 PAs you haven’t lost that much off the top in “times reached.” That’s an important factor, as Rajai, or anyone, can only do so much when he DOES reach.
I like Cindi. A. She never pretends to know more than she does. B. She has unbridled enthusiasm for her "Hotties," and isn't afraid to show it. -IM4Oakgal
Rajai's OBP is now .315
And his career is .333. After a bad start he’s doing a much better job of getting on base recently and will likely finish the season closer to last year’s .360 than to .300. If he’s at .340-.350, is there any question who should lead off? With the rest of the problems this offense has, I’d just throw Rajai out there at leadoff every day and worry about who the hell is going to hit for power, provide value at the bottom of the order, avoid DP’s, hit with RISP, etc.
To simplistically measure the impact of Rajai’s speed, why not add his net bases (SB-CS) to his total bases and see the impact on his SLG? It may seem counter-intuitive, but SLG (though flawed) is supposed to be about getting men around the bases, as opposed to getting on base. For his career, this makes Rajai a .435 “slugger” (.430 this season) and moves his OPS to .768. I think the focus on OBP masks Rajai’s value.
Because adding SB to his SLG makes it look like he can more runners who are on base when he bats
which is not actually the case. I’d suggest that there is no situation ever in which you would prefer that Raj single and steal 2 bases, rather than just triple. Triples are more valuable because they give runners on base the chance to score. A single and steals aren’t as good at that.
"And Julio Franco is batting right-handed!" -- Wayne Hagin, A's radio play-by-play, mid-80s
Which is exactly the reason to bat Rajai leadoff
He simulates a more powerful hitter when leading off the game or batting after Pennington later in the game the probability of having someone on in front of him is teeny-tiny.
But I do get your point – there are many better ways of measuring the value of SB/CS’s (now being discussed on another thread), but this was a really quick and dirty way to think about it for me.
Seems like a great reason for him to be at the bottom of the lineup.
Let someone who makes less outs hit higher in the order, and then when Rajai DOES happen to get on base, he’ll add more instead of hurting the team with a subpar OBP at the top of the lineup.
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
My main point was that his OBP will end up .340-.350
At which point there won’t be an argument about this anyway. But I still think my point is valid – if Rajai is batting 7th or 8th (ahead of Pennington, presumably, maybe Ellis), then there is a higher likelihood that someone is on base ahead of him – which relegates him to a singles hitter and negates his ability to enhance his value with a steal.
Yes, but if his main skill is running
And he bats 8th, then singles behind someone who doesn’t run, it negates the one thing he does do well. He’s not much of an offensive weapon, I agree, but if he’s going to play for his defense and baserunning, we might as well maximize his speed to the fullest on the basepaths.
I get what boilderdan is saying, because I thought it too: why not add to SLG? This is simply imperfect because, like Nick said, you’d rather a guy hit triples in situations where someone is on base. But there’s something there
"Do I talk to myself? No, I just remind myself of what I'm trying to do. You know, I never answer myself so how can I be talking to myself?" - Rickey
Athletics Nation - WE'RE ALL GONNA MRIIIIIIIIIIIII!!!!! - danmerqury
by cuppingmaster on Jun 1, 2010 1:38 PM PDT up reply actions
yeah, you can "what if" this to death though, and it stops being productive.
The reality is you’re only assured that ONCE per game that he will have the opportunity to get on base with nobody ahead of him, and that’s if he is hitting leadoff.
You can also rebut that, and say what if he’s hitting leadoff and the #9 guy gets on base in front of him in the 3rd inning? You just took away his potential to steal a base there, too.
SIG SPACE AVAILABLE FOR SPONSORSHIP. INQUIRE WITHIN.
I always wondered why people would wish for the bases to be empty in front of Rajai.
Personally, I’d prefer they were loaded up all the time.
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
missing the point....
"We were shit, pathetic," Guillen growled early in spring training. "We hit too many home runs."
He's a singles hitter until he singles and steals second
Then he’s something entirely different – baseball just hasn’t come up with a name or a good stat for it.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Related FanPosts on Athletics Nation
Related FanShots on Athletics Nation
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
Baseball Nation Recent Stories
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
