Net54baseball.com Forums

Net54baseball.com Forums (http://www.net54baseball.com/index.php)
-   Watercooler Talk- ALL sports talk (http://www.net54baseball.com/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Why did Ty Cobb bat 3rd? (http://www.net54baseball.com/showthread.php?t=250343)

jasonc 01-21-2018 06:33 AM

Why did Ty Cobb bat 3rd?
 
I've noticed that predominantly Ty Cobb back in day was inserted batting 3rd in the lineup? I tried to do some research on this, and couldn't understand why?

Was the thinking during the deadball era different? Did you seem to have your "best" hitter batting 3rd in the lineup?

It seems like with the type of player he was, he would've been an absolute stud hitting leadoff in the batting order.

From the research I've done, they seemed to have put Sam Crawford 4th, instead of Cobb then Crawford to be the 1st two batters and would have .250 hitters bat 1st and 2nd.

Just something that made me think.

nat 01-21-2018 07:44 AM

Cobb was the premier power hitter of his day. He led the league in slugging percentage eight times. Of course he would also have made a great leadoff hitter, but there was good reason to put him third.

BearBailey 01-21-2018 11:49 AM

Not sure what you mean as you still have your best hitter batting third?

rainier2004 01-21-2018 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nat (Post 1740529)
Cobb was the premier power hitter of his day. He led the league in slugging percentage eight times. Of course he would also have made a great leadoff hitter, but there was good reason to put him third.

Yup, he was the best hitter and drove in runs while doing it so he went third. His contact ability allowed a ton of hit an runs ans he drove the ball allowing for all those RBIs so he hit third. His speed was secondary due to his hitting prowess, he was the Mike Trout of his day except he was more clutch.

jasonc 01-21-2018 02:22 PM

Thanks so far everybody for your opinions. I can kind of see it, but having Bush and Vitt hitting .240 and .250 batting 1st and 2nd seems kind of strange with a monster hitting .390 and 80 steals hitting 3rd. But, when you look at it, somebody has to hit first and second?

steve B 01-21-2018 08:17 PM

You'd have to look at the entire lineup too, to see what they expected for the whole game. Cobb batting third probably gets him just as many plate appearances as him hitting first, plus with a high average and power that maximizes whatever the guys ahead of him produce instead of wasting it by following them with another .250 hitter.
If they expected fewer runs per game, that means fewer chances for everyone, so they might have figured on maybe getting to the 5 batter in a good inning, which if the rest of the lineup is iffy, puts them pretty much restarting for the third, or having Cobb batting fourth in the third. After that it gets complicated, but being third might mean 4-5 chances at being up with men on base instead of 4-5 without people on base, or only three if he bats later.

bravos4evr 01-22-2018 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonc (Post 1740671)
Thanks so far everybody for your opinions. I can kind of see it, but having Bush and Vitt hitting .240 and .250 batting 1st and 2nd seems kind of strange with a monster hitting .390 and 80 steals hitting 3rd. But, when you look at it, somebody has to hit first and second?

Because managers didn't understand the way baseball works (then or now for the most part)

Your best overall hitter should bat 2nd, your best hitter with the best OBP and lowest SLG should lead off, then your 2nd best overall hitter should hit 4th, then 3rd, then 5th...etc Teams are STILL stuck in a dead ball era mentality when it comes to lineup construction, but it is changing as more analytics take over and more dinosaurs are retired from the game.

wondo 01-23-2018 07:04 AM

Donie Bush had a very respectable OBP (career .357 for Detroit) and he led the league in walks 5/6 years near the beginning of his career. He was a very capable leadoff man.

irishdenny 01-23-2018 12:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nat (Post 1740529)
Cobb was the premier power hitter of his day. He led the league in slugging percentage eight times. Of course he would also have made a great leadoff hitter, but there was good reason to put him third.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearBailey (Post 1740615)
Not sure what you mean as you still have your best hitter batting third?

In 1909 Mr. Cobb Led the League with 9 Homers...
All in which were in side the Park, That tells us Sumthin!

Best Hitter, Most Power... Batting 3rd makes Good Baseball Sense ~

EvilKing00 01-23-2018 12:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BearBailey (Post 1740615)
Not sure what you mean as you still have your best hitter batting third?

agree - best hitter should always hit 3rd

the 'stache 01-25-2018 03:06 AM

Typically, a team's best hitter will take the three slot in the lineup.

Sam Crawford was widely considered the best power hitter in baseball. Per The Glory of Their Times: The Story of the Early Days of Baseball Told by the Men Who Played It, which I am currently reading:

Most baseball writers of that period agree that Sam Crawford was the outstanding power hitter of the dead-ball era H.G. Salsinger, eminent Detroit sports writer who covered the Detroit Tigers throughout the era of Cobb and Crawford, recalls that "I have seen right fielders, playing against the fence, catch five fly balls off Crawford's bat in one game, five fly balls that would have cleared the fence any time after the season of 1920, when the jackrabbit ball was introduced."

But, curiously, the recollection of Davy Jones, who played in the outfield alongside Cobb and Crawford between 1906 and 1912, is different, as far as the batting lineup went in Detroit.

I was generally the lead-off man in the batting order, because of my speed. Usually, it was Jones leading off, then Germany Schaefer or Donnie Bush, Sam Crawford batting third, Cobb fourth, Claude Rossman next. the first baseman. and then George Moriarity, the third baseman. Jimmy Delahanty was in there somewhere, and Charlie Schmidt, the big catcher.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasonc (Post 1740517)
I've noticed that predominantly Ty Cobb back in day was inserted batting 3rd in the lineup? I tried to do some research on this, and couldn't understand why?

Was the thinking during the deadball era different? Did you seem to have your "best" hitter batting 3rd in the lineup?

It seems like with the type of player he was, he would've been an absolute stud hitting leadoff in the batting order.

From the research I've done, they seemed to have put Sam Crawford 4th, instead of Cobb then Crawford to be the 1st two batters and would have .250 hitters bat 1st and 2nd.

Just something that made me think.



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:02 PM.