For high school baseball, do you put a kid in the two hole just to move the runner and bunt alot? Or do you put your best hitters starting at 1 and going as high as u can go and put weaker hitters towards the bottom?
Original Post
Replies sorted oldest to newest
Consider this. If you send 30 batters to the plate in a 7 inning game the 1-3 batters comes up 4 X each while the rest of the team hits 3X. Who do you want getting those swings? The best you got. Especially since most HS are challenged to put more than 3 or 4 good hitters on the field at any time.
It is an act of overthinking to put anything but your best hitters at the top of the lineup or to give away outs with them in all but the ultimate bottom of the last inning game situations.
Luv, can you call my son's HS coach and tell him that? LOL
Chef - Sure but as the OP states it is a philosophical thing. In my day it was "By the book".
Baseball has two huge differences from other sports. You cannot give your best players significantly more opportunity to be in offensive situations compared to teammates and it is a rare game that has a defensive requirement to win i.e. the recording of outs.
Since both of those statements is undeniable the only thing a coach can control is a few more plate appearances for his best players and how the precious outs are used.
On the other hand if you have a speedy team and are playing a suspect defense then making them play the bunt can be a viable strategy. If you want to demoralize someone, turn two walks, two bunts and a 2 grounders into 3 or 4 runs.
Statistics indicate that the #2 hitter should be the best hitter in the lineup. (source: "The Book" by Tom Tango)
Almost all amateur coaches bunt FAR too much.
Almost all amateur coaches bunt FAR too much.
JH you are right. I can't tell you how many times I've seen a coach kill a good inning trying to bunt a guy over early in a game using a good hitter to do it. The opposing team picks up the bunt and takes the out saying thank you for the out.
Early in the game swing away play for the big inning, unless you are sure it's gonna be a 1-0 ball game because of a flamethrower on the hill resulting in a pitchers duel.
JH,
So true, way too many bunts at the HS level. I know BBCOR bats took away some runs from previous years, but man this year I saw more rally killers (bunts) then I can ever remember. Every inning, if runners on 1B or 2B less, no outs, auto bunt. Many times the hitters are not selective enough, and get themselves into a hole bunting at balls, and other times they either bunt right back to the pitcher, or pop it up. Rally killer!
I think the answer to the OP is both. Like it or not, pretty much every HS coach in my neck of the woods has his #2 hitter show bunt if his #1 hitter gets on. The only suspense is in whether or not #2 will actually bunt or if he'll slash.
So your #2 needs to be a guy who can be trusted to get the bunt down. But he should also be a high on-base % guy, a guy with a little power, a guy who can steal a base, or at least won't clog up the bases, and a guy who knows what to do with a runner at 2b or a runner at 3b. IOW, he needs to be, if not your best all-around offensive player, then very close to it.
That said, I am totally sympathetic to the idea that bunts can turn big innings into one-run innings. OTOH, one-run innings can win games, and they can also turn into big innings if the defense can't handle the pressure, which happens far more often in HS ball than it does in the pros.
In his senior year my son was the #2 hitter in HS. By "best hitter", I'm assuming JH means highest batting average which my son did have (.430 his senior year). He was really good at working the count to give the base runner (if the #1 hitter got on) a chance to steal 2nd. Coach did not always give him the bunt sign though he was one of the best bunters on the team.
HS coach actually put the most powerful hitter in the #1 spot. If he was in the 4 hole he had a tendency to want to jack the ball out. In the 1 spot, not so much. Even so, he had 7 HR's his senior year.
I can see bunting late in the game, when you may need to manufacture a run. But early on, I still favor giving the #2 batter the hit away sign.
In HS I would doubt many great HS coaches put someone in the 2 hole solely to bunt and advance a runner. That would assume a lead off guy who starts the game on base at something approaching a .750 clip or close to that. It also assumes a lot of 1-0, 2-1 and 3-2 type games. Just not very likely in HS over 26 or so games. Additionally, placing a bunter in the 2 hole does not work because the 2 hole guy could be coming up any place in the lineup after one time through the order.
For me, the ideal 2 hole guy is a Marco Scutaro type. Great bat control, good speed, can hit as well 0-2 as he does in any other count. No matter what the count, with a runner on 1B, he can get him to second. He can hit/run; hit behind the runner, protect in steal situations and is the very best contact hitter on the team. With a runner on 2B and not outs, he gets good pitches and he will either advance that runner to 3B or score him with a base hit.
We use the best "bat handler" in the 2 hole, didn't hurt he is a lefty with decent speed, for many of the reasons already listed, can work a count, comfortable hitting in any count, thinks at the plate and can bunt consistently.....the 3 hole was the best "hitter"....we had trouble with our offense this year overall, but our 1-3 guys accounted for a vast majority of our runs scored
How many of you really know how the different batting positions on your team perform? Its one thing to have an opinion, but a far different one to actually know. 
Here’s 10 different ways to look at how our batting positions have performed over the last 8 baseball seasons. Its funny that if one looks hard enough, he can find something to support his argument of who should be batting in which batting position.
Attachments
Originally Posted by J H:
Interesting. To me the biggest contrast between "old school" and "by the book" here is in the 3 and 4 hole roles. But is "old school" really how it's been done? If I think of the teams I've followed most closely that have had the most success:
Giants 2010 to present: Posey has generally been #4 and Sandoval #3. I have often wondered why. Now I see it, and the author would approve.
Mets 1986-1988: Hernandez batted 3 and Strawberry 4. Yes, I can see that a flip-flop would have worked better.
Orioles 1983: Ripkin batted 3 and Murray 4. Very similar hitters that year, but down the road Cal might have been better in 4.
Orioles late 60's early 70's: Frank Robinson batted 3 and Boog Powell batted 4. If that was switched do the Orioles win the 1969 World Series vs. the Mets??
Originally Posted by JCG:
Originally Posted by J H:
Interesting. To me the biggest contrast between "old school" and "by the book" here is in the 3 and 4 hole roles. But is "old school" really how it's been done? If I think of the teams I've followed most closely that have had the most success:
Giants 2010 to present: Posey has generally been #4 and Sandoval #3. I have often wondered why. Now I see it, and the author would approve.
Mets 1986-1988: Hernandez batted 3 and Strawberry 4. Yes, I can see that a flip-flop would have worked better.
Orioles 1983: Ripkin batted 3 and Murray 4. Very similar hitters that year, but down the road Cal might have been better in 4.
Orioles late 60's early 70's: Frank Robinson batted 3 and Boog Powell batted 4. If that was switched do the Orioles win the 1969 World Series vs. the Mets??
The author of the piece was citing a book called "The Book: Playing The Percentages In Baseball". The authors of "The Book" (the lead author is now part of the Cubs' front office) took a large sample of empirical data to run many studies (which were broken into chapters) on "traditional" baseball thoughts. Some were proven to be correct and efficient, while others were disproven and the authors provided alternative methods. Among those that were disproven was the traditional concept of lineup optimization, which is what the linked article hits on. The empirical evidence presented in "The Book" very obviously states that traditional baseball knowledge has been incorrect for many years. In your particular examples, none of the players listed should have been hitting in the #3 spot, since it is not one of the top two most important spots in the order.
I'd highly recommend reading "The Book" for anyone that is interested in learning more. I do believe it is somewhat bland, but it is the most informative book I've read on the topic of advanced metrics by far.
