Is there anything to the fact that he is one of the leaders of the team, and if you move him down to 5th or 6th in the lineup when the team is scuffling, it could send a poor message to him, and the team? Possibly creating tension and distrust when there doesn't need to be any.
I'd rather have Altuve or Reddick hitting lead off than Springer. Springer strikes out too much, poor base runner, inconsistent hitter etc.
When you do little things right, winning becomes easier. When you have RISP guys like Springer ahead of table setters, they likely cancel each other out. Fix what you have control over.
Springer is 0-4 with RISP on this home stand. Essentially everyone in a RISP spot has failed this home stand.
Yeah, lol, as brain dead as Altuve is on the base paths at times he's still a better base runner because at least he steals bases at a good rate unlike Springer.
Just based on hit tool, I want Altuve in the leadoff spot. His ability to get infield hits, steal bases, score from first on a single... that's what I want from my leadoff man. Not that I'm complaining...
This makes sense (though "score from first on a single" is a little aggressive) However, Altuve also has all the skills you'd want out of a 3-hole hitter with the power evolution last year (that has continued this year). Altuve can bat in either place because he's elite at so many things. It becomes a question of, what's the opportunity cost of each situation? Who's your next best leadoff man, and what do you lose by putting him there? And who's your next best 3 hole hitter, and what do you lose in that scenario? If Springer gets his walk rate back up to the range it was in the last 2 years, I think that's still a better overall solution than Altuve at the top and Springer in the 3 hole, or plugging a Reddick-type in the 3 hole and moving Springer elsewhere. I'd imagine they've run those #'s thousands of times in different ways.
No. The message you'd be sending is that the team, and its results, are more important than any one individual. They won't make (or not make) moves based on things like clubhouse leadership and what not.
Springer posted a .367 OBP in 2015, and a .359 OBP in 2016. 10 days ago he had a .340 OBP. In the 18 games leading up to his .340 peak he had posted a .403 OBP and scored 13 runs in 17 starts. He's in the midst of a 2 for 25 slump, so yeah it's going to look bad anywhere, but Springer has a track record of getting on base. Also his .261 BABIP is well below his career numbers. He's streaky, always has been, but he'll start to hit again. One thing Springer has not done well is hit with men in scoring position. He has a career .920 OPS leading off an inning, .813 with men on, and .736 with RISP. Those numbers paint a pretty blunt picture of where George succeeds at. Would you prefer a power hitter like him to be a better run producer, of course, but It's best to just put him where he has the most success at. Moving him into a spot with more men on base makes no sense, and dropping one of your most productive hitters to the bottom of the order where he gets the fewest PA is stupid as well.
I'm not sure about that - that seems like the only real reason Beltran gets so much playing time. There's no evidence he's better than the guys on the bench, or that he will be going forward given his age/etc.
What is stupid or what makes sense depends on which George Springer we get the rest of the year. I understand his past numbers and the argument that he will return to that form. That may happen or it may not. Many here see this year as an aberration for him. I really hope those people are right. The part I dont get is that moving him down the order will somehow screw up his head or cause some significant additional decline in him that wouldn't occur if we keep things as is. I am aware of why people say this, I just dont buy it. To me, it makes more sense to put a guy in the #1 spot whose numbers support being there NOW (this years numbers). If he gets it together, than adjust accordingly. I am also aware this same type of argument was applied to Correa when he was slumping. And as things turned out, he got it together and so in hindsight, moving him around wasn't necessary. I am sure this example is a primary basis for why many dont want Springer to move now. I get it. I suppose some of my thinking in moving him is that others guys, Altuve or Marwin in particular, would be a better pick for leading off even if Springer was putting up 2016 numbers, much less what he is doing in 2017.
Beltran has a 18-year track record of excellence including a very good .295/.337/.513/.850 just last year. But if he doesn't turn it around at some point, they'll absolutely find fewer at-bats for him.
So basically you want lineup changes every time somebody goes into a slump for a few games? A lot of guys have slumps you know. At the end of that doubleheader 10 days ago Springer had a more than respectable .847 OPS. This isn't some extended run of bad play, it's a slump. At a certain point changes will be necessary, but no team is gonna ignore long term track record and make major changes over small stretches of poor play.
