Beltre in the two hole
Small sample size caveats apply
as #2 .357/.400/.357 (14 ab)
as #5 .102/.170/.122 (49 ab)
as #6 .252/.312/.357 (115 ab)
as #7 .308/.379/.346 (26 ab)
June .250/.250/.250 (4 AB)
One of the things Bavasi said at the first feed was that Beltre was effective in 2004 in part because he was spreading the ball – and you can see in his 2004 hit chart, he did just that, though he did pull most home runs and, oddly, went opposite-field for most of his doubles.
2005, there’s not as many hits to look at, but there is a pronounced pull: when he got hits, they were usually yanked somewhere between center and right.
To my point, though — the team’s struggled with Beltre since he arrived. Some of it’s trying to work on going to all fields. Some of it’s been his fairly clueless pitch recognition, as Dave’s harped on.
Batting Beltre #2 doesn’t make any sense if you’re trying to put together a lineup that scores more runs, because it means he goes up more. But we’re all for creativity and experimentation here at USSM, and here’s the thing: if Pentland and Hargrove think that putting Beltre at some arbitrary spot in the lineup, like #2, will cause him to make changes to approach or help him solve his pitch recognition issues, I’m all for it.
So I’m going to stop cracking on this until it’s clear that it’s working, or that it’s not. Hargrove’s comments on why he wants Beltre up are about 50% go-getter nonsense and 50% plausible, and maybe it’ll pay off.