The All-Time LA Dodger Lineup: The Second Spot
"Now, who's on the table. who's to tell me?"
-Bob Dylan, Apple Sucking Tree
Now that Maury Wills has won your vote as the top leadoff hitter in LA Dodger history, we move on to the second spot in the batting order. Wills is our shortstop, so that position is off the table for future batting order spots. That means our starting lineup will not feature Bill Russell, Alfredo Griffin, Jose Offerman, or the like.
All-Time LA Dodger Lineup |
||
| No | Player | Pos |
| 30 | Maury Wills |
SS |
Please remember it is important to consider that all positions on the diamond will be used in this lineup so you may want to vote strategically. For instance, someone might be the best player at a certain position so it might be worth it to vote him over a superior spot at that lineup. Also, a player might fit better later in the lineup. Jim Gilliam didn't win a spot as the leadoff man, but he's back again as a candidate for the #2 spot.
Here are the stats for the primary #2 hitters in Los Angeles Dodger history. Their overall stats as a Dodger are listed, along with the games started and years they were the primary #2 hitter for the Dodgers:
| Pos | Player | Years | #2 Starts | PA | Runs | RBI | SB | Slash Stats | OPS+ |
| 2B/3B | Jim Gilliam | 1961-1965 | 654 | 4893 | 630 | 323 | 112 | .261/.358/.338 | 92 |
| LF | Bill Buckner | 1971-1976 | 528 | 3081 | 347 | 277 | 93 | .289/.319/.380 | 99 |
| CF | Ken Landreaux | 1981-1983 | 375 | 2980 | 342 | 306 | 119 | .263/.312/.394 | 98 |
| 2B | Mark Grudzielanek | 1999-2001 | 339 | 2568 | 323 | 221 | 33 | .284/.328/.389 | 89 |
| LF | Manny Mota | 1969-1970 | 302 | 2187 | 229 | 226 | 21 | .315/.374/.391 | 117 |
| CF | Willie Davis |
1968 | 208 | 8035 | 1004 | 849 | 335 | .279/.312/.413 | 107 |
Jim Gilliam is tough to pigeonhole into one position. In his years as the primary #2 hitter (1961-1965), he started 292 games at 2B and 261 games at 3B. If Gilliam wins the poll, I'm willing to have him flexible as to create more options later in the lineup.
Bill Russell could have ended up as a choice later in the lineup as well, as he spent a considerable amount of time batting both 7th & 8th in his long Dodger career. However, with a shortstop at the top in Wills, Russell is stuck on the outside looking in.
Many remember Bill Buckner as a creaky-kneed immobile first baseman, but as a Dodger he was a young and agile outfielder. You may remember Buckner as the Dodger leftfielder trying to climb the wall in Atlanta to retrieve Hank Aaron's 715th HR. He spent time in both OF corners and at 1B before Steve Garvey took over, but his position is RF since he started more games there than at 1B or LF combined.
Ken Landreaux caught the final out of the 1981 World Series, and had a solid if unspectacular Dodger career.
Mark Grudzielanek came to LA as a shortstop, but eventually moved to second base. During his three years as the Dodgers' #2 hitter, he started more than twice as many games at 2B than he did at SS.
If there was a spot in the lineup for a pinch-hitter, Manny Mota would be a lock. However, he was a semi-regular outfielder for the Dodgers for a little while. He also has the best bat of the bunch.
Willie Davis was a late add, since he was primarily a #3 hitter. However, the all-time LA Dodger leader in Win Shares did start 208 games batting 2nd, so he's not entirely out of place.
Eric's Pick
When I started writing this, Brett Butler had a sizable lead over Davey Lopes, and Maury Wills was a distant third. I planned ahead thinking centerfield was taken. My initial vote went to Gilliam, but given the circumstances I'm going with the 3-Dog, Willie Davis. It's hard to have a lineup without the all-time LA Dodger Win Share leader on it.
Phil's Pick
I'll go with Eric's original pick of Junior Gilliam as a 2nd baseman. During his stint as the number two behind Wills he was the ideal number two hitter. 3 Dog's .312 OBP is not endearing and the goal is to build the best lineup with players who batted in the lineup. Gilliam was an ideal number two as explained by teammate Jeff Torborg
What a great team player he was. He'd hit behind Maury, take pitch after pitch after pitch. And when Maury got to second, he'd give himself up by hitting the ball to the right side, even with two strikes, which most hitters won't do.
Willie Davis would be the wrong choice to follow Wills. History already shows how effective Wills/Gilliam were batting 1/2. Eric is worried about how the lineup will play in the future but let us cross that bridge when we get to it. Besides I now see a role for the Toy Cannon since Eric has approved 3 Dog with only 208 games batting 2nd.
Who is your pick? (This poll runs through Thursday at noon)
0 recs |
31 comments
|
Comments
Go for Gilliam
Like Lopes and Russell, Wills and Gilliam worked well together. Love the Three-Dog and he was the fastest man in baseball but in this spot I gotta go with Gilliam.
by IWILLRULEYOU on Jan 26, 2009 1:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
How in the world did Wills win for leadoff?
Just looking at the raw lines he was easily the worst leadoff guy of the bunch.
You know what? Fuck you Sports Gods, fuck you.
by bluemax on Jan 26, 2009 1:20 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
re:
Over 200 voters beg to differ. Evidently raw data lines were no match for those who saw him play and lead the offensively challenged Dodgers of 63-66 to three appearances in the World Series.
by meercatjohn on Jan 26, 2009 1:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
wat
That sounds like something Jon Heyman would say.
by kensai on Jan 26, 2009 2:18 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Heyman
…would have quoted “sources” that had Steve Sax winning.
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 2:26 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I'm just glad...
…he was actually right about Manny.
by kensai on Jan 26, 2009 2:37 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Looking at raw lines is not fair
You have to adjust for era and park, and the 1960s Dodger Stadium was one of the worst hitting environments in baseball history. Even though Wills didn’t relatively get on base as well as Butler or Lopes, he did wreak havoc on the bases in a time when those bases were far more important to the club’s offense.
I had Wills third behind Lopes and Butler, but I can see the argument for him; it’s not entirely unreasonable at all.
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 1:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Win Shares
Following up a bit, here are the full season Dodger Win Shares totals for our top leadoff candidates:
Wills
1960: 16
1961: 21
1962: 32
1963: 27
1964: 20
1965: 28
1966: 16
1969: 19 (about 2/3 with Dodgers)
1970: 13
Average: 21.33
Butler
1991: 26
1992: 24
1993: 23
1994: 19
1997: 7
Average: 19.8
Lopes
1973: 19
1974: 21
1975: 25
1976: 16
1977: 24
1978: 26
1979: 27
1980: 16
Average: 21.75
I
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 1:45 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can you add their age next to the year?
I am having a hard time separating the player’s career from their Dodger career.
by mr_blond on Jan 26, 2009 1:48 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Ages
Wills
age 27: 16
28: 21
29: 32 (MVP)
30: 27
31: 20
32: 28
33: 16
36: 19 (about 2/3 with Dodgers)
37: 13
Average: 21.33
Butler
34: 26
35: 24
36: 23
37: 19
40: 7
Average: 19.8
Lopes
age 28: 19
29: 21
30: 25
31: 16
32: 24
33: 26
34: 27
35: 16
Average: 21.75
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 1:52 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I missed Wills' 1971
Wills had 19 Win Shares in 1971, pushing his average down to 21.1
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 2:32 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Re:
I’d even add that having Wills 3rd behind Lopes and Butler was more a testament to how good Lopes and Butler were then a shot at Wills. As Eric said we have to remember the era of Dodger Stadium in the early-mid 60’s.
Wes Parker’s raw number look lame compared to Karros but Wes Parker was the better offensive player.
by meercatjohn on Jan 26, 2009 1:50 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
That’s a logical fallacy. Just because Wills won doesn’t mean he was the best. Of course, such an argument will ultimately be subjective in nature, but we can at least come up with more object measures, which bluemax referred to, rather than giving anecdotal evidence based on the stories those people can tell about what he did when they saw them play.
We can, however, say two things with reasonable certainty. Wills was such a mediocre offensive player that he wouldn’t be ‘leading’ an offense in the way you posit, and that a decent number of people here, probably most, weren’t even alive when Wills was in his hayday. They probably know him as the guy who stole a ton of bases and then voted for him because that’s what leadoff hitters are typically thought to do.
Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.
by Tango and Cash on Jan 27, 2009 5:13 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Can we really have two players so inept at getting on base at the top of the lineup?
Now that Butler didn’t win I don’t think you can reasonably have another out machine at the top of the lineup. In this sense, #2 has to go to Jim Gilliam or Manny Mota. Since Mota wasn’t a regular for most of his career, then I think this forces Gilliam in a swing position depending on who else cracks the lineup.
I hope Manny and his half season make it to the list for #3.
by mr_blond on Jan 26, 2009 1:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Maybe after 2011
Manny, to date, has started 53 games as a Dodger. He’s not quite there.
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 1:53 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Dunno
I don’t think Mota played long enough in #2, so i’ll give it to Gillam, only because we can’t have the top TWO guys in the lineup have Juan Pierre-esque OBP.
by kensai on Jan 26, 2009 2:25 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Wills had a good OBP
After adjusting for park and league, Wills’ OBP+ was ~105. Wills was above the league average every season as a Dodger.
Pierre hasn’t had an OBP at league average or above since 2004.
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 2:28 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Still...
It was .330-ish, and being better than Juan Pierre isn’t a point of pride, I think.
Butler was pretty much the prototypical modern leadoff hitter, given what we know is valuable today.
In the first two spots, I just can’t go with a guy who has 60 less points in OBP. I can’t. :o
by kensai on Jan 26, 2009 2:34 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
Gotta go with Junior
I don’t know about stats, but it is a close tie in my mind with Junior and Willie, bot my nod has to go to Junior Gilliam. He just scared pitchers it seemed to me when I was a boy.
Now if The Duke was batting third, that would REALLY make JG deadly!
by dodgerbill on Jan 26, 2009 3:02 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Let it go
I thought we were on the #2 hitter in the lineup. Butler isn’t in on this one and I saw enough groundouts, popups, LOB’s and flubbed outfield play by Pierre in his first year to last a lifetime. Hopefully someone gets really desperate this year and takes him off our hands. Why anyone even brings him up is beyond me. Bad juju man.
Sorry Eric, Junior is gonna take this one! Next………………..
by IWILLRULEYOU on Jan 26, 2009 4:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
I could be persuaded that
Billy Buckner could be the right choice considering the repercussions of upcoming picks.
by bhsportsguy on Jan 26, 2009 5:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Doubt it
You’ll see Bill Russell playing CF for this lineup before you see Juan Pierre.
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 26, 2009 8:27 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
BR in Center before JP
All I can say Eric is AMEN BROTHER!
by IWILLRULEYOU on Jan 26, 2009 8:59 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs
So
its BR who would benefit from JP backlash?
by Bob Hendley on Jan 26, 2009 9:47 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Surprised
I wasn’t around for any of this, so I don’t think I should vote. But I’m surprised that there’s so little support for Manny Mota when all his his stats (especially for a no. 2 where you don’t usually look to RBI) look better than everyone else’s. I’d understand if this was tactical, in the sense that there may be better-hitting LF’s coming up in the 3-4-5 spots, but no one has mentioned that. People just don’t seem to think of him as a Dodger (“not a regular”), or something like that?
by berkowit28 on Jan 27, 2009 9:23 AM PST reply actions 0 recs
Don't worry
Mota will always have a spot on the all-time coaching staff. :)
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 27, 2009 9:48 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
re:
To me it is tactical as Sheffield is such a big bopper but Sheff is not a slam dunk in LF because of the competition he will face for the 3/4 spot. Still we can find left fielders all over the lineup who I think were better then Mota. Can’t say the same for Gilliam. Lopes was better but he’s off the table. Kent was better but won’t beat out anybody in the 3/4/5 spots that he’d qualify for. Sax might have been better but his main spot is also gone.
by meercatjohn on Jan 27, 2009 9:56 AM PST up reply actions 0 recs
I would love to vote for Mark Grudz. He was one of my favorite Dodgers when he played.
I considered voting for Mota. OPS+ of 117 is pretty good batting second. And I have to think Piazza is going to win the 3 hole in the next poll, which means LF is still going to be available.
by the big grabowski on Jan 27, 2009 2:01 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
WEST COAST BIAS AGAINST BROOKLYN!
Seriously though, I would’ve been more interested in seeing an all-time Dodger team vote because that would be a better team and more fun to vote for. And we wouldn’t have to be voting for guys like Mark Grudzielanek.
Dodger Fever: Catch it every summer; head to the ER every October.
by Tango and Cash on Jan 27, 2009 5:15 PM PST reply actions 0 recs
Me too
The only problem with that is there is very sparse play-by-play data prior to 1956. I may do some research into this for a later poll down the road…perhaps next offseason we can have a Brooklyn-inclusive poll.
Pee Wee and Jackie batting 1-2 would be much better! :)
-Eric
by Eric Stephen on Jan 27, 2009 5:51 PM PST up reply actions 0 recs

by 














