Why is Batting Fouth sooooo Important in Japan?

- I don't think that #4 protects #3. The importance of batting 4th is unnecessalily emphasized.

Well, the third place hitter gets pitches to hit, because many teams don't want to face the cleanup man with runners on base.

Do you think its importance is only mentioned in Japan? I believe it to be a valid tactic, employed successfully for decades by every baseball league I've ever watched. What do you suggest as an alternative at #4 if you were putting together a lineup?

I don't know if it is the same as it is in the States, but in Japan, usually the number 4 hitter is sort of the face of the team.

I would concur, the #4 slot is important at all levels of baseball.

Although it's hard to believe, simulations done by sabermetricians (baseball statistics experts for those unfamiliar with the term) show that you can take the 9 regular batters for any team and put them in any order and the number of runs scored by the team overall won't change much at all.

"Sabermetricians" - Love it! There's really a term for a baseball statistician?!

I know what you're saying, but taking stats from a game is so subjective. For example, a two out RBI counts much more than a hit when you're leading by half a dozen runs or so. I wonder if these stats are taken into account.

Your cleanup guy is your clutch hitter, he knocks in the runs when it counts, so I don't believe pure statistics alone indicate the true importance of the position. Furthermore I don't believe in the "statistics show that batting order is irrelevant, teams will score the same number of runs" thing. Computers can't calculate clutch hits, pressure moments, etc.

- For example, a two out RBI counts much more than a hit when you're leading by half a dozen runs or so.

Yes, because two-out RBI's come in the clutch, when you're leading by half a dozen runs, the RBI isn't as useful. While, yes the hitter is contributing, but common sense says that if you have a runner in scoring position with two outs, if they can succeed in those RBI opportunities that is more valuable than a hit when leading by six runs.

But if you had a randomly generated batting order for each game, it's likely that each player will have an equal number of times to bat with runners in scoring position. So that's why the total numbers of runners isn't going to vary too much.

Sorry I cant concur with your assessment. As John Brooks and I were alluding to, these "simulated games" are just that, totally unreal hypothetical situations. They fail to take pressure, emotion, and human limitations into account. This is why your cleanup guy is your bread and butter. While others may disagree, this is where I want a guy who can at least clear the fences.

I can see that this thread is going to get off on ideologies that have nothing to do with Japanese baseball real soon.

First, one of the factors that is taken into consideration with said statistics is that one is only guaranteed batting fourth the first time around, and even then, chances are the "number four" batter will bat first in the second inning. That's why batting order isn't so important. (An arguement could be made for the lead-off batter getting more chances per game to bat, but that's a different arguement.)

Next, I don't think it's any different than in North America. Think back to middle school and high school. Who was the most popular person in school? He was the captain of all the sports teams, quarterback in football, and the ace pitcher/number four batter in baseball. At least, that's how it was where I grew up. It was prestige.

Perhaps because so many players enter the top teams out of high school in Japan, where such machoism is popular, that the same prestige system is very strong in the professional ranks. Or maybe it's the legend of Babe Ruth that still holds Japan in its spell.

I'm not sure what the reason for it is. But being the number four batter for a team is a prestigious honor, a high title, a recognition of power.

Batting order is important. Quite simply, it's much easier to get four at-bats batting third than batting nineth. Simple logic.

Also, when you bat your best hitter third, he is guaranteed to come up in the first inning. If he bats fourth, someone else has to get on.

Clutch hitting doesn't exist, by the way. Just to throw a spanner in the works.

Or maybe it's the legend of Babe Ruth that still holds Japan in its spell.

Babe batted third.

Time to revive this thread.

Another thought on why it is so important in Japan in particular, is the use of the bunt and the Japanese psychological importance of the first run. In the States, if your leadoff guy gets on, you generally let him try to steal or work on a hit and run. In Japan, you almost never see this. The number two guy lays down a bunt to move the runner to second. This puts your number four guy in play.

Sacrificing in the early part of the game in the States happens only when you or the other team has their ace on the mound.

The real question should be, "Why do the Japanese think the first run is so important in the first inning?"

Isn't gaining the upper hand important in any sport?

The early days of NPB may provide a clue: it was deadball baseball to an extreme. If you got ahead by 2 or 3 runs, the game was probably as good as over. If you're up 1-0, you're halfway there. I find that a lot of what seems on further consideration today to be weird thinking (the emphasis on average, the design of official fielding stats, etc.) have roots in sound thinking early in the history of the game but weren't discarded when circumstances made such thinking outmoded.

Jim Albright

Well I remember Tony La Russa saying that something like 63% of teams that score first go on to win. Not sure how far the study went back (a few seasons or all historical results), but I guess that's a good reason to be the first to score!

For a good study on bunting in Japan, please see Jim Allen's "1995 Guide to Japanese Baseball" on the subject: "Do Sacrifice Bunts Really Provide an Edge?" [my old site on the Wayback Machine].

What I found most amusing about the article was that it seemed like Allen-san set out to prove that bunts didn't provide an edge, but wound up concluding that they did work for Seibu.

No offense Torakichi, but a one run upper hand only means something at the end of the ninth inning.

- [...] but a one run upper hand only means something at the end of the ninth inning.

Not exactly. A one run lead is only as good as the pitcher who's protecting the one run lead.