FanGraphs Baseball


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Could be interesting to see a .slg chart next to the OBP one

    Comment by sam — December 5, 2012 @ 10:06 am

  2. But isn’t it true that unless you do something really stupid, like bat Jason Heyward 7th, the lineup order doesn’t make much difference at all?

    How many wins would the Braves gain by batting Heyward 2nd instead of 3rd?

    Comment by TKDC — December 5, 2012 @ 10:20 am

  3. I’d be curious to see if the line ups are optimized for slugging rather than OBP. The line up optimizer sites weigh both OBP and SLG that I have seen. If there were a way to strip out the OBP component from the optimizing formula so you could just optimize by SLG, you might see the best sluggers stacked at 3, 4, and 5, and that might be how managers are lining up their orders.

    By the way, I think this might work better with SLG than ISO. I think using SLG captures average, which I think plays in to managers thinking.

    Comment by JCA — December 5, 2012 @ 10:21 am

  4. The real problem is that different abilities tend to occur together in the real world. A high OBA hitter also tends to have a high SLG. This makes The Book’s lineup system much more difficult to implement with real players.

    Comment by dcs — December 5, 2012 @ 10:28 am

  5. Isn’t the data for the importance of out avoidance based on the results from unoptimized lineups? For example, if managers followed the suggestions and put their best on base guy at the top of the lineup and the 3rd best second, would that not make the outs fir the third spot more valuable?

    Comment by A Braves Fan — December 5, 2012 @ 10:28 am

  6. I still don’t understand why teams don’t just stack the lineup from best OPS to worst. Getting your best hitter the most plate appearances always makes the most sense, qualities like speed be damned. Sure, having a guy who can hit HRs in front of guys who don’t get on base very well is going to cost runs, but those are still runs. A way to address that is to perhaps go #1-3 OPS then have the #7-9 be the best OBP’s of who’s left, however, runs are runs.

    When you have a guy with a 650 OPS who’s leading off because just because he steals bases, youre still giving a guy with a 650 OPS the most PA’s, that just sounds fundamentally nonsensical.

    Comment by PL — December 5, 2012 @ 10:36 am

  7. So as a for instance, based on ‘The Book’, the Cardinals lineup last year would have looked like (provided everyone healthy):

    1: Matt Holliday
    2: David Freese
    3: Jon Jay
    4: Allen Craig
    5: Yadier Molina
    6: Carlos Beltran
    7: Rafael Furcal
    8: Dan Descalso

    Interesting… and so radically against baseball tradition that people would be calling for managers heads as soon as this lineup was announced. Too bad, because Jon Jay reaching 100+ RBI’s would be hilarious.

    Comment by MSom13 — December 5, 2012 @ 10:40 am

  8. I wish doing “something really stupid” was only hypothetical for my favorite team; instead, Reds fans were treated to watching a .254 OBP from the lead off spot last year.

    Comment by Craftcj — December 5, 2012 @ 10:45 am

  9. If it really mattered, teams like the Cubs and A’s would be making their lineups like this…being that their FO’s are more statistically inclined. What you do see are teams who look for speed from a leadoff guy and others who look for a good approach and on base ability.

    Comment by BABIP — December 5, 2012 @ 10:45 am

  10. Ignoring SLG in this makes this exercise, IMO, useless. I don’t think we’ve learned much of anything here. The Book doesn’t ignore SLG, so why shouldn’t we take it that far, at least?

    Comment by Eminor3rd — December 5, 2012 @ 10:46 am

  11. Doesn’t Sky suggest that a team’s 2nd best hitter should hit third, not their 5th?

    Also I’d like to see this with OPS because as you say OBP doesn’t account for XBH. Well OPS does, and it still weighs OBP.

    Comment by JeffMathisCera — December 5, 2012 @ 11:03 am

  12. The data you’re using – the leveraged importance of not making an out – is predicated on the best hitters being in the 3 spot. Basically, it’s a circular argument. The reason the #4 spot is so important is largely because in practice, the highest OBP is always in the #3 spot. This is the kind of thing that requires simulation rather than using linear weights from historical data. I believe Xeifrank has done work with simulation and lineup optimization, but I can’t find it right now. I believe it was from the Barry Bonds era. From what I remember, as long as you generally order the lineup from best-to-worst OBP then the difference made by tinkering is negligible over the course of a season.

    One consideration is also the fact that the 4 hitter can never spend his first plate appearance of a game with 2 outs and nobody on base – a decidedly low-leverage situation in which to put your best hitter – and something that happens the majority of the time to the #3 hitter. But that is not the only consideration. It may very well be that the #3 hitter should be the 5th best/worst hitter in the lineup, but the data provided just doesn’t fully support that.

    Comment by Skin Blues — December 5, 2012 @ 11:04 am

  13. Why the reliance on OBP, or SLG as other commenters are making, when we have a statistic that accurately weights each of the potential offensive outcomes with their value: wOBA. This statistic seems superior to both OBP and SLG in this case, as it takes both into account with the proper value of the different potential outcomes. Would like to see this exercise re-run using wOBA.

    Comment by Eric — December 5, 2012 @ 11:08 am

  14. It would also be curious to see this broken out by team. There may be less reliability in sample size, but it’s hard to say “the league” hasn’t learned when really it’s “Dusty Baker and Buck Showalter haven’t learned”. I would like to see, for example – how do the Rays compare to the Reds? Or, how have the Rays evolved over time? Is there a clear delineation before and after Joe Maddon? This could also be a contributing factor towards measuring manager wins.

    Comment by jjbooth74 — December 5, 2012 @ 11:08 am

  15. I’ve always thought teams should bat their best player first. Why wouldn’t you want your best player to get the most possible PA?

    Comment by JoeS — December 5, 2012 @ 12:16 pm

  16. One thing to consider is that advanced front officees know that there’s only a very slight advantage to optimizing your lineup in most cases and they’re willing to give up a few runs each season to keep interest in each game high (i.e. scoring in the first inning or getting your stud guy a guaranteed plate appearance in the first inning every single game).

    Comment by DominicanRepublican — December 5, 2012 @ 12:17 pm

  17. It would super hilarious.

    Comment by Tom Herr — December 5, 2012 @ 12:36 pm

  18. Imagine leading a game off with Barry Bonds

    Comment by Cheese — December 5, 2012 @ 12:59 pm

  19. There’s a nice little tool available at

    The example provided (of the Nats, using BJ projections) suggests that they happened upon something close to optimal last year (Werth leading off) and, now that they’ve acquired a “classic lead-off man” in Span they’re going to regress. The difference between this tool’s optimal lineup and what they will probably do is 0.145 runs per game – 2-3 wins per season.

    Comment by Aaron (UK) — December 5, 2012 @ 1:02 pm

  20. These have all been argued to death, but the one thing I never hear discussed is … why do managers insist on putting a guy best able to advance himself across the bases (SB guy) in front of the hitter most likely to drive him in regardless of what base he is on?

    I would think that the best hitter should bat 3rd or 2nd, with the high-OBP guys in front of him, regardless of speed. Then, if you have a legitimate speedster with OBP problems, you bat him ahead of a batter with no power. Then the speedster can steal second and score on a single, or steal third and score on a sac fly.

    It has less to do with OBP-optimization and more to do with the individual talents of the players (can you imagine a buy like Bourn batting ahead of the pitcher? He’d be on third base every time)

    Also, the comment by Skin Blues above is right on the money.

    Comment by Brian — December 5, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

  21. Speed hasn’t been mentioned enough. Its clearly the #1 reason a lot if not most current leadoff guys are batting leadoff. In theory speed/bsr could be a pretty important factor – I’m remembering one of Dave’s articles justifying Trout over Cabrera for MVP, and how he quantified how many more runs Trout created over Cabrera by going 1st to 3rd and 2nd to home. As as a side note, both had about .395 OBPs.

    The fact that the OBP-based lineup construction analysis shows negligible advantage in some of the lineup changes we’re talking about makes me think using that method is overlooking some pretty important pieces, even if OBP is still the most important factor.

    Comment by Brian L — December 5, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

  22. Not really, I’m pretty sure people have run analysis including feedback effects from changing which hitter is where, up to calculating the expected runs for every permutation of the lineup using the expected states from the lineup being tested, and in the cases I’ve seen they still get back that the importance is something like 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6, 7, 8, 9, in that order.

    And such analysis also comes back “doesn’t much matter”. So I suspect managers who are aware of it just shrug and go with the assumption that a fast lead-off guy helps the batters behind him get hits when he’s on base and that this and going right-left-right are more important than theoretical linup optimization.

    Comment by Doug Lampert — December 5, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

  23. This doesn’t take into account the pitcher, a slugger in the middle of the order will get “pitched around” far more often than a leadoff hitter. Thus a player with good OBP skills batting leadoff might not actually get on base as often as a power bat player batting 5th with significantly less OBP “skill”

    Comment by @notrizzo — December 5, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

  24. I looked at something similar back in the late ’90s, using linear programming and base/out data provided by Tom Ruane. What I was looking for was the relative value of batting average (for a given OBP — didn’t have wOBA then) in each of the lineup positions. As noted above by others the problem with using this to design lineups is that the mix of base-out situations each lineup slot will see changes as soon as you construct your lineup in a novel way.

    For what it’s worth, in a traditional lineup, you want the highest contribution from batting average in the #3 slot, other things being equal. I don’t remember the run value differences or the rest of the rankings.

    Comment by Dr. Dave — December 5, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

  25. No, he doesn’t.

    Comment by Bryan Grosnick — December 5, 2012 @ 2:18 pm

  26. I looked into this a little while ago using a lineup simulator; the basic answer is:

    (a) Lineups are complicated
    (b) Lineups don’t matter very much
    (c) To the extent that they do matter one of the most important things is to make sure you don’t hit into double plays, because that’s actually something a lineup has control over.

    Comment by Sam Bankman-Fried — December 5, 2012 @ 2:50 pm

  27. I’ll bet the #2 spot was even worse. Dusty sucks.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 2:52 pm

  28. Yes, you are correct. #3 rates relatively low in importance because most managers put mediocre batters in #1 and even worse in #2 (see Reds above).
    If a team actually put high OBP’s in the first two spots, #3 would be very important.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

  29. Correct and very well presented.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 2:58 pm

  30. Your argument is good, as far as it goes. The answer is that since the #9 (especially in the NL) and #8 batters are usually the poorest on the team, leaving the #1 batter to come up with bases empty a lot (and, of course, always on the first PA).
    Puttting the best guy first might work well if the team can put high OBP, low SLG batters in 8-9.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

  31. In his prime, that would have been a stunning success. I actually modeled it once based on actual results, with best of the other batters 2nd, next best 3, etc.
    However, he’s an exception because of all those BB’s.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 3:07 pm

  32. 2-3 wins is certainly not trivial.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 3:08 pm

  33. Your comment is also right on the money. I’d love to see a statistical analysis of that idea.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

  34. Nice link, thanks.

    Comment by Baltar — December 5, 2012 @ 3:15 pm

  35. An excerpt used from Sky, “Here’s how the lineup spots rank in the importance of avoiding outs:

    #1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9″

    …later on…

    “Sky suggests that a team’s fifth-best OBP hitter should hit third”

    If the only way this analysis is done is by using OBP, then aren’t these contradictory, or wrong? Am I missing something?

    Comment by JeffMathisCera — December 5, 2012 @ 3:49 pm

  36. I think there’s some confusion. The two quotes actually say the same thing.

    The first one says that #1 spot in the order is the most important for avoiding outs, followed by the #4 spot, and so on. According to that list, the #3 spot is fifth-most-important, therefore should be occupied by the fifth-best player at getting on base.

    Comment by Bryan Grosnick — December 5, 2012 @ 5:14 pm

  37. @Jeff It’s not contradictory, the way you read it is that, for example, because #3 is the 5th in the list, it is the 5th most important spot.

    Comment by 23553 — December 5, 2012 @ 5:17 pm

  38. Sky is saying that the #3 spot is the fifth-most important in avoiding outs. Thus, the 5th best OBP hitter should be in the #3 spot.

    Comment by Gareth — December 5, 2012 @ 5:19 pm

  39. I would think that one should take OBP and OPS into account, weighting them differently based on a player’s role in the lineup. A couple high OBP guys followed by a high OPS guy, something along those lines.

    Comment by KM — December 5, 2012 @ 5:27 pm

  40. reasons..

    1. Tradition – thats the way its been done for ages. who is gonna go against all that tradition.
    2. Speed guys=leadoff – easiest way to steal a base? have nobody clogging the basepaths ahead of you.
    3. Sluggers=cleanup – more people on base=more runs crossing when slugger hits a homer
    4. Risk – Who is going to be the one manager to set the MLB world on its ear and actually do this lineup change? nobody.
    5. Old Stats – avg, rbi, hr. There are alot of traditionalists out there employed by mlb teams that are not fully aware of the “new stats” such as ops and others.

    The above five, and more are reasons that these ideas are not implemented. And, it might have to “break in” via a college coach (or at a much lower level, A or Rookie league.. I just dont see it at or above AA)

    Comment by Cidron — December 5, 2012 @ 5:43 pm

  41. or, put another way. How much success would the rays have over the last five years with Dusty at the helm, vs the Reds with Maddon? Interesting.

    Comment by Cidron — December 5, 2012 @ 5:45 pm

  42. Define “best” from the managers point of view. Is it the guy who hits 40 homers, 100 rbi, but a .225 avg — or the guy with a .330 avg, but only 10hr, and 25 rbi? (using ‘old school’ stats as alot of managers are comfortable with them, and will use them)

    Comment by Cidron — December 5, 2012 @ 5:47 pm

  43. Role seems fine the first time thru, but as the game progresses, we may see the “slugger” batting leadoff, and the lil utility guy with no bat hitting cleanup (in any given inning). Role in a lineup only survives generally one time thru. After that, who knows.

    Comment by Cidron — December 5, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

  44. The Dodgers are just as bad, with a .583 OPS out of their leadoff spot last year – worse that any of the 2-8 spots by 80 points. All because Dee Gordon is fast and therefore Mattingly can’t imagine where else to put him.

    I wonder if the fact you pointed out has anything to do with the Red’s being 6th in OPS and 9th in runs scored last year. I would be more confident of that pattern if the Dodgers, similarly clueless with regard to lineup construction, weren’t 13th in both OPS and runs.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 6:47 pm

  45. I think the correlation between the two makes it easier. It is more important to avoid outs in situations with a higher opportunity for run scoring. With none on and two outs, any runner who gets on is likely to be wasted, so if you have to make out, do it there. On the other hand, with men on first and second and none out, getting on base increasing run scoring more dramatically. It is the nature of baseball that it is better to get 4 hits in one inning and go 1-2-3 in the next three than to get only one hit in 4 consecutive innings. Therefore you want your high OBP guys to come up with men on base, which is also when you want your high SLG guys to come up.

    It is only when you have an odd assortment of high-OBP low-SLG guys and their opposites that lineup construction presents a particular challenge.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 6:53 pm

  46. The problem with the three spot, however, is that in the 1st inning, if the 1 and 2 guys get out, which will always be a likely outcome, then the 3 guy comes up with none on and 2 out, which is least valuable situation in which to get on base. If the 4 guy comes up in the first inning, however, it can only be with men on base. If the 1st inning is 1-2-3, then the 4 guy leads off the 2nd inning. So look at it this way:

    Possibilities for 3-spot batter (1st at bat):
    -men on and < 2 out (in which case the 4 hitter will likely come up with men on)
    -none on and 2 out

    Possibilities for 4-spot batter (1st at bat):
    -men on and any number of outs
    -leads off inning.

    Leading off any inning is always more important than none on and 2 out. Also, the cost of failing with 1 out is not too different than the cost of failing with two outs, therefore for any base-out situation, it isn't particularly worse to fail or better to succeed with the same base-situation and one more out. On the other hand, the benefit of success with 0 on 0 out is MUCH greater than for 0 on 2 out.

    So the first at bat for the 4 hitter with generally be much more important than for the 3 hitter. And I don't think any other at bat will varying among batting order positions nearly as much, i.e. after the first run through the lineup, you can't really distinguish the lineup spots according to the likely base-out situation.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 7:08 pm

  47. The manager makes the lineup, however, and I’m guessing the managers are generally less statistically savvy than the FO guys.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

  48. The Ray’s lineup spots, ordered by descending OBP, followed by the suggested order:

    #3, #7, #5, #8, #1, #6, #4, #2, #9
    #1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9

    So no, not particularly well put together. Every spot is at least 4 places away from where it should be except the 5, 6, and 9 spots.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 7:37 pm

  49. The Dodgers were totally backwards in this regard last year, batting Dee Gordon (.228/.281/.281, 32 SB) 1st and AJ Ellis (.270/.373/.414, 0 SB) 8th all year. I think it would have been perfect to switch them.

    First of all, putting a much higher OBP guy first just means more runners on base all season. Secondly, Whenever Gordon does get on, he’ll be getting on with the heart of the lineup and the highest OBP guys coming up, and he’ll be in position to score because he’s stolen or the pitcher has sacrificed him. Also, the pitcher has no power, so on the off-chance he gets a hit, it’s best to have a speed guy on base. The 6 and 7 guys are also probably low-OBP so Gordon is less likely to be blocked on the bases. Ellis has low power relative to his OBP so having a speedy guy on in front of him helps too.

    It just made too much sense for Don Mattingly to do it.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 7:46 pm

  50. Yes, I think speed probably has a noticeable effect on lineup construction relative to the effect of lineup construction on run scoring. It may have a small overall effect, but as long as we’re talking about lineup construction (something with a small overall effect on run scoring) we should probably be thorough.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 7:50 pm

  51. How does lineup balance factor in?

    I’d think the drop off at the end of the lineup 8/9 hitters starts being a factor vs the extra AB’s a better hitter may get batting say 3rd vs 5th..

    If you have black holes at 8/9 then your #3 hitter probably should be your 5th best hitter. But if the dropoff is not that pronounced, is the first inning effect enough to compensate for the lost extra AB’s if you drop him down to 4th or 5th?

    Comment by Tom — December 5, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

  52. I would think that after the first time through the lineup, there is no discernible pattern when looking at the distribution of base-out situations by lineup spot. In other words, I think it would be a safe assumption to say that over the course of the season, if you exclude the first at bat of each game, the average value of an at-bat would be the same for every lineup spot. In fact we can see this effect when we look at the lineup spots in order of importance:

    #1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9

    Notice how the 6-9 spots are simply ordered with regard to the number of at bats they are likely to see. I think this is because there is enough possible variation in the outcomes of the first 5 at bats to basically negate the possibility of the 6 and 7 spots seeing a significantly different distribution of base-out states over a season. In a previous post, I lay out the large difference between the base-out states that the 3rd and 4th hitters with see in their first at bat. Now, I’m appending that to say that the effect I describe applies only to the first run through the batting order, and maybe not even that far.

    Allowing this assumption makes the job of analyzing batting order with regard to something other than OBP much easier. First, we can weight the value of an at bat with a particular wOBA to calculate the pure value of putting a high wOBA high in the order. Next, we just have to factor in the effect of the situation on the value of the at-bat, and if my above assumption is valid, then all we have to do is find the average value of the first 5 or 6 at bats of the game and weight that value against the value of simply giving more at bats to better hitters. Presumably, the effect is great enough to justify giving the 2nd best hitter the 4th most plate appearances.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 8:06 pm

  53. That is to say, when we know the exact base-out states a particular place in the batting order is likely to see the first time through, we can exactly find out the value of each type of hit, as well as the value of being able to advance bases from there, meaning we can find the value of SLG and speed at that spot in the lineup, and then we’ll know what to do with guys who may have odd skill sets.

    Comment by Bip — December 5, 2012 @ 8:11 pm

  54. “unless you do something really stupid”

    Like Bengie Molina batting cleanup. How many wins would the Giants gain by batting Posey 4th instead of Molina? Right, 2xWS.

    Gets me thinking: Wins Above Replacement is a relative measurement like Celsius or Fahrenheit, with zero in the middle of the scale…

    WAM (Wins Above Molina) would be a more absolute measurement like degrees Kelvin. Posey posts a very high WAM.

    Comment by merizobeach — December 5, 2012 @ 10:57 pm

  55. Some of the optimizations have seen swings as big as 50 runs.

    Thats $25M+ of value.

    Comment by Synovia — December 6, 2012 @ 12:22 am

  56. “have nobody clogging the basepaths ahead of you.”

    The only difference between having your fastest guys at the end of the lineup, and at the beginning, is the first inning. If the fastest guy on the team is in the 9th spot, hes still coming up before your best hitter.

    All your doing by putting him early is giving a poor hitter more PA.

    Comment by Synovia — December 6, 2012 @ 12:25 am

  57. Do you really think these things “keep interest in the game high”?

    I’m not sure I’ve met anyone who would give a crap.

    Comment by Synovia — December 6, 2012 @ 12:29 am

  58. The Angels 2012 lineup by this method:

    Comment by Robert — December 6, 2012 @ 5:19 am

  59. Also, a post-facto review of lineup construction of a single team won’t account for variation from true-OBP talent level. In the Angels example cited by Robert, Pujols might hit in a different spot based on his true talent, which is how managers would be making out a lineup since they don’t know a player’s end-of-season performance.

    Comment by Dr. Chaleeko — December 6, 2012 @ 8:47 am

  60. This. If base running is important than it should be factored in. #4 hitters still hit more singles and doubles than they do triples and HR’s. So having someone on base ahead of them who can score on any/all of the #4’s hits would be better than a slow poke who only scores on triples or HR’s.

    OBP is probably most important factor but BSR has to have an impact.

    Comment by Kc — December 6, 2012 @ 9:35 am

  61. Great article! If I were an owner, I would employ statistical analysis whenever I could do it. I think teams are better off when they can utilize objective, quantifiable information, as opposed to intuition.

    Comment by Anthony — December 6, 2012 @ 12:25 pm

  62. Agreed, put your speed guy 7th or 8th let him steal or be sacrificed over and ready to score when you #1 hitter is up.

    Comment by octelium — December 6, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

  63. No more hilarious than Tommie Herr getting 110 RBIs in ’85 with a .416 SLG.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 6, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

  64. Nevermind. I just saw that Tom already commented.

    Comment by CircleChange11 — December 6, 2012 @ 2:34 pm

  65. Dusty really sucks, but he also got unlucky. Brandon Phillips, in his time in leadoff, hit .202/.254/.298 in 120something PAs which is just awful. In other spots, .301/.336/.463, which is just fine. Some of his other leadoff and 2-hole choices were just as bad on paper as they turned out in practice though.

    Comment by Calvin — December 6, 2012 @ 3:45 pm

  66. Somebody (Tango?) said that the gains are so small that they just let the managers do the order to keep them happy. Maybe that’s even worth it as long as they don’t have somebody like Dusty going full retard and batting black holes 1 and 2 most of the time.

    Comment by Calvin — December 6, 2012 @ 3:54 pm

  67. You just killed a lot of boners for Joe Maddon.

    Comment by deadhead — December 6, 2012 @ 10:02 pm

  68. When looking at OPS you have to take account of walks. the player occupying to 3rd and 4th spot are usually power hitter and will draw more walk from fear of them hurting you with and extra base hit. If those types of hitters were also base staling threats, its possible that unless the were the only option to bat 3rd they would be higher in the order. For example, even though Albert Pujols usually had the best average on the team, and there were other options for the 3 hole and clean-up (Holliday, Friese, Trout,), He has to be in that spot because he offers no speed along with getting on base.

    Comment by kallven — December 7, 2012 @ 1:17 pm

  69. I don’t think “clogging the basepaths” is an issue. See my study at

    Comment by Cyril Morong — December 8, 2012 @ 11:55 am

  70. Not sure if this relates to your question, but this link has some studies on balance

    Comment by Cyril Morong — December 8, 2012 @ 12:05 pm

  71. That doesn’t get us anywhere. Managers have been prioritizing SLG at 3,4,5 forever. It’s not a “might be.” More specifically, this has been standard tradition: 3 best overall hitter, 4 most power, 5 big power and maybe not so much average.
    But some of the good studies I’ve seen in the past on lineup optimzation conclude that the best overall hitter, power included, actually should hit 2nd. That he’d create more runs, and it’d be a positive tradeoff of his scoring more runs and knocking in fewer, and he’d get more PA’s. I’d definitely try it in AL, and I’d lean toward it in NL if I had decent-hitting pitchers. I also might do the LaRussa thing and bat bad-hitting pitcher 8th. On the broad level of this topic, I don’t believe going by OBP–or SLG–alone helps us. And what doesn’t help hurts. Lineup optimization should take in every aspect of offensive production as well as the pluses, minuses of things like PA’s per individual.

    Comment by mikec — December 8, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

  72. Not based on the best studies I’ve read. You propose OPS descending order from 1 down. But what I’ve gathered is, there’s more benefit to an in-prime Albert Pujols hitting 2nd, not 1st. The highest OBP besides Pujols at 1. Of course, this also takes Pujols out of his conventionalist spots at 3 or 4. At 2, he’s not directly following the pitcher. He’s got a high possibility of a base-runner via No. 1. He gets almost as many PA’s as he would at 1, and more than at 3, 4. We give up a few more chances for 3-run homer, but not 2-R HR’s. Makes up for that with more runs scored. Also, I’ve never read any study that looks at going by OPS for 1-3, and switching to OBP thereafter. It’s fine to present an opinion or a theory, but one needs to present data to demonstrate a provable benefit.

    Comment by mikec — December 8, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

  73. Minimal. Because every study on lineups says whatever the lineup doesn’t make a big difference. But….minimal is not nothing. In baseball, it’s all about the so-called little things and operating a little smarter than the next guy. And then those little things start adding up. Dusty Baker is an idiot. He is the posterboy for traditionalist lineups with speedy, little outmakers at 1, 2 that create a net negative for team’s runs scored. We know intuitively that it’s really stupid, and it’s proven to be really stupid. It’s bad because it’s an unnecessary negative. But, again, the effect is minimal rather than ruinous.

    Comment by mikec — December 8, 2012 @ 1:30 pm

  74. And they all do these days. It’s no longer a “sabermetric movement.” It’s fully incorporated into every big-league organization. Effectively blending with scouts’ necessary observations. The hybrid approach. It’s no longer optional, but mandatory. And it’s here, across the board. That doesn’t mean there won’t always be refinements. As an example, defensive stats still have a long ways to go. But we all should cease with our pleadings of five, 10 years ago for our teams to get on the stat wagon. They’re all totally on board. Some always will do it better than others, though. That applies to anything.

    Comment by mikec — December 8, 2012 @ 1:44 pm

  75. That was my thought exactly.

    Comment by Mike — December 9, 2012 @ 4:09 pm

  76. Lots of lineup simulation stuff here. There will be much more to come in the next few days.
    vr, Xeifrank

    Comment by Xeifrank — December 29, 2012 @ 10:49 pm

  77. You guys make no sence

    Comment by Codi — April 4, 2013 @ 5:19 am

Leave a comment

Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Close this window.

0.233 Powered by WordPress