The 2018 Lineup

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
I think it's been the established opinion around here (and I agree with it) that numerous studies have shown that there is little difference between any two reasonable lineups, though individual players' performance can sometimes be affected by where they bat. E.g., a player inserted in to the leadoff role might push too much to make contact, or a player batting cleanup might try to rake too much. In that sense, the lineup aspect of a managers job is kind of akin to sports psychologist.

Something else I just thought of: do those studies assume the same rate numbers from each player depending on where they bat? E.g., a high-OBP player with a high steal success rate might be sent less if batted in front of the best hitter on the team. Anyhow, probably an insignificant difference.

edit: it's still fun to talk about lineups, especially during this part of the year.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
I think it's been the established opinion around here (and I agree with it) that numerous studies have shown that there is little difference between any two reasonable lineups
That depends on what you mean by "little". What the Book crowd found, according to this 2011 FG article, is that the difference between an optimized batting order and a typical one was 5 to 15 runs. That's a win, roughly speaking. OK, it's just one win, but since FG currently has the Red Sox projected as exactly one win worse than the Yankees, it's hard to dismiss that.

EDIT: Changed "lineup" to "batting order" because they are not the same thing.
 
Last edited:

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
That depends on what you mean by "little". What the Book crowd found, according to this 2011 FG article, is that the difference between an optimized lineup and a typical lineup was 5 to 15 runs. That's a win, roughly speaking. OK, it's just one win, but since FG currently has the Red Sox projected as exactly one win worse than the Yankees, it's hard to dismiss that.
The division could come down to one game. I think Cora is going to have a few different lineups throughout the season. Cora mentioned he believes in giving his starters some rest so I wouldn’t get attached to one particular lineup.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
Here's a fascinating excerpt from The Athletic article (subscription required) linked below:

"Mike Petriello of Statcast created a list of hitters who had the biggest negative splits between their wOBA (result) and xwOBA (what they should have gotten in results). Moreland was second in the majors behind Miguel Cabrera as the unluckiest hitter, Ramirez was 11th. In addition, this spring Hanley arrived in Fort Myers substantially trimmer because of his enhanced conditioning and Tom Brady’s TB Diet."

I'm safely assuming that the Sox brain trust was well aware of this info (as well as many other factors that we're not privy to) when they re-upped Moreland.

https://theathletic.com//252957/2018/02/26/gammons-more-power-to-the-red-sox-thanks-to-j-d-martinez-and-a-new-hitting-philosophy/?redirected=1
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Of course difference between wOBA and xwOBA is not all luck, since as I understand it xwOBA totally ignores foot speed. It's no accident that Cabrera, Hanley and Moreland were all in the bottom ten among MLB qualifiers in FG's Spd metric. If Moreland and JBJ hit the ball at the exact same velocity and launch angle, JBJ's more likely to turn it into a double, and this shows up in wOBA but not xwOBA.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Batting order matters in the regular season; it's meaningless in spring training. It's only use in spring training is to ensure that the player gets enough at bats before being pulled to give the minor leaguer some playing time.
Yes I agree. I'm only talking regular season.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Do you have any evidence supporting position on this, or is it just "this is counterintuitive, therefore it's wrong"?
Define "evidence?" Not every stat is useful in the same way for every team; would you agree?

For me "evidence" is to look at the the team that won it or got to the W/S that was strong throughout. In other words, a powerhouse. The "beast of the market." I work for a large corporation. We look at how the most successful businesses produce "elite/world class" success all the time. So does MLB. IMO the successful teams over an extended amount of time in all of sports- they all do it. In this case some of my evidence is:

Houston Astros had Altuve bat 3rd. He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.
LA Dodgers had Cody Bellinger bat 3rd. He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.
The Cubs champs in 2016 had Rizzo bat 3rd (and he batted 3rd in 2017). He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.

IMO these are the teams we should try to emulate. And it's not like these teams don't use advanced stats. They would have the stats shown/referenced here that the team's 5th best hitter should bat 3rd, but these teams didn't do it. Why? IMO because it's not logical for every team.

If Hanley can hit like he did in 2016, I'd have no problem with him hitting 3rd. Though if he did that, he probably wouldn't be considered the team's 5th best hitter. I happen to think Hanley is a bad bet and it's better off being cautious with him to start and then see how he produces. But I'd love it if he reverted to 2016 form. Then yeah put him 3rd. Then in this case 1-4 doesn't matter much. I think there is too much of an overall separation from Hanley to the other 3 looking at it at this moment to put him in fornt of Betts/Beni or JD. I'm more in line with what like ZIPS projects. If those numbers hold up - then there is a better way for the opposing team imo to attack the Red Sox lineup.

https://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&type=zips&team=3&lg=all&players
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Define "evidence?" Not every stat is useful in the same way for every team; would you agree?

For me "evidence" is to look at the the team that won it or got to the W/S that was strong throughout. In other words, a powerhouse. The "beast of the market." I work for a large corporation. We look at how the most successful businesses produce "elite/world class" success all the time. So does MLB. IMO the successful teams over an extended amount of time in all of sports- they all do it. In this case some of my evidence is:

Houston Astros had Altuve bat 3rd. He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.
LA Dodgers had Cody Bellinger bat 3rd. He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.
The Cubs champs in 2016 had Rizzo bat 3rd (and he batted 3rd in 2017). He was not the team's 5th best hitter. He is better.

IMO these are the teams we should try to emulate.
You're assuming that these teams' success is evidence that they were using their resources optimally. But of course it isn't; it only means that if they weren't using their resources optimally, their talent must have been even more superior than the results indicated. How do we know they would not have won even more games with an optimized batting order? Answer: we don't.

Baseball teams (like large corporations, or so I'm told) tend to do things a certain way because they've always been done that way, whether or not they make sense.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
[
You're assuming that these teams' success is evidence that they were using their resources optimally. But of course it isn't; it only means that if they weren't using their resources optimally, their talent must have been even more superior than the results indicated. How do we know they would not have won even more games with an optimized batting order? Answer: we don't.

Baseball teams (like large corporations) tend to do things a certain way because they've always been done that way, whether or not they make sense.
No I'm assuming they have used it optimally. Can you measure the word "talent?" IMO it has no meaning. As I stated, not every stat is used the same way for every team.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
If the word "talent" has no meaning, then why not put up a randomized batting order?
You think the ZIPS Projections is based on just talent? It's based on numbers. But would you say the lineup is 100% set up for example on batting average? Don't teams like to go right left etc? Cora doesn't believe in that. There are stats that are used and others not used for each team.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
If the word "talent" has no meaning, then why not put up a randomized batting order?
Maybe because "talent" can be construed in a million different ways, making it effectively meaningless?

But hey, I'll play. Let's say it has significant meaning. Juan Pierre had talent, David Ortiz had talent. Does that mean they're both optimal #3 hitters? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have one of those guys batting 9th than the other.

I'd say teams that batted their best hitters 3rd (like the recent successful examples brought up with Altuve, Bellinger, and Rizzo) were kinda onto something, regardless of "if it's always been done that way" or not. I don't think it takes any kind of understanding of advanced mathematics to believe you want your best OBP guys up top getting the most ABs, and the guys most likely to generate power and therefore more bases right behind them, with your worst hitters getting the least amount of ABs.

A walk doesn't get in a guy that just hit a double. But a double very well may get in a guy that just took a walk. I can also see why you'd want the fast guy who doesn't have a lot of power but can still get on base at a good clip batting in front of the boppers, but perhaps simple and logical just isn't what you should go with when you can opt to complicate it right up.
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
Wherever JDM hits, (I prefer 3rd) he needs protection behind him or he’s going to get pitched around and intentionally walked often. I think Hanley and Devers are both capable of batting 4th but Cora should rotate that spot depending on who’s hotter at the plate.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Maybe because "talent" can be construed in a million different ways, making it effectively meaningless?

But hey, I'll play. Let's say it has significant meaning. Juan Pierre had talent, David Ortiz had talent. Does that mean they're both optimal #3 hitters? I don't know about you, but I'd much rather have one of those guys batting 9th than the other.

I'd say teams that batted their best hitters 3rd (like the recent successful examples brought up with Altuve, Bellinger, and Rizzo) were kinda onto something, regardless of "if it's always been done that way" or not. I don't think it takes any kind of understanding of advanced mathematics to believe you want your best OBP guys up top getting the most ABs, and the guys most likely to generate power and therefore more bases right behind them, with your worst hitters getting the least amount of ABs.

A walk doesn't get in a guy that just hit a double. But a double very well may get in a guy that just took a walk. I can also see why you'd want the fast guy who doesn't have a lot of power but can still get on base at a good clip batting in front of the boppers, but perhaps simple and logical just isn't what you should go with when you can opt to complicate it right up.
There are stats showing overall that the number 3 hitter has less men on base to hit teammates in so the conclusion is that he is being wasted in the 3 spot. And if you move him to 5 hole (assuming the 4 hitter is better than the 3 hitter), he'll have more opportunities to knock guys in because there is a higher probability more men will be on base.

IMO The Sox have 3 hitters at one level (hoping Beni makes a further jump), then the next level there are pretty good hitters but have been inconsistent lately being good - or in Devers case - very young. So in this case I agree with you (though you might not agree with my reasoning) to an extent and what you say regarding "OBP" -- but -- I want for this team my best hitters getting the msot at bats. It just so happens the best hitters in terms of wOBA are the same three in regards to OBP. Unless Devers or Hanley or XB (or a slim chance of Nunez) steps up vs say the below ZIPS projections (which I tend to agree with) -- I don't agree with the belief JD should bat 4th. For this team, you want to give your best hitters the most opportunities to swing their bats. The more opportunities they get, imo obviously the more pressure/stress they will put on the opposing pitcher. I'd like to give our best hitter JD -- who has been among the best in all of baseball - the most opportunities without putting him in 1/2 position.

https://www.fangraphs.com/projections.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&type=zips&team=3&lg=all&players
 

Jerry’s Curl

New Member
Feb 6, 2018
2,518
Florida
Looking at the Diamondbacks box scores from last year after the deadline, JDM was batting 5th after Goldschmidt with a weak-hitting second baseman behind him. Obviously he raked in that spot so perhaps I’m wrong about protection for JDM. I guess the only other option would have been to move Lamb down and Goldie or JDM up but Lamb is a pretty good player. The caveat is Luvullo may not have wanted to disrupt the top of his batting order late in the season. What’s even more surprising is he was only intentionally walked 3 times in 257 AB so it appears pitchers where challenging him but there’s some good pitching in the NL West.
 
Last edited:

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
Looking at the Diamondbacks box scores from last year after the deadline, JDM was batting 5th after Goldschmidt with a weak-hitting second baseman behind him. Obviously he raked in that spot so perhaps I’m wrong about protection for JDM. I guess the only other option would have been to move Lamb down and Goldie or JDM up but Lamb is a pretty good player. The caveat is Luvullo may not have wanted to disrupt the top of his batting order late in the season.
In the playoffs JD was 4th.
And Goldschmidt was 3rd.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
30,241
In most circumstances, the best protection is having runners on base when the guy you think needs protection is up.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
The #3 hitter is guaranteed around 60–70 plate appearances with nobody on and two out. That is the only reason to prioritize #2 and #4... but it's a good reason.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
If the word "talent" has no meaning, then why not put up a randomized batting order?
Because then “order” has no meaning either. Philologically speaking, you’re stepping into a quagmire!

Next thing you know, you’ll be wearing a beret or turtleneck (or both!) and wanting to know what the meaning of “run” really is. Or whether “is” really holds any meaning at all. And I’m not even going to mention ponytails!

But for those posters who think along the lines of “the number 3 hitter shouldn’t be the team’s 5th best hitter” — please define how you are defining “best” for the rest of us, rather than regurgitating word salad. And please use actual facts rather than anecdotes. There are a lot of ways to define what the “best” hitter is, and it’s changed through the years.

Because it’s one thing to say something like “Bogaerts is perfect for the #3 hole because even though he sacrificed power for plate coverage, his approach spoils a ton of pitches and his all-fields approach keeps the defense from shifting.”

If you establish a point like that, then it could be assessed against a counter-argument like “but JDM also hits for high AVG/OBP and he should be getting as many chances as possible to swing the bat because of his SLG advantage, so even though he strikes out more he should hit #3 instead of cleanup, and Bogaerts should move down in the order.”
 

johnnywayback

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 8, 2004
1,421
The #3 hitter is guaranteed around 60–70 plate appearances with nobody on and two out. That is the only reason to prioritize #2 and #4... but it's a good reason.
It is a very good reason. That's why, as long as Cora insists on Betts/Benintendi 1/2, I'd go with:
Betts
Benintendi
Bogaerts
Martinez
Devers
Nunez (eventually Pedroia)
Moreland (when Hanley plays, he hits 5th and Devers/2B move down to 6th and 7th, respectively)
Vazquez
Bradley Jr
 

mfried

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 23, 2005
1,680
This is a well-assembled lineup with one major conditions: Bogarts must be the high OBA-Bogaerts with occasional power.
 

Pozo the Clown

New Member
Sep 13, 2006
745
This is a well-assembled lineup with one major conditions: Bogarts must be the high OBA-Bogaerts with occasional power.
I'm hoping for both OBA and power. JDM can be an exceptional mentor to X in this regard. Hopefully, X will spend countless hours learning from JD about how JD transformed himself into an elite, all-around hitter. X has the power potential. Time for it to come to fruition.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
The #3 hitter is guaranteed around 60–70 plate appearances with nobody on and two out. That is the only reason to prioritize #2 and #4... but it's a good reason.
1-- Don't want late in the game Betts or Beni to get intentionally walked to face a .262/.342/.443/.785 Hanley.

2-- Secondly don't want the same slash wind up being the last out before our best hitter (JD) gets up.

3-- Third when Pedey comes back - might not be a bad idea to have him bat 9th (JBJ goes 8 or 7 to break up the possible multiple righties). Thus after the lineup turns it would be like Pedey is leading off. You'd have a nice succession of 3 OBP guys for JD. As far as Pedey at 9, It's a lot less impact to put a better hitter at 9 than a 8 or 7 vs dropping the top hitters in all of baseball vs a slash of 262/.342/.443..785.

4-- Our number 3 hitter is guaranteed more at bats than our number 4 hitter. I like giving our probable best hitter/ among the best in all of baseball more at bats. And when you have a turnover of Pedey at 9 then 1 and 2 of Beni and Betts - that should be fine enough.
 
Last edited:

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
I'm hoping for both OBA and power. JDM can be an exceptional mentor to X in this regard. Hopefully, X will spend countless hours learning from JD about how JD transformed himself into an elite, all-around hitter. X has the power potential. Time for it to come to fruition.
If he doesn't give the Sox power then compare our number 3 hitter vs the teams that were the absolute best the last two years -- Houston/Altuve, LA/Bellinger/Cub/Rizzo and it comes up absolutely short. The number 3 hitter - which gets the 3rd most at bats-- and the comparison of hitting at this spot is huge.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
One of the things the Book folks point out is that HR power is a particularly useful quality in a #3 hitter, because of all those 2-out/bases-empty PA. The RE value of most positive offensive outcomes is less for the #3 hitter than for any of the other top 5 lineup spots, but the RE value of a HR in that slot is greater than in any other except #4. (Good summary and tables here.)

So exactly what you don't want in the #3 spot is a BABIP + BB, low-to-middling HR guy like Bogaerts. He'd be better in the 5 hole. What you want is somebody like Hanley , whose ability to hit the ball out of the park is his chief virtue as a hitter these days.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,482
Rogers Park
If he doesn't give the Sox power then compare our number 3 hitter vs the teams that were the absolute best the last two years -- Houston/Altuve, LA/Bellinger/Cub/Rizzo and it comes up absolutely short. The number 3 hitter - which gets the 3rd most at bats-- and the comparison of hitting at this spot is huge.
I feel like this conversation would advance a bit if you acknowledged the arguments from the Book. But as I'm not going to assign you homework, I'll explain the argument in a bit more depth than I've seen it in the thread.

You are absolutely correct about number of plate appearances. The 3 spot gets ~20 PA more than 4, and so on down the line. But Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin create a table of the run values of each kind of event (1B, BB, HR, K, triple, etc.) for each lineup position, adjusted for the historical norms of how often different baserunner/out configurations landed on that lineup spot. Hitting a single with no outs and a man on second is more valuable in terms of run scoring than hitting a single with the bases empty and two outs, right? They're factoring in the historical frequency all of 24 Base/Out configurations for all nine batting order positions. Eight base states — bases empty, man on 1, 2, 3, 12, 23, 13, 123 — multiplied by three out states — 0, 1, or 2 outs.

This analysis suggested that the most valuable spots for the top-three hitters in a lineup were 1, 2, and 4, with 3 and 5 a bit behind. 3 has more PA than 4, but less favorable base/out states. They determined these by running simulations with different batting orders. And it turns out that the difference between their best lineup and the worst (pitcher hits leadoff or whatever) ends up being only 15 runs

These are minor differences. Switching the 2 and 3 hitters so that the better hitter hit second in their optimal lineup earned 2 runs over a season. But more important than that, they also found that "second leadoff hitter theory" is real: i.e. putting a decent hitter 9, say, JBJ, instead of, say, Sandy Leon, is absolutely worth doing, because it increases the odds that a runner will be on base for your 1 and 2 hitters. This has a season-long effect of about 2 runs. In our situation, I think it's an even better bet for us, because we will likely have decent power in the 1/2 slots. (It's more ambiguous in the NL, where the pitcher's spot is a mix of bad-hitting pitchers and decent-hitting bench players.)

I agree with you that this isn't what all teams do! But some teams do: Kris Bryant is the best hitter on the Cubs — yes, better than Rizzo; he hits 2nd more than any other spot. Mike Trout is the best hitter on the Angels; he hits 2nd more than half of the time. And of course, this isn't an iron law: considerations of handedness or where players are comfortable should absolutely be taken into account, because we're only talking about small differences.
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,482
Rogers Park
One of the things the Book folks point out is that HR power is a particularly useful quality in a #3 hitter, because of all those 2-out/bases-empty PA. The RE value of most positive offensive outcomes is less for the #3 hitter than for any of the other top 5 lineup spots, but the RE value of a HR in that slot is greater than in any other except #4. (Good summary and tables here.)

So exactly what you don't want in the #3 spot is a BABIP + BB, low-to-middling HR guy like Bogaerts. He'd be better in the 5 hole. What you want is somebody like Hanley , whose ability to hit the ball out of the park is his chief virtue as a hitter these days.
I was just about to say that for this reason, after reviewing the chapter of The Book on lineups, I was going to propose this:

RH Betts
LH Benintendi
RH Ramirez
RH Martinez
LH Devers
RH Bogaerts
RH Nuñez/Pedroia
RH/SW Catcher
LH Bradley
 

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
Of course each team is not the average team, so the best possible (assuming players are random-number generators, which they are not) batting order may not be obvious from the results presented in The Book. That said, The Book's results plus knowledge of the players is probably the best guide, short of...

why doesn't someone just grab some rate projections and code up a quick simulation using some basic guesses at probabilities for things like "scoring from 2nd on a single" and run it. 9! possible batting orders for a given line-up, times ~38 PA/game, times 162 games is only a couple trillion calculations, which is trivial. I actually did this over a decade ago, but it'd take me more time to find the code - if it even survives - than it would for someone to write it anew. (No, I'm not volunteering. Instead, I'm going to be "that guy".)
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
[QUOTE="nvalvo, post: 2691568, member: 3837"]I feel like this conversation would advance a bit if you acknowledged the arguments from the Book. But as I'm not going to assign you homework, I'll explain the argument in a bit more depth than I've seen it in the thread.

.[/QUOTE]

The conversation would advance a bit without the BS arrogance? Do you agree?
 

nvalvo

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
21,482
Rogers Park
[QUOTE="nvalvo, post: 2691568, member: 3837"]I feel like this conversation would advance a bit if you acknowledged the arguments from the Book. But as I'm not going to assign you homework, I'll explain the argument in a bit more depth than I've seen it in the thread.

.
The conversation would advance a bit without the BS arrogance? Do you agree?[/QUOTE]

Woah. I didn’t mean it like that. I just thought people were talking past each other. Sorry.
 

Rovin Romine

Johnny Rico
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
23,688
Miami (oh, Miami!)
So, an optimized batting order is worth a single win. Yet the optimized batting order assumes that all players will perform to the best of their ability regardless of their batting order slot, and we know this is not true for some players.

Has anyone ever tried to calculate the relative value of an "optimized" batting order that contains a performance drop off of one significant player? (Or a "non optimized" one that allows a player to excel? Like Bill Mueller in the 8th spot?)
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
The conversation would advance a bit without the BS arrogance? Do you agree?
Woah. I didn’t mean it like that. I just thought people were talking past each other. Sorry.[/QUOTE]

Okay i'm sorry. I took it wrong. My bad.

Anyhow-- nothing else to talk about yet-- - but for this I can be convinced. I just look at what

Houston did by having Altuve hit 3rd.
LA did by having Bellinger.

And I know you referenced the Cubs with Bryant -- I agree Bryant is the best. But the 2nd best hitter for the Cubs is Rizzo.
So when I see Hanley at 3rd -- he's the 5th best hitter - that's not the same as the Cubs putting Rizzo there.

And - I've heard teams like Houston and LA are very metric conscious and any team with Theo certainly is. Why not use what the most successful teams are doing?

So why should that stat being bandied about have much meaning if the top teams over the past 2 years who are very metric--conscious don't apply them?

What I thought I've mentioned often is that not every stat is useful for every team. So I didn't feel I was "talking past" other posters. You don't use every stat out there. Cora is not using a guy who goes 4-5 vs another batter. I just think the data from "The Book" isn't that meaningful for having the teams best 5 hitter hit 3rd. The teams that rely on heavy metrics aren't using it, so why is this data relevant?
 

effectivelywild

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 14, 2005
466
Woah. I didn’t mean it like that. I just thought people were talking past each other. Sorry.
Okay i'm sorry. I took it wrong. My bad.

Anyhow-- nothing else to talk about yet-- - but for this I can be convinced. I just look at what

Houston did by having Altuve hit 3rd.
LA did by having Bellinger.

And I know you referenced the Cubs with Bryant -- I agree Bryant is the best. But the 2nd best hitter for the Cubs is Rizzo.
So when I see Hanley at 3rd -- he's the 5th best hitter - that's not the same as the Cubs putting Rizzo there.

And - I've heard teams like Houston and LA are very metric conscious and any team with Theo certainly is. Why not use what the most successful teams are doing?

So why should that stat being bandied about have much meaning if the top teams over the past 2 years who are very metric--conscious don't apply them?

What I thought I've mentioned often is that not every stat is useful for every team. So I didn't feel I was "talking past" other posters. You don't use every stat out there. Cora is not using a guy who goes 4-5 vs another batter. I just think the data from "The Book" isn't that meaningful for having the teams best 5 hitter hit 3rd. The teams that rely on heavy metrics aren't using it, so why is this data relevant?[/QUOTE]
I think one of the things that we forget when we talk about the value of an optimized batting order being about 1 win over the season is that it is worth that over the literal worst possible batting order. Like, the stupidest batting order you could come up with. As nvalvo pointed out, the value of optimizing your batting order by having your best hitter 2nd, instead of 3rd, is worth, on average, 2 runs over the course of the season. And again, that's totally ignoring human factors like a batter's comfort/approach depending on his position, different pitcher approaches depending on who is around. Its a difference, but one that could easily be counteracted by these human elements, or even just random variance. If your best hitter prefers to hit 3rd, I bet many managers would be willing to give up those 2 runs over the season in the interest of keeping their best hitter comfortable. That successful teams have had their best hitter batting 3rd does not disprove the theoretical advantage that putting the best hitter 2nd would. It just acknowledges that there are other factors that go into the coach's head when setting a lineup, even if they are analytically minded.
 

Savin Hillbilly

loves the secret sauce
SoSH Member
Jul 10, 2007
18,783
The wrong side of the bridge....
Houston did by having Altuve hit 3rd.
LA did by having Bellinger.
FWIW, Bellinger hit 4th in the vast majority of his games for the Dodgers last year. This doesn't really invalidate your point, because their #3 guy was typically Turner, who was their best overall hitter. So they were still using the #3 slot in a way that the Book analysis recommends against.

And - I've heard teams like Houston and LA are very metric conscious and any team with Theo certainly is. Why not use what the most successful teams are doing?
Lots of possible answers to that. One is that players and managers can be resistant to change. The fact that even the most analytic teams are continuing to use their best relief pitcher in an exclusive 9th-inning, save-opportunity role does not necessarily mean that they think it's actually the best way to run a bullpen. It may just mean that they think the advantage they could gain by using a different approach would likely be negated by pitchers' resistance to it. A similar thing could be operating here.

EDIT: More specifically, just because an organization is analytics-oriented in the front office, that doesn't mean they will always hire a manager who mirrors that orientation in the dugout. From what I've read about him, Dave Roberts is a good example of this. In fact it sounds as if he and Zaidi have a relationship in this regard very similar to what Tito and Theo had back in their heyday. .

I think one of the things that we forget when we talk about the value of an optimized batting order being about 1 win over the season is that it is worth that over the literal worst possible batting order. Like, the stupidest batting order you could come up with.
Wait, really? I thought they came up with that 5 to 15-run improvement comparing an optimized batting order to a typical one, not a worst-case one.
 
Last edited:

dbn

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 10, 2007
7,785
La Mancha.
soxeast: I'm pretty confident that a significant sample size is not comprised of where a few successful teams in one season used their best (or near-best) hitter in a single spot, especially in order to make a causation argument. You might have a point, though, about looking at teams that are known to make use of the best analytics and trying to reverse-engineer what they are learning.

Anyhow, I get the feeling that we're arguing about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin (A: one - Trout), but we love baseball, it's pre-season, and this is SoSH. It's what we do.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
FWIW, Bellinger hit 4th in the vast majority of his games for the Dodgers last year. This doesn't really invalidate your point, because their #3 guy was typically Turner, who was their best overall hitter. So they were still using the #3 slot in a way that the Book analysis recommends against.



Lots of possible answers to that. One is that players and managers can be resistant to change. The fact that even the most analytic teams are continuing to use their best relief pitcher in an exclusive 9th-inning, save-opportunity role does not necessarily mean that they think it's actually the best way to run a bullpen. It may just mean that they think the advantage they could gain by using a different approach would likely be negated by pitchers' resistance to it. A similar thing could be operating here.

EDIT: More specifically, just because an organization is analytics-oriented in the front office, that doesn't mean they will always hire a manager who mirrors that orientation in the dugout. From what I've read about him, Dave Roberts is a good example of this. In fact it sounds as if he and Zaidi have a relationship in this regard very similar to what Tito and Theo had back in their heyday. .



Wait, really? I thought they came up with that 5 to 15-run improvement comparing an optimized batting order to a typical one, not a worst-case one.
1-- Yes the Dodgers were using what the book recommends against. That exactly makes my point.

2-- Sure lots of possible other reasons. And the one I believe is that The Book is wrong or The Book is not only a generalilty/guidelines as a result it should not be used in every instance. Just as you search for possible reasons why the 3 teams I mentioned didn't employ "by the book strategy" I search for reasons why it shouldn't be employed by the Sox. Is Cora going to go by The Book. The Houston Manager last year went away from "The Book" from what I understand in how he used his 3-5 starters in the playoffs

3-- I don't think your edit point is relevant. We can agree to disagree. These are teams hire a manager employed by Front Offices are the teams manged heavily on metrics. All 3 of them are reluctant to play their 5th hitter as a 3- all three teams- don't mirror the Front Office of playing "by the book?" I'm sorry I don't agree with that. The books say your 5th best hitter should hit number 3, yet these managers are going away from what the GM wants them to do? These teams that are heavily into metrics that hired managers-- all of sudden all 3 managers went rogue?

The point regarding the Dodgers makes my point clear imo. Turner primarily 3rd- was the teams best hitter. ANd even when they moved him 2nd, they "doubled-down" wanting their next best/premiere bat hitting 3rd. Adn when you look at Houston who has Altuve hitting 3rd, he is their best hitter. They are one of the most heavy reliant metrics teams and the guy they hired as manager- they would be fine for a whole season he blatantly goes against the metrics they believe in?

4-- A final point in terms of possibilities. is that I specifically remember Tom Verducci on radio interview after the Royals won the W/S and he said that team did everything against The Book. For example-- built much more on Relievers. And the team didn't take pitches but put the ball in play thus forcing the opposing team to continually have to defend/ put continual pressure on them. Maybe having a quality 3rd hitter who is one of your best 3 bats at the 3spot put additional pressure on the defense that metrics can't show / similar to how the Sox lose Ortiz, or the A's lost Cespedes or how Cespedes "infected" the Mets lineup in such a dramatic way, The Book could never account for something liek that can it? Just like it underrated relivers a short time ago, maybe it is vastly underrating the position of the 3spot hitter?

My view can be changed. It would start with why Houston put their best hitter at 3. If anyone could get any quote from Cora that would be a good start. Madden is a bit flakey. But imo Roberts was also hired so he'd manage using heavy metrics. IMO they are putting their best hitters near the top of the lineup. Give your best hitters more opportunities to put pressure on the defense. That strategy imo makes more sense. As a result, it's why imo these organizations use Altuve/Turner/Bellinger, and Rizzo in this manner.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
You didn't address what I thought was his most salient point:
The fact that even the most analytic teams are continuing to use their best relief pitcher in an exclusive 9th-inning, save-opportunity role does not necessarily mean that they think it's actually the best way to run a bullpen.
Even successful teams won't always operate by the book… or indeed, The Book. These things are resistant to change. The "closer" is the most egregious inefficiency you'll ever find (one that our skipper hopes to exploit), but "closers" on the winningest of ballclubs will continue to sit on their hands.

From 1974 to 1983, #2 hitters leaguewide had the sixth-highest on-base percentage in the lineup. Today they're up to second, behind the three-hole.

In fact, 2017 was the best year for #2 hitters on record. That 108 wRC+ figure was third-best in the lineup, only narrowly trailing the 110 wRC+ from the league's "cleanup" men. In 1970, that delta was 35 points. Trout, Stanton, Bryant, Machado, Thames, Seager, Donaldson, and Mauer operate primarily out of the two-hole. Harper, Votto, and Bautista have done in seasons past.

It isn't a great logical leap to figure where this may be headed next.

My view can be changed. It would start with why Houston put their best hitter at 3. If anyone could get any quote from Cora that would be a good start.
Here are two from Hinch.

"It would be hard to conceptually put your one or two run producers in the leadoff spot or the no. 2 hole. The reality is that they’re going to get the most at-bats, which is what we always want, so I would still try to push for it."

"Things sprinkle into the game, and then it becomes a little bit more accepted and mainstream. We’ve seen it with shifting, we’ve seen it with matchup relievers, now we’re seeing it with leadoff hitters."
 

Hank Scorpio

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 1, 2013
6,916
Salem, NH
I have a hard time buying into the whole “your third best hitter should be batting here, your second best here” theology as a universal approach.

Wouldn’t you have different considerations for a lineup loaded with above average hitters than you would with a lineup with one or two very good hitters, a couple of passable guys, and a whole lot of dreck? Deeper lineups can be constructed towards being relentless. Shallow lineups may need to build towards stacking their competent hitters in hopes of small bursts of offense.
 

charlieoscar

Member
Sep 28, 2014
1,339
I don't have The Book so I don't know how, or if, distinctions were made between lineups with pitchers batting and with designated hitters. But, current baseball now has essentially four leagues in that regard:
AL@AL with all DH
NL@NL with no DH
AL@NL with no DH
NL@AL with all DH.

For 2017, the stats were:
AL DH 9764 PA
NL DH 647 PA

AL P 359 PA
NL P 4258 PA

Don't you have to look at optimum lineups from that point of view? Also, What if there are distinct differences among teams in how well, say, pitchers hit (2017 NL team OPS for pitchers ranged from .205 to .424)? How far back does the data on which the optimum lineup is calculated go? The game is changing. Not long ago the DH was a DH; today he is more a part-time DH.
 

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
So, an optimized batting order is worth a single win. Yet the optimized batting order assumes that all players will perform to the best of their ability regardless of their batting order slot, and we know this is not true for some players.

Has anyone ever tried to calculate the relative value of an "optimized" batting order that contains a performance drop off of one significant player? (Or a "non optimized" one that allows a player to excel? Like Bill Mueller in the 8th spot?)
I doubt it, because of the difficulties in establishing a methodological control group.

The numbers of plate appearances are statistically insignifiant (usually <100 PA), and don’t feature more important variables like pitcher quality or overall lineup quality. Also, the number of players willing to state that they’ll “hit wherever the manager writes them in” far exceeds the number of hitters willing to commit to a preference in lineup placement. And it ignores potential effects of change in meaningful factors like organizational hitting approach, advance scouting, and quality of roster construction.

For these reasons, I think it unlikely that anything other than individual case-studies would be performed. I’ve seen a few of them on Fangraphs and other places, but no serious comprehensive study.
 

soxeast

New Member
Aug 12, 2017
206
It isn't a great logical leap to figure where this may be headed next.

Here are two from Hinch.

"It would be hard to conceptually put your one or two run producers in the leadoff spot or the no. 2 hole. The reality is that they’re going to get the most at-bats, which is what we always want, so I would still try to push for it."

"Things sprinkle into the game, and then it becomes a little bit more accepted and mainstream. We’ve seen it with shifting, we’ve seen it with matchup relievers, now we’re seeing it with leadoff hitters."
1-- Okay the part in bold, how is this philosophy "by the book" if he is saying to put your best two run producers in the leadoff spot and the 2hole? This isn't "by the book." What he is suggesting is putting JDM 2nd.

2-- Further, regarding the underlined, he is pointing out the importance of getting "the most at bats." Then following this line of reasoning from Hinch, wouldn't this be the argument for then having your 3rd or 4th best hitter hit 3rd and not put your 5th best hitter batting 3rd?

3-- Francona - ofc widely recognized for being one helluva manager mentions in the article he says the below - I'm quoting the paragraph from the article.The underlined says a lot imo. It sort of says each team can't go "by the book," doesn't it? It's what I've said. Each team can't incorporate every stat. If you don't have the personnel -- you don't force-feed the situation. Isn't that what Francona is saying?

https://www.theringer.com/2017/3/31/16040426/2017-mlb-preview-leadoff-hitter-revolution-george-springer-kyle-schwarber-2e49f6ff7c58

""Houston’s crop of talented bats allows Hinch to embrace a new-age strategy in the leadoff spot while still abiding by traditional tenets of lineup construction, as stars José Altuve and Carlos Correa reside in the middle of the order. Other managers might not be able to maintain such a balance; even Francona, whose team reached the World Series last year, admits he worries about creating an excessively top-heavy lineup. "If you do that, you have to have somebody that can replace. If you take a guy out of the 4-hole and put him in the 1-hole, you’d better have a 4-hole [hitter with power].""

As a result-- I don't feel the Sox should be force-feeding the 3hole with guys that probably are a tier lower than the top 3.

For example, if you believe ZIPS is more accurate with Hanley's slash numbers -- 262/.342/.443..785. -- there is no way we should want him 3rd to start the season. At .262 he isn't hitting well enough to get on base for JD and his OBP is decent enough but he is absolutely one of the worst decision-making runners I have ever seen. He's a dumb player as you'll ever find on the base paths. So when you add up Hanley's mediocre batting average and his awful base-running while you have the opportunity to put better hitters ahead of him, you're making the move solely because of home runs? You really want the 3hitter to be primarily a home-run or bust guy? Maybe if he was a 30+ home run guy, I'd consider it. But if you think he is more like 20 or slightly plus home run guy, -- imo that's not enough to warrant a 3hole spot while your 4th hitter is among the best in all of baseball.

And as far as Xander, unless he can hit for more power or hit for much higher average with a higher OBP, I don't think it can be justified to have him at 3. He would be better following Devers (or Hanley or both). And maybe even following others too.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
1-- Okay the part in bold, how is this philosophy "by the book" if he is saying to put your best two run producers in the leadoff spot and the 2hole? This isn't "by the book." What he is suggesting is putting JDM 2nd.
I believe this would be by The Book.

2-- Further, regarding the underlined, he is pointing out the importance of getting "the most at bats." Then following this line of reasoning from Hinch, wouldn't this be the argument for then having your 3rd or 4th best hitter hit 3rd and not put your 5th best hitter batting 3rd?
Yes! But there is an important caveat. The #3 hitter is uniquely positioned so as to accumulate bases empty, two-out plate appearances. Approximately 40% of the time he will come to the plate in the first inning — the only scripted portion of the ballgame — with nobody on and two out. There is nothing to be done about it. It is in the nature of being a #3 hitter.

I made a table. It contains every player to have started at least 130 games at #2 through #5, as well as the percentage of their plate appearances that came with nobody on base and two batters out.


#3 hitters are nearly twice as likely to come to the plate with nobody aboard and two out! When the difference between #3 and #4 is 15–20 plate appearances, that is quite enough reason to move them down. And they'd be gaining 15–20 higher-leverage plate appearances by moving them up.

""Houston’s crop of talented bats allows Hinch to embrace a new-age strategy in the leadoff spot while still abiding by traditional tenets of lineup construction…"



As a result-- I don't feel the Sox should be force-feeding the 3hole with guys that probably are a tier lower than the top 3.
Because it doesn't abide by "traditional tenets of lineup construction?" As far as I can tell, the traditional tenet of lineup construction is that the #3 hitter is guaranteed to bat in the first inning, and ideally, there will be runners on base. But we see that this tenet is fallacious.
 
Last edited:

Buzzkill Pauley

Member
SoSH Member
Jun 30, 2006
10,569
As far as I can tell, the traditional tenet of lineup construction is that the #3 hitter is guaranteed to bat in the first inning, and ideally, there will be runners on base. But we see that this tenet is fallacious.​
Please show how this tenet is ... fallacious?

Because it appears to me your table has proved just the opposite of your point. In fact, the guarantee of having the third PA of the first inning appears to be what skews the percentages, as it represents the first of the usual 4-5 PA per game seen by the top of the order.
 

rotundlio

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 8, 2014
323
Please show how this tenet is ... fallacious?
Assuming that the idea of the "Ruthian" three-hole hitter is based on the belief that a) you want him to come to the plate in the first inning, and that b) you want ducks on the pond when he does… then yeah, that's a fallacy. There may be some other logic that I'm not grasping, but there is also a mathematical imperative for thinking so.

Coming to bat third in the first inning does not somehow maximize that batter's run-producing capabilities. It hinders them. The simulations performed by the authors of The Book have substantiated this. More than a fifth of that batter's plate appearances will come with a run expectancy of ~0.11 for the inning, by far the lowest value on this chart — in other words, low-leverage situations. That is a hugely outsize preponderance, and it can be avoided by simply not batting him third.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
Assuming that the idea of the "Ruthian" three-hole hitter is based on the belief that a) you want him to come to the plate in the first inning, and that b) you want ducks on the pond when he does… then yeah, that's a fallacy. There may be some other logic that I'm not grasping, but there is also a mathematical imperative for thinking so.

Coming to bat third in the first inning does not somehow maximize that batter's run-producing capabilities. It hinders them. The simulations performed by the authors of The Book have substantiated this. More than a fifth of that batter's plate appearances will come with a run expectancy of ~0.11 for the inning, by far the lowest value on this chart — in other words, low-leverage situations. That is a hugely outsize preponderance, and it can be avoided by simply not batting him third.
But then the #4 hitter will come to the plate most often with nobody out and nobody on, therefore also limiting their run-producing capabilities, while also providing less total PAs.

I don't see how this math adds up. It says something, I just don't think it says anything worthwhile.
 

Adrian's Dome

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 6, 2010
4,424
But then the #4 hitter will come to the plate most often with nobody out and nobody on, therefore also limiting their run-producing capabilities, while also providing less total PAs.

I don't see how this math adds up. It says something, I just don't think it says anything worthwhile. Why is THE BOOK being treated as gospel?