2020 Lineup

[Teachdad46]

Not to anoint this source as the only reliable lineup bible, but this is the part that kept me from putting Devers where my 'true self' would otherwise have placed him (3rd)

The Third Spot
The old-school book says to put your best high-average hitter here. The lead-off hitter should already be in scoring position and a hit drives him in. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

The (New School) Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters. So why focus on putting a guy who can knock in runs in the #3 spot, when the two spots after him can benefit from it more? Surprisingly, because he comes to bat so often with two outs and no runners on base, the #3 hitter isn't nearly as important as we think. This is a spot to fill after more important spots are taken care of.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

Not to anoint this source as the only reliable lineup bible, but this is the part that kept me from putting Devers where my 'true self' would otherwise have placed him (3rd)

The Third Spot
The old-school book says to put your best high-average hitter here. The lead-off hitter should already be in scoring position and a hit drives him in. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

The (New School) Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters. So why focus on putting a guy who can knock in runs in the #3 spot, when the two spots after him can benefit from it more? Surprisingly, because he comes to bat so often with two outs and no runners on base, the #3 hitter isn't nearly as important as we think. This is a spot to fill after more important spots are taken care of.

Right, but the advice is a bit conflicting here, given that both the Book and other optimization sources I've seen note the value of HR power in the #3 slot (because the #3 guy often comes up with two outs and nobody on, a situation where the already large advantage of a HR over other PA outcomes is magnified).

It also largely boils down to how you prioritize ideal optimization vs. L/R alternation. If you don't mind having two LHH in a row in the first five spots, then something like Xander-Devers-Benintendi-Martinez-Verdugo is probably the answer.

 

[RedOctober3829]

RR says the 2-3-4 on most days will be Devers, Martinez, and Bogaerts.

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

RR says the 2-3-4 on most days will be Devers, Martinez, and Bogaerts.

Linky goodness? Did he say who's leading off? (Process of elimination says Benintendi or possibly Verdugo.)

 

[RedOctober3829]

Linky goodness? Did he say who's leading off? (Process of elimination says Benintendi or possibly Verdugo.)

View: https://twitter.com/alexspeier/status/1233404228338626560

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Linky goodness? Did he say who's leading off? (Process of elimination says Benintendi or possibly Verdugo.)

I'm not sure if this is what RedOctober is referring to, but this Bradford report quotes Roenicke...

"You tinker with it. Second, certainly is a spot that it could be," the Red Sox interim manager said when asked where he saw Devers primarily hitting in the lineup. "Then you push three and four with Bogey and J.D. but we’ll see how it plays out. I think the way he’s become consistent I guess with what he does, I think second makes sense. If Benny continues to look like he’s gonna lead off, then probably second."

 

[allmanbro]

Not to anoint this source as the only reliable lineup bible, but this is the part that kept me from putting Devers where my 'true self' would otherwise have placed him (3rd)

The Third Spot
The old-school book says to put your best high-average hitter here. The lead-off hitter should already be in scoring position and a hit drives him in. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

The (New School) Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters. So why focus on putting a guy who can knock in runs in the #3 spot, when the two spots after him can benefit from it more? Surprisingly, because he comes to bat so often with two outs and no runners on base, the #3 hitter isn't nearly as important as we think. This is a spot to fill after more important spots are taken care of.

So, given that The Book was published in 2006, and (at least as I recall) was looking at league averages, do we expect this to actually be true of smart modern teams that put high OBP hitters 1 and 2? In 2006, there were still plenty of teams that would leadoff with a low-obp speedster, and follow up with bat-control guy or a good bunter.

Edit: Just checked to remind myself, the dataset was 1999-2002

 

[Savin Hillbilly]

So, given that The Book was published in 2006, and (at least as I recall) was looking at league averages, do we expect this to actually be true of smart modern teams that put high OBP hitters 1 and 2? In 2006, there were still plenty of teams that would leadoff with a low-obp speedster, and follow up with bat-control guy or a good bunter.

Edit: Just checked to remind myself, the dataset was 1999-2002

Interesting question. In 2000, #1 and #2 hitters as a group had an exactly league-average OBP. In 2019, their OBP was 8% better than league average. Not a huge difference, but such as it is, might reduce the argument for discounting the value of the #3 slot a bit, since that difference means fewer 2-out/none-on situations.

 

[allmanbro]

Interesting question. In 2000, #1 and #2 hitters as a group had an exactly league-average OBP. In 2019, their OBP was 8% better than league average. Not a huge difference, but such as it is, might reduce the argument for discounting the value of the #3 slot a bit, since that difference means fewer 2-out/none-on situations.

I don't have direct comparisons, but that strikes me as a pretty big effect. On any individual team, the actual comparison for a potential 3 hitter is between whoever hits 1/2 and whoever would hit before him in another slot. But this is enough to make me think we shouldn't worry too much about slotting the best hitter at #3 just because of that result.