Ortiz to retire after 2016

[a700hitter]

first where he will average the most plate appearances

SO Papi should have been batting first most of his career? Which ranked hitter hits 2nd, 3rd and 4th? Edited January 30, 2016 by a700hitter

[Kimmi]

Why is that? I hadn't heard of that before?

 

Because the #3 hitter comes up with the bases empty and 2 outs more than any other spot in the line up. A good hitter is better used in the #4 or #2 slots.

[Kimmi]

Where does your best hitter bat?

 

It depends on how you classify best hitter. The #4 hitter comes up to bat in the most important situations out of all 9 spots. He should be your best hitter with power, or your best hitter with more of an emphasis on SLG. Your #1 guy should be your best hitter with more of an emphasis on OBP.

[Kimmi]

first where he will average the most plate appearances

 

In terms of the importance of not making an out, ie OBP, the lineup spots rank #1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9.

[Kimmi]

There is your best all around hitter vs your best power hitter. IMO your best all around hitter bats 3rd. Your best power hit that also has something of an all around hitter profile bats 4th and your best HR hitter that really does not do much else bats 5th. 4 is the guy you really want to protect in the lineup if you can. The only kind of hitter that protects anybody is a guy that is a real threat to change the score with one swing of the bat.

 

Farrell is probably going to try to squeeze Hanley into the 3 or 4 at first and Ortiz the 4 or 5. Then flip Hanley to 5 to shake things up if the first few configurations don't work out.

 

Your first sentence is true, then the rest of it is traditional wisdom but is false.

 

The notion of lineup protection is mostly a myth.

 

Changes in the lineup make very little difference. I don't recall the exact number, but switching the #3 and #4 hitters might make a difference of 1 or 2 runs over the course of an entire season.

[a700hitter]

In terms of the importance of not making an out, ie OBP, the lineup spots rank #1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9.

I thought you said that the #5 ranked hitter should bat 3rd?

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/17452-Ortiz-to-retire-after-2016?p=980082&viewfull=1#post980082

[Kimmi]

SO Papi should have been batting first most of his career? Which ranked hitter hits 2nd, 3rd and 4th?

 

Batting Papi 1st is actually a much better idea than batting him 3rd. However, that idea so strongly bucks conventional (do you like that word better than traditional?) thinking that no manager is likely to do it. Either way, it doesn't make that much of a difference.

 

Because it makes so little difference, a manager is better off creating a line up that alternates right handed and left handed batters, and/or one that puts hitters in a spot that they feel comfortable batting in.

[Kimmi]

I thought you said that the #5 ranked hitter should bat 3rd?

 

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/17452-Ortiz-to-retire-after-2016?p=980082&viewfull=1#post980082

 

Yes, that's what the list says. When filling out a line up, your best hitters should go into those batting spots in respective order. Best hitter = #1 spot. Second best hitter = #4 spot. Third best hitter = #2 spot. Fourth best hitter = #5 spot. Fifth best hitter = #3 spot.

 

I believe you're reading the list backwards.

[Bellhorn04]

I always assumed that one of the biggest reasons lineups were structured the way they are is to give you a chance to have a big first inning. Obviously if Papi leads off he's never going to have a chance to hit with men on base in the first inning. So I am surprised.

[User Name]

Then again, if you have true high OBP guys in the 1st and 2nd slot, that increases the #3 hitter's importance to lineup construction. There are always some outside factors.

[jung]

OBP is only OBP, not the end all of run production IMO. I do agree that your best OBP batter should bat 1st but if he can't hardly run at all then all you have done is clog the base paths, something the Sox specialized in last year and that I expect to some extent again this year. The number of times they simply ran out of outs before they could get many or any runs across belied their position in league scoring particularly since they were for the most part outscored by teams in their own division. At 4 in the order, your hitter comes up in the first inning unless you were unable to get anybody on out of your first 3 hitters. He also comes up with at least one runner on and much more of a chance to drive somebody in. Of course here again the Sox ran into something of a problem last year as they often had Panda too high in the order where he could only for the most part hit singles and then .....clog the base paths.

 

Protecting a hitter with another hitter has become less effective but mainly because pitchers basically go after most hitters now regardless of their prominence. However it is pretty obvious when a pitcher pitches around a hitter and it still happens.

 

The biggest problem the Sox face offensively is that they are a tweener. They neither have enough speed to be effective as a station to station scoring machine nor enough power to be a power based scoring machine. They were a tweener last year and this will for all intents exactly the same lineup now with Ortiz a year older and a year slower. They are a great example for why IMO OBP is not the end all of run production. If your team is dead slow AND hits too high a percentage of singles while being unable to get out of its own way on the base paths, they just run out of outs (3) in an inning before they can get much done. Once again stats or a bias toward a particular stat will frustrate you if you don't take into account other elements of the game that exist around that stat.

 

They were for example a much better and more effective team with either Panda or Hanley sitting last year and were much more effective when both were out of the lineup...a chilling thought since they will both likely see a great deal of time this year. The problem is that they end up stuck in the middle of the order with Ortiz if Farrell repeats last year (see paragraph above ....clogging base paths and running out of outs in an inning). Ortiz is slow, Hanley is a stupid base runner who has lost a step off his best running days and Panda is not just slow but is downright cardiac material. But I think Farrell will simply hope that Hanley shows some the promise that BC hired him to show and will make that bet first.

 

But last year should have thoroughly dispelled the idea that this is some scoring juggernaut....its not. Thought there is nothing more stubborn than a stats geek as anything that does not align with his thinking is.......a OUTLIER! I suspect that thoughts of championships for this bunch are again a byproduct of the statistician's insistence that "this is a juggernaut damn it, now give me more jugger and less naught so I can prove how right I am".

[User Name]

The Red Sox were 4th in MLB in runs scored last year with Panda sucking, Napoli hitting like a pitcher, and Hanley being down a significant amount of time. They were also middle of the pack (15th) in homers, but 7th in TB, 5th in OBP, and 7th in SLG% meaning that they were an excellent offensive unit in spite of all of the injury problems and underperformance from Napoli/Panda. Do you ever stop making s*** up jung? Furthermore, do you even follow baseball bro?

[Spudboy]

Now this is more like it.

 

I'm assuming that what Kimmi says is backed by years of data otherwise she would not offer it.

 

 

I have always assumed that the top of the order would be populated by the higher OBP guys on the team that may offer more speed. The middle of the order would be the power guys, and the the bottom of the order filled by lesser hitters.

 

 

This is because I have been trained to think these things.

 

 

It's interesting to see ideas that conflict with my accepted understanding of the norm.

[User Name]

The Betts/XB/Pedroia top of the lineup sounds like a winner to me, using the statistically researched model.

[Spudboy]

The Betts/XB/Pedroia top of the lineup sounds like a winner to me, using the statistically researched model.

 

It even makes sense without looking at stats!

[User Name]

You have three righties in a row. Some would see that as unthinkable, but none of those guys have real platoon issues.

[Northern Star]

This is not good news on several fronts. I hope DD does not do something really stupid now trying to take advantage of Ortiz last year. We have had about five years worth of stupid mistakes in two. Just no wiggle room for dice rolls.

 

It's good news in freeing up a spot for Jabba if we can't offload him in the meantime.

[a700hitter]

It even makes sense without looking at stats!

Looking at the stats to figure that out would just be wasted effort for some of us.

[jung]

Stats are very good sources of information on a player. Focusing on a single stat to the exclusion of others or even a bias toward one over another is usually a bad idea. Certainly nobody has a single stat that is that significant. Even WAR which is something of an effort as a compilation is roundly criticized. OBP as an example. I would only emphasis OBP if I was looking for a particular type of ballplayer....maybe a lead off hitter for example. Once you get past your lead off hitter, a bias toward OBP won't likely do very much for you, not in lieu of everything else. If somebody put a gun to my head and told me I could only use one stat across a whole batting order, it would likely be OPS or one of its sisters....OPS+ whatever.

 

Then relying on stats alone is another problem as bad as not relying on stats at all. Relying on stats alone won't allow a GM to build an effective offense. All too often stats alone are just that, stats and without understanding the underpinnings often you end up with a compilation of players that simply don't roll up into an effective offense. Then everybody expresses shock that the "team" did not do as well as expected and even individual players under performed.....what a shock!

 

Maybe the biggest problem for fans is thinking Fantasy Baseball Leagues are meaningful as a relationship to real baseball games being played by the baseball players themselves and they just aren't. Worse yet when real GM's overemphasis this stuff. This in part was likely a reaction by baseball itself that for at least a short time tried to convince itself in some quarters that it could simply let go of traditional scouting and just rely on some geek with a computer program. Some of that still exists today. But more balanced approaches seem now to prevail.

[cp176]

Because the #3 hitter comes up with the bases empty and 2 outs more than any other spot in the line up. A good hitter is better used in the #4 or #2 slots.

 

I thought that I was a fairly bright guy but now I realize that I am just stupid. I would think that if your first two hitters were good it could possibly make the role of the number 3 hitter fairly important. To me that is common sense. All that being said, numerous high school teams experimented with placing their best hitter at the top of the order in the late 80's and 90's. It is not such a new concept.

[cp176]

Stats are very good sources of information on a player. Focusing on a single stat to the exclusion of others or even a bias toward one over another is usually a bad idea. Certainly nobody has a single stat that is that significant. Even WAR which is something of an effort as a compilation is roundly criticized. OBP as an example. I would only emphasis OBP if I was looking for a particular type of ballplayer....maybe a lead off hitter for example. Once you get past your lead off hitter, a bias toward OBP won't likely do very much for you, not in lieu of everything else. If somebody put a gun to my head and told me I could only use one stat across a whole batting order, it would likely be OPS or one of its sisters....OPS+ whatever.

 

Then relying on stats alone is another problem as bad as not relying on stats at all. Relying on stats alone won't allow a GM to build an effective offense. All too often stats alone are just that, stats and without understanding the underpinnings often you end up with a compilation of players that simply don't roll up into an effective offense. Then everybody expresses shock that the "team" did not do as well as expected and even individual players under performed.....what a shock!

 

Maybe the biggest problem for fans is thinking Fantasy Baseball Leagues are meaningful as a relationship to real baseball games being played by the baseball players themselves and they just aren't. Worse yet when real GM's overemphasis this stuff. This in part was likely a reaction by baseball itself that for at least a short time tried to convince itself in some quarters that it could simply let go of traditional scouting and just rely on some geek with a computer program. Some of that still exists today. But more balanced approaches seem now to prevail.

 

I think that what you are saying here is why I like DD.

[cp176]

Then again, if you have true high OBP guys in the 1st and 2nd slot, that increases the #3 hitter's importance to lineup construction. There are always some outside factors.

 

this is a common sense approach and totally unacceptable

[Kimmi]

I always assumed that one of the biggest reasons lineups were structured the way they are is to give you a chance to have a big first inning. Obviously if Papi leads off he's never going to have a chance to hit with men on base in the first inning. So I am surprised.

 

I didn't say that Papi in the #1 hole was the best spot for him, just that it made more sense than putting him in the #3 slot. He has the SLG numbers, so he's better suited for batting 4th.

 

You put your two best hitters in the !st and 4th spots, with more emphasis on OBP in the leadoff spot, and more emphasis on SLG in the cleanup spot.

 

That said, in terms of scoring runs, the single most important factor is still not making an out. Getting the leadoff guy on base is more important to scoring in an inning than having someone batting 3rd who can drive him in.

[Kimmi]

Then again, if you have true high OBP guys in the 1st and 2nd slot, that increases the #3 hitter's importance to lineup construction. There are always some outside factors.

 

This is true, but on average, the #3 batter still comes up with 2 outs and 0 on more than any other batting position. Some of that is probably due to managers insisting on having speed in the leadoff spot over OBP.

[Kimmi]

OBP is only OBP, not the end all of run production IMO. I do agree that your best OBP batter should bat 1st but if he can't hardly run at all then all you have done is clog the base paths, something the Sox specialized in last year and that I expect to some extent again this year. The number of times they simply ran out of outs before they could get many or any runs across belied their position in league scoring particularly since they were for the most part outscored by teams in their own division. At 4 in the order, your hitter comes up in the first inning unless you were unable to get anybody on out of your first 3 hitters. He also comes up with at least one runner on and much more of a chance to drive somebody in. Of course here again the Sox ran into something of a problem last year as they often had Panda too high in the order where he could only for the most part hit singles and then .....clog the base paths.

 

Protecting a hitter with another hitter has become less effective but mainly because pitchers basically go after most hitters now regardless of their prominence. However it is pretty obvious when a pitcher pitches around a hitter and it still happens.

 

The biggest problem the Sox face offensively is that they are a tweener. They neither have enough speed to be effective as a station to station scoring machine nor enough power to be a power based scoring machine. They were a tweener last year and this will for all intents exactly the same lineup now with Ortiz a year older and a year slower. They are a great example for why IMO OBP is not the end all of run production. If your team is dead slow AND hits too high a percentage of singles while being unable to get out of its own way on the base paths, they just run out of outs (3) in an inning before they can get much done. Once again stats or a bias toward a particular stat will frustrate you if you don't take into account other elements of the game that exist around that stat.

 

They were for example a much better and more effective team with either Panda or Hanley sitting last year and were much more effective when both were out of the lineup...a chilling thought since they will both likely see a great deal of time this year. The problem is that they end up stuck in the middle of the order with Ortiz if Farrell repeats last year (see paragraph above ....clogging base paths and running out of outs in an inning). Ortiz is slow, Hanley is a stupid base runner who has lost a step off his best running days and Panda is not just slow but is downright cardiac material. But I think Farrell will simply hope that Hanley shows some the promise that BC hired him to show and will make that bet first.

 

But last year should have thoroughly dispelled the idea that this is some scoring juggernaut....its not. Thought there is nothing more stubborn than a stats geek as anything that does not align with his thinking is.......a OUTLIER! I suspect that thoughts of championships for this bunch are again a byproduct of the statistician's insistence that "this is a juggernaut damn it, now give me more jugger and less naught so I can prove how right I am".

 

1. The most important factor in scoring runs is not making outs. OBP has a higher correlation with scoring runs than any other single stat. OPS correlates better, but OPS is a combination of OBP and SLG.

 

2. The #4 batter comes up to bat in more meaningful situations than any other lineup position.

 

3. The problem with Hanley and Pablo last season was not that they "clogged up the basepaths" but rather that they just weren't getting on base. The team played better without them in the lineup because they had OBPs of .291 and .292, respectively. They can't run the bases or score runs if they're not getting on base.

 

4. The notion of lineup protection is mostly hogwash, as I've said before.

[Kimmi]

Now this is more like it.

 

I'm assuming that what Kimmi says is backed by years of data otherwise she would not offer it.

 

 

I have always assumed that the top of the order would be populated by the higher OBP guys on the team that may offer more speed. The middle of the order would be the power guys, and the the bottom of the order filled by lesser hitters.

 

 

This is because I have been trained to think these things.

 

 

It's interesting to see ideas that conflict with my accepted understanding of the norm.

 

There is a lot of research and data on the topic of lineups. The bottom line is that line ups really don't matter as much as most people think they do. The difference between the "optimal" line up and the "typical" line up might be on game over an entire season. Switching the #3 and #4 batters is negligible.

 

That said, managers are not constructing their line ups correctly. Conventional thinking as far as line up construction is incorrect.

[Kimmi]

Stats are very good sources of information on a player. Focusing on a single stat to the exclusion of others or even a bias toward one over another is usually a bad idea. Certainly nobody has a single stat that is that significant. Even WAR which is something of an effort as a compilation is roundly criticized. OBP as an example. I would only emphasis OBP if I was looking for a particular type of ballplayer....maybe a lead off hitter for example. Once you get past your lead off hitter, a bias toward OBP won't likely do very much for you, not in lieu of everything else. If somebody put a gun to my head and told me I could only use one stat across a whole batting order, it would likely be OPS or one of its sisters....OPS+ whatever.

 

Then relying on stats alone is another problem as bad as not relying on stats at all. Relying on stats alone won't allow a GM to build an effective offense. All too often stats alone are just that, stats and without understanding the underpinnings often you end up with a compilation of players that simply don't roll up into an effective offense. Then everybody expresses shock that the "team" did not do as well as expected and even individual players under performed.....what a shock!

 

Maybe the biggest problem for fans is thinking Fantasy Baseball Leagues are meaningful as a relationship to real baseball games being played by the baseball players themselves and they just aren't. Worse yet when real GM's overemphasis this stuff. This in part was likely a reaction by baseball itself that for at least a short time tried to convince itself in some quarters that it could simply let go of traditional scouting and just rely on some geek with a computer program. Some of that still exists today. But more balanced approaches seem now to prevail.

 

I'm going to have to agree with UN that you are making stuff up. No one has ever said that GMs should forego traditional scouting and rely solely on some geek with a computer.

[Bellhorn04]

Here are some comparisons between Ellsbury and Ortiz for 2013:

 

Ellsbury 636 PA's

With 2 outs and 0 on - 67 10.5%

With men on base - 225 35.4%

With bases empty - 411 64.6%

With RISP - 133 20.9%

 

Ortiz 600 PA's

With 2 outs and 0 on - 68 11.3%

With men on base - 328 54.7%

With bases empty - 272 45.3%

With RISP - 192 32.0%

 

So while Ortiz did come up more often with 2 outs and 0 on, he also had far more PA's with men on base and RISP.

[jung]

That is about as weird a reading of my last post as i could possibly have imagined.

 

As for the importance of lineups, it really depends on the players you have. If you have a good HR power bat for example and you set him up to come up too often with nobody on, you are just asking for it. Nobody wins games on 1 run HR's. 1 run HR's are just a means to lose. Nobody fears them...nobody cares about them. A pitcher will happily give 1 or even more than 1 up during the course of a game especially in the AL where it is particularly meaningless.

[Kimmi]

Here are some comparisons between Ellsbury and Ortiz for 2013:

 

Ellsbury 636 PA's

With 2 outs and 0 on - 67 10.5%

With men on base - 225 35.4%

With bases empty - 411 64.6%

With RISP - 133 20.9%

 

Ortiz 600 PA's

With 2 outs and 0 on - 68 11.3%

With men on base - 328 54.7%

With bases empty - 272 45.3%

With RISP - 192 32.0%

 

So while Ortiz did come up more often with 2 outs and 0 on, he also had far more PA's with men on base and RISP.

 

The vast majority of those PAs (535) were from the #4 hole, which again, has more meaningful PAs than any other lineup position.

 

Even if that were not the case, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule. However, the idea that your best hitter should bat 3rd is not true.