Opening day batting order?

[Kimmi]

If it was proved that a random order was as good as any other, every manager would be doing it -- just one less thing for them to have to think about. Managers love push button decisions.

 

A random order is as good as the traditional line up that most managers draw up. Batting orders can make a difference if they are truly optimized, but that would likely require a manager to bat Barry Bonds in the lead off spot. What manager is going to do that? None of them would do that, not because it's wrong, but because it goes so deeply against what has been ingrained into everyone's minds about what a lineup should look like.

[Kimmi]

CV can't hit, Blake can't catch. That's why Leon is starting.

 

From what I've been reading, it sounds like Vazquez is working his way up the food chain because of his defense. He may end up as our starting catcher before too long.

[moonslav59]

Of course the line-up matters, if not just for the fact that our lead off hitter got 772 PAs and our 9th hitter got 628. That's over 140 more PAs for a better hitter over a worse one.

 

The difference between batting Betts 3rd or 9th would be over 100 PAs.

 

How can that be insignificant?

[Kimmi]

Of course the line-up matters, if not just for the fact that our lead off hitter got 772 PAs and our 9th hitter got 628. That's over 140 more PAs for a better hitter over a worse one.

 

The difference between batting Betts 3rd or 9th would be over 100 PAs.

 

How can that be insignificant?

 

Yes, batting order matters, but not nearly as much as most people think it does. All of the fretting about moving a player up or down 2-3 spots in the lineup is really not necessary. The difference between putting a pitcher in the clean up spot versus batting him 9th amounts to about 15 runs over the entire season. The difference between batting Mookie 3rd or 5th would be about 2 runs over the entire season.

 

Descending OBP would be a simple and effective way to create a batting order.

[mvp 78]

From what I've been reading, it sounds like Vazquez is working his way up the food chain because of his defense. He may end up as our starting catcher before too long.

 

His glove wasn't worth it last year. I hope he can turn it around. My preference would be to have a top defender/game caller at C.

[Spudboy]

Many people on this site over state Swi's defensive deficiencies.

 

You also over state the significance of Vasqueze's defensive ability. He better than Swi at the moment but it means jack s*** if he hits .200-.230.

 

Oh well. Good thing this offense is so strong without Ortiz!!!!!

[S5Dewey]

Yes, batting order matters, but not nearly as much as most people think it does. All of the fretting about moving a player up or down 2-3 spots in the lineup is really not necessary. The difference between putting a pitcher in the clean up spot versus batting him 9th amounts to about 15 runs over the entire season. The difference between batting Mookie 3rd or 5th would be about 2 runs over the entire season.

 

Descending OBP would be a simple and effective way to create a batting order.

 

With division championships and playoff berths sometimes decided by 1 or 2 games 15 runs over the season could be very significant.

[Emp9]

Yes, batting order matters, but not nearly as much as most people think it does. All of the fretting about moving a player up or down 2-3 spots in the lineup is really not necessary. The difference between putting a pitcher in the clean up spot versus batting him 9th amounts to about 15 runs over the entire season. The difference between batting Mookie 3rd or 5th would be about 2 runs over the entire season.

 

Descending OBP would be a simple and effective way to create a batting order.

 

Maybe 15 runs for the pitcher, alone, in a vacuum. The team as a whole on the other hand would lose out on creating runs substantially. You seem to be leaving out a much more capable hitter who could bat clean up in the pitcher's stead. I'm not sold on this Kimmi. Maybe you are just using this as an example for a point I'm missing. But It's an isolated, inverse, and out of context way of breaking down any given lineup.

 

Mookie could bat 9th for all I care and I doubt HIS numbers change all that much (his rbi might take a hit though). He's one of the best young hitters I've seen in a long time. But the team would not be as productive.

 

I admit there are many games where the lineup doesn't seem to matter for good or bad, for varying reasons. I tend to look at the lineup as one would use a pinch-hitter, but on a much larger scale. You want to up your chances with what's available, and the sooner the better. L/R match-ups, more overall ABs for your best hitters, protection, B/P history (if applicable)... and so on. These mini strategies don't work all the time, but they help increase the pressure on the opposing team, they take advantage of isolated skills, and increase, for lack of a better word... Luck.

 

All that said, I agree, descending OBP is a nice base to start with. I would micro-manage a bit further. Hell, that's part of the fun.

[moonslav59]

Many people on this site over state Swi's defensive deficiencies.

 

You also over state the significance of Vasqueze's defensive ability. He better than Swi at the moment but it means jack s*** if he hits .200-.230.

 

Oh well. Good thing this offense is so strong without Ortiz!!!!!

 

If Swi hits .280 and Vaz hits .220, but Vaz can save a run defensively every 4-5 games, Vaz is the better choice.

Edited March 20, 2017 by moonslav59

[Kimmi]

His glove wasn't worth it last year. I hope he can turn it around. My preference would be to have a top defender/game caller at C.

 

Vazquez' defense took a step backward last year, but he was still very good defensively. Don't sell his last year's defense short. I think that he was rushed back into the position before he was fully ready.

 

Jason Mastrodonato‏Verified account @JMastrodonato 4h4 hours ago

 

Christian Vazquez's pop time said to be 1.75 yesterday. Back to presurgery levels. "Not too many catchers who can do that" -- Dana LeVangie

[Kimmi]

With division championships and playoff berths sometimes decided by 1 or 2 games 15 runs over the season could be very significant.

 

Absolutely, but 15 runs is the difference you get when making the most egregious lineup error you can make.

 

My point is that the line up changes that we often debate, like whether to bat Mookie 3rd or 4th, won't make much of a difference.

 

If a manager wanted to completely go against the norm and make a truly optimal lineup, then he could probably win an extra 3 games. But as I previously posted, no manager is going to bat a Barry Bonds in the leadoff spot.

[Kimmi]

Many people on this site over state Swi's defensive deficiencies.

 

You also over state the significance of Vasqueze's defensive ability. He better than Swi at the moment but it means jack s*** if he hits .200-.230.

 

Oh well. Good thing this offense is so strong without Ortiz!!!!!

 

That is for the bolded statement.

 

I think Swihart can develop into a more than adequate defensive catcher if given the opportunity to develop properly. I think he can eventually be the overall better catcher between him and Vaz.

 

That said, if Vaz returns to the level of defense that he showed in 2014, then no, it is not being overstated.

[Kimmi]

Maybe 15 runs for the pitcher, alone, in a vacuum. The team as a whole on the other hand would lose out on creating runs substantially. You seem to be leaving out a much more capable hitter who could bat clean up in the pitcher's stead. I'm not sold on this Kimmi. Maybe you are just using this as an example for a point I'm missing. But It's an isolated, inverse, and out of context way of breaking down any given lineup.

 

Mookie could bat 9th for all I care and I doubt HIS numbers change all that much (his rbi might take a hit though). He's one of the best young hitters I've seen in a long time. But the team would not be as productive.

 

I admit there are many games where the lineup doesn't seem to matter for good or bad, for varying reasons. I tend to look at the lineup as one would use a pinch-hitter, but on a much larger scale. You want to up your chances with what's available, and the sooner the better. L/R match-ups, more overall ABs for your best hitters, protection, B/P history (if applicable)... and so on. These mini strategies don't work all the time, but they help increase the pressure on the opposing team, they take advantage of isolated skills, and increase, for lack of a better word... Luck.

 

All that said, I agree, descending OBP is a nice base to start with. I would micro-manage a bit further. Hell, that's part of the fun.

 

The 15 runs difference is not looking at the pitcher in a vacuum or out of context.

 

One thing about line ups is that the notion of 'protection' is largely a myth. Therefore, any effect of not having protection for your #3 hitter is overstated.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that every move that a manager makes to improve in one area causes some weakening in another area. Moving a pitcher to the #4 spot definitely weakens that spot, but your #9 spot is significantly strengthened, which in turn strengthens the top of the line up when it's turned over, offsetting some of the loss.

[moonslav59]

Absolutely, but 15 runs is the difference you get when making the most egregious lineup error you can make.

 

My point is that the line up changes that we often debate, like whether to bat Mookie 3rd or 4th, won't make much of a difference.

 

If a manager wanted to completely go against the norm and make a truly optimal lineup, then he could probably win an extra 3 games. But as I previously posted, no manager is going to bat a Barry Bonds in the leadoff spot.

 

I still think the 15-20 extra PAs per slot in the order is enough to make a bigger difference than you make it out to be.

 

I believe your numbers, but a few runs here and there can make the difference between making the playoffs or not.

 

Maybe it's not as big of a deal as many make it out to be, and the topic is debated much more than it should be, but I still think a manager should do everything he can to improve the chances of scoring more runs or allowing less runs scored against us. Even a little bit can make a big difference.

[Bellhorn04]

I still think the 15-20 extra PAs per slot in the order is enough to make a bigger difference than you make it out to be.

 

I believe your numbers, but a few runs here and there can make the difference between making the playoffs or not.

 

Maybe it's not as big of a deal as many make it out to be, and the topic is debated much more than it should be, but I still think a manager should do everything he can to improve the chances of scoring more runs or allowing less runs scored against us. Even a little bit can make a big difference.

 

Agreed. I think Farrell is fine in that area.

[moonslav59]

Agreed. I think Farrell is fine in that area.

 

I have no big beef with JF over line-up choices, but my own personal preference is to move guys up or down based on splits a little more than JF does.

 

I really think Young needs to bat no lower than 5th vs LHPs. 6th is okay, I guess, but the guy is one of MLB's best hitters vs lefties. Last year, he had 27 PAs in the 1-5 slots, 49 in the 6th slot, 114 in the 7th slot and 37 in the 8th or 9 slots. Granted, he started 33 games vs a RH'd starter and only 20 vs a LH'd starter, so these numbers are not as bad as they look.

 

Last year, we faced 37 LH'd starters. Young was injured for some of them, but this year, assuming good health, I'd like to see Young get 37 starts vs LHPs and maybe just 0-15 vs RHPs (to cover injuries only). When he does start vs lefties, bat him 5th.

 

I also think Bogey's career sample size is large enough to make the determination that he hits LHPs much better than RHPs and should be slotted differently based on the numbers:

 

.847 vs LHPs (.800 when a lefty starts)

.717 vs RHPs (.728 when a RH'd starter pitches)

 

We should avoid playing Pablo and Moreland vs LHPs.

 

My guess is, JF will start Pablo vs LHPs to begin the season. I wouldn't. He will probably use a Moreland-Young platoon at 1B (Moreland)/DH (Young) with HanRam playing FT at DH vs RHPs and 1B vs LHPs. This seems like a perfect set-up to keep HanRam fresh at 1B, so when we play in NL parks, he'll be ready vs LHPs or RHPs at 1B. Young can spell JBJ and Beni in the OF vs some LHPs, but I'd prefer Holt or Selsky in the line-up vs LHPs over Moreland.

 

If we ever end up with Leon and Swihart as our 1-2 catchers, I'd avoid the personal caddy plan and go with a lefty - righty platoon. Leon is about a hundred points better vs LHPs, and Swihart looks better vs RHPs (by about 50 points). Vaz is about 80 points better vs LHPs, so I guess one could say the same with a Swi-Vaz tandem. Swi and Vaz have almost identical numbers vs LHPs in small sample sizes.

[Emp9]

The 15 runs difference is not looking at the pitcher in a vacuum or out of context.

 

One thing about line ups is that the notion of 'protection' is largely a myth. Therefore, any effect of not having protection for your #3 hitter is overstated.

 

Another thing to keep in mind is that every move that a manager makes to improve in one area causes some weakening in another area. Moving a pitcher to the #4 spot definitely weakens that spot, but your #9 spot is significantly strengthened, which in turn strengthens the top of the line up when it's turned over, offsetting some of the loss.

 

"The 15 runs difference is not looking at the pitcher in a vacuum or out of context." Seems a bit out of the abstract to me. Tell me how it isn't then. I'm usually a good sport. ;/

 

Protection is a myth? Tell that to 2016's Bryce Harper and the Nationals then. See pitchers can pitch around batters they don't want to face. This is less likely to happen when there's more than just one batter in a row they also don't want to face.

 

Look, a well functioning offense is one that scores runs, to an end. In order to score runs, besides hitting homeruns of course, is to have your offense hitting at the same time. You want to increase the chances of that happening. It's a chain of events. You want multi-hit innings. You want to increase your chances of having multi-hit innings. A randomized order wouldn't help you with this. I don't think a randomized batting order with no strategic value at all would be equal to that of an optimized batting order.

 

I don't know where this 15 runs came from, but in theory 15 less runs COULD mean 15 more games lost. I'm betting it's more than 15 though.

 

But hey, I agree to disagree. Not a big deal really.

[User Name]

Harper was not lacking "protection". He was injured, weird ass weekend with all of the bb's in the world notwithstanding.

[Michfan]

Ordered tickets for first 4 Tigers games..Not often I get to see Red Sox this early. 48 min trip to Tigers field..

[Kimmi]

I still think the 15-20 extra PAs per slot in the order is enough to make a bigger difference than you make it out to be.

 

I believe your numbers, but a few runs here and there can make the difference between making the playoffs or not.

 

Maybe it's not as big of a deal as many make it out to be, and the topic is debated much more than it should be, but I still think a manager should do everything he can to improve the chances of scoring more runs or allowing less runs scored against us. Even a little bit can make a big difference.

 

I agree that a manager should do everything he can to improve the chances of winning. One problem is that managers are not setting optimal line ups. They are setting 'traditional' line ups, which does not give them the best chance to score.

 

My point, however, is that these line up changes make so little difference that a manager is likely better off leaving batters where they feel the most comfortable, rather than trying to play the numbers.

[Kimmi]

"The 15 runs difference is not looking at the pitcher in a vacuum or out of context." Seems a bit out of the abstract to me. Tell me how it isn't then. I'm usually a good sport. ;/

 

Protection is a myth? Tell that to 2016's Bryce Harper and the Nationals then. See pitchers can pitch around batters they don't want to face. This is less likely to happen when there's more than just one batter in a row they also don't want to face.

 

Look, a well functioning offense is one that scores runs, to an end. In order to score runs, besides hitting homeruns of course, is to have your offense hitting at the same time. You want to increase the chances of that happening. It's a chain of events. You want multi-hit innings. You want to increase your chances of having multi-hit innings. A randomized order wouldn't help you with this. I don't think a randomized batting order with no strategic value at all would be equal to that of an optimized batting order.

 

I don't know where this 15 runs came from, but in theory 15 less runs COULD mean 15 more games lost. I'm betting it's more than 15 though.

 

But hey, I agree to disagree. Not a big deal really.

 

There has been quite a bit of research done on the topic of batting order, and the conclusions are pretty much the same. It just doesn't matter as much as most people think it does.

 

The 15 runs, which is actually 16 runs (I misremembered), comes from research done by Tango and Lichtman, among others. Here is what an article from Fangraphs says about it:

 

Tango and MGL have often pointed out (following Pete Palmer, as Tangotiger noted yesterday) that even one of the worst imaginable single lineup moves — having the pitcher hit in the cleanup spot — would cost an average of 16 runs a season (about 0.1 runs a game).

[Kimmi]

From the Baseball Prospectus book, Baseball Between the Numbers:

 

Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result. Additionally, it's very rare that a situation arises in which run expectation drops after the pitching team walks the batter at the plate. Therefore, if the pitching team does walk a batter because it would rather pitch to the following man, it is almost always making a mistake by opening the door for a big inning. The situation changes late in close games as the importance of a single run begins to trump that of many runs, but even in those situations, the difference between the two batters would have to be extreme.

 

In short, most of the hand-wringing and scrutiny of batting orders is for naught. Batting order simply does not make that much difference. Managers tinkering with lineups so rarely shun convention that most of their changes would affect their teams' output by only a few runs over the course of a season. Sorting a lineup in descending order of OBP yields the most runs, but players with high SLG can offset a low OBP as early as third in the lineup. The conventional lineup's most egregious flaw is that it costs the game's best players about 18 PA per lineup spot per season. If Barry Bonds led off instead of hitting fourth, he would see about 54 more PA per year, adding perhaps 10 runs to the Giants' offensive output. Teams without a player of Bonds's caliber could gain about 10 runs (1 win) a year by routinely batting their players in order of descending OBP. Furthermore, managers worrying about protecting their best hitters need not fret. Situations in which the pitcher would gain by walking the initial batter to pitch to the following man are so rare that employing an optimal lineup order would eliminate nearly all of them. Intentionally walking any batter in a correctly ordered lineup is nearly always a bad decision.

[Emp9]

There has been quite a bit of research done on the topic of batting order, and the conclusions are pretty much the same. It just doesn't matter as much as most people think it does.

 

The 15 runs, which is actually 16 runs (I misremembered), comes from research done by Tango and Lichtman, among others. Here is what an article from Fangraphs says about it:

 

Tango and MGL have often pointed out (following Pete Palmer, as Tangotiger noted yesterday) that even one of the worst imaginable single lineup moves — having the pitcher hit in the cleanup spot — would cost an average of 16 runs a season (about 0.1 runs a game).

 

I think it's great idea if you want your #3 hitter to lead the league in BBs and if he's lucky he'll have as many hits as that pitcher that hits after him. Goody goody. Naw, in all seriousness I just don't buy it. Still sounds like 16 games lost not 16 runs lost to me. More over it's a theory that will never see a practice. I do however think there are ways to get creative with a lineup. I like the idea of using the 9th spot as a sorta' second leadoff hitter if said team has two lead-off(-ish) type of players ( good OBP, good speed). Although, I'm pretty sure I thought of that idea before those guys did. I've thought plenty about trying to replicate the top of the order for further down in the order as much as resources allow, as long as it doesn't take away from the real top of the order. L/R still plays in my book because of certain matchups and the importance of L/R spacing increases as the game goes on when relievers are called. I'd still rather pinch hit and fail than not pinch hit and fail. Protection is overrated? You're assuming I'm over-rating it. But, It's not always about seeing "better" pitches, sometimes it's about seeing a pitch to begin with.

[moonslav59]

I agree that a manager should do everything he can to improve the chances of winning. One problem is that managers are not setting optimal line ups. They are setting 'traditional' line ups, which does not give them the best chance to score.

 

My point, however, is that these line up changes make so little difference that a manager is likely better off leaving batters where they feel the most comfortable, rather than trying to play the numbers.

 

I think the whole "comfort" thing is overblown.

 

I do think some players could be affected by being jerked around wildly, but minor movements or lefty-righty slot swaps are not as upsetting as many seem to feel it is.

 

One thing that makes constructing an "optimal line-up" is deciding what data or combination of data to use. Do you use strict overall numbers (career, last year, last 2-3 years?), or lefty righty splits, or batter vs specific pitcher numbers (with significant sample sizes involved, which is rare), or numerous other factors including hot or cold streaks. It's easy to conclude that every person views which of these is more important differently.

 

I, for one, probably view lefty-righty splits as more important than JF and many posters. I'm not trying to claim I know more than JF or that I am right and he is wrong. I realize I could be wrong on my views of player comfort with more consistent batting slots, and that "comfort" might be more influential than lefty-right numbers or other factors.

 

My own philosophy is that the lefty-righty-lefty line-up construction is over-used. I'd try to put the highest OBP guys up 1-2-3 with the guy up 3rd having more power than 1-2, but I'd rely on lefty-righty splits about equally with overall numbers (last 2-3 years mostly but not in a vacuum). So with my philosophy oversimplified, I might mostly take the average between lefty-righty splits and overall numbers over the last two years to guide my line-up creation methodology.

 

Here's a look at this over simplified data;

 

2015-2016 average between lefty-righty split and overall numbers with an adjustment made to HanRam & Pablo due to their outlier 2015 season:

 

vs RHPs

Betts .357/.510/.867

J B J .347/.501/.848

Pedey .367/.447/.814

Ramirez (.329/.457/.786) adjusted to (.345/.475/.820)

Pablo .302/.340/.642 (adujsted to .335/.440/.775)

Bogey .347/.428/.775

Moreland.316/.458/.764

Young .306/.428/.734

Holt .336/.387/.723

Leon .329/.384/.713

Vazq .264/.293/.557

 

vs LHPs:

Young .367/.525/.892

Ramirez .343/.518/.861 (adjusted to .350/.530/.880)

Betts .342/.503/.845

Bogey .383/.454/.837

Pedey .375/.443/.818

Moreland .309/.440/.749

Leon .331/.409/.740

Vazq .324/.384/.708

Holt .347/.356/.703

Pablo .266/.346/.612 (adjusted to .275/.355/.630)

 

Beni's sample sizes are too small, but I'll project:

vs RHPs: .360/.460/.820

vs LHPs: .335/.435/.770

 

So, going by just these numbers, the "optimal line-up" guide might look like this:

 

vs RHP:

1) Beni .370 OBP

2) Pedey .367 OBP

3) Betts .867 OPS

4) JBJ .848 OPS

5) Ramirez .820 OPS

6) Bogey .775 OPS

7) Sandoval .775 OPS

8) Moreland .764 OPS

9) S Leon .713 OPS

 

vs LHPs

1) Bogey .383 OBP

2) Pedey .375 OBP

3) Young .892 OPS

4) Ramirez .880 OPS

5) Betts .845 OPS

6) JBJ .781 OPS

7) Beni .770 OPS

8) Leon .740 OPS

9) Holt .703 OPS or Rutledge

 

Is this "optimal"?

 

 

[User Name]

Vs r:

 

2B Pedroia

3B Sandoval

LF Benintendi

RF Betts

DH Ramirez

1B Moreland

SS Bogaerts

C Leon

CF JBJ

 

Vs L:

 

2B Pedroia

LF Benintendi

CF Betts

1B Ramirez

DH Young

SS Bogaerts

RF Holt

C Leon

3B Rutledge

 

Feel free to send me death threats!

[Slasher9]

Ordered tickets for first 4 Tigers games..Not often I get to see Red Sox this early. 48 min trip to Tigers field..

 

Nice!

enjoy.

[moonslav59]

Vs r:

 

2B Pedroia

3B Sandoval

LF Benintendi

RF Betts

DH Ramirez

1B Moreland

SS Bogaerts

C Leon

CF JBJ

 

Vs L:

 

2B Pedroia

LF Benintendi

CF Betts

1B Ramirez

DH Young

SS Bogaerts

RF Holt

C Leon

3B Rutledge

 

Feel free to send me death threats!

 

Not too bad.

 

I'd move JBJ up vs RHPs and Pablo down, but it's not bad.

[User Name]

I like Pablo second because he's a high contact guy with excellent bat control. JBJ lengthens the lineup at the #9 spot in my opinion.

[Emp9]

vs RHP:

1) Beni .370 OBP

2) Pedey .367 OBP

3) Betts .867 OPS

4) JBJ .848 OPS

5) Ramirez .820 OPS

6) Bogey .775 OPS

7) Sandoval .775 OPS

8) Moreland .764 OPS

9) S Leon .713 OPS

 

vs LHPs

1) Bogey .383 OBP

2) Pedey .375 OBP

3) Young .892 OPS

4) Ramirez .880 OPS

5) Betts .845 OPS

6) JBJ .781 OPS

7) Leon .740 OPS

8) Holt .703 OPS or Rutledge

9) Beni .770 OPS

 

Moon I'd leave your RHPs lineup the way it is. The minor adjustment I've made on your LHPs lineup is my compromise to Kimmi:o

[moonslav59]

Moon I'd leave your RHPs lineup the way it is. The minor adjustment I've made on your LHPs lineup is my compromise to Kimmi.

 

The line-ups I listed were not my choices, but they look pretty good. They were a response to Kimmi's "optimal line-up" comment. The line-up were based on the broad assumption that the numbers I provided (an average between overall and lefty-righty splits over the past 2 years combined with adjustments upward made to HanRam and Pablo due to their 2015 numbers) were what were to be used. The assumption, which of course can never be made confidently, was that the numbers I listed were what a manager would go by to construct a line-up. I basically put the two best OBP guys up 1-2 and then put players in order of OPS from best to worst in the 3 to 9 slots.

 

My own line-up template might look like this:

 

Vs RHPs:

LF Beni

2B Pedey

RF Betts

DH Ramirez

CF JBJ

SS Bogey

3B Sandy

1B Moreland

C Leon

(I might flip Sandy & Bogey, if Sandy shows life.)

 

vs LHPs (until Beni shows he can hit lefties well enough to lead off...):

SS Bogey

2B Pedey

RF Betts

1B Ramirez

DH Young

LF Beni

CF JBJ

3B Rutledge (or Holt)

C Leon

 

If Moreland can show he can hit lefties better than JBJ (or even Beni), I might keep HanRam at DH vs LHPs and play Young in LF and Beni in CF.