Sox hitting??

[Kimmi]

RBIs by batting slot in MLB:

 

2015

4th 2949

3rd 2760

5th 2566

2nd 2222

6th 2158

7th 1956

1st 1870

8th 1748

9th 1421

 

2016

4th 3052

3rd 2964

5th 2640

6th 2337

2nd 2257

7th 2015

1st 1996

8th 1976

9th 1511

 

Two problems with this data:

 

1. You cannot measure the success of batting positions by RBIs alone. You have to look at how many runs are created or generated by each batting slot. Fact: Hits by the 1st or 2nd batter generate more runs than hits by any other batting slot. Hence, you want 2 of your best hitters in those slots.

 

2. The data you posted is kind of a self fulfilling prophecy. In other words, a big reason why the 3rd and 4th slots are high RBI slots and the 1 and 2 slots are not as high is because of the way the managers set their line ups. If a manager places his best hitter first, for instance, I am positive, that the # of RBIs would decrease for the #3 hitter and increase for the #1 hitter, and the overall net gain in run production would be positive.

[Kimmi]

I think you are right! Clearly the cess pool of the order regardless of what those playing have played as well as those who have coached might think. lol traditional nitwits be they all!

 

Comments like these are really not necessary. You and Emp can do better.

[Kimmi]

In an absolute sense, yes. But our pal Harmony has proven over and over again that something can be found to discredit - or enhance the image of - just about everyone if one looks for it. Studies are like that.

 

People can find certain stats to make a player look good or bad by cherry picking or using invalid samples. Most people know to take that with a grain of salt.

 

Studies are not like that unless they are done by crackpots, which would never fly in the sabermetric community. Believe me when I say that if one person or group does a study and concludes something like not batting your best hitter in the 3rd slot, that study is going to be reviewed and scrutinized under a microscope. If there is any fault to the study, others will point it out. If there is any way to improve upon it, others will point it out.

 

Additionally, they will not be satisfied. They will continue to slice up the data and expand upon said study in many different ways. It's what these guys live for.

 

You seem to be under the impression that stat geeks are trying to prove traditional thinkers wrong, and that they are 'fudging' their data to do so. That is not the case at all. They're not trying to prove anyone wrong. They just want answers to their questions, which IMO, is far better than accepting what has been done for the past 100 years just because that's the way it's always been done.

[Kimmi]

4th, 3rd, and 5th spots producing the big rbi's year after year. I think that is obvious where most think the rbi guys in the batting order should be hitting.

 

It's very obvious that most people think the big RBI spot is the #3 spot. I'm not denying that. Does that necessarily make it right? Most people once thought the world was flat.

[Maxbialystock]

What I want to say is the Babe Ruth and Ted Williams both batted 3d for almost their entire careers. Were their managers stupid?

 

What I am forced to say is that stats or moneyball or Bill James or however you want to put it are clearly changing the game. Forget everything else and just look at the heavy usage of those defensive alignments against known pull hitters, righty and lefty. Everybody is using them because they work, and they work because of statistical analysis.

 

I personally hate OBP, which Kimmi says is the most important hitting stat, because I think Sox hitters rely on it so much it takes away their aggressiveness as hitters. Consequently, opposing pitchers will often throw fat pitches on the first pitch of an at bat in the secure knowledge Sox hitters won't swing. This gets them ahead in the count. Worse, it means that, if they can get a strike on either of the next two pitches, they put our hitter in a hole that is hard to recover from.

 

Neverthless, OBP is important, and it could also be important to put your best hitters in the 1st and 2d slots and maybe in the 4th (and even the 5th).

[Kimmi]

What I want to say is the Babe Ruth and Ted Williams both batted 3d for almost their entire careers. Were their managers stupid?

 

What I am forced to say is that stats or moneyball or Bill James or however you want to put it are clearly changing the game. Forget everything else and just look at the heavy usage of those defensive alignments against known pull hitters, righty and lefty. Everybody is using them because they work, and they work because of statistical analysis.

 

I personally hate OBP, which Kimmi says is the most important hitting stat, because I think Sox hitters rely on it so much it takes away their aggressiveness as hitters. Consequently, opposing pitchers will often throw fat pitches on the first pitch of an at bat in the secure knowledge Sox hitters won't swing. This gets them ahead in the count. Worse, it means that, if they can get a strike on either of the next two pitches, they put our hitter in a hole that is hard to recover from.

 

Neverthless, OBP is important, and it could also be important to put your best hitters in the 1st and 2d slots and maybe in the 4th (and even the 5th).

 

Of course the managers aren't stupid and I have never even hinted at such.

 

Baseball managers have done certain things certain ways because that's the way it's always been done, with no proof whatsoever that it was the correct or the best way to do those things. Those decisions are now being challenged. I understand completely that those who have been around the game for a long time do not like it.

 

As far as OBP goes, the 'out' is the most precious commodity in baseball. Avoiding making outs, therefore, is a valuable skill. No one said that a batter has to do that by taking strike 1 down the middle of the plate.

[cp176]

It's very obvious that most people think the big RBI spot is the #3 spot. I'm not denying that. Does that necessarily make it right? Most people once thought the world was flat.

 

No it really doesn't make it right but I'm not so sure that it would be in the same category of someone historically suggesting that the world is flat.

[cp176]

Comments like these are really not necessary. You and Emp can do better.

 

 

Having some fun with Emp - that is all.

[a700hitter]

Honestly, I don't know if that's the case or not, but either way, that's not what I said. I said the #3 hitter comes up to bat with 2 outs and 0 men on more than any other position. That's a fact.

I think this stat is barking up the wrong tree. The #3 spot comes up with 2 out and no one on more than any other spot in the lineup, because it is the #3 hitter in an inning more than any other spot in the order. Automatically, at the beginning of the game, they come up as the 3rd batter. Does the #3 spot on this Red Sox team come to bat with more men on base than the first spot. That is the key metric, not this nonsense about batting with 2 out and no one on base.

[Emp9]

Having some fun with Emp - that is all.

 

Fun is a no no here & don't let me catch you liking the outfield dance. That's a severe no no as well.

[cp176]

Fun is a no no here & don't let me catch you liking the outfield dance. That's a severe no no as well.

 

I would just like to see them be a little more creative out there with their dance. Maybe some clogging a little line dancing - how about my grad daughters doing their nay nay dance - whip it good. River Dance?

[cp176]

What I want to say is the Babe Ruth and Ted Williams both batted 3d for almost their entire careers. Were their managers stupid?

 

What I am forced to say is that stats or moneyball or Bill James or however you want to put it are clearly changing the game. Forget everything else and just look at the heavy usage of those defensive alignments against known pull hitters, righty and lefty. Everybody is using them because they work, and they work because of statistical analysis.

 

I personally hate OBP, which Kimmi says is the most important hitting stat, because I think Sox hitters rely on it so much it takes away their aggressiveness as hitters. Consequently, opposing pitchers will often throw fat pitches on the first pitch of an at bat in the secure knowledge Sox hitters won't swing. This gets them ahead in the count. Worse, it means that, if they can get a strike on either of the next two pitches, they put our hitter in a hole that is hard to recover from.

 

Neverthless, OBP is important, and it could also be important to put your best hitters in the 1st and 2d slots and maybe in the 4th (and even the 5th).

 

but never third Max - really? so who does get to hit third - the team stiff? Still Betts for me

 

I like what you posted.

[a700hitter]

What I want to say is the Babe Ruth and Ted Williams both batted 3d for almost their entire careers. Were their managers stupid?

And math and probability were not invented with Bill James. Managers knew math and probability. Most so-called "traditional" notions commonly referred to "the book" were built around maximizing probabilities. Also, OBP was not invented recently. Managers and baseball people knew the value of OBP in evaluating players. Free swinging was a criticism of Dominican players going back 50 years. The old saying was that you had to hit your way off the island. You couldn't walk off the island. The difference between the managers in Williams' days and today is that there is more data today and computer programs to do the math. In Williams' day, the managers had to do the math in their heads. Then like now, managers weren't too smart so that is why they had the "book". It was easy to learn and master and helped them maximize probabilities.

[Slasher9]

maybe we should bat merrerro in the 3 spot since it's a useless position in the batting order anyways????

[a700hitter]

Fun is a no no here & don't let me catch you liking the outfield dance. That's a severe no no as well.

Statheads will not allow fun. This is serious business. We sign a Cy Young winner and they cringe about the contract and the payroll. We trade prospects for the best pitcher in the game with a well below market salary and they agonize about the raping of the farm system and the coming cliff in 2020-21. No, there shall be no fun... no enjoyment, except on draft day.

[a700hitter]

maybe we should bat merrerro in the 3 spot since it's a useless position in the batting order anyways????

This was such an obvious solution that I can't believe that no one has thought of it until now.

[Bellhorn04]

Kimmi can correct me on this but I believe what she said is that the #3 spot is the worst of the top 4 spots. It's either the 4th best or 5th best spot in the order.

[Emp9]

I would just like to see them be a little more creative out there with their dance. Maybe some clogging a little line dancing - how about my grad daughters doing their nay nay dance - whip it good. River Dance?

 

Clogging! Now that's an idea! Might have to save THAT dance for the playoffs.That pure gold. They've done the Carlson, maybe the Eilain?

[Emp9]

Comments like these are really not necessary. You and Emp can do better.

 

Says you! Lol;)

[moonslav59]

I said the #3 hitter comes up to bat with 2 outs and 0 men on more than any other position. That's a fact.

 

I've read the 3 slot comes up in these situations "a lot", but I can't find any source that sayd "more than any other position".

 

Also, why is 2 outs such an important qualifier. I see why it is important, but it's not the only stat that matters for the 3 slot vs the 4 or 5 slot.

 

The 3 slot gets more PAs than the 4 and 5 slot, and my guess is, they may come up with more men on base with any out total than 4 or 5. Plus, a high OBP from your 3 slot helps your 4 and 5 guys get more chances for RBIs than putting a lower OBP up 3rd. That has to be part of the equation as well.

 

I'm not doubting the data, Kimmi, but I think the 1 or 9 slot probably comes up more often with non-RBI situations than the 3 slot. There are more innings than just the first.

There are also times in the first inning that the #3 guy comes up with none on and 2 outs, and he gets on base. The number 4 guy Hrs or DBLs him in or gets on for the 5th hitter to get an RBI chance.

Edited July 6, 2017 by moonslav59

[Emp9]

I said the #3 hitter comes up to bat with 2 outs and 0 men on more than any other position. That's a fact.

 

1) I've read the 3 slot comes up in these situations "a lot", but I can't find any source that sayd "more than any other position".

 

Also, why is 2 outs such an important qualifier. I see why it is important, but it's not the only stat that matters for the 3 slot vs the 4 or 5 slot..

 

So this leads me to one question. Who's our best 2-out hitter then?

[moonslav59]

So this leads me to one question. Who's our best 2-out hitter then?

 

Like clutch hitting, this stat is not something that is easily sustainable. Probably your best hitter will, over the long run, hit best with 2 outs and men on.

 

To me, hitting with men on and noe or one out is very important, too, if fact, it probably leads to more big innings than getting a hit with men on and 2 outs.

 

[Emp9]

Like clutch hitting, this stat is not something that is easily sustainable. Probably your best hitter will, over the long run, hit best with 2 outs and men on.

 

To me, hitting with men on and noe or one out is very important, too, if fact, it probably leads to more big innings than getting a hit with men on and 2 outs.

 

 

Naw, just numbers wise, who hits the most w/ two outs? Doesn't have to be clutch, it wld include 2-out hits that don't amount to anything.

 

Eck said I think Monday? That Pedroia has been the most "clutch" hitter in baseball (believe it or not) , but I can't remember if he said going back august of '16 or august of '15. I don't want to open pandora's clutch hitting box here. Lol

[cp176]

Kimmi can correct me on this but I believe what she said is that the #3 spot is the worst of the top 4 spots. It's either the 4th best or 5th best spot in the order.

 

ok well that is good then - I would just be one of those numbskull managers I guess. betts would likely hit third for me at this time.

[Kimmi]

Having some fun with Emp - that is all.

 

You (and that is the collective you) are mocking me and my opinions in a feeble attempt to discredit what I'm saying. I find it disrespectful and condescending. I get it, it's what people resort to when that's all they have. Excuse me if I expect better from you guys.

 

Don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Carry on.

[Kimmi]

Kimmi can correct me on this but I believe what she said is that the #3 spot is the worst of the top 4 spots. It's either the 4th best or 5th best spot in the order.

 

Correct. The 3rd spot is the least important out of the top 5.

[Slasher9]

WTF is wrong with the national league??? havent they figured out that the pitcher should bat 3rd? well, except when bumgarner's is on the bump. he should bat leadoff.....

[Kimmi]

I said the #3 hitter comes up to bat with 2 outs and 0 men on more than any other position. That's a fact.

 

I've read the 3 slot comes up in these situations "a lot", but I can't find any source that sayd "more than any other position".

 

Also, why is 2 outs such an important qualifier. I see why it is important, but it's not the only stat that matters for the 3 slot vs the 4 or 5 slot.

 

The 3 slot gets more PAs than the 4 and 5 slot, and my guess is, they may come up with more men on base with any out total than 4 or 5. Plus, a high OBP from your 3 slot helps your 4 and 5 guys get more chances for RBIs than putting a lower OBP up 3rd. That has to be part of the equation as well.

 

I'm not doubting the data, Kimmi, but I think the 1 or 9 slot probably comes up more often with non-RBI situations than the 3 slot. There are more innings than just the first.

There are also times in the first inning that the #3 guy comes up with none on and 2 outs, and he gets on base. The number 4 guy Hrs or DBLs him in or gets on for the 5th hitter to get an RBI chance.

 

Here's a quote from The Hardball Times which I think answers your questions very well:

 

The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions. That’s why they recommend putting your fifth-best hitter in the three spot.

 

It's not just about RBIs. It's about generating runs and run value. If your best hitter (or any hitter) gets on base with 2 outs, he is a lot less likely to score than if he gets on base with 0 outs.

[moonslav59]

Here's a quote from The Hardball Times which I think answers your questions very well:

 

The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions. That’s why they recommend putting your fifth-best hitter in the three spot.

 

It's not just about RBIs. It's about generating runs and run value. If your best hitter (or any hitter) gets on base with 2 outs, he is a lot less likely to score than if he gets on base with 0 outs.

 

Okay, this hints at any other position in the top 5--not all positions as you stated earlier.

[S5Dewey]

You (and that is the collective you) are mocking me and my opinions in a feeble attempt to discredit what I'm saying. I find it disrespectful and condescending. I get it, it's what people resort to when that's all they have. Excuse me if I expect better from you guys.

 

Don't worry, I'm not losing any sleep over it. Carry on.

 

You're taking this far too personally. Back on the old BDC thread I had a tag line of "We don't see things as they are. We see things as we are", and that applies here.

 

There are several of us here who have had a lot of experience in playing and coaching and we are all about intangibles - hunches and experience, if you will - because sometimes the intangibles work.

OTOH you are all about the numbers and what they prove.

 

What you hear from us is no less disrespectful and condescending than what we hear from you when we are "corrected' by being told that 'statistics show...'.

 

I'd guess that there are over 200 years of collective experience here and we expect to be respected for the knowledge we have, and that's something we don't seem to be getting.

 

As I've said before, if baseball were all about statistics we wouldn't have to have playoffs. We could just plug each player and situation into a computer and the computer would give us the winner of each game, right up through the WS.

 

It's possible that the Sox with their offense would have won the WS last year if we'd gone that route, but we didn't and look where that got us! :-(