Sox hitting??

[moonslav59]

I am not sure but I think Mookie Betts has come up to bat with no one on base 311 times in 107 games (and up to batter with runners in scoring position 190 times in 90 games). The 311 and 190 plate appearances combine to match his 501 plate appearances for the season.

 

The 2017 American League splits are not so pronounced:

 

https://www.baseball-reference.com/leagues/split.cgi?t=b&lg=AL&year=2017

 

Moon beat me to it again.

 

Your guys got Alonso for Boog Powell.

 

Looks like Phelps might be damaged goods. Glad we passed on him.

[Station 13]

No, the first line is RISP

 

The second line titled "---" is all his combined PAs with no men on base.

 

The third line , "men on base" is all the combined opportunities with any man on any base with any amount of outs.

 

Betts has 110 PAs with RISP

190 with men on base

311 with no men on base (one big downfall with putting a very good hitter up first)

 

He hits .404 with RISP.

 

He's hit .223 with no men on base (.296 OBP- another reason not to have him lead off)

 

He's hit .348 with men on base.

 

When Pedroia returns he should lead off.

[fxkatt]

No, the first line is RISP

 

The second line titled "---" is all his combined PAs with no men on base.

 

The third line , "men on base" is all the combined opportunities with any man on any base with any amount of outs.

 

Betts has 110 PAs with RISP

190 with men on base

311 with no men on base (one big downfall with putting a very good hitter up first)

 

He hits .404 with RISP.

 

He's hit .223 with no men on base (.296 OBP- another reason not to have him lead off)

 

He's hit .348 with men on base.

 

Ah. Got it!! I love Mookie more than I thought. And yes, what to hell is he doing leading off? I wish these RISP ave.s were easily available the way they once were. Because when I say clutch, I want to be right... not intuitively guessing.

[moonslav59]

When Pedroia returns he should lead off.

 

I'd be fine with Pedey or Nunez up 1st.

 

I'd bat Betts 4th, but 2nd would be okay.

 

1. Pedey

2. Beni

3. Nunez

4. Betts

5. HRam

6. Devers

7. JBJ

8. Bogey

9. Vaz

 

I might even flip Devers with HRam.

 

[MADSTORK]

I'd be fine with Pedey or Nunez up 1st.

 

I'd bat Betts 4th, but 2nd would be okay.

 

1. Pedey

2. Beni

3. Nunez

4. Betts

5. HRam

6. Devers

7. JBJ

8. Bogey

9. Vaz

 

I might even flip Devers with HRam.

 

 

 

 

Send that lineup to Farrell

[moonslav59]

Send that lineup to Farrell

 

It's not the one I would do, but I thought it might be one JF could be talked into.

 

Mine would be...

 

1. Nunez DH

2. Pedey

3. Beni vs R/HRam v L

4. Betts

5. Devers

6. HRam v R/Young v L

7. JBJ v R/ Bogey v L

8. Bogey v R/ JBJ v L

9. Vaz

[oldtimer]

It's not the one I would do, but I thought it might be one JF could be talked into.

 

Mine would be...

 

1. Nunez DH

2. Pedey

3. Beni vs R/HRam v L

4. Betts

5. Devers

6. HRam v R/Young v L

7. JBJ v R/ Bogey v L

8. Bogey v R/ JBJ v L

9. Vaz

 

Who will be available vs Tampa Bay. We have had Pedey on the DL and Hanly sitting? Bogey still could use more rest. Will Leon be catching Sale? Interested in the lineup in the first game against TB. They are a team with good pitching and decent hitting so we need the best we can put on the field.

[S5Dewey]

No, the first line is RISP

 

The second line titled "---" is all his combined PAs with no men on base.

 

The third line , "men on base" is all the combined opportunities with any man on any base with any amount of outs.

 

Betts has 110 PAs with RISP

190 with men on base

311 with no men on base (one big downfall with putting a very good hitter up first)

 

He hits .404 with RISP.

 

He's hit .223 with no men on base (.296 OBP- another reason not to have him lead off)

 

He's hit .348 with men on base.

To rearranging the order of that post just a bit, in 611 PA's:

.223 with nobody on base

.348 with men on base (this must mean only a runner on 1st, since RISP is a separate category and if more than one runner is on base at least one of them is in scoring position)

.404 with RISP.

 

It looks like Mookie is "clutch".

[Bellhorn04]

To rearranging the order of that post just a bit, in 611 PA's:

.223 with nobody on base

.348 with men on base (this must mean only a runner on 1st, since RISP is a separate category and if more than one runner is on base at least one of them is in scoring position)

.404 with RISP.

 

It looks like Mookie is "clutch".

 

But in 'late and close' appearances his OPS is only .728.

[S5Dewey]

But in 'late and close' appearances his OPS is only .728.

 

This goes back to something I said some time ago. If someone wants to prove something statistically there's something there to prove it.

[Bellhorn04]

This goes back to something I said some time ago. If someone wants to prove something statistically there's something there to prove it.

 

That's about it.

[S5Dewey]

That's about it.

 

...Which is why I remain skeptical about all those newer statistics disparaging clutch, hitter protection, the batting order, and all those things that have been accepted as facts for decades. Maybe there's something to all those old beliefs after all.

 

One thing I have observed is that past statistics are essentially useless in trying to predict what a hitter will do in any situation or who will win any game. They're great as historical data or in observing trends over seasons.

 

In fact, if what I read is true about the lineup having little to no affect on run production - which I'm also skeptical about - statistics are of little value in determining the lineup & run production. (See? Even there I'm trying to have it both ways! LOL)

[a700hitter]

This goes back to something I said some time ago. If someone wants to prove something statistically there's something there to prove it.

And that's why statistics are good for confirming an opinion. You can almost always find a lot of data that will support it. It goes back to Bin Scully's great line about using statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost for support and not illumination.

[jad]

Not sure about that. The 'traditional' guys can always circle back to 'tradition'. You know, as in "if there weren't anything to it, then why is there anything to it?"

My question is the the stat and computer geeks. Isn't there a relatively simple calculation to perform about batting order? (simple as in the sense of 'easily conceived'--I don't know whether it's feasible, and that's my question). All you would have to do is take the performance of 9 starters over ... a season?, and ask: which is the most productive order in which they should hit, given that performance over a year (and 3 outs per inning, etc.)? (I have no idea whether this is too onerous for modern computers-- there are, I think, a finite and easily conceivable number of possible orders: it's 9! (9 factorial), right? COuldn't a computer churn out the answer fairly easily? (I am also aware that the traditional crowd wouldn't accept the results, claiming that hitters hit differently in different situations--fine. I'm only asking whether the computer could provide an answer in its own terms).

[Bellhorn04]

Not sure about that. The 'traditional' guys can always circle back to 'tradition'. You know, as in "if there weren't anything to it, then why is there anything to it?"

My question is the the stat and computer geeks. Isn't there a relatively simple calculation to perform about batting order? (simple as in the sense of 'easily conceived'--I don't know whether it's feasible, and that's my question). All you would have to do is take the performance of 9 starters over ... a season?, and ask: which is the most productive order in which they should hit, given that performance over a year (and 3 outs per inning, etc.)? (I have no idea whether this is too onerous for modern computers-- there are, I think, a finite and easily conceivable number of possible orders: it's 9! (9 factorial), right? COuldn't a computer churn out the answer fairly easily? (I am also aware that the traditional crowd wouldn't accept the results, claiming that hitters hit differently in different situations--fine. I'm only asking whether the computer could provide an answer in its own terms).

 

With 9 players there are 362,880 possible batting orders. (9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1).

[jad]

With 9 players there are 362,880 possible batting orders. (9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1).

 

Right. 9! I assumed the actual number was on that order. What I want to know is whether this is feasible to be handled by a modern computer.

[S5Dewey]

And that's why statistics are good for confirming an opinion. You can almost always find a lot of data that will support it. It goes back to Vin Scully's great line about using statistics the way a drunk uses a lamppost for support and not illumination.

 

I wish I'd heard him actually say that. In fact, I think I'd be happy hearing him read a phone book.

[S5Dewey]

Not sure about that. The 'traditional' guys can always circle back to 'tradition'. You know, as in "if there weren't anything to it, then why is there anything to it?"

My question is the the stat and computer geeks. Isn't there a relatively simple calculation to perform about batting order? (simple as in the sense of 'easily conceived'--I don't know whether it's feasible, and that's my question). All you would have to do is take the performance of 9 starters over ... a season?, and ask: which is the most productive order in which they should hit, given that performance over a year (and 3 outs per inning, etc.)? (I have no idea whether this is too onerous for modern computers-- there are, I think, a finite and easily conceivable number of possible orders: it's 9! (9 factorial), right? COuldn't a computer churn out the answer fairly easily? (I am also aware that the traditional crowd wouldn't accept the results, claiming that hitters hit differently in different situations--fine. I'm only asking whether the computer could provide an answer in its own terms).

 

I'm certain it could, but there are two drawbacks to using it.

 

1) You're right - us old timers wouldn't want to use it.

 

2) The computer geeks/statisticians would see no point in using it because (allegedly) that same computer would have proven that the lineup makes little difference in run production.

[Kimmi]

Ah. Got it!! I love Mookie more than I thought. And yes, what to hell is he doing leading off? I wish these RISP ave.s were easily available the way they once were. Because when I say clutch, I want to be right... not intuitively guessing.

 

I have no problem with Mookie leading off. You have to think beyond just RBIs. My preference for him would probably be 2nd, now that our line up has a slightly different look, but batting him first is perfectly fine.

[Kimmi]

This goes back to something I said some time ago. If someone wants to prove something statistically there's something there to prove it.

 

The problem with this argument is that the true stat geeks know better than to cherry pick or to use small sample sizes. We amateurs on the baseball forum do this type of thing all the time. The guys doing it for a living do not. In other words, they are not going to 'twist' their stats around to paint the picture that they want them to paint.

 

You seem to be under the impression that the stat guys are out to prove traditional thinkers wrong, and that they purposefully set up their studies to get the results that they want. That's not the way statisticians work. They do not have such an agenda. They have professional ethics. They simply want answers.

 

And if any stat geek attempted such a thing, his/her colleagues would never let it fly. He or she would be called out and shut down in a heartbeat. Trust me on that.

[Kimmi]

...Which is why I remain skeptical about all those newer statistics disparaging clutch, hitter protection, the batting order, and all those things that have been accepted as facts for decades. Maybe there's something to all those old beliefs after all.

 

One thing I have observed is that past statistics are essentially useless in trying to predict what a hitter will do in any situation or who will win any game. They're great as historical data or in observing trends over seasons.

 

In fact, if what I read is true about the lineup having little to no affect on run production - which I'm also skeptical about - statistics are of little value in determining the lineup & run production. (See? Even there I'm trying to have it both ways! LOL)

 

Some statistics work better as descriptive stats, others work better in their predictive value. No stat is foolproof or even close to being foolproof when it comes to predicting, but some are better than others.

 

I'm sorry, but the argument that stats or studies are not valid because you can make stats say anything you want them to say simply does not hold a lot a water for the reasons mentioned in my previous post. It's a convenient way to dismiss something that you do not agree with.

[Kimmi]

Not sure about that. The 'traditional' guys can always circle back to 'tradition'. You know, as in "if there weren't anything to it, then why is there anything to it?"

My question is the the stat and computer geeks. Isn't there a relatively simple calculation to perform about batting order? (simple as in the sense of 'easily conceived'--I don't know whether it's feasible, and that's my question). All you would have to do is take the performance of 9 starters over ... a season?, and ask: which is the most productive order in which they should hit, given that performance over a year (and 3 outs per inning, etc.)? (I have no idea whether this is too onerous for modern computers-- there are, I think, a finite and easily conceivable number of possible orders: it's 9! (9 factorial), right? COuldn't a computer churn out the answer fairly easily? (I am also aware that the traditional crowd wouldn't accept the results, claiming that hitters hit differently in different situations--fine. I'm only asking whether the computer could provide an answer in its own terms).

 

They have computers churning out this type of thing all the time. They run hundreds of thousands of simulations with every possible batting order. Yes, excluding human factors, which is not insignificant, the technology exists to come up with the optimal lineup.

 

Without technology, a pretty optimal line up can be constructed by simply putting batters in order of decreasing OBP. That will work better than most of the traditional line ups out there.

[Kimmi]

With 9 players there are 362,880 possible batting orders. (9*8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1).

 

With today's technology, working with that number of combinations is nothing.

[Kimmi]

Right. 9! I assumed the actual number was on that order. What I want to know is whether this is feasible to be handled by a modern computer.

 

Yes! Easily.

[Kimmi]

I'm certain it could, but there are two drawbacks to using it.

 

1) You're right - us old timers wouldn't want to use it.

 

2) The computer geeks/statisticians would see no point in using it because (allegedly) that same computer would have proven that the lineup makes little difference in run production.

 

Line up changes make little difference unless a manager is going to buck all tradition and go with a truly optimal line up, in which case it could make a difference of 2-3 games. Is any manager going to bat Barry Bonds in the lead off spot? Not that lead off would be his optimal spot, but that's the type of unconventional thing that I'm talking about. It goes so far against traditional thinking that it's not going to be done.

 

Otherwise, tweaking a line up to bat Moreland 6th instead of 4th might make a difference of 2 runs over an entire season.

[S5Dewey]

The problem with this argument is that the true stat geeks know better than to cherry pick or to use small sample sizes. We amateurs on the baseball forum do this type of thing all the time. The guys doing it for a living do not. In other words, they are not going to 'twist' their stats around to paint the picture that they want them to paint.

Which reinforces what I said. If a person wants to prove something there's data out there to "prove"it. Most (all?) of us don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to do the extensive research to determine if we're getting the entire story so we may be inadvertently reporting only one side of a story. Then we post here the data that supports what we believe (or want others to believe ).

 

I'm not saying this data isn't valuable. I'm just not saying it's the be-all-end-all it's presented to be and there's still room for differing opinions based on our personal experiences.

[jad]

Yes! Easily.

 

OK. Do you know the results? I assume it would simply be "put the hitters in the order of OBP or OPS." (since the only thing of importance would be to get your best hitters up as many times as possible.) Has anyone actually run the numbers on this?

[jad]

Which reinforces what I said. If a person wants to prove something there's data out there to "prove"it. Most (all?) of us don't have the time, resources, or knowledge to do the extensive research to determine if we're getting the entire story so we may be inadvertently reporting only one side of a story. Then we post here the data that supports what we believe (or want others to believe ).

 

I'm not saying this data isn't valuable. I'm just not saying it's the be-all-end-all it's presented to be and there's still room for differing opinions based on our personal experiences.

 

I think I disagree. You could go to the roulette table and decide "The optimal strategy is to bet always on red" But you would not be able to support this with any reasonable set of statistics. You COULD of course support it with anecdotal evidence.

[S5Dewey]

Line up changes make little difference unless a manager is going to buck all tradition and go with a truly optimal line up, in which case it could make a difference of 2-3 games. Is any manager going to bat Barry Bonds in the lead off spot? Not that lead off would be his optimal spot, but that's the type of unconventional thing that I'm talking about. It goes so far against traditional thinking that it's not going to be done.

 

Otherwise, tweaking a line up to bat Moreland 6th instead of 4th might make a difference of 2 runs over an entire season.

 

I'm sorry, but this just doesn't fly with me. For example, if a team has three guys batting over .330 you might want to bunch them up rather than have them bat 1st, 4th, & 7th with .250 hitters between them. Neither way is going to score a lot of runs but IMO bunching the best hitters will create more runs than spreading them out. That's why we whine and cry about "black holes" in the order.

 

However, smart managers would never do that, which invalidates the the idea that the lineup makes no difference because the SS of managers doing that would be too small to draw any meaningful conclusions.

[S5Dewey]

I think I disagree. You could go to the roulette table and decide "The optimal strategy is to bet always on red" But you would not be able to support this with any reasonable set of statistics. You COULD of course support it with anecdotal evidence.

 

There's a line between statistics and being foolhardy.