Devers

[Slasher9]

Not really. Launch Ball plays into that strategy (and is more of a developmental technique than a deployable strategy).

 

Once teams figure how to defend Launch Ball or beat the shift, they will fade away like other fads. Like stolen bases and hit and run plays...

 

MLB wont let launchball go away. they made the balls go further this season. rocketship baseballs as jung likes to call them. bunting is not encouraged by ownership. launchball or nothing...

[mvp 78]

MLB wont let launchball go away. they made the balls go further this season. rocketship baseballs as jung likes to call them. bunting is not encouraged by ownership. launchball or nothing...

 

They switched the ball 2 years ago. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/in-mlbs-new-home-run-era-its-the-baseballs-that-are-juicing/

[vegasbob]

The shifting has gotten more precise. What I find interesting is that - longer term - you'd think that there would be a real market for an Otis Nixon of yore - who can make slap contact into the vacated SS or 3B hole and get on base that way. That seems like a natural counter which has not been deployed as much as one would think - at least not yet.

 

if any given hitter became adept at slapping the ball oppo, the other team wouldn't shift on him . That in turn would open up more of the field to him.

[sk7326]

if any given hitter became adept at slapping the ball oppo, the other team wouldn't shift on him . That in turn would open up more of the field to him.

 

Right - a requirement of the situation is that a hitter can still turn on something inside, otherwise there is no incentive for pitchers to do anything else.

[cp176]

While I’ve never seen a simulation or study that eliminates the first inning, essentially every study you do see highlights the top 4 spots as being the most productive. A big part of that is they obviously see the most plate appearances.

 

John Dewan (of Baseball Prospectus and The Fielding Bible) in 2006 promoted the traditional view of best hitters batting 3rd and fourth, with the caveat that the third spot go to the faster hitter. The prominent new method (new in application, but actually pretty old) is the Markov model, which has the best hitter hitting second to maximize plate appearances. This model also recommends the pitcher bat 8th (which I don’t like) and the best base stealer bat 5th or 6th ( which makes a ton of sense to me). Why risk stealing in front of the better hitters? Steal bases in front of the hitters less likely to string together singles or hit an XBH.

 

And no one has ever found any way to justify the notion that protection in a lineup works.

 

A lot of this can be found via simple Google searches. Admitting it’s not always the most exciting reading...

 

Thank you notin. I just think that there are so many studies that have been done and so much research that it is tough to definitively come right and say that anyone still thinking that batting your best hitter in the 3 spot is old school minded and wrong. That bugs me. Maybe it is because I do seem to be wrong quite often, and normally not 100% sure that I am right when I think that I am. I just don't like people who can't admit that it is possible that they might on occasion be wrong.

Now with respect to me googling anything - that it is what I rely on you for and i do appreciate that. My mind just is in a litltle different world. I am a liberal thinking conservative.

[cp176]

I'm going to start up a new thread on the batting order just for you, cp. By tonight.

 

You think I might be a little stubborn Bellhorn?

[cp176]

It's a strategy that has been around for decades and decades. If one team just tried bunting every time they were up, it would still be a traditional play just used more frequently.

 

The idea that baseball today is any less traditional than it was in 1960whatever is just flat nonsense.

 

What goes around does indeed come around. My career was in education. I saw this old adage proven true over and over again.

[moonslav59]

For many many years, I'd have sworn on my grave that batting your best all around hitter 3rd was the most essential aspect of batting order construction. It still "feels right" to me, but I trust the multiple studies that show a slight advantage to putting your 4th or 5th best hitter there.

 

[cp176]

For many many years, I'd have sworn on my grave that batting your best all around hitter 3rd was the most essential aspect of batting order construction. It still "feels right" to me, but I trust the multiple studies that show a slight advantage to putting your 4th or 5th best hitter there.

 

 

I think that that is good but I still want to know how a lineup changes once you get through the first inning.

[notin]

Thank you notin. I just think that there are so many studies that have been done and so much research that it is tough to definitively come right and say that anyone still thinking that batting your best hitter in the 3 spot is old school minded and wrong. That bugs me. Maybe it is because I do seem to be wrong quite often, and normally not 100% sure that I am right when I think that I am. I just don't like people who can't admit that it is possible that they might on occasion be wrong.

Now with respect to me googling anything - that it is what I rely on you for and i do appreciate that. My mind just is in a litltle different world. I am a liberal thinking conservative.

 

 

Actually I’ve found the “old school” thinkers to be equally if not more stubborn.

 

I remember an argument many years ago (1996?) the day after Ken Griffey Jr just beat the Sox bullpen late in the game, like in the 7th inning. It was definitely not the 9th. Anyway one traditionalist was blasting the Sox manager (Kevin Kennedy?) for not bringing in Vaughn Eshelman to face Griffey. And he went on about how stupid Kennedy was for not using Vaughn Eshelman against Griffey. Yes, the same Vaughn Eshelman all of you forgot about years ago was apparently a lock to retire the best hitter in the entire decade of the 1990s.

 

I brought up Kennedy should have used Slovumb, who, unlike Eshelman, didn’t suck. At least not that year. In fact, he was the best and only decent reliever the Sox had.

 

Wow was this suggestion met with condescension. “You have too use a lefty there.” Like it was a rule. Like Griffey had never faced borderline minor league talent throwing left-handed before. Best hitter in the game vs s***** reliever struggling to stay in the majors, and because of his traditionalist strategy, this was a no-brainer, and failing to see that mess to Kennedy needed to be fired that day. And then re-hired just so he could be fired again.

 

And this was years before sabermstrics went mainstream...

[Slasher9]

Actually I’ve found the “old school” thinkers to be equally if not more stubborn.

 

I remember an argument many years ago (1996?) the day after Ken Griffey Jr just beat the Sox bullpen late in the game, like in the 7th inning. It was definitely not the 9th. Anyway one traditionalist was blasting the Sox manager (Kevin Kennedy?) for not bringing in Vaughn Eshelman to face Griffey. And he went on about how stupid Kennedy was for not using Vaughn Eshelman against Griffey. Yes, the same Vaughn Eshelman all of you forgot about years ago was apparently a lock to retire the best hitter in the entire decade of the 1990s.

 

I brought up Kennedy should have used Slovumb, who, unlike Eshelman, didn’t suck. At least not that year. In fact, he was the best and only decent reliever the Sox had.

 

Wow was this suggestion met with condescension. “You have too use a lefty there.” Like it was a rule. Like Griffey had never faced borderline minor league talent throwing left-handed before. Best hitter in the game vs s***** reliever struggling to stay in the majors, and because of his traditionalist strategy, this was a no-brainer, and failing to see that mess to Kennedy needed to be fired that day. And then re-hired just so he could be fired again.

 

And this was years before sabermstrics went mainstream...

his splits vs relief pitcher over his career says bring in the LH reliever.

his splits vs relief pitcher in 1996 says bring in either (so heathcliff should have been the option).

[notin]

his splits vs relief pitcher over his career says bring in the LH reliever.

his splits vs relief pitcher in 1996 says bring in either (so heathcliff should have been the option).

 

While I did not know it at the time, Griffey owned Eshelman with a 1.555 OPS in 11 plate appearances.

 

Also unaware at the time, but Griffey had a .400 OPS against Slocumb in only 5 PA...

Edited June 4, 2019 by notin

[Kimmi]

Pretty close to my own philosophy, which means you are a traditionalist. I say that while also believing that the very rare occurrence of bringing in an outfielder to be a 5th infielder is pretty neat. What I dislike about those shifts is they are utterly mechanical and driven by stats. Indeed, the commentators now regularly spout more and more new stats about how hard a home run was hit, etc which mostly bore me. And this is coming from someone who actually likes stats and is always looking for a new statistical angle.

 

I am far more a traditionalist than most people realize or want to admit. That said, even though I don't like the shifts, the data shows that they work. As long as shifts are allowed, you have to go with what the data says. Personally, I wish MLB would restrict shifting.

 

Also, I agree with you about the 5th infielder being pretty neat.

 

As far as the commentators go, I like it when they talk analytics.

[Kimmi]

Launch, shifts and robot umps are fine. I just don't like the current instant replay model. Having a coach hold up the action while reviewing whether or not he wants to challenge is dumb as hell. They need to shorten that process.

 

Shifting has happened since before most of us were born. It IS traditional. It's the game you grew up with.

 

Yes, but not to the extreme that it is done these days.

[Kimmi]

And it will go away as soon as some of those stubborn lefties learn how to go the opposite way.

 

Or take advantage of it another way. Like dropping down a bunt once in a while...

 

As annoying as ARod is on Sunday Night Baseball, he had a good point about Morales bunting for a base hit in the 9th inning. The line was wide open and the Yankees needed base runners. The problem is, the art of bunting has seemingly disappeared.

[Kimmi]

It's a strategy that has been around for decades and decades. If one team just tried bunting every time they were up, it would still be a traditional play just used more frequently.

 

The idea that baseball today is any less traditional than it was in 1960whatever is just flat nonsense.

 

Not fully true.

 

Look at the change in the #2 batter.

[harmony]

While I did not know it at the time, Griffey owned Eshelman with a 1.555 OPS in 11 plate appearances.

 

Also unaware at the time, but Griffey had a .400 OPS against Slocumb in only 5 PA...

Not related, but Edgar Martinez had 23 plate appearances against fellow Hall of Famer Mariano Rivera with this line: .579/.652/1.053/1.705.

 

Martinez did not fare so well in 33 plate appearances against Hall of Famer Pedro Martinez: .120/.333/.120/.453.

[cp176]

Actually I’ve found the “old school” thinkers to be equally if not more stubborn.

 

I remember an argument many years ago (1996?) the day after Ken Griffey Jr just beat the Sox bullpen late in the game, like in the 7th inning. It was definitely not the 9th. Anyway one traditionalist was blasting the Sox manager (Kevin Kennedy?) for not bringing in Vaughn Eshelman to face Griffey. And he went on about how stupid Kennedy was for not using Vaughn Eshelman against Griffey. Yes, the same Vaughn Eshelman all of you forgot about years ago was apparently a lock to retire the best hitter in the entire decade of the 1990s.

 

I brought up Kennedy should have used Slovumb, who, unlike Eshelman, didn’t suck. At least not that year. In fact, he was the best and only decent reliever the Sox had.

 

Wow was this suggestion met with condescension. “You have too use a lefty there.” Like it was a rule. Like Griffey had never faced borderline minor league talent throwing left-handed before. Best hitter in the game vs s***** reliever struggling to stay in the majors, and because of his traditionalist strategy, this was a no-brainer, and failing to see that mess to Kennedy needed to be fired that day. And then re-hired just so he could be fired again.

 

And this was years before sabermstrics went mainstream...

 

Oh for god's sake notin. I'm just funnin with you I'm a traditionalist with respect to some things (see Moon) and I will freely admit that I am extremely stubborn. now with that being said, if I had seen just one argument to change my thinking about certain things, I would freely admit that I am wrong. I haven't so i won't. I'm also pretty proud of my intellect as well - lol. Much of what I see the analytics pushing as being new and unique, I just don't see. More than likely it just provides another job for someone.

[notin]

Oh for god's sake notin. I'm just funnin with you I'm a traditionalist with respect to some things (see Moon) and I will freely admit that I am extremely stubborn. now with that being said, if I had seen just one argument to change my thinking about certain things, I would freely admit that I am wrong. I haven't so i won't. I'm also pretty proud of my intellect as well - lol. Much of what I see the analytics pushing as being new and unique, I just don't see. More than likely it just provides another job for someone.

 

 

I disagree.

 

The analytics themselves have changed, but the use of analytics was always there...

[cp176]

I disagree.

 

The analytics themselves have changed, but the use of analytics was always there...

 

the numbers used aren't new. people have just found more and more and more ... ways to use the numbers. beauty is that the ball still has to be hit and caught. i still believe that too much of anything is not really good for us. hey i'm much more of a literature guy though.

[moonslav59]

I think that that is good but I still want to know how a lineup changes once you get through the first inning.

 

I understand your wish, and I'm not sure any data exists to answer your questions.

 

My guess is, you still want your best OBP guys bunched together in front of your best power guys, and the higher up in the line-up you place them, the better chance they get up 1 more time in a game.

 

In terms of the 3 vs the 5 slot hitters, our 3rd batter got up 33 more times than our 5th hitter in 2018. That's a lot. The rest of the ABs must really be more important than we imagine for the studies to show having your better hitter 5th outweighs those extra 33 PAs.

 

I agree, it doesn't seem to make sense, and again, the difference the studies show apparently are very slight, but I trust the studies know what they are doing, and the results are valid.

 

Maybe, I trust science more than I should. Maybe future studies will show a difference, but as far as I know, not one study shows otherwise.

 

BTW, it's not like our 5th best hitter sucks as a 3rd batter in the line-up.

 

Our best 2 hitters are Betts and JD with Devers and Bogey challenging this year. That leaves Beni (who is slumping now) or the Moreland-Pearce platoon as the philosophy's recommended 3 slot batter. I'm fine with that, but I agree that it looks better with them up 5th (old school thinking).

 

Before all these studies came out, I'd have advocated for this...

 

1. Betts

2. Bogey

3. JD

4. Devers

5. Beni v R/Pearce v L

6. Moreland v R/Beni v L

7. Chavis

8. Vaz

9. JBJ

 

I'd still be okay with this, as the slight advantages lost may be close to negligible.

 

 

 

 

[notin]

Based on the studies/data/analytics, my lineup would be:

 

Bogaerts

Betts

Devers

Martinez

Benintendi

Chavis

Moreland

Vazquez

Bradley

 

But I don’t think Cora’s lineup is anything stupid...

[kenmeister]

Before all these studies came out, I'd have advocated for this...

 

1. Betts

2. Bogey

3. JD

4. Devers

5. Beni v R/Pearce v L

6. Moreland v R/Beni v L

7. Chavis

8. Vaz

9. JBJ

 

I'd still be okay with this, as the slight advantages lost may be close to negligible.

 

 

 

 

 

Close to my optimum lineup.

 

1. Betts

2. Bogaerts

3. Martinez

4. Moreland/Pearce although if Pearce doesn't regain form he's not in my lineup at all.

5. Devers

6. Vazquez

7. Chavis

8. Benitendi (in my dog house)

9. Bradley Jr. (although if Pearce is hitting and JBJ is not I have Beni playing center, JDM in the outfield, and Moreland/Pearce at DH/1B)

[sk7326]

Not fully true.

 

Look at the change in the #2 batter.

 

Well growing up the #3 hitter was seen as where the best hitter should go. I think the reasons were still the same considerations (getting at bats vs getting RBI chances) - but now the industry has figured out that #2 is better. Now it doesn't matter a whole lot. But in an individual game, you want to take every edge possible.

[Bellhorn04]

Well growing up the #3 hitter was seen as where the best hitter should go. I think the reasons were still the same considerations (getting at bats vs getting RBI chances) - but now the industry has figured out that #2 is better. Now it doesn't matter a whole lot. But in an individual game, you want to take every edge possible.

 

Please post on my new thread!

 

https://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/19319-The-3-hitter-and-other-batting-order-riddles

[oldtimer]

Close to my optimum lineup.

 

1. Betts

2. Bogaerts

3. Martinez

4. Moreland/Pearce although if Pearce doesn't regain form he's not in my lineup at all.

5. Devers

6. Vazquez

7. Chavis

8. Benitendi (in my dog house)

9. Bradley Jr. (although if Pearce is hitting and JBJ is not I have Beni playing center, JDM in the outfield, and Moreland/Pearce at DH/1B)

 

All the players experience slumps during the year for various reasons, whether it be caused by nagging injuries, lack of confidence or having to adjust to different pitching patterns. Beni has been off for a while and really so has Betts. Chavis has issues that have been discovered and he too needs to make adjustments. The bottom of our order had a terrible start this year and showed some signs of life but went 0 fr 12 ast night with 4 strikeouts so they may not be that solid yet.

 

Cora was with the Astros and saw the impact that George Springer had and is still having, hitting first. Betts was successful in a similar role last year but has yet to get it going this year and the experiment with Beni as leadoff wasn't working so here we are.

 

Bat your fast, high on base percentage guys up front where they will get more opportunities. This year Beni hasn't fit that mold as well but I still like to give him more time to show what he can do.

 

My preferred likeup is:

 

1. Betts

2. Beni

3. Bogie

3. Matinez

5. Devers

6. Moreland

7. Vazquez

8.Chavis

9. JBJ

 

When Moreland sits, I would move Chavis to first and Nunez to 2nd (neither Chavis of Nunez are long term 2nd basemen). I would then bat Nunez in the 6th slot. The back end of our lineup is weak and they puts a lot of pressure on our top 6 to produce.

[Kimmi]

Well growing up the #3 hitter was seen as where the best hitter should go. I think the reasons were still the same considerations (getting at bats vs getting RBI chances) - but now the industry has figured out that #2 is better. Now it doesn't matter a whole lot. But in an individual game, you want to take every edge possible.

 

Please post on my new thread!

 

https://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/19319-The-3-hitter-and-other-batting-order-riddles

 

Yes, I just posted in the new thread that the most egregious line up error has traditionally been putting a weak hitter in the #2 hole.

[moonslav59]

All the players experience slumps during the year for various reasons, whether it be caused by nagging injuries, lack of confidence or having to adjust to different pitching patterns. Beni has been off for a while and really so has Betts. Chavis has issues that have been discovered and he too needs to make adjustments. The bottom of our order had a terrible start this year and showed some signs of life but went 0 fr 12 ast night with 4 strikeouts so they may not be that solid yet.

 

Cora was with the Astros and saw the impact that George Springer had and is still having, hitting first. Betts was successful in a similar role last year but has yet to get it going this year and the experiment with Beni as leadoff wasn't working so here we are.

 

Bat your fast, high on base percentage guys up front where they will get more opportunities. This year Beni hasn't fit that mold as well but I still like to give him more time to show what he can do.

 

My preferred likeup is:

 

1. Betts

2. Beni

3. Bogie

3. Matinez

5. Devers

6. Moreland

7. Vazquez

8.Chavis

9. JBJ

 

When Moreland sits, I would move Chavis to first and Nunez to 2nd (neither Chavis of Nunez are long term 2nd basemen). I would then bat Nunez in the 6th slot. The back end of our lineup is weak and they puts a lot of pressure on our top 6 to produce.

 

I like your line-up, too.

[moonslav59]

Yes, I just posted in the new thread that the most egregious line up error has traditionally been putting a weak hitter in the #2 hole.

 

That's maybe the biggest change from the old view.

 

We went from one of the weakest up 2nd to one of the best in just a few years.

[devildavid]

And for those guys, Launch Ball was natural. But for the Jackie Bradley / Mitch Moreland types, they will need to adjust somehow...

 

They are incapable of adjusting. Their ability to get extra base hits is what gives each of them most of their value as hitters. They are not Ichiro types nor especially selective hitters.