Master Index of Archived Threads


Should LoDuca bat 2nd?

Vic Sage Feb 24 2006 10:11 AM

I've heard and read repeatedly that LoDuca is an "ideal" #2 hitter, and has been basically pencilled into that slot by Willie, for the upcoming season, and David Wright slotted to hit 5th. I have a question to the statistically inclined amongst us... how many plate appearances, over the course of a season, does the #2 slot in a lineup get, compared to the #5 slot? I'm guessing more. Perhaps a bunch more. So why would you take ABs away from David Wright and hand them to Paul LoDuca? I'm not someone who is generally overly concerned with lineup order, as i think the ideal order vs a random order makes only a limited difference over the course of a season. However, i just don't understand the thinking that a slow, powerless "contact hitter" should be put in a position to get more ABs than a player like Wright, with power, speed, bat control, everything. I think the only rational way to compose a lineup is to give your best hitters the most ABs. period. please explain to me why i'm wrong. use numbers, if possible, and small words.

Elster88 Feb 24 2006 10:14 AM

I didn't realize Willie was that adamant about Lo Duca batting second. Sounds like a horrible idea to me.

Edgy DC Feb 24 2006 10:19 AM

My educated guess is that the number-two hitter gets between 45 and 50 more plate appearances than the number-five man.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 24 2006 10:27 AM

Sum of plate appearances by lineup position, based on 7,060 Mets box scores. (Both Mets and opposition included.) The number 2 guy steps to the plate a little more than 7 per cent more often than the number 5 guy. +------+------------------+ | lpos | sum(ab+bb+sf+sh) | +------+------------------+ | 1 | 65205 | | 2 | 63708 | | 3 | 62265 | | 4 | 60866 | | 5 | 59449 | | 6 | 57912 | | 7 | 56336 | | 8 | 54620 | | 9 | 53012 | +------+------------------+

Vic Sage Feb 24 2006 10:39 AM

so, that looks to me like, if LoDuca gets about 600 plate appearances in the #2 slot, then David Wright would get about 560 or so plate appearances in the #5 slot. Is that about right? Would you want to take 40 ABs from Wright and give them to Paul LoDuca, just so you can have the benefit of a slow, powerless contact hitter behind Jose Reyes? I wouldn't. But maybe thats just me. Again, i dont' think it'll make a huge difference overall, but i think Willie's reported view on this matter is just one more reason why i think he's an idiot. Reyes Beltran Wright Delgado Floyd LoDuca Nady/Diaz Matsui/Keppinger

Rotblatt Feb 24 2006 10:49 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 24 2006 10:55 AM

Hardball Times linked to some smart dude trying to find out what the most effecient lineup is. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know/ This is from the smart dude: ]Last week I posted some regression results in which team runs per game was the dependent variable (DV) and the OBP and SLG of each lineup postion were the independent variables (IVs). In some cases, the coefficient values were very different. I only looked at teams from 1989-2002. Retrosheet has how each team's lineup position did from 1959-2004 (but not the NL in 1959). So I went back and used all of the data that they have. He just posted the results instead of commenting on them, which was a little frustrating for a neophyte like me, but essentially, here's the ideal lineup. He did look at SB & CS, and basically, he found that there was too much noise to really be meaningful except in the #1 & #8 slots. #1: Highest OBP, Low SLG, High SB, low CS #2: Next-best OBP, Highest SLG #3: Mid OBP, Low SLG #4: 3rd best OBP, 3rd best SLG #5: Low OBP, 2nd best SLG #6: Low OBP, High SLG #7: High OBP, Lowest SLG #8: Low OBP, Mid SLG, High SB It doesn't make intuitive sense that the #3 guy should have a mid OBP & low SLG, and clearly no manager would do that, but whatever. It's what the numbers tell us to do. Literally translated to the Mets, it would mean something like the following, if we used PECOTA forecasts: 1: Beltran, CF (.365 OBP/.479 SLG/19 SB, 4 CS) 2: Wright, 3B (.385 OBP/.530 SLG/17 SB, 5 CS) 3: Keppinger, 2B (.334 OBP/.370 SLG) 4: Delgado, 1B (.378 OBP/.525 SLG) 5: Floyd, LF (.359 OBP/.485 SLG) 6: Diaz, RF (.330 OBP/.467 SLG) 7: LoDuca, C (.327 OBP/.373 SLG) 8: Reyes, SS (.317 OBP/.397 SLG, 57 SB, 16 CS) The whole thing's kind of screwy, and doesn't address your question about AB's at all, Norrin, but I thought it was kind of neat. Made a little more palatable/realistic, it would probably look something like: 1. Reyes, SS 2. Beltran, CF 3. Delgado, 1B 4. Wright, 3B 5. Floyd, LF 6. Diaz, RF 7. LoDuca, C 8. Matsui, 2B which isn't terribly surprising at all, unless you're Willie. on edit: I suppose the more unusual yet still plausible lineup configuration from that research would be: 1. Beltran 2. Wright 3. Delgado 4. Floyd 5. Diaz 6. LoDuca 7. Reyes 8. Matsui

Elster88 Feb 24 2006 10:54 AM

I think it's a little early to start reaming Willie for his 2006 starting lineup. I'd wait until we actually see one. Willie got a lot of grief for batting Wright eighth last year before the season started, and Wright never actually batted eighth.

Vic Sage Feb 24 2006 10:55 AM

Rotblatt wrote: The whole thing's kind of screwy, and doesn't address your question about AB's at all, Norrin, but I thought it was kind of neat. Made a little more palatable/realistic, it would probably look something like: 1. Reyes, SS 2. Beltran, CF 3. Delgado, 1B 4. Wright, 3B 5. Floyd, LF 6. Diaz, RF 7. LoDuca, C 8. Matsui, 2B which isn't terribly unusual at all, unless you're Willie. this is what i'm saying.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 24 2006 11:23 AM

My biggest beef with what we've read about Willie's views on this years lineup is that it seems that Willie thinks the number 2 guy's job is to make "productive outs." If that's his theory, then I can see why he'd rather take the bat out of LoDuca's hands than Beltran's or Wright's. But I don't want my number 2 guy trying to make the best possible out., I want him to get on base. Productive outs are better than non-productive outs, but they shouldn't be your priority.

Willets Point Feb 24 2006 11:25 AM

Answer = No.

Vic Sage Feb 24 2006 11:34 AM

] think it's a little early to start reaming Willie for his 2006 starting lineup. I'd wait until we actually see one hey, nobody told Willie to announce to the press his view that LoDuca is the ideal #2 hitter. If he didn't want to get reamed for that opinion, he shouldn't have expressed it. What i'm reaming him for, by the way, is not the lineup order per se (as i've said, i don't think it makes a huge difference statistically, either way) but for what his expressed view about the lineup reveals about his view of baseball. His notion about "productive outs" at the top of the lineup is antediluvian.

Edgy DC Feb 24 2006 11:41 AM

I think Willie Randolph has made clear that --- rather than not believing in Wright or something --- he wants Wright to hit his way up the lineup, believing it's best for him long-term to assume nothing and project nothing, at least as far as Wright's place in the lineup goes. I don't think that's led to what a lot of us would consider ideal lineups, but I think it's defensible, and Wright seems to have responded (which isn't to say he wouldn't have responded just as well or better if he opened the season in the three-hole last year). Randolph clearly thinks Wright's long-term interest (as he thinks he's serving it) is worth the few dozen plate appearances per year. What makes it interesting is that his tack is different with Reyes, who has gotten on-the-job training in the top slot. I guess the difference is that he was already installed there more-or-less when Willie took over. Anyhow, a lot was made of Wright batting eighth last year, which didn't happen. If LoDuca opens the season at second, it won't last if he fails, I imagine.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 24 2006 11:43 AM

Like Vic, I also don't care too much about the batting order, and think entirely too much is made of it, especially by columnists and fans who tend to think the batting order equals a strategy to win any one game, or that a player's success when batting in a certain spot in the order is BECAUSE he's batting in that spot in the order. It's all screwy. All that said, I wouldn't doubt that batting LoDuca No. 2 is more about Beltran remaining No. 3 for dumb reasons (His pride, the idea that he's the Man, the fact that Mets want to realize value on their investments, etc etc etc etc). It was clear last year that Beltran wasn't going well enough to warrant remaining at No. 3 every day yet he did. I think the Mets prolly want to give themselves the best shot at having not just a productive No. 3 hitter, but a productive No. 3 hitter named Carlos Beltran, and I think that informs decisions about other places in the lineup firrst, including where LoDuca hits.

Vic Sage Feb 24 2006 12:13 PM

Beltran was a very successful #2 hitter in KC. Why does anybody think hitting there again would do damage to his psyche? and the reason Willie needs to "protect" Wright (a player whom everyone has described as mature and advanced for his age) but throws Reyes into the top slot without having to "protect" him (despite being younger, less experienced, and a seemingly emotional player) despite his lack of production there, is just another indicator of stupidity, in my view. You can interpret it as a move imposed on him from above, but then that just means those above him (ie, Minaya) are the stupid ones. I think Willie hits Reyes leadoff cuz Jose is fast! And Willie would rather hit a fast guy leadoff than a guy with a good (or even adequate) OBP.

Edgy DC Feb 24 2006 12:21 PM

]You can interpret it as a move imposed on him from above, but then that just means those above him (ie, Minaya) are the stupid ones. No, I interpret it, to an extent, as a move imposed by Art Howe's legacy. I think Randolph perhaps also believes that Wright can grow into a three-four hitter from another place in the lineup, but that the only place to develop a leadoff hitter is in the leadoff spot, as it's unlike other spots. That's pure speculation. I think Beltran should have batted second from day one. But the marquee thing is there. Nobody pays 17 million for a number two hitter (or something).

dinosaur jesus Feb 24 2006 12:23 PM

One position in the batting order should be worth about 18 plate appearances (162/9). (That's assuming everyone has an equal chance of making an out, which of course isn't the case.) So the number 2 batter should come up about 54 times more than the number 5 batter. Take away a few for the days they don't play, and that's about 50. (Actually, LoDuca, as a catcher, would lose more than that.) If there are about 600 plate appearances, the difference is about a twelfth of that. Now here are some numbers out of a hat. I'm going to assume that both of them have good seasons by their standards. Say that David Wright, batting number 2, would create about 120 runs, and at number 5 would lose about a twelfth of that (10 runs), making his runs created 110. LoDuca, at number 2, would create about 80, and at 5, 73. 120 + 73 = 193; 110 + 80 = 190. The difference for the team, over the season, would be about 3 runs. Maybe one game. If LoDuca were to hit more like I'm afraid he will, the difference would be far more. But of course in that case he presumably wouldn't stay in the number 2 position.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 24 2006 12:26 PM

That the Mets bend the rules for stars like beltran ought to be evident by the fact that a superior centerfielder was moved aside to accommodate him in a manner similar to superior slot hitters moved elsewhere to reserve No. 3 for his bat. I think it's very much a showcase/pride thing.

Rotblatt Feb 24 2006 12:35 PM

]If LoDuca opens the season at second, it won't last if he fails, I imagine. Ah, yes, we get to witness the swift hook of Willie, who allowed Cairo to amass 218 at bats at #2 (67% of all his ABs), during which time he put up the following line: .216 AVG/.255 OBP/.284 SLG/.539 OPS. Which made the decision to use Matsui in the #2 hole look genius by comparison: 171 AB (64%): .269 AVG/.312 OBP/.351 SLG/.663 OPS Granted, Cameron DID get 194 AB (64%) out of the 2 hole (.733 OPS) but how much of that was out of necessity (Cairo & Matsui getting injured) rather than design? Looking outside the #2 hole, Wright spent 130 AB (23%) at 7, 127 (22%) at 6 & 279 (49%) at 5. Piazza spent 133 at 4 (335), 163 at 5 (41%) & 92 AB (23%) at 6. So Willie's track record suggests that he gives guys between 130 & 200 ABs before moving them up or down. Seems like an awful lot to me, especially when someone sucks as monumentally as Cairo did. The silver lining is that his track record is pretty thin so far, and recent reports are that Willie's making some changes with how he's running camp this year--could be a good sign.

Centerfield Feb 24 2006 01:03 PM

What was amazing was when he re-inserted Cairo into the #2 hole later in the season. You know, I used to be a pretty good bunter. I'd make contact almost every time. And most of those times, I'd get the runner over. Productive outs, non-productive outs, making outs was my specialty. I also have pretty good speed and so I'd be hard to double up. Clearly I should bat #2 in the lineup.

Nymr83 Feb 24 2006 01:03 PM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: That the Mets bend the rules for stars like beltran ought to be evident by the fact that a superior centerfielder was moved aside to accommodate him in a manner similar to superior slot hitters moved elsewhere to reserve No. 3 for his bat. I think it's very much a showcase/pride thing. you're right, and its pretty fuckin annoying that the mets used the "24+1" argument to avoid getting Alex Rodriguez but then give Beltran the 24+1 treatment.

Yancy Street Gang Feb 24 2006 01:04 PM

But Beltran didn't ask for a tent.

Edgy DC Feb 24 2006 01:07 PM

Yeah, my imagined and hoped-for scenario is not based on the Cairo situation certainly.

TheOldMole Feb 24 2006 01:27 PM

I think it's more important for leadoff man to get on base than to steal a bunch of bases -- theoretically -- during all those times he didn't get on base. The Brooklyn Dodgers, before they installed Jim Gilliam as their more or less permanent leadoff man, frequently led off with Carl Furillo, who was not explosively fast, but got on base a whole lot of the time.

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2006 01:40 PM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Feb 24 2006 01:41 PM

Of course installing LoDuca in the #2 slot would mean re-arranging the lineup each time (1/4? of the time ... 1/3?) that Castro starts (assuming that he wouldn't put Ramon the Slow that high) so it might be at least as interesting to see who hits 2nd on those days; Beltran? ... an improved Matsui? I think part of the reasoning in having LoDuca up there is to use his very low K-rate to hit-n-run often and/or take some pitches to allow Reyes to run on his own. Is that a good enough reason? ... probably not, at least unless LoDuca returns to the offense he showed a few years back. Either way, the bigger problem still stems from how often the top guy gets on to begin with since any lineup theory takes a hit when the leadoff guy makes outs at a 70% clip.

MFS62 Feb 24 2006 01:41 PM

The Milaukee Braves in the late 50's used to bat Del Crandall second. His numbers, as well as his speed, were comparable Paul's.. Later

Frayed Knot Feb 24 2006 01:48 PM

But if you're going to go back that far (or even less than that far) you're gonna find that virtually all lineups had several holes (usually catchers, SSs, 2B-men) where offense was lacking making the "productive out" a sound (or soundER) strategy. But the days when you could win pennants with Dal Maxville-like offense getting 400+ ABs are long gone. Not that Crandell (or Loduca for that matter) are offensive "holes", it's just that there are other and likely better options available.

Nymr83 Feb 24 2006 05:16 PM

Reyes, Beltran, Wright, Delgado, Floyd, Diaz, LoDuca, Matsui makes the most sense to me, but IF the Mets refuse to bat beltran second i'd still rather see Diaz there than LoDuca and maybe I'd even rather see Matsui there since he's better suited for it if he can actually play up to his potential from Japan as of where LoDuca is more you get what you see, he's not getting better.

KC Feb 24 2006 07:56 PM

I'd like to see Matsui be the opening day 2nd baseman hands down, bat second, and give him a month and a half to sink or swim and then let him drown if it's the latter - and I mean for good. Then we can worry about where to bat LoDuca. It's freakin' February, I can't believe how worked up some people are over the batting order.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 24 2006 08:18 PM

The issue (and maybe this belongs in the second base discussion) is that at least according to what I've read so far, is that Boone seems to be angling for this "starting or retiring" position, essentially making the option of giving Matsui the clean-slate 100 at-bats he probably ought to get less attractive. I don;t get the feeling the Mets want to go into the year with a wishy-washy siotuation, so I suppose that means unless one really really outplays the other in spring, one of Boone or Matsui gets traded.

Nymr83 Feb 24 2006 08:29 PM

I agree with KC about Matsui... JD- My feeling is that Boone is in no position to make demands, if he wants to retire let him retire. The Mets should not change their plans in the slightest because of the retirement threats of Bret Boone.

KC Feb 24 2006 09:15 PM

JD: >>>unless one really really outplays the other in spring, one of Boone or Matsui gets traded<<< I kinda forget about Boone, I don't take him being around too seriously. And I thought he was an invite or something, not someone they can trade.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 24 2006 09:16 PM

I agree, completely. But if he plays at or near Matsui's level this spring, then it's just a question of who's cheaper and Matsui loses that battle too. I'm sure the Mets call Boone's bluff if he sucks.

KC Feb 24 2006 09:22 PM

Boone's not a Met, though - unless I'm thoroughly confused.

Johnny Dickshot Feb 24 2006 09:26 PM

I' think you're right about the trade. I guess it's win the job or be dumped for both the vets, essentially. Continued at Second Base thread...

Edgy DC Feb 24 2006 10:17 PM

It's a good way for Boone to put pressure on the team though. If they both have a good spring, an employer can reason that he should give the job to the guy who'll retire if he doesn't start because that leaves you a fallback position whereas the alternative doesn't. Of course the team can object to that kind of subtle manipuulation by saying, "Fine, retire now.

Zvon Feb 25 2006 06:47 AM

]Should LoDuca bat 2nd? NO!

duan Feb 25 2006 08:52 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ="Johnny Dickshot"]That the Mets bend the rules for stars like beltran ought to be evident by the fact that a superior centerfielder was moved aside to accommodate him in a manner similar to superior slot hitters moved elsewhere to reserve No. 3 for his bat. I think it's very much a showcase/pride thing. you're right, and its pretty fuckin annoying that the mets used the "24+1" argument to avoid getting Alex Rodriguez but then give Beltran the 24+1 treatment. I really THINK that this is COMPLETELY explainable. There's a completely plausible theory which says it is much harder for a player to move BACK to a more defensively challenging position after playing significant time at a less challenging one. So if you have to make a 7 year commitment to Beltran you want to be sure you get him as a centre-fielder in 07/08/09. As for the 3 hole; last year Beltran clearly didn't have a great season, but in reality his competitors for the 3 hole would have been Cliff Floyd, Mike Piazza, Cameron & David Wright. We've looked at the way Willie used Wright, you can argue about the rights and wrongs of that, but I don't think it's unfair to suggest that he was never going to be in the number 3 slot ahead of Beltran last season. Floyd went from the 5 slot to clean up - a perfectly natural home for him. I don't think anyone could criticise them for that. Then you have Mike Cameron. Cameron's a good hitter, but don't forget he started the season on the dl, DID get over 50 plate appearances in the 3 slot and then was out for the last 6 weeks of the season. I think there's a huge difference this year, in that Wright, Delgado & Floyd are CLEARLY potential 3,4,5 hitters (with the order an issue due to handedness) and that having David Wright hit SIXTH with Reyes, Beltran, AN OTHER getting way more abs then him would just cost you runs. The big issue for me is the leadoff slot. If Reyes keeps his .300 ish obp we have a problem. Anyone have an aversion to thinking about Beltran for that?

Nymr83 Feb 25 2006 11:40 AM

i would definetaly be ok with that, but i know the Mets wouldn't move Reyes out of there no matter how low his obp gets.

smg58 Feb 25 2006 09:17 PM

The problem is that we'd be resigning the first two spots of the lineup to players who make too many outs -- "productive" or otherwise. If you make the argument, as I would, that some combination of Beltran, Wright, Floyd, and Delgado should be 2-5, then I think that does leave Reyes as the best leadoff option. His OBP is poor, but LoDuca, Matsui, and Diaz aren't a whole lot better in that regard and speed does count for something. But if you go with Reyes, I think it's that much more important to place somebody second who will get on base. If you add LoDuca's productive outs to his hits and walks, you still get a number far less than you'd get from Wright. I'd prefer to bat Beltran second and Wright lower because Wright is the better hitter, but I'd need some assurance that Beltran will get on base more often than he did last year. I'd also prefer to sandwich Wright between Delgado and Floyd because I think you make the other manager's late-game pitching decisions easier when you put your best lefties together, but I couldn't tell you how much difference that really makes.

Nymr83 Feb 25 2006 09:33 PM

i'm lazy but curious... if you turned each of Reyes' singles/walks after which he stole a base into a double and then turned the ones in which he was caught stealing into an out where would his OPS be?

Rockin' Doc Feb 26 2006 10:35 PM

Say no to LaDuca in the 2 slot. I think Beltran should be in the two slot. As the team currntly stands, I would probably go with: Reyes Beltran Wright Delgado Floyd Nady/Diaz LaDuca Matsui/Boone/Keppinger/Hernandez/whoever I expect that Willie will do something to split up the lefties batting in succession.

Zvon Feb 27 2006 01:21 AM

If Matsui would play like I wish and hope he can, he'd be good in that spot. Beltran is of course, a perfect fit and has proven himself comfortable there, and with the added artillery of Delgado, a repeat performance by Floyd, and the emergence of Wright, we can easily afford to do that. But I think Matsui has the tools to excel there and a good spring might give him that shot. A reeeeeeeal good spring. Otherwise Beltran, although he would be such a great number three hitter if he posted numbers like he did before last year. Both those I mention above wont be easy to double up. In any case, NOT Lo Duca. Thats wasting a spot that can be used for more productive things than just moving Reyes over.

RealityChuck Feb 27 2006 09:26 AM

Obviously, the best lineup is: 1) David Wright 2) Carlos Delgado 3) Carlos Beltran 4) Victor Diaz 5) Cliff Floyd 6) Jose Reyes 7) Kaz Matsui 8) Pitcher 9) Paul lo Duca The numbers prove it: [url]http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py[/url] And we all know the numbers are never wrong. Never.

Nymr83 Feb 27 2006 10:03 AM

its certainly too radical to try, but if you believe that getting your best hitters the most PAs is the way to score the most runs it would probably work... why Loduca behind the pitcher though?

Rotblatt Feb 27 2006 10:15 AM

RealityChuck wrote: Obviously, the best lineup is: 1) David Wright 2) Carlos Delgado 3) Carlos Beltran 4) Victor Diaz 5) Cliff Floyd 6) Jose Reyes 7) Kaz Matsui 8) Pitcher 9) Paul lo Duca The numbers prove it: [url]http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py[/url] And we all know the numbers are never wrong. Never. Well, I doubt we'd continue questioning the size of Willie's balls if he batted Martinez before LoDuca. Anyway, their algorythm is screwed up. That lineup doesn't make any sense, even in the context of the original reseach. I tried to test it using the PECOTA projections (cause, you know, those are sure to be right too) but nothing happened when I clicked submit. The general consensus on baseball blogs seems to be that the research basically means this: 1. Put the best OPS in 3rd 2. Put the best remaining Slg in 4th 3. Put the best remaining OBP's in 1st and 2nd (with the better Slg in 2nd) 4. Arrange the remaining players in order of descending Slg which would give us this (using 2005 #'s): 1.LoDuca (.334 OBP) 2. Floyd (.358 OBP/.505 SLG) 3. Delgado (.399 OBP/.582 SLG) 4. Wright (.388 OBP/.523 SLG) 5. Diaz (.329 OBP/.468 SLG) 6. Beltran (.330 OBP/.414 SLG) 7. Reyes (.300 OBP/.386 SLG) 8. Matsui (.300 OBP/.352 SLG) 9. Martinez (.100 OBP/.087 SLG) Now, it sounds crazy to bat LoDuca 1st but given how atrociously bad our OBP was last year, it actually makes a lot of sense. And the fact that LoDuca's slow wouldn't matter if we've got Floyd hitting extra bases behind him.

RealityChuck Feb 27 2006 10:16 AM

I don't know. The numbers said to put him there and numbers are always right. Always. And, of course it's all bogus. The fallacies are obvious: The numbers plugged in to the formula assume the batters will have exactly the same OBA and SLG this year as last year -- highly unlikely. Also, it doesn't take into account that a person's OBA and SLG are affected by where he bats, and who bats before and after him. It's a textbook case of pulling numbers out of your butt and claiming it proves something. By being able to give an exact number of runs -- to three decimal places -- it fools the unwary into believing this is scientific. 43.865437% of all statistics are useless. In Sabermetrics, the number is 16.986896% higher.

Nymr83 Feb 27 2006 10:31 AM

]The general consensus on baseball blogs seems to be that the research basically means this: 1. Put the best OPS in 3rd 2. Put the best remaining Slg in 4th 3. Put the best remaining OBP's in 1st and 2nd (with the better Slg in 2nd) 4. Arrange the remaining players in order of descending Slg which would give us this (using 2005 #'s): 1.LoDuca (.334 OBP) 2. Floyd (.358 OBP/.505 SLG) 3. Delgado (.399 OBP/.582 SLG) 4. Wright (.388 OBP/.523 SLG) 5. Diaz (.329 OBP/.468 SLG) 6. Beltran (.330 OBP/.414 SLG) 7. Reyes (.300 OBP/.386 SLG) 8. Matsui (.300 OBP/.352 SLG) 9. Martinez (.100 OBP/.087 SLG) I agree wholeheartedly with that method of lineup construction, but i'd have to use what the players are projected to do this year rather than what they actualy did last year....which in this case means switching LoDuca and Beltran's spots.... Beltran, Floyd, Delgado, Wright, Diaz, LoDuca, Reyes, Matsui, Pitcher is a very reasonable lineup. ] I don't know. The numbers said to put him there and numbers are always right. Always. The numbers are ALWAYS right, if you're using the right numbers...that is to say if you could predict with absolute certainty every player's stats on a per-AB basis you'd be able to plug them into the lineup in a way that produced the most possible runs. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree with what a given player is going to do in the coming season, but to disregard studies of lineup formation in favor of the "tradition says the speedy guy with the low obp bats here and the guy who can bunt with the .200 batting average here..." method is just plain stupid.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 27 2006 10:37 AM

RealityChuck wrote: 43.865437% of all statistics are useless. In Sabermetrics, the number is 16.986896% higher. You don't take this to its logical extreme. The problem is that we use these crazy numbers to keep track of runs in a game, and of wins in a season. Get rid of this stupidity, and you'll resolve the entire "numbers" scam that wrecks our purely aesthetic appreciation of the game of baseball.

Elster88 Feb 27 2006 10:56 AM

Nymr83 wrote: ] I don't know. The numbers said to put him there and numbers are always right. Always. The numbers are ALWAYS right, if you're using the right numbers...that is to say if you could predict with absolute certainty every player's stats on a per-AB basis you'd be able to plug them into the lineup in a way that produced the most possible runs. Reasonable people can, of course, disagree with what a given player is going to do in the coming season, but to disregard studies of lineup formation in favor of the "tradition says the speedy guy with the low obp bats here and the guy who can bunt with the .200 batting average here..." method is just plain stupid. I think he was being sarcastic.

Bret Sabermetric Feb 27 2006 11:03 AM

OOOhh, sarcasm. It's sooooooo scary. Let's run.

Rotblatt Feb 27 2006 12:01 PM

]OOOhh, sarcasm. It's sooooooo scary. Let's run. How is sarcasm scary? And running never solved anything, Bret.

Zvon Feb 27 2006 11:21 PM

="Bret Sabermetric"] Get rid of this stupidity, and you'll resolve the entire "numbers" scam that wrecks our purely aesthetic appreciation of the game of baseball. I agree with this 100%. And as far as some of the lineups displayed between this and my last post here, ARE YOU PEOPLE INSANE!?! ;)

Frayed Knot Feb 28 2006 09:48 AM

Adam Rubin's column in [url=http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/story/395515p-335299c.html]today's Daily News[/url] features Willie discussing lineup machinations: * Beltran probable for #3 and doesn't necessarily buy the cause-and-effect differences in his career stats between hitting 2nd & 3rd (on that point I agree) * as hinted at in his visit last night ... Matsui is a possibility for the #2 slot on days LoDuca sits (providing Kaz shows something during ST) as a less disruptive alternative to swapping Beltran's spot every few days * Not automatically adverse to letting the lefties (CF & CD) hit back-to-back * defends his "break-in" process with Wright last year

abogdan Mar 01 2006 12:08 PM

]The general consensus on baseball blogs seems to be that the research basically means this: 1. Put the best OPS in 3rd 2. Put the best remaining Slg in 4th 3. Put the best remaining OBP's in 1st and 2nd (with the better Slg in 2nd) 4. Arrange the remaining players in order of descending Slg Which doesn't mean that general consensus is generally the best. There's been some recent work on it that the Baseball Musings algorithm is based on [url=http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296]here[/url] and [url=http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/322075.html]here[/url], which doesn't come to the same conclusions as that general consensus.

Nymr83 Mar 01 2006 05:35 PM

abogdan wrote: Which doesn't mean that general consensus is generally the best. There's been some recent work on it that the Baseball Musings algorithm is based on [url=http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296]here[/url] and [url=http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/322075.html]here[/url], which doesn't come to the same conclusions as that general consensus. which is good, arguing over which study is best is infinetaly preferable to arguing over which guy the clown manager (NOT singling out Randolph or anyone else here) thinks best fits some coneventional wisdom stereotype for a lineup spot.

Rotblatt Mar 01 2006 09:38 PM

abogdan wrote: Which doesn't mean that general consensus is generally the best. There's been some recent work on it that the Baseball Musings algorithm is based on [url=http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/story/2006/2/12/133645/296]here[/url] and [url=http://catfishstew.baseballtoaster.com/archives/322075.html]here[/url], which doesn't come to the same conclusions as that general consensus. It's all based on the exact same research. While most of the blogs tried to simply the BTB research into "rules," the Catfishstew blog actually applied the BTB coefficient to the PECOTA projections to figure out which lineup would produce the most runs. The only difference is that the blogs ignored the whole "put one of your weakest hitters 3rd" thing that the research spits out, since that, more than anything, doesn't make intuitive sense. I suppose the idea is that spreading out your crappy batters is a good idea? Anyway, what the research really shows isn't necessarily the most optimal lineup, but how the relative value of OBP & SLG changes based on where in the lineup someone hits. It doesn't take into account anything BUT OBP & SLG, so its use is limited. Just for the hell of it, the lineup I'd like to see would theoretically produce 830 runs (more or less): Reyes, Beltran, Wright, Delgado, Floyd, Diaz, LoDuca, Matsui, Martinez. That's based on PECOTA projections and assumes that each batter plays all 162 games in that exact slot in the order. The blog-rule lineup of Beltran, Floyd, Wright, Delgado, Diaz, Reyes, LoDuca, Matsui & Martinez would net us an additional 2 runs. Slotting a crappy player into #3 gives 3 runs on top of that: Beltran, Floyd, LoDuca, Delgado, Wright, Diaz, Reyes, Matsui, Martinez. I can't do the optimization thing, but I suspect that would be among the most effecient.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 02 2006 02:59 AM

We're not likely to find out with Willie at the helm. Well, we're not likely to find out with any MLB manager at the helm but, based solely on observing Willie's response to developing situations and assimilating new information last year, I'd say he seems the least disposed of MLB managers to employ a non-traditional ingame strategy. If you came up with a computer-generated model showing that batting an eggplant in the #3 slot would result in a net increase in runs scored, Willie would employ that model only after the other 29 MLB clubs had shown that it works. He's unimaginative to the point of being hidebound, making any innovation unlikely under his management. Willie's from the Reality Chuck school of "Tell your numbers to shut up."

Rotblatt Mar 02 2006 07:32 AM

Bret Sabermetric wrote: We're not likely to find out with Willie at the helm. Well, we're not likely to find out with any MLB manager at the helm but, based solely on observing Willie's response to developing situations and assimilating new information last year, I'd say he seems the least disposed of MLB managers to employ a non-traditional ingame strategy. If you came up with a computer-generated model showing that batting an eggplant in the #3 slot would result in a net increase in runs scored, Willie would employ that model only after the other 29 MLB clubs had shown that it works. He's unimaginative to the point of being hidebound, making any innovation unlikely under his management. Willie's from the Reality Chuck school of "Tell your numbers to shut up." Yeah, Willie's not going to do anything outside the box, that's for sure. Although I'd probably take my time on the eggplant idea too . . . I read somewhere recently that Omar, not Willie, was behind the "LoDuca to 2nd" movement, and that Willie wasn't convinced yet. It sounded promising, but now I can't find the damn thing, which I'm pretty sure was in one of yesterday's papers.

Rotblatt Mar 02 2006 08:10 AM

Ah, here's the meaty article (essentially a review of an even meatier book, "The Book")we were all looking for. It combines stats AND analysis. Good times. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/constructing-lineups/ Here's the Mets relevant section: ]The Mets will probably have four great hitters in their lineup this year, if they stay healthy (Delgado, Wright, Beltran and Floyd) and these guys should obviously be placed in four of the top five slots. Their fifth-best hitter will probably be the Nady/Diaz platoon in right field. Their next-best hitters are projected to be Reyes, Lo Duca and Matsui (or whoever plays second). As you can see, that leaves Reyes, who led the NL in stolen bases last year, in the sixth position, which is probably the best place for him. First of all, Reyes will almost certainly have a lousy OBP this year, no matter how much he works at it. Secondly, a basestealer for the Mets will have more value batting sixth instead of first. Why? According to The Book, there are a couple of reasons: * A stolen base has the most value when it's done in front of singles hitters who don't strike out too much. Lo Duca and Matsui may be the two most prolific singles hitters the Mets have in 2006, and Lo Duca doesn't whiff very often. * A caught stealing does much more damage with a Carlos Delgado or David Wright at the plate than a Paul Lo Duca or Kaz Matsui. The logic seems overwhelming to me. Bat Reyes sixth. Of course, if we're NOT going to bat Reyes anywhere but first (which we're not), does this logic imply that LoDuca IS our best option in the 2 hole? y Read the article. It's interesting. I definitely need to pick this book up. Another one of its findings is that, indeed, we should not put our best hitters in the 3 hole, but rather in positions #1, #2, #4. The optimal lineup here would be Beltran, Wright, Flod, Delgado, Diaz/Nady, Reyes, LoDuca, Matsui.

abogdan Mar 02 2006 09:15 AM

]Of course, if we're NOT going to bat Reyes anywhere but first (which we're not), does this logic imply that LoDuca IS our best option in the 2 hole? I don't think so. If we assume that Reyes will hit first, and some combination of Beltran/Wright/Delgado/Floyd will occupy the 3-5 slots, I think you need a high OBP guy in the #2 hole to take advantage of the skills of the players hitting in the #3-5 spots, even at the slight expense of not taking full advantage of Reyes' speed in the leadoff spot. Otherwise, you're in the same position the Mets were for most of last year - Beltran coming up with 2 outs and no one on base.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 02 2006 10:38 AM

I think it's obvious WWSB's main reasons for setting a batting order aren't strategic in the "win today's game" sense -- no lineup is precise enough for that, so he's right -- but rather as rewards and carrots that emphasize roles he'd like the guys to play. So, Beltran isn't a likely No. 2 because a) He's "The Man" b) He stayed with Beltran at No. 3 even though it might have hurt last year as though to tell him “We still believe in you” while Matsui’s drop to 8 meant “We’re disappointed in you” WWSB started hitting Wright 7 last year as a means to tell him: I want to motivate you to improve enough to take over at 3, 4 or 5. To Reyes, leadoff means: “We value your speed” … etc etc etc. As I’ve said a billion times, I believe even the most sophisticated analysis of which slot is ideal for which guy would make only random impacts in any particular game, and only a small difference (but maybe an important one) over the course of a year. Considering that pretty much has to balanced with such mushy feeeeeelings as “keeping guys happy and motivated” I’m not gonna blow a gasket over the lineup unless it’s obvious his choices suck, which to me would mean lousy OBP out of Reyes combined with with superior OBP out of who’s playing right field or second; or Beltran lacking the proper authority in his hitting again at 3. Otherwise, BFD.

Bret Sabermetric Mar 02 2006 10:50 AM

Johnny Dickshot wrote: no lineup is precise enough for that, so he's right -- . Well, he's right as long as every other manager is roughly as hidebound (i.e. primarily "motivational" in the sense that you suggest) as Willie is. But someday (and you mark my words, young un, the day is fast approaching) some far-seeing manager will try one of these eggplant lineups, and win some games, and every manager will become an eggplant advocate. Don't you wish Willie would be that pioneer?

Yancy Street Gang Mar 02 2006 10:55 AM

You're probably right. Look at the change in the way relief pitchers are used. One manager (LaRussa, I think, when he was in Oakland) decides that there should be a ninth inning guy, and eighth inning guy, and a seventh inning guy and now that's practically become conventional wisdom. I'd love to see a manager undo that particular eggplant. The bullpen method that worked before Dennis Eckersly should still work today, but nobody's daring enough to try it. We'll never see innovation from Willie Randolph. And that's too bad. It may not win or lose a whole lot of games, but I'd enjoy seeing a Mets manager tinker with new ideas.

sharpie Mar 02 2006 11:04 AM

LaRussa also spent an entire season batting his pitcher eighth. That he stopped doing so must have meant that he didn't think it worked, but I'm wondering why it took him a whole season to come to that conclusion.

Yancy Street Gang Mar 02 2006 11:05 AM

When did he do that? How did I miss that?

Johnny Dickshot Mar 02 2006 11:30 AM Edited 1 time(s), most recently on Mar 02 2006 11:36 AM

I don't think it was a whole year -- but parts of the year (1998?) including a series against the Mets. Edit -- I'd be happy to see a superior new idea in lineup construction experimented with, but I maintain big doubts as to whether any one lineup philosophy could be shown to provide an edge more in any one game, consistently, if you know what I mean.

sharpie Mar 02 2006 11:33 AM

If it wasn't the whole year it was a lot of the year. Either '98 or '99.

Johnny Dickshot Mar 02 2006 11:37 AM

Look up Aug. 10, 11, 12, 1998.

Willets Point Mar 02 2006 11:47 AM

Eggplant would get lots of bases on balls because it would be hard for any pitcher to locate Eggplant's strike zone. However, pinch runners would be necessary becauase Eggplant would be doubled up every time.

TheOldMole Mar 02 2006 11:52 AM

The St. Louis Browns used to bat Ned Garver 7th when he pitched, but they probably should have batted him cleanup, since he was far and away their best pitcher.