Batting order

[mgoetze]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Sabermetrically optimized lineup

1. One of the three best hitters (high OBP)
2. One of the three best hitters
3. 5th best hitter
4. One of the three best hitters (high SLG)
5. 4th best hitter
6. 6th best hitter
7. 7th best hitter
8. 8th best hitter (or pitcher if NL)
9. 9th best hitter (or 8th best hitter if NL)

The Book has it slightly different... of your 4th and 5th best hitters you should put the one who hits more HRs in the 3-slot.

[The Wolf]

I was quoting the website, not The Book.

[The Wolf]

As to the one run a season point - it's true, that's all it will get you. But sometimes one win is all the difference.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by ELDoro

That Indians teams also had about 3-4 hitters who would have been the best hitter on most teams Alomar, Ramirez, Thome, Belle

Will raise this to:

4 guys, all in their prime, that each have an arguable case to be in Cooperstown.

Even if the Indians had batted them 6,7,8, and 9, they would have scored a lot more runs than their opponents.

[TribeFanInNC]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Will raise this to:

4 guys, all in their prime, that each have an arguable case to be in Cooperstown.

Even if the Indians had batted them 6,7,8, and 9, they would have scored a lot more runs than their opponents.

I certainly won't disagree. Guys like Thome and Manny had a lot to do with it. It was more an illustration of the theory. I like to have three faster decent hitting/on base guys at the top rather than a slugger hitting third.

The only thing I will dispel is that Belle and Alomar never played together.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by TribeFanInNC

I certainly won't disagree. Guys like Thome and Manny had a lot to do with it. It was more an illustration of the theory. I like to have three faster decent hitting/on base guys at the top rather than a slugger hitting third.

The only thing I will dispel is that Belle and Alomar never played together.

The theory is fine, and am not arguing with it. The optimal batting order for a group of players will be particular to the group of players actually being ordered. A less than optimal order with a group of hitters that features multiple elite talents can vary well lead the league in runs and scored.

Everyone should make their orders the way they want to based on what they want to. There is no one size fits all formula for getting the optimal line-up for every group of hitters. The suggestions posted in this thread all have merit. I use something close to these when setting my line-ups.

The only aspect of the posted referenced selections that I think is brutally flawed is the idea of hitting a pitcher 8th.

With a DH, I like the idea of having a better hitter 9th for the better 1 and 2 hitters to follow, but the reason you hit your pitcher 9th is to put off making the PH decision as long as you can.

2 outs, bottom of 6, score 1-1, runner on second, 7th place hitter coming up. You don't want your pitcher in the 8th spot, there, ever (unless he is a better hitter than one of your starting position players). The hitting situation is obvious, but the more important factor is that the manager will not be forced to make a decision as to whether or not to keep his effective starter in the game.

While having the weakest hitter batting 8th may lead to more total runs scored, baseball titles are not given to the teams with the most runs scored in a season, but to the teams that score more runs in discrete games than their opponents. When you have a pitcher batting, there is more to working an order than simply figuring how to put your 9 bats together.

[Mancandy]

Originally Posted by rpriske

I am with ELDoro. It has been mathematically proven that the #3 spot is highly over-rated, yet people keep putting their best hitters there.

I was overjoyed when the Jays finally moved Bautista to the #2 spot.

I see people say things like this sometimes, and I often wonder if they've actually looked at the numbers they're basing their opinions on or they're just loyally taking the word of other people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anybody who does the latter. But if you actually look at the "mathematical proof" that the #3 spot is overrated, it's....flawed....to say the least. Questionable is a good word. It's all based on numbers from real world results that were based on traditional lineups(which, obviously, isn't a very good indicator of what would happen in a lineup that's non-traditional) and computer simulations - and, as we all know, computer simulations are less than accurate when it comes to representing the real world in many cases. I won't get into it too much here, but long story short, the term "proven" is far too strong for this context. Hypothesized would be much more accurate.

With that being said, the #2 hitter is more important than the traditional lineup gives it credit for. And, in some cases, the team's "best hitter" SHOULD be the #2 hitter. For example, the Angels. Mike Trout is fine as a #2 hitter. But in, say, Detroit, having Miguel Cabrera bat 2nd would be criminal, a fireable offense for sure, and I'd say deserving of a lifetime ban. (Although having him bat 4th is just as bad, and the Tigers did that for four years, so...) The point is, speed and especially power have to be considered when figuring out if your "best hitter" should hit 2nd or 3rd. It also depends greatly on who else is on the team. Look at, say Bryce Harper. He's hitting 3rd in Washington, and rightfully so. But if he was in a team like Philadelphia, where Domonic Brown is the rightful #3 hitter(despite hitting 4th for reasons known only to Charlie Manuel), Harper would be the "best hitter" on the team but should hit 2nd. There's a lot of variables.

The point is, as is often the case where there's two drastically differing opinions, the truth is somewhere in the middle. And that's usually how I approach putting my lineup together. It's a combination of traditional and sabermetrics based philosophies. When I'm feeling lazy and just use stats(which is usually what I do when I'm putting together my minor league teams' lineups), it goes like this:

-Take the two highest OPS on the team. The one with a higher slugging bats 3rd, the one with a higher OBA bats 2nd. (If the same player has a higher SLG and OBA, he hits 3rd and the other hits 2nd.)
-Of the remaining batters, the highest OBA hits leadoff.
-Hitters 4-6 are the three highest SLG remaining, in order.
-Hitters 7-9 are then ordered by OBP, though it varies depending on the strength of the middle of the lineup...

There's basically two strategies for ordering the bottom of your lineup. The case can be made for putting your worst hitter(or pitcher, in non-DH leagues) either 8th or 9th, and I've implemented both in the past, sometimes with the same team in the same season. As the present day Tigers, for example, I'd put the worst hitter(pitcher in inter league games) in the 9th spot. But there was one time that I lost Prince Fielder for the season in May, I started putting the worst hitter in the 8th spot with my best hitter(of the bottom three) batting 9th. When Fielder came back the next year, I reverted back.

I would say just do what makes the most sense to you. If you're a traditionalist, go with tradition. If you're into the numbers, use the sabermetrics based lineup. Or find something new. No matter what some people tell you, it's not THAT important. Even if it adds up to 10-15 runs a season(which there's no proof of, for what it's worth), that doesn't automatically equate to another win. I mean, when was the last time you saw a league full of teams whose real record exactly matched their Pythagorean record? Because remember that, their (unproven) claim is actually 10-15 NET runs. There are going to be instances where you score less runs, too. So the effects of taking away runs here and adding runs there, in terms of wins and losses, is largely going to come down to luck.

[The Wolf]

Studies have consistently shown that there is a small advantage to be gained by batting the pitcher 8th.

[The Wolf]

"It is generally recognized that the optimized lineup over a full season would score five to fifteen runs more than the standard lineup."

That's because there is this thing called mathematics.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Studies have consistently shown that there is a small advantage to be gained by batting the pitcher 8th.

For the opposing team, yes.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

For the opposing team, yes.

You want to argue with both math and Tom Tango, feel free.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

You want to argue with both math and Tom Tango, feel free.

Your fall back position is consistently "Hey, don't argue with me...I am right because someone else said so!"

I will argue the methodologies. The question is, do you understand them enough to question them, at all?

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Your fall back position is consistently "Hey, don't argue with me...I am right because someone else said so!"

I will argue the methodologies. The question is, do you understand them enough to question them, at all?

Dude, get over yourself. I haven't posted anything here that is an opinion of mine or any conclusion of mine. I've been posting the results of sabermetric studies and the conclusions of experts. None of it is about me, and stop trying to make it about me.

If you want to argue with math, facts and the likes of Tom Tango, feel free. You'll be dead wrong, but don't let that stop you. But do remember that while you're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Dude, get over yourself. I haven't posted anything here that is an opinion of mine or any conclusion of mine. I've been posting the results of sabermetric studies and the conclusions of experts. None of it is about me, and stop trying to make it about me.

If you want to argue with math, facts and the likes of Tom Tango, feel free. You'll be dead wrong, but don't let that stop you. But do remember that while you're entitled to your own opinion, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

Offering that their methodologies are in no way flawed and that their conclusions are therefore without error is a matter of opinion. That is a fact.

[jaa36]

Originally Posted by Mancandy

I see people say things like this sometimes, and I often wonder if they've actually looked at the numbers they're basing their opinions on or they're just loyally taking the word of other people. Don't get me wrong, I'm not knocking anybody who does the latter. But if you actually look at the "mathematical proof" that the #3 spot is overrated, it's....flawed....to say the least. Questionable is a good word. It's all based on numbers from real world results that were based on traditional lineups(which, obviously, isn't a very good indicator of what would happen in a lineup that's non-traditional) and computer simulations - and, as we all know, computer simulations are less than accurate when it comes to representing the real world in many cases. I won't get into it too much here, but long story short, the term "proven" is far too strong for this context. Hypothesized would be much more accurate.

I just don't understand why having your best hitter hit third remains the default way to do things. Logically, the #3 batter is the most likely player in the lineup to bat with two outs and nobody on, which would seem to me a poor use of your best hitter. By contrast, the #4 batter will either be hitting with men on base, or leading off the second inning, making this a much more important lineup slot than the #3 slot. The lineup theories proposed in The Book show that 5-15 run advantage when you crunch the numbers, but they also make a lot more intuitive sense than the "traditional" way of doing things.

[The Wolf]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

Offering that their methodologies are in no way flawed and that their conclusions are therefore without error is a matter of opinion. That is a fact.

Offering that they are recognized, published experts who have studied the matter in detail and that their conclusions are therefore infinitely superior to your posturing is not a matter of opinion. That is a fact.

[VanillaGorilla]

Originally Posted by The Wolf

Offering that they are recognized, published experts who have studied the matter in detail and that their conclusions are therefore infinitely superior to your posturing is not a matter of opinion. That is a fact.

No, that is an opinion...and you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts....or does that dictum only apply to others?

You can blindly accept what others say as you choose....and be a sheep.

Or, you can evaluate what the self-titled experts offer and conclude that their work is of merit or that it is flawed and the conclusions reached are perhaps suspect.

I choose the latter.

[Tram2Whitaker]

I'm a little old school, having grown up in the Sparky Anderson era. I use a standard lineup: 1) Speed 2) High Average 3) High OPS 4) Most Homers 5-6-7) descending OPS from #4 8) I put the pitcher at 8 because I don't believe in the DH, and I use my 9) Speedy guy, doesn't hit as well as #1, but sets up the top of the order well.

I'm not sure of any advantage or disadvantage I gain by doing so, but it is usually negated by the second time through the lineup; Either I'm in a comfortable position, or if I'm not, that's when the double switches begin.

[kehowey]

I use a combination of the traditional and "by the book" approaches with a slight edge toward tradition. I do separate left-handed hitters.

[Walsh06]

Originally Posted by VanillaGorilla

No, that is an opinion...and you are entitled to your opinion. However, you are not entitled to your own facts....or does that dictum only apply to others?

You can blindly accept what others say as you choose....and be a sheep.

Or, you can evaluate what the self-titled experts offer and conclude that their work is of merit or that it is flawed and the conclusions reached are perhaps suspect.

I choose the latter.

Out of curiousity why are you being such a dick??