PDA

View Full Version : Article from Hardball Times on linups



CySeymour
08-04-2006, 05:25 PM
Found this article from back in the spring about lineup construction:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/constructing-lineups/


Constructing Lineups
by Dave Studeman
March 02, 2006

It's the latest craze on the Internet: constructing lineups (at least it was, until Barry Bonds dressed up as Paula Abdul). It all started a couple of weeks ago when Cyril Morong posted a regression analysis of how much to weigh On-Base Percentage (OBP) and Slugging Average (SLG) for each lineup position. Pretty quickly, everyone started using Cyril's analysis to construct lineups for their favorite teams.

The Pastime did it for Oakland, which inspired Ken Arneson to write a script to implement Cyril's findings, which inspired David Pinto to incorporate a lineup optimization tool on his blog, which further inspired many other blogs to apply the logic to their teams. Dan Scotto wrote a nice summary of the insights gained from Cyril's analysis.

Meanwhile, I was going around like a curmudgeon, telling people that a static regression model really shouldn't be used to construct something as dynamic as a lineup. I referenced Tom Ruane's excellent article on Retrosheet, which uses something called Markov Chains to evaluate the ideal lineup and concludes that lineup composition just doesn't much matter.

That seems hard to believe, doesn't it? It really doesn't matter if the pitcher bats first or ninth? I don't buy it, either. Plus, it's fun to talk about lineups. As baseball fans, they give us something to tinker with, and they provide important clues regarding how the manager thinks. I'd guess that many baseball fans love to debate their favorite team's lineup.

Luckily, I received a package Monday that contained a book called The Book. I've been waiting for The Book for about two years or so, when I first heard that Tangotiger (or Tom M. Tango ) and MGL (Mickey, Mitchel, UZR-guy) were planning to write a book together. They pulled Andy Dolphin into the effort, and the three of them took their sweet time writing it. The wait was worth it. They have written a book that every baseball manager and general manager should read, perhaps the best book of its kind since The Hidden Game of Baseball. And they included a chapter on lineup construction.

I'm not quite done reading The Book, and I'll have to re-read several sections a few times. But I paid particular attention to lineup construction, and I thought I'd share some of The Book with you. The Book is filled with concise, logical analyses that culminate in strategic guidelines, called "The Book Says." Here's the most important strategic guideline for lineup construction:

The Book Says:
Your three best hitters should bat somewhere in the #1, #2 and #4 slots. Your fourth- and fifth-best hitters should occupy the #3 and #5 slots. The #1 and #2 slots will have players with more walks than those in the #4 and #5 slots. From slot #6 through #9, put the players in descending order of quality.
I'm only scratching the surface of the lineup chapter with this quote, but there's obviously enough meat here to fill 10 articles. Don't worry; I'm only going to write one today. For this article, let's apply The Book's guideline to some real teams, using Baseball Prospectus' statistical projections for next year.

I'll start with Oakland, since they started this whole thing. Just to make things easy, I'll assume that Jay Payton bats instead of Frank Thomas. Here's what I came up with:

Name BA OBP SLG Bats
Bradley .279 .355 .447 S
Johnson .272 .353 .462 L
Crosby .269 .346 .451 R
Chavez .271 .354 .479 L
Swisher .252 .347 .453 S
Ellis .283 .351 .426 R
Kotsay .277 .332 .414 L
Payton .267 .312 .415 R
Kendall .270 .333 .338 R
Dan Johnson in the second positon doesn't compute, does it? Perhaps the most important thing The Book tells us is that we should put our stereotypes of leadoff and #2 hitters aside.

First, the guys in the first two slots bat most often during the year; why waste those appearances on below-average hitters, or even average ones?

Secondly, The Book's key analysis was an assessment of the potential run value of each batting event in a lineup. They found that hits by the leadoff and second batters will typically generate more runs than hits from any other lineup position (other than cleanup). Hard to believe? I think most fans underappreciate the importance of power in these first two positions. These guys are only guaranteed to start an inning once, the first inning. Many other times, particularly in the American League, they will bat with runners on base.

In a nutshell, the first two positions bat most often and their hits create more runs than those in most other positions. This is why The Book recommends that you place two of your three best hitters in the first two lineup positions. Through a simple OPS rating, Chavez, Bradley and Johnson are projected to be Oakland's three best hitters.

If you're an A's fan, you probably think Mark Ellis is going to hit better than .283/.351/.426. If so, putting him in the leadoff position might work. In fact, the A's have such a balanced lineup that it's very hard to construct a "wrong" lineup. Perhaps the most important thing manager Ken Macha should do is make sure he has no lefty or righty batters in back-to-back lineup slots. By avoiding consecutive players batting from the same side, he will have a strategic advantage late in the game against opposing relief specialists.

The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have a very unbalanced attack, featuring Vladimir Guerrero and a bunch of hopefuls. Last year, Vlad batted third about two-thirds of the time and fourth the rest of the time. Here's what The Book suggests:

Name BA OBP SLG Bats
Rivera .277 .328 .432 R
Anderson .283 .314 .450 L
Kennedy .271 .332 .389 L
Guerrero .314 .376 .546 R
Kotchman .270 .328 .398 L
Figgins .274 .334 .383 S
Erstad .264 .314 .364 L
Cabrera .262 .307 .368 R
Molina .227 .273 .339 R
According to The Book, Vlad should bat cleanup. In fact, (on the surface), The Book suggests batting Adam Kennedy third! I may be applying The Book too literally here, but there is some method in the madness.

In the 1988 Baseball Abstract, Bill James found that teams score the most runs in the first inning and the fewest runs in the second. This makes sense when you think about it, because lineups are structured to score the most when the leadoff batter bats first. But he also found that the overall average of the two innings was less than the average of every other inning. In other words, the typical lineup was overemphasizing the first inning at the expense of the second inning.

One of the problems is that teams often put their highest OBP batter in the third position, but the #3 spot is the one LEAST likely to lead off the second inning. James said it, others agreed, and The Book confirms it. In addition, The Book found that the #3 hitter has more plate appearances with two out and nobody on. So the run value of every hit (except the home run) is lower in the third position than in any other of the top five positions. That's why they recommend putting your fifth-best hitter in the three spot. Whether or not you believe that, the Angels should bat Vlad fourth.

You may have also noticed that I have Chone Figgins batting sixth instead of leading off. Given the way the Angels approach offense (singles, baserunning and Vlad), this might not make sense. In fact, the Angels have such a skewed distribution of talent that several of The Book's guidelines should probably be adjusted for them. But batting your top basestealer in the #6 spot makes sense in a lot of cases. Consider the New York Mets.

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.

Let's return to the American League West one more time and look at one more contending team, the Texas Rangers:

Name BA OBP SLG Bats
Dellucci .261 .363 .495 L
Blalock .282 .348 .510 L
Young .306 .355 .471 R
Teixeira .289 .371 .561 S
Wilkerson .263 .362 .473 L
Mench .278 .341 .480 R
Nevin .270 .325 .456 R
Kinsler .270 .328 .451 R
Barajas .249 .293 .434 R
Mark Teixeira should bat fourth, not third, for the same reason Vlad should. Brad Wilkerson, projected to bat leadoff, fits best into the fifth slot, though he's not out of place as a leadoff hitter either. This lineup makes sense except for one thing: there isn't enough balance between left-handed and right-handed batters. When you have David Dellucci and Hank Blalock batting back-to-back, you leave yourself open to a two-batter LOOGY. LOOGY stands for Left-handed One Out GuY, which is a misnomer when he can stay in the game to face two batters.

One other thing of note: the #3 hitter typically has the most plate appearances with a runner on first and the hole between the second baseman and the first baseman open, so you would like a left-handed batter in the three spot if at all possible. As a result, you might want to switch Blalock and Young in the Rangers' order, grudgingly.

The Book endorses another off-beat strategy: the second leadoff hitter. Here is what The Book Says:

The second leadoff hitter theory exists. You can put your pitcher in the eighth slot and gain a couple of extra runs per year.
You gain more by having a good hitter bat directly before your top hitters than you lose by giving your pitcher a few more plate appearances each year. I'm not talking about Jason Marquis or Dontrelle Willis. I'm talking about your bad-hitting pitchers. Move them up a spot. In fact, this strategic guideline argues AGAINST moving Marquis and Willis up in the order.

A couple of extra runs doesn't sound like a lot, but if you follow theses guidelines, you could gain 10-15 runs over a full season. About a win a year. And it wouldn't cost you anything except grief from your local media.

In the beginning of this article, I mentioned Cyril Morong's analysis and all the subsequent attempts at lineup construction. Did you read Dan Scotto's review of Morong's analysis? If not, you may want to. Dan's summary and The Book are actually very much in sync. They both emphasize the importance of good hitters upfront, and they deemphasize the strategy of batting your best hitter third. What's more, they both endorse the "second leadoff hitter" strategy. I'll admit that I was skeptical, but The Book validates many of Dan's points.

When two entirely separate approaches arrive at similar conclusions, people should listen. Think they will?

Heath
08-04-2006, 05:29 PM
And in a separate article, the Reds Lineups were analyized proving Jerry Narron has ADD or compulsive-obsessive disorder or that if you were 31 and younger, you sit the bench.

:dunno:

Razor Shines
08-04-2006, 05:52 PM
So our lineup could look something like this:
EE
Dunn
Hatte
Ross
Jr.
Freel
Phillips
Clayton/Pitcher
Pitcher/Clayton

westofyou
08-04-2006, 06:15 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/19/sports/basketball/19score.html

Are the Mets Out of Order? It Doesn't Matter

By ALAN SCHWARZ
Published: March 19, 2006


For a player so seemingly perfect, David Wright is causing his manager some real headaches.

Wright, the Mets' 23-year-old third baseman, has done it all in his first season and a half in the majors, hitting for average (.302) and power (41 home runs), with speed (23 stolen bases) consistency and the plate discipline of a veteran.

Wright's versatility and aptitude suggest that he could hit anywhere in the batting order, his varied skills meeting every prerequisite.

The mounting debate among the news media and the fans has left Mets Manager Willie Randolph, who will make the decision, understandably chafed by rampant suggestions and theories from those who will not. Perhaps he will find some comfort in what the statistics folks have to say: It does not matter.

Randolph, a lifelong baseball man, retains a traditional image of what the top of his lineup should look like: A leadoff speedster (in this case, José Reyes), then a patient bat-control man (perhaps the new catcher Paul Lo Duca), then a veteran all-around hitter (Carlos Beltran), then the top slugger (the newly acquired Carlos Delgado).

This would push Wright — whom Randolph kept in the 7 and 6 holes most of last year to protect him from undue pressure — to No. 5 in the order, despite his growing reputation as the Mets' most potent offensive threat.

Randolph claims to be considering all his options, including having Wright hit as high as second.

"David saw more pitches than anybody on our team last year," Randolph said. (Wright's 3.98 pitches each plate appearance were the Mets' most.)

But for all the debate about where players should bat, deeper statistical methods have revealed that the order barely makes a difference — and the difference can be quite counterintuitive.

Mark Pankin, a financial adviser based in Lincoln, Va., has developed one of the most advanced computer models of lineup behavior, a method that simulates all the interactions among hitters and their tendencies to hit doubles, draw walks and more.

Using last year's statistics, Pankin turned it loose on the Mets and a half-dozen plausible batting orders.

Whether Lo Duca, Wright or Beltran batted anywhere from second to sixth, each order scored at rates of 4.82, 4.83 or 4.84 runs a game — which over a 162-game season would be a difference of merely three total runs.

"No matter how you look at it, switching hitters around only makes a difference in the second decimal place," Pankin said. "It basically doesn't matter."

This same conclusion has been reached by Bill James and dozens of other lineup empiricists.

And one irritated manager. In 1972, the Tigers' Billy Martin pulled names out of a hat to order his lineup against Cleveland, and wound up with the plodding slugger Norm Cash batting leadoff and the anemic shortstop Eddie Brinkman at cleanup. Deliciously, Brinkman wound up in the middle of the afternoon's key rally, doubling home the tying run and scoring the game-winner in the Tigers' 3-2 victory.

Many have posited over the years that putting batters in reverse order of overall skill — something the renegade manager Bobby Bragan tried a few times in the 1950's and 60's, including having the slugger Eddie Mathews bat leadoff — would produce the most runs, by virtue of those hitters getting more plate appearances over the course of a season. But Pankin's model demonstrated that it was not quite so simple.

Strangely enough, Pankin found that the most efficient lineup (assuming Reyes led off, an inevitability) featured Lo Duca second, then Delgado, Wright, Cliff Floyd and then Beltran; the worst had Wright batting second and Beltran third. (Even allowing Beltran to improve from last year's disappointing New York debut did not change matters much.) The reason, it appears, comes in how managers gear their lineups toward first-inning potency, at the expense of later innings.

A Reyes-Wright-Delgado start did enjoy the best first inning — but carried with it a 59.3 chance that the Nos. 4 or 5 hitters (Floyd and Beltran) led off the second inning, costing that frame more than the first inning had benefited. With Reyes-Lo Duca-Delgado-Wright-Floyd-Beltran, the best hitters (Delgado and Wright) usually came up with either runners on base in the first or led off the next.

"You weaken the first inning a bit, but you strengthen the second," Pankin said.

It appears as if Pankin is on to something. According to Stats LLC, over the past five seasons, more runs were scored in the first (1.16) than second (0.97) innings. But the average of those two (1.06) was still lower than any inning until the seventh — when relievers start taking over — suggesting that managers are indeed overplaying their first-inning hands.

So perhaps Wright's supporters should not worry so much about where he hits — as long as he hits.

"I really don't care," Wright said. "I'm still going to go up there with the same approach hitting second that I'd be hitting seventh or fourth."

In the end, when it comes to lineups, it's mind over doesn't matter.

CySeymour
08-04-2006, 10:32 PM
Another great article...thanks WestOfYou