Great article in SI re: lineup construction

[RedsManRick]

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/201...ml?eref=sircrc

The whole article is worth a read, but here is my favorite section, given my recent crusade about putting speed lower in the order:

But the Pirates' unorthodox moves don't stop there. Batting leadoff is the un-leadoffish Akinori Iwamura. The second baseman doesn't fit the prototype for a leadoff man, considering that he has never stolen more than 12 bases in a season. The move is even more curious when you consider that McCutchen, Jones and Lastings Milledge all have stronger stolen base capabilities, yet are hitting further down in the order. But according to the statistics in The Book, the leadoff man's most important attributes are to be a very good hitter overall and to have the ability to get on base, which Iwamura is very adept at doing. In fact, the advantage of speed at the top of the order is actually somewhat mitigated by the fact that you don't want to risk getting thrown out stealing ahead of the best hitters in the lineup.

[vaticanplum]

Interesting but not as ground-breaking as he wants it to be, I think. The purist in me says that you want to get your worst hitter, ie. the pitcher, to the plate the least, ie. bat him ninth. But statistically they make good points about having someone on base for the leadoff man...if you have a good leadoff man who gets on base of course. And of course if it was really a late game crucial situation and your no. 8-hitting pitcher was up, you'd just put in a pinch runner anyway I guess.

The thing I'm not sold on is McCutchen batting second. To wit: Despite the evidence, managers have refused to listen, and great players from Bonds to Pujols continue to hit in the No. 3 spot (which is suboptimal because they tend to often come to bat with the bases empty and two out). This just doesn't make any sense. The article has just told us that the important thing for your top hitters is not speed but OBP (which I agree with of course). And now they're saying that No. 3 is bad for strong hitters because the bases will be empty. What? What am I missing? I understand that McCutcheon is there because he's two spots removed from a player who is hopefully on base, but...he's also hopefully batting with a couple of dudes on base. Now we're going in circles, ugh.

Of course, this is the Pirates we're talking about, and all of this fuss is over obvious on-base machine Ronny Cedeno. Really, the dang team is just doing anything to get people to remember they exist.

Incidentally, articles like this do make me wonder what planet Dusty Baker lives on.

[Cedric]

Guys with high OBP should bat leadoff? WOW that's groundbreaking.

[RedsManRick]

Interesting but not as ground-breaking as he wants it to be, I think.

Groundbreaking for those of us who read The BOOK when it came out? Nope. Groundbreaking for the casual fan who thinks speed>OBP and that pitchers batting 8th are for geeks in their basements? Perhaps.

In any event, I'm not sure why you think he's trying to be groundbreaking at all. The goal, as I see it, is not break new ground, but rather to bring strategies based in analysis rather than gut to the masses.

[nate]

Interesting but not as ground-breaking as he wants it to be, I think. The purist in me says that you want to get your worst hitter, ie. the pitcher, to the plate the least, ie. bat him ninth. But statistically they make good points about having someone on base for the leadoff man...if you have a good leadoff man who gets on base of course. And of course if it was really a late game crucial situation and your no. 8-hitting pitcher was up, you'd just put in a pinch runner anyway I guess.

The thing I'm not sold on is McCutchen batting second. To wit: Despite the evidence, managers have refused to listen, and great players from Bonds to Pujols continue to hit in the No. 3 spot (which is suboptimal because they tend to often come to bat with the bases empty and two out). This just doesn't make any sense. The article has just told us that the important thing for your top hitters is not speed but OBP (which I agree with of course). And now they're saying that No. 3 is bad for strong hitters because the bases will be empty. What? What am I missing?

In a "traditional" lineup where "speedy than on-basier" guys hit 1 and 2, it's more likely the 3 hitter comes up with the bases empty than the idea put forth in the article that if you have an "on base guy" hitting first, your best hitter can go in the 2 spot and avoid empty nesting.

In other words, it's not saying that the "new" method results in the 3-spot up with two outs and no one on. It's saying the traditional method results in that.

Incidentally, articles like this do make me wonder what planet Dusty Baker lives on.

The one where he got a discount on 1,000, pre-filled "1-CF, 2-SS" lineup cards.

[nate]

Groundbreaking for those of us who read The BOOK when it came out? Nope. Groundbreaking for the casual fan who thinks speed>OBP and that pitchers batting 8th are for geeks in their basements? Perhaps.

In any event, I'm not sure why you think he's trying to be groundbreaking at all. The goal, as I see it, is not break new ground, but rather to bring strategies based in analysis rather than gut to the masses.

Did you post this from your basement?

[blumj]

Totally OT, but, you guys are probably going to really "hate" Iwamura.

[bucksfan2]

Granted, Andrew McCutchen isn't Albert Pujols or Barry Bonds, but the move still gives the Pirates the best chance to win. Unfortunately for Pittsburgh, even though Russell may be pulling all of the right strings, choosing a great strategic batting order can only take you so far. According to The Book, even great lineup strategy can only provide a team with 10 to 15 extra runs per season. That translates to just 1 to 1.5 wins. For as much as managers and fans agonize over possible batting orders, it's not going to make or break a season, and it certainly can't make up for poor players. In baseball, everybody eventually comes to bat, and because of that, the batting order can't have an enormous effect on the outcome of the game. Vastly more important, of course, are the players in the lineup, regardless of how they are arranged. Russell may be doing all he can, but he can't make gold out of lead just by shifting the order around. The result is likely to be another losing season, followed by media proclamations declaring the batting order experiment a failure. However, in reality, the 2010 Pirates will likely lose in spite of, rather than because of John Russell's clever and unusual lineup machinations.

The bolded part is what I find important. First off I do take some exception to the comment that Russell is pulling all the right strings. Well maybe to you he is pulling all the right strings, but to others he isn't. Batting the pitcher 8th is not anything groundbreaking, nor has it really proven to work better. We have seen Tony LaRussa go back and forth between this philosophy during his time his time in St. Louis.

I also think that he brings to light that all the debating over lineup construction is really not all that important. The difference between a traditional lineup and "The Book" lineup is 1 game, not a big enough deal for me to be worried.

As for the 2 vs 3 best hitter debate I don't quite get it. I get that in the first inning he is likely to come up to the plate with 2 outs and no runners on base. But using the 2 hole logic he is only guaranteed one inning in which he comes to the plate with less than 2 outs. And if you move a good OBP guy into the 9th spot what difference are you making? NL teams are always going to pitch around the pitcher. In effect what you are doing is limiting the number of at bats a good OBP guy is going to get by putting him at the bottom of the order. If the pitcher makes the last out in an inning you are back to the same philosophy of your best hitter coming to the plate with 2 outs and no one on.

Why not hit your best hitter 1st and two good OBP guys 8-9? Your getting your best hitter the most at bats possible while hopefully putting men on base for his 2nd and 3rd at bats. While you do move your P into the 7th spot how many times through a batting order do you expect him to make 2? I would imagine thats pretty much the same in regards to the 7 hole vs the 9 hole.

[vaticanplum]

In a "traditional" lineup where "speedy than on-basier" guys hit 1 and 2, it's more likely the 3 hitter comes up with the bases empty than the idea put forth in the article that if you have an "on base guy" hitting first, your best hitter can go in the 2 spot and avoid empty nesting.

In other words, it's not saying that the "new" method results in the 3-spot up with two outs and no one on. It's saying the traditional method results in that.

How many teams really follow that now though? (um, do not answer that, Reds fans.) A few years back there was an article in SI about the groundbreaking approach of the White Sox in their reverting to the speed demon leadoff model with Scott Podsednik. (Which was ironic given what a power-hitting club they were at the time anyway, but whatever.)

I see your point though. I just can't think of many teams where they actually do reserve the 1 and 2 spots for the scrappy guys, or at least for the scrappy guys who...don't get on base.

[vaticanplum]

Why not hit your best hitter 1st and two good OBP guys 8-9? Your getting your best hitter the most at bats possible while hopefully putting men on base for his 2nd and 3rd at bats. While you do move your P into the 7th spot how many times through a batting order do you expect him to make 2? I would imagine thats pretty much the same in regards to the 7 hole vs the 9 hole.

Because every game has a first inning?

[Roy Tucker]

So how much of a difference does it make to bat the pitcher 8th?

[oneupper]

So how much of a difference does it make to bat the pitcher 8th?

IIRC it was something like 2 runs a season.

[bucksfan2]

Because every game has a first inning?

Yea but you get the heart of your order up from the get go.

Im being a little bit tongue and cheek but also a curious. You are guaranteeing your best player the most amount of at bats per game. Your also giving your best sluggers the top three amount of at bats in a game. Look at the Cardinals, would you rather face Pujols, Holiday, and Rasmus the most or Ryan, Shumacher, and Pujols?

[Redsfan320]

Why not hit your best hitter 1st and two good OBP guys 8-9? Your getting your best hitter the most at bats possible while hopefully putting men on base for his 2nd and 3rd at bats. While you do move your P into the 7th spot how many times through a batting order do you expect him to make 2? I would imagine thats pretty much the same in regards to the 7 hole vs the 9 hole.

Very interesting idea. I certainly see the point.

320

[westofyou]

Theory is nice, but without executions it's just theory.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/boxscore...123&page=plays

Bottom 4th: Pittsburgh
- G. Jones walked
- R. Doumit singled to shallow right, G. Jones to second
- R. Church struck out swinging
- D. Young walked, G. Jones to third, R. Doumit to second
- A. LaRoche struck out looking
- P. Maholm struck out looking

0 runs, 1 hits, 0 errors