SOMers - Stratomatic Baseball

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Optimizing Lineups - Revisited
1 2 35  >  Last»  | Page of 5  sorted by


Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 22, 2016
Optimizing Lineups - Revisited
Permalink  
 


Having been out of the loop for quite some time I wish to refresh an excellent topic that TT posted in 2012, Lineup Optimization. The core of the post was based upon information included in "The Book, Playing the Percentages in Baseball" by Tom Tango. 
I recently placed an order, some very interesting concepts in the publication covering a variety of modernized aspects of the game, including batting orders.
Back in 2012 when TT had posted this topic I had experimented with the information he had presented, just recently, I've picked up where I left off back then.
My initial findings back then are the same now, the game as it exists today in terms of Sabermetrics has grown leaps and bounds beyond the "old tried and true" methods of the past!

My conclusions from what I've read are as follows:
In terms of the importance of avoiding outs...the slots are... 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6. 7. 8. and 9.
A team's 3 best hitters should bat in the 1, 4 and 2 slots. The 4th and 5th best hitters should bat in the 5 and 3 slots. Best hitters as defined by their OBP, SLG and OPS.

The leadoff hitter should have the team's best OBP sometimes the best OBP hitter will occupy the cleanup slot which is fine as long as he is the team's leading slugger with power. however, OBP is the main consideration for the leadoff spot. A speedy base paths runner is best suited in the 6th slot in front of the singles hitters.

The 2- hole should be reserved for the team's most balanced hitter characterized by OPS, also a hitter who has a low GDP ratio would fit in well as long as he has a very high OPS.

The 3-hole should be filled in with the best remaining hitter after the 1, 4, 2 and 5-hole slots have been filled. I found this to be most surprising but also concluded that it is the best approach.

The cleanup spot is reserved for the team's leading slugger with power as long as he does not live and die by the HR. one who does would fit well in the 3-hole. The cleanup hitter should have a good balance of extra base hits and HR's.

The 5-hole hitter is the 2nd choice for the 2-hole slot, the team's 2nd best balanced hitter as defined by OPS.

The 6 through 8 batting slots are in a descending order of OPS with possibly OBP higher and SLG lower in the equation as the order descends.

The 9-hole is where the pitcher bats, I've read where maybe the pitcher should bat 8th but I do not agree.

As I am one who detests the DH, I will omit where a team's DH should bat. I will add too that I am not a fan of the Wild Card format in post season play, the incorporation of inter-league match-ups during the regular season or that the winner of the All-Star game holds home field advantage in the W.S.




__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Feb 22, 2016
Permalink  
 

If you have a player out with injuries would you reshuffle the entire lineup?

__________________


Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

Nitrous Oxide wrote:

If you have a player out with injuries would you reshuffle the entire lineup?


 Hi N.O. today I put together a lineup for the 66 Orioles, the first one is before an injury to Blair, the next one is with his replacement in the lineup.
Depending upon whom is injured and his OBP, SLG and OPS, would determine who is shuffled, if anyone.
1. Blefary
2. Powell
3. Blair
4. F. Robinson
5. B. Robinson
6. Aparicio
7. Johnson
8.Etchebarren

1.Blefary
2.Powell
3.B. Robinson
4.F. Robinson
5. Snyder
6. Aparicio
7. Johnson
8. Etchebarren

I chose to bump up Brooks to the 3-hole because of his AB/HR but could have just placed Snyder in Blair's slot.
I realize how some people would question the concepts, I would invite them to read Batting Order optimization at Beyond the Box Score which does a good job of explaining the reasoning behind the concepts.

 



__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

One advantage the Strat manager has is there are no egos. You can move guys around in the order with more ease than a real manager.

Referring to your lineup. One issue I see is the top 3 and player useage (realizing not everybody may be strict here). Blefary with 508 plate appearances all season he will burn through those faster in the leadoff spot. No in his case he does not have a great glove so burning it up may not be a big deal, but some guys (my favorite example 1961 Elston Howard) burning up there PAs may take away from available innings with the leather. Powell also will burn through PAs and of course Paul Blair will miss a lot of time. Aparico may not get his PAs in this lineup, but I understand completely why he is where he in your lineup.

Lineup construction always makes for interesting chatter.

__________________


Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

Glad to see you have brought this topic up again.  It is a good book that gets you thinking.  Lineup optimization is something I continue to think about. 

I agree with N/O that one of the advantages we have as Strat players is there are no egos or owners or agents or parents.  It allows us to explore these  topics, but if proven, I believe it could be used in the MLB.  In fact, I would one way I saw teams using it would be on a rolling three week basis to help formulate the lineups.  (This is largely based on how I make decisions in fantasy baseball.)  While it is not a crystal ball and you will always be trailing the live game, it would get the hotter hitters in your lineup in the key positions. 

But I digress.  The one issue I struggle with on this topic is how much of a difference does it make?  Bill James once made the comment that the difference between a .270 hitter and a .300 hitter is about 1 hit every two weeks.  As I mentioned in the previous thread, I believe line-up optimization may be even more subtle. 

Here are a few questions to ponder on this topic:

1.  What has been your experience so far with trying to implement this strategy?

2.  Does the formula change depending on the model of the team?  For example, would the lineup optimization change for a team that had a low slugging percentage (e.g., 1906 Cubs, 1965 Dodgers)?  How about teams built on speed (1985 Cardinals, 2015 Royals)?  How about a team with a low obp, but high slugging percentage (1961 Yankees)?

 



__________________

Baseball ... this field, this game ... It is part of our past.  It reminds us all of what once was good -- and could be again.



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

Nitrous Oxide wrote:

One advantage the Strat manager has is there are no egos. You can move guys around in the order with more ease than a real manager.

Referring to your lineup. One issue I see is the top 3 and player useage (realizing not everybody may be strict here). Blefary with 508 plate appearances all season he will burn through those faster in the leadoff spot. No in his case he does not have a great glove so burning it up may not be a big deal, but some guys (my favorite example 1961 Elston Howard) burning up there PAs may take away from available innings with the leather. Powell also will burn through PAs and of course Paul Blair will miss a lot of time. Aparico may not get his PAs in this lineup, but I understand completely why he is where he in your lineup.

Lineup construction always makes for interesting chatter.


That is the one area we are stuck with (or choose to be stuck with).

We simply don't know if the real world manager would be so-inclined to try to keep those PAs in line.  Blefary's (or Howard's) PA totals were more likely a function of where they wound up in the order, and the ultimate success of that order, rather than their managers' grand scheme to ty to get them "X" amount of trips to the plate.

We make the decision that what they got is what we'll give them.

What if you had a guy who batted seventh or eighth, but played all 162 games (or 154 in earlier seasons).  If he played every inning of every game, should you feel bound by such a constraint?

What if he gets hot for you, and someone near the top of the order is slumping badly?  Would you make the change and say the heck with the PA's, so long as they were still in the lineup just as often (in this case, all of the time)?

What if the entire team gets hot, and the regulars start exceeding your PA limits, just because more hits means more PAs, as the innings get extended?



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

N.O., happy that you brought to light the 'adhering to actual PA' issue. I am one of those people who, within all possibility, maintain PA, AB and IP to not exceed that which actually occurred.
I knew when I was experimenting with this that there would have to be a compromise. I also have come to realize why ML teams are somewhat reluctant to implement the modernized concepts illustrated in 'The Book" The ages old fundamentals of batting a speedy guy with an acceptable OBP in the leadoff slot, batting a good contact guy in the 2-hole, or placing the clean-up hitter in the 3-hole is still widely the rule of thumb. Certainly ML management across each league is quite aware of these 'new fangled' concepts...which by the way is something I intend to research...the reasons why the 'old fundamentals' are still so popular?
In answer to your question...I hold firmly to a team's three best hitters occupying the top two and clean-up slots, one could ask why the clean-up slot can't be the 3-hole? The answer I determined as outlined in 'The Book' is that the percentage of bases occupied is higher when the 4-hole batter comes to the plate, personally, I still struggle with the clean-up guy NOT batting 3rd even though I understand the reasons why the 4-hole is more productive. What I can't support is the old concepts of whom bats in the first 2 spots of the lineup. Why waste outs with guys who have mediocre OBP, who do not have an OPS that warrants someone who routinely gets 6 PA per game simply because one guy is fast on the base paths and the other guy makes contact with the ball...hopefully the preferred type of contact.
With that said, I can adjust my strict maintenance of PA, AB, and IP for that matter, what I gain in doing so makes it acceptable. Incidentally N.O., each time I see names in the top 3 spots of the lineup that look so out of place I remind myself...This is the evolution of Baseball, lol.

TT, I brought this topic up again because back in 2012 you opened a door that needed to see the light of day! I am only cracking that door open again!
You mentioned "If it could be proven, it could be used in MLB" I believe it has been proven, the movie Moneyball attempted to illustrate some modernized methods. The Oakland A's have experimented as well as other select teams, for reasons that escape me, it has not caught on as of yet.
One of the few things in life that are permanent...is change! Apparently not in Baseball, lol.
You ask...How much difference does all of this make? Well, as you know, I experienced some life changing curveballs, as a result, my gaming came to a sudden and long-term halt. Just recently I've climbed back into the saddle, allow me to look through my old scoresheets and notes before I correctly answer that question, however, I do recall being impressed with nearly immediate and yet somewhat subtle improvements in run production.
As you also noted, there are teams that will absolutely be a challenge regarding the application of these new concepts. The 65 Dodgers and 61 Yankees to just name a few, Richardson and Kubek at the top of the order just makes no statistical sense.
On the pitching end of the topic...I am looking into the validity of FIP and RA9 to supplement the age old ERA and WHIP. To be continued gentlemen. As N.O. stated..." Lineup construction makes for interesting chatter" I am hoping for a whisp of wind to whisk across a spark of flame!

__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

seajaw wrote:
Nitrous Oxide wrote:

One advantage the Strat manager has is there are no egos. You can move guys around in the order with more ease than a real manager.

Referring to your lineup. One issue I see is the top 3 and player useage (realizing not everybody may be strict here). Blefary with 508 plate appearances all season he will burn through those faster in the leadoff spot. No in his case he does not have a great glove so burning it up may not be a big deal, but some guys (my favorite example 1961 Elston Howard) burning up there PAs may take away from available innings with the leather. Powell also will burn through PAs and of course Paul Blair will miss a lot of time. Aparico may not get his PAs in this lineup, but I understand completely why he is where he in your lineup.

Lineup construction always makes for interesting chatter.


That is the one area we are stuck with (or choose to be stuck with).

We simply don't know if the real world manager would be so-inclined to try to keep those PAs in line.  Blefary's (or Howard's) PA totals were more likely a function of where they wound up in the order, and the ultimate success of that order, rather than their managers' grand scheme to ty to get them "X" amount of trips to the plate.

We make the decision that what they got is what we'll give them.

What if you had a guy who batted seventh or eighth, but played all 162 games (or 154 in earlier seasons).  If he played every inning of every game, should you feel bound by such a constraint?

What if he gets hot for you, and someone near the top of the order is slumping badly?  Would you make the change and say the heck with the PA's, so long as they were still in the lineup just as often (in this case, all of the time)?

What if the entire team gets hot, and the regulars start exceeding your PA limits, just because more hits means more PAs, as the innings get extended?


 Seaj, I missed your post earlier, and yes...what if?
 There are so many examples of what if's. We, as Strat managers have the choice to template the game as it statistically unfolded, or, to incorporate a fresh and modernized approach that reflects the game as it has evolved. When the DH rule was instituted, we had the choice to follow along and adhere to it...or to decide that if it is good enough in the National League then it will remain in the American League...The Song Will Remain the Same! Aside from the statistical realism of Strat gaming, I feel that the real attraction is that, you, I, all of us here...are the ones who make the decisions that will draw the line between a win or a loss. In effect, we can compare ourselves to the Connie Mack's, the Sparky Anderson's and see upon our scoresheets if we did a better job.



__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



VP of Operations

Status: Offline
Posts: 16185
Date: Feb 23, 2016
Permalink  
 

scorpio rising 2 wrote:
seajaw wrote:
Nitrous Oxide wrote:

One advantage the Strat manager has is there are no egos. You can move guys around in the order with more ease than a real manager.

Referring to your lineup. One issue I see is the top 3 and player useage (realizing not everybody may be strict here). Blefary with 508 plate appearances all season he will burn through those faster in the leadoff spot. No in his case he does not have a great glove so burning it up may not be a big deal, but some guys (my favorite example 1961 Elston Howard) burning up there PAs may take away from available innings with the leather. Powell also will burn through PAs and of course Paul Blair will miss a lot of time. Aparico may not get his PAs in this lineup, but I understand completely why he is where he in your lineup.

Lineup construction always makes for interesting chatter.


That is the one area we are stuck with (or choose to be stuck with).

We simply don't know if the real world manager would be so-inclined to try to keep those PAs in line.  Blefary's (or Howard's) PA totals were more likely a function of where they wound up in the order, and the ultimate success of that order, rather than their managers' grand scheme to ty to get them "X" amount of trips to the plate.

We make the decision that what they got is what we'll give them.

What if you had a guy who batted seventh or eighth, but played all 162 games (or 154 in earlier seasons).  If he played every inning of every game, should you feel bound by such a constraint?

What if he gets hot for you, and someone near the top of the order is slumping badly?  Would you make the change and say the heck with the PA's, so long as they were still in the lineup just as often (in this case, all of the time)?

What if the entire team gets hot, and the regulars start exceeding your PA limits, just because more hits means more PAs, as the innings get extended?


 Seaj, I missed your post earlier, and yes...what if?
 There are so many examples of what if's. We, as Strat managers have the choice to template the game as it statistically unfolded, or, to incorporate a fresh and modernized approach that reflects the game as it has evolved. When the DH rule was instituted, we had the choice to follow along and adhere to it...or to decide that if it is good enough in the National League then it will remain in the American League...The Song Will Remain the Same! Aside from the statistical realism of Strat gaming, I feel that the real attraction is that, you, I, all of us here...are the ones who make the decisions that will draw the line between a win or a loss. In effect, we can compare ourselves to the Connie Mack's, the Sparky Anderson's and see upon our scoresheets if we did a better job.


True...if we are playing against another gamer, or the computer.

For solo gamers, there is an ultimate truth: We will finish .500 overall, with a loss on the other side for every win we would-be "Connies" or "Sparkys" achieve. wink

Am I a managerial genius because I won pennants with the 1934 Phillies and A's in a solo C&D replay?  Or, am I due for a pink slip (several, maybe)... because I didn't win more games (and pennants and a World Series) with clubs that were demonstrably better? hmm



__________________

"No cell, no car, no credit cards, he's sixty-plus and gray...
Just sitting in his basement, with a Strat game underway."



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 26, 2016
Permalink  
 

Well Seaj...you are still true to your modest character. Your reputation precedes you...you are one of the true "Rock Stars" here, so to speak!
I was reading one of the many articles earlier at Beyond the Box Score. I was surprised to read that an optimized lineup will usually score 5 - 15 more runs over a full season beyond that of a standard lineup...May I say, the standard lineup criteria which has existed since dinosaurs walked the earth?
However many wins that equates to is of course subjective, but, how many teams over the decades has won a clutch game by one run? How many teams has won a Pennant by one game that they may not have even had the opportunity to participate in were it not for that surplus of runs scored over the course of their season?
The article continued on stating that as of the conclusion of the 2010 season..,.the most Sabermetric front offices in MLB were in the following order:

1. Philadelphia
2. Oakland
3. Boston
4. Tampa Bay
5. Seattle
6. Florida
7. New York Yankees

The usage of Sabermetric methods has been minimal by those ball clubs but experimentation was quite evident.
My thought is, as pedestrian as it may sound, most GM's train of thought is...Hey, that's the way it's always been done, so, it must work! I refer to the age old standard lineup.
I am a hardcore Tigers fan so forgive me for saying...My favorite Manager was always Earl Weaver, if he were still in the dugout I feel that possibly he would give these concepts the attention they deserve.


__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Feb 26, 2016
Permalink  
 

scorpio rising 2 wrote:

Well Seaj...you are still true to your modest character. Your reputation precedes you...you are one of the true "Rock Stars" here, so to speak!
I was reading one of the many articles earlier at Beyond the Box Score. I was surprised to read that an optimized lineup will usually score 5 - 15 more runs over a full season beyond that of a standard lineup...May I say, the standard lineup criteria which has existed since dinosaurs walked the earth?
However many wins that equates to is of course subjective, but, how many teams over the decades has won a clutch game by one run? How many teams has won a Pennant by one game that they may not have even had the opportunity to participate in were it not for that surplus of runs scored over the course of their season?
The article continued on stating that as of the conclusion of the 2010 season..,.the most Sabermetric front offices in MLB were in the following order:

1. Philadelphia
2. Oakland
3. Boston
4. Tampa Bay
5. Seattle
6. Florida
7. New York Yankees

The usage of Sabermetric methods has been minimal by those ball clubs but experimentation was quite evident.
My thought is, as pedestrian as it may sound, most GM's train of thought is...Hey, that's the way it's always been done, so, it must work! I refer to the age old standard lineup.
I am a hardcore Tigers fan so forgive me for saying...My favorite Manager was always Earl Weaver, if he were still in the dugout I feel that possibly he would give these concepts the attention they deserve.


I don't know how Philadelphia got on that list ... let alone #1.  Ruben Amaro could easily spot a Roy Halladay type player, but never turned up a Jayson Werth like his predecessor, Pat Gillick.  In fact what sunk Amaro was his inability to identify the Shane Victorinos or even a guy like Greg Dobbs was his downfall.  He paid premiums for big name players and overpaid to acquire Oswalt and Pence and overpaid free agent players.  Amaro laughed at the idea of using advanced statistics to help in the signing of players and clearly stated that the Phillies could spot talent with their eyes.  Those eyes refused to include Dominic Brown in the Roy Halladay trade.  Instead we threw in D'Aunard.   Mets are sure happy about that decision!  Anyway, the point here is the Phillies should not be on that list.

While I think optimized lineups will generate very subtle returns, 10-15 runs over the course of season is nearly meaningless.  The estimates I saw were more like 40-60 runs over the course of year which would equate up to 4-5 more wins per year. 

 

 



-- Edited by Tall Tactician on Friday 26th of February 2016 05:25:46 PM

__________________

Baseball ... this field, this game ... It is part of our past.  It reminds us all of what once was good -- and could be again.



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 26, 2016
Permalink  
 

I was surprised to read only 5 to 15 runs over the course of an entire season, the article I read was at Beyond the Box Score and was written following the 2010 season. You stated the estimates you read concluded 40 - 60 runs perv season...do you remember the link of that article?


__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Feb 27, 2016
Permalink  
 

Ok, so I tried a little experiment.  I used the 1965 Minnesota Twins (basic version).  This would avoid the need for separate righty and lefty lineups.

The 1965 Twins would play the 1965 Twins.  One 1965 Twins team would bat the players from the highest to the lowest on base percentage with the pitcher in the 9th batting position.  The other lineup was using TT's formula.  Both teams used the same 8 players with no rest.  There were no injuries or fatigue or overusage concerns.  All bench players and relief pitchers were made free agents.  Four starters were selected and assigned to start the same games (Kaat v Kaat).  All starters were set to a Never setting in terms of being used as relievers.  All starters were set to *no rest*.   In order to be considered a "win" the team must win by 3 or more games.  I played 6 seasons and here were the results:

Season 1: Tie

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6000 Lineup Optimization 

                            WON LOST  PCT   GB  MAGIC#   Runs 
1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP       82  80  .506 ----  *WON*    659
1965 TT Minn65 TTM           80  82  .494  2.0           669

Team Batting
City Avg G AB R R/GM H TB 2B 3B HR GS RBI SH SF HP BB IBB K SB CS GDP Slug% OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
TT Minn65 .233 162 5528 669 4.1 1290 2303 293 39 214 3 639 50 38 0 469 21 936 46 22 112 .417 .291 .708
OBP Minn 1965 .239 162 5539 659 4.1 1325 2294 264 36 211 1 624 52 33 0 500 20 962 52 26 109 .414 .301 .715
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .236 324 11067 1328 4.1 2615 4597 557 75 425 4 1263 102 71 0 969 41 1898 98 48 221 .415 .296 .711
Avg .236 162 5534 664 4.1 1308 2299 279 38 213 2 632 51 36 --- 485 21 949 49 24 111 .415 .296 .711

Season 2: On-base Percentage

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6001 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 83 79 .512 ---- *WON* 687 1965 TT Minn65 TTM 79 83 .488 4.0 700 Team Batting
City Avg G AB R R/GM H TB 2B 3B HR GS RBI SH SF HP BB IBB K SB CS GDP Slug% OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
TT Minn65 .246 162 5573 700 4.3 1370 2434 269 39 239 2 661 47 42 0 504 17 912 35 22 101 .437 .306 .743
OBP Minn 1965 .249 162 5564 687 4.2 1386 2371 268 30 219 6 656 45 34 0 475 22 945 49 27 110 .426 .306 .733
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .247 324 11137 1387 4.3 2756 4805 537 69 458 8 1317 92 76 0 979 39 1857 84 49 211 .431 .306 .738
Avg .247 162 5569 694 4.3 1378 2403 269 35 229 4 659 46 38 --- 490 20 929 42 25 106 .431 .306 .738

Season 3: TT

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6002 Lineup Optimization
WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 TT Minn65 TTM 85 77 .525 ---- *WON* 701 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 77 85 .475 8.0 704
Team Batting
City Avg G AB R R/GM H TB 2B 3B HR GS RBI SH SF HP BB IBB K SB CS GDP Slug% OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
OBP Minn 1965 .242 162 5713 704 4.3 1381 2377 267 42 215 4 668 39 30 0 467 27 988 49 22 113 .416 .298 .714
TT Minn65 .240 162 5657 701 4.3 1359 2364 257 32 228 3 663 68 38 0 511 17 974 43 23 95 .418 .301 .719
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .241 324 11370 1405 4.3 2740 4741 524 74 443 7 1331 107 68 0 978 44 1962 92 45 208 .417 .299 .716
Avg .241 162 5685 703 4.3 1370 2371 262 37 222 4 666 54 34 --- 489 22 981 46 23 104 .417 .299 .716

Season 4: TT

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6003 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 TT Minn65 TTM 85 77 .525 ---- *WON* 652 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 77 85 .475 8.0 667 Team Batting
City Avg G AB R R/GM H TB 2B 3B HR GS RBI SH SF HP BB IBB K SB CS GDP Slug% OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
OBP Minn 1965 .241 162 5768 667 4.1 1391 2346 263 31 210 2 642 43 29 0 471 20 1005 58 24 89 .407 .297 .704
TT Minn65 .245 162 5706 652 4.0 1396 2344 271 43 197 3 620 58 37 0 469 23 1018 47 21 117 .411 .300 .711
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- --- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .243 324 11474 1319 4.1 2787 4690 534 74 407 5 1262 101 66 0 940 43 2023 105 45 206 .409 .299 .707
Avg .243 162 5737 660 4.1 1394 2345 267 37 204 3 631 51 33 --- 470 22 1012 53 23 103 .409 .299 .707


Season 5: Tie

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6004 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 TT Minn65 TTM 82 80 .506 ---- *WON* 678 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 80 82 .494 2.0 654

Team Batting
City           Avg   G    AB    R R/GM    H   TB  2B 3B  HR GS  RBI SH SF  HP  BB IBB    K SB CS GDP Slug%  OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
TT Minn65     .245 162  5623  678  4.2 1379 2346 290 28 207  4  646 59 36   0 439  15  964 42 15  93  .417 .298  .715
OBP Minn 1965 .240 162  5623  654  4.0 1349 2225 284 29 178  5  622 32 32   0 444  23  975 45 21 110  .396 .294  .690
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum           .243 324 11246 1332  4.1 2728 4571 574 57 385  9 1268 91 68   0 883  38 1939 87 36 203  .406 .296  .703
Avg           .243 162  5623  666  4.1 1364 2286 287 29 193  5  634 46 34 --- 442  19  970 44 18 102  .406 .296  .703

Season 6:  TT

LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6005 Lineup Optimization 

                            WON LOST  PCT   GB  MAGIC#   Runs
1965 TT Minn65 TTM           87  75  .537 ----  *WON*    654
1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP       75  87  .463 12.0           650

Team Batting
City Avg G AB R R/GM H TB 2B 3B HR GS RBI SH SF HP BB IBB K SB CS GDP Slug% OB% OB+SL
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
TT Minn65 .242 162 5516 654 4.0 1334 2299 252 40 211 3 632 45 45 0 449 11 956 40 19 98 .417 .297 .713
OBP Minn 1965 .234 162 5521 650 4.0 1291 2252 236 34 219 4 617 43 27 0 485 28 944 50 25 105 .408 .294 .702
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .238 324 11037 1304 4.0 2625 4551 488 74 430 7 1249 88 72 0 934 39 1900 90 44 203 .412 .296 .708
Avg .238 162 5519 652 4.0 1313 2276 244 37 215 4 625 44 36 --- 467 20 950 45 22 102 .412 .296 .708

Based on the above it would look like TT's formula seasonal record was 3-1-2. Interestingly though, one season where TT's
formula won handidly -- the lineup produced 15 fewer runs!

TT's season record 3-1-2
TT's 6 year record 498-474 .512
Runs for: 4,054
Runs against: 4,021

A difference of 33 runs over the course of 6 seasons. The results are inconclusive as to whether one lineup is
better than the other.

O.k., but the experiment was not perfect. Apparently there are some flaws in HAL.

Here are the teams stats from HAL for Season 6:

Primary Player Statistics For 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBPM65 Totals After 162 Games NAME BAVG GM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HB SH DP SB CS E E.Battey .287 162 649 84 186 40 4 15 67 58 37 0 0 15 0 0 2 T.Oliva .278 162 680 100 189 41 5 24 68 38 60 0 3 18 17 6 5 D.Mincher .246 152 590 76 145 20 1 47 106 43 109 0 0 10 0 0 18 Z.Versalles .241 162 602 62 145 33 9 22 64 42 106 0 0 14 11 5 23 J.Hall .241 162 644 71 155 27 3 26 84 46 78 0 0 14 7 7 4 B.Allison .232 162 568 85 132 20 6 34 78 94 128 0 0 9 11 5 9 H.Killebrew .228 162 636 100 145 28 2 42 81 97 91 0 0 8 0 0 31 G.Kindall .178 162 567 38 101 15 4 9 50 55 132 0 0 11 4 2 17 ALL PITCHERS .159 162 585 34 93 12 0 0 19 12 203 0 40 6 0 0 14 ----------------- ---- --- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- -- -- TEAM TOTALS .234 5521 1291 34 617 944 43 50 123 162 650 236 219 485 0 105 25 NAME ERA W L PCT G GS CG SH SV IP H R ER HR BB SO C.Pascual 3.24 19 19 .500 40 40 38 4 0 355.2 315 135 128 47 141 261 J.Kaat 3.38 18 26 .409 44 41 41 2 0 365.1 362 150 137 48 75 222 J.Perry 3.82 23 17 .575 40 40 40 1 0 353.2 307 167 150 48 130 243 M.Grant 4.42 15 25 .375 41 41 40 1 0 370.1 350 202 182 68 103 230 ALL NON-PITCHERS ---- 0 0 ---- 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Team 0 +0 ----------------- ---- -- -- ----- --- -- -- -- -- ----- --- --- --- -- --- --- TEAM TOTALS 3.72 87 162 159 0 1334 597 449 75 .463 162 8 1445.0 654 211 956


Primary Player Statistics For 1965 TT Minn65 TTM65 Totals After 162 Games
NAME BAVG GM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HB SH DP SB CS E T.Oliva .301 162 642 86 193 39 4 27 104 45 72 0 0 12 10 4 3 E.Battey .290 162 675 84 196 45 3 13 61 56 35 0 3 5 0 0 6 J.Hall .270 162 663 97 179 35 6 32 70 51 80 0 6 14 8 3 7 Z.Versalles .269 162 625 70 168 35 13 25 78 30 102 0 0 14 17 3 18 D.Mincher .248 153 592 84 147 25 6 38 85 43 111 0 0 11 0 0 21 H.Killebrew .220 162 622 90 137 20 1 38 83 83 94 0 0 16 0 0 39 B.Allison .208 162 544 65 113 20 5 27 68 70 130 0 0 6 3 5 9 G.Kindall .194 162 576 45 112 21 2 10 64 55 147 0 3 11 2 4 18 ALL PITCHERS .154 162 577 33 89 12 0 1 19 16 185 0 33 9 0 0 19 ----------------- ---- --- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- --- --- -- -- -- --- -- -- TEAM TOTALS .242 5516 1334 40 632 956 45 40 140 162 654 252 211 449 0 98 19 NAME ERA W L PCT G GS CG SH SV IP H R ER HR BB SO J.Kaat 3.03 27 20 .574 48 41 41 5 1 377.1 354 143 127 44 104 257 C.Pascual 3.43 18 19 .486 40 40 37 3 0 352.0 290 145 134 47 144 237 M.Grant 3.76 26 13 .667 41 41 38 2 0 373.1 316 170 156 71 114 226 J.Perry 4.39 16 23 .410 40 40 39 0 0 350.1 331 192 171 57 123 224 ALL NON-PITCHERS ---- 0 0 ---- 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Team 0 +0 ----------------- ---- -- -- ----- --- -- -- -- -- ----- --- --- --- -- --- --- TEAM TOTALS 3.64 75 162 155 1 1291 588 485 87 .537 162 10 1453.0 650 219 944


Note that Don Mincher did not play a full season for either team.
Note that Jim Kaat was used in relief even though he was set to never.

Kaat's and Mincher's usage was consistent in each year of the experiment.




__________________

Baseball ... this field, this game ... It is part of our past.  It reminds us all of what once was good -- and could be again.



Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Feb 27, 2016
Permalink  
 

I could be reading incorrectly, one team is in a descending order of OBP...not OPS? Often times the clean-up hitter whom is often the team leader in SLG and OPS would be...based on OBP end up somewhere else towards the top of the order. Probably the case for the majority of other players as well. It seems to me that using the optimized version against say...the most often used standard lineup that the 65 team actually employed would be the more telling method to use for comparison's sake.
I certainly appreciate how you made the effort to define which lineup is better than the other. I will refer to B.R. to see how that team would lineup in a descending order of OBP in order to evaluate better.


__________________

I'd wake up at night with the smell of the ball park in my nose, the cool of the grass on my feet...The Thrill of the Grass...Heck, I'd play for free!



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Feb 27, 2016
Permalink  
 

The computer game can give us the Strat answer if we agree on a lineup. We can take this a step further than TTs interesting work.

__________________
1 2 35  >  Last»  | Page of 5  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.



Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard