SOMers - Stratomatic Baseball

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: Optimizing Lineups - Revisited
«First  <  1 2 3 4 5  >  Last»  | Page of 5  sorted by


Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Mar 2, 2016
RE: Optimizing Lineups - Revisited
Permalink  
 


My lineup vs lefties

Versalles
Rollins
Killebrew
Allison
Kindall
Hall
Oliva
Battey

The result-4.14 runs/game



__________________


VIP Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 414
Date: Mar 3, 2016
Permalink  
 

Recapping the Lineup Evaulator on the 4 different 1965 Twins.

OBP Lineup-4.53 runs/game
1.H.Killebre 3B
2.T.Oliva RF
3.E.Battey C
4.J.Hall CF
5.D.Mincher 1B
6.B.Allison LF
7.Z.Versalle SS
8.G.Kindall 2B

TT's Lineup-4.55 runs/game
1.E.Battey C
2.J.Hall CF
3.H.Killebre 3B
4.T.Oliva RF
5.D.Mincher 1B
6.Z.Versalle SS
7.G.Kindall 2B
8.B.Allison LF

SR2 Lineup-4.52 runs/game
1. Oliva
2. Killebrew
3. Allison
4. Mincher
5. Hall
6. Battey
7. Versalles
8. Kindall

N/O vsR LU - 4.52 r/g   vsL - 4.14 r/g
1. Oliva                      Versalles
2. Hall                        Rollins
3. Killebrew                Killebrew
4. Mincher                  Allison
5. Versalles                Kindall
6. Allison                    Hall
7. Rollins                    Oliva
8. Battey                    Battey

 

N/O's lineups will lag the field run-wise once the two lineup totals are combined. But the rationale (I believe) is to conserve Battey and make him available for more games. And really it might be a better approach, because I believe that he is a key to the team and therefore will get a few more games  if there were usage constraints. In the long run with usage, it makes perfect sense. Though Zimmerman (fairly good defensively) could also be used as a defensive replacement to also save a few ABs.

So what if anything can be concluded? Well, just be looking at the 65 Twins in general (with Oliva, Mincher and Hall), they will hit RHP very good. I would imagine that every one of these lineups scored a good amount more runs against RHP, then they did against LHP (along the lines of what happened to N/O's lineups). But vs. LHP, it is almost hard to construct a decent lineup - you have Versalles and Killebrew ... and Battey. I think that Killebrew and Battey are keys to the team. Both are fairly consistent against both LHP and RHP. Killebrew with consistent and good SLG. Battey with consistent and good OBP. I think that the biggest reason that N/O's team suffered was that Battey was in the 8 hole against RHS and LHS. It would be great to have Battey's bat higher up in the order - especially against LHP where help is really needed. In RL, both Battey and Killebrew only had about 400 ABs - but were 68-41 vs. RHS while being even better at 34-19 vs. LHS??? N/O, how is MIN65 vs. LHS record playing out in the swinging 60's?

The OBP lineup did good, though I hate to see Killebrew's power at leadoff. And those 400 ABs would be burned up pretty quick, if usage was at all a concern.

TT Lineup did score the most (barely). I like Battey's numbers as a leadoff hitter, but same concerns as with Killer above. I bet that this lineup did a number against RHP. 

SR2 Lineup was right in the mix. I am wondering if switching Battey and Allison would lead to more scoring. Though their OPSs are almost identical, I always like to push a high OBP guy (like Battey, disregarding usage) to be in front of big sluggers.



__________________


Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Mar 3, 2016
Permalink  
 

Grey Eagle wrote:
 N/O, how is MIN65 vs. LHS record playing out in the swinging 60's?

 The Twins are 16-16 vs Lefties and 40-31 vs righties. Each player has been held to 105% useage or less

 



__________________


Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 3, 2016
Permalink  
 

 Ran a test using SR2's lineup against the OBP lineup and SR2 won 3 seasons and tied 2 seasons.

The same glitches regarding Mincher and Kaat being used in relief remained.

Here are the numbers for SR2:

Season 1:  88-74, 660 Runs

Season 2: 85-77, 710 Runs

Season 3: 82-80, 657 Runs

Season 4: 92-70, 754 Runs

Season 5: 80-82, 674 Runs

While a small sample, fairly convincing numbers for SR2 and the "The Book."

I will post detailed numbers soon.

 

 

 

 



__________________

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



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 5, 2016
Permalink  
 

Here are the detailed stats:

Season 1: SR2 Win


                            WON LOST  PCT   GB  MAGIC#   Runs 
1965 SR2 Minn65 SR2          88  74  .543 ----  *WON*    660
1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP       74  88  .457 14.0           643

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
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
SR2 Minn65 .244 162 5575 660 4.1 1361 2346 267 35 216 2 633 45 23 0 485 17 1009 47 25 115 .421 .303 .724
OBP Minn 1965 .240 162 5582 643 4.0 1341 2276 261 40 198 2 607 41 40 0 471 22 928 55 23 92 .408 .297 .705
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .242 324 11157 1303 4.0 2702 4622 528 75 414 4 1240 86 63 0 956 39 1937 102 48 207 .414 .300 .715
Avg .242 162 5579 652 4.0 1351 2311 264 38 207 2 620 43 32 --- 478 20 969 51 24 104 .414 .300 .715


Season 2: SR2 Win


LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6007 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# ACTWON ACTLOST ACTPCT 1965 SR2 Minn65 SR2 85 77 .525 ---- *WON* 102 60 .630 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 77 85 .475 8.0 102 60 .630
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
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
SR2 Minn65 .246 162 5547 710 4.4 1363 2355 278 36 214 3 679 32 44 0 465 16 960 53 27 97 .425 .302 .726
OBP Minn 1965 .241 162 5523 652 4.0 1330 2255 264 32 199 4 615 35 31 0 456 17 930 55 25 106 .408 .297 .705
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .243 324 11070 1362 4.2 2693 4610 542 68 413 7 1294 67 75 0 921 33 1890 108 52 203 .416 .300 .716
Avg .243 162 5535 681 4.2 1347 2305 271 34 207 4 647 34 38 --- 461 17 945 54 26 102 .416 .300 .716


Season 3: Tie


LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6008 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 SR2 Minn65 SR2 82 80 .506 ---- *WON* 657 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 80 82 .494 2.0 623
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
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
SR2 Minn65 .239 162 5647 657 4.1 1348 2353 253 31 230 0 632 39 28 0 432 11 929 65 21 94 .417 .291 .708
OBP Minn 1965 .233 162 5544 623 3.8 1293 2184 243 36 192 5 592 38 34 0 463 20 993 58 26 122 .394 .291 .685
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .236 324 11191 1280 4.0 2641 4537 496 67 422 5 1224 77 62 0 895 31 1922 123 47 216 .405 .291 .696
Avg .236 162 5596 640 4.0 1321 2269 248 34 211 3 612 39 31 --- 448 16 961 62 24 108 .405 .291 .696


Season 4: SR2 Win


LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6009 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 SR2 Minn65 SR2 92 70 .568 ---- *WON* 754 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 70 92 .432 22.0 675
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
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
SR2 Minn65 .248 162 5591 754 4.7 1389 2457 285 42 233 9 718 37 40 0 487 17 967 60 20 91 .439 .307 .746
OBP Minn 1965 .234 162 5555 675 4.2 1298 2220 268 30 198 4 642 43 32 0 489 18 1008 60 23 92 .400 .294 .694
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- --- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .241 324 11146 1429 4.4 2687 4677 553 72 431 13 1360 80 72 0 976 35 1975 120 43 183 .420 .300 .720
Avg .241 162 5573 715 4.4 1344 2339 277 36 216 7 680 40 36 --- 488 18 988 60 22 92 .420 .300 .720


Season 5: SR2 Win


LEAGUE STANDINGS FOR 6010 Lineup Optimization WON LOST PCT GB MAGIC# Runs 1965 OBP Minn 1965 OBP 82 80 .506 ---- *WON* 689 1965 SR2 Minn65 SR2 80 82 .494 2.0 674 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 .244 162 5634 689 4.3 1375 2365 275 38 213 4 648 45 33 0 470 24 985 48 28 100 .420 .301 .720
SR2 Minn65 .243 162 5612 674 4.2 1362 2378 284 42 216 1 632 48 35 0 474 13 944 44 26 117 .424 .300 .724
------------- ---- --- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- --- -- --- -- ---- -- -- --- --- --- ---- -- -- --- ----- ---- -----
Sum .243 324 11246 1363 4.2 2737 4743 559 80 429 5 1280 93 68 0 944 37 1929 92 54 217 .422 .300 .722
Avg .243 162 5623 682 4.2 1369 2372 280 40 215 3 640 47 34 --- 472 19 965 46 27 109 .422 .300 .722


GRAND TOTALS:


SR2's season record 3-0-2
SR2's 5 year record 427-383 .527
Runs for: 3,470
Runs against: 3,282
Difference: 188


Conclusion: Impressive. Supports case for The Book's methodology for creating lineups.


__________________

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



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 5, 2016
Permalink  
 

scorpio rising 2 wrote:

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 will have to go back to find that information.  Using N/O's lineup evaluation a difference of .02 x 162 = 3.24 runs per season.  If that is accurate, there is not much value to this conversation.  However, 188 differential over 5 years equal a 37.6 average difference which would make it a worthwhile conversation.



-- Edited by Tall Tactician on Saturday 5th of March 2016 11:08:00 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.



Umpire

Status: Offline
Posts: 9230
Date: Mar 6, 2016
Permalink  
 

Tall Tactician wrote:
scorpio rising 2 wrote:

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 will have to go back to find that information.  Using N/O's lineup evaluation a difference of .02 x 162 = 3.24 runs per season.  If that is accurate, there is not much value to this conversation.  However, 188 differential over 5 years equal a 37.6 average difference which would make it a worthwhile conversation.


The best analysts requires every lineup permutation would need to be run against every starting pitcher individually. Since several guys can't play all the time when to sub would be important. 



__________________


Luxury Box Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 806
Date: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

Nitrous Oxide wrote:
Tall Tactician wrote:
scorpio rising 2 wrote:

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 will have to go back to find that information.  Using N/O's lineup evaluation a difference of .02 x 162 = 3.24 runs per season.  If that is accurate, there is not much value to this conversation.  However, 188 differential over 5 years equal a 37.6 average difference which would make it a worthwhile conversation.


The best analysts requires every lineup permutation would need to be run against every starting pitcher individually. Since several guys can't play all the time when to sub would be important. 


 In order to do this absolutely correctly...Yes, I have to agree with N.O.'s statement! I previously posted a 7 game series between the 65 Twins and the 66 Orioles using ACTUAL lineups used. The results were that the 65 Twins averaged 4.86 R/G, the 66 Orioles averaged 3.29 R/G. I am nearly finished rolling a 7-game series between the same teams only now...using OPTIMIZED lineups. Once complete, I will average each team's run production over the 7 games and compare to the production of the Standard ( actual ) lineups.
Grey Eagle: I wanted to switch up Battey and Allison but decided to place Allison 3rd because of a much better HR ratio than Battey's. On the other hand, Battey's OBP warrants his being placed in the 3-hole as well.
TT: Want to take a closer look at those numbers but at first glance I see a supportive case for optimal lineups.
I like the evaluation efforts being made here in the attempt to determine the validity of modern lineup 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!



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

scorpio rising 2 wrote:
Nitrous Oxide wrote:
Tall Tactician wrote:
scorpio rising 2 wrote:

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 will have to go back to find that information.  Using N/O's lineup evaluation a difference of .02 x 162 = 3.24 runs per season.  If that is accurate, there is not much value to this conversation.  However, 188 differential over 5 years equal a 37.6 average difference which would make it a worthwhile conversation.


The best analysts requires every lineup permutation would need to be run against every starting pitcher individually. Since several guys can't play all the time when to sub would be important. 


 In order to do this absolutely correctly...Yes, I have to agree with N.O.'s statement! I previously posted a 7 game series between the 65 Twins and the 66 Orioles using ACTUAL lineups used. The results were that the 65 Twins averaged 4.86 R/G, the 66 Orioles averaged 3.29 R/G. I am nearly finished rolling a 7-game series between the same teams only now...using OPTIMIZED lineups. Once complete, I will average each team's run production over the 7 games and compare to the production of the Standard ( actual ) lineups.
Grey Eagle: I wanted to switch up Battey and Allison but decided to place Allison 3rd because of a much better HR ratio than Battey's. On the other hand, Battey's OBP warrants his being placed in the 3-hole as well.
TT: Want to take a closer look at those numbers but at first glance I see a supportive case for optimal lineups.
I like the evaluation efforts being made here in the attempt to determine the validity of modern lineup concepts!

 


The number of lineup permutations assuming the same 9 players is:  9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1= 362,880

I do not think any of us are in for testing all those lineups.  But we should try to have a basis (i.e., a logic system or methodology) for devising the lineups that is consistently applied.  As Grey Eagle and SR2 point out, some of these methodologies leave room for manager discretion (e.g., Battey or Allison batting third) so someone will have to make the call.

For example, we have OBP (which  is often used for as a basis for these comparisons), SR2 uses "The Book," mine is based on the regression analysis but applies a specific order, and we could used the most used line-up for a manager.

I believe one of the things we might learn is the different lineups work better for some teams than others.  For example, OBP might work better with a team like the 1927 Pirates (where there is not a lot of homerun power, but a lot of good hitters) than my lineup formula.  So as we go through this exercise, I would like us to track the key attributes of the teams we are testing.

There are some challenges with N/O has suggested.  We may need to create two teams/leagues to test right handed lineups and left handed lineups.

SR2, I do think the results of the results from my test are a strong indicator that "The Book's" lineup optimization methodology works well for the 1965 Twins.  I will be glad to provide additional information.  I will re-run N/O's test using the lineup as we are probably using different versions (mine:  basic, N/O's cadillac) of the 1965 Twins to see if the version of the team might be contributing to the differences in our tests.

 



__________________

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



Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

I just re-ran the results using the Lineup Evaluation Tool and here were the results:

SR2 = Off

OBP = Def

 

Results: 

Number of Games for evaluation: 5000

Team SR2 Minn 1965

Pitchers:  Jim Kaat

Off 3.71

Def 3.74

Diff -0.02

 

 



__________________

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: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

Baseball being the most statistically intensive sport...There are so many approaches that could be used to evaluate this elusive conclusion. With that in mind, and considering many profound points brought to light in this thread such as rotating starting pitcher's, relief situations, position player subs, and most importantly...righty/lefty platooning I pose this:
For simplicity's sake...the standard measures of lineup construction versus modern optimal concepts:
I would hope to get opinions on what members here prefer slot by slot, old school versus modernized;

1. A hitter with good OBP as long as he runs the base paths like he's on fire vs. OBP is paramount! And, one of team's 3 best hitters (OPS) A speedy guy is best served in front of singles hitters.
2. An excellent contact hitter who also has good OBP vs. Team's most balanced hitter...a high OPS who has a low GDP ratio as well. Also one of team's 3 best hitters in terms of OPS.
3. Team's best hitter with power...SLG vs. Team's best left over hitter AFTER slots 1, 4, 2, and 5 have been filled.
4. Team's next best power hitter, preferably with more extra base hits and walks but less HR's than the 3-hole vs. Team's leading Slugger and also the last of team's 3 best hitters.
5. Next best hitter left over after the previous slots are filled vs. The 2nd choice for the 2-hole, team's 2nd best balanced hitter...OPS
6-8.
OBP is prefered higher in the order and SLG lower in the order vs. A descending order of OPS with a speedy guy in the 6-hole if possible.

Thoughts?




__________________

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: 782
Date: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

A good tactic, I think, is to avoid consecutive L and R to frustrate the opposing manager's relief pitcher options. It's at least a good tie-breaker if you are uncertain where to put a batter.

A theory I heard many years ago is that your sixth hitter should be like your number one hitter . . . the idea being that number five has cleaned the bases and you are in effect starting over. I'm not sure I buy that, but you might want to take speed into account when considering whom to bat sixth. Also, for 6-8. I like the higher OBP for 8 if he otherwise lacks power. I figure he can walk and the pitcher can bunt him over.

__________________


VIP Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 414
Date: Mar 7, 2016
Permalink  
 

scorpio rising 2 wrote:

Baseball being the most statistically intensive sport...There are so many approaches that could be used to evaluate this elusive conclusion. With that in mind, and considering many profound points brought to light in this thread such as rotating starting pitcher's, relief situations, position player subs, and most importantly...righty/lefty platooning I pose this:
For simplicity's sake...the standard measures of lineup construction versus modern optimal concepts:
I would hope to get opinions on what members here prefer slot by slot, old school versus modernized;

1. A hitter with good OBP as long as he runs the base paths like he's on fire vs. OBP is paramount! And, one of team's 3 best hitters (OPS) A speedy guy is best served in front of singles hitters.
2. An excellent contact hitter who also has good OBP vs. Team's most balanced hitter...a high OPS who has a low GDP ratio as well. Also one of team's 3 best hitters in terms of OPS.
3. Team's best hitter with power...SLG vs. Team's best left over hitter AFTER slots 1, 4, 2, and 5 have been filled.
4. Team's next best power hitter, preferably with more extra base hits and walks but less HR's than the 3-hole vs. Team's leading Slugger and also the last of team's 3 best hitters.
5. Next best hitter left over after the previous slots are filled vs. The 2nd choice for the 2-hole, team's 2nd best balanced hitter...OPS
6-8.
OBP is prefered higher in the order and SLG lower in the order vs. A descending order of OPS with a speedy guy in the 6-hole if possible.

Thoughts?



 The thing that intrigues me about this Batting Order (BO) stuff is why modern sabermetric thinking down plays the #3 batter. In both the Baseball Musings Lineup Analysis (BMLA) site (http://www.baseballmusings.com/cgi-bin/LineupAnalysis.py - a extension of work by Cyril Morong) and Tom Tango's "The Book", the 3rd slot is reserved for a 4th or 5th "best" hitter. I have just seen Tango's book. For those interested the article at http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/10/12/3490578/lineup-optimization-part-1-of-2 gives some basic tables of the same data used in "the Book". Unfortunately the article then jumps (leaving out a few tables/charts, but even the book isn't totally specific) to "the Big Chart" as the rationale behind the batting slots in order of importance being... 1, 4, 2, 5, 3, 6. 7. 8. and 9. I plan to take a closer look at some of those charts.



__________________


VIP Season Ticket Holder

Status: Offline
Posts: 414
Date: Mar 8, 2016
Permalink  
 

So what is "The Book" doing ... From an article posted last January ...

http://venomstrikes.com/2015/01/05/optimizing-batting-order-teams-can-score-runs/
Optimizing A Batting Order: How Teams Can Score More Runs
by Joseph Jacquez
"...
Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andy Dolphin wrote “The Book” which brings together run expantancy data based on every situation in a game, and combines that with run expantancy for different positions in the lineup.

For example, a double by the no.2 hitter has a RE (Run Expectancy) of .779 which would result in .779 runs for the batting team in the American League. ... Run expectancy numbers are based on the 24 base/out states (BOS) or all the different base runner and out combinations in a given inning.
..."

Background reading - http://www.bluebirdbanter.com/2012/10/12/3490578/lineup-optimization-part-1-of-2 (BBB) This explains tables and has examples from The Book.

In short, The Book uses stats from 1999-2002 to create tables. The Book combines these various tables to end up with the Run Values by Event and Batting Order (TBL 52) or The Big Chart (from the BlueBirdBanter (BBB) site). As far as I can tell the input tables/charts used to create that table are the following:
1) an expanded variant of TBL 46 (frequency of base/out states in BBB)- I believe this table is expanded to show how often each base/out state (BOS) is given for all 9 Batting Order Positions (BOP). But TBL 46 is essentially a condensed version of that without the outs (though the % outs are provided in TBL47 (frequency of outs per BOP)).
=> for each BOP, a BOS frequency is assigned.
2) TBL 50 - Run Value (RV) by Event (Singles, Doubles,...) and BOS. There is no equivalent table shown in BBB. The Book calls this table the "Monstrosity". The book takes some time to develop the RV concept as it is introduced in the first chapter. For example, TBL 6 displays the RV of the HR event by BOS.
=> for each event and BOS, a RV is assigned
3) TBL 45 Plate Appearances (PA) per game per BOP. The table of the same name in BBB.
=> a multipler per BOP in order to adjust RVs based on PA.

To analyze TBL 52/Big Chart, you need to examine what it is built upon. Therefore, I noted some pros and cons for each of the input tables. Using 1), 2) and 3) as above:
1) Pros: This table (I believe) was constructed from RL observations for all BOP from 1999-2002. Therefore, the data is the data. It is just a count (for example) of how many times did the cleanup hitter batted with runners and 1st and 2nd and 1 out. It gives frequencies for all 24 BOS for all 9 BOP.
1) Cons: The problem is that it is based on RL data. I have included the table below to show my point. From 1999-2002 RL data, I have added additional columns to "Frequency of BOS" TBL(46). The four new columns are "Average number of men on when there are men on" (not sure how to use this just yet), BA, OBP and SLG. The last 3 additions were based upon the composite stats of BOP for the AL in the 1999-2002 seasons. BOS are highly (totally) dependent upon the previous batter(s) ability to get on base (OBP). If you had to pick, the best 3 batters in the BOP would be the 4th, 3rd and 5th based upon those RL stats. Just concentrating on the 3rd BOP, the OBP of the two previous batters are only about average. Therefore you would almost expect that the 3rd batter would not have highly favorable numbers in TBL 52. (i.e. compared to the 5th batter who would have the 2 best batters in front of him.) From the Book - "All of this rules and findings are based on the typical players found in those slots."

BOPPA emptyPA men on% PA with men on# of runners on per gameAverage men on when men on1999-2002     BA for BOP1999-2002     OBP for BOP1999-2002     SLG for BOP
13.111.72362.391.39.272.341.407
22.632.09442.771.33.274.341.409
32.382.23483.001.35.288.370.488
42.192.31513.201.39.290.374.511
52.282.11483.101.47.273.343.467
62.291.97462.841.44.265.336.437
72.201.94472.741.41.260.324.420
82.171.85462.611.41.258.317.396
92.131.77452.481.40.249.306.361


2) Pros: Highly developed ideas for RVs where gathered together to create this table.
2) Cons: If this is the real format of the table, then this data was developed for the average player. Events are the summation of all the events regardless of where the event occurred (BOP was not considered). I would think that the RV numbers would be higher for a .288/.370/.488 batter than for a .260/.324/.420 one. A better batter in the same situation will produce more runs.
3) Pros: Straight forward math.
3) Cons: None

Thoughts on the 3 input tables:
1) I guess that I believe that this table give a very accurate indication of BOS frequency for BOP with those stats. My issue would be that once you start shifting batting order players and their associated numbers around then the data in this table would need to be shifted. The recommendation from Tango's Batter Disorder chapter is to essentially place high OBP guys into the first two slots. But if you do that, don't you then change the BOS frequency of that 3rd batter? In that case increasing his importance. I do agree that OBP in the start of the order is very important. But I think that this method undervalues the 3rd slot, and even more so if you can apply some of the basic aspects (in this case OBP placement) of The Book's recommendations.
2) Again the method used for this table seems to undervalue the 3rd slot (and even more so the 4 slot).

3) Placing better hitters high in the order makes total sense. 

In general, The Book does support some very sound advice. So to paraphrase some of the suggestions a bit - OBP is very important high in the order. The PA effect is also important. That is get your better batters to the plate as much as possible. So when the 3rd spot is - IMO - undervalued, it almost goes against those two fairly well excepted and common recommendations. The "Big Chart" table does present intriguing numbers, I just question some of the underlying tables used as building blocks.

Sorry for the length of this post as these concepts are not simple and I tried to make it somewhat understandable even for those who haven't seen The Book. Reading or re-reading background information may help. It did take me a while to get an understanding of the concepts that Tango presented, so I hope that my interpretations are correct.



__________________


Third Base Coach

Status: Online
Posts: 6297
Date: Mar 8, 2016
Permalink  
 

boomer wrote:

A good tactic, I think, is to avoid consecutive L and R to frustrate the opposing manager's relief pitcher options. It's at least a good tie-breaker if you are uncertain where to put a batter.

A theory I heard many years ago is that your sixth hitter should be like your number one hitter . . . the idea being that number five has cleaned the bases and you are in effect starting over. I'm not sure I buy that, but you might want to take speed into account when considering whom to bat sixth. Also, for 6-8. I like the higher OBP for 8 if he otherwise lacks power. I figure he can walk and the pitcher can bunt him over.


 In today's game of specialists, breaking up the L and R handed batters is important, especially lefties.  In the Phillies heyday from 2007-2011, Utley and Howard batted third and fourth consistently and late in the game the opposing manager would always have a lefty to help get through that situation.  It was particularly aggravating because we had Werth who could have batted between them.  I always liked the idea of Utley, Werth, Howard, Victorino or Rollins, but the personalities involved would not go for that.

I like the #8 batter who can get on base more than the #6 or #7, especially in the NL to flip the lineup or allow the pitcher to bunt him over.  Carlos Ruiz always had a high onbase percentage as pitchers did not want to make a mistake pitching to him with the 9th position behind him.  I think that's why teams in the NL with a strong bullpen have an advantage.  They get to plug pinch hitters in for the pitcher late in the game. 



__________________

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

«First  <  1 2 3 4 5  >  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