Batting Order Construction

[Xanadu Dragon]

In my old mind, things are starting to stick - - one of the topics is batting order construction. (Feel free to jump in with the "it doesn't matter past the 1st inning" issue.)

Here's how it's jammed in my mind:

1st - High OBP, speed a plus

2nd - Can take pitches, ability to direct batted balls and mash a fastball a plus. Good OBP preferred.

3rd - Best all-around hitter on the team.

4th - Slugger. The man who can score 4 with one swing of the bat.

5th - Contact hitter with some pop. Good contact required - in case # 4 guy should K.

6th - Just like the # 5 guy - - OK if just a notch below.

7th - Just like the # 6 guy - - OK if just a notch below.

8th - Some one who can drive the ball. Somewhat like the 2nd string clean-up hitter.

9th - Pitcher in NL. In AL, someone with some speed who won't clog up the bases in front of your # 1 and # 2 guys.

Don't get me wrong - - the perfect line-up is actually Barry Bonds batting 9 times. I know that. But, that doesn't always happen. This "model" is meant more towards teams like the Twins, Reds, etc. Squads that have to manufacture runs, etc.

Any thoughts?

[gyb13]

Seems reasonable if you have guys who fit those roles.

Some food for discussion:

What of teams like the Twins or Orioles, who don't necessarily have big power guys in the middle of the lineup? How do you spread around contact hitters?

What about platoon advantages? How much emphasis should be given on creating a L R L R L type of lineup?

If you don't have a good OBP guy in your lineup, who leads off? Are you better off using a speedster (Womack) or a power hitter?

[Duque]

I'd say the #4-7 spots are getting kind of jumbled together these days into basically just power guys. It seems the best "pure" hitters on teams are now exclusively in the 1-2-3 slots.

Bill James brings up an interesting point in his new book - the Cubs used to have Ryne Sandberg hit 2nd and Mark Grace 3rd, just because Sandberg was a 2B and Grace was a 1B. 1st Basemen are supposed to be power hitters, 2nd basemen line-drive, bat control guys with some speed.

How many first basemen, and for that matter, catchers, leadoff?(Paul LoDuca and Jason Kendall might be the exceptions) I suppose it does have something to do with those positions requiring the least speed.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by gyb13
What of teams like the Twins or Orioles, who don't necessarily have big power guys in the middle of the lineup? How do you spread around contact hitters?

What about platoon advantages? How much emphasis should be given on creating a L R L R L type of lineup?

If you don't have a good OBP guy in your lineup, who leads off? Are you better off using a speedster (Womack) or a power hitter?

If no power, in today's game, might as well just not show up. :D You have to have at least one guy - even if it's David Ortiz or Jeff Conine.

With the contact guys, you should try to avoid stacking all your lefties and righties. Agreed.

Hmmm, if no OBP guy, power or speed? I'd probably go power - - give the guy who can score himself more ABs (like Bobby Bonds) than the guy who needs help to score (like Womack) even if he steals.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Duque
Bill James brings up an interesting point in his new book - the Cubs used to have Ryne Sandberg hit 2nd and Mark Grace 3rd, just because Sandberg was a 2B and Grace was a 1B. 1st Basemen are supposed to be power hitters, 2nd basemen line-drive, bat control guys with some speed.

I'd counter Bill on that.
I think # 2 guys, with a good leadoff hitter and good three man, see more fastballs - - esp. in the NL.

Sandberg's fastballs ended up in the Ivy or in the street.

Give Grace the same number 2 man fastballs and it's just a hard single or double.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by gyb13
If you don't have a good OBP guy in your lineup, who leads off? Are you better off using a speedster (Womack) or a power hitter? I think that the patient at the plate speedsters should be #1, #2, but someone who's a competent stealer (Jeter) is your likely #2, but a demon like Suzuki would be your #1, since he's also got tons of SB's.

After this, #3 is a good mix of the two, but these are like the table setters to me who can score runs and take full advantage of whatever the Albert Belles and Willie Stargells out there can clobber in for you, so the #1-3 wheels must burn.

#4 should be the hot guy, not just the "best" hitter who happens to be slumping. The Mets batted Shinjo in cleanup when Piazza wasn't doing so hot after the break. I'd agree w/Steve that #5 should be a pretty decent lumber guy also, as backup to #4.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Duque
How many first basemen, and for that matter, catchers, leadoff?(Paul LoDuca and Jason Kendall might be the exceptions) I suppose it does have something to do with those positions requiring the least speed.

That's the issue, though. These are based on the perception that speed matters at the top, which isn't the case anymore. I still don't get how AZ makes it with Womack at the top.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Hmmm, if no OBP guy, power or speed? I'd probably go power - - give the guy who can score himself more ABs (like Bobby Bonds) than the guy who needs help to score (like Womack) even if he steals.

I think that makes sense too. However, you don't see any manager venture away from the conventional and attempt that.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by Duque
I'd say the #4-7 spots are getting kind of jumbled together these days into basically just power guys. It seems the best "pure" hitters on teams are now exclusively in the 1-2-3 slots.By "pure" hitters, what do you mean? I've usually grouped hitters into two basic types: the Cobb/Speaker type of low-HR, hi-SB speed demons and the lumber guys (Ruth, Teddy).

All 4 are "pure hitters" by me, but if I had Cobb/Ruth or Speaker/Teddy, I'd put the speedy guys in the 1-3 slots then the lumber guys in the #4 slots.

Maybe it's just me thinking out loud, but would anyone agree that a speedy power guy like Say Hey would make an ideal #3 in that lineup, since he combines some of the best of speed and power?

[Duque]

You know, I am guilty of this myself - in my senior year of High School, I was the Bench Coach (and spare outfielder) of our baseball team, and since the coach was always standing in the 3rd base box, I got to do a lot of the lineups and stuff. When you only play around 20 games, it's hard to get OBP and SLG totals that mean anything, but we'd frequently have our 2nd baseman leading off because, well, he was REALLY fast. And we had a big, lumbering 1st baseman who I'd always pencil into the #5 slot.

Course, the big difference was we had our pitcher hitting 3rd, but I digress.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Yogi#8Fan
I think that the patient at the plate speedsters should be #1, #2, but someone who's a competent stealer (Jeter) is your likely #2, but a demon like Suzuki would be your #1, since he's also got tons of SB's.

After this, #3 is a good mix of the two, but these are like the table setters to me who can score runs and take full advantage of whatever the Albert Belles and Willie Stargells out there can clobber in for you, so the #1-3 wheels must burn.

I disagree. I think the most important thing for 1-2 is OBP. Speed at the top, to me, is worth less than at the bottom of the lineup. If your 3-4 hit HRs, it is irrelevant on what base the 1-2 guy(s) is(are), as long as he's on base.
Now let's say your 7 guy gets on. Since your 8 and 9 guys aren't muscle guys (and not that good contact guys either), you want to put any baserunner ahead of them as close to home as possible in the event the 8-9 gets a blooper or sacrifice.
Thus I'd argue that speed would be more valuable around the 6 to 8 slots.

[Duque]

Originally posted by gyb13


That's the issue, though. These are based on the perception that speed matters at the top, which isn't the case anymore. I still don't get how AZ makes it with Womack at the top.

I agree - but these things are influenced by the perception of what 1st baseman and catchers should be, and what middle infielders should be, rather than what they actually are.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by Duque
Course, the big difference was we had our pitcher hitting 3rd, but I digress.

HS - - best hitter is usually the best player who is usually also the pitcher.

Mattingly and McGwire pitched in HS. Doubt they batted 9th in HS.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by gyb13
I still don't get how AZ makes it with Womack at the top.

Not sure either. A guess - - could it be that he still takes a lot of pitches, 'tho never ball 4, and by working the pitcher he still helps the team in that role - to some small respect? I don't know his PIT/PA numbers.

Either that, or it's a default thing. Miller or Counsel ain't going to get it done. Next options would be Finley, Grace, or (then) Sanders. Given those options, you can see why TW gets the nod.

[Yogi#8Fan]

Originally posted by gyb13
I disagree. I think the most important thing for 1-2 is OBP. Speed at the top, to me, is worth less than at the bottom of the lineup. If your 3-4 hit HRs, it is irrelevant on what base the 1-2 guy(s) is(are), as long as he's on base.
Now let's say your 7 guy gets on. Since your 8 and 9 guys aren't muscle guys (and not that good contact guys either), you want to put any baserunner ahead of them as close to home as possible in the event the 8-9 gets a blooper or sacrifice.
Thus I'd argue that speed would be more valuable around the 6 to 8 slots. I forgot to type in the OBP part. :o That's always a _must have_ in #1 and 2 slots so no getting away from the key role of table setters.

By speed in the 6-8, do you mean someone who can speed around the bases quickly (w/good baserunning instincts, of course), or do you also mean someone who can steal? I hadn't thought of the lower slots too much, since I figured those were for the impatient hitters, rooks getting their turn or someone whose got a great glove but hits like Ordonez. It's like a bad spot they'd been put to.

As far as putting the runner closer to home, that would need slugging and/or speed to get them there. Ideally, all baserunners would be at 2B or 3B, not just 1B, since even high OBP guys can whiff. For 3B runner, especially a tight game, I'd say this would be great if a power guy's up at the plate also, since at least he can hit a sac fly to the warning track to go ahead or at least tie the game up.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Not sure either. A guess - - could it be that he still takes a lot of pitches, 'tho never ball 4, and by working the pitcher he still helps the team in that role - to some small respect? I don't know his PIT/PA numbers.

Career avg of 3.7 pitches/pa and has been 3.7 or 3.8 the last 5 seasons.

last year, the ML leader was :jaw: Jay Bell at 4.3

Womack ranked 80th (3.7) .307obp (.320 career).

Ahead of him in AZ:
Finley 77th (3.7) .337obp (.332 career)
Counsell 27th (4.0) .359obp (.354 career)
Bell 1st (4.3) .349obp (.344 career)

Why isn't counsell not gonna get it done?

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Yogi#8Fan
By speed in the 6-8, do you mean someone who can speed around the bases quickly (w/good baserunning instincts, of course), or do you also mean someone who can steal? I hadn't thought of the lower slots too much, since I figured those were for the impatient hitters, rooks getting their turn or someone whose got a great glove but hits like Ordonez. It's like a bad spot they'd been put to.

As far as putting the runner closer to home, that would need slugging and/or speed to get them there. Ideally, all baserunners would be at 2B or 3B, not just 1B, since even high OBP guys can whiff. For 3B runner, especially a tight game, I'd say this would be great if a power guy's up at the plate also, since at least he can hit a sac fly to the warning track to go ahead or at least tie the game up.

By speed I mean the guy can steal a base. The guys who can slug to get themselves to 2nd or 3rd are probably in the top 5-6 spots already. So I'd argue something more along the lines of:
OBP, OBP, OPS, SLG, SLG, SLG, SB, crap, crap
Nowadays it's more like:
SB, OBP, OPS, SLG, SLG, SLG, OBP, crap, crap

My problem with speed at the top of the lineup is the classic example in which a guy gets on 1st, tries to steal 2nd, gets thrown out, and the next guy hits a HR. Since the 8-9 guys are less likely to hit one out, a SB ahead of them is more valuable in terms of manufacturing runs than a SB ahead of the cleanup hitter.

[BuzzBuzzard]

I think you are way off in your description of the #8 guy, unless you live in Utopia, and them I am not sure why this guy would not bat higher up. How many #8 hitters can drive the ball?

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by BuzzBuzzard
I think you are way off in your description of the #8 guy, unless you live in Utopia, and them I am not sure why this guy would not bat higher up. How many #8 hitters can drive the ball?

Should have given an example. In my mind, Joel Shinner and Tim Laudner should only bat 8th. Big guys, who really don't hit, but have to bat - - you need a catcher - - and, when the do connect, they have the ability to drive the ball.

Earl Weaver thought Rick Dempsey was a great 8 hitter for this reason.

You don't want Laudner batting 5-6-7, cause he can't hit. But, if you bat him 9th, he (in the AL) becomes a road block on the bases for your 1 and 2 guy - - if Tim reaches. And, if we can hit with some power, maybe he can help in the 8th slot.

In the NL, it makes him more useful too. He'll get more walks that he deserves, with the pitcher following him.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Originally posted by gyb13

Why isn't counsell not gonna get it done?

What's his splits - v. RHP and LHP. Betcha he doesn't deserve to play v. LHP. Could be wrong? Just a hunch.

[SmedIndy]

I'd rather consign the Brian Hunters and Tony Womacks of the world to a special place in Hades, and let the real ballplayers play. I'm flabbergasted that idiot managers still try to wedge guys into the top of the lineup just 'cause they're fast. I though the days and nights of Omar Moreno and Miguel Dilone were over.

My thoughts on an AL (softball) lineup are that you need an OBP guy at the bottom as well. Sandwich the top and bottom with OBP guys, and have 7 and 8 be your weaker hitters with 8 the dreg.

On the NL, put your worst hitter at 7. Have 8 be an OK hitter so that if he gets a hit, then either the pitcher can sac, the pinch hitter will have someone on, OR, if the pitcher makes out with two outs the leadoff man will start the next inning.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon


What's his splits - v. RHP and LHP. Betcha he doesn't deserve to play v. LHP. Could be wrong? Just a hunch.

Surprisingly enough, Counsell was better against lefties than righties in 2001:
vs LHP .337/.425/.406
vs RHP .258/.339/.350

At first glance, this seems to be an anomaly. His 1998-2000 numbers:
vs LHP .243/.265/.308
vs RHP .260/.359/.363

The interesting thing is that Counsell has never had that many opportunities against lefties. In 98-00, the figures posted above were accomplished in 107 AB. In 2001, he had 101 AB vs LHP.

So maybe, just maybe, he's becoming more comfortable with the bat against lefties. He's probably not as good against lefties as he was last year, but also not as bad as the 3 prior years. AZ can thus lead him off most of the time, and maybe sit him against tough lefties and start a Womack-Bell/Spivey DP combo.

[Xanadu Dragon]

I was probably thinking of his 98-00 performance?

I still wouldn't want to rely on him.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
I was probably thinking of his 98-00 performance?

I still wouldn't want to rely on him.

He's not ideal, but definitely an upgrade over leading off Womack

[sweaver]

Studies show that batting order matters little...even if you had three Babe Ruths and six non-hitting pitchers, the order you put them in makes no statistically significant difference in runs scored.

That said, I would prefer to bunch my best hitters to maximize performance. A sort-of 1983 White Sox lineup. They had four good hitters, batting 1-4, and then a bunch of mediocre guys. They scored more runs than you would expect. You just deal with that 1-2-3 every other inning, and get your runs when the meat comes up.

[gyb13]

Originally posted by sweaver
That said, I would prefer to bunch my best hitters to maximize performance. A sort-of 1983 White Sox lineup. They had four good hitters, batting 1-4, and then a bunch of mediocre guys. They scored more runs than you would expect. You just deal with that 1-2-3 every other inning, and get your runs when the meat comes up. \

I think the interesting part of this discussion is what to do with the mediocre players in the lineup - your top 4 guys will hit well independent of where in the lineup they are.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by sweaver
Studies show that batting order matters little...even if you had three Babe Ruths and six non-hitting pitchers, the order you put them in makes no statistically significant difference in runs scored.

That said, I would prefer to bunch my best hitters to maximize performance. A sort-of 1983 White Sox lineup. They had four good hitters, batting 1-4, and then a bunch of mediocre guys. They scored more runs than you would expect. You just deal with that 1-2-3 every other inning, and get your runs when the meat comes up.

I'd like to space 'em out a little bit. You really whammy yourself if you let the dregs ALL bat together. How do ya think the Enzo Hernandez has just 12 RBI for the 1971 Padres? He batted at the end with Mason and the catchers...

[gyb13]

Originally posted by SmedIndy
I'd like to space 'em out a little bit. You really whammy yourself if you let the dregs ALL bat together. How do ya think the Enzo Hernandez has just 12 RBI for the 1971 Padres? He batted at the end with Mason and the catchers...

It may affect the individual players' stats, but the bottom line is, as sweaver pointed out, studies have shown that it won't alter the overall runs scored by a team very much.

[Xanadu Dragon]

Still, you want to put your worst hitters in a spot that min. their PAs - - that's why pitchers bat 9th.

[SmedIndy]

Originally posted by Xanadu Dragon
Still, you want to put your worst hitters in a spot that min. their PAs - - that's why pitchers bat 9th.

I'd still rather have my worst batter in #8 in the "Softball" AL.