Optimizing Your Lineup By The Book
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 7:00 AM EDT
47 comments
As teams begin to pare down their rosters towards the magical 25 number, spring training conversation will shift to debating each team's ideal batting order. Because we care, BtB would like to remind everyone that lineups are pretty overrated. Believe it or not, the difference between an optimized lineup and a typical, mildly foolish one you'll see MLB teams use is only about one win over 162 games. It's obviously worth getting right, but not any more than realizing Troy Percival shouldn't be your closer or Joba Chamberlain belongs in the rotation.
That being said, in order to put the best lineup together possible, there are some tips to follow, as Tom Tango, Mitchel Lichtman, and Andy Dolphin showed via extensive research in their book, The Book. By lineup position...
Lead-Off
The old-school book says to put a speedy guy up top. Power isn't important, and OBP is nice, but comes second to speed.
The Book says OBP is king. The lead-off hitter comes to bat only 36% of the time with a runner on base, versus 44% of the time for the next lowest spot in the lineup, so why waste homeruns? The lead-off hitter also comes to the plate the most times per game, so why give away outs? As for speed, stealing bases is most valuable in front of singles hitters, and since the top of the order is going to be full of power hitters, they're not as important. The lead-off hitter is one of the best three hitters on the team, the guy without homerun power. Speed is nice, as this batter will have plenty of chances to run the bases with good hitters behind him.
The Two Hole
The old-school book says to put a bat-control guy here. Not a great hitter, but someone who can move the lead-off hitter over for one of the next two hitters to drive in.
The Books says the #2 hitter comes to bat in situations about as important as the #3 hitter, but more often. That means the #2 hitter should be better than the #3 guy, and one of the best three hitters overall. And since he bats with the bases empty more often than the hitters behind him, he should be a high-OBP player. Doesn't sound like someone who should be sacrificing, does it?
The Third Spot
The old-school book says to put your best high-average hitter here. The lead-off hitter should already be in scoring position and a hit drives him in. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.
The Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters. So why focus on putting a guy who can knock in runs in the #3 spot, when the two spots after him can benefit from it more? Surprisingly, because he comes to bat so often with two outs and no runners on base, the #3 hitter isn't nearly as important as we think. This is a spot to fill after more important spots are taken care of.
Cleanup
The old-school book says to put your big power bat here, probably a guy with a low batting average, who will hit the big multi-run homeruns.
The Book says the #4 hitter comes to bat in the most important situations out of all nine spots, but is equal in importance to the #2 hole once you consider the #2 guy receives more plate appearances. The cleanup hitter is the best hitter on the team with power.
The Number Five Guy
The old-school book says the number five guy is a wannabe cleanup hitter.
The Book says the #5 guy can provide more value than the #3 guy with singles, doubles, triples, and walks, and avoiding outs, although the #3 guy holds an advantage with homeruns. After positions #1, #2, and #4 are filled, put your next best hitter here, unless he lives and dies with the long ball.
Spots Six Through Nine
The old-school book says the rest of the lineup should be written in based on decreasing talent. Hitting ninth is an insult.
The Book basically agrees, with a caveat. Stolen bases are most valuable ahead of high-contact singles hitters, who are more likely to hit at the bottom of the lineup. So a base-stealing threat who doesn't deserve a spot higher in the lineup is optimized in the #6 hole, followed by the singles hitters.
That Whole Hitting The Pitcher Eighth Thing
The Cardinals and Brewers have hit the pitcher eighth in the past, and it's actually a smart, albeit insignificant, strategy. Yes, giving an awful hitter more plate appearances by hitting him higher in the lineup is costly, but the benefit of having a better number nine hitter interacting with the top of the lineup is worth the trade-off, by about two runs per season. By putting a decent hitter at the bottom of the order, the top spots in the lineup will have more runners on base to advance with walks and hits and drive in with hits.
This strategy isn't as worthwhile in the American League, because even the worst position player will be on base significantly more often than a pitcher when the top of the order comes around. Only bat the worst hitter eighth when he's significantly worse than anybody else -- maybe someone like Adam Everett or Tony Pena Jr.
Final Thoughts
Another way to look at things is to order the batting slots by the leveraged value of the out. In plain English (sort of), we want to know how costly making an out is by each lineup position, based on the base-out situations they most often find themselves in, and then weighted by how often each lineup spot comes to the plate. Here's how the lineup spots rank in the importance of avoiding outs:
#1, #4, #2, #5, #3, #6, #7, #8, #9
So, you want your best three hitters to hit in the #1, #4, and #2 spots. Distribute them so OBP is higher in the order and SLG is lower. Then place your fourth and fifth best hitters, with the #5 spot usually seeing the better hitter, unless he's a high-homerun guy. Then place your four remaining hitters in decreasing order of overall hitting ability, with basestealers ahead of singles hitters. Finally, stop talking like the lineup is a make-or-break decision.
For all the nitty gritty details, I highly recommend getting yourself a copy of The Book, which goes into even greater detail about the strategy of lineup construction, including platoons, separating lefties in the lineup, strikeouts, avoiding GIDPs, and preventing the pitcher from hitting.
3 recs |
47 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
Suggestion
Nice article Sky. I’ve read all of Tango/MGL’s stuff on lineups, but I still think its worth talking about, especially because lineups are something all baseball fans like to discuss.
One suggestion: In an article like this, it might be helpful to put a player underneath the description. Maybe Jonny Damon is an ideal #1, or Adam Dunn an ideal #5 or something like that. (Obviously, Albert Pujols is an ideal everything, but you know what I mean).
by Jason in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 9:02 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Well, actually...
We did just that a few years ago, back when The Book had just come out. Using different research, we cam to basically the same conclusion, which I think is pretty neat:
by Marc Normandin on Mar 17, 2009 9:23 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think there's some problems with that older research
I think there were some issues with the way regression analysis was used there. In practice, the part that seems questionable with that lineup tool is it seems to put too weak a hitter #3. The #3 hitter may not be as important as the #4, or #2, but should still be pretty near in importance to the #5 or even #2. The #5 gets a bit higher leverage situations to hit in, but gets nearly 40 less PA.
I’m just speculating, but, my guess is that in using regression on real world data, the problem is that the real world data doesn’t reflect all possible lineups. Because real world managers nearly always bat the best hitter 3rd, and even the worst lineups usually still have one very good hitter, there’s not much variance in the data for #3 hitters. And so you get low correlations.
This may be less a problem for most other spots because:
1. there are still enough managers who hit bad hitters 1 and 2 for good sample variance there
2. there are enough bad teams which have bad hitters 4 and on to have sample variance there.
This could also mean that the regression coefficients are more judgments on what managers actually do; thus low co-efficients for the #3 hitter may have meant only that managers in general are over emphasing the #3 spot, and high coefficients for OBP at the top mean that gets under emphasized, etc.
by acerimusdux on Mar 17, 2009 1:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
and
the reason I say that is because I link a lot of my friends to BTB, and they are not as sabermetrically-inclined as I am. they are trying to learn though, and i think when we’re discussing these theoretical principles, it’s nice to associate a real name to help them bridge the gap.
by Jason in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Of course...
Since that’s from a few seasons ago, it would probably be more effective if it were updated.
by Marc Normandin on Mar 17, 2009 9:37 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
One other question
have you guys ever done an exercise where either pre or post season, you look forward/back at optimal lineups vs real lineups and see where big differences may occurr? I think either or both would make a very interesting article.
For example, the Yankees minus Arod might be an interesting case to see if they could reshuffle the deck until he comes back. I imagine they will have Teixiera bat 3rd, and it seems that might not be such a great idea considering they have a lot of question marks elsewhere.
by Jason in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 9:49 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
The manager scorecard I plan for the season will exactly that
Its not entirely perfect, but should give some idea of the amount of runs lost. We are looking a getting an application written that will do it automatically next year, but this year it is by hand as we find exactly what data we want to use.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 17, 2009 10:54 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Very cool
TR. That looks like a monumental task…looking forward to seeing the results.
by Jason in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 10:58 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I like that idea. Maybe I'll do a follow-up from that approach.
Or maybe find one team that’s using a poor lineup and discuss what they’re ideal lineup should be.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 10:10 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
That would be a great article.
Of course I would love to see you do the Mets, but there are a few other intriguing teams out there.
by SQUAD on Mar 17, 2009 10:25 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Mets lineup
The Mets are one of the few teams whose traditional leadoff guy is a good enough hitter that he probably deserves to hit #1 in any case. So I wouldn’t mess with Reyes at #1. The two best hitters on the team, Beltran and Wright, obviously belong in the #2 and #4 spots, and I think you could go either way with which goes where.
The next best hitter is Delgado, and you could put him at #5, but I think he obviously fits the “high homerun guy” exception and so should instead hit #3. Church and Tatis/Murphy are the next best bats, and which comes first probably depends on whose projection you believe for Murphy. You could consider Castillo at #6 due to his base stealing ability, but I think these other guys are still better bats there.
Instead, since this is the NL, I would employ the pitcher batting 8th optimization, and use Castillo’s OBP and speed as the 9th guy, ahead of the top of the lineup. So my 7-9 would be Schnieder, Pitcher Castillo.
So:
Reyes, Beltran, Delgado, Wright, Church, Tatis/Murphy, Schnedier, Pitcher, Castillo
My biggest debate is whether I should maybe flip Beltran and Wright
by acerimusdux on Mar 17, 2009 1:10 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I'm with you. I'd probably put Wright 2nd an Beltran fourth. But Delgado's a great #3 option for them.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And Castillo ninth is perfect for him.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 1:15 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cool. Thanks for the feedback.
Personally, I was thinking that: Reyes, Beltran, Church, Wright, Delgado, Castillo, Murphy, P, Schneider might be a good idea.
I agree with Reyes and I prefer Beltran and his SB ability in the 2 hole. Church was having a solid first half and his pretty well in the 2 spot last year, so I would like to see what he could do hitting 3rd. Even though Church isn’t a big HR guy, he can stroke plenty of doubles. Wright and Delgado are self explanatory. I put Castillo 6 for the same reasons why you considered him there. Schneider has decent OBP for a backstop, but I have a hunch it could be a result of him hitting 8th on a consistent basis, resulting in him getting pitched around with the pitcher on deck. Then again, he’s not a great hitter, so teams might not even bother pitching around him.
by SQUAD on Mar 19, 2009 3:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Would love to read it Sky
Some ideas:
Looking at elite hitters (Hanley, Pujols, Manny etc.) and seeing where they’d best fit in those offenses. Albert 2nd? 4th? 1st (gasp!)?
Yankees – Arod (and with Arod…maybe Arod/Tex 4th and 5th rather than 3rd and 4th? or 2nd and 4th with some one else 3rd)? That would be cool to see.
The low avg/high obp guys/3TO (Dunn, Cust, etc.) within their respective lineups.
Just a few quick ideas…I’m sure you’ll come up with better ones.
by Jason in NJ on Mar 17, 2009 11:02 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I did this for the Brewers a while ago
Somehow I don’t think they would buy batting Prince Fielder second. The lineup simulator actually spit out my exact lineup that I guessed to make.
The artist formerly known as jihad.
by Jordan M on Mar 17, 2009 9:49 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Already Done?
Has anyone ever actually taken a look to see if a “feared” hitter in the middle of the order actually effects the hitters around him?
For example for batting right before or behind Pujols, A-Rod, or Bonds actually help a player?
by thoran85 on Mar 17, 2009 11:00 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I think J.C. Bradbury has.
He found it hurts the hitter batting in front of the feared one, because pitchers don’t want to put that guy on base.
by R.J. Anderson on Mar 17, 2009 11:16 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Baseball Between the Numbers and The Book both look at the batters following an elite hitter.
by Jeff Zimmerman (TucsonRoyal) on Mar 17, 2009 11:24 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
And if I recall correctly, it's not a big deal, right?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 11:26 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
are the averages based on historical data, or on ideal lineup construction?
“The Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters.”
What happens if you optimize your #1 and #2 hitters according to The Book? Does that then skew the amount base runners for the #3 hitter, making him more important than #4 or #5?
I'm starting to like our bullpen......Wuertz and all.
by scatterbrian on Mar 17, 2009 12:35 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
wow
i was just writing exactly the same post, pretty much. I should also like to hear the answer to this
what have i got myself into this time... http://damiansthirtyyearchallenge.blogspot.com/
by alea iacta est on Mar 17, 2009 12:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I believe that's based on actual data.
There’s a piece in the chapter that compares actual data with a theoretical lineup of all average hitters, and the actual and theoretical results are very similar. Considering the optimized lineup is a lot closer to actual historical lineups than a lineup of all average hitters, I don’t think the changes would change anything significantly. Bumping the number two hitters’ OBP up from, say, .340 to .380 only puts a runner on base 4% more often (a bit less, actually) for a number three hitter in the first inning. And many times when the number two guy gets on base, he’s also on base when the number four guy is up (and the number five guy).
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 12:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
that makes sense
thanks Sky
I'm starting to like our bullpen......Wuertz and all.
by scatterbrian on Mar 17, 2009 2:55 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
I don't want to say it doesn't matter, but it probably doesn't matter significantly.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 3:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
probably not
I think this is mostly due to inning 1, where a good part of the time the #3 hitter is batting with 2 out an none on, and then the #4 guy (or maybe the #5 guy) will lead off the 2nd inning. You would need absurdedly good hitters at 1 and 2 to change that much (say steroid era Bonds).
I suspect that the optimization which might change things most would be in the NL when you put the pitcher 8th and a position player 9th. That wouldn’t effect the 3-5 hitters much, but might make a small difference in the situations the 1 and 2 hitters face (perhaps making them more similar to the AL).
by acerimusdux on Mar 17, 2009 1:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Thanks
I’m continually amazed by the books that are able to be summarized easily. I’m not saying you wouldn’t get more detail in The Book’s chapter on this, I’m saying most people don’t care about the details as long as you’ve done your work right. How much material have I read on lineups and optimization over the years and none of it put it as easy and simple as that.
by willkoky on Mar 17, 2009 12:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
There are some more details that would be interesting and helpful to understand what I wrote above.
Mostly things along the lines of “The lead-off hitter comes to bat only 36% of the time with a runner on base, versus 44% of the time for the next lowest spot in the lineup, so why waste homeruns?” and “The Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters”.
But yes, then there are other things that you don’t need. And things like tables that you might want to have when specific questions come up.
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Re: L/R hitters
Of what importance should we consider the old-school philosophy to bat lefty and righty hitters next to each other to break up the pitcher’s rhythm of style and/or breaking down the opponent’s relievers?
by Daniel Berlyn on Mar 17, 2009 1:06 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
That's not entirely true
Because of LOOGYs you want to avoid runs of LHBs.
I know it’s one of the things MGL keeps harping on Charlie Manuel for.
The Book doesn’t say anything about it specifically in the lineup construction section, but in the section on LOOGYs it says
From the other manager’s point of view, this is why you should avoid having back-to-back lefties in your lineup. In fact, since exact lineup construction is never that important, it is rarely, if ever, correct to bat consecutive lefties in your batting order.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 17, 2009 5:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
This is an absolutely enthralling post.
I had some excellent fun trying to optimize an Orioles lineup.
It’s not easy. Using Brian Roberts, Nick Markakis, and Aubrey Huff as the teams best hitters and following up with Matt Wieters as the 4th best (conservative, I know) and Luke Scott as the 5th best.
1) Brian Roberts (fewer Homeruns)
2) Nick Markakis
3) Luke Scott
4) Aubrey Huff
5) Matt Wieters
6) Adam Jones
7) Melvin Mora
8) Felix Pie
9) Cesar Izturis
but I think they’d be better off switching Wieters and Scott so as not to have 3 consecutive lefties and also potentially switching Markakis and Roberts, although that would definitely be weird.
Melvin Mora hits a lot of singles, so letting him hit behind Adam Jones seems good.
by math_geek on Mar 17, 2009 4:49 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Yeah I didn't mention it much, but prevent two lefties in a row (and especially three) is a good move.
Lineup looks good. How close is that to what the Orioles will actually do?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 4:58 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Trembley is a definite lineup changer
things went over under, around and back again. I think eventually he settled on
1) Roberts 2) Markakis 3) Melvin Mora 4) Aubrey Huff 5) Ramon Hernandez 6) Luke Scott 7) Adam Jones 8) Kevin Millar 9) Whoever our shortstop was.
However, in the beginning of the year it was
1) Roberts 2) Melvin Mora 3) Markakis 4) Kevin Millar (UGH) 5) Huff 6) Ramon Hernandex 7) Luke Scott 8) Adam Jones 9) Whoever our shortstop was.
He experimented with things like batting Adam Jones 2nd and Mora down in the lineup, moved Kevin Millar down slowly as he realized he couldn’t hit a thing. Several times decided to have Ramon Hernandez batting cleanup, etc. I do remember Trembley being pretty good about splitting lefties, which is one of the reasons Markakis started hitting third and then moved to second in the order when Huff batted cleanup. Clearly after reading this, 2nd is the right place for him (although maybe 1st, since he OBPs like crazy).
I honestly have no idea what the order is going to look like this year, except that Roberts will be batting leadoff, Markakis 2nd, and Huff 4th. I suppose that’s actually the most important three positions on the field. One thing I am going to keep track of is whether the positions changed based on who is starting. Maybe he put Ramon at cleanup because they were facing a left handed pitcher, and he likes a RHB 4th against a LHP.
by math_geek on Mar 17, 2009 6:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Should also mention Baseball Musings' series on optimal lineups
Astros here, but includes link to all previous teams.
David also has a Lineup Analysis Tool that will determine how many runs can be expected for each lineup – although it’s temporarily down.
by Dan Turkenkopf on Mar 17, 2009 5:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
And if I'm not mistaken
Pinto’s LAT always spits out the pitcher hitting 8th for the “most optimized” lineups.
Aaron King is still my homeboy... iffy mechanics and all
If Dustin Pedroia played in Seattle, not many people would be talking about him.
by baetown415 on Mar 17, 2009 9:27 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Cardinals lineup
1)Rasmus
2)Pujols
3)Glaus
4)Ludwick
5)Ankiel
6)Shumaker
7)Greene
8)Pitcher
9)Molina
How’d I do?
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 8:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs
I'm not a Cards expert, but it looks pretty good.
I think Glaus is a better hitter than Ankiel and Ankiel definitely receives a huge portion of his value from HRs, so I might switch them.
Greene in front of the pitcher is actually a great move, as he’ll either clear the bases or do nothing. Just getting on base loses value there.
Does Rasmus project as that good of a hitter and with a really good OBP?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 17, 2009 10:16 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
His ISO OBP in the minors has been over .100 each of the last 2 years.
Even in a down year, he managed a .350 OBP. He is probably one of the best 5 hitters on the team (I rank him slightly ahead of Shumaker because he has more pop), and has the best on base skills (-Pujols) and good baserunning ability.
vivaelbeñsheets
by vivaelpujols on Mar 17, 2009 10:34 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Great work! It inspired a fanpost of mine.
I wrote this after reading your article. Keep up the good work.
by Decatur on Mar 19, 2009 11:03 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Excellent writeup.
I have a quick question though. If you have a lineup composed of 8 replacement level hitters, who would be a better lead-off hitter:
Adam Dunn
Corey Patterson
Reason I ask is that I was engaged in a discussion over on TC about this that become somewhat heated. I was driving the bus for one of the players, and the person driving the bus for the other player just didn’t understand the point I was trying to make.
by Smoltz's Beard on Mar 20, 2009 10:24 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs
Uh, Dunn?
He’s a much much much better hitter. What am I missing? What assumptions might I be missing?
Beyond the Boxscore // Calling BJ Upton lazy is lazy.
by Sky Kalkman on Mar 20, 2009 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
We're on the same page...
…it became painfully obvious during the discussion that my opponent was simply not understanding my point. He’s clearly of the old mind that the speedsters belong at the top of the order. I’d link the argument, but honestly it’d be a waste of your time.
by Smoltz's Beard on Mar 20, 2009 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
BtB on Facebook
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
