PDA

View Full Version : How to build a batting order...



spideyo
03-16-2013, 07:20 PM
Spinning off a discussion in another thread, just curious what YOU think the ideal strategies are for building a batting order. Please don't use this thread as an opportunity to bash Gardy, it's not about him.



Possibly something like:

1: Fast base stealer
2: High OPB guy
3: Big hitter
4: Power Guy
5: Second best power guy
6-9: who ever's left.

USAFChief
03-16-2013, 07:30 PM
Optimizing Your Lineup By The Book - Beyond the Box Score (http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2009/3/17/795946/optimizing-your-lineup-by) One theory. However, IMO, the best way to construct your lineup is to fill it with good hitters, with the best ones up near the top of the lineup. Other than that, you're massaging the margins, at best.

jctwins
03-16-2013, 07:40 PM
I thought posts about batting order were considered banned on this board?

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-16-2013, 07:44 PM
I thought posts about batting order were considered banned on this board?

Uh oh... I'm new here. I guess I didn't get the memo.

Willihammer
03-16-2013, 08:08 PM
I have posted this before but a while back I went through hitter production according to wOBA by position in the order for 2012 hitters. It sort of vaguely supports what they expound in the Book (linked in Chief's post).

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B5pIzP28qdp-WTZ5aHBJWHRRQ3c/edit?usp=sharing

Based on that I'd say you could put your two best hitters in the 1 and 4 hole since they will leadoff a lot of innings and also if your 4 hitter comes up in the first that obviously can only happen if there's a man on base. Then I'd fill in around them to work against the opposition's bullpen management (L-R-L-R), with the knowledge that the 7-hole guy will leadoff the 3rd about 10% of games.

Shane Wahl
03-17-2013, 07:54 AM
Spideyo, you already have some good responses. I think "the book" is generally good. I would think of 1,2, and 4 as a team's best overall hitters, with the first spot going to the speed guy and the 4 spot going to the power guy. The third hitter should have power and maybe I differ with the book here, but I don't really opt against solo homers--I look at the most likely ways to get a run (and generally with 2 outs and no one on, but most efficient way to get a run is with a homer. The 5th hitter spot is hoping someone with a bit of average and doesn't homer or strike out. 6th could be another version of 3 (and 7 is important as Willihammer points out).

That is why I really like this lineup:

Hicks (doesn't totally fit immediately, no one else does at all either)
Mauer (too much of an OBP machine to bat anywhere else)
Willingham (more power, lower average)
Morneau (power and could again hit .290+)
Doumit (better all-around slugger with more doubles, bit lower K rate that Plouffe)
Plouffe (Willingham-lite)
Parmelee (career .365 OBP in the minors--maybe .340 is possible)
Dozier (hopefully he can hit over .250)
Carroll (I realize that Florimon is the guy here, but whatever--Carroll and his 2 million dollar option be damned)

diehardtwinsfan
03-17-2013, 11:26 AM
This is easy. 1-9 High OBP. 3-5, more power.

Haddyz
03-17-2013, 12:47 PM
1: Good plate discipline. On-base potential. Exceptional speed is desired, but still just a plus. Catalyst. Spark plug. Etc.
2: Good "situational" hitter. Ability to do multiple things well, such as moving the first guy on base over. Opposite field/spray hitter. Bunter. Good plate discipline. On-base potential. Some speed is desired, but not as necessary.
3: Generally seen as the best hitter on the team, with a healthy mix of average and power. Ability to drive the ball and drive in runs. Extra-base potential.
4: RBI guy. Some people are just RBI machines that sniff out driving in runs. This is the guy you want here. Power is desired, as it can produce a number of runs in one swing. Extra-base potential is more necessary. Protection for #3 hitter.
5: Protection for #4 hitter. Not a surprise, but generally your 4th or 5th best hitter and 3rd best RBI guy. Power isn't overly necessary, but yes, the extra-base potential is usually the driver.
6: A player that can combine some speed and strength is ideal, because they can be seen as a secondary catalyst, post clean-up hitter.
7: Big Risk/Reward guy. Lower average and on-base potentials, but greater extra-base/power potential. If the team has a lack of power, then look for a secondary situational hitter here.
8: Worst average/on-base/extra-base potentials. Basically someone named Escobar, Florimon or Dozier. Sometimes they're the slowest too.
9: NL - Pitcher/Pinch Hitter. AL - Speed. Generally seen as a secondary lead-off person. On-base potential is a heavier ideal than batting average potential.

Badsmerf
03-17-2013, 12:53 PM
1. speed, high OBP
2. heavy on AVG and OBP, speed can be factored in
3. best all-around hitter
4. highest ISO/OPS on team
5. highest OPS left
6. highest OPS left
7. highest OPS left
8. highest OPS left
9. worst OPS, if any are very similar take the highest OBP here

If Gardy had a #2 hitter worthy of the position (like Hudson/Castillo) I wouldn't have a problem with Mauer hitter 3rd. Since he doesn't, putting him there is inserting someone in the top of the lineup that barely belongs on an MLB roster. Poor decision. Other than that I don't mind staggering the line-up to help against specialist RP.

Shane Wahl
03-18-2013, 09:05 AM
Does anyone actually have argument about "the book" instead of basically reciting the "old book" about lineups?

jctwins
03-18-2013, 11:39 AM
Uh oh... I'm new here. I guess I didn't get the memo.

It was a joke, but this conversation has incited riots in the past.

James
03-18-2013, 01:28 PM
You could always just pick your lineup randomly:

40th anniversary: Billy Martin picks batting order out of hat (http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/blog_article/40th-anniversary-billy-martin-picks-batting-order-out-of-hat/)

Mr. Brooks
03-18-2013, 01:35 PM
Didnt Joe Maddon once let a fan pick the lineup back in '11 or so?

ashburyjohn
03-18-2013, 01:35 PM
You are not making the moderators' job easy with this post. Please be careful here.

Then it's gone, and you can delete your reply which repeats it.

James
03-18-2013, 01:43 PM
Didnt Joe Maddon once let a fan pick the lineup back in '11 or so?
He sure did. They don't really mention how different that lineup would have been if Maddon had picked it though.

Lunch bunch picks winning lineup for manager Joe Maddon and the Tampa Bay Rays, 5-2 over the Minnesota Twins | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/lunch-bunch-picks-winning-lineup-for-manager-joe-maddon-and-the-tampa-bay/1164124)

FrodaddyG
03-18-2013, 01:47 PM
He sure did. They don't really mention how different that lineup would have been if Maddon had picked it though.

Lunch bunch picks winning lineup for manager Joe Maddon and the Tampa Bay Rays, 5-2 over the Minnesota Twins | Tampa Bay Times (http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/lunch-bunch-picks-winning-lineup-for-manager-joe-maddon-and-the-tampa-bay/1164124)
To be fair, they were playing the 2011 Twins. The same group that picked the lineup could have taken the field and had a chance to win that game.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-18-2013, 01:53 PM
To be fair, they were playing the 2011 Twins. The same group that picked the lineup could have taken the field and had a chance to win that game.

Yes, but how would you construct the lineup of the group of fans who selected the lineup?

I'm thinking fans who draw coloring crayon pictures of their high OBP idols at the top, while fans who are blinded by their love of SPEED can just be bunched together at the bottom... :)

Mr. Brooks
03-18-2013, 02:10 PM
Yes, but how would you construct the lineup of the group of fans who selected the lineup?

I'm thinking fans who draw coloring crayon pictures of their high OBP idols at the top, while fans who are blinded by their love of SPEED can just be bunched together at the bottom... :)

Look man, its fine to disagree on this issue without being insulting to the people you are disagreeing with.
It's not like I'm telling you the world is flat here. Both sides are arguing a matter of opinion, not fact.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-18-2013, 02:15 PM
Look man, its fine to disagree on this issue without being insulting to the people you are disagreeing with.
It's not like I'm telling you the world is flat here. Both sides are arguing a matter of opinion, not fact.


Who was I insulting to? Frodaddy or myself? Because I satirized myself as being a fan who is "blinded by their love of SPEED." Plus, I liked his post and added a smiley face to mine. Seems pretty clear that I was just trying to be silly.

I think you overplayed the indignation hand here a little bit.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-18-2013, 02:17 PM
Look man, its fine to disagree on this issue without being insulting to the people you are disagreeing with.
It's not like I'm telling you the world is flat here. Both sides are arguing a matter of opinion, not fact.

Now what's this about the world not being flat? :) ;) Loud whisper* I'M JUST KIDDING.... ;) :)

Mr. Brooks
03-18-2013, 02:22 PM
Who was I insulting to? Frodaddy or myself? Because I satirized myself as being a fan who is "blinded by their love of SPEED." Plus, I liked his post and added a smiley face to mine. Seems pretty clear that I was just trying to be silly.

I think you overplayed the indignation hand here a little bit.

Missed the smiley the first time, browser must have been F'd or something.

James
03-18-2013, 02:29 PM
To be fair, they were playing the 2011 Twins. The same group that picked the lineup could have taken the field and had a chance to win that game.
And if you read the arcticle (which I'm assuming you did), they also got to go up against a 2011 Nick Blackburn.

Personally, I probably would go with a lineup closer to "the book" vs. the traditional. I haven't read that particular article before today, but I have read some others about building lineups that have similar arguments about how to build a lineup. The numbers argument makes sense to me more than "that's the way we've always done things and it seems to work" argument to me.

Pitz
03-24-2013, 09:56 AM
I'm not a Gardy hater and I don't want to start a stream of bashing. I'm usually pretty laid back about most things but his comments in this arcticle Gardenhire has several possibilities to bat second (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130323&content_id=43176576&notebook_id=43177364&vkey=notebook_min&c_id=min) really bothered me. I think that somehow he's stuck with the notion that the 2nd hitter is some sort of sacrificial lamb.

"He has to bunt and all those things to get the guy over."

"People say they want Joe Mauer batting second, but do you really want him coming up with a man on second base and shooting them the other way?"

Yes I absolutely want Mauer coming up with a man on second, because he is the team's best hitter. The goal is not to get the runner to third. The goal is to get him home while preferably making as few outs as possible. Would you rather have Mauer or Dozier up with a runner on second?

To be fair, Gardy does mention wanting the number 2 hitter to be an on-base guy and that's he's looked at Mauer in that slot. But it just seems his priorities are a little out of whack for the second spot in the lineup.

Willihammer
03-24-2013, 12:17 PM
Anyone else notice when they interviewed Maddon in the dugout yesterday, he explained how they looked at RBI opportunities, and found that the 4 hitter had significantly more opps. than the 3 hitter?

TheLeviathan
03-24-2013, 01:47 PM
Is there a way we can secretly abduct and clone Maddon and infilitrate the clone into the Twins organization. Granted, there are few hurdles in the plan, but I'm in if you guys are.

ThePuck
03-24-2013, 01:48 PM
I'm not a Gardy hater and I don't want to start a stream of bashing. I'm usually pretty laid back about most things but his comments in this arcticle Gardenhire has several possibilities to bat second (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130323&content_id=43176576&notebook_id=43177364&vkey=notebook_min&c_id=min) really bothered me. I think that somehow he's stuck with the notion that the 2nd hitter is some sort of sacrificial lamb.

"He has to bunt and all those things to get the guy over."

"People say they want Joe Mauer batting second, but do you really want him coming up with a man on second base and shooting them the other way?"

Yes I absolutely want Mauer coming up with a man on second, because he is the team's best hitter. The goal is not to get the runner to third. The goal is to get him home while preferably making as few outs as possible. Would you rather have Mauer or Dozier up with a runner on second?

To be fair, Gardy does mention wanting the number 2 hitter to be an on-base guy and that's he's looked at Mauer in that slot. But it just seems his priorities are a little out of whack for the second spot in the lineup.

He likes the #2 guy to sacrifice bunt, move guys over...etc. That calls for giving yourself up a little more than you'd want a hitter like Mauer to do. Mauer is our best hitter and our best hitter with RISP. He shouldn't be sacrificing his plate appearances. He should be batting 3rd.

TheLeviathan
03-24-2013, 01:51 PM
He likes the #2 guy to sacrifice bunt, move guys over...etc. That calls for giving yourself up a little more than you'd want a hitter like Mauer to do. Mauer is our best hitter and our best hitter with RISP. He shouldn't be sacrificing his plate appearances. He should be batting 3rd.

Or we could just hit someone number two and not intentionally get that lineup position out in order to advance runners. Mauer could advance them with non-outs. Like hits.

glunn
03-24-2013, 01:59 PM
Then it's gone, and you can delete your reply which repeats it.

Thank you my friend.

Mr. Brooks
03-24-2013, 02:18 PM
I'm not a Gardy hater and I don't want to start a stream of bashing. I'm usually pretty laid back about most things but his comments in this arcticle Gardenhire has several possibilities to bat second (http://minnesota.twins.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20130323&content_id=43176576&notebook_id=43177364&vkey=notebook_min&c_id=min) really bothered me. I think that somehow he's stuck with the notion that the 2nd hitter is some sort of sacrificial lamb.

"He has to bunt and all those things to get the guy over."

"People say they want Joe Mauer batting second, but do you really want him coming up with a man on second base and shooting them the other way?"

Yes I absolutely want Mauer coming up with a man on second, because he is the team's best hitter. The goal is not to get the runner to third. The goal is to get him home while preferably making as few outs as possible. Would you rather have Mauer or Dozier up with a runner on second?

To be fair, Gardy does mention wanting the number 2 hitter to be an on-base guy and that's he's looked at Mauer in that slot. But it just seems his priorities are a little out of whack for the second spot in the lineup.

LOL, most AL managers see a leadoff double and say, "alright, we got a chance for a big inning here!"
Gardy sees a leadoff double and says, "alright, we got a chance to move the runner over to 3rd and hit a sac fly here!"
You can't make it up.

Alex
03-24-2013, 03:04 PM
Anyone else notice when they interviewed Maddon in the dugout yesterday, he explained how they looked at RBI opportunities, and found that the 4 hitter had significantly more opps. than the 3 hitter?

The differences in the philosophy of the managers (and broadcast teams, for that matter) were pretty clear in those two half innings of interviews. I especially loved it Maddon was giving the rundown on the contact play, too. It would should have been clear to anyone watching, IMO, who was a more current student of the game.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 03:12 PM
Or we could just hit someone number two and not intentionally get that lineup position out in order to advance runners. Mauer could advance them with non-outs. Like hits.

Yes, if everybody always just got hits, scoring runs would be much easier.

crarko
03-24-2013, 03:15 PM
Yes, if everybody always just got hits, scoring runs would be much easier.

Like today; Hicks 4-4, Dozier 3-4, Mauer 6 RBI's. :)

Willihammer
03-24-2013, 03:22 PM
"People say they want Joe Mauer batting second, but do you really want him coming up with a man on second base and shooting them the other way?"

The other thing is, when Mauer goes the other way, the ball tends to stay in the air. When he pulls the ball, that's when he hits it on the ground. Either way, mission accomplished. Runner advances.

TheLeviathan
03-24-2013, 04:47 PM
Yes, if everybody always just got hits, scoring runs would be much easier.

right, hence why stringing together your best hitters is generally a good strategy. It's certainly better than intentionally positioning someone inbetween them who can get out but make it "productive"

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 04:54 PM
right, hence why stringing together your best hitters is generally a good strategy. It's certainly better than intentionally positioning someone inbetween them who can get out but make it "productive"

Got it. Now please explain how to pitch well.

TheLeviathan
03-24-2013, 05:01 PM
God I miss BYTO.

10PagesOfClearBlueSky
03-24-2013, 05:05 PM
God I miss BYTO.

Oh, but you're doing so well with the hilarious StarTrek face palm. Feel free to private message me with every NSFTD comment you have. I promise PROMISE not to cry foul and then run away from the conversation.