Thread: Opening Day Lineup

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

Our conversation got me thinking and doing some math. I wondered what the threshold would be for preferring speed over OBP. I thought about it this way:

Take Hypothetical Player A, who has a very good .380 on base percentage. Let's say he's reasonably competent on the base paths, and that the speed he has allows him to score 50% of the time. This means that out of 600 plate appearances Player A will be on base 228 times and will score a run 114. Not bad at all, the on base machine gets the job done.

Now take Hypothetical Player B, with an average .325 on base percentage. Let's say Player B is a pretty darn fast runner, however, and that his speed helps him to score 60% of the time, ten percent more than the high on base guy. In 600 plate appearances Player B gets on base 195 times. His skill-set doesn't include the high on OBP of Player A, but he does have that 10% more scoring per time on the base paths due to the skill-set he does have. Player B scores a run 117 times, three more runs per 600 plate appearance than the On-Base guy.

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

Here is where I COMPLETELY disagree with you. The dude that gets on at a .380 clip controls very little of what the hitters behind him do. This guy could be John Kruk or John Olerud, but you have to get your teammates the opportunity to drive you in. Top of the order guys, have a job to do. One see several pitches and ultimately finda way to get on base. Once on base, try to advance without getting out. Seems pretty simple, but in your EXTREME example your comparing Ben Revere to a Kruk/Olerud-type. Revere definitely has his advantages leading off or batting in the two hole, but so do Olerud and Kruk. They may not run as well, but they also had far more XBH and were on 2nd base to start with A LOT more than Revere would ever be.

Your scenario is kinda ridiculous to put it nicely. The math works, but the logic doesn't. Even Scott Hatteburg batted 2nd for the A's at times. Speed is great if that's your team's philosophy. If it isn't, like the A's (who frown at stealing bases) or the Yankees, who play for the 3-run homer, it doesn't matter.

Originally Posted by Siehbiscuit

Here is where I COMPLETELY disagree with you. The dude that gets on at a .380 clip controls very little of what the hitters behind him do. This guy could be John Kruk or John Olerud, but you have to get your teammates the opportunity to drive you in. Top of the order guys, have a job to do. One see several pitches and ultimately finda way to get on base. Once on base, try to advance without getting out. Seems pretty simple, but in your EXTREME example your comparing Ben Revere to a Kruk/Olerud-type. Revere definitely has his advantages leading off or batting in the two hole, but so do Olerud and Kruk. They may not run as well, but they also had far more XBH and were on 2nd base to start with A LOT more than Revere would ever be.

Your scenario is kinda ridiculous to put it nicely. The math works, but the logic doesn't. Even Scott Hatteburg batted 2nd for the A's at times. Speed is great if that's your team's philosophy. If it isn't, like the A's (who frown at stealing bases) or the Yankees, who play for the 3-run homer, it doesn't matter.

You're choosing to argue against a hypothetical that was intentionally extreme in its nature. It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous. Is OBP incredibly important? Yes. My purpose with the hypothetical was just to make my idea plainly clear by pushing out the averages to the point where that philosophy cost a team actual runs.

My subsequent discussion of Guzman and Mientkiewicz was a fact based example of the same type of scenario, in which SPEED likely played a noteworthy role in actual runs being scored by different types of players. Is my example perfect? No. I say as much in the posts. I mention that subsequent hitters impact the likelihood of scoring more than the SPEED of the player on base. To outright ignore SPEED as a factor, however, is to ignore something that clearly impacts the amount of runs being scored.

Just because ideas like moneyball have taught us that teams historically have greatly overpaid for a difficult-to-quantify quality like SPEED doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, or that it doesn't exist, or that it can't sometimes, in certain lineups, in regards to certain types of players, be more important than things like OBP.

You're coming in to the conversation a little bit late to be expected to have read all of it though, much less to have paused your conventional SABR wisdom enough to ask yourself whether or not SPEED may exist in a statistical grey area, and whether or not it may actually impact games in a way that it is difficult to quantify.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

These numbers seem to indicate that the difference need not be Billy Hamilton to Mathew LeCroy in order for speed to be preferable over OBP when the ultimate objective is to score runs.

The run values vary year to year and team to team. Overall, these are the average run values for 2012, per fangraphs:

Season	wOBA	wOBAScale	wBB	wHBP	w1B	w2B	w3B	wHR	runSB	runCS	R/PA	R/W	cFIP
2012	0.315	1.245	0.691	0.722	0.884	1.257	1.593	2.058	0.2	-0.398	0.114	9.544	3.095

Obviously this doesn't count taking extra bases, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. Safe to say that those things are all probably comparable to SBs in their run values though.

So, if you take player A: a lousy baserunner who costs his team 7.5 runs in caught stealing and baserunning blunders; and player B who steals 50 bases and is caught only 5 times, and who produces 8 additional runs via 1st to 3rd, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. (totaling +16 net runs). Assume both play on the same, perfectly league average 2012 team. Player A will need to draw 34 additional walks to equal player B's run value, a difference of .056 OBP. Or, he could hit 17 home runs, a difference of .028 in OBP.

edit: Error. Only 11 HRs with a weighted run value 23.5 runs. A difference of .018 OBP instead of .028.

Originally Posted by Willihammer

The run values vary year to year and team to team. Overall, these are the average run values for 2012, per fangraphs:



Obviously this doesn't count taking extra bases, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. Safe to say that those things are all probably comparable to SBs in their run values though.

So, if you take player A: a lousy baserunner who costs his team 7.5 runs in caught stealing and baserunning blunders; and player B who steals 50 bases and is caught only 5 times, and who produces 8 additional runs via 1st to 3rd, scoring from 2nd on a single, etc. (totaling +16 net runs). Assume both play on the same, perfectly league average 2012 team. Player A will need to draw 34 additional walks to equal player B's run value, a difference of .056 OBP. Or, he could hit 17 home runs, a difference of .028 in OBP.

I hesitate to "characterize" your analysis, because it would be a translation on my part of YOUR MATH into MY ENGLISH and would include subjective terms like "substantial", "significant" and "obviously".

I appreciate the seriousness with which you approach a legitimate question.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous.

This is an unfair and inaccurate account of this discussion. That quote was only made after two attempts to say OBP > speed, speed comes into the equation when OBP is roughly equal. You resisted that characterization and spun it into the extreme position you later characterized this way:

It's funny to me when people just want OBP in the 2-spot, because the ultimate goal is to score runs. If a high On-Base guy doesn't come around to score, what is the value in having them on base in the first place?

The fact is, that guy not coming around has more to do with the subsequent hitters than it does with the baserunner themselves. As a rule, it's far better to construct the top of your lineup by loading it with guys that are good at not making outs. If they happen to bring speed to the table that's a bonus and a potential tie-breaker in close analysis, but by no means should it treated in the manner you have tried to illustrate.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

You're choosing to argue against a hypothetical that was intentionally extreme in its nature. It was to illustrate the fact that comments like "IMO OBP is the ONLY quality to be considered when constructing a lineup" are ridiculous. Is OBP incredibly important? Yes. My purpose with the hypothetical was just to make my idea plainly clear by pushing out the averages to the point where that philosophy cost a team actual runs.

My subsequent discussion of Guzman and Mientkiewicz was a fact based example of the same type of scenario, in which SPEED likely played a noteworthy role in actual runs being scored by different types of players. Is my example perfect? No. I say as much in the posts. I mention that subsequent hitters impact the likelihood of scoring more than the SPEED of the player on base. To outright ignore SPEED as a factor, however, is to ignore something that clearly impacts the amount of runs being scored.

Just because ideas like moneyball have taught us that teams historically have greatly overpaid for a difficult-to-quantify quality like SPEED doesn't mean it shouldn't be considered, or that it doesn't exist, or that it can't sometimes, in certain lineups, in regards to certain types of players, be more important than things like OBP.

You're coming in to the conversation a little bit late to be expected to have read all of it though, much less to have paused your conventional SABR wisdom enough to ask yourself whether or not SPEED may exist in a statistical grey area, and whether or not it may actually impact games in a way that it is difficult to quantify.

I think the problem I have with what you've been saying (and what others have commented as well), is that speed didn't "likely" play a noteworthy role. You've largely cut out the most obvious role, namely in what the person behind them does, by cherry picking a few guys to make your point.

If you want to address the role of speed in scoring runs, I would strongly suggest you do some research based off of stuff I've seen John Bonnes post reguarly... namely run expectancy. There's some pretty good numbers out about the average run expectancy in various situations (i.e. a runner on 1st with 2 outs will score X percent of the time). With enough sample size (and it would take years of fast runners in various lineups with league average, year by year, and team by team comparrisons), you might be able to conclude that fast runners can out perform that system by a specific margin, which can be extrapolated to a season, but that type of research is going to take A LOT of time.

I don't think anyone on this forum doubts that speed plays a role in scoring runs. The question at hand has to do with how much of a role it plays. I think it's safe to say that not making outs behind the said runner is more often than not, more important than the speed of a runner on the basepaths. That is the assumption that you are challenging, and I don't think you've proven your point.

Originally Posted by diehardtwinsfan

I think the problem I have with what you've been saying (and what others have commented as well), is that speed didn't "likely" play a noteworthy role. You've largely cut out the most obvious role, namely in what the person behind them does, by cherry picking a few guys to make your point.

If you want to address the role of speed in scoring runs, I would strongly suggest you do some research based off of stuff I've seen John Bonnes post reguarly... namely run expectancy. There's some pretty good numbers out about the average run expectancy in various situations (i.e. a runner on 1st with 2 outs will score X percent of the time). With enough sample size (and it would take years of fast runners in various lineups with league average, year by year, and team by team comparrisons), you might be able to conclude that fast runners can out perform that system by a specific margin, which can be extrapolated to a season, but that type of research is going to take A LOT of time.

I don't think anyonPe on this forum doubts that speed plays a role in scoring runs. The question at hand has to do with how much of a role it plays. I think it's safe to say that not making outs behind the said runner is more often than not, more important than the speed of a runner on the basepaths. That is the assumption that you are challenging, and I don't think you've proven your point.

Completely incorrect characterization. I don't think I should keep responding to these posts, because it us a constant process of tearing down straw man arguments. I am not at all challenging the assumption that not making outs behind a runner and in general OBP are much more contributing factors. I have said as much many times over. If I have done a poor job of illustrating that the effect of SPEED on runs scored, is under-represented in statistical analysis, so be it. The arguments agai my contention continually involve representations of me claiming that I think SPEED is more important than not making outs. I have never made such a claim. I have clearly stated the opposite of such a claim.

I feel like I should stop responding to posts that include these types of misrepresentations, despite how fun it may be to marvel at their obliviousness to their transgression.

While I'm not totally averse to Mauer hitting second, I don't think it is as simple a proposition as OBP. Gardy seldom hits and runs with Mauer and he does like to put runners in motion. Traditionally, the best hitter in the lineup hits third and Mauer is the best hitter, despite not being much of a home run threat. I'm not sure if Dozier would be up to hitting second, but I don't doubt that Gardenhire will try it.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

...[mis]representations of me claiming that I think SPEED is more important than not making outs.

Of course you're making that claim. If one has a lower OBP then one is making more outs...

Originally Posted by Oxtung

Of course you're making that claim. If one has a lower OBP then one is making more outs...

No. Making that claim would be for me to say that SPEED always trumps OBP. I never said anything close to that. In case anybody was ever confused about the point I was trying to make, I repeatedly explained with caveats that I believe OBP and not making outs is more important than SPEED overall. To say that because SPEED equals more actual runs sometimes despite a somewhat lower OBP IS NOT to say "SPEED is preferable to not making outs".

To just ignore the many times I have clearly stated my view that OBP is ultimately a larger contributing factor than SPEED is strange, and seems to suggest you are just trying to make me "seem wrong" instead of approaching the subject in a good faith effort to interact regarding this subject. Intellectual honesty is a quality that people who might disagree on a subject rely on in order to operate by fair standards in the arena of ideas. I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

No. Making that claim would be for me to say that SPEED always trumps OBP. I never said anything close to that. In case anybody was ever confused about the point I was trying to make, I repeatedly explained with caveats that I believe OBP and not making outs is more important than SPEED overall. To say that because SPEED equals more actual runs sometimes despite a somewhat lower OBP IS NOT to say "SPEED is preferable to not making outs".

To just ignore the many times I have clearly stated my view that OBP is ultimately a larger contributing factor than SPEED is strange, and seems to suggest you are just trying to make me "seem wrong" instead of approaching the subject in a good faith effort to interact regarding this subject. Intellectual honesty is a quality that people who might disagree on a subject rely on in order to operate by fair standards in the arena of ideas. I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill.

Of course you're claiming that at some point speed is more important than outs. It is the fundamental pedestal upon which your whole argument stands. If a player has a lower OBP then he is making more outs. Now maybe his speed can make up for that in the real world. Hypothetically it is possible. But you haven't shown that to be the case. There in lies your problem.

As for intellectual honesty I think you need to do some thinking on the subject. No where in my post was I claiming anything you haven't said. I in no way misrepresented your idea. I am a bit offended by your rant to be honest because intellectual honesty and social goodwill is something I strive for in ever interaction I have.

OBP, Speed? Who gives a crap! It's all about laying down that bunt in the #2 spot, every body who isn't a pleb knows that!

Originally Posted by SpiritofVodkaDave

OBP, Speed? Who gives a crap! It's all about laying down that bunt in the #2 spot, every body who isn't a pleb knows that!

It's SPEED

Originally Posted by Oxtung

Of course you're claiming that at some point speed is more important than outs. It is the fundamental pedestal upon which your whole argument stands. If a player has a lower OBP then he is making more outs. Now maybe his speed can make up for that in the real world. Hypothetically it is possible. But you haven't shown that to be the case. There in lies your problem.

As for intellectual honesty I think you need to do some thinking on the subject. No where in my post was I claiming anything you haven't said. I in no way misrepresented your idea. I am a bit offended by your rant to be honest because intellectual honesty and social goodwill is something I strive for in ever interaction I have.

You seem to be taking offense to this statement: "I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill."

Unless you count yourself amongst those who have misrepresented my statements in the manner I described, I don't understand why you would take the comments as offensive. Would you not agree that my characterization of people who create a strawman argument out of my perspective aren't displaying the type of intellectual honesty and social goodwill that you always strive for?


I clearly stated that I do not think SPEED is MORE IMPORTANT than making outs. You, seemingly simulteanously ignoring and responding to that statement at the same time, chimed in with "You are absolutely making that claim." It seems to me pretty obvious that you were directly accusing me of making an argument that I didn't make. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were truly trying to say, but it would seem that I accurately received your communication. I understand hat I made a generalized comment about intellectual dishonesty in a post that directly quoted and addressed you. I did count you among those building strawman arguments. I then was careful to be very general in my comments criticizing it. I'm assuming you DO indeed count yourself amongst people who have handled the argument in that manner, otherwise you would not have flat the criticism was directed toward you.

Overall, I did not intend to be insulting in any way beyond general message board banter. Since you are claiming that I was, I will take that in good faith and offer my apology.

This thread is really silly at this point, and I'm doubting whether all the attention this thread has gotten is good for business on this site. It is just semantic arguments about the argument at this point, and I am probably more guilty than anybody for continually responding and perpetuating it. I will really try hard to only respond to non-semantic conversations at this point, or to directly answer questions that are asked of me.

Originally Posted by jokin

It's SPEED

Well played sir.

Originally Posted by USAFChief

Well played sir.

Yes, SPEED. I just like it to look more like OBP looks in the threads, and I was amused by putting it in all caps. I wondered how long it would be before the caps drove somebody crazy. Careful now, don't get too mad...

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

You seem to be taking offense to this statement: "I don't feel that people pretending that I think speed ALWAYS or MORE OFTEN or USUALLY trumps OBP is part of an effor to employ intellectual honesty and social goodwill."

Unless you count yourself amongst those who have misrepresented my statements in the manner I described, I don't understand why you would take the comments as offensive. Would you not agree that my characterization of people who create a strawman argument out of my perspective aren't displaying the type of intellectual honesty and social goodwill that you always strive for?


I clearly stated that I do not think SPEED is MORE IMPORTANT than making outs. You, seemingly simulteanously ignoring and responding to that statement at the same time, chimed in with "You are absolutely making that claim." It seems to me pretty obvious that you were directly accusing me of making an argument that I didn't make. I apologize if I misinterpreted what you were truly trying to say, but it would seem that I accurately received your communication. I understand hat I made a generalized comment about intellectual dishonesty in a post that directly quoted and addressed you. I did count you among those building strawman arguments. I then was careful to be very general in my comments criticizing it. I'm assuming you DO indeed count yourself amongst people who have handled the argument in that manner, otherwise you would not have flat the criticism was directed toward you.

Overall, I did not intend to be insulting in any way beyond general message board banter. Since you are claiming that I was, I will take that in good faith and offer my apology.

This thread is really silly at this point, and I'm doubting whether all the attention this thread has gotten is good for business on this site. It is just semantic arguments about the argument at this point, and I am probably more guilty than anybody for continually responding and perpetuating it. I will really try hard to only respond to non-semantic conversations at this point, or to directly answer questions that are asked of me.

You made your rant after directly quoting me. So I took that as directed towards me. If that was not the case then I apologize for coming back as strongly as I did. Please be more careful in the future as to identifying who the subject of your writings are. Perhaps you could have begun the opening of that paragraph with something like, "This is not directed at you Oxtung but to the .....".

Moving on.

Personally I think this is one of the most interesting discussions this board has had in quite a while. It is by far more interesting than the retread rants about Butera or how many pitchers should be carried to start the season. This is a new conversation that hasn't been rehashed to death recently. Let me try and get back to the core of your argument. Hit the reset button if you will.

If we think of OBP/SPEED as a bar graph I think it might help conceptualize your argument. On one end we have a player who's OBP is 1.000 but he can't move. On the other end we have a player whose OBP is .000 but he is The Flash fast. Obviously both these players are going to go scoreless. In the middle of the graph we have a player with average OBP and average speed. As you work from the edges towards this middle point the number of runs scored will increase. The unknown question here is where will the most runs be scored. Your arguing that the most runs will be scored somewhere slightly on the "speed" side of the equation. Is this a fair representation of your contention?

---

OBP..............................Average.......... ..................Speed

Originally Posted by Oxtung

You made your rant after directly quoting me. So I took that as directed towards me. If that was not the case then I apologize for coming back as strongly as I did. Please be more careful in the future as to identifying who the subject of your writings are. Perhaps you could have begun the opening of that paragraph with something like, "This is not directed at you Oxtung but to the .....".

Moving on.

Personally I think this is one of the most interesting discussions this board has had in quite a while. It is by far more interesting than the retread rants about Butera or how many pitchers should be carried to start the season. This is a new conversation that hasn't been rehashed to death recently. Let me try and get back to the core of your argument. Hit the reset button if you will.

If we think of OBP/SPEED as a bar graph I think it might help conceptualize your argument. On one end we have a player who's OBP is 1.000 but he can't move. On the other end we have a player whose OBP is .000 but he is The Flash fast. Obviously both these players are going to go scoreless. In the middle of the graph we have a player with average OBP and average speed. As you work from the edges towards this middle point the number of runs scored will increase. The unknown question here is where will the most runs be scored. Your arguing that the most runs will be scored somewhere slightly on the "speed" side of the equation. Is this a fair representation of your contention?

---

OBP..............................Average.......... ..................Speed

I appreciate the reasonable attempt to visualize my perspective. No, my view isn't even as " on the side of SPEED" as your assessment of my place on the average line would be.


My argument hasn't even at all been to try to say that SPEED is in any way a more "contributing factor" to runs being scored on average, in general, or on balance.

Somebody said that they were ever told why SPEED needs to be a consideration of a potential number 2 hitter's skill-set.

I was just saying, simply, that some players posses SPEED that is enough of a contributing factor that it makes up for their deservedness to bat in a more advantageous place order than another player who has a higher OBP. This was a contrasting view to the idea that OBP trumps all, and that the tops of lineups should be constructed strictly based on OBP as the determining factor. People have responded and said things along the lines of, "of course speed is a factor, but only a tiny bit at the margins. Only in the case of an OBP tie. Only as a thrown in additional bonus. Only in comparisons such as billy hamilton to Matthew LeCroy".


And my response, and my argument at its core has simply been, "I don't know guys, I bet it's a decent bit more important than statistics have been able to accurately quantify yet."


The substance hitting the proverbial fan that ensued contained so many ridiculous characterizations of my viewpoint (see Fro's responses, etc.) that nobody but a select few people kept track of the initial gist of my perspective. Even now, you present a bar graph that is in assumption of a perspective I do not have. I guess that's my fault for not communicating my respective well enough, though I feel I ave stated my perspective very clearly many times over. I wonder if everything I have written, which I admit is a lot, has been read by everybody who has participated in the conversation.


Regarding your graph. Your bar graph assumes that all increase in SPEED is necessarily a decrease in OBP and vice versa. It isn't necessarily a 1:1 ratio, and in fact there is not likely a constant ratio that would apply effectively.

I think Willihammer started to approach a relevant analysis, but he hasn't been back around to characterize what he feels his numbers imply. I wish he would, and I would encourage him to continue to refine the type of approach he is taking toward illuminating a statistical grey area.

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

My argument hasn't even at all been to try to say that SPEED is in any way a more "contributing factor" to runs being scored on average, in general, or on balance.

And my response, and my argument at its core has simply been, "I don't know guys, I bet [speed is] a decent bit more important than statistics have been able to accurately quantify yet."


Regarding your graph. Your bar graph assumes that all increase in SPEED is necessarily a decrease in OBP and vice versa. It isn't necessarily a 1:1 ratio, and in fact there is not likely a constant ratio that would apply effectively.

Let me assure you I have read this entire thread. While I might get caught up in the more recent comments it is not out of an intention to purposefully be deceitful or to "win" an argument. It is more because that is the way the human brain works. It prioritizes recent events over previous events. This is why I wanted to to just break from the previous line of thoughts and get back to what your original statements were. I believe there is a possibility you are onto something with speed. Or SPEED if you prefer .

As to my bar graph you're absolutely right that it is not useful in this case as it implies a 1:1 relationship between speed:OBP. That was not my intention. Call it a brain fart.

Less try a less rigid representation. You believe that if a player is fast enough he can create more runs than someone with a higher OBP. You don't know where that speed to OBP ratio is however.

Originally Posted by Oxtung

You believe that if a player is fast enough he can create more runs than someone with a higher OBP. You don't know where that speed to OBP ratio is however.

Correct. It's kind of funny because I might have actually said this a dozen times by now. Yes, that is what I'm saying and I appreciate your approach to this most recent part of the conversation.

I'm not really onto something, it's been known by managers and observers for years. I think people fall in love with quantifiable stats like OBP and OPS, and sometimes ignore contributing factors that aren't as easily quantified.

I really wish WilliHammer would expand and tweak his analysis, and also comment on how his numbers sit within the context of this conversation.