Thread: How to build a batting order...

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.

Optimizing Your Lineup By The Book - Beyond the Box Score 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.

I thought posts about batting order were considered banned on this board?

Originally Posted by jctwins

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.

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/0B5pI...it?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.

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)

This is easy. 1-9 High OBP. 3-5, more power.

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.

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.

Does anyone actually have argument about "the book" instead of basically reciting the "old book" about lineups?

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

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.

You could always just pick your lineup randomly:

40th anniversary: Billy Martin picks batting order out of hat

Didnt Joe Maddon once let a fan pick the lineup back in '11 or so?

Originally Posted by glunn

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

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

Originally Posted by James

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

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.

Originally Posted by FrodaddyG

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...

Originally Posted by 10PagesOfClearBlueSky

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

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.

Originally Posted by Mr. Brooks

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....