Gardy Needs a Refresher Course in Lineup Construction

[Rosterman]

I like Mauer batting third. Yes, I wish we had true 1-2 in the order. I would bat WIllingham 4 and Morneau 5th and make the rest the crapshoot that it is.

[fairweather]

I have not been a Dozier supporter and I think Mauer should bat 2nd if not 1st, but I really like the way Dozier is swinging right now and I would keep him at the top of the order unless he regresses AGAIN. That's not to say Carroll has to stay batting 1/2. Maybe Dozier leading off with Mauer #2 is the way. Dozier has to keep swinging the bat like he is now for a measurable stretch, then more answers we will have.

[johnnydakota]

Unfortunately, as the sample grows larger, Dozier will inevitably regress and prove to be a poor long-term option batting 2nd in front of Mauer. Hopefully, Gardy has learned from the past and will juggle the lineup before he has another 2 week stretch of Hick-like production from the top of the order. Shaking it up is a decent strategy in the short-term, but Mauer is the perfect choice in the 2-hole over the long-term.

 

Remember this is Ron Gardenhire, he will shake things up in the middle of a winning streak.

[ashbury]

Haha, good call. It is clear that Gardy is obsessed with the Platonic Form of the no. 2 hitter.

 

I can just imagine R. Clyde Gardenhire reading this thread and nodding, saying "Finally! someone GETS it."

[John Bonnes]

Maybe start a thread and plug all your articles in it? Seem over the top to start a new thread every time you write an article for a non-twinsdaily site.

 

Sorry I didn't see this earlier.

 

For the record, we actively encourage this at Twins Daily. We want readers to find independent bloggers and we want our readers to be able to find as much content as possible.

 

By all means - post links to your blogs silly in the threads. For that matter, if corporate media wants to post their links in the threads, we would encourage that, too. We would like to ourselves, but have trouble keeping up.

[John Bonnes]

Lineup construction is not nonsense. It means a few games a year if you do it right. If you don't think a few games matter, you are insane.

 

The studies I've read (and they go back some time, like to Bill James) concluded that the difference between an absolutely optimal lineup (which is basically putting the batters 1-9 by descending OBP) and the worst (the exact opposite lineup) is about 60 runs per year. It also concludes that if you chose a lineup at random - like Billy Martin would do if his team was in a slump (the players would draw their lineup position from a hat) - it's about 30 runs per year.

 

The lineup folks are advocating - Mauer batting second with the rest of the linuep as is - isn't optimal though it's close because the guys or more or less in the right order, so we're giving up a few runs there. The lineup with Dozier batting #2 is still very close to optimal - it's got most of the guys in the right order, with one extra guy in the wrong order. So how close to that desired lineup are we talking? Five runs? Three runs? Seven runs?

 

And over the course of a season, that small of a difference is awfully close to nonsense. No sabrmetrician would say he can realistically predict the number of runs a team will score within that kind of margin for error. (He/she certainly wouldn't bet that he/she could).

 

And that kind of difference could be made up by any number of ways. Maybe Mauer is more motivated when he's a #3 hitter. Mabye Dozier is more patient as a #2. Or maybe he prepares a little differently when he knows he's batting at the beginning of the game. Or maybe they come up in a little better way in high-leverage situations. Or maybe a butterly flaps its wings in China. The amount of runs is so small as to be insignificant.

 

Virtually every study lays out two rules for lineup effect:

1) Within reason, it really doesn't matter.

2) To what extent it does matter, trust OBP.

 

But I think because there are two rules, they are perceived as having equal weight. They don't. #1 is 96% of what we need to know. #2 is there mostly to make us feel better and better define "Within reason."

 

This is why I get more worked up about people who get worked up about lineup construction than I do about lineup construction. Gardenhire is well "within reason" and it doesn't matter where the hell Dozier bats.

[stringer bell]

The idea of having two of the best OBP guys batting 1-2 makes perfect sense. The idea of having guys hitting 3-5 who can both get on base and knock 'em in also makes perfect sense. The Twins' problem is that Mauer is far and away their best OBP guy and their best #3 hitter. I have said for years this club has far too many one-dimensional players and the trend continues. Two or three years from now we might see Buxton-Hicks 1-2 and Mauer could hit between them and Sano. I was fine with Mauer hitting second, but in this year where contention is a dream, I would like to find out about unestablished players. If Dozier can thrive hitting #2 or #1, great. If not put him in the bottom of the lineup or try someone else.

[gunnarthor]

Mauer is our ideal #2 hitter. The problem is, he's also our best #3 hitter. Heck, maybe we should move Morneau to the #2 spot. We have holes all over our lineup for now so complaining about this is like complaining that we put red lipstick on the pig instead of blue lipstick.

[big dog]

So here's the plan. By June Hicks is a stud, and the lineup is:

Dozier

Mauer

Hicks

Morneau (who will have regained some form)

Arcia

2 of Doumit/Parmalee/Willingham

Plouffe/3B

SS

 

OK, maybe "plan" overstates what it really is. But I like it, if Hicks and Arcia can hold up there end.

[Guest USAFChief]

This exact situation was manifested last night. Bottom of the 8th, bases loaded, 2 outs. Brian Dozier up to bat as the #2 hitter instead of Joe Mauer. Dozier flies out on a flare to right, Mauer doesn't bat again.

 

Thankfully the Twins hung on to win and I'll concede that lineup construction does generally get blown out of proportion, but we can't pretend like these little things don't matter at all.

Your scenario misses a seemingly important point...if Dozier was hitting in the bottom of the lineup, with Mauer hitting second, the scenario would have worked the same way. Dozier would have come up earlier in the inning, and assuming he did the exact same thing...flared one to right...the out he recorded comes earlier in the inning and the Twins don't get to bases loaded with 2 out. Mauer doesn't hit that way either, because the inning is over before you get to the 2nd spot in the lineup.

[Riverbrian]

I know everyone is wondering: What would Riverbrian do?

 

OK

 

Lineup #1

 

Florimon SS

Mauer C

Hammer LF

Morneau 1B

Doumit DH

Arcia RF

Plouffe 3B

Hicks CF

Dozier 2B

 

Lineup #2

 

Carroll 2B

Mauer C

Hammer DH

Morneau 1B

Arcia LF

Plouffe 3B

Parm RF

Hicks CF

Escobar SS

 

Lineup #3

 

Florimon SS

Mauer DH

Hammer LF

Arcia RF

Doumit C

Plouffe 3B

Parm 1B

Hicks CF

Dozier 2B

 

Lineup #4

 

Florimon SS

Mauer C

Morneau 1B

Doumit DH

Arcia LF

Plouffe 3B

Parm RF

Dozier 2B

Escobar CF

 

Lineup #5

 

Carroll 3B

Mauer DH

Hammer LF

Morneau 1B

Doumit C

Parmelee RF

Hicks CF

Dozier 2B

Escobar SS

[TheLeviathan]

I know everyone is wondering: What would Riverbrian do?

 

Now we can all rest with ease! And I like lineup 2 personally.

[jay]

Your scenario misses a seemingly important point...if Dozier was hitting in the bottom of the lineup, with Mauer hitting second, the scenario would have worked the same way. Dozier would have come up earlier in the inning, and assuming he did the exact same thing...flared one to right...the out he recorded comes earlier in the inning and the Twins don't get to bases loaded with 2 out. Mauer doesn't hit that way either, because the inning is over before you get to the 2nd spot in the lineup.

 

Please, just take it at surface level as a simple example.

 

If you want to start playing with revisionist history, you can start making 'seemingly important points' about how any given situation could have possibly been different... to the point where you can make absolutely no insights at all.

 

The outcome and specifics aren't as important as the fact that Mauer batting 3rd led to 1 less at bat for him. With that likely to happen about once every 9 games, I'd call that a bad thing given our other options to bat 2nd.

[Guest USAFChief]

Please, just take it at surface level as a simple example.

 

If you want to start playing with revisionist history, you can start making 'seemingly important points' about how any given situation could have possibly been different... to the point where you can make absolutely no insights at all.

 

The outcome and specifics aren't as important as the fact that Mauer batting 3rd led to 1 less at bat for him. With that likely to happen about once every 9 games, I'd call that a bad thing given our other options to bat 2nd.

 

Odd. Your original post, to which I replied, was based on this: "This exact situation was manifested last night."

It seems "specifics" are important, except when they interfere with your point, in which case they aren't.

 

All nine hitters are going to hit each time through the lineup, no matter which order you put them in.

 

For the record, I'd rather Mauer hit 2nd. But it wouldn't have mattered in your example from your previous post.

[Danchat]

Lineup #1

 

Florimon SS

Mauer C

Hammer LF

Morneau 1B

Doumit DH

Arcia RF

Plouffe 3B

Hicks CF

Dozier 2B

Y'know, what I don't understand is why Pedro Florimon is batting #9 and he's a .255 hitter with good speed. That's a better option than Dozier (.220) and Escobar (.225) and even Carroll (.230) at this point! He should bat #1!

[jay]

Odd. Your original post, to which I replied, was based on this: "This exact situation was manifested last night."

It seems "specifics" are important, except when they interfere with your point, in which case they aren't.

 

All nine hitters are going to hit each time through the lineup, no matter which order you put them in.

 

For the record, I'd rather Mauer hit 2nd. But it wouldn't have mattered in your example from your previous post.

 

Thanks for the condescending reply. The actual original article from the thread focused on more plate appearances for the #2 hitter, but you can insinuate that I am incapable of understanding your post or prefer to disregard anything counter to a point I make all that you want.

 

If your viewpoint is that Mauer wouldn't have batted anyway because Dozier would have gotten out earlier either way, we can start speculating on how history could have been rewritten all over the place. Maybe a different pitcher would have come in for a matchup? Maybe the approach would have been different? Maybe Florimon would have tried to sac bunt? Doumit wouldn't have batted to lead off the inning, nor have struck out, so maybe there wouldn't have been 2 outs? Maybe something would have happened differently earlier in the game that would have changed who was up to bat?

 

You can't just move an outcome from one spot to another without opening the door to how everything else would have played out differently. Simply based on what happened at the very end and not trying to predict how things would have been different otherwise from the infinite number of variations and possibilities, Mauer would have batted if he was #2.

 

Cheers.