Suggestion for the Lineup:
by Pronkspective on May 27, 2008 10:50 AM EDT
57 comments
As with any of the 8,256 lineups we ahve tried this season (yes, i am aware we have only played 51 games, but Wedgie likes to shake things up!) Sizemore needs to be up top. He's the only guy who can run well and he ahs shown more abilitiy to take a walk this year.
After last night's game and accompanying stats, Delucci needs to hit in the 2-hole and play LF. We will have to suffer through the bad defense in order to enjoy the bat.
Martinez is not a power hitter, but he is the best run-producer on the team. He doesn't have the best OBP, but he will get the most hits which is all you really care about when guys are on 2nd.
Hafner is in a season and a half long slump...who cares? He is the team's only capable 4-hiter. Nobody else has the innate ability to hit home runs like Pronk. It doesn't do anygood putting in Aubrey or Garko as replacements because they can NEVER be true 4-hitters, despite the fact they are playing better right now.
Francisco is a little green and although he is the Indians' best hitter right now, he is not going to give you the day-in-day-out consistency needed for a #3 hitter. Stick him at five and let him gain confidence.
Aubrey and Garko should platoon first base as they are the exact same type of player and Garko mashes left-handed pitching to the tune of .345/.414/.487. Follow Arkey (as they shall henceforth be known) with Peralta. He is turning into a Cust type player that is a true outcome guy (HR, K or BB) and should be buried behind your credible offensive players. Follow with Blake and then Cabrera/Carroll.
1) Sizemore 2) Delucci 3) Martinez 4) Hafner 5) Francisco 6) Aubrey/Garko 7) Peralta 8) Blake 9) Cabrera/Carroll.
1) L 2) L 3) S 4) L 5) R 6) L/R 7) R 8) R 9) S/R.
1) Leadoff 2) good in #2 for some reason 3)no power: lots of production 4)only true power hitter 5)young but talented 6)platoon guys that could hit for power/average 7)true outcome guy but better than #8 and #9 8)Wedge loves him, hes there get used to it 9) defnesive players that are fast enough not to clog Grady if, God forbid, they get on base.
I'm not some genius, just a guy who played a lot of baseball and now watches a lot of baseball. The lineup should be set and then given some time to perform. Clearly, a lineup similar to this is what Wedge and the Tribe nation would like to see. So put it out there, stop worrying about who's hot and let the talent come through. Juggling isn't going to work, pure and simple. It never has and certainly won't help your guys get comfortable and in any kind of rhythm
0 recs |
57 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
one game does not make dellucci’s bat enjoyable. Francisco needs to be hitting in the two or three hole, and Sizemore hitting leadoff. You can use a roulette wheel to figure out the rest of the lineup for what I care, they all suck. When Francisco comes back to earth later in the season, then move him down.
Terry Pluto suggested, on Sunday, that it might be time to move Sizemore down in the order to take advantage of his power. Since he’s one of the few guys able to get on base with any consistency, this is a risky proposition to say the least. I wonder what people think of this—Grady’s an effective leadoff guy and they don’t really have an alternative. On the other hand, he hasn’t gone to the “next level” as hoped; maybe moving him down would help and would also give the lineup some more pop in the long run. Of course, if they had a guy like Brian Roberts….
I hate it, hate it, hate it. top of the order equals more at-bats, Best hitter should have the most at-bats. This is also why batting guys like Carroll and Blake in the two-hole ticks me off. They suck. They should be receiving the fewest at-bats.
GRADY ALWAYS BATS FIRST IN MY HEART. HE SHOULD ALSO BAT FIRST IN THE REAL LIFE LINE UP TOO.
OH DARN. I’M CAPSING AGAIN.
Hard truth: Your eyes lie.
by AngG on May 27, 2008 12:50 PM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Do you have the numbers on how many more at bats a player receives on average in a certain spot in the lineup? I would be very interested in seeing this.
Well, here’s the logic behind it. The top of the order roles around roughly 4-5 times in any given 9 inning game. You’ll notice games where the top of the order came up for a fifth time in the game but the bottom of the order only batted 4 times. Its impossible for hitters further down in the lineup to end up with more plate appearances than hitters in the top (assuming both play the whole game). So do you want those at-bats given to your best hitters or your worst hitters. There are going to be games where the leadoff hitter is the only hitter reaching that fifth at-bat, You would want your best hitter recieving 5 at-bats in the leadoff spot, rather than 4 at-bats in the third spot.
Here’s a link to an article over at THT discussing a chapter written in The Book
You’ll notice that they reccomend that the top three hitters on a team should be placed in the leadoff, no.2, and no.4 holes, with the fourth and fifth best hitters in the no.3 and no.5 holes.
Well, I echo your sentiments at the end. Baseball players can only succeed when they are comfortable and understand their role. Coming into work everyday not knowing if/where you are playing doesn’t help the situation.
Grady
Ben
Travis
Victor
Peralta
Garko/Aubrey
left field
3b
2b
The only spots that should be fluid are the 2 and the 5/6. Put a hot hitter in the 2 hole and swap the 5/6 when Peralta is going through a streak.
I really wonder about the wisdom of batting Peralta fifth, especially since he’s had an “all or nothing” kind of year: decent slugging (especially home runs), atrocious one base percentage. He’s showing signs of warming up again, so perhaps this makes sense. But, for the season, he’s batting .135 with RISP (OBP of .233). Even Garko has better numbers: .216 BA, .362 OBP. Hafner, for reference purposes, is at .262, with an OBP of .404. The alternatives aren’t good (Francisco is batting .286 with RISP but has NO walks in that situation). Sizemore is at .357 (OBP over .500), but that would require an alternative as lead off, which we don’t really have (see above).
The only real solution for Peralta is altering his swing. It’s too long and it has been for years. Yes, shortening it up might remove some of his power, but I think he would make a lot better contact if he were to do this.
Blake also has an inefficient swing that doesn’t produce as much as it should.
I tried to make Paul Reuschel my Avatar, but he didn't fit into the box.
Blake also has an inefficient beard. I imagine he and Wedge will soon grow out mustaches together and will improve the efficiency of his facial hair. Non of this will improve his swing of course. I think Blake is at a point in his career where he’s not going to be retooling his approach, it has gotten him this far (which is saying something for how late he broke on the ML scene) and is the way he’ll carry it out. Unfortunately, the Indians thought he was a ML 3Bman when he is clearly a super-utility player whose best defensive position is RF, just like they thought Jason Michaels was a platoon worthy LF, when he also is a utility OF at best.
Here’s what interests me: Garko and Aubrey. If Aubrey continues to play well, can we afford to send him down when Choo comes up? How bad does Garko have to be, and for how long, before they exercise that option?
On an unrelated note, it’s time to turn my Google SafeSearch back on.
by fleerdon on May 27, 2008 11:48 AM EDT reply actions
Has Aubrey played that well? He’s done about what I would have expected, so far: a few hits, but he’s at .273 for OBP (.773 OPS). That’s better slugging than Garko, but worse OBP. Obviously, we haven’t seen enough of him really to judge, but this is a guy who’s barely out of AA and who only plays one position where there are at least three guys on the depth chart (Garko, Blake and Martinez). If Choo shows that he can hit (which is not at all clear, given his record so far at AAA), I think they won’t hesitate to option Aubrey rather than lose Choo.
Yep, this is definitely the key to turning around the Indians season.
by afh4 on May 27, 2008 1:08 PM EDT reply actions 1 recs
Google Image Search Results:
Also! I think the clickable thumbnail is the way to go when the image is huge.
Points subtracted for drinking from a bottle and not shot-gunning a can.
by Seattle Tribe Fan on May 27, 2008 5:57 PM EDT up reply actions
Just to let everyone know:
In response to Delucci batting #2, here are his stats when he hits in the 2-hole:
32AB, 4HR, 9RBI, .375/.400/.781/1.181
Francisco is not a long-term solution at #3. He could be 4, but given that the season is sunk unless Hafner comes back to at least mediocre: he needs to be at #5 I think.
You’re making it seem like Francisco plays for the Cavs.
by supermarioelia on May 28, 2008 9:14 AM EDT up reply actions
Splits by batting-order-spot are meaningless. They often show a lot of variation because the samples are always small.
Batting order discussions generally offer a lot of things to argue about, none of which are of great consequence.
I think being dismissive of battnig order splits is extremely careless and short-sighted. Delucci bats 150 points higher when he hits #2. This is over 32 at bats. While not statistically significant, it is not insignificant in reality. Lineup construtcion matters. Whether Dellucci likes hitting after Grady because they are btoh lefties and he gets to observe the pitcher beforehand, or because he hits better when guys throw out of the stretch or because he doesn’t like the pressure of being the #3….its foolish to just dismiss it wholesale.
None of the batting order discussions ever come to fruition because you can’t independently test them (i.e. you cant throw various orders into the same situation multiple times to get a sample). However, finding a batting order that works and sticking with it is a hit-and-miss endeavour that can be guided by looking at splits, knowing your players and using their history to your managerial benefit.
by Pronkspective on May 28, 2008 9:29 AM EDT up reply actions
Pronkspective,
I have some advice for you. Play dead. Maybe he won’t come back for you.
by tabler84 on May 28, 2008 9:43 AM EDT up reply actions 1 recs
Wow, Champ Kind would not like that attitude….come out with some brass knuckles…a grenade and nobody hits each other in the face or hair!
by Pronkspective on May 28, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
I think being dismissive of battnig order splits is extremely careless and short-sighted.
Well, you’re wrong. Batting order splits are meaningless, and ignoring them completely will almost certainly give better results than paying them even a small amount of attention. They can only distract you from things that actually have meaning.
While not statistically significant, it is not insignificant in reality.
This is beyond wrong. There may be reasons to bat someone in a certain spot, but those reasons are not in the 32 AB worth of stats. When statistics are insignificant, they’re insignificant.
Lineup construtcion matters.
Yes, but relatively little. If you’re generally getting your better hitters more PA than your worse hitters, you’ve done way over 90% of what can be done with lineup construction.
Whether Dellucci likes hitting after Grady because they are btoh lefties and he gets to observe the pitcher beforehand, or because he hits better when guys throw out of the stretch or because he doesn’t like the pressure of being the #3.
Where Dellucci likes to hit may be worth considering, but it’s only one small factor in constructing the best lineup. I would be shocked if lineup spot could make even a 50-point difference in OPS over the long haul, and over the short haul, the results are or more or less random — having far more to do with what pitchers were faced in that handful of games than lineup position.
…its foolish to just dismiss it wholesale.
I didn’t. I said it’s nothing of great consequence, and I dismissed the stats.
None of the batting order discussions ever come to fruition because you can’t independently test them
True.
However, finding a batting order that works and sticking with it is a hit-and-miss endeavour that can be guided by looking at splits, knowing your players and using their history to your managerial benefit.
I agree with this, but its importance is still wildly overstated. I would even agree that establishing a comfort level for each hitter is worth considering. And I would even look at the splits — but not the batting order splits. I would pay some attention to L/R splits, in figuring out which same-handed players are the riskiest to line up together, and I would pay just a little attention to career base/out splits. But the conclusions to be drawn from these are still very slight and never high-confidence, and the effect you can have on run production this way is still minimal.
“I think being dismissive of batting order splits is extremely careless and short-sighted.
Well, you’re wrong.“
“However, finding a batting order that works and sticking with it is a hit-and-miss endeavour that can be guided by looking at splits, knowing your players and using their history to your managerial benefit.
I agree with this“
Contradictions aside. I think we agree with each other in most respects, although we don’t word it similarly. I think we both definitely agree that Oscar Gamble is pretty amazing and his hair is absurd/hilarious.
To defend my position:
I am not saying splits are the defining factor in lineup construction. They probably make a very small difference over the course of a season and certainly matter less than the resepctive skill of a batter. But they make a difference and should be utilized. When you have a guy that is going to receive playing time (we can debate whether he merits it or not, but the fact is that Wedge likes him and he will play) and has such a clear distinction between being in one situation (hitting #2) and being in another (not): I think it’s pretty credible to heed that distinction.
“While not statistically significant, it is not insignificant in reality.”
This was poorly worded on my part as I was sticking to the literal definition of statistical significance. Clearly 32 ABs will not create a statistically significant test. What I am trying to say is that his numbers suggest there may be a difference and should be put to the test before moving him out of there and never seeing if there is a difference in actuality. This is fancy-talk for saying: “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
As far as the whole notion of “getting all your best hitters as many ABs as possible” theory, it sounds very good in principle and I in general. However, I see two main problems with this tenet:
1) The issue of who are your “best hitters” is a very dicey one: Grady is our best leadoff hitter, Victor is our best AVG htiter. Hafner is our best power hitter (innate abiilty, not production…yet anyhow). You want to make a lineup so that your high OBP/speed guy is in scoring position for your highest AVG guy, because a hit will knock him in, a walk doesnt help score a run when there is a man on second and nobody on first. The individual strengths of a hitter dictate their placement in the lineup, not absolute run scoring value.
2) A lineup needs to be considered as a whole. Not individual parts: it is important to top load the batting order, no doubt. It is also extremely important to look at what each of the top guys bring to the table. From everything I have seen Dellucci at 2 and Francisco at 5 brings the most to the lineup as a combination. Even if Francisco is probably a better #2 hitter in absolute terms: the combination of Dellucci at 5 and Francisco at 2 is worse than the other way around.
For instance: Grady might be a better 4 hitter than Hafner (right now)....but who hits leadoff then? You gain individually in one spot, but lose collectively on the lineup as a whole.
Clearly, we will never agree on this, but I felt compelled to state my side of things.
by Pronkspective on May 28, 2008 11:10 AM EDT up reply actions
Contradictions aside.
Do you really think you can make points here by pulling things out of context? There is no contradiction. I agreed with your general statement — which referred to splits in general. I explained that even though batting-order splits are meaningless, there are other splits that might be a little helpful in constructing a better batting order.
What I am trying to say is that his numbers suggest there may be a difference and should be put to the test
I understood that was what you were trying to say, and it’s just wrong.
This is fancy-talk for saying: "if it ain’t broke don’t fix it."
And yet this is right. The batting order is of so little significance that you might as well prioritize comfort zone, as long as it doesn’t lead you astray in terms of giving your best hitters the most PA. It’s only natural for a player to scrutinize where a manager is batting him and often read too much into it. If the team is performing, you might as well leave it alone. If they’re not, it probably doesn’t matter too much what you do in terms of the batting order.
But that has nothing to do with batting order splits.
The issue of who are your "best hitters" is a very dicey one: Grady is our best leadoff hitter, Victor is our best AVG htiter. Hafner is our best power hitter (innate abiilty, not production…yet anyhow). You want to make a lineup so that your high OBP/speed guy is in scoring position for your highest AVG guy
You are overthinking this and yet under-analyzing it at the same time. You and I are not having the first-ever lineup construction debate. Others have researched this much more thoroughly and come up with much more subtle conclusions. Bottom line, it still doesn’t matter much. It’s a century-old tradition to obsess over “types of hitters” — leadoff type, cleanup type, #2 type — but it’s not based on anything that holds up to any scrutiny.
Most “leadoff types” are terrible and should be batting 8th or 9th, and that’s where “types of hitters” thinking will get you. You’re not all wrong — there are good reasons to bat Pronk (as he was) before Victor (as he was) beyond total production — but to the extent that you are right, it doesn’t amount to much. You might get a handful more runs that way than just lining everybody up by descending OBP (as AngG suggested yesterday), but that’s all.
By the way, a walk does in fact help score a run when there is a man only on 2B, just not as directly or immediately. Mainly, the pitcher has less incentive to give the batter good pitches to hit with 1B open. If the batter falls for it and swings out of the zone, he makes an out the great majority of the time. If he takes the free base, he doesn’t make an out, and he becomes a potential run himself — and specifically to your point, by occupying 1B, he leaves the next batter a better position to drive in that runner on 2B than he himself had, because now the pitcher doesn’t have 1B open and can’t screw around as much. So … saves an out, becomes a baserunner, creates a better setup for the lead runner to get driven in — I’d say he’s helping to score that run.
Clearly, we will never agree on this, but I felt compelled to state my side of things.
We will agree on this, someday, when you stop feeling compelled to state things that can’t be supported.
I had it originally from my blog/yahoo/etc but am new to LetsGoTribe.com. Hope I’m not stepping on any toes. Gotta love the original Gambler…Kenny Rogers is a thief!
by Pronkspective on May 28, 2008 11:34 AM EDT up reply actions
Completely anecdotal, but it supports my cause:
Who would you rather have had hitting today with men on 2nd and 3rd and 1 out? Francisco or VMart? Francisco in the 5-hole for life!
“Clearly, we will never agree on this, but I felt compelled to state my side of things.
We will agree on this, someday, when you stop feeling compelled to state things that can’t be supported.“
To just make statements like “it’s justwrong” isnt the best way to support your case. Also making random declarations like: “it doesnt hold up to scrutiny” is worthless.
I’m kinda done with this site, because I have actually gotten more than just one or two rude posts and we are just talking about baseball. Maybe people are cranky cause the Tribe keeps losing.
On to KC! You really wonder what happend to Betancort this year. Looks completely different out there.
You obviously are a smart guy, but ideas and especially conventional wisdom get challenged around here — there’s a lot other smart people here, too — and it just seems like you’re not accustomed to that level of scrutiny. I hope you stick around, and if you do, I have no doubt that you will end up contributing a lot in addition to learning a few things. I don’t think there’s anybody here who wouldn’t say that interacting with the whole group has made his/her baseball mind a lot sharper. It is my favorite thing about the site and (in my opinion) the best thing about it.
That said, obviously the high level of discourse makes some of us a little cranky when someone new shows up who hasn’t already gone through all the old “standard” debates. That is one of the worst things about the site, but you know, to some extent we’re working on it, and to some extent it can’t be helped. If you want to just go somewhere and preach out of your ass to people who don’t talk back, that’s both your loss and ours. A third option would be to go to another forum packed full of morons, of which there are dozens if not hundreds of choices, where I’m sure you would gain a very high level of status and respect very quickly … but you’d be surrounded by morons.
Let me put it to you this way … you obviously are smart enough to be here and to enjoy yourself here … but only if you choose to be. Anyway, that’s how I see it, but obviously I’m biased.
To just make statements like "it’s justwrong" isnt the best way to support your case. Also making random declarations like: "it doesnt hold up to scrutiny" is worthless.
All true, but that’s not really the problem, is it? I think I did plenty of expanding on those statements. I do think it’s necessary sometimes to distinguish between differences of opinion or observation or perspective on the one hand, and outright misconceptions and mistakes on the other. I know it isn’t the most charming thing I could do, but my hope is that the reader will be jolted into actually thinking about it, rather than just launching autonomically into rebuttal mode.
On to KC! You really wonder what happend to Betancort this year. Looks completely different out there.
Very frustrating. Not entirely surprising, given the volatility of relievers, and he does have an injury history, and he was worked quite hard last season — 89.1 innings in 75 games. That’s a huge workload, much more than we worked Howry in 2005, when there was talk were destroying him. Here’s our biggest reliever workloads for 2000-2007:
89.1 IP, 75 G – Betancourt 2007
81.1 IP, 42 G – Mulholland 2003 (plus 17.2 IP in three starts, total of 99 IP)
78.1 IP, 59 G – White 2004
77.1 IP, 72 G – Riske 2004
76.2 IP, 73 G – Baez 2003
76.2 IP, 72 G – Karsay 2000
75.2 IP, 68 G – Riske 2003
73.0 IP, 79 G – Howry 2005
72.2 IP, 58 G – RIske 2005
71.2 IP, 75 G – Borowski 2007
71.1 IP, 64 G – Wohlers 2002
68.2 IP, 71 G – Wickman 2001
66.2 IP, 68 G – Betancourt 2004
68.1 IP, 47 G – Speier 2000
67.2 IP, 54 G – Betancourt 2005
67.2 IP, 50 G – Perez 2007
Are we “working on” making LGT a more newbie-friendly joint by making fun of Mario? Or is that just Phase One? Darn it, I need to start reading the minutes from the board meetings.
by fleerdon on May 28, 2008 10:17 PM EDT up reply actions
Hey, that cactus guy was alright today.
by supermarioelia on May 28, 2008 11:59 PM EDT up reply actions
When did you get invited to board meetings?? Honestly Jay/Ryan, is nothing sacred anymore? Now Tyler gets to come?
-Erik
I said “read the minutes,” not “actively participate.” Though I have actually been disguising myself as a member of the catering staff to sneak in, now that you mention it.
by fleerdon on May 30, 2008 1:43 PM EDT up reply actions
It’s okay Tyler, I voted for your nomination during the last vote. Or I guess I should say the first vote. I’ve missed the last several meetings, because Jay keeps “forgetting” to bring non-beer options. Anyway, tt was several others that voted nay. There were all these arguments about, “it’s his first time on the ballot, blah, blah, blah”, which I just think is a bunch of bull. I mean, you either belong on the board or you don’t, ya’ know?
-Erik
by drerikbrady on May 30, 2008 10:28 PM EDT up reply actions
I appreciate your support. And don’t think I won’t remember it after the coup.
by fleerdon on May 30, 2008 10:44 PM EDT up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recent FanPosts
Featured Stories
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recent FanShots
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Nyjer Morgan builds on bad reputation in brawl with Marlins
- The Juice: Rookie Danny Valencia comes through again for Twins
- Slumpbot .200: Cliff Lee's struggles continue down in Texas
- Ryan Howard beats ailing ankle, smacks first homer since July 27
- Reds' Chapman throws 102 mph in 1-2-3 major league debut
Certain photos copyright © 2010 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.
