The Batting Order Revolution Will Be Televised

DWKB

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
18,224
Reaction score
7,491
Location
Annapolis, MD
“Kyle Schwarber, leadoff hitter,” might seem like a paradoxical arrangement, given that the young slugger’s most visible strength (extra-base hits) and weakness (strikeouts) don’t mesh with the traditional leadoff profile.


“Some of the stereotypes that come with ‘Is the leadoff hitter a small, scrappy, on-base machine?’ versus me sending up a 6-foot-3, 225-pound George Springer, it might look different,” Astros manager A.J. Hinch says. “But what we’re after is scoring the most runs and putting your most dangerous hitters to get the most at-bats is an effective way to do that.”

The prototypical leadoff hitter is older than batting helmets, Wrigley Field, and the World Series. In his book A Game of Inches, baseball historian Peter Morris cites an 1898 Sporting Life article that explained, “It is customary to have a small, active fellow who can hit, run and steal bases, and also worry a pitcher into a preliminary base on balls, as a leader in the list.” For more than a century, that vision of the leadoff hitter persisted; three-quarters of small, active fellow David Eckstein’s career plate appearances came from the 1-hole, for instance, despite him posting a career batting line 8 percent worse than average, by wRC+.

Speed was once the connective tissue between generations of leadoff men: Of the 20 players with the most stolen bases since lineup data has been recorded (since 1913), 15 spent the majority of their careers in the leadoff spot. But as sabermetric analyses revealed about a decade ago, on-base skill, not speed, is the most vital asset for a no. 1 hitter, for a pair of self-affirming reasons.

First, it’s less important that a leadoff man be able to steal a base than that he be able to reach base at all. As Cleveland manager Terry Francona summarizes when explaining his decision to hit Santana, who holds a career .365 OBP, first last season, “On-base percentage for your guys up in the order is important because you’re going to have your best run producers behind them.”

Second, the higher a player appears in the order, the more plate appearances he will collect, and those extra chances should distribute to the best hitters in a lineup, not just the fastest ones. “You know, the computer will tell you that your best hitter should hit first, and your second-best hitter should hit second, your third-best hitter should hit third,” Showalter says. “The whole idea is to get them to the plate as many times as possible, and … sometimes I think that might be correct. If you led off your best player, hit him first instead of third or fourth, you’d probably get him 40 or 50 more at-bats in a year.” Showalter’s math is correct. Analyst Mitchel Lichtman estimates that each jump up the batting order increases total plate appearances by 2.5 percent, which, over the course of a 650-PA season, yields a 49-PA increase between the cleanup and leadoff spots.

https://theringer.com/2017-mlb-prev...n-george-springer-kyle-schwarber-2e49f6ff7c58
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
There is no reference in the article to your best hitter coming up with runners on base. Especially in the National League, would a team want to have its best RBI man leading off and following the two or three weakest hitters in the batting order? Extra plate appearances don't matter very much if you turn your best power hitters into on-base leaders for, hopefully, lesser hitters to have the chance to drive in.

As a long-term National League fan and student of the game, I disagree with the philosophy of A.J. Hinch, an American League manager. I don't even think it would produce more runs in the American League despite their batting order not including the Pitcher. Their best power hitter batting leadoff still follows the least productive hitters in the lineup.
 
OP
OP
DWKB

DWKB

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
18,224
Reaction score
7,491
Location
Annapolis, MD
There is no reference in the article to your best hitter coming up with runners on base. Especially in the National League, would a team want to have its best RBI man leading off and following the two or three weakest hitters in the batting order? Extra plate appearances don't matter very much if you turn your best power hitters into on-base leaders for, hopefully, lesser hitters to have the chance to drive in.

As a long-term National League fan and student of the game, I disagree with the philosophy of A.J. Hinch, an American League manager. I don't even think it would produce more runs in the American League despite their batting order not including the Pitcher. Your best power hitter batting leadoff still follows the least productive hitters in the lineup.

1) Reread the article

2) You've got winning MLB professionals AND statistical analysis telling you your ways of thinking are antiquated, at what point do you self reflect if not now?
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
1) Reread the article

2) You've got winning MLB professionals AND statistical analysis telling you your ways of thinking are antiquated, at what point do you self reflect if not now?
The article says that leadoff hitters last season drove in 9.6% of runs, the highest since 1920. I would be curious to see the comparable stats for 3-4-5 hitters. Not comparing that makes for an incomplete analysis.

Until a complete study is cited, I am not convinced that moving your traditional 3-4-5 hitters to 1-2-3 to follow the weakest part of the batting order produces better results in terms of the only one that counts -- the one under the "R" on the scoreboard. Not plate appearances, not hits or on-base, but Runs. Specifically runs batted in.

Runs scored is a passive stat. It is, of course, good to get on base, but until they are driven in, it is not going to lead to a "W". And, once again, if your best RBI hitters are following your best on-base players instead of preceding them, the potential to score runs seems higher.

Your reference to "antiquated" is vague. Tradition may or may not be best depending on complete analyses at this time. If they would support the opinion referred to in the article with complete data, I would be all for the change in philosophy. Thus far, it hasn't been presented.

I am reminded of an old saying, and I am not directing this to you, but rather to the article. Figures don't lie but liars figure. :)
 
OP
OP
DWKB

DWKB

ASFN Icon
Joined
May 15, 2002
Posts
18,224
Reaction score
7,491
Location
Annapolis, MD
The article says that leadoff hitters last season drove in 9.6% of runs, the highest since 1920. I would be curious to see the comparable stats for 3-4-5 hitters. Not comparing that makes for an incomplete analysis.

That's a data point, not an analysis. You understand the difference, yes?

Until a complete study is cited, I am not convinced that moving your traditional 3-4-5 hitters to 1-2-3 to follow the weakest part of the batting order produces better results in terms of the only one that counts -- the one under the "R" on the scoreboard. Not plate appearances, not hits or on-base, but Runs. Specifically runs batted in.

From the article:

The authors of The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball, the 2007 sabermetrics tome that contains the authoritative analysis of lineup order optimization, found that the difference between a perfect lineup and any typically constructed lineup, regardless of its philosophical underpinnings, is worth only about 10 to 15 runs over a full season.

Read the book for the analysis.

if your best RBI hitters are following your best on-base players instead of preceding them, the potential to score runs seems higher.

This falls in the "no duh" category. Not sure your point cause nobody is arguing different.

Your reference to "antiquated" is vague. Tradition may or may not be best depending on complete analyses at this time. If they would support the opinion referred to in the article with complete data, I would be all for the change in philosophy. Thus far, it hasn't been presented.

MLB is changing because the research leads them to change. You're WAY behind the curve as I've pointed out to you for years now on this very forum. You can't make reality fit your desired perception because it's what you're comfortable with and understand. Much better to try and adjust with the times.

I am reminded of an old saying, and I am not directing this to you, but rather to the article. Figures don't lie but liars figure. :)

This refers to people manipulating the truth to push their own agenda and not going with what the data presents them. I think this applies to you more than the article.
 

BC867

Long time Phoenician!
Joined
Sep 16, 2002
Posts
17,827
Reaction score
1,709
Location
NE Phoenix
BC867 said:
if your best RBI hitters are following your best on-base players instead of preceding them, the potential to score runs seems higher.

This falls in the "no duh" category. Not sure your point cause nobody is arguing different.
Astro's manager A.J. Hitch is. He said, "But what we're after is scoring the most runs and putting most dangerous hitters to get the most at-bats is an effective way to do that."

And my point is that (although it may work better in the A.L. with the DH than the N.L.), "most at-bats" and "most runs" take a back seat to your boppers coming up with runners on base more often than following the bottom of the batting order.

I respect your opinion and we'll see how it plays out. I would still like to see a complete analysis -- overall stats of the 1-2 hitters vs. the 3-4 hitters, for example, not just the best 3 or 4 hitter moving to leadoff.
 
Top