Baseball batting order - why is it important?

The Game Room
1

I read the wikipedia article on batting order, which describes the types of players managers typically put in each of the nine slots. Most, however, seem to focus on the fact that “this” type of batter should hit *after *“that” type of batter.

While I can see how this would be pertinent the very first inning, the very first time the team comes to bat, isn’t the advantage of having a specific order soon rendered irrelevant? My thinking was…

Batting Order
#1 is speedy, a good base runner, and tends to get on base a lot.
#2 and #3 are similar, they tend to hit grounders and get on base.
#4 is the cleanup hitter. He’s a big power hitter, but a slow runner. His job is to drive in #1 - #3 who have hopefully gotten on base.
#5
#6
#7
#8
#9 is the pitcher. He can’t hit worth jack. He’s only in there because this is the league where pitchers have to hit. The manager wishes he didn’t have to let this guy hit.

So… in the first inning, the very first at-bat the team has #1 hit first, #2 second, #3 third, and (hopefully) #4 fourth. Good. That’s how it’s supposed to work. And let’s say that in that first inning the team sends seven players to bat.

Now in the second inning, #8 hits first, #9 (the pitcher, a terrible hitter) hits second, #1 hits third, and #2 (hopefully) hits fourth. Hasn’t that just completely defeated the advantage of the carefully crafted lineup? And let’s assume only those four batters get an at-bat in the second inning, let’s look on to the third inning…

Hitting first would be #3, then #4 (the cleanup hitter, but he’s batting second here), #5, and so on. The cleanup batter is batting second. Doesn’t that defeat the purpose of the “cleanup”, which should be batting fourth?

Or here’s another example… first inning, first at-bat. #1 singles, #2 singles, #3 sees a big ol’ soft marshmallow my grandmother could hit coming at him, and hits it out of the park. Fantastic. But… now for the cleanup batter, #4, the bases are empty. If it’s the cleanup’s job to “clean up” and drive in runs, but the bases are empty, uh… hasn’t that just marginalized the purpose of the cleanup batter?

So… after the very first inning, why is batting order important? Is it even important after the first inning?

Thanks.

2

I think you’ll get more answers in the Game Room, Jimmy Joe Meager.

I can only give a partial answer here: batting order does matter in at least one way, which is that over the course of the season, the hitters at the top of the order get to bat more often than the ones at the bottom. So even if you don’t get them up in the “right” order very often after the first inning, there’s an advantage in putting your best hitters at or near the top.

The traditional batting order (the one you describe) is a little controversial in that some experts have decided it’s a bad idea, and the smartest thing to do would be to put your best overall hitter in the #1 spot, so he gets the most at-bats. (Traditionally your best hitter is the #3 guy.) Tradition in baseball being what it is, I don’t think anyone’s ever tried it on the professional level and I don’t know what I think of the idea myself.

3

Thanks, for both the answer and the move. (I thought the game room was more for computer games, RPGs, chess, board games etc., but not necessarily sports. Thanks.)

4

Generally batting order has a very minimal impact on number of runs scored over the length of a baseball season. I think the simulations I’ve seen peg it at something like 1-2 wins. If you limit it to plausible lineups, the variation gets even smaller. And the “optimal” statistical lineup is generally something like ordering your players by OBP 1-9.

Here is one study that pegs the variation at 4 wins or so - it was based on the 2000 Blue Jays: http://www.hcs.harvard.edu/~mbodell/battingOrder2001.html

The bigger impact that lineup has is psychological. Players tend to respond well to consistent expectations. There are also egos involved, and managing them is a large part of a manger’s job.

5

There was an interesting “Stat of the Day” over at baseball-reference.com a few weeks ago, showing anomolous statistics as they pertained to batting order… ah, here it is:

He pulls up stats on leadoff batters who didn’t steal much. For instance, in 1975, Pete Rose led off all 162 games, but didn’t steal a single base, and had a number of other seasons where he recorded huge totals of games without a swipe. Not that Rose wasn’t fast - he did have 135 triples over his career.

In 1969 Joe Torre hit 4th, and went 141 games where he didn’t hit a homerun (not consecutively).

6

Over the course of the game and the season the players who are in the front of the line up tend to get a good number more at bats then those lower in the line up. Think maybe five ABs per game versus four. The length of the season will magnify that. Now if that only works out to about 4 wins per season (see Jas09’
s post before mine) then that could be the difference in a pennant race.

Also, it’s probably best to put the guys with the best on-base percentage (OBP) and stolen bases at the front, to manufacture more runs, versus your best pure hitter. You want him to get on, distract the pitcher, steal bases, make the defense make mistakes. Plus then he’s hopefully in scoring position when your best hitter with runners in scoring position (RISP) gets up.

7

Sometimes you’ll see a power hitter in the #6 spot in case the first three go down in order. Other times you’ll see the pitcher eighth in the starting lineup and a reasonbly good hitter ninth in order to get a head start when the #1 guy comes back around.

8

I disagree with Marley23 slightly.
The manager has to come up with a fixed batting so he tries to give his team the best advantage that he can.
Tradition in baseball runs deep… but so do statistics.
The top of the line-up, especially the #1, is not determined by who is the best overall hitters, it’s their ability to get on base, stay there, steal, and score. They are also the ones that require assistance from subsequent batters to advance around the bases as opposed to extra base hitters.
Usually the best hitters are 3rd because either they need to be successful and accurate. Here’s how it usually is ordered:
#1 gets on base by any means necessary.
#2 either gets on base himself, advances #1, avoids hitting into double plays, etc.
#3 clutch hitter, gets#1 or #2 into scoring position, avoids hitting into double plays, or just gets on base for #4 to drive in, etc.
#4 Clean up, homerun extra base hitter.
#5 Usuallyanother homerun, extra base hitter.
#6 Same as #1
#7 Same as #2
#8 Same as #3 or #5
#9 pitcher but can be subbed for a clutch hitter if he doesn’t return to the mound the next inning.
Statistically, unless they give up a perfect game, the top of the order will almost always bat more than the rest of the order due to the rollover. It’s basically who do you want to have the most at bats in a game.
Look at it this way, there are 27 outs per team. So if your lead off gets on base and does not become an out while base running, he has guaranteed he will bat a fourth time.
To simplify, in a close game where you only had 2 hits and 1 walk, the top of you order is up at the start of the ninth.

9

Tony LaRussa is the only person to do this consistently, right? I’ve seen it here and there a few times, but not many.

I was describing the non-traditional (SABR?) side of the debate, not giving my own opinion: “some experts have decided … the smartest thing to do would be to put your best overall hitter in the #1 spot, so he gets the most at-bats.”

10 
You're right, Sorry. :)

I’ve always understood the traditional batting order to be geared toward getting a man on base, then advancing him into scoring position, then generating at least one run and if all goes well more.
Not sure about these experts though…
Having men on base when your best hitter is at the plate seems the better alternative and maximizes your team’s abilities and talent.
There’s also more pressure on an opposing pitcher if he faces a team’s best hitter later in the order than first. I mean the worst that could happen is one run.

11

I believe so.

12

One breakdown I saw (but I forget where) showed that over the course of the season, the leadoff hitter will get more at-bats but the cleanup hitter will have more runners on when he hits. So it’s a choice between more chances to get a hit, and more chances to get an RBI.

13

Another point which doesn’t depend as much on whether your number one man comes up first is the idea of “protection.” Some batters – your archetypal power hitter – will knock fastballs out of the park but will whiff on curves. Well, you put him in a place of the order behind two high OBP guys, then he’s got a good chance to come to the plate with men on regardless of whether he bats second, third, fourth, or fifth in the inning. When men are on, the pitcher has incentives to throw fastballs. First, it’s harder to steal on a fastball simply because there’s less time between it leaving the pitcher’s hand and when it gets to the catcher to make the play. Second, the pitcher doesn’t want to walk the batter and therefore advance a runner to scoring position (or even home) – if the bases are empty, he just walks the guy to first and it’s not such a big deal. (There are other things going on as well.) So in this situation, the pitcher has to decide if he fears the baserunners enough to give the batter easier stuff to hit, or if he fears the hitter too much, in which case he leaves open the steal and risks the walk.

–Cliffy

14

No, it’s not, to be perfectly honest.

However, if you can set your batting order for just one inning, you may as well make the best of it, right?

To sum up what’s already been said, the benefits of batting order can basically be summed up as three things:

  1. You do get to determine how the first inning will go.

  2. You get to ensure your best hitters get more at bats than your worst hitters.

  3. You will generally ensure, if you know what you’re doing, that your best on base percentages come up immediately in front of your power hitters, thus maximizing the number of baserunners your homer specialists get to drive in.

Having said that there are many caveats:

  1. All of this is dependent upon what level of baseball we are discussing. At the major league level, stolen bases and baserunning speed make only a tiny difference, and having a basestealer at the top of your lineup isn’t important unless he steals an enormous amount and can get on base a lot to boot. Furthermore, at the major league level the difference between players in batting average means that speedsters will often assist low-power hitters more than high-power ones. After all, if Joe hits a homer you score no matyter what base you’re on and stealing second doesn’t matter, but if Stan hits a single your having stolen second does matter. But at a lower level, like high school ball or competitive amateur baseball, speed can have an TREMENDOUS effect, and there is far more advantage into having your fastest players bat first.

(The reason for this, btw, is that the effect of speed on baseball offense is inversely proportional to the skill of the fielders.)

  1. Obviously, batting order efficacy depends on the mix of skills available. A team with no particularly good on base percentages gets more milage out of putting speed at the top of the lineup than a team with a very high base percentage that really HAS to go there. Also, your best on base man might also be your best power hitter, which means he could be effective in any number of spots.

  2. Absent a pressing reason to do otherwise it’s often advantageous to alternate the handedness of your batters to the greatest reasonable extent. Not stringing together four straight lefties will make it harder for the other team to use their lefthanded specialist.

  3. Teams will often concern themselves with “protection,” as Cliffy points out. Statistically, pretty much all evidence shows that “protection” doesn’t help, and in any event two good power hitters will usually bat together anyway because it’s just logical. But while protection doesn’t really matter you will see managers arranging lineups as if it does.

  4. Hitters are human beings and some just aren’t comfortable in certain roles, and sometimes that plays a factor. Also, managers are understandably loath to change routine if routine works.

  5. and most important,

Batting order makes very little difference.

Unless a manager does stuff that is just insane, like batting his pitcher second and his best hitter ninth, the very small differences major league managers make in batting order selection almost never make an appreciable difference. When your local talk radio guys argue over whether Smith should bat third and Jones fourth or vice versa, they’re arguing over nothing.

15

Marley23, IIRC, the Red Sox routinely batted Wade Boggs in the leadoff position back in his prime, despite the fact that he had unremarkable speed at the best of times – but they wanted their best hitter/best OBP up as often as possible. So just putting your best overall hitter in the leadoff spot isn’t entirely unprecedented in the Majors.

I’d generally agree with the concensus here. At the pro level, there isn’t a hell of a lot of difference made by setting the batting order in a particular fashion. But at the lower levels, where every player isn’t necessarily an elite athlete, setting the order properly can make a huge difference. For example, last year we had a kid on our team who racked up a whole two hits on the season. He sucked. A LOT. But we still had an obligation to get him some innings each game, so we buried him in the 9-spot in the order and prayed that the pitcher would get sloppy and walk him, or that he’d hit a dribbler somewhere that a fielder would misplay into an error. Additionally, since catchers who can actually throw runners out consistently are few and far between at our level, putting pressure on the pitcher and defence by running is very effective strategy, which means selecting speedy kids for the top of the order is a priority.

16

For those of you who are mathematically/statistically minded, here is a great analysis of batting order using a technique called Markov chain modeling. The benefit to using this method in baseball is that it is discrete–that is to say, the batter comes up, does something that changes the expected number of runs scored, and sits. From readily available stats like OBP, SLG, etc., the probability of making these types of changes can be made.

The paper is here: Error 403: Access forbidden (* WARNING: Post-script file *)

The long and the short of it is: the difference between the best possible and worst possible lineups over the course of the season is roughly 5.5 wins. In short, most of the differences are trivial at best–it is mainly psychology. The best lineups tend to be ones in which the best hitter is isolated from the worst hitter so that the best hitter tends to bat either with fewer outs or with someone available to hit him in.