Recently involved in a fantasy baseball league, which has required learning about the sport, so this may all be wrong. But the way I find makes most sense to think about isn’t maximising runs per se but minimising outs (though of course the two aren’t exactly mutually exclusive). Ideally you’d just have a team full of players that can hit homers every time they step up, but since you don’t, you’re going to have players at bases, and players at bases are at risk of gaining outs. So what you want in an ideal situation is to minimise that at risk time, leading to the ideal situation of a home run with bases loaded, since that’s the only time with 100% certainty of four non-outs. Hence what you want is your guys who can guarantee they’ll get on base in whatever way they can up first, with power secondary, followed up with your high-power guys who can send them all home.
Think of it the other way; you have your power guy first, he hits a home run. Great! But now your guys who are good at getting on base might well have to get home through one-plate runs each time, with four “opportunities” to get out each.
Not often enough statistically to suggest that the 9th hitter would ever approach the number of plate appearances of the #1 hitter. At any rate, it is absolutely impossible for any batter to have more plate appearances than someone lower than him in the lineup (completely ignoring substitutions).
Right – think of it this way. Every time the #9 batter bats, then one of two things happens eventually. Either the #1 batter comes up, or the game ends. So the only way they would have the same number of appearances is if the #9 batter makes the final out in every game. He doesn’t.
Ignoring substitutions, the #1 batter can have no fewer than the same number of plate appearances as #9; #9 can have no *more *than the same number as #1. Every time the order cycles, #1 gets his turn first; #9 only gets his turn after everybody else has had theirs, and sometimes (usually) the game ends before it gets that far.
N.B. the extra innings makes no difference. No matter what inning you’re in, the number 1 comes before the number 9.
Could you explain how extra innings would give more plate appearances to those later in the batting order? What’s your reasoning here?:dubious:
In fact, extra inning games are more likely to increase the discrepancy between the best hitters at the top of the order and the worst hitters at the bottom. The best hitters are more likely to stay in the game in critical situations (like a tie game), while the worst hitters will be taken out for pinch hitters.
Like others, I do not understand why you seem to find this concept troubling. Logically, every subsequent position in the batting order must have fewer plate appearances than the one above it because, over a full season of games, a number of games will end immediately prior to that position in the batting order coming up. It doesn’t make any difference if some games go into extra innings.
Since there are 162 games in an MLB season, one would expect, logically, that each position in the batting order will have about 18 fewer plate appearances than the one above it, since 162/9=18. And lo, on my first Google search I found that to be the case:
Maybe setting up your batters in a specific order does not matter, but putting your best hitters in the top 5 slots in the lineup definitely matters. The top 5 batters will average many more at bats per season, and it only makes sense to get more at bats for your better hitters and few at bats for your worse hitters.
That’s true enough. I was responding to the idea, which fans are are fond of arguing, that batting A-Rod 4th and Texeira 5th will destroy the Yankees’ chances of ever scoring a run again.
That’s true. But the reason batting order arguments are so meaningless is because every MLB manager puts together more or less identical batting orders, given similar personnel. Nobody really tries anything different from “high OBP/fast guy first, another fast guy second, best hitter third, homers fourth,” etc.
Nobody actually does anything daring, like leading off their best hitter even if he’s the team’s best HR hitter, or anything insane, like batting the pitcher third. So while lineup differences don’t mean much it’s only because they’re already all the same. If in fact they were as different as they theoretically could be, it’d make a difference.
As noted in my link, the difference between the #1 and #9 sports in the order is 140-150 at bats. If you’re wasting a hitter at ninth instead of first, you’d be heaving away some runs for sure.
It was mentioned above, but alternating righties/lefties shouldn’t be discounted. Effective or not, managers are less likely to leave the LOOGY (Lefty One Out GuY) in for the righty bridge between 2 lefties than they would be to let him face 3 lefties in a row.
Off topic, wouldn’t the LOOGY be one of the best jobs in MLB?
Again, an ideal lineup would have alternative L-R-L-R-L-R-L-R batters, but if someone has more power, or more speed, or a better OBP than the guy batting ahead of him, you’re going to hear more pig-ignorant squealing about how the manager should get fired for mismanaging the lineup than you’d care to hear–but in reality, does it make a difference? No.
IIRC someone or another has done computer simulation studies of this kind of thing and found that the worst possible lineup (best hitter batting ninth etc) came up 10-20 runs short of the best possible lineup.
Please explain why the alternating of left and right handed hitters is superior. I see no logical reason why this should be so. In fact IMHO a lineup of 9 switch hitters would be ideal, all other things being equal, and lacking that starting as many left handed batters as possible against righties and vice versa. On what basis do you disagree?
Not to speak for PRR, but I don’t think he thought of an entire lineup of switch hitters - which would of course be ideal, but extremely unlikely. Even better would be a lineup of all star caliber hitters - but that’s unlikely and unreasonable as well. As for “as many lefties against righties and vice versa” - you are aware that relief pitchers are thing, right? So (barring switch hitters), going L-R-L-R as much as you can reduces the effectiveness of bringing in a specialist. Because you’re certainly not going to be able to completely swap out your lineup once the other team brings in a lefty to relieve a righty.
Our esteemed contributors have done a fine job answering the OP, so allow me to contribute some Bill James from his 1997* Guide to Baseball Managers*. James (for the uninitiated, probably the most widely-read author on bringing “new” statistics to the game since 1980 or so) did a computer simulation running a good hitting team (I think it was the 1930 Chicago Cubs) through hundreds of hypothetical seasons. One set of seasons had the Cubbies in a traditional batting order, with their best hitter Hack Wilson (who set the longstanding record for single-season RBIs that year) batting third and their pitchers batting ninth. The other set of seasons had the Cubs batting in the worst batting order James could think of, with Wilson batting ninth and the pitchers leading off. The traditional order did outscore the fouled order–by about 5%. James’ conclusion was that if changing the order that radically only decreased runs by 5%, then the difference between reasonable batting orders was essentially nothing.
Having said that batting order really makes no difference, he goes on to speculate about the optimal order. Traditionally, as the contributors above have noted, the #5 hitter is a power hitter who is not as good as the cleanup hitter, often because he has aged out of that role. James advocates that a line-drive hitter be used for this spot since the #5 hitter tends to be the leadoff hitter in a “typical” second inning. He also throws out an old Braves manager’s hypothesis that the batting order should go from best to worst hitters, since this would maximize the number of at-bats for the best hitters. Specifically, the guy (Charlie Grimm maybe?) thought about leading off with Hank Aaron, but never quite went that far.
An associated musing that James put forth was a reasonably good theory as to why no one has broken Hack Wilson’s record that I mentioned above. In Wilson’s day, the top of the lineup was dominated by guys who didn’t hit home runs; if they got a hit (or walked), they’d be on base when the 3-4 hitters came up. Today, that kind of player practically doesn’t exist; almost every regular hits at least 10 homers a year. As a result, the 3-4 hitters have fewer RBI opportunities; many of those runs have already been scored when they come up.
Along those lines, Casey Stengel led off with Mickey Mantle quite a bit early in his career before he tore up his knee–and also before it became obvious that the guy was the best power hitter in the league.
Well, this is a whole 'nother issue (for a whole 'nother thread?) but I question the value of pinch-hitting in general.
IOW, if a natural righty decides to get an advantage by training himself to bat left-handed (and FTR, there are very few switch-hitters who just naturally bat from either side initially), he will still have a platoon disadvantage from his weaker side, typically the side he “trained” in rather than his “natural” side. BUT–if this platoon disadvantage is about the same as a standard single-side batter’s platoon disadvantage, has he really gained anything?
