Bat Hardy 3rd and Jones 4th

[FanSince88]

Doubt it all you like, the math has been done.

http://fansofdmb.yuku.com/topic/1526#.TkFHGGFLcTk

So that is a .176 difference between the best and worst lineups. You really think just moving Hardy is going to jump the needle?

Simply reshuffling the batting order using everyone's existing statistics is insufficient proof.

There are intangibles and psychological/situational factors that the study isn't taking into account.

[FanSince88]

If batting order really made no difference then why worry about it at all? Why not bat Felix Pie cleanup? Surely you don't advocate that!

[Can_of_corn]

Simply reshuffling the batting order using everyone's existing statistics is insufficient proof.

There are intangibles and psychological/situational factors that the study isn't taking into account.

You are joking right?

[FanSince88]

You are joking right?

No. Can you even conceive that the emotional/momentum dynamic of the game might change based on batting order? Ever heard of chaos theory? Or are you so married to the numbers of a particular study that it has to be infallible. Stop worshipping these "golden calfs", even the authors of those sims admitted they weren't perfect.

[Can_of_corn]

No. Can you even conceive that the emotional/momentum dynamic of the game might change based on batting order? Ever heard of chaos theory? Or are you so married to the numbers of a particular study that it has to be infallible. Stop worshipping these "golden calfs", even the authors of those sims admitted they weren't perfect.

Once you can predict what these "emotional/momentum dynamics" are we can add them. Until then you go with the proven, quantitative facts.

Not sure why you are mentioning Chaos Theory unless you are just trying to sound educated. Mankind always strives to build that which will withstand entropy.

Of course the studies I and Phantom cited are not perfect but that is no reason to go with a demonstrably worse plan.

[Sports Guy]

Once you can predict what these "emotional/momentum dynamics" are we can add them. Until then you go with the proven, quantitative facts.

Not sure why you are mentioning Chaos Theory unless you are just trying to sound educated. Mankind always strives to build that which will withstand entropy.

Of course the studies I and Phantom cited are not perfect but that is no reason to go with a demonstrably worse plan.

But there is no proof of it.

Simulations aren't proof.

I want to see Wieters bat third. He has said that is where he feels the most comfortable...That he batted third all his life and feels his approach is better when batting third.

Now, does that make sense? Of course not...its stupid. His approach should be the same whether he bats 1st, 3rd or 9th...but he claims that its not.

A simulation can't pick up on that.

I am all for stats but the whole concept of lineups mean nothing just doesn't make sense to me and the Wieters example is a perfect reason why.

[Phantom]

No. Can you even conceive that the emotional/momentum dynamic of the game might change based on batting order? Ever heard of chaos theory? Or are you so married to the numbers of a particular study that it has to be infallible. Stop worshipping these "golden calfs", even the authors of those sims admitted they weren't perfect.

Of course there are other factors, but considering no one has any idea what there effect is and how to maximize them, why are we discussing them?

[Can_of_corn]

But there is no proof of it.

Simulations aren't proof.

I want to see Wieters bat third. He has said that is where he feels the most comfortable...That he batted third all his life and feels his approach is better when batting third.

Now, does that make sense? Of course not...its stupid. His approach should be the same whether he bats 1st, 3rd or 9th...but he claims that its not.

A simulation can't pick up on that.

I am all for stats but the whole concept of lineups mean nothing just doesn't make sense to me and the Wieters example is a perfect reason why.

I will say JJ Hardy is the perfect example of why lineups meaning nothing makes perfect sense, and I will provide stats.

Historically a leadoff hitters job is to see pitches and get on base so it would make sense in your world that upon moving into the leadoff spot Hardy would have a higher OBP perhaps at a cost to his power. Since he would be reacting upon what is expecting of a leadoff hitter.

Batting leadoff he has a .297 OBP lower then his OBP hitting 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. The only lineup position he has done worse in OPB-wise is second. His BB/K ratio is also worse as a leadoff hitter.

Hardy does not appear to be tailoring his game in anyway to his position in the lineup.

[CA-ORIOLE]

But there is no proof of it.

Simulations aren't proof.

I want to see Wieters bat third. He has said that is where he feels the most comfortable...That he batted third all his life and feels his approach is better when batting third.

Now, does that make sense? Of course not...its stupid. His approach should be the same whether he bats 1st, 3rd or 9th...but he claims that its not.

A simulation can't pick up on that.

I am all for stats but the whole concept of lineups mean nothing just doesn't make sense to me and the Wieters example is a perfect reason why.

Soriano is another guy who didn't like batting in particular spots, the middle of the order (though I don't think there is any proof he couldn't). Accomodating a couple oddballs may be fine if it makes sense. That being said Soriano was a good hitter in his time and Wieters isn't. Still a couple oddballs isn't a reason to discount pretty convicning statistical analysis. A couple things the lineuep orders don't take into account is speed and platooning. A couple of efficienices which TB has used pretty well.

[Sports Guy]

I will say JJ Hardy is the perfect example of why lineups meaning nothing makes perfect sense, and I will provide stats.

Historically a leadoff hitters job is to see pitches and get on base so it would make sense in your world that upon moving into the leadoff spot Hardy would have a higher OBP perhaps at a cost to his power. Since he would be reacting upon what is expecting of a leadoff hitter.

Batting leadoff he has a .297 OBP lower then his OBP hitting 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. The only lineup position he has done worse in OPB-wise is second. His BB/K ratio is also worse as a leadoff hitter.

Hardy does not appear to be tailoring his game in anyway to his position in the lineup.

So what? Just because Hardy doesn't do that doesn't mean other players don't.

Do you think a lineup would be as productive with Izzy batting first and Jones batting ninth?

[FanSince88]

I will say JJ Hardy is the perfect example of why lineups meaning nothing makes perfect sense, and I will provide stats.

Historically a leadoff hitters job is to see pitches and get on base so it would make sense in your world that upon moving into the leadoff spot Hardy would have a higher OBP perhaps at a cost to his power. Since he would be reacting upon what is expecting of a leadoff hitter.

Batting leadoff he has a .297 OBP lower then his OBP hitting 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. The only lineup position he has done worse in OPB-wise is second. His BB/K ratio is also worse as a leadoff hitter.

Hardy does not appear to be tailoring his game in anyway to his position in the lineup.

Or he could be putting too much pressure on himself to get a high OBP and perversely failing at that. Maybe if you put someone in a place where it's his job to get high OBP, it could be too much pressure. Maybe he's a better batter when he's not thinking "GOTTA get on base, GOTTA get on base...." Or he could be the type of batter that does better after seeing a few other batters face a pitcher (scouting the pitcher) instead of starting off cold. Regardless that stat seems to support my suggestion to bat him elsewhere in the lineup.

[ShaneDawg85]

Nick could leadoff, but his OBP hasn't been as strong this year, and please spare me the talk of Andino being able to do so. I'm all for dropping Guerrero to the lower part of the lineup, but right now there isn't a better option than Hardy.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I will say JJ Hardy is the perfect example of why lineups meaning nothing makes perfect sense, and I will provide stats.

Historically a leadoff hitters job is to see pitches and get on base so it would make sense in your world that upon moving into the leadoff spot Hardy would have a higher OBP perhaps at a cost to his power. Since he would be reacting upon what is expecting of a leadoff hitter.

Batting leadoff he has a .297 OBP lower then his OBP hitting 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th. The only lineup position he has done worse in OPB-wise is second. His BB/K ratio is also worse as a leadoff hitter.

Hardy does not appear to be tailoring his game in anyway to his position in the lineup.

I agree with this analysis. It's not a good idea to try and change guys based on lineup position. Approach needs to be based on the players strength and weaknesses.

In ST Hardy made statement(s) that the Twins tried to change his approach at the plate to take more pitches and hit more to the opposite field. We told him to go back to what made him successful....pulling the ball and being aggressive. One of the few times we may have done something right and a good reason why Hardy is happy here. I recall Fox had a similar story from the A's. Didn't work out as well for Fox.

On the other hand, it was clear that Andino was told to change his approach and be more patient and get on base. I'm amazed it seams to have worked. It makes me wonder if he was ever asked to do this before and I doubt he ever was.

[Phantom]

But there is no proof of it.

Simulations aren't proof.

I want to see Wieters bat third. He has said that is where he feels the most comfortable...That he batted third all his life and feels his approach is better when batting third.

Now, does that make sense? Of course not...its stupid. His approach should be the same whether he bats 1st, 3rd or 9th...but he claims that its not.

A simulation can't pick up on that.

I am all for stats but the whole concept of lineups mean nothing just doesn't make sense to me and the Wieters example is a perfect reason why.

Well, the studies spoke more to overall lineup, and assumed that players hit the same in every lineup spot.

Do you have any proof that any players hit differently in different spots of the lineup (more so than just small sample size or normal variance)?

[Sports Guy]

Well, the studies spoke more to overall lineup, and assumed that players hit the same in every lineup spot.

Do you have any proof that any players hit differently in different spots of the lineup (more so than just small sample size or normal variance)?

No, of course not...There is no proof to any of this which is why I think it is foolish to definitively say it doesn't matter.