Bat Hardy 3rd and Jones 4th

[MarylandAaron]

The lineup should be imo:

1. Markakis RF

2. Reimold LF

3. Hardy SS

4. Jones CF

5. Reynolds 1B

6. Guerrero DH

7. Wieters C

8. Davis 3B

9. Andino 2B

[El Gordo]

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?

Of course not, but to prove this to the purist you'd have to have numbers from 2-3 season of Izzy #1 and Jones #9, and compare them with 2-3 seasons with Jones batting #3and Izzy batting #9, and no one would be crazy enough to do that.

[ledzepp8]

No they aren't because you don't know how a player is going to react.

Computers can't tell you that.

Athletes like things a certain way. They like routine.

I think this is the point. Athletes think they like things a certain way or like routine, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Wieters might think he does better batting 3rd but in the end it probably doesn't matter. It's like a placebo effect. It's like superstitions.

[Sports Guy]

I think this is the point. Athletes think they like things a certain way or like routine, but in the end it doesn't really matter. Wieters might think he does better batting 3rd but in the end it probably doesn't matter. It's like a placebo effect. It's like superstitions.

Key word. My point is that you don't know and, IMO, discounting it because a simulation tells you otherwise, is foolish.

[El Gordo]

There are too many variables to be able to come up with the statistical sample size necessary to validate any of the arguments. Every possible lineup will have strengths and weaknesses unique to that specific combination of players. Plus there is the matchup with the specific opposeing SP, who's hot and whose cold the past 10 days 2 weeks, and the psychological/health factors of the individual players involved. All these factors vary greatly from season to season with most teams.

Right now with BRob out I would bat:

Nick

Hardy

Jones

Reynolds

Davis

Vlad

Reimold

Andino/Davis

The problem is the number 4 spot. If Wieters could SLG like he did in the MiL he would be ideal, IMO. But he can't. I would bat Wieters 3 and Jones 4, if I weren't worried Jones would get out of his current effective approach and start becoming homer happy again. Reynolds K's too much, and would kill too many rallys IMO.

[Can_of_corn]

Key word. My point is that you don't know and, IMO, discounting it because a simulation tells you otherwise, is foolish.

Doesn't everyone want to hit either first, third or fourth? I never heard of a player go "I really like hitting out of the 8 hole, its less expectations."

So what happens in your world when Adam, Nick, Nolan, JJ and Matt all say they want to hit third? Of course while that is going on you have Reynolds, Davis and Vlad all wanting to hit cleanup.

You can't cater your lineup to the players' whims. That is how Vlad bats cleanup for most of the season.

[Sports Guy]

Doesn't everyone want to hit either first, third or fourth? I never heard of a player go "I really like hitting out of the 8 hole, its less expectations."

So what happens in your world when Adam, Nick, Nolan, JJ and Matt all say they want to hit third? Of course while that is going on you have Reynolds, Davis and Vlad all wanting to hit cleanup.

You can't cater your lineup to the players' whims. That is how Vlad bats cleanup for most of the season.

But this is meaningless to the point I am making.

The end of the day, what I said still applies...There are just too many factors that I am not willing to discount that a simulation doesn't show.

I also think, even if these simulations are right, that you still maximize your lineup production because you want to score as many runs as possible. I don't think it is correct to say its not that big of a deal.

[The Maestro]

I'm for any lineup change that gets Vlad out of the cleanup spot. We might be the only team in the AL that has a singles hitter batting 4th! Absolutely ridiculous.

[CA-ORIOLE]

But this is meaningless to the point I am making.

The end of the day, what I said still applies...There are just too many factors that I am not willing to discount that a simulation doesn't show.

I also think, even if these simulations are right, that you still maximize your lineup production because you want to score as many runs as possible. I don't think it is correct to say its not that big of a deal.

But there really aren't a lot of variables. The only variable is lineup position. We're not able to create a parallel universe where everything is the same except lineup position so it requires some abstract thinking. Discounting speed there is little reason for me to believe the model isn't compelling statistical evidence especially when compared to a gut feeling or an undefined synergetic effect. The only thing I can really think of is a LH batting second as there is some evidence production can be improved there with a high OBP guy batting first and finding the hole more often.

[El Gordo]

But there really aren't a lot of variables. The only variable is lineup position. We're not able to create a parallel universe where everything is the same except lineup position so it requires some abstract thinking. Discounting speed there is little reason for me to believe the model isn't compelling statistical evidence especially when compared to a gut feeling. The only thing I can really think of is a LH batting second as there is some evidence production can be improved there with a high OBP guy batting first and finding the hole more often.

Suppose you have Pujols batting 3. He is hurt, but you don't let people know it. Do you continue to bat him 3 or do you switch him with Holliday who is on a hot streak? Does his presence in the lineup trump Holliday's hot streak. How do numbers account for things like this? How can you prove or disprove protection when no lineup remains constant enough to give you an adequate sample size? How can you discount matchups, that don't follow the norm. There may even be certain pitchers that it might make sense to bat Izzy against, over someone ordinarily considered much better.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Suppose you have Pujols batting 3. He is hurt, but you don't let people know it. Do you continue to bat him 3 or do you switch him with Holliday who is on a hot streak? Does his presence in the lineup trump Holliday's hot streak. How do numbers account for things like this? How can you prove or disprove protection when no lineup remains constant enough to give you an adequate sample size? How can you discount matchups, that don't follow the norm. There may even be certain pitchers that it might make sense to bat Izzy against, over someone ordinarily considered much better.

The model assumes constant variables except position. Because the model cant be tested as a practical matter does not discount the model. Injuries and some of the other assumptions you are making are changing the variables and I discount the effects of lineup protection or other psychological effects related to the lineup order.

[El Gordo]

Suppose you have Pujols batting 3. He is hurt, but you don't let people know it. Do you continue to bat him 3 or do you switch him with Holliday who is on a hot streak? Does his presence in the lineup trump Holliday's hot streak. How do numbers account for things like this? How can you prove or disprove protection when no lineup remains constant enough to give you an adequate sample size? How can you discount matchups, that don't follow the norm. There may even be certain pitchers that it might make sense to bat Izzy against, over someone ordinarily considered much better.[/quote

The model assumes constant variables except position. Because the model cant be tested as a practical matter does not discount the model. Injuries and some of the other assumptions you are making are changing the variables and I discount the effects of lineup protection or other psychological effects related to the lineup order.

It doesn't discount it but it doesn't make it more credible either. It's just a theory that can't be proved. What I think SG is trying toi say is that in the abstract, line up order is not that significant, but the practical reality of baseball can't dicount factors like psychology of the players, their comfort levels, health, slumps, matchups, etc. Statistical models may hold for the long view, but a manager is trying to put the best lineup out there to win that day.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It doesn't discount it but it doesn't make i8t more cerdible either. It's just a theory that can't be proved. What I think SG is trying toi say is that in the abstract, line up order is not that significant, but the practical reality of baseball can't dicount factors like psychology of the players, their comfort levels, health, slumps, matchups, etc. Statistical models may hold for the long view, but a manager is trying to put the best lineup out there to win that day.

Might as well discuont all statistics and most of Physics then. It's far more credible than anything I've seen dscounting it. I don't doubt psychology can affect a player, I doubt the his batting order position affects his psychology. Same with clutch situations and lineup protection etc. as they've been shown to be negligibe. Could there be exceptions outside the norm...sure, that doesn't discount the overall evidence.

The model doesn't say you shouldn't optimize matchups/platoons, change the order, or ignore real world issues like injuries etc, it just simply compares one lineup to another other in terms of relative production. Not like it has large variances like a projection system or park factor adjustments.......it doesn't.

[Sports Guy]

Might as well discuont all statistics and most of Physics then. It's far more credible than anything I've seen dscounting it. I don't doubt psychology can affect a player, I doubt the his batting order position affects his psychology. Same with clutch situations and lineup protection etc. as they've been shown to be negligibe. Could there be exceptions outside the norm...sure, that doesn't discount the overall evidence.

The model doesn't say you shouldn't optimize matchups/platoons, change the order, or ignore real world issues like injuries etc, it just simply compares one lineup to another other in terms of relative production. Not like it has large variances like a projection system or park factor adjustments.......it doesn't.

Stats are true results..things that actually happened.

Simulations are projections that are likely to happen..There is a difference.

Look, this is evolving into a pretty dumb argument.

The bottom line is pretty simple. Some people believe that players can/will perform differently depending on where they bat in the lineup..Others don't. Its really that simple. There is no proof that either side is right because what is being discussed can not be measured with a number. This will never be proven one way or another because of how lineups will continue to be done.

Either way, a good lineup vs a bad lineup can mean 2-3 extra wins and because of that, you should look to optimize the lineup as much as possible.

[El Gordo]

Might as well discuont all statistics and most of Physics then. It's far more credible than anything I've seen dscounting it. I don't doubt psychology can affect a player, I doubt the his batting order position affects his psychology. Same with clutch situations and lineup protection etc. as they've been shown to be negligibe. Could there be exceptions outside the norm...sure, that doesn't discount the overall evidence.

The model doesn't say you shouldn't optimize matchups/platoons, change the order, or ignore real world issues like injuries etc, it just simply compares one lineup to another other in terms of relative production. Not like it has large variances like a projection system or park factor adjustments.......it doesn't.

This is absurd.:rolleyestf: