A running game in '09?
by tangledbrett on Oct 31, 2008 10:57 PM EDT
74 comments
Watching the Rays this postseason reminded me how much fun it is to watch a team with a running game. It also reminded me of how frustrating it is to watch your team’s pitcher suffer the harassment of dealing with a slugger at the plate and a base stealing threat on the bases. Reminded me of the 2004 NLCS when Beltran was running wild against us.
I was trying to think what it would take to get that type of running game back in St. Louis and I had couple of thought I would like to throw out there. Let’s assume for a moment that Rasmus makes the opening day roster this season and we sign either Furcal or another shortstop that hits leadoff (with decent on base ability) and can steal bases. If these two things happen, I think a strong case can be made that Albert should hit fourth. TLR has shown, and for good reason I believe, that he is not willing to steal bases ahead of Albert to avoid allowing the opposing pitcher to pitch around his greatness. Occasionally he will put on the hit and run with Albert at the plate (which I hate), but that is about it. Think about the following lineup with my prior assumptions:
Furcal
Rasmus
Pujols
Ludwick
Glaus
Ankiel
Molina
Pitcher
Lopez/2B
Seems to me that putting Albert behind a guy like Rasmus kind of negates his speed. That hasn’t really been a problem for the last few years since we really haven’t had much speed. With the lineup shown above, that changes significantly. I personally love the idea of Rasmus in the 2 spot due to his pop and on base abilities. Now think about this lineup
Furcal
Rasmus
Ludwick
Pujols
Glaus
Ankiel
Molina
Lopez/2B
Pitcher
Now pitchers have to worry about Furcal and Rasmus running while dealing with Ludwick and knowing that the best hitter in baseball is on deck.
I understand the reasoning for hitting Albert third, which I have always agreed with. More AB’s during the season and always hits in the first inning to name two. I personally would be OK with trading a few AB’s for a few more with runners on base for Albert. Furcal, Rasmus, and Ludwick are guys who can get on base. Hitting someone of Lopez or Iz2 caliber in the nine spot to make the 3-hole pseudo clean-up is not the same and I don’t believe is going to give Albert the same number of RBI opportunities.
In a lot of words (but little eloquence) I am saying that, with the lineups shown above, the team might be better off with Albert hitting fourth. It will open up the running game and should create more RBI opportunities for his eminence.
What do you guys think? I know this topic has come up before, but I thought I would throw it out there again since it is the offseason and we are into the hypothetical mode.
Oh, and one more random thought unrelated to my post. Based on this year’s winners, I think the Hank Aaron award should be renamed. I like the following: “The first annual Montgomery Burns award for outstanding achievement in the field of excellence.”
Thanks for reading. Happy Halloween!
1 recs |
74 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
crazy idea
but yes, i think that team would be a lot of fun to watch…
I actually have this weird obsession with the idea that we could possibly see albert get 200 RBI’s in a season; imo, I’d rather see him break hack wilson’s record than barry bonds’ record. it’d be almost impossible to do, but Albert is THE guy to do the impossible, and my gut says a situation like this is the only way it’d ever happen.
A cheaper option might be Greene (either one) or Ryan or Iz2 at SS batting 9th and Roberts (acquired via trade) at 2B batting leadoff, with rasmus in CF batting second and ludwick in LF batting 3rd. We’d then have 4 guys in front of albert, 3 of them high-obp types, all of whom rarely GIDP, all of whom would score almost every time on a double. Glaus #5 (Ryan Howard and Troy Glaus had the same OPS+ in 2008!) and ankiel/mather #6. If mo went all-in and signed furcal and traded for roberts-
roberts
furcal
rasmus
albert
luddy
glaus
ankiel
etc
we’d win 115 games.
the enemy's gate is down.
That lineup makes me smile.
I believe in your 200 RBI theory, and will add my personal fantasy, which is Albert winning the triple crown. I honestly believe he will make a serious run at it if he gets the right players around him.
Anyone but the Cubs.
by tangledbrett on Nov 1, 2008 12:37 AM EDT up reply actions
he's probably going to be walked too much to get a serious chance at the HR title
He’d need someone like A-Rod as protection
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I have to agree with Valatan
as much as I love Luddy, the only way that Albert wins a HR title is too put someone as fearsome behind him in the lineup. I just don’t see Luddy being that guy.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Their is no hitter alive
that is more fearsome than Albert. The only way teams are forced to pitch to Albert is if we get as many runners on in front of him as possible. Batting him fourth is the best option.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
More blow out games would help
It seemed like almost all the games in 2008 were close which caused other teams to be cautious with Albert. We start crushing teams early more often and AP gets challenged more. No sense in giving IBB when you are down by eight in the sixth inning.
Not to mention
it is generally easier to go yard against the mop-up guys, except for Miles of course ’cause he is unhittable.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
why is roberts hitting leadoff instead of furcal?
Furcal is faster and Brian Roberts outslugs Furcal.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
when we acquire them both
we can have a 500 post thread on who should bat 1st and second ;)
the enemy's gate is down.
you kind of forgot to mention floppy
who kind of ran wild for the six weeks he was here last year.
by stlcardinalsfang on Nov 1, 2008 12:42 PM EDT reply actions
Floppy, I fear, will reappear and then (statistically speaking) disappear. Use the same abacus to count on Carp and Floppy
An optimist is a man who upon discovering that a rose smells better than a cabbage concludes it will make better soup.
HL Mencken
This has already been discussed in detail
but yes, Albert should hit fourth.
- He won’t lose many PAs over the course of a season. (Not gonna look it up again, history shows that this is true)
- He will get more PAs with runners on (more RBI opportunities) in the first rather than PAs with 2 outs and none on.
- A 1-2-3 first inning gets you the ultimate leadoff man (Pujols, .462 OBP) batting first, which most would agree is better than him batting with none on and 2 outs.
- 3 players get the benefit of hitting in front of Albert rather than just 2. After all, why would the opposing pitcher want to walk any of them if he can get out of the first without having to face Pujols? Simply, he wouldn’t.
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
Hahaha
now I feel bad for missing church…
Is it fraud when Cubs ownership says "this year is our year?" Can somebody sue for that?
by thegodfather on Nov 2, 2008 11:36 AM EST up reply actions
Thanks for the comment, couldn't agree more.
In addition to the reasons you have mentioned, I think hitting Albert fourth makes even more sense if we have legitimate base stealing threats at the top of the order which could be the case this year with the possibility of having guys like Rasmus/Furcal/Roberts.
Anyone but the Cubs.
by tangledbrett on Nov 2, 2008 12:25 PM EST up reply actions
but doesn't this somewhat depend
on LaRussa jettisoning the pitcher hitting 8th deal? Notwithstanding that our 9-hole hitter often presents with a poor on-base percentage, as it stands now {Pu 3rd, pitcher 8th} Albert DOES have three potential rabbits hitting in front of him for 3/4ths or more of any given game. And doesn’t that situation already dove-tail with the basic argument being made?
I’m not saying I disagree with the plan, but I’m arguing that BOTH switches have to be made {if Pu 4th, then pitcher 9th} or neither.
I certainly agree that Albert is (just looking at HIS talents only) a prototypical ‘cleanup’ hitter. But… among the problems the Cardinals have had, in my opinion, over recent years, is the lack of a prototypical 3-hole hitter. {Someone like a Keith Hernandez, or a Bobby Abreu, Todd Helton, Tony Gwynn, Mark Grace). Not that we have a right to hope for anyone of a high a caliber as those fellows, but a part of the reason that Pujols finds himself in the 3 spot is because he comes the closest to fulfilling the classic mode of anyone we have, or HAVE had recently.
Currently… Glaus, Luddy, Ankiel ?? For the 3-hole ? No, no, and no
In the recent past… Rolen, no, Encarnacion, no, Edmonds,,uh, amybe, except he K’d too much and was a streak hitter’s streak hitter.
Albert in the 3 spot by default, is what I am saying. A bit of a mis-application, maybe, but there you go.
That is a good point.
Ideally under this plan the pitcher would return to the 9 spot. If I had to pick one person not named Albert from our current roster to put in the 3 spot, for me it would be Ludwick. Granted I wouldn’t call him a protoypical three spot hitter, but I would rather see him there than Glaus or Ankiel.
My guess is that Albert will stay in the 3 spot and that the pitchers will continue to bat 8th regardless of who we add in the offseason. I just thought it would be a good topic for discussion.
Anyone but the Cubs.
Tell me why
Ludwick is not a good candidate for the three hole? Good OBP, puts himself in scoring position a lot and absolutely raked in 2008 when he hit in front of Albert.
You could make the argument that Albert is absolutely the best candidate for every single spot in the order, why not put him where his talents will be maximized?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Albert's prominence
good points. In fact, it just accentuates Albert’s abilities even more….he’s the best 3 hitter in the game, and would probably be the best 4 hitter in the game. He’s that good all around.
None of the prototypical ’3’s’ you mentioned would be good cleanup hitters (Helton maybe, in his prime), so that just makes the case more substantial that El Hombre is the BEST hitter in the game.
by timmycardinals on Nov 3, 2008 9:43 AM EST up reply actions
No to Luddy?
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
Ryan Ludwick had the 6th best OPS in all of baseball in 2008.
What do you want out of a three-hole hitter, exactly, if not that?
1) 18 PAs
2) Completely unsubstantiated. Where’s the proof?
3) And also reduces the value of his extra base hits. It’s a false dichotomy to assume that it’s either none on and 2 outs or pujols leading off an inning.
4) Lineup protection is a myth. The reverse has actually been shown to be measurable.
On Lineup Protection
I know you have pointed this out in the past and I think it makes an interesting case. IMO, however, those studies do not completely disprove lineup protection. I think what it proves is that it isn’t as widespread as people think. One of those studies looked a 25 “good” hitters with sluggers behind them to get the data. That is 50 total batters. If you take the top 25 hitters and top 25 sluggers in the league, you are going to get quite a mix of players. The terms “good” and “slugger” are obviously being applied quite liberally. There aren’t many other hitters in the league like Pujols, so is this really a good measure of the effect of having Albert behind a hitter? For example, most in the baseball community consider Ryan Howard a “good” hitter or at least a “slugger”, but I don’t think hitters like Ryan Howard offer much if any protection for the simple fact that pitchers feel like they can strike the Howard types out. Not the case with guys like Pujols or Bonds.
In the study by Dylan Wright he states:
If protection exists, I view it as a continuous concept that applies to all players.
I think this is the flaw in the study. It doesn’t apply to all players, even those that are considered “good.”
What I would really like to see is a study of the effect on hitters hitting in front of Pujols. If you can show me something that proves that hitting in front of Pujols (or Bonds for that matter) has no effect on hitters, I will be convinced. Otherwise, I am going to continue to believe that Albert does, in fact, protect the player hitting in front of him.
I know it is a small sample size, but it seemed to work out well for Ludwick (1.108 OPS in 146 PAs) this season.
Anyone but the Cubs.
Someone is argumentative today
Okay then.
1) I was referencing this thread. In 2008 the 4 spot had 11 less PAs, in 2007 11, and in 2006 17. I understand the math that says 18, so we can call it 18. That would mean if Pujols played every game, he would lose 18 PAs, which when applied to this year’s numbers, means Pujols reaches base 8 less times. When you assume Ryan Ludwick bats third instead, that means that the 3 spot will reach base around 1.5 less times than if Pujols bat third. That’s why I don’t think it really makes much difference. I don’t call 18 PAs a lot, but if you do, that’s fine. That’s 1 extra PA every 9 games if that’s really significant.
2) I thought this was common sense. In 2008 the 1 and 2 hitters put up OBPs of .345 and .371, respectively. That means there’s roughly a 70% chance that one or the other will get on base in the first inning. That also means that there’s about a 30% chance Pujols comes up to bat with none on in the first. Now, if you take the 4 hitter (.341 OBP) and put him third in front of Pujols, you have that much more of a chance a runner will reach. The simple calculation suggests over a 100% chance that one of these three will reach in the first. Obviously this isn’t true, but it shows that there is indeed a higher chance of a runner getting on before Albert when there are 3 hitters before him rather than just 2. By default, there is less chance he will bat with none on and 2 outs.
3) I didn’t say “Pujols either bats with none on and 2 outs or leads of an inning.” I’m not stupid. As I describe above, with Pujols batting third he will come up to bat with 2 outs and none on MUCH more often than if he bat 4th. Also, the odds of him batting with 2 outs and none on when he hits third are higher than the odds of him leading off in the 2nd inning if he bats fourth. Again, I offered a basic explanation of why above. As for reducing the value of his XBH, sure, no kidding it isn’t as good to have him homer or double with none on. But a 2B is plenty valuable leading off an inning because then he has the opportunity to score runs. He doesn’t just have to drive them in.
4) I agree that lineup protection is overrated, but I wouldn’t call it a myth. Even Beamer says in that article, “I’d like to see two further tests to confirm the hypothesis.” Judging from what I have seen, pitchers tend to walk Pujols when first base is open in late game situations. Therefore, why would the pitcher pitch around the 3 hitter, say, Ryan Ludwick, when Pujols is up next? The same idea would apply to a much lesser extent to the 2 hitter getting to bat before Ryan Ludwick.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Are we here for a discussion? If we're just going to post things and not discuss them, I'll find another site.
1) Wasn’t saying it was a lot. Just saying what the math has found. Statement of fact with no opinion attached to it. I’m a robot remember?
2) Your math just isn’t right. You’re making a lot of assumptions about the distributions of those baserunners. “The simple calculation suggests over a 100% chance that one of these three will reach in the first.” — I’m not even sure where to start correcting a statement like this but it shows a basic misunderstanding of applied probability. I’m not looking to be argumentative or a jackass but this is a deeply flawed conclusion. You’d have to account for the distribution of when both get on base at the same time, double plays, etc. By your logic, we should bat Albert 9th because someone is bound to get on base before him then. Your logic applies to just one scenario (the start of the game). This is why TLR bats the pitcher 8th — it solves the exact situation your talking about without reducing Albert’s PAs. Markov chains and Pinto’s lineup toy consistently put the “best” hitter on the team in the 3 slot.
3)The first point of your post was that Albert should always hit with men on base. The third point says he’s the ultimate leadoff man. There’s a disconnect here that I’m trying to get at.
4) Again, by this logic we should bat Pujols 9th so that everyone benefits from the “lineup protection”. You’re really expanding the supposed effect of an already sketchy supposition by saying that “3 players get the benefit of hitting in front of Albert rather than just 2.” How many batters “in front of” pujols can he affect? If lineup protection is questionable for the batter right in front of pujols than surely two batters in front is even more dubious.
Discussion. Exactly.
1) Then why post a number (18 PAs) as a point in a list where every other point disagrees with what I’m saying.
2) Ugh. I said, “The simple calculation suggests over a 100% chance that one of these three will reach in the first. *Obviously this isn’t true*…” I’m not ignorant when it comes to math of any sort. The point is that with 3 guys in front of him you maximize both (1) his chance to bat in the first inning and (2) his chance to hit with runners on in the first inning. I just think it’s better for him to hit with runners on in the first rather than just having him hit in the first. Don’t be ridiculous about him hitting ninth, you don’t honestly think I would argue for that. Here’s a simple question to see if we agree or disagree: Would Albert be more likely to bat in the first with runners on if he hit 3rd or if he hit 4th? I say fourth. If you do too, then it’s mainly a question of whether or not those 18 extra PAs are worth giving up.
3) Early on a Sunday morning, I was just trying to explain that it’s not the end of the world if Pujols bats with none on and no outs, hence calling him the “ultimate leadoff man.” This is just what would happen if the first 3 hitters went 1-2-3. That’s all I was saying.
4) No, not again with Albert hitting ninth. Ryan Ludwick protects the 2 hitter, Pujols protects Ludwick. That is, if you can call it “protecting.” Basically, the lineup gets progressively more stout. I do think it helps a little, but not that much in the long run. My original point about this could’ve been better thought out, but I was just referencing an idea that many (most?) people accept as truth (not that I do).
I didn’t see why you would attack each one of my ideas but not provide evidence against each them in your initial comment. That’s why I was pissed at it, FYI.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
2) I say third. This is the problem though. The Markov models and Pinto’s lineup toys show the best hitter third. You’re saying 4th. I’m asking for proof. Furthermore, batting the pitcher 8th addresses your claimed advantage of having more guys on base for every albert at bat except the first inning.
4) So there’s a ripple effect with lineup protection? How can I have a discussion when a) the studies out there have been in the negative and b) you then further extrapolate the issue beyond the initial dubious claim.
Everyone is so prickly around here lately. Your acting in the affirmative, you have the burden of proof. I’m just asking you to back up claims that don’t pass the sniff test to me with some evidence.
2) I thought I did explain why I think Pujols would get more PAs with runners on in the first when batting fourth. In summary, 2 guys in front of him versus 3. Odds are still in his favor that he will bat in the 1st, but there is a better chance that 1/3 hitters before him will reach than 1/2. If there was a simple way to calculate these odds myself I would. That’s why I initially cited the 1st grade OBP+OBP method of calculating those odds.
As for batting the pitcher 8th…the thread link I posted earlier has some of my ideas. I think that I would rather let Pujols lose out on 18 PAs and see more RISP opportunities by batting 4th (which includes the 1st inning) rather than by letting the pitcher hit eighth. This gives the pitcher more PAs than necessary, and then only addresses the RISP issue for AP around 75-80% of the time. Also, the 9 place hitter won’t get on base at anywhere near the rate the 2 or 3 spot hitter would, not that this would have much of an impact over a full season.
4) I tried to undo my “initial dubious claim” in that last comment. IF lineup protection exists (big IF based on what you’re saying), then Ludwick should offer similar protection as Pujols. Ludwick would be the best hitter on just about any other team, so he’d be the one doing the protecting. So, I’m saying IF there is lineup protection, which I think there is to a small degree, it would work for Luddy and AP. This alone isn’t reason to bat Pujols 4th. It is not a significant part of my argument, I should have left it out. In other words, if I wrote a paper about “why to hit Pujols 4th” (wow, that would be an awesome class!), I wouldn’t include the whole “lineup protection” idea.
I understand. I just thought you could have worded that initial comment in a friendlier manner. No worries.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Proof;
He is asking for actual evidence. Just because you, “did explain why I (you) think Pujols would get more” doesn’t mean anything. It’s an opinion.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
You serious?
Did you read what I said? I cited the fact that if you have 3 OBPs around .350 in front of AP you should get more runners on in front of him than if you just have 2. It’s simple, and I don’t really see how there is that much opinion in that. See giveml’s post below. He did the work I didn’t want to.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
and what azru is saying
is that by that logic you should bat all your .350 OBP players in front of Pujols so that someone will be on base when he comes to the plate. The problem is that this isn’t a zero-sum game where the more OBP people on in front relates to more and more baserunners on for a particular spot in the lineup.
You are making a predictive statement and “guessing” that your theory is correct, based on your assumptions. What Azru is saying is that there isn’t a statistical study or model out there that agrees with you. He is simply asking for evidence to support your claim.
"I just wish that the late Harry Caray were still around so I could hear him mispronounce 'Kosuke Fukudome' every fukun' night" -- Dennis Miller
It's common sense
It’s more likely that 1/3 hitters will get on than 1/2. I don’t see how that needs support to back it up. Then, obviously, the higher Pujols is in the order, the higher the odds of him batting in the first. These are not opinions. It’s very basic math. My opinion is that the optimal combination of AP getting to bat in the first AND hit with runners on more often than not is going to be achieved by batting him 4th.
If you assume the lineup toy is the end-all way to measure “fact” when it comes to lineup construction (the same toy that puts Pujols 1st), then here are the lineup toys numbers (which I already posted below):
5.356 runs/game with this year’s lineup, Pujols 3rd
5.390 runs/game switching Pujols’ numbers with the 4 spot numbers
So, if I’m not mistaken, it is better to bat Pujols fourth.
*I plugged in numbers for each spot in the order except I used Pujols’ numbers for the 3 spot since that’s who we are talking about.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
by thegodfather on Nov 3, 2008 11:44 AM EST up reply actions
that's all I wanted to see
I don’t think it’s common sense (if it was wouldn’t we see it being done already?) and I’m still not sure I agree with the end result (if I stacked the OBPs correctly, I could get a slightly higher output from Pinto’s tool with Albert in the #5 spot). Is it so much to ask for people to back up claims?
I think what tgf meant
by common sense is the logic in having 1 in 3 batters possessing a better chance of getting on base than 1 in 2. It’s not common sense that Albert should bat fourth; it is common sense that he has a greater likelihood of seeing baserunners on in front of him with three hitters leading off in front of him.
Ultmately it is the manager’s decision where to place guys in the lineup and if you typically put your best RBI man in the three spot and your best SLG% guy in the four spot than the Cards are obviously going to have a problem because in recent history both statistical achievements belong to Number 5. The blossoming of Ludwick has allowed us to re-evaluate our possibilities.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 2:21 PM EST up reply actions
Definitely not interested in being prickly
but this is a very intriguing subject for me. I don’t have the statistical wherewithal to critique the various analyses, but I can’t seem to get any answers to my seemingly common-sensical questions on this topic.
If I’m doing the math right our first two hitters OBPs of .345 and .371 should mean that the three hitter will bat with the bases empty in the first inning 41.2% of the time. In actual fact Albert batted with the bases empty in the first 59 times in 143 PAs (yes, I actually looked at the gamelogs). That comes out to 41% of the time.
If I use my preferred candidate for the three spot (Luddy) in the calculations then the 4th hitter should come up to bat with someone having reached base 64.7% of the time or, conversely, no one will reach base 35.3% of the time and the 4th hitter will bat leadoff in the second.
So, isn’t it reasonable to conclude that giving Albert more chances to hit with runners on base (64.7% vs. 58.8%) in the first inning is a more efficient use of the best hitter of our generation?
Plus, if you take effectively take away the .322 OBP of the 9th hitter and replace it with the .375 of the 3rd hitter, you increase the chance he will bat with someone on in subsequent at bats as well.
Plus, you take a guy like Ludwick and give him the protection of hitting in front of Albert. In 2008 Ludwick’s OPS was .142 higher than his overall OPS when hitting in front of Pujols. Miles was about .090 higher in the two hole. Ankiel had a lesser benefit, but I am pretty sure he hit in the two hole exclusively against LHPs. Protection as a general phenomenon may or may not exist, but I don’t think there is much doubt that hitting in front of Pujols is a bonus.
Finally, isn’t it a lot better to have Albert leading off an inning than batting with two outs and nobody on in 41.2% of the first innings?
DISCLAIMER: I made no attempt to account for double plays, out stealings, or home runs when calculating the percentages.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Thanks for doing that research
I really didn’t feel like it. The items you listed in the disclaimer would hurt the argument slightly, but I don’t believe enough to ruin the argument. I agree with you 100%.
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Just to clarify
I am asking questions here. If someone has data that proves otherwise or can point out some flaws in my thought process the I am cool with that.
It seems obvious to me, but I just want to understand.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
If I'm correct
the lineup toy does pretty much that same analysis, but extending it out for a nine innning game.
So while you have maximized runs for the first inning + maybe the second, the lineup toy has done the same thing for a whole nine inning game.
Perhaps I’m misunderstanding the lineup toy, but I think that is what it’s doing.
My counterargument to the ‘protection doesn’t exist’ logic is pretty simple, though—while protection doesn’t exist in cases where the pitcher is pitching to the batter (basically trading a decreased likelihood for a walk for an increased likelihood for a hit—though note that there is some evidence that P/PA does increase due to protection), in Albert’s case, things are a little different.
The reason that they are different is that the opposing manager explicitly inserts himself into the game by calling for the IBB. We’re not talking about pitchers changing their repitoire or any of that, we’re talking about the opposing manager making a decision to take the bat out of Albert’s hands. In this case, I think that lineup protection would have to be able to change the manager’s mindset. For example, if you had A-Rod batting behind Albert, the manager would be much less inclined to make this call, as he’d just be putting runners on for a marginally inferior batter.
This isn’t an argument about the general notion of protection. it is an argument about the notion of protection re: Albert Pujols. Maybe the manager would still act this way, but I kind of don’t believe it.
Also, you might argue that we’re better off just letting Albert IBB. There, I am agnostic. And it would probably depend on the game situation anyway.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
That's my understanding of the lineup toy also.
And that’s part of the reason I’m so skeptical of the back of the envelope math that we’re all employing here when the detailed 6 page math shows something different.
I don't disagree
as I realize my position is somewhat simplistic. I am asserting that the best thing for the team is to maximize the productivity of its best hitter, especially since he is such an amazing player.
To Valatan, how would batting Albert fourth only maximize the runs scored in the first and maybe the second? I think it would maximize the runs Albert would produce most times through the order.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
You'd have to go and do the same analysis that you did for the first three outs
The whole thing is cyclical, and it would be a long calculation best left for a computer. The point is that that is exactly what the pinto machine has done. Likely, the argument would be that he comes up in the lineup more often if he’s batting 3rd.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
I hope there is a better argument than that
I will trade give up 11 PAs for Albert to avoid 59 PAs with two outs and nobody on.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
The better argumetn is that the robot
went and did the entire calculation for a complete game.
That’s the whole argument.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Not trying to be too obtuse here
but is this the same robot that says Pujols should bat first or is it a different one? Is there a linky so I can try to learn to speak robot?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Domo Arigato
Mr. Roboto. The link should go to the top 8 cardinals (in terms of AB) based on their 2008 stats, plus the average of the top five starters.
And it does have Pujols batting first. But I’m thinking that it might not be doing that sort of probabilistic analysis, as it has the to ‘models’ that have year-based datasets attached to it (which I don’t remember it having).
Note that the other dataset has Pujols batting 2nd.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Thanks for the link
but what I am looking for is a link to what azru refers to as the “six-page math”. I have played with this tool before and find it to be less than useful. However, I would still like to know the methodology.
I just can’t accept an argument of “the tool says so” when the tool says bat Pujols first.
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Hmmm
Virtually all the top scoring lineups have Ludwick batting fourth and Pujols batting first. Seems like the logic is to pick the highest OBP and bat them first, then take the remaining highest SLG and bat them fourth.
If we all agree that Pujols isn’t going to bat first, then doesn’t that make him the logical choice to bat fourth using the tool’s apparent logic?
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Also
since I just dumbly copied form the official site, I had Lopez and not miles. For some reason, the official site includes all of Lopez’s 2008, not just his performance with the Cardinals.
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
The batting third thing was me speaking out of turn.
The lineup tool moves the better hitters toward the top of the order but it’s unrealistic to expect TLR to bat Albert first. I always just assume it’s putting them third because that’s the realistic solution but obviously I’m wrong in that it’s not the most effective.
Apparently, he is the ultimate leadoff man!
The Pujols Effect
Albert started batting in the three hole full time in 2004. Just out of curiosity, I went back to b-r and looked at the results of the hitters in the two spot and compared their results when they batted elsewhere in the order. I only used the top three in terms of frequency as that is all b-r gives us non-subscriber types.
To sum up, the top three hitters in the last five full seasons have hit an aggregate .305/.370/.510/.880 when batting in front of Pujols. Those same hitters in the same respective seasons have a combined slash of .267/.352/.438/.790 when batting anywhere else in the lineup. We are talking about a total of 2328 PAs in the two spot and 3387 PAs in other spots. Seems like a pretty good sample.
I don’t know how to convert that to runs or win shares, but it seems like most guys would be fighting to bat in front of Albert. This year an .880 OPS would be good for 14th in the NL. .790 would only be tied for 43rd.
Striking examples of OPS success in front of Albert were:
Ludwick (‘08) 1.105 vs. .923 in other spots
Taguchi (’06) .939 vs. 449
Nunez (‘05) .885 vs. 651
JRodriguez (’06) .970 vs. 677
The only two guys out of fifteen who didn’t seem to benefit were both in ’05:
Walker .768 vs 1.013
Edmonds .841 vs. .958
Those Pilgrims ain't lookin' so proud now...
Wow
Thanks for digging up that data. That is very interesting. To me, information like this has more value than a study done on a cross section of players from all over the league.
Anyone but the Cubs.
by tangledbrett on Nov 2, 2008 11:41 PM EST up reply actions
2) Doesn't A-Rod,
who’s widely considered to be the top hitter in the game (besides Pujols), bat fourth? He’s got Abreu batting in front of him and if you compare him with Ludwick this year they are very similar.
Luddy .299/.375/.591
Bobby .296/.371/.471
Ludwick was also higher than Abreu in Runs, HR’s, RBI’s, 2B’s, TB’s, XBH’s and with OPS Luddy is over 100 pts. higher (.966 vs. .843). And he did all of this in 71 less AB’s than Bobby.
The Tewk had mentioned that we lack a prototypical 3-spot ala Abreu, Helton, Gwynn, or Grace. I think these numbers show that even if Luddy doesn’t fully repeat his stellar 08 season he could still be a consistent hitter in the third spot in the lineup. I don’t think TLR will ever put Albert in the four spot, but we do have a player now who is strong enough offensively to give us this option.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 8:43 AM EST up reply actions
Does A-Rod batting fourth tell us anything informative?
Or is it merely a reflection of his managers predilections for lineup construction?
Not to mention that A-Rod's been hitting third for most of his career
Except for during his mariner days where he was batting #2 in front of Griffey
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
In his days with the M's
he was also much younger and ran more often so it made sense to bat him in front of Griffey who was the more established hitter. And when he was with Texas who was he going to ‘clean-up’ for? He was the best hitter on that team, like Albert for us, so it made the most sense to bat him third. Now, with the yankees, he has more weapons around him, and a capable 3-spot hitter so he bats fourth.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 11:24 AM EST up reply actions
Wasnt he teammates with Juan Gone, Pudge and Rafael Palmiero in various years in Texas?
Not to mention Texiera and Blaylock? Hitting’s never been Texas’ problem
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Right winning has been Texas' problem.
Those teams he was on from 2001-2003 never won more than 78 games. And A-Rod is still the better hitter out of all of those guys, so of course he would bat in the 3 spot for those teams because he was the best overall hitter. Now in NY, his is still the better hitter but Abreu is a capable 3-hole guy so A-Rod can slide down one spot in the order and have more opportunities to drive in runs.
My case is that Ludwick is as good a hitter as Abreu now, so it would make sense to allow Albert to bat fourth. I’m almost sorry that I mentioned A-Rod now, because the main point I was making was that Ludwick compares well to Abreu who bats third, with a better hitter (A-Rod) behind him. Bobby isn’t a better hitter than Alex, but he is good enough that Alex can bat fourth w/o cause for concern.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 2:10 PM EST up reply actions
That argument doesn't make any sense
Each one of those guys (except for, perhaps, the injury ridden Juan Gone) were better hitters than Abreu is now. Raffy’s pretty damn close to a classic 3 Hole guy, with the power and the near .400 OBPs he was posting back then.
But yeah, I get your point, I just don’t think A-Rod is a particularly good example of that, and anyway, we don’t know how things would have played out if the Yankees had flipped the two in the order. I actually don’t get why they don’t just lead off with Jeter and move everyone up. but that’s an entirely different discussion
They say that it's never too late, but you don't get any younger...
Just like we will never know
if we would benefit from Albert batting fourth and Luddy third unless we do it.
And I’m just saying if I were managing the Rangers from 01-03 and I had the choice of A-Rod or Pudge for my 3 guy it would go to A-Rod. I agree with your case for Palmeiro, but Tex was a rookie in 03, and Juan was ailing like you said. And I can’t see Blaylock being a 3-guy over A-Rod either. Despite all of our arguments one way or the other, it is up to the manager where he places batters, and I think TLR proved this year they can be very…um…creative!
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 2:30 PM EST up reply actions
IMHO Yes it does
FWIW when you have a guy who is arguably the best comparison with Albert offensively, and he bats fourth we should at least take it into consideration (I’m NOT suggesting we base our lineup construction or any other ideas for that matter on what another team does). He bats fourth because there is a hitter (Bobby Abreu) who can provide what is needed offensively in the three spot. I was simply pointing out that the Cards have a hitter who compares to Abreu just as well, if not better, and that opens up the option for Albert to bat fourth.
For a robot you seem to be exhibiting alot of emotion over this subject. And I apologize for not providing very much statisitcal data to support my claim, and I understand why a robot would want to have data to interpret. But to me it just seems reasonable to compare to players who are very similar offensively. You can disagree with me if you like, in fact I would prefer that. Otherwise, these discussions would be quite dull.
"I've never felt better to be hit by a big guy like that in my life." - Brad Lidge on Ryan Howard
by RunninRedbird on Nov 3, 2008 11:17 AM EST up reply actions
"The Markov models and Pinto’s lineup toys show the best hitter third."
Is this true? Cyril Morong’s work seems to show that OBP is least valuable in the 4 spot and slugging least valuable in the 1 and 3 spots. 2, 4, and 5-7 place a premium on slugging and 12359 place a premium on OBP. That would indicate that albert’s .600+ SLG is being wasted in the 3 hole. It could be much more valuable in the 2 spot, with a high-OBP, relatively low-SLG type batting 3rd.
Tango says, in “the book” "Your three best hitters should bat somewhere in the #1, #2 and #4 slots. Your fourth- and fifth-best hitters should occupy the #3 and #5 slots. The #1 and #2 slots will have players with more walks than those in the #4 and #5 slots. From slot #6 through #9, put the players in descending order of quality.
(quote taken from tht article “constructing lineups”)
Using Morong’s data, and albert’s career numbers, here is the weighted sum of albert’s contribution to the team in each lineup position. If he isn’t going to bat first, then second, fourth or 5th. Batting him third is a considerable waste of resources, reducing his contributions to between 10 and 20 percent of the theoretical optimum:
sum efficiency vs 3rd 1 1.855 +0.243 2 1.746 +0.170 3 1.492 0.000 4 1.648 +0.105 5 1.673 +0.121 6 1.344 -0.099 7 1.376 -0.078 8 1.020 -0.317 9 1.420 -0.048
From this, I conclude that the best lineup should indeed have albert batting first. I think that the fact that this still seems absurd is an artifact of the fact that we all still overvalue slugging and undervalue OBP. Albert’s .425 career OBP is about 22 percent more valuable to the team than his .624 slugging.
The numbers for the 1 and 2 spot become even more pronounced when you consider that the leadoff spot bats 38 more times and the #2 spot 9 more times than the #3 spot over the course of the year (using 2008 numbers). The #3 spot batted 14 times more than the #4 spot in 2008.
the enemy's gate is down.
errata
“reducing his contributions to between " should be written as "reducing his contributions between”. IE he is 24.3 percent more valuable to the team when batting leadoff than third, not 80-90 more valuable, as the way it is written would imply ;)
Oh what a difference to the meaning of a sentence an inadvertent proposition can make!
the enemy's gate is down.
I mentioned this above
but I was confused about something. I didn’t take the time to go back and read those articles (now bookmarked and queued) about lineup construction. I wound up introducing a lot of misinformation when I should have just kept asking for evidence. That’s all I ever wanted.
Also,
I agree about Albert batting first. That’s one of those things that I still have trouble digesting (like Izturis being a league average player this year!). Can you imagine the ridicule associated with a lineup constructed in that fashion?
Way to represent a dogmatic,
opinionated reliance on old-fashioned lineup construction and present it as a way to get the running game (which has been fine, thanks) going.
Space.
It's a problem we face.
So we never go anywhere.
We just stay in one place.
Did I come off as arrogant?
I thought it was clear that I was stating opinion for the sake of starting discussion on the topic, but you apparently feel otherwise. If that isn’t welcome here, please let me know.
12th in the NL in stolen bases this year, there is definately room for improvement in the running game. There are a lot of reasons (see above) you can argue that Pujols should bat fourth, I thought I would throw this one out there because it is one that hasn’t been discussed as much as some of the more obvious reasons.
Anyone but the Cubs.
it ddin't seem arrogant at all
and to reply back up to hazel, how has our running game been fine? I can’t understand how if we did have a more players with base stealing ability, how using that part of the game has to be looked down on.
* sarcasm might be involved in this comment
Continuation of above discussion
I don’t like how the comments keep getting more narrow. I am kind of lost about the lineup toy. I assume we are talking about the one on baseball musings, the lineup analysis tool. If it works like we’ve been saying, then they say the best lineup has AP batting first. I don’t think that is right. Could someone explain this?
Also, I plugged in the numbers for each spot in the Cardinal’s lineup, except used Pujols’ numbers for the 3 spot. This year’s lineup like that scores 5.356 runs/game. If you switch Albert and the 4 spot hitter (leave pitcher 8th) you get 5.390 runs/game. The worst of the three was was switching AP and the 4 spot AND switching the pitcher to ninth. OK now I had to try a “standard” lineup with AP 3rd and the pitcher 9th. That one was even worse at 5.270. Thoughts? If we assume that this lineup toy is gospel when it comes to lineup contruction…what does everyone have to say? I’m somewhat intrigued and confused…
Two goldfish are in a tank. One of them turns to the other and says, "You man the guns, I'll drive!"
Think outside the box
You want a running game, change the way you bat your sluggers.
Lineup: Luddy, Ainkel, AP, Glaus, Rasmus,Furcal, Lopez, Molina ,pitcher.
You use your running game after the boppers…raz, furcal(one can hope can’t he), lopez then have molina be productive and drive them in before the pitcher bats.
I know this is won’t happen with TLR as skipper, but their is always 2010.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
