Designated Lineup Thread - Kendall Batting 9th?; Lack of Left-Handed Hitters SOLVDD (#203); Hall To Bat 5th, Hart 6th (#216)

[TooLiveBrew]

most teams do things in a similiar fashion because it has been tried and true.

Except that it's oftentimes just perception that it's "true", as opposed to reality. Like the CP use.

[1992casey]

until i see this 'bat the pitcher 8th' argument used on the mlb level with some consistency, and not a few times ala larusso, i dont buy into it.

Another way to look at things is that with a typical complement of major league players, most lineup adjustments don't end up making much difference. Positive or negative effects tend to be very minor. In other words, I don't think there's much potential for harm being done by 'renting' the idea and giving it a test drive.

 

I always thought it was stupid when La Russa hit the pitcher eighth because he didn't change the rest of his lineup.

I wonder how much the rest of the lineup should be changed, though. I bet you'd still find #3 coming to the plate with two out and nobody on more than anyone else and #4 leading off the second greatest number of innings, for instance.

 

We need a stathead here to do the probabilities. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Fatter than Joey]

For those worried about getting Weeks and Braun stealing opportunities (I couldn't care less),

 

I could, in that I would rather see them not steal.

[TooLiveBrew]

If Braun can run as efficiently as Rickie & Corey, I'm all for them stealing. As long as you're getting caught less than or equal to one of four times, groovy. The funny thing to me is that with how efficiently Weeks steals bases, he's really only going to have to attempt 35 or so to hit 30 SB. Corey's not far behind, and Braun's the one I'd rather not see run into a lot of outs... or just really running much at all. Unless he can maintain the success rate he's had since Miami... guess he might be just as likely to be over 75% success.

[Fatter than Joey]

I'm all for them stealing. As long as you're getting caught less than or equal to one of four times, groovy.

 

I'm all for starting TGJ in CF if he hits HRs every time at bat http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- I just don't think it is likely.

 

Outside of situational circumstances, the idea of Braun, Weeks and whomever else running, does not seem like a great risk/reward payoff. I think 66% is sort of the accepted break-even point for the average MLB team when they attempt to steal -- given the Brewers bats, I'd bet the success rate probably needs to be over 80% for it to make sense.

 

I hope Yost doesn't set up lineups to maximize SBs.

[logan82]

As long as Hall is not stealing I am fine. Really Hart and Weeks are the only 2 I feel comfortable with stealing right now. Braun was at 75% last year and I see no reason he can't improve on that with a little work.

[Team Canada]

As has been noted in the thread already, statistically speaking, it would be much better to swap Braun and Cameron in your lineup.

Well I feel that your 3rd batter should be your best hitter. Is or is Braun not our best hitter? He its for a high average and hits for power and drives in runs. Just my opinion.

 

As I said (see to the Ruth-Koufax example), statistically 2 and 4 are better spots for your best hitter. Yes, CW says that #3 is your best hitter, but that doesn't make it correct.

[TooLiveBrew]

I'm all for starting TGJ in CF if he hits HRs every time at bat http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif -- I just don't think it is likely.

Outside of situational circumstances, the idea of Braun, Weeks and whomever else running, does not seem like a great risk/reward payoff. I think 66% is sort of the accepted break-even point for the average MLB team when they attempt to steal -- given the Brewers bats, I'd bet the success rate probably needs to be over 80% for it to make sense.

 

FtJ, each of Weeks, Hart, & Braun have sustained SB success rates north of 75% prior to, and basically including MLB. Not sure where the super-skepticism comes from.

 

 

I hope Yost doesn't set up lineups to maximize SBs.

 

Me too.

[Ennder]

You have to make bad Cs pay, if you are smart about stealing bases it is a valid tool. When we play games at say san diego where you can't hit the HR's and their C's can't throw guys out you have to be aggressive on the bases.

[endaround]

Right, I just don't think moving your line up to get what is likely your 4th best basestealer (after Weeks, Hart, and Cameron) more opportunities makes much sense. I like Braun 2nd if Yost won't hit and run. I guess I don't trust him on that given he likes using it so much.

[aracko]

I love it. Allowing Kendall to hit 9th would really play to his strengths. It gets the big bats some extra ABs, Allows Weeks to drive in some runs (his bat can be too special to not get a chance to hit with Runners On Base, and if that #7 hitter gets on Base to lead off the 3rd inning, the Pitcher can bunt him over and then we have both Kendall and Weeks to come thru with a single and get him in.

 

The positives of this outweigh the negetives. I love seeing Ned think outside the box.

[Fatter than Joey]

FtJ, each of Weeks, Hart, & Braun have sustained SB success rates north of 75% prior to, and basically including MLB. Not sure where the super-skepticism comes from.

 

I think the Brewers, given their lineup, need to be north of 75% for stealing bases to be a worthwhile endeavor.

 

You have to make bad Cs pay

 

No you don't. It's like saying a pitcher that can't field the bunt well needs to be taken to task, or if the 3b is playing really deep, we should start laying down bunts. I am all for stealing in certain situations, but overall to me it's just like bunting -- a bad risk/reward proposition.

 

if you are smart about stealing bases it is a valid tool

 

Ned says hi!

 

When we play games at say san diego where you can't hit the HR's and their C's can't throw guys out you have to be aggressive on the bases.

 

We only will play 3-4 games at Petco this year, and the Padres won 89 games last year, if their C was such a liability, I doubt they would have been 15 games over .500. Guys like Braun/Hart can get from 1st to 3rd pretty well, I fail to see where trying to get more out of Braun's speed is worthwhile.

 

All I am really saying, is that I hope Yost doesn't start putting lineups together that "allow Braun to run more" or anyone for that matter. When guys like Braun/Prince/Hart are at the plate, I am pretty AOK with no movement on the basepaths.

 

Right, I just don't think moving your line up to get what is likely your 4th best basestealer (after Weeks, Hart, and Cameron) more opportunities makes much sense. I like Braun 2nd if Yost won't hit and run. I guess I don't trust him on that given he likes using it so much.

 

I agree with this sentiment.

 

As far as Kendall batting 9th, I think it makes a ton of sense when Yo is pitching. I have always thought it made some sense.

[Leinie Lodge]

Please I don't want Sheeters hitting 8th!

But this plan definitely could make sense for Gallardo's starts ... and possibly Soup, good situational bat-handler.

[Tbadder]

I like the idea with Kendall only. With Munson or Rivera, not so much. Kendall doesn't clog up the basepaths luike the other two will. I love hitting Braun 2nd because over the course of the year he's just going to get more ABs. In the 3rd spot I like Gross and then Cameron later.

 

I also like the idea of a better hitter pinch hitting in the eigth spot rather than the ninth spot when the game is on the line.

[ozzybourne]

until i see this 'bat the pitcher 8th' argument used on the mlb level with some consistency, and not a few times ala larusso, i dont buy into it.

Another way to look at things is that with a typical complement of major league players, most lineup adjustments don't end up making much difference. Positive or negative effects tend to be very minor. In other words, I don't think there's much potential for harm being done by 'renting' the idea and giving it a test drive.

casey--after doing some additional research, i found 2 things in particular worth noting;

 

1--to paraphrase a quote from larusso from 8/4/07 to the AP before a game with the nationals-'in an attempt to jump start his saggin offense, TLR has decided to bat p-piniero 8th and 2b-kennedy 9th. " i've been thinking abou this for a while. our offense has been very erratic. we're just not getting enoug guys on base". this is the first time TLR has done this since the 1998 season when he did it for 76 ab's'.

 

2--at the end of an extensive report called "evaluating traditional lineups"--it did not reference the author on the web page i found, but has exhaustive modeling based on mark pankin's use of the markov process model--is a simple summary that ends with--"i might be inclined to select the lineup that makes the most intuitive sense to the player and fans. simply put, it is not worth all the fuss you'd cause trying to be clever with lineups".

 

this article also supports your statement that lineup changes have little overall impact on scoring runs.

 

so lets keep the pitcher 9th and not try to turn this into a circus.

[TooLiveBrew]

I love seeing Ned think outside the box.

 

I couldn't agree more.

 

 

I think the Brewers, given their lineup, need to be north of 75% for stealing bases to be a worthwhile endeavor.

Ok, and all the guys I listed are north of 75%, save Hart's rate, which is skewed by his 2006 numbers. His 23/30 rate from 2007 is right in line with what he did in the minors. Braun is obviously right at 75% for MLB, but I'm clearly talking about more than just MLB. Hart & Weeks will both be comfortably over 75%, Cameron has run with a success rate well over 75% in his MLB career (364 total attempts). Braun is our only question mark, and even his college & minor-league success tells us 75+% success is right in line with how he's stolen bases.

 

 

so lets keep the pitcher 9th and not try to turn this into a circus.

A circus? I mean no offense by this, but you seem to be the only one investing this much weight into the discussion. If it's mathematically worth trying, why worry about whether or not it's worth the effort? What I can tell from the studies you cited, it seems the 8th/9th debate is - at worst - an even split... with a very realistic possibility that batting the P 8th is an improvement (albeit small). So if it gets you even the slightest advantage to bat the P 8th, why not entertain an idea that can improve your chances to win? To argue that it's 'too much' for fans that one lineup slot has been changed just isn't a good enough reason imho, if it can help you better compete. If you find it doesn't help, and in fact hurts, no harm in switching back. I'd rather the manager give it a shot, on the outside/small chance it can aid winning.

[homer]

To paraphrase Bobby Knight:

 

If you start listening to the fans, pretty soon you'll be sitting with them.

[olliegjw]

I love it. Allowing Kendall to hit 9th would really play to his strengths. It gets the big bats some extra ABs, Allows Weeks to drive in some runs (his bat can be too special to not get a chance to hit with Runners On Base, and if that #7 hitter gets on Base to lead off the 3rd inning, the Pitcher can bunt him over and then we have both Kendall and Weeks to come thru with a single and get him in.

 

The positives of this outweigh the negetives. I love seeing Ned think outside the box.

I fail to see how hitting the pitcher 8th will bet the big bats extra AB's. It is the same 9 hitters, so unless there is some magical increase in OBP for one of them with a new spot in the lineup, the number of AB's will not change for anyone, except Kendall. He may have less, because the 8 hitter may make the last out in the game.

[mletto157]

I guess after reading all of the posts on this thread the only question I have is: All of the statistical evidence that supports these ideas of batting the pitcher 8th, batting someone like Braun 2nd, etc... are all taken with current lineups. Like saying you should have your 2nd and 4th hitters be better than your 3rd... taken with current lineups. If we moved the pitcher to 8th, wouldn't it affect all of these statistics. Like most likely your 3rd batter wouldn't be the coming up statistically with no one on and 2 outs more than everyone else anymore I'm guessing - making all of the other statistics involved skewed now. Or is there some tool that shows where your maximum number of runs per game would be given the statistics of the players in that lineup? I don't know... I'm just thinking that when people say "The third hitter in a lineup comes up with the bases empty almost as often as the #1 hitter. The #3 hitter comes up with 2 outs more often than either the #4 or #5 hitters," that's based on current lineups - so if you moved your pitcher to 8th, wouldn't that completely change that statistic?

[1992casey]

A typical way to go about this is to test one lineup spot at a time. You'd move around guy with typical pitcher's stats while making all other batters in the lineup equal.

 

What could possibly be done is to test a lineup with a typical pitcher, Jason Kendall, and seven equal players.

[sbrylski]

mletto, I see what you're saying but its not going to make enough of a difference.

 

Coming up with 2 outs and nobody on happens by far the most in the first inning for the 3rd hitter. If you have two .340 OBPers batting 1st and 2nd, the odds that neither of them get on base is .660^2 = .436. If you move two .380 OBP hitters to 1st and 2nd, the odds become .620^2 = .384. Over 162 games, that's only 8 times less, which is minor compared to the total number of times (which I don't have available but are somewhere in the 100's, IIRC).

[ozzybourne]

TLB--i still think it awkward to bat the pitcher 8th. and as for yost i suscribe to the keep it simple theory. here is some additional info as long as we are looking at this topic.

 

--the 8th spot averages about 25-30 ABs more per year

 

--with RISP for the 2007 brewers, the 8th spot came up 15 more times than the 9th, in 2006 7 more times, 2005 13 more, 2004 34 more times. and yes some of that may be offset by PH, but usually not til after 6th or 7th inning.

 

--interesting about the 3rd spot. team high AB with RISP for season-206 plate appearances. team high BA .335, team high OBP .408, SLG .618

 

here's the link for 2007 brewers batting order info --and gateway into mlb statland-- BOP Outcomes 2007 MIL

[sbrylski]

--the 8th spot averages about 25-30 ABs more per year

 

--with RISP for the 2007 brewers, the 8th spot came up 15 more times than the 9th, in 2006 7 more times, 2005 13 more, 2004 34 more times. and yes some of that may be offset by PH, but usually not til after 6th or 7th inning.

 

You're only focusing on the negatives though. Jason Kendall is not likely (relatively) to drive in those runs anyway, with a .250 average and a .330 SLG. The positive is we improve the OBP infront of Weeks from .171 to .330 - that's ~100 more times from the spot right in front of Rickie. And closer to ~33 when you take into account that the pitcher isn't always the 3rd out.

 

So we lose ~17 PA for Kendall with RISP that he could have gotten batting 8th, but we add 33+ baserunners ahead of Weeks.

[TooLiveBrew]

So we lose ~17 PA for Kendall with RISP that he could have gotten batting 8th, but we add 33+ baserunners ahead of Weeks.

Interesting breakdown, sbryl. Thanks - that really puts it into perspective.

 

 

TLB--i still think it awkward to bat the pitcher 8th. and as for yost i suscribe to the keep it simple theory.

 

Akward or not, if it generates what sbryl describes/approximates, I'm all for giving it a shot. Btw, we couldn't agree more on keeping it simple for Yost...

[ozzybourne]

--the 8th spot averages about 25-30 ABs more per year

 

--with RISP for the 2007 brewers, the 8th spot came up 15 more times than the 9th, in 2006 7 more times, 2005 13 more, 2004 34 more times. and yes some of that may be offset by PH, but usually not til after 6th or 7th inning.

 

You're only focusing on the negatives though. Jason Kendall is not likely (relatively) to drive in those runs anyway, with a .250 average and a .330 SLG. The positive is we improve the OBP infront of Weeks from .171 to .330 - that's ~100 more times from the spot right in front of Rickie. And closer to ~33 when you take into account that the pitcher isn't always the 3rd out.

 

So we lose ~17 PA for Kendall with RISP that he could have gotten batting 8th, but we add 33+ baserunners ahead of Weeks.

and what about the losses in the line up in front of the 8th batter going to the 9th? i am probably wrong, but dont we miss the first opporotunity to score runs under your premise? again if all this is statistically proven as being a close to a wash (please see my link mentioned before) --let alone not used by almost all MLB managers--that this at best a wash--why are we debating this? and allowing an option like this to become a managing tool for ned yost to use?

 

finally--why not bat kendall 2nd (high obp) and bat hardy or cameron or hall 9th?

 

it seems this only makes sense to those proponents if kendall is the 9th batter and not hardy, cameron, hall, or ?