Dee Gordon 2B

[Jay]

He's you're best overall hitter and that puts you third in most lineups (2014 league avg OBP for 3rd was .350). I mean given no one seems to be on base when he hits home runs anyway it wouldn't make a difference this season.

[Bobbob1313]

First, can you provide some source that actually studied how line up order makes no difference.

Didn't say "no difference." I said it's overblown. There's an essay in the Baseball Prospectus: Baseball Between the Numbers book about it and I believe they came to the conclusion that a completely optimal lineup may score up to 10 runs more than a typical one over the course of a season, but I can't find it online. Here are some examples of similar research from a quick google search.

http://alumnus.caltech.edu/~raj/writ...tingOrder.html

The difference between a convetional batting order and the best tested order (descending OBA), though, is comparatively small- about .4 games a season, or two games every five seasons. It is also important to notice that the two lineups are not terribly similar (Hworth, Kirby, Piazza, Karros, Mondesi, Wallach, Deshields, Gagne, Pitcher v.s. Piazza, Hworth, Gagne, Mondesi, Kirby, Wallach, Karros, DeShields, Pitcher) but still produce quite similar results. In practical terms, that probably means that lineup decisions based on tactical considerations (not putting all your lefties in a row, keeping a player at leadoff because he feels comfortable there, etc.) may outweigh the minor benefits of using a theoretically optimal order. Four tenths of a win is about four runs over the course of a season, and a player doesn't have to hit a whole lot better (or steal a whole lot more bases, etc.) to be worth four extra runs.

http://fansofdmb.yuku.com/topic/1526...r#.VWTfEE9VhBc

Keeping those limits in mind, it is nonetheless interesting that he found very little difference between the theoretically optimum batting order and the actual practice of major league managers. The actual order of hitters in both leagues was, obviously, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9. In the NL, the actual composite batting order ranked 216th out of more than 362,000 possible batting orders. The theoretically optimum NL lineup (in terms of total runs in the first 8 innings) was 1-3-2-5-4-6-7-9-8. (so LaRussa might be on to something on that batting-the-pitcher-8th thing). But the actual difference was only 4.143 runs for the best lineup vs. 4.127 runs for the worst lineup. Since major league managers presumably have a pretty good idea about who should bat in the order, it isn't surprising that the difference between actual practice and the optimum lineup is pretty small, and that the difference between actual practice and the worst lineup is bigger. The theoretically worst lineup was shown as a 4-way tie, with the one listed first being 8-9-2-6-1-7-5-4-3. (I don't know if there was actually 4-way tie or if this one was really the worst but the difference disappeared in rounding.) That lineup was projected to score 3.967 runs per 8 innings. The difference between the very best and very worst was only about 28.5 runs over 162 games, not including the innings after the 8th. Using the basic rule of thumb of 1 win for every 10 runs, that's less than 3 wins a season. And given that the study period was a very high-offense period, 10 runs per win is proabably 2 low.

http://www.retrosheet.org/Research/R...lineup_art.htm

If anything, my approach shows that batting orders matter even less than people have believed. You would think that with such complicated forces at work here, some truly bizarre lineups might have been more efficient than the obvious ones used throughout the years, but if they exist, the methods described in this article didn't find them.

http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/200...your-lineup-by

As teams begin to pare down their rosters towards the magical 25 number, spring training conversation will shift to debating each team's ideal batting order. Because we care, BtB would like to remind everyone that lineups are pretty overrated. Believe it or not, the difference between an optimized lineup and a typical, mildly foolish one you'll see MLB teams use is only about one win over 162 games. It's obviously worth getting right, but not any more than realizing Troy Percival shouldn't be your closer or Joba Chamberlain belongs in the rotation.

[nny]

Bour's projected OBP's: .317, .309, .313 Zips, Steamer, DepthCharts.

I don't see the point in using projected OBPs for everybody besides Bour.

Bour doesn't walk all that much (sub-10% in the minors and that's going to go down in the majors. Projects systems have him around average), doesn't have AVG/BABIP potential, and doesn't have speed. You're underrating speed at the top of the order as much as old school thinking overrates it - it is something that matters, just OBP should be weighted more heavily.

[Bobbob1313]

It really is something that gets discussed way more than it should. Who is in the lineup matters so much more than in what order they appear.

Moving Dee Gordon down in the lineup would be suuuuch a silly thing to do right now. He's clearly a much improved hitter over last season.

[Jay]

I wasn't using any projection systems. And he's pretty damn close to 10% in the minors (9.1% in 2014; 10% or higher 2012 and 2013). Ozuna doesn't give you that. Bour hits .270 and walks 9%, he's at .340 OBP which is what I'm expecting against righties. I can see the need for above average speed (this can be said for every position in the lineup) but speed like Gordon and the amount of stolen bases attempted in the top of the order is better off in the bottom half.

- - - - - - - - - -

It really is something that gets discussed way more than it should. Who is in the lineup matters so much more than in what order they appear.

Moving Dee Gordon down in the lineup would be suuuuch a silly thing to do right now. He's clearly a much improved hitter over last season.

He's clearly been significantly worse than his line last year in the last 3rd of his plate appearances

[nny]

The easiest way to talk about speed vs OBP would be to convert both to runs.

The value of simply getting on base (so, a walk/hbp) is worth 0.3 runs.

Dee Gordon has been worth 3.1 runs on the base paths (third in baseball). That is worth a little more than 10 walks. That would equiv his current OBP to .455.

At a rate of +9.5 runs per 650 PA (his career average), that's another +6.5 walks on his projections. .356/.329/.340 equiv OBP for zips/steamer/depth charts.

Why would speed be better lower in the order?

And he's pretty damn close to 10% in the minors (9.1% in 2014; 10% or higher 2012 and 2013). Ozuna doesn't give you that.

10% really isn't impressive in the minors, especially for a guy who was basically always old for his league. Shit, Ozuna was 8% down there.

[Bobbob1313]

He's clearly been significantly worse than his line last year in the last 3rd of his plate appearances

holy crap

[Jay]

holy crap

You're acting like he's been great out there the whole season. He's had an OBP of .300 in his last 70 PAs. That's pretty bad and getting to the point it's an extended slump.
[MENTION=33]nny[/MENTION] 19 qualified batters had above a 10% BB rate in the PCL last year. Only 12 of them were over 11%. Yelich was around 11% in the minors.

[nny]

Yelich was also constantly ~3 years younger than league average...

[Jay]

Yelich was also constantly ~3 years younger than league average...

I don't see how age comes into play here; we aren't discussing prospect status. It's not like Bour was 30 in AA, he was 23.

[Bobbob1313]

You're acting like he's been great out there the whole season. He's had an OBP of .300 in his last 70 PAs. That's pretty bad and getting to the point it's an extended slump.

Holy #AbitraryEndpoints, Batman! What makes May 11 a meaningful cutoff date? Also, .288 BABIP in that span you are citing.

He's making more contact per swing, making better contact when he does, and hitting fewer fly balls than ever. He's pretty clearly a better player right now than he was a year ago. He's become exactly the kind of hitter he needs to be to maximize his value.

[Erick]

Considering everything that has gone wrong this season, it's pretty weird that the debate is about why the 4th best player in baseball this year shouldn't be hitting 1st.

[nny]

I don't see how age comes into play here; we aren't discussing prospect status. It's not like Bour was 30 in AA, he was 23.

1) He's facing competition that's more experience and more developed.
2) There's been less time for him to develop.

Age is HUGE when it comes to looking at statistics.

I assume it's a typo and you mean 26 but it drives home a huge point: Bour was in A+ ball at 23. Yelich will have completed two and a half seasons of MLB ball at that point. That's a huge, huge distinction when comparing walk rates. One was still developing while facing greatly older competition. The other was the old, more developed competition.

10% walk rate for a guy normally old for his league is not impressive, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Jay]

Holy #AbitraryEndpoints, Batman! What makes May 11 a meaningful cutoff date? Also, .288 BABIP in that span you are citing.

He's making more contact per swing, making better contact when he does, and hitting fewer fly balls than ever. He's pretty clearly a better player right now than he was a year ago. He's become exactly the kind of hitter he needs to be to maximize his value.

Been including May 10th (.309 BABIP in that time). Came after 2 rest days (I forget why he had them). I admit it's an easy day to spot in the calender for me and it coincides to the start of his slump very easily. Monthly splits are just as arbitrary cutoffs, yet I've never seen you complain about them.
[MENTION=274]Erick[/MENTION] Do you really feel he's the 4th best player in baseball? Cause if you ask anyone else here or in the organization, he's not even the best player on the team.

[MiamiHomer]

Of all things to complain about regarding this team...you choose Dee Gordon?