PDA

View Full Version : On Base and Slugging



AstrosFan
05-03-2006, 04:52 PM
I realize other stats play into where you bat a guy, but if you used one stat, you would bat your highest OBP guy leadoff, and your highest SLG guy cleanup.
But what if you have a player who leads his team in OBP and SLG? How do you choose where to bat him? Is there a way to measure this, like, if the player's SLG is more than 1.5 times his OBP, you should bat him cleanup.
And if you choose to factor in the other stats, which does make more sense, how would you make the decision then? Is this something that can be measured, or would managers have to go with their gut?

Sorry for wording everything in question form. I'm a curious guy.

Windy City Fan
05-03-2006, 06:58 PM
I know sabermetrics has some theory on lineups, but I'll just put in what I'd do and leave saber to the experts. Highest OBP guy would go first for me and the highest SLG would go either 3 or 4 depending on other factors. Going just off SLG, I'd probably put him 3rd to keep him within two outs of the top OBP guy.

If they were the same guy, third for sure. He's in position to drive in the table setters at 1 and 2, and the slugger(s) behind him can drive him in.

538280
05-03-2006, 07:21 PM
Generally the best hitters on a team should bat 3rd. A slugger without the greatest OBP is best suited for 4th, and 1st and 2nd should be high OBP guys, though a high SLG guy could bat 2nd too.

Here's an interesting article about lineup construction by Tom Ruane:

http://retrosheet.org/Research/RuaneT/lineup_art.htm

Ubiquitous
05-03-2006, 07:27 PM
Generally the best hitters on a team should bat 3rd.

2nd is the spot where they should bat. It's a better combination of PA, runners, and outs then the third spot.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-03-2006, 10:02 PM
Generally a sluggers OBP value isn't as high as a leadoff type OBP guy, because of the speed factor.....right?

Tango Tiger
05-03-2006, 10:26 PM
This is covered in great detail in The Book. The #1, 2, 4 hitters are where you would generally find your best hitters, with an emphasis on high OBP at #1 and high SLG at #4.

AstrosFan
05-03-2006, 10:45 PM
This is covered in great detail in The Book. The #1, 2, 4 hitters are where you would generally find your best hitters, with an emphasis on high OBP at #1 and high SLG at #4.

High OBP at #1 and high SLG at #4 would seem to be logical, but it's nice that rigorous statistical analysis confirms this.
However, my question was, what should you do if your high OBP and high SLG guy are the same person? Brian Giles led the Padres in both categories last year, to give an example.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 01:50 AM
High OBP at #1 and high SLG at #4 would seem to be logical, but it's nice that rigorous statistical analysis confirms this.
However, my question was, what should you do if your high OBP and high SLG guy are the same person? Brian Giles led the Padres in both categories last year, to give an example.

lol, leading the Padres in slugging...pretty much defines "dubious honor" doesn't it. His .483 SA isn't exactly cleanup material; not with the approach he takes. I'd put him at leadoff before 4th. In other words, what is his OBP a product of? I don't think his OBP is high because pitchers are scared of his monstrous 15 HR he can produce.

538280
05-04-2006, 05:21 AM
lol, leading the Padres in slugging...pretty much defines "dubious honor" doesn't it. His .483 SA isn't exactly cleanup material; not with the approach he takes. I'd put him at leadoff before 4th. In other words, what is his OBP a product of? I don't think his OBP is high because pitchers are scared of his monstrous 15 HR he can produce.

Sultan, Giles was playing in a real tough park remember. That 15 HRs was probably like 20 or so and that .483 SLG was probably more like .520-.530. Pair that with a .430 or so OBP and you have an awesome hitter. Giles was among the MLB Win Shares leaders last year, and he's one of the most underrated players in baseball (probably the most underrated player in my lifetime). He's really been just as good as Vladimir Guerrero.

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 10:24 AM
Brian Giles getting win shares last year probably has more to do with his team-mates being so mediocre and the Padres still winning 82 games. The team had allowed more runs to score then they scored and they overshot their projections by about 5 or so wins.

AstrosFan
05-04-2006, 11:17 AM
Giles slugged .545 on the road last year. His road averages are quite high, at .333/.463/.545, with most of the increase in his slugging coming in the form of doubles.
But I was only using Giles as an example. The question I am trying to have answered is, if you have a player who leads your team in both on-base and slugging, is there a mathematical way to determine where he should bat? Giles's overall averages suggest he would be better suited to the leadoff spot, his ratio of slugging to on-base is 1.14. At what point does the ratio of slugging to on-base suggest that the player should bat cleanup? Is there an answer to this?

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 11:33 AM
Sultan, Giles was playing in a real tough park remember. That 15 HRs was probably like 20 or so and that .483 SLG was probably more like .520-.530. Pair that with a .430 or so OBP and you have an awesome hitter. Giles was among the MLB Win Shares leaders last year, and he's one of the most underrated players in baseball (probably the most underrated player in my lifetime). He's really been just as good as Vladimir Guerrero.

Tough park my eye. No park today is tough. Certain ones might appear tough relative to other ban boxes, but in and of themselves, they're not tough. The weather is good for balls to carry in SD, and the dimensions are well within reason. Stick him in Griffith and tell me Petco is tough :rolleyes:

Tango Tiger
05-04-2006, 02:11 PM
is there a mathematical way to determine where he should bat?

Yes. {insert commercial here}

Sockeye
05-04-2006, 03:50 PM
I realize other stats play into where you bat a guy, but if you used one stat, you would bat your highest OBP guy leadoff, and your highest SLG guy cleanup.
But what if you have a player who leads his team in OBP and SLG? How do you choose where to bat him? Is there a way to measure this, like, if the player's SLG is more than 1.5 times his OBP, you should bat him cleanup.
And if you choose to factor in the other stats, which does make more sense, how would you make the decision then? Is this something that can be measured, or would managers have to go with their gut?

Sorry for wording everything in question form. I'm a curious guy.

Hmmm my personal thoughts are this (and this is coming from a non-sabermetric point of view) Usually if a guy leads my team in OBP % SLG I bat him 3rd in my lineup. Of course it also depends on the other guys in the lineup. For instance if I have other players with a similar OBP but a wide margin to the next highest SLG then I bat the player with the highest OBP/SLG 4th.

538280
05-04-2006, 04:40 PM
Tough park my eye. No park today is tough. Certain ones might appear tough relative to other ban boxes, but in and of themselves, they're not tough. The weather is good for balls to carry in SD, and the dimensions are well within reason. Stick him in Griffith and tell me Petco is tough :rolleyes:

Sultan, when will you ever realize the park's dimensions are not an accurate way of assessing the park's effect on hitters?

SABR Matt
05-04-2006, 05:27 PM
The weather is most assuredly NOT good for carriage in SD. There's a reason SD is playing tough...the marine layer in San Diego keeps the ball down.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 06:40 PM
Sultan, when will you ever realize the park's dimensions are not an accurate way of assessing the park's effect on hitters?

When will you realize that just because something is relatively "tough," doesn't make it actually tough.

Compared to writing your name, juggling is tough. Juggling in and of itself is not tough.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 06:42 PM
The weather is most assuredly NOT good for carriage in SD. There's a reason SD is playing tough...the marine layer in San Diego keeps the ball down.

Weatherman,

Can you explain "marine layer" to me? Seems to me, the ball carries better in warmer weather. Are you saying that there is a level of humidity within that warm weather, which isn't condusive to balls carrying? If so, how do you explain Texas.

538280
05-04-2006, 07:15 PM
When will you realize that just because something is relatively "tough," doesn't make it actually tough.

Compared to writing your name, juggling is tough. Juggling in and of itself is not tough.

Sultan, we're already comparing Giles to the league average. The whole concept of park factors is to adjust how the player has done vs. the league, then bring in the park factor and adjust it based on whether or not the park supresses runs in the league context.

Yes, Giles is playing in a high run scoring league. Mabye Petco wouldn't be as bad a hitter's park in the 60s, but the whole point of park factors is adjusting on top of the league average.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 10:08 PM
Mabye Petco wouldn't be as bad a hitter's park in the 60s, but the whole point of park factors is adjusting on top of the league average.

I don't think its a bad hitters park now in terms of the actual baseball world, but that it only appears bad because all the other ones are so good. In your world of statistics and relative numbers, I see where you're coming from though.

AstrosFan
05-04-2006, 10:19 PM
The park factors in Petco in 2004 and 2005 are .837 and .798, according to Retrosheet. The two lowest park factors Griffith ever had were .783 in 1939 and .789 in 1944. I don't think you should use single year ratios to make the park factors, but I'm too lazy to do the math right now (just got done with my last final). The point is, while Petco may be a better hitter's park than Griffith, which is debatable, since we're comparing Petco's only two years to Griffith's lowest two, it is most certainly a strong pitcher's park historically.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 10:29 PM
The park factors in Petco in 2004 and 2005 are .837 and .798, according to Retrosheet. The two lowest park factors Griffith ever had were .783 in 1939 and .789 in 1944. I don't think you should use single year ratios to make the park factors, but I'm too lazy to do the math right now (just got done with my last final). The point is, while Petco may be a better hitter's park than Griffith, which is debatable, since we're comparing Petco's only two years to Griffith's lowest two, it is most certainly a strong pitcher's park historically.

Again, this is all about relative though. Take two teams from any era...no season... just one game to play. You play one game in Griffith, Sportsmans, Shibe, Old fenway, Forbes, etc...and you play one game in the "worst" hitters park of today..which would they choose. Which one would allow more dingers? That's the point for me. What are they in and of themselves. Not so much what are they compared with everything else.

ps. Good luck on your final. Now get some well deserved rest ;)

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 10:31 PM
Park Factors are not concrete. An 80 one year is not the same an 80 50 years later. Park Factor can only compare stadiums in that league in those years one is looking for. If every single park has fences that are 700 feet away and one has fences only 400 feet away then that 400 foot park is going to look like an offensive dynamo. Now if we tear down those 700 foot parks and replace them with parks with fences 200 feet away then suddenly that 400 foot park is going to look like death valley to hitters.

You put griffith stadium and petco park in the same league and it is likely that griffith stadium will more of a pitchers park then Petco.

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 10:33 PM
Secondly Petco park plays an unbalanced schedul. Or I should say the players involved do. The Padres play a lot of games in Arizona and in Colorado. Both of which are good and the other great hitters park. That is going to cause the numbers to look exaggerated.

SABR Matt
05-04-2006, 10:40 PM
Agreed Ubiq...but the FSIA accounts for the schedule by solving for all of those variables simultaneously, and the FSIA agrees that not only is Petco a relative pitcher's park in 2004...but so was Jack Murphy...for years prior to Petco...

In answer to the weather question...

On the Pacific coast, the cold water is much colder than the air right above the ground on land, so when there is not a strong easterly or northerly flow to prevent it, as the ground heats up in mid morning or so, it creates what we call a sea-breeze. This has the effect of pushing cold, clammy, humid air (relative to the surroundings) onshore...filling the valleys and low lying areas including San Diego with cool, more humid air after about noon. During the baseball season, just about every game played at Petco Park (or Candlestick, or the Oakland Collesium or Safeco Field (which is also not that big dimensionally) will be played in this marine-influenced, relatively cool stable air, which has more of a drag coefficient on the baseball than the air would if they played their games 100 miles further east where it's warmer and dry.

The heavy air effect is especially bad in San Fran and Seattle, but it plays a role in making San Diego inhospitable to hitters compared to other places where baseball is played.

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 11:04 PM
Yes I would say that Petco and Murphy was/is most definitely a pitchers park compared to the rest of the league. I just don't think in terms of true effect it would be as great a pitchers park as Griffith stadium.

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 11:05 PM
On the Pacific coast, the cold water is much colder than the air right above the ground on land, so when there is not a strong easterly or northerly flow to prevent it, as the ground heats up in mid morning or so, it creates what we call a sea-breeze. This has the effect of pushing cold, clammy, humid air (relative to the surroundings) onshore...filling the valleys and low lying areas including San Diego with cool, more humid air after about noon. During the baseball season, just about every game played at Petco Park (or Candlestick, or the Oakland Collesium or Safeco Field (which is also not that big dimensionally) will be played in this marine-influenced, relatively cool stable air, which has more of a drag coefficient on the baseball than the air would if they played their games 100 miles further east where it's warmer and dry.

The heavy air effect is especially bad in San Fran and Seattle, but it plays a role in making San Diego inhospitable to hitters compared to other places where baseball is played.


On a side note this is also why the bread in SanFran is some of the best bread in the country.

SABR Matt
05-04-2006, 11:08 PM
LOL...yeah...I've heard talk of the sea-salt in the bread on the west coast making it better...they say the same thing about the french fries in Ocean City, MD. I suspect there is truth there. :D

Sultan_1895-1948
05-04-2006, 11:14 PM
but so was Jack Murphy...for years prior to Petco...


Wow, now THAT is surprising Matt. I always saw The Murph as a launching pad. It was the first of three stadiums that I've been to in my life. One thing that shocked me when I first walked in there was how much smaller everything looked in person. Nothing more than a high school field with tons of seats around it.



The heavy air effect is especially bad in San Fran and Seattle, but it plays a role in making San Diego inhospitable to hitters compared to other places where baseball is played.

Thanks for the breakdown. Seems that visiting players have no problem coming in there and going yard. Perhaps its more of a personel problem?

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 11:22 PM
LOL...yeah...I've heard talk of the sea-salt in the bread on the west coast making it better...they say the same thing about the french fries in Ocean City, MD. I suspect there is truth there. :D

It's not the sea salt but the yeast and bacteria.

SABR Matt
05-04-2006, 11:30 PM
yeast and bacteria...? What...they blow in from the ocean differently? Do tell! I'd be curious to hear this explanation.

You saw Jack Murphy as a launching pad?

wow...I always thought of it as a pretty spacious park myself...but then...I always knew the park factor numbers...so maybe I was biased. LOL

Ubiquitous
05-04-2006, 11:50 PM
Talk about getting off topic.

Sourdough is made with airborne yeast(Saccharomyces Exiguus) and bacteria (Lactobacillus sanfrancisco, in the case of SanFran). The yeast cannot process the maltose in the grain, the bacteria can and the yeast then uses the glucose the bacteria produces.

This particular bacteria is unique to SanFran because of its layout and weather pattern and has flourished there in part because of the marine layer.

SABR Matt
05-05-2006, 12:06 AM
Interesting...I always wondered how Sourdough was made and what made it unique...it's my favorite kind of bread. :D

Ubiquitous
05-05-2006, 12:07 AM
Can't stand the stuff.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-05-2006, 12:23 AM
Me either. Ubi, did you look all that bread stuff up, or did you know it? If the latter, you're officially the smartest human (bread studying) alive !! :D

Ubiquitous
05-05-2006, 12:28 AM
The scientific names I had to look up (who would/could remember that?) but how starters for sourdough are made and interact I already knew about, which is why I knew about SanFran and there quality of bread.



Man we're going to get yelled at.

Sultan_1895-1948
05-05-2006, 01:08 AM
So what's the consensus on the lineup?

Let's say player A has a .400 OBP and he slugs .590, but he's slow footed, so once he gets on base, he can't go first to third unless the ball is A) slowly hit to an outfielder or B) not hit directly at an outfielder.

Then you have player B who has a .360 OBP and slugs .620. This guy can steal a bag from time to time, and is a smarter baserunner than player A.

west coast orange and black
05-05-2006, 02:21 AM
no yelling about the bread, everywhereman. (it's kinda humorous to see the tourists queue up for it.)
but "san fran"?
that's sooo 70s. :grouchy