And Acuna is right behind Betts at 101.

If you put a guy hitting .309 with 39 homers at the top of the lineup in a DH league, he's going to drive in a lot of runs. The more interesting question is why teams have started putting guys like Betts and Acuna (and Schwarber and Springer) in the leadoff slot.

The more interesting question is why teams have started putting guys like Betts and Acuna (and Schwarber and Springer) in the leadoff slot.

To maximize plate appearances. Get your best guys as many chances as possible.

#3 If it's analytics driving this it is a change in our understanding.

Now of course batting order doesn't matter much, but to the extent it does these old studies appeared to show you're costing yourself a few runs by batting someone with that kind of power first.

But then neither the Braves or Dodgers have anybody other the high OBP, relatively low power profile.

The Braves' second best OBP among regulars is Matt Olson's .388. And Harris -- the guy I kind of expected to be leading off for them -- got off to such a terrible start. For the Dodgers, aside from Betts only Freddie Freeman has a really good OBP.

So it might be as simple as it makes sense in the context of the teams they have.

To maximize plate appearances. Get your best guys as many chances as possible.

I think we know that; the question is more like, why are the teams finally heeding that compared to usually batting these kind of guys 3rd historically. #4 makes sense, these particular teams don't have anyone else with a particularly high OBP to put in front of Betts or Acuna.

I think we know that; the question is more like, why are the teams finally heeding that compared to usually batting these kind of guys 3rd historically. #4 makes sense, these particular teams don't have anyone else with a particularly high OBP to put in front of Betts or Acuna.

Mookie has been batting leadoff with the Dodgers for years. He batted leadoff even when the Dodgers had Trea Turner: a more traditional leadoff profile.

The more interesting feat is Kyle Schwarber driving in 100 runs with a batting average below .200.

The more interesting feat is Kyle Schwarber driving in 100 runs with a batting average below .200.

As interesting as this is, I'm more amazed by the fact that he's played in 155 of the Phillies 156 games, has 100 RBI with those 100 runs, well over 100 BBs (and .345 OBP), 45 HR — all told a 121 OPS+ — and for all those positive contributions he's got 0.6 bWAR. I would not think it were possible to have that much playing time and some genuinely good offensive contributions like runs and walks and HR and easily be a sub-1 WAR contributor.

bbref credits Schwaber with -2.8 dWAR and +2.6 oWAR. So his offensive contributions are positive.

Schwarber has 75 RBIs on his 45 homers, and 25 RBIs from his other plate appearances. I've never looked at this kind of thing before, but 25 RBI seems like a lot for 47 singles, 19 doubles and a triple (and various and sundry outs).

One's first guess would be that the Dodgers' low-order hitters were unusually high OBP guys. James Outman is; he has hit 7th and 8th a lot with an OBP of .351. But the other guys who have hit 8th & 9th for LA include Barnes (mentioned in TFE) and Miguel Rojas, who are below .300.

If you drive yourself in 39 times and do great with RISP (Betts batting .383 this year as against .329 lifetime), you can have a big RBI year no matter what …

AL no DH 1901-1972
NL no DH 1876-2021

this isn't quite "Mariano Rivera has more saves than anyone in the almost 150-year history of baseball" or Edgar Martinez DH pompoms. or is it?

but um, AL has had 72 out of 122 seasons with a pitcher batting 9th.
NL has had 146 out of 148.
total (but check my math), 218 seasons with a pitcher batting 9th - and 52 without a pitcher batting 9th?

seems like it's not sliiiiiightly easier to drive in runs as a leadoff batter.

what does that even mean HOwie? Can you start with a thesis sentence and then maybe a summary?

12. What do you mean?

Regardless of whether the #9 batter is a hitter or a pitcher, lead off hitter is guaranteed 162 PA with no one to drive in (other than himself).

really?

leadoff batters for the vast majority of MLB history have batted (beyond the first inning) after almost always terrible-hitting pitchers.

now, they bat not only after legitimate hitters, but nowadays in many cases after "second leadoff" hitters.

my "thesis," if anyone actually in all seriousness needs one, is that is exponentially easier to drive in more runs when batting after a legitimate hitter than a pitcher. because well for one, the batter just ahead of them gets on base at least twice as often - a good recipe for driving in more runs.

for most of history, leadoff batters spent the majority of their ABs following weak-hitting pitchers. now, they don't. at all.

geesh, I realize that the prevailing mood with many on BBTF is that if I note that the sky is blue then numerous counter-arguments will ensue - but, really?

did someone think that Mookie topped Hack Wilson's 191 RBI in a season?

did I need a sarcasm font on it now being easier to drive in runs as a leadoff batter - I did think it was obvious.

sure, if anyone ever does that while leading off the entire season - I tip my cap and bow profusely.

I mean, it's past my bedtime so maybe I'm having a senior moment.

but if I'm not crazy - then someone else is.

I joined a SABR talk, oh boy
Jose Canseco had just crapped on WAR
This crowd of nerds was so cliche
But those big hands I shook
Having read his book
I love to spurn Don Hahn

(did I tell you my cousin's neighbor once baby sat his brother in law?)

Howie,

If two straight posters really didn't understand what you were getting at, it might just be on you.

I think your observation is correct. And it's not just the DH factor, but for most of baseball history, including the post-DH AL, teams weren't putting hitters with any type of pop in the leadoff position. So it's not surprising it took until 2023 to get a 100-RBI leadoff guy.

But you probably could have saved all of that "Woe is me" you posted in 15 with some comment along the lines of "it's a lot easier to drive in runs from the leadoff position now" in 12.

!PEDANTRY ALERT!

#17 - Darin Erstad in 2000 was actually the first 100 rbi leadoff guy, and Charlie Blackmon in 2017 was the second. Betts and Acuna are the 3rd and 4th.

Fine. It's not surprising that it took until 2023 to get a 105-RBI leadoff guy.

Happy Booey?

I remember that in 1969 Tommy Agee was the primary leadoff hitter for the Mets and led the team in RBI. 76 RBI isn't a lot (60 in 93 games leading off) and 26 HR is so what power these days (But Shamsky was #2 at 14 for the Mets) but was pretty decent power in 1969.

There have been a few guys who can run and have power and end up on a team where it makes sense to lead off.

There have been a few guys who can run and have power and end up on a team where it makes sense to lead off.

Even some who can't. Brian Downing spent some a fair amount of time leading off. But sticking your best hitter there, your Betts/Acuna types, is a relatively new development, or at least to the extent it's now happening.

This is probably going to be the first year where leadoff hitters finish 1-2 in the MVP balloting.

Didn't Soriano hit 40+ home runs one year for the Nationals in the leadoff spot but fail to get 100 RBI? (checking) 46 and 95 in 2006, that's the year I'm thinking of. But I have no idea how to confirm he leadoff.

EDIT: Clicking a bunch of random dates seems to confirm he did indeed. Weird season, I remember thinking at the time there must be a better way to leverage all of those HRs.

I think bobby bonds had the record for leadoff HRs but that was broken by someone Ricky I guess

Didn't Soriano hit 40+ home runs one year for the Nationals in the leadoff spot but fail to get 100 RBI? (checking) 46 and 95 in 2006, that's the year I'm thinking of. But I have no idea how to confirm he leadoff.

Soriano led off in 131 games for the Nats that year and hit 39 homers in that slot. If you look under "splits," there's a category for Batting Order Positions.

As leadoff hitters (batting in other lineup slots in parentheses):

ALFONSO SORIANO:
2002 - 38 HR, 99 RBI (1 HR, 3 RBI)
2003 - 35 HR, 85 RBI (3 HR, 6 RBI)
2006 - 39 HR, 81 RBI (7 HR, 14 RBI)

BRADY ANDERSON:
1996 - 35 HR, 69 RBI (15 HR, 41 RBI)

GEORGE SPRINGER:
2019 - 39 HR, 96 RBI (none)

KYLE SCHWARBER:
2022 - 38 HR, 77 RBI (8 HR, 17 RBI)
2023 - 32 HR, 73 RBI (13 HR, 27 RBI)

Neither Rickey Henderson nor Tim Raines ever got close to 100 RBI's. That actually surprised me.

Soriano led off in 131 games for the Nats that year and hit 39 homers in that slot. If you look under "splits," there's a category for Batting Order Positions.

Oh nice, thanks for the numbers and the tip.

Schwarber has 75 RBIs on his 45 homers, and 25 RBIs from his other plate appearances. I've never looked at this kind of thing before, but 25 RBI seems like a lot for 47 singles, 19 doubles and a triple (and various and sundry outs).

Can we get a separate post to talk about Kyle Schwarber!?

So many interesting things about his season -- 100 runs and 100 RBIs (mostly from the leadoff spot), a batting average under .200 but a decent-enough OBP thanks to 120+ walks, 45 home runs, 210 strikeouts and counting (that's one argument for batting him leadoff -- strikeouts are just regular outs with no one on base), the low WAR despite those offensive numbers.

Possible arguments:

* Schwarber is having the best (hitting) season ever by a guy with a batting average under .200.

* Schwarber is having the worst 100/100 season ever (by WAR or some other reasonable measurement -- can someone check?).

* Schwarber is having the three true outcomes-iest season ever. Right now he is leading the majors in strikeouts, second in walks (3 behind Soto before today's games) and tied for second in HR. He won't catch Olson in HR but he might catch Soto in walks, which would make him 1st/1st/2nd in the TTO categories in MLB. I don't know if anyone's done that since Babe Ruth. (Aaron Judge in his rookie year led the AL in all three categories but he was 1st/2nd/2nd in MLB.) And Ruth never struck out 100 times.

Schwarber has had 379 of 701 plate appearances this year end in a K, BB, or HR. Judge had 387 in his rookie year but Schwarber should pass him unless he sits a couple games. [EDIT: He's up to 381 with 5 games left.] Ruth's "best" year was 304 in 1923, I think. Barry Bonds had 343 when he hit 73 HR, 318 when he walked 232 times (Bonds didn't strike out much for his era). Adam Dunn had a 368 season.

McGwire also had 387 in his 70 HR year, in 681 PA. So Schwarber won't pass those guys in TTO percentage but could pass them in the counting stat.

15/17
Mr. M, your writing may go over my head; the fault's mine.

Why did all of a sudden become easier to get RBI's from the lead off spot? No pitchers in the AL for > 50 years, yet no big RBI guys in #1.

Again, when in 1/4 of your plate appearances it is guaranteed that the only way to get an rbi is to drive yourself in, that has to cut down on one's chances, how much I don't know (and I'm not getting answer from you either on that). Let's suppose the lead off batter hits 20 lead off hr's (that seems like a high amount, but let's assume it to be true). That leaves 480 plate appearances to get 80 rbi, how often does that happen? Now, if the pitcher is Hank Aguirre, it's going to be tough drive him in. Then, again, not every pitcher was that bad a hitter; pitchers often sacrificed to get a runner in scoring position; teams walked the #8 hitter to get to the pitcher. I like simple explanations myself, though. I'm just not buying yours.

17 appears to have it right that when you also have a batter such as Acuna or Betts who can drive himself in 40 times a year, then you'll see a higher RBI # for lead off man.

* Schwarber is having the worst 100/100 season ever (by WAR or some other reasonable measurement -- can someone check?).

Definitely not by WAR. Without doing any additional research, I'd be surprised if any season could beat Dante Bichette's 1999; 133 rbi, 104 runs scored (plus 34 HR and a .298 avg)...but -2.3 WAR and -4.3(!) WAA. That season (and his near MVP 1995 when he hit .340 with a league leading .620 slg, 40 homers, and 128 rbi but with just 1.2 WAR and -0.6 WAA) will always fascinate me.

* Schwarber is having the three true outcomes-iest season ever. Right now he is leading the majors in strikeouts, second in walks (3 behind Soto before today's games) and tied for second in HR. He won't catch Olson in HR but he might catch Soto in walks, which would make him 1st/1st/2nd in the TTO categories in MLB. I don't know if anyone's done that since Babe Ruth.

TTO Triple Crowns in the lively ball era (MLB rank in parentheses - strikeout/walk/HR):

1923 - Babe Ruth (1st/1st/1st)
1924 - Babe Ruth (1st/1st/1st)
1927 - Babe Ruth (1st/1st/1st)
1928 - Babe Ruth (2nd/1st/1st)
1930 - Hack Wilson (1st/3rd/1st)
1958 - Mickey Mantle (1st/1st/2nd)
1983 - Mike Schmidt (2nd/1st/1st)
1985 - Dale Murphy (3rd/6th/2nd)
2017 - Aaron Judge (1st/2nd/2nd)

So Mantle and Schmidt have also gone 1st, 1st, and 2nd in the majors in the TTO categories (in some order), but no one other than Ruth has ever led all of MLB in all 3 categories.

I love you, Booey! Thanks for the research! :)

I forgot about Dante Bichette. I looked up Joe Carter because he was kind of the king of bad 100 RBI seasons, but the one time he went 100/100 he was good for 5.7 WAR.

Bichette's 1999 season of futility if fueled by -34 runs defensively. Does anyone understand why TZ rates him so bad? His age 31, 32, and 34 seasons look a little worse by raw range factor but his age 35 season is like 50% more runs are lost. His age 33 season looks worse and TZ shows it not bad at all. what gives?

#34 Slow guy. Big outfield. There's a pretty massive park illusion there. Shown most simply by the .353 BABIP for Colorado pitchers at home versus .305 on the road.

It's such an extreme park that I think it breaks all of the assumptions defensive metrics are based on.

For his career Bichette played ~3.25 full seasons worth of games in the city of Denver (523).

In that time he hit .360 and averaged 42 HR, 47 2B and 167 RBI per 162 games.

#34 Slow guy. Big outfield. There's a pretty massive park illusion there. Shown most simply by the .353 BABIP for Colorado pitchers at home versus .305 on the road.

It's such an extreme park that I think it breaks all of the assumptions defensive metrics are based on.

Carlos Gonzalez won a Gold Glove one year when he had -13 DRS. I believe Brad Hawpe still holds the record with -46 Total Zone runs in 2008. Either the Rockies have consistently had godawful outfield defense for the past 20 years, or advanced defensive metrics don't adequately account for Coors Field.

Interesting. In 2008 there's basically no home/road babip split for the Colorado pitchers. From 2006 to 2010 Colorado pitchers had a league normal home/road babip splits. By 2012 it was back to a 25 point home/road split.

EDIT: This year it's 40 points.
EDIT2: 2012 was Gonzalez's -13 Gold Glove year.

Apparently not all of this stuff is obvious, so here goes:

A leadoff batter, after the first inning, virtually always bats behind the two (or three) worst hitters on the team - including at least one that only rarely even qualifies as replacement level.

Because of those facts, in a non-DH league it never made a lot of sense to put a power bat in the leadoff spot. can't knock anyone else in in the first inning, unlikely to have "ducks on the pond" in subsequent at-bats.

now along comes the DH. it's not too long before some managers come up with the idea of a "second leadoff man" batting 9th. so now the guy ahead of the real leadoff man not only is not a zero, he might even be a good hitter. this means that the leadoff spot becomes a realistic spot for a batter with power, especially if he gets on base a lot himself.

so it should be no surprise that leadoff batters are knocking in more runs than ever before.

If two straight posters really didn't understand what you were getting at, it might just be on you.

that's one possibility. and if the person who wrote the post has written stories read by editors more than 10,000 times in 40 years without issues arising......

If two straight posters really didn't understand what you were getting at, it might just be on you.

that's one possibility, sure. and if the person who wrote the post has written stories read by editors more than 10,000 times in 40 years without issues arising - well, now we have a second possibility.

apologies for the duplication. came back to delete the snark, actually, because I am very slow to realize that if anything in a post can be turned into bile, it's liable to happen. trying to remember that, finally. carry on.

Howie, what you say makes perfect sense, and it is no coincidence that most of the top RBI seasons by leadoff men are in this century and most in DH leagues. There will probably be more and more 100-RBI seasons and Betts' record won't last long.

That said, the Dodgers' #9 hitters this year have a collective OBP of .272, 25th in the majors. Their 8th- and 7th-place hitters are better (5th and 6th in OBP respectively, much of this thanks to Outman). So Betts has had some help, but not much from a "second leadoff" type batting directly in front of him. Basically, Betts has also had a really outstanding year at the plate, which should not be controversial.

I would like to see what HM posted and deleted, gives me a better picture of HM.

39. "Not too long," to realize that they could put a "2nd leadoff hitter" in the 9th spot, as in what 50 + years? At the price of what, putting a weaker hitter up higher in the lineup to give that hitter more PA's?

"read by editors more than 10,000 times" If your strong point is persuasive writing, you might consider that appeals to authority are not on real high on the list of how to persuade people, particularly when the authority is some anonymous person (as opposed, to a bot, although your posts predate the bot era) on an internet message board. Maybe there are some people on this board who have had the privilege of meeting you personally, I will confess that I have never (insofar as I am aware) had that pleasure. For all I know, you could be a female living in eastern Europe 10 years older than the date you first started posting here. Indeed, the fact that you appear to take umbrage that someone would ask you what meant, makes me doubt you are what you claim to be--some kind of professional journalist.

You cannot be John Lardner or A.J. Liebling; they're dead. Likewise, your editors, if indeed you have them, can't be Stanley Woodward, because he is dead also. Of course, your post does not say that what you have written (impliedly for publication), if indeed you have ever written anything, was actually read by readers (as opposed to editors, although maybe your editor would have caught that ambiguity). In any event, I wish you continued success in your career.

But, let's look at post 42, which I find to be extremely well written from a persuasive viewpoint, it starts out praising HM by saying HM makes perfect sense, then it proceeds to undercut your argument completely by looking at some facts. Of course .272 is about 2 1/2 x better than Hank Aguirre's lifetime obp, but it's the same point.

Additionally, going back to 39, "no surprise that leadoff batters are knocking in more runs than ever before." Betts and Acuna both are 1/2 in OPS+; power hitting. Do you have some stats for the other leadoff hitters this year? The last 50 years?

While arguably if the managers put an excellent power hitter in the lead off spot, then you would see higher RBI totals. But, who is going to argue about how high these totals can go? The Braves lineup (article today on thescore.com) has been compared on an OPS + basis to the '27 Yankees (who of course did bat a pitcher). 3rd highest team OPS + of all time. Acuna is 2nd in the league in batting, leads in hits, yet he has 104 rbi, still 2 less than Betts. What does one think the upper limit on RBI's in a lead off position could be? Under HM's Law (keeping in mind Stigler's law that economic laws are rarely named for their creators), there will be more RBI because the #8-9 hitters are 2nd lead off men. How much better could they be than what the Braves have now?

By the way HM, if you write for Newsday (you know the Long Island based newspaper), I would gladly read it if they sold the paper edition on the west coast. OK, I really would want it for Stanley Newman's Saturday Stumper hard crossword puzzle, but I would read it for you, too (take that to the bank from another anonymous internet poster).

That said, the Dodgers' #9 hitters this year have a collective OBP of .272, 25th in the majors

Still, better than most pitchers.

I think Howie's main point is that breaking the record for most RBI's by a lead off man is a lot easier now then when 8 and 9 were usually the pitcher and a punch-and-judy catcher or short stop. The pitcher is not hitting, and you see a lot fewer complete zeroes batting.

None of this is to take away from the year Betts is having. Any other year he would be the odds-on favorite for the MVP. This year, even if he leads in WAR, I think Acuna's 70-40 will carry the day.

44. The #9 spot for the Dodgers had a slightly better OBP than Oil Can Harry's lifetime, 258; although Oyler played during a pitcher's era. So, no pitcher at the bottom of LA's lineup, but they were equivalent to the prototypical Punch/Judy hitter, although Oyler did have 15 jacks lifetime (HR's would detract from the opportunity to be driven in by someone else). How was it easier for Betts?

Show me the stats for the rest of the leadoff hitters and I'll gladly shut my stupid ugly kisser.

I agree w/you on Betts/Acuna; when Atl came to LA, Acuna caught fire at the plate, probably pushed himself past Betts. The potential 70/40 adds icing. One example of how completely wrong I can be; thought after Acuna tore up his knee, that would be it for speed, very glad to be completely wrong.

now along comes the DH. it's not too long before some managers come up with the idea of a "second leadoff man" batting 9th. so now the guy ahead of the real leadoff man not only is not a zero, he might even be a good hitter.

But that doesnt make any sense does it? Your 9th batter shouldn't be a better overall hitter than any of 8 guys ahead of him should he? Because then you're taking away AB from a "good hitter" by batting him 9th.

You could have just said what Srul said, and it would be fine:

I think Howie's main point is that breaking the record for most RBI's by a lead off man is a lot easier now then when 8 and 9 were usually the pitcher and a punch-and-judy catcher or short stop.

Right? That's perfectly plain and simple and it seems rather obvious but OK that's a thesis sentence. Instead you go for:

but um, AL has had 72 out of 122 seasons with a pitcher batting 9th.
NL has had 146 out of 148.
total (but check my math), 218 seasons with a pitcher batting 9th - and 52 without a pitcher batting 9th?

what's the pt. of all that? does it matter which league had more pitcher's batting 9th? WHy? why would that make any difference to any of this? This is the problem Im having trying to parse through what you wrote. or this:

this isn't quite "Mariano Rivera has more saves than anyone in the almost 150-year history of baseball" or Edgar Martinez DH pompoms. or is it?

what does a single player career mark have to do with what I think you're trying to say about a new overall trend in MLB. Are you trying to say it's not controversial? But that's weird because the save record is what it is. there's no controversy there.

And what is Edgar Martinez "pompoms?" Is that controversial? Does that have something to do with a new overall trend??

#46 The theory of the second leadoff hitter lies in a second theory which sees each batting order position as being primarily linked to the two hitters before you (those you primarily drive in) and the two behind. And in the fact that offense is primarily sequential.

If there's an effect in having a second leadoff hitter it'd have to be small, but ... well it gives the manager a chance to make decisions that at least feel meaningful.

So far this year Betts has had 233 PAs with runners on -- 152 with RISP.

Rickey Henderson's high for RBI came in 1986 and he had 246 PAs with runners on, 157 with RISP. DH league of course.

In 1983 Tim Raines had 243 PAs with runners on and 165 PAs with RISP.

Betts' high RBI totals are not primarily about extra opportunities -- he's not seeing a remarkable number of baserunners nor are they distributed it an usual manner. It's primarily about his power.

#46 The theory of the second leadoff hitter lies in a second theory which sees each batting order position as being primarily linked to the two hitters before you (those you primarily drive in) and the two behind. And in the fact that offense is primarily sequential.

I think its interesting idea, but does it really work? For instance when Maddon tried batting his pitcher in the 8th slot would that be more productive or less productive? Maybe if its situational dependent like you intend to PH for the pitcher if your behind but I still dont really see it.

Getting back to Bichette after age 30 he put up really losing TZ numbers, but one aberration was in 1997 when he only gives up 4 def runs in contrast to previous years when he gave up 16 and 12. That season shows COL with a one year drop in its pro hitter park effect. I wonder if TZ is using some sort of % of Balls in Play to calculate the effective fielding range? and if so maybe they should use a 3 year rolling average or something?

#48 If there's one thing that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated it is that batting order just can't make much of a difference. (things like linear weights just couldn't work if batting order really mattered) And that any potential impact can be overshadowed by things like the opposition being able to get the platoon advantage too frequently against "optimal" lineups.

Perhaps Ron. There is a website where you can plug in projected line ups w various ba/obp/slug in each slot and see the expected return on offense. Obviously we're talking tenths of a run per game or so.

Did Maddon ever give any sort of reasoning for batting the pitcher 8th? It doesn't seem sensible

#51 That website (the one I'm aware of comes from The Book) is claiming a greater level of precision than the underlying methods allow for (no method of estimating offense has a standard error under 14 runs per 162 games, and it'd be slightly higher than that in any method that doesn't consider DP rates and has semi-random baserunning/stealing). It's a fine first cut -- and that's really as good as it gets with playing around with batting orders.

And the pitcher 8th comes from the same logic that led to the second leadoff theory. The idea is that 9th chains to the #1,2 hitters.

And the early studies seemed to show you were slightly more likely to get high weight pinch hitting opportunities batting the pitcher 8th. I wouldn't place any value in that finding.

Memory says the people who tried it (wasn't just Maddon) cited the second leadoff hitter.

Tony La Russa hit his pitcher eighth several years before Maddon did.

#53 Yea. He's the manager I was thinking of. Brain lock on the name. Pretty sure he cited the second leadoff hitter theory as the reason.

its an interesting discussion about the new DH as well as the second leadoff hitter theory. One thing that hasnt been mentioned but is also changing is the uptick in SB. So I guess you can argue that you can get more mileage out of a secondary leadoff/9th slot guy if its easier to steal. Get the no. 9 to second and now your leadoff hitter is coming up there with more potential for runs.

*****

If there's one thing that's been pretty conclusively demonstrated it is that batting order just can't make much of a difference. (things like linear weights just couldn't work if batting order really mattered)

Hi Ron: Not to disagree with your overall pt. about batting order, but I do want to make pt about linear weights. There seems to be some advantage to being a certain type of hitter in a certain environment. In the study below the guy took two theoretical players both with identical WOBA but player A was 50 pts more ba and 60 pts more obp whereas B was 83 pts more slug. Using the average AL player at each slot he then plugged them and found that player A provided about 5 runs more over the course of a season. So half a WAR. Not sure what conclusion he comes to but to me I'd say thats because we live in an above average offensive environment where OBP is slightly more useful than slug whereas if it were the dead ball 60s its probably the reverse.

NOt saying its earth shattering but could be interesting where say you have Stargell or McCovey in the dead ball era versus Eddie Stanky in a higher offensive environment. Or if say Campaneris or Aparcio played in the steroid era. Could be small but measurable.

Still kind of interesting:

https://blogs.fangraphs.com/choose-your-own-lineup-adventure-on-base-vs-slugging/

#55 Well understood. In fact I was one of the first to study this (Though others did this with greater rigor than I did). While I could never find a formula I did find a meaningful difference between the relative value of OBP and SLG in different contexts.

While a single point of OBP is historically worth somewhere around 1.7 times as much as a singling point of SLG, in a pitcher's park in the NL, 1968 it's down to under 1.5 times and in Denver in sillyball it's somewhere around 2.25 times.

Or to put it another way, the higher the offensive context, the more outs cost.

This in part explains how Pete Palmer got his high accuracy in the 80s. What he called his "slope correctors" is basically developing a separate formula for each year. In a very real sense he was overfitting (and Bill James correctly called him for this)

BBRef does something conceptually similar. They generate values for each event each year. And you're unlikely to convince me that this isn't overfitting as well. (I recognize that Sean know far more about statistical theory than I do -- he was a math professor -- I still think he's wrong. And I still use his results because I just don't think it makes a very big difference and I understand the general accuracy range of WAR)

this is actually pretty interesting:

While a single point of OBP is historically worth somewhere around 1.7 times as much as a singling point of SLG, in a pitcher's park in the NL, 1968 it's down to under 1.5 times and in Denver in sillyball it's somewhere around 2.25 times.

can you give it a more tangible feel: can you put this in terms of a players seasonal WAR?

Say for instance I was to put I dunno say Brett Butler or Eddie Waitkus in the silly ball of the 90s vs these same guys in the deadball era of the 60s. Would the difference from hi to low be as much as one WAR? I get that impression from the link above where he plugged into guys of similar value and found 0.5 WAR difference.

Or say Stargell or Kingman or Killebrew playing in the dead ball era vs say the mid 1930s.

Never looked at it that way. And all of my research is gone -- didn't make one of my computer upgrades.

It matters less than you'd think considering the dramatic differences in relative value.

From what I recall though it's generally on the order of about a half WAR for players who really don't suit the conditions they're playing in.

If you want an interesting example though look at Babe Ruth.

Yes, he played better in 1920 that he had before -- quite a bit. But he also moved from a park that seriously contained his power to a park where he put up a .985 SLG (there was a big change in offensive context of course) (he hit 20 HR on the road in 1919)

But while he wasn't much of a HR threat in Boston, he was still the second best offensive player in the league. He'd never have come close to 50 HR in Boston but there's every reason to believe he'd have been the best offensive player in the league as Cobb aged and he came into his prime.

Same with Willie Stargell in Forbes Field in the 60s. Terribly unsuited for his home park but still an effective offensive player there. An absolute limit on his HR total but his value wouldn't change that much if the Pirates had stayed in Forbes.

And we just don't know how any individual player will react. I remember writing the comment for Jeff Cirillo (in Big Bad Baseball Annual) the year he moved to Colorado. I though that given his profile as a hitter he'd be more valuable for the Rockies than he had been in Milwaukee. I was wrong -- his line doesn't look terrible, but ... Colorado, sillyball. Two very disappointing years.

Never looked at it that way. And all of my research is gone -- didn't make one of my computer upgrades.

that doesnt seem like a difficult calculation. Is it? You've got some sort of number there. Does the value of obp increase 50% going from the most minimal environment to the best environment? That's what I think you're saying.

So then how much on average is obp component worth in terms of runs? say a 4 WAR player in an average environment say his obp component is 20 runs. So it might vary from say 16 runs to 24 runs in a high offensive era. That's 50% right? So perhaps 8 runs from worse to best.

So a guy say Aparacio playing in a dead ball era might have gained 0.5 WAR year playing in a more neutral era. Something like that. Im just spitting out numbers here but there should be an actual formula to calculate that no?

In a very real sense he was overfitting (and Bill James correctly called him for this)

what is overfitting? for those of us with limited math skills, what is that?

Same with Willie Stargell in Forbes Field in the 60s. Terribly unsuited for his home park but still an effective offensive player there. An absolute limit on his HR total but his value wouldn't change that much if the Pirates had stayed in Forbes.

Im still having a hard time understanding his career. In '65 66 and '70 his H/R splits show him hitting more HRs on the road (11, 11 and 5) but the other years of Forbes Field its neutral or slightly better at home. Some years he slug better at home. Have no idea what is going on there.

Santo seems to be somewhat highly adapted to Wrigley. HIs home/road splits shows much better numbers there than on the road. He's still a great player but I dont think this was addressed when they campaigned to put him in. I mean there's park effects but his numbers are going beyond park effects. Perhaps we should give credit for someone taking advantage of his ball park but then again it seems so extreme.

Tony La Russa hit his pitcher eighth several years before Maddon did.

this reminds me of playing on a stoopid softball intramural team in college. it was a coed league and you had to have equal numbers of men and women. ANd i guess there was a rule they had to bat in every other slot. So boy girl boy girl etc.

So our manager was my frat brother Jim (not his real name). He decides to bat the girl first.

"Why? WHy the faqk are you batting the girl first? Your just giving away outs there."
"No. The girls are easy outs. This way you get the girl out of the way first."
"But there's no bonus for "getting the girl out of the way." On average half the time the game is going to end on a girl's AB. So you're giving away half of an easy out every game."

He never saw it that way.

If moving up the pitcher to 8th is go great. HEll why not move him up to 7th? WHy not all the way to the top of the order because Hey you know: we can really start that rally with the no. 2 batter.

#53 Yea. He's the manager I was thinking of. Brain lock on the name. Pretty sure he cited the second leadoff hitter theory as the reason.

The first time I ever heard the No. 9 hitter referred to as a second leadoff man was on Tony LaRussa's White Sox in 1981-82. Bill Almon hit ninth, while Ron LeFlore and Rudy Law hit leadoff.

#59 As I said, I never figured out a way to make it into a formula -- though I also never was that interested.

And overfitting most simply most simply is reducing standard error by choosing a specific dataset. So you can get a good linear weight (by standard error) for 1980 if you only look at 1980 data. But made it less useful in general cases. (My friend Bob Rich just calls what Palmer did "cheating")

@62 My co-ed softball league in SF was like that - alternating lineup. We also had to have 2M and 2F in the outfield, 2M and 2F on the infield, and 1M and 1F in the battery. Every game I ever played, guy batted first. No one ever questioned why, it was obvious.