Should LoDuca bat 2nd?

[Vic Sage]

I've heard and read repeatedly that LoDuca is an "ideal" #2 hitter, and has been basically pencilled into that slot by Willie, for the upcoming season, and David Wright slotted to hit 5th.

I have a question to the statistically inclined amongst us...

how many plate appearances, over the course of a season, does the #2 slot in a lineup get, compared to the #5 slot?

I'm guessing more. Perhaps a bunch more.

So why would you take ABs away from David Wright and hand them to Paul LoDuca?

I'm not someone who is generally overly concerned with lineup order, as i think the ideal order vs a random order makes only a limited difference over the course of a season. However, i just don't understand the thinking that a slow, powerless "contact hitter" should be put in a position to get more ABs than a player like Wright, with power, speed, bat control, everything.

I think the only rational way to compose a lineup is to give your best hitters the most ABs. period.

please explain to me why i'm wrong.

use numbers, if possible, and small words.

[Elster88]

I didn't realize Willie was that adamant about Lo Duca batting second. Sounds like a horrible idea to me.

[Guest Edgy DC]

My educated guess is that the number-two hitter gets between 45 and 50 more plate appearances than the number-five man.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

Sum of plate appearances by lineup position, based on 7,060 Mets box scores. (Both Mets and opposition included.) The number 2 guy steps to the plate a little more than 7 per cent more often than the number 5 guy.

+------+------------------+
| lpos | sum(ab+bb+sf+sh) |
+------+------------------+
|    1 |            65205 |
|    2 |            63708 |
|    3 |            62265 |
|    4 |            60866 |
|    5 |            59449 |
|    6 |            57912 |
|    7 |            56336 |
|    8 |            54620 |
|    9 |            53012 |
+------+------------------+

[Vic Sage]

so, that looks to me like, if LoDuca gets about 600 plate appearances in the #2 slot, then David Wright would get about 560 or so plate appearances in the #5 slot. Is that about right?

Would you want to take 40 ABs from Wright and give them to Paul LoDuca, just so you can have the benefit of a slow, powerless contact hitter behind Jose Reyes?

I wouldn't.

But maybe thats just me.

Again, i dont' think it'll make a huge difference overall, but i think Willie's reported view on this matter is just one more reason why i think he's an idiot.

Reyes
Beltran
Wright
Delgado
Floyd
LoDuca
Nady/Diaz
Matsui/Keppinger

[Guest Rotblatt]

Hardball Times linked to some smart dude trying to find out what the most effecient lineup is.
http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/ten-things-i-didnt-know/

This is from the smart dude:

]Last week I posted some regression results in which team runs per game was the dependent variable (DV) and the OBP and SLG of each lineup postion were the independent variables (IVs). In some cases, the coefficient values were very different. I only looked at teams from 1989-2002. Retrosheet has how each team's lineup position did from 1959-2004 (but not the NL in 1959). So I went back and used all of the data that they have.

He just posted the results instead of commenting on them, which was a little frustrating for a neophyte like me, but essentially, here's the ideal lineup. He did look at SB & CS, and basically, he found that there was too much noise to really be meaningful except in the #1 & #8 slots.

#1: Highest OBP, Low SLG, High SB, low CS
#2: Next-best OBP, Highest SLG
#3: Mid OBP, Low SLG
#4: 3rd best OBP, 3rd best SLG
#5: Low OBP, 2nd best SLG
#6: Low OBP, High SLG
#7: High OBP, Lowest SLG
#8: Low OBP, Mid SLG, High SB

It doesn't make intuitive sense that the #3 guy should have a mid OBP & low SLG, and clearly no manager would do that, but whatever. It's what the numbers tell us to do. Literally translated to the Mets, it would mean something like the following, if we used PECOTA forecasts:

1: Beltran, CF (.365 OBP/.479 SLG/19 SB, 4 CS)
2: Wright, 3B (.385 OBP/.530 SLG/17 SB, 5 CS)
3: Keppinger, 2B (.334 OBP/.370 SLG)
4: Delgado, 1B (.378 OBP/.525 SLG)
5: Floyd, LF (.359 OBP/.485 SLG)
6: Diaz, RF (.330 OBP/.467 SLG)
7: LoDuca, C (.327 OBP/.373 SLG)
8: Reyes, SS (.317 OBP/.397 SLG, 57 SB, 16 CS)

The whole thing's kind of screwy, and doesn't address your question about AB's at all, Norrin, but I thought it was kind of neat. Made a little more palatable/realistic, it would probably look something like:

1. Reyes, SS
2. Beltran, CF
3. Delgado, 1B
4. Wright, 3B
5. Floyd, LF
6. Diaz, RF
7. LoDuca, C
8. Matsui, 2B

which isn't terribly surprising at all, unless you're Willie.

on edit:

I suppose the more unusual yet still plausible lineup configuration from that research would be:

1. Beltran
2. Wright
3. Delgado
4. Floyd
5. Diaz
6. LoDuca
7. Reyes
8. Matsui

[Elster88]

I think it's a little early to start reaming Willie for his 2006 starting lineup. I'd wait until we actually see one. Willie got a lot of grief for batting Wright eighth last year before the season started, and Wright never actually batted eighth.

[Vic Sage]

Rotblatt wrote: The whole thing's kind of screwy, and doesn't address your question about AB's at all, Norrin, but I thought it was kind of neat. Made a little more palatable/realistic, it would probably look something like: 1. Reyes, SS 2. Beltran, CF 3. Delgado, 1B 4. Wright, 3B 5. Floyd, LF 6. Diaz, RF 7. LoDuca, C 8. Matsui, 2B which isn't terribly unusual at all, unless you're Willie.

this is what i'm saying.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

My biggest beef with what we've read about Willie's views on this years lineup is that it seems that Willie thinks the number 2 guy's job is to make "productive outs."

If that's his theory, then I can see why he'd rather take the bat out of LoDuca's hands than Beltran's or Wright's.

But I don't want my number 2 guy trying to make the best possible out., I want him to get on base. Productive outs are better than non-productive outs, but they shouldn't be your priority.

[Willets Point]

Answer = No.

[Vic Sage]

] think it's a little early to start reaming Willie for his 2006 starting lineup. I'd wait until we actually see one

hey, nobody told Willie to announce to the press his view that LoDuca is the ideal #2 hitter. If he didn't want to get reamed for that opinion, he shouldn't have expressed it.

What i'm reaming him for, by the way, is not the lineup order per se (as i've said, i don't think it makes a huge difference statistically, either way) but for what his expressed view about the lineup reveals about his view of baseball.

His notion about "productive outs" at the top of the lineup is antediluvian.

[Guest Edgy DC]

I think Willie Randolph has made clear that --- rather than not believing in Wright or something --- he wants Wright to hit his way up the lineup, believing it's best for him long-term to assume nothing and project nothing, at least as far as Wright's place in the lineup goes. I don't think that's led to what a lot of us would consider ideal lineups, but I think it's defensible, and Wright seems to have responded (which isn't to say he wouldn't have responded just as well or better if he opened the season in the three-hole last year). Randolph clearly thinks Wright's long-term interest (as he thinks he's serving it) is worth the few dozen plate appearances per year.

What makes it interesting is that his tack is different with Reyes, who has gotten on-the-job training in the top slot. I guess the difference is that he was already installed there more-or-less when Willie took over.

Anyhow, a lot was made of Wright batting eighth last year, which didn't happen. If LoDuca opens the season at second, it won't last if he fails, I imagine.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

Like Vic, I also don't care too much about the batting order, and think entirely too much is made of it, especially by columnists and fans who tend to think the batting order equals a strategy to win any one game, or that a player's success when batting in a certain spot in the order is BECAUSE he's batting in that spot in the order. It's all screwy.

All that said, I wouldn't doubt that batting LoDuca No. 2 is more about Beltran remaining No. 3 for dumb reasons (His pride, the idea that he's the Man, the fact that Mets want to realize value on their investments, etc etc etc etc). It was clear last year that Beltran wasn't going well enough to warrant remaining at No. 3 every day yet he did.

I think the Mets prolly want to give themselves the best shot at having not just a productive No. 3 hitter, but a productive No. 3 hitter named Carlos Beltran, and I think that informs decisions about other places in the lineup firrst, including where LoDuca hits.

[Vic Sage]

Beltran was a very successful #2 hitter in KC. Why does anybody think hitting there again would do damage to his psyche?

and the reason Willie needs to "protect" Wright (a player whom everyone has described as mature and advanced for his age) but throws Reyes into the top slot without having to "protect" him (despite being younger, less experienced, and a seemingly emotional player) despite his lack of production there, is just another indicator of stupidity, in my view. You can interpret it as a move imposed on him from above, but then that just means those above him (ie, Minaya) are the stupid ones.

I think Willie hits Reyes leadoff cuz Jose is fast! And Willie would rather hit a fast guy leadoff than a guy with a good (or even adequate) OBP.

[Guest Edgy DC]

]You can interpret it as a move imposed on him from above, but then that just means those above him (ie, Minaya) are the stupid ones.

No, I interpret it, to an extent, as a move imposed by Art Howe's legacy. I think Randolph perhaps also believes that Wright can grow into a three-four hitter from another place in the lineup, but that the only place to develop a leadoff hitter is in the leadoff spot, as it's unlike other spots.

That's pure speculation. I think Beltran should have batted second from day one. But the marquee thing is there. Nobody pays 17 million for a number two hitter (or something).

[dinosaur jesus]

One position in the batting order should be worth about 18 plate appearances (162/9). (That's assuming everyone has an equal chance of making an out, which of course isn't the case.) So the number 2 batter should come up about 54 times more than the number 5 batter. Take away a few for the days they don't play, and that's about 50. (Actually, LoDuca, as a catcher, would lose more than that.) If there are about 600 plate appearances, the difference is about a twelfth of that.

Now here are some numbers out of a hat. I'm going to assume that both of them have good seasons by their standards. Say that David Wright, batting number 2, would create about 120 runs, and at number 5 would lose about a twelfth of that (10 runs), making his runs created 110. LoDuca, at number 2, would create about 80, and at 5, 73. 120 + 73 = 193; 110 + 80 = 190. The difference for the team, over the season, would be about 3 runs. Maybe one game.

If LoDuca were to hit more like I'm afraid he will, the difference would be far more. But of course in that case he presumably wouldn't stay in the number 2 position.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

That the Mets bend the rules for stars like beltran ought to be evident by the fact that a superior centerfielder was moved aside to accommodate him in a manner similar to superior slot hitters moved elsewhere to reserve No. 3 for his bat.

I think it's very much a showcase/pride thing.

[Guest Rotblatt]

]If LoDuca opens the season at second, it won't last if he fails, I imagine.

Ah, yes, we get to witness the swift hook of Willie, who allowed Cairo to amass 218 at bats at #2 (67% of all his ABs), during which time he put up the following line: .216 AVG/.255 OBP/.284 SLG/.539 OPS.

Which made the decision to use Matsui in the #2 hole look genius by comparison:

171 AB (64%): .269 AVG/.312 OBP/.351 SLG/.663 OPS

Granted, Cameron DID get 194 AB (64%) out of the 2 hole (.733 OPS) but how much of that was out of necessity (Cairo & Matsui getting injured) rather than design?

Looking outside the #2 hole, Wright spent 130 AB (23%) at 7, 127 (22%) at 6 & 279 (49%) at 5. Piazza spent 133 at 4 (335), 163 at 5 (41%) & 92 AB (23%) at 6.

So Willie's track record suggests that he gives guys between 130 & 200 ABs before moving them up or down. Seems like an awful lot to me, especially when someone sucks as monumentally as Cairo did.

The silver lining is that his track record is pretty thin so far, and recent reports are that Willie's making some changes with how he's running camp this year--could be a good sign.

[Centerfield]

What was amazing was when he re-inserted Cairo into the #2 hole later in the season.

You know, I used to be a pretty good bunter. I'd make contact almost every time. And most of those times, I'd get the runner over. Productive outs, non-productive outs, making outs was my specialty. I also have pretty good speed and so I'd be hard to double up.

Clearly I should bat #2 in the lineup.

[nymr83]

Johnny Dickshot wrote: That the Mets bend the rules for stars like beltran ought to be evident by the fact that a superior centerfielder was moved aside to accommodate him in a manner similar to superior slot hitters moved elsewhere to reserve No. 3 for his bat. I think it's very much a showcase/pride thing.

you're right, and its pretty fuckin annoying that the mets used the "24+1" argument to avoid getting Alex Rodriguez but then give Beltran the 24+1 treatment.

[Guest Yancy Street Gang]

But Beltran didn't ask for a tent.

[Guest Edgy DC]

Yeah, my imagined and hoped-for scenario is not based on the Cairo situation certainly.

[Theoldmole]

I think it's more important for leadoff man to get on base than to steal a bunch of bases -- theoretically -- during all those times he didn't get on base. The Brooklyn Dodgers, before they installed Jim Gilliam as their more or less permanent leadoff man, frequently led off with Carl Furillo, who was not explosively fast, but got on base a whole lot of the time.

[Frayed Knot]

Of course installing LoDuca in the #2 slot would mean re-arranging the lineup each time (1/4? of the time ... 1/3?) that Castro starts (assuming that he wouldn't put Ramon the Slow that high) so it might be at least as interesting to see who hits 2nd on those days; Beltran? ... an improved Matsui?

I think part of the reasoning in having LoDuca up there is to use his very low K-rate to hit-n-run often and/or take some pitches to allow Reyes to run on his own. Is that a good enough reason? ... probably not, at least unless LoDuca returns to the offense he showed a few years back. Either way, the bigger problem still stems from how often the top guy gets on to begin with since any lineup theory takes a hit when the leadoff guy makes outs at a 70% clip.

[MFS62]

The Milaukee Braves in the late 50's used to bat Del Crandall second. His numbers, as well as his speed, were comparable Paul's..

Later

[Frayed Knot]

But if you're going to go back that far (or even less than that far) you're gonna find that virtually all lineups had several holes (usually catchers, SSs, 2B-men) where offense was lacking making the "productive out" a sound (or soundER) strategy. But the days when you could win pennants with Dal Maxville-like offense getting 400+ ABs are long gone.

Not that Crandell (or Loduca for that matter) are offensive "holes", it's just that there are other and likely better options available.

[nymr83]

Reyes, Beltran, Wright, Delgado, Floyd, Diaz, LoDuca, Matsui makes the most sense to me, but IF the Mets refuse to bat beltran second i'd still rather see Diaz there than LoDuca and maybe I'd even rather see Matsui there since he's better suited for it if he can actually play up to his potential from Japan as of where LoDuca is more you get what you see, he's not getting better.

[Guest KC]

I'd like to see Matsui be the opening day 2nd baseman hands down, bat
second, and give him a month and a half to sink or swim and then let him
drown if it's the latter - and I mean for good.

Then we can worry about where to bat LoDuca. It's freakin' February, I can't
believe how worked up some people are over the batting order.

[Guest Johnny Dickshot]

The issue (and maybe this belongs in the second base discussion) is that at least according to what I've read so far, is that Boone seems to be angling for this "starting or retiring" position, essentially making the option of giving Matsui the clean-slate 100 at-bats he probably ought to get less attractive.

I don;t get the feeling the Mets want to go into the year with a wishy-washy siotuation, so I suppose that means unless one really really outplays the other in spring, one of Boone or Matsui gets traded.

[nymr83]

I agree with KC about Matsui...
JD- My feeling is that Boone is in no position to make demands, if he wants to retire let him retire. The Mets should not change their plans in the slightest because of the retirement threats of Bret Boone.