High OPS Question

TheVon

I have a question for the sabermetrically inclined among us . . .

I just read this article which praises JD Drew's high OPS and talks about the perception that his skills have not been properly valued by the fan base. It also talks about how the organization is fine with the fact that he doesn't rack up a ton of RBI because he gets on base and is not making outs. I get all that, but it made me think . . . JD Drew was 2nd on the Red Sox in OPS last year behind only Youkilis. But he was only 5th in runs scored. Granted, he only played in 137 games, but, for comparison, Youkilis played in 136 games and scored 15 more runs than Drew did.

So, my question is this: if JD Drew's true value to the team is getting on base and avoiding outs, would the team be even better served if they slotted him higher in the lineup than his typical #5/#6 position? Wouldn't that lead to Drew scoring more runs? Or does that just mean that whoever got bumped down in the lineup would score fewer runs and therefore nullify any advantage created by the switch?

****
Extra food for thought - I ran some numbers on runs per plate appearance for Drew.
2009
1-3 Hitter: 1 run per 8 PAs
4-6 Hitter: 1 run per 5.23 PAs
7-9 Hitter: 1 run per 7.06 PAs

Career
1-3 Hitter: 1 run per 6.03 PAs
4-6 Hitter: 1 run per 6.38 PAs
7-9 Hitter: 1 run per 7.05 PAs

TomGshotput

Batting order matters very little. The difference best order and worst (Youkilis batting ninth, Alex Gonzalez leading off) is about four to five wins per year. The difference between optimal and real-life is usually less than one win per 162 games

Just looking at the most basic stats, the difference in runs scored between Drew and Youkilis makes sense. Youkilis reached base via hit, walk or HBP 32 times more than Drew. He moved himself into scoring position via extra base hit or stolen base 11 times more. He took himself off the basepaths via caught stealing four fewer times. Youkilis batted almost exclusively in the third and fourth spots, Drew batted fifth or lower two-thirds of the time

My question is why did Ellsbury score so few runs?

Connecticoin

I don't know, it seems he gets a lot of hits and walks with 2 outs and the bases empty. But that may be more perception than fact.

63 RBIs is still kind of weak for a supposedly $14 million power hitter.

jdip9

<<<Batting order matters very little. The difference best order and worst (Youkilis batting ninth, Alex Gonzalez leading off) is about four to five wins per year. The difference between optimal and real-life is usually less than one win per 162 games>>>

Are there numbers somewhere that can substantiate this claim? I would think that an optimal batting order accounts for more than a handful of wins each year, but I am curious about how the "math" supports this conclusion.

To answer your question Von - I think they'd love Drew to be a #2 hitter. Problem is, unless you slide Ellsbury down to #9, there's nowhere to put Drew, since Pedroia needs to be at the top of the lineup too.

VintageCardLover

J.D. drew has incredible talent but never, ever lived up to it. Never plays a full season. (well maybe once)

sagard

<< <i>Are there numbers somewhere that can substantiate this claim? I would think that an optimal batting order accounts for more than a handful of wins each year, but I am curious about how the "math" supports this conclusion.

To answer your question Von - I think they'd love Drew to be a #2 hitter. Problem is, unless you slide Ellsbury down to #9, there's nowhere to put Drew, since Pedroia needs to be at the top of the lineup too. >>



A five game swing is MASSIVE. Typically it is significantly larger than the difference in the wild card race, or minimally the tightest division race.

If your really interested just ask fficial&client=firefox-a">Google. Lots of opinions.

TheVon

Thanks for the links, Sagard.

One of the links espoused the theory of arranging a batting lineup in order of decreasing OPS. For the 2009 Red Sox that would have given them a lineup like this:

1. Youkilis
2. Bay
3. Drew
4. Martinez
5. Pedroia
6. Lowell
7. Ortiz
8. Ellsbury
9. Gonzalez/Lugo/Green

Certainly not a traditional looking lineup, but I could imagine it working.

TomGshotput

<< <i>Are there numbers somewhere that can substantiate this claim? I would think that an optimal batting order accounts for more than a handful of wins each year, but I am curious about how the "math" supports this conclusion. >>



Somewhere? Try dozens of places

(handful of wins is overstating it. The lineup the manager comes up with is almost never too far from optimal. Remember, each spot in the lineup is only 18 plate appearances per 162 games -- which is worth about three to four runs when comparing an All-Star with a AAA player. And it is pretty easy to see the the best hitters end up near the top and the poor hitters toward the bottom. . . )

Very Basic Lineup Analysis Calculator

(according to that, the worst lineup, might cost as much as ten wins, but that's with the pitcher leading off, Pujols batting ninth. . .

These ones cost money:

http://www.insidethebook.com/c05.shtml

http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=3779

http://www.amazon.com/Numbers-Game-Baseballs-Fascination-Statistics/dp/0312322224

google came up with lots more, but would have taken more time than I care to verify the good ones -- some combination of "optimal" "analysis" or "simulation" with "batting order" or "lineup" will work

Also, there is no rule Pedroia must hit at the top. He would be the same hitter in the fourth spot and all those singles and doubles are very good at advancing base runners and driving in runs. Ellsbury at the top also seems like it might not be the best choice. In front of Pedroia/Youkilis, any baserunner should be able to move around the diamond. Hitting in front of Varitek/Green is where you want someone who can move around the bases without the aid of the following hitters. While the rational side of me understands this is quibbling about such a small number of runs per year, the irrational side has spent way to much time listening to EEI. . .

I've also wondered if Francona's infatuation with alternating right-handed and left-handed hitters has any merit

bking

<< <i>



I've also wondered if Francona's infatuation with alternating right-handed and left-handed hitters has any merit >>



At most, I would think only in terms of forcing bullpen matchups such as getting log guys to face instead of LOOGYs, etc.

Of course, a great many managers who take L/R into account tend to ignore the guys with reverse splits, so who knows??

TomGshotput

<< <i> I would think only in terms of forcing bullpen matchups >>



That's the only reason he does it ... so when it comes to that, does it help or not?

More or less than it costs by limiting the lineup choices?

Even if only a few runs per year, seeing someone smarter than myself look into it could provide something interesting to read