Analyzing the Rangers lineup

by Adam J. Morris on Jan 8, 2009 11:58 AM CST Comment 37 comments

Over at BBTiA, Joey Matschulat has a good post up analyzing the Ranger lineup and the best permutations thereof...

Check it out...

1 recs | Comment 37 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

the link didn't work for me, but i found what you were talking about

Is this it?

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 8, 2009 12:04 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

now i see it, good read Joey

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 8, 2009 12:14 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

My biggest concern, of course, would be that LH trifecta of Hammer, Murph, and Crush, but I don’t see an ideal solution for breaking that up, short of trading Hammer. You could swap Murph down to 9th, but then you have either the C or 3B (likely our two weakest offensive positions) hitting in front of Davis, which makes no sense whatsoever.

by WestTxAg06 on Jan 8, 2009 12:24 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Byrd

Byrd will play a majority of the time over Murphy I would highly suspect which would eliminate that 3 lefties back to back. If we have that situation I would expect davis to move up to 6th and Murphy to hit 7th.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 8, 2009 12:26 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, I'm glad you caught that

I should have pointed out that, when Byrd is in the lineup, the lefty trifecta issue goes away.

Could Davis potentially be the best #6 hitter in baseball?

by WestTxAg06 on Jan 8, 2009 12:31 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I suspect the same, and pointed out in the comments that I think I'm understating Byrd's role

Although in reality, there’s a pretty good chance that both Murphy and Byrd log somewhere around 400 plate appearances with a fairly even split in actual playing time in ‘09, so take that for what it’s worth.

Baseball Time in Arlington

by Joey Matschulat on Jan 9, 2009 12:16 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I really didn't expect Hamilton second and Young 3rd

The thing that would worry me most about that would be if Young tries hitting for which he can’t really do and ends up screwing up his swing. This would never happen, but if it did, that would be my main concern with it.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 8, 2009 12:29 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Unless I'm reading it wrong...

Joey’s lineup projection shows Young 2nd and Hamilton 3rd.

by WestTxAg06 on Jan 8, 2009 12:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

the best lineup projection, though, had MY 3rd and Hammy 2nd

These are just projections, but it definitely lets us see the need for a 3B like Crede, who could, at the very least by 75 % of the year with better defensive and offensive production.

Or Davis at 3B and we have TG at C, Salty/ Max DH

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 8, 2009 12:35 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Like NothinG said, I'm talking about best projected lineup

I thought that was strange.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 8, 2009 1:06 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What is the theoretical basis for having your worst hitter 8th?

A common theme across those lineups is that Metcalf is 8th, and a Salty or Young is in the 9 hole. LaRussa figured this out in St Louis for a while there, but was laughed at a bit because of it.

I would suppose it is because your best hitters will be 1-4 (maximize plate appearances), and since runs are typically scored by stringing together hits, you should want relatively smooth transitions between bad and good hitters (and vice versa). Said another way, its better for your lineup to look like a sine wave than choppy. You don’t want a bad hitter at #9, because that will rarely “set the table” for the top of the order. Whereas the 8 spot is about as far as you can get from the 3 spot, which is the center of lineup strength.

by JBImaknee on Jan 8, 2009 12:39 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

I think it depends on your #1 hitter alot

if your #1 hitter is simply a guy who gets on base, mainly singles or walks, and uses his speed then a good #9 hitter isn’t as important. But if you have a guy like Kinsler who is capable of driving in runs then you may want a better hitter 9th instead of 8th to get a head start on the heart of the order.

Bryan Smith (12:17:17 PM PT): Justin Smoak and Josh Hamilton. The AL West might just have found their Bash Brothers, v. 2.0.

by bigsteve on Jan 8, 2009 3:49 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Read this excellent explanation from Justin Inaz for a better understanding of how Pinto's lineup analysis tool works

http://jinaz-reds.blogspot.com/2006/03/lineup-construction.html

(#9 OBA, #9 SLG) Surprise! This should be your absolute worst hitter, which for just about any NL team will be the pitcher. Increasing OBA or SLG results in fewer runs gained here than any other position in the lineup. Now all NL teams (except for a brief experiment by LaRussa back in McGwire’s prime) bat the pitcher 9th, because they want to minimize the number of at bats this player receives and postpone, for as long as possible, the need to pinch hit for him later in the game. But as we’ll see, the 9th hitter can be a very productive player:

Baseball Time in Arlington

by Joey Matschulat on Jan 9, 2009 2:57 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hah

I also thought Hamilton batting second was the best way to go.

Signature! I don't need no stinking signature!!

by DerekSTheRed on Jan 8, 2009 1:27 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

projected runs for the projected lineup

So these models are projecting something like 840 runs scored next year? That is a significant drop off from the 901 scored last year, but still would likely be good enough for a top 5 offense.

"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM

by tricer on Jan 8, 2009 2:08 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Doesn't surprise me

Seems like the offense is due for a bit of regression. Kinsler might come back to the pack just a tad, Young declines a bit, 3B and DH slots are likely to be less productive. Pluses in Davis for a full year, maybe the C slot is better…outfield should be pretty good again.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Jan 8, 2009 2:15 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

if the runs allowed stays the same as last year

and the offense dips to 840 runs scored, that yields a Pythag result of about 69-70 wins.

"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM

by tricer on Jan 8, 2009 2:58 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

thinking about that result

If 2009 results in a <70 win team, I think both JD and Wash would both be canned. I realize that 09 is scheduled as another rebuilding year, but I just get the feeling that every year that we don’t improve the rotation results in the window of contention getting pushed further back.

I wish we could sign Sheets and trade a catcher for a young, rotation worthy pitcher.

"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM

by tricer on Jan 8, 2009 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I agree, if you don't improve in '09 don't expect to win in '10

If we do regress to less than 70 wins in ‘09 which I doubt, it would be a disaster and you can’t expect to win 90 -95 wins in 2010. Of course, there is no guarantee of winning with our young guys. We’ve yet to see our young talent translate to wins, and our young guys are going to go through some growing pains when they arrive in the show. (mainly referring to pitching)

I think you have to sign a guy like Sheets and possibly Crede. Those two can help us compete. I don’t think we’ll be a playoff team, but I think you start to teach this team how to win and possibly they can learn a little about what it takes to win under pressure. Our team has not been under pressure to win in September in a very long time.

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 8, 2009 3:16 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

runs allowed

Just like I expect the offense to regress from ridiculously awesome to just hip-as-shit level, I expect the pitching to regress from historically awful to just crap-on-a-stick level. Translation – they win about 80 games.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Jan 8, 2009 3:33 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hold on,

the offense lost Milton Bradley, Ian Kinsler was having close to a superstar season that I’m not sure he can repeat and Ranger 3B in ’08 went 21/90 with an OPS above .800 so I can understand why the offensive numbers are going to come down.

Not a single pitcher has been added to this team and the defense appears to be the same as well…how many runs less than 967 should we expect to give up next year and more importantly, why?

"Dying ain't hard. It's living that's hard."

by Josey Wales on Jan 8, 2009 3:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

"Not a single pitcher has been added to this team"

Dude, we got Derek Turnbow.

"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM

by tricer on Jan 8, 2009 3:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

and there was much rejoicing........yea

Wait 'til the year after next

by NothinG on Jan 8, 2009 6:51 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Heh

Transaction Oracle on the Rangers lone pitching acquisition:

Texas Rangers – Signed P Oil Can Turnbow to a minor-league contract.
Going onto 4 years since the last time Turnbow was effective, he should be happy that he’s still getting calls. Turnbow has 3 solid pitches, none of which he has any idea what to do with or any inkling as to where they’re heading. And a tear in his rotator cuff for which he’s chosen the Todd Stottlemyre “Ignore it and it’ll magically go away” surgical technique, a technique developed over the years by winos with a yellowish tint to their skin. Absent a miracle, I think I’d rather have hepatitis than Turnbow.

"I see their [Angels] rotation as John Lackey and a bunch of decent starters." - AJM

by tricer on Jan 8, 2009 7:11 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

That's Funny Frank...Funny!

/Bradshaw

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jan 8, 2009 7:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

No pitchers of significance added

but as I said, I’m assuming regression to the mean. The team is not likely to have that many injuries again, and anything that could go wrong pretty much did. That collection of pitchers is not great, but it’s not really that bad in terms of raw talent. And the defense will not have Vazquez at 3B, so that has a decent chance to be better as well.

No, I don’t expect the pitching to be even league average, but it won’t be as bad as 2008.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Jan 8, 2009 7:29 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

The Show, this thing,

Donut Boy, steaming pile of crap.

And there ya’ go, I have successfully defended my argument.

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jan 8, 2009 7:40 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

What makes people so sure that we won't sustain another injury-riddled season?

I was so certain that ’08 was going to be better because ’07 was just as bad.

Does anyone think Benoit’s injuries last year were because of his ’07 workload?

by oc on Jan 9, 2009 9:37 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

FWIW

Rolling out a league-average defender at third base probably saves Texas at least 20 runs (the numbers I ran with UZR and +/- suggested more like 25-30 runs, but we’ll play it conservatively). I wonder how many other teams in modern major league history can rival that kind of defensive ineptitude at a single position over the course of a full season?

Baseball Time in Arlington

by Joey Matschulat on Jan 9, 2009 3:02 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Exactly

Vazquez hit .100 points above his career OPS last year, but that was still only a .795 mark. That contribution was obliterated by his horrible defense, and Davis, Duran, and even Metcalf were all pretty bad in their time there as well. Metcalf is not that bad, though, and with a larger sample would likely be much better.

3B has nowhere to go but up, and, as you say the difference will be significant.

G G G E-flat_______ F F F D__________....

by t ball on Jan 9, 2009 10:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs

I don't know.

I don’t think we can realistically expect Kinsler to keep up the same pace, but I wouldn’t expect too much of a decline from Young with good fingers. The OF should be more productive (hopefully) with a stable 4. We will have Davis at 1B all year. I see a regression from Bradley to Hank and at 3B some, but our catcher will hopefully hit better. Maybe a drop to 870 or something, but I don’t think it should be that significant.

by CS3 on Jan 8, 2009 3:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Projections are usually made to be safer

Look at Chris Davis’ projection. He is one of the reasons many expect this lineup to be great next year yet he loses 20 points in BA, 15 points in OBP, and 57 points in SLG from his rookie season. Do you think Davis is more likely to put up an OPS near .800 or .900? Hamilton is another example. He is losing 14 points in BA, 8 points in OBP, and 17 points in SLG. Again, do you think Hamilton is actually going to get worse in 2009 instead of better or at least the same as last season? And for Kinsler, he is losing 33 points in BA, 16 points in OBP, 49 points in SLG. I can see the OBP drop and I can see a drop in BA, but I don’t think he’ll be losing that much power next season. So if our 3 big offensive contributors end up declining that significantly next year instead of improving (or at least remaining as good), then its possible our offense ends up scoring only 840 runs or so. I just don’t think that’s likely.

By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
-The Outlaw

by Gdawg on Jan 8, 2009 5:59 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Good Point.

/Greggo

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jan 8, 2009 6:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

Hey, LSB 2.0 redacted me.

/Greggo

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jan 8, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

OT - Dodgers and the McCourts

Remember when the McCourts asked the hypothetical question of whether fans would prefer the Dodgers to resign Manny for $30MM or for the McCourts to build 50 youth baseball fields in LA? And Jamie McCourt said, because of tough economic times, the Dodgers had to rethink FA signings?

Well, the McCourts just bought not one but two beach front houses, side-by-side, for a combined price tag of $46MM.

Nothing pithy here. Please move long.

by WyoRanger on Jan 8, 2009 4:06 PM CST reply actions 0 recs

Isn't that a function

Of most ownership being affluent enough to do whatever they choose to do? Not that it doesn’t make squiggly PR in LA-:LA land, of course.

"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912)

by Ed Coffin on Jan 8, 2009 4:28 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs

She wears the pants in that family.

She wanted the houses, couldn’t get enough financing, and ended up putting up a massive parking lot she owns as additional collateral.

Damn Frankie and his baseball thing…

"...my balls are really like a veiny flesh color" blueballlefty on Jun 4, 2008 7:44 PM EDT
"you gonna lose your horse. seriously." FX2
Yes we can! November 04, 2008

by Rodney on Jan 8, 2009 6:36 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs