Lining-up your 2010 Diamondbacks
With the acquisition of Adam LaRoche, the roster now seems fairly solid, and the starting position players in particular appear largely set. There's already been some discussion over what the best batting order would be for the Diamondbacks in 2010, including some use of of an automated line-up analysis tool. This was the same one used to investigate Arizona before the start of this season, and there were some surprising, non-traditional line-ups suggested as a result.
This year, I'm refining the approach a little bit, by separating the analysis into two line-ups: one for when Arizona faces a left-handed starter, one for when we face a right-handed starter.
Here's the starting line-up I used:
- C Miguel Montero
- 1B Adam LaRoche vs RHP, Conor Jackson vs. LHP
- 2B Kelly Johnson
- SS Stephen Drew
- 3B Mark Reynolds
- LF Jackson vs. RHP, Ryan Roberts vs. LHP
- CF Chris Young
- RF Justin Upton
So, in terms of offense, the only change is Roberts replacing LaRoche against left-handed starters. I'm not sure if we actually will do that, but I did want to inject a variation into the line-up, to see what difference this might make. The next question is what numbers do we use? While we have projections from various sources, these are not broken down based upon the handedness of the pitcher. This is particularly important for someone like Justin Upton, who has murdered lefties to a tune of 210 OPS points more than righties so far in his career. This is not reflected in the amorphous blob of an overall projection.
For ease, I'll simply use a player's career splits to date. Sample size in some of these vs. LHP is smaller than I'd like e.g. Montero has only 148 PAs, so take that into consideration. The only case where I've balked is Roberts - his career total is 140 PAs, and I don't think we can expect a .932 OPS going forward. So I've gone with the straight CHONE 2010 projections for him [the resulting OPS of .756 is also close to LaRoche vs. LHP, of .751] The table below shows the appropriate stats for the nine players involved in our hypothetical 2010 Arizona Diamondbacks line-up, along with the PAs, to give some degree of reliability for the numbers. Apart from LaRoche and Johnson, the players have spent virtually all their major-league careers in Arizona, so that helps.
| PAs, BA/OBP/SLG | ||
| Player | vs. RHP | vs LHP |
| Drew | 1,574, .277/.337/.459 | 529, .248/.293/.404 |
| Jackson | 1,292, .274/.346/.415 | 562, .297/.396/.470 |
| Johnson | 1,378, .251/.341/.424 | 524, .299/.360/.448 |
| LaRoche | 2,534, ..280/.352/.506 | Does not play |
| Montero | 790, .258/.328/.445 | 148, .313/.352/.440 |
| Reynolds | 1,248, .254/.323/.491 | 441, .264/.381/.526 |
| Roberts | Does not play | NA, .262/.353/.403 |
| Upton | 855, .261/.335/.447 | 302, .303/.394/.598 |
| Young | 1,406, .223/.287/.419 | 496, .271/.365/.495 |
We then take these numbers and plug first the vs. RHP numbers, then the vs. LHP numbers into the Lineup Analysis tool. This uses straight OBP and SLG to figure out the 'optimal' line-up for a team, and the expected runs [There are links on the page if you are interested in learning more about the math behind the line-ups it creates. However, that will not be on the test at the end of the year, so I would not be inclined to worry about it too much...] For both sets, I've used the 2009 team total for pitchers, which was .169/.194/.217. Here are the best-scoring results for both sets of stats, based on the 2002-04 model
| vs. RHP 4.726 runs |
vs. LHP 5.494 runs |
| 1. Johnson, L |
1. Jackson, R |
| 2. LaRoche, L |
2. Reynolds, R |
| 3. Upton, R |
3. Johnson, L |
| 4. Reynolds, R |
4. Upton, R |
| 5. Drew, L |
5. Young, R |
| 6. Young, R |
6. Drew, L |
| 7. Montero, L |
7. Montero,L |
| 8. Pitcher, R |
8. Pitcher, R |
| 9. Jackson, R |
9. Roberts, L |
One shortcoming of the tool is that it doesn't care if it aligns all the left- or right-handed batters together, and we can make some minor tweaks to do better in this area. We could swap Jackson and Johnson to help in this area - all the top line-ups have Johnson or Jackson leading off, with virtually no impact on production. Same for Montero and Drew: a lineup of Jackson(R), LaRoche(L), Upton(R), Reynolds(R), Montero(L), Young(R), Drew(L), Pitcher(R), Johnson(L). is projected at 4.718, only about 1.3 runs less than the best line-up over 162 games. It doesn't seem too far off what we might see.
Against left-handed pitchers, things are radically different. All the best line-ups agree that Jackson needs to hit lead-off, with Upton in the clean-up spot, Drew sixth and Roberts ninth, after the pitcher. But the other spots are almost interchangeable. Again, aiming to alternate LHB and RHB, we can make some tweaks without derailing things too much. Going Jackson(R), Reynolds (R), Montero (L), Upton (R), Johnson (L), Young (R), Drew (L), Pitcher (R), Roberts (R), is a line-up that is still estimated to be good for 5.482 runs per game.
To put that into context, if we faced LHP every day, that'd mean more runs in a season than any team in the National League over the past couple of years. Powered by Upton's and Reynolds's destruction of lefties, we should kill left-handed pitching. Of course, much the same players conspicuously failed to kill left-handed pitching this year: we went 17-30 when facing a southpaw starter, more losses than any other team in the NL. Seeing what happens next season, might provide an early metric on which to gauge the team's progress in 2010.
Assuming a) the projections are correct, b) we use the modified "best" lineups (4.718 and 5.492 runs respectively) and, c) we face left-handers in 51 games, as in 2009, the expectation would be for Arizona to score a total of 804 runs next season. That'd be nice: an increase of 84 runs over this year, and hasn't been reached by the Diamondbacks since 2002. That team scored 816, but had a OPS+ of 93, so our offense would still be below league average, after adjusting for park factors. However, the projections here may actually be a little low, as in most cases, our starters are not on the wrong side of the aging curve, so some improvement may be expected.
I think we'd probably be happy to settle for five runs per game, and see how far that and our pitching staff might take us. Mind you, after the disaster which was 2009, I am inclined to believe that when I see it. That would be missing the main point, which is that, even with almost the same players in the line-up, the optimum order for placing them appears to be significantly different, depending on the handedness of the starter. But have at it: what do you think should be our 2010 line-up? And does it differ based on who we're facing?
17 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
I can't see us platoon LaRoche
especially since he seems to want to parlay this year into a long-term contract in the future
You're likely right
Since his career OPS vs. LHP is close to the CHONE projection for Roberts, you can probably just about swap ‘em as necessary. I don’t think he’ll be platooned as such, but any days off he gets will likely be against tough lefties, and we may then see Jackson move to 1B and Roberts playing in left.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 20, 2010 12:17 PM EST up reply actions
what about
a platoon of parra and young at center field? parra hitting righties and young hitting lefties seems like it would help us out a lot
That'd mean Parra getting two-thirds of the starts
I can’t seem them trying that, at least not to start with. If Young drops back to the form he showed early on last season, rather than at the end, then we will probably go that way, but for the moment, I think we’ll see him starting most games. As noted elsewhere, Parra is now the first backup at all three outfield spots, so should see his share of starts anyway – obviously, mostly if not exclusively against right-handers.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 20, 2010 12:22 PM EST up reply actions
LaRoche's spot
One thing to note is that for whatever reasons, some guys just don’t hit as well in a particular slot in the order. If you take a look at LaRoche’s splits on batting order slot, you’ll notice he has been much better in the 6th spot (OPS+ 108) or 7th spot (OPS+ 136).
Obviously this is based on the past rather than projections, but it’s interesting to consider.
Good point
I believe in the earlier thread, there was discussion about Drew’s numbers in the leadoff for the same reason. I’ve got a feeling we will see a great many lineups this year.
by Counsellmember on Jan 20, 2010 2:32 PM EST up reply actions
How about
Leading off? 453 OPS+, anybody? :-)
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 20, 2010 4:23 PM EST up reply actions
C'mon!
The dude hits a home run every other at-bat in the lead off spot! It’s a no-brainer!
"I can just see it: Post 'Intervention? Why would I need an intervention?' And then he'd +1 himself."
I think Laroche should bat 4th and reynolds 5th, and why would you put Kelly Johnson in the 3rd spot?
Because it's less crucial than is generally perceived
The Third Spot
The old-school book says to put your best high-average hitter here. The lead-off hitter should already be in scoring position and a hit drives him in. Wham, bam, thank you ma’am.
The Book says the #3 hitter comes to the plate with, on average, fewer runners on base than the #4 or #5 hitters. So why focus on putting a guy who can knock in runs in the #3 spot, when the two spots after him can benefit from it more? Surprisingly, because he comes to bat so often with two outs and no runners on base, the #3 hitter isn’t nearly as important as we think. This is a spot to fill after more important spots are taken care of.
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 20, 2010 6:58 PM EST up reply actions
Yes, this is something that has been hammered into the ground this summer
And is really rather surprising. Kind of like how we put Conor Jackson in the 2 and 4 spots and Drew typically leading-off in 2008. BoMel might have been onto something. It’s tempting to try to tinker with the lineup to accommodate this. Apparently the second spot is far more important than anyone gives it credit for being. Which makes it curious that one of the lineups has Upton third and the other fourth.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 20, 2010 7:43 PM EST up reply actions
I really have one main problem with this
And that’s Montero batting seventh. I know it’s based on the last couple of years, but c’mon, the guy’s good.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 20, 2010 7:44 PM EST reply actions
Part of the issue
Is that he doesn’t really have a career split: his OPS vs RHP is .773, vs. LHP is .792. That evenness means he’s not going to get the boost in the lineup of someone like Chris Young against LHP (.860 split).
"Win, or die" -- Marquise de Merteuil
by Jim McLennan on Jan 20, 2010 8:01 PM EST up reply actions
This
Makes a ton of sense. That and the pre-’09 suck explain it…
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 21, 2010 6:50 PM EST via mobile up reply actions
Good work
My only concern about the lineup I expect to see out there is Drew batting near the top of the order. His career OBP and projected OBP are some way below our other players. In fact, aside from Chris Young, he is the worst OBP guy in the starting lineup. He should be batting far down the order.
To illustrate this, I ran the CHONE numbers through the lineup machine. I disregarded platoons for a moment and came up with this lineup:
Jackson-Upton-Johnson-Reynolds-LaRoche-Drew-Montero-Pitcher-Young
They score 4.967 runs per game.
Now, if I put Drew in the leadoff spot, and push everyone else down one spot, the lineup scores 4.882 runs per game.
That’s 14 runs over a whole season. So we can gain 14 runs by doing nothing except batting Drew lower than 6th.
What would probably be more realistic
Would be to move KJ to where Drew should be, then shift Upton and Jackson down.
"I've had Bailey's out of a shoe, though."
by Dan Strittmatter on Jan 21, 2010 6:53 PM EST via mobile up reply actions

by 



















