Comments on: OBP from the leadoff spot / RBIs with two outs

By: Andy

Andy — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 15:29:00 +0000

KT, that's true in the AL only, I think. And the issue with batting Frank Thomas first is: since Thomas is a power hitter, it's still probably better to let him bat later in the inning when his power hits might bat in more than just himself.

By the way, if you look simply at straight PAs (regardless of # of outs or anything else), the higher the position, the more PAs it gets.

For example, check out the Phillies batting splits so far this year:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/bsplit.cgi?team=PHI&year=2007

I won't put all the numbers here, but suffice it to say that the #1 spot got 779 PAs and the #9 spot got 643 PAs, and it's a smooth linear scale in between. The rule of thumb I remember was that each spot in the order was worth 15 more PAs per season, and that's almost exactly correct in the Phillies' case.

Also, you may recall, in the past when certain teams had a player going for a seasonal record--such as getting 200 hits--if they were out of contention, they would sometimes move that player to the leadoff position for the rest of the game, just to get him more PAs.

By: kingturtle

kingturtle — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 12:38:07 +0000

Very interesting. Batters in the #1 spot are less likely to be lead-off hitters in an inning than batters in the #4, #5, #6, and #7 spots. So being a "lead-off hitter" is a misnomer, and the "talent" is over-rated. What batting in the #1 spot *does* provide as an advantage is more plate appearances. With that said, wouldn't it be better to have Frank Thomas (and the like) bat in the #1 spot?

By: Johnny Twisto

Johnny Twisto — Sat, 29 Sep 2007 02:11:38 +0000

"Couldn’t it be that OBP are higher with runners on precisely because the runners on-base OBP stat is overrepresented by the *better* bats in the lineup, while the bases empty stats are overrepresented by the weaker ones? The lineup is designed with such a situation in mind."

That's a very good point, and it probably accounts for some part of the difference. But if you look at individual players' stats with bases empty vs. runners on, I believe most hit better w/ runners on, so there is an inherent advantage to hitting in those situations.

By: kingturtle

kingturtle — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 23:12:20 +0000

Generally speaking, pitchers are tougher against hitters when there is no one on base. There are no base-runners to distract the pitcher or catcher, and fielders can play to the batter's specific scouting report. With runners on base, infielders need to shift, outfielders might have to play in, etc.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:56:15 +0000

Yeah, I think you're right. There are many things about my cursory analysis that are shortcuts, and that's one of them.

By: Sophist

Sophist — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 20:23:15 +0000

This is what I read: http://www.baseball-reference.com/sotd/archives/324

Is there more to the thread than this? I didn't see anything about holes in the infield or pitching from the stretch.

In any case, it may be true that it's easier to reach base with runners on for other reasons, but I'm not sure the OBP comparison provide good evidence of the claim. For instance, would a stat sheet representing OBP with runners on, where 65% of the list were at-bats by Ryan Howard and Aaron Rowand and 35% were at-bats by Abraham Nunez and Carlos Ruiz, compared to a stat-sheet which represented OBP with no runners on, where the percentages were reversed (*worse* hitters 65%), not be skewed by the varying proportions of good batters to worse batters in each? If 3-4-5 hitters get more opportunities with runners on, then it sounds like 3-4-5 hitters are represented more often in the OBP with runners on stats than they are in the OBP with no runners on base stat. I'd just think that would skew the comparison. They're better hitters.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:55:23 +0000

You've got to read the entire thread above to fully get it, but the difference in OBP with bases empty vs runners on is due in large part to effect such as larger holes in the infield (particular between 1B and 2B) when the defenders need to cover bases, and the fact that the pitcher needs to pitch out of the stretch, which is less effective for many pitchers, in terms of batting average against.

By: Sophist

Sophist — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 19:49:35 +0000

Andy,

Maybe I am missing something here - I'm not a regular observer of baseball statistics. I'm not sure showing that the OBP with runners on is higher when men are on-base than when they are not proves that it's more difficult to hit with the bases empty.

Couldn't it be that OBP are higher with runners on precisely because the runners on-base OBP stat is overrepresented by the *better* bats in the lineup, while the bases empty stats are overrepresented by the weaker ones? The lineup is designed with such a situation in mind.

Is this what the 8% difference (as opposed to 6 points for 2nd batters) between NL and AL lead-off men is supposed to substantiate?

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 17:54:36 +0000

I'm not sure this is easy to calculate, but I did something like it just for the Phillies. I figured out the total number of times in 2007 a given spot in the order has come up with no outs and nobody on base. There is no option I could see to specify "leading off the inning." Obviously, if a guy comes up after the true leadoff hitter hit a solo homer, then there are no outs and nobody on base. SO these numbers are not exact but do give a general sense.
Anyway, here are the number of such PAs for the Phillies in 2007, going by each spot in the batting order:
1st: 323
2nd: 152
3rd: 121
4th: 156
5th: 156
6th: 174
7th: 143
8th: 144
9th: 137
Obviously, so far this year there have been 159 times that the #1 hitter has come up to lead off the game, so taking those out leaves 164, still good for second on team. To me, that's a high number, since the leadoff hitter will very rarely lead off the second inning, and somewhat rarely lead off the third inning.
Let's do another NL team, and two AL teams for the heck of it.
I'll pick the Mets, a team with the same record as the Phillies at the moment:
1st: 318 - 159 = 159
2nd: 142
3rd: 115
4th: 174
5th: 158
6th: 170
7th: 149
8th: 142
9th: 121
The corrected leadoff value of 159 is 3rd on the team. By the way, you notice how rare it is for the 9th place hitter to bat with the bases empty and no outs. This is because even with two outs, pitchers often work around the 8th place guy to get to the 9th-place hitter. I always thought this was dumb...the 8th guy is usually not such a great hitter anyway (Hello, Alfredo Griffin!), and if you get him, you get the pitcher leading off the next inning.
Now, two AL teams:
First I'll take Detroit because they too have the same record:
1st: 307 - 159 = 148
2nd: 138
3rd: 128
4th: 161
5th: 156
6th: 153
7th: 158
8th: 135
9th: 149
Notice two things. Now the leadoff hitter (corrected) is down to 6th most PAs, and the 9th position is no longer much lower than the rest. (This all backs up my original argument above.)
And one other AL team...let's pick whoever is middle-of-the-pack for runs scored: I take Toronto:
1st: 295 - 159 = 136
2nd: 137
3rd: 126
4th: 179
5th: 181
6th: 143
7th: 143
8th: 148
9th: 140
Wow, their #1 hitters are next to last in no-out, no-runner PAs. That means their leadoff guy is hitting with runners on more often than just about anybody else on the team, which really helps their averages.
I'm going to conclude that my overall point has been proven.

By: kingturtle

kingturtle — Fri, 28 Sep 2007 14:38:56 +0000

Minus the first inning, do players batting in the #1 spot really have more at-bats leading off an inning than players batting in other spots of the line-up?