"Doing the Math" to Set Your Lineups

[1crazycanuk]

That's surprising to me but yeah...maybe 36 games isn't a large enough sample. Maybe a better sample would be 50 games?

[doug_tucker10]

i''ll update the situation in about a week...

[bleacher_creature]

Marcus,

Great input. However...

I see now why the Ratings book numbers don't translate exactly. It's because they are per number of PLATE APPEARANCES, and not at bats.

With this in mind, you say that walks are undervalued by OB + TB. Is this 100% true though? Is it bad to have TB chances accounted for in this manner (against plate appearances)? I gotta' think about this...

SLG relates to ABs as you stated. It is a higher percentage with BBs subtracted. If you use TB against plate appearances, it seems perfect for Strat then, because you are not overemphasizing TB or SLG for a player.

Having said all that, RC27 is looking like a good way to go right now. :?

[MARCPELLETIER]

[quote:52d97f344d]
I see now why the Ratings book numbers don't translate exactly. It's because they are per number of PLATE APPEARANCES, and not at bats.
[/quote:52d97f344d]

EXACT.

[quote:52d97f344d]
Is this 100% true though?[/quote:52d97f344d]

Well, especially for the players who walk a lot. For regular players, you could close your eyes, and it wouldn`t matter that much.

[quote:52d97f344d]
SLG relates to ABs as you stated. It is a higher percentage with BBs subtracted. If you use TB against plate appearances, it seems perfect for Strat then, because you are not overemphasizing TB or SLG for a player.[/quote:52d97f344d]

Here is the problem: this operation, which has the consequence to lower the magnetude of slugging percentage, does not affect players equally.

In short, TSN-SOM will replicate what is shown on the card. IF your what you want for your team is the most total bases, then you will be fine by simply looking at TB. If however you want the player with the best slugging percentage, then you better go with (TB/(108-walk). Whatever is your criteria, you can be confident that SOM will replicate it.

Here is the list of the 30 players with the best TB vs rhp, stadiums adjusted for neutral parks. On the left, I divided TB by 108. On the right, I calculated the slugging (TB/(108-walks)), adjusted for the pitcher card. The numbers mean that, on pure total bases vs rhp, Bonds will be highly challenged by Beltre. In slugging percentage, however, Bonds will outslaught Beltre. This is precisely what our leagues repeatedly obtain (see below)

As you can see, the difference can be steep. Berkman, for one, goes from about 25th to among the best 10. Thus, even though Berkman has the same TB than Matsui vs rhp, his slugging vs rhp should be around 0.595, whereas Matsui should be around 0.527.

[list:52d97f344d]
[code:1:52d97f344d]

Bonds* 0.97 1.122
Beltre,A 0.86 0.634
Mauer,J* 0.83 0.632
Ortiz,D* 0.77 0.636
Hafner,T* 0.77 0.662
Pujols,A 0.76 0.626
Ramirez, 0.71 0.569
Morneau, 0.67 0.528
Edmonds 0.67 0.627
Wright,D 0.66 0.527
Sweeney 0.66 0.526
Guerrero 0.66 0.511
Rolen,S 0.64 0.552
Guillen,C+ 0.64 0.533
Ramirez,A 0.62 0.509
Cota,H 0.62 0.486
Thome,J* 0.62 0.573
Helton,T* 0.62 0.607
Glaus,T 0.61 0.573
Hollandsw 0.61 0.514
Nixon,T* 0.60 0.506
Sanders,R 0.60 0.471
Dunn,A* 0.60 0.574
Sexson,R 0.60 0.535
Berkman 0.59 0.595
Matsui,H* 0.59 0.527
Durazo,E* 0.59 0.502
Mora,M 0.59 0.513
Walker,L* 0.58 0.571
IRod 0.58 0.465
[/code:1:52d97f344d] [/list:u:52d97f344d]

[The Biomechanical Man]

marcus wilby,
Thanks for pointing out this difference.

Since OB, TB, and BB are the numbers given on the ratings disk, the formulas are then:

[b:430d597720]OBP = OB / 108

SLUG = TB / (108-BB)

OPS = OBP + SLUG = OB/108 + TB/(108-BB)[/b:430d597720]


A couple of more thoughts:

- As you said, "If what you want for your team is the most total bases, then you will be fine by simply looking at TB. If however you want the player with the best slugging percentage, then you better go with (TB/(108-walk)."

- These equations are not exactly correct because they ignore HBP, sac flies, and sac bunts. :(

[tersignf]

Doc/Lucky--
Thanks for a mathematician's take--I think it makes sense (of course someone who enjoys Bessel functions in the complex plane would of course see the beauty in it)...I have to say again I believe relative positions in the order are much more important than who bats 1st etc.

Of course, optimally, like you said, combining that relative batting position maximization with the absolute position maximization (i.e., meeting relative position optimally while maximizing OB on top, low GbAs after folks who tend to get on 1st, etc) is really the ultimate thing for any lineup.

OK--so as a Mac user I can't run endless tests of lineups--who's going to? Sounds like a startup business as an add-on to SOMO. Boy they need a marketing department and someone who would know how to cut a deal with HAL--they could have lots more side business if properly developed...

[ANDYCOCHRANE]

Lucky,

How did you adjust for neutral parks and the pitchers cards in your above calculations? i worked out Durazo's SLG and it came out as different to .502. I had it as .538 I think.