NL musings, that other league where the pitcher bats

The first place Dodgers and their MLB leading 32-15 record are also in the bottom 10 in HR's in the NL. The longball is overrated.

I suspect that mfy would disagree with you,its a nice weapon to have and id be curious as to where they were pre manny fiasco.Is it overated perhaps,but players and fans love em

But courtesy of Buster Onley...getting on base is not over rated


8. You knew the Dodgers' offense would be good because of the depth of their lineup, but L.A. has posted a staggering .374 on-base percentage as a team, which would be the highest OBP posted by this franchise since 1894.

Strange numbers and potential trades

Getting on base is definitely not overrated. Do it enough times, and runs are scored that way.

Getting on base is definitely not overrated. Do it enough times, and runs are scored that way.

Not just that but when you get on base you also do not create an out... and you create a higher leverage batting position for the next batter.

(Which is why lineups don't matter; the leverage of the at-bat is far more important than the differences between major league batters, who are going to make an out about 65% of the time regardless of their differing prowesses).

Back to the NL, it's nice to see Olney point out that it ain't HR's that have given the Dodgers the best record in baseball.

SSA - I understand your point, but I still haven't see any statistical evidence that says lineups don't matter at all. The 2 articles Thin pointed out suggest a delta of at least 1-4 games per season, based on lineups.

And BTW, it is this very concept of leveraged at bats that is in play. While 65% are failures on average, the range is predictably volatile from 70% for bad hitters down to 58% for good ones. The extent to which you can increase the probability of a better hitter getting more of the high leverage ABs is the difference between good lineups and bad.

We can talk about relative importance compared to other factors, but IMO, tacking on 1-2 wins does matter. In the last 6 years, the Red Sox finishes in the Wild Card or AL East was determined by 2 games or less in every season except 2004 and 2006.

Out here in the mountains, the Rockies have won eleven straight.

Edit: And SFINYC, sorry I missed your post.

Aww...that's cute! Didn't they do something like that in 2007? ...before we dashed their hopes and dreams, that is...

No worries. It seemed the topic had faded to the background anyways. I think the 2009 lineup question appears for the moment to have been answered by Tito.

No worries. It seemed the topic had faded to the background anyways. I think the 2009 lineup question appears for the moment to have been answered by Tito.

I'll agree that there MAY be a delta of a game or two based on lineups over an entire season. But so much randomness is thrown into that cauldron that I still think that lineups are infinitesmally significant. Nearing insignificance.

Psychologically, they are important and hence Tito has made the right move.