Friday, January 16, 2015

How Optimal Was The Royals 2014 Lineup

My simulator is a good tool for looking at optimal batting orders.  It can play tens of thousands and even millions (with a smaller set of games) of games while keeping the opponent static which can give you a good idea which lineups win more games.  I am using the Royals most common lineup that they used in the 2014 season and seeing how optimal the simulator thought it was.  After doing this for the Dodgers and Cardinals, I decided to move on to the Kansas City Royals.  I put in some filters to cut down on the number of lineup permutations.  I tried to mimic what the Royals manager tended to do in not hitting lefties back to back other than the 9th then leadoff hitter etc...    Of course you can't expect any manager to be implementing the most optimal lineup but you also don't want him to be giving away fractions of wins each game that can add up over a 162 game season.  So down below, I list the Top 10 lineups along with the most common 2014 lineup in a table sorted by Wins/162 games.  I also list a table showing the frequency of where each player batted in each of the top 50 lineups.  I love the batting order frequency tables as they show you which players have a few dedicated positions in the order they should be hitting in and which players are more versatile in giving you an optimal lineup.  I used 2014 final season stats as the input projections for each hitter because that is for the most part similar to the data that the manager went by.  And I did all the simulations with the opposing team using a right handed starting pitcher.

Before we begin, here is the common Royals lineup that I compared against

Aoki-Infante-Hosmer-Butler-Gordon-Perez-Moustakas-Escobar-Dyson

                                        Top 10 Lineups
LineupWins/162 GB
Aoki-Infante-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Escobar-Hosmer-Butler-Dyson0.000
Aoki-Escobar-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Infante-Dyson-Butler-Hosmer0.065
Aoki-Escobar-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Butler-Dyson-Infante-Hosmer0.111
Aoki-Infante-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Escobar-Dyson-Butler-Hosmer0.143
Aoki-Escobar-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Butler-Hosmer-Infante-Dyson0.164
Aoki-Escobar-Hosmer-Perez-Gordon-Infante-Moustakas-Butler-Dyson0.166
Aoki-Escobar-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Infante-Hosmer-Butler-Dyson0.207
Dyson-Infante-Moustakas-Perez-Gordon-Escobar-Aoki-Butler-Hosmer0.238
Aoki-Escobar-Moustakas-Perez-Hosmer-Butler-Gordon-Infante-Dyson0.308
Moustakas-Escobar-Hosmer-Perez-Gordon-Butler-Aoki-Infante-Dyson0.354
.
.
             Batting Order Frequency Table
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th
Aoki3000090506
Escobar03200011070
Moustakas40260501005
Perez0303905030
Gordon90003001001
Infante014000190170
Hosmer20240601008
Butler010110150230
Dyson50000015030
.
.
Note:  The most common lineup ended up 0.56 wins per 162 games behind the most optimal lineup.  Not too bad.  The simulator liked batting Perez cleanup which the Royals did not do.  The simulator also liked hitting Escobar second instead of Infante (basically switching them).
.

Wednesday, January 14, 2015

How Optimal Was The Cardinals 2014 Lineup


My simulator is a good tool for looking at optimal batting orders.  It can play tens of thousands and even millions (with a smaller set of games) of games while keeping the opponent static which can give you a good idea which lineups win more games.  Originally, taking an idea from the "straight arrows" over at The Book Blog, I decided to take the 2014 Dodgers most common lineup, that one can find over at the Baseball Reference website and compare how well that lineup does against tens of thousands of other possible lineup permutations.  Now I decided to move on to the St. Louis Cardinals mostly because I like doing this and the Cardinals have a very analytical friendly blog not one that spends endless hours discussing TV shows, taco trucks and their personal problems.  I did set some filters to cut down on the permutations, like I only looked at lineups where the pitcher hit 8th or 9th and where the best hitters didn't hit 8th or 9th and the worst hitters didn't hit 3rd or 4th etc...  I wanted to see how well one of the Cardinals most common lineups compared to what the simulator thought was the most optimal lineup.  Of course you can't expect any manager to be implementing the most optimal lineup but you also don't want him to be giving away fractions of wins each game that can add up over a 162 game season.  So down below, I list the Top 10 lineups along with the most common 2014 lineup in a table sorted by Wins/162 games.  I also list a table showing the frequency of where each player batted in each of the top 50 lineups.  I love the batting order frequency tables as they show you which players have a few dedicated positions in the order they should be hitting in and which players are more versatile in giving you an optimal lineup.  I used 2014 final season stats as the input projections for each hitter because that is for the most part similar to the data that the manager went by.  And I did all the simulations with the opposing team using a right handed starting pitcher.

Before we begin, here is the common Cardinals lineup that I compared against

Carpenter-Wong-Holliday-Craig-Molina-Adams-Peralta-Bourjos-Pitcher.


                                                      Top 10 Lineups
RankLineupWins/162 Behind
1Peralta-Carpenter-Holliday-Adams-Wong-Bourjos-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.000
2Peralta-Carpenter-Adams-Holliday-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher-Bourjos0.081
3Bourjos-Carpenter-Holliday-Adams-Peralta-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.092
4Peralta-Carpenter-Adams-Holliday-Wong-Bourjos-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.118
5Holliday-Carpenter-Peralta-Adams-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher-Bourjos0.119
6Holliday-Carpenter-Adams-Peralta-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher-Bourjos0.158
7Bourjos-Carpenter-Peralta-Holliday-Adams-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.161
8Carpenter-Holliday-Adams-Peralta-Wong-Molina-Craig-Pitcher-Bourjos0.162
9Carpenter-Wong-Peralta-Holliday-Adams-Bourjos-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.206
10Wong-Carpenter-Holliday-Peralta-Adams-Bourjos-Molina-Craig-Pitcher0.216

And how did the Cardinals common lineup fair? Wel, it finished 2.07 wins/162 games worse than the top ranking lineup according to the simulator. Good thing that lineup wasn't actually used 162 times but it kind of gives you a general idea of how many wins the Cardinals manager may have been leaving off the table during the entire season if you trust the output of the simulator. When I did this for the Dodgers, Mattingly's most common lineup was only 0.84 wins/162 games off from the most optimal.

           Batting Order Frequency Table
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th
Carpenter15197630000
Peralta55119710300
Holliday36171761000
Adams051218103200
Wong95002212200
Molina03300123101
Bourjos18700212407
Craig0000008420
Pitcher0000000842

Player by Player Analysis

Leadoff:  Matt Carpenter.  Matheny bats Carpenter leadoff and the simulator agrees that that is a good spot for him but he would be a little better off hitting second not first.  Good

Second:  Kolten Wong.  Matheny bats Wong second and the simulator doesn't think that is one of the top three places for him to hit.  It is not a totally glaring mistake as the simulator does have Wong hitting second in the 9th most optimal lineup but a better selection can be made here.  Below Average

Third:  Matt Holliday.  Matheny bats Holliday third and pretty much nails this one.  The simulator thinks that Holliday is a good third or fourth hitter in this lineup.  While Holliday does have some batting order versatility and could even slot into the second and fifth slots without deserving to be taken out behind the shed.  Great

Cleanup:  Allen Craig.  Matheny bats Craig cleanup and as you know Craig had an awful season.  To Matheny's credit he probably didn't know Craig was going to be this bad and stay this bad as long as he did but nonetheless batting Craig cleanup was not a good choice and if done enough times would be extremely costly.  The simulator liked Craig batting 8th, in front of the pitcher.  Bad

Fifth:  Yadier Molina:  Matheny bats Molina fifth and the simulator does not like him there at all.  The simulator likes the slow legged and power hitting catcher batting seventh or sixth at best where he can knock in runs and not get knocked in himself.  Bad

Sixth:  Matt Adams.  Matheny bats Adams sixth and the simulator thinks that is too low.  Mostly because the simulator already knows how bad Craig is.  The simulator likes Craig batting cleanup or in one of the other traditional power hitting slots (third or fifth).  Bad

Seventh:  Jhonny Peralta.  Matheny bats Peralta seventh and maybe he didn't know at the time he was building these lineups that Peralta would be one of his better hitters in 2014.  A look up above at the 'Batting Order Frequency' table and you really see how versatile Peralta is in this lineup.  Peralta hits leadoff in three of the four top optimal lineups and the simulator think the third, fourth and fifth slots are his best.  Good

Eighth:  Peter Bourjos.  Matheny puts the all glove not stick Bourjos eighth.  From above the simulator thinks that spot should be reserved for Allen Craig.  The simulator touts leadoff or ninth, which in and of itself is a second leadoff spot, as the most optimal placement for Bourjos.  Bourjos is leadoff in 2 of the top ten lineups and bats ninth in 4 of the top ten lineups.  There is often efficiency in batting the pitcher 8th if you have the right personnel to do it.  Bad

Ninth:  Pitcher.  The simulator has the pitcher batting 9th in 84% of the Top 50 lineups.  Good

Overall:
So overall Matheny did not do a very good job with this lineup but to his credit the simulator is using end of season (or after the fact) input projections.  If Matheny was hitting Craig cleanup when it was obvious he wasn't very good then he is greatly to blame, otherwise he gets some slack.  How much slack is up for debate.
.

Sunday, January 04, 2015

How Good Is Don Mattingly At Setting The Batting Order

.
My simulator is a good tool for looking at optimal batting orders.  It can play tens of thousands and even millions (with a smaller set of games) of games while keeping the opponent static which can give you a good idea which lineups win more games.  Taking an idea from the "straight arrows" over at The Book Blog, I decided to take the 2014 Dodgers most common lineup, that one can find over at the Baseball Reference website and compare how well that lineup does against tens of thousands of other possible lineup permutations.  I did set some filters to cut down on the permutations, like I only looked at lineups where the pitcher hit 8th or 9th and where the best hitters didn't hit 8th or 9th and the worst hitters didn't hit 3rd or 4th etc...  I wanted to see how well Mattingly's most common lineup compared to what the simulator thought was the most optimal lineup.  Of course you can't expect any manager to be implementing the most optimal lineup but you also don't want him to be giving away fractions of wins each game that can add up over a 162 game season.  So down below, I list the Top 25 lineups along with the most common 2014 lineup in a table sorted by Wins/162 games.  I also list a table showing the frequency of where each player batted in each of the top 25 lineups.  I love the batting order frequency tables as they show you which players have a few dedicated positions in the order they should be hitting in and which players are more versatile in giving you an optimal lineup.  I used 2014 final season stats as the input projections for each hitter because that is for the most part what Don Mattingly went by.  And I did all the simulations with the opposing team using a right handed starting pitcher.

Before we begin, here is the most common 2014 Dodgers lineup.

Gordon-Puig-Gonzales-Kemp-Ramirez-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher

                                                       Top 25 Lineups
RankLineupWins/162 Behind
1Kemp-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher0.000
2Gordon-Ellis-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher0.059
3Gordon-Ellis-Crawford-Ramirez-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher0.060
4Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis0.090
5Gordon-Ellis-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher0.108
6Puig-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher0.163
7Ellis-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher0.218
8Ellis-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Uribe-Pitcher-Gordon0.226
9Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis0.243
10Puig-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis0.261
11Crawford-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher0.307
12Gordon-Puig-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis0.316
13Ellis-Gordon-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Kemp-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher0.326
14Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher-Ellis0.348
15Crawford-Puig-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.379
16Kemp-Crawford-Ramirez-Gonzalez-Puig-Gordon-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.402
17Ellis-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Kemp-Gordon-Uribe-Pitcher0.412
18Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher0.430
19Gordon-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.430
20Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.456
21Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Kemp-Crawford-Ellis-Pitcher-Uribe0.513
22Ramirez-Gordon-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.551
23Gordon-Ellis-Crawford-Ramirez-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Pitcher-Uribe0.580
24Puig-Crawford-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Gordon-Ellis-Uribe-Pitcher0.604
25Gordon-Ramirez-Kemp-Gonzalez-Puig-Ellis-Crawford-Urube-Pitcher0.613
55Gordon-Puig-Gonzalez-Kemp-Ramirez-Crawford-Uribe-Ellis-Pitcher0.837
.
And for comparison sake the worst lineup was 3.55 wins/162 games worst than the best lineup.
Worst: Ellis-Uribe-Puig-Kemp-Gonzalez-Ramirez-Crawford-Pitcher-Gordon
.
           Batting Order Frequency Table
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th
Gordon1240007101
Puig3800140000
Gonzalez0091402000
Kemp225074500
Ramirez1391110000
Crawford3420311200
Uribe00000011112
Ellis440001655
Pitcher0000000817

.
Analysis:
So the simulator thinks that Mattingly left around 0.84 wins off the table over 162 games with his most common lineup.  I will leave that up to the reader if they think that is significant.  Keep in mind that one win (or WAR) is going for about $7 million dollars on the free agent market.

I think Mattingly's lineup is an above average one when using common and traditional methods for constructing a lineup.  A look at the Batting Order Frequency Table (BOF Table) does show what the simulator thinks are a few glaring mistakes though.  When we look at the BOF Table you will notice that a few players are more versatile in the lineup slot that they give the most value in.  Puig for example only slots into three locations... leadoff(3), second(8) and fifth(14) while players like Kemp and Ellis slot in to many more locations but not as frequently.  Let's walk through each player in Mattingly's lineup one at a time and look for strengths and weaknesses.

Player by Player Analysis:
Leadoff - Dee Gordon:  Mattingly has Dee Gordon in the leadoff spot and according to the simulator that is the best spot for him, though hitting 6th can be good as well as batting 2nd depending of course on the rest of the batting order makeup.  Nails it.

Second - Yasiel Puig:  Puig's best spot is hitting fifth where he can help rack up the RBIs but hitting second is also a good spot for Puig.  I think Mattingly does well on Puig's position in the order.  Good

Third - Adrian Gonzalez:  Just like with Puig, Mattingly has slotted Gonzalez into his second best spot in the batting order.  The simulator prefers Gonzalez hitting one spot lower which wouldn't ordinarily be that big of a deal as long as the person batting fourth in his place belonged there too.  Good

Cleanup - Matt Kemp:  The simulator thinks Kemp is many things but a cleanup hitter on this team is not one of them.  According to the simulator it is a big mistake to bat Kemp fourth.  There are many lineup positions that Kemp can slot into and you can still have a highly optimal lineup but fourth is not one of them.  Stink

Fifth - Hanley Ramirez:  Out of the top 25 lineups the simulator has Ramirez hitting fifth only once.  The simulator seems to like Gonzalez and Ramirez hitting in the 3rd/4th slots in either order making this another glaring mistake according to the sim.  The 4th and 5th spots in the lineup are probably not good spots to be making mistakes at.  Stink

Sixth - Carl Crawford:  Crawford also is pretty versatile in where he slots in to the top 25 lineups and Mattingly gets back on the winning track as he nails this one.  Crawford hits 6th in 11 out of the top 25 most optimal lineups including three of the top five.  Nails it.

Seventh - Juan Uribe:  The simulator thinks that Uribe should hit seventh or eighth and that is exactly where Mattingly puts him.  Slow, low on base second tier power hitters are good for the bottom of the lineup as they tend to give you that last good chance to clear the bases before the black hole of the pitcher batting.  Nails it.

Eighth - A.J. Ellis:  Ellis like Kemp is able to slot in to many different lineup spots without causing carnage to the optimization of it.  Ellis is not a very good hitter but he still does bring a decent skill of drawing walks to the table, that is why you see him hitting at the top of the lineup a few times and ninth.  His poor hitting but good on base skills are a good fit for hitting 9th and moving the pitcher to 8th as he turns in to a quasi leadoff hitter in the 9th spot.  Good.

Ninth - Pitchers Spot:  The simulator has the pitcher hitting 9th in 17 out of 25 (68%) of the top lineups.  So there can be some value to hitting the pitcher eighth but you have to have the right personnel and batting order mix to make it work.  Nails it.
.
Overall, Mattingly does a pretty good job but the simulator thinks he made big mistakes in hitting Matt Kemp cleanup and Hanley Ramirez fifth and really with the tools that Mattingly has (instincts) you really wouldn't know this was a mistake.

.

Wednesday, December 31, 2014

2015 Angels Best Lineup (vs LHP)

.
After looking at the Angels best lineup vs RHP, I am now going to use my simulator to take a look at the best lineup vs LHP. The only change to the starting nine is that I will remove Matt Joyce at DH with the right handed hitting C.J. Cron. My simulator plays actual games and takes pretty much everything (meaningful) into account. This is only an exercise and I am not in any way advocating that the Angels should use these top ranked lineups. I am listing the top five ranked lineups vs LHP along with tables that used the Top 100 lineups to show trends of most common lineup patterns.

Most Optimal Lineups vs LHP
Freese-Trout-Aybar-Pujols-Calhoun-Cron-Rutledge-Iannetta-Hamilton
Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Freese-Aybar-Hamilton-Cron-Rutledge-Iannetta
Trout-Aybar-Pujols-Cron-Hamilton-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta-Calhoun
Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Cron-Hamilton-Iannetta-Aybar-Freese-Rutledge
Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Cron-Iannetta-Hamilton-Freese-Aybar-Rutledge
.
.
    Batting Order Location Frequency Table
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th
Trout47364490000
Calhoun1331150136778
Pujols810304390000
Freese129121781110129
Cron53122310715178
Hamilton321213141617716
Aybar129150121781512
Rutledge00001325231821
Iannetta00001218202426
.
.
Most Common First Two Paired Batters In Lineup
1st2ndCount
TroutCalhoun24
FreeseTrout10
AybarTrout9
TroutFreese8
CalhounTrout8
TroutPujols7
TroutAybar5
PujolsTrout5
CalhounAybar3
AybarCalhoun3
FreeseCalhoun2
PujolsCron2
CronTrout2
CronPujols2
HamiltonTrout2
.
Most Common First Three Consecutive Batters In Lineup
1st2nd3rdCount
TroutCalhounPujols13
AybarTroutCalhoun5
TroutCalhounFreese4
TroutCalhounAybar4
FreeseTroutAybar4
TroutCalhounCron3
FreeseTroutHamilton3
CalhounTroutPujols3
TroutPujolsCalhoun3
PujolsTroutCalhoun3
AybarTroutPujols2
TroutFreeseCalhoun2
TroutFreesePujols2
TroutFreeseCron2
TroutFreeseHamilton2
CalhounTroutAybar2
CalhounTroutFreese2
TroutPujolsFreese2
TroutAybarPujols2
PujolsTroutHamilton2
.
Most Common 3-4-5 Batters In Lineup
3rd4th5thCount
PujolsFreeseAybar4
PujolsCronHamilton3
AybarPujolsCron3
CalhounPujolsCron3
CalhounPujolsRutledge3
CalhounCronHamilton3
FreesePujolsCron3
CronPujolsCalhoun3
PujolsHamiltonFreese2
PujolsHamiltonIannetta2
PujolsFreeseIannetta2
PujolsCronRutledge2
PujolsCronIannetta2
PujolsCronFreese2
AybarPujolsFreese2
AybarPujolsCalhoun2
AybarPujolsTrout2
CalhounPujolsHamilton2
FreesePujolsHamilton2
CronPujolsHamilton2
HamiltonPujolsCalhoun2
HamiltonPujolsAybar2
AybarCronPujols2
.
Note: All table counts are out of Top 100 most optimal lineups.
.

Saturday, December 27, 2014

2015 Angels Best Lineup (vs RHP)


Now I move on to the best lineups for the Angels.  I am using my simulator to see what batting order it thinks gives the Angels the best chance of winning.  Methodology: Go through each possible lineup given the nine most likely starters as listed by MLB Depth Charts website and have the simulator play tens of thousands of games using each lineup against a fictitious but static opponent and see which Angels lineup wins the most games. Now keep in mind there are nine factorial (or 362,880) possible lineups. My simulator is fast, but it is not fast enough to look at all possible lineups while simulating a high enough sample size of games to get a reliable result. So what I did was put in a few limitations, like not allowing a lineup that had Mike Trout batting 8th or 9th and not allowing a lineup that had Albert Pujols batting 8th or 9th and not allowing lineups that had left handed hitters hitting back to back (unless they were paired batting 9th and 1st). This cut down on the possible number of lineups but still gave me too many lineups. So I then took a random sample of 10,000 lineups that met the filter I was using. So there still may be a few good lineups out there but of those 10,000 lineups here are what the simulator calculated to be the best 50. Keep in mind that the simulator is using 2015 Steamer Projections. The simulator plays actual baseball games and takes pretty much everything you can think of (that is meaningful) into account. The results are sorted by wins per 162 games behind the top ranking lineup.

12/28 Edit: @Tangotiger has asked to see how the worst lineup and the reverse of the best lineup do on this chart so they will be added to the bottom of the table.

                                                   Top 50 Lineups
RankLineupWins/162 Behind
1Calhoun-Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Hamilton-Freese-Rutledge-Aybar-Iannetta0
2Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Aybar-Calhoun-Rutledge-Iannetta-Freese-Hamilton0.032
3Trout-Aybar-Hamilton-Pujols-Calhoun-Freese-Iannetta-Joyce-Rutledge0.146
4Joyce-Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Hamilton-Rutledge-Iannetta-Aybar-Freese0.152
5Joyce-Trout-Pujols-Hamilton-Aybar-Calhoun-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta0.156
6Aybar-Trout-Hamilton-Pujols-Joyce-Rutledge-Calhoun-Freese-Iannetta0.166
7Calhoun-Trout-Aybar-Pujols-Joyce-Iannetta-Freese-Rutledge-Hamilton0.192
8Joyce-Trout-Hamilton-Pujols-Aybar-Calhoun-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta0.194
9Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Joyce-Aybar-Hamilton-Rutledge-Iannetta-Freese0.203
10Joyce-Trout-Hamilton-Pujols-Calhoun-Rutledge-Iannetta-Aybar-Freese0.246
11Aybar-Calhoun-Pujols-Hamilton-Trout-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta-Joyce0.277
12Joyce-Trout-Pujols-Calhoun-Iannetta-Hamilton-Rutledge-Aybar-Freese0.287
13Trout-Pujols-Freese-Hamilton-Iannetta-Joyce-Aybar-Calhoun-Rutledge0.327
14Trout-Rutledge-Pujols-Joyce-Aybar-Calhoun-Iannetta-Freese-Hamilton0.334
15Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Aybar-Hamilton-Iannetta-Rutledge-Freese-Joyce0.341
16Hamilton-Rutledge-Pujols-Joyce-Trout-Calhoun-Aybar-Iannetta-Freese0.347
17Hamilton-Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Joyce-Rutledge-Freese-Aybar-Iannetta0.381
18Calhoun-Trout-Pujols-Hamilton-Freese-Iannetta-Rutledge-Aybar-Joyce0.411
19Calhoun-Aybar-Hamilton-Pujols-Trout-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta-Joyce0.417
20Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Joyce-Rutledge-Iannetta-Freese-Aybar-Hamilton0.420
21Joyce-Aybar-Calhoun-Pujols-Trout-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta-Hamilton0.452
22Trout-Calhoun-Aybar-Pujols-Rutledge-Hamilton-Iannetta-Freese-Joyce0.456
23Trout-Aybar-Calhoun-Pujols-Hamilton-Iannetta-Joyce-Rutledge-Freese0.468
24Trout-Hamilton-Pujols-Joyce-Aybar-Iannetta-Rutledge-Calhoun-Freese0.478
25Pujols-Trout-Hamilton-Aybar-Calhoun-Freese-Iannetta-Rutledge-Joyce0.48
26Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Hamilton-Iannetta-Calhoun-Rutledge-Freese-Aybar0.481
27Joyce-Trout-Freese-Pujols-Hamilton-Aybar-Rutledge-Calhoun-Iannetta0.482
28Joyce-Trout-Aybar-Calhoun-Pujols-Hamilton-Iannetta-Freese-Rutledge0.485
29Joyce-Trout-Aybar-Pujols-Calhoun-Iannetta-Freese-Rutledge-Hamilton0.491
30Hamilton-Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Calhoun-Aybar-Rutledge-Iannetta-Freese0.492
31Calhoun-Trout-Pujols-Hamilton-Iannetta-Freese-Rutledge-Aybar-Joyce0.512
32Calhoun-Aybar-Pujols-Joyce-Trout-Rutledge-Freese-Iannetta-Hamilton0.522
33Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Hamilton-Rutledge-Iannetta-Calhoun-Freese-Aybar0.526
34Trout-Pujols-Calhoun-Freese-Hamilton-Rutledge-Joyce-Iannetta-Aybar0.529
35Joyce-Pujols-Freese-Calhoun-Trout-Hamilton-Rutledge-Iannetta-Aybar0.535
36Calhoun-Trout-Freese-Pujols-Joyce-Aybar-Iannetta-Rutledge-Hamilton0.542
37Hamilton-Trout-Joyce-Pujols-Calhoun-Freese-Rutledge-Iannetta-Aybar0.544
38Freese-Aybar-Pujols-Joyce-Trout-Calhoun-Iannetta-Rutledge-Hamilton0.545
39Trout-Iannetta-Hamilton-Pujols-Rutledge-Calhoun-Aybar-Freese-Joyce0.548
40Freese-Joyce-Pujols-Hamilton-Trout-Calhoun-Iannetta-Rutledge-Aybar0.553
41Calhoun-Freese-Pujols-Hamilton-Trout-Joyce-Rutledge-Iannetta-Aybar0.569
42Calhoun-Trout-Hamilton-Pujols-Iannetta-Freese-Joyce-Rutledge-Aybar0.581
43Calhoun-Trout-Pujols-Hamilton-Rutledge-Joyce-Iannetta-Aybar-Freese0.588
44Iannetta-Rutledge-Pujols-Joyce-Trout-Hamilton-Aybar-Calhoun-Freese0.612
45Trout-Joyce-Freese-Pujols-Rutledge-Calhoun-Aybar-Iannetta-Hamilton0.643
46Joyce-Trout-Aybar-Pujols-Hamilton-Freese-Iannetta-Calhoun-Rutledge0.644
47Trout-Calhoun-Pujols-Aybar-Rutledge-Joyce-Iannetta-Freese-Hamilton0.662
48Calhoun-Trout-Aybar-Hamilton-Pujols-Iannetta-Joyce-Rutledge-Freese0.675
49Trout-Freese-Hamilton-Pujols-Joyce-Aybar-Iannetta-Calhoun-Rutledge0.680
50Calhoun-Rutledge-Hamilton-Pujols-Joyce-Freese-Trout-Aybar-Iannetta0.689
********
ReverseIannetta-Aybar-Rutledge-Freese-Hamilton-Pujols-Joyce-Trout-Calhoun1.771
WorstIannetta-Freese-Aybar-Rutledge-Calhoun-Hamilton-Pujols-Trout-Joyce2.033
.
Analysis:  The first thing that sticks out to me is that the simulator does not like Mike Trout hitting 3rd or 4th for some reason.  It seems to only like him hitting 2nd, 1st or 5th.  It could be that it likes Mike Trout on base for when Albert Pujols and or Josh Hamilton coming up to bat.  And there are three players (Matt Joyce, Erick Aybar and David Freese) who get at least one listing at each spot in the batting order and Kole Calhoun slots into 8 different spots.   Pujols bats 3rd or 4th in 44 out of 50 scenarios and Trout bats 1st or 2nd in 39 out of 50.  Calhoun and Joyce are the next two hitters that you see at the top of the lineup frequently.  And at the bottom of the order you Iannetta, Freese, Rutledge and Aybar the most.
.
            Batting Order Frequency Table
1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th9th
Calhoun1265379260
Joyce1153864418
Trout172200100100
Pujols13212320000
Hamilton411011760011
Aybar2664545108
Freese22511881211
Rutledge04007101595
Iannetta11005915127
.
.

Wednesday, December 24, 2014

2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs LHP) Part II

.
I am looking at best lineup vs LHP again for the Dodgers using my simulator.  This time i substituted out Carl Crawford for Scott Van Slyke and substituted Joc Pederson out for Chris Heisey for platoon advantages purposes.  There are a few surprises here, mainly so many highly ranked permutations liking Van Slyke hitting leadoff.  Van Slyke mashes left handed pitching with both a high OBP and SLG with average speed at best.  So this is not a result you would see using traditional lineup building methods.  Of course very little logic and analytical thinking is put into the traditional methods as you tend to see a lot of inertial reasoning behind the arguments of where prototypical hitters should bat in the lineup.  So with no further ado, here are the Top 50 lineups vs LHP with the listed substitutions above along with a list of how many times each of the 8 hitters appears in each lineup spot.

Previous best lineup posts
Best Lineup vs RHP | Best Lineup vs LHP, Part 1

                                                      Top 50 Lineups
RankLineupWins/162 Behind
1Van Slyke-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0
2Van Slyke-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.012
3Van Slyke-Puig-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.022
4Van Slyke-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.059
5Van Slyke-Heisey-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.066
6Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.086
7Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Puig-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.087
8Van Slyke-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.145
9Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.163
10Van Slyke-Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.213
11Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.230
12Rollins-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Van Slyke-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.239
13Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.243
14Puig-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.252
15Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.288
16Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.289
17Van Slyke-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.291
18Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.308
19Van Slyke-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.315
20Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.315
21Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Heisey-Pitcher0.315
22Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Kendrick-Heisey-Pitcher0.321
23Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Heisey-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.323
24Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Kendrick-Van Slyke-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.340
25Puig-Gonzalez-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.371
26Van Slyke-Rollins-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher0.382
27Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.399
28Rollins-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher0.401
29Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Heisey-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.408
30Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.427
31Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher0.460
32Puig-Kendrick-Heisey-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Pitcher0.468
33Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Heisey-Puig-Uribe-Van Slyke-Grandal-Pitcher0.475
34Van Slyke-Heisey-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.492
35Rollins-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.500
36Rollins-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher0.500
37Uribe-Puig-Van Slyke-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Heisey-Grandal-Pitcher0.514
38Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.514
39Rollins-Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.541
40Van Slyke-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Heisey-Pitcher0.548
41Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Van Slyke-Uribe-Heisey-Pitcher0.555
42Heisey-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.586
43Kendrick-Uribe-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Grandal-Van Slyke-Heisey-Pitcher0.596
44Rollins-Gonzalez-Heisey-Kendrick-Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.626
45Uribe-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Van Slyke-Heisey-Pitcher0.630
46Van Slyke-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Heisey-Kendrick-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.643
47Puig-Van Slyke-Grandal-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Heisey-Uribe-Pitcher0.721
48Kendrick-Rollins-Van Slyke-Puig-Gonzalez-Heisey-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.744
49Puig-Van Slyke-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Uribe-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher0.749
50Puig-Van Slyke-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Heisey-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher1.035
.
.
              Count By Lineup Spot
Player1st2nd3rd4th5th6th7th8th
Van Slyke18125001140
Puig13141913000
Gonzalez0515255000
Kendrick658119920
Rollins997016720
Uribe335009219
Heisey1251451121
Grandal0044391020
.
.

Note: Each game/lineup simulated 100K times.
and Wins/162 is the number of wins you give up over a 162 game season by using the listed lineup vs the most efficient one (per the simulator).
.

Saturday, December 20, 2014

2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs LHP)


Now I take a look at the Dodgers best lineup(s) vs left handed pitchers. I used the same 8 starters as I did when I looked at best lineups vs RHP. I may do this again putting some right handed bats in for a few of the left handed hitters. You may notice that the best lineup vs RHP is ranked 9th vs LHP.

Previous Post: 2015 Dodgers Best Lineup (vs RHP)

                                                  Top 100 Batting Orders
RankLineupWins Behind
1Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher0.000
2Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.136
3Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher0.471
4Pederson-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher0.473
5Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.531
6Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.549
7Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher0.661
8Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher0.667
9Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher0.675
10Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.689
11Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher0.692
12Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.724
13Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.739
14Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher0.763
15Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher0.765
16Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.771
17Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher0.792
18Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.799
19Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.804
20Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Kendrick-Pitcher0.816
21Uribe-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher0.820
22Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.825
23Crawford-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.826
24Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher0.834
25Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.834
26Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher0.844
27Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher0.847
28Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.859
29Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher0.878
30Crawford-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher0.880
31Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher0.891
32Crawford-Rollins-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher0.897
33Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher0.910
34Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher0.936
35Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher0.940
36Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher0.943
37Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher0.944
38Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Kendrick-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher0.944
39Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Pitcher0.944
40Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.957
41Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher0.969
42Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher0.972
43Crawford-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.978
44Crawford-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher0.988
45Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher0.991
46Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher0.995
47Crawford-Puig-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher0.995
48Puig-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher0.996
49Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher1.009
50Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher1.009
51Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher1.014
52Pederson-Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.027
53Puig-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher1.043
54Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.048
55Crawford-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher1.055
56Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.055
57Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher1.077
58Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.092
59Kendrick-Uribe-Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.100
60Uribe-Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Pitcher1.106
61Pederson-Kendrick-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.124
62Pederson-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher1.129
63Pederson-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.144
64Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.149
65Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.150
66Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Pitcher1.165
67Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher1.166
68Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Uribe-Pederson-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.166
69Puig-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Pitcher1.171
70Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher1.173
71Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.183
72Pederson-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher1.189
73Kendrick-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher1.199
74Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.202
75Crawford-Kendrick-Grandal-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher1.210
76Crawford-Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Puig-Pederson-Kendrick-Uribe-Pitcher1.212
77Pederson-Rollins-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.213
78Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.215
79Kendrick-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher1.223
80Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Kendrick-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher1.225
81Rollins-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pederson-Pitcher1.226
82Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Uribe-Grandal-Pitcher1.231
83Crawford-Puig-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Rollins-Uribe-Pitcher1.256
84Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Gonzalez-Rollins-Kendrick-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.257
85Pederson-Puig-Grandal-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Kendrick-Pitcher1.259
86Rollins-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Crawford-Pitcher1.272
87Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Puig-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.273
88Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Crawford-Rollins-Grandal-Pitcher1.275
89Puig-Pederson-Uribe-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.278
90Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Grandal-Pederson-Uribe-Rollins-Crawford-Pitcher1.288
91Puig-Kendrick-Rollins-Gonzalez-Uribe-Pederson-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher1.288
92Puig-Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Grandal-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.296
93Rollins-Crawford-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher1.309
94Pederson-Uribe-Kendrick-Puig-Gonzalez-Rollins-Crawford-Grandal-Pitcher1.317
95Rollins-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Puig-Crawford-Grandal-Uribe-Pitcher1.332
96Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher1.341
97Puig-Pederson-Grandal-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Rollins-Crawford-Uribe-Pitcher1.348
98Crawford-Puig-Uribe-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Rollins-Pederson-Grandal-Pitcher1.354
99Pederson-Rollins-Kendrick-Gonzalez-Puig-Uribe-Grandal-Crawford-Pitcher1.367
100Crawford-Puig-Gonzalez-Kendrick-Grandal-Rollins-Pederson-Uribe-Pitcher1.377
.