As the 2015 Major League Baseball season approaches, signs point to this year as a good season to be a LA Dodgers fan. The organization made the move to bring in former Oakland Athletics’ GM, Farhan Zaidi back in November, and are primed for another run this coming season.
The new general manager, along with the new president of baseball operations, Andrew Friedman have had a very active off season thus far for their new club. After letting disgruntled shortstop Hanley Ramirez leave in free agency, they also agreed to pay $30 million of Matt Kemp’s salary in order to send the temperamental outfielder south to the San Diego Padres. In addition to those moves, they also traded for shortstop Jimmy Rollins and second baseman Howie Kendrick, two solid veterans with high character qualities that will pay dividends in the locker room. They also made a couple moves that many considered questionable, like the signing of Brandon McCarthy and Brett Anderson, who are both talented pitchers but who have struggled with injuries throughout most their careers. Regardless, both should help bolster the back end of the Dodgers rotation this season.
Besides the new additions, LA is also returning some of the biggest star players in the game, Clayton Kershaw and Yasiel Puig. Kershaw is well on his way to becoming a living legend as he became only the third starting pitcher in the history of the game to lead their league in ERA for four straight seasons, and there’s little reason to doubt that he can make this season his fifth straight in leading the league in ERA.
Backing up Kershaw in the outfield is arguably the most dynamic player in the game today, Yasiel Puig. The exciting and explosive Cuban-born player continues to be one of the most entertaining players in the league. With his rocket arm that can throw runners out at home from the warning track, his blazing speed which makes any gap single into a potential double, and his acrobatic catches he makes on a routine basis, Puig is quickly becoming one of the best all-around players in the game.
With some new faces running the show this season for the Dodgers, and some solid additions to their club, the Dodgers are once again expected to be right in the thick of things come playoff time of the 2015 baseball season. Plenty of story lines to look forward to this year, especially Kershaw’s attempt to go for his fifth straight season leading the league in ERA. It’s a great year to be a fan of LA Dodgers baseball, and we look forward to another successful campaign for the upcoming season.
This article was brought you by the handicapping experts at Sports Information Traders. For 2015 MLB Picks and predictions as well as sports betting tips to help you get through this years Major League Baseball season.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Wednesday, February 25, 2015
Miami Marlins - 2015 Most Optimal Lineups
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Miami Marlins (vs RHP). I started out with 15,000 almost random lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. Almost random, because I filtered out some obvious things like batting Stanton 8th or 9th or Dee Gordon cleanup etc... For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within 0.85 wins per 162 games which is a pretty wide range for a top 50 lineup list. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems and the projected lineup from MLB Depth Charts finished 1.65 wins/162 games behind (not good). You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. The simulator is a program that I wrote in C/C++ and I have back tested it against Vegas odds in the past to make sure it is good. The program plays actual games, with actual baseball rules and takes pretty much everything you can think of into consideration. This exercise is NOT trying to project what lineups the Marlins manager might or will actually use it is just outputting what it thinks are the best lineups. Once down to the top fifty lineups, I simulated each lineup 2 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 50 Lineups
Batting Order Frequency Table
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
.
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Miami Marlins (vs RHP). I started out with 15,000 almost random lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. Almost random, because I filtered out some obvious things like batting Stanton 8th or 9th or Dee Gordon cleanup etc... For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within 0.85 wins per 162 games which is a pretty wide range for a top 50 lineup list. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems and the projected lineup from MLB Depth Charts finished 1.65 wins/162 games behind (not good). You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. The simulator is a program that I wrote in C/C++ and I have back tested it against Vegas odds in the past to make sure it is good. The program plays actual games, with actual baseball rules and takes pretty much everything you can think of into consideration. This exercise is NOT trying to project what lineups the Marlins manager might or will actually use it is just outputting what it thinks are the best lineups. Once down to the top fifty lineups, I simulated each lineup 2 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 50 Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins/162 Games Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0 |
| 2 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.232 |
| 3 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.250 |
| 4 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.308 |
| 5 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Ozuna-Stanton-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.359 |
| 6 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.374 |
| 7 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher-Morse | 0.384 |
| 8 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Ozuna-Stanton-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.386 |
| 9 | Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.392 |
| 10 | Yelich-Gordon-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.438 |
| 11 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.443 |
| 12 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher-Morse | 0.448 |
| 13 | Ozuna-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Hechavarria-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.491 |
| 14 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Morse-Stanton-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.498 |
| 15 | Gordon-Prado-Yelich-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.525 |
| 16 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Morse-Stanton-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.541 |
| 17 | Yelich-Gordon-Stanton-Prado-Morse-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.543 |
| 18 | Gordon-Hechavarria-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.546 |
| 19 | Yelich-Gordon-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.553 |
| 20 | Yelich-Gordon-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher-Morse | 0.574 |
| 21 | Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.584 |
| 22 | Gordon-Ozuna-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.584 |
| 23 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Hechavarria-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher | 0.594 |
| 24 | Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Yelich-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.605 |
| 25 | Gordon-Yelich-Ozuna-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.613 |
| 26 | Gordon-Prado-Ozuna-Stanton-Yelich-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.633 |
| 27 | Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.641 |
| 28 | Gordon-Yelich-Morse-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.642 |
| 29 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.648 |
| 30 | Gordon-Prado-Yelich-Stanton-Morse-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.652 |
| 31 | Ozuna-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.653 |
| 32 | Prado-Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.659 |
| 33 | Gordon-Hechavarria-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Morse | 0.674 |
| 34 | Yelich-Gordon-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.678 |
| 35 | Yelich-Gordon-Ozuna-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.685 |
| 36 | Gordon-Morse-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.688 |
| 37 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Stanton-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher-Ozuna | 0.704 |
| 38 | Ozuna-Gordon-Prado-Yelich-Stanton-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.723 |
| 39 | Ozuna-Hechavarria-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Gordon-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.725 |
| 40 | Gordon-Morse-Prado-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.727 |
| 41 | Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Morse-Hechavarria-Salta-Pitcher | 0.735 |
| 42 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Morse-Hechavarria-Pitcher-Salta | 0.741 |
| 43 | Gordon-Prado-Morse-Stanton-Yelich-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.758 |
| 44 | Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Ozuna-Prado-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.770 |
| 45 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Ozuna-Morse-Stanton-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.771 |
| 46 | Prado-Gordon-Stanton-Ozuna-Yelich-Morse-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.775 |
| 47 | Yelich-Gordon-Morse-Stanton-Prado-Ozuna-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.775 |
| 48 | Yelich-Gordon-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Salta-Morse-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.799 |
| 49 | Gordon-Yelich-Prado-Morse-Ozuna-Stanton-Salta-Pitcher-Hechavarria | 0.810 |
| 50 | Gordon-Hechavarria-Prado-Stanton-Ozuna-Yelich-Morse-Salta-Pitcher | 0.855 |
| MLBDC | Gordon-Yelich-Stanton-Morse-Prado-Ozuna-Salta-Hechavarria-pitcher | 1.648 |
| BAD | Salta-Hechavarria-Morse-Gordon-Ozuna-Prado-Yelich-Stanton-Pitcher | 4.400 |
Batting Order Frequency Table
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gordon | 27 | 22 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Yelich | 17 | 15 | 3 | 2 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Prado | 2 | 6 | 29 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Stanton | 0 | 0 | 12 | 28 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ozuna | 4 | 1 | 3 | 6 | 20 | 14 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Morse | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 8 | 22 | 8 | 0 | 4 |
| Salta | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 33 | 15 | 1 |
| Hechavarria | 0 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 9 | 8 | 0 | 29 |
| Pitcher | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 35 | 15 |
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 48 | Salta | Pitcher |
| 2 | 29 | Pitcher | Hechavarria |
| 3 | 27 | Prado | Stanton |
| 4 | 23 | Morse | Salta |
| 5 | 19 | Gordon | Prado |
| 6 | 18 | Yelich | Gordon |
| 7 | 17 | Stanton | Ozuna |
| 8 | 16 | Gordon | Yelich |
| 9 | 16 | Hechavarria | Gordon |
| 10 | 13 | Ozuna | Morse |
| 11 | 13 | Ozuna | Salta |
| 12 | 12 | Prado | Ozuna |
| 13 | 11 | Stanton | Yelich |
| 14 | 11 | Stanton | Morse |
| 15 | 11 | Hechavarria | Salta |
| 16 | 10 | Hechavarria | Yelich |
| 17 | 9 | Yelich | Prado |
| 18 | 9 | Stanton | Prado |
| 19 | 9 | Ozuna | Hechavarria |
| 20 | 8 | Yelich | Stanton |
| 20 | 8 | Morse | Hechavarria |
| 20 | 8 | Pitcher | Gordon |
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 28 | Salta | Pitcher | Hechavarria |
| 2 | 23 | Morse | Salta | Pitcher |
| 3 | 16 | Pitcher | Hechavarria | Gordon |
| 4 | 12 | Ozuna | Salta | Pitcher |
| 5 | 11 | Gordon | Prado | Stanton |
| 6 | 11 | Prado | Stanton | Ozuna |
| 7 | 11 | Hechavarria | Salta | Pitcher |
| 8 | 10 | Yelich | Gordon | Prado |
| 9 | 10 | Hechavarria | Yelich | Gordon |
| 10 | 10 | Pitcher | Hechavarria | Yelich |
| 11 | 9 | Gordon | Yelich | Prado |
| 12 | 9 | Prado | Stanton | Yelich |
| 13 | 8 | Stanton | Prado | Ozuna |
| 14 | 8 | Salta | Pitcher | Gordon |
| 15 | 8 | Hechavarria | Gordon | Yelich |
| 16 | 7 | Prado | Stanton | Morse |
| 17 | 7 | Ozuna | Morse | Salta |
| 18 | 6 | Yelich | Prado | Stanton |
| 19 | 6 | Stanton | Yelich | Ozuna |
| 20 | 6 | Stanton | Ozuna | Morse |
| 20 | 6 | Morse | Hechavarria | Salta |
| 20 | 6 | Hechavarria | Gordon | Prado |
.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Dodgers Fantasy Outlook 2015
Author: Matt Smith
With one of the highest payrolls in the game, the Los Angeles Dodgers should be pretty competitive for the foreseeable future. However, for a franchise that has not won a World Series in over 25 years, being competitive is not enough. They have made some changes heading into the 2015 season to their roster, and the hope is that it is enough for regular and postseason success.
With one of the highest payrolls in the game, the Los Angeles Dodgers should be pretty competitive for the foreseeable future. However, for a franchise that has not won a World Series in over 25 years, being competitive is not enough. They have made some changes heading into the 2015 season to their roster, and the hope is that it is enough for regular and postseason success.
Even though they have a lot of fantasy baseball talent last season, nothing seemed to really click with the franchise consistently. They would play well in spurts, but then they would go on a cold streak. About the only dependable player on the roster was Clayton Kershaw, and ironically he became inconsistent as soon as the postseason began.
Andrew Feldman was brought in to help make better decisions in the front office for the Los Angeles Dodgers. With seemingly unlimited funds compared to what he was working with in Tampa Bay, it will be interesting to see what type of deals he pulls off in the future. Right away, he decided to go after veteran players who have championship pedigrees. Jimmy Rollins and Howie Kendrick can still provide value in fantasy baseball, but they will be just as important in the locker room.
Joc Pederson might not be new to the franchise, but he will now take over as the new everyday center fielder for the franchise. Many look at him as one of the top youngsters in the game, so he will need to hit the ground running in 2015. The franchise specifically made room for him by trading away some pretty decent talent, so it will be interesting to see what he does with a little bit more pressure on him.
Not only has losing been tough for the Los Angeles Dodgers in the postseason, but watching the San Francisco Giants win 3 World Series in the last 5 seasons stings. Hopefully, with some subtle moves, this team will be a bit better when the games matter most.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Minnesota Twins - 2015 Most Optimal Lineups
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Minnesota Twins. I started out with 25,000 almost random lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. Almost random, because I filtered out some obvious things like batting Joe Mauer 8th or 9th etc... For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within 0.35 wins per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems and the projected lineup from MLB Depth Charts finished 0.59 wins/162 games behind (not bad). You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. This exercise is NOT trying to project what lineups the Twins manager might or will actually use it is just outputting what it thinks are the best lineups. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups. The Twins have two left handed batters in the starting nine that I used. For this exercise, I assumed that there was no restriction on batting the two left handed batters (Mauer, Arcia) back to back. Obviously, if you add that restriction then 33 of these 50 lineups would be different.
Top 50 Lineups (vs RHP)
.
.
Batting Order Frequency Table
.
.
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
.
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Minnesota Twins. I started out with 25,000 almost random lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. Almost random, because I filtered out some obvious things like batting Joe Mauer 8th or 9th etc... For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within 0.35 wins per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems and the projected lineup from MLB Depth Charts finished 0.59 wins/162 games behind (not bad). You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. This exercise is NOT trying to project what lineups the Twins manager might or will actually use it is just outputting what it thinks are the best lineups. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups. The Twins have two left handed batters in the starting nine that I used. For this exercise, I assumed that there was no restriction on batting the two left handed batters (Mauer, Arcia) back to back. Obviously, if you add that restriction then 33 of these 50 lineups would be different.
Top 50 Lineups (vs RHP)
| Rank | Lineup | Wins/162 Games Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hunter-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki-Dozier | 0 |
| 2 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Hunter-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki-Dozier | 0.013 |
| 3 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hunter-Dozier-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.018 |
| 4 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Dozier-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hicks-Hunter | 0.027 |
| 5 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Plouffe-Hunter-Hicks-Suzuki-Dozier | 0.033 |
| 6 | Dozier-Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hicks-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hunter | 0.048 |
| 7 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Dozier-Hunter-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki | 0.055 |
| 8 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Plouffe-Hicks-Hunter-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.061 |
| 9 | Hunter-Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Dozier-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.087 |
| 10 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hunter-Hicks-Plouffe-Suzuki-Dozier | 0.097 |
| 11 | Dozier-Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hunter-Hicks-Suzuki-Plouffe | 0.101 |
| 12 | Hicks-Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Hunter-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.105 |
| 13 | Dozier-Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hicks-Hunter-Plouffe-Suzuki | 0.106 |
| 14 | Dozier-Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Plouffe-Hunter-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.109 |
| 15 | Dozier-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Hicks-Santana-Suzuki-Hunter-Plouffe | 0.113 |
| 16 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki-Hicks-Hunter | 0.117 |
| 17 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Hicks-Suzuki-Plouffe-Dozier-Hunter | 0.119 |
| 18 | Santana-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hicks-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki-Hunter | 0.120 |
| 19 | Santana-Hunter-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.123 |
| 20 | Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Hunter-Dozier-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hicks | 0.136 |
| 21 | Santana-Suzuki-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Plouffe-Hunter-Dozier-Hicks | 0.143 |
| 22 | Hunter-Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Plouffe-Hicks-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.147 |
| 23 | Santana-Hunter-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki | 0.151 |
| 24 | Hunter-Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki-Dozier | 0.155 |
| 25 | Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Hicks-Suzuki-Hunter-Plouffe-Dozier | 0.160 |
| 26 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Hicks-Dozier-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hunter | 0.161 |
| 27 | Santana-Hunter-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.183 |
| 28 | Hicks-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Dozier-Santana-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hunter | 0.186 |
| 29 | Hunter-Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hicks-Dozier | 0.193 |
| 30 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Dozier-Suzuki-Hicks-Plouffe-Hunter | 0.197 |
| 31 | Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Hicks-Hunter-Plouffe-Suzuki | 0.200 |
| 32 | Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Hunter-Suzuki-Hicks-Plouffe | 0.209 |
| 33 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Hunter-Arcia-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.211 |
| 34 | Hicks-Santana-Hunter-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Dozier-Suzuki-Plouffe | 0.222 |
| 35 | Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Hicks-Plouffe-Hunter-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.226 |
| 36 | Dozier-Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hunter-Hicks | 0.229 |
| 37 | Santana-Vargas-Hunter-Mauer-Arcia-Hicks-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.230 |
| 38 | Arcia-Santana-Vargas-Mauer-Dozier-Hunter-Hicks-Suzuki-Plouffe | 0.231 |
| 39 | Santana-Hunter-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Hicks-Plouffe-Dozier-Suzuki | 0.236 |
| 40 | Santana-Mauer-Vargas-Dozier-Arcia-Hunter-Plouffe-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.242 |
| 41 | Santana-Hunter-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Vargas-Hicks-Plouffe-Suzuki | 0.242 |
| 42 | Santana-Suzuki-Mauer-Arcia-Plouffe-Vargas-Hunter-Dozier-Hicks | 0.247 |
| 43 | Santana-Hunter-Arcia-Mauer-Vargas-Plouffe-Dozier-Hicks-Suzuki | 0.254 |
| 44 | Santana-Dozier-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Hunter-Plouffe-Hicks-Suzuki | 0.263 |
| 45 | Hunter-Dozier-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Santana-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hicks | 0.272 |
| 46 | Dozier-Mauer-Arcia-Vargas-Santana-Hunter-Suzuki-Plouffe-Hicks | 0.277 |
| 47 | Santana-Suzuki-Mauer-Vargas-Hicks-Arcia-Plouffe-Dozier-Hunter | 0.282 |
| 48 | Dozier-Hicks-Mauer-Vargas-Arcia-Santana-Hunter-Suzuki-Plouffe | 0.290 |
| 49 | Hicks-Dozier-Vargas-Mauer-Arcia-Santana-Hunter-Plouffe-Suzuki | 0.299 |
| 50 | Santana-Hunter-Mauer-Arcia-Dozier-Vargas-Suzuki-Hicks-Plouffe | 0.345 |
| .. | .. | .. |
| MLB | Santana-Dozier-Mauer-Vargas-Hunter-Plouffe-Arcia-Suzuki-Hicks | 0.587 |
| BAD | Suzuki-Plouffe-Hicks-Dozier-Santana-Arcia-Vargas-Hunter-Mauer | 1.714 |
.
Batting Order Frequency Table
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Santana | 32 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mauer | 0 | 18 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Arcia | 1 | 0 | 9 | 23 | 16 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Vargas | 0 | 6 | 19 | 13 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Hunter | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 5 | 9 | 10 | 2 | 9 |
| Plouffe | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 13 | 14 | 12 | 7 |
| Hicks | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7 | 7 | 9 | 9 | 13 |
| Suzuki | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 4 | 12 | 17 | 14 |
| Dozier | 8 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 7 |
.
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 33 | Mauer | Arcia |
| 2 | 22 | Santana | Mauer |
| 3 | 16 | Mauer | Vargas |
| 4 | 16 | Arcia | Vargas |
| 5 | 15 | Dozier | Suzuki |
| 6 | 14 | Vargas | Mauer |
| 7 | 14 | Plouffe | Dozier |
| 8 | 14 | Suzuki | Hicks |
| 9 | 13 | Plouffe | Hicks |
| 10 | 13 | Hicks | Suzuki |
| 11 | 12 | Vargas | Arcia |
| 12 | 12 | Suzuki | Plouffe |
| 13 | 11 | Santana | Hunter |
| 14 | 11 | Hunter | Santana |
| 15 | 11 | Hunter | Plouffe |
| 16 | 11 | Plouffe | Suzuki |
| 17 | 11 | Hicks | Santana |
| 18 | 11 | Dozier | Santana |
| 19 | 10 | Santana | Vargas |
| 20 | 10 | Arcia | Plouffe |
| 20 | 10 | Suzuki | Santana |
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 16 | Mauer | Arcia | Vargas |
| 2 | 13 | Vargas | Mauer | Arcia |
| 3 | 12 | Mauer | Vargas | Arcia |
| 4 | 11 | Santana | Mauer | Arcia |
| 5 | 11 | Santana | Mauer | Vargas |
| 6 | 9 | Santana | Vargas | Mauer |
| 7 | 8 | Hunter | Santana | Mauer |
| 8 | 8 | Dozier | Santana | Mauer |
| 9 | 7 | Plouffe | Dozier | Suzuki |
| 10 | 6 | Mauer | Arcia | Dozier |
| 11 | 6 | Plouffe | Hicks | Suzuki |
| 12 | 6 | Plouffe | Suzuki | Hicks |
| 13 | 6 | Suzuki | Hicks | Santana |
| 14 | 5 | Mauer | Arcia | Plouffe |
| 15 | 5 | Hunter | Mauer | Arcia |
| 16 | 5 | Suzuki | Plouffe | Hicks |
| 17 | 5 | Suzuki | Dozier | Santana |
| 18 | 5 | Dozier | Suzuki | Hicks |
| 19 | 4 | Santana | Hunter | Mauer |
| 20 | 4 | Arcia | Vargas | Hunter |
.
Tuesday, February 10, 2015
Toronto Blue Jays - 2015 Most Optimal Lineups
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Toronto Blue Jays. I started out with over 100,000 permutations of lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within a half of a win per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems. You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup.bbThe simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. Sure, the Blue Jays manager won't use many of these lineups because they might not be prototypical but that is not part of the exercise. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 50 Lineups
Batting Order Frequency Table
.
.
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
Reyes: Switch hitter with good speed and doesn't strike-out a lot. Has a nearly identical lineup profile as Saunders does.
Encarnacion: Good power and draws a nice amount of walks. The simulator likes him hitting either third or fourth but also makes an appearance at each lineup spot 1 thru 7.
Bautista: Great power and draws a lot of walks. Here is your cleanup hitter. If not cleanup can also fit in as the #3 hitter.
Donaldson: Like many of the players to follow, the simulator shows Donaldson with a lot of lineup position diversity. His best spot is fifth but also shines at 6th and 7th. Donaldson hits for good power but doesn't hit RHP real well (compared to LHP).
Pompey: Good speed and will clear the bases with an occasional triple. The simulator likes him hitting 6th the most but can find a good lineup to fit in at any of the non traditional power spots (3-4-5).
Izturis: Doesn't do anything real well on the offensive side but the simulator find him doing the least amount of damage batting either ninth or seventh and surprisingly finds his way to the third spot in seven of the top fifty lineups.
Navarro: Definitely the turtle of the team, the simulator likes him batting 8th though it can live with him in the sixth thru ninth spots. While a switch hitter, Navarro does much better historically against LHP.
Martin: Makes three appearances in seven different lineup spots on the top fifty lineup chart. Though the simulator does like Martin hitting 9th, almost as a second leadoff hitter.
............................................................................................................................
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 Toronto Blue Jays. I started out with over 100,000 permutations of lineups and I slowly widdled it down to the top 50 lineups. For the starting nine players, I used the projected starting lineup from MLB Depth Charts The top 50 lineups all came within a half of a win per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems. You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors, such as rookies not being allowed to hit near the top of the lineup.bbThe simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. Sure, the Blue Jays manager won't use many of these lineups because they might not be prototypical but that is not part of the exercise. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 50 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 50 Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins/162 Behind |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Saunders-Pompey-Encarnacion-Bautista-Reyes-Izturis-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin | 0.000 |
| 2 | Izturis-Reyes-Encarnacion-Bautista-Saunders-Martin-Donaldson-Pompey-Navarro | 0.030 |
| 3 | Reyes-Saunders-Bautista-Encarnacion-Martin-Donaldson-Navarro-Pompey-Izturis | 0.038 |
| 4 | Saunders-Reyes-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Pompey-Navarro-Izturis-Martin | 0.058 |
| 5 | Reyes-Saunders-Encarnacion-Bautista-Donaldson-Pompey-Izturis-Navarro-Martin | 0.070 |
| 6 | Reyes-Saunders-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Pompey-Izturis-Navarro-Martin | 0.077 |
| 7 | Saunders-Pompey-Encarnacion-Bautista-Reyes-Izturis-Donaldson-Martin-Navarro | 0.079 |
| 8 | Saunders-Reyes-Izturis-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin-Pompey | 0.106 |
| 9 | Martin-Reyes-Encarnacion-Bautista-Saunders-Donaldson-Navarro-Pompey-Izturis | 0.125 |
| 10 | Bautista-Reyes-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Saunders-Pompey-Izturis-Navarro-Martin | 0.148 |
| 11 | Saunders-Donaldson-Encarnacion-Bautista-Reyes-Izturis-Pompey-Navarro-Martin | 0.158 |
| 12 | Saunders-Reyes-Encarnacion-Bautista-Izturis-Pompey-Navarro-Donaldson-Martin | 0.175 |
| 13 | Saunders-Reyes-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin-Izturis-Pompey | 0.181 |
| 14 | Saunders-Reyes-Izturis-Encarnacion-Bautista-Pompey-Navarro-Donaldson-Martin | 0.186 |
| 15 | Reyes-Saunders-Donaldson-Encarnacion-Bautista-Pompey-Navarro-Martin-Izturis | 0.197 |
| 16 | Pompey-Reyes-Izturis-Bautista-Encarnacion-Saunders-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin | 0.199 |
| 17 | Reyes-Encarnacion-Martin-Bautista-Saunders-Navarro-Donaldson-Pompey-Izturis | 0.201 |
| 18 | Izturis-Reyes-Encarnacion-Bautista-Donaldson-Saunders-Martin-Pompey-Navarro | 0.212 |
| 19 | Reyes-Izturis-Encarnacion-Bautista-Saunders-Navarro-Martin-Donaldson-Pompey | 0.214 |
| 20 | Saunders-Izturis-Martin-Bautista-Reyes-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Pompey-Navarro | 0.222 |
| 21 | Saunders-Reyes-Encarnacion-Bautista-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin-Izturis-Pompey | 0.226 |
| 22 | Reyes-Saunders-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Pompey-Martin-Izturis-Navarro | 0.228 |
| 23 | Saunders-Reyes-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Pompey-Izturis-Martin-Navarro | 0.239 |
| 24 | Reyes-Saunders-Encarnacion-Bautista-Martin-Donaldson-Izturis-Pompey-Navarro | 0.240 |
| 25 | Reyes-Saunders-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Navarro-Pompey-Izturis-Martin | 0.240 |
| 26 | Reyes-Encarnacion-Martin-Bautista-Donaldson-Pompey-Navarro-Saunders-Izturis | 0.249 |
| 27 | Saunders-Pompey-Bautista-Encarnacion-Reyes-Izturis-Navarro-Donaldson-Martin | 0.254 |
| 28 | Reyes-Saunders-Martin-Encarnacion-Bautista-Navarro-Donaldson-Pompey-Izturis | 0.265 |
| 29 | Saunders-Reyes-Martin-Encarnacion-Bautista-Pompey-Donaldson-Izturis-Navarro | 0.275 |
| 30 | Pompey-Reyes-Bautista-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Martin-Saunders-Navarro-Izturis | 0.281 |
| 31 | Saunders-Martin-Encarnacion-Bautista-Reyes-Donaldson-Izturis-Navarro-Pompey | 0.291 |
| 32 | Donaldson-Pompey-Bautista-Saunders-Reyes-Izturis-Encarnacion-Navarro-Martin | 0.293 |
| 33 | Reyes-Saunders-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Bautista-Pompey-Izturis-Navarro-Martin | 0.296 |
| 34 | Saunders-Reyes-Izturis-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Martin-Bautista-Pompey-Navarro | 0.300 |
| 35 | Saunders-Pompey-Bautista-Encarnacion-Martin-Donaldson-Reyes-Navarro-Izturis | 0.301 |
| 36 | Bautista-Saunders-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Reyes-Martin-Pompey-Navarro-Izturis | 0.309 |
| 37 | Reyes-Saunders-Bautista-Donaldson-Encarnacion-Pompey-Izturis-Navarro-Martin | 0.310 |
| 38 | Donaldson-Reyes-Bautista-Encarnacion-Saunders-Pompey-Navarro-Martin-Izturis | 0.313 |
| 39 | Encarnacion-Donaldson-Martin-Bautista-Reyes-Saunders-Izturis-Navarro-Pompey | 0.333 |
| 40 | Pompey-Martin-Encarnacion-Bautista-Saunders-Reyes-Izturis-Donaldson-Navarro | 0.338 |
| 41 | Bautista-Saunders-Martin-Encarnacion-Reyes-Donaldson-Pompey-Navarro-Izturis | 0.338 |
| 42 | Izturis-Saunders-Encarnacion-Bautista-Reyes-Pompey-Donaldson-Navarro-Martin | 0.340 |
| 43 | Reyes-Martin-Encarnacion-Bautista-Donaldson-Pompey-Saunders-Navarro-Izturis | 0.352 |
| 44 | Encarnacion-Reyes-Bautista-Donaldson-Saunders-Pompey-Navarro-Martin-Izturis | 0.362 |
| 45 | Reyes-Navarro-Encarnacion-Bautista-Saunders-Donaldson-Izturis-Pompey-Martin | 0.362 |
| 46 | Encarnacion-Saunders-Donaldson-Bautista-Reyes-Martin-Izturis-Navarro-Pompey | 0.363 |
| 47 | Donaldson-Saunders-Izturis-Bautista-Reyes-Pompey-Encarnacion-Navarro-Martin | 0.367 |
| 48 | Donaldson-Saunders-Izturis-Bautista-Reyes-Encarnacion-Pompey-Navarro-Martin | 0.394 |
| 49 | Reyes-Donaldson-Martin-Bautista-Saunders-Encarnacion-Pompey-Navarro-Izturis | 0.417 |
| 50 | Bautista-Reyes-Izturis-Encarnacion-Donaldson-Saunders-Martin-Navarro-Pompey | 0.442 |
| .. | ||
| BAD | Navarro-Izturis-Reyes-Saunders-Pompey-Martin-Donaldson-Encarnacion-Bautista | 2.125 |
Batting Order Frequency Table
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saunders | 16 | 16 | 0 | 1 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Reyes | 16 | 18 | 0 | 0 | 14 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Encarnacion | 3 | 2 | 19 | 18 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Bautista | 4 | 0 | 14 | 26 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Donaldson | 4 | 3 | 2 | 5 | 14 | 8 | 9 | 5 | 0 |
| Pompey | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 18 | 6 | 10 | 8 |
| Izturis | 3 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 1 | 5 | 12 | 6 | 14 |
| Navarro | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 11 | 22 | 10 |
| Martin | 1 | 3 | 8 | 0 | 3 | 5 | 6 | 6 | 18 |
.
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 20 | Encarnacion | Bautista |
| 2 | 19 | Navarro | Martin |
| 3 | 17 | Pompey | Navarro |
| 4 | 15 | Encarnacion | Donaldson |
| 5 | 14 | Donaldson | Pompey |
| 6 | 13 | Bautista | Encarnacion |
| 7 | 12 | Reyes | Izturis |
| 8 | 12 | Bautista | Reyes |
| 9 | 11 | Saunders | Reyes |
| 10 | 11 | Reyes | Saunders |
| 11 | 11 | Pompey | Izturis |
| 12 | 11 | Izturis | Navarro |
| 13 | 10 | Reyes | Encarnacion |
| 14 | 10 | Bautista | Saunders |
| 15 | 10 | Donaldson | Navarro |
| 16 | 9 | Izturis | Reyes |
| 17 | 9 | Navarro | Izturis |
| 18 | 8 | Donaldson | Martin |
| 19 | 8 | Navarro | Pompey |
| 20 | 8 | Martin | Donaldson |
| 20 | 8 | Martin | Izturis |
20 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8 | Bautista | Encarnacion | Donaldson |
| 2 | 6 | Donaldson | Navarro | Martin |
| 3 | 6 | Pompey | Navarro | Izturis |
| 4 | 6 | Navarro | Martin | Izturis |
| 5 | 5 | Saunders | Reyes | Izturis |
| 6 | 5 | Reyes | Saunders | Bautista |
| 7 | 5 | Reyes | Encarnacion | Bautista |
| 8 | 5 | Reyes | Bautista | Encarnacion |
| 9 | 5 | Reyes | Izturis | Encarnacion |
| 10 | 5 | Encarnacion | Bautista | Saunders |
| 11 | 5 | Encarnacion | Bautista | Reyes |
| 12 | 5 | Encarnacion | Donaldson | Pompey |
| 13 | 5 | Donaldson | Pompey | Izturis |
| 14 | 5 | Donaldson | Pompey | Navarro |
| 15 | 5 | Pompey | Izturis | Navarro |
| 16 | 5 | Pompey | Navarro | Martin |
| 17 | 5 | Izturis | Navarro | Martin |
| 18 | 5 | Martin | Reyes | Saunders |
| 19 | 5 | Martin | Encarnacion | Bautista |
| 20 | 4 | Saunders | Bautista | Encarnacion |
Analysis
Saunders: Hits left-handed and does well against RHP. Has decent speed and power and the simulator likes him hitting either first or second and can live with him hitting fifth as well.Reyes: Switch hitter with good speed and doesn't strike-out a lot. Has a nearly identical lineup profile as Saunders does.
Encarnacion: Good power and draws a nice amount of walks. The simulator likes him hitting either third or fourth but also makes an appearance at each lineup spot 1 thru 7.
Bautista: Great power and draws a lot of walks. Here is your cleanup hitter. If not cleanup can also fit in as the #3 hitter.
Donaldson: Like many of the players to follow, the simulator shows Donaldson with a lot of lineup position diversity. His best spot is fifth but also shines at 6th and 7th. Donaldson hits for good power but doesn't hit RHP real well (compared to LHP).
Pompey: Good speed and will clear the bases with an occasional triple. The simulator likes him hitting 6th the most but can find a good lineup to fit in at any of the non traditional power spots (3-4-5).
Izturis: Doesn't do anything real well on the offensive side but the simulator find him doing the least amount of damage batting either ninth or seventh and surprisingly finds his way to the third spot in seven of the top fifty lineups.
Navarro: Definitely the turtle of the team, the simulator likes him batting 8th though it can live with him in the sixth thru ninth spots. While a switch hitter, Navarro does much better historically against LHP.
Martin: Makes three appearances in seven different lineup spots on the top fifty lineup chart. Though the simulator does like Martin hitting 9th, almost as a second leadoff hitter.
............................................................................................................................
Tuesday, February 03, 2015
San Francisco Giants - 2015 Most Optimal Lineup
.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 San Francisco Giants. I started out with over 2,000 permutations of lineups, a group that was filtered to remove such things as left handed hitters hitting back to back or the pitcher not hitting 8th or 9th etc... and I slowly widdled it down to the top 25 lineups. I also compared the best lineup against the lineup that MLB Depth Charts (0.40 wins/162 games worse) shows as a likely lineup and also one of the worst lineups to see what kind of spread there is. The top 25 lineups all came within a half of a win per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems. You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors. It is not like Joe Panik's mom is going to be calling up Giants management in tears asking for Joe not to bat 4th because he is going to have to change his approach at the plate. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. Sure, the Giants manager won't use many of these lineups because they might not be prototypical but that is not part of the exercise. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 25 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 25 Optimal Lineups
Batting Order Frequency Table
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences in Lineup:
10 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences in Lineup:
Aoki: Like Pagan, the simulator pegs Aoki at one of the first two spots in the lineup with the occasional drop to fifth. There are even two appearances in the top 50 lineups with Aoki batting 9th.
Posey: The Giants will get the most bang for their buck with Posey hitting third or fourth which is really the only two spots the Giants would ever hit him in.
Belt: Shows up in many different lineup spots with second thru sixth being the best spots for him. Belt finds himself paired either in front of or immediately after Pence in the lineup in 33 of the top 50 lineups. The threesome of Posey-Belt-Pence show up as the second most likely consecutive trio in the top lineups.
Pence: Finds himself all over the radar on the first six lineup spots with fifth and sixth being his best spots. Which is pretty much in line where Pence expects to bat in the 2015 lineup.
Panik: Appears all over the place in the top 50 lineups. The only two spots he doesn't appear in is leadoff and eighth. Panik makes more than a few surprise appearances in the middle of the lineup in the top list which may come as a surprise. The Giants won't likely bat him in the middle of the lineup but the simulator does not take into account psychological reasons (like experience) for not batting a player in a certain spot. With the L-R-L requirement Panik ends up all over the place.
McGeHee: Looks to be a solid fit at the seventh and eighth spots as a late source of power in the lineup before the black hole of the pitcher bats. McGeHee-Pitcher is the number one most common consecutive batting duo in the lineup and McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford is the number one most common threesome.
Crawford: He shows up all over the place but is a best fit hitting seventh, eighth, ninth or leadoff.
Pitcher: The pitcher shows up hitting eighth in 42% of the top lineups. Most MLB managers will not hit the pitcher eighth for psychological reasons but if done correctly with the right personnel and lineup construction it is a good thing.
I am using my simulator that plays actual baseball games to find what it believes are the most optimal lineups for the 2015 San Francisco Giants. I started out with over 2,000 permutations of lineups, a group that was filtered to remove such things as left handed hitters hitting back to back or the pitcher not hitting 8th or 9th etc... and I slowly widdled it down to the top 25 lineups. I also compared the best lineup against the lineup that MLB Depth Charts (0.40 wins/162 games worse) shows as a likely lineup and also one of the worst lineups to see what kind of spread there is. The top 25 lineups all came within a half of a win per 162 games so really anything in that range is pretty good. When you start nearing a full win differential with the top lineup then you definitely have problems. You will see a few lineups that may seem strange in a most optimal list but keep in mind the simulator does not take into account psychological factors. It is not like Joe Panik's mom is going to be calling up Giants management in tears asking for Joe not to bat 4th because he is going to have to change his approach at the plate. The simulator just takes the Steamer projection inputs along with a speed rating for base running and gives you the best lineups. Sure, the Giants manager won't use many of these lineups because they might not be prototypical but that is not part of the exercise. I typically simulated each lineup over 1 million times which eliminated a large portion of the random noise and I did so only against a right handed pitcher. Below are a list of the top 25 lineups and a batting order spot frequency table, where you can see how many times each player appeared in each of the top 50 lineups.
Top 25 Optimal Lineups
| Rank | Lineup | Wins behind/162 games |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Panik-Pence-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.000 |
| 2 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pence-Panik-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.027 |
| 3 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher-Panik | 0.060 |
| 4 | Aoki-Pagan-Panik-Posey-Belt-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.116 |
| 5 | Crawford-Pagan-Belt-Posey-Aoki-Pence-Panik-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.239 |
| 6 | Pence-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pagan-Panik-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.247 |
| 7 | Aoki-Pagan-Belt-Posey-Panik-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.258 |
| 8 | Aoki-Pagan-Belt-Posey-Crawford-Pence-Panik-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.263 |
| 9 | Belt-Pagan-Panik-Posey-Aoki-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.277 |
| 10 | Pence-Aoki-Posey-Panik-Pagan-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.286 |
| 11 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Panik-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher-Belt | 0.294 |
| 12 | Aoki-Pagan-Panik-Posey-Crawford-Pence-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.296 |
| 13 | Crawford-Pagan-Panik-Posey-Aoki-Pence-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.301 |
| 14 | Aoki-Pence-Panik-Posey-Belt-Pagan-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.321 |
| 15 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Crawford-Pence-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher-Panik | 0.325 |
| 16 | Pagan-Aoki-Pence-Panik-Posey-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.327 |
| 17 | Pagan-Panik-Posey-Belt-Pence-Aoki-McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford | 0.357 |
| 18 | Belt-Pence-Crawford-Posey-Aoki-Pagan-Panik-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.360 |
| 19 | Aoki-Pagan-Panik-Pence-Belt-Posey-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.361 |
| 20 | Crawford-Pagan-Panik-Pence-Aoki-Posey-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.393 |
| 21 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pence-Panik-McGeHee-Crawford-Pitcher | 0.400 |
| 22 | Pence-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pagan-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher-Panik | 0.407 |
| 23 | Pagan-Panik-Posey-Belt-Pence-Crawford-McGeHee-Pitcher-Aoki | 0.428 |
| 24 | Crawford-Pence-Panik-Posey-Aoki-Pagan-Belt-McGeHee-Pitcher | 0.442 |
| 25 | Pagan-Aoki-Posey-Belt-Pence-Panik-McGeHee-Crawford-Pitcher | 0.442 |
| .. | ||
| Bad | McGeHee-Belt-Pagan-Aoki-Pence-Panik-Crawford-Posey-Pitcher | 2.438 |
Batting Order Frequency Table
| 1st | 2nd | 3rd | 4th | 5th | 6th | 7th | 8th | 9th | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pagan | 19 | 17 | 0 | 0 | 5 | 9 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Aoki | 17 | 17 | 0 | 1 | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 |
| Posey | 0 | 3 | 24 | 17 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Belt | 3 | 1 | 8 | 14 | 10 | 8 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Pence | 4 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 18 | 11 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Panik | 0 | 5 | 14 | 7 | 2 | 8 | 8 | 0 | 6 |
| McGeHee | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 24 | 21 | 1 |
| Crawford | 7 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | 13 | 8 | 10 |
| Pitcher | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 21 | 29 |
Synergy
20 Most Common Back to Back Occurrences in Lineup:
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 37 | McGeHee | Pitcher |
| 2 | 22 | Pagan | Panik |
| 3 | 22 | Posey | Belt |
| 4 | 19 | Aoki | Posey |
| 5 | 18 | Pitcher | Aoki |
| 6 | 17 | Aoki | Pagan |
| 7 | 17 | Belt | Pence |
| 8 | 17 | Pitcher | Crawford |
| 9 | 16 | Pence | Belt |
| 10 | 16 | Panik | McGeHee |
| 11 | 15 | Pagan | Aoki |
| 12 | 15 | Panik | Posey |
| 13 | 13 | Belt | McGeHee |
| 14 | 13 | Crawford | Pagan |
| 15 | 13 | Crawford | Pitcher |
| 16 | 12 | Pence | Panik |
| 17 | 12 | Panik | Pence |
| 18 | 12 | Crawford | McGeHee |
| 19 | 11 | McGeHee | Crawford |
| 20 | 10 | Aoki | Pence |
| 20 | 10 | Posey | Panik |
| 20 | 10 | Belt | Pagan |
| 20 | 10 | Belt | Posey |
10 Most Common Back to Back to Back Occurrences in Lineup:
| Rank | Occurrences | Player 1 | Player 2 | Player 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 17 | McGeHee | Pitcher | Crawford |
| 2 | 15 | Posey | Belt | Pence |
| 3 | 12 | Pagan | Aoki | Posey |
| 4 | 12 | Panik | McGeHee | Pitcher |
| 5 | 12 | McGeHee | Pitcher | Aoki |
| 6 | 12 | Crawford | McGeHee | Pitcher |
| 7 | 12 | Pitcher | Aoki | Pagan |
| 8 | 11 | Pagan | Panik | Posey |
| 9 | 11 | Aoki | Pagan | Panik |
| 10 | 11 | McGeHee | Crawford | Pitcher |
| 10 | 11 | Pitcher | Crawford | Pagan |
Analysis
Pagan: The simulator likes the switch hitting Pagan batting first or second in the lineup. There are a couple of permutations where the simulator likes Pagan batting sixth but he seems best suited for the top of the lineup which is where he is likely to bat in reality.Aoki: Like Pagan, the simulator pegs Aoki at one of the first two spots in the lineup with the occasional drop to fifth. There are even two appearances in the top 50 lineups with Aoki batting 9th.
Posey: The Giants will get the most bang for their buck with Posey hitting third or fourth which is really the only two spots the Giants would ever hit him in.
Belt: Shows up in many different lineup spots with second thru sixth being the best spots for him. Belt finds himself paired either in front of or immediately after Pence in the lineup in 33 of the top 50 lineups. The threesome of Posey-Belt-Pence show up as the second most likely consecutive trio in the top lineups.
Pence: Finds himself all over the radar on the first six lineup spots with fifth and sixth being his best spots. Which is pretty much in line where Pence expects to bat in the 2015 lineup.
Panik: Appears all over the place in the top 50 lineups. The only two spots he doesn't appear in is leadoff and eighth. Panik makes more than a few surprise appearances in the middle of the lineup in the top list which may come as a surprise. The Giants won't likely bat him in the middle of the lineup but the simulator does not take into account psychological reasons (like experience) for not batting a player in a certain spot. With the L-R-L requirement Panik ends up all over the place.
McGeHee: Looks to be a solid fit at the seventh and eighth spots as a late source of power in the lineup before the black hole of the pitcher bats. McGeHee-Pitcher is the number one most common consecutive batting duo in the lineup and McGeHee-Pitcher-Crawford is the number one most common threesome.
Crawford: He shows up all over the place but is a best fit hitting seventh, eighth, ninth or leadoff.
Pitcher: The pitcher shows up hitting eighth in 42% of the top lineups. Most MLB managers will not hit the pitcher eighth for psychological reasons but if done correctly with the right personnel and lineup construction it is a good thing.