Ranking the Lineup Positions 2006

by David S. Cohen on Jan 2, 2007 2:05 PM EST in News

Last year, I ranked the MLB lineup positions by OBP and found it quite interesting, so I figured I'd try it again for 2006. Yes, we're in 2007 now, but these numbers give us a good insight into where the Phils' offensive strengths and weaknesses lay last year. With that info, we can better evaluate the team's moves so far (and those forthcoming) for 2007.

So, to describe this again, these charts are a very simple ranking by OPS (if tied, then by OBP) of every team's lineup position for 2006. For example, reading the first line of the chart below indicates that the best lineup position in all of baseball last year was the Cardinals' number 3 spot. It's pretty obvious why: unlike Ryan Howard, Albert Pujols didn't shift in the Cardinals lineup, so other than the time Pujols spent on the DL, the Cardinals had his amazing production almost every time the third spot in the lineup came to the plate.

How'd the Phils fare? As you'd expect from the NL's top scoring offense, very nicely. The Phils (highlighted in bold in the charts below) had 4 of the top 45 offensive lineup spots and 6 of the top 104. The problem, as with 2005, is that the three other spots were pretty bad. But, unlike 2005, the three other spots were 6-8-9, not 7-8-9. Thanks to the surprising second-half from the Phils' catchers, the number 7 spot in their lineup was pretty good.

The other thing to note about the Phils is how atrocious their 9-hole hitting was again in 2006. In 2005, it was the second worst in baseball. Last year, the team did 2005 one better, taking the trophy for the worst lineup spot in the majors with a .419 OPS. Imagine what the Phils offense could do with league-average hitting pitchers and pinch hitters.

Here's the beginning of the list, numbers 1 through 100. 101-200 and 201-270 are listed in separate stories.

Rank	TEAM	Position	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
1	St. Louis	3	0.333	0.429	0.662	1.091
2	Boston	3	0.278	0.404	0.607	1.010
3	Chicago Sox	5	0.334	0.391	0.610	1.002
4	Boston	4	0.308	0.416	0.567	0.984
5	Houston	3	0.296	0.403	0.580	0.983
6	Philadelphia	4	0.287	0.418	0.561	0.979
7	Florida	3	0.327	0.402	0.575	0.978
8	Chicago Sox	3	0.300	0.403	0.573	0.976
9	Chicago Sox	4	0.315	0.398	0.573	0.971
10	NY Mets	4	0.300	0.386	0.580	0.966
11	Colorado	3	0.315	0.415	0.550	0.964
12	Cleveland	4	0.319	0.411	0.545	0.956
13	NY Mets	3	0.265	0.376	0.577	0.953
14	Colorado	4	0.325	0.396	0.549	0.946
15	San Francisco	4	0.272	0.414	0.528	0.942
16	NY Yankees	5	0.290	0.402	0.532	0.934
17	LA Dodgers	5	0.311	0.385	0.537	0.921
18	Philadelphia	2	0.332	0.396	0.524	0.920
19	Minnesota	5	0.315	0.375	0.545	0.920
20	Atlanta	5	0.301	0.356	0.562	0.919
21	Colorado	5	0.313	0.382	0.534	0.916
22	Cleveland	1	0.294	0.378	0.538	0.916
23	Milwaukee	4	0.293	0.370	0.546	0.916
24	Minnesota	3	0.350	0.423	0.491	0.914
25	St. Louis	4	0.308	0.389	0.521	0.910
26	Cincinnati	6	0.313	0.383	0.527	0.910
27	LA Angels	4	0.314	0.373	0.528	0.902
28	Philadelphia	5	0.266	0.356	0.544	0.900
29	Pittsburgh	4	0.280	0.376	0.522	0.898
30	Chicago Cubs	3	0.306	0.377	0.520	0.897
31	Toronto	4	0.270	0.368	0.528	0.896
32	Atlanta	4	0.263	0.364	0.529	0.893
33	NY Yankees	4	0.277	0.389	0.501	0.890
34	Washington	1	0.277	0.357	0.530	0.887
35	Arizona	7	0.319	0.357	0.529	0.886
36	Toronto	5	0.295	0.354	0.532	0.886
37	NY Yankees	3	0.294	0.393	0.491	0.884
38	Toronto	3	0.301	0.355	0.527	0.882
39	Cleveland	6	0.317	0.365	0.515	0.880
40	Oakland	4	0.265	0.372	0.506	0.878
41	Atlanta	3	0.291	0.364	0.512	0.876
42	Detroit	5	0.309	0.382	0.487	0.869
43	Chicago Cubs	6	0.320	0.365	0.504	0.869
44	Oakland	7	0.300	0.368	0.500	0.868
45	Philadelphia	3	0.284	0.395	0.467	0.862
46	Florida	4	0.287	0.379	0.484	0.862
47	Kansas City	5	0.293	0.365	0.498	0.862
48	LA Dodgers	4	0.278	0.382	0.478	0.860
49	NY Yankees	7	0.310	0.368	0.489	0.858
50	San Francisco	5	0.284	0.345	0.514	0.858
51	Washington	4	0.269	0.390	0.467	0.857
52	Toronto	2	0.310	0.372	0.482	0.853
53	Chicago Cubs	4	0.278	0.349	0.504	0.853
54	Toronto	1	0.305	0.374	0.478	0.852
55	Atlanta	7	0.292	0.351	0.500	0.851
56	LA Angels	5	0.301	0.372	0.476	0.849
57	Texas	1	0.304	0.361	0.489	0.849
58	NY Mets	1	0.305	0.358	0.491	0.849
59	NY Yankees	1	0.294	0.365	0.483	0.848
60	St. Louis	5	0.287	0.335	0.511	0.846
61	Houston	4	0.241	0.358	0.484	0.842
62	Seattle	4	0.275	0.344	0.497	0.841
63	Toronto	8	0.309	0.382	0.455	0.837
64	Texas	4	0.273	0.360	0.477	0.837
65	San Diego	6	0.285	0.355	0.482	0.837
66	San Diego	5	0.280	0.359	0.475	0.834
67	Baltimore	4	0.313	0.364	0.468	0.832
68	Texas	3	0.283	0.351	0.481	0.832
69	Baltimore	6	0.285	0.358	0.472	0.830
70	Toronto	7	0.294	0.352	0.478	0.830
71	Pittsburgh	3	0.315	0.380	0.450	0.829
72	LA Dodgers	3	0.282	0.365	0.465	0.829
73	NY Yankees	2	0.309	0.381	0.445	0.826
74	Cincinnati	4	0.259	0.344	0.482	0.826
75	Cincinnati	7	0.286	0.348	0.477	0.824
76	Tampa Bay	4	0.274	0.344	0.480	0.824
77	NY Mets	6	0.270	0.341	0.480	0.821
78	Cleveland	3	0.261	0.359	0.461	0.820
79	NY Yankees	6	0.280	0.342	0.477	0.819
80	Arizona	2	0.281	0.351	0.466	0.817
81	Tampa Bay	1	0.288	0.341	0.475	0.816
82	Milwaukee	7	0.290	0.354	0.459	0.813
83	LA Dodgers	7	0.296	0.348	0.462	0.810
84	Detroit	8	0.276	0.332	0.476	0.809
85	Houston	6	0.274	0.355	0.452	0.808
86	Florida	2	0.279	0.332	0.476	0.808
87	LA Dodgers	1	0.297	0.366	0.441	0.807
88	Cleveland	5	0.284	0.350	0.456	0.806
89	Philadelphia	7	0.284	0.345	0.461	0.806
90	Minnesota	6	0.273	0.325	0.482	0.806
91	Detroit	4	0.289	0.341	0.464	0.805
92	Boston	7	0.286	0.346	0.458	0.804
93	Atlanta	2	0.290	0.361	0.441	0.803
94	Colorado	2	0.295	0.347	0.456	0.803
95	NY Mets	5	0.282	0.346	0.456	0.802
96	San Diego	4	0.275	0.342	0.459	0.802
97	Milwaukee	5	0.269	0.341	0.462	0.802
98	Seattle	5	0.264	0.335	0.466	0.801
99	Cincinnati	3	0.254	0.326	0.476	0.801
100	Milwaukee	6	0.261	0.334	0.465	0.800

0 recs | Comment 15 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

great work

A little more detail: here are the guys most responsible for those figures. Minimum 50 AB in a lineup spot...

1: Rollins (670 AB).

NB: Victorino was next with 31 AB. In addition to his other virtues, Jimmy's an iron man...

Utley (300), Victorino (246), Rowand (62), Dellucci (59)
Abreu (305), Utley (289)
Howard (273), Burrell (240)
Howard (234), Burrell (148), Conine (!) (73)
Rowand (256), Dellucci (73), Howard (63), Burrell (59), Victorino (54)

NB: Rowand was really putrid in the #6 slot, putting up a stinkerific .230/.292/.363 line.

Bell (254), Coste (98), Lieberthal (93), Nunez (50)
Nunez (215), Fasano (114), Lieberthal (105)

What all this tells me is that the Phils are more danger than most of us think to experience a serious offensive decline, maybe to middle-of-the-pack status. A lot of the guys who did the best work are either gone (Abreu, Dellucci), or unlikely to reproduce their performance (Coste, Howard--I love the guy, but I don't think he's putting up another 1.100 OPS). With Rowand and Victorino projected to play every day in the OF, and the serious danger of Barajas taking time from Ruiz, a fairly significant dropoff in scoring is disturbingly plausible.

by dajafi on Jan 2, 2007 2:36 PM EST 0 recs

I'm not sure

You're right abot this.

"What all this tells me is that the Phils are more danger than most of us think to experience a serious offensive decline, maybe to middle-of-the-pack status."

In fact I hope you're wrong. There is potential for drop off, but the post Abreu/Bell Phils actually scored more RPG than before the house cleaning. Over the course of the season the loss of, or lack of, a Delucci (left-handed bat) hurts some. Helms will help even if he drops off from last year, and I suppose the braintrust projects Werth to give them what they got from Conine at less cost.

It will, I believe, take a monumental slump/collapse from more than one guy in the lineup for them to be middle of the pack.

And remember, Lopes was brought in to help the running game. With a healthy Rowand (capable of double digits), Rollins, Utley and Victorino, they should be able to run a little bit better than last year and manufacture some runs they didn't before.

It will be interesting to see how the season develops.

by AWH on Jan 2, 2007 8:17 PM EST up 0 recs

If a baserunning coach...

even one as respected as Lopes, helps us manufacture more than, say, 5-10 runs, I'll be stunned.

by Shore on Jan 2, 2007 10:03 PM EST up 0 recs

Agreed, but...

there are other intagibles at play when you have a basestealing threat on.

My questions are:

Will the batters see better pitches - that is, more fastballs?

Will the opposing pitcher be as effective, or will he rush throws to the plate, walk more behind the runner?

It seems to me that these intangibles could help as well, but might not show up in the box score.

I've never looked at it. Any stats out htere one way or another?

by AWH on Jan 2, 2007 10:19 PM EST up 0 recs

5-10 runs

is quite an accomplishment. That's a full win in the standings.

by Alon on Jan 2, 2007 10:41 PM EST up 0 recs

rollins vs the catchers

maybe i shouldn't be, but i'm surprised to find out that the #7 spot faired better than the leadoff spot.

by gr on Jan 2, 2007 3:06 PM EST 0 recs

Doesn't take into account

Rollins's overall value. They might have put up a better line, but they didn't have Rollins's SB count.

by Alon on Jan 2, 2007 11:03 PM EST up 0 recs

Outstanding Job

By David, not by the Phillies 9-hole hitters.

by Shore on Jan 2, 2007 3:48 PM EST 0 recs

Good stuff...

The only I would have liked to see would have been adjusted for park. That would obviously bring the Phils down and make our 9 hole spot THAT much worse.

by jonk on Jan 2, 2007 9:02 PM EST 0 recs

Subjective

I argue with a buddy of mine on the efficiency of the Phillies lineup. They tend to run near the top of the league every year in runs scored, but their run production is inconsistent. They tend to score runs in bunches, and then go on cold streaks. I.E. Win two games 11-5 and 9-7, and then score 6 runs the next four games. That does not allow them to go on extended winning streaks and beat good pitching. They do not hit and run much, do not bunch, strike out a ton and fail to move runners. It's the fundamentals that make proficient run producing teams. Howard and Utley are great, but Rollins is very streaky and the rest of their lineup runs hot and cold. Soriano would have improved them, but not nearly enough for that salary, especially with his strikeout to walk ratio. Anyway, until they become more proficient with 'little baseball,' I see them continuing to struggle against good pitching. They rely too much on big innings and homeruns.

by delb3175 on Jan 4, 2007 11:09 AM EST 0 recs

Paging Shore

I've seen this argument many times over the past few years, and it sounds appealing -- everyone remembers those frustrating shutouts following 10-run outburts, right?

However, this can and has been tested statistically. The last such study I remember suggested the Phillies are basically average in terms of day-to-day run scoring consistency. Room for improvement, to be sure, but not something to complain about.

TGP poster Shore has access to a database that, if it has been updated with 2006 games, should be able to answer this question definitively with respect to last season.

by phatj on Jan 4, 2007 11:47 AM EST up 0 recs

Data not loaded

Yet. Just grabbed the Event files; take me a couple days to get them in though, since I'm swamped in "real" life.

by Shore on Jan 4, 2007 4:46 PM EST up 0 recs

"little ball"

This argument is made all the time, and probably held water in, say, the late 1960s through early '80s, when nobody scored any runs. But it's rare that you actually see teams win with that approach in the modern game.

I'm increasingly convinced that, during the regular season at least, you score runs, and win games, simply by not swinging at crap pitches. Whether it's walks, long at-bats that cumulatively wear down the pitcher, or straight-up power, there are a lot of good possibilities that you forestall when giving up outs (sac bunt, moving the runner) early in at-bats.

by dajafi on Jan 4, 2007 11:55 AM EST up 0 recs

the question is

is that a phillies problem, or one that every other team struggles with? show me a team that consistantly wins 4-2 and i'll be convinced. i'm not holding my breath, however. that stuff is good to have to win you aan important game late in the season, i'll buy that. but over the course of a 162-games season, you've got the washington nationals, today's foremost purveyor of the 4th-inning bunt from the top half of the lineup.

by gr on Jan 4, 2007 12:56 PM EST up 0 recs