Ranking the Positions 2006

by David S. Cohen on Jan 9, 2007 2:21 PM EST in News

No, this isn't a repeat of last week's Ranking the Lineup Positions. Instead, it's the natural follow-up to that piece: ranking the fielding positions (along with designated hitter and pinch hitter).

Again, this is a simple concept, but useful to see as a major-league whole. I've taken the 2006 hitting stats for every team's fielding position, as well as designated hitter and pinch hitter, and ranked them based on OPS (ties are ranked by OBP then SLG).

The winner in these rankings? As you can see below, it's first base for the Phillies.

With almost 690 of the 710 plate appearances for Phillies first basemen going to Ryan Howard, the position just beat out the Cardinals first basemen, who were watered down by about 80 of the 710 plate appearances for first basemen going to a mix of players not named Albert Pujols (although Jose Vizcaino did have a 3.000 OPS for his 1 plate appearance as a Cardinal first baseman).

How about the rest of the Phils (in bold in the chart below)? They have 7 spots in the top 112 (one is the 36 at-bats the designated hitters got), including the Pat Burrell-dominated left field position (which was 29th overall and 6th for all left fielders - he needs to be moved . . . why?). As most observers could have guessed, the atrocious combination of David Bell and Abraham Nunez at third base (249th), the weak hitting bench (292nd), and the pitchers (321st) were the huge weaknesses for the team.

With right field (no Bobby Abreu) and catching (the shocking Chris Coste performance likely replaced by lots of plate appearances for sub-.290 OBP Rod Barajas) likely to fall in the rankings, the Phils better hope Wes Helms improves third base, the crud Gillick has assembled for the bench miraculously produces, and the coaching staff teaches the pitchers (two of whom have lived most of their MLB lives in the AL) how to hit, even just a bit. My suggestion: don't hold your breath.

Here's the beginning of the list, numbers 1 through 100. 101-200, 201-300, and 301-330 are listed in separate stories.

Rank	Team	Pos	AB	BA	OBP	SLG	OPS
1	Philadelphia	1B	599	0.309	0.420	0.643	1.063
2	St. Louis	1B	616	0.325	0.416	0.641	1.057
3	Cleveland	DH	561	0.298	0.412	0.604	1.016
4	Cincinnati	DH	21	0.286	0.385	0.619	1.004
5	Boston	DH	571	0.278	0.406	0.597	1.003
6	Florida	3B	607	0.338	0.428	0.563	0.992
7	Boston	LF	582	0.302	0.423	0.553	0.977
8	Chicago Sox	DH	544	0.281	0.408	0.566	0.975
9	Colorado	LF	650	0.323	0.380	0.591	0.971
10	Minnesota	1B	609	0.328	0.384	0.586	0.970
11	Houston	1B	632	0.318	0.396	0.573	0.969
12	Chicago Sox	RF	622	0.310	0.376	0.582	0.958
13	Chicago Sox	1B	629	0.326	0.387	0.556	0.943
14	Colorado	3B	630	0.319	0.398	0.541	0.939
15	LA Dodgers	1B	649	0.319	0.387	0.550	0.937
16	St. Louis	3B	610	0.305	0.379	0.554	0.933
17	Washington	1B	580	0.290	0.415	0.505	0.920
18	Cleveland	CF	665	0.295	0.378	0.541	0.920
19	San Francisco	LF	556	0.268	0.414	0.504	0.918
20	Toronto	CF	661	0.312	0.364	0.551	0.915
21	Pittsburgh	LF	592	0.280	0.389	0.522	0.911
22	Cleveland	1B	620	0.319	0.376	0.534	0.910
23	NY Yankees	3B	615	0.293	0.389	0.520	0.909
24	NY Mets	CF	611	0.267	0.370	0.538	0.909
25	Philadelphia	DH	36	0.278	0.350	0.556	0.906
26	Toronto	1B	622	0.320	0.380	0.524	0.905
27	LA Dodgers	LF	600	0.317	0.387	0.517	0.903
28	Colorado	RF	612	0.297	0.375	0.525	0.900
29	Philadelphia	LF	608	0.265	0.379	0.516	0.896
30	Atlanta	3B	633	0.300	0.378	0.517	0.895
31	NY Yankees	SS	657	0.341	0.412	0.481	0.893
32	Detroit	SS	592	0.318	0.393	0.500	0.893
33	NY Mets	3B	612	0.306	0.377	0.516	0.893
34	Washington	LF	672	0.272	0.346	0.546	0.892
35	Philadelphia	2B	682	0.305	0.372	0.516	0.888
36	Atlanta	C	592	0.307	0.362	0.525	0.888
37	NY Mets	1B	613	0.272	0.359	0.529	0.887
38	LA Angels	RF	644	0.309	0.363	0.522	0.885
39	Chicago Cubs	3B	627	0.282	0.340	0.544	0.884
40	Atlanta	CF	598	0.259	0.363	0.518	0.882
41	Oakland	DH	546	0.262	0.368	0.513	0.881
42	Colorado	1B	615	0.298	0.398	0.478	0.876
43	Toronto	RF	644	0.297	0.354	0.522	0.876
44	Seattle	LF	639	0.290	0.354	0.516	0.871
45	Cincinnati	1B	610	0.297	0.390	0.480	0.870
46	San Diego	C	647	0.300	0.362	0.509	0.870
47	Texas	1B	632	0.275	0.364	0.505	0.869
48	Minnesota	C	629	0.334	0.401	0.466	0.867
49	Baltimore	SS	651	0.330	0.382	0.484	0.866
50	Houston	RF	590	0.264	0.371	0.495	0.866
51	Florida	1B	625	0.288	0.351	0.512	0.863
52	Kansas City	3B	606	0.300	0.366	0.493	0.859
53	Milwaukee	1B	606	0.289	0.364	0.495	0.859
54	Atlanta	1B	602	0.271	0.335	0.522	0.856
55	San Diego	1B	622	0.299	0.358	0.494	0.852
56	Baltimore	RF	612	0.304	0.354	0.497	0.851
57	Toronto	LF	635	0.309	0.395	0.455	0.850
58	LA Dodgers	RF	607	0.275	0.377	0.471	0.849
59	LA Angels	DH	573	0.295	0.356	0.492	0.849
60	Oakland	LF	617	0.277	0.355	0.494	0.849
61	Seattle	1B	612	0.265	0.340	0.507	0.847
62	San Francisco	2B	611	0.278	0.349	0.494	0.844
63	Milwaukee	LF	623	0.281	0.337	0.507	0.844
64	Cincinnati	LF	594	0.241	0.363	0.480	0.843
65	NY Yankees	DH	565	0.265	0.369	0.473	0.842
66	Cincinnati	3B	629	0.291	0.358	0.482	0.840
67	NY Mets	SS	704	0.297	0.351	0.486	0.837
68	Chicago Cubs	RF	628	0.288	0.337	0.498	0.835
69	Pittsburgh	3B	641	0.315	0.362	0.470	0.832
70	San Francisco	RF	649	0.287	0.346	0.482	0.828
71	Arizona	DH	29	0.276	0.343	0.483	0.826
72	Milwaukee	3B	611	0.282	0.349	0.475	0.823
73	Boston	3B	637	0.284	0.341	0.482	0.823
74	Toronto	3B	602	0.251	0.349	0.472	0.820
75	Tampa Bay	LF	647	0.295	0.344	0.473	0.817
76	Philadelphia	RF	598	0.273	0.391	0.425	0.816
77	Texas	2B	586	0.292	0.357	0.459	0.816
78	NY Yankees	RF	627	0.289	0.357	0.456	0.814
79	Chicago Cubs	C	603	0.287	0.341	0.473	0.814
80	Milwaukee	SS	618	0.254	0.331	0.482	0.814
81	NY Yankees	2B	632	0.315	0.343	0.470	0.813
82	Cincinnati	PH	241	0.270	0.336	0.477	0.813
83	NY Yankees	C	572	0.260	0.354	0.458	0.812
84	Florida	SS	679	0.289	0.345	0.467	0.811
85	Toronto	DH	582	0.292	0.338	0.473	0.811
86	Cleveland	C	609	0.297	0.365	0.445	0.810
87	Washington	3B	644	0.283	0.347	0.463	0.810
88	Texas	LF	604	0.273	0.341	0.469	0.809
89	Florida	LF	626	0.267	0.339	0.470	0.809
90	Detroit	RF	643	0.291	0.344	0.463	0.808
91	Texas	CF	682	0.292	0.349	0.457	0.807
92	San Diego	CF	641	0.262	0.347	0.460	0.807
93	NY Mets	RF	606	0.281	0.337	0.470	0.807
94	NY Yankees	CF	670	0.273	0.345	0.461	0.806
95	Houston	3B	593	0.238	0.365	0.438	0.804
96	NY Yankees	1B	591	0.250	0.348	0.455	0.804
97	Philadelphia	SS	717	0.276	0.334	0.470	0.804
98	Arizona	CF	689	0.276	0.328	0.476	0.804
99	LA Dodgers	C	589	0.301	0.365	0.438	0.803
100	Minnesota	CF	632	0.282	0.334	0.468	0.803

0 recs | Comment 8 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Nice work, again. Good to see Howard and Utley

atop their position rankings; mildly surprising to see Burrell and Rollins each in the top six of theirs.
I think the upside potential in the Phils lineup lies in three hopes:
+Burrell continues his career pattern of hitting .250-something one year and .280-something the next
+Rowand will play at a level closer to his pre-crash stats than his post-crash stats.
+Most important, the lineup will be more functional, with players in the positions where they have produced best rather than being bumped around as they were through most of last year.
Based on the last three years' performance of our likely opening day nine (with some admitted small samples for most players in certain lineup slots), the optimal batting order is:

Rollins
Rowand
Utley
Howard
Helms
Burrell
Barajas
Victorino
Pitcher

Rowand is much better at the top of the lineup than in the 6 or 7 hole. Barajas is clearly most effective in the 7 hole. Helms has his best OPS in the 5 hole, and Burrell's is significantly better (1.041 to .868) batting sixth than batting fifth. Victorino probably should be batting #2 by conventional wisdom, but might be able to keep the 8-9 positions from being the two instant outs they were last year.

by Chris R on Jan 9, 2007 10:36 PM EST 0 recs

explain

how is rowand better in the #2 slot than #6 or #7? are you referring to past statistics or "fit"?

by gr on Jan 10, 2007 10:21 AM EST up 0 recs

By OPS in those lineup spots over the past 3 years

With a meaningful number of AB in each spot, his 3-year OPS was dramatically better in the 2 hole:

#2: .911
#6: .694
#7: .748

as compiled at ESPN.com -- see http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?statsId=6742&type=batting3

by Chris R on Jan 10, 2007 10:35 AM EST 0 recs

wagging the dog

Is it possible that Rowand's streaks of hot play were the impetus for his managers' placement of him in the 2nd slot, and not the other way around?

by WholeCamels on Jan 10, 2007 10:44 AM EST up 0 recs

I doubt it. If anything, his positioning

in the order shows the manager's rigidity, rather than flexibility in adapting to Rowand's preformance trends.
Most of his ABs at the top of the order were in 2004, when he was very good at the top of the order, with a .976 OPS in 163 AB as leadoff hitter and .837 in 132 AB as #2. In 2005, when the CWS "upgraded" to Podsednik as their leadoff hitter and put Iguchi in the 2 hole, Rowand had 196 AB in fifth (where he had an .829 OPS but lacked the power you'd want in that spot), 139 in third (.723, with even less power) 120 in sixth and 99 in seventh (with horrible OPS of .626 and .600 respectively).
I think that in 2005 and 2006, Rowand was not used in the most productive way. He's far from a prototypical #2 hitter, but he has performed well in that spot, and has performed comparatively poorly when placed lower in the lineup. You might be able to make a case for putting him in the leadoff spot, but that won't happen while J-Roll draws breath. #2 is where Rowand belongs.

by Chris R on Jan 10, 2007 12:08 PM EST 0 recs

Lineup Positioning is Bogus Split, IMO

Rowand is a crappy hitter; he doesn't belong anywhere NEAR leadoff, #2, etc... the more PA you give Aaron Rowand over other, better, options, the fewer runs you score.

While he has starkly contrasted splits between #2 and #7, I submit that those are either A) Random, or B) (as Mr. Baker suggests) re-active changes on the part of the manager.

Here are 7 other splits, that cover Aaron Rowand's entire White Sox career:

(AB, AVG/OBP/SLG OPS)

258 AB, .333 / .394 / .543 .937
182 AB, .297 / .333 / .434 .767
257 AB, .300 / .353 / .436 .788
254 AB, .268 / .324 / .472 .796
183 AB, .224 / .293 / .377 .671
242 AB, .248 / .297 / .405 .702
271 AB, .295 / .359 / .461 .820

Again, his entire White Sox career is split 7 ways; significant AB in each split.

Split 1 is a worldbeater, split 2 is quite good. 2-4 I could live wit, but 5 and 6 are atrocious. So...

Do we sit Rowand on Thursdays(5) and Fridays(6)? Or schedule double-headers on Sundays(1) and Saturdays(7)?

I believe the Rowand #2 splits to be more trivia than information; my preferred place for him is Chicago, or some other city. Barring that, and "bench", I'd bat him 7th ahead of Barajas, or 8th after Ruiz.

by Shore on Jan 10, 2007 4:33 PM EST 0 recs

That's a spurious example - showing randomness in

one array doesn't prove it in another (though I admire the level of detail in your database). Rowand must have done something last year to piss y'all off. Sorry I missed it, but since we apparently are going to have him in center until another fence gets in his way, it makes sense to put him at the top of the order, where he demonstrably does the most good, or as you might view it, the least bad. He's not exactly Tony Gwynn, but he'll provide more there than Victorino or a soon-to-be-overpaid FA like the incredible shrinking Trot Nixon.

by Chris R on Jan 10, 2007 8:20 PM EST 0 recs

I'm unsure

why hitting "2nd" is a skill, but hitting on "Sunday" isn't.

Actually, I'm pretty sure neither are.

And while the randomness of Day-of-Week splits doesn't prove randmoness in lineup-position splits, it does illustrate that a large sample (~1800 AB) controlled for one variable (DoW in this case) can show a wide range of results; we can agree, I think, that this wide range doesn't show a particular skill for hitting on weekends.

The same data set, controlled for a difference variable (lineup position), ALSO shows a wide range of results, but I'm to believe that the highest of those is indicative of a particular, repeatable skill.

I'm not buying it...

Plus, Rowand had an .829 OPS batting 5th in 2005 in over 200 AB, and was only at .736 overall. In 2004, he was over 1.000 at both 5th and 6th (in limited time), .940 at 7th, .976 at 1st, and only .837 2nd - .905 overall.

by Shore on Jan 10, 2007 8:45 PM EST 0 recs