Q: Does Yost realize that batting Gordon lead off is actually near ideal according to lineup optimization theory... or is he just trying to shake things up?
Bob Dutton (The Star): Yost is familiar with those lineup studies and can talk about them in-depth. So, no, it's not a random shot in the dark.
about 1 year ago
kcdc1
50 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
“Yost is familiar with those lineup studies and can talk about them in-depth.”
That has to be a reference to Tango’s line-up optimization work in “The Book,” right? If so, I wonder when he read it, because batting Kendall second could not be more at odds with Tango’s findings.
Anyway, the fact that Yost is familiar with recent work on the topic, and in moving Gordon to the lead-off spot, appears to have made a permanent step in a saber-friendly direction should be received warmly around these parts.
So you missed the entire chapter entitled "Bat Control"?
Maybe you got a misprint.
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 25, 2011 2:41 PM EDT up reply actions
That's hilarious
First, I don’t believe for a second that Yost has read any such studies, so him being able to discuss them in depth is a joke. But second and more importantly if he’s read these studies and he’s not interested in optimizing the lineup, then his idiocy and incompetence is beyond belief. You have to be a unique kind of idiot to see the facts in front of you, understand them enough to be able to discuss them in depth, and then just completely disregard them. Either that or he knows it would produce more runs, but he’s more worried about bullshit like “fan and media pressure” than in doing what is best for his team.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 2:48 PM EDT reply actions 3 recs
Why would Bob Dutton lie about Yost having talked about line-up optimization studies?
Where’s the payoff there?
Sounds like a very favorable characterization of Yost and his “in depth knowledge of the game.”
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 11:19 PM EDT up reply actions
And what makes you say that Yost isn't interested in optimizing the line-up?
Yost was quoted in the paper today saying he wants someone with a good OBP and has the ability to mix things up on the basepaths. I’m sure he was hoping that Getz could get on base, but when he proved that he couldn’t, he prioritzed getting on base over speed by putting Gordon in the lead-off slot reasonably quickly. Remember that Getz does take walks and did seem to be hitting for average early in the season. Given that Getz would be an ideal lead-off candidate if he could hit for average, it wasn’t unreasonable to give him a shot there.
Beyond that, the only ‘blunder’ you could point to this year is batting Melky second, but I wouldn’t agree with calling it a blunder. Assuming we’re fine with the 3-4-5 combination of Hosmer, Butler and Francoeur (as long as he’s hot), the other options would be Aviles and Betemit, both of whom haven’t earned consistent playing time. Yost is a guy who believes in providing steady roles for his players where possible, and that plays in Melky’s favor.
And what makes you say that Yost isn’t interested in optimizing the line-up?
The fact that he’s not doing it or anything anywhere close to it.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 11:20 PM EDT up reply actions
I could be totally wrong
But I thought I remember reading that Yost was seen with a copy of “The Book” by Tom Tango.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
See here
http://archive.metsgeek.com/articles/2008/04/21/interview-tom-tango/
Is it disappointing that the findings in The Book have not been adapted in baseball at large?
Whether one team or all thirty teams see the light is irrelevant to me. I’ll be delighted to not see a below average hitter in the two hole, but I won’t be disappointed if it doesn’t happen. I did get excited to see Ned Yost with The Book, and talking about putting the pitcher in the eight hole.
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Even more direct evidence
DL: In every given situation there are statistical probabilities. To what extent do they influence your decisions?
NY: Some. I used to be a proponent of the bunt a lot more, but I�ve kind of gotten away from that a little bit. I�ve studied a bunch of different things. I�ve read The Book, and The Book on the Book. Some of the stuff makes sense to me, and some of it doesn�t. I still play the game by feel, too. It�s a game, and you have to play the game—not just do statistical probabilities every pitch.
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7565
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 25, 2011 3:25 PM EDT up reply actions
It seems to me that Yost's opinions on batting order can best be described as a blend of old and new school thinking
Take this recent quote from the Star:
"I’d like to have a guy who can hit .300, have a .350-.360 on-base percentage," Yost said. "A guy who can run, can steal bases, can bunt and create some havoc. We don’t have that guy right now. (Jarrod) Dyson is two for 17 in the minors (since his departure).
"What I’m trying to do is get as many on-base guys on at the top of the order so that, hopefully, we can push enough guys around and score runs. But to the player, it doesn’t – or it shouldn’t – matter where they hit. They just do their thing."
Read more: http://www.kansascity.com/2011/05/24/2901014/royals-notes-gordon-gets-comfortable.html#storylink=rss#ixzz1NOUIxxVp
I'm not sure that a post in which you reject first-hand observations that don't suit your theories
Is the best place to talk about the idiocy of having access to information and rejecting it.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
by KSinDC on May 25, 2011 7:57 PM EDT up reply actions 2 recs
Well said
Scott’s generally taken a negative slant on Royals management, and deservedly so, but this particular instance seemed pretty off-base.
Yes, Yost sure acts like a progressive, forward-thinking, sabermetric manager. (in no way)
Actually, he’s very by the book. Sac bunts early in the game? Check. Speedy guy at the top of the lineup even if he can’t hit? Check. Best hitter batting third? Check. Intentional walk to set up the double play? Check. Bringing in the closer to start the 9th inning almost exclusively, even with a 3-run lead? Check.
Yost goes by the book. The old book. Not “The Book” by Tango, Lichtman and Dolphin. If he’s read “The Book” or sabermetric studies, then it is truly sad that he’s decided to reject pretty much the entirety of new baseball research and thinking in the last 10 (or more) years.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 11:27 PM EDT up reply actions
What "first hand observation" are you referring to?
Dutton says Yost has read those studies. Is there a first hand observation there? He said that Yost can discuss them in depth. He didn’t say he’d had such conversations. You’re spinning Dutton’s words into something that he didn’t actually say. What did Dutton observe? We don’t know. Maybe this was just an off-the-cuff statement and Dutton is trying to say that Yost knows a whole bunch about the game, so of course he knows about good lineup construction. So has Yost actually read those studies? Who knows. His actions certainly don’t support that contention.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 11:24 PM EDT up reply actions
This is a ludicruous reading
Take off the lawyer hat and put on the normal human hat. When a normal person, talking about somebody he interacts with every day, says “Dude knows his stuff and can talk about it knowledgeably,” he means “Dude talks to me about that stuff.”
But even if Dutton left you enough wiggle room to cling to the belief that Yost hasn’t read these studies, the posts by RoyalsRetro, SweeptheLeg, and kcdc1 eliminated it.
Instead of
“So has Yost actually read those studies? Who knows.”try
“I reject your reality and substitute my own.”
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
Ok, let’s both take off the “lawyer hats” and look back at my original post. I’m skeptical that Yost has read these studies AND understands them so well that he can discuss them in depth. Even if he was actually seen with “The Book” (Gasp!) But my point was an either-or. EITHER he hasn’t read them, OR he’s incompetent for having read them, and actually understands them, and still ignores them. And, BTW, the “or” is actually a more harsh indictment of Yost than the “either.”
The best way to evaluate Yost’s sabermetric credentials is what he actually does.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 25, 2011 11:45 PM EDT up reply actions
Yeah, I didn't disagree with that part
I’m on a crusade against mind reading, especially when we have actual evidence.
I haven’t read the Book, so I’m not able to comment intelligently on how his strategies conform. I think you, kcdc1, sweeptheleg and RoyalsRetro have all made good comments on what he’s thinking and how that matches up with The Book and the links they posted above are very helpful. I’ve learned a lot from this thread.
Also, I’m not trying to single you out. It’s just that almost anybody else who makes a comment on the basis of theory over evidence (e.g. Francoeur’s gonna have a great season) gets called out by you. I think that’s a good service you provide on these boards, but obviously, you can’t do it on your own posts. So most of my opportunities are on your posts. It doesn’t mean I’m gunning for you. I’m just not as quick as you are on the others.
"I think a tactical error might have been committed by the manager of the Royals"
For the record, I’d love for Yost to become a sabermetric manager. And I’m not even looking for the perfect sabermetric manager. Just show me a willingness to do something significant which would buck the conventional wisdom which has been proven false. And something very minor like moving Gordon to leadoff or batting a NL catcher 9th sometimes doesn’t even begin to convince me that he “gets it” (even if “it” only means optimal batting orders) or that he’s actively studying new research (again, the Dutton comment + having been seen with “The Book” isn’t enough evidence to support a contention that Yost reads multiple studies or stays abreast of new research).
This is doubly true when he’s still doing a lot of the bigger things wrong, like sac bunting in unwise circumstances and running the team out of run scoring opportunities.
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 26, 2011 12:00 AM EDT up reply actions
Can you give an example of what you'd like to see?
“show me a willingness to do something significant which would buck the conventional wisdom which has been proven false. And something very minor like moving Gordon to leadoff or batting a NL catcher 9th sometimes doesn’t even begin to convince me”
Use his best relievers in high leverage situations.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
I wrote about this subject here. It describes in a general way (with examples) what I’d like to see from a sabermetric manager. (BTW, the title on the article was put there by the site manager. My original title was quite different, as you can see from the URL)
You may know me as NYRoyal.
by Scott McKinney on May 26, 2011 9:31 AM EDT up reply actions
Like I said earlier, I think Yost’s views on line-up optimization is a blend of old school ideas and new ideas. From the evidence we’ve seen (the line-ups he uses in addition to quotes from Yost and others), we get a good sense that he started with traditional ideas about line-up construction, and then made some changes when he read newer theories from guys like Tango.
Here’s what I think Yost is looking for when he builds a line-up:
-Consistent roles. Yost believes players perform best when they know their roles and when their manager displays a steady hand and confidence in his players.
-OBP and speed at the top. If you can’t have both, OBP trumps speed.
-Best hitters at 3-4-5 (unless you’re forced to use one of your best hitters at lead-off)
-Prefer not to stack RHB and LHB, but it’s not that important
-Singles hitters with speed at the back of the line-up
I don’t have a good idea for how Yost view the #2 slot. If you think Yost values the #2 slot over the #6 slot, then you have to ask why he doesn’t switch Melky and Betemit. My guess is that consistency at the top of the order is the top priority, and since Betemit is not a full-time player, he’s not eligible for the #2 slot, but that’s just a guess. It could be that Yost under-values the #2 slot.
In any case, the line-up Yost is using right now is pretty damn close to optimal. You might want to flip Melky and Betemit when Betemit plays, and The Book would probably recommend switching Hosmer and Francoeur at 3-4, but overall, it’s a saber-friendly line-up. Rany was so excited when he saw the line-up that he immediately devoted an entire post to the topic. If you want Yost to agree 100% with Tango’s recommendations, it’s not going to happen. He’s got more than one influence on his understanding of baseball strategy. But you can’t act like he hasn’t (1) read the books he’s said he’s read, (2) can’t discuss their findings when Dutton reports that he can, and (3) doesn’t let their conclusions influence his managing style when Yost says it has and when there is clear evidence in his managing record that it has.
by kcdc1 on May 26, 2011 11:47 AM EDT up reply actions 3 recs
This is probably the most balanced, lucid analysis/attempted mind-reading
of Yost’s lineup philosophy that I’ve seen on this post.
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 26, 2011 12:22 PM EDT up reply actions
Rany being so excited is losing a lot of weight as evidence.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Rany's a pretty good analyst
He leans toward optimism while the heavy hitters here lean toward negativity, so there’s a bit of a disconnect there. The biggest rift stems from the Rany thinking that Moore has done a decent job while the consensus opinion here is that Moore is criminally incompetent. I come down on Rany’s side.
You do remember Rany picking the Royals to win the central next year right?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Interesting to say the least
I wonder if he read them before or after the Chris Getz experiment? Or even then, if speed is SOOOO overvalued that Yost then just disregards these theories
Todd Haley's kids know more swear words than I do.
by kcisbetterthanstlateverything on May 25, 2011 2:57 PM EDT reply actions
I mentioned this above, but if you’re looking for OBP and speed, Getz has great speed, works the count and takes walks. All he’s missing as a lead-off candidate is batting average, which is notoriously unpredictable. It was reasonable to give Getz a shot at the start of the season, and early on, Getz was actually hitting for average. That didn’t last, and when Getz had proven that he couldn’t hit for enough average to post a reasonable OBP, Yost sacrificed speed and put Gordon in the lead-off slot.
I don’t see the Getz experiment as a count against Yost in the saber-friendly line-up discussion. I do see Kendall batting second last year as almost a knock-out punch on its own, so either Yost was willing to completely ignore the numbers-based analysis in favor of ‘bat control,’ or he read the studies/took their findings to heart sometime since the end of last season.
In either case, this should be taken as a positive development.
Or option 3:
Yost read The Book and considered its findings, but didn’t agree with all of its suggestions. Kendall batted second because, in Yost’s opinion even after reading The Book, Kendall was the best option available. This year, Gordon is the best option available for the lead-off slot. The Book would agree with one conclusion, but would disagree with the other.
This seems like the most plausible theory
given his interview I linked to above. A major factor to consider is that Ned has often been dealing with either (a) younger/developing players whose statistics may not fully be set in stone, or (b) bad situations where there wasn’t a clear-cut option (although Kendall in the two-hole is still nearly indefensible in any situation).
by Sweep_the_Leg on May 25, 2011 3:28 PM EDT up reply actions
Agreed
Regarding the Kendall decision, I do recall Yost talking about Kendall batting second not being ideal. The offense was filled with bad options last year, and I’d imagine Kendall was something of a security blanket for Yost. It was a bad decision, but we can at least take comfort knowing that he likely won’t do the same thing when the Royals have a better offense.
The fact that he hit Kendall ninth in Milwaukee
Behind the pitcher, suggests that he knows Kendall is not a top of the order guy, but he had shitty personnel, so what else are you going to do until you develop your own Ryan Braun, Rickie Weeks and Prince Fielder?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
That's my question... I was a bit surprised he answered it
And was more surprised by the answer… but makes me a bit more optimistic about Yost if Dutton is accurate.
BTW – Dutton has answered a vast majority of my questions so far in his chats, and it’s a good place to get occasionally candid answers.
Also, the reason I asked this question was
because I didn’t like the answer from an exchange earlier in the chat. It might dampen the enthusiasm a bit because it’s kind of contrary to what he said when he answered my question.
Q: How long do you see Gordon batting in the lineup spot? It’s pretty weird seeing him in that role. I hope its short term.
A: The Royals really don’t seem to have a better option than Gordon at the moment in the leadoff role. Yost admits it’s not ideal, but, yes, I could see it going on for a while.
To clarify
I didn’t like this part " The royals really don’t seem to have a better option than Gordon"
Well, it’s not ideal because leading off with Gordon fails to maximize the value of his slugging. Much has been made of Gordon’s new approach, empahsizing contact and line drives, but let’s not forget that he’s on pace for 20 home runs and 50 doubles. Yost has said that current roster considerations aside, he’d like Gordon in the #2 or #3 slots, but with another lefty bat in Hosmer locking down the #3 slot and nobody else that makes sense at #1, Gordon is the best fit for the time being.
Who, if anyone in the system do you think would be the most ideal leadoff man?
Christian Colon? Lorenzo Cain? Wil Myers?
Relive Royals History at royalsretro.blogspot.com
Gia has some potential
High OBP, low slugging. Maybe Cain if he can take more walks and cut down on the Ks.
I think Yost’s prescribed formula is pretty reasonable:
“I’d like to have a guy who can hit .300, have a .350-.360 on-base percentage. A guy who can run, can steal bases, can bunt and create some havoc.”
Realistically, the .350-.360 OBP is more important than the .300 average, so we should bump the desired average down to .270 or so as long as they’re taking enough walks.
So given those considerations, who best fits the job description? I’m not sold on Cain’s offense. With his strikeout problems, I see him as more likely to be a #9 hitter that jumpstarts your offense the second time through. But Cain does walk, so if he can bat .270-.280 in the Majors, I think he’d make an ideal leadoff candidate.
Colon hasn’t yet hit. It’s not really worth wondering what kind of MLB hitter he’ll be until he shows that he’s a competent MiLB hitter.
Myers—maybe. He’s hit for good average with beyond-his-years plate discipline. Hopefully, he’ll wind up being another Gordon in the sense that batting him lead-off will waste his power, but we don’t know yet. Off the top of my head, I have an impression of Myers being a good baserunner but not a a great stolen base threat either, so he might have a very Gordon-like profile as a lead-off hitter.
Out of the options in front of me, I’d stick to Gordon or possibly Myers if it turns out that Gordon is the better power hitter. Rickey Henderson would be better tho.
If the reason for it "not being ideal" is
because Gordon makes an even better #2 hitter, then I’m all for it. If the reason is because they’d rather have a speedy, no hit, CF type with weak OBP skills… then that’s a different story.
Still, I think the overall message reflects more positively on Yost than vice versa.
I honestly can't remember, who led off most of last year?
DDJ did it 33 games, who was the rest?
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Podsednik and Gregor Blanco
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/bhindepmo
Chairman, The Melky Cabrera Seasoning Sauce. It's great on your outfield!
Haha, totally forgot about Pods.
Neither of those were awful options given the team.
Glad I came, just wish I hadn't stayed so long.
Rock Chalk Talk
Time to come clean
I started consulting for the Royals last week.
It's true.
Making watching baseball as fun as doing your taxes.
My Twitter feed.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
- Benches clear at Fenway as Red Sox-Rays rivalry heats up
- Keeping good company: Albert Pujols becomes fourth-youngest player to hit 450 home runs
