Lineups for the (Dark) Ages

Who Needs Offense?

Most teams throughout baseball history have built with at least functional offenses. That makes this post kind of disingenuous because no self-respecting GM would intentionally sabotage his team's offense like this (well, most wouldn't) whether because he's ambitious for a title or simply to save his job. I have to admit I'm not that aware of the defensive reputations of most of the guys in this post so it's possible this "team" would be a defensive juggernaut, but even so it likely won't help if they can't score.

Now that every position has been hit with the list of the most futile seasons qualifying for the batting title, I want to use a fun, little tool to play around with the guys atop each list. Dave Pinto, the former chief researcher for Baseball Tonight and current full-time baseball statistics/blogging guru, has a widget on his site, Baseball Musings, that calculates the optimal lineup for a given set of players based on their on base percentage and slugging average. You can find the Lineup Analysis tool here, as well as links to check out and read up on how it was created. There are two models available for the Lineup Analysis and I will use the 1959-2004 option since it spans more time that guys on my lists played.

To create the Lineups for the (Dark) Ages, or LDA, I will take the top player on each list and put them in the Lineup Analysis tool. There will be four LDA total: a general one along an AL setup with the worst DH, a general one along NL lines with the worst P, an AL-only one taking the worst AL seasons, and an NL-only one taking the worst NL seasons. Finally, I'll take a look at a post-2000 futility lineup (for this lineup, I will use the 1998-2002 model for the Lineup Analysis).

General AL LDA

Defensively, the General AL LDA would look like the following:

• C: 1967 Jerry Grote - .195/.226/.253
• 1B: 1920 Ivy Griffin - .238/.281/.274
• 2B: 1937 Del Young - .194/.235/.231
• 3B: 1933 Art Scharein - .204/.269/.244
• SS: 1968 Hal Lanier - .206/.222/.239
• LF: 1946 George Case - .225/.280/.295
• CF: 1968 Del Unser - .230/.282/.277
• RF: 1941 Stan Benjamin - .235/.266/.325
• DH: 1984 Ted Simmons - .221/.269/.300
• P: Probably bleeding in the bullpen

Ted Simmons deserves a better end to his career. Simmons and Benjamin are the only players that slugged .300 or more. Ick. After entering it into the tool, we're the optimal lineup is:

1. Griffin
2. Case
3. Simmons
4. Unser
5. Benjamin
6. Lanier
7. Young
8. Grote
9. Scharein

Griffin and Unser can be interchanged and the team will still only be expected to score 2.122 runs per game (~344 in a full season). There's not much wiggle room between "best" and worst (1.928 RPG, ~312 in a full season):

1. Grote
2. Lanier
3. Griffin
4. Young
5. Scharein
6. Case
7. Simmons
8. Unser
9. Benjamin
   

For comparison, the five starters that started the most games for the Padres (best ERA in the NL) in 2007 gave up 367 runs in their starts.

General NL LDA

Defensively, the team remains the same, except we now have a pitcher and Ted Simmons is cast aside. Swingman Ron Herbel gets the call today, complete with his .000/.041/.000 batting line. Replacing Simmons in the Lineup Analysis with Herbel's line, we get this optimal lineup:

1. Griffin
2. Case
3. Grote
4. Unser
5. Benjamin
6. Young
7. Scharein
8. Lanier
9. Herbel

Again, Griffin and Unser are interchangeable and you'll still score 1.447 RPG (~234 R in a year). There is almost twice the range between best and worst (roughly 0.4 instead of 0.2), since the following lineup scores an estimated 1.067 RPG (~173 per year):

1. Grote
2. Herbel
3. Scharein
4. Lanier
5. Young
6. Unser
7. Case
8. Griffin
9. Benjamin

Who knows, maybe Herbel was a great bunter and they could eke out runs small ball style with him bunting Grote over the 9 out of every 40 times at bat he gets on base.

AL-Only LDA

Defensively, our all-futile team now looks like this:

• C: 1984 Bob Boone - .201/.242/.262
• 1B: 1920 Ivy Griffin - .238/.281/.274
• 2B: 1968 Horace Clarke - .230/.258/.254
• 3B: 1933 Art Scharein - .204/.269/.244
• SS: 1933 Jim Levey - .195/.237/.240
• LF: 1946 George Case - .225/.280/.295
• CF: 1968 Del Unser - .230/.282/.277
• RF: 1920 Nemo Liebold - .220/.316/.281
• DH: 1984 Ted Simmons - .221/.269/.300

Simmons holds the dubious honor of being the only .300 slugger, though Case comes close. Liebold is the only guy to get on base at above a .300 clip. Here's the Lineup Analysis' take:

1. Liebold
2. Case
3. Griffin
4. Unser
5. Simmons
6. Levey
7. Clarke
8. Boone
9. Scharein
   

This setup gives you an estimated 2.306 RPG (~374 per year), our best lineup so far. The worst lineup, clocking in at 2.130 RPG (~345 per year), is as follows:

1. Boone
2. Levey
3. Griffin
4. Clarke
5. Scharein
6. Unser
7. Case
8. Liebold
9. Simmons
   

Go figure, bury the only guys that can slug and/or get on base at all deep in the lineup and you don't score. Hmh.

NL Only LDA

Our team shifts defensively again while welcoming a few new faces to the fold:

• C: 1967 Jerry Grote - .195/.226/.253
• 1B: 1920 Charlie Grimm - .227/.273/.289
• 2B: 1937 Del Young - .194/.235/.231
• 3B: 1932 Wally Gilbert - .214/.252/.274
• SS: 1968 Hal Lanier - .206/.222/.239
• LF: 1986 Vince Coleman - .232/.301/.280
• CF: 1944 Dain Clay - .250/.290/.292
• RF: 1941 Stan Benjamin - .235/.266/.325
• P: 1964 Ron Herbel - .000/.041/.000

Wally Gilbert, Vince Coleman, and Dain Clay had a couple of American Leaguers ahead of them on the respective lists so despite Herbel in the lineup they might actually help the offense. Not that it helps much when your optimal lineup is still only giving you 1.527 RPG (~247 per year):

1. Coleman
2. Clay
3. Gilbert
4. Grimm
5. Benjamin
6. Lanier
7. Young
8. Grote
9. Herbel

Maybe Coleman's speed once he's on the bases would help the team scratch out a couple runs every once in a while. Certainly that speed is wasted if you turn to the 1.121 RPG (~182 per year) worst lineup:

1. Grote
2. Herbel
3. Gilbert
4. Lanier
5. Young
6. Clay
7. Grimm
8. Coleman
9. Benjamin

Sheesh, that was fun.

Post-2000 LDA

It's time to turn to the offensively bad recent players. The Post-2000 Lineup for the (Dark) Ages lines up like this on defense:

• C: 2002 Einar Diaz - .206/.258/.284
• 1B: 2005 Darin Erstad - .273/.325/.371
• 2B: 2002 Brent Abernathy - .242/.288/.311
• 3B: 2002 Vinny Castilla - .232/.268/.348
• SS: 2002 Neifi Perez - .236/.260/.303
• LF: 2002 Roger Cedeno - .260/.318/.346
• CF: 2000 Marquis Grissom - .244/.288/.351
• RF: 2002 Jeromy Burnitz - .215/.311/.365
• DH: 2005 Scott Hatteberg - .256/.334/.343
  

Sheesh, 2002 was a spectacular year for bad hitting, I guess. Running those guys through the Lineup Analysis tells us we could expect 3.377 RPG (~547 per year) from the optimal lineup:

1. Hatteberg
2. Erstad
3. Cedeno
4. Grissom
5. Burnitz
6. Castilla
7. Perez
8. Diaz
9. Abernathy

That's not a very encouraging list. The worst lineup gives you 3.073 RPG (~498 per year) from this arrangement:

1. Perez
2. Diaz
3. Burnitz
4. Abernathy
5. Grissom
6. Hatteberg
7. Cedeno
8. Erstad
9. Castilla

Castilla, Grissom, and Perez can switch around and give you the same result. What's scary is that if you switched Diaz and Erstad and probably Castilla and Abernathy and you have the lineup a manager faced with those choices would probably use, for better or worse. Man, I feel bad for that guy.