Using OBP and SLG, this program determines runs created per game based on each possible batting order, and spits out the best and worst possible batting orders. Let's see how the way Vic lined them up matched what the analysis calls for.
I put in stats for the following lineup: c) trezza 1b) davilla 2b) roche ss) perez 3b) luis lopez dh) josue lopez lf) teilon cf) weed rf) torres. I used Teilon and Davilla's average career statistics instead of their season statistics, as the sample size this year was too small; for the rest I used '07 stats.
In the real world, the Spirit scored 4.978 runs per game. On average, the program predicted around 5.3 r/gm for the Spirit, although you have to remember that in real life, the Spirit lineup didn't always have Davilla, Teilon, or the Lopezes ... if they had those guys all season long they probably would have scored closer to 5.2-5.4 runs per game.
The following lineup was projected to score 5.401 runs per game:
Having Josue lead off obviously doesn't make a lot of 'conventional' sense; the first projection that had a reasonably normal leadoff hitter had Jerson Perez leading off.
Interesting in that I wouldn't really expect the 'ideal lineup' to have Trezza at #3; obviously Ks aren't taken into the equation here.
Using ONLY stats and projections from 1998-2002 (the original formula includes 1954-2004), the following lineup looks good:
That's pretty solid, but I might swap Josue with Perez.
Almost every single one of the 'best lineups' using 1954-2004 had Vic Davilla batting 2nd. Using 1998-2002 stats, one of the Lopezes was considered ideal for the no.2 hole with Vic usually in the 4 spot.
I couldn't find anything close to our actual lineup.
The 'worst' possible lineups were the following:
This demonstrates a few things to me: First of all, it's not all that surprising that this is considered a 'bad' lineup. Secondly, it also demonstrates that the Spirit, when at full strength, were a damn good offensive team --- the worst, dumbest, most insane possible batting order still would theoretically have averaged 5.090 runs per game. Unfortunately, injuries, major league purchases and the like prevented this team from reaching its full potential throughout the season.
BY THE WAY:
Another little tid-bit from baseballmusings.com, just to further piss off any Mets fans that might read this blog [sorry Mets fans (not really)]-
"According to Baseball Prospectus, the Mets collapse was the second biggest in history, just behind the 1995 Angels. That's based on fall from the highest probability of making the playoffs, based on BP's monte carlo method. On August 20th, 1995, the Angels had a 99.988% of making the playoffs. The Mets were 99.80 at their peak on September 12th. Now if you factor in time, I think the Mets fall was worse, but not much. The Angels peaking in late August says they were a great team in a weak division with weak wild cards. The Mets were a good team with a big lead late."