Bill James' 2013 Projections

[CA-ORIOLE]

No need to list the breakdown he provided. There are many variables at play that I have not seen recognized in the analysis. What inning, what's the score, what's the recent bullpen usage, is there a shutdown loogy/roogy in the pen that's available; who bats behind the protection, who's hot or slumping, is the manager leaving a younger pitcher out there in the 5th to see if he can work through it. Those are just some of the factors that come to mind and why, no matter how many PAs get aggregated, this approach to determining the effectiveness of protection is inherently flawed ... to me.

The conclusion seemed pretty clear, "no such thing as protection" but the implications may tell a different story.

So back to the Bill James guy : ) Would enjoy continuing the conversation CA, just don't want to derail too much.

Yeah, maybe I'll start another thread. Score is adressed though. Some of the issues you mentioned seem to be a reach. Since the sample is random, I'm not sure why the data would have the bias you seem to think they might have. AlsoI havent heard heard anything from you about the second set of data.

Undoubtedly true, but not the conclusion presented as far as "protection." I disagree that all players have the same psychological makeup.

Well, statistics are an aggregate. Of course different players could be affected differently. You could make that argument for any statistic.

Undoubtedly true, but not the conclusion presented as far as "protection."

Well, pitching around hitters is the basis of protection argument.

Back to Projections I guess.

[Number5]

These issues are adressed in the study. You need to separate statisitical value versus the potential affects on the team as a whole. In most cases they are probably negligible and/or offsetting.

Offset by what? Granted, there are cases where being protected in the lineup has no real effect on the situation, but there certainly cases where it does, as I illustrated above. There is never a case where it is a bad thing to have a strong hitter up next, so there is no offset. At worst, you have no effect when you have lineup protection. At best, the game is won as a result.

As I said, the effect on OBP and OPS may be negligible, but those are statistics only. I'm talking about game results. There are cases where a walk is not "as good as a hit" and there are cases where a productive out is actually preferable to a walk. To say that the effect on OBP and OPS is negligible as an argument against lineup protection simply fails to account for real game situations and strategies. It really is a straw-man, since the argument uses the very stats themselves as proof of the importance of the stats versus lineup protection strategies. Scoring runs and winning games is the goal. Having high OBP and OPS are means to that end, they are not the end itself.

Why do you think the intentional walk is employed? You seem to be saying that the defensive team should never walk a guy. Lineup protection is a real and valuable strategy employed by winning teams throughout the history of baseball. Over-reliance on any statistic, OBP and OPS included, can be a mistake.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Offset by what? .

Since, I've apparantly deralied Frobby's thread, I'll send you a PM.

[BMoreKind]

Hey CA - don't want you to think I was trying to end the conversation with the comment on derailing, just trying to respect board protocol as a relative newcomer to the site. Enjoyed the back and forth and respect your take on it. Hope you're enjoying the West Coast vibe and kudos for maintaining a long-distance relationship with our beloved Os.

edit to add: your PM box is apparently full

[mark_beckens]

Well, the article does show that pitchers do change their approach, so that's right. The issue is the end result/value...which doesn't seem to vary that much from a statistical aggregate. I agree with you about Jones (why should the pitchers change), but many of the hitters we talk about needing "protection" are guys that you typically might see getting a lot of walks when pitched around. Anytime we talk about one case, we run the danger of observational bias, but I think Mark Beckens comment about Miguel Cabrera is pretty interesting to look at, especially considering the extreme nature of the Cabrera and Fielder relationship as premier hitters. Cabrera won the MVP, but his statistical value actually went down this year (from the previous 2 years) with Fielder batting behind him. He hit more HR's but his walks were down around 40%.

I'm gonna have to read it again, it was really late for me, I was really tired and was having a hard time following along. I will say that I think every combination is different depending on the hitters. I can see Cabrera's walks going down cause pitchers didn't wanna walk him and have him or another runner on base for Fielder. If Jackson is already on base, are they more willing to pitch to Cabrera, so they don't have to face Fielder with 2 runners on. This is where my agreement with El Gordo comes in, if the hitters in front of Cabrera aren't getting on base, the way you pitch to him is different. If only Cabrera is on base, the way you pitch to Fielder is different then if there are 2 or 3. Documenting these tendencies would be almost impossible cause you would have to chart every batter in front of the two hitters and the batter after and they may change from year to year.

[Frobby]

Since, I've apparantly deralied Frobby's thread, I'll send you a PM.

Hey, it's not my thread, so derail away. Just kidding.

[El Gordo]

I'm gonna have to read it again, it was really late for me, I was really tired and was having a hard time following along. I will say that I think every combination is different depending on the hitters. I can see Cabrera's walks going down cause pitchers didn't wanna walk him and have him or another runner on base for Fielder. If Jackson is already on base, are they more willing to pitch to Cabrera, so they don't have to face Fielder with 2 runners on. This is where my agreement with El Gordo comes in, if the hitters in front of Cabrera aren't getting on base, the way you pitch to him is different. If only Cabrera is on base, the way you pitch to Fielder is different then if there are 2 or 3. Documenting these tendencies would be almost impossible cause you would have to chart every batter in front of the two hitters and the batter after and they may change from year to year.

Thanks, you make my point much more effectively than I do. Just too many variables IMO, to be able to draw any conclusions about protection using stats.

[mark_beckens]

Thanks, you make my point much more effectively than I do. Just too many variables IMO, to be able to draw any conclusions about protection using stats.

It's not just the two hitters, it's the hitters in front of them and the hitter behind them, score, pitcher, etc... Ask Cabrera if he gets better pitches with Fielder behind him, he says no, then I may agree

[PaulFolk]

It's not just the two hitters, it's the hitters in front of them and the hitter behind them, score, pitcher, etc... Ask Cabrera if he gets better pitches with Fielder behind him, he says no, then I may to agree

If Cabrera gets better pitches now, his stats don't reflect it. He actually posted a better OPS in his last two pre-Fielder seasons (1.042 in 2010, and 1.033 in 2011) than he did this year with Fielder behind him (.999).

[mark_beckens]

If Cabrera gets better pitches now, his stats don't reflect it. He actually posted a better OPS in his last two pre-Fielder seasons (1.042 in 2010, and 1.033 in 2011) than he did this year with Fielder behind him (.999).

What do all the other stats show? I don't think you can take just one stat and prove it either way.

I could argue. His walks are down cause because of Fielder he got pitched to more. 108 walks last year to 66 walks this year, which lowered his OBP, which lowered his OPS.

[PaulFolk]

What do all the other stats show? I don't think you can take just one stat and prove it either way.

That depends on what exactly we're trying to prove. Which aspects of Cabrera's game do you feel have gotten better with Fielder hitting behind him?

[SrMeowMeow]

Thanks, you make my point much more effectively than I do. Just too many variables IMO, to be able to draw any conclusions about protection using stats.

But...the article clearly states that pitchers do change their approach. It just doesn't have much of an effect.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's not just the two hitters, it's the hitters in front of them and the hitter behind them, score, pitcher, etc... Ask Cabrera if he gets better pitches with Fielder behind him, he says no, then I may to agree

Well, since there doesn't seam to be much discussion about projections (and I still think this subject is related), Tango's study (specifically the first set of data) does include most of the specific parameters you are looking for. Specifically protected batter, score (2 runs or less lead), runners on (2nd, 3rd, 2nd/3rd) with first base empty. Not to mention the second set of data which includes 20k plus more generic samples. I'm just not seeing any reasonable objections why the data is somehow skewed (other than it could be).

Focusing one one case (i.e. Miguel Cabrera) is flawed and will lead to observational bias. I only brought it up because it was initially referenced. it's interesting, and because it probably didn't really fit the expectations that most would have thought.

[mark_beckens]

That depends on what exactly we're trying to prove. Which aspects of Cabrera's game do you feel have gotten better with Fielder hitting behind him?

I think the idea of protection means a hitter gets pitched to more. IMO, means he will get more ab's and pitched around less often. If you look at Cabrera's stats, his ab's, hits, hr's, rbi's where all up. Taking walks out of someones OBP/OPS and adding in more at bats will almost always lead to a decrease in OPS.

[PaulFolk]

I think the idea of protection means a hitter gets pitched to more. IMO, means he will get more ab's and pitched around less often. If you look at Cabrera's stats, his ab's, hits, hr's, rbi's where all up. Taking walks out of someones OBP/OPS and adding in more at bats will almost always lead to a decrease in OPS.

Right. Which, to me, means he wasn't a significantly better hitter with Fielder behind him.