Bill James' 2013 Projections

[mark_beckens]

What evidence? Since virtually all statistics have been created in lineups written by managers employing a lineup protection strategy, what evidence can you show that proves that all of the pitches and plate appearance results would have been identical if the lineups were all written randomly.

No, I don't think Drungo had a vision. I think he has bought into some theoretical essays that misapply statistics. He has admitted that all managers write their lineups using a lineup protection strategy. Any attempt to apply statistics created in real life in real lineups written in this way into a different universe where the lineups were written randomly is flawed.

You do realize that you are saying that every pitcher is going to show a batter the same exact pitches in an at bat with runners in scoring position and first base open whether Ryan Braun is on deck or Cesar Izturis. Anything other than totally agreeing that is the case is to recognize that lineup protection is a real and viable strategy.

Of course I consider what the experts in a field believe about that field. You don't? The managers are experts. You and I are not.

Personally, from experience, there are no stats anyone can show me that would change my mind that who bats in front or behind a hitter doesn't matter. Knows enough about statistics to know you can find one to prove any point but that doesn't mean it's being used correctly or is the right or only stat that should be used.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Personally, from experience, there are no stats anyone can show me that would change my mind that who bats in front or behind a hitter doesn't matter. Knows enough about statistics to know you can find one to prove any point but that doesn't mean it's being used correctly or is the right or only stat that should be used.

No offense, but this is a bunch of nonsense. The literal interpretation is that statistics don't really "prove" anything and they therefore have no meaning.

The only real point I've heard with respect to Tango's research was that pitcher quality (maybe RP/ROOGY/LOOGY) was not detailed in the study and therefore the study is flawed. That's fine, at least it's an actual point and I respect that. IMO it's an unconvincing argument and you still haven't answered my question with respect to the second study/data that covers some 20k sample size. Specifically, why do you think the data is flawed ?

Part of the problem here (maybe with number 5 more than you) with is that "lineup protection" is pretty loosely used to cover a lot of things. It would help if you guys would define what you think lineup protection is. I've asked number5 3-4 times already to describe what lineup protection means. What you guys are describing as lineup protection sounds more like optimizing the batting order or improving the batting order by replacing a weaker hitter with a better one. I've even seen it described as batting LHB's/RHB's in alternating patterns.

What evidence? Since virtually all statistics have been created in lineups written by managers employing a lineup protection strategy, what evidence can you show that proves that all of the pitches and plate appearance results would have been identical if the lineups were all written randomly.

No, I don't think Drungo had a vision. I think he has bought into some theoretical essays that misapply statistics. He has admitted that all managers write their lineups using a lineup protection strategy. Any attempt to apply statistics created in real life in real lineups written in this way into a different universe where the lineups were written randomly is flawed.

You do realize that you are saying that every pitcher is going to show a batter the same exact pitches in an at bat with runners in scoring position and first base open whether Ryan Braun is on deck or Cesar Izturis. Anything other than totally agreeing that is the case is to recognize that lineup protection is a real and viable strategy.

Of course I consider what the experts in a field believe about that field. You don't? The managers are experts. You and I are not.

If anybody is misapplying (or not understanding the statistics), it is you.

For the last time, what do you think lineup protection means?

From my understanding lineup protection means:

"Batting a better hitter behind another hitter in the batting order will improve the statistical performance of the first hitter. This increase in performance will be accomplished by allowing the first hitter get better pitches to hit."

By the way (not that it much matters), not all managers believe the above to be true. Earl Weaver did not. Also, when Buck was asked about Vladdy (when we signed him and actually thought he might be good), he specifically stated he beleived that Vladdy (or any hitter) would not improve the performance of any hitter in the lineup.

The above is the specific point/definition of "linuep protection" which Tango (and numerous other people) have researched. The emperical evidence suggests there is nothing to it and any effects are negligible. In fact, the emperical evidence suggests it's actually the other way around if anything - statistical peformance is marginally decreased. Yes, pitchers do change their approach, but the end result is not much different.

Also, these arguments about little leagues and the softball leagues batting very weak hitters around very good hitters (now Cesar Izturis behind Albert Pujols) are pretty dumb. ML clubs don't do this. ML managers (protection considered or not) generally bat their best hitters near the top 5 spots in the lineup and pretty detailed analysis shows that as long as the top 5 hitters are in the top 5 spots it generally just doesn't matter all that much. In the end, the effect on runs is about overall lineup quality, not lineup protection.

[mark_beckens]

No offense, but this is a bunch of nonsense. The literal interpretation is that statistics don't really "prove" anything and they therefore have no meaning.

You think someone can find 1 stat to prove a point? Stats are a great tool, but they have to be used in context, with all other stats to be used correctly. Someone can pidgeon hole one stat and base an arguement on that 1 stat! That doesn't make the arguement sound or correct.

I'll use an example. Player a is a better hitter then player b, cause his OPS is 100 points higher. Now IF OPS was the only determinent of how good a hitter someone was, that would be a correct statement, but it's not. But there are people in the world who believe this either cause don't understand how stats work together or only pick the stats that prove the point they are trying to make. One must use all stats, for and against an arguement together, to be able to come up with the correct conclusion. And even then there will be different opinions.

[CA-ORIOLE]

You think someone can find 1 stat to prove a point? Stats are a great tool, but they have to be used in context, with all other stats to be used correctly. Someone can pidgeon hole one stat and base an arguement on that 1 stat! That doesn't make the arguement sound or correct.

Then why have any stats in baseball Mark? Why use them at all? Just have managers and GM's go with their gut instincts on player value. Seriuosly this is an argument?

[mark_beckens]

Then why have any stats in baseball Mark? Why use them at all? Just have managers and GM's go with their gut instincts on player value. Seriuosly this is an argument?

Stats are very useful tools. When used correctly. Many managers go against the stats and use their gut feelings, daily. Some work some don't. Baseball is an inexact science.

[CA-ORIOLE]

I'll use an example. Player a is a better hitter then player b, cause his OPS is 100 points higher. Now IF OPS was the only determinent of how good a hitter someone was, that would be a correct statement, but it's not. But there are people in the world who believe this either cause don't understand how stats work together or only pick the stats that prove the point they are trying to make. One must use all stats, for and against an arguement together, to be able to come up with the correct conclusion. And even then there will be different opinions.

First of all, OPS is not the best primary stat to gauge offensive performance. It's woba/weighted averages (generally an adjusted version considering park/league effects). I really can't think of a credible analyst that would disagree with this. Your point is that if some analyst disagrees with this and comes up with something else it's just as valid? One person's research is worth just as much as any other persons research without considering the merits and analytics of the research itself?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Stats are very useful tools. When used correctly. Many managers go against the stats and use their gut feelings, daily. Some work some don't. Baseball is an inexact science.

I don't expect GM's and managers to use a spreadsheet for every decison. I'm also a strong believer in scouting. Without specific points, context, and analysis this is just gibberish.

[hayek]

I have no idea how you can say this. There is virtually a non-existent sample size of lineups where the manager has not tried to employ lineup protection. Once in a blue moon - on the order of frequency similar to that of an unassisted triple play - a manager whose team is in a funk will pull names out of a hat for a completely random lineup. Since that sample size is so ridiculously low, there is no way to determine that conventional wisdom in lineup construction is not effective in producing more runs. Again, just because OPS is not increased measurably by using lineup protection, that does not mean that there are not more runs being scored.

Conventional wisdom is that your better hitters will see better pitches to hit in certain key situations if the on deck batter is also a strong hitter. As a result, the thinking goes, these hitters will drive more balls resulting in RBI hits and productive outs. These hits and outs score runs, while a base on balls would not in these situations. The defense can get out of these innings often by walking and/or pitching around these hitters if the on deck hitter is a lesser bat. Common sense and my eyes and game experience tells me this happens. Saying that there are not more runs scored by a strong hitter putting the ball in play with runners in scoring position and less than two outs than when he doesn't put the ball in play doesn't really make sense, does it? Since the hitter in such a situation gets pitched to because of lineup protection, I cannot see how you can possibly say that statistics "prove" that the effect is negligible. How can you possibly prove that a guy who hits a three-run homer when he is protected in the lineup would have seen the same pitch and hit a three-run homer if a weak hitter was on deck. You can't.

As you have agreed, managers do indeed try to employ lineup protection as best they can when trying to set their lineups. These men are professionals and know what they are doing.

I think you are confusing/conflating "lineup protection" with lineup optimization. Just because a manager is putting his best hitters back to back to back in a lineup does not mean he automatically believes in "lineup protection." Even if he believes one hitter has no effect on another, it still makes sense to bunch good hitters in a lineup.

[Frobby]

Markakis and Wieters are slow as molasses.

Sorry to pick on one sentence out of a long and thoughtful post, but are you really mentioning Markakis in the same breath as Wieters when it comes to foot speed? I will grant you that, coming off abdominal surgery and a winter in which he really couldn't do any serious conditioning, Nick was a step slower than usual last year, and that he was only about average to begin with. But Wieters is in a different league altogether.

On average, league runners took an extra base on a single or a double 40% of the time; Nick was at 39%. Behind him, among those who got a lot of playing time, were Andino (38%), Betemit (35%), Davis (34%), and Wieters (21%). So, Nick was not really a base clogger. His career mark is 40%, right at league average. He has stolen 10+ bases three times in his career, and has a 73% career success rate.

Baseball Prospectus has a statistic, BRR (baserunning runs), that measures how many runs a player added or lost with his baserunning compared to the average player. Nick was at 0.0, exactly average. Wieters was at -6.0, worst on the team and 5th worst in MLB. The whole team was -4.8, so you could say that Wieters was singlehandedly responsible for the O's being below average on the bases.

In case you are wondering who was worse than Wieters: Fielder, J. Montero, M. Montero, and Kotchman.

[Number5]

I think you are confusing/conflating "lineup protection" with lineup optimization. Just because a manager is putting his best hitters back to back to back in a lineup does not mean he automatically believes in "lineup protection." Even if he believes one hitter has no effect on another, it still makes sense to bunch good hitters in a lineup.

This is semantics. Lineup protection is a major element of lineup optimization. Your assertion that placing good hitters back to back has nothing to do with lineup protection is a straw-man that doesn't hold water on its face. The fact that the manager is indeed batting those hitters back to back is an obvious employment of a lineup protection strategy.

[DrungoHazewood]

What evidence? Since virtually all statistics have been created in lineups written by managers employing a lineup protection strategy, what evidence can you show that proves that all of the pitches and plate appearance results would have been identical if the lineups were all written randomly.

I have no idea what you're talking about. There are thousands of cases of, for example, where a guy like Raffy hit in front of Cal in '95, and Cal was a below-average hitter that year. Then the next year he most often hit in front of Bobby Bonilla, who had an OPS over 100 points higher. Yet despite the fact that pitchers ***had to*** pitch to Raffy more in year #2, he actually hit better when in front of the inferior player. People have run countless studies using cases like that over thousands of at bats and pairs of players, and the end result was NOTHING. No discernable effect on overall runs scored at all.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is semantics. Lineup protection is a major element of lineup optimization. Your assertion that placing good hitters back to back has nothing to do with lineup protection is a straw-man that doesn't hold water on its face. The fact that the manager is indeed batting those hitters back to back is an obvious employment of a lineup protection strategy.

Yes, and there's essentially zero evidence that this changes the production of that lineup in any meaningful way. Just like managers used to sacrifice bunt three or four times as often as they do now, with negative impact on runs scored. Or how managers routinely mocked platooning as a counter-productive strategy, because there was no difference in how anyone hit against lefties or righties. Or how everyone "knew" that run support and defensive support always evened out over a season, so W/L records told you how well a pitcher pitched.

This idea that everyone does it so it's obviously right is not evidence at all. It's justification for managing by inertia.

[Number5]

From my understanding lineup protection means:

"Batting a better hitter behind another hitter in the batting order will improve the statistical performance of the first hitter. This increase in performance will be accomplished by allowing the first hitter get better pitches to hit."

By the way (not that it much matters), not all managers believe the above to be true. Earl Weaver did not.

No. Batting a better hitter behind another hitter in the lineup improves the chances that that hitter will see better pitches to hit in key situations in the ball game. Lineup protection applies to the specific situations where the defensive team would be inclined to pitch around and/or walk a batter. It is not even an issue in other situations. Many games are won and lost by what happens in certain game-deciding situations. The offensive team wants its best hitters seeing good pitches to hit in those situations. Having another strong hitter behind him increases the chances of that happening. That doesn't mean he is more likely to reach base. In fact, he is certainly more likely to reach base if he is being walked, since no player hits 1.000. The point is he is more likely to drive in runners in scoring position if he is seeing better pitches to hit.

Earl Weaver most certainly did use lineup protection in writing out his lineup cards. He didn't bat Mark Belanger behind Frank Robinson.

Lineup protection is obviously employed in every major league lineup. There are no statistics available showing what happens when managers do not try to protect their good hitters, because they all naturally do it. This is obvious. Call it nonsense if you wish, but there is simply no way to prove that a random lineup would result in the same number of runs on a regular basis, because no manager is going to do randomly set his lineup every day.

[DrungoHazewood]

Lineup protection is obviously employed in every major league lineup. There are no statistics available showing what happens when managers do not try to protect their good hitters, because they all naturally do it. This is obvious. Call it nonsense if you wish, but there is simply no way to prove that a random lineup would result in the same number of runs on a regular basis, because no manager is going to do randomly set his lineup every day.

But there are 141 years of lineups, over thousands of teams and tens of thousands of lineup combinations. There are endless reams of data where you can match up how a player does with really good hitters behind him, and how he does with really poor hitters behind him. And people have done this, many times. And nobody found any real impact. The work has been done - this is a closed case.

[Frobby]

Maybe it's worth noting that the 2012 Tigers scored 61 fewer runs than they did in 2011. Fielder had a pretty good year, so this pretty plainly suggests that his presence did not particularly help the other hitters on the team.

I'd say that the lost season of Victor Martinez had a lot to do with that. Cabrera + Fielder had outstanding results.

I think you missed my point. Fielder did have an outstanding season -- better than what could have been expected from Victor Martinez, who he essentially replaced -- yet the Tigers scored 61 fewer runs. This suggests that Fielder's presence did not help the other hitters in the lineup.