Bill James' 2013 Projections

[Number5]

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.

Drungo, there are zero cases of a manager batting a completely random lineup every day for the entire season. All statistics in the history of the game have been made in lineups in which the manager was trying to have a lineup where is best hitters were protected. Of course players have good years and bad years, good games and bad games. That in no way disproves the merits of trying to protect your best hitters. I am not saying that employing a lineup protection strategy guarantees that a hitter will have success 100% of the time. Showing cases of players failing does not prove or disprove anything.

[DrungoHazewood]

Drungo, there are zero cases of a manager batting a completely random lineup every day for the entire season. All statistics in the history of the game have been made in lineups in which the manager was trying to have a lineup where is best hitters were protected. Of course players have good years and bad years, good games and bad games. That in no way disproves the merits of trying to protect your best hitters. I am not saying that employing a lineup protection strategy guarantees that a hitter will have success 100% of the time. Showing cases of players failing does not prove or disprove anything.

But showing thousands of cases where Player A hit in front of a bad hitter in year one, and a very good hitter in year two, and the aggregate of that is nothing... well, that shows exactly what we want to see. If hitting in front of a bad hitter or a good hitter doesn't change production, then I don't see how protection could be real in any meaningful way.

[SilentJames]

Protection takes care of itself if you just have enough good hitters.

[Number5]

But showing thousands of cases where Player A hit in front of a bad hitter in year one, and a very good hitter in year two, and the aggregate of that is nothing... well, that shows exactly what we want to see. If hitting in front of a bad hitter or a good hitter doesn't change production, then I don't see how protection could be real in any meaningful way.

Lets face it, the odds of are generally against the hitter in any given at bat. You don't see too many .500 hitters. What lineup protection does is increase the chances that a hitter will see a good pitch to hit in a plate appearance in a crucial situation. It does not guaranty a positive outcome, it just increases his chances a bit.

I am saying that since all of the statistics every accumulated were done so in lineups where the manager was trying to protect his best hitters, there are no statistics available from randomly written lineups. Common sense tells me that if your bst hitter is hitting 8th, right behind a .590 OPS guy and right in front of a .603 guy, he is not going to see a lot of hitter's pitches, and his production will suffer. Since no manager ever writes out his lineup in such a way, they can never be any statistics to support either my view or yours.

It is pretty clear that I'm not going to be able to convince you guys as to what I'm saying, and I am certain that I will never believe that lineup protection is irrelevant. We are hopelessly deadlocked on this issue, and will have to agree to disagree. I've enjoyed the debate, though.

[DrungoHazewood]

I am saying that since all of the statistics every accumulated were done so in lineups where the manager was trying to protect his best hitters, there are no statistics available from randomly written lineups. Common sense tells me that if your bst hitter is hitting 8th, right behind a .590 OPS guy and right in front of a .603 guy, he is not going to see a lot of hitter's pitches, and his production will suffer. Since no manager ever writes out his lineup in such a way, they can never be any statistics to support either my view or yours.

I think you'd be surprised at what managers have done over 141 years and countless thousands of team-seasons. I would assume you could find many cases of very good hitters sandwiched between terrible hitters. Your presumption that there's no way to prove this is, frankly, wrong. There's a ton of relevant data.

But, as you said, I'm not going to convice you, you've made your mind up long ago.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Yeah, you've got a pretty broad definiton of lineup protection. I can see why you've ignored or talked around the research. Would I like good hitters up in key situations in the game?....,,,well yeah. I'd like good hitters up in all situations. What you're in fact incorporating are aspects of lineup optimization and lineup strength. The three concepts are separate and distinct. It's no secret that managers group their best hitters at the top half of the lineup to optimize run production. It's also no secret that better hitters in the lineup produce more runs. The latter two concepts have zero to do with "lineup protection"...at a least the accepted definition that has been researched over the course of 20+ years.

[Number5]

Yeah, you've got a pretty broad definiton of lineup protection. I can see why you've ignored or talked around the research. Would I like good hitters up in key situations in the game?....,,,well yeah. I'd like good hitters up in all situations. What you're in fact incorporating are aspects of lineup optimization and lineup strength. The three concepts are separate and distinct. It's no secret that managers group their best hitters at the top half of the lineup to optimize run production. It's also no secret that better hitters in the linuep produce more runs. The latter two concepts have zero to do with "lineup protection"...at a least the accepted definition that has been researched over the course of 20+ years.

No, my definition is far more narrow than yours. I'm saying that lineup protection is only relevant in certain key situations where pitching around a hitter and/or walking him is a very real likely strategy to be considered. The whole idea of lineup protection is to increase the likelihood that your best hitters will see good pitches to hit in potential game-deciding situations.

Your definition is the one painted with a broad stroke, as you include the vast majority of at-bats where the on-deck batter is not really a major consideration in the defensive team's approach to the batter. To discuss lineup protection without acknowledging that it is of no consequence in the 8th inning of a 7-1 game with two outs and nobody on is to not recognize what lineup protection is all about, IMO.

[CA-ORIOLE]

No, my definition is far more narrow than yours. I'm saying that lineup protection is only relevant in certain key situations where pitching around a hitter and/or walking him is a very real likely strategy to be considered. The whole idea of lineup protection is to increase the likelihood that your best hitters will see good pitches to hit in potential game-deciding situations.

Your definition is the one painted with a broad stroke, as you include the vast majority of at-bats where the on-deck batter is not really a major consideration in the defensive team's approach to the batter. To discuss lineup protection without acknowledging that it is of no consequence in the 8th inning of a 7-1 game with two outs and nobody on is to not recognize what lineup protection is all about, IMO.

No, I think I get it. I would like good hitters up in key situations too. I'd like good hitters up in all situations.

To discuss lineup protection without acknowledging that it is of no consequence in the 8th inning of a 7-1 game with two outs and nobody on is to not recognize what lineup protection is all about, IMO.

This is very funny. Why don't you try reading the study on lineup protection that I referenced earlier in the thread. Specifically, the first data set.

[hayek]

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.

Semantics. Straw-man. You've got this debating thing down cold.

Clearly, from everything you have written, you do not understand that lineup protection and lineup optimization are distinct concepts. I am not going to try to explain the difference to you, because it would be a waste of my time.

[mark_beckens]

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?

Again, I was just using it as an example.

[mark_beckens]

Your point is that if some analyst disagrees with this and comes up with something else it's just as valid?

It's only as vaild as the research they do. The stats they use to argue their point. Personally, as others have said. The variables in determining if lineup protection is valid or invalid is just to large, IMO, to accurately argue against it.

One person's research is worth just as much as any other persons research without considering the merits and analytics of the research itself?

Depending on how indepth the research was, yeah. You can agree or disagree with anyone, even if the data they proved proves their point.

[mark_beckens]

Just like managers used to sacrifice bunt three or four times as often as they do now, with negative impact on runs scored.

Cause managers who sacrifice and play for one run in an inning are more often going to get just that, one run or none. While managers who don't sacrifice are more often going to get a big inning. And yes I understand that playing for one run will get you more then that and playing for the big inning will get you none. But on average, playing for one run will get you, one run or none.

[mark_beckens]

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.

There is zero evidence cause the only way to get evidence is to change the order. So unless your playing a video game, it's not possible to know what the outcome would have been if you would have batted player a 4th instead of 6th in any given game.

[DrungoHazewood]

There is zero evidence cause the only way to get evidence is to change the order. So unless your playing a video game, it's not possible to know what the outcome would have been if you would have batted player a 4th instead of 6th in any given game.

Luckily good batters have thousands and thousands of at bats, often in front of hundreds of different batters of wildly varying quality. So there's ample data to draw conclusions from.

[CA-ORIOLE]

It's only as vaild as the research they do. The stats they use to argue their point. Personally, as others have said. The variables in determining if lineup protection is valid or invalid is just to large, IMO, to accurately argue against it.

Depending on how indepth the research was, yeah. You can agree or disagree with anyone, even if the data they proved proves their point.

That's fine, in this case the only real thing of note that I've gotten from you as that you feel there may be some bias with pitcher quality in the first data set of the Tango study. That's a tangible input, though I really don't buy it as having any significant effect, nor do I have any input as to why you think there's a bias. Personally, I think your statement that Tango did his research in order to confirm a specific result would indicate that you are the one that has the bias here. I've also asked you several times now to explain the second larger data set in the study. Why is your input as valuable as Tom Tango's (or Bill James etc) without providing any real analysis other than you think it's flawed? Why are 20k data points in the study in addition to numerous studies by many highly trained professionals with statistical backgrounds (who make a living at this) all essentially saying the same thing wrong in pointing out the premsie of lineup protection is flawed?

That you think there is bias in a study isn't much of an input. That you think there isn't enough data to reach a reasonable conclusion when professionals in the business have, isn't much of an input. Please, if you've got some enlightening input/analysis, then give it. I'm all ears here.

Sorry bro. You sound like an nice guy and you're certainly entitled to to your opinion, but until I hear something more tangible from you, your opinion is pretty irrelevant. As bad as I think number5 is in his logic, he's actually been able to provide some pretty specific details/analysis in his arguments (after you twist his arm a little bit). Unfortunately, I can't say the same for you.

Anyways, unless you feel you have something relevant I should respond to, you and number5 please feel free to have the last word. I'm pretty much spent here.