Buck wants J.J. Hardy out of the 2 hole

[Can_of_corn]

True. But Brian was worse at #1 than JJ was at #2.

And Vlad? How bad was Vlad?

733 OPS, 127 starts batting cleanup.

[srock]

The best solution would have been to alternate Hardy (against LHP) and a LHB (against RHP) in the order last year. Unfortunately, Buck is not a big believer in this type of strategy, especially with the top of the order. I guess he likes to alternate L/R/L or feels its important for guys to know their position/role. He undoubtedly thinks Hardy's contact skills are important.

This is a viable option as Hardy really does hit LHP well.

Problem is Hardy is going to see lots of nasty RH relievers late in games and you can't be pinch hitting for the best defender all the time.

So I think Hardy should bat 6th or 7th where pinch hitting for him won't be so crucial.

[El Gordo]

Pure speculation but I think if healthy Roberts will bat ninth. He will be guaranteed less ABs there. Less wear and tear. Get him to September and beyond. Just like he grabbed Chen an extra days rest early on. Other pitchers getting extra days to keep them rested. Same treatment with Brian.

In Buck's defense... if he had stayed healthy but non-productive, Buck probably moves him down or makes a change by June. Sort of a sss for Brian last year.

Brian's value to the team is as a leadoff hitter, not as a DH, #9 hitter or a defensive 2B. If he can hit .340+OBP he has value, if not what you get from Casilla with the glove and baserunning is better for the #9 spot.

[srock]

Pure speculation but I think if healthy Roberts will bat ninth. He will be guaranteed less ABs there. Less wear and tear. Get him to September and beyond. Just like he grabbed Chen an extra days rest early on. Other pitchers getting extra days to keep them rested. Same treatment with Brian.

In Buck's defense... if he had stayed healthy but non-productive, Buck probably moves him down or makes a change by June. Sort of a sss for Brian last year.

Not saying its a bad tactic, but I will literally spit take on my dog if I ever see Brian Roberts starting at batting 9th. He is going to leadoff or be on the DL. Maybe he bats 2nd occasionally, but Roberts at 9 is the type of morale destroying, veteran player diss'ing that will just not happen.

[Can_of_corn]

Not saying its a bad tactic, but I will literally spit take on my dog if I ever see Brian Roberts starting at batting 9th. He is going to leadoff or be on the DL. Maybe he bats 2nd occasionally, but Roberts at 9 is the type of morale destroying, veteran player diss'ing that will just not happen.

And I will curse and shake my fist at the screen if Buck keeps throwing Roberts out there in the leadoff spot when he is sporting a 182/233/182 line.

[SrMeowMeow]

IMO, you can't get a large enough sample size with the same combination af players, to show anything either way. Lineups change too frequently for a variety of reasons.

That's prohibitively unlikely, considering you have all of recorded baseball history to look at.

[El Gordo]

That's prohibitively unlikely, considering you have all of recorded baseball history to look at.

Can you give me a study with a large enough sample size that demonstrates categorically that there is no line protection effect.

[Number5]

Not trying to be argumentative, but why wouldn't it show up in the stats?

The argument against lineup protection centers on the fact that a player's OPS is not positively affected by having a strong hitter hitting behind him. The numbers seem to bear this out. Some hitters might have a higher batting average and/or slugging percentage in "clutch" situations, and some worse, but overall in the large sample size of all at-bats, there is no real effect on the batted ball outcome. If you think about it, this should be obvious, since if a batter is being walked to get to the next, weaker batter, his OPS for those at-bats is 1.000, and very few batters in history are going to top that if they are being pitched to.

What is overlooked in this, IMO, is that managers are not trying to pad a hitter's stats when writing out a lineup, but rather they are trying to give their team the best chance to score runs and win the game. Lineup protection is about having your best hitter put the ball in play in crucial situations, rather than your weaker hitter. The manager wants his best hitter swinging the bat in crucial game situations with men in scoring position and first base open. Even an out can be productive there, if there are less than 2 outs; and a walk scores no run and sets up a potential double play. Common sense tells me that more runs are going to be scored when your best hitter puts the ball in play with runners in scoring position than when a weak hitter bats with runners in scoring position plus a man on first. Even if there are two out, the strong hitter is clearly more likely to get a hit and drive in runs than the weak hitter. This is the very reason managers walk big hitters in those spots to get to a weaker guy. They have a better chance of getting out of the inning. Does it always work? Of course not, but managers continue to do it because it is a sound strategy and increases their chances of winning. The managers don't give a rat's patoot about padding a guy's stats. They only want to win. They aren't expecting their best hitter to do any better than normal, they only want him to perform at his normal level, which is better than a weaker hitter. Since he is likely to perform at the same level as other situations, this will not show up in his stats (other than RBIs, which guys who argue against lineup protection also happen to conveniently argue is a worthless stat), hence the sabermetric argument.

I agree with Mark when he says that players and coaches will say that lineup protection matters. They understand the in-game relevance to the strategy, and are unconcerned with sabermetrics in this instance.

Tom Tango did a study about this, concluding that lineup protection doesn't mater. Here is an article in Hardball Times about this:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-around-batters

I disagree with his conclusion. My contention is this: Tango was looking at the effect of lineup protection on a good hitter's statistics, whereas the more important question to a manager is the effect of lineup protection on his team's chances to score runs. The Tango study only refers to batter outcomes, not run-scoring results. It indicates that a good hitter hits just as well if he makes contact, regardless of who is on deck. I don't dispute that. In fact, I absolutely agree with it. My point (and what I feel is missed by this study) is that in these key situations, the offense wants the strong batter to be the one that puts the ball in play. The study actually agrees with me in one way, showing the batter does make contact more often with a good hitter on deck than with a poor hitter on deck. The percentages of the resultant batted balls are virtually the same, but there are more batted balls, which in those situations would result in more runs scored, IMO. Tango treats all outs the same, whereas, in reality, some outs are productive. In many cases these outs are more productive for the inning as a whole than a base on balls would have been. The study is inconclusive as to the actual affect on the game, which is what is of paramount importance to the manager, and what the whole question of lineup protection is all about, IMO. The study does not address runs scored in these situations at all.

So, to be clear, I am not saying that I think a hitters individual OBP, OPS, wOBA, BA, etc. is increased by lineup protection. My contention is that more runs are scored. Tango's study simply doesn't address it, other than to clearly show that more batted balls do indeed occur in these situations when a good hitter is on deck. I would extrapolate that more runs would score as a result of that, since we are talking about situations with runners in scoring position, but the study doesn't address it one way or the other.

I will undoubtedly take heat once again for my position on this, but no one has effectively countered my point about runs scored yet, and major league managers will continue to set their lineups with lineup protection for their best hitters in mind in the effort to score more runs. Some people will say that I can't cite a study showing that more runs are scored using lineup protection. That is because, to the best of my knowledge, there has been no study that addresses it at all. Tango either did not include run scoring results in his research, or chose not to include any findings about runs scored in his report. I would say that, when trying to disprove conventional baseball wisdom, the onus is on those claiming that lineup protection doesn't work to prove that no more runs are scored by using lineup protection than when not using the strategy. And, as I said above, Tango has proven that good hitters do indeed put the ball in play more often if a good hitter is behind them than when a weak hitter is behind them. To me, that is the proof right there, unless someone wants to contend that, for some inexplicable reason, less runs are scored on a batted ball with a good hitter on deck than when a bad hitter is on deck, which would make no sense.

It is possible to have an understanding of sabermetrics and still see the value of lineup protection.

[MurphDogg]

Can you give me a study with a large enough sample size that demonstrates categorically that there is no line protection effect.

I don't understand why it is the responsibility of sabermetric minded people to prove that something doesn't exist. Shouldn't the burden of proof go the other way?

[scOtt]

I don't understand why it is the responsibility of sabermetric minded people to prove that something doesn't exist. Shouldn't the burden of proof go the other way?

It should be except that it's been assumed for 100+ years. There's no evidence but it's been assumed so long the burden falls on SABR folks.

[Number5]

I don't understand why it is the responsibility of sabermetric minded people to prove that something doesn't exist. Shouldn't the burden of proof go the other way?

No, not when conventional baseball people have always seen the value of lineup protection, and managers continue to employ the strategy. If you are saying they are wrong, it is up to you to show why they are wrong. I also firmly believe that one can be "sabermetric-minded" and still see the value of lineup protection. They are not mutually exclusive.

[MurphDogg]

No, not when conventional baseball people have always seen the value of lineup protection, and managers continue to employ the strategy. If you are saying they are wrong, it is up to you to show why they are wrong. I also firmly believe that one can be "sabermetric-minded" and still see the value of lineup protection. They are not mutually exclusive.

Sure. But if the conventional wisdom is that the earth is flat or that some races are superior to others, shouldn't the onus of proof fall on the person who chooses to believe something and act on it?

[Number5]

Sure. But if the conventional wisdom is that the earth is flat or that some races are superior to others, shouldn't the onus of proof fall on the person who chooses to believe something and act on it?

Yes. Thank you for agreeing.

[Can_of_corn]

It should be except that it's been assumed for 100+ years. There's no evidence but it's been assumed so long the burden falls on SABR folks.

You know what else they assumed for 100+ years? That elite pitchers had the ability to regularly induce weak contact from hitters.

Turns out they were wrong.

Things like that tend to be self perpetuating, you do it that way because it has always been done that way.

That isn't proof.

The onus of proof falls on those claiming a belief, not in those that lack said belief.

[Number5]

You know what else they assumed for 100+ years? That elite pitchers had the ability to regularly induce weak contact from hitters.

Turns out they were wrong.

Things like that tend to be self perpetuating, you do it that way because it has always been done that way.

That isn't proof.

The onus of proof falls on those claiming a belief, not in those that lack said belief.

Tango proved that hitters put more balls in play with a good hitter on deck than with a weak hitter on deck. He also proved that the outcome of balls in play are virtually identical whether a good hitter is on deck or a bad hitter is on deck. Though he failed to show the all-important runs scored statistic, the fact that more balls are put into play by good hitters with runners in scoring position, clearly more runs would score as a result. 1+1=2.

All these studies have ever shown is that a hitters rates are unchanged by lineup protection. They completely overlook the fact that managers are not looking for improved rates for the hitter, they simply want to make sure that the hitter with the better rates is the one that is batting in crucial spots. That is what lineup protection is all about.

Now, show where the managers in the major leagues have been wrong.