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

[Can_of_corn]

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.

Once again, the side with belief shows proof, not the skeptics.

You go ahead and prove that the concept of protection results in more runs being scored.

If you believe that Martians buried T-Rex bones in your back yard yesterday and I don't believe you it isn't up to me to prove they didn't.

[Dark Helmet]

Once again, the side with belief shows proof, not the skeptics.

You go ahead and prove that the concept of protection results in more runs being scored.

If you believe that Martians buried T-Rex bones in your back yard yesterday and I don't believe you it isn't up to me to prove they didn't.

If you are questioning it's validity it is .

[Number5]

Once again, the side with belief shows proof, not the skeptics.

You go ahead and prove that the concept of protection results in more runs being scored.

If you believe that Martians buried T-Rex bones in your back yard yesterday and I don't believe you it isn't up to me to prove they didn't.

Don't need to.

It is a fact that major league managers employ the strategy. It is also a fact, as I said in the quoted post, that Tango proved conclusively that hitters hit at the same rate regardless of who is on deck AND more balls are put into play with a good hitter on deck than a bad hitter. Tango was only dealing with situations involving men in scoring position. A good hitter hits at a higher rate than a bad hitter. A good hitter is going to drive more runners in scoring position home than a bad hitter -- because his hitting rates are better. More runners will score as a result of the good hitter batting than the bad hitter. More good hitters hitting in those spots than nad hitters + more runs. I agree that Tango dropped the ball by not giving runs scored data in his report, but he gave enough info that we all know the truth of the matter. Proving that hitters' rates are unchanged actually supports the value of employing lineup protection, since through lineup protection the better hitters are swinging the bat more in key situations.

Now, you, on the other hand, seem to have offered nothing to support your claim that major league managers are all wrong.

I happen to get a lot out of sabermetrics. In this case, however, people have taken some data and misread it, IMO. Whether a batter's statistics are improved or not by lineup protection is not, and never has been the reason managers employ the strategy. I think that is the error that those who draw Tango's conclusion make. Managers care about scoring runs on offense, preventing runs on defense, and winning games. They don't care about a guy's stats, other than the obvious fact that he would love for everyone on his team to perform well. The only relevant question as to the importance of lineup protection is whether the team scores more runs as a result. All indications are that they do.

[Can_of_corn]

You are extrapolating way too much out of one piece of work by Tango(Who I really like). For instance what is the impact of the lowered walk rate?

And sorry, the Mangers doing it argument does nothing for me. Managers are governed by group think way too much for me to give a lot of credence to the idea. Why do Managers bring in their "closers" with a three run lead and the bottom of the opposing order up?

[Dark Helmet]

If your a pitcher, for example, do you pitch differently to Adam Jones with Josh Hamilton on deck, as opposed to Matt Wieters? I think it certainly affects a pitchers mindset and can help determine a different outcome.

[mark_beckens]

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

It only matters in certain situations. The way a pitcher pitches to a batter who has protection is only dependent on score, inning, runners on base. So the amount of times it influences the way a pitcher pitches, differently, is when the pitcher can be hurt the most. As an example, In a 10-4 game the pitcher isn't going to worry about pitching around hitter A cause of who is hitting behind them. But if score is 2-1 with a runner on 2nd and 2 outs. The pitcher may pitch around or to batter A, cause of batter B. If Batter A is a RH with LHP on the mound and a LH on deck, the pitch could pitch around. It also depends on the hitter. Will a batter get himself out or will he take a walk. IMO, there isn't a way to accurately use stats to say it isn't legit, there are way to many variables in the equation.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Don't need to.

It is a fact that major league managers employ the strategy. It is also a fact, as I said in the quoted post, that Tango proved conclusively that hitters hit at the same rate regardless of who is on deck AND more balls are put into play with a good hitter on deck than a bad hitter. Tango was only dealing with situations involving men in scoring position. A good hitter hits at a higher rate than a bad hitter. A good hitter is going to drive more runners in scoring position home than a bad hitter -- because his hitting rates are better. More runners will score as a result of the good hitter batting than the bad hitter. More good hitters hitting in those spots than nad hitters + more runs. I agree that Tango dropped the ball by not giving runs scored data in his report, but he gave enough info that we all know the truth of the matter. Proving that hitters' rates are unchanged actually supports the value of employing lineup protection, since through lineup protection the better hitters are swinging the bat more in key situations.

Now, you, on the other hand, seem to have offered nothing to support your claim that major league managers are all wrong.

I happen to get a lot out of sabermetrics. In this case, however, people have taken some data and misread it, IMO. Whether a batter's statistics are improved or not by lineup protection is not, and never has been the reason managers employ the strategy. I think that is the error that those who draw Tango's conclusion make. Managers care about scoring runs on offense, preventing runs on defense, and winning games. They don't care about a guy's stats, other than the obvious fact that he would love for everyone on his team to perform well. The only relevant question as to the importance of lineup protection is whether the team scores more runs as a result. All indications are that they do.

The impact of Tango's study was the protected batters woba does not appear to change. The broader question as if to more/less runs runs are scored and/or are scored in certain situations would seem to be a function of overall lineup quality and composition, not lineup protection. So, I don't really follow your 1 +1 = 2 analysis.

[Bradysburns]

I'd flip flop Hardy and Casilla. The 9 hitter should be the second #1 hitter.

Hmm - good point. Group the OBP, speed, etc., at 9 and 1. As for the rest of this thread, I am going to sit back and read and learn. This has gone way over my head very fast. :eektf:

[Frobby]

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.

He won't be able to do that for long and stay in the lineup. If he's that bad, he'll be the starter for less than a month.

[Number5]

The impact of Tango's study was the protected batters woba does not appear to change. The broader question as if to more/less runs runs are scored and/or are scored in certain situations would seem to be a function of overall lineup quality and composition, not lineup protection. So, I don't really follow your 1 +1 = 2 analysis.

Exactly, there is no real change in how a hitter will do based on who is on deck, so you want the bat in the hands of the guy with the higher rates in crucial spots, rather than the guy with the lower rates. Lineup protection is about comparing good hitter rates to weak hitter rates, rather than comparing his rates to himself, depending on who is on deck. Proving that the on-deck batter doesn't matter to how a hitter will perform is simply irrelevant. The whole point is that the manager wants his good hitter to be pitched-to in key situations.

Your comment about lineup quality totally skirts the issue. Naturally, if you have a lineup full of studs, lineup protection is not even a question. If everybody is a good hitter, everybody is, of course, "protected." In the real world, however, managers rarely have that kind of "Murderer's Row" and do unfortunately have to face the question of lineup protection. Actually, I think you do follow my analysis quite well.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Exactly, there is no real change in how a hitter will do based on who is on deck, so you want the bat in the hands of the guy with the higher rates in crucial spots, rather than the guy with the lower rates. Lineup protection is about comparing good hitter rates to weak hitter rates, rather than comparing his rates to himself, depending on who is on deck. Proving that the on-deck batter doesn't matter to how a hitter will perform is simply irrelevant. The whole point is that the manager wants his good hitter to be pitched-to in key situations.

Your comment about lineup quality totally skirts the issue. Naturally, if you have a lineup full of studs, lineup protection is not even a question. If everybody is a good hitter, everybody is, of course, "protected." In the real world, however, managers rarely have that kind of "Murderer's Row" and do unfortunately have to face the question of lineup protection. Actually, I think you do follow my analysis quite well.

No, it is the point I'm contending with you. Particularly your rationale that more runs would be scored. What the manager wants is irrelevant here and the best hitters make outs. They tend to make more outs when they're NOT pitched around. Any additional runs scored (if there were) would be a result of lineup quality/composition/optimization. Those issues have no relationship to lineup protection.

[SrMeowMeow]

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

Sure. Will you accept it? I doubt it, but here is exactly what you just described.

Here's the issue. With the entire "protection exists" argument. The reasonable answer is that there is no evidence for it, in the strong form of the phrase. There is a lot of evidence, and none of it shows any protection effect. I'm not even asking you to show evidence that it does exist. I'm explaining to you that there are reams of evidence that it does not. At a certain point, the burden of proof does flip around, despite the fact that protection is part of baseball's conventional wisdom. Not all opinions are created equal, and, when one side of an argument is supported by a preponderance of evidence, the intellectually honest person is forced to reconsider their intuition.

The real shame is that if (and I have done this) I give a reasonable, nuanced answer to a sabermetric question, it is turned inside out by strawmen and semantics. The scientific impulse is to couch things in terms of error and probabilities. That too often leads to the equivalent of "so you're saying there's a chance!!!" Yes, there is a chance that protection exists and yet is invisible to the most rigorous studies of, you know, ALL BASEBALL. But that chance is real close to zero. Real close. (It is zero)

[SrMeowMeow]

Exactly, there is no real change in how a hitter will do based on who is on deck, so you want the bat in the hands of the guy with the higher rates in crucial spots, rather than the guy with the lower rates. Lineup protection is about comparing good hitter rates to weak hitter rates, rather than comparing his rates to himself, depending on who is on deck. Proving that the on-deck batter doesn't matter to how a hitter will perform is simply irrelevant. The whole point is that the manager wants his good hitter to be pitched-to in key situations.

Your comment about lineup quality totally skirts the issue. Naturally, if you have a lineup full of studs, lineup protection is not even a question. If everybody is a good hitter, everybody is, of course, "protected." In the real world, however, managers rarely have that kind of "Murderer's Row" and do unfortunately have to face the question of lineup protection. Actually, I think you do follow my analysis quite well.

The link I posted above answers, and refutes, your points. It's worth reading.

[scOtt]

He won't be able to do that for long and stay in the lineup. If he's that bad, he'll be the starter for less than a month.

I agree with this. DD and Buck have shown a tendency to ditch a non-performing player. Sometimes pretty quickly. Now Vlad and BROB and Hardy were exceptions with reasons. IMO, BRob just got extra deference. JJ last year I don't think overall there was a better player. Not a huge diff if there was one. Vlad... we really sucked then. Bad. Nobody better. And the whole deal of it seemed to be PA driving signing him and all.

My point is the brain trust HAS shown some propensity to ditch players and move on if they're REALLY not performing. The cavalry last year (and Tommy) were unceremoniously shipped to Norfolk. Other examples I can't think of but there must have been some offensive players as well.

[Number5]

No, it is the point I'm contending with you. Particularly your rationale that more runs would be scored. What the manager wants is irrelevant here and the best hitters make outs. They tend to make more outs when they're NOT pitched around. Any additional runs scored (if there were) would be a result of lineup quality/composition/optimization. Those issues have no relationship to lineup protection.

No.

Of course they make more outs when they are not pitched around. I said that up front. For all at bats where they are walked, their OPS is 1.000. The whole point is that managers are NOT looking to improve that batter's wOBA, OPS, BA, SLG PCT, or even his relationship with his wife. All of that is totally irrelevant. The manager is trying to do his best to have his best hitters hit the ball in key situations, so that there is a better chance to score runs. It absolutely does matter what the manager wants, because that is precisely what we are talking about. Lineup protection is a strategy is setting a lineup. That is what managers do - set lineups. Your attempt to say that setting your lineup so that a good hitter is behind another good hitter is unrelated to lineup protection, and only relates to lineup optimization is double talk -- a red herring. Putting a good hitter behind another good hitter is the very definition of lineup protection.