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

[Stotle]

I believe lineup protection does work -- that is, a batter is more likely to get "hittable" pitches with a big threat batting directly behind him. But the realities of baseball, and in particular success rate for offensive performance on an at bat to at bat basis (not to mention the fact that "protection" is much less impactful the lower the particular at bat is on the "leverage spectrum"), that there is no practical effect.

In short -- yeah, pitchers throw more hittable pitches w/a big bat on deck. But the actual impact on the game is negligible.

Bottom line, as others have said, is that the more "good hitters" you cluster, the more likely you are to string together events that lead to runs.

[SrMeowMeow]

I believe lineup protection does work -- that is, a batter is more likely to get "hittable" pitches with a big threat batting directly behind him. But the realities of baseball, and in particular success rate for offensive performance on an at bat to at bat basis (not to mention the fact that "protection" is much less impactful the lower the particular at bat is on the "leverage spectrum"), that there is no practical effect.

In short -- yeah, pitchers throw more hittable pitches w/a big bat on deck. But the actual impact on the game is negligible.

Bottom line, as others have said, is that the more "good hitters" you cluster, the more likely you are to string together events that lead to runs.

Yes. A few studies I read show that pitchers do actually pitch differently. But there just isn't any practical effect, as you put it, on scoring runs or winning games. Which I think is a nice compromise - it shows that the intuitive appeal of lineup protection is justified (pitchers do pitch differently), but we were just wrong about the magnitude (the effect re: winning the game is very small).

[zero1]

How'd you get that implication? The article is very straightforward. Buck batted Hardy #2 last year because he felt he didn't have any better options. This year, he might have better options, so he might move down Hardy.

There was usually 7 other options in the lineup last year that were better options to bat #2.

[El Gordo]

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?

I would say that since the majority of good ML batters can tell when they are being pitched around as opposed to getting better pitches to hit, and they know if the guy behind them is feared or not, then if you want to convince them this isn't so, the burden of proof is on the bean counters.

[scOtt]

I would say that since the majority of good ML batters can tell when they are being pitched around as opposed to getting better pitches to hit, and they know if the guiy behind them is feared or not, then if you want to comnvince them this isn't so, the burden of proof is on the bean counters.

Also the team on the field is pitching like they believe in protection. It might have no practical effect on the numbers, but it's being used as a strategy on the field. Every night.

[SrMeowMeow]

I would say that since the majority of good ML batters can tell when they are being pitched around as opposed to getting better pitches to hit, and they know if the guiy behind them is feared or not, then if you want to comnvince them this isn't so, the burden of proof is on the bean counters.

Did you read the link I posted for you? Maybe it got buried. But here's the big sample size (in fact, entire sample size) study, with appropriate controls, that shows...well, you can read the conclusions at that link.

Nobody disputes that players think the effect exists. The same studies that show that protecting a hitter won't improve his production also show that pitchers do approach protected hitters differently than unprotected hitters. But protected hitters don't actually hit any better.

[Frobby]

This is a subject that always has troubled me. We all know that -- at least in some situations -- pitchers pitch differently to a hitter depending on who's on deck. It stands to reason that a hitter should hit better if the pitcher doesn't want to walk him, and the batter knows it. But it doesn't seem to really work that way.

I'm not sure this analogy works, but if a batter is up with the bases loaded, he knows the pitcher doesn't want to walk him. And yet, hitters don't hit particularly well with the bases loaded. Last year, for example, AL batters hit .255/.320/.411 overall, and .275/.303/.420 with the bases loaded. So, they did hit for higher BA, but OBP was down (because they're not walking much) and ISO was down.

This suggests to me that pitchers are pretty good at adjusting when they can't afford to walk a hitter, and that's why we don't see a measurable effect from "protection."

[Number5]

Mark_beckens, or anyone else, can you chime in here? When you talk about protection, you're talking about the idea that a player will hit better in front of Pujols than Cesar Izturis, right? Even if it's only in certain RBI situations or whatever? The concept is that you can't pitch around Bonds with Pujols behind him the way you could with Izturis on deck, because Pujols is a lot more likely to hurt you if you end up walking Bonds, right? I'm not insane?

Number5, can you put into like one or two clear sentences your exact definition of how lineup protection works? You're saying it has no effect on player stats but is a method of getting your best hitters to hit in big situations? Do you mean actually having them up at the right times, like with RISP? Or do you mean actually getting them to hit instead of walk?

Out of non-denominational charity, I will otherwise ignore your awful last sentence about stats and winning.

Pretty much the bolded, but in addition to intentional walks, you also have "pitched around" which does include more walks, but also may result in swings at bad pitches, which can hurt.

Lineup protection consists of following your best hitters in the lineup with other good hitters, as best as you possibly can. This will increase the chances that your best hitters will be pitched-to if they are up in crucial game situations, increasing your chances of scoring runs.

[El Gordo]

Did you read the link I posted for you? Maybe it got buried. But here's the big sample size (in fact, entire sample size) study, with appropriate controls, that shows...well, you can read the conclusions at that link.

Nobody disputes that players think the effect exists. The same studies that show that protecting a hitter won't improve his production also show that pitchers do approach protected hitters differently than unprotected hitters. But protected hitters don't actually hit any better.

The bottom line is if having a strong hitter behind you will get you the see better pitches why wouldn't you try to optimize the situation. It's not like choosing to bat Izturis behind Markakis instead of Pujols will gain you an advantage. If you honestly think it will make no difference to the pitches Nick sees in leverage situations, fine, but it will take better studies than that to convince people like Buck.

[SrMeowMeow]

Pretty much the bolded, but in addition to intentional walks, you also have "pitched around" which does include more walks, but also may result in swings at bad pitches, which can hurt.

Lineup protection consists of following your best hitters in the lineup with other good hitters, as best as you possibly can. This will increase the chances that your best hitters will be pitched-to if they are up in crucial game situations, increasing your chances of scoring runs.

Okay, this is clearer, thanks. So, two things, and then I'm gonna step back from this particular argument: one, you're definitely not using the common definition of lineup protection, which, as I said above, involves batters actually hitting better because of a feared hitter behind them; and two, teams historically have not scored more runs because of lineup protection. It doesn't matter what definition you're using, what players believe, what coaches believe, etc.: teams do not score more runs when they employ lineup protection than when they don't (controlling for the obvious effect that two great hitters in a row will simply score more runs than a great hitter and a bad hitter). There's no measurable synergy in having two great hitters back to back, or in getting them better pitches to hit.

[SrMeowMeow]

The bottom line is if having a strong hitter behind you will get you the see better pitches why wouldn't you try to optimize the situation. It's not like choosing to bat Izturis behind Markakis instead of Pujols will gain you an advantage. If you honestly think it will make no difference to the pitches Nick sees in leverage situations, fine, but it will take better studies than that to convince people like Buck.

Better studies than that? Seriously, are you joking?

Do you have any idea how good that study is? Or how bad? Or does it just clash with your intuition and baseball's conventional wisdom? Yikes.

I don't really mind how managers set up their lineups, unless they put low OBP guys high up - one of the few ways to actually make a lineup better or worse. Since all the evidence suggests that protection doesn't matter, it certainly won't hurt, either.

[CA-ORIOLE]

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.

Still not buying it. We agree that lineup protection doesn't improve individual performance of the protected hitter (the very definition of lineup protection) based on woba. If you asked every manager in Major League Baseball if they would like two good hitters coming up with men on base, I'm sure everyone would give it a thumbs up. So what? The lineup creates those situations and that is a function of lineup quality and lineup optimization (generally putting your best hitters at the top of the lineup). Even in the case of lineup optimization, we know that the net effect is very negligble. By extension your "lineup protection leading to more runs theory" would be a small sub-function of negligible.

Your logic seems to imply that the hitter will perform exceptionally well in protected/clutch situations leading to a net positive result in runs. That's the only thing I can really get out of it. You've provided zero evidence and flawed logic to support that position imo.

Like it or not, what you're really talking about here is lineup optimization/quality. You can call it a red herring all you want.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The bottom line is if having a strong hitter behind you will get you the see better pitches why wouldn't you try to optimize the situation. It's not like choosing to bat Izturis behind Markakis instead of Pujols will gain you an advantage. If you honestly think it will make no difference to the pitches Nick sees in leverage situations, fine, but it will take better studies than that to convince people like Buck.

The effect is more hittable pitches, not necessarily good pitches to hit. In general, pitchers are more effective attacking the hitter than pitching around them an getting behind, and good hitters typically don't swing at crap. You really should take some time to read the article as most of the questions you are asking are answered in it.

FYI, Buck publicy acknowledged he didn't believe in lineup protection improving another hitters peformance when we signed Vladdy. He was asked this question very specifically and answered it very specifically in a press conference.

[Number5]

Still not buying it. We agree that lineup protection doesn't improve individual performance of the protected hitter (the very definition of lineup protection) based on woba. If you asked every manager in Major League Baseball if they would like two good hitters coming up with men on base, I'm sure everyone would give it a thumbs up. So what? The lineup creates those situations and that is a function of lineup quality and lineup optimization (generally putting your best hitters at the top of the lineup). Even in the case of lineup optimization, we know that the net effect is very negligble. By extension your "lineup protection leading to more runs theory" would be a small sub-function of negligible.

Your logic seems to imply that the hitter will perform exceptionally well in protected/clutch situations leading to a net positive result in runs. That's the only thing I can really get out of it. You've provided zero evidence and flawed logic to support that position imo.

Like it or not, what you're really talking about here is lineup optimization/quality. You can call it a red herring all you want.

I am implying nothing of the sort. In fact, I have categorically stated that I fully expect hitters to perform the same, regardless to who is on deck. I am saying that good hitters will outperform bad hitters, on average, in all circumstances, including key game situations and, therefore, managers utilize lineup protection to ensure that the good hitters swing the bat in those situations. Your continued attempts to put words in my mouth are really getting tiresome. It is you that brings any expected difference of performance, depending on the on-deck hitter or game situation into the conversation at all. To me, lineup protection serves the purpose of having your better hitters pitched to, rather than pitched around in key situations. Nothing more, nothing less. I do not anticipate either good hitters or bad hitters to perform differently dependent upon who stands in the on deck circle. I do, however, expect the defensive team's strategy to be different based on the on-deck hitter, which is why I see the obvious value of employing lineup protection.

[Number5]

Still not buying it. We agree that lineup protection doesn't improve individual performance of the protected hitter (the very definition of lineup protection) based on woba. If you asked every manager in Major League Baseball if they would like two good hitters coming up with men on base, I'm sure everyone would give it a thumbs up. So what? The lineup creates those situations and that is a function of lineup quality and lineup optimization (generally putting your best hitters at the top of the lineup). Even in the case of lineup optimization, we know that the net effect is very negligble. By extension your "lineup protection leading to more runs theory" would be a small sub-function of negligible.

Your logic seems to imply that the hitter will perform exceptionally well in protected/clutch situations leading to a net positive result in runs. That's the only thing I can really get out of it. You've provided zero evidence and flawed logic to support that position imo.

Like it or not, what you're really talking about here is lineup optimization/quality. You can call it a red herring all you want.

You are attempting to claim that hitting a good hitter behind your best hitter is not lineup protection because it is lineup optimization. That absolutely is a red herring. Of course it is optimal to do that in your lineup, and it is absolutely utilizing lineup protection. To say that someone is wrong because you choose to name what is occurring something else is the perfect example of a red herring. You are obviously agreeing that it is best to bat a good hitter behind your best hitter. Like it or not, what you're really talking about here is lineup protection.