Machado in the two hole?

[El Gordo]

As long as Davis is hitting like the Hulk, AJ will get better pitches to hit batting in front of him. That doesn't mean he will hit them, but it does give him a better shot to. Eventually Davis will cool and the better pitches won't be forthcoming. These instances will not be a sufficient sample size to have statistical significance, but they could result in a couple of wins. In fact I believe they already have.

[Nigel Tufnel]

I get your elephant/footprints analogy, but why do you need to see the elephant's footprints when the elephant himself will tell you about playing in the snow?

That may be, but isn't the whole point of sabermetrics basically that the people who play the game often have no idea about what's true and what isn't?

[Can_of_corn]

That may be, but isn't the whole point of sabermetrics basically that the people who play the game often have no idea about what's true and what isn't?

I think his argument is the actual effect is meaningless as long as the players/managers behave as if it exists.

[El Gordo]

'Reality is an illusion, but a persistent one": Einstein. "Reality is nothing but a collective hunch." Lilly Tomlin. ?Half this game is 90 percent mental.? Yogi

[quidam]

I don't understand why people have a problem since they can not quantify something.

Does a lineup impact it's hitters? Yes. Why can't you quantify it? Because not every fastball down the middle of the plate is put in play let alone having a positive result.

[MachadOboutManny]

Ive been trying to tell you guys...just leave him in the 2, maybe move him to the leadoff. Our best bat needs more ABs. Its that simple.

[ScottieBaseball]

I think his argument is the actual effect is meaningless as long as the players/managers behave as if it exists.

Have you always been so condescending? For some reason I had you pegged as a decent guy prior to this exchange.

I feel like I've been clear about my argument, but I'll recap for you so you don't have to continue to make thinly-veiled insults masked as observations/assumptions any more..."Lineup Protection" exists, though not in a statistically quantifiable manner, but rather in that it affects in-game decisions made by players and coaches. I'm not arguing that it's so significant that it should carry anywhere near the weight that many other quantifiable statistics in the game rightfully carry.

[Can_of_corn]

Have you always been so condescending? For some reason I had you pegged as a decent guy prior to this exchange.

I feel like I've been clear about my argument, but I'll recap for you so you don't have to continue to make thinly-veiled insults masked as observations/assumptions any more..."Lineup Protection" exists, though not in a statistically quantifiable manner, but rather in that it affects in-game decisions made by players and coaches. I'm not arguing that it's so significant that it should carry anywhere near the weight that many other quantifiable statistics in the game rightfully carry.

Wasn't being condescending that time. The first time yea, but that was my serious attempt to decipher what you were trying to say. And sorry but my attempt is pretty close, in my mind, to your recap.

[Number5]

Have you always been so condescending? For some reason I had you pegged as a decent guy prior to this exchange.

I feel like I've been clear about my argument, but I'll recap for you so you don't have to continue to make thinly-veiled insults masked as observations/assumptions any more..."Lineup Protection" exists, though not in a statistically quantifiable manner, but rather in that it affects in-game decisions made by players and coaches. I'm not arguing that it's so significant that it should carry anywhere near the weight that many other quantifiable statistics in the game rightfully carry.

Of course you are right. Every manager employs lineup protection, and will continue to do so. They will also continue to walk a strong hitter with a weak hitter on deck in those situations. They want to keep their jobs.

The studies (most notably the Tango study on this) that supposedly "prove" that lineup protection doesn't work begin with the flawed premise that the purpose of lineup protection is to improve a particular player's statistics. When the player's statistics remain virtually the same, they claim that lineup protection has no effect. This is patently false. Managers employ lineup protection for one reason -- to score more runs as the result of having the best hitters in the lineup see more pitches to hit in key situations with runners in scoring position. The managers aren't looking to have their best hitters do any better than normal -- they just want them to perform the way they usually do, which is much better than a weak hitter. No study that I am aware of has ever shown that less runs are scored when a good hitter is pitched to than when he is pitched around. Common sense certainly says otherwise. I also find it humorous that the same people that argue that lineup protection doesn't work are also the ones that claim that RBI is a totally useless statistic. That is decidedly convenient for them, since RBI is the one individual statistic that is, in fact, improved by lineup protection. RBI is a statistic that definitely is dependent on the rest of your lineup, and it is not quite the statistical indicator that it was once thought to be, but in these situations, that very dependence on the lineup you are batting in is the crux of what lineup protection is all about. A strong hitter with a good hitter behind him in the lineup is going to drive in more runs as a result of being pitched to in run-scoring situations than if he was being walked and/or pitched around to get to a weak hitter. Plain and simple.

Statistical analysis is very often flawed by shaping the results to fit a certain argument. This is a perfect example. RBI and runs scored by a team in these key game situations as the result of the employment of a lineup protection strategy has never been addressed in any of these studies, rendering the studies irrelevant. I don't know of anyone that plays, has played, coaches, or has coached that doesn't know the value of lineup protection.

[El Gordo]

Of course you are right. Every manager employs lineup protection, and will continue to do so. They will also continue to walk a strong hitter with a weak hitter on deck in those situations. They want to keep their jobs.

The studies (most notably the Tango study on this) that supposedly "prove" that lineup protection doesn't work begin with the flawed premise that the purpose of lineup protection is to improve a particular player's statistics. When the player's statistics remain virtually the same, they claim that lineup protection has no effect. This is patently false. Managers employ lineup protection for one reason -- to score more runs as the result of having the best hitters in the lineup see more pitches to hit in key situations with runners in scoring position. The managers aren't looking to have their best hitters do any better than normal -- they just want them to perform the way they usually do, which is much better than a weak hitter. No study that I am aware of has ever shown that less runs are scored when a good hitter is pitched to than when he is pitched around. Common sense certainly says otherwise. I also find it humorous that the same people that argue that lineup protection doesn't work are also the ones that claim that RBI is a totally useless statistic. That is decidedly convenient for them, since RBI is the one individual statistic that is, in fact, improved by lineup protection. RBI is a statistic that definitely is dependent on the rest of your lineup, and it is not quite the statistical indicator that it was once thought to be, but in these situations, that very dependence on the lineup you are batting in is the crux of what lineup protection is all about. A strong hitter with a good hitter behind him in the lineup is going to drive in more runs as a result of being pitched to in run-scoring situations than if he was being walked and/or pitched around to get to a weak hitter. Plain and simple.

Statistical analysis is very often flawed by shaping the results to fit a certain argument. This is a perfect example. RBI and runs scored by a team in these key game situations as the result of the employment of a lineup protection strategy has never been addressed in any of these studies, rendering the studies irrelevant. I don't know of anyone that plays, has played, coaches, or has coached that doesn't know the value of lineup protection.

Wow This is such an excellent post. Kudos. Best argument for the notion of lineup protection I have heard. :clap3::thumbsup1:

[MachadOboutManny]

Last night was great, but Manny batting 2nd is horrendous. It was awesome that the guys before him forced Joel to blow a save and throw 30+ pitches and they he got to hit the meatball just over the monster, but this guy really has to be moved. Its ridiculous. There is no sound argument for batting Manny 2nd. He will have his day and he will be a great hitter imo, but today is not that day. Let him swing freely and learn at the bottom of the lineup. Nolan gives us a professional AB while healthy and he should be batting more than Manny and he would be more effective in the 2hole. The Joel meltdown was amazing, but the holes we've seen all year were still there. Its time to make the move and see if we can get a bit more out of this lineup.

Go Buck Go

[DrungoHazewood]

The studies (most notably the Tango study on this) that supposedly "prove" that lineup protection doesn't work begin with the flawed premise that the purpose of lineup protection is to improve a particular player's statistics. When the player's statistics remain virtually the same, they claim that lineup protection has no effect. This is patently false. Managers employ lineup protection for one reason -- to score more runs as the result of having the best hitters in the lineup see more pitches to hit in key situations with runners in scoring position. The managers aren't looking to have their best hitters do any better than normal -- they just want them to perform the way they usually do, which is much better than a weak hitter. No study that I am aware of has ever shown that less runs are scored when a good hitter is pitched to than when he is pitched around. Common sense certainly says otherwise. I also find it humorous that the same people that argue that lineup protection doesn't work are also the ones that claim that RBI is a totally useless statistic. That is decidedly convenient for them, since RBI is the one individual statistic that is, in fact, improved by lineup protection. RBI is a statistic that definitely is dependent on the rest of your lineup, and it is not quite the statistical indicator that it was once thought to be, but in these situations, that very dependence on the lineup you are batting in is the crux of what lineup protection is all about. A strong hitter with a good hitter behind him in the lineup is going to drive in more runs as a result of being pitched to in run-scoring situations than if he was being walked and/or pitched around to get to a weak hitter. Plain and simple.

Statistical analysis is very often flawed by shaping the results to fit a certain argument. This is a perfect example. RBI and runs scored by a team in these key game situations as the result of the employment of a lineup protection strategy has never been addressed in any of these studies, rendering the studies irrelevant. I don't know of anyone that plays, has played, coaches, or has coached that doesn't know the value of lineup protection.

What? Are you making the argument that you want good hitters up more in crucial situations than bad hitters? Congratulations, you understand baseball.

Now, that has little or nothing to do with any protection argument I've ever heard. The argument has always been that protection makes hitters more productive, leads to more runs scored, and that is measured by (gasp) statistics documenting the better production. That has little or no evidence to support it.

And, of course, in 1940 you wouldn't have ever known anyone that plays, has played, coaches, or has coached that didn't know the value of complete games.

[Frobby]

3 hits for Manny tonight. He's getting there.

[luismatos4prez]

Number5, your post doesn't address the actual argument about lineup protection. If someone says "We need a slugger to protect Adam Jones", they must believe that pitchers will pitch to Adam Jones differently with the slugger behind him than they otherwise would have, which will cause an increase in Jones' production. Tango's analysis is a counterargument to that claim.

[luismatos4prez]

I'll eat my words for tonight, but I'm still not sure Reimold isn't the better fit there.

I still think Reimold is the better option there. Hitting Machado 6th appeals to me right now.

Markakis

Reimold

Jones

Davis

Wieters

Machado

McLouth

Casilla

Hardy

is what I'm thinking right now.