Machado in the two hole?

[Number5]

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.

You should have stopped with the embolden paragraph. That part made sense. You may wish to rethink the rest, however. By the way, your having heard, or not heard, an argument has zero to do with whether or not it is a sound argument.

Look at the Tango study. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-around-batters

Runs scored by the offensive team and RBI are not addressed at all. Not at all. The study certainly doesn't "prove" anything, since it is flawed in this way. However, since the study does, indeed, show that there are more balls put into play when runners are in scoring position when there is a good hitter on deck than a poor one (less walks and strikeouts means more balls in play), and that there is no appreciable difference in wOBA in the 2 circumstances, one can easily extrapolate that more runs must score as a result. More balls in play with runners in scoring position at the same wOBA will obviously yield more runs. Tango conveniently completely omitted the runs/RBI information. To then claim that the study doesn't show more runs scored when the study itself failed to even show and address that all-important runs-scored data is way beyond statistical manipulation. "We didn't show runs scored information at all, so therefore we have proven that there must not be more runs scored." Gee, must be nice to "win" arguments that way. LOL

To say that wanting your best hitters to be up and be pitched to in crucial situations has nothing to do with lineup protection is, simply, bizarre. That is, of course, the whole reason to employ lineup protection, to have your best hitters pitched to in those situations. To attempt to use the flawed premise of the studies you cite as being the "evidence" that the studies are valid is illogical.

Complete games do still have value, by the way. Giving your team's bullpen rest is huge. But then, you knew that.

[Number5]

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.

No. Again, lineup protection is employed by managers as a strategy to have a better chance of scoring runs in key run-scoring situations by creating a better chance that your best hitters will see pitches to hit in those situations, rather than being walked and/or pitched around.

Tango's "analysis" omits runs scored information. For you, and others, to treat his flawed study as being the be-all, end-all as to the wisdom of employing lineup protection is for you to overlook the very reason the strategy is employed -- scoring runs, IMO. Actually, I think that it is Tango that is not addressing the actual argument about lineup protection, not I. I'm sure that Tango is an excellent statistician. He simply has a false premise to his study in this case and completely fails to include runs scored data. It seems that people either realize that managers employ offensive strategies for the purpose of scoring runs, or they don't. Repeating myself is simply not fun. To me, it is about scoring runs, and there is no chance that I will believe that any other purpose supersedes scoring runs when discussing this, or any other, offensive strategy. Any study of any offensive strategy's relative worth that does not address runs scored is irrelevant to me. If your belief is that it is about something other than scoring runs, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

[elextrano8]

Look at the Tango study. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-around-batters

You are aware, I hope, that your link is to an excerpt from the study, not te study itself.

[luismatos4prez]

No. Again, lineup protection is employed by managers as a strategy to have a better chance of scoring runs in key run-scoring situations by creating a better chance that your best hitters will see pitches to hit in those situations, rather than being walked and/or pitched around.

Tango's "analysis" omits runs scored information. For you, and others, to treat his flawed study as being the be-all, end-all as to the wisdom of employing lineup protection is for you to overlook the very reason the strategy is employed -- scoring runs, IMO. Actually, I think that it is Tango that is not addressing the actual argument about lineup protection, not I. I'm sure that Tango is an excellent statistician. He simply has a false premise to his study in this case and completely fails to include runs scored data. It seems that people either realize that managers employ offensive strategies for the purpose of scoring runs, or they don't. Repeating myself is simply not fun. To me, it is about scoring runs, and there is no chance that I will believe that any other purpose supersedes scoring runs when discussing this, or any other, offensive strategy. Any study of any offensive strategy's relative worth that does not address runs scored is irrelevant to me. If your belief is that it is about something other than scoring runs, then we will just have to agree to disagree.

Theory of Lineup Protection: Having a great hitter hitting behind you in the lineup will cause you to see more strikes and thus hit better.

Do you agree or disagree with this? That's what the debate is about. That's what CoC and Scottie having been arguing about. That's what Tango was attempting to tackle.

It's not about the managers or the team or overall run production. Those are the important things in winning games, but this is about when people said "Markakis is struggling because he doesn't have anyone to protect him in the lineup" or "losing Prince Fielder's protection will hurt Ryan Braun's pitches seen" or

Kemp is going to be more productive, the traditional line of thinking goes, because Ethier's presence means opposing pitchers can't avoid him.

- mlb.com

[DrungoHazewood]

You should have stopped with the embolden paragraph. That part made sense. You may wish to rethink the rest, however. By the way, your having heard, or not heard, an argument has zero to do with whether or not it is a sound argument.

Look at the Tango study. http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/article/pitching-around-batters

Runs scored by the offensive team and RBI are not addressed at all. Not at all. The study certainly doesn't "prove" anything, since it is flawed in this way. However, since the study does, indeed, show that there are more balls put into play when runners are in scoring position when there is a good hitter on deck than a poor one (less walks and strikeouts means more balls in play), and that there is no appreciable difference in wOBA in the 2 circumstances, one can easily extrapolate that more runs must score as a result. More balls in play with runners in scoring position at the same wOBA will obviously yield more runs. Tango conveniently completely omitted the runs/RBI information. To then claim that the study doesn't show more runs scored when the study itself failed to even show and address that all-important runs-scored data is way beyond statistical manipulation. "We didn't show runs scored information at all, so therefore we have proven that there must not be more runs scored." Gee, must be nice to "win" arguments that way. LOL

To say that wanting your best hitters to be up and be pitched to in crucial situations has nothing to do with lineup protection is, simply, bizarre. That is, of course, the whole reason to employ lineup protection, to have your best hitters pitched to in those situations. To attempt to use the flawed premise of the studies you cite as being the "evidence" that the studies are valid is illogical.

From Tango on a BP guest piece: "even though there is a different response pattern by the players involved, that does not by itself mean that it favors one side or the other." i.e. runs scored is not significantly effected by protection.

There are a ton of studies on lineup protection, and they've covered the team runs scored side of things. I don't have a link to one handy, but be sure that Tango and others have looked at that, and found almost no impact.

Complete games do still have value, by the way. Giving your team's bullpen rest is huge. But then, you knew that.

Sure, at the expense of allowing more runs and losing more games. But then, you knew that.

[BMoreKind]

From Tango on a BP guest piece: "even though there is a different response pattern by the players involved, that does not by itself mean that it favors one side or the other." i.e. runs scored is not significantly effected by protection.

There are a ton of studies on lineup protection, and they've covered the team runs scored side of things. I don't have a link to one handy, but be sure that Tango and others have looked at that, and found almost no impact.

Sure, at the expense of allowing more runs and losing more games. But then, you knew that.

Okay, so, the passionate interplay between the sabermetrician-oriented and game-oriented folks has certainly proved engaging to date. Have to question the conclusion that complete games somehow lead to more runs and therefore losing more games. Hopefully sarcasm flew right over my head there.

I consider myself a fan of advanced statistical analysis, but also work to not get lost in the forest for the trees. In this specific debate, Tango et al. have lost their capacity to see the bigger picture through the numbers cloud. Any attempt to quantify the impact of protection in the lineup will necessarily fail. The dynamics of the actual game hinge upon too many factors for an across the board statistical analysis to pick up any true signal. In other words, each individual event (PA) is unique and that is why statistics cannot appreciate the benefit of lineup protection.

The following situations should not be treated the same when addressing the impact of lineup protection, Prince on-deck behind Miggy:

- in game 49, sixth inning of a 13-2 Detroit blowout, bases empty, nobody out, against any team

- game 149 with Detroit a game up in the Central, down two in the eighth, runner at second, two outs against the second place team

Tango's numbers do not differentiate between these two circumstances (to my understanding) and that failure dooms his efforts from the start. Not everything that contributes to a winning season can be measured statistically.

There are a lot of contributing factors to the outcome of each event that are not considered by the study, to name just a few off the top of my head: non-DL injuries; points on the aging curve of Miggy, Miggy+1, Miggy +2; PH options off the bench; bullpen match-up options; nearly ad infinitum : ) In my opinion, so many factors that drawing overarching conclusions based on the numbers just to "prove" the invalidity of the conventional baseball wisdom is a mistake, if not pure folly.

When the people involved in the game directly tell you that lineup protection impacts their in-game process, proceeding to tell them lineup protection is a myth reeks of arrogance.

ETA: I like that Buck challenged Manny in the two hole and didn't bail on him given the initial struggles

[glenn__davis]

When the people involved in the game directly tell you that lineup protection impacts their in-game process, proceeding to tell them lineup protection is a myth reeks of arrogance.

Terrific overall post, but I think this line sums up my beliefs perfectly.

[weams]

I kinda wanted to hear the story...

I kind wanted the Scorpion to sting Voros.

[DrungoHazewood]

When the people involved in the game directly tell you that lineup protection impacts their in-game process, proceeding to tell them lineup protection is a myth reeks of arrogance.

So what do you do with the dozens of studies that show almost no impact on individual or overall production from lineup protection? Bury them? Dismiss them? Caveat each one with a intro that states "we know we've been unsuccessful in finding any kind of overall impact from lineup protection, despite our best efforts, but we'll keep looking since the anecdotal evidence says it exists and that must be right"?

I can't get behind a process that goes like:

a) X is common practice

b) People try to find evidence that X works

c) Can't find that evidence

so

d) Come to the conclusion that the efforts in b) have to be wrong

The correct process should result in a step d) that says "The best evidence is X doesn't work. But we're open to new evidence if you can find it."

On lineup protection the best evidence is that it doesn't do anything of significance, but we're being asked to accept that because people believe in it, it must work. I won't do that. And I don't really care if you think that stating the results of looking at the available evidence is arrogant.

[Frobby]

I appreciate you coming on here but I'm not sure you were as steadfast as some others. It's open for debate. Some acted like it was idiotic to have Machado in the #2 spot.

Lineup debates bore me, especially early in the year. I don't think I would have begun the year with Manny in the 2-hole, but it's not the end of the world, and now that he's there, I wouldn't want Buck yanking him at the drop of a hat. Buck believes in showing confidence in his guys.

Manny's going to have his ups and downs like any talented young player. I think he'll eventually be the best hitter on the team, but maybe not until 2015. If he has a sub-.300 OBP after 125-150 PA, I'd consider moving him lower in the order. For now, just let things play out a while.

[waroriole]

Terrific overall post, but I think this line sums up my beliefs perfectly.

Yeah, the whole post is fantastic.

[glenn__davis]

On lineup protection the best evidence is that it doesn't do anything of significance, but we're being asked to accept that because people believe in it, it must work. I won't do that.

No, you're really not being asked to believe that it must work. That is where your argument is incorrect.

You're being asked to believe that it happens. And we know that it happens, because we have first-hand accounts of people saying that it happens.

[DrungoHazewood]

No, you're really not being asked to believe that it must work. That is where your argument is incorrect.

You're being asked to believe that it happens. And we know that it happens, because we have first-hand accounts of people saying that it happens.

I never had any issue with believing it happens. If "it" refers to managers making decisions based on the idea of lineup protection. Obviously that happens. I just haven't seen any evidence that any more or less runs are scored because of those decisions.

[Can_of_corn]

No, you're really not being asked to believe that it must work. That is where your argument is incorrect.

You're being asked to believe that it happens. And we know that it happens, because we have first-hand accounts of people saying that it happens.

And I once again bring up BABIP. For a hundred years those in the game were positive that elite pitchers could routinely effect the quality of contact of balls put into play. That was proven false.

Given that past history I see no reason to afford lineup protection the benefit of the doubt.

[glenn__davis]

I never had any issue with believing it happens. If "it" refers to managers making decisions based on the idea of lineup protection. Obviously that happens. I just haven't seen any evidence that any more or less runs are scored because of those decisions.

OK, that's certainly fair.

I personally believe that it does make a difference, but that the amount of situations in which it would make a legitimate difference are so negligible that you'd never be able to quantify it in any way.

And I once again bring up BABIP. For a hundred years those in the game were positive that elite pitchers could routinely effect the quality of contact of balls put into play. That was proven false.

Given that past history I see no reason to afford lineup protection the benefit of the doubt.

Well with all due respect I'm really not sure what that has to do with the argument. So people were wrong then. They may very well be wrong now. It doesn't change the fact that it happens.