Machado in the two hole?

[Can_of_corn]

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.

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.

First off I agree with Drungo, and have stated as such, that folks do make decisions based on the concept of lineup protection.

My point with bringing up BABIP is simple. Just because folks "in the game" strongly believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

So yes, they make decisions based on "lineup protection" and then those decisions don't particularly impact what happens.

[DrungoHazewood]

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.

Is there anyone making the case that no managers make decisions based on a belief that lineup protection exists? I think we can pretty conclusively state that all kinds of managers do this every day.

What's in question is whether these moves have any kind of effect on team or individual performance. And Can_of_corn is right, baseball history is littered with examples of strategies and assumptions that everyone accepted as fact which were later proven to be completely ineffective or counter-productive.

[glenn__davis]

First off I agree with Drungo, and have stated as such, that folks do make decisions based on the concept of lineup protection.

My point with bringing up BABIP is simple. Just because folks "in the game" strongly believe something to be true doesn't make it true.

So yes, they make decisions based on "lineup protection" and then those decisions don't particularly impact what happens.

Sounds like it's probably just a semantics issue more than anything else. I just don't like it when people blanketly say that "line-up protection is a myth". It's not a myth because it happens. If you want to argue that the effects are a myth, that is a different argument, but it's usually not stated that way.

Like I said, I do believe it makes a difference but that the amount of times it actually does make a difference are overshadowed by the amount of times it doesn't, so that you'd never actually be able to tell. When you have pitchers explicitly state that they gave Player X a better pitch to hit because they didn't want to walk him in front of Player Y in a crucial situation, that to me is an impact whether it is quantifiable or not.

[Can_of_corn]

I kind wanted the Scorpion to sting Voros.

Pretty sure Voros wouldn't be dumb enough to trust a scorpion.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sounds like it's probably just a semantics issue more than anything else. I just don't like it when people blanketly say that "line-up protection is a myth". It's not a myth because it happens. If you want to argue that the effects are a myth, that is a different argument, but it's usually not stated that way.

I see it framed exactly the opposite way. Nobody doubts that managers believe in lineup protection and makes lineups with that in mind. Constantly. The only argument is whether or not it works. There is an argument about it specficially because managers always use it, yet nobody can find any evidence it does anything.

[BMoreKind]

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.

This is absolutely incorrect. Voros drew the wrong conclusions and reiterating his epiphany as the word of god a jillion times won't make it any more valid. The Fox news approach only manipulates so many.

What Voros actually validated is that MLB is the ultimate proving ground for pitchers and the difference between elite and out of the game is miniscule - based on the difference in talent between pitchers or based on the aging curve for a particular pitcher. Nothing more was "proven" by Voros despite his assertions otherwise.

Not to pick on this particular issue, but this is a shining example of how the fixation on numbers can shroud perspective, both in baseball and all other facets of reality. Numbers are an abstract representation of reality that we humans use to increase our capacity to understand and impact reality. They are not real. They do not exist in and of themselves.

On the question of lineup protection, people are not being asked to disbelieve the "facts" they are being challenged to prove their statistical evidence is both relevant and significant. That's the delusion ... folks involved with the game assert from their experience a certain fact; Tango, Voros et al. "prove" this fact is not so but fail to realize the numbers they invoke do not capture a significant enough proportion of factors at play to effectively evaluate the process; then they say "well use my numbers and try to prove me wrong." All the while failing to appreciate any incongruity to their logic and responding to critique with less than satisfactory grace.

[BMoreKind]

Pretty sure Voros wouldn't be dumb enough to trust a scorpion.

I don't think Voros would be able to differentiate the scorpion from the fly.

[DrungoHazewood]

When you have pitchers explicitly state that they gave Player X a better pitch to hit because they didn't want to walk him in front of Player Y in a crucial situation, that to me is an impact whether it is quantifiable or not.

Thus the argument. Players and even managers and coaches are not really good at eyeballing probabilities and making good decisions based on that. Sure, they think that going right after Player A so they don't walk him before Player B hits is a good idea. But the evidence is that it doesn't do much. Probably because pitchers and teams aren't stupid, they're not going to just throw meatballs to Player A, they're still going to try to get him out to the best of their ability. And they also know that walking a very strong hitter to get to a lesser hitter isn't a good idea most of the time, either, since even great hitters make outs 60% of the time and mediocre hitters can hurt you.

[glenn__davis]

I see it framed exactly the opposite way. Nobody doubts that managers believe in lineup protection and makes lineups with that in mind. Constantly. The only argument is whether or not it works. There is an argument about it specficially because managers always use it, yet nobody can find any evidence it does anything.

Well since we see the argument differently, perhaps that is where we disagree.

Taking the argument a different way, let's assume that the studies are correct and that line-up protection has minimal overall impact on runs scored. Does that mean that it doesn't still "work", to use the word you used above? I would argue that it still can be very important in certain situations. Just as it should not be accepted because people in the game "just say so" (and I agree wholeheartedly on that argument), it should also not be dismissed as impactful just because there are no numbers to quantify it.

[Can_of_corn]

This is absolutely incorrect. Voros drew the wrong conclusions and reiterating his epiphany as the word of god a jillion times won't make it any more valid. The Fox news approach only manipulates so many.

What Voros actually validated is that MLB is the ultimate proving ground for pitchers and the difference between elite and out of the game is miniscule - based on the difference in talent between pitchers or based on the aging curve for a particular pitcher. Nothing more was "proven" by Voros despite his assertions otherwise.

Not to pick on this particular issue, but this is a shining example of how the fixation on numbers can shroud perspective, both in baseball and all other facets of reality. Numbers are an abstract representation of reality that we humans use to increase our capacity to understand and impact reality. They are not real. They do not exist in and of themselves.

On the question of lineup protection, people are not being asked to disbelieve the "facts" they are being challenged to prove their statistical evidence is both relevant and significant. That's the delusion ... folks involved with the game assert from their experience a certain fact; Tango, Voros et al. "prove" this fact is not so but fail to realize the numbers they invoke do not capture a significant enough proportion of factors at play to effectively evaluate the process; then they say "well use my numbers and try to prove me wrong." All the while failing to appreciate any incongruity to their logic and responding to critique with less than satisfactory grace.

Why in the world, on this board, would you randomly add a politically slanted slam?

What did you think it added to your argument?

I also disagree with the rest of your statement.

[Malike]

Reading this thread fully, I've concluded that one side is stating that protection doesn't exist, even though every single person who has watched more than an OOTP box score can tell you that they have seen it impact games. The condescension from the "stats" guys who have little to no clue as to how the professional stats guys came up with their formulas, and how they really work is quite humorous. Anyone can regurgitate someone else's work, you don't even have to be smart to do it. Its been done lots in this thread, and when its questioned, our stat amateurs fling fancy words of distraction and don't address the points.

[BMoreKind]

Why in the world, on this board, would you randomly add a politically slanted slam?

What did you think it added to your argument?

I also disagree with the rest of your statement.

Not politically slanted at all, I do not conflate Fox entertainment with actual politics. My apologies for the offense, it was not intended as such. That was the first comparison to come to mind to illustrate the tactic of reiterating conclusions as facts over and over until some people are swayed your opinion is reality.

Not sure how to engage your blanket disagreement in any additional dialogue. Do you assert that numbers are real and not a construct? Would you care to address my example above (game 49 or game 149) and why those two events should be considered members of the same grouping for statistical analysis of lineup protection?

[El Gordo]

Not politically slanted at all, I do not conflate Fox entertainment with actual politics. My apologies for the offense, it was not intended as such. That was the first comparison to come to mind to illustrate the tactic of reiterating conclusions as facts over and over until some people are swayed your opinion is reality.

Not sure how to engage your blanket disagreement in any additional dialogue. Do you assert that numbers are real and not a construct? Would you care to address my example above (game 49 or game 149) and why those two events should be considered members of the same grouping for statistical analysis of lineup protection?

Just as there are some people who will swear that professional wrestling is real, there are those who believe Fox News,is fair and balanced, and that lineup protection is a myth.

[DrungoHazewood]

Reading this thread fully, I've concluded that one side is stating that protection doesn't exist, even though every single person who has watched more than an OOTP box score can tell you that they have seen it impact games. The condescension from the "stats" guys who have little to no clue as to how the professional stats guys came up with their formulas, and how they really work is quite humorous. Anyone can regurgitate someone else's work, you don't even have to be smart to do it. Its been done lots in this thread, and when its questioned, our stat amateurs fling fancy words of distraction and don't address the points.

So now the bar isn't just set at reading and digesting the best available research, but if we haven't done all of that reasearch ourselves it doesn't count? Ok.

Oh, and also, that "see(ing) it impact games" is vastly more important than actually finding quanitifiable evidence of said thing.

How in the world did it become so controversial to say "I know what you're saying, and I understand mangers think this is important, but I can't find a shred of evidence it scores you more runs or wins you more games."

You're basically arguing that any time data and anecdotal stories are in conflict, just trust the anecdotal stories.

[DrungoHazewood]

This is absolutely incorrect. Voros drew the wrong conclusions and reiterating his epiphany as the word of god a jillion times won't make it any more valid. The Fox news approach only manipulates so many.

What Voros actually validated is that MLB is the ultimate proving ground for pitchers and the difference between elite and out of the game is miniscule - based on the difference in talent between pitchers or based on the aging curve for a particular pitcher. Nothing more was "proven" by Voros despite his assertions otherwise.

Not to pick on this particular issue, but this is a shining example of how the fixation on numbers can shroud perspective, both in baseball and all other facets of reality. Numbers are an abstract representation of reality that we humans use to increase our capacity to understand and impact reality. They are not real. They do not exist in and of themselves.

On the question of lineup protection, people are not being asked to disbelieve the "facts" they are being challenged to prove their statistical evidence is both relevant and significant. That's the delusion ... folks involved with the game assert from their experience a certain fact; Tango, Voros et al. "prove" this fact is not so but fail to realize the numbers they invoke do not capture a significant enough proportion of factors at play to effectively evaluate the process; then they say "well use my numbers and try to prove me wrong." All the while failing to appreciate any incongruity to their logic and responding to critique with less than satisfactory grace.

So, if I'm reading you correctly... numbers aren't real. They can't be trusted. Don't make hard conclusions off of research and data, since the world is a complicated place. Just run with some basic conclusions based on how you generally perceive the world. If you dig any deeper you're bound to just come to conclusions that don't make sense.