Machado in the two hole?

[weams]

Last I read not that great but better then he had been.

Never met the man myself, I am far from an obsessed fanboy despite how BMoreKind might think.

I never though you were. I did however, think that you were conversant. Is he a soccer stat guy now?

[glenn__davis]

From the first time I picked up the Bill James 1986 Baseball Abstract at the age of 15, I realized that what baseball people know to be true is often not. My goal is NOT to prove I'm smarter or out in front of everyone else. It's to find the truth. You don't accept anyone saying that X, Y, and Z are the only ways to play baseball because they say so, or because that's the way it's always been done. You always look for information that confirms or doesn't confirm the conventional wisdom or the accepted practice.

You do this because humans are inquisitive and curious and naturally seek the truth. And you do it because the teams that find the truth and use strategies based on the truth win more games.

No arguments here from me. I think for most of us one of our primary goals of posting and participating in this forum is to learn more about the game.

[Can_of_corn]

I never though you were. I did however, think that you were conversant. Is he a soccer stat guy now?

That is what I last heard. Haven't seen anything about him since an interview I read a couple years ago.

[Number5]

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

- mlb.com

Disagree with your post on all counts. Yes, I know that you and others are attempting to claim that the goal of managers when they are employing lineup protection as a strategy is to improve a player's stats. I fully understand that is your claim and have said repeatedly that that is the fallacy of both the Tango study and your argument. Managers don't give a hoot about improving a guy's stats -- other than to say that they would love for all of their players to do well and improve wherever possible. They are trying to score more runs. Period. They believe that their best hitters will see more pitches to hit in key situations with a strong batter on deck than if a weak batter on deck. They don't expect that the hitter will do any better than usual, but they believe that he is far more likely to have positive run-scoring results than if he was pitched around and the outcome of the inning was left up to a weak hitter coming through. That is what lineup protection is about. Batting Gehrig behind Ruth isn't in an effort to improve Ruth's gaudy numbers -- it is to increase the chances that Ruth will see pitches to hit. His normal numbers are just fine, thank you.

[Number5]

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.

The evidence is right there, you are just choosing to ignore it. You agree that the study show that a player's wOBA is virtually unaffected regardless of who is on deck. That is true of both strong hitters and weak hitters. You have sarcastically pointed out that you would rather have the strong hitter up in crucial situations. That tells me that you know that the chances of a strong hitter producing runs in those spots are better than a weak hitter. The Tango study itself shows that more balls are put into play with a strong hitter on deck. Clearly, more runs are scored on balls in play with runners in scoring position hit by a player with a high wOBA than a weak one. The Tango study itself is the evidence. Tango conveniently failed to show the actual runs-scored/RBI stats, but what he did show makes it very clear that more runs must be scored when using lineup protection. You simply can't argue that there is no effect on wOBA on one hand, and then fail to acknowledge that if the hitter with the higher wOBA is the one regularly being pitched to in those situations, more runs will be scored.

[DrungoHazewood]

Disagree with your post on all counts. Yes, I know that you and others are attempting to claim that the goal of managers when they are employing lineup protection as a strategy is to improve a player's stats. I fully understand that is your claim and have said repeatedly that that is the fallacy of both the Tango study and your argument. Managers don't give a hoot about improving a guy's stats -- other than to say that they would love for all of their players to do well and improve wherever possible. They are trying to score more runs. Period. They believe that their best hitters will see more pitches to hit in key situations with a strong batter on deck than if a weak batter on deck. They don't expect that the hitter will do any better than usual, but they believe that he is far more likely to have positive run-scoring results than if he was pitched around and the outcome of the inning was left up to a weak hitter coming through. That is what lineup protection is about. Batting Gehrig behind Ruth isn't in an effort to improve Ruth's gaudy numbers -- it is to increase the chances that Ruth will see pitches to hit. His normal numbers are just fine, thank you.

What I'm trying to understand is how you could have your team score more runs but not have it show up in the numbers besides runs scored.

And if your entire point is that you score more runs when you get your best players up more often, well sure. Nobody's arguing that. Yes, you will score (a very small handful) more runs if you have your two best hitters batting 2, and 3 than if you have them batting 2 and 7.

[CA-ORIOLE]

What I'm trying to understand is how you could have your team score more runs but not have it show up in the numbers besides runs scored.

And if your entire point is that you score more runs when you get your best players up more often, well sure. Nobody's arguing that. Yes, you will score (a very small handful) more runs if you have your two best hitters batting 2, and 3 than if you have them batting 2 and 7.

His point is actually pretty specific. He's stating that (opportunities being equal) a protected batter will drive in more runs than an unprotected batter. The point is probably true. I've seen him do a better job of making it in the past than he's doing now. Probably because he's not looking at the actual study this time. Even though the protected/unprotected batters have an equivalent woba, the study does show OBP slightly lower when protected, and BA/SLG slightly higher when protected. Where I think his argument falls short is the actual significance of the differential in relation to actual events, accounting for residual outcomes from the loss in OBP, and his assumption that this leads to an increase in overall team runs.

Also, I think he tends to merge lineup optimization/grouping, lineup strength, and lineup protection into one. Particularly when it comes to MOO type batters. Probably because many analysts refer to MOO grouping as lineup protection.

[DrungoHazewood]

His point is actually pretty specific. He's stating that (opportunities being equal) a protected batter will drive in more runs than an unprotected batter. The point is probably true.

Ok, I might even concede that. But so what? I would be willing to bet that the trade in OBP/SLG offsets one another, and a protected batter won't lead to more runs scored by the team.

[CA-ORIOLE]

Ok, I might even concede that. But so what? I would be willing to bet that the trade in OBP/SLG offsets one another, and a protected batter won't lead to more runs scored by the team.

Sure, they do offset each other. That's why the study shows woba is basically the same. I've had this discussion with Number 5 many times already. That said, it is possible that there is more significance if you're talking about a very weak lineup. I basically agree with "so what" though. We're really digging into some menusha here imo.

[DrungoHazewood]

Sure, they do offset each other. That's why the study shows woba is basically the same. I've had this discussion with Number 5 many times already. That said, it is possible that there is more significance if you're talking about a very weak lineup. I basically agree with "so what" though. We're really digging into some menusha here imo.

Tango has said that he developed his first lineup simulation program to figure out the best way to deploy his softball team's lineup. There I can believe it. If you have the equivalent of two 2.000 OPS guys, a few around 1.000, and a bunch of guys who are between .200 and .500, yea all kinds of different strategies probably come into play. You just intentionally walk the two guys who hit it over the fence every other time up, and pitch to the guys who look like me. But that ain't Major League Baseball.

I think a lot of the little misconceptions in strategy can be traced back to people trying to apply very low quality baseball standards from their experiences to MLB. Contact vs strikeouts, for another example. Yes, it makes sense to never strike out when the average guy fields .725.

[BMoreKind]

Tango has said that he developed his first lineup simulation program to figure out the best way to deploy his softball team's lineup. There I can believe it. If you have the equivalent of two 2.000 OPS guys, a few around 1.000, and a bunch of guys who are between .200 and .500, yea all kinds of different strategies probably come into play. You just intentionally walk the two guys who hit it over the fence every other time up, and pitch to the guys who look like me. But that ain't Major League Baseball.

I think a lot of the little misconceptions in strategy can be traced back to people trying to apply very low quality baseball standards from their experiences to MLB. Contact vs strikeouts, for another example. Yes, it makes sense to never strike out when the average guy fields .725.

Although the bolded may have been interpreted as condescending by anyone with an opinion not in complete accord with yours, I will not assume that was your intent.

On that point of yours in particular, though, how does your dismissive tone toward people questioning Tango's conclusions on lineup protection square with the origin of the debate - specifically folks involved with baseball on a professional level asserting lineup protection impacts how the game is played and W-L results versus Tango et al. insisting the numbers prove otherwise? Now it seems you're saying a lack of exposure to high level baseball causes the misconception of lineup protection. Please illuminate the congruity for me.

Given the quotes from last night's game, will Nate McLouth slowly but surely rid himself of this misconception as he is more removed from his time with the Pirates? Said McLouth: "It's nice to be able to count on guys and have them not pitch around certain guys, because you have guys right behind them that can do damage." I'll cede the last twenty years of Pirate baseball failing to meet the high level baseball criteria, but Atlanta seem to have maintained a well run organization for years. At least from afar.

I know there are a few folks on the board proffering disparate reasons for questioning Tango's conclusion, but you have not really answered my point re: a defectively designed study and false assumptions used to frame the study.

[Mr Snuffleupagus]

Bump. Machado not only has been doing a good job in the #2 hole, he's been one of the team's better hitters lately. It's not just about results. Manny is showing the willingness to use the opposite field. He's also doing a good job of working the count and he's no base clogger either. Someday, he's likely to be a middle of the order hitter but for now he's looking more and more like a really good #2 hitter.

Almost had two doubles to RF last night. Missed one by 3" off the chalk before eventually striking out. This lineup has a ton of potential, especially if Roberts comes back healthy.

[OFFNY]

.

He's coming around. There's still a long way to go this season.

[Bahama O's Fan]

So why do we question Buck?

[isestrex]

Bump. Machado not only has been doing a good job in the #2 hole, he's been one of the team's better hitters lately. It's not just about results. Manny is showing the willingness to use the opposite field. He's also doing a good job of working the count and he's no base clogger either. Someday, he's likely to be a middle of the order hitter but for now he's looking more and more like a really good #2 hitter.

To say he caught on quicker than I expected is an understatement.

I never really objected to Manny in the #2 hole... towards the end of the season. I just didn't see why it had to be right out of the gate. Obviously I'm not major league manager.