Per Connolly: O's intensifying interest in Morales (Roch says he's hearing no)

[scOtt]

I've been through this same dance with you a few times already. Lineup protection does not change a players value (i.e weighted average). It may be the case that walks/OBP will be traded for SLG. The value (on aggregate) is the same. Even then, most of this shift is usually a fairly insignificinat differential between OBP/SLG. Sounds like we agree. That is what the studies/parameters on lineup protection are. If you want to call lineup protection something else, then fine. If you want to call lineup protection dancing around home plate, I cant stop you.

As you stated, most of this is applicable to batters in the 3-4-5 slots. Most teams have competent hitters in the 3-4-5 slots. Pitching around the 3-4-5 hitter in a key game situation (usually late in the game) is often done by looking at the matchups (i.e a using a LHP against a LHH instead of a RHH). That is a function of lineup construction imo. In the end, these situations are a likely wash and/or insignificant as pretty much every team does this and/or is susceptible to it. We could get into a whole other debate about the benefits of staggering the batting order with L/R hitters or stacking the lineup against the starter. It's clearly not the standard definition of "lineup protection", which is "improving the performance of the preceeding hitter with a better hitter following him, allowing him more pitches to hit."

if you want to call lineup protection something that isn't a standard definition our outside the parameters of the study, then fine. It sounds like we only have a disagreement about you expanding the definition and semantics of the term.

Probably be better for you to start a new thread, PM me, or dig up one of the old threads on this at this point. No need to derail this one.

No offense my friend...

Blah. Blah. Blah.

[scOtt]

I know. And it seems like it works to me as well. But when you extrapolate it, it doesn't. It really is not a fallacy. I know. Really odd. Doesn't seem right. Is.

I've bought into every weird stats based premise that has been posted on this board. For years. If nothing else than because Drungo is a genius.

"Lineup protection is crap" is a bridge too far for me.

[scOtt]

Screw that guy! Do. Not. Want.

[Can_of_corn]

I've bought into every weird stats based premise that has been posted on this board. For years. If nothing else than because Drungo is a genius.

"Lineup protection is crap" is a bridge too far for me.

The problem is trying to defend "Lineup protection is real".

[scOtt]

The problem is trying to defend "Lineup protection is real".

Don't gang up on me. Talk to the hand.

[weams]

[Il BuonO]

Don't gang up on me. Talk to the hand.

Do you "feel" ganged up on? What these guys are talking about is the reality. Do you think Drungo buys into protection? I'd be surprised.

"Talk to the hand" was much better than "blah, blah, blah" though.

[weams]

Do you "feel" ganged up on? What these guys are talking about is the reality. Do you think Drungo buys into protection? I'd be surprised.

"Talk to the hand" was much better than "blah, blah, blah" though.

Don't gang on scOtt. K

[Fan4Life]

Don't gang up on me. Talk to the hand.

Raises his hand...... (couldn't find a smiley) is this relevant?

http://www.purplerow.com/2013/3/23/4138108/baseball-lineup-protection

[weams]

Raises his hand...... (couldn't find a smiley) is this relevant?

http://www.purplerow.com/2013/3/23/4138108/baseball-lineup-protection

"Every sport seems to have some version of the idea that you don't let one guy beat you. Whether it's Tom Brady or Lebron James, the guys around the superstar become pivotal when the opposition overplays the star."

Only works in week lineups!

[Fan4Life]

Or this?

http://newenglishd.com/2013/01/01/lineup-protection-fact-or-fiction/

This opinion seems to encapsulate a lot of the back and forth here.

[scOtt]

Post all you want. I don't care.

[weams]

Or this?

http://newenglishd.com/2013/01/01/lineup-protection-fact-or-fiction/

This opinion seems to encapsulate a lot of the back and forth here.

The sabermetric response to this finding would likely be that even if it varies based on who hits behind you, the percentages always favor pitching to Cabrera over walking him. In other words, we never break 50.0%. This is true, but it misses something important. If 95% of the time you should pitch to Cabrera (and this is the extreme end), 1 out of 20 times, you should have walked him. This should impact you approach as a pitcher or you are being irrational. You should be more willing to walk Cabrera with Young behind him than Fielder even if your preference is to never walk him.

"Protection should and probably does exist, even if the results are relatively small. Cabrera will not have a dramatically different season with Fielder or Young behind him, but we should observe differences, which means protection is likely a real phenomenon."

I'm not positive that I really understand this. Wouldn't that mean Cabrera on base for Fielder to do damage?

[Il BuonO]

Post all you want. I don't care.

I care....about red heads. I hope she has protection if she lives in a questionable neighborhood.

[Fan4Life]

"Protection should and probably does exist, even if the results are relatively small. Cabrera will not have a dramatically different season with Fielder or Young behind him, but we should observe differences, which means protection is likely a real phenomenon."

I'm not positive that I really understand this. Wouldn't that mean Cabrera on base for Fielder to do damage?

I think he basically outlines the argument this thread is having between those "who think it should exist and therefore believe it does", and those who say "show me the evidence".