Torii Hunter a back-burner option (Signs w/Twins)

[clapdiddy]

I'd rather Hunter for 1/10 than Markakis for 4/40.

Me too. I still think there might be something bigger going on than a Hunter signing, though.

[MurphDogg]

Having Miguel Cabrera hit behind you will do that.

He has only been teammates with Cabrera for two years and his 2014 numbers in the 76 games he hit in front of Miguel Cabrera were .290/315/459 and in the 59 games he didn't they were 287/331/439. Also, lineup protection is a myth.

[CA-ORIOLE]

He has only been teammates with Cabrera for two years and his 2014 numbers in the 76 games he hit in front of Miguel Cabrera were .290/315/459 and in the 59 games he didn't they were 287/331/439. Also, lineup protection is a myth.

Nice info. I wouldn't go as far to call it a "myth" but it is fairly irrelevant.

[Babypowder]

Me too. I still think there might be something bigger going on than a Hunter signing, though.

I hope so. I don't particularly want Hunter or Markakis.

[Number5]

He has only been teammates with Cabrera for two years and his 2014 numbers in the 76 games he hit in front of Miguel Cabrera were .290/315/459 and in the 59 games he didn't they were 287/331/439. Also, lineup protection is a myth.

Well, lineup protection is certainly misunderstood, but it is no myth.

It is a myth to think that being "protected" will help a hitters rate stats. It is a fact, however, that having a good hitter behind a hitter will result in his being pitched to, rather than pitched around, more often in key situations. Managers want their good hitters pitched to in those situations in order that the team is likely to score more runs. Managers aren't looking for improved rate stats in those situations -- they are looking for the good hitter to perform as he normally does - which is better than a weak hitter.

This is a poor example anyway, since Cabrera is the guy in that lineup that the manager wants to make sure is "protected", more-so than Hunter. However, even in this case, it is clear that Hunter's rate stats were unaffected, although he may well have had an increase in RBI ( a non-rate stat) as a function of being pitched to when runners are on base.

All of the arguments against the existence of lineup protection start with the invalid premise that its purpose is to improve a hitter's rate stats. Managers don't care about that. They are trying to make sure that their best hitters are more likely to see pitches to hit in key situations, rather than being walked or pitched around. Managers are assuming the same performance by their best hitters in these situations as in other situations, not better performance. Their better hitters, hitting as they normally would, are going to help the team more in those high leverage situations than the team's weaker hitters would, and that is the whole idea behind lineup protection. It is also the reason that all managers employ the strategy.

[Can_of_corn]

Well, lineup protection is certainly misunderstood, but it is no myth.

It is a myth to think that being "protected" will help a hitters rate stats. It is a fact, however, that having a good hitter behind a hitter will result in his being pitched to, rather than pitched around, more often in key situations. Managers want their good hitters pitched to in those situations in order that the team is likely to score more runs. Managers aren't looking for improved rate stats in those situations -- they are looking for the good hitter to perform as he normally does - which is better than a weak hitter.

This is a poor example anyway, since Cabrera is the guy in that lineup that the manager wants to make sure is "protected", more-so than Hunter. However, even in this case, it is clear that Hunter's rate stats were unaffected, although he may well have had an increase in RBI ( a non-rate stat) as a function of being pitched to when runners are on base.

All of the arguments against the existence of lineup protection start with the invalid premise that its purpose is to improve a hitter's rate stats. Managers don't care about that. They are trying to make sure that their best hitters are more likely to see pitches to hit in key situations, rather than being walked or pitched around. Managers are assuming the same performance by their best hitters in these situations as in other situations, not better performance. Their better hitters, hitting as they normally would, are going to help the team more in those high leverage situations than the team's weaker hitters would, and that is the whole idea behind lineup protection. It is also the reason that all managers employ the strategy.

From what I remember reading protection mostly results in the "protected" hitters receiving higher quality strikes.

So I guess it increases the stress level of the pitcher.

[CA-ORIOLE]

From what I remember reading protection mostly results in the "protected" hitters receiving higher quality strikes..

Certainly pitched to more directly rather than pitched around. Typically resulting in the protected batter having a lower walk rate and a higher BA and/or SLG percentage but a lower OBP. Aggregate samples show it's generally a wash by woba. I recall one study indicating the protected batter actually did slightly worse overall. If I'm reading murphdoggs' data right, the Hunter results are fairly typical.

So I guess it increases the stress level of the pitcher

Maybe. Certainly the pitcher changes his approach to some degree with a protected batter, but assuming the pitcher employs a similar strategy to protected hitters it should result in less pitches thrown. I have always that that going after a hitter rather than pitching around him is a better approach for the pitcher, but it all boils down to the quality of the pitches I guess. A lot of nuances to this obviously.

[Guest]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I'm told Torii Hunter's decision could come as early as today: <a href="http://t.co/NlbDLaTUbS">http://t.co/NlbDLaTUbS</a></p>— Chris Cotillo (@ChrisCotillo) <a href="

">December 2, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[weams]

Nice info. I wouldn't go as far to call it a "myth" but it is fairly irrelevant.

I was listening to Damian Moss carrying on about how important it is the other day. For like a half hour he went on and on and on.

[weams]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>I'm told Torii Hunter's decision could come as early as today: <a href="http://t.co/NlbDLaTUbS">http://t.co/NlbDLaTUbS</a></p>— Chris Cotillo (@ChrisCotillo) <a href="

">December 2, 2014</a></blockquote>

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

In the town where I was born

Lived a man who sailed to sea

And he told us of his life

In the land of submarines

[Can_of_corn]

Maybe. Certainly the pitcher changes his approach to some degree with a protected batter, but assuming the pitcher employs a similar strategy to protected hitters it should result in less pitches thrown. I have always that that going after a hitter rather than pitching around him is a better approach for the pitcher, but it all boils down to the quality of the pitches I guess. A lot of nuances to this obviously.

That would be why I was kinda ambivalent about my support for my own theory. It might increase the stress level if the pitcher knows he has to throw good strikes.

The increased stress due to protection is probably causing the steep rise in TJ surgeries.

[weams]

That would be why I was kinda ambivalent about my support for my own theory. It might increase the stress level if the pitcher knows he has to throw good strikes.

The increased stress due to protection is probably causing the steep rise in TJ surgeries.

Split finger and breaking pitches.

[Can_of_corn]

Split finger and breaking pitches.

Velocity.

[weams]

Velocity.

I believe that.

[Can_of_corn]

I believe that.

So do I. I don't think the ligaments and tendons can be conditioned to reliably handle the stress.

Of course that is pure speculation on my part.