Lineup Protection? (Split from Ramirez)

[Geech]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

[USSoccer]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

[Outshined_One]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

[USSoccer]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

I've heard that, but that might be one metric I'd take issue with. Surely it's better to have high OBP guys 1-2 than it is to have them 6-7.

[goonys evil twin]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

I've heard that, but that might be one metric I'd take issue with. Surely it's better to have high OBP guys 1-2 than it is to have them 6-7.

 

I think it's more of a case of protection not making a difference for a player's individual production (AVG/OBP/SLG). Who bats in front of you will most defintiely affect your RBI, while who bats behind will affect your R.

[USSoccer]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

I've heard that, but that might be one metric I'd take issue with. Surely it's better to have high OBP guys 1-2 than it is to have them 6-7.

 

I think it's more of a case of protection not making a difference for a player's individual production (AVG/OBP/SLG). Who bats in front of you will most defintiely affect your RBI, while who bats behind will affect your R.

 

That makes much more sense.

[Geech]

I think it's more of a case of protection not making a difference for a player's individual production (AVG/OBP/SLG). Who bats in front of you will most defintiely affect your RBI, while who bats behind will affect your R.

 

Yes, that. I was saying that it's irrelevant to Aramis' meaningful statistics that he had no protection.

[Mizzou]

I think it's more of a case of protection not making a difference for a player's individual production (AVG/OBP/SLG). Who bats in front of you will most defintiely affect your RBI, while who bats behind will affect your R.

 

Yes, that. I was saying that it's irrelevant to Aramis' meaningful statistics that he had no protection.

So you're then saying that Aram's OBP wouldn't change if he had Barry Bonds batting behind him versus Neifi Perez? Sorry, but I don't buy that.

[Geech]

So you're then saying that Aram's OBP wouldn't change if he had Barry Bonds batting behind him versus Neifi Perez? Sorry, but I don't buy that.

 

Batting in front of Bonds sure didn't help Shea Hillenbrand or Steve Finley put up good OBP numbers this year. Meanwhile, Murton managed a pretty decent .365 OBP hitting primarily in the bottom half of the order in front of the likes of Ronny Cedeno. If protection does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to have a very pronounced effect.

 

I'm sure the topic has been the subject of various anylises if you need more in depth proof.

[nilodnayr]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

Actually, that was the perceived thought until 3 of the foremost sabermetric minds published The Book

 

Batting order does matter.

[NewUserName]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

Actually, that was the perceived thought until 3 of the foremost sabermetric minds published The Book

 

Batting order does matter.

 

In one of Bill James Abstracts in the early 80s he showed that it doesnt make a big difference who is hitting around you. I dont know if "The Book" disspells that notion but it sure looked interesting

[CubsInNC]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

Actually, that was the perceived thought until 3 of the foremost sabermetric minds published The Book

 

Batting order does matter.

 

In one of Bill James Abstracts in the early 80s he showed that it doesnt make a big difference who is hitting around you. I dont know if "The Book" disspells that notion but it sure looked interesting

 

Do you remember in the Abstract if Bill James looked at all players, or only great players, or...? I don't have statistical data to back it up, and it may be all emotional and cliche based, but I would fathom that players with a very high success rate already established would perform better in situations where they are protected, because they're already prone to success, moreso than guys who are average to below average would succeed.

 

Jeff Kent was a great offensive second baseman. His offensive skills were, in my theory, shown off more, because batting in front of the best offensive player and most prolific homerun hitter in the MLB, he saw more hitters pitches per PA, than he would have, if he had a below-average regular player hitting behind him. Players with high success rates, tend to demonstrate that success across the board. So they are more likely to succeed in situations where they see more favorable pitches per PA at a higher rate of success than those who see the "average number of hitters pitches". Just my theory, and could very well be false.

[Transmogrified Tiger]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

Actually, that was the perceived thought until 3 of the foremost sabermetric minds published The Book

 

Batting order does matter.

 

Having not read The Book, is it talking about lineup construction as it pertains to overall team production, or protection in the lineup leading to better performance for an individual hitter?

[cheapseats]

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

 

There's another (probably better) article from Baseball Primer that I can't find right now.

 

As for lineup construction, there are quite a few stats-inclined analysts who will argue that it does make a difference; however, the difference between a good batting order and a Dusty batting order over the course of a year isn't as great as one might think.

 

It's more important to put good hitters in a lineup than it is to find the optimum batting order. That doesn't mean batting order doesn't matter, it just means it's not as important as recognizing who deserves a spot in the lineup and who doesn't.

 

I feel the same way about payroll, fwiw. It's more important to spend money wisely than it is to increase payroll, but that doesn't mean increasing payroll doesn't matter.

[NewUserName]

I don't think there's any doubt. Also factor in the fact that he had no protection in the lineup either, and the fact he was able to get anything good to hit is amazing.

 

Protection isn't usually ever a factor.

 

As far as having a metric to measure it's effect?

 

My memory is that metrics tend to show that it doesn't matter how you construct a lineup in terms of the batting order and its productivity. Could be wrong, though.

 

Actually, that was the perceived thought until 3 of the foremost sabermetric minds published The Book

 

Batting order does matter.

 

In one of Bill James Abstracts in the early 80s he showed that it doesnt make a big difference who is hitting around you. I dont know if "The Book" disspells that notion but it sure looked interesting

 

Do you remember in the Abstract if Bill James looked at all players, or only great players, or...? I don't have statistical data to back it up, and it may be all emotional and cliche based, but I would fathom that players with a very high success rate already established would perform better in situations where they are protected, because they're already prone to success, moreso than guys who are average to below average would succeed.

 

Jeff Kent was a great offensive second baseman. His offensive skills were, in my theory, shown off more, because batting in front of the best offensive player and most prolific homerun hitter in the MLB, he saw more hitters pitches per PA, than he would have, if he had a below-average regular player hitting behind him. Players with high success rates, tend to demonstrate that success across the board. So they are more likely to succeed in situations where they see more favorable pitches per PA at a higher rate of success than those who see the "average number of hitters pitches". Just my theory, and could very well be false.

 

What I really remember about it was it was widely known that Dale Murphy would be the greatest hitter ever if Bob Horner could just stay healthy and protect him in the order. Bill James made a career out of taking established "truths" and exploring them. After exploring this "truth" he concluded that protection in the batting order as a whole was non-existent. If I remember correctly there may have been some individual cases where protection may have mattered. In the case of Murphy/Horner, Murphy actually hit slightly better without Horner in the lineup. I have several of his old Abstracts somewhere. If I have time this weekend maybe I will dig through them and see if I can find the article.

[Mizzou]

So you're then saying that Aram's OBP wouldn't change if he had Barry Bonds batting behind him versus Neifi Perez? Sorry, but I don't buy that.

 

Batting in front of Bonds sure didn't help Shea Hillenbrand or Steve Finley put up good OBP numbers this year. Meanwhile, Murton managed a pretty decent .365 OBP hitting primarily in the bottom half of the order in front of the likes of Ronny Cedeno. If protection does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to have a very pronounced effect.

 

I'm sure the topic has been the subject of various anylises if you need more in depth proof.

That's the point. Their OBP wasn't as good because no one is going to pitch around them to get to Bonds. Hillenbrand's OBP hitting 3rd was 284. He also hit 5th and 6th this year, and put up respective OBP's of 344 amd 325.

 

The worse the player hitting behind you is, the more likely you are to be pitched around, and more likely to have a higher OBP.

[goonys evil twin]

So you're then saying that Aram's OBP wouldn't change if he had Barry Bonds batting behind him versus Neifi Perez? Sorry, but I don't buy that.

 

Batting in front of Bonds sure didn't help Shea Hillenbrand or Steve Finley put up good OBP numbers this year. Meanwhile, Murton managed a pretty decent .365 OBP hitting primarily in the bottom half of the order in front of the likes of Ronny Cedeno. If protection does exist, it certainly doesn't seem to have a very pronounced effect.

 

I'm sure the topic has been the subject of various anylises if you need more in depth proof.

That's the point. Their OBP wasn't as good because no one is going to pitch around them to get to Bonds. Hillenbrand's OBP hitting 3rd was 284. He also hit 5th and 6th this year, and put up respective OBP's of 344 amd 325.

 

The worse the player hitting behind you is, the more likely you are to be pitched around, and more likely to have a higher OBP.

 

What about guys expanding their zone because they feel they have to do the job themselves? The walks might go up, but with less to hit, the AVG and SLG could easily go down.