Pie Leading Off??!

[jaxxradio]

NEVER MIND.. I just showed off my Ohio education.. I'm SO embarrased.. lol

[MPrior]

This isn't really true. Lineup "protection" has been shown to have no real effect on a player's performance. Secondly, if the pitcher does nibble around the zone, it will help Pie improve his plate discipline.

 

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

The best info I'm aware of (and I'm not aware of much, to be honest; I'm not as well versed in baseball statistics as some others here) comes from Baseball Between the Numbers. I unfortunately don't have a link, because I read it in a book, but the authors are all BP guys, so I'm sure their info is on the web somewhere. I didn't consider the logic of the analysis too deeply, but it seemed sound to me at first. If not, I'd love to hear why.

[cheapseats]

This isn't really true. Lineup "protection" has been shown to have no real effect on a player's performance. Secondly, if the pitcher does nibble around the zone, it will help Pie improve his plate discipline.

 

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

If anything, "protection" has been shown to have a slight (probably not statistically significant) negative effect. The hypothesis is that the pitcher exerts more effort to get an out if there's a good hitter on deck.

 

There's at least two good studies out there. I've linked to them many times on this board.

[Exile on Waveland]

We can also look at his numbers when he was actually the leadoff hitter last year.

 

 

Sarcasm?

 

Lefty/righty splits at least have some level of legitimacy. Granted, not a great sample size...

 

It may not be a great sample size, but at least there exists some tangible, empirical reason why one might produce differently against a righty or lefty. Hitting leadoff perhaps affects the psyche of some feeble-minded player -- even that's tenuous -- but it shouldn't matter. I am, however, reluctant to believe one wouldn't/couldn't hit differently against different handed pitchers. (Not that you were asserting such.)

[Mephistopheles]

This isn't really true. Lineup "protection" has been shown to have no real effect on a player's performance. Secondly, if the pitcher does nibble around the zone, it will help Pie improve his plate discipline.

 

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

lol trust me hes right

 

other things you should learn include

 

1. Runs Batted In (aka RBI) are useless.

2. Wins for pitchers are useless.

3. Managers are largely irrelevant

4. Meph is always right.

5. Catchers defense is relatively worthless.

6. Batting order does not matter

7. Error do not matter.

8. Meph is always right.

9. ERA for pitchers does not really matter.

10. Steals are relatively worthless.

11. Largely, clutch hitting does not exist.

12. There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

13. There is no such thing as a toolsy prospect who does not walk.

14. Meph is always, always correct.

 

There are others but those are a good start.

[imb]

This isn't really true. Lineup "protection" has been shown to have no real effect on a player's performance. Secondly, if the pitcher does nibble around the zone, it will help Pie improve his plate discipline.

 

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

lol trust me hes right

 

other things you should learn include

 

1. Runs Batted In (aka RBI) are useless.

2. Wins for pitchers are useless.

3. Managers are largely irrelevant

4. Meph is always right.

5. Catchers defense is relatively worthless.

6. Batting order does not matter

7. Error do not matter.

8. Meph is always right.

9. ERA for pitchers does not really matter.

10. Steals are relatively worthless.

11. Largely, clutch hitting does not exist.

12. There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

13. There is no such thing as a toolsy prospect who does not walk.

14. Meph is always, always correct.

 

There are others but those are a good start.

 

 

Sorry, you lost me there. It's always important to win the turnover battle.

[sneakypower]

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

lol trust me hes right

 

I repeat, I'd like to see the source / factual support for this. The BBTN chapter MPrior was alluding to I've read, and I'll express the flaws in it as soon as I get a few free minutes.

 

other things you should learn include

 

1. Runs Batted In (aka RBI) are useless.

2. Wins for pitchers are useless.

3. Managers are largely irrelevant

4. Meph is always right.

5. Catchers defense is relatively worthless.

6. Batting order does not matter

7. Error do not matter.

8. Meph is always right.

9. ERA for pitchers does not really matter.

10. Steals are relatively worthless.

11. Largely, clutch hitting does not exist.

12. There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

13. There is no such thing as a toolsy prospect who does not walk.

14. Meph is always, always correct.

 

There are others but those are a good start.

1. Not entirely.

2. Agreed.

3. Depends on what the relevance you're conceding they do have is.

4. Doubtful.

5. Define "relatively worthless"

6. Didn't stop people from complaining about Neifi and Corey at the top of the order. Or Soriano. Or Pierre. Batting order doesn't matter for different reasons that you're assuming.

7. Didn't you argue Tulowitzki deserved the ROY?

8. See 4

9. Agreed.

10. Disagreed.

11. Wrong. Hitters with decent strike zone awareness who use all fields generally have good success in clutch situations. But the "choking" aspect is a non-factor.

12. Agreed, but I wouldn't mind having Clayton Kershaw in our system.

13. Semantics.

14. See 8.

[Mephistopheles]

It has? I'd like to see the source of this, as the few articles I've read that claim to prove this were so specious and riddled with flawed logic it's laughable.

 

But you may be referring to a different study than the ones I've seen, in which case I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

lol trust me hes right

 

I repeat, I'd like to see the source / factual support for this. The BBTN chapter MPrior was alluding to I've read, and I'll express the flaws in it as soon as I get a few free minutes.

 

other things you should learn include

 

1. Runs Batted In (aka RBI) are useless.

2. Wins for pitchers are useless.

3. Managers are largely irrelevant

4. Meph is always right.

5. Catchers defense is relatively worthless.

6. Batting order does not matter

7. Error do not matter.

8. Meph is always right.

9. ERA for pitchers does not really matter.

10. Steals are relatively worthless.

11. Largely, clutch hitting does not exist.

12. There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.

13. There is no such thing as a toolsy prospect who does not walk.

14. Meph is always, always correct.

 

There are others but those are a good start.

1. Not entirely.

2. Agreed.

3. Depends on what the relevance you're conceding they do have is.

4. Doubtful.

5. Define "relatively worthless"

6. Didn't stop people from complaining about Neifi and Corey at the top of the order. Or Soriano. Or Pierre. Batting order doesn't matter for different reasons that you're assuming.

7. Didn't you argue Tulowitzki deserved the ROY?

8. See 4

9. Agreed.

10. Disagreed.

11. Wrong. Hitters with decent strike zone awareness who use all fields generally have good success in clutch situations. But the "choking" aspect is a non-factor.

12. Agreed, but I wouldn't mind having Clayton Kershaw in our system.

13. Semantics.

14. See 8.

 

1. Yes they are.

4. Um, yes.

5. The disparity between good and bad catchers is pretty slim relative to the disparity between say good and bad shortstops.

6. People aren't smart, I should not have to tell you this.

7. And I was not basing my argument on errors...for him or Braun.

8. See #4

10. This is true except for a tie game in the 9th inning.

11. Wrong. You're not factoring out third variables brilliant. I am because I'm quite brilliant.

13. Semantics? Do you like not follow the draft or something? Or do you think I know nothing about the draft?

14. See #8

[Mephistopheles]

I repeat, I'd like to see the source / factual support for this. The BBTN chapter MPrior was alluding to I've read, and I'll express the flaws in it as soon as I get a few free minutes.

 

I'm not your bitch. Google it. There have been dozens upon dozens upon dozens of studies that have been done on this. One of the better ones is actually in BP's between the numbers, surprisingly considered how pathetic most of that book is. They do make some mistakes, but they're not large enough to discredit the results. I really should do an anti-between the numbers thread. i get sick every time i read that crap. almost everything done is stupid in there.

 

Protection is nothing but a myth.

[Bote McBoteface]

1. Yes they are.

4. Um, yes.

5. The disparity between good and bad catchers is pretty slim relative to the disparity between say good and bad shortstops.

6. People aren't smart, I should not have to tell you this.

7. And I was not basing my argument on errors...for him or Braun.

8. See #4

10. This is true except for a tie game in the 9th inning.

11. Wrong. You're not factoring out third variables brilliant. I am because I'm quite brilliant.

13. Semantics? Do you like not follow the draft or something? Or do you think I know nothing about the draft?

14. See #8

 

What about a tie game in the 7th, 8th, or extra innings? Or in the early innings when the steal results in the go ahead run and then neither team scores the rest of the game?

 

I'm not your bitch.

.......

[badnews]

I'm not your bitch.

 

I'd like to see your source on that statement.

 

Just as aside, as someone who's seen protection as an argument misappropriated to prop up ever underachieving bum out there (O! The lament of Eric Chavez fans!) I'd greatly enjoy seeing it rubbished. What kind of protection did Soriano have in 2006? And if there's a guy there's no reason to pitch in the strike zone, it's Soriano. I think he even had a good number of IBBs that year.

[CuseCubFan69]

I'd really like to see the Cubs have 7 solid hitters and Pie. This would let him prove he belongs or doesn't for 2008 and keeps the pressure off him and Lou could play him everday.

[sneakypower]

1. Not entirely.

2. Agreed.

3. Depends on what the relevance you're conceding they do have is.

4. Doubtful.

5. Define "relatively worthless"

6. Didn't stop people from complaining about Neifi and Corey at the top of the order. Or Soriano. Or Pierre. Batting order doesn't matter for different reasons that you're assuming.

7. Didn't you argue Tulowitzki deserved the ROY?

8. See 4

9. Agreed.

10. Disagreed.

11. Wrong. Hitters with decent strike zone awareness who use all fields generally have good success in clutch situations. But the "choking" aspect is a non-factor.

12. Agreed, but I wouldn't mind having Clayton Kershaw in our system.

13. Semantics.

14. See 8.

 

1. Yes they are.

4. Um, yes.

5. The disparity between good and bad catchers is pretty slim relative to the disparity between say good and bad shortstops.

6. People aren't smart, I should not have to tell you this.

7. And I was not basing my argument on errors...for him or Braun.

8. See #4

10. This is true except for a tie game in the 9th inning.

11. Wrong. You're not factoring out third variables brilliant. I am because I'm quite brilliant.

13. Semantics? Do you like not follow the draft or something? Or do you think I know nothing about the draft?

14. See #8

1. Useless for what? It's a good initial measure for determining how well a player fared in run production. Obviously, you need to consider other factors, mainly RBI opportunities, but it has it's uses in evaluating past performance.

5. What facets of a catcher's defense are you taking into consideration? I'm assuming there's several components you're omitting.

10. Is this in reference to the intrinsic value of the physical steal, or are all factors associated with a stolen base, or the threat of a stolen base considered? If you're taking into consideration the way hitters are pitched, games are managed, the quality of pitcher being faced, catcher behind the plate, then I'd like further explanation about how tangible values were given to each of these factors. If you're not, then no [expletive]- they're valueless when you remove several other associated variables and byproducts.

11. If you're going to constantly tout your percieved brilliance, how's about learning to formulate a coherent sentence, mkay?

13. In the context of the draft, then TI absolutely SATAAPP. Considering the complete impossibility of acquiring any type of pitching talent without giving up a hefty sum these days, it is a necessity to utilize the draft in obtaining arms. The success rate in equity for hitters will understandably be greater than for pitchers, but considering how much higher the cost of purchasing pitchers is than hitters later on in a players career, it absolutely is prudent to develop your own pitching prospects.

 

I'm not your bitch. Google it. There have been dozens upon dozens upon dozens of studies that have been done on this. One of the better ones is actually in BP's between the numbers, surprisingly considered how pathetic most of that book is. They do make some mistakes, but they're not large enough to discredit the results. I really should do an anti-between the numbers thread. i get sick every time i read that crap. almost everything done is stupid in there.

 

Protection is nothing but a myth.

Are you referring to the example that uses Barry Bonds as the sole set of data for which to "prove" the point. Am I the only one who can see the inherent lunacy in this? If you're attempting to argue a stance using facts, it's a good idea not to use statistical outliers on performance enhancing chemicals.

 

I anticipate more bloviating and self-puffery in the absence of any actual counter-arguments. As is par for the course.

[MPrior]

Are you referring to the example that uses Barry Bonds as the sole set of data for which to "prove" the point. Am I the only one who can see the inherent lunacy in this? If you're attempting to argue a stance using facts, it's a good idea not to use statistical outliers on performance enhancing chemicals.

 

I anticipate more bloviating and self-puffery in the absence of any actual counter-arguments. As is par for the course.

 

While I agree with both you and Meph that Baseball Between the Numbers has its flaws (I'm only about halfway through it), it doesn't seem that you read the article very carefully. They use Bonds as an example to lead into their overall analysis, but the data they use to conclude that protection has no effect on performance is based on every player in baseball over an entire season.

[haltz]

Obviously, you need to consider other factors, mainly RBI opportunities, but it has it's uses in evaluating past performance.

What happened isn't the same thing as a player's performance for evaluation purposes.

 

Errors are bad, Meph.

[sneakypower]

Yes, I know that. But no specifics as to the context of the statements were ever made.

[Mephistopheles]

1. Useless for what? It's a good initial measure for determining how well a player fared in run production. Obviously, you need to consider other factors, mainly RBI opportunities, but it has it's uses in evaluating past performance.

5. What facets of a catcher's defense are you taking into consideration? I'm assuming there's several components you're omitting.

10. Is this in reference to the intrinsic value of the physical steal, or are all factors associated with a stolen base, or the threat of a stolen base considered? If you're taking into consideration the way hitters are pitched, games are managed, the quality of pitcher being faced, catcher behind the plate, then I'd like further explanation about how tangible values were given to each of these factors. If you're not, then no ****- they're valueless when you remove several other associated variables and byproducts.

11. If you're going to constantly tout your percieved brilliance, how's about learning to formulate a coherent sentence, mkay?

13. In the context of the draft, then TI absolutely SATAAPP. Considering the complete impossibility of acquiring any type of pitching talent without giving up a hefty sum these days, it is a necessity to utilize the draft in obtaining arms. The success rate in equity for hitters will understandably be greater than for pitchers, but considering how much higher the cost of purchasing pitchers is than hitters later on in a players career, it absolutely is prudent to develop your own pitching prospects.

 

I. No, no it isn't. There are better things that are just as readily available.

V. All of them summed up, duh.

X. I didn't say that it wasn't obvious, I was just making sure you knew that 95% of the time, they're useless and pointless. Only tie games in the 9th and extras, every other situation it isnt worth the tradeoff for most players

XI. Ironic. I before E except after C. How is about learning? Nice grammar.

XIII. False. You're better off drafting hitting prospects and trading them for ML ready pitching prospects -- one's who have already passed the injury nexus.

XV. I'm a bit of a draft expert, don't even try to debate about the draft with me.

[sneakypower]

You're assuming GMs are willing to give up quality MLB ready arms. That generally just is not the case.

 

And for the record, simple typos are a bit different than struggling to put together a sentence other people speaking the same language will have a difficult time trying to comprehend, at least in my humble opinion.

[badnews]

I agree, that sounds like a good idea in theory, but I wonder if it would work in reality. I can't think of too many instances where teams have been able to deal away a surplus of hitting talent for pitching prospects. I wonder, for example, if Florida or Baltimore were looking to land an elite pitching prospect if they could by trading Hermida/Markakis. The Delmon Young trade is an example, but not every prospect is Delmon Young. It worked for the Diamondbacks, I just wonder if you can build a philosophy around that. The Devil Rays had been developing hitting talent pretty well but up until this year couldn't get that high level arm.

 

It's certainly not a bad idea, I just wonder if it works that tidily.

[Mephistopheles]

You're assuming GMs are willing to give up quality MLB ready arms. That generally just is not the case.

 

And for the record, simple typos are a bit different than struggling to put together a sentence other people speaking the same language will have a difficult time trying to comprehend, at least in my humble opinion.

 

A. The only thing grammatically incorrect about my sentence was the lack of one comma because I just don't give a crap about it.

B. Completely untrue. ML ready pitching prospects are significantly undervalued in the trade market. You are completely wrong on this one.