Printable View
No, he probably uses reams of data that have discredited protection since the 80's. Just google "Protection baseball myth"Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
And I have no way of sifting out Mannyless Ortiz games...what a pain that would be...but i know for the last six weeks of 2006 he raked without Manny. And the last half of last year he did just as well with as without Manny.
If I was being thorough, no, I'd use the countless studies that show that players perform the same regardless of the next batter in the order.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
*see below*Quote:
I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it.
Well, considering Maris performed almost exactly the same in 1960 as he did in 1961, despite hitting behind Mantle, I'd say those claims are dubious at best.Quote:
Off the top of my head i'll point to the Roger Maris / Mantle debate which has gone on for years. You can decipher the stats but there has been many that claimed Maris's numbers were greatly influenced by hitting in front of Mantle.
The question is not whether or not the players "concentrate more" or whatever...it's whether this actually has a meaningful effect on their performance.Quote:
I know you've heard players state that they concerntrate harder in the field when a great game is being pitched as they don't want to make an error. While impossible to quantify.....i'm not one to call the players liars. The situation and performance of the pitcher improved the concentration of the players who mentioned this.
We've already established the vast differences between baseball and those sports. I suggest you reread the long post Swampdog made. I'm not discussing those sports. I'm talking specifically about baseball.Quote:
Pippen / Jordan, Bird / Ainge, the other poster in here made alot of sense. In hoops, it is very prevalent as a great player will garner double teams allowing another to have better looks at the basket.
Same goes in football. The #2 reciever very often benefits when a truly great #1 is alongside. Again, off the top of my head but James Lofton, Eric Moulds are two that come to mind. May or may not be entirely accurate but i'm sure good examples exist.
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?Quote:
I'm not putting alot of effort into researching something I feel is obvious. I really just don't care that much in persuading you of it.
I would like to discuss the topic further, because I find it interesting. If you wish to do so, I do have a serious question for you. How would you explain to somebody, say a younger child, a son or daughter, somebody just getting into baseball, how to separate the "winning player", the one that improves his teammates by his mere presence, etc. from the rest of the players? If it's so obvious, would you mind explaining what characteristics to look for?
The real question is do BASEBALL EXECUTIVES believe in protection?
It's such a ludicrous subject. Words like 'fear' and 'terrify' come up a lot. Dumb things are said like "Youkilis can't protect Ortiz, because no one fears him."
GOOD! Don't fear Youkilis. Please continue to challenge Youk.
/vent off. Sorry.
I've never stated that every opinion i've posted should be obvious. Far from it, and I beg you to not put words into my mouth. What I feel is obvious is what you've already agreed with me on which is;Quote:
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?
To me it's obvious. If you agree that players can be motivated to 'concentrate more', and put forth additional effort that it has to improve performance. I think you simply are looking way too deep into this. If you believe in other sports that player performance can be effected for various reasons, why is it so hard to believe that the same would happen in baseball?Quote:
The question is not whether or not the players "concentrate more" or whatever...it's whether this actually has a meaningful affect on their performance.
I am very open to the fact that my 'opinions' on whether a player is a 'winner' and stuff along those lines may not in fact be accurate. I have no problem with it....it's an opinion i have and I have based upon personal experiences of which I've endulged upon. I've already said I can't quantify it. Its very possible though it may be a wrong opinion. I say you are closed minded because you seem to ridicule my opinion rather than accept it as it is, an opinion. It goes far beyond 'looking for answers', you are not looking to do so. That is just a guise you are using as you look to lead others (me) into agreeing with your opinion. It's obvious you've already discarded any contrary opinion. As I've said, you are entitled to you opinion, even if its wrong. The same goes for me. Please respect that.Quote:
Fine, you don't wish to discuss the issue, than that's that. I'm sorry for being, you know, open-minded and wishing to have a discussion of the topic, but it's clear your opinion is set in stone that it's "obvious". I would be interested, though, in knowing which stance here is the more close-minded one, in your opinion of course. The one willing to engage in a discussion and seek evidence contrary to his personal thought, or the one who sums up their opinion as "obvious"?
I'm not going to address the baseball aspect of this (too much). It's not really my forte to get into mystique vs. SABR. No matter which side of the argument you take, you're going to be opposed by some sneering and harsh criticism.
In terms of basketball and football, it's a much different story. Swampdog touched on this earlier. They're team sports, where individual performance is highly dependent upon teammates. The game moves quickly, plays are run, everyone has to work together.
Baseball is far more of a station-to-station, turn-by-turn type of game. It's very difficult to discern what type of effect one guy can have on his teammates. There's no doubt that pitching strategies can change depending on who's in the lineup, and batters have to work together with runners, and fielders with each other, and so on, but for the most part, baseball is a collection of individuals, and a team is not much more or less than the sum of its parts.
There's no equivalent in baseball for basketball's point guard or playmaker (MJ, LeBron), or football's quarterback or middle linebacker. But even in those situations, the players around them don't suddenly become more skilled, the game changes for them.
A guy like Michael Jordan made his team "better" (or, as Swampdog noted, gave them more opportunities and made things easier for them) by commanding so much attention from the opposition, and knowing how to take charge of the offense and take charge of the game. If MJ wanted you to take a shot, you were going to take a shot. If MJ wanted you to pick a defender, you were going to pick a defender. Scottie Pippen would have been a vastly different player (although he'd have the same skills) without Michael Jordan.
Some QBs in football have a "knack" for making things happen when they have to. Since football has a clock, the face of the game changes depending on the situation. A QB that can adjust well to different situations is going to have an edge over those who don't. This is the difference between the Jeff Georges and Donovan McNabbs of the world. A QB also has to be an on-field coach, something that doesn't come up much with the slow pace and signs from the dugout of baseball.
It's pretty easy to see, in fast-moving, team sports with clocks, where players have effect on each other. Not so much in baseball.
Is it possible that Hitter A can effect Hitter B? It has to be. Just like what I eat for breakfast can effect the rest of my day somehow. What kind of effect, and how great an effect, that's what's difficult to tell.
This isn't a discussion that's going to be "won" by either side.
At the end of the day, I have to default to the idea that the average professional athlete is a grown man, a dedicated and hard-working individual, and is going to sustain the level of performance he's physically capable of, in spite of how heroic one of his teammates might be, or how many "grinders" he's surrounded by, or whatever. Outside of a guy's physical skills and knowledge, I can't believe there's a great deal of effect from one dude to another in the game of baseball, unless it's in preparation. Like sharing information about batting stances or swings or pitches or basestealing techniques. But that's called coaching, and it's not quite the same as one player mysteriously making other players change.
Still, sometimes you have to wonder about incidental effects. Such as the Manny in LA "having fun for once" effect...
excellent post and one which i agree with near 100%. I just feel the effects in baseball are obviously not as significant as those in the other sports due to the differences in the game....yet find it hard to believe they don't exist in one fashion or another regardless of how trivial they may be.Quote:
Originally Posted by justanewguy
Than why don't the statistics bear it out?Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I don't think "too deep" exists.Quote:
I think you simply are looking way too deep into this.
Swampdog and others have already gone over in detail why there's a huge difference (and I see justanewguy did so again in the above post). I'll refer you back to those posts, but just state it in the simplest way I can right here - Basketball and football are very team-oriented, while baseball is much less team-oriented.Quote:
If you believe in other sports that player performance can be effected for various reasons, why is it so hard to believe that the same would happen in baseball?
Man, you have got to lose the "He's out to get me" mindset. I'm not using any sort of guise. I'm being straight and up front. There's no conspiracy here. I don't, for the life of me, understand how asking for evidence and wishing to participate in a discussion is "ridiculing your opinion."Quote:
I say you are closed minded because you seem to ridicule my opinion rather than accept it as it is, an opinion. It goes far beyond 'looking for answers', you are not looking to do so. That is just a guise you are using as you look to lead others (me) into agreeing with your opinion. It's obvious you've already discarded any contrary opinion.
If I've already discarded any contrary opinion, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I don't care if you change your opinion or not. I wish to have a discussion because I enjoy discussing baseball, and don't mind my opinions being challenged, so long as I can LEARN something from those challenging my opinions, and that usually happens through the things they use to support their challenge. I'm not seeking to change your mind. It's obvious that you won't (which isn't a bad thing, by the way, so please, don't take that as an attack). However, as I said, this opinion is something widely held in the world of baseball, and I'd like to understand WHY, which is why I've been desperately seeking evidence. If you want to go on thinking that I'm somehow using that as a guise to get you to change your mind, go ahead, but you're wrong on that.
At any rate, I suppose I'll just come to terms with the fact that the people that believe in this thing believe in it as more a matter of faith than a matter of fact, and that's perfectly fine. I suppose the answers I seek just simply don't exist. I'm more than happy to entertain any "answers" you can provide, not as some crazy plan to change your mind but to further mine.
IMO, its because the effects are minor but that doesn't mean to say insignificant. An extra hit in a pressure situation, or increased focus on the defensive aspect of the game can get a win yet do little to impact stats over a full year. Also, i honestly haven't looked through all the 'protection myth' stuff, but I do believe pitchers throw different dependant upon situations. With a runner on first, I strongly believe a hitter is pitched to differently in some situations depending upon who's next in the lineup. The red sox are not a good example as their lineup is so potent. When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better. In fact, when discussing the 'ideal' lineup in a thread a few months ago, my lineup was Barry Bonds, followed by Barry Bonds, followed by Bonds, by Bond, by Bonds, and guess who followed him? I posted in there, "imaging the numbers he would have put up"....and in that thread, I'm near positive you posted that you agreed. How does that scenario not explain that protection will improve performance if we both agree that having a player of bonds caliber hitting behind him would allow him to improve his stats?Quote:
Than why don't the statistics bear it out?
People are people are people, regardless of what sport they play. In addition to the 'team aspect' of those games he talked about, in which a double team of a hoopster leaves another open....i think some of the posters also talked about a mental aspect of the game. I've already talked about motivation many times....if a player can be motivated by another player (win one for the gipper), than IMO that translates to increased performance however again it may be near impossible to quantify. I believe players can be motivated, thus...it doesn't matter what sport or walk of life we're talking, one person can improve the performance of another, IMO.Quote:
Swampdog and others have already gone over in detail why there's a huge difference (and I see justanewguy did so again in the above post). I'll refer you back to those posts, but just state it in the simplest way I can right here - Basketball and football are very team-oriented, while baseball is much less team-oriented.
This most certainly does not seem like the tone of your position earlier. Possibly I (and others) misread it, but it seems to me that when called on it in other threads as in this one you then take a more civil tone. Your last paragraph is exactly how I feel. In addition to faith, it just seems like common sense to me. common sense is not common however....and i could be entirely wrong.Quote:
Man, you have got to lose the "He's out to get me" mindset. I'm not using any sort of guise. I'm being straight and up front. There's no conspiracy here. I don't, for the life of me, understand how asking for evidence and wishing to participate in a discussion is "ridiculing your opinion."
If I've already discarded any contrary opinion, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. I don't care if you change your opinion or not. I wish to have a discussion because I enjoy discussing baseball, and don't mind my opinions being challenged, so long as I can LEARN something from those challenging my opinions, and that usually happens through the things they use to support their challenge. I'm not seeking to change your mind. It's obvious that you won't (which isn't a bad thing, by the way, so please, don't take that as an attack). However, as I said, this opinion is something widely held in the world of baseball, and I'd like to understand WHY, which is why I've been desperately seeking evidence. If you want to go on thinking that I'm somehow using that as a guise to get you to change your mind, go ahead, but you're wrong on that.
At any rate, I suppose I'll just come to terms with the fact that the people that believe in this thing believe in it as more a matter of faith than a matter of fact, and that's perfectly fine. I suppose the answers I seek just simply don't exist. I'm more than happy to entertain any "answers" you can provide, not as some crazy plan to change your mind but to further mine.
"When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better. "
1. The greatest hitter in the history of baseball-arguably-doesn't need protection.
2. He had a hall of fame hitter batting after him. What more 'protection' did he need?
3. I have no real way of seeing if Kent affected Bonds walk totals because with and without Kent, Bonds walk totals are all over the frigging place.
EDIT: I put in #1 because when people tell me Manny protected Ortiz, i say 'Who protects Manny? he rakes no matter who is hitting after him, no matter where he is.', and people say 'Manny Ramirez doesn't need protection'.
why does protection have to end with the player hitting behind him? Kent is a quality hitter, but who was behind kent? the Giants have had pretty poor lineups for ahwile now. was kent of good enough quality to have pitchers change how they pitched? Who knows? Maybe some, not all? Who knows?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pavelb1
I just go back to what I feel is common sense. A team full of Barry Bonds type talents IMO are not going to be walked nearly as much. IMO, that does lead to better stats at least in terms of HR's and RBI's as well as team runs. Yes, a team full of Barry Bonds is an extreme and impossible example....but if you can believe that 'protection' could exist in that scenario I don't see how you can believe it doesn't exist at all.
If you're at all interested in "protection", and well, an assortment of other baseball things, I strongly suggest The Book: Playing the Percentages in Baseball. A runner on first does make pitchers throw differently, and according to the studies in that book, it results in a benefit for the hitter.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
You're absolutely correct in the first part. As I said a few posts ago, the multiple studies on the issue have shown that the only thing affected by "protection" is walk rate. On the second part, well, whether or not you "can't see it", it's there. Players, on the whole, perform the same, regardless of who hits behind them (excepting, of course, walk rate).Quote:
When i look at Barry Bonds however, if he had good 'protection' I doubt he would have seen as many walks as he did over his career. With more pitches to hit, I can't see how his stats wouldn't have been better.
I vaguely recall that thread, but I don't think I agreed that Bonds hitting behind a player would allow that player to improve his stats. I definitely would've agreed to a lineup of 9 Barry Bonds's being the "ideal lineup" (well, Babe Ruth and Ted Williams over him, but I don't think that the previous discussion included them), but that has nothing to do with protection and is solely based on the fact that Barry Bonds is a fricken great hitter.Quote:
In fact, when discussing the 'ideal' lineup in a thread a few months ago, my lineup was Barry Bonds, followed by Barry Bonds, followed by Bonds, by Bond, by Bonds, and guess who followed him? I posted in there, "imaging the numbers he would have put up"....and in that thread, I'm near positive you posted that you agreed. How does that scenario not explain that protection will improve performance if we both agree that having a player of bonds caliber hitting behind him would allow him to improve his stats?
If the increased performance is so small that it is near impossible to quantify, it's not meaningful enough to matter.Quote:
I've already talked about motivation many times....if a player can be motivated by another player (win one for the gipper), than IMO that translates to increased performance however again it may be near impossible to quantify.
This is exactly the issues "The Book" deals with.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
Unless it gets you one win in a season in which you would have tied with another team, and had to end up playing one of those stupid 'tiebreaker' games we disagreed upon a week ago. ;)Quote:
If the increased performance is so small that it is near impossible to quantify, it's not meaningful enough to matter.
But what you're looking for is a verifyable improvement of statistics to quantify the 'protection' label. If a player is seeing less walks, that equates to more opportunity. In the terms of bonds, that unquestionably would equal more HR's and RBI's which with all his walks IMO would be more than substantial enough to show a pretty quantifyable difference in the HR and RBI stats.Quote:
You're absolutely correct in the first part. As I said a few posts ago, the multiple studies on the issue have shown that the only thing affected by "protection" is walk rate. On the second part, well, whether or not you "can't see it", it's there. Players, on the whole, perform the same, regardless of who hits behind them (excepting, of course, walk rate).
That may seem like "common sense", but the results don't bear it out.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
I could've sworn that "The Book" had a section on protection, but I can't seem to find it. At any rate, Baseball Between the Numbers does, in the chapter dealing with lineup order titled "Was Billy Martin Crazy?"
They first show a graph of the performance of all players in 2004 that hit ahead of low-quality hitters, medium-low quality hitters, medium quality hitters, medium-high quality hitters, and high quality hitters. They show average, on-base percentage, slugging percentage, walk rate, and intentional walk rate, but for simplicity's sake, I'll just show the OPS:
Hitting in front of ___ quality hitters;
Low: .728
Med-low: .744
Med: .764
Med-high: .777
High: .796
At first glance, this would "confirm" the existence of protection. However, as the book goes on to note, there's serious problems with such a study. Lineups tend to be grouped by ability. The best hitters bat at the top or in the middle, and the worst hitters bat at the bottom. Therefore, players who bat in front of high quality hitters are more likely to be high quality hitters themselves. So, when you look at the performance of ALL players depending on who hit behind them, you're going to see a higher quality of performance from players ahead of high quality hitters simply because the methods of lineup construction will more often than not place high quality hitters in front of high quality hitters.
They correct for this, however, by comparing those numbers to what we'd expect the batters to do based on their overall season numbers. After doing that, rather than a steady upward progression, there's little chance in performance. Below is a chart of the change in OPS depending on the quality of the next hitter in the order.
Low: .008
Med-low: -.002
Med: -.002
Med-high: .010
High: -.013
There's no pattern at all here, and very little change in OPS depending on the next batter. As the chapter concludes on the protection issue:
"Protection is overrated. There's no evidence that having a superior batter behind another batter provides the initial batter with better pitches to hit; if it does, those batters see no improvement in performance as a result."
There's numerous other studies all over the internet that you can turn up with simple Google searches. If you're interested, I'd be happy to link to further ones.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/stats/...l&endDate=null
You can create your ultimate clutch lineup starting with your cleanup hitter Carlos Zambrano.