Does lineup 'protection' exist?
by Travis G on May 28, 2009 3:39 PM EDT
in New York Yankees Analysis
Email
PrintMany have assumed Mark Teixeira is hitting the ball due to the return of A-Rod and the 'protection' he provides. However, there are several points that seem to refute that notion:
1) Tex always hits better in May than in April. His career batting line in April is .249/.349/.433. In May it's .294/.378/.544. In fact, April is his worst month of the whole season.
2) Tex is not seeing more fastballs since A-Rod's return.
3) Several studies by major baseball analytical minds -
However, there is an intriguing study that suggests that it might exist.
Common sense says it does. The studies (largely) say it doesn't. What's your take?
26 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Tex may not be seeing a higher percentage of fastballs, but I’ll bet he’s seeing more in traditional “fastball counts.”
When A-Rod was out, how many times did Tex see 3-1 or 3-2 breaking balls?
He’s also not fouling off hittable pitches like he was in April, so that probably has more to do with it than A-Rod coming back, though obviously it helps if the guy hitting behind you is a threat.
by New York Sports Jerk on May 28, 2009 3:49 PM EDT reply actions
Stats can't really
say if it exists.
Just cuz a guy isn’t seeing MORE FASTBALLS, doesn’t mean he isn’t seeing a fastball when he expects to see one.
Lineup protection doesn’t mean more fastballs. FOr example, when A-Rod wasn’t there, Texiera might see 5 breaking balls to make the count 3-2, but then with A-Rod out of the lineup he’ll see yet another breaking ball, or even a ball in the dirt instead.
Without lineup protection, you aren’t worried about putting a guy on base, I.E. WALKING HIM, so you can try to entice a swing and miss
Protection most certainly exists. Even the fact that Tex knows that if he doesn’t do anything, there’s a guy hitting behind him that is just as good a hitter as him.
Isn't that...
…just a wordier way of saying exactly what I did?
by New York Sports Jerk on May 28, 2009 4:32 PM EDT up reply actions
yea....
I didn’t read your post before I did mine…
My bone…..
by FreeBradshaw on May 28, 2009 5:11 PM EDT up reply actions
you're that sure it exists?
then prove it. many in-depth studies have shown it does not, so i’m wondering why you’re so sure.
the fastball thing was in response to a comment Rick Sutcliffe made during a recent broadcast. he was wrong.
i remember people saying Miggy Cabrera’s departure would hurt Hanley Ramirez’ production. it didn’t. if anything, he’s been a little better without him.
think about it this way –
if Tex hits in front of Miguel Cairo, he’ll get walked a lot more bc pitchers aren’t scared of Cairo taking them deep, so his OBP will go way up.
if Tex hits in front of Arod, his walks will go way down bc pitchers dont want to put a runner on in front of Arod, so his SLG should go up bc more pitches are grooved.
those 2 scenarios kind of even out. i, for one, am not sure about protection. i dont know how you can be so positive.
Because
The concept of protection has been around baseball forever. Managers talk about it. Hittiers talk about it. Pitchers talk about it. So I seriously doubt it is some statistically false concept. To me it is the most common sense thing there is in Baseball. It is very simple and I think we over think things sometimes. 2 monster hitters. First guy is gonna see more fastballs BECAUSE most pitchers have an easier time locating in the zone with the four seamer. You do not want to walk the guy because monster hitter number 2 can drive in two with a single swing. You could potentially pitch around both, but then are in a position of runners on first and second and the percentages are stacked against you with getting out of the inning unscathed. Now if you have 2 monster hitters and 7 Cody Ransoms then you probably can pitch them more carefully.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on May 28, 2009 6:24 PM EDT up reply actions
it is not about numbers alone
Sabremetrics does not make up the whole game, every theory they create is not necessarily true.
When one looks at numbers alone you can come to assumptions that are not true. Who determines the quality
of pitches that Texeira faces with and without A-Rod? Are 5 straight 98MPH fastballs from Papelbon equivalent
to 5 straight 89 MPH fastballs from BJ Ryan? Numbers can tell you that in both instances he received 5 fastballs.
Now what if Ryan’s best pitch is a changeup, and Papelbon’s a fastball, now both ABs would indicate he got
5 fastballs, but one is a pitchers best pitch, the other a pitcher’s 2nd or 3rd best pitch.
Does this make the AB equal? Where were the pitches located? A strike zone has 9 zones, how many permutations
exist before those ABs become equal?
As for Hanley/Cabrera. Ramirez is a young player. Who is to say that the difference in numbers is not due to his
natural improvement curve?
Ask any catcher if their is a difference, they will tell you YES. But somebody punching numbers into a calculator
will tell you otherwise even though they have never been in that game situation? Sabremetrics is to be used in
conjunction with baseball wisdom, but somehow it has morphed into an arrogant assertion that we know better
and we are going to prove the baseball establishment dumb.
www.fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com
Your logic is flawed
Great hitters attack fastballs better than any other pitch. Doesn’t matter who is pitching. Meaning that the advantage you get is proportionate relative to the quality of the pitcher. So lets say BJ Ryan throws an 89 mph fastball and the situation dictates that he has to throw 5. Your advantage as the batter is proportionate relative to how you normally hit him. If I hit BJ Ryan at a .250 clip, and he is forced to throw me his “fastball”, I may now be able to hit him at a .400 rate. If I hit Papelbon at .125 and he is forced to throw me fastballs I may now be able to hit him at .225. So it is clear that as a great hitter, I am more apt to do something with a fastball regardless of who it is from, proportionate to how good the pitcher is.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on May 28, 2009 8:05 PM EDT up reply actions
How is the logic flawed?
I was proving that you cannot break down both 5 pitch ABs as equal based on the fact they were fastballs.
I don’t care how much their chance of hitting a fastball improves.
As a catcher if my pitcher’s best pitch is a cutter or a slider and I face a hitter and throw cutters in and sliders
away for 8 pitches, and the next inning I face the same hitter with a different pitcher whose best pitch is a fastball
and I work that up and in for 6 pitches, I have used the best of his arsenal to get the hitter out.
One AB shows 8 sliders/cutter against 6 fastballs. How can somebody determine whether I attacked the batter
or pitched around the batter through numbers or stats on a page?
If individuals want to prove these assertions correct, shouldn’t they use the statistics at their disposal AS WELL
as sit down with the individuals responsible for the pitch selection? The ONLY individuals who knows whether
they pitched around a player or not are the ones involved, yet they are totally bypassed in order to prove a theory
correct with numbers.
www.fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com
I think you are complicating things
The bottom line is that when a batter is “protected” he has a better chance of getting a pitch to drive. Regardless of everything else:
Truth: Great hitters handle fastballs better than any other pitch
Truth: Pitchers use a variety of pitches to get outs, even hurlers have “out” pitches
Truth: If a pitcher is forced to locate in the zone to avoid a walk, that pitcher will need to throw a zoned 4 seamer more often than not
Extrapolation: A great hitter has a better advantage when thrown a higher percentage of fastballs regardless of who is throwing them.
I get what you are saying, I am just saying this is a pretty common senseical situation
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on May 28, 2009 8:31 PM EDT up reply actions
Are we also factoring in Damon and Jeter on base?
(I didn’t read the studies.)
They’ve both been on base pretty consistently while Tex is at-bat. Pitchers may be offering more strikes and want to avoid walking him to advance the runners.
i've read
that hitters actually get more protection from who’s in front of them than who’s behind them. if the #1 & #2 hitters are one base, the pitcher cant afford to put another guy on, but if the bases are empty, the pitcher can pitch around the 3rd batter.
DJ’s OBP this year:
April .350
May .393
Damon:
April .385
May .364
It exists
I have been catching for 20 years and my eye is always on the on deck circle to see who
is coming up. You attack every hitter based on the situation.
With 2 outs up by one with nobody on base, why would you give anything to Tex to hit if you have no fear of
the individual following him on deck? But how does the situation change if you know if you pitch around
Tex that the next hitter is just as dangerous?
Statistics do not tell the WHOLE game. A study can tell you Tex saw 4 fastballs without A-Rod and when A-Rod was back saw 2 fastballs and 2 curveballs. Does it tell you that the 4 fastballs were away and nibbling? Does it tell
you that the other AB consisted of starting off Tex with 2 breaking balls and then came back with 2 fastballs
because they did not want to face A-Rod?
Listen to sabremetrics and it will tell you that John McDonald on the Jays saves more runs than Jeter
creates and therefore is a better SS. Mike Wilner who does the Jays games arrogantly said as much.
The game is to complicated to break it down to straight statistics.
www.fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com
The game is too complicated to break it down to straight statistics
this statement is true but not for the reason you imply. Straight statistics are an effective way to logically attempt to forcast performance and grade the utility of players. Statistics are not entirely predictive because there is so much randomness in the game, that nothing can be fully predictive. That does not mean that stats can’t be used to completely debunk many of the stupid beliefs about the game.
I agree
Is a guy whose batting average is .325 with no one on but .200 with RISP better than a guy who bats .200 but .325 with RISP? What about a guy who bats .325 with RISP during AB’s when his team is already ahead as opposed to .250 with RISP during AB’s while his team is behind, so on and so forth.
by HappyLuckyGoldenDragonNumber1! on May 28, 2009 8:20 PM EDT up reply actions
Yes
They have debunked plenty of myths, but does that mean that every aspect of the game
can be broken down through numbers?
An individual can talk to 30 starting catchers in the league and be told that they alter their gameplan
because of protection in the lineup, yet an analysis of statistics will indicate otherwise and the 30
catchers are suddenly ignored? At what point does this stop making sense?
There is a human element to the game, thought processes that alter decisions. Stress, panic, calm, elements
that should not be ignored because a formula was created to prove 30 individuals wrong.
Statistics are a supplementary weapon to be used, not ignored, but not relied upon for 100% truths.
www.fantasysensehockey.blogspot.com
I think I understand a point of confusion here
sure, stress, panic, calm etc factor in. But nothing says you can’t measure a player’s performance under these conditions and try to determine how efficently they perform under such circumstances. I really would argue that for any such factor, you can still look at stats to help. The issue here is that no matter how accurate stats are, they are %ages, which by very nature give probabilities, not outcomes.
In this case, it should not be so complicated. Look at the performances of you favorate players with and without the “protection” as defined by the other player in question. The performance, if the sample size is large enough, will clearly tell you if there is or is not a clear difference. You can’t argue against that. Yoou may be saying something else-that players are pitched too differently. This can be checked too, and it may well be true. But that is a different question to how a player *performs^ with and without “protection.”
Listen to sabremetrics and it will tell you that John McDonald...
says who? Even adjusted for games, Jeter is always a higher WAR player than McDonald, so that statement is wrong.
big poopi is proof
How’s Ortiz doin since ManRam Quit? Thats enough proof for me.
by jerseybillfromva on May 28, 2009 6:41 PM EDT reply actions
Ortiz
stats from 2003-2008 with and without Manny do not support the idea that Manny offered protection for Ortiz. In fact there is another study just based on these 2 to illustrate the thin evidence for protection. Ortiz sucking this year is more likey simply due to him being washed up, not because Manny is not there. Youkilis was leading the league in OPS during a large part of Ortiz’s crappy year, and when he went on the DL Bay was behind Ortiz, who was in the top 5 in OPS. Didn’t help too much, did it?
have you
checked out the # of the guy batting behind him this year?
or maybe your being sarcastic that I’m missing
by RollingWave on May 29, 2009 10:41 AM EDT up reply actions
maybe papi is done
and I hope so, but I still pitch harder to him with Manny behind him than pukilis or bay.
btw, doesn’t anybody think papis’ decline has to do with new testing policy?
by jerseybillfromva on May 28, 2009 10:14 PM EDT reply actions
Didn't they
test in 06 and 07, when he had his 2 best years statistically?
It works both ways
I think it is interesting that two highly debated concepts – clutch and protection are almost always addressed from a single angle.
With clutch the argument is that the hitter can’t change his behaviour to get better in a high pressure situation.
As regards protection people argue whether the pitcher acts differently.
The problem with that approach is that you lay all the focus on one side of the match-up. The reason clutch might exist is that veryone gets nervous in high pressure situations and mistakes will be more common both with pitchers and batters. It would be normal to expect both groups to perform worse in a high pressure situation than in a normal situation. If a batter is unusually good at maintaining his composure his OPS might actually rise in a high pressure situation since the pitchers would make more mistakes than he would do.
Same thing – its clear that the concept of protection is not just about the pitchers but also about the batter. Is it unreasonable to assume that Tex approaches the at bat differently knowing he has A-Rod batting behind him?
One think that many sabermetrics seem to fail to grasp is that you can not prove a negative, you can only establish the lack of support for the theory. The existance of protection makes intuitive sense (more so than clutch if you ask me), all real players, managers etc believe in it. That doesn’t mean it exists but rejecting the theory should not be done lightheartedly
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
Community Guidelines
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Photo: Padres fan regrets letting mother capture moment with Trevor Hoffman
- Marlins agree to unretire No. 5 for Logan Morrison, who will honor his father’s favorite player
- Weatherman Derek Holland does Dallas TV
- Ask Alex: Will Julio Teheran or Matt Moore win rookie of the year?
- Ku Klux Klan, umpires and bowling: Why the minor leagues tossed out Jim Evans academy
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
