Lineup protection study...
Skinpinch
Posts: 1,531
in Sports Talk
Not my study, but here is some lineup protection info. It is from 2000-2004...
"Now let's see how well good hitters perform in these situations when they have protection and when they don't. We define “protected” in this instance as having an established good hitter on deck, and “unprotected” as having an established poor hitter on deck. The following table lists the average stats of these good hitters when protected and when not protected, with both stat lines scaled to 600 plate appearances."
Batting Stats For Good Hitters, In Likely IBB Situations (Scaled To 600 PA)
Status............ ...OBA 1B 2B 3B HR NIBB HBP RBOE SO Other Out
Unprotected.......380 83 32 3 16 .....91 10 .....6 ....108 251
Protected.... ......376 83 31 3 18..... 83 10 .....6 .....104 262 ..
For the Jeter bashers of lineup protection...
First, this is only possible intentional walk situations, but this is the ultimate protection moment, so it carries a lot of weight. If protection doesn't show up here, I can't possibly see it show up any other time.
So in instances where protection really comes into play, what is the net result? There is no difference at all. Yes, two more home runs per 600 at bats when protected. But that advantage is washed away by the 8 extra walks, and 1 extra double in the unprotected at bats. Everything is almost, "'CLAP'...I-dentical" (Kudos to the person who knows where I stole that quote).
Based on stuff like this, and just by simply looking at the yearly stat lines, it would be hard to put much credence into lineup protection as the reason Jeter puts up the numbers he does.
"Now let's see how well good hitters perform in these situations when they have protection and when they don't. We define “protected” in this instance as having an established good hitter on deck, and “unprotected” as having an established poor hitter on deck. The following table lists the average stats of these good hitters when protected and when not protected, with both stat lines scaled to 600 plate appearances."
Batting Stats For Good Hitters, In Likely IBB Situations (Scaled To 600 PA)
Status............ ...OBA 1B 2B 3B HR NIBB HBP RBOE SO Other Out
Unprotected.......380 83 32 3 16 .....91 10 .....6 ....108 251
Protected.... ......376 83 31 3 18..... 83 10 .....6 .....104 262 ..
For the Jeter bashers of lineup protection...
First, this is only possible intentional walk situations, but this is the ultimate protection moment, so it carries a lot of weight. If protection doesn't show up here, I can't possibly see it show up any other time.
So in instances where protection really comes into play, what is the net result? There is no difference at all. Yes, two more home runs per 600 at bats when protected. But that advantage is washed away by the 8 extra walks, and 1 extra double in the unprotected at bats. Everything is almost, "'CLAP'...I-dentical" (Kudos to the person who knows where I stole that quote).
Based on stuff like this, and just by simply looking at the yearly stat lines, it would be hard to put much credence into lineup protection as the reason Jeter puts up the numbers he does.
0
Comments
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Clutch? Grote this isn't about clutch. This is simply debunking the notion that a player is made better by having a slightly better lineup behind him. In this case, even a far worse batter behind him doesn't change his ability. The thing that changes is his Runs Scored, or RBI, but not HIS value/true contribution. Just look, almost every batting result is the exactly the same, whether they have a good hitter behind them, or a poor one. This should be pretty cut and dry, and case closed on the recent talks on the boards about lineup protection.
In Jeter's case it should show even the most anti NY fan that Jeter's true offensive contribution would be the same as if he were on NY or Kansas City. This should be known already just goin gy the yearly lines of all the players, and their lineup. But sometimes it takes a little more info.
<< <i>Back to my "trivia" question from the other thread... When Roger Maris hit 61 HR's in 1961 how many times was he intentionally walked? Any guesses? >>
ZERO
-- Yogi Berra
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
I happen to agree with the above statement to an extent, though it certainly doesn't hurt to have a great hitter hitting in front or behind you. You'll certainly get better pitches to hit, all things being even. The addition of Carlos Delgado to the Mets lineup, for instance, certainly helped Carlos Beltran this year. And Jeff Kent had never hit and has never hit as well as he did with Barry Bonds hitting behind him when he was in SF, to note two recent examples.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
First, Maris had a career year the year he hit 61, and happened to bat in front of Mantle. That alone will skew the numbers. That is only one season with the Yanks. From '60 - '64 he batted approximately 1,470 times in front of Mantle and hit 104 home runs in those instances.
He batted approximately 772 times NOT in front of Mantle and he hit 59 Home Runs.
IN FRONT of Mantle 1 HR every 14 at bats.
BEHIND Mantle 1 HR every 13 at bats.
I did not look at every game to see if one or the other were in the lineup that day, but this should be clear enough(and close enough). Now realize that Mantle is the most EXTREME case where lineup protection can aid a hitter a bit. He fits the extreme protection criteria. Nobody on the modern Yanks fits that criteria to aid Jeter. Even with Mantle being the most EXTREME case, and Maris having an absolute career year batting third one season, MARIS STILL had a better HR ratio not batting ahead of Mantle(during his Yankee mostly full time years).
So even if one ignores the 800,000 plate apperances that say lineup protection has extremely minimal value, and just rests their laurels on one of the most exteme cases/seasons in history, it still says the same thing....lineup protection simply does not have the impact that fans believe.
PS. GROTE, the players are put as good/bad NOT based on opinion but fact. Buy the book. SECOND,Carlos Beltran? I didn't know Delgado played in KC when Beltran was not even in his prime and he was slugging over .500.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
Grote, Kent batted fourth typically, and did quite well there. Thought i would save you the trouble of looking it up. His 2000 MVP season he batted behind Bonds, except for 19 times. He was almost never PROTECTED by Bonds.
He didn't hit as a result of BOnds. HE DID WIN AN MVP AS A RESULT OF BONDS, and here is why!!! By batting behind him, and Bonds being an On Base Machine, kent got a lot of RBI, and writers love RBI. They don't understand the value of Bonds getting on base however. This is a case where a lineup helped Kent's misleading numbers, like RBI, thus the faulty notion of lineup making him a better hitter.
But please remember, RBI is not the way to measure a hitter. The good stuff is! This is where the fans usually make the mistake in LINEUP protection. Lineup protection, by every conceivable measure is simply not there.
I am stunned people cannot read the first post on here, and look what it says. That says a LOT! Grote, you are harping on whether or not the players are divided correctly in good/bad. A legitimate question if some novice were doing it, but far from it! They are ESTABLISHED good/bad, and that is a no brainer and should not even be worth talking about.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Your point is very convoluted, skin. A guy win an MVP award because he hits behind another guy in the lineup, but his numbers are "misleading". I thought you said that a hitter's batting is not at all affected by whom he hits in front of or behind? Sounds like it makes all the difference here. At best, this "study' is contradictory, and at worst plain bogus.
RBI is not the way to measure a hitter
I think most fans and GMs would disagree with you there, skin. Especially when it pertains to a guy hitting cleanup like Kent did.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Perception plays into everything in life, and pitchers who have seen Jeter get "big hits" in postseason play for the last decade are not immune to this. Who knows what effect this has on the entire system of baseball?
Baseball is a game of failure. The best players of all time succeed at the plate far less than 50% of the time and the worst players in MLB history succeed about 25% of the time, give or take. And the best teams win 60% of their team games and the worst win 40%.
These are my observations, not backed by empirical data, and I don't claim them to be.
Don't waste your time and fees listing on ebay before getting in touch me by PM or at gregmo32@aol.com !
For the life of me, I cannot understand why Jim Leyland bats Carlos Guillen 5th instead of 3rd or even 2nd. Other local fans give me the old "to protect Magglio Ordonez" line. I don't buy it. Guillen (especially when Polanco was out) is far and away the most consistent hitter in the Tigers lineup. I would think, among other things, you would want to get him as many at-bats as possible.
And besides, with Guillen batting 5th, who in the world "protects" him?
<< <i>He didn't hit as a result of BOnds. HE DID WIN AN MVP AS A RESULT OF BONDS, and here is why!!! By batting behind him, and Bonds being an On Base Machine, kent got a lot of RBI, and writers love RBI. They don't understand the value of Bonds getting on base however. This is a case where a lineup helped Kent's misleading numbers, like RBI, thus the faulty notion of lineup making him a better hitter.
Your point is very convoluted, skin. A guy win an MVP award because he hits behind another guy in the lineup, but his numbers are "misleading". I thought you said that a hitter's batting is not at all affected by whom he hits in front of or behind? Sounds like it makes all the difference here. At best, this "study' is contradictory, and at worst plain bogus.
RBI is not the way to measure a hitter
I think most fans and GMs would disagree with you there, skin. Especially when it pertains to a guy hitting cleanup like Kent did. >>
Skinpitch (as usual) is right-- a hitter's batting is not affected by who hits in front of him. The reason Kent had so many RBI is because Bonds was on base so much. That does NOT mean that Kent got more hits then he would have if Bonds had not been there.
RBI, technically speaking, is not a batting stat. It's a stat that (more or less) measures how often a run scores when you're at the plate-- which is a function of how often the hitters in front of him get on base as well as what batter does with the ball when it's pitched to him. The fact that there's a correlation between RBI and a high batting average isn'r relevant to this discussion.
Take this to the extreme. Say you put Geoff Zahn batting cleanup with Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds and Bobby Abreu hitting in front of him. He would likely have more RBI at the end of the season than Albert Pujols would if Angel Berroa, Humberto Cota and Damon Hollins hit in front of him. Or, if he didn't have more RBI, his RBI when compared to Pujols' RBI would not at all reflect the disparity in their ability as hitters.
RBI, technically speaking, is not a batting stat.
You'd be a great advocate for the owners in arbitration cases. You see, Mr. Arbitrator, Mr. X's 160 RBIs are not a result of his hitting prowess. I dare suggest we sign Geoff Zahn for one tenth of this salary, as RBIs are not a meaningful "batting stat".
That does NOT mean that Kent got more hits then he would have if Bonds had not been there.
Sorry I disagree with you 100%. Hitters get better pitches to hit if men are on base, for many reasons I'm not going to spend the time to detail here. So that statement is flawed on the most fundamental of levels.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>We can all debate all we want about whether or not having a great hitter in front or behind you is an advantge or not (and there are compelling arguments either way) but the fact remains that such a study as the one skin presented here is essentially opinion only if there is no established or determining criteria to be applied. Babe Ruth had Lou Gehrig hitting behind him, does that mean that his numbers are skewed because of that? Baseball is all about stats and you can talk till you're blue in the face about "meaningful" stats like RBIs or not, but in the end that's how most players are measured, and with good reason. Geoff Zahn hitting in the same lineup as Bonds, Giambi and Abreu? C'mon, that's a ludicrous example unless you have a fantasy baseball team.
RBI, technically speaking, is not a batting stat.
You'd be a great advocate for the owners in arbitration cases. You see, Mr. Arbitrator, Mr. X's 160 RBIs are not a result of his hitting prowess. I dare suggest we sign Geoff Zahn for one tenth of this salary, as RBIs are not a meaningful "batting stat".
That does NOT mean that Kent got more hits then he would have if Bonds had not been there.
Sorry I disagree with you 100%. Hitters get better pitches to hit if men are on base, for many reasons I'm not going to spend the time to detail here. So that statement is flawed on the most fundamental of levels. >>
It doesn't matter what metric was used to distinguish 'good' from 'bad' hitters, so long as the metric employed did a reasonable job of separating the two. Whether it did a perfect job of doing so doesn't matter so long as no particular hitting statistic was unduly weighted-- which is very unlikely considering the source of the argument. In other words, so long as the statistical separation of good and bad hitters is a) based on reasonable grounds, and b) doesn't reflect a bias on the part of the theorist towards any particular statistic, then the details of it aren't particularly relevant.
Do you know why this is the case? Because if you don't then this probably isn't a subject on which you should have any strong opinions either way. I'm not trying to be harsh or combative, but that's the way it is.
In any event, nobody's arguing that RBI stats aren't correlated with hitting ability. If a guy racks up 160 RBI in a season then yes-- the odds are overwhelmingly high that he's a very good hitter. But nobody's disputing that. What is being argued-- and it's not clear that you're going to understand the following distinction, but I'll try it again anyway-- is that RBI are a result of two different functions-- how well a player hits, AND how often the players in front of him get on base-- while other batting stats are simply the result of one function; i.e., how well a batter hits.
If you want to split hairs you can say that other batting stats, like OPS, are also influenced by the quality of the pitchers which a player faced, and so on. But in any case a stat like OPS does a much better job of determining how well a player hits since this statistic is not dependant on the performance of other players on the team. RBI is correlated with hitting ability, while something like OPS actually measures hitting ability. There's a huge difference between the two, and it shouldn't be hard to see that.
I always knew of the statement, "ignorance is bliss." However, I never fully comprehended it until I started debating with sports fans, especially the bias ones.
Grote, hitters don't get better pitches to hit wiht men on base(bases loaded do get some better). We can get into the whole men on base numbers, which is actually one of my areas I've delved into. But there is no way I'm going to post all that info, and then just have somebody simply dismiss it because they don't 'believe' in it, or don't understand it, and have ZERO evidence to back up their claim.
Just like in this case. You made a comment about Kent being protected by Bonds, and he didn't even bat in front of him. DO THIS EXERCISE OF WHO BATS IN FRONT OF WHO AND WHAT THEY DID FOR EVERY PLAYER IN MLB HISTORY FOR EVERY SEASON! Then you will be onto something. Don't just throw out one example and think you have solved it. Especially when the example isn't even close(Like Bonds protecting kent).
Your arrogance and condescending attitude, however, are truly bush league. You strike me as a person who has great difficulty accepting the viewpoints of others, in other words a real blowhard, which is a sign of ignorance in most cases. I'm done "debating" this issue with you. Godd luck!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
What's not statistical about baseball? It's a game, in which everything is catergorized and can be put down on a spreadsheet, correct?
Mark Mulder rookies
Chipper Jones rookies
Orlando Cabrera rookies
Lawrence Taylor
Sam Huff
Lavar Arrington
NY Giants
NY Yankees
NJ Nets
NJ Devils
1950s-1960s Topps NY Giants Team cards
Looking for Topps rookies as well.
References:
GregM13
VintageJeff
Yes, and statistics can be manipulated as any good player's agent knows. In this particular case, the statistical study is fundamentally flawed because there are no established or determining criteria to back up the "study". I doubt that anyone here would even find this study the least bit interesting, either, that was my point.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>Your arrogance and condescending attitude, however, are truly bush league. You strike me as a person who has great difficulty accepting the viewpoints of others, in other words a real blowhard, which is a sign of ignorance in most cases. I'm done "debating" this issue with you. Godd luck! >>
I completely understand where you are coming from because i used to have the same issues with him.
Just let it go and agree to disagree....
I completely understand where you are coming from because i used to have the same issues with him.
Just let it go and agree to disagree....
Agreed. I'm not surprised.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>I stand by my original assertion, which was, if you recall, that this "study" is a pointless exercise in statistics and has no essential relevance to the game. And no matter how you put or phrase it, any "study" that does not have an established determing criteria is essentially just opinion, which you are certainly welcome to. My original point is that you don't need a "study" or a useless exercise in statistics to prove that Jeter is a great hitter and a clutch hitter at that, regardless of the circumstances or situation.
Your arrogance and condescending attitude, however, are truly bush league. You strike me as a person who has great difficulty accepting the viewpoints of others, in other words a real blowhard, which is a sign of ignorance in most cases. I'm done "debating" this issue with you. Godd luck! >>
When the 'viewpoints of others' don't have any quantitative underpinning then he by all means OUGHT to have a very difficult time accepting them.
This coming from a guy who doesn't know the Houston Oilers from the Edmonton Oilers. You and skin must be real close.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>When the 'viewpoints of others' don't have any quantitative underpinning then he by all means OUGHT to have a very difficult time accepting them.
This coming from a guy who doesn't know the Houston Oilers from the Edmonton Oilers. You and skin must be real close. >>
Lol. Stown said 'The Oilers'-- a team that, incidentally, came within one win of taking the Stanley Cup last year-- so I thought of Edmonton-- not an NFL team which has been defunct for 10 years. Big deal.
But really, the nice thing about the Internet is that I'm not bound by law to argue with retards like yourself about why someone should not feel compelled to take a theory seriously if it has no quantitative foundation. With that said I'll take leave of you, and let you return to your monthly meeting with the rest of the Flat Earth Society.
Statistics can be manipulated to show a FAULTY finding, but there is no manipulation here, just a very thorough examination of what actually occured...you know real proof and evidence with high levels of validity. It is pretty straightforward stuff. Your failure to accept the overwhelming evidence is akin to Carl Everett's denial about the existence of dinosaurs.
You did try to back up your claims with statistical evidence, with Kent being protected by Bonds in the lineup, but you weren't even accurate with that whole scenario. (then you couldn't understand the whole RBI point and MVP. I'm just glad boopotts was reading and he explained it extremely well. Sure saved me some typing). I love how people try to say statistics in baseball don't matter, and then in the next sentence they use a statistic(usually one with no validity).
You started looking for examples to prove your point, and you brougth up Kent and Beltran, which actually showed opposite your point. That was a good start on your part, though you only used TWO players. Now I urge you to continue that path and do it for a generation of players and see what you come up with.
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
<< <i>That is basically a kindergarten level ability to do such a thing, thus the need to not have to even bother showing the criteria(of determining good/bad) of hitters on deck. Established good/bad should have been enough. >>
In other words, they forgot to show their homework, so just trust them.
Now, that's a good one! What "overwhelming" evidence??? There isn't even an established criterion or defined standard for your useless study! For someone who believes he knows it all, you are sadly mistaken and need to go back to school and take a statistics course. Maybe then you'd finally understand that no study is worth anything if it's not supported by DEFINED EMPIRICAL data. I know it's hard for you to comprehend this concept, but night classes are available if you need them! Frankly, I don't think any of this is even worth the effort in terms of interesting data, but you seem really hung up on this "study" you discovered. I'm sure you'll spin away by responding to this post with some pompous BS about kindergartners and dinosaurs and how everone else is still in Baseball 101 but the reality here is that no one cares!
Collecting 1970s Topps baseball wax, rack and cello packs, as well as PCGS graded Half Cents, Large Cents, Two Cent pieces and Three Cent Silver pieces.
Thome hit in front of Konerko AND Dye this year, and his 42 HR's is tied with the lowest amount of HR"s he's had in his last five full seasons. Frank Thomas, meanwhile, goes off for 39 HR's in that anemic A's lineup....
If you're curious about this then look up some players who had 'protection' and see how those numbers compare to their earlier campaigns when they didn't have a big bat behind them. If you're hung up on the criteria for establishing who's an above average hitter and who isn't then use your own criteria. What you will find is that there doesn't appear to be any significant correlation between increased batting performance and having a big bat behind you in the lineup.
There are two ways to approach this. One is to say 'well, I don't know how they determined who is a good hitter and who isn't, so I'm going to dismiss it outright', and the other option is to say 'I'm not sure what the criteria are that they used to come to this conclusion, so maybe I'll come up with my own criteria (before I begin to gather data) and poke around and see if there's anything to this'.
Also, Jeter's career BA with RISP (which I assume is the measure of 'clutch') is .307 with one out or less, and .308 with RISP and two out. His career average is .314. His OPS is also lower with RISP then with the bases empty or with a runner at first.
PS- Has Grote looked around at pitcher's BA against stats when the bases are empty and when there are runners on? As I recall he said that hitters get better pitches to hit when there are men on base, which would seem to necessitate that hitters have higher BA's with runners on base-- and, by extension, that pitcher's have higher BAA with runners on. If he hasn't he should poke around and look at the numbers. The results will surprise him.
Grote, it has all the DEFINED EMPIRACAL DATA you want.
Overwhelming? YES IT IS! Did I post all the evidence in my post, NO....there is way too much! But it is available. If you are questioning it, then seek the data(which is there), and there you have it. I simply put some pertinent info for the topic at hand.
You guys also seem to think this is my study, and I clearly state it isn't. All the Empircal data, and defined criteria is available. IT IS NOT IN MY POSSESSION BUT IT IS AVAIALBLE....CAN YOU NOT GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!
In typical fashion, a couple of ignorant fans get shown that their thoughts are not accurate, offer NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to defend their position, and so they make up some false claim that the study isn't accurate because I didn't post all of that criteria(even though it exists, and JUST BUY THE DARN BOOK MORONS). Stown, and you wonder why I get condescending.
P.S. Boo, they will not do that simple exercise you are asking them, Grote tried with Kent, but he didn't realize Kent hit fourth most of the time. THIS IS THE TYPE OF STUFF THAT HAS BEEN LOOKED AT ALREADY!! IT IS PART OF THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE. EVERY PLAYER HAS BEEN SCRUTINIZED TO SHOW THE LINEUP STUFF IS HOGWASH. Then another moron joins the board, and just summarily dismisses it, because he can't understand, or just prefers the ignorance is bliss type of thinking.