Rick Eckstein / Lineup Protection

[Sharp]

Or 'roids

Yup, Zimm is taking 'roids that make him walk more, strike out less, hit for higher average, and hit for lower power.  That way he'll never get caught!  How ingenious of him.

[PANatsFan]

Yup, Zimm is taking 'roids that make him walk more, strike out less, hit for higher average, and hit for lower power.  That way he'll never get caught!  How ingenious of him.

Yeah, but the mythical protection/batting order effect comes in here. They walked Zim a buttload to get to Dunn.

[imref]

Yup, Zimm is taking 'roids that make him walk more, strike out less, hit for higher average, and hit for lower power.  That way he'll never get caught!  How ingenious of him.

it's the tracksuit dancing, watch, next year every baseball player will be doing it.

[Sharp]

Yeah, but the mythical protection/batting order effect comes in here. They walked Zim a buttload to get to Dunn.

Yeah, if I were a pitcher I would definitely want to put runners on base before I pitched to a man with 7 consecutive seasons of 38+ home runs

[PANatsFan]

Yeah, if I were a pitcher I would definitely want to put runners on base before I pitched to a man with 7 consecutive season of 38+ home runs

But you aren't are you? I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it happened.

[Sharp]

But you aren't are you? I didn't say it was a good idea, I said it happened.

No one has ever found protection to exist.  Not on a team like the Mariners where Ichiro is the only remotely competent offensive player, not on a team like the Yankees where everyone is a threat, not on any teams in between.  Pitchers aren't stupid.  Livo threw more pitches outside the strike zone than any other regular starter in baseball last year because he had to.  Cliff Lee throws more pitches in the strike zone than any other regular starter in baseball because he has pinpoint control and can locate it at the corners.  The whole idea of protection works in reverse of what you said anyway (though it's equally stupid): people argue that pitchers "pitch to" hitters in front of a great hitter so they can "not give the great hitter anything to hit".  How does that make even the tiniest bit of sense?  No pitcher ever intentionally throws a pitch that he thinks the batter will be able to hit hard.  If he's facing another pitcher, maybe he'll loft him a beachball because he doesn't think a pitcher can hit even that, but he's still not trying to give him a pitch he can hit.  Besides, even the very best hitters aren't worth walking most of the time, "intentionally" or otherwise.  They did it with Barry Bonds because they didn't want to see him break any more HR records, not because it was a good idea.

[PANatsFan]

No one has ever found protection to exist.  Not on a team like the Mariners where Ichiro is the only remotely competent offensive player, not on a team like the Yankees where everyone is a threat, not on any teams in between.  Pitchers aren't stupid.  Livo threw more pitches outside the strike zone than any other regular starter in baseball last year because he had to.  Cliff Lee throws more pitches in the strike zone than any other regular starter in baseball because he has pinpoint control and can locate it at the corners.  The whole idea of protection works in reverse of what you said anyway (though it's equally stupid): people argue that pitchers "pitch to" hitters in front of a great hitter so they can "not give the great hitter anything to hit".  How does that make even the tiniest bit of sense?  No pitcher ever intentionally throws a pitch that he thinks the batter will be able to hit hard.  If he's facing another pitcher, maybe he'll loft him a beachball because he doesn't think a pitcher can hit even that, but he's still not trying to give him a pitch he can hit.  Besides, even the very best hitters aren't worth walking most of the time, "intentionally" or otherwise.  They did it with Barry Bonds because they didn't want to see him break any more HR records, not because it was a good idea.

I said that they walk Zim to try and strike out Dunn. I said it because it happens. Did you watch any games this season?

[Sharp]

I said that they walk Zim to try and strike out Dunn. I said it because it happens. Did you watch any games this season?

Nope.  Not a single one.

Seriously, I suspect this is a case of confirmation bias.  Just to kick things off, let's split this up as follows: games where Zimmerman was batting fourth vs. games where Zimmerman was batting third, since when he was batting fourth he presumably wasn't in front of Dunn.  Wait guys HOLY crap he has the exact same average and OBP in games batting third and games batting fourth!  Believe it or not, neither number is even 0.001 off from the other. How is this possible?  Oh right, because lineup position doesn't matter.  Now, this isn't all from 2010.  The 2010 splits show him with a slightly lower average batting fourth (hey that doesn't make sense, I thought they were "pitching to him" now!) and also slightly fewer walks (which violates the other theory of "pitching to" someone).  That is in 187 plate appearances, nowhere near enough to converge to a "true" average of any sort.  I wish Baseball Reference had an easy tool for selecting only those games when Dunn and Zimmerman were both in the lineup, but it doesn't, so this will have to do.

(I wasted about half an hour examining the Dunn-Zimmerman games myself and dividing them up only to realize--about 3/4ths of the way through--that the games where Zimmerman bats fourth are almost exactly the same as the games where he batted behind Dunn, since Dunn played all but three games that Zimm did and he and Zimm almost always batted 3rd / 4th unless Zimm came in to pinch hit, with the exception of like five games where they batted 4th/5th).

Does that address any of your concerns?  Remember, always check the data rather than make mindfact-based assertions that go against pretty much all the aggregate baseball statistical knowhow there is.

[PANatsFan]

Nope.  Not a single one.

Seriously, I suspect this is a case of confirmation bias.  Just to kick things off, let's split this up as follows: games where Zimmerman was batting fourth vs. games where Zimmerman was batting third, since when he was batting fourth he presumably wasn't batting behind Dunn.  Wait guys HOLY crap he has the exact same average and OBP in games batting third and games batting fourth!  Believe it or not, neither number is even 0.001 off from the other. How is this possible?  Oh right, because lineup position doesn't matter.  Now, this isn't all from 2010.  The 2010 splits show him with a slightly lower average batting fourth (hey that doesn't make sense, I thought they were walking him!) and also slightly fewer walks.  That is in 187 plate appearances, nowhere near enough to converge to a "true" average of any sort.  I wish Baseball Reference had an easy tool for selecting only those games when Dunn and Zimmerman were both in the lineup, but it doesn't, so this will have to do.

(I wasted about half an hour examining the Dunn-Zimmerman games myself and dividing them up only to realize--about 3/4ths of the way through--that the games where Zimmerman bats fourth are almost exactly the same as the games where he batted behind Dunn).

That answer your question?

Look, it's not confirmation bias when there's human decision making behind it. Some managers, when they saw Zimmerman coming up with Dunn behind him, walked Zimmerman to get to Dunn. I know the difference between an intentional walk, a full count walk, a four-pitch-this-guy-is-wild walk, and so on. You have to look to the specific at bats where there were men on base, at least one out, and managers who are more likely to give intentional walks. Dusty Baker and yes, Manny Acta, have different philosophies behind it. Honestly, I know quite a bit about statistics and I'm not exactly Joe Morgan. But if you are telling me that I didn't see Zim walked to get to Dunn when I watched the game and you looked up the stats in Baseball Reference, then you are looney tunes.

[Lintyfresh85]

No one ever walked Zimm to get to Dunn unless it was a left hander on the mound, and even then, Dunn was still the more feared hitter of the two.

I think you're wrong on this one PA.

[Sharp]

Look, it's not confirmation bias when there's human decision making behind it. Some managers, when they saw Zimmerman coming up with Dunn behind him, walked Zimmerman to get to Dunn. I know the difference between an intentional walk, a full count walk, a four-pitch-this-guy-is-wild walk, and so on. You have to look to the specific at bats where there were men on base, at least one out, and managers who are more likely to give intentional walks. Dusty Baker and yes, Manny Acta, have different philosophies behind it. Honestly, I know quite a bit about statistics and I'm not exactly Joe Morgan. But if you are telling me that I didn't see Zim walked to get to Dunn when I watched the game and you looked up the stats in Baseball Reference, then you are looney tunes.

Think about the context of this discussion, please.  I said, sarcastically, that Zimmerman must be taking steroids that make him (among other things) walk more.  Your rebuttal was that he was walking more because he was hitting in front of Dunn and people walked Dunn to get to him.  I proceeded to show that his walk rate in front of and not in front of Dunn was virtually identical, thereby refuting that argument.  What does "oh well some managers intentionally walked him in select situations to get to Dunn" have to do with that?  I said it was a case of confirmation bias--you remember all the times he was walked and Dunn struck out (and let's face it, Dunn strikes out a lot) and didn't notice all the times he was walked when he wasn't in front of Dunn at all.  The statistics indicate that this is probably the case.  Not sure what's so loony about that.  I certainly don't have to look at every single at-bat and decide whether a pitcher was "non-intentional intentional walking" the man.

[PANatsFan]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. There was a stretch when Zimmerman was in a slump and he was trying to get his eye back and walked a whole bunch. Then Dunn did the same later in the season. No one remembers this?

[PANatsFan]

No one ever walked Zimm to get to Dunn unless it was a left hander on the mound, and even then, Dunn was still the more feared hitter of the two.

  Remember, always check the data rather than make mindfact-based assertions that go against pretty much all the aggregate baseball statistical knowhow there is.

These are pretty definitive statements. The assertion that Zim was never walked by a right hander to get to Dunn is easily disproved, if false.

[Sharp]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. There was a stretch when Zimmerman was in a slump and he was trying to get his eye back and walked a whole bunch. Then Dunn did the same later in the season. No one remembers this?

Ryan Zimmerman
BB% K% BB/K AVG
March/April - 7.8% 21.3% 0.40 .362
May - 13.3% 19.3% 0.81 .284
June - 15.0% 25.5% 0.71 .245
July - 11.4% 12.2% 1.09 (I'm guessing this includes HBP) .322
August - 11.0% 16.8% 0.74 .310
September - 6.3% 18.1% 0.38 .361
Full season - 11.4% 18.7% 0.70 .307

You are probably thinking of his June, when he walked 15% of the time but struck out a lot more and had a low average.  It didn't affect his full-season 11.4 BB% much though.

These are pretty definitive statements. The assertion that Zim was never walked by a right hander to get to Dunn is easily disproved, if false.

I didn't make the second assertion.  There may well have been occasions when Zim was walked to get to Dunn.  It is also possible that there were occasions in which Dunn was walked to get to Zimm.  I never said there weren't, though I did say it was generally stupid.  The point I was trying to make was not that these things don't happen, but that they don't happen anywhere near frequently enough to significantly affect his walk rate.  That's just Zimm getting better.  It's not protection.

[PANatsFan]

Ryan Zimmerman
BB% K% BB/K AVG
March/April - 7.8% 21.3% 0.40 .362
May - 13.3% 19.3% 0.81 .284
June - 15.0% 25.5% 0.71 .245
July - 11.4% 12.2% 1.09 (I'm guessing this includes HBP) .322
August - 11.0% 16.8% 0.74 .310
September - 6.3% 18.1% 0.38 .361
Full season - 11.4% 18.7% 0.70 .307

You are probably thinking of his June, when he walked 15% of the time but struck out a lot more and had a low average.  It didn't affect his full-season 11.4 BB% much though.

Yup. He went supposedly ice cold and everyone was on his ass but his OBP was right on. It was not a full season trend and did average out. But it happened. There's no confirmation bias when it's a true/false situation.  I recall a 3BB game but that might be my faulty memory

[PANatsFan]

  That's just Zimm getting better.  It's not protection.

You are a good poster and I respect you for not backing down.
I was mostly sarcastic about the protection thing Look I don't idolize Bill James nor Joe Morgan. I watch a lot of games, try to take psychology into account (which the numbers, sorry, just cannot disprove), and try to look at statistics but in a simpler way than the SABR proprietary derived models. I call it PA theory

[Sharp]

Yup. He went supposedly ice cold and everyone was on his ass but his OBP was right on. It was not a full season trend and did average out. But it happened. There's no confirmation bias when it's a true/false situation.  I recall a 3BB game but that might be my faulty memory

In baseball, where it takes about 500 PAs for most hitting statistics normalize, it's difficult to remember that sometimes streaks--good ones and bad--just happen.  Zimm had a streak of poor hitting but he had lots more streaks of absolutely insane hitting.  BB% is naturally going to increase when you put fewer balls in play, unless you are just swinging and missing recklessly.  Players have a tendency to believe that if they're not hitting, there must be something wrong with their approach, and for all I know the process of working on that and trying to fix it is why players generally don't have prolonged slumps unless they're just bad.  But that's beyond the scope of the discussion we were having IMO.

[PANatsFan]

In baseball, where it takes about 500 PAs for most hitting statistics normalize, it's difficult to remember that sometimes streaks--good ones and bad--just happen.  Zimm had a streak of poor hitting but he had lots more streaks of absolutely insane hitting.  BB% is naturally going to increase when you put fewer balls in play, unless you are just swinging and missing recklessly.  Players have a tendency to believe that if they're not hitting, there must be something wrong with their approach, and for all I know the process of working on that and trying to fix it is why players generally don't have prolonged slumps unless they're just bad.  But that's beyond the scope of the discussion we were having IMO.

Say what you want about Dibble but he said that Dunn was trying to see more pitches and retrain his eye when he took several walks over the course of several games when he was not hitting. If really want to assume independence, find that probability based on his walk rate of Zim getting that many walks in that few games, it's just multilplication.

[PANatsFan]

Sharp is writing some epic post, I'll let him get the last word.

[Sharp]

Say what you want about Dibble but he said that Dunn was trying to see more pitches and retrain his eye when he took several walks over the course of several games when he was not hitting. If really want to assume independence, find that probability based on his walk rate of Zim getting that many walks in that few games, it's just multilplication.

Pretty low (though it's not multiplication).  Keep in mind that we're not just looking for this result, we're looking for this result and anything higher--this is a common mistake that people make, not realizing that we're looking for exceptional performance rather than this exact one--so it's slightly more complicated than you might think.  31 walks in 128 plate appearances?  Assuming a binomial distribution,

P(31 walks in 128 plate appearances) = (128!/(31!(128-31)!) * .114^31 * (1-.114)^(128-31) = .00225484843%

"Aha!" you say, "I knew it was low!"  Not so fast--keep in mind that you have to add up every walk total from 31 to 128.  I used Mathematica to do just that:

Sum(i = 31 to 128) P(i walks in 128 plate appearances) = .00364256%

So yes, from a purely binomial perspective--if you assume that in every plate appearance, he either walks or doesn't walk, and the two events are independent--and his true talent during June was a 11.4% BB rate, it is highly unlikely that he would have had a month like that.  So chances are good that he had a different plate approach in June.  Keep in mind, though, that I don't think this is an ideal statistical method of looking at this, for the same reason that you need a ton of plate appearances to regress batting average--baseball is a very "streaky" sport full of unrepeatable (or only temporarily repeatable) skills.  The same system says Zimmerman had a .25% chance of reproducing his September through chance alone, if his true skill were 11.4%, after all.  And yet, from year to year, walk rates are correlated really strongly.  What that most likely indicates is that in baseball, most skills are not really binomially (or normally) distributed.  As TangoTiger points out, major league baseball players are all at the extreme right end of any talent curve anyway, which probably helps explain this.  It is also why he recommends heavy regression for pretty much everything and why announcers who say things like "Dunn is 10 for 20 against insert pitcher here!" and "he hits well in [insert ballpark that the player has seen maybe 20 times in his career]" are being unreasonable.

[PANatsFan]

The only issue I have is that you CAN do the binomial with P*(1-P) and summing the possibilities, the factorials just make life easy.

[Sharp]

The only issue I have is that you CAN do the binomial with P*(1-P) and summing the possibilities, the factorials just make life easy.

Actually you don't even need multiplication, since you have ADDITION!  I guess you still need division but that's okay just represent it as a fraction!

(I'm exaggerating, but you see my point--when you have to do tens thousands of multiplications you generally use shorthand).

[PANatsFan]

Actually you don't even need multiplication, since you have ADDITION!  I guess you still need division but that's okay just represent it as a fraction!

(I'm exaggerating, but you see my point--when you have to do tens thousands of multiplications you generally use shorthand).

C'mon. Not everyone using the board can use Mathematica ( and why would they with R and Matlab around) or knows how to form a binomial distribution or even what a factorial is, but everyone understands a coin flip.

[Sharp]

C'mon. Not everyone using the board can use Mathematica ( and why would they with R and Matlab around) or knows how to form a binomial distribution or even what a factorial is, but everyone understands a coin flip.

I'm using the free online Mathematica, this isn't my home computer 

[PANatsFan]

I'm using the free online Mathematica, this isn't my home computer 

the Wolfram.com setup? That's pretty darn slick, actually.