Rick Eckstein / Lineup Protection

[Lintyfresh85]

Holy crap, I'm surrounded by nerds.

[PANatsFan]

Holy crap, I'm surrounded by nerds.

But that's just it. The numbers are fun, but so are the philosophical arguments and the history. You CANNOT explain baseball with numbers entirely. It's not an electrical engineering problem. You have to balance things. If you look only at the numbers you lose the fun.

[Sharp]

But that's just it. The numbers are fun, but so are the philosophical arguments and the history. You CANNOT explain baseball with numbers entirely. It's not an electrical engineering problem. You have to balance things. If you look only at the numbers you lose the fun.

Pretty much.  I look at the numbers as tools to understand the game, not the be-all-and-end-all.  The numbers tell me that Halladay was pretty lucky to pitch his ALDS no-hitter--even factoring in his ridiculous talent that night, the odds were something like 1 in 100--but that's not how it felt when I was watching it.

[PANatsFan]

By the way, Sharp, in R:

> sum(dbinom(c(31:128),128,.114))
[1] 3.642561e-05

[Sharp]

By the way, Sharp, in R:

> sum(dbinom(c(31:128),128,.114))
[1] 3.642561e-05

I'm aware.  I don't have R on me.

[Lintyfresh85]

Seriously, this is the nerdiest thread I've ever seen in the history of the internet.

What in the world is R?

Keep in mind I failed Liberal Arts Math, twice, while in college.

[PANatsFan]

I'm aware.  I don't have R on me.

SSH somewhere that does

Linty,
http://www.r-project.org - an outrageously useful, free scripting language that was designed for statistics but now is becoming Skynet

[PANatsFan]

Also:

[Lintyfresh85]

SSH somewhere that does

Linty,
http://www.r-project.org - an outrageously useful, free scripting language that was designed for statistics but now is becoming Skynet

Wait... we already created a program that's starting to become self aware?

Shut it down!

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Or 'roids

I have to say, this was one of the most successful s in a while. 

I nominate Sharp, PANats, and PatsNats28 for the Nats front office.

[The Chief]

I don't care if it's not "statistically significant" - protection exists.  And in a game of inches where one instance can be the difference between a champion and an also-ran, I'll take any slight advantage that can be had - no matter how "insignificant"

People get too lost in the "big picture" numbers sometimes.

[Nat of the Living Dead]

I wonder what Bryce thinks of those Nevada women. I bet he pops his collar at desert bars.

[PANatsFan]

I have to say, this was one of the most successful s in a while. 

I nominate Sharp, PANats, and PatsNats28 for the Nats front office.

You should have seen my wife's face when I suggested going back for a degree in sports management.

[Nick the Pig]

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.

It's false, indeed.  While it definately happened more often with lefties on the mound, I remember more than a few times when a rightly pitcher wanted nothing to do with Zimm then went right after Dunn.

[Sharp]

I don't care if it's not "statistically significant" - protection exists.  And in a game of inches where one instance can be the difference between a champion and an also-ran, I'll take any slight advantage that can be had - no matter how "insignificant"

People get too lost in the "big picture" numbers sometimes.

Baseball is a game played over a long, long season.  You're right that in the playoffs, things like lineup construction, managers' biases, and individual weird plays can have a dramatic impact.  But the regular season involves so many games that decisions like that tend to balance themselves out.  Let's not kid ourselves--the Nats are nowhere near playoff contention, which means that in their case switching up the batting order is like shifting deck chairs on the Titanic (to use a cliche that everyone loves).  Even Dunn, who most people here seem to believe is protecting Zimm, or being protected by him, or whatever, told a reporter when asked (this was when he was batting in the fifth spot) that he had batted in tons of spots and he didn't think it made a real difference except that he got more plate appearances near the top of the lineup.  Now, I wouldn't normally use anecdotal evidence to support my point, especially since baseball players are notoriously superstitious, but in this case it agrees with the available evidence: (1) the best way to construct a winning lineup is to have a bunch of good hitters, whatever the order, and (2) if you have too many bad hitters you're not going to score many runs, no matter how they're arranged.

[The Chief]

Well of course it's (usually) going to be a small factor over the long haul, but as you said yourself - small factors can have dramatic impacts.

I guess we'll have an interesting side experiment to watch if Dunn leaves

[Sharp]

Well of course it's (usually) going to be a small factor over the long haul, but as you said yourself - small factors can have dramatic impacts.

Sure.  In small samples.  The issue here isn't so much that lineup protection is a "small factor," it's that the larger the data the smaller it gets.  When you have as much data as we have for baseball and people still don't find anything statistically significant about protection--and to put in perspective how unlikely that is if there really is lineup protection, keep in mind that they have found things like a .1% difference in strikeout rate between ballparks statistically significant--then odds are it just plain doesn't exist.  If it does, it has an overall impact of less than one run per season.

I guess we'll have an interesting side experiment to watch if Dunn leaves

The only reason I can think of that Zimm might walk less with Dunn out of the lineup would be if he felt like he had to get the "big hits" and swing for the fences to compensate, which is something that any competent modern hitting coach should disabuse him of.  But the lineup overall will definitely be a lot worse without Dunn.

[NJ Ave]

On June 1, Houston righthanders walked Zimmerman TWICE on four pitches to get to Dunn (he walked four times in the game). Brett Myers in the 5th with runners on first and second with Houston up 4-1 and Matt Lindstrom in the 9th with a runner on first and Houston up 6-5.

Considering Zimmerman represented the tying or winning run both times, I can't see how you can view this any other way than Houston avoiding him. Especially considering Zimmerman had gone 2-2 with 2 BB and a HR and 4 RBI the night before.

[Sharp]

On June 1, Houston righthanders walked Zimmerman TWICE on four pitches to get to Dunn (he walked four times in the game). Brett Myers in the 5th with runners on first and second with Houston up 4-1 and Matt Lindstrom in the 9th with a runner on first and Houston up 6-5.

Considering Zimmerman represented the tying or winning run both times, I can't see how you can view this any other way than Houston avoiding him. Especially considering Zimmerman had gone 2-2 with 2 BB and a HR and 4 RBI the night before.

Sure.  Like I said, in small samples these things can happen, because teams can be dumb in small samples.  But from what you're saying it sounds like it had nothing to do with who was batting behind him--they were walking him because he'd hurt them a lot the previous day.  And again, unless it's actually an intentional walk, no one is trying to walk anyone--they're just trying to make pitches that Zimmerman can't hit well.  If the pitcher's perception of what pitches Zimmerman could hit well was skewed by the previous game, he might have been trying to be too precise to avoid throwing him a meatball, and that might have resulted in the walk.  But he still didn't view a walk as the ideal outcome.

[Lintyfresh85]

Just because a hitter is walked on four pitches does not mean it was the unintentional intentional walk.

No pitcher, that is sound of mind, would walk a hitter to load the bases and bring up the tying run, even if it was the #8 guy coming up to bat.

[Nick the Pig]

The only reason I can think of that Zimm might walk less with Dunn out of the lineup would be if he felt like he had to get the "big hits" and swing for the fences to compensate

That's part of the protection factor, too.

[Sharp]

That's part of the protection factor, too.

Like I said, it doesn't appear to exist in general, and the specific players who do and can't stop doing it are usually considered headcases.  Like I said, this is major league baseball.  People who can't get over wanting to have a "big hit" when it's not a beneficial strategy for them usually don't make it that far.

[Nick the Pig]

Just because a hitter is walked on four pitches does not mean it was the unintentional intentional walk.

No pitcher, that is sound of mind, would walk a hitter to load the bases and bring up the tying run, even if it was the #8 guy coming up to bat.

If the guy in the batter's box is red hot and the one in the on-deck circle is not ?

Oh yeah, it happens.

[Nick the Pig]

Like I said, it doesn't appear to exist in general, and the specific players who do and can't stop doing it are usually considered headcases.

Headcases ?  No, just human.

[DPMOmaha]

To me, lineup "protection" is more about having a deep lineup, rather than Ryan Dempster wanting to face Ryan Zimmerman rather than Adam Dunn.  If you've got a lineup full of quality players from top to bottom, that lineup is going to have a much higher probability of scoring runs if the big names come through.  It's not about playes 3, 4 or 5 in the lineup, it's about the guys that surround them.