Rick Eckstein / Lineup Protection

[PANatsFan]

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.

You'd have to go back to the pitch fx, or maybe even watch the game footage to make an educated guess.

[Sharp]

Headcases ?  No, just human.

It's human to be superstitious like many players are.  It's human to have some slumping periods.  When Ryan Braun decided (a year or two ago) that he was going to focus on hitting for high average instead of power, that was a conscious decision he made and one that's very human, and entirely understandable from a contract perspective.  So you may see hitters hitting more ground balls and line drives instead of fly balls to try to improve their average, or vice versa, and you may see hitters slumping occasionally and not demonstrating a good eye.  But once they choose an approach (and data backs this up), players stick with it regardless of who is in front of them and who is behind them.  If they are like Guzman or Guerrero and can't (or don't want to) walk a ton, they don't walk much whether or not a great hitter is coming up next.  If they are "Greek God of Walks" Youkilis or Adam Dunn, they walk a lot no matter who is coming up next.  This falls under the same category as clutch hitting: at the major league level, players treat every at-bat more or less the same way, unless instructed to do otherwise by a manager.

(Besides that, walks [which is what the idea of protection is largely based on] are different from things like average vs. power, because they are nearly always good.  Sure, a walk isn't quite as good as a hit most of the time, but not only are you guaranteed to get on base, players who walk a lot have higher BABIPs, more pitches per plate appearance [which, again, results in higher BABIPs], score more runs, etc.  Walks are good for hitters and bad for pitchers.  Every single major leaguer knows and knew that [even Nolan Ryan].  In this day and age, that is true more than ever.)

[Lintyfresh85]

You'd have to go back to the pitch fx, or maybe even watch the game footage to make an educated guess.

I just feel like no pitcher, regardless of who's on deck would intentionally walk a hot hitter to load the bases.

You up your chances of a run scoring a ton by giving Zimm the free pass. You can give up a run on a wild pitch, ground out, sac fly etc. etc.

I really can't imagine Myers was trying to load the bases to face a guy that could easily tie it up with one swing.

[PANatsFan]

I just feel like no pitcher, regardless of who's on deck would intentionally walk a hot hitter to load the bases.

You up your chances of a run scoring a ton by giving Zimm the free pass. You can give up a run on a wild pitch, ground out, sac fly etc. etc.

I really can't imagine Myers was trying to load the bases to face a guy that could easily tie it up with one swing.

Joe Maddon walked in the next-to-tying run.

[Lintyfresh85]

I mean, I guess it's possible... I just don't find it to be sound strategy to ever put the tying run on base.

[Sharp]

Eh, people did it all the time with Barry Bonds.  But that was because the backlash was so great every time he hit a home run.  It's like going for it on the fourth down in football, the odds say it's nearly always a good idea but if it doesn't work you're freaked and likely to be fired.  So managers sometimes (as is so often the case) play for their jobs rather than to win.

[Lintyfresh85]

Guess the same thing applies with sac bunts.

They actually decrease your chance of winning... but people still react with terror if they're not used in a crucial situation.

[PANatsFan]

Eh, people did it all the time with Barry Bonds.  But that was because the backlash was so great every time he hit a home run.  It's like going for it on the fourth down in football, the odds say it's nearly always a good idea but if it doesn't you're freaked and likely to be fired.  So managers sometimes (as is so often the case) play for their jobs rather than to win.

Pro coaches are treated like crap, and it makes the fan experience suffer. They play it safe on every damn play.

[Sharp]

Guess the same thing applies with sac bunts.

They actually decrease your chance of winning... but people still react with terror if they're not used in a crucial situation.

Depends on the run environment, and who's batting.  Sac bunting with the pitcher is actually a good idea most of the time.  Sac bunting in a close game against a dominant pitcher may occasionally be a good idea as well, depending on who's on base.  And when non-pitchers successfully bunt (like in the AL) they get on base at something like a .450 clip, though that's probably biased a little since usually only really speedy players bunt in those circumstances.

[The Chief]

All this talk about statistical validation and sample sizes just shows me that either you guys aren't "getting" it or we're just not talking about the same thing.  The presence of additional quality hitter brings an overall positive (and cumulative) effect to a lineup.  That's all there is to it.  You can talk about comparing to stadium effects or tying it down to specific pairs of players, but that's just narrow-minded and short-sighted.  I'm not sure who interpreted "protection" to mean ONLY that Dunn's presence makes Zimmerman a better player, but that's not the point.  Baseball is not a vacuum.  The effects are numerous and impossible to measure with current methods.  In fact, barring a gateway to the multiverse, I'll wager that such nuanced influences will NEVER be statistically provable or disprovable.  But it doesn't matter.  If there exist even a few pitchers, coaches, or whatever in the MLB who alter their decision-making process based on the presence or absence of a given hitter - which seems very probable, if not grossly understated here - then protection exists.

Those of you attempting to "disprove" intangibles are forgetting that baseball is a game played by humans, and humans do not always - in fact, rarely - make statistically sensible decisions.

In any case, I have no further interest in discussing the matter, so anyone who responds to this post should know that you will not sway my opinion.  Not that anyone was ever really going to change their positions in the first place.

[PANatsFan]

All this talk about statistical validation and sample sizes just shows me that either you guys aren't "getting" it or we're just not talking about the same thing.  The presence of additional quality hitter brings an overall positive (and cumulative) effect to a lineup.  That's all there is to it.  You can talk about comparing to stadium effects or tying it down to specific pairs of players, but that's just narrow-minded and short-sighted.  I'm not sure who interpreted "protection" to mean ONLY that Dunn's presence makes Zimmerman a better player, but that's not the point.  Baseball is not a vacuum.  The effects are numerous and impossible to measure with current methods.  In fact, barring a gateway to the multiverse, I'll wager that such nuanced influences will NEVER be statistically provable or disprovable.  But it doesn't matter.  If there exist even a few pitchers, coaches, or whatever in the MLB who alter their decision-making process based on the presence or absence of a given hitter - which seems very probable, if not grossly understated here - then protection exists.

Nicely done

[Lintyfresh85]

All this talk about statistical validation and sample sizes just shows me that either you guys aren't "getting" it or we're just not talking about the same thing.  The presence of additional quality hitter brings an overall positive (and cumulative) effect to a lineup.  That's all there is to it.  You can talk about comparing to stadium effects or tying it down to specific pairs of players, but that's just narrow-minded and short-sighted.  I'm not sure who interpreted "protection" to mean ONLY that Dunn's presence makes Zimmerman a better player, but that's not the point.  Baseball is not a vacuum.  The effects are numerous and impossible to measure with current methods.  In fact, barring a gateway to the multiverse, I'll wager that such nuanced influences will NEVER be statistically provable or disprovable.  But it doesn't matter.  If there exist even a few pitchers, coaches, or whatever in the MLB who alter their decision-making process based on the presence or absence of a given hitter - which seems very probable, if not grossly understated here - then protection exists.

Those of you attempting to "disprove" intangibles are forgetting that baseball is a game played by humans, and humans do not always - in fact, rarely - make statistically sensible decisions.

In any case, I have no further interest in discussing the matter, so anyone who responds to this post should know that you will not sway my opinion.  Not that anyone was ever really going to change their positions in the first place.

This post has a 97.3333 (repeating of course) chance of making me nod my head in agreement.

[DPMOmaha]

we're just not talking about the same thing. 

I was thinking this very same thing about 90 minutes ago.

[Sharp]

All this talk about statistical validation and sample sizes just shows me that either you guys aren't "getting" it or we're just not talking about the same thing.  The presence of additional quality hitter brings an overall positive (and cumulative) effect to a lineup.  That's all there is to it.  You can talk about comparing to stadium effects or tying it down to specific pairs of players, but that's just narrow-minded and short-sighted.  I'm not sure who interpreted "protection" to mean ONLY that Dunn's presence makes Zimmerman a better player, but that's not the point.  Baseball is not a vacuum.  The effects are numerous and impossible to measure with current methods.  In fact, barring a gateway to the multiverse, I'll wager that such nuanced influences will NEVER be statistically provable or disprovable.  But it doesn't matter.  If there exist even a few pitchers, coaches, or whatever in the MLB who alter their decision-making process based on the presence or absence of a given hitter - which seems very probable, if not grossly understated here - then protection exists.

Those of you attempting to "disprove" intangibles are forgetting that baseball is a game played by humans, and humans do not always - in fact, rarely - make statistically sensible decisions.

In any case, I have no further interest in discussing the matter, so anyone who responds to this post should know that you will not sway my opinion.  Not that anyone was ever really going to change their positions in the first place.

People are irrational.  Adding good hitters to the lineup is good.  Etc.  I agree with what you're saying.  All I'm saying is that players aren't systematically irrational in one direction, at least not when it comes to lineup protection.  We can all agree that there are times that a hitter is walked to get to a pitcher.  There are also times a pitcher has hit a home run.  Unless that pitcher is Carlos Zambrano, neither of those are consistently reproducible over the long season--so they're not really exploitable.  Baseball managers look for ways to make the team better however possible, as do players.  The classical batting order (including the idea of lineup protection) doesn't really seem to hurt a team's run production, as long as players don't begin to make bad decisions based on it (and the evidence suggests that they don't, in the long run).  But just because something doesn't hurt doesn't mean it's unimportant to know whether it really works or not.

[The Chief]

All I'm saying is that players aren't systematically irrational in one direction

If this was your point then I completely agree.  The general idea of protection is simply a game of hedging your bets.  It's like lotto - chances of success may be minimal, but you can't win if you don't play.

That said, I'd much rather have a lineup full of average players than a lineup full of scrubs surrounding Zimm and Dunn.  We've all seen first-hand how much like pulling teeth it is to get runs out of the bottom of these lineups.

[PANatsFan]

If this was your point then I completely agree.  The general idea of protection is simply a game of hedging your bets.  It's like lotto - chances of success may be minimal, but you can't win if you don't play.

That said, I'd much rather have a lineup full of average players than a lineup full of scrubs surrounding Zimm and Dunn.  We've all seen first-hand how much like pulling teeth it is to get runs out of the bottom of these lineups.

You know, trading Zim this offseason would actually make baseball sense, despite the fan revolt. You could get 3 major league quality players. The problem is that he is the only player ever to live up to the Bowden hype.

[Lintyfresh85]

Wonder what type of haul the Nats could get for Zimm?

[Sharp]

You know, trading Zim this offseason would actually make baseball sense, despite the fan revolt. You could get 3 major league quality players. The problem is that he is the only player ever to live up to the Bowden hype.

It wouldn't, really.  Zimmerman is one of the best players in the game, has a relatively team-friendly contract, and all of his production takes up just one spot on the lineup / 25-man roster.  Replacing him with 3-4 guys that do what he does would be an awful deal for the Nats.  There's a reason he's number six on the Fangraphs "2010 Trade Values" list, there's absolutely no way he's going to be traded.

I do agree in general that the Nats lineup is very top heavy, which is problematic because if one player goes down (like Willingham did) the entire lineup gets dramatically worse.  But the solution there is to replace at least a few of our numerous below-average players with average (or slightly above average) ones.  It's not to get rid of the Zimminator.

Wonder what type of haul the Nats could get for Zimm?

If the Nats did trade Zimm at this point in his contract, it wouldn't be for a bunch of average players.  At the very least, they could get an ace (e.g. Greinke), maybe another average-ish MLBer, and some B-level or higher prospects.  Probably cash as well, depending on the exact details of the deal.  Remember, GMs know all about WAR and they know that over a full season Zimm finishes 2nd or 1st this year.  The Nats are not going to trade him though.

[Nick the Pig]

at the major league level, players treat every at-bat more or less the same way, unless instructed to do otherwise by a manager.

No, they don't.

Well, Adam Dunn might.  Or Youk.  Or Barry Bonds.  Guys who want to wait for something in their dead red happy zone and hit it 500 feet, and are willing to take a walk if they don't get that pitch.

Most hitters aren't like that.  Zimmerman's not like that.  He looks for something he can hit hard, not necessarily out of the park and into the next county.  Double into the right-center gap is just fine.  Or a hard grounder between short and third.  Or a liner up the middle.

The difference is that the 2009-10 Zimm (as opposed to the 2007-08 version) won't swing wildly at slop out of the zone.  Why ?  Because he knows there's someone behind him that can possibly get the job done if he doesn't.

That's protection.  In the mind of the hitter.  It's real.

[Nick the Pig]

I really can't imagine Myers was trying to load the bases to face a guy that could easily tie it up with one swing.

More likely walking back into the dugout with another out on the board and no advancement for the baserunners.

[Lintyfresh85]

More likely walking back into the dugout with another out on the board and no advancement for the baserunners.

That's true of all hitters. No one has a 51% or higher success rate.

[The Chief]

That's true of all hitters. No one has a 51% or higher success rate.

Indeed.  If it were really as simple as "everyone gets one hit per game" then baseball would be a tremendously low-scoring sport.

[Nick the Pig]

That's true of all hitters. No one has a 51% or higher success rate.

A strikeout precludes any possible baserunner advances.  Except for the passed ball K, of course.

On a ball put in play, at least the runners have a chance to advance.  The only downside is a potential DP.  And a notorious DP hitter will hit into them only 20-30 times per season.

[Sharp]

No, they don't.

Well, Adam Dunn might.  Or Youk.  Or Barry Bonds.  Guys who want to wait for something in their dead red happy zone and hit it 500 feet, and are willing to take a walk if they don't get that pitch.

Most hitters aren't like that.  Zimmerman's not like that.  He looks for something he can hit hard, not necessarily out of the park and into the next county.  Double into the right-center gap is just fine.  Or a hard grounder between short and third.  Or a liner up the middle.

The difference is that the 2009-10 Zimm (as opposed to the 2007-08 version) won't swing wildly at slop out of the zone.  Why ?  Because he knows there's someone behind him that can possibly get the job done if he doesn't.

That's protection.  In the mind of the hitter.  It's real.

But that same Zimm didn't swing wildly at slop out of the zone when Dunn wasn't in the lineup, either (at least not any more than he did when Dunn was in the lineup).  So statistics don't back up your assertion.  That was why I ran all those numbers earlier in the thread.  I suppose you could argue that it's because he was locked into his approach or something, but those are the statistics.  Besides, I never argued that most hitters were as patient as Dunn or Youk or Bonds, I argued that players with an impatient approach are going to have an impatient approach no matter who is batting around them.  Maybe having a good example like Dunn around helps younger players improve their approaches--I really can't say--but it doesn't appear to be correlated with whether the player is hitting behind them, in front of them, somewhere else in the lineup, or not there at all.

[JCA-CrystalCity]

Wonder what type of haul the Nats could get for Zimm?

FWIW, when Dave Cameron mid-season did his trade value assessment of players in light of their talent, age, and cost, Zimmerman finished behind Strasburg and 4 other players - Pedroia (pre injury), HanRam, Heyward (pre-second half), and Longoria.  If he updated in the off-season, Zimmerman would jump Pedroia (I think heyward with 2 years of minimum wage beats him still).

#6 – Ryan Zimmerman, 3B, Washington

If there’s one ranking from last year I regret, it’s having him 43rd on the list. That was just not a good call. This is where he belongs as one of the game’s best players, and a guy who every team in baseball would covet. Just 25 years of age, he’s already a +6 win player thanks to his combination of offensive and defensive skills, and he’s signed through 2013 for a grand total of just $35 million. He looks like a bargain at this rate, but he may not be done developing yet – the scary part about Zimmerman is that there’s room for more improvement. At this price, the current performance and ability to provide even more in the future makes Zimmerman one of the game’s best values.