I’m not entirely sure I understand what you mean with the phrase “platoon disadvantage”, but doesn’t the batter himself gain more playing time? And the team gains defensively (assuming he’s a plus in the field)? And the team also gains not burning a bench player to pinch hit (or just sit there waiting for someone to get hurt)?
Well, let’s take your ideal of a lineup of all-star caliber hitters. Do you alternate them l-r-l-r-l-r-l-r or do you set them up in the traditional method described very well by several posters above. Your argument that you cannot stack your lineup with lefties or righties depending, because of the availability of relief pitching is specious. The whole idea is to get the starter out and beat up on relievers. Any baseball manager would gladly take 4 runs or so and take his chances IMHO.
StusBlues:
As far as Bill James simulation goes 5% more runs does not sound like much but I wouyld certainly rather have it than not. I would also like to know who batted cleanup for the Cubs if Hack Wilson batted third.
PRR:
You said pinch-hitting but I assume you meant switch-hitting. You are right , of course, that many switch hitters have a considerable variation between their performances, being better from one side. A particularly humorous one is Wandy Rodriguez for the Pirates, a switch hitting pitcher who at one time this season was 1 for 50, but who always bats right when sacrificing. In general I would suspect that any player who suffers this disparity, though, has determined that it is worth it. Managers, who have all the numbers, presumably agree.
Yes, I meant “switch-hitting.” Mea Culpa. You’d be amazed at what batters and managers haven’t quite figured out yet. We used to have a switch-hitter here in Queens named Wally Backman, who would be a .300 hitter one way and a .200 hitter the other way. Naturally he was platooned most of the time, but you’ve got to wonder just how much worse he would batted if he just batted from his stronger side against lefty pitchers and righties alike.
Just to clarify, James’ simulations were between a standard lineup and the worst lineup he could think of–one that no manager in his right mind (which may or may not exclude Billy Martin) would have come up with. The point is that if the difference between a reasonable and an insane lineup is 5%, the difference between two reasonable lineups is practically zero.
I believe in the concept of protection in the batting order. Your cleanup hitter is your beast, the guy you want to drive in the runs in bunches. If the #5 batter is just an average hitter, your #4 guy is not going to see many good pitches if there’s a base open. If the pitcher knows that he doesn’t want to face the #5 batter either, then #5 isn’t going to get intentional or semi-intentional walks.
My ideal lineup:
#1- good average plus speed
#2- good average plus able to bunt
#3- best average
#4- best power
#5- best hitter remaining
#6-8, no particular preference
#9- good speed and/or good bunter, preferably both
And it would be sweet if there were a shred of actual support that protection exists.
There is none–zero empirical evidence–but people go on saying those words just as if they made some sense.
Go wash your mouth out with soap. The designated hitter rule is an abortion and has turned American League baseball into something not much better than sandlot ball.
Are you claiming that there is no difference in the number of IBB a good hitter will get based on who bats next in the order? What is your standard for empirical evidence here? For example, I was under the impression that Roger Maris received NO intentional walks in 1961 because he batted in front of Mickey Mantle. Is that not protection? Or do you dismiss this as anecdotage? What size of N does your standard require?
ETA: Amen, Clothahump.
I’ve seen enough managers holding up four fingers when they wouldn’t be if there was a decent hitter on deck.
Yet if you actually study it, and not some side issue like intentional BBs, you will find no evidence can be cited.
“Protection” does one thing - it keeps a hitter from being intentionally walked.
However, intentional walks are almost always a good thing for the batting team. So by reducing them you’re actually hurting the number of runs you are likely to score.
I’ve never seen any evidence that it effects anything other than IBB (and perhaps RBI totals, but who cares about RBI).
Any rational lineup is acceptable, IMO, and managers would be better suited by keeping their players happy than trying to squeeze a sub-1% advantage out of the lineup. Let them hit where they are comfortable.
That study has come up here before (wish I could find the thread) and it is very flawed. I mean, part of their study was the evaluation of Brian Harper’s production when he was protected by Shane Mack for the 1991 Twins. Nobody would ever dare offer Shane Mack as an example of lineup protection.
If it were true that intentional walks benefitted the batting team in almost every case, then no one would ever be intentionally walked. Walter Alston would have agreed that this was the case in 1974 when his pennant-winning Dodgers only issued nine intentional walks all year; this is about the closest thing I’ve seen to anyone arguing that IBBs are *always *a bad thing.
pseudotriton, how the hell are IBB a side issue to protection in the batting order? As **Jas09 **points out, that’s the reason for protection in the first place.
It’s not necessarily true that IBBs are good for the batting team. However, walks are usually considered a positive for an individual batter’s statistics.
If a batter is more often walked when unprotected, it would imply that the batter’s stats, overall, will be improved by being unprotected. More walks - higher OBP, higher OPS, etc.
If those walks make the hitting team worse off than the alternative, then the manager would be well served to structure his order to prevent them, and he should provide protection for his best hitters.