Either/or fallacy. I most certainly enjoy the game based on its aesthetic appeal (else I wouldn’t bother in the first place), so don’t go telling me that I don’t just because I am aware of a number of baseball statistical facts. And I’m hardly the worst offender-some of the real hardcore are 10x as obsessive about this as I am. I look for simplicity first and foremost-the more convoluted a stat is the less I pay attention to it.
Which people are these, exactly?
Well I stuck my foot in it with that one.
I am sorry, just venting frustration, I have still seen no proof that protection does not exist but I am the one accused of seeing Sasquatch. I am in the spot of one poster arguing against many posters. If I make a weak argument* it gets picked apart instead of providing a strong argument for the fact protection does not exist. I still haven’t seen a good statistical study to back up the statistical argument.
Additionally, I still think we have more than one definition of protection in this thread. The study **PRR ** linked in no way reflects what I would consider protection. No one has a study on my cases, which are admittedly the most obvious cases, but that is all more the more reason why I think they should be studied.
BTW: For the love of baseball, it is Manny in the 4 hole protecting Ortiz in the 3 hole. I saw this backwards in this thread already.
- Which I clearly did with the Maris in September of 1961 bit.
Can you quantify what your definition of protection is, and what you would consider a valid test of it?
I think I have, I have provided 4 examples of where in my opinion it worked and what I meant earlier in this thread. I even gave a 5th weaker example with A-Rod.
You have provided examples, but not a definition. What qualities in batter would cause him to offer protection. A high home-run rate? High average? High slugging? What is it about Ortiz or Arod that means that they offer protection? How can I tell if you believe if player X offers protection without asking you?
I guess I want to know your definition of great hitter is. Then we can look at all great hitters over time and see if they offered protected. While a sample size of 3 or 4 says nothing, if we look at 100 great hitters’ careers we should be able to show if there is an effect.
You’ve provided good examples, I agree. Is it safe to say that you think protection only exists when all of the following are true?
- The Protected player is a great power hitter.
- The Protector is himself an elite hitter
- Both players must be among the greatest hitters of all time?
I get the sense from your posts that you only believe in protection in the most extreme cases (Ruth/Gehrig et al.), and only where the protected is specifically a power hitter. Do you think great non-power hitters, like Tim Raines or Wade Boggs, wouldn’t benefit from hitting in front of a guy like Manny Ramirez? In turn, could guys like Boggs and Raines serve to offer protection to another player, or do they need to be power hitters in order to do that?
As for the Ortiz case, in 2003 (his first year with the Red Sox), Ortiz wasn’t protected by Manny Ramirez – he typically batted 5th that year, and was “protected” by the likes of Shea Hillenbrand, Trot Nixon and Kevin Millar. If Ramirez was really a protector, we would expect that his numbers in 2003 would be worse than his career numbers, yes?
Ortiz in 2003: .369 OBP, .592 SLG, 39 HR/162 pace
Ortiz lifetime: .382 OBP, .555 SLG, 35 HR/162 pace
That seems like another piece of evidence against protection – or at least not a good argument for it. Ortiz did better in his one season with no real protection, than he has over a career during which he’s been protected by Manny Ramirez most of the time.
I think you summed it up well. Overall I think it is the high average RBI guys with power that can offer protection to a power hitter. Thus Manny, Mantle and Gehrig are my best examples.
It looks like this might not hold up well for Ortiz, but I would not compare Ortiz’s 2003 to his lifetime, but to his time with Manny batting behind him.
As demonstrated by the 1961 statistics, Mantle actually improved after being moved from in front of Maris to behind him.
Gehrig’s batting behind Ruth apparently didn’t have much of an impact either, since Ruth was actually a better hitter before Gehrig become a force behind him (which is saying a lot.)
I don’t think what Mantle did really enters the equation, it is about if Maris was helped.
As to Ruth, I don’t agree with your numbers. Gehrig came into his own in 1926 starting his ridiculously great streak of 13 seasons with 100+ RBIs. Ruth had had an off year in 1925 but starting with 1926 he had six incredible years of Run production and his BA stayed high. Compared to his run production in the 4 years prior, it looks like Gehrig may have helped Ruth. I think you might need to look it over more carefully.
On another note, when does Second base close out and will Third Base be next?
Guys, thanks for putting up with me. I am not willing to let go of a long term baseball belief in this case without some more proof.
Second base closes at midnight tonight.
Shortstop is next, and the ballot will be up shortly before I close the second base voting. Oh, this one’s gonna be GREAT.
I anticipate much wailing and gnashing of teeth over two certain active gentlemen, both of the Pinstriped Persuasion.
One is a clear yes and the other is a clear no. 
Really, you dislike A-Rod that much? 
It’s funny you put it that way.
I’m just starting to compose the shortstop thread starter and let me tell you, this will be a hard ballot. Shortstop is filled with great candidates, and you will feel bad about at LEAST one or two names you’ll have to leave off.
For now.
The wild card rounds will NOT be position-specific and I think we will end up with more shortstops and center fielders than at other positions. Personally, I think that’s fine. Those are where the greatest players play, right?
Right. For example, most 2nd baseman aren’t 2nd baseman because they are really good at playing 2nd. They are 2nd basemen, because they can’t play short.
I’ve been offline for a bit, but I managed to compose this all-purpose (if a bit tardy) response to points raised in this thread.
But Bonds’ OBP would have gone down markedly if he hadn’t been walked intentionally so much.
Your point here, and John DiFool’s above seem to cite contrary phenomena: you’re claiming that the number-three hitter (let’s call him Barry) gets more fat pitches to hit because a good number four hitter (let’s call him Jeff) is batting behind him. But John’s claim is that Barry gets fewer fat pitches, in the form of intentional (and I’m sure some unintentional) walks. How does Barry getting walked a lot result from pitchers being forced to pitch to him? Seems to me his IBB rate would drop to zero if having Jeff bat behind him “forced” pitchers to throw balls over the plate to him.
I’m not sure what “no power” means to you, but in 1992, 1993, and 1994, years he batted in front of Albert Belle, Carlos Baerga averaged 20 Hrs and 100 RBIs per year, and batted well over .300. (Mind you, in 1994 the Indians played only 111 games, so those power numbers are particularly impressive—in the missing 51 games, figure Baerga was on pace to hit another 10 HRs and 40 RBIs.) He was 23, 24, and 25 years old so you’d probably expect him to get better (he didn’t) and for there to be a residual effect in at least one subsequent season. In 1992 and 1993, he finished 10th and 11th in the MVP voting and made the All-Star team—I don’t know how much better he would have to be to qualify as “a great hitter” to you.
But I’m confused by your terminology -–since Carlos batted third, and Albert/Joey fourth, why does it even matter whether Carlos was a great hitter, or even a good one? According to you, it’s the protection of having a strong hitter batting BEHIND him that helps Carlos out. Pitchers terrified of Albert/Joey’s awesome power should be forced to throw pitches over the plate to Carlos, so as to avoid at all costs walking him. In 1995, with Belle batting directly behind him (and hitting 50 HRs and driving 113 runs) and Thome, Ramirez and Eddie Murray batting behind Belle, Baerga’s numbers didn’t improve (he dropped to 15 HR, 90 RBI in ’95)—according to you, with his BEST protection batting behind him, shouldn’t the 26 year old Baerga’s numbers have improved in 1995, or at least stayed where it was?
As the larger issue of argumentation here, it seems to me that What Exit is making a case for validating only examples of extremely great sluggers (Ruth/Gehrig, Mantle/Maris, Manny/Papi) and invalidating examples of lesser sluggers. This creates small samples in which there are very few games where one hitter is OUT of the lineup, again reducing the number of games to a very small sample, in which anything could happen. If he would allow a widening of the sample size, as in the Grabiner report, he’d be overwhelmed by the tiny effect that “protection” has on players.
He’s also being very selective in choosing his examples. As Grabiner references, Bill James did a study of the effect of protection with Bob Horner and Dale Murphy (in the mid-1980s when they were among the most feared power hitters in MLB). The effect there was actually negative: “Murphy hit .265 with Horner in the lineup, and .281 with the same power with Horner out,” as Grabiner summarizes. Rather than dealing with this sort of study, that does serious (albeit selective) damage to the theory **What Exit? ** is propounding, he just skips over it and says-- what? That Horner and Murphy weren’t good hitters after all? That he’s only talking about certain Yankees in certain seasons, not MLB sluggers generally? I don’t know what argument he’d make to discount this study, but I’d have to think that as we widen the scope of studies and find that some of them actually have a (statistically insignificant) negative effect to counteract the (statistically insignificant) positive effect on certain other carefully selected examples, that protection doesn’t add up to much. As I said, and as What Exit? seemed to find insulting 9sorry 'bout that): it’s Sasquatch. People claim to have seen it but are utterly unable to provide any evidence for it. If you want to argue that protection (or Sasquatch) exists, you have to show why you think so. It really isn’t our responsibility to disprove your assertion.
And I also would be happy to be proven wrong, which is where you misjudge sabrmetrics types in general. James poses questions, often starting with long-accepted truisms about baseball: is pitching really 75% of the game? How important is home-field? Does Rizzuto deserve to be elected to the Hall? Things we care about, because we’re interested in baseball, in things that happen on and off the field, and bless him, he’s willing to do the work that we need to find out some of the answers. (Also, more important, able to do the work, and often ingenious enough to do it.) I think, btw, that he’s done more than any other person not wearing the number 7 for the Yankees to enhance Mantle’s reputation: when he started his writing in the mid-1970s, the common baseball wisdom was that walks don’t matter very much, and Mantle got very little credit for walking as much as he did. James took a lot of not-so-good-natured mocking for his radical notion that walks are a very important contribution, and now that his notion is universally accepted, Mantle’s reputation is has gotten a well-deserved boost. Please consider this when you next claim that sabrmetricians are interested in numbers, stats, and lies. We’re interested in the truth, wherever it leads.
Finally, between baseball, Star Wars and computer savvy, Jim is the geekiest guy I know. His credentials as an all around geek are untouchable.
That was a lot to digest, but for the record, I feel the need to point out two things.
-
Star Trek and only the Original Series, not Star Wars, I am not even a fan and only enjoyed the second movie out of six made. I am however an over-the-top Tolkien fan.
-
The Yanks started trying to pull in players with plate discipline and walks as far back as the 70s leading to there 3 World Series appearances. They were not as successful or as dedicated to it as they were under Gene Michaels building to the run of success in the 90s. But the Yanks were always near the forefront of OBA and bullpens do a lot to win games. I did not realize Bill James got going in the 70s, I thought he was more 80s, but Gabe Paul did a good job trading for players that were on base often and good provide a good defense. In 1973 to 1977 he did a great job and if the Boss did not interfere and fire him, he may have been able to build something to rival what George Weiss had built or Gene Michaels.