Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
November 27, 2006
Finding Protection

Balls, Sticks and Stuff makes an argument for finding someone to protect Ryan Howard in the lineup. Is it really possible to find such a player? Think about it, how many players are out there that you would say, "We better pitch to Howard, because X is coming up." Albert Pujols? Manny Ramirez?

It seems to me that a some point a player is so good that no one can protect him. Just look at Ruth and Gehrig. Do you really think, given the choice, that most pitchers would take Gehrig over Ruth? We don't have intentional walk numbers from that era, but Gehrig's 23 grand slams point in the direction of Ruth getting walks a lot in front of Lou.

My opinion is the best protection for a hitter is a man on first. Teams are not likely to walk a batter to move a runner into scoring position. In other words, Chase Utley's OBA is the best protection Ryan gets.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:08 AM | Strategy | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Which is why Bobby Abreu and his .400+ OBP in front of Howard are so sorely missed, despite what the mouthbreathing Philadelphia fans and press want you to think.

Posted by: Peter at November 27, 2006 11:14 AM

Way back in the paleolithic era, about 1985 or so, Bill James did a one-shot study of lineup protection. For several years, Dale Murphy had been a fixture in the Braves' lineup; he was followed by the power hitter Bob Horner. It was commonly said that Horner helped Murphy excel, by providing a threat in the on-deck circle.

Horner was injury-prone, and frequently out of the lineup, so he made an ideal case study. James looked at Murphy's stats in games with and without Horner, which formed a pretty substantial sample size. The result: Murphy hit a little better when Horner was out of the lineup. It was powerful evidence that the "protection" theory is more myth than reality. As far as I know, no one has ever done a similar study that actually revealed a "protection" effect.

I'm not saying it doesn't exist... but I am saying there's no statistical proof of it.

Posted by: johnw at November 27, 2006 12:13 PM

There's much better evidence in The Book (stupid name, I know, try searching for authors Tango, Dolphin, and Litchman) that corroborates.

Posted by: Mike at November 27, 2006 01:22 PM

Peter, terrific point made.
I assume you live in Philly as well ? if so, you know how up in arms Philly fans were about Abreu's performance. i was very upset Abreu got traded. Rightfielders with cannon arms and an OBP of close to .400 dont grow on trees. i realize Howard had a terrific 2nd half after he got traded, but don't fans know how many more RBi's you can have with Abreu batting ahead of Howard other than other players ? His absence will be more noticed this coming year.

Posted by: the Gov'Nah at November 27, 2006 02:42 PM

you mean the abreu who would only bat third in the lineup even though he has no power left and he could have helped the club more in another spot. if you watched the games the phillies were much better TEAM without abreu. should they have gotten more value you for him? sure, but that's not the point. bobby, just like lieberthal, wolf and the entire ed wade core, need to go.

utley or jroll would do fine behind howard. burrell is also sufficient.

Posted by: Tim at November 27, 2006 04:59 PM

That's fascinating actually. I know that it's been shown that the batter after doesn't provide protection - as the second poster observed. But do the batters before "protect" a later batter as David is suggesting? That's an interesting question and I don't know that anyone's looked into that.

Posted by: soccer dad at November 28, 2006 10:03 AM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?