For the best sports gifs and memes visit
They have statistical analysis online but I am on my phone.
The only thing that would help Wright in Philly is how well he hits there historically and the bandbox that ballpark is.
He would drive in more runs with Trout at the top of the Angels lineup and Rollins with the Phillies
Last edited by metswon69; 11-28-2012 at 04:40 PM.
I'm not disputing, really, I mean so many people have made the claim that lineup protection is a myth and claim to have stats behind it. So I will accept that.
It just seems so counter-intuitive. SO counter-intuitive.
Sandy is a proven liar and a shill for the worst ownership in baseball
Based on this news, which two FA outfielders would you like the Mets to sign? It seems Hairston isn't coming back
Delmon Young, Ryan Ludwick, Nyjer Morgan, Don Kelly, Darnell McDonald, Sizemore? Maybe Ross or Victorino?
Stats don't prove that lineup protection is a myth. That's ridiculous.
You are more likely going to get a pitch to hit with a guy like miggy behind you than a josh thole.
If I'm pitching to wright with miggy on deck, I'm going to pitch to Wright. If a guy like thole is on deck, I'm going to pitch around Wright and try to make him chase.
If You Ain't Huckin, You Ain't ****in
I'm hoping when the Mets say:
"The Mets enter the winter meetings under the assumption they will not be wheeling and dealing trade-wise, and that their Opening Day rotation will be the current crop -- R.A. Dickey, Johan Santana, Matt Harvey, Jonathon Niese and Dillon Gee",
that they are telling teams interested in Dickey or Niese that they have to improve their offers.
In making trades you have make (or try to make) the other team believe you are willing to walk away from the trade in you want them to up their offer.
The entire point of protecting a batter is to improve his offensive output (wOBA) by forcing the opposing pitcher to pitch to him. And indeed, we saw above that opposing pitchers pitch to protected hitters, something that is evidenced by the fewer walks. However, when the ball is put into play, we see no significant difference between how the two sets of hitters perform. The unprotected hitters have a wOBA of .395 (counting only balls that are hit), compared with .391 for protected hitters. The difference of .004 is not statistically significant. For comparison, the good hitters in the “leading” situation have a “contact” wOBA of .404, which is a somewhat statistically significant deviation from the other values.
In short, protecting a star hitter appears to accomplish very little. He indeed gets fewer walks; however, there is no evidence that he gets more hittable pitches, since the pitcher always avoids pitching to a good hitter when the situation would call for an intentional walk.
But maybe the difference is that if Wright had a legit hitter behind him, he might be more inclined to take ball 4 as opposed to swinging from the heels at a pitch out of the zone.
I don't know. For years I argued your point. But the numbers have never supported the claims.
"Gods always behave like the people who make them."
with all the changing of stances on alderson's part perhaps what he's saying isn't for us but for rival execs. aka posturing to get the most he can.
if u like mixed martial arts check out the psd mma forum
Well protection will change counting stats like RBI. It's just things like batting average and OPS that don't change much. MLB hitters adjust pretty well to how they are pitched. If they don't get pitches to swing at, they'll just draw more walks.