Baseball Myths

[SpecialFNK]

advanced stats are wonderful for the game, but not when they stop people from actual thinking, or when they cause people to forget that the game is played by real, unpredictable human beings with the same biology as you and me.

this can't be quoted enough, because this is so true, something I feel like people forget way too often.
not everything in baseball can be put into numbers to calculate.

you can't calculate what is going on the mind of pitcher 1, or pitcher 2, or pitcher 100, or pitcher 200.. all of which are different from each other. and they do effect how they perform.

player X might be tight, thinking too much, putting pressure on himself, and need to loosen up. he might go out that night and get laid, and then the next day is more lose and able to play differently.

[jej]

you can use 1 example, 10 examples, 100 examples. how many of them all faced the same pitchers? many different pitchers pitch differently. what one pitcher would do isn't the same as another pitcher would do.

I don't need evidence, I would think it's common sense.
if the Tigers batted Ramon Santiago behind Miguel Cabrera for an entire season I just know there is no way in hell Cabrera would have the same numbers. for one Cabrera would walk much more. he's also likely not going to see the same type of pitches, because why would a pitcher pitch the same when Ramon Santiago is the next batter, who is so bad he's going to get an out much more than say someone like Prince Fielder. why pitch the same to Cabrera and risk having him hurt you, when you can walk/pitch around Cabrera and face Santiago.
but obviously there isn't going to be an example for this because a manager of a professional baseball team isn't stupid enough to put Ramon Santiago behind Miguel Cabrera.

You would think that, but that doesn't mean it's true. If all the evidence available goes against your point, it probably lacks merit.

Not to get too religious, but this is the main reason I do not believe in a God. There just isn't evidence there for it. As soon as there is more evidence for than against, I will believe. Same with protection. Right now, all the evidence points to it not having an effect.

It's just illogical to me to believe something without any evidence. Even if you say there isn't good evidence against either, it doesn't matter. We are taking the default claim that because there isn't evidence, it's not there. We don't have to prove its not, but we can anyway. You do have to prove it, yet you cant

[IceHawk-181]

I don't need evidence, I would think it's common sense..

Yeah, logic, facts, and evidence are all fancy words designed to convince people that what they assume is not real!

Keep up the good fight!

Do not let those pesky facts get in the way...

I honestly can no longer tell if you are either completely ignorant of how intelligent discussion or the determination of knowledge works or if you are simply trolling Jeffy and JeJ.

This is how discussion works:
1 – Hypothesis
2 – Test/Research
3 – Describe what occurred
4 – Compare actual results with hypothesis

"Common Sense" is intellectually vacant, an opinion is essentially worthless, and factual statistical data exists.

Pure and simple, you are wrong, it is provable, has been shown numerous times, and your "common sense" is, like most common sensical notions, true only in your mind.

Seriously guys, move on.

You cannot convince with reason an individual who assumes that his knowledge is a priori absolute and truth, notwithstanding a body of factual data he clearly does not acknowledge and likely does not understand.

[Jamiecballer]

You are Competely missing the point.

If they don't have an effect, they don't have an effect. If they do have an effect, we see it. Any useful information will show up in the stats. That's the only way we know they are there.

The burden of proof is on you. You are making the claim that something exists, without evidence. We are claiming it doesn't, BECAUSE there is no evidence that it does.

If it doesn't affect performance or production, it either isn't there, or just doesn't matter.

this has become a scientific argument at this point, i'm not particularly hung up on the issue of lineup protection. so forget about that part. i've come to embrace advanced stats as much as most but i hope i never become as rigid in my thinking as you.

[jej]

this can't be quoted enough, because this is so true, something I feel like people forget way too often.
not everything in baseball can be put into numbers to calculate.

you can't calculate what is going on the mind of pitcher 1, or pitcher 2, or pitcher 100, or pitcher 200.. all of which are different from each other. and they do effect how they perform.

player X might be tight, thinking too much, putting pressure on himself, and need to loosen up. he might go out that night and get laid, and then the next day is more lose and able to play differently.

Once again, any mental effects that have an effect will be shown they stats

What do you propose we do with intangible things? If we don't know what they are thinking, how can we talk about what they are thinking? Does this mean we should ignore them? Of use them knowing its all subjective, most likely incorrect opinion?

[IceHawk-181]

this has become a scientific argument at this point, i'm not particularly hung up on the issue of lineup protection. so forget about that part. i've come to embrace advanced stats as much as most but i hope i never become as rigid in my thinking as you.

It is called "logic," not any special "advanced stats" approach friend.

[Jamiecballer]

It is called "logic," not any special "advanced stats" approach friend.

don't jump into a conversation if you have nothing to add to it please

so far both sides have said there is proof but provided none. my issue isn't with the conclusion, it's the irresponsible interpretation of the stats. it's lazyness is what it is. the "i know it exists, i'll acknowledge it exists (talking about these "human" factors) , but since i don't know how to quantify it i will proceed as though it doesn't exist and draw conclusions nonetheless" type of thinking that i abhor.

[jej]

He has added plenty. More than you have.

[Jamiecballer]

He has added plenty. More than you have.

do you know what smart people do when they know there are factors at work that they can't quantify? they admit they don't know. they don't dismiss them as irrelevant. this is called open-mindedness. i don't know why it makes some guys on here so uncomfortable to say "we just don't know". but you act arrogantly even while admitting that you have total ignorance of some of the factors at work. unreal.

that's what turns some people off to advanced stats. it's not the numbers. it's the attitudes it seems to create in the hands of those who wield them like a sledgehammer.

[jej]

do you know what smart people do when they know there are factors at work that they can't quantify? they admit they don't know. they don't dismiss them as irrelevant. this is called open-mindedness. i don't know why it makes some guys on here so uncomfortable to say "we just don't know".

What are you talking about? We are the ones saying there is no evidence for it. You are the one making the claim without any evidence. You are not being open minded. We are presenting you with facts and evidence, and you are ignoring them.

As of now, we do not have any evidence that protection has any effect.

You are making the assertion that protection does have an effect. It's not like you are saying we don't know either. You are saying it does, without any evidence. We are saying the evidence goes against it.

[SpecialFNK]

if you don't know what a pitcher is thinking, how can you know the effects based on what he is thinking? and that's just 1 pitcher. there are so many pitchers, that can all be thinking something different, based on many different situations.

there's no way to know the effects of what player A is thinking in one situation compared to another situation. he's human, he's not always thinking the same thing. he could be thinking of so many different things, even personal off the field things.

[jej]

if you don't know what a pitcher is thinking, how can you know the effects based on what he is thinking? and that's just 1 pitcher. there are so many pitchers, that can all be thinking something different, based on many different situations.

there's no way to know the effects of what player A is thinking in one situation compared to another situation. he's human, he's not always thinking the same thing. he could be thinking of so many different things, even personal off the field things.

Exactly. So answer the question: what do you do with things we do not know about? I don't get what you want.

[Jeffy25]

don't jump into a conversation if you have nothing to add to it please

He added plenty, and his prior post is enough for me to bow out of this discussion. He is very correct with his above point (bowing out of this discussion, not the topic or thread).

[utahjazzno12fan]

Having a batter behind you "protecting" you doesn't change the approach every at bat. It does in some though, helping that batter. If you have a guy batting that makes Randy Johnson look good at the plate, he is going to get less to hit. 8 hitters do get less good pitches. I coach at the high school level. I have attended coaching clinics, etc. That is just good baseball. We see it in baseball at the MLB level often in the NL. An 8 hitter is not protected. He is the most walked batter with IBB. It may not be huge, but it is there to change statistics. That data also shows that the 8th hitter is not walked as often in the AL as the NL. The value may be overstated, but it is there.

I can think of a game I coached in last year. The 4 hitter came up with a runner at 2nd. I told the pitcher not to throw a strike, getting an unintentional, intentional walk or forcing the batter to chase. He threw that first pitch right down the pipe. I was confident of our pitcher getting the 5th batter but he screwed up.

I can't say it happens a lot, but the data shows there is some correlation though not how much.

[jej]

What data exactly? Can you present it? Cause as of now, we haven't seen any to support it.