Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 24 of 43 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast
Results 346 to 360 of 640

Thread: Baseball Myths

  1. #346
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    13,003
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    there is this.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/ta...eup-protection


    it would seem Ludwick benefited by having Pujols behind him (protecting him).
    Ludwick in 2010.
    batting 2nd - 47 G/ 190 AB -.311/.389/.521/.910.
    batting 4th - 40 G/ 149 AB - .201/.26/.336/.603
    batting 5th - 28 G/ 99 AB - .253/.327/.434/.762

    was this not protection?
    dude. he's asking you to prove something that cannot be proven. forget it.
    Quote Originally Posted by nycericanguy View Post
    well unfortunately it looks like you were right about Bargs...

    but hopefully we can use his expiring, if not at least we unloaded Novak's deal...

  2. #347
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    there is this.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/ta...eup-protection


    it would seem Ludwick benefited by having Pujols behind him (protecting him).
    Ludwick in 2010.
    batting 2nd - 47 G/ 190 AB -.311/.389/.521/.910.
    batting 4th - 40 G/ 149 AB - .201/.26/.336/.603
    batting 5th - 28 G/ 99 AB - .253/.327/.434/.762

    was this not protection?
    Pitchers faced, ball park, and sample size.

    http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Picture2-2.png

    http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Picture1-3.png

    "“Baseball Between the Numbers” specifically debunks the lineup protection canard. From two directions - first it notes that there are almost no situations when it makes statistical sense (and not just ‘max runs sense,’ but Herm Edwardsian ‘win the game’ sense) to “pitch around” somebody that occur in an actual game. And those situations which do occur all involve 2001-2004 Barry Bonds. Secondly, there are no demonstrable “protection effects” - hitters do not perform better with a better hitter hitting behind them - or at least there is no demonstrable effect of that nature."

  3. #348
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by GuppyFighter
    I agree with most every thing you are saying, but the bold makes me cringe. "This is me proving I know things"
    It was in response to his poor attempt at baiting an appeal to authority...problem is if anyone in this conversation is an authority on the subject of methodology, it would be me.

    So yes, I do "know things."

    And I have the credentials to prove it.

    Quote Originally Posted by hoggin88
    Watch out everyone.
    Essentially, this.

    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK
    EVIDENCE!
    This is a good start, now actually read the post.

    Of 27 individuals "protected:"
    11 = Increase in OPS
    16 = Decrease in OPS

    15 = Increase in Strikes Seen
    11 = Lower Number of Strikes Seen

    13 = Higher TB/H
    14 = Lower TB/H

    This is the veritable definition of a wash; you just demonstrated that there is no statistical correlation indicative of Line-Up Protection.

    Read your "proof" thoroughly before you post it.
    Last edited by IceHawk-181; 01-30-2013 at 04:57 PM.

  4. #349
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppyfighter View Post
    Pitchers faced, ball park, and sample size.

    http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Picture2-2.png

    http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b2...Picture1-3.png

    "“Baseball Between the Numbers” specifically debunks the lineup protection canard. From two directions - first it notes that there are almost no situations when it makes statistical sense (and not just ‘max runs sense,’ but Herm Edwardsian ‘win the game’ sense) to “pitch around” somebody that occur in an actual game. And those situations which do occur all involve 2001-2004 Barry Bonds. Secondly, there are no demonstrable “protection effects” - hitters do not perform better with a better hitter hitting behind them - or at least there is no demonstrable effect of that nature."
    /argument

  5. #350
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    like I said before, no matter what I come up with some are going to pick that a part so that it fits better with what they're saying, that lineup protection does not exist.
    I came up with an example where Ryan Ludiwck was benefited by Albert Pujols protecting him in the lineup. that's it, that's all I need, 1 example. it might be 1 out of a million, but 1 is enough. now saying there is NO evidence of lineup protection is false, because I just showed you some. that's protection.
    game over.
    what do we argue about next?

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  6. #351
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    like I said before, no matter what I come up with some are going to pick that a part so that it fits better with what they're saying, that lineup protection does not exist.
    I came up with an example where Ryan Ludiwck was benefited by Albert Pujols protecting him in the lineup. that's it, that's all I need, 1 example. it might be 1 out of a million, but 1 is enough. now saying there is NO evidence of lineup protection is false, because I just showed you some. that's protection.
    game over.
    what do we argue about next?
    Sample size issue and I don't have time to do this, so can you show the amount of standard deviation in his stats behind Pujols and his career stats.

  7. #352
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppyfighter View Post
    Sample size issue and I don't have time to do this, so can you show the amount of standard deviation in his stats behind Pujols and his career stats.
    And SpecialFNK, while you are doing that analysis do not forget to graph the data and determine the actual existence of a correlation.

    EDIT:
    Also, fun fact about Ludwick's Fastball percentage.

    His career FB% is 55.8%, so his 57% Fastballs with Pujols behind him is not a significant increase.

    Imagine that.

    EDIT: And because it takes approximately 30 seconds to do...another stat:

    Ludwick's Career percentage of pitches in the strike zone = 48.6%

    In front of Pujols 2010? 48.2%

    As in no significant statistical change.
    Last edited by IceHawk-181; 01-30-2013 at 05:12 PM.

  8. #353
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    8,725
    vCash
    34875
    Quote Originally Posted by IceHawk-181 View Post
    And SpecialFNK, while you are doing that analysis do not forget to graph the data and determine the actual existence of a correlation.

    EDIT:
    Also, fun fact about Ludwick's Fastball percentage.

    His career FB% is 55.8%, so his 57% Fastballs with Pujols behind him is not a significant increase.

    Imagine that.
    And we have to consider confounding variables. This increase was when he was batting in the two hole. The leadoff hitter is typically fast and a threat to steal. I find it far more likely this increase came from when the runner was on first base and a threat to steal.

  9. #354
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by utahjazzno12fan View Post
    2004 - Barry Bonds hits 45 HR. He receives 120 IBB. He has 135 hits, 27 2B, 3 3B.

    You can't remove IBB from the data. If Barry Bonds had another hitter as good as himself behind him, they wouldn't have IBB'd him nearly as much. His IBBs weren't usually walking to get a force play. It was pitching around.

    Percentages show that if he were pitched to those 120 times, his hit total would have been higher as would his doubles, triples, and home runs. His RBI total would have been higher. His OBP would have been lower as he would not have gotten on base all of those 120 times. His SBs and Runs would have been lower as he would not have been on base those 120 times.

    Now how much of a difference is able to be debated, but you can't say it has no effect.
    Of course you can remove IBB from the data.

    It isn't a skill stat. It's a situational stat.

    It isn't included for example in wOBA.

    As said above, lineup protection, you have to remove IBB, because they are situational based. How the hitter actually does and their skill sets isn't affected by the man on deck.

  10. #355
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Guppyfighter View Post
    And we have to consider confounding variables. This increase was when he was batting in the two hole. The leadoff hitter is typically fast and a threat to steal. I find it far more likely this increase came from when the runner was on first base and a threat to steal.
    I agree; the number of causal variables available to explain why something occurs are so numerous that any real claim, such as the one about Line-Up Protection, requires a good deal of evidence to support.

  11. #356
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Posts
    74
    vCash
    1500
    Quote Originally Posted by Jeffy25 View Post
    We know that hitters do better with men on base overall than with the bases empty.

    There are some specific theories on why, all seem to have their merits.
    I think it's definitely more fun to hit when there are men on base - then you don't have such a far away goal.

  12. #357
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    of course anything I can come up with is not going to be good enough, and not conclude to anything. so why bother.
    no one is going to have the mind/opinion changed. so why bother.
    to me those numbers suggest that Ludwick benefited by having Pujols hit behind him. and I don't consider 190 AB a small sample size.
    IMO this argument is over. Pujols protected Ludwick in those games.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  13. #358
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,225
    vCash
    1500
    This is the problem, assumption versus actual evidentiary proof.

    Ludwick did not see an aberrant or statistically significant alteration to his pitch selection, the number of pitches in the strike zone, contact on pitches in the zone, contact with pitches outside of the zone, swinging strike percentage...any of it.

    If Albert Pujols was truly influencing Ludwick's pitch selection than something here would demonstrate it.

    It simply is not.

    I told you before.

    The position you have taken has been objectively and quantifiably disproven numerous times.

    Even your own "evidence" invalidates the claims you attempt to build from them.

    If you want to talk about causal factors, then multiple theories are always tenable.

    However, a description of basic events (such as Line-Up Protection) is inexplicable from on-field performance and can be measured and therefore proved.

    Your point is demonstrably wrong.

    It happens.
    Last edited by IceHawk-181; 01-30-2013 at 05:47 PM.

  14. #359
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    9,528
    vCash
    1500
    ..yet Ludwick's actual on field numbers, you know the numbers that count, were better batting in front of Pujols compared to batting behind him in 2 other different spots.
    even if it was just in Ludwick's head that he felt better with Pujols batting behind him.
    protection.

    Velvet Sky. hottest woman in wrestling

  15. #360
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    35,621
    vCash
    1000
    Quote Originally Posted by SpecialFNK View Post
    there is this.
    http://espn.go.com/blog/statsinfo/ta...eup-protection


    it would seem Ludwick benefited by having Pujols behind him (protecting him).
    Ludwick in 2010.
    batting 2nd - 47 G/ 190 AB -.311/.389/.521/.910.
    batting 4th - 40 G/ 149 AB - .201/.26/.336/.603
    batting 5th - 28 G/ 99 AB - .253/.327/.434/.762

    was this not protection?
    That's 300 at bats lol.

    That's what, half a season for a guy in the middle of his peak?

    As said above, a relatively good sample size for PA for lineup protection needs to be at least 600 PA to have any merit (a seasons worth) and even then, that's still small.

Page 24 of 43 FirstFirst ... 14222324252634 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •