Batter before Prince -- better than Prince himself?

[randybreuerfan]

There is now a thread on Ryan Braun destroying the pitching he sees. One thing that was brought up is that he hits in front of Fielder. Before Braun was called up, Hardy was hitting in front of Fielder, and he had many/most of his homeruns.

 

I wonder what the place-before-Fielder batting statistics are this year. Are they better than Fielder himself? I also wonder how that compares to people hitting before, say, Pujols or Alex Rodriguez or Barry Bonds.

 

If hitting in front of Fielder gives such benefit, maybe it should be someone like Counsell or the pitcher (?) In other words, how much of a hitter does a person have to be to benefit significantly from batting in front of a great batter?

 

Regardless of that question, the effect of Fielder's presence on Hardy's and now Braun's statistics are one more feather in his MVP cap.

 

I'm at work so can't do all the statistics. Thanks in advance to whoever does them.

[logan82]

From everything I have read, there is no such thing as batting protection. The only thing close to protection would be the guy batting behind Fielder being good so other teams don't issue a IBB to Fielder.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

Yeah, Counsell or the pitcher should bat 3rd in the lineup.

 

Are you suggesting Prince lead off?

 

J/k of course, but it's been noted that players batting in front of him have done well all year.

[rluzinski]

I've read several studies on this subject of protection and all have found about the same thing, not much. There might be some effects but nothing that has been picked up statistically. It's fair to say that the effect is typically grossly overstated by announcers and fans.

 

Here's a link to a study that tried to find evidence of protection:

 

LINK

 

He sums his conclusions as:

Quote:

---

The results lead us to not only reject the protection hypothesis, but also we find evidence that good on-deck hitters actually harm the hit and power probabilities of the current batter. This is consistent with the effort hypothesis. However, the magnitude of the spillover is tiny and for all practical purposes the effect is zero. Even very good (bad) hitters have only a very small impact on the batters who precede them.

---

 

Maybe Fielder is helping Hardy and Bruan but we shouldn't just assume that he is. The effect just isn't pronounced enough.

 

Of course, if Prince isn't protected himself, he might be intentionally walked more often, which isn't necessarily a bad thing anyway.

 

Here's a Ken Rosenthal article on the subject. He takes a more diplomatic stance on the topic:

 

LINK

[logan82]

Quote:

---

Are you suggesting Prince lead off?

---

Actually the best batting order would be putting the players in order of best OPS. The most imortant thing with batting order is putting your 9 best players in the lineup every day. Everything else only make a minor difference.

[rluzinski]

Quote:

---

Actually the best batting order would be putting the players in order of best OPS. The most imortant thing with batting order is putting your 9 best players in the lineup every day. Everything else only make a minor difference.

---

 

It's not exactly that simple. I've seen some studies suggest that the #3 hitter should be a little weaker (they come up most often with 2 outs, after all). Also, it does pay to have more walks in the ! and #2 spot. The biggest sin the traditional lineup commits is having a relatively weak batter in the #2 spot. Really, it doesn't make much difference anyway, though.

[Lil Dummy]

"Maybe Fielder is helping Hardy and Bruan but we shouldn't just assume that he is. The effect just isn't pronounced enough."

 

Is that true? I'm too lazy to crunch the numbers, and I'll admit that maybe this is selective memory talking, but it seems to me that if you look at Hardy's numbers this year with and without Prince batting behind him, there would be a wide gulf. Obviously with Braun, it's impossible to know.

 

I'm not stating that if there is a big discrepancy in Hardy's numbers that it conclusively proves anything, just that I think there IS a big discrepancy there, contrary to what Russ is saying.

 

Either way, the guy who suggested we hit Counsell third is thinking a little too far outside the box. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[BraunsBoyfriend]

That's not really true, about OPS greatest to least.

 

There's algorithms for measuring the "optimal" lineup and it's definitely not OPS top to bottom.

 

However, it is based on SLG and OBP, the aggregates of OPS of course.

 

But OPS is wrong in that it gives equal value to SLG and OBP when in fact OBP is worth more than SLG per point.

 

So a player with high SLG and average OBP will probably have a higher OPS than a guy with a high OBP and average SLG, but the team is "optimized" when the higher SLG player bats afterwards. But OPS is a simple calculation and handy for quick reference.

 

Regardless you're right, having your 8 or 9 best batters is the most important thing. Order (unless you really screw it up) doesn't matter as much.

[DHonks]

Really, the issue of protection is yet another baseball anomaly. That is, it makes perfect sense in reality, but not on paper.

 

For instance, you have a runner on 2nd, Braun up. Normally the pitcher would think, "I'll go after the hitter, but giving him nothing fat. That way, if I walk him, it sets up the double play. But maybe I'll get him to fish for something." But when Prince is the guy on deck, that has to change the thought process a bit. Now the pitcher has to go after Braun with some meatier pitches, trying to entice an out. He no longer is willing to risk nibbling and walking Braun.

 

So on a micro-level, protection exists, just as batting order can be significant. But on a macro level, the variances are so minute that they cannot be proven as statistically significant

[rluzinski]

I'm not stating that if there is a big discrepancy in Hardy's numbers that it conclusively proves anything, just that I think there IS a big discrepancy there, contrary to what Russ is saying.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a discrepancy, just that we can't assume it was a result of batting before Fielder (correlation doesn't automatically mean causation). If Hardy had stayed in the 3 spot he almost certainly would have seen his number go down anyway. I mean, he was on pace to hit 50 HRs or something ridiculous. Again, I can't prove anything either way but I'm not going to just give Fielder credit for inflating Hardy's or Braun's numbers.

 

How come when shaky numbers support a given theory, they are embraced as proof but well done studies that go against traditional baseball thinking, are scoffed at? Kind of convenient, no? http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

 

If anyone is curious, here's the 2006 averages by position in the batting order:

 [b] BA OBP SLG OPS[/b] #1 .279 .343 .418 .762 #2 .284 .345 .425 .769 #3 .284 .364 .485 .849 #4 .283 .371 .502 .874 #5 .280 .351 .477 .828 #6 .268 .329 .439 .769 #7 .267 .323 .426 .749 #8 .256 .321 .383 .704

Really, the issue of protection is yet another baseball anomaly. That is, it makes perfect sense in reality, but not on paper.

 

Just about all "traditional baseball thinking" makes perfect sense and sounds completely reasonable. That doesn't mean the net effect that's assumed is correct. A pitcher being distracted by a base stealer come to mind. It may be true that a pitcher gets distracted but why not also the batter? And if the batter is being distracted more, the net effect would be to actually help the pitcher.

 

Quote:

---

For instance, you have a runner on 2nd, Braun up. Normally the pitcher would think, "I'll go after the hitter, but giving him nothing fat. That way, if I walk him, it sets up the double play. But maybe I'll get him to fish for something." But when Prince is the guy on deck, that has to change the thought process a bit. Now the pitcher has to go after Braun with some meatier pitches, trying to entice an out. He no longer is willing to risk nibbling and walking Braun.

---

 

Or maybe, the pitcher decides to dig a little deeper and add a couple ticks to his fastball, since getting Braun out is that much more important. Anecdotally, we've all witnessed a pitcher give a little extra to try and get an important out.

[BraunsBoyfriend]

42.

[endaround]

Quote:

---

but it seems to me that if you look at Hardy's numbers this year with and without Prince batting behind him, there would be a wide gulf.

---

 

The problem with this is that numbers for all players jump around. Corey Hart's numbers will show an even wider discrepency between hitting in front of Hardy and not hitting 1st.

[randybreuerfan]

Prince batting behind him may have had nothing to do with Hardy's surprising start. Prince batting directly behind Braun right now might have nothing to do with Braun's great start. Each at bat would have to be looked at carefully to determine whether Braun and Hardy's home runs have been coming off of mistakes or fastballs when ahead in the count, etc. Even after dissecting at-bats pitch-by-pitch, the comparison at-bats would be difficult to determine. And, it sounds like large sample studies don't show a big "protection" effect.

 

But I still wonder something a little more concrete: How do Fielder's batting statistics compare to the batter directly in front of him in the lineup? And are the statistics what should be expected, given the batters who have hit in front of Fielder.

 

My sense is that the hitters directly before Prince have been doing well/better than expected. That's partly unfair, because there was no way to know exactly what to expect with Braun.

Anyway, works wrapping up, so I'll do a little research now and let you know what I find.

[igor67]

Well it's slightly innaccurate to say there is no protection effect. There is very clearly one case the IBB. the 8th spot clearly boosts walks, and any place where you have a big dropoff in production is a case were you might see an IBB spike Bonds having been the most dramatic example.

[sweepscc]

I don't think a pitcher is ever thinking "dang, Fielder is up next I better groove one to Ryan Braun". I hope our pitchers treat everyone the same and focus on hitting the designated spot with each pitch on each hitter. And I think they do in 99.5% of the time. (that's an approximation of course http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif )

[Lil Dummy]

"The problem with this is that numbers for all players jump around. Corey Hart's numbers will show an even wider discrepency between hitting in front of Hardy and not hitting 1st."

 

So I guess I'm not the only one too lazy to run the numbers.

[endaround]

The point is the numbers are meaningless.

[mothershipconnection]

I think Igor's right in that there would be some effect in very specific situations, but that's just a tiny amount of noise that won't affect the overall data set. If Babe Ruth in his prime were playing for a garbage offense, he probably gets walked a ton while he wouldn't with Barry Bonds and Hank Aaron behind him.

 

However, having an .800 OPS guy behind you instead of a .725 OPS guy probably does jack squat except in a couple situations that depend more on handedness than ability.

[rluzinski]

There is very clearly one case the IBB. the 8th spot clearly boosts walks, and any place where you have a big dropoff in production is a case were you might see an IBB spike Bonds having been the most dramatic example.

 

Yes, IBB do go up for the big boppers that aren't protected. I've mentioned it elsewhere but should have said as much here.

 

Like end said, we could make the argument that Hart is being protected by Hardy:

 

#1: 1.125 OPS

 

Of course, it's more likely that it's just a coincidence.