Victor Martinez is White Sox target

[oldsox]

So if you are saying having Gordon Beckham batting behind Jose Abreu wouldn't be any better or worse for Abreu than having Giancarlo Stanton behind him, I would have to say without a doubt that you are unequivocally wrong.

"Lineup Protection" is a cliche'. Announcers and writers use it ad nauseum. Then, the public buys it and uses it ad nauseum. But your argument is flawed, because Beckham, as we know him, should never bat behind Abreu anyway. Sure, I would rather have Stanton over Beckham. Duh??

 

If writers and announcers keep using the same expression, it's usually gobbledebunk. They copy each other, and then the public picks up on the expression, and everyone gets dumber (figuratively).

[max power]

Maybe it doesn't even help abreu see better pitches except rarely, but having a big bat after him definitely helps the sox score more runs.

[Eminor3rd]

Maybe it doesn't even help abreu see better pitches except rarely, but having a big bat after him definitely helps the sox score more runs.

 

Right, the value of Victor Martinez would be Victor Martinez hitting. It would not have anything to do with Jose Abreu unless you mean driving him in/being on base to be driven in.

 

Anyone skeptical about lineup protection should Google around a bit. There's been a TON of effort put into trying to find an effect for it, and nothing has ever shown up.

[ScottyDo]

I mean, lineup protection HAS to mean fewer IBB's to your best hitter, right? That's definitely how it works when you have piss-poor protection from the 9-hole in the NL. And presumably you'd rather have your best hitter swing the bat than get an IBB...or else it wouldn't make sense for any manager to intentionally walk the other team's best hitter. So there has to be some effect on overall production, just from IBB rates, right?

[Eminor3rd]

I mean, lineup protection HAS to mean fewer IBB's to your best hitter, right? That's definitely how it works when you have piss-poor protection from the 9-hole in the NL. And presumably you'd rather have your best hitter swing the bat than get an IBB...or else it wouldn't make sense for any manager to intentionally walk the other team's best hitter. So there has to be some effect on overall production, just from IBB rates, right?

 

If I remember correctly, it ends up being just a handful and so doesn't really move the needle. There would be more in an instance of ULTIMATE non-protection (like if the best hitter hit before the pitcher), but since the hitters that you want protected are always hitting next to whoever the other best hitters on the team are, the difference is rarely big enough. I think Tango or someone did a study that showed the only time lineup protection ever had a measurable effect on stuff like that was Barry Bonds during the Barry Bonds-show years when he was the best hitter ever and SFG was terrible offensively otherwise.

 

But like I said, Google around. It's one of those things that intuitively makes sense but just hasn't ever shown up in the numbers. It's possible that there ARE effects but they are positive and negative and cancel each other out, but either way, it's not something we should stress out about. It's not going to be the difference between a winning season or not; good hitters help because they hit well, not because they change the lineup.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Jerksticks]

I mean, lineup protection HAS to mean fewer IBB's to your best hitter, right? That's definitely how it works when you have piss-poor protection from the 9-hole in the NL. And presumably you'd rather have your best hitter swing the bat than get an IBB...or else it wouldn't make sense for any manager to intentionally walk the other team's best hitter. So there has to be some effect on overall production, just from IBB rates, right?

I'd say absolutely. It's trendy to bash lineup protection right now; it's been popping up the last few years. Some new insight, but it mostly seems just to be trendy bashing. Very much like BA and pitcher wins a few years back, getting slammed to hell. These people seem to forget that all stats are doing is measuring things accurately. They aren't trying to convince you or twist your arm, they're just sitting there quietly being stats.

[Eminor3rd]

I'd say absolutely. It's trendy to bash lineup protection right now; it's been popping up the last few years. Some new insight, but it mostly seems just to be trendy bashing. Very much like BA and pitcher wins a few years back, getting slammed to hell. These people seem to forget that all stats are doing is measuring things accurately. They aren't trying to convince you or twist your arm, they're just sitting there quietly being stats.

 

Again, there's no effect for it in any study. If you believe in lineup protection, show evidence that it makes a difference. People shouldn't trust claims made without any supporting evidence.

 

I'm open to the idea of it making a difference, but no one's been able to find one.

[Dick Allen]

Again, there's no effect for it in any study. If you believe in lineup protection, show evidence that it makes a difference. People shouldn't trust claims made without any supporting evidence.

 

I'm open to the idea of it making a difference, but no one's been able to find one.

I don't know how you could accurately study this. It seems to me it would have to be over a several year period, and numbers can be affected by other reasons over that time.

 

I would think asking pitchers if they pitch hitters differently if they have "protection" would probably give you an answer. But that might be too simple.

[Jerksticks]

Again, there's no effect for it in any study. If you believe in lineup protection, show evidence that it makes a difference. People shouldn't trust claims made without any supporting evidence.

 

I'm open to the idea of it making a difference, but no one's been able to find one.

It's not a claim that having two dangerous hitters in the heart of your order is better than 1. Or like somebody else said, watch an NL game.

[Eminor3rd]

I don't know how you could accurately study this. It seems to me it would have to be over a several year period, and numbers can be affected by other reasons over that time.

 

I would think asking pitchers if they pitch hitters differently if they have "protection" would probably give you an answer. But that might be too simple.

 

There are a few methods that people have used, some of them are choosing individual instances where exceptional hitters have had good and bad protection and trying to find differences. Among those, some studies have looked specifically at how the batters are pitched to rather than just at whether or not they hit better.

 

Here's one: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ection-myth-mlb

 

Through his first 41 games, McCutchen was hitting .338/.391/.543 and racking up 20 percent of the team's home runs and runs scored totals by himself. Already a budding star, McCutchen is posting career highs in batting average, OBP and slugging percentage, and he's doing it with the worst surrounding cast anybody has had in quite some time.

 

The Pirates' rotation of "cleanup hitters" -- which has included Pedro Alvarez, Neil Walker and Casey McGehee -- has combined to hit .199/.258/.280 when batting behind McCutchen. With this kind of protection, you might think McCutchen would be on a career-high pace for walks and rarely seeing a pitch anywhere near the strike zone.

 

You would be wrong. McCutchen is actually seeing more pitches in the strike zone this year than in any other season of his career. Here are the Pitch F/X data for percent of pitches he has seen in the zone over the past four years:

 

2009: 53.9 percent

2010: 53.0 percent

2011: 51.4 percent

2012: 55.1 percent

 

As a response to the increased number of strikes he's seeing, McCutchen is also swinging at more pitches than ever, and the combination of more strikes and more swings has led to the lowest walk rate of his career. After drawing 89 free passes last year, he had just 13 in the first quarter of the 2012 season, and two of those were intentional.

 

It's hard to explain these results under the umbrella of the "protection theory," which holds that batters get better pitches to hit if there is a quality hitter on deck, as pitchers don't want to issue a walk that would put a runner on for that quality hitter. It's hard to imagine the Pirates' cleanup hitters are intimidating anyone right now, however, so how do we explain why McCutchen is being thrown so many strikes in a lineup that is one of the most futile in the game's history?

 

Small sample size would be one explanation, as one example doesn't prove anything conclusively. But we can look around the league and see other scenarios where the protection theory would suggest a significant difference from what is taking place. In Milwaukee, Ryan Braun's protector shifted from Prince Fielder to Aramis Ramirez, and the lack of Fielder's presence was supposed to lead to a significant uptick in walks for Braun as pitchers chose to go after the much weaker hitting right-hander instead.

 

However, Braun's percentage of pitches in the strike zone has also gone up from what it was a year ago and, like McCutchen, he's also walking less than he did when he was better protected. In fact, even with Fielder in Detroit, Braun has yet to draw an intentional walk this season, and his .323/.393/.621 line would be the best of his career. The idea that Fielder's presence was getting Braun better pitches to hit is harder to swallow when Braun gets more strikes and hits even better after Fielder switches leagues.

 

For another example, simply look to another team in the NL Central, as Joey Votto is mashing the ball for the Reds but regularly getting stranded by an anemic collection of cleanup hitters behind him. The combination of Brandon Phillips and Scott Rolen (along with a couple of appearances from Jay Bruce and Ryan Ludwick) have combined to post a .648 OPS in the No. 4 spot in the order, 50 points lower than what the Reds' No. 8 hitters have done. Votto is perhaps the game's best left-handed hitter, but despite being protected by a second baseman whose primary value comes from his defense, he's seen no change in the rate of strikes he's been thrown. In fact, over the past four years, the percentage of pitches that Votto has seen in the zone has hardly moved at all, coming in between 44.4 and 44.9 percent in each season since 2009.

 

If the protection theory was true, we'd have expected Braun's walk rate to spike, McCutchen to be leading the league in free passes, and Votto's performance to fall off once the Reds had to move a middle infielder into the cleanup spot. We haven't seen any of those things, and it's worth noting that Miguel Cabrera -- the guy now benefiting from the intimidating on-deck presence of Fielder -- is having his worst offensive season since 2008.

 

The protection theory sounds true enough, but it begins to break down once you look at the evidence and think through the conclusions it forces you to draw. After all, the basic premise of the theory is that pitchers are going to change their approach in such a way that it benefits the hitter being protected, making it more likely he gets a pitch to hit. However, that is the result the pitcher is supposedly trying to prevent, so the protection theory forces us to believe that pitchers choose to throw pitches that make it more likely that they have to face the scary on-deck hitter with a man on.

 

If the protection theory held true in real life, it would be on prominent display in Pittsburgh, Milwaukee and Cincinnati. The evidence suggests that pitchers simply aren't pitching McCutchen, Braun and Votto any differently now than they were when they were better protected, and all three are carrying their teams despite a lack of firepower behind them.

 

Here's one regarding pitch type rather than in-zone pitches: http://crashburnalley.com/2011/09/20/the-m...ces-protection/

[Eminor3rd]

It's not a claim that having two dangerous hitters in the heart of your order is better than 1. Or like somebody else said, watch an NL game.

 

Having two dangerous hitters in your lineup is better than one, because you've increased your lineup's ability to hit. Not because of protection.

 

Like I said a couple posts ago: if you want Victor Martinez, want him because he's a better hitter than Dayan Viciedo, not because you think he's going to make Jose Abreu get better pitches. There's no evidence for the latter despite dozens of attempts to find it.

Edited September 1, 2014 by Eminor3rd

[Dick Allen]

There are a few methods that people have used, some of them are choosing individual instances where exceptional hitters have had good and bad protection and trying to find differences. Among those, some studies have looked specifically at how the batters are pitched to rather than just at whether or not they hit better.

 

Here's one: http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/...ection-myth-mlb

 

 

 

Here's one regarding pitch type rather than in-zone pitches: http://crashburnalley.com/2011/09/20/the-m...ces-protection/

I do think it is overstated, but I also think it exists. Not every AB, situationally. But especially when the game is on the line, a menacing hitter on deck helps your cause.

[Dick Allen]

One thing that would irritate me if Victor became a White Sox, is he takes forever to get in the box for each pitch.

[Jerksticks]

I do think it is overstated, but I also think it exists. Not every AB, situationally. But especially when the game is on the line, a menacing hitter on deck helps your cause.

 

I think you bring up a good point. It's a situational concept. I really don't see how macro stats could study it. You'd have to watch every game played.

[caulfield12]

They can't sign Martinez and then NOT end up with a new LFer, starting pitcher and something resembling a bullpen.

 

There's going to be a timing thing.

 

Will getting Martinez on board bring in the other 2-3 key pieces of the plan? How long will Victor wait to sign? If you're left with those three moves and no Victor, it's still probably not a playoff-contending team.

[The Wiz]

Holy crap, of course the main goal is to get a good power bat for the middle of the order because the goal is to get good hitters and lineup protection isn't the main goal. But it certainly doesn't hurt having a good hitter bat behind your best hitter because without a doubt there are times when that lineup protection will help. Runners on 1B and 2B in a tied ballgame in the 8th inning with two outs with Jose Abreu up, a pitcher, manager, and pitching coach will definitely have a different approach to facing Jose Abreu if he had Victor Martinez batting behind him instead of Dayan Viciedo or Adam Dunn.

 

And I don't think it is a huge deal either, if anything lineup protection goes hand in hand with just trying to build a good lineup. But you'd definitely want your two best power hitters batting back to back in the middle of the lineup because even if it is just a minor and small advantage, of course you'd want to take it because it is an advantage.

[The Wiz]

The other main issue about Martinez as the DH is how do you get his bat in the lineup when the Sox play in the NL? I guess putting Martinez at C would make the most sense. Maybe have Abreu play a game or two in LF?

[caulfield12]

The other main issue about Martinez as the DH is how do you get his bat in the lineup when the Sox play in the NL? I guess putting Martinez at C would make the most sense. Maybe have Abreu play a game or two in LF?

 

 

No to Abreu in the OF with his ankle/foot problems.

 

Martinez at catcher pretty much erases any offensive advantages he provides. I think you'll see that the Tigers rotated Holaday and Avila at catcher 90-95% of the time in interleague play, especially considering the Martinez injury and how catching would only put more stress on his knees, feet, hips and lower body in general.

[witesoxfan]

Holy crap, of course the main goal is to get a good power bat for the middle of the order because the goal is to get good hitters and lineup protection isn't the main goal. But it certainly doesn't hurt having a good hitter bat behind your best hitter because without a doubt there are times when that lineup protection will help. Runners on 1B and 2B in a tied ballgame in the 8th inning with two outs with Jose Abreu up, a pitcher, manager, and pitching coach will definitely have a different approach to facing Jose Abreu if he had Victor Martinez batting behind him instead of Dayan Viciedo or Adam Dunn.

 

And I don't think it is a huge deal either, if anything lineup protection goes hand in hand with just trying to build a good lineup. But you'd definitely want your two best power hitters batting back to back in the middle of the lineup because even if it is just a minor and small advantage, of course you'd want to take it because it is an advantage.

 

They still aren't going to want to face Jose Abreu either way. They'll pitch around him in hopes that he gets himself out, and if he walks, he walks. It's not as if he'll suddenly start getting pitches right down the middle of the plate because Victor Martinez is hitting behind him. I mean, Adam Dunn gets out more often and he isn't as good of a hitter, but he's still a threat to do a lot of damage to you, so you have to be very careful. He's also got a good eye at the plate and a walk there still scores a run.

 

I think this has more to do with building a good lineup in general, as you indicate. Again, it's incredibly simple logic - if you have good hitters, you will score more runs than if you don't have good hitters - but I think people bring up protection when it's really been shown to be non-existent. You are probably right in your initial assessment that if you had Beckham hitting behind Abreu, there may be some noticeable effects, but common logic says you will have your two best power hitters back to back almost all of the time and it's hard to control for whether or not there is an effect against that otherwise.

 

At the end of the day, I just don't think you will see much of a difference in Abreu's numbers if you have Adam Dunn or Victor Martinez or Conor Gillaspie hitting behind him.