Comments on: Back For More http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/ Baseball Blog by Alex Belth about the Yankees Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:47:38 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1 By: weeping for brunnhilde http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208499 weeping for brunnhilde Mon, 08 Jun 2009 00:47:21 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208499 [347] I'm not disputing the conclusion that there is no "protection effect" (not here, anyway), but I do think it's more than just "sloppy language." Whatever term you want to use, it's a fundamentally unscientific premise!--unless it's the product of interviews or questionnaires of the pitchers in question. The author offers nothing whatever to substantiate his claim that some hitters are more feared than others and therefore should be chosen as test cases not just according to slugging percentage. I don't dispute that study after study has demonstrated your point, only that this study should *not* be considered sound evidence due to its patently unsound methodology. And thanks for the other link! [347] I’m not disputing the conclusion that there is no “protection effect” (not here, anyway), but I do think it’s more than just “sloppy language.” Whatever term you want to use, it’s a fundamentally unscientific premise!–unless it’s the product of interviews or questionnaires of the pitchers in question. The author offers nothing whatever to substantiate his claim that some hitters are more feared than others and therefore should be chosen as test cases not just according to slugging percentage.

I don’t dispute that study after study has demonstrated your point, only that this study should *not* be considered sound evidence due to its patently unsound methodology.

And thanks for the other link!

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208496 monkeypants Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:46:00 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208496 [347] Meanwhile, one of my comments is "awaiting moderation"--in it I cite three other studies. I'll try again, this time including only one link, which includes the three subsequent links: http://tinyurl.com/ltve9c [347] Meanwhile, one of my comments is “awaiting moderation”–in it I cite three other studies. I’ll try again, this time including only one link, which includes the three subsequent links:

http://tinyurl.com/ltve9c

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208495 monkeypants Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:43:52 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208495 [347] Well yes, sloppy language. The point is that in study after study, no one has found any consistent, measurable "protection effect." [347] Well yes, sloppy language. The point is that in study after study, no one has found any consistent, measurable “protection effect.”

]]> By: weeping for brunnhilde http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208491 weeping for brunnhilde Sun, 07 Jun 2009 23:18:09 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208491 [345] I'm not trying to be a contrarian, but how can a study that purports to be scientific use a hitter's "reputation" as one of its two metrics? I mean, I'm not denying that pitchers are more afraid of some hitters than others, even despite comparable numbers, but what place does such an unscientific variable have in an otherwise scientific study? "Another classic protection situation. Joyner usually batted third with Dave Winfield cleanup, and there were some games in which Joyner batted second with Winfield third. When Winfield wasn't in the lineup, the batter behind Joyner was usually Dave Parker or Gary Gaetti, neither one of whom struck fear in the hearts of opposing pitchers." How does one substantiate such a thing? Again, not trying to be contrarian, but doesn't the reliance on whether or not a hitter strikes fear into opposing pitchers completely undermine the scientific credibility of the study? [345] I’m not trying to be a contrarian, but how can a study that purports to be scientific use a hitter’s “reputation” as one of its two metrics? I mean, I’m not denying that pitchers are more afraid of some hitters than others, even despite comparable numbers, but what place does such an unscientific variable have in an otherwise scientific study?

“Another classic protection situation. Joyner usually batted third with
Dave Winfield cleanup, and there were some games in which Joyner batted
second with Winfield third. When Winfield wasn’t in the lineup, the
batter behind Joyner was usually Dave Parker or Gary Gaetti, neither one
of whom struck fear in the hearts of opposing pitchers.”

How does one substantiate such a thing?

Again, not trying to be contrarian, but doesn’t the reliance on whether or not a hitter strikes fear into opposing pitchers completely undermine the scientific credibility of the study?

]]> By: monkeypants http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208487 monkeypants Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:57:29 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208487 [343] If he's older than 35, his offensive peak looks even more suspicious (and this still does not explain the massive fall of). And I'm not buying that his tremendous offensive production is because of protection in the lineup, especially since everything I've read suggests that protection does not really exist. Fro example: http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html [343] If he’s older than 35, his offensive peak looks even more suspicious (and this still does not explain the massive fall of). And I’m not buying that his tremendous offensive production is because of protection in the lineup, especially since everything I’ve read suggests that protection does not really exist. Fro example:

http://www.baseball1.com/bb-data/grabiner/protstudy.html

]]> By: weeping for brunnhilde http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208484 weeping for brunnhilde Sun, 07 Jun 2009 22:01:18 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208484 [332] Actually, you left out the word "being." (Sorry, couldn't resist the pedantry.) [332] Actually, you left out the word “being.”

(Sorry, couldn’t resist the pedantry.)

]]> By: The Hawk http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208483 The Hawk Sun, 07 Jun 2009 21:36:28 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208483 I certainly didn't bring up Ortiz's age to discount steroid use, necessarily, but I think at the same time his being older is more likely than the idea that he's coming off the juice, or whatever. Again, not to say he wasn't juicing, but it seems the age thing is almost definitely true. They both could be, sure. I bet he's over 35. His offensive coming of age also just happened to coincide with hitting in front of Manny. Look what happened to Teixeira once A Rod came back. I certainly didn’t bring up Ortiz’s age to discount steroid use, necessarily, but I think at the same time his being older is more likely than the idea that he’s coming off the juice, or whatever. Again, not to say he wasn’t juicing, but it seems the age thing is almost definitely true. They both could be, sure.

I bet he’s over 35. His offensive coming of age also just happened to coincide with hitting in front of Manny. Look what happened to Teixeira once A Rod came back.

]]> By: thelarmis http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208482 thelarmis Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:55:14 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208482 [340] i'm not positive, i think so. at first, there was all this bollocks that you had to buy tickets in blocks of SIX. that is just ridiculous. i went online yesterday and it seemed as though i could buy an individual ticket. there was a dugout seat for $75, with taxes/fees. of course, i'd be fine with a $5 nosebleed seat. i may wait a bit and just do that... [340] i’m not positive, i think so. at first, there was all this bollocks that you had to buy tickets in blocks of SIX. that is just ridiculous. i went online yesterday and it seemed as though i could buy an individual ticket. there was a dugout seat for $75, with taxes/fees. of course, i’d be fine with a $5 nosebleed seat. i may wait a bit and just do that…

]]> By: RIYank http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208481 RIYank Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:53:00 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208481 Oh, I wanted to say: my favorite plate appearance of the night was Cano's RBI walk. That was awesome. Nothing wrong with Swisher's bomb, of course. Oh, I wanted to say: my favorite plate appearance of the night was Cano’s RBI walk. That was awesome. Nothing wrong with Swisher’s bomb, of course.

]]> By: RIYank http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/2009/06/07/back-for-more/comment-page-7/#comment-208480 RIYank Sun, 07 Jun 2009 20:52:08 +0000 http://www.bronxbanterblog.com/?p=20077#comment-208480 [339] Lots of tickets available? [339] Lots of tickets available?

]]>