I submit the following to instigate some decent discussion on an oft-discussed subject that is almost universally accepted as a baseball truism, namely:
Lineup protection.
The populist theory? That Joe Goodhitter would see his production plummet if he didn't have Harry Greathitter protecting him in the lineup. We've come across this theory several times on this board, most recently in regard to David Ortiz and Jason Bay and at other times in regard to Barry Bonds et. al.
On the surface, it seems like logical reasoning. It makes sense that Goodhitter would see better pitches with Greathitter lurking on deck and he would benefit.
But does it hold up to investigation. In a word: No.
I submit that it's hogwash, that for every example of Goodhitter's production falling when he loses his protection from Greathitter, there are an equal number of examples of Goodhitter either maintaining or increasing his production without Greathitter as protection.
And as evidence, I submit these two articles:
Protection: Fact or Fiction?
Protection Study
Lineup protection.
The populist theory? That Joe Goodhitter would see his production plummet if he didn't have Harry Greathitter protecting him in the lineup. We've come across this theory several times on this board, most recently in regard to David Ortiz and Jason Bay and at other times in regard to Barry Bonds et. al.
On the surface, it seems like logical reasoning. It makes sense that Goodhitter would see better pitches with Greathitter lurking on deck and he would benefit.
But does it hold up to investigation. In a word: No.
I submit that it's hogwash, that for every example of Goodhitter's production falling when he loses his protection from Greathitter, there are an equal number of examples of Goodhitter either maintaining or increasing his production without Greathitter as protection.
And as evidence, I submit these two articles:
Protection: Fact or Fiction?
Protection Study
Comment