THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

Slowly but surely, I feel like this stuff may eventually catch on.  Announcers are sneaking sabermetrics into their daily broadcasts (at least in Wrigley), so hopefully it’s not too long until it’s at least known about throughout baseball.

This seems to be one of those situations where the occasional anecdote may trump the projected long-term slight edge, for some decision makers. 

Someone who is disinclined to accept the validity of the model-based projection can recall that time they successfully executed a hit & run with their leadoff guy on first and their two-hole hitter at bat, or they can show you a replay of their top two guys executing a double steal just before someone drives them in with a base hit.

The author of the model that says you gain an average of a handful of runs over 162 games can’t point to any particular event and say “my strategy led directly to this success” - at least they can’t until someone finally bats Pujols #2, and he gets that extra AB in the 9th with two outs because of it, and he hits a homer to win the game. 

The “opposite” situation, where the #2 hitter makes the last out of the game, and you point out that it could have been Pujols up there instead - this doesn’t resonate like the hit & run event, or the double steal, because they actually happen, while the “imagine what Pujols could have done” scenario is just speculation.

Let me emphasize, I’m not disagreeing with the model-based projection, just pointing out why it doesn’t seem to resonate.

Also, one thing Meyers didn’t address: what’s the potential impact of lefty-righty alternation (on vulnerability to bullpen specialists, I mean)?  Hypothetically, would it be better to keep Pujols hitting third to preserve the right-left-right of Theriot-Rasmus-Pujols, or push Pujols up to #2?  In this case, you make #1 and #2 both righty, but down the lineup, you might get that benefit back. 

It’s probably something that would be very specific to each lineup, so maybe this can’t be quantified…

I also enjoyed the comments section of that article, both for some good insights (protection, lefty/righty, though no one mentioned comfort, which they should) and others for the pride in their own ignorance.

ESPN comments are rough. The Insider ones seem to be tamer, but take a look at the comments on a SweetSpot post some time. They sometimes make me laugh, more times they make me cry or fear for the future of our planet.

Yes, ESPN (pretty much all mainstream sites) comments can be brutal.  I always felt bad for Rob Neyer on that account.

And sure, L/R should always be alternated as much as possible.  And despite the research that debunks the value of protection (I think), I am not convinced.  And yes, comfort is very important as we are only talking a run or two per player and surely just one iota of comfort or discomfort would trump that.  That is why I like the author’s comment about Pujols.  In most cases I don’t think a player cares whether he bats 2nd, third, fourth, or fifth, especially if you point out to him that he gets more PA the higher in the order he bats and you explain to him what the research suggests.  If he still balks at a particular change, then you can leave it alone.  You can at least start with an optimal order and go from there…