Tuesday, April 22, 2014

Robbie, Naked

Speaking of not booing Robbie when he passes through the Bronx...I was wondering how he was only batting .270 at this point, even though it is early. But I forgot--he is completely unprotected in the Seattle lineup. (It's amazing he doesn't have more walks; they have to be pitching around him.)

He must have realized when he took the money that there wouldn't be the usual Yankee Around-Rob hitters that forced opposing hurlers to pitch to him and be serious about it. What this might do to his previously HOF-lock projected stats is anybody's guess at this point. A few years of Seattle no-names and disappointing signings--by which time the ownership will disappear into their previous penny pinching prejudices--and his career stats could take a serious hit.

If this keeps up, it might 'jog' his memory about why it was great to be a Yankee. Nyuck nyuck.


Galileo said...

Once again John M. struts his invincible ignorance of recent advances in baseball research. People have been studying traditional assumption of a "protection" effect for decades now, and here's the news, about thirty years after the fact for the hapless John M: IT DOESN'T EXIST. THERE IS NO PROTECTION EFFECT. IT'S A MYTH. A CANARD. COMPLETE AND UTTER BULLSHIT.

I don't expect that the light of scientific inquiry will penetrate the murk of John M.'s brain, but just in case, here are some useful references for him and the rest of you who still swallow your baseball "wisdom" straight from the babbling brook of announcers and daily sportswriters:




I suppose that in promoting John M. to featured writer's status on this blog, duque is performing the public service of archiving every outmoded misconception of the baseball hoi polloi, all of which have been superseded in every front office (except perhaps the Yankees).

OK, duque--we've taken the tour of the ruins of traditional baseball thinking. Now can you find a featured contributor who does not regularly opine that the earth is flat and is 5,000 years old?

Sammy said...

There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Leinstery said...

I have a feeling that I know who Galileo is. Anyways Suzyn.

I would ask how the Grandyman is doing, but this sums it up nicely. https://twitter.com/CurtisGetAHit

Pope Paul V said...

Ted William batted .406 in 1941, had a .344 lifetime batting average, and a lifetime OPS of 1.116. All statistics! All damn lies that don't prove anything! He actually SUCKED! He wasn't one tenth the player of Gene Woodling! How do I know? I just know, and I don't need no stinking statistics!

el duque said...

They should put that J. Jones guy behind him. A 1.000 batting average. Guy is a beast.

el duque said...

By the way, Galileo, I suspect you are the old Anonymous, a treasured commentator on this blog. If you weren't such a master of disguise, and you finally stick with a name other than Anonymous, so we can actually know who you are... who knows what could happen?

ceeja said...

The Fan Graphs article notes some increase in the walk rate of a "protected" hitter.

More importantly, I do think that a player like Cano, who struggles with his focus, is going to suffer playing in meaningless games and without runners in scoring position.

His home runs should also suffer from playing half his games in Seattle as opposed to New York.

Enos said...

Yes, but the Fangraphs article also is at pains to note that the difference in walk rate is small, and that there is zero difference in contact rate--hence no difference in batting average or slugging--in other words, no difference in actual HITTING performance; that, when weighed against the slight variations in walk rate, add up to an insignificant difference in overall offensive performance.

Cano was a streaky hitter with the Yankees as well--he went through long dry spells, even with plenty of "protection." That's why it's important to look at all the variables before leaping to vindictive conclusions, tempting as that is in Cano's case.

He might very well hit fewer homeruns in Seattle--not sure how many of his Stadium homers would have been in play in Seattle--although I'm sure those data exist somewhere!

There are plenty of other grounds on which to go after Cano besides the mythic protection issue. I actually think his lack of hustle--and his low-effort Joe Cool routine on defense--impart a subtly demoralizing effect to a team. Hence, any comparative numbers notwithstanding, I would much rather have Pedroia as my second baseman--I guy with great overall talent who leaves everything on the field on every at-bat and every play. That kind of attitude can be just as inspiring as Cano's contrived blase suavity can be dispiriting.

I have no way to quantify that--just a hunch. So i do believe that there are unquantifiable realities to the game--but acknowledging as much does not gainsay those aspects that are fruitfully quantifiable--such as the myths of protection and clutch, etc.

Anonymous said...

Ells-buries it in right center field and that is a JACK by Jacoby Ellsbury!

manx said...

Ells-BURIES IT! A JACK by Jacoby!

They're taking it back and putting him back at 3rd. Isn't that amazing.

Leinstery said...

Ahhh let me take you down cause I'm going to Ellsbury fields, nothing is real, nothing to get hung about, Ellsbury fields forever.

John M said...

Goodness gracious, where are my smelling salts?

The next time Ortiz comes up with guys on base and we're up by only a run or two, I'll try to remember how clutch hitting is a myth when he buries one in the right field bleachers. That will make it much better.

And the next time a good hitter is up in a clutch situation and he gets an intentional pass so the opposition can pitch to a guy hitting .089, I'll remember that protection is meaningless, too. Or when they pitch around a hot hitter to get to one less so, I'll also keep that in mind.

Why are stat guys such tunnel-visioned morons sometimes? I don't know. I suppose it's easier than watching reality and coming to your own conclusions based on what you see.