Dang. I was here making snarky comments when I shoulda been paying attention the day they taught smart analysis in “how to be a baseball fan 101″.

Is that popular convention or theory? Is this the right move by theory since the batter will make an out 75% of the time (assuming a #8 batter his about .250)

Is it intuitive?

I think it’s intuitive from a “he’ll throw the ball on the corners or try to get you to fish for something more often than he might have otherwise” standpoint.

I would like to look at it more closely to see how much walks are affected, particularly with already selective hitters.

If a pitcher knows the guy behind you sucks, you’ll get more walks. Well, you don’t make an out when you walk. That’s a good thing.

We’re on the same page here. Was just trying to explain my point politely.

Even if you know the pitcher is going to throw you a meatball, you’ll make an out 70% of the time.

Unless the pitcher is Brandon Webb.

/RIP Brandon Webb

Cant this go both ways? So I really want to get the 8th guy in the Brewers lineup out so I can lead off the next inning pitching to the pitcher?

Opposite. You’ll see a team pitch around 8th guy to get to pitcher early and often.

Cant this go both ways? So I really want to get the 8th guy in the Brewers lineup out so I can lead off the next inning pitching to the pitcher?

And it’s not predictive. It’s a narrative, sure, and it makes sense intuitively. But there is no predictive value.

Is it intuitive?

If a pitcher knows the guy behind you sucks, you’ll get more walks. Well, you don’t make an out when you walk. That’s a good thing.

Even if you know the pitcher is going to throw you a meatball, you’ll make an out 70% of the time.

As bad as Ed Wade was, he still put on us on the path towards rebuilding by trading Pence and Bourn for great prospects. Luhnow has a lot of work to do, but I actually blame Tim Purpura and Drayton McLane for the mess we’re in now far more than Ed Wade.

I’ll leave now before there’s a pie chart with a parabola on it that debunks this.

This made me laugh. But the truth is plenty of folks have done plenty of work actually looking at the history of this (removing an important player from a lineup, in front of or behind a particular player).

And it’s not predictive. It’s a narrative, sure, and it makes sense intuitively. But there is no predictive value.

Good place to start. http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2004/09/the-protection-externality-it-doesnt-exist/

Oh come on, we got rid of Ed Wade.

His stench of incompetence will stick around like the valet from Seinfeld. You may need a Priest to get rid of that thing.

His numbers will drop a small amount, however I feel it won’t be a huge drop off like others here think. He’s not going to drop 15 HR and go from a .330 to a .270 avg

I agree with that.

Any drop though and people are going to jump to conclusions.

Before he hurt his ribs in spring training last year he was 5-15. Four fewer hits this year have caused idiots to ask questions. It’s going to happen.

One thing I find puzzling… you would think Braun’s tiny shrunken head would be bigger from all the drug use.

Maybe he’s the Bizarro Bonds, and along with his tiny head he now has a horse cock and Larry David balls.

/trying to cheer ms up a little

Contenders in 2015. Book it.

/don’t actually book it

Oh come on, we got rid of Ed Wade.

or, readers saw the Prince mention on the front page.

Why would we got to the front page? There’s a reason we fought so hard for the Recent Comments when the site changed a few years ago.

Hasn’t the lineup protection myth been somewhat debunked by the sabermetricians?

I find it hard to believe that Braun will see as many pitches to hit without a prolific slugger behind him. The frequency in fastballs will almost certainly decrease. Perhaps not enough to be statistically noticeable, but if you’re a reasonably intelligent pitcher, you have to know that you can lose a few to Braun or give up a walk if the hitter behind him isn’t as threatening.

I’ll leave now before there’s a pie chart with a parabola on it that debunks this.