Quote:
Originally Posted by rpriske
I am just jumping back in and it see VG saying that my claim that this has been 'mathematically proven' is untrue.
|
Hypothesized.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpriske
I am sorry, but that is not the case. It is a very simple mathematical model, in fact. The only weakness is the side that will ALWAYS be a weakness: how accurate your prediction of results by individual players.... but that is the case no matter what model you use.
You plug in appropriate .OBP and .SLG and it calculate the average number of runs scored using that line-up. There is nothing magic about it.
|
Which is precisely the flaw. That is ALL that it does. And the conclusion that increased runs scored equals more won games is also a flaw.
What? Nonsense?
The earlier you pinch hit for your pitcher the more runs you score. This is based on actual data. It is also intuitive. Pinch hit for the pitcher, and subsequent relievers you should get better offense than if you let the pitchers hit (why pinch hit for them if they are better than your bench batters, otherwise?).
So, simply because more runs are scored by pinch hitting for a pitcher earlier, does that mean that the pitcher should be pinch hit for earlier? It increases runs scored, therefore it must be better, right? In fact, for each inning sooner that you pinch hit for the pitcher, you can expect about an additional 1 tenth of a run per ball game.
This is math.
The earlier a team pinch hits for a pitcher, the more runs that team is expected to score.
This is also demonstrable through math.
The earlier a team pinch hits for a pitcher the more games it will win because it will score more runs.
This is flawed logic.
When an AL manager pinch hits, he is not impacting the game, or his game winning chances on the pitching side of the equation.
In the NL game, this is not so.
If you pinch hit for Clayton Kershaw in the 5th inning you can expect to score an extra half run in the game than if you let him complete the game. So, why not pinch hit for him? You will score more runs.
The reason you don't is because there is an opportunity cost involved when you lift him for the pinch hitter, and that cost is that you are now going to have someone else pitch to the opposition for the next 5 innings (if it is a road game).
If a team pinch hits for the pitcher when he comes up in the 5th inning, that team will score more runs than if the pitcher is allowed to bat. If the pitcher is allowed to bat in the 5th inning and is pinch hit for in the 7th inning, that team has given up about 2 tenths of expected run production in order for him to have hit in the 5th inning.
Multiply that over 162 games and you find that there is an additional 32.4 runs that a team can expect to score over the course of a year by pinch hitting for the pitcher in the 5th inning vs the 7th (or the 6th vs the 8th).
Compare that to the approximate 2 runs that Tango's model says a team gets over 162 games by hitting the pitcher 8th vs 9th.
The Tango Model in "The Book" assumes the 8th place hitter will hit in the 8th place for the course of the game. For a the DHing AL, this assumption is a minor deviation from actual reality. In the NL, this is a huge discrepancy.
Note my original post on the matter in this thread where I said that I think the idea of hitting the weakest hitter 8th in a DH environment is of merit, but batting the pitcher 8th in the NL environment is suspect as the optimal blanket strategy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rpriske
What does that leave out? Intangibles? The outdated notions that you need speed at the top of your order? Line-up 'protection'?
|
There is much left out that is impactful. To be continued....