Protection is only a myth in aggregate. Statistically, when large data sets are used it will all come out in the wash, so it appears to have no effect whatsoever. However, if you actually ask pitchers if they are more careful with some guys because of the hitter that is on deck, they will say absolutely (most of them). So obviously, pitchers will pitch differently depending on the on-deck batter and the situation in the game. The question is whether or not the way that they pitch "differently" in actuality ends up to be a good thing or a bad thing. Sometimes being careful with a guy will work out and sometimes it will bite you in the butt. Sometimes pitching to contact will work out and sometimes it won't. It all depends on the individual match-ups on the field and the situation at the time. There will be times this year when it may actually be better for the Crew that teams pitch around Braun. There will be times when it would absolutely be an advantage if Fielder was on-deck. Hopefully the former happens often enough that Crew frequently end up with more runs than the other guys.

You are right in the way that I stated it. However, not all runs are created equal. So just because Braun has near equal raw rate statistics this year compared to last year doesn't mean that he has contributed to winning just as many ball games because of the situation of his successes. I'm not totally in tune with all of the new stats, but I would guess that runs created and WPA have something to do with this?

You are right in the classic definition of protection, where a guys overall numbers are supposedly going to decline without "protection." I would say that his rate stats won't be affected very much but his counting stats (runs and RBIs) would be. This is basically a moot point though with Braun this year, since Ramirez is putting up good numbers. Ryan IS protected.

To use an extreme example of my point, just look at Barry Bonds' monster years from 2002-2004 (ignoring the chemical enhancements, of course). Despite setting records for OBP AND SLG, his runs and RBI totals were relatively pedestrian (still all-star caliber, just nothing close to record worthy). Teams refused to let him hit with guys on base, and that seemed to be an excellent strategy. His rate numbers were probably BETTER because of this lack of protection, but did he actually have a better year contributing to more wins for his ballclub than a year in which he had better protection, put up poorer rate stats, but scored more runs and drove in more runs?

Just wanted to bump this one for fun and lolz.



"In most cases"--What cases would those be? Maybe those cases where good hitters are following that player who gets IBB???

That second bolded sentence is ridiculous. "Your unprotected batter will produce less runs (R + RBI - HR) but your team might actually score more runs because the average IBB INCREASES (what?? I thought my unprotected batter will produce LESS runs?) expected runs scored"

Is the "unprotected" batter an "average" batter or not?

Since baseball is (or should be) about building up to score run(s), it is a good idea to have good hitters hit back-to-back-to-back.