Christian Vazquez

[Kimmi]

This is the sort of discussion I used to get into with our old pal Pumpsie. Sometimes a recent sample size is more valuable than a larger one. If a hitter is hitting .333 for the season but is in an 0-20 slump IMO his chances of getting a hit in his next at bat are less than 1 in 3.

 

Sorry folks, but Hugh is right on this one. The chances of a batter getting a hit in any at bat, even after an 0 for 20 slump or a 15 for 20 hot streak, is overwhelmingly determined by the overall talent level and performance of the batter (and opposing pitcher), and has very little to do with the recent coldness or hotness of the batter.

 

There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'. To quote Russell Carleton from Baseball Prospectus, "Several analyses prior to this one have found little evidence to support the claim that a player’s performance in the recent past is much of a predictor of his performance in the present. There have been well-founded mathematical arguments that streaks are simply random variation over a small sample size."

 

And more Carleton because he says it so much better than I can: "There is psychology at work here, but it’s not powering actual meaningful changes in performance. Instead, it’s powering the brain wanting to believe in the hot hand and then going back and reconstructing events so that they fit with the desired theory. It’s backward logic, and backward logic is dangerous........The hot hand theory is more than just bad statistical literacy. It’s emotionally seductive to believe in the hot hand."

 

FTR, I fall into this fallacy myself and will often make statements about playing a certain player while he's hot, or something along those lines.

 

Note to self: Stop doing that.

[a700hitter]

Sorry folks, but Hugh is right on this one. The chances of a batter getting a hit in any at bat, even after an 0 for 20 slump or a 15 for 20 hot streak, is overwhelmingly determined by the overall talent level and performance of the batter (and opposing pitcher), and has very little to do with the recent coldness or hotness of the batter.

 

There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'. To quote Russell Carleton from Baseball Prospectus, "Several analyses prior to this one have found little evidence to support the claim that a player’s performance in the recent past is much of a predictor of his performance in the present. There have been well-founded mathematical arguments that streaks are simply random variation over a small sample size."

 

And more Carleton because he says it so much better than I can: "There is psychology at work here, but it’s not powering actual meaningful changes in performance. Instead, it’s powering the brain wanting to believe in the hot hand and then going back and reconstructing events so that they fit with the desired theory. It’s backward logic, and backward logic is dangerous........The hot hand theory is more than just bad statistical literacy. It’s emotionally seductive to believe in the hot hand."

 

FTR, I fall into this fallacy myself and will often make statements about playing a certain player while he's hot, or something along those lines.

 

Note to self: Stop doing that.

As stated by someone who never had the hot hand.

[Kimmi]

As stated by someone who never had the hot hand.

 

I've never had the hot hand because the hot hand doesn't exist.

 

However, I have had hot and cold streaks in more sports than one.

[moonslav59]

You answered a different question that the one that was asked. I agree with you that the odds of him hitting close to his average in the next 100 PAs is the best guess, but for a single AB, for a player in an 0 for 20 hole, I think its far less. That player is not going well, for whatever reason. Maybe his mechanics are screwed up. He certainly would lack his usual confidence. I don't know that the chances of him getting a hit are, but I would not bet its .333.

 

It's not .000 either, and it's probably closer to .333 than .000 (higher than .167). That's why I went to a better question.

 

A player's last 20, 50, 100 or 200 PAs is not the best predictor of what is to come in the near or far future.

[moonslav59]

I've never had the hot hand because the hot hand doesn't exist.

 

However, I have had hot and cold streaks in more sports than one.

 

Same as flipping a coin and getting heads 5 times in a row. What's the chance of a heads the next flip?

 

50%, of course.

[a700hitter]

I've never had the hot hand because the hot hand doesn't exist.

 

However, I have had hot and cold streaks in more sports than one.

If you have had hot streaks , you should understand that the odds shift in those situations, just as they shift for some players under various circumstances. A .270 hitter isn't always a .270 hitter. Many players have a month or 2 during the season throughout their careers where they out perform their lifetime statistics and they might have a month where they historically slump. Their talent remains the same relative to their opposition. Yet the performances clearly are disparate and fall into very discernible patterns. Some guys are slow starters but come on during the warmer weather. These are your hot and cold hands. Many are easily identifiable and predictable, but others not so much.

[a700hitter]

Same as flipping a coin and getting heads 5 times in a row. What's the chance of a heads the next flip?

 

50%, of course.

What are the odds when a skilled magician flips the coin?

[moonslav59]

What are the odds when a skilled magician flips the coin?

 

I can flip heads or tails 10 times in a row, but I meant a legitimate coin toss that lands on the ground by a non-skilled magician.

[a700hitter]

I can flip heads or tails 10 times in a row, but I meant a legitimate coin toss that lands on the ground by a non-skilled magician.

And baseball like the magician's toss of the coin involves skill, not pure chance. Many factors contribute to the outcome at any particular time. It is not random chance when skill is involved. Edited December 29, 2016 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

And baseball like the magician's toss of the coin involves skill, not pure chance. Many factors contribute to the outcome at any particular game. It is not random chance when skill is involved.

 

Yes, and that's why a .333 hitter has about a .333 chance of getting a hit after going 0 for 20 and a .250 hitter has about a .250 chance of getting a hit after going 10 for 20.

[a700hitter]

Yes, and that's why a .333 hitter has about a .333 chance of getting a hit after going 0 for 20 and a .250 hitter has about a .250 chance of getting a hit after going 10 for 20.

Yep, it is completely random. Whatever floats your boat, but you are wrong. Drone on.

[Bellhorn04]

An extraordinarily hot (BABip-fueled) hitter is absolutely guaranteed to cool off in a big way, are they not? See Sandy Leon, 2016. Or Iggy in 2013.

[Bellhorn04]

As far as what the odds are of a hitter getting a hit on one particular at-bat, this is kind of a sucker question, isn't it? There are too many variables. Maybe the batter is 0 for 20, but maybe he's now facing a crappy relief pitcher of the opposite hand who he is 6 for 8 against in his career.

[S5Dewey]

From a player's perspective I cannot believe what the stat geeks are saying about this.

 

I'll say this from personal experience: When I stepped into the batter's box, looked at the defense, and all I could see was defensive players I didn't get many hits. OTOH when I stepped into the box and all I could see was green grass I got a lot of hits. Psychological? Sure, but it exists. Unquantifiable statistically? Sure, but it exists.

 

To get back to the original premise, when a player is 0-20 there's usually something that's gone wrong with his swing. Whatever was wrong with his swing in AB #20 is also most likely also going to be wrong in AB #21. That's why players take extra BP when they're in a slump. To find out what's wrong and work it out.

 

Practices does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

[Hugh2]

Stat geek or not empirical evidence is just that. It will always trump feel good anecdotes. I don't think that has to be in conflict with game being mental at times. But the data says you're just as statistically likely to get a hit st any given point of time in or out of a slump.

 

This doesn't mean slumps aren't real. It just means if you're 0-20 years of compiling data shows you're just as likely to break out of your streak there and get a hit as you would be otherwise.

[S5Dewey]

Stat geek or not empirical evidence is just that. It will always trump feel good anecdotes. I don't think that has to be in conflict with game being mental at times. But the data says you're just as statistically likely to get a hit st any given point of time in or out of a slump.

 

This doesn't mean slumps aren't real. It just means if you're 0-20 years of compiling data shows you're just as likely to break out of your streak there and get a hit as you would be otherwise.

 

I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but are you saying that players who are in a slump and start watching videos to find out what's changed in their swing are wasting their time?

[Bellhorn04]

I don't mean to put words in anyone's mouth, but are you saying that players who are in a slump and start watching videos to find out what's changed in their swing are wasting their time?

 

That'd be crazy talk, wouldn't it?

 

Here's what I would say: statistical evidence is based on MASSIVE amounts of data and doesn't necessarily apply to individual cases.

[S5Dewey]

That'd be crazy talk, wouldn't it?

 

Here's what I would say: statistical evidence is based on MASSIVE amounts of data and doesn't necessarily apply to individual cases.

 

I agree, and that's why I think we often times put too much emphasis on statistical data as it pertains to any particular situation.

 

Believe it or not, I'm a believer in stats, too. I'm one of the guys who bought Bill James' original Baseball Abstract back when it was an oversized paperback and I learned a lot from it, stuff that I used in my coaching. I just believe that now we try to do too much with data and statistics.

 

Baseball is still a game that's played by people so the human element can't be dismissed. Professional baseball players are people and people change from day to day. A player may have had a fight with his wife that morning that affects his concentration, he may have a slight headache that he has decided to play through or he may have tweaked an ankle a bit. Not enough to keep him out of the game but enough to affect his speed or his swing just a bit. All of those things may affect his performance on the field. That affect will be minimized over a large enough sample size but it exists that day-- and that day is what's important in winning that game.

 

Stats are valuable in determining a player's overall value given a large enough sample size. They're also valuable when looking at splits, etc., but when trying to predict what a player will do in a "normal" situation... not so much, because 'normal' can change from day to day and situation to situation.

[notin]

Sorry folks, but Hugh is right on this one. The chances of a batter getting a hit in any at bat, even after an 0 for 20 slump or a 15 for 20 hot streak, is overwhelmingly determined by the overall talent level and performance of the batter (and opposing pitcher), and has very little to do with the recent coldness or hotness of the batter.

 

There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'. To quote Russell Carleton from Baseball Prospectus, "Several analyses prior to this one have found little evidence to support the claim that a player’s performance in the recent past is much of a predictor of his performance in the present. There have been well-founded mathematical arguments that streaks are simply random variation over a small sample size."

 

And more Carleton because he says it so much better than I can: "There is psychology at work here, but it’s not powering actual meaningful changes in performance. Instead, it’s powering the brain wanting to believe in the hot hand and then going back and reconstructing events so that they fit with the desired theory. It’s backward logic, and backward logic is dangerous........The hot hand theory is more than just bad statistical literacy. It’s emotionally seductive to believe in the hot hand."

 

FTR, I fall into this fallacy myself and will often make statements about playing a certain player while he's hot, or something along those lines.

 

Note to self: Stop doing that.

 

Agree 100%.

 

I was going to comment on the misapplication and inability to resolve then outcomes on this thread, but I let it ride and found an answer I might have posted myself (although possibly using even more words).

 

We all misspoke statistics at one time another for arguments/counterpoint. But such is the nature of baseball and stats. Even as much as I eschew certain evaluation techniques like the "eye test", I still use it myself and knowingly make the exact same mistakes I know are built into it.

[Bellhorn04]

There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'. To quote Russell Carleton from Baseball Prospectus, "Several analyses prior to this one have found little evidence to support the claim that a player’s performance in the recent past is much of a predictor of his performance in the present. There have been well-founded mathematical arguments that streaks are simply random variation over a small sample size."

 

And more Carleton because he says it so much better than I can: "There is psychology at work here, but it’s not powering actual meaningful changes in performance. Instead, it’s powering the brain wanting to believe in the hot hand and then going back and reconstructing events so that they fit with the desired theory. It’s backward logic, and backward logic is dangerous........The hot hand theory is more than just bad statistical literacy. It’s emotionally seductive to believe in the hot hand."

 

FTR, I fall into this fallacy myself and will often make statements about playing a certain player while he's hot, or something along those lines.

 

Note to self: Stop doing that.

 

Where does this all this leave the corrections of the BABip gods that we know are coming, such as with Leon last year?

[moonslav59]

An extraordinarily hot (BABip-fueled) hitter is absolutely guaranteed to cool off in a big way, are they not? See Sandy Leon, 2016. Or Iggy in 2013.

 

They are more likely to return to their norm- not do worse than norm.

 

There are certain hitters who rarely hit for their norm for extended periods. They are always up and down, but predicting the moment they turn their trend is near impossible.

[Beantowne]

Kind of off topic, but I often use this analogy when explaining the game to those that have never played...Baseball is the only sport where a player can execute the perfect fundementals and get a negetive result. Which I think is what lends itself to frustrating those who've tried to use math and statistic to quanitfy everything.

 

Example; The batter squares up the ball, drving it deep into the gap in rightcenter, only to be robbed by the fleetfooted centerfileder who makes an over the shoulder diving catch landing on his belly with his back to the infield.

 

Example two; The pitcher throws a nasty slider down and in to the batter, who swings, breaks his bat and hits a dribbler down the third base line for an infield single....

 

Batter 1 is ofer...batter 2 is 1 for 1

 

Batter 1 had the better at bat, batter two the better result..

[Bellhorn04]

Kind of off topic, but I often use this analogy when explaining the game to those that have never played...Baseball is the only sport where a player can execute the perfect fundementals and get a negetive result. Which I think is what lends itself to frustrating those who've tried to use math and statistic to quanitfy everything.

 

Example; The batter squares up the ball, drving it deep into the gap in rightcenter, only to be robbed by the fleetfooted centerfileder who makes an over the shoulder diving catch landing on his belly with his back to the infield.

 

Example two; The pitcher throws a nasty slider down and in to the batter, who swings, breaks his bat and hits a dribbler down the third base line for an infield single....

 

Batter 1 is ofer...batter 2 is 1 for 1

 

Batter 1 had the better at bat, batter two the better result..

 

And that's just the tip of the iceberg.

[moonslav59]

Where does this all this leave the corrections of the BABip gods that we know are coming, such as with Leon last year?

 

We all thought he'd return to his norm, which is pretty much what he did or was in the process of doing when the season ended.

 

A hot player (or lucky player) is likely to return to his norm just like a guy in a slump.

 

That doesn't mean a player's "norm" can't change, trend or evolve... most do over their careers, and that's where most predictions rely on age or experience curves to adjust a player's projection based on what has happened to similar players at certain points of their career. It's not an exact science as Papi showed, and sometimes outside influences occur as Barry Bonds showed us.

 

Sandy Leon's career minor league OPS is .654. Within his farm context one notices some horrendous bad stretches and seasons and a couple very high spikes (.856 in 2012 and .938 in winter ball of 2013). His OPS in limited scattered PAs with WSH was .533. It was .439 last year in 128 PAs for the Sox. So, after going through an incredible hot streak (not unprecedented in his professional career), what happened?

 

A .539 OPS in September. That's pretty close to what his career ML OPS was before the hot/lucky streak- whichever you want to call it. Now, the issue is this, because of that hot streak, his career ML OPS has risen from the low .500's to .681. His sample size is still very small at 518 PAs scattered over 5 ML seasons with countless demotions and promotions to and from the farm. What can we expect going forward? For those of you who feel what you were doing most recently counts more, what were you saying last July or August? How far back do you go? Some arbitrary number? If you count just Sandy's last month, you might project a Leon that falls in line with his previous ML OPS and his minor league OPS -between .530 and .630 maybe-- so .580ish? If you like to use a players last 3 months (223 PAs)- you'd think .755 is what we can expect. If you like to use his last season, then .845 might be your number, unless you factor in his .655 at AAA last year in 130 PAs (maybe .775?).

 

To me, I'll stick with projecting somewhere between his career MLB OPS of .681 and his minor league OPS of .654 knowing full well he could have a season much nearer .535 than .845, because that is where most of his career has been.

 

There really was an exact date Leon fell off a cliff-- August 26th. His OPS dropped pretty continuously from the start, but he still was "hitting over his head" for several months:

 

June 1.243

July .956

Aug. .893

Sept .539

 

He was still over a 1.000 OPS on Aug 26th. Who here could have predicted the correct date for his return to norm? He went 5 for 28 to end August (just 1 double and 1 BB). His September was not below his norm to "compensate" for his hot or lucky streak. It was almost exactly at his norm.

 

Perhaps Leon is a poor example, since his "norm" is not really established, but I used him as an example in response to this post.

 

[S5Dewey]

 

For those of you who feel what you were doing most recently counts more, what were you saying last July or August? How far back do you go? Some arbitrary number?

 

 

Yes. I go back to some arbitrary date a/k/a the date on which his freaky streak started. For the first three or four games I was saying that he can't keep this up - but then he did. I NEVER thought this was going to be his "new normal" but for this streak it was his "temporary normal". Every time he came to bat I expected him to get a hit, and when he didn't get a hit I expected that this would be the start of the reversion to his "old normal".

 

He was on a streak when everything was going right for him. Maybe it was his attitude. Maybe he was seeing the ball better for some reason. I don't know. What I did know was that as long as he kept doing what he was doing the streak would continue and when he stopped doing it the streak would end. I knew it wouldn't last forever.

 

Just like there's a reason why Ted Williams was a great hitter there's also a reason why a .200 hitter hits .200. My best guess is that it's athleticsm, hand-eye coordination, strength, etc. but for some unknown reason for a couple of months Leon had 'stepped in it'.

[Kimmi]

I agree, and that's why I think we often times put too much emphasis on statistical data as it pertains to any particular situation.

 

Believe it or not, I'm a believer in stats, too. I'm one of the guys who bought Bill James' original Baseball Abstract back when it was an oversized paperback and I learned a lot from it, stuff that I used in my coaching. I just believe that now we try to do too much with data and statistics.

 

Baseball is still a game that's played by people so the human element can't be dismissed. Professional baseball players are people and people change from day to day. A player may have had a fight with his wife that morning that affects his concentration, he may have a slight headache that he has decided to play through or he may have tweaked an ankle a bit. Not enough to keep him out of the game but enough to affect his speed or his swing just a bit. All of those things may affect his performance on the field. That affect will be minimized over a large enough sample size but it exists that day-- and that day is what's important in winning that game.

 

Stats are valuable in determining a player's overall value given a large enough sample size. They're also valuable when looking at splits, etc., but when trying to predict what a player will do in a "normal" situation... not so much, because 'normal' can change from day to day and situation to situation.

 

Believe it or not, I am a huge believer in the human element. I remember JD Drew having a very sick child and thinking how that must be affecting his performance. There's a thread on here somewhere where posted about how I believe Pedroia is the player that he is because of his grit. I believe that Bobby Valentine was such a terrible manager in terms of having his players' backs and creating a positive 'work environment' that it adversely affected the play on the field. I strongly believe that confidence and trust between a pitcher and a catcher affects the performance of the pitcher. None of those things can be quantified.

 

As I mentioned in my previous post, I have to remind myself not to say "Keep Ciriaco in the lineup! He's on fire!", maybe because I'm having a hard time being completely convinced. I do believe confidence affects one's performance, but I don't think it can raise one's performance to otherworldly. This is very similar to the arguments on 'clutch'.

 

Anyway, no one has said that streaks don't exist. They most certainly do exist. They're just saying that there is little predictive value in the streak (wasn't that your original question?), and that the streak is likely due more to randomness than things like a player being able to raise his game to a new level during a hot streak or a player forgetting how to hit during a cold streak.

 

Or as Eno Sarris explains some of it, “I don't believe in hot hands. However, I do believe in adjustments."

[Kimmi]

If you have had hot streaks , you should understand that the odds shift in those situations, just as they shift for some players under various circumstances. A .270 hitter isn't always a .270 hitter. Many players have a month or 2 during the season throughout their careers where they out perform their lifetime statistics and they might have a month where they historically slump. Their talent remains the same relative to their opposition. Yet the performances clearly are disparate and fall into very discernible patterns. Some guys are slow starters but come on during the warmer weather. These are your hot and cold hands. Many are easily identifiable and predictable, but others not so much.

 

If a player is injured, makes an adjustment, is a slow starter because he takes longer to get their timing back, or other similar reasons, then the player may very well have a streak which is identifiable and somewhat predictable.

 

I believe we are talking about the streaks that seemingly come out of nowhere.

[Kimmi]

As far as what the odds are of a hitter getting a hit on one particular at-bat, this is kind of a sucker question, isn't it? There are too many variables. Maybe the batter is 0 for 20, but maybe he's now facing a crappy relief pitcher of the opposite hand who he is 6 for 8 against in his career.

 

The data suggests that the chances of a batter getting a hit on one particular at bat has more to do with the overall performance and talent level of the batter and the opposing pitcher than anything else. Once again, randomness always plays a role.

[a700hitter]

If a player is injured, makes an adjustment, is a slow starter because he takes longer to get their timing back, or other similar reasons, then the player may very well have a streak which is identifiable and somewhat predictable.

 

I believe we are talking about the streaks that seemingly come out of nowhere.

They may seem to come out of nowhere to you, but it is more likely the result of an adjustment and work.

 

Strat-o-matic was designed to simulate past baseball statistics. Baseball doesn't follow the laws of strat-o-matic. Talent, adjustments and effort define the outcomes.

[Kimmi]

From a player's perspective I cannot believe what the stat geeks are saying about this.

 

I'll say this from personal experience: When I stepped into the batter's box, looked at the defense, and all I could see was defensive players I didn't get many hits. OTOH when I stepped into the box and all I could see was green grass I got a lot of hits. Psychological? Sure, but it exists. Unquantifiable statistically? Sure, but it exists.

 

To get back to the original premise, when a player is 0-20 there's usually something that's gone wrong with his swing. Whatever was wrong with his swing in AB #20 is also most likely also going to be wrong in AB #21. That's why players take extra BP when they're in a slump. To find out what's wrong and work it out.

 

Practices does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

 

I can live with that. If there is an identifiable reason for the slump, then until it is corrected, the slump is likely to continue.

 

Again, I was thinking in terms of hot or cold streaks that seem to come out of nowhere.

 

Why does a player have an 8 for 10 streak with no identifiable reason? A lot of randomness. Therefore, there is little predictive value.