Christian Vazquez

[Kimmi]

I agree that streaks are random in that it's impossible to predict their start or finish. However, once they start they do tend to perpetuate themselves. Why does a basketball player suddenly go on a hot streak where the rim looks to him like it's the size of a 55-gallon drum? Why does Tom Brady go 0'fur his first six passes and then go 12-12? What happened to Leon that make him go on that streak last year? We don't know, but that doesn't mean we should attribute it to "randomness", which is just another way of saying that we don't know. It's not voodoo. SOMETHING happened. The fact that we can't quantify that 'something' doesn't mean it has no cause.

 

It's ok to say that we can't explain it or quantify it, but it sure does happen!

 

Of course it happens. And it's not voodoo. It's randomness, or luck. That's not meant to be some kind of magical explanation.

 

It's like if you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 10 times. That was just randomness. Not voodoo, not magic. It can't be explained. It just happens.

[Kimmi]

The beginning of Harper's slump started when he faced the Cubs in May. They walked him 13 times that series (even one game 6 times). Harper had very little protection in the batting order. Cubbies swept them. Other teams followed suite. He could barely get a pitch to hit, and if he did I think he was just pressing to make something happen.

 

That could be. I didn't follow Harper closely enough to know. I just remember seeing a heat map of pitches made to him during that slump. Of course pitchers are always going to stay out of Harper's happy zone, but sometimes they miss. During this slump, pitchers were making unreal quality pitches to him outside of his happy zone.

 

I'm sure that Harper did start pressing after a while.

[a700hitter]

I agree that streaks are random in that it's impossible to predict their start or finish. However, once they start they do tend to perpetuate themselves. Why does a basketball player suddenly go on a hot streak where the rim looks to him like it's the size of a 55-gallon drum? Why does Tom Brady go 0'fur his first six passes and then go 12-12? What happened to Leon that make him go on that streak last year? We don't know, but that doesn't mean we should attribute it to "randomness", which is just another way of saying that we don't know. It's not voodoo. SOMETHING happened. The fact that we can't quantify that 'something' doesn't mean it has no cause.

 

It's ok to say that we can't explain it or quantify it, but it sure does happen!

It can be as simple as something clicks in during a game or practice through all the repetition (and it might even be hard to articulate it) Once it starts to work, the muscle memory takes over. As quickly as that comes, it can leave you too, or pitchers make an adjustment that negates the slight change you have made. It is not just a matter of chance. These guys are making adjustments constantly, most are imperceptible to others, even their coaches. Most adjustments are not major adjustments. It is funny that the same people here who will tell others that they cannot judge whether a player is a good hitter or fielder without advanced stats, because of "lying eyes" are trying to put forth a case that they can tell when a streak is random as opposed to something done by the player. Too funny. I guess that their eyes don't lie. Edited December 30, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

Nobody ever said that randomness is the explanation for all hot or cold streaks.

 

I would say that it is the primary reason for most hot or cold streaks of the 0-20 nature.

So the the statement that "There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'" is either hyperbole or a fallacy, because you have no way way at all of knowing what contributes to these hot or cold streaks that appear to you to be random. You have no way of knowing whether any, most or all of these streaks are due to randomness.

[S5Dewey]

Of course it happens. And it's not voodoo. It's randomness, or luck. That's not meant to be some kind of magical explanation.

 

It's like if you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 10 times. That was just randomness. Not voodoo, not magic. It can't be explained. It just happens.

 

Kimmi! That's a terrible analogy! You're comparing something that truly is random and requires no skills with something that involves a lot of skill. You should have known that I'm not going to let you get away with THAT!

[Bellhorn04]

I agree that streaks are random in that it's impossible to predict their start or finish. However, once they start they do tend to perpetuate themselves. Why does a basketball player suddenly go on a hot streak where the rim looks to him like it's the size of a 55-gallon drum? Why does Tom Brady go 0'fur his first six passes and then go 12-12? What happened to Leon that make him go on that streak last year? We don't know, but that doesn't mean we should attribute it to "randomness", which is just another way of saying that we don't know. It's not voodoo. SOMETHING happened. The fact that we can't quantify that 'something' doesn't mean it has no cause.

 

It's ok to say that we can't explain it or quantify it, but it sure does happen!

 

And with a basketball player or a football quarterback you can't really attribute it much of it to luck, so you're down to mechanics and feel.

[Emp9]

That could be. I didn't follow Harper closely enough to know. I just remember seeing a heat map of pitches made to him during that slump. Of course pitchers are always going to stay out of Harper's happy zone, but sometimes they miss. During this slump, pitchers were making unreal quality pitches to him outside of his happy zone.

 

I'm sure that Harper did start pressing after a while.

 

I lucked-out with the 2nd pick in my fantasy draft and took him. For some reason, walks don't count for points w/ a batter, but of course they count against pitchers (WHIP). I didn't foresee this problem. 6 BB's in a game and I got nothing for it. I think some rule changes are needed for next season. lol

 

I agree, I think opposing pitchers pitched very smart against him. But if he had more protection maybe his slump wouldn't have lasted as long as it did. Was it Barry Bonds (?) who publicly said Harper should steal more bases whenever they walked him, so opposing teams would think twice. He didn't try steal enough bases for that strategy to work in my opinion. Of course maybe teams were looking for that after he said it.

[a700hitter]

And with a basketball player or a football quarterback you can't really attribute it much of it to luck, so you're down to mechanics and feel.

And with basketball when you get into a flow where you are completely in rhythm with a good feel, all of your looks are good looks and your mechanics just flow perfectly. That was rare for me. I played full court pickup games into my late 30's on Long Island, and I can still remember the last night that I had like that. I couldn't miss, hitting from the inside, the outside and on the break. I felt like I was floating. I was usually a guy that dug for rebounds and passed the ball. That night as it became apparent that I had the HOT HAND, my teammates kept feeding me the ball. One of the better guys said to me "you are in the zone tonight. Doesn't it feel great?" That night if you had bet against me shooting the ball on the theory that I was a 40% shooter you would have lost a ton of money. No lucky bounces or bank shots. No randomness. Nothing but net. I am glad that my teammates realized what was going on and unselfishly helped me enjoy that night.

[S5Dewey]

And with basketball when you get into a flow where you are completely in rhythm with a good feel, all of your looks are good looks and your mechanics just flow perfectly. That was rare for me. I played full court pickup games into my late 30's on Long Island, and I can still remember the last night that I had like that. I couldn't miss, hitting from the inside, the outside and on the break. I felt like I was floating. I was usually a guy that dug for rebounds and passed the ball. That night as it became apparent that I had the HOT HAND, my teammates kept feeding me the ball. One of the better guys said to me "you are in the zone tonight. Doesn't it feel great?" That night if you had bet against me shooting the ball on the theory that I was a 40% shooter you would have lost a ton of money. No lucky bounces or bank shots. No randomness. Nothing but net. I am glad that my teammates realized what was going on and unselfishly helped me enjoy that night.

 

Yep, and if someone hasn't experienced this they might think that it doesn't exist. SOMETHING happened that night. Maybe it was a perfect alignment of the planets or maybe it was adrenaline, but it was SOMETHING other than randomness. If we could harness things like that we'd be in the NBA. The fact that we can't quantify what it was doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

[moonslav59]

And with basketball when you get into a flow where you are completely in rhythm with a good feel, all of your looks are good looks and your mechanics just flow perfectly. That was rare for me. I played full court pickup games into my late 30's on Long Island, and I can still remember the last night that I had like that. I couldn't miss, hitting from the inside, the outside and on the break. I felt like I was floating. I was usually a guy that dug for rebounds and passed the ball. That night as it became apparent that I had the HOT HAND, my teammates kept feeding me the ball. One of the better guys said to me "you are in the zone tonight. Doesn't it feel great?" That night if you had bet against me shooting the ball on the theory that I was a 40% shooter you would have lost a ton of money. No lucky bounces or bank shots. No randomness. Nothing but net. I am glad that my teammates realized what was going on and unselfishly helped me enjoy that night.

 

Interesting use of the word "floating". I remember feeling the same way in a championship game my hall won while playing in an inter-mural league at the University of Notre Dame. I too was usually an assist and defensive guy, but that day I was "floating" in a "zone". I scored 14 of my team's 25 baskets. I never thought about what was going on at the time, and as I read later, that's what probably helped me "stay in the zone." I remember when it was my turn to be rotated out for a sub, the sub said to me, "Are you kidding me? I'm not going in for you!"

 

Later, I read a book called In the Zone: Transcendent Experience in Sports. I highly recommend it to any true sports fan. It based on a study of great players (mostly in golf and tennis) and what they said after having a fantastic performance. The language used all sounded very similar.

"I was in a zone."

"I was floating."

"It was like I was outside my body."

"Everything was like it was in slow motion, and I could see ahead."

"I wasn't thinking about anything."

"As soon as I became aware of how well I was doing, the thought distracted me, and I left the zone."

 

I've lived and seen "hot" and "cold", and although there may not seem to be any or much randomness to it from the player's point of view, I think some or a lot of "randomness" comes into play as to when the point of entering or leaving "the zone" occurs. It could be something as simple as a mere thought in the mind that changes the focus. It could be a minor injury or a personal issue.

 

As a fan, trying to determine when a streak begins or ends is, in a way, random. I'm not trying top ut words in anyone's mouths, but that is what I think people meant by "random".

 

Some players are known for being very streaky- good and bad, like Mike Napoli. Mike had super seasons and average seasons and a couple bad ones too. Within a season, he had up and down stretches that seemed endless. I remember arguing with several [poster who wanted him benched in 2013 during a long "slump". I kept saying, we may be taking him out just as his hot streak was about to begin. I said that for a while, as his slump continued (longer than I expected), but he did finally bust out and helped us win a ring. Maybe with a player like Mike, it's safer to bet on him continuing a streak (hot or cold) than to bet on him to "return to norm", since he hits at his norm for extended periods of times at a much lower rate than other players.

 

Other players are much more consistent. They have shorter slumps and usually shorter hot streaks as well. They are more "predictable" or "random" in the sense that they hover around their career norm pretty consistently in almost any selected shorter sample size within their career. I would not bet on a guy like Pedey to continue in an ongoing slump.

 

As far as I know, there are no studies that show that a baseball player's most recent 20, 30 or 50 game results are a better predictor of what will come in the next 20,30, 50 or 162 games than using the players last 1-3 year sample size or career norm as a predictor. In fact, I'd bet the opposite is true. Using some sort of combination between recent 1 year, 3 year and extended trends of legitimate sample sizes is probably the best predictor of what to expect going forward.

[a700hitter]

I've lived and seen "hot" and "cold", and although there may not seem to be any or much randomness to it from the player's point of view, I think some or a lot of "randomness" comes into play as to when the point of entering or leaving "the zone" occurs. It could be something as simple as a mere thought in the mind that changes the focus. It could be a minor injury or a personal issue.

I agree with this. When you enter the zone, hot streak etc, is definitely unpredictable, but when you find it, there is little that is random about your performance. There are so many factors that can contribute to that type of play -- really having good mechanics that day, a good frame of mind and building confidence, better mental awareness of the entire court, peak conditioning and health. It must be the way Larry Bird felt almost every game. LOL!!! On that day you know that you will be hitting 80% of your shots instead of your usual 40%, and hopefully your team and coach realize it and feed you the ball, because each time the ball leaves your hand on that day you don't have a 40% probability of hitting each shot. Your probability is much higher.

 

When you get in a zone like we are describing, the performance seems effortless and your stamina is unbelievably better than usual. You could play for hours.

[S5Dewey]

 

As far as I know, there are no studies that show that a baseball player's most recent 20, 30 or 50 game results are a better predictor of what will come in the next 20,30, 50 or 162 games than using the players last 1-3 year sample size or career norm as a predictor. In fact, I'd bet the opposite is true. Using some sort of combination between recent 1 year, 3 year and extended trends of legitimate sample sizes is probably the best predictor of what to expect going forward.

 

As you put it, yes. But when a player is Oh-for his last twenty it would be foolhardy to bet that he's going to get a hit in his next AB just because "he's due".

 

To back that scenario up a bit, that same player was also "due" when he was 0-10, 0-11, and so on, and if you'd bet that he was going to get a hit in each subsequent "0-for" AB you could have lost a lot of money by the time he got to 0-20! So would you really think then that he wasn't going to go 0-21? I wouldn't!

 

Sooner or later he will (probably) come out of that slump but I'm going to have to see it happen before I'm going to believe that he has more than a slight chance of getting a hit in his next AB.

[Bellhorn04]

As you put it, yes. But when a player is Oh-for his last twenty it would be foolhardy to bet that he's going to get a hit in his next AB just because "he's due".

 

I would argue that it's foolhardy to bet that a player is going to get a hit no matter what the circumstances. You're betting against the house.

[moonslav59]

As you put it, yes. But when a player is Oh-for his last twenty it would be foolhardy to bet that he's going to get a hit in his next AB just because "he's due".

 

To back that scenario up a bit, that same player was also "due" when he was 0-10, 0-11, and so on, and if you'd bet that he was going to get a hit in each subsequent "0-for" AB you could have lost a lot of money by the time he got to 0-20! So would you really think then that he wasn't going to go 0-21? I wouldn't!

 

Sooner or later he will (probably) come out of that slump but I'm going to have to see it happen before I'm going to believe that he has more than a slight chance of getting a hit in his next AB.

 

I totally get your point and don't disagree.

 

Think of it this way:

 

Say a very consistent .300 hitter (hit between .295 and .305 for 4 straight years and is 29 years old) is going through a 5 for 50 slump (.100).

 

Over his next 10 ABs would yo bet his BA would be closer to .100 or .300?

 

How about over his next 50 ABs?

 

His next 500 ABs?

 

If forced to bet, I'd bet closer to .300 on all three, but I'd feel much safer the larger the sample size going forward.

 

I'm not a betting man (anymore), but I'd bet this hitter hits over .200 in his next 500 PAs, unless his name is Allen Craig.

 

[a700hitter]

I totally get your point and don't disagree.

 

Think of it this way:

 

Say a very consistent .300 hitter (hit between .295 and .305 for 4 straight years and is 29 years old) is going through a 5 for 50 slump (.100).

 

Over his next 10 ABs would yo bet his BA would be closer to .100 or .300?

 

How about over his next 50 ABs?

 

His next 500 ABs?

 

If forced to bet, I'd bet closer to .300 on all three, but I'd feel much safer the larger the sample size going forward.

 

I'm not a betting man (anymore), but I'd bet this hitter hits over .200 in his next 500 PAs, unless his name is Allen Craig.

 

or Grbec (sp)

[S5Dewey]

I totally get your point and don't disagree.

 

Think of it this way:

 

Say a very consistent .300 hitter (hit between .295 and .305 for 4 straight years and is 29 years old) is going through a 5 for 50 slump (.100).

 

Over his next 10 ABs would yo bet his BA would be closer to .100 or .300?

 

How about over his next 50 ABs?

 

His next 500 ABs?

 

If forced to bet, I'd bet closer to .300 on all three, but I'd feel much safer the larger the sample size going forward.

 

I'm not a betting man (anymore), but I'd bet this hitter hits over .200 in his next 500 PAs, unless his name is Allen Craig.

 

 

To be nit-picky about this, I'd take the under on the next 10, but only because he'd have to be 3 for his next 10 to be closer to .300, but I'd be willing to buy into 2 for his next 10 - which would be equidistant between .100 & .300. . After that, I'll take the over.

 

And I still have to wonder what happened to Alan Craig. I used to say that Good Hitters don't simply forget how to hit - but Craig did! I dunno.

[Kimmi]

I know I'm not going to convince you all on this. As I posted earlier, I'm having a hard time convincing myself. I have had those moments where I've been 'in the zone' myself. Athletes are firm believers in this concept.

 

Bill James had an interesting article on the topic. He relates it to his pool shooting experience. He is 100% convinced that not all of the variance in streaking is random, but he goes on to say that 95 to 99% of it is due to randomness. Otherwise the causal factors would show up in the data.

 

Here's a link if you are so inclined to read the article. If you do, also read the comments (from the bottom up) and click on the related thread link that Tangotiger provided in the comments and read that exchange. Good stuff.

 

http://www.billjamesonline.com/hot_hand_question/

[a700hitter]

He relates it to his pool shooting experience. He is 100% convinced that not all of the variance in streaking is random, but he goes on to say that 95 to 99% of it is due to randomness. Otherwise the causal factors would show up in the data.

And this is where he goes off the cliff. Frankly, it is nonsense. Edited December 31, 2016 by a700hitter

[Hugh2]

I know I'm not going to convince you all on this. As I posted earlier, I'm having a hard time convincing myself. I have had those moments where I've been 'in the zone' myself. Athletes are firm believers in this concept.

 

Bill James had an interesting article on the topic. He relates it to his pool shooting experience. He is 100% convinced that not all of the variance in streaking is random, but he goes on to say that 95 to 99% of it is due to randomness. Otherwise the causal factors would show up in the data.

 

Here's a link if you are so inclined to read the article. If you do, also read the comments (from the bottom up) and click on the related thread link that Tangotiger provided in the comments and read that exchange. Good stuff.

 

http://www.billjamesonline.com/hot_hand_question/

 

As someone who has studied statistics vastly in academia I always love and appreciate bits and pieces like this. Bill James is a genius, and it's a shame his biggest detractors are often those who take the least amount of time to understand the work. I always get a kick how people think their feelings and anecdotal stories can trump countless lines from years worth of data.

[Bellhorn04]

Here's the thing for me: the human body and mind do have ups and downs that are very noticeable and very hard to control or predict. Applied to sports, it means you can have days where you are hot and days where you are cold. Yes, there is a randomness involved to the ups and downs in performance level. But I don't see how that means that the hot hand and the cold hand don't exist.

[S5Dewey]

I always get a kick how people think their feelings and anecdotal stories can trump countless lines from years worth of data.

 

I don't want to be a dick about this but I don't want that to go unchallenged either.

 

I've got a Master's Degree in Common Sense, the product of living almost 70 years and observing situations and people, and I always get a kick out of people with advanced college degrees who think that everything they learned in their college textbooks explains everything. It doesn't.

 

Back in my working life I worked beside numerous engineers, mechanical, chemical, and biological, and in spite of everything they learned in their textbooks they still had a lot to learn in the real word. Data is a wonderful thing but any data dealing with people has to be taken in the context of the people involved.

 

Edit: I also don't take to condescension very well.

Edited December 31, 2016 by S5Dewey

[Bellhorn04]

Statistics can tell you a lot about what happened, but they will often not tell you a damn thing about why it happened.

[a700hitter]

Statistics can tell you a lot about what happened, but they will often not tell you a damn thing about why it happened.

Yep, and the answer is not randomness. Talent and an unbelievable amount of repetition has created a situation where there is an astounding level of consistency. This consistency is a by product of hard work to perform to one's highest capabilities. The fluctuations involved in the pursuit of top performance involve much more than randomness.

[Hugh2]

I can see schrodingers curve is alive and well.

[Hugh2]

Statistics can tell you a lot about what happened, but they will often not tell you a damn thing about why it happened.

 

Actually they can often do just that.

[a700hitter]

So you are in the camp that hot streaks and cold streaks are just a function of randomness?

[Hugh2]

So you are in the camp that hot streaks and cold streaks are just a function of randomness?

 

Nope, I believe in randomness and I believe in skill as well.

[a700hitter]

Nope, I believe in randomness and I believe in skill as well.

Fair enough. I agree. I also think that when evaluating a player's streaks (hot or cold) it is very impossible to identify the reason as being random versus skill, except in extreme cases of at'em balls or seeing eye hits.

[Bellhorn04]

There's another factor beside randomness and beside skill, and it's that indefinable 'in the zone' thing where for whatever reason a player's sharpness and confidence are at their absolute peak and they can perform above their usual level for a certain period of time. Nobody knows why that comes or why it goes. It's just part of the mystery of being human.

[cp176]

And with basketball when you get into a flow where you are completely in rhythm with a good feel, all of your looks are good looks and your mechanics just flow perfectly. That was rare for me. I played full court pickup games into my late 30's on Long Island, and I can still remember the last night that I had like that. I couldn't miss, hitting from the inside, the outside and on the break. I felt like I was floating. I was usually a guy that dug for rebounds and passed the ball. That night as it became apparent that I had the HOT HAND, my teammates kept feeding me the ball. One of the better guys said to me "you are in the zone tonight. Doesn't it feel great?" That night if you had bet against me shooting the ball on the theory that I was a 40% shooter you would have lost a ton of money. No lucky bounces or bank shots. No randomness. Nothing but net. I am glad that my teammates realized what was going on and unselfishly helped me enjoy that night.

 

I still would have told you to get your ass back to the block and get me the ball!-lol! My entire athletic life has been one of peaks and valleys I'm afraid. That is why I have to keep telling myself that I am never quite as good as it looks like I am when things are going well nor am I quite as bad as I look when things aren't going well. Statistically speaking, I'm sure there was an average that could be found. I just never seemed to experience it. Competitive running was about the only thing that was slightly predictable for me. i'm pretty sure that other athletes have experienced and probably continue to experience something similar.