Christian Vazquez

[Hugh2]

I think the cold hand is much more plausible than the hot hand. You can't make your eye sight better, brain faster, muscles stronger for some arbitrary period of time like you drank a potion in a video game.

 

I do believe in the cold hand. I believe the randomness can get to you, and get in your head and cause you to press the issue. I also believe good athletes in the right state of mind can prevent and shorten these down turns. Baseball is mental, and sometimes winning that battle is just mainting focus while you let the other guy fall apart. But I also believe in the stats as well, but I also believe that the smaller a sample size the more deceiving the stat line. That 0-20 could entail 4-6 hard hit line drives right at someone and 1-3 amazing plays made against you. That 10-20 could entail 1-2 HR's against a guy was losing his stuff, an infield hit, a misplayed flyball, a weakly hit blooper turned double, and a soft liner that found a hole.

 

In our innate thirst for pattern recognition I think we look at the small sample size and read into it too much. Again, I acknowledge the mental side of the game, but the long term statistics prove at the very least we often over estimate the hot/cool hand.

 

While a stat guy at heart, I also believe incorporating the good old eye test at times too. If a guy is 0-20 with 10 k's and 10 weakly hit balls. I'd consider giving him a day off or dropping him in the order. But if 10 of those outs were scortching hot liners, and a a robbed home run ill bat that guy 3rd if it's Mookie, even if it's the bottom of the 9th and we're down 3-2 with two outs.

[OH FOY]

Sox are in Catcher limbo with all 3 of their Catchers. You don't know what you have with any of them. So you might as well hold onto them and see what happens.

Here's the plus side, they are young, and improvements or decline is better to evaluate while they are in organization.

[Bellhorn04]

I think the cold hand is much more plausible than the hot hand. You can't make your eye sight better, brain faster, muscles stronger for some arbitrary period of time like you drank a potion in a video game.

 

You can't make it happen, but it does happen. It's not about becoming faster or stronger, it's about feeling incredibly confident and having your muscles react exactly like you want them to for that limited period of time.

[Hugh2]

You can't make it happen, but it does happen. It's not about becoming faster or stronger, it's about feeling incredibly confident and having your muscles react exactly like you want them to for that limited period of time.

 

in other words performing optimally under normal conditions.

[Kimmi]

And this is where he goes off the cliff. Frankly, it is nonsense.

 

You can disagree with it all you want, but it's not nonsense.

[Bellhorn04]

in other words performing optimally under normal conditions.

 

It's a 2 part question:

 

Why did they perform optimally for that limited period of time?

Why can't they perform like that all the time?

[oldtimer]

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.

 

Like you, I am part of the older fan base and will turn 76 shortly. I also was an engineering manager and chief engineer for a very large corporation, finally retiring only about 6 years ago. My wife was a math professor and taught statistics, so we both can appreciate data and its use as a tool in evaluation. I also appreciate the human factors which are part of a team experience and a manager like Tony LaRussa expressed many of those thoughts the recent book he participated in. I still play senior softball year round and know too well that one experiences ups and downs in performance. Sometimes it is difficult to understand but it happens even to those of us with vast experience.

 

My opinion is that building a team solely based upon Sabermetrics would to foolhardy as would ignoring that data developed over many years. The smart approach is to use human factors and acquired data holistically and a major league BB team should select it's staff so they can handle both, realizing that no choice will achieve perfection.

[Hugh2]

It's a 2 part question:

 

Why did they perform optimally for that limited period of time?

Why can't they perform like that all the time?

 

Because results fluctuate, and it's a zero sum game where you're often facing an opponent of equal (or close to it) skill. Someone has to win/lose.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

I love the work that Bill James and other stat geeks do. Contrary to the way many people feel about sabermetrics, I think it makes the game of baseball far more interesting and enjoyable.

 

I have found that while it's not always the case, people who criticize sabermetrics usually do so for one of two reasons:

1. They don't understand it.

2. The particular stat or research does not support what they have always believed to be true.

 

I don't fault anybody for either of the two reasons. Stats are difficult to understand or are simply not a topic of interest for some, and the human element aspect of baseball is a strong and very real one. That doesn't make the research wrong though.

[Kimmi]

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

 

You are right. However, they often can tell you why something happened, or at the very least, they can eliminate reasons for why something happened.

 

When dealing with the human element, there are always going to be imperfections in the stats, and there will always be things that simply can't be measured. There is not a single stat geek who doesn't acknowledge this.

 

However, as I've said before, determining why things happen is pretty much their reason for existence. They do a pretty doggone good job of it.

 

IMO, it's far better than simply making a statement based on observation or perception and accepting it as true because we believe it to be true.

[S5Dewey]

I love the work that Bill James and other stat geeks do. Contrary to the way many people feel about sabermetrics, I think it makes the game of baseball far more interesting and enjoyable.

 

I have found that while it's not always the case, people who criticize sabermetrics usually do so for one of two reasons:

1. They don't understand it.

2. The particular stat or research does not support what they have always believed to be true.

 

I don't fault anybody for either of the two reasons. Stats are difficult to understand or are simply not a topic of interest for some, and the human element aspect of baseball is a strong and very real one. That doesn't make the research wrong though.

 

That's an interesting perspective. Given that you and I are on opposite sides in this discussion - not that there's anything wrong with that! - I have exactly the opposite thought. I find that nearly everyone here who likes the stats says essentially the same thing at one time or another. "I like and believe in the eye test...... as long as the eye test doesn't conflict with the statistics".

 

[OH FOY]

Bill James is good for some not for me though. Too many variables during a game, season, that is done behind the scenes. Many times an out is a Productive thing in Baseball Game. Is that recorded into his stats.

Hustle to break-up Double play, hustle to beat out Double Play? Backing up Outfielders, Infielders? Hitting the Cut-off Man. Tons of thing done in a game, to win it, where you just cant put stats on.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

The whole thing about the hot hand fallacy is the belief that having a hot hand has some predictive value. It doesn't. Just like momentum exists but it has no predictive value, hot streaks exist, but they have no predictive value.

 

For a manager to play a weaker overall hitter who is 7 out of his last 10 over a stronger overall hitter who is 1 for his last 10 would be a mistake, unless there is an identifiable reason why the 1 for 10 player is in a mini slump.

[S5Dewey]

Like you, I am part of the older fan base and will turn 76 shortly. I also was an engineering manager and chief engineer for a very large corporation, finally retiring only about 6 years ago. My wife was a math professor and taught statistics, so we both can appreciate data and its use as a tool in evaluation. I also appreciate the human factors which are part of a team experience and a manager like Tony LaRussa expressed many of those thoughts the recent book he participated in. I still play senior softball year round and know too well that one experiences ups and downs in performance. Sometimes it is difficult to understand but it happens even to those of us with vast experience.

 

My opinion is that building a team solely based upon Sabermetrics would to foolhardy as would ignoring that data developed over many years. The smart approach is to use human factors and acquired data holistically and a major league BB team should select it's staff so they can handle both, realizing that no choice will achieve perfection.

 

Yes. Thank you.

[Kimmi]

I think the cold hand is much more plausible than the hot hand. You can't make your eye sight better, brain faster, muscles stronger for some arbitrary period of time like you drank a potion in a video game.

 

I do believe in the cold hand. I believe the randomness can get to you, and get in your head and cause you to press the issue. I also believe good athletes in the right state of mind can prevent and shorten these down turns. Baseball is mental, and sometimes winning that battle is just mainting focus while you let the other guy fall apart. But I also believe in the stats as well, but I also believe that the smaller a sample size the more deceiving the stat line. That 0-20 could entail 4-6 hard hit line drives right at someone and 1-3 amazing plays made against you. That 10-20 could entail 1-2 HR's against a guy was losing his stuff, an infield hit, a misplayed flyball, a weakly hit blooper turned double, and a soft liner that found a hole.

 

In our innate thirst for pattern recognition I think we look at the small sample size and read into it too much. Again, I acknowledge the mental side of the game, but the long term statistics prove at the very least we often over estimate the hot/cool hand.

 

While a stat guy at heart, I also believe incorporating the good old eye test at times too. If a guy is 0-20 with 10 k's and 10 weakly hit balls. I'd consider giving him a day off or dropping him in the order. But if 10 of those outs were scortching hot liners, and a a robbed home run ill bat that guy 3rd if it's Mookie, even if it's the bottom of the 9th and we're down 3-2 with two outs.

 

Excellent post Hugh. I agree.

[Bellhorn04]

Because results fluctuate, and it's a zero sum game where you're often facing an opponent of equal (or close to it) skill. Someone has to win/lose.

 

What about a game like basketball where a shooter can hit a bunch of 3-pointers in a row and then miss a bunch. I'm not talking about shots with a defender's hand in their face, I'm talking about uncontested open shots. It's a man (or woman), a ball and a hoop. Why does the performance vary?

[Kimmi]

My opinion is that building a team solely based upon Sabermetrics would to foolhardy as would ignoring that data developed over many years. The smart approach is to use human factors and acquired data holistically and a major league BB team should select it's staff so they can handle both, realizing that no choice will achieve perfection.

 

No one has ever said otherwise.

[Kimmi]

What about a game like basketball where a shooter can hit a bunch of 3-pointers in a row and then miss a bunch. I'm not talking about shots with a defender's hand in their face, I'm talking about uncontested open shots. It's a man, a ball and a hoop. Why does the performance vary?

 

Randomness.

[Kimmi]

That's an interesting perspective. Given that you and I are on opposite sides in this discussion - not that there's anything wrong with that! - I have exactly the opposite thought. I find that nearly everyone here who likes the stats says essentially the same thing at one time or another. "I like and believe in the eye test...... as long as the eye test doesn't conflict with the statistics".

 

Absolutely. If the stats tell me something different than what I have believed from the eye test, I'm going with the stats. The eye test involves all human element, which we know is subject to things like bias.

 

I used to think that Pedroia was a great base runner. That's what I saw when I watched the games. The announcers used to confirm what I believed. Or maybe the announcers saying that Pedroia was a great base runner influenced my opinion into 'seeing' that?

 

Either way, when the stats told me that Pedroia was not a great base runner, I had to rethink my opinion on that and admit that I was wrong.

[Bellhorn04]

Randomness.

 

That's a description of the results, but it's not an explanation.

[a700hitter]

You can't make it happen, but it does happen. It's not about becoming faster or stronger, it's about feeling incredibly confident and having your muscles react exactly like you want them to for that limited period of time.

And having your muscle memory functioning in a way to perfect your mechanics for a period of time.

 

Edit: Just paraphrasing the end of your post.

Edited December 31, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

It's a 2 part question:

 

Why did they perform optimally for that limited period of time?

Why can't they perform like that all the time?

Because the game is really difficult to play at any level and exponentially more difficult at the MLB level. The slightest changes make the difference between success and failure.

[S5Dewey]

Absolutely. If the stats tell me something different than what I have believed from the eye test, I'm going with the stats.

 

This reminds me of something a friend of mine told me about how he and his wife settle disputes. "Anything we agree on we do my way and anything we disagree on we do her way."

 

IOW in spite of any lip service, the outcome is always predetermined.

[a700hitter]

You can disagree with it all you want, but it's not nonsense.

I understand the value of sabremetrics in evaluating performances and in predicting trends. I understand much more of it than you would think. It really is not rocket science. But when the Sabre-fanatics go off the rails, they enter the realm of nonsense. Saying that there is no such thing as a hot hand or cold hand and that it is just a function of randomness is nonsense. It reminds me of the physicists that argued that the curve ball is an optical illusion. And I have much more respect for the laws of physics than for the study of statisitics.

[a700hitter]

That's a description of the results, but it's not an explanation.

Excellent point. Anything that cannot be explained seems random. Few things are completely random.

[Hugh2]

Randomness is the result of chance

[Bellhorn04]

Randomness is the result of chance

 

Yes, and it applies perfectly to flipping coins and games of chance where odds can be computed mathematically. But it's not entirely satisfactory for explaining human performance variances.

[Hugh2]

What about a game like basketball where a shooter can hit a bunch of 3-pointers in a row and then miss a bunch. I'm not talking about shots with a defender's hand in their face, I'm talking about uncontested open shots. It's a man (or woman), a ball and a hoop. Why does the performance vary?

 

https://priceonomics.com/can-an-athlete-be-streaky/

 

Maybe you don't have the same time I do to read. I'm in a house where no one speaks English right now so perhaps your New Years Eve is more involved but it's a great read when you get the chance.

 

I feel some (in sports and life) are threatened by accepting they are largely victims of chance, but I find it empowering.

[Hugh2]

I know I may come off as a dick sometimes but I mean well....sometimes. I hope everyone has a safe and happy new year!

[Kimmi]

This reminds me of something a friend of mine told me about how he and his wife settle disputes. "Anything we agree on we do my way and anything we disagree on we do her way."

 

IOW in spite of any lip service, the outcome is always predetermined.

 

If you are directing that comment at me, you're missing the boat.

 

I had an opinion based on what I thought I saw. The stats didn't agree with me. I was wrong and I changed my opinion.

 

You have an opinion based on what you think you see. The stats don't agree with you so therefore the stats must be wrong.