Christian Vazquez

[Kimmi]

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

 

No, it's not a description of the results. Randomness explains why things happen. I don't know about basketball, but I can give you example after example in baseball.

[Hugh2]

No, it's not a description of the results. Randomness explains why things happen. I don't know about basketball, but I can give you example after example in baseball.

 

They've ran the numbers for basketball in some of the same studies with the same results.

 

You see the same thing in Finance, there's always a few fund managers who outperform the market for several years. Sometimes you can find their book in Barnes and Noble but eventually unless you're Bill Miller you succumb to the law of averages.

[Kimmi]

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.

 

They're not going to accept something is true just because people say it is or because it seems so right. Doing that would be nonsense. The best thing about the stat geeks is that they don't rest on their laurels. They will continue to test these things, and as new data and new technology become available, they will retest with improved methodology. They also double check and retest each other's work. They may even prove each other or themselves wrong, and that's okay with them.

 

As I said before, it's much better than to insist the world is flat, because that's what you've always known.

[a700hitter]

They're not going to accept something is true just because people say it is or because it seems so right. Doing that would be nonsense. The best thing about the stat geeks is that they don't rest on their laurels. They will continue to test these things, and as new data and new technology become available, they will retest with improved methodology. They also double check and retest each other's work. They may even prove each other or themselves wrong, and that's okay with them.

 

As I said before, it's much better than to insist the world is flat, because that's what you've always known.

Those who think that what they don't understand or things for which they cannot discern a reason can only be explained by randomness are the flat-earthers.

 

Attributing everything that we don't understand to the great god of randomness is the opposite of enlightenment. Just because observers and coaches can't put their finger on something different doesn't mean that the player hasn't changed something. Players know what they are working on and tweaking at all times, and they are not going to share that, because it gives the opponent the opportunity to counter more quickly.

Edited December 31, 2016 by a700hitter

[a700hitter]

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.

LOL!!! Were you a ball hog? I was always happy to mix it up in the blocks, but on the rare occasions when I was on, I enjoyed being Jerry West or Pistol Pete for the day.

 

It seems that your athletic life has been a series of random streaks and slumps. Could you hit the curveball or did the optical illusion of the curve fool you?

Edited December 31, 2016 by a700hitter

[moonslav59]

LOL!!! Were you a ball hog? I was always happy to mix it up in the blocks, but on the rare occasions when I was on, I enjoyed being Jerry West or Pistol Pete for the day.

 

I remember during that championship game that I was "in a zone", I went up for an uncontested 10 foot jump shot, but I spotted a wide open teammate undeR THE RIM. I drilled a pass to him and he botched the gimmie. On the way back on D, he told me, "Take the shots you know you can make!"

 

I guess Pistol Pete would have.

[cp176]

LOL!!! Were you a ball hog? I was always happy to mix it up in the blocks, but on the rare occasions when I was on, I enjoyed being Jerry West or Pistol Pete for the day.

 

It seems that your athletic life has been a series of random streaks and slumps. Could you hit the curveball or did the optical illusion of the curve fool you?

 

I might have been a ball hog - I did like to control things a bit. Anyone who mixed it up inside would have been rewarded by this point guard though. If you got out and ran, all the better!

The curveball question is interesting. I learned to hit it over time but it did take time. My point I think is that my overall statistical accomplishments may have been a pretty good predictor of what you were going to see from me overall but certainly not on a day to day basis. My performance quite often depended as it does today on how I felt at the time. Was I rested? Did I have confidence in my abilities on a certain moment in time. What time of day was the game played. Studying the statistics have always been fun and informative for me, but the games still get played out on the field. As a coach, studying opponents, knowing their trends in certain situations actually was more important than knowing what their statistics indicated about them.

Just so you know, i think I could have waited a bit for you to get to that outside lane. Workers get rewarded!

[notin]

Those who think that what they don't understand or things for which they cannot discern a reason can only be explained by randomness are the flat-earthers.

 

Attributing everything that we don't understand to the great god of randomness is the opposite of enlightenment. Just because observers and coaches can't put their finger on something different doesn't mean that the player hasn't changed something. Players know what they are working on and tweaking at all times, and they are not going to share that, because it gives the opponent the opportunity to counter more quickly.

 

At some you need to acknowledge you're trying to seperate a 20% chance of success from a 30% chance of success and acting like this isn't the most minute of ranges to judge a player on.

[Bellhorn04]

Let's talk about pitchers for a moment.

 

Was the difference in Josh Beckett's numbers in 2006 and 2007 randomness?

Clay Buchholz 2012 vs. 2013 - randomness?

Rick Porcello 2015 vs. 2016 - randomness?

[notin]

Let's talk about pitchers for a moment.

 

Was the difference in Josh Beckett's numbers in 2006 and 2007 randomness?

Clay Buchholz 2012 vs. 2013 - randomness?

Rick Porcello 2015 vs. 2016 - randomness?

 

The initial posit of "randomness" was that it could be used to explain streaks. You're moving the goal posts...

[OH FOY]

2 Catchers same age in Double AA at that time 22 years olds.

Catcher A caught 837 innings, 10 Errors, 23 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 46%

Catcher B caught 844 innings, 8 Errors, 0 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 47%

Which one has more potential would you think has more potential in the Majors as a good Defensive Catcher?

Neither of these Catchers caught a Knuckleball Pitcher those years in Double AA.

Me, I choose Catcher B. Blake Swihart

Catcher A Christian Vazquez

[Bellhorn04]

The initial posit of "randomness" was that it could be used to explain streaks. You're moving the goal posts...

 

I'm not really meaning to move the goal posts. The discussion has been about what causes sharp variances in player performance. I think this question is pertinent to that topic.

[Kimmi]

Let's talk about pitchers for a moment.

 

Was the difference in Josh Beckett's numbers in 2006 and 2007 randomness?

Clay Buchholz 2012 vs. 2013 - randomness?

Rick Porcello 2015 vs. 2016 - randomness?

 

Not all changes in performance are due to randomness, especially when you're talking about year to year performance. No one has suggested that. The smaller the sample size for the improvement or the slump, the larger the role that randomness likely plays.

 

I acknowledge that factors besides randomness could be the reason for a hot or cold streak, especially as those streaks become longer. However, I do believe that randomness plays a larger role in baseball than most people are willing to give it credit for.

 

I am also positive that while randomness was not the driving force in the difference between the numbers you listed above, it did play a part.

[Kimmi]

Those who think that what they don't understand or things for which they cannot discern a reason can only be explained by randomness are the flat-earthers.

 

Attributing everything that we don't understand to the great god of randomness is the opposite of enlightenment. Just because observers and coaches can't put their finger on something different doesn't mean that the player hasn't changed something. Players know what they are working on and tweaking at all times, and they are not going to share that, because it gives the opponent the opportunity to counter more quickly.

 

I see it as the reverse. Some of you are trying to assign an explanation to why everything happens, be it tangible (mechanical adjustment) or intangible (mental sharpness). More often than you think, there really is no explanation other than just pure luck.

[Bellhorn04]

I certainly agree that luck plays a big part in hitting. The game of baseball is designed to be quirky. Balls can be smoked 400 feet and caught. Balls can be nubbed and blooped for hits. The luck part is beyond question.

[Kimmi]

2 Catchers same age in Double AA at that time 22 years olds.

Catcher A caught 837 innings, 10 Errors, 23 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 46%

Catcher B caught 844 innings, 8 Errors, 0 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 47%

Which one has more potential would you think has more potential in the Majors as a good Defensive Catcher?

Neither of these Catchers caught a Knuckleball Pitcher those years in Double AA.

Me, I choose Catcher B. Blake Swihart

Catcher A Christian Vazquez

 

I think that Swihart could be an above average catcher defensively if given the proper time to work on his development behind the plate. Vazquez has been touted as being defensively elite. Therefore, any comparisons of Swihart to Vazquez defensively have left Swihart falling short, which is unfair to him.

 

I hope that Vazquez' injury was the reason for his step backwards last year, and that he can reclaim his 'elite' status.

 

If I had to bet, I would bet that Swihart will not reach the same level defensively as Vazquez.

[Kimmi]

I certainly agree that luck plays a big part in hitting. The game of baseball is designed to be quirky. Balls can be smoked 400 feet and caught. Balls can be nubbed and blooped for hits. The luck part is beyond question.

 

Absolutely. The smaller the sample size, the shorter the series, the closer the score in the game, the more randomness trumps skill.

[a700hitter]

The initial posit of "randomness" was that it could be used to explain streaks. You're moving the goal posts...

The initial post was that there were that the hot or cold hand were fallacies, and that the batter's chances of success were the same in every at bat. The fact that you and Kimmi have backed off that extreme argument to say "could" and that you were referring to streaks that were not otherwise explainable demonstrates that the theory that all streaks are function of randomness is a fallacy.

[a700hitter]

I see it as the reverse. Some of you are trying to assign an explanation to why everything happens, be it tangible (mechanical adjustment) or intangible (mental sharpness). More often than you think, there really is no explanation other than just pure luck.

You are misstating what I have said. I am not trying to assign an explanation to everything, because I couldn't possible know the reasons for everything. I am not willing to chalk up everything that I don't understand or can't explain to the great god of randomness.

 

Edit: And there is no evidence to support the highlighted statement. You have no idea how much to attribute to randomness. No one is discounting that ther is a random element. I ascribe to Branch Rickey's philosophy of luck. He said that "Luck is the residue of design." Stated less elegantly, you make your own breaks. Talent is the differentiator and overcomes the random element of the game. No one can quantify the random element, so blindly assigning randomness to performance is something with which I disagree.

Edited January 1, 2017 by a700hitter

[notin]

The initial post was that there were tractor hot or cold hand were fallacies, and that the batter's chances of success were the same in every at bat. The fact that you and Kimmi have backed off that extreme argument to say "could" and that you were referring to streaks that were not otherwise explainable demonstrates that the theory that all streaks are function of randomness is a fallacy.

 

Yes the initial post started out by saying an 0 for 20 hitter's chances are not determined by the poor streak.

 

My position is that the previous hot/cold streak can be used as a predictor, but not by using batting average, which is what people use to define hot and cold streaks. BABIP, which tells you about the contact, is what more useful in this regard. And translating BABIP to batting average can be a result of randomness, especially in small sample sizes.

[moonslav59]

2 Catchers same age in Double AA at that time 22 years olds.

Catcher A caught 837 innings, 10 Errors, 23 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 46%

Catcher B caught 844 innings, 8 Errors, 0 Passed Balls, Caught Stealing 47%

Which one has more potential would you think has more potential in the Majors as a good Defensive Catcher?

Neither of these Catchers caught a Knuckleball Pitcher those years in Double AA.

Me, I choose Catcher B. Blake Swihart

Catcher A Christian Vazquez

 

You are talking about 2014 with Swihart and 2013 with Vaz.

 

1) Swihart caught 701 innings at AA and 143 at AAA that year not 844 at AA as you presented.

2) Vaz caught 9 innings at AAA in 2013.

3) Steven Wright did pitch 5 IP at AA and 95 at AAA in 2014. I'm not sure who his catcher was.

4) Charlie Haegar, a knuckleballer, pitched 70 innings with Portland in 2013- none in 2014. He had 11 WPs in AA in 2013, so my guess is there were a lot of PBs with him pitching that year.

5) I'm not sure PBs is the best stat to choose one guy over another, especially when they both caught different pitchers and no pitch framing numbers are included in your cross study.

[Kimmi]

The initial post was that there were that the hot or cold hand were fallacies, and that the batter's chances of success were the same in every at bat. The fact that you and Kimmi have backed off that extreme argument to say "could" and that you were referring to streaks that were not otherwise explainable demonstrates that the theory that all streaks are function of randomness is a fallacy.

 

No one has ever said that all streaks are a function of randomness, at least not randomness alone.

[Kimmi]

You are misstating what I have said. I am not trying to assign an explanation to everything, because I couldn't possible know the reasons for everything. I am not willing to chalk up everything that I don't understand or can't explain to the great god of randomness.

 

Edit: And there is no evidence to support the highlighted statement. You have no idea how much to attribute to randomness. No one is discounting that ther is a random element. I ascribe to Branch Rickey's philosophy of luck. He said that "Luck is the residue of design." Stated less elegantly, you make your own breaks. Talent is the differentiator and overcomes the random element of the game. No one can quantify the random element, so blindly assigning randomness to performance is something with which I disagree.

 

If something other than randomness played a significant part in the streaks, even if it's a non-tangible reason, it would be something that could be picked out in the data.

[Bellhorn04]

No one has ever said that all streaks are a function of randomness, at least not randomness alone.

 

But you did say that the hot hand doesn't exist.

[Bellhorn04]

If something other than randomness played a significant part in the streaks, even if it's a non-tangible reason, it would be something that could be picked out in the data.

 

I don't understand - how can intangible reasons be identified by the data?

[Kimmi]

But you did say that the hot hand doesn't exist.

 

Yes, I did and that's still my contention.

[Kimmi]

I don't understand - how can intangible reasons be identified by the data?

 

The specific reason won't be identified, but there would be differences in the data between players' actual numbers and numbers that are randomly generated through simulations.

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, I did and that's still my contention.

 

But you've also conceded that streaks aren't necessarily a function of randomness alone.

[a700hitter]

I don't recall 700 weighing in on this issue.

 

 

 

(Did I just say that out loud? ......Oooops!)

 

Just when you were becoming socialized. Disappointing. It is no wonder to me that BDC is a pile of dust.

[a700hitter]

I don't understand - how can intangible reasons be identified by the data?

Also, how could data pick up tangible reasons like a hitter or pitcher making the slightest of mechanical adjustments?