Christian Vazquez

[moonslav59]

It does seem pretty hard to explain why doing a statistical analysis of all a spread sheet of a 25% occurrence over a 650 sample size so closely correlates to an analysis of all .250 MLB hitters spread sheet over 650 ABs. Nobody expects a hit every 4 ABs. There will be "grouping" of hits and outs here and there that deviate from the from- some by a lot.

 

I'm not saying all hot and cold streaks are 100% random. I don't think that is correct, since a skill is involved that makes some hitters 30% likely to get a hit rather than 25% or 20%. However, it's very hard to look at the similarity between random 25% occurrences and hitting logs of hundreds of .250 hitters and not think randomness plays a very strong role.

 

It's hard to prove everything is totally random since each AB is not the same as a random generated computer program. A batter might face 10 straight bad pitchers. If he hits .350 in that stretch, would we call it "random"? Each AB is a unique set of differing circumstances that we tend to think all even out between hitters and pitchers over a large sample size, but this just isn't true.

 

A good fastball .250 hitter playing in a division loaded with mostly fastball pitchers of questionable skill levels will probably do better than if he played in a division with a lot of good non fastball pitchers.

 

[a700hitter]

It does seem pretty hard to explain why doing a statistical analysis of all a spread sheet of a 25% occurrence over a 650 sample size so closely correlates to an analysis of all .250 MLB hitters spread sheet over 650 ABs. Nobody expects a hit every 4 ABs. There will be "grouping" of hits and outs here and there that deviate from the from- some by a lot.

 

I'm not saying all hot and cold streaks are 100% random. I don't think that is correct, since a skill is involved that makes some hitters 30% likely to get a hit rather than 25% or 20%. However, it's very hard to look at the similarity between random 25% occurrences and hitting logs of hundreds of .250 hitters and not think randomness plays a very strong role.

 

It's hard to prove everything is totally random since each AB is not the same as a random generated computer program. A batter might face 10 straight bad pitchers. If he hits .350 in that stretch, would we call it "random"? Each AB is a unique set of differing circumstances that we tend to think all even out between hitters and pitchers over a large sample size, but this just isn't true.

 

A good fastball .250 hitter playing in a division loaded with mostly fastball pitchers of questionable skill levels will probably do better than if he played in a division with a lot of good non fastball pitchers.

 

The output seems random because there are so many data points resulting from around 250-300 pitches per game over the course of thousands of games per year, but the results are not produced by randomness. They are largely the result of applied skill and talent applied.

[Bellhorn04]

Let me bring in that great quote from Mike Mussina. Out of 32 starts you're going to have 8 starts where everything is working, 8 starts where nothing is working and 16 starts where something is working.

 

Mussina had his own randomness down to a precise mathematical distribution. And isn't he clearly attributing the randomness to the ups and downs of himself?

[a700hitter]

Let me bring in that great quote from Mike Mussina. Out of 32 starts you're going to have 8 starts where everything is working, 8 starts where nothing is working and 16 starts where something is working.

 

Mussina had his own randomness down to a precise mathematical distribution. And isn't he clearly attributing the randomness to the ups and downs of himself?

That is not pure randomness, and I think you know it.

 

Edit: He might have been able to predict constipation once a week, but surely the explanation would be physiological and not pure randomness.

Edited January 1, 2017 by a700hitter

[Bellhorn04]

With pitchers the game-to-game differences in their performances are much easier to identify. You can see differences in the average speed of their pitches, differences in how often they use a particular pitch, whether they're able to get their breaking pitches over for strikes etc. It illustrates that they have different capabilities on different days.

[a700hitter]

With pitchers the game-to-game differences in their performances are much easier to identify. You can see differences in the average speed of their pitches, differences in how often they use a particular pitch, whether they're able to get their breaking pitches over for strikes etc. It illustrates that they have different capabilities on different days.

Yep, and Pedro could predict that he wouldn't have a good breaking ball in April-- not because he was in tune with randomness, but that he couldn't get the grip he needed in the colder weather. Dead arm is predictable for pitchers around the 3rd to 4th week of Spring Training games. Random? No. Physiological? Yes.

[notin]

Yep, and Pedro could predict that he wouldn't have a good breaking ball in April-- not because he was in tune with randomness, but that he couldn't get the grip he needed in the colder weather. Dead arm is predictable for pitchers around the 3rd to 4th week of Spring Training games. Random? No. Physiological? Yes.

 

So therefore nothing in baseball is ever truly random?

[notin]

That is not pure randomness, and I think you know it.

 

Edit: He might have been able to predict constipation once a week, but surely the explanation would be physiological and not pure randomness.

 

What is randomness to you?

[a700hitter]

So therefore nothing in baseball is ever truly random?

Don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are the wrong words. Read through the thread. I have acknowledged the random aspects of the game and made my position clear.

[OH FOY]

Have you seen either play in person? I have. Both at the Double AA level.

Have a Happy New Year! Good Luck!

Edited January 1, 2017 by OH FOY!

[moonslav59]

The output seems random because there are so many data points resulting from around 250-300 pitches per game over the course of thousands of games per year, but the results are not produced by randomness. They are largely the result of applied skill and talent applied.

 

We all know a ton of luck is involved, and that, I suppose could be synonymous with randomness.

[moonslav59]

Have you seen either play in person? I have. Both at the Double AA level.

Have a Happy New Year! Good Luck!

 

If you're talking to me about Vaz and Swihart, yes I have seen both play in Portland.

 

Just about every scout and Sox management person would agree that Vaz is the better defender.

[a700hitter]

We all know a ton of luck is involved, and that, I suppose could be synonymous with randomness.

And 10 tons of talent.

[moonslav59]

And 10 tons of talent.

 

Agreed. And that ton of talent amounts to 1 more hit every 18-24 ABs.

[Spudboy]

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

 

lulz

[a700hitter]

lulz

I vow to you Pete that I will do whatever I can to prevent them from sucking the fun out of this place too.

[Spudboy]

It does seem pretty hard to explain why doing a statistical analysis of all a spread sheet of a 25% occurrence over a 650 sample size so closely correlates to an analysis of all .250 MLB hitters spread sheet over 650 ABs. Nobody expects a hit every 4 ABs. There will be "grouping" of hits and outs here and there that deviate from the from- some by a lot.

 

I'm not saying all hot and cold streaks are 100% random. I don't think that is correct, since a skill is involved that makes some hitters 30% likely to get a hit rather than 25% or 20%. However, it's very hard to look at the similarity between random 25% occurrences and hitting logs of hundreds of .250 hitters and not think randomness plays a very strong role.

 

It's hard to prove everything is totally random since each AB is not the same as a random generated computer program. A batter might face 10 straight bad pitchers. If he hits .350 in that stretch, would we call it "random"? Each AB is a unique set of differing circumstances that we tend to think all even out between hitters and pitchers over a large sample size, but this just isn't true.

 

A good fastball .250 hitter playing in a division loaded with mostly fastball pitchers of questionable skill levels will probably do better than if he played in a division with a lot of good non fastball pitchers.

 

 

I just read an entire Moon post!

 

It was excellent!

[Spudboy]

The output seems random because there are so many data points resulting from around 250-300 pitches per game over the course of thousands of games per year, but the results are not produced by randomness. They are largely the result of applied skill and talent applied.

 

This makes sense.

[Spudboy]

I vow to you Pete that I will do whatever I can to prevent them from sucking the fun out of this place too.

 

My Maing!!1!!1

[Spudboy]

With pitchers the game-to-game differences in their performances are much easier to identify. You can see differences in the average speed of their pitches, differences in how often they use a particular pitch, whether they're able to get their breaking pitches over for strikes etc. It illustrates that they have different capabilities on different days.

 

But that is not random.

[Spudboy]

Have you seen either play in person? I have. Both at the Double AA level.

Have a Happy New Year! Good Luck!

 

Awesome.

[moonslav59]

I just read an entire Moon post!

 

It was excellent!

 

You should read more!

[Spudboy]

You should read more!

 

Just giving you s*** Moon.

 

I do read a lot of your posts but admit to giving up on some of your chapters.

[notin]

Don't put words in my mouth, especially when they are the wrong words. Read through the thread. I have acknowledged the random aspects of the game and made my position clear.

 

No one is putting words in your mouth, especially with questions. But I do want your definition of randomness as it applies to baseball. I'm willing to bet a few people are arguing over the same points and only differing on terminology....

[a700hitter]

No one is putting words in your mouth, especially with questions. But I do want your definition of randomness as it applies to baseball. I'm willing to bet a few people are arguing over the same points and only differing on terminology....

Bloop hits, seeing eye groundballs, swinging bunt hits, line drives at fielders, bad hops, foul pops that make it into the stands by one or 2 rows -- anything that is obvious luck. The rest is a function of applied skill by the contestants.

[notin]

Bloop hits, seeing eye groundballs, swinging bunt hits, line drives at fielders, bad hops, foul pops that make it into the stands by one or 2 rows -- anything that is obvious luck. The rest is a function of applied skill by the contestants.

 

But what about luck that isn't obvious? Like Sandy Leon last year? Was he using applied skill?

 

He helped himself with an absurdly high BABIP on ground balls for a guy with no speed. Luck or applied skill?

[a700hitter]

But what about luck that isn't obvious? Like Sandy Leon last year? Was he using applied skill?

 

He helped himself with an absurdly high BABIP on ground balls for a guy with no speed. Luck or applied skill?

Ground balls that are smoked through holes are different than multiple bouncers going through the infield which I would categorize as seeing eye base hits.

 

He was making hard contact much more consistently than he had previously in the majors. Many of his outs were stung too. That was applied skill.

Edited January 2, 2017 by a700hitter

[notin]

Ground balls that are smoked through holes are different than multiple bouncers going through the infield which I would categorize as seeing eye base hits.

 

He was making hard contact much more consistently than he had previously in the majors. Many of his outs were stung too. That was applied skill.

 

So are you saying Leon smoked a lot of grounders past infielders and then suddenly forgot how?

 

He was 50% above league average in this regard. Fifty percent higher, which is an insanea mount higher given the abysmally tight range that is MLB batting averages. Doesn't strike you as "lucky"?

Edited January 2, 2017 by notin

[a700hitter]

So are you saying Leon smoked a lot of grounders past infielders and then suddenly forgot how?

 

He was 50% above league average in this regard. Fifty percent higher, which is an insanebamoint higherbgivem the abysmally tight range that is MLB batting averages. Doesn't strike you as "lucky"?

He started making hard contact less consistently which could indicate a number of different reasons other than random luck or absence of luck, e.g. pitchers pitched more carefully to him, changed their approach when facing him, he got a bit banged up or fatigued affecting his mechanics, he fell into some mechanical bad habit, or any number of factors that could affect his performance.

[Spudboy]

He started making hard contact less consistently which could indicate a number of different reasons other than random luck or absence of luck, e.g. pitchers pitched more carefully to him, changed their approach when facing him, he got a bit banged up or fatigued affecting his mechanics, he fell into some mechanical bad habit, or any number of factors that could affect his performance.

 

Sounds about right to me.