Christian Vazquez

[notin]

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.

 

So he started making hard contact less often and brought himself DOWN to a .362 BABIP on ground balls? Imagine how high hus BABIP must have been before.

 

And while pitchers do make adjustments and the word spreads, let's be realistic. Leon fell off a cliff. Is the argument thay nearly EVERY pitcher in the AL made the same adjustments against Leon and nearly everyone was successful? That's a big coincidence to swallow. Real big.

 

Or...

 

Maybe Leon was just lucky alot for a long time. He hit grounders where fielders weren't, and when he hit them at fielders, the infielders were inadequate.

 

It wasn't all bloop hits and grounders with eyes for Leon. But he most definitely was lucky. And had a career year based on some ramdomness. ..

[a700hitter]

So he started making hard contact less often and brought himself DOWN to a .362 BABIP on ground balls? Imagine how high hus BABIP must have been before.

 

And while pitchers do make adjustments and the word spreads, let's be realistic. Leon fell off a cliff. Is the argument thay nearly EVERY pitcher in the AL made the same adjustments against Leon and nearly everyone was successful? That's a big coincidence to swallow. Real big.

 

Or...

 

Maybe Leon was just lucky alot for a long time. He hit grounders where fielders weren't, and when he hit them at fielders, the infielders were inadequate.

 

It wasn't all bloop hits and grounders with eyes for Leon. But he most definitely was lucky. And had a career year based on some ramdomness. ..

Okay. You have convinced me. Players are wasting lot of time doing all that work.

 

Edit: You asked me what I consider to be random. Then you ask me what I thought about Sandy Leon's new found success. I told you. You disagree. That about sums it up.

Edited January 2, 2017 by a700hitter

[notin]

Okay. You have convinced me. Players are wasting lot of time doing all that work.

 

For someone who whines when someone else "puts words in their mouth", you sure are quick and proud to do the same yourself.

 

No one said that the work doesn't pay off or that there are no variations in talent level. But yes, sometimes players do have hit streaks that are not based on skill and skill alone, and this goes beyond the occasional bloop single.

[a700hitter]

For someone who whines when someone else "puts words in their mouth", you sure are quick and proud to do the same yourself.

 

No one said that the work doesn't pay off or that there are no variations in talent level. But yes, sometimes players do have hit streaks that are not based on skill and skill alone, and this goes beyond the occasional bloop single.

See my edit to my post above.

[a700hitter]

I never said that there was no random element to baseball or to hot or cold streaks, but I do deny that streaks are are a function only of randomness as had been asserted at the beginning of this discussion. Now, your goal posts have moved. Mine have not.

[moonslav59]

Baseball is not roulette, otherwise everybody would hit about the same BA given a large enough sample size.

 

Skill is involved but so is luck and randomness to a large degree.

 

Leon's season was not all luck. His good season does not prove he "made adjustments" or suddenly became a much better hitter. Was he "in the zone"? Why did he leave the zone in September?

 

His much higher LD% and hard hit% does show it was not all about the luck of more grounders finding their way through the holes.

 

LD%

2014: 18.6%

2015: 18.8%

2016: 24.7%

 

Hard%

2014: 20.9

2015: 14.1

2016: 31.3

 

These numbers have something to do with his better BAbip.

2014: .209

2015: .244

2016: .392

(career .257 before 2016)

 

His small sample size numbers before 2016 were:

LD% 17.7%

Hard%: 16.2%

 

He hit the ball "harder" about 15% more in 2016 than his prior career norm.

 

His BAbip was about 14% higher than his career norm.

 

Hmmm...

 

[a700hitter]

Baseball is not roulette, otherwise everybody would hit about the same BA given a large enough sample size.

 

Skill is involved but so is luck and randomness to a large degree.

 

Leon's season was not all luck. His good season does not prove he "made adjustments" or suddenly became a much better hitter. Was he "in the zone"? Why did he leave the zone in September?

 

His much higher LD% and hard hit% does show it was not all about the luck of more grounders finding their way through the holes.

 

LD%

2014: 18.6%

2015: 18.8%

2016: 24.7%

 

Hard%

2014: 20.9

2015: 14.1

2016: 31.3

 

These numbers have something to do with his better BAbip.

2014: .209

2015: .244

2016: .392

(career .257 before 2016)

 

His small sample size numbers before 2016 were:

LD% 17.7%

Hard%: 16.2%

 

He hit the ball "harder" about 15% more in 2016 than his prior career norm.

 

His BAbip was about 14% higher than his career norm.

 

Hmmm...

 

Hmm indeed. Maybe the randomness tends to even out.

[southpaw777]

Just because someone cant figure out why things happen in baseball, its random? Is that what some are saying?

This is the hardest game to play...hitting a 90-100mph round ball with a round bat squarely is pretty f***ing hard. The ever so slightest of changes can affect that performance, whether from the pitcher or hitter. Whether physical or mental. .its a constant game of cat and mouse. The naturally better player can sustain success at a more consistent pace. Their mechanics are probbaly better, they make quicker adjustments, etc...not sure much randomness is involved except for what 700 has been sayin...which i will add has been the most logical stance on this whole "random" discussion IMO. I agree with pretty much everything hes been saying.

To say things are random without knowing everything involved, which we cant possibly know, is not a very good argument.

Personally, I dont believe in coincidences. Therefore I believe pretty much everything happens for a reason and not too much in this world is random. Just because I cant explain it, doesnt mean there isnt a good reason for it.

[Bellhorn04]

But that is not random.

 

Right. It's physiological.

[cp176]

Just because someone cant figure out why things happen in baseball, its random? Is that what some are saying?

This is the hardest game to play...hitting a 90-100mph round ball with a round bat squarely is pretty f***ing hard. The ever so slightest of changes can affect that performance, whether from the pitcher or hitter. Whether physical or mental. .its a constant game of cat and mouse. The naturally better player can sustain success at a more consistent pace. Their mechanics are probbaly better, they make quicker adjustments, etc...not sure much randomness is involved except for what 700 has been sayin...which i will add has been the most logical stance on this whole "random" discussion IMO. I agree with pretty much everything hes been saying.

To say things are random without knowing everything involved, which we cant possibly know, is not a very good argument.

Personally, I dont believe in coincidences. Therefore I believe pretty much everything happens for a reason and not too much in this world is random. Just because I cant explain it, doesnt mean there isnt a good reason for it.

 

I agree with what you have said. My experience in athletics has always taught me that "luck" or what seems like randomness can be directly associated to how talented your athletes are and how hard they are willing to work. Strange things happen every day but usually they can be traced back to a cause. I think 700 has a great grasp of the statistical aspects of the game which I freely admit that I don't. If I cared more about advanced statistical analysis I would but I don't. What I really like about 700's contributions is that they come from an athlete's perspective. Common sense and a passion for the sights, sounds, and feel of the game - that's for me.

[notin]

I never said that there was no random element to baseball or to hot or cold streaks, but I do deny that streaks are are a function only of randomness as had been asserted at the beginning of this discussion. Now, your goal posts have moved. Mine have not.

 

Conversely I never said streaks were solely a function of randomness, a term on which wr do not agree on the definition.

 

However over the large scale of a season, yes there will very likely be a random element that clusters the streak together. But I have noticed that typically for many cold streak there is an equalizing hot streak (and the reverse is also true).

 

So if this the case, then players typically play up to (or down to) their talent level. And whether they go 12 for 25 and follow it up with 0 for 15, or they go 12 for 40 getting exactly 3 hits every 10 at-bats, is usually a function of randomness...

[Bellhorn04]

Conversely I never said streaks were solely a function of randomness, a term on which wr do not agree on the definition.

 

However over the large scale of a season, yes there will very likely be a random element that clusters the streak together. But I have noticed that typically for many cold streak there is an equalizing hot streak (and the reverse is also true).

 

So if this the case, then players typically play up to (or down to) their talent level. And whether they go 12 for 25 and follow it up with 0 for 15, or they go 12 for 40 getting exactly 3 hits every 10 at-bats, is usually a function of randomness...

 

That's just a 'general rule' though, with tons of exceptions. Many players have rather large fluctuations in their numbers between years. Hanley Ramirez for example.

[notin]

That's just a 'general rule' though, with tons of exceptions. Many players have rather large fluctuations in their numbers between years. Hanley Ramirez for example.

 

Yes, although Hanley got off to an amazing start in 2015 before banging up his shoulder. Had he not done that, his 2015 might have been better than his 2016.

 

But yes, players do have wide fluctuations in performance. But really, these wide fluctuations still encompass a very small range....

[Bellhorn04]

Yes, although Hanley got off to an amazing start in 2015 before banging up his shoulder. Had he not done that, his 2015 might have been better than his 2016.

 

But yes, players do have wide fluctuations in performance. But really, these wide fluctuations still encompass a very small range....

 

Definition time again - how are you defining 'very small range'?

[Kimmi]

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

 

I'm not sure where the conflict is.

 

I am much more inclined to believe that a cold streak could have predictive value provided that the cold streak is due to an identifiable reason like injury. If a player is injured, it makes sense that his offense might suffer. It also makes sense that if a cold streak becomes prolonged, a player will start pressing or fall into bad habits, thereby contributing further to the cold streak.

 

When it comes to hot streaks, I believe they are largely random, with very little predictive value.

[Kimmi]

And 10 tons of talent.

 

Of course baseball involves talent. And hard work. And the human factors.

 

But I will say again, there is a lot more randomness to the game than most people are willing to accept.

[S5Dewey]

I'm not sure where the conflict is.

 

I am much more inclined to believe that a cold streak could have predictive value provided that the cold streak is due to an identifiable reason like injury. If a player is injured, it makes sense that his offense might suffer. It also makes sense that if a cold streak becomes prolonged, a player will start pressing or fall into bad habits, thereby contributing further to the cold streak.

 

When it comes to hot streaks, I believe they are largely random, with very little predictive value.

 

Then I'm not sure we have the same definition of "streak". To me the streaks we're discussing are things that happen for no identifiable reason, whether they're hot streaks or cold streaks. OTOH, a prolonged streak of low performance due to an injury has an identifiable reason and (IMO) therefore should not be considered in this discussion.

[Bellhorn04]

I'm not sure where the conflict is.

 

 

The conflict starts from this black-and-white statement: There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'.

[Kimmi]

So he started making hard contact less often and brought himself DOWN to a .362 BABIP on ground balls? Imagine how high hus BABIP must have been before.

 

And while pitchers do make adjustments and the word spreads, let's be realistic. Leon fell off a cliff. Is the argument thay nearly EVERY pitcher in the AL made the same adjustments against Leon and nearly everyone was successful? That's a big coincidence to swallow. Real big.

 

Or...

 

Maybe Leon was just lucky alot for a long time. He hit grounders where fielders weren't, and when he hit them at fielders, the infielders were inadequate.

 

It wasn't all bloop hits and grounders with eyes for Leon. But he most definitely was lucky. And had a career year based on some ramdomness. ..

 

You have me convinced. Oh wait, I was already convinced.

 

How many times have we heard that baseball is a game of inches? Translation - Baseball is an extremely random sport.

 

A batter can hit ground ball with the same exit velocity. In one case, the ground ball goes near the defender resulting in a double play. In another case, the ball is hit 5 feet to the right, gets past the defender, and runs score. That is randomness too.

[Kimmi]

I never said that there was no random element to baseball or to hot or cold streaks, but I do deny that streaks are are a function only of randomness as had been asserted at the beginning of this discussion. Now, your goal posts have moved. Mine have not.

 

I don't believe that anyone ever said that streaks are a function only of randomness.

[notin]

Definition time again - how are you defining 'very small range'?

 

Well, for batting average we look at one extreme as being successful 30% of the time and the extreme worst limit as being successful 20% of the time. But those are our limits(-ish). Really we start thinking of a good hitter as maybe hitting .270 or above and a bad hitter as hitting .240 or below. So nearly every hitter will be successful between 20% of the time and 30% of the time. And we label based on whether or not they are successful 27% of the time or more, or 24% of the time or less.

 

Thats a pretty small range...

Edited January 2, 2017 by notin

[Kimmi]

The conflict starts from this black-and-white statement: There really is no such thing as a 'hot hand' or a 'cold hand'.

 

OK fair enough. That was a black and white statement because my interpretation of hot hand or cold hand.

 

Let me clarify. I don't believe that a hot hand exists. I believe that hot streaks are mostly due to randomness, even when a player is seemingly in the zone.

 

I don't believe that slumps have any predictive value either, unless there is an identifiable reason for it, and that reason might be mental (child in the hospital).

[Kimmi]

Then I'm not sure we have the same definition of "streak". To me the streaks we're discussing are things that happen for no identifiable reason, whether they're hot streaks or cold streaks. OTOH, a prolonged streak of low performance due to an injury has an identifiable reason and (IMO) therefore should not be considered in this discussion.

 

Well that was how I was interpreting streaks and hot and cold hands at the beginning of the discussion. I believe I posted that earlier. Those are the exact ones that I call random and hence my statement that hot hands and cold hands do not exist.

[notin]

OK fair enough. That was a black and white statement because my interpretation of hot hand or cold hand.

 

Let me clarify. I don't believe that a hot hand exists. I believe that hot streaks are mostly due to randomness, even when a player is seemingly in the zone.

 

I don't believe that slumps have any predictive value either, unless there is an identifiable reason for it, and that reason might be mental (child in the hospital).

 

If the slumps are products of randomness, and many are, they can have predictive value. I made successful predictions in the past for Nava and Buchholz in those exact situations.

 

Conversely a player like Leon who is clearly a random product of success can also allow for a predictable equalizing slump.

 

But yes, injuries and certain personal criteria can mess with a player and create slumps that are not due to randomness and therefore have no predictive value...

[Kimmi]

Just because someone cant figure out why things happen in baseball, its random? Is that what some are saying?

This is the hardest game to play...hitting a 90-100mph round ball with a round bat squarely is pretty f***ing hard. The ever so slightest of changes can affect that performance, whether from the pitcher or hitter. Whether physical or mental. .its a constant game of cat and mouse. The naturally better player can sustain success at a more consistent pace. Their mechanics are probbaly better, they make quicker adjustments, etc...not sure much randomness is involved except for what 700 has been sayin...which i will add has been the most logical stance on this whole "random" discussion IMO. I agree with pretty much everything hes been saying.

To say things are random without knowing everything involved, which we cant possibly know, is not a very good argument.

Personally, I dont believe in coincidences. Therefore I believe pretty much everything happens for a reason and not too much in this world is random. Just because I cant explain it, doesnt mean there isnt a good reason for it.

 

Randomness is a very hard concept for human beings, myself included, to accept. The idea that something can happen without cause is a difficult concept to accept. But it happens. Not just in baseball, but in everyday life.

 

It's easier to accept if you flipped a coin 10 times and it came up heads 10 times. It's much more difficult to accept when people are involved for obvious reasons, but it doesn't make the concept any less real.

 

People search for reasons why things happen when oftentimes there is no reason. People even go so far as to not shave their beards or to wear their lucky gold thongs because that might be the reason why the streak is happening. It's human nature to want a reason.

[a700hitter]

Of course baseball involves talent. And hard work. And the human factors.

 

But I will say again, there is a lot more randomness to the game than most people are willing to accept.

Where we differ is that you think hot and cold streaks are due to randomness. I do not agree. You have been unable to prove or quantify that hypothesis. I think that there streaks are LARGELY due to mechanical adjustments, and other physical and mental explanations. And now we are going in circles.

[Bellhorn04]

I don't believe that a hot hand exists. I believe that hot streaks are mostly due to randomness, even when a player is seemingly in the zone.

 

'Mostly' due to randomness. This is the problem. It's a fuzzy statement. You're allowing for the possibility of other factors and yet by categorically denying the existence of the hot hand, you're dismissing the other factors. That's the way it reads to me, anyway.

[a700hitter]

I don't believe that anyone ever said that streaks are a function only of randomness.

This post indicates the opposite.

http://www.talksox.com/forum/threads/17652-Christian-Vazquez?p=1044642&viewfull=1#post1044642

[Kimmi]

If the slumps are products of randomness, and many are, they can have predictive value. I made successful predictions in the past for Nava and Buchholz in those exact situations.

 

Conversely a player like Leon who is clearly a random product of success can also allow for a predictable equalizing slump.

 

But yes, injuries and certain personal criteria can mess with a player and create slumps that are not due to randomness and therefore have no predictive value...

 

Well on the first statement, I would have to disagree. The slump might become predictive if it goes on long enough and the player knowingly or unknowingly changes his approach. Otherwise, I don't think they have much predictive value.

 

On your second statement, I do agree that Leon is due for regression. But his recent performance still has little predictive value in what Leon will do any any particular at bat. Also, regression does not mean that Leon will have a slump equal to his hot streak to 'balance out' his average. It means that he will likely hit more towards his career norms.

[S5Dewey]

JBJ should be the poster child for this discussion. JBJ always posted an OPS >.800 (except for one 14 game stint in Pawtucket in 2014) when he was in the minors. Yet when he came to Boston in 2014 he put up an OPS of <.550 in almost ab something changed. maybe it was the transition from minors to majors he put too much pressure on himself and thereby self-defeating his efforts improve because spent time tinkering with everything point where lost what works for him. we don know.. but something. other than>

 

But then he went on his month-long tear, and something changed there that caused it, too. To attribute that streak to randomness implies that he would have had the same offensive output at the end of the year regardless of when it happened - and there's no way I can buy into that. I watched ever game of it and the guy was on fire. The ball as it was coming in must have looked like it was the size of a beach ball, and he felt he could do anything he wanted to with it.

 

In the entire picture I do believe that there are random variations in a player's performance. Obviously a .300 hitter doesn't have 3 hits in each 10 AB's and a player with 20 HR's doesn't hit but one in every 8 games and the the 8 game cycle starts over. That's random.

 

At the same time there are inexplicable streaks - like the ones JBJ had - that are causal, and the fact that we (or even the player!) don't understand the cause doesn't mean that there is no cause.