Christian Vazquez

[Bellhorn04]

Well I'm not saying that non random factors do not exist. I'm saying that the hot hand does not exist. Even though non random factors account for some of the streak, the streak has no predictive ability, hence the statement that the hot hand does not exist.

 

I went back and re-read the Bill James article a couple of times. In my opinion, James is not actually saying the hot hand doesn't exist. He certainly doesn't say those exact words. In my opinion what he's saying is that it's largely an illusion. That I can certainly live with.

[Hugh2]

Or, he's just an overly streaky hitter that will always have short to long ups and short to long downs.... like Mike Napoli.

 

JBJs turnaround was almost unprecedented and definitely an extreme case. Although in less extreme cases prospects follow his path all the time.

 

I do think he's going to be a famine and feast type hitter however.

[moonslav59]

JBJs turnaround was almost unprecedented and definitely an extreme case. Although in less extreme cases prospects follow his path all the time.

 

I do think he's going to be a famine and feast type hitter however.

 

I'm hoping he can be more consistent or at least have more and/or longer "hot streaks" going forward, but I'd be happy with a streaky hitter that ends up near .830 most years.

[oldtimer]

I'm hoping he can be more consistent or at least have more and/or longer "hot streaks" going forward, but I'd be happy with a streaky hitter that ends up near .830 most years.

 

My view is that JBJ needed to alter his approach at the plate during the latter part of the season and he was leery of making a change when it counted. I noticed he had gone to a longer looping swing, presumably to gain more power. The problem is that he was not making solid contact very often and that means lots of strikeouts and a substantially reduced batting average. I had hoped he would use the off season to experiment with a shorter and more compact swing.

 

Unfortunately, players think they get paid for home runs. That produces guys that hit home runs but strike out at a very high rate. Just look at the DH FA's and there are many in that category. I prefer that line drive 300 hitter with 15 home runs to the strike out king with 30 HRs.

[moonslav59]

My view is that JBJ needed to alter his approach at the plate during the latter part of the season and he was leery of making a change when it counted. I noticed he had gone to a longer looping swing, presumably to gain more power. The problem is that he was not making solid contact very often and that means lots of strikeouts and a substantially reduced batting average. I had hoped he would use the off season to experiment with a shorter and more compact swing.

 

Unfortunately, players think they get paid for home runs. That produces guys that hit home runs but strike out at a very high rate. Just look at the DH FA's and there are many in that category. I prefer that line drive 300 hitter with 15 home runs to the strike out king with 30 HRs.

 

You could be right. Once JBJ got to the mid 20's in HRs, maybe he looked too hard at the number 30.

 

I, too, would prefer a better BA/OBP guy than one who hits 10 more HRs.

 

I will say, I don't think his approach and swing looked as bad late last year as it did before he made the adjustments that turned his career around.

[S5Dewey]

Bradley drastically altered his swing by removing a preceding toe tap. This extremely minor change allowed him to start the physical bat movement portion of his swing mere fractions of a second earlier, with major changes to his productivity.

 

But when Bradley was struggling, his BABIP was roughly equal to his xBABIP. He was not the victim of bad luck.

 

He still has occasional hot and cold steaks, but these just seem to be normal variations around his new career norms.

 

What Bradley needed to do was listen to his hitting coaches who tried to get him to eliminate that leading toe tap two years earlier. ..

 

That's a vast oversimplification. In doing a little research I learned that his coming out of that streak wasn't at all due to randomness. It was brought on by a change in step.

 

The toe tap wasn't something JBJ took on by himself and it wasn't something he was doing in the minors. He started doing it in an effort to get out of a slump he was in and was one of many things he tried. See #4 of the link.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/179081724/reasons-behind-jackie-bradley-jrs-success/

 

He got a lot of help from a lot of well-meaning people who, in the end, only served to confuse him. Now he's done what he said he should have been doing in the beginning - doing what got him there.

 

According to this article in the ProJo the thing that helped Bradley the most was correcting his initial stride, keeping himself square to the pitcher with his first stride. http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150910/SPORTS/150919917

 

"What changed it all for Bradley was his ability to keep himself square to the pitcher with his first step. His first exposure to the major leagues had seen opposing pitchers attack him relentlessly with fastballs in on the hands, and so he began to cheat on those pitches by taking a first step more toward first base than toward the pitcher. That opened up a hole on the outer half of the plate.

Starting with work that began even before spring training, Bradley has maintained a stride directly toward the middle of the field, a stride that allows him to cover the entire plate."

"Last year his first move was to open up with the front side," Rodriguez said. "That didn't allow him to get to that pitch middle-out. Now his first move is straight to the pitcher -- square, nice and soft with the front side -- and the ball is dictating where he's going to hit it. Before, right before the ball as pitched, he was already committed to one part because he had opened up with the front side. Now he's getting to the ball the right way."

Edited January 3, 2017 by S5Dewey

[moonslav59]

That's a vast oversimplification. In doing a little research I learned that his coming out of that streak wasn't at all due to randomness. It was brought on by a change in step.

 

The toe tap wasn't something JBJ took on by himself and it wasn't something he was doing in the minors. He started doing it in an effort to get out of a slump he was in and was one of many things he tried. See #4 of the link.

 

http://m.mlb.com/news/article/179081724/reasons-behind-jackie-bradley-jrs-success/

 

He got a lot of help from a lot of well-meaning people who, in the end, only served to confuse him. Now he's done what he said he should have been doing in the beginning - doing what got him there.

 

According to this article in the ProJo the thing that helped Bradley the most was correcting his initial stride, keeping himself square to the pitcher with his first stride. http://www.providencejournal.com/article/20150910/SPORTS/150919917

 

"What changed it all for Bradley was his ability to keep himself square to the pitcher with his first step. His first exposure to the major leagues had seen opposing pitchers attack him relentlessly with fastballs in on the hands, and so he began to cheat on those pitches by taking a first step more toward first base than toward the pitcher. That opened up a hole on the outer half of the plate.

Starting with work that began even before spring training, Bradley has maintained a stride directly toward the middle of the field, a stride that allows him to cover the entire plate."

"Last year his first move was to open up with the front side," Rodriguez said. "That didn't allow him to get to that pitch middle-out. Now his first move is straight to the pitcher -- square, nice and soft with the front side -- and the ball is dictating where he's going to hit it. Before, right before the ball as pitched, he was already committed to one part because he had opened up with the front side. Now he's getting to the ball the right way."

 

My head hurts.

[Kimmi]

Certainly the lefty-righty aspect is a major factor, and I suspect good fastball hitters will usually do better against mainly fastball pitchers.

 

There are certain specific skills that tweak the "randomness" to some extent.

 

The lefty righty thing is a big factor, and I'm guessing that you're right about certain types of hitters having more success against certain types of pitchers. That is different, however, from saying that a certain batter owns a certain pitcher.

[Kimmi]

I went back and re-read the Bill James article a couple of times. In my opinion, James is not actually saying the hot hand doesn't exist. He certainly doesn't say those exact words. In my opinion what he's saying is that it's largely an illusion. That I can certainly live with.

 

I can certainly live with that too.

[S5Dewey]

My head hurts.

 

Sorry.

 

There was an implication in the prior post that JBJ had been stubborn and continued to use the toe-tap for "two years" in spite of being told to change it. Bradley began to use the toe-tap on the advice of his hitting coaches so isn't safe to assume that he'd have stopped using it if they told him to stop?

 

This link

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/08/once_considered_uncoachable_jackie_bradley_jr_applies

 

establishes that JBJ initially called the FO asking to do the extra work to get out of his slump. Once he was getting the work he cooperated with Rodriguez in getting the necessary changes made. According to Rodriquez, regardless of what the scribes may have said there was no stubbornness, no uncoachability involved on Bradley's part.

 

My second point was that the timing of JBJ's coming out of the slump wasn't random at all. It had a cause. It was the result of Rodriguez working with him to get his stride right.

Edited January 3, 2017 by S5Dewey

[Spudboy]

My head hurts.

 

Hahahahahahaha!!1!!

[Spudboy]

Sorry.

 

There was an implication in the prior post that JBJ had been stubborn and continued to use the toe-tap for "two years" in spite of being told to change it. Bradley began to use the toe-tap on the advice of his hitting coaches so isn't safe to assume that he'd have stopped using it if they told him to stop?

 

This link

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/08/once_considered_uncoachable_jackie_bradley_jr_applies

 

establishes that JBJ initially called the FO asking to do the extra work to get out of his slump. Once he was getting the work he cooperated with Rodriguez in getting the necessary changes made. According to Rodriquez, regardless of what the scribes may have said there was no stubbornness, no uncoachability involved on Bradley's part.

 

My second point was that the timing of JBJ's coming out of the slump wasn't random at all. It had a cause. It was the result of Rodriguez working with him to get his stride right.

 

Good stuff. Very informative.

[southpaw777]

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.

 

I can accept a certain bit of randomness in baseball as I said in my statement. I just think with this much talent needed to play all aspects of the game that there is way too much we dont know about, that we can just say its random. I leave that open if there are many possibilities.

With life in general, I really dont believe in coincidences...theres usually a reason for everything from my experience. I may not know why until years later, but then it makes sanse...even if we dont know or cant figure out a logical reason, it doesnt mean there isnt one. Sometimes its not logical, especially With the human element..

Edited January 4, 2017 by southpaw777

[moonslav59]

The lefty righty thing is a big factor, and I'm guessing that you're right about certain types of hitters having more success against certain types of pitchers. That is different, however, from saying that a certain batter owns a certain pitcher.

 

Agreed, but I think you might find, in most cases, that a good fastball hitter "owns" fastball pitchers with bad secondary pitches.

[moonslav59]

Sorry.

 

There was an implication in the prior post that JBJ had been stubborn and continued to use the toe-tap for "two years" in spite of being told to change it. Bradley began to use the toe-tap on the advice of his hitting coaches so isn't safe to assume that he'd have stopped using it if they told him to stop?

 

This link

 

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/red_sox_mlb/clubhouse_insider/2015/08/once_considered_uncoachable_jackie_bradley_jr_applies

 

establishes that JBJ initially called the FO asking to do the extra work to get out of his slump. Once he was getting the work he cooperated with Rodriguez in getting the necessary changes made. According to Rodriquez, regardless of what the scribes may have said there was no stubbornness, no uncoachability involved on Bradley's part.

 

My second point was that the timing of JBJ's coming out of the slump wasn't random at all. It had a cause. It was the result of Rodriguez working with him to get his stride right.

 

I actually got through the whole post, and it was a good one.

 

Let me ask you this about JBJ: assuming JBJ continues to get support on keeping his "stride right", do you no longer anticipate any pro-longed slumps by JBJ?

 

I think this whole random- not random argument has gotten out of hand.

 

While there may be mechanical or other reasons for a player starting or ending a slump, looking at the numbers from a fan or mathematician's standpoint, when a player starts or ends his slump (for whatever reason or in some cases for no reason but just plain luck) is random or as good as random. Even if we knew JBJ was working with Rodriguez to adjust his stride, would that help us pinpoint (or project) the exact time we thought his slump would end?

 

Mike Napoli is probably a better case to dissect. The guy had dozens of mini-slumps and torrid hot streaks as well as big variances in final season numbers.

 

Here are his final season OPS numbers:

.815-794-960-842-784-1046-812-842-789-734-800

 

His 2013 monthly OPS numbers varied from .668 in June to 1.227 in September. I remember countless posters screaming for him to be benched or cut during his long slump that year (15 for 71 followed by a 5 for 46 stretch in August)). He ended up going 22 for 64 from AUG 31st to the end of the regular season with 6 HRs and 6 DBLs. His .850 OPS and 27 RBI's in April helped carry us for that stretch.

 

After his sleep apnea issue was corrected, many felt his 2014 season was going to be better than 2013. Instead, he totally yo-yo'd:

.932>.606>.954>.760>.679>.682

2015 was not much different:

519-878-595-792-749-900

(1st half .648/ 2nd half .903 mostly with TX)

Even with CLE last year:

672

852

777

971

888

612

(Below .550 in 56 playoff PAs)

 

[S5Dewey]

I actually got through the whole post, and it was a good one.

 

Let me ask you this about JBJ: assuming JBJ continues to get support on keeping his "stride right", do you no longer anticipate any pro-longed slumps by JBJ?

 

Thanks. I find it unfair of posters to denigrate a player based on their own observations or what one coach may have said in a moment of frustration. In the case of JBJ, the longer the slump went on and the more things he tried the more of a target he became when things weren't working. Hence some people wanted to brand him as being "stubborn" or "uncoachable". I usually don't get involved in these pissing contests but since nobody else wanted to set the record straight and I've always been a big JBJ advocate I took it upon myself to do it.

 

Now, re: Prolonged slumps. IMO the answer comes from our definition of "prolonged". It's unrealistic to think that any player won't go through slumps. Even The Great Dustin Pedroia (no disrespect intended) goes through slumps so it's not realistic to think that JBJ won't too. So the answer to your question comes down to our own definition of "prolonged" - which is something I'd hate to attach a number to. Like Justice Stewart said about pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". It's the eyeball test, ya know! .

 

JBJ is human and therefore subject to the influences that humans are subject to, which contribute to days of no hits. It's also possible that pitchers may find a way to create a hole in his swing much like they did before, but because he is a hard worker and coachable I believe he'll work his way through it and it won't be as extended - or as obvious! - as the previous one.

 

I think he's OK now. Probably even All-Star "OK" again.

[mvp 78]

Thanks. I find it unfair of posters to denigrate a player based on their own observations or what one coach may have said in a moment of frustration.

 

People are allowed to have whatever opinion they think to be true. It's unfair to expect everyone else to look at something the exact same way you do.

[moonslav59]

Thanks. I find it unfair of posters to denigrate a player based on their own observations or what one coach may have said in a moment of frustration. In the case of JBJ, the longer the slump went on and the more things he tried the more of a target he became when things weren't working. Hence some people wanted to brand him as being "stubborn" or "uncoachable". I usually don't get involved in these pissing contests but since nobody else wanted to set the record straight and I've always been a big JBJ advocate I took it upon myself to do it.

 

Now, re: Prolonged slumps. IMO the answer comes from our definition of "prolonged". It's unrealistic to think that any player won't go through slumps. Even The Great Dustin Pedroia (no disrespect intended) goes through slumps so it's not realistic to think that JBJ won't too. So the answer to your question comes down to our own definition of "prolonged" - which is something I'd hate to attach a number to. Like Justice Stewart said about pornography, "I can't define it but I know it when I see it". It's the eyeball test, ya know! .

 

JBJ is human and therefore subject to the influences that humans are subject to, which contribute to days of no hits. It's also possible that pitchers may find a way to create a hole in his swing much like they did before, but because he is a hard worker and coachable I believe he'll work his way through it and it won't be as extended - or as obvious! - as the previous one.

 

I think he's OK now. Probably even All-Star "OK" again.

 

I've been right alongside you with the JBJ support. I never gave up on him.

 

Although I argued he didn't ever need to hit well to still be a significant plus, I never felt he'd always be a sub.700 hitter. JBJ's minor league numbers were just too overpowering for me to think he couldn't make the necessary adjustments needed to get over .750.

 

His .830+ OPS over the past two seasons combined have been about what I expected him to become. The issue many have here is how he came to those numbers. Like Napoli before him, I don't really care all that much as long as our guy ends up over .800. Sure, I'd like a more consistent .800, but those 1.000 streaks can really carry a team almost single handedly.

[moonslav59]

People are allowed to have whatever opinion they think to be true. It's unfair to expect everyone else to look at something the exact same way you do.

 

Good point, but I can't help but feel irked by posters who continuously have knee-jerk reactions to tiny sample size performances (good or bad). I mean, how many times do they have to be proven wrong to realize a player's last 50 PAs or 25 IP'd is a valid indicator of how good or bad that player has been or will continue to be.

 

That's just my own personal beef. Nothing personal.

[a700hitter]

Good point, but I can't help but feel irked by posters who continuously have knee-jerk reactions to tiny sample size performances (good or bad). I mean, how many times do they have to be proven wrong to realize a player's last 50 PAs or 25 IP'd is a valid indicator of how good or bad that player has been or will continue to be.

 

That's just my own personal beef. Nothing personal.

You just tend to be irked a lot of the time. Don't put that on posters.Own your own issues. It's not random.

[S5Dewey]

People are allowed to have whatever opinion they think to be true. It's unfair to expect everyone else to look at something the exact same way you do.

 

Yep. I don't expect everyone else to look at things the same way I do. My gripe is with someone who forms opinions about someone's work ethic or mental makeup without knowing that player personally. The only sources we have about those aspects of a player are the media and the media are notorious troublemakers, often trying to stir the pot to create controversy.

 

Whether it's JBJ or anyone else in any aspect of life, society being what it is today many people are willing to believe anything negative that's said about anyone. They are allowed to have that opinion and I have the right to refute it. Will I change their minds? Probably not, because when a person doesn't use logic to come to a conclusion they can't be persuaded to change their minds by using logic. But that doesn't mean I won't try.

[moonslav59]

You just tend to be irked a lot of the time. Don't put that on posters.Own your own issues. It's not random.

 

I know I shouldn't let it bother me. It's like the slow driver when the light turns green. It's out of my control, but it still boils my blood.

 

[S5Dewey]

I know I shouldn't let it bother me. It's like the slow driver when the light turns green. It's out of my control, but it still boils my blood.

 

 

Hmmm... " Type 'A' " much?

[moonslav59]

Hmmm... " Type 'A' " much?

 

Not really...just certain areas of my life.

 

I know it's stupid to let certain things get to me, especially if they are out of my control.

 

I don't stay steamed very long, so I guess that's good.

 

Most of my friends and family view me as very laid-back and relaxed.

[mvp 78]

Good point, but I can't help but feel irked by posters who continuously have knee-jerk reactions to tiny sample size performances (good or bad). I mean, how many times do they have to be proven wrong to realize a player's last 50 PAs or 25 IP'd is a valid indicator of how good or bad that player has been or will continue to be.

 

That's just my own personal beef. Nothing personal.

 

Everyone has knee-jerk reactions to whatever they have just seen whether it's on the field performance or a calculation made by fangraphs. It's human nature to get annoyed by small sample sized things. If I hit 5 straight lights going to work, I'll probably get frustrated and have a knee-jerk reaction.

[mvp 78]

I know I shouldn't let it bother me. It's like the slow driver when the light turns green. It's out of my control, but it still boils my blood.

 

 

I'm just trying to slowly creep to the next pokestop. Go around me.

[moonslav59]

Everyone has knee-jerk reactions to whatever they have just seen whether it's on the field performance or a calculation made by fangraphs. It's human nature to get annoyed by small sample sized things. If I hit 5 straight lights going to work, I'll probably get frustrated and have a knee-jerk reaction.

 

Now that I can relate to, but honestly, I don't get bothered by one of our players having a bad streak, unless he's always sucked.

[mvp 78]

Yep. I don't expect everyone else to look at things the same way I do. My gripe is with someone who forms opinions about someone's work ethic or mental makeup without knowing that player personally.

 

That's very unrealistic, imo. Not being able to critique someone if you don't know them personally.

 

Example: Pablo came into camp last year out of shape. There is no question about it. Is it wrong for someone to think Pablo is probably lazy and doesn't care enough to be physically fit? If he was a truck driver, no one would care about his eating habits. However, as a professional who is paid by fanatics like us (NESN viewership, merch, tickets, etc.), showing up extremely out of shape is almost a slap in the face to some fans. If he doesn't show up at his best, why should they give him the benefit of the doubt because they don't know him personally?

[moonslav59]

I'm just trying to slowly creep to the next pokestop. Go around me.

 

Oh! I would, if I could.

 

There's construction going on all around Houston, but there's this one light near my house where the wait time is like 3.5 minutes for the green. Cars sit and wait for 7 minutes, and it's finally their turn and they poke along. They just waited through 2 lights! And they get distracted? Yikes!

 

(I guess I'm not letting go as easily and quickly as I thought. Let's change the subject!)

[moonslav59]

That's very unrealistic, imo. Not being able to critique someone if you don't know them personally.

 

Example: Pablo came into camp last year out of shape. There is no question about it. Is it wrong for someone to think Pablo is probably lazy and doesn't care enough to be physically fit? If he was a truck driver, no one would care about his eating habits. However, as a professional who is paid by fanatics like us (NESN viewership, merch, tickets, etc.), showing up extremely out of shape is almost a slap in the face to some fans. If he doesn't show up at his best, why should they give him the benefit of the doubt because they don't know him personally?

 

Well, in Pablo's case, coming to camp out of shape was what he always had done, and it worked out okay.

 

I'm sure some kind of laziness or personal care issues have always been part of who he is, but to him, it didn't matter until "it mattered".