Expectations for Joey Votto - 2014

[RedEye]

I know we have multiple discussions that have gone on for months now about Votto's perceived "off year" in 2013. In hopes of consolidating all the hand-wringing and putting it to a vote, I ask now for your rational expectations for Joey's performance in the 2014 season. Play nice, everyone! :)

[reds1869]

I think the power returns in a big way. My vote is that Joey pushes towards 1.000, probably just a tick under.

[westofyou]

I expect him to be in the top of the league as far as OPS

Placing it in the context of today's game I don't believe it has to be over 1.000 either.

Below is a list of some pivotal years in the game


Year r/team .950 + Year

1911 698 3 1st year cork center
1930 856 20 Juiced ball
1943 605 1 Deadball (war)
1962 723 4 1st year of full expansion
1982 696 1 Middle of Astroturf era
2000 832 30 Peak of Steroid era (runs wise)
2013 708 5 Today's world

[mdccclxix]

I expect him to be in the top of the league as far as OPS

Placing it in the context of today's game I don't believe it has to be over 1.000 either.

Below is a list of some pivotal years in the game


Year r/team .950 + Year

1911 698 3 1st year cork center
1930 856 20 Juiced ball
1943 605 1 Deadball (war)
1962 723 4 1st year of full expansion
1982 696 1 Middle of Astroturf era
2000 832 30 Peak of Steroid era (runs wise)
2013 708 5 Today's world


Thanks for posting, I wonder what the runs per game were?

[fielder's choice]

Votto's going to be neutralized for the most part and walk a ton again without a legitimate threat behind him. Likely will be worse this year with no Choo getting on base at a good rate in front of him. There's just no reason to pitch to the guy.

[Superdude]

It's an even numbered year and I'm not sure what Bryan Price's idea of propriety is, so I'll venture a guess of two ejections, a good number of moments unsuitable for cable television, and a 1.000+ OPS.

[mth123]

Voted .950 to .975. Why are results hidden?

[RedEye]

Voted .950 to .975. Why are results hidden?

I think I accidentally hid them when I set up the poll. Any way the mods can change this?

[Joseph]

MVP

[RedEye]

For those who can't see the poll, the top two categories are currently neck-and-neck.

[kaldaniels]

If you vote the most pessimistic choice in the poll, he would have had the 12th best OPS in MLB this year with a .900 OPS.

He's that good.

[LexRedsFan]

If you vote the most pessimistic choice in the poll, he would have had the 12th best OPS in MLB this year with a .900 OPS.

He's that good.

That's part of why I chose the "2011 and 2013" option. I think he has a really good season with somewhere around a .940 OPS. The game has "changed" again.

[RedEye]

Thanks for the fix, mods. The poll is now visible! Looks like RZ as a whole is pretty bullish on a bounceback campaign for our favorite Canadian.:beerme:

[nate1213]

Voted a slight progression from last year. To me, he didn't drive the ball nearly as well as he did in his shortened 2012 year last year. His doubles in 2012 made his power and OPS pretty awesome. I just feel like he has to gain a lot of power in order to get back to 2010-2012 numbers. That's why I picked somewhere in between.

[kaldaniels]

Who knows.

I went with .925-.950 as he's been in that range the 2 of the past 3 years. I suppose if you average the 3 years he's in the .950-.975 range.

Anything above .925 I'm happy with. Disappointed if somehow he is below .900.

[757690]

I voted .925-.950, but only because I see offense even further in the decline and pitching being even tougher next year. I think he'll still be one of the top 5 hitters in the majors, and an MVP candidate... again.

[HokieRed]

Voted .925-.950, but would guess at the top end of that range and not be surprised at all if he goes higher.

[membengal]

All the furor over the RBI and his selectiveness in the other thread, masks that the real issue was his power drop-off last year. I will be worried about whether or not it will come back until I see it come back.

[WrongVerb]

My expectations? For him to be selectively aggressive with pitches, and when he swings to drive the ball somewhere.

[RedsManRick]

I agree; the power outage was the problem and the primary question is whether it was a random fluctuation or a permanent change in talent level.

I did a fairly extensive analysis of Votto yesterday, and most notably learned that he's not finding himself in two strike counts any more/less than usual. He just hit for less power, more or less across the board (and especially with runners on base).

So I tried to figure out what the story was by checking out some other stats


Year Zone% Swing% SwStr% 2Str% BB% K% ISO BABIP LD% wOBA
2008 48.0% 48.1% 10.4% 43.8% 10.0% 17.3% .209 .328 25.2% .375
2009 45.7% 47.0% 10.8% 50.9% 12.9% 19.5% .245 .372 21.7% .418
2010 45.1% 47.4% 10.4% 50.9% 14.0% 19.3% .276 .361 20.0% .438
2011 45.7% 42.6% 8.7% 47.6% 15.3% 17.9% .222 .349 27.5% .406
2012 46.6% 37.7% 6.9% 50.7% 19.8% 18.9% .230 .404 30.2% .438
2013 46.3% 39.8% 7.4% 51.0% 18.6% 19.0% .186 .360 27.2% .400

Some of the trends we've discussed are evident: Over time, he's been swinging less, swinging and missing less, walked more, and hit for less power.

But I see no trend in the frequency with which he reaches 2 strike counts nor in pitchers going out of the zone against him.

What do I make of this? I don’t know exactly. I twisted my brain in knots trying to think of combinations of evolving pitcher strategies and changes to Votto’s abilities and approach that would explain these things. At the end of the day, the simplest explanation (other than random variation) I can come up with is this:

1) He is simply trying to avoid swinging and missing as much.

2) Perhaps due to the knee injury, he either lost power outright or he altered his swing in such a way that cost him some power.

So what then? Well, I can find no clear reason to expect the power outage to continue. He's (supposedly) healthy and should not be in decline at this point. I take 2013 with a large grain of salt and expect the power to regress back up toward his previous levels. I see no reason why he can't put up .300/.420/.520, which puts him in the .925-.950 range, with obvious upside if his BABIP allows.

FWIW, the current Steamer projection has him at .296/.424/.507 and that's with a .341 BABIP, which would be his lowest since 2008.

[wheels]

I know they're two different beasts, but people were writing Bronson Arroyo off after he had poor year in 2011. Most of us thought that his bout with mono was a mere footnote.

Joey's isolated power (thanks for those numbers, Rick) is the only thing that was appreciably down against career norms. To me, that screams knee injury.

He'll be healthier in 2014, and we will probably see the power come back.

[JaxRed]

I avoid the Votto talk as much as I can. My opinion is not a popular one. On the day he signed his contract and there was a virtual lovefest, I said it would be viewed as the worst contract in baseball 4 years from now.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2553909&postcount=447

My reasoning was that Votto was not a massive physical talent, but one who succeeded because he was maximizing his talent.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2553960&postcount=454

Part of my theory is that Joey took longer to reach the bigs. He was 24 and would turn 25 late in the season, when most superstars reach the bigs much earlier. I suspected his stats would fall relatively quickly.

So, I am not surprised that his numbers are falling. I expect that fall to continue. I think the only 2 years of the Votto contract that we will like the results via the dollars are the first 2.

I also think a lot people will blame the Reds saying the pressured Joey to change his approach, when in fact it will just be age.

[Red Swagger]

If Ludwick is hitting 4th, Votto will be walked EVERY TIME it matters. He will never fully reach his potential until Walt gets him a RH #4 that can hit for power and average. Plus this year, the pitchers realized they can just challenge him, he doesn't strike fear into the opposition anymore.

And it will be one of the WORST contracts in all of baseball very soon. Giving someone over 225 M is beyond bad. Its a new type of baseball atmosphere right now, where teams need to constantly draft and develop talent, then trade those players when they get expensive. Wait till Joey starts making 25 M a year, wow. For a small market team like the Reds, well mid market I guess with 100 M payroll, you can't give players 200 M.

[Superdude]

If Ludwick is hitting 4th, Votto will be walked EVERY TIME it matters. He will never fully reach his potential until Walt gets him a RH #4 that can hit for power and average. Plus this year, the pitchers realized they can just challenge him, he doesn't strike fear into the opposition anymore.

It can't be both of these things.

[kaldaniels]

I avoid the Votto talk as much as I can. My opinion is not a popular one. On the day he signed his contract and there was a virtual lovefest, I said it would be viewed as the worst contract in baseball 4 years from now.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2553909&postcount=447

My reasoning was that Votto was not a massive physical talent, but one who succeeded because he was maximizing his talent.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2553960&postcount=454

Part of my theory is that Joey took longer to reach the bigs. He was 24 and would turn 25 late in the season, when most superstars reach the bigs much earlier. I suspected his stats would fall relatively quickly.

So, I am not surprised that his numbers are falling. I expect that fall to continue. I think the only 2 years of the Votto contract that we will like the results via the dollars are the first 2.

I also think a lot people will blame the Reds saying the pressured Joey to change his approach, when in fact it will just be age.

It's certainly possible, but no hedge (you said "might" in your referenced post), you have the Votto contract as the worst in baseball in 4 years?

[JaxRed]

Not strong enough for you? :) I thought my original was pretty bold.

"Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point."

I think it'll be widely regarded as among the worst. Pujols has fallen SO fast the competition will be tough.

[kaldaniels]

Not strong enough for you? :) I thought my original was pretty bold.

"Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point."

I think it'll be widely regarded as among the worst. Pujols has fallen SO fast the competition will be tough.

Very bold. :D

And I have no real beef with that thought. With the dollars involved it is always possible.

[RollyInRaleigh]

Not strong enough for you? :) I thought my original was pretty bold.

"Well, I'll go on record and you can dig this thread up in 6 years and check on it. I think this contract will be the new poster child for "what were they thinking"? It might be the worst contract in baseball at that point."

I think it'll be widely regarded as among the worst. Pujols has fallen SO fast the competition will be tough.

I hope you are wrong but I'd be lying if I said that I haven't had the same thoughts.

[RedEye]

Part of my theory is that Joey took longer to reach the bigs. He was 24 and would turn 25 late in the season, when most superstars reach the bigs much earlier. I suspected his stats would fall relatively quickly.


Wasn't he ready at 23 though? I remember him being ready before that. And I remember him making frustrated comments about how he didn't have anything more to learn at AAA.

[RedEye]

Looks like there is an emerging RZ consensus about Votto in 2014. Almost half of us now claim to expect the power to come back a bit for an OPS of .950-.975.

[Superdude]

Wasn't he ready at 23 though? I remember him being ready before that. And I remember him making frustrated comments about how he didn't have anything more to learn at AAA.

That doesn't hold water for me either. I don't see how the outlook of Votto is any different if Scott Hatteberg wasn't signed and he slogged a few decent seasons in his early 20's.

[RedEye]

That doesn't hold water for me either. I don't see how the outlook of Votto is any different if Scott Hatteberg wasn't signed and he slogged a few decent seasons in his early 20's.

It wasn't really an argument as much as a question. I was responding to the assertion that Votto was somehow a less high-ceiling talent since he came up at 24. I remember following him in the minor league forum (!) and thinking his performance warranted an earlier call-up. I think he may have also had some vision issues at single or double A that were fixed and then made all the difference.

[membengal]

I won't be able to set aside my concern until I see his power return like it was pre-knee injury (however you want to measure that... SLG%, isoP, HRs + doubles). I want that to tick back up to pre-knee injury levels, otherwise, it's a concern. The other stuff --- walks, two strike hitting approach, sac fly% is just so much noise/WLW-led witch hunting and misses the issue, will his power be back...

I don't know what the "real Votto" is post-knee injury. I hope it is what he was before in terms of power. But maybe this is the real Votto now. For the sake of the organization given his contract, I hope not, because if he is in power decline now, it is gonna be ugly five years from now...

[osuceltic]

I agree; the power outage was the problem and the primary question is whether it was a random fluctuation or a permanent change in talent level.

I did a fairly extensive analysis of Votto yesterday, and most notably learned that he's not finding himself in two strike counts any more/less than usual. He just hit for less power, more or less across the board (and especially with runners on base).

So I tried to figure out what the story was by checking out some other stats


Year Zone% Swing% SwStr% 2Str% BB% K% ISO BABIP LD% wOBA
2008 48.0% 48.1% 10.4% 43.8% 10.0% 17.3% .209 .328 25.2% .375
2009 45.7% 47.0% 10.8% 50.9% 12.9% 19.5% .245 .372 21.7% .418
2010 45.1% 47.4% 10.4% 50.9% 14.0% 19.3% .276 .361 20.0% .438
2011 45.7% 42.6% 8.7% 47.6% 15.3% 17.9% .222 .349 27.5% .406
2012 46.6% 37.7% 6.9% 50.7% 19.8% 18.9% .230 .404 30.2% .438
2013 46.3% 39.8% 7.4% 51.0% 18.6% 19.0% .186 .360 27.2% .400

Some of the trends we've discussed are evident: Over time, he's been swinging less, swinging and missing less, walked more, and hit for less power.

But I see no trend in the frequency with which he reaches 2 strike counts nor in pitchers going out of the zone against him.

What do I make of this? I don’t know exactly. I twisted my brain in knots trying to think of combinations of evolving pitcher strategies and changes to Votto’s abilities and approach that would explain these things. At the end of the day, the simplest explanation (other than random variation) I can come up with is this:

1) He is simply trying to avoid swinging and missing as much.

2) Perhaps due to the knee injury, he either lost power outright or he altered his swing in such a way that cost him some power.

So what then? Well, I can find no clear reason to expect the power outage to continue. He's (supposedly) healthy and should not be in decline at this point. I take 2013 with a large grain of salt and expect the power to regress back up toward his previous levels. I see no reason why he can't put up .300/.420/.520, which puts him in the .925-.950 range, with obvious upside if his BABIP allows.

FWIW, the current Steamer projection has him at .296/.424/.507 and that's with a .341 BABIP, which would be his lowest since 2008.

Very interesting, thanks.

[osuceltic]

I expect him to be in the top of the league as far as OPS

Placing it in the context of today's game I don't believe it has to be over 1.000 either.

Below is a list of some pivotal years in the game


Year r/team .950 + Year

1911 698 3 1st year cork center
1930 856 20 Juiced ball
1943 605 1 Deadball (war)
1962 723 4 1st year of full expansion
1982 696 1 Middle of Astroturf era
2000 832 30 Peak of Steroid era (runs wise)
2013 708 5 Today's world


I find this interesting. Clearly there was a steroid-inflated peak and we're seeing things normalize as the game makes an effort to weed out PEDs. But I struggle with extrapolating that out to "offense is down across the game, so everyone's numbers will be down."

In Votto's case, I can't see why a league-wide drop in offense tied to the elimination of PEDs would impact his performance -- unless you're suggesting he was using PEDs. If he was using and now he's not, then it makes some sense.

But if Votto wasn't using, wouldn't his numbers actually tick up with the elimination of PEDs? After all, he would be digging in against pitchers who no longer had the advantage of steroids.

And it's not just Votto -- I would think any "clean" player would actually see a boost in a newly clean game (other than some counting stats).

I guess it raises the question of if we're missing the obvious in our discussion of Votto's power decline ...

[RadfordVA]

I find this interesting. Clearly there was a steroid-inflated peak and we're seeing things normalize as the game makes an effort to weed out PEDs. But I struggle with extrapolating that out to "offense is down across the game, so everyone's numbers will be down."

In Votto's case, I can't see why a league-wide drop in offense tied to the elimination of PEDs would impact his performance -- unless you're suggesting he was using PEDs. If he was using and now he's not, then it makes some sense.

But if Votto wasn't using, wouldn't his numbers actually tick up with the elimination of PEDs? After all, he would be digging in against pitchers who no longer had the advantage of steroids.

And it's not just Votto -- I would think any "clean" player would actually see a boost in a newly clean game (other than some counting stats).

I guess it raises the question of if we're missing the obvious in our discussion of Votto's power decline ...

The PED crackdown goes hand in hand with pitching getting better. More pitchers are throwing harder than ever before. Also pitching usage has changed. Starters innings have keep going down and you see nothing but hard throwers after that.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-startling-trend-in-baseball/

As far as Votto's specific power decline. I would attribute it to the knee more than anything right now. On top of that he was never suppose to be a great power hitter coming out of the minors anyways. That one MVP year kind of shifted everyones perception of him. I think his tools always had him pegged as a 25 HR guy.

[westofyou]

The PED crackdown goes hand in hand with pitching getting better. More pitchers are throwing harder than ever before. Also pitching usage has changed. Starters innings have keep going down and you see nothing but hard throwers after that.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/the-most-startling-trend-in-baseball/

Exactly , the game changes always. Detroit just hired a new coach as a DEFENSIVE coach, he will only work on positioning and scouting teams to apply the shifts to. The top to bottom pitching provides more power vs a bevy of batters who spend more time trying to jack the ball into a decreasing field. The success rate is lower, thus lower power numbers, thus more outs in the field, coupled with more non contact outs from every team.

It's moving down, but it certainly doesn't have to be that way forever. How did the Cardinals attack lagging defense?

The old fashion way, hitting gap to gap doubles, striking out less, walking more than most and hitting for average.

The game needs more ball in play results to increase offense, hit for average and extra bases and your offense rises, the trick is to learn that HR's and BB aren't the only way to generate offense. It worked for Weaver, because he was pretty much the only guy going that route.

Now everyone is doing it and the game is reacting to that.

[mdccclxix]

Votto's contract is symbolic as much as it is anything else. It represents all kinds of enormous and positive things for the franchise. Until it gets in the way of winning (it may not), it doesn't deserve critique. It's a wait and see thing.

[757690]

I agree; the power outage was the problem and the primary question is whether it was a random fluctuation or a permanent change in talent level.

I did a fairly extensive analysis of Votto yesterday, and most notably learned that he's not finding himself in two strike counts any more/less than usual. He just hit for less power, more or less across the board (and especially with runners on base).

So I tried to figure out what the story was by checking out some other stats


Year Zone% Swing% SwStr% 2Str% BB% K% ISO BABIP LD% wOBA
2008 48.0% 48.1% 10.4% 43.8% 10.0% 17.3% .209 .328 25.2% .375
2009 45.7% 47.0% 10.8% 50.9% 12.9% 19.5% .245 .372 21.7% .418
2010 45.1% 47.4% 10.4% 50.9% 14.0% 19.3% .276 .361 20.0% .438
2011 45.7% 42.6% 8.7% 47.6% 15.3% 17.9% .222 .349 27.5% .406
2012 46.6% 37.7% 6.9% 50.7% 19.8% 18.9% .230 .404 30.2% .438
2013 46.3% 39.8% 7.4% 51.0% 18.6% 19.0% .186 .360 27.2% .400

Some of the trends we've discussed are evident: Over time, he's been swinging less, swinging and missing less, walked more, and hit for less power.

But I see no trend in the frequency with which he reaches 2 strike counts nor in pitchers going out of the zone against him.

What do I make of this? I don’t know exactly. I twisted my brain in knots trying to think of combinations of evolving pitcher strategies and changes to Votto’s abilities and approach that would explain these things. At the end of the day, the simplest explanation (other than random variation) I can come up with is this:

1) He is simply trying to avoid swinging and missing as much.

2) Perhaps due to the knee injury, he either lost power outright or he altered his swing in such a way that cost him some power.

So what then? Well, I can find no clear reason to expect the power outage to continue. He's (supposedly) healthy and should not be in decline at this point. I take 2013 with a large grain of salt and expect the power to regress back up toward his previous levels. I see no reason why he can't put up .300/.420/.520, which puts him in the .925-.950 range, with obvious upside if his BABIP allows.

FWIW, the current Steamer projection has him at .296/.424/.507 and that's with a .341 BABIP, which would be his lowest since 2008.

Good stuff.

But I think you can come to a likely conclusion if you add to your analysis the visual test, watching Votto at the plate last season. He just looked off more often than usual last season. He took way more awkward swings, getting fooled much more often than in previous years.

For me, when I can't find anything specific deep in the numbers to explain why a players production was down, I think the eye test can be very helpful, and in this case, it seems to point to Votto's skill level dropping just a bit in certain situations, as compared to previous years, causing his production to drop a little.

We're all so scared to say that Votto's skill level declined last year, that we seem to be doing everything to prove that it wasn't the case. But when there isn't anything in the numbers to suggest it was based on anything else, and the eye test suggests his was off his game, I think we have to consider the fact that Votto's skill level did decline last year.

[RedsManRick]

Good stuff.

But I think you can come to a likely conclusion if you add to your analysis the visual test, watching Votto at the plate last season. He just looked off more often than usual last season. He took way more awkward swings, getting fooled much more often than in previous years.

For me, when I can't find anything specific deep in the numbers to explain why a players production was down, I think the eye test can be very helpful, and in this case, it seems to point to Votto's skill level dropping just a bit in certain situations, as compared to previous years, causing his production to drop a little.

We're all so scared to say that Votto's skill level declined last year, that we seem to be doing everything to prove that it wasn't the case. But when there isn't anything in the numbers to suggest it was based on anything else, and the eye test suggests his was off his game, I think we have to consider the fact that Votto's skill level did decline last year.

I'm completely ok with the idea that Votto's skills regressed last year. But the real value comes from an understanding of what skills actually changed and to what degree. That's what can give us confidence in making assertions about what's likely to happen in the future. I'm no scout; I don't understand the baseball swing well enough for the eye test to be much value beyond helping me ask better questions.

In general, I urge caution in using the eye test, especially when our eyes aren't particularly well trained for the task we're undertaking and only being relied upon in hindsight. Like you, I noticed that at times Votto "didn't look right." But that probably happens in stretches every year. We just forget about them. Confirmation and observation bias are pretty strong. Once we get it in our minds that we're seeing something, we are more likely to remember events that confirm our belief that it's there and to forget events that conflict with them. As much as we try to be objective, it's virtually impossible to avoid it.

In no way am I dismissing that a scouting-based assessment of Votto has no value. Quite the contrary, it's probably the only reliable way to actually figure out the why of decreased performance. But the stats can give us clues. And more to the point, the stats can point out flaws certain hypothesis. If he's getting fooled more often and taking more awkward swings, why did he have a career low rate of swinging at pitches out of the zone and a career high contact rate in the zone? The eye test doesn't bring me to a conclusion, but it is a helpful part of the search for one.

For me, one thing really jumps out at me; his career high GB:FB rate. That's the one thing that was significantly different and which jives with the lower ISO we saw. But again, it comes back to the question, why? Just saying generically that his skills took a step back doesn't really do it for me. We saw his lack of power coming back from the knee surgery last year, so it would make sense for those things to be related -- but in what way? How did the knee injury result in a higher GB:FB? I'd absolutely love to see one of our resident scouting types break down some video of his swing this year vs. pre-knee 2011 or 2012 to see if they can explain it.

[mdccclxix]

I saw this article in ESPN magazine about a treadmill and computer system that can recognize where your body is out of alignment - in many cases due to injury. An injury caused misalignment may make a person slower or what have you. Treating this can be part of the future of medicine. I'm sure Votto has access to this level of treatment.

[757690]

I'm completely ok with the idea that Votto's skills regressed last year. But the real value comes from an understanding of what skills actually changed and to what degree. That's what can give us confidence in making assertions about what's likely to happen in the future. I'm no scout; I don't understand the baseball swing well enough for the eye test to be much value beyond helping me ask better questions.

In general, I urge caution in using the eye test, especially when our eyes aren't particularly well trained for the task we're undertaking and only being relied upon in hindsight. Like you, I noticed that at times Votto "didn't look right." But that probably happens in stretches every year. We just forget about them. Confirmation and observation bias are pretty strong. Once we get it in our minds that we're seeing something, we are more likely to remember events that confirm our belief that it's there and to forget events that conflict with them. As much as we try to be objective, it's virtually impossible to avoid it.

In no way am I dismissing that a scouting-based assessment of Votto has no value. Quite the contrary, it's probably the only reliable way to actually figure out the why of decreased performance. But the stats can give us clues. And more to the point, the stats can point out flaws certain hypothesis. If he's getting fooled more often and taking more awkward swings, why did he have a career low rate of swinging at pitches out of the zone and a career high contact rate in the zone? The eye test doesn't bring me to a conclusion, but it is a helpful part of the search for one.

For me, one thing really jumps out at me; his career high GB:FB rate. That's the one thing that was significantly different and which jives with the lower ISO we saw. But again, it comes back to the question, why? Just saying generically that his skills took a step back doesn't really do it for me. We saw his lack of power coming back from the knee surgery last year, so it would make sense for those things to be related -- but in what way? How did the knee injury result in a higher GB:FB? I'd absolutely love to see one of our resident scouting types break down some video of his swing this year vs. pre-knee 2011 or 2012 to see if they can explain it.

The whole point of stats, imo, is to test out notions that we get from general observation, to,see if they mesh with the more detailed facts.

The notion that I have taken from observation that needs testing against the data, is that Votto's skills declined last season. Watching him strongly suggests that. He was getting fooled more often by all kinds of pitches, against all kinds of pitchers. He seemed to look foolish, confused, more often. And his big numbers match that nation. His power was down, and his BA in high leverage situations was way down.

I've read numerous threads and countless posts the to delve deep into the data, and so far, nothing has been provided that counters this notion. There are no numbers we can blame on luck, or randomness, nothing that stands out other than the fact that his numbers are down.

When that happens, I'm much more likely to believe the notion I got from observation, that his skills declined, than to just chalk it up to randomness that we can't find.

[puca]

My expectation is that no matter how well Joey does in 2014 there will be no shortage of people pointing out his failings.

[Superdude]

It wasn't really an argument as much as a question. I was responding to the assertion that Votto was somehow a less high-ceiling talent since he came up at 24. I remember following him in the minor league forum (!) and thinking his performance warranted an earlier call-up. I think he may have also had some vision issues at single or double A that were fixed and then made all the difference.

Oh, sorry. :laugh: I'm asserting an argument based on your question then. Votto would've been a fine hitter at 23 and maybe even 22 IMO.

[SteelSD]

The whole point of stats, imo, is to test out notions that we get from general observation, to,see if they mesh with the more detailed facts.

The notion that I have taken from observation that needs testing against the data, is that Votto's skills declined last season. Watching him strongly suggests that. He was getting fooled more often by all kinds of pitches, against all kinds of pitchers. He seemed to look foolish, confused, more often. And his big numbers match that nation. His power was down, and his BA in high leverage situations was way down.

You've just described using data to certify observational bias. Not only is that not the "whole point" of stats or analysis; it's actually quite the opposite. Objective analysis may start with a hypothesis but you're starting your analysis with a conclusion. That's a different animal entirely and not one a sensible analyst actively feeds.


I've read numerous threads and countless posts the to delve deep into the data, and so far, nothing has been provided that counters this notion. There are no numbers we can blame on luck, or randomness, nothing that stands out other than the fact that his numbers are down.

When that happens, I'm much more likely to believe the notion I got from observation, that his skills declined, than to just chalk it up to randomness that we can't find.

Even in the small sample size data (the stuff you use constantly with Votto then say we shouldn't use in the Schumaker thread) we see random, unrepeatable performance variances from year to year. If you disagree that variances like small-sample .500 situational batting averages and lower than normal BABIP results are random, then it's up to you to tell us how we should expect those to be the result of something Votto can be reasonably expected to actively control; not the other way around.

[757690]

You've just described using data to certify observational bias. Not only is that not the "whole point" of stats or analysis; it's actually quite the opposite. Objective analysis may start with a hypothesis but you're starting your analysis with a conclusion. That's a different animal entirely and not one a sensible analyst actively feeds.



Even in the small sample size data (the stuff you use constantly with Votto then say we shouldn't use in the Schumaker thread) we see random, unrepeatable performance variances from year to year. If you disagree that variances like small-sample .500 situational batting averages and lower than normal BABIP results are random, then it's up to you to tell us how we should expect those to be the result of something Votto can be reasonably expected to actively control; not the other way around.

Where did I draw a conclusion? I stated an hypothesis based on observation, that Votto's skill have declined, and tested it out by looking deeper into the data. That is the very definition of the Scientific Method.

And I have seen stats that explain one year's worth of exceptional production from Votto from the stuff you mentioned, but nothing demonstrates that the difference between Votto's 2013 and his career numbers are based on randomness.

[RedEye]

And I have seen stats that explain one year's worth of exceptional production from Votto from the stuff you mentioned, but nothing demonstrates that the difference between Votto's 2013 and his career numbers are based on randomness.

I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction here. The burden of proof is firmly on the side of the non-random. The scientific method depends on repeatability. In order to prove anything with statistics, you need a large enough sample size to recognize a pattern that has endurance. Nothing we have with Votto from 2013 offers compelling enough evidence to separate the signal from the noise. His results are consistent with what we might expect from normal fluctuations in his current skill set. Rather, as Steel has pointed out repeatedly now, all we have are a few results that offer very little by way of causal explanation.

[757690]

I think you are approaching it from the wrong direction here. The burden of proof is firmly on the side of the non-random. The scientific method depends on repeatability. In order to prove anything with statistics, you need a large enough sample size to recognize a pattern that has endurance. Nothing we have with Votto from 2013 offers compelling enough evidence to separate the signal from the noise. His results are consistent with what we might expect from normal fluctuations in his current skill set. Rather, as Steel has pointed out repeatedly now, all we have are a few results that offer very little by way of causal explanation.

I couldn't disagree more.

The burden of proof is on proving randomness. We should we assume that everything his random unless proven otherwise?

The game is most often decided by skill, both mental and physical. Sometimes randomness enters into the outcome, and we need stats to isolate those times and point them out. But do you really believe that randomness dominates the game to the point where we have to assume that anything that happens on the field is out of the players control and we have to find stats that prove that a player's skill actually was the cause of his production?

[RedEye]

I couldn't disagree more.

The burden of proof is on proving randomness. We should we assume that everything his random unless proven otherwise?


I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "randomness" in statistical measurement. To say that something could be "random" is not to say there is no cause. It is rather to say that the available data set cannot be used to support any sort of specific causal conclusions. Sure, you can make any argument you like about the possible causes of Votto's performance, but those of us who are data-driven will probably point out that there is nothing in the numbers to back up anything you are saying. In science, the coincidental association of two variables is generally the rule -- and it has to be disproven through large amounts of repeatable data.

[757690]

I think you are misunderstanding the concept of "randomness" in statistical measurement. To say that something could be "random" is not to say there is no cause. It is rather to say that the available data set cannot be used to support any sort of specific causal conclusions about it. You can make any argument you like about the cause of Votto's performance, but the data we have does nothing to back up anything you are saying.

Let's back up a second.

What do you think I am saying?

[RedEye]

I'm arguing that this approach you typed up earlier is backwards:


I've read numerous threads and countless posts the to delve deep into the data, and so far, nothing has been provided that counters this notion. There are no numbers we can blame on luck, or randomness, nothing that stands out other than the fact that his numbers are down.

This is what Steel and RMR have termed your "confirmation bias." You've assumed here that because the stats you've seen don't disprove your observation that it is therefore correct. Scientifically, that couldn't be further from an objective analysis. In statistical measurement, the assumption is that a relationship does not exist between two phenomena unless proven otherwise. Randomness is the baseline -- correlation and causality are the exceptions.

[757690]

I'm arguing that this approach you typed up earlier is backwards:



This is what Steel and RMR have termed your "confirmation bias." You've assumed here that because the stats you've seen don't disprove your observation that it is therefore correct. Scientifically, that couldn't be further from an objective analysis. In statistical measurement, the assumption is that a relationship does not exist between two phenomena unless proven otherwise. Randomness is the baseline -- correlation and causality are the exceptions.

It would be confirmation bias if I never checked to see if it meshed with the data. I did, and it does mesh with the data. The data shows that Votto was less productive in 2013 in certain areas (power, runners on base), which confirms what I noticed through casual observation.

Then you look for why he was less productive. What is because of randomness, things out of his control? Nothing was found that showed that his loss in power and BA with runners on base was due to randomness. Because of that, I'm going to assume for now that it was due to a loss in skill.

Let's put it this way. Using your method, of assuming randomness until causality is proven, I am going to assume that Tony Cingrani's success last year in the majors was completely random, until you provide proof to me that his skill was the reason for it.

Using your method, I am going to assume that Brandon Phillips' drop in production was due to randomness, and out of his control. That there was no decline in his skill level, until you prove to me otherwise.

As I said, most of this game is decided by skill and execution. Every now and then, randomness plays a factor. But I am not going to assume that everything is random until proven otherwise.

[RedEye]

It would be confirmation bias if I never checked to see if it meshed with the data. I did, and it does mesh with the data. The data shows that Votto was less productive in 2013 in certain areas (power, runners on base), which confirms what I noticed through casual observation.


Again, sorry, but your "check" of the data was actually not sufficient to disprove or prove anything. The stats you've cited time and again are too small a sample and too insignificant to offer any explanation other than one of "random variation."

No matter how many times we repeat it, you keep re-asserting a blatant example of the very definition of confirmation bias. See the bolded text above, then look it up on the interwebs.

[RedEye]

Using your method, I am going to assume that Brandon Phillips' drop in production was due to randomness, and out of his control. That there was no decline in his skill level, until you prove to me otherwise.

Someone smarter than me with stats can spell this out better... but I think this is a pretty clear misunderstanding of what "randomness" is supposed to mean in statistics. The claim is not that BP's perceived performance change was due to randomness, but rather that that numbers you study do not show patterns that can be distinguished from the randomness of outcomes that we know to be a part of the game of baseball. See: Votto, Joey -- 2013 vs. 2011.

Instead of respecting the silence of the data on the matter, you are just reinserting the same casual conclusion you started with.

[757690]

Again, sorry, but your "check" of the data was actually not sufficient to disprove or prove anything. The stats you've cited time and again are too small a sample and too insignificant to offer any explanation other than one of "random variation."

No matter how many times we repeat it, you keep re-asserting a blatant example of the very definition of confirmation bias. See the bolded text above, then look it up on the interwebs.

That's false. The samples are his entire career vs all of 2013. Both samples are plenty big to offer explanations.

You are ignoring that the stats do back up the assertion that Votto's skill declined. It's right there in his decline in power and decline in BA with runners on base. Both of those samples are big enough to be considered evidence. My "bias" is being confirmed by hard statistical evidence.

It now is the job do a statistician to look deeper into that evidence to see if there is something else in there that explains why there was a decline. If they can't find anything, logic tells me that I should go with the most simple and obvious answer... That his skills declined.

[757690]

Someone smarter than me with stats can spell this out better... but I think this is a pretty clear misunderstanding of what "randomness" is supposed to mean in statistics. The claim is not that BP's perceived performance change was due to randomness, but rather that that numbers you study do not show patterns that can be distinguished from the randomness of outcomes that we know to be a part of the game of baseball. See: Votto, Joey -- 2013 vs. 2011.

Instead of respecting the silence of the data on the matter, you are just reinserting the same casual conclusion you started with.

You said:


In statistical measurement, the assumption is that a relationship does not exist between two phenomena unless proven otherwise. Randomness is the baseline -- correlation and causality are the exceptions.

That means that we have to assume that Phillips' decline in production must be assumed to be based on randomness unless proven otherwise. That's a necessary result of claiming that randomness is the baseline with correlation and causality being the exceptions.

Now go find me some stats that prove that Phillips' decline was due to anything other than randomness. Until then, I am going to assume it was just bad luck.

[RedEye]

It now is the job do a statistician to look deeper into that evidence to see if there is something else in there that explains why there was a decline. If they can't find anything, logic tells me that I should go with the most simple and obvious answer... That his skills declined.

I think it is reasonable to expect players to decline as they age. But look, the only supposedly "hard" evidence I've seen you post so far that shows a decline is the % of runs he's driven in. And I haven't seen you successfully rebut Steel's rejoinder to that claim -- that those numbers are not separable from the random outcomes of a handful of plate appearances in the seasons in question. Other than that, as other have shown (including Joe Posnanski) Votto's 2013 performance was actually right on par with the player he has been in the majority of his seasons with the Reds -- a patient, prodigious on-base machine with surprising pop.

But the ultimate flaw in your argument isn't in what you see in the data necessarily. It is in the "logical" step you make in bold above. There is nothing simple or obvious about asserting a decline in skill when pretty much everything except some RBI% numbers and RBI totals indicate that we are looking at, essentially, the same player with slight variations in outcomes.

[RedEye]

That means that we have to assume that Phillips' decline in production must be assumed to be based on randomness unless proven otherwise. That's a necessary result of claiming that randomness is the baseline with correlation and causality being the exceptions.


No. That means that when we read the statistics, we can't assert any certain causality just because there is no evidence to refute our interpretive whims. If you prefer, think of the word "randomness" as "mere coincidence" or "lack of any proven causal evidence." It is not an explanation of what happens on the field as much as a description of the relationship between data sets.

Anyway, I've done my best. If you still want to go on believing that your observations are correct, that's your prerogative. Just don't claim that the statistics back them up in any clear way.

[757690]

I think it is reasonable to expect players to decline as they age. But look, the only supposedly "hard" evidence I've seen you post so far that shows a decline is the % of runs he's driven in. And I haven't seen you successfully rebut Steel's rejoinder to that claim -- that those numbers are not separable from the random outcomes of a handful of plate appearances in the seasons in question. Other than that, as other have shown (including Joe Posnanski) Votto's 2013 performance was actually right on par with the player he has been in the majority of his seasons with the Reds -- a patient, prodigious on-base machine with surprising pop.

But the ultimate flaw in your argument isn't in what you see in the data necessarily. It is in the "logical" step you make in bold above. There is nothing simple or obvious about asserting a decline in skill when pretty much everything except some RBI% numbers and RBI totals indicate that we are looking at, essentially, the same player with slight variations in outcomes.

There was a significant and easy to see drop in Votto's power and in his drop in BA with runners on base. His stats are clear and emphatic about that.

I first went to see if the stats showed any anomalies, or evidence of it being the result of something out of Votto's control. There was nothing there that showed that. The next logical step is to blame his decline in power and BA with runners on base to a decline in skills.

As for Steel's argument, I did refute it.

It was flawed because it only looked at one year other than 2013, 2011. 2011 was a year which saw Votto drive in around 10-15 more runs than his career average. That difference can be explained by his abnormally high BA with runners scoring position for that year. However, if you normalize his BA with runners in scoring position for that year, his RBI numbers would be right in line with his career average.

That does nothing to explain why 2013 was so low in the run driven in department for Votto. It only explains why his RBI total in 2011 was so high.

In 2013, he was 20 runs lower than his career average in terms of RBI's, and dropped from around 20% of runners driven in to 12% of runners driven in. There is nothing in the numbers that explain those drops to his 2013 numbers from his career numbers as random or due to something unsustainable through his career. The fact that in one of his other years he had something unsustainable, is irrelevant to understanding the drop in 2013. We need to find something in his career numbers vs. his 2013 numbers that show randomness or unsustainability, not something from just one isolated year.

[757690]

No. That means that when we read the statistics, we can't assert any certain causality just because there is no evidence to refute our interpretive whims. If you prefer, think of the word "randomness" as "mere coincidence" or "lack of any proven causal evidence." It is not an explanation of what happens on the field as much as a description of the relationship between data sets.

Anyway, I've done my best. If you still want to go on believing that your observations are correct, that's your prerogative. Just don't claim that the statistics back them up in any clear way.

Only the stats do back what my observations told me.

I think the problem here is that you are starting with stats, and ignoring observation altogether. I'm starting with observation, then seeing if the stats back up what I thought I saw.

[RedEye]

I first went to see if the stats showed any anomalies, or evidence of it being the result of something out of Votto's control. There was nothing there that showed that. The next logical step is to blame his decline in power and BA with runners on base to a decline in skills.


That's actually not sound reasoning with statistics. If the stats don't show anything clear, they don't show anything clear. That doesn't mean you go back to the premise you started with. It means you label the case "unsolved" or "pending further investigation." You had no hard data to begin with, as neither his decline in power nor his BA with RISP were significant trends to start.

[puca]

There was a significant and easy to see drop in Votto's power and in his drop in BA with runners on base. His stats are clear and emphatic about that.

I first went to see if the stats showed any anomalies, or evidence of it being the result of something out of Votto's control. There was nothing there that showed that. The next logical step is to blame his decline in power and BA with runners on base to a decline in skills.


So I assume you charted all of the pitches of each and every AB with runners in scoring position and did a detailed analysis to determine that he was seeing just as many pitches in his hitting zone as in 2011. I'd love to see those numbers because, besides the fact that you are dealing with a fairly small sample size (134 ABs with runners in scoring position), isn't it possible the decline had to do with the quality of pitches Joey Votto saw in those ABs?

His slash line with the bases empty, when pitchers would be less apt to pitch around him, was right on his career norms.

[RedsManRick]

Where did I draw a conclusion? I stated an hypothesis based on observation, that Votto's skill have declined, and tested it out by looking deeper into the data. That is the very definition of the Scientific Method.

And I have seen stats that explain one year's worth of exceptional production from Votto from the stuff you mentioned, but nothing demonstrates that the difference between Votto's 2013 and his career numbers are based on randomness.[/QUOTE]

Which skill(s) declined? I ask for 2 reasons.

Firstly, the data show a decline in performance. The stats we have that we consider most indicative of skills actually don't show a decline. That's what's so confounding.

Secondly, the way the scientific method works is that you create a hypothesis based on your observations and then test it quantitatively using statistical analysis. You did this backwards; qualitative observation is not the way by which you test your hypothesis scientifically. But in order to test your alternate hypothesis (that Votto lost skill in 2013), we have to know what skill you're applying that to and what your measure is that you want to test.

Statistically speaking, in hypothesis testing you have two values, usually the averages from two different groups.

In this case, we have the Votto skill level up through 2013 as one value -- this could be his career figure, some regressed estimate, whatever. And then our second value is his 2013 performance.

We then have two hypotheses:
1. Joey Votto's talent level stayed the same
2. Joey Votto's talent level changed

The null hypothesis, our default, is that his talent level stayed the same. The question becomes, does our data from 2013 allow us to reject that hypothesis and conclude that his talent level did indeed change. To do this, we look at what we know about the natural "random" variation of that talent metric and see just how far away our 2nd observation is from the first. The general rule of the thumb is that if it falls more than 3 standard deviations away, you have reasonable grounds to reject the null hypothesis.

If you can tell me what skill measure you want to test this way, I'd be happy to run the data.

A quick aside, this process does NOT produce an estimate of his current talent level. We can certainly do that, but it's a different process. If we're talking about ISO, for example, his post-2013 performance would certainly produce an estimate that is lower than his post-2012 estimate. For example, Steamer has Votto at a .211 ISO for 2014, between his 2013 performance (.186) and career figure (.227).

As for Tony Cingrani, we didn't go in to 2013 blind. We had some idea of what to expect based on his minor league track record. So the question you seem to be asking is "Can we attribute Cingrani's success above and beyond our expectations to "luck" or did he do enough to "prove" that he was more talented than we thought?", we can absolutely test that statistically.

[757690]

And I have seen stats that explain one year's worth of exceptional production from Votto from the stuff you mentioned, but nothing demonstrates that the difference between Votto's 2013 and his career numbers are based on randomness.

Which skill(s) declined? I ask because the way the scientific method works is that you create a hypothesis based on your observations and then test it quantitatively using statistical analysis. You did this backwards; qualitative observation is not the way by which you test your hypothesis scientifically.

Statistically speaking, in hypothesis testing you have two values, usually the averages from two different groups.

In this case, we have the Votto skill level up through 2013 as one value -- this could be his career figure, some regressed estimate, whatever. And then our second value is his 2013 performance.

We then have two hypotheses:
1. Joey Votto's talent level stayed the same
2. Joey Votto's talent level changed

The null hypothesis, our default, is that his talent level stayed the same. The question becomes, does our data from 2013 allow us to reject that hypothesis and conclude that his talent level did indeed change. To do this, we look at what we know about the natural "random" variation of that talent metric and see just how far away our 2nd observation is from the first. The general rule of the thumb is that if it falls more than 3 standard deviations away, you have reasonable grounds to reject the null hypothesis.

If you can tell me what skill measure you want to test this way, I'd be happy to run the data.

A quick aside, this process does NOT produce an estimate of his current talent level. We can certainly do that, but it's a different process. If we're talking about ISO, for example, his post-2013 performance would certainly produce an estimate that is lower than his post-2012 estimate. For example, Steamer has Votto at a .211 ISO for 2014, between his 2013 performance (.186) and career figure (.227).[/QUOTE]

I did not work backwards, I used the exact scientific method you spelled out.

Let me repeat it one more time.

1. I observed that Votto was hitting with less power, getting fooled more often, and providing more awkward swings than he usually does. I think anyone who watched Reds games last season agree with this observation.

2. I tested that hypothesis, that Votto was hitting the ball squarely less often, against the stats. The stats backed me up on this. His power numbers were down, significantly enough suggest a drop in skill level, the skill to hit with power on a consistent basis. The "null hypothesis", that his skill level didn't change, was challenged by these stats that showed a clear loss in power.

3. I then read every post on Votto here to see if anyone provided an explanation for his reduced power that went beyond something he could control. I wanted to make sure that his loss of power wasn't due to something up like randomness, or the hitters around him, or being pitched around. I found nothing conclusive on any if these issues. The stats didn't provide me with any answers as to why Votto's power numbers were down.

4. With the stats showing a clear loss of power, and no other stats showing that forces outside of his control were at work, logic tells me to believe that Votto wasn't hitting the ball as squarely as he normally does. My hypothesis was confirmed after looking at the data.

[RedEye]

You are moving the goal posts now, 757690. "Hitting the ball squarely" or not is a performance issue that does not line up perfectly with the skill level of a player -- and you still haven't provided a data -driven rationale for going back to your qualitative hypothesis. There are many other possible explanations -- to many to simply go back and say that Votto has declined in any measurable or sustainable manner.

You seem to assume that there is a stat to account for all possible outcomes. There is not. Many times, results are just caused by the way the ball bounces or the situational logic of the game. There is no compelling reason to think that Votto's power drop derives from a decline in overall skill. There may well be evidence of that in future seasons, but not so far.

[757690]

You are moving the goal posts now, 757690. "Hitting the ball squarely" or not is a performance issue that does not line up perfectly with the skill level of a player -- and you still haven't provided a data -driven rationale for going back to your qualitative hypothesis.

Hitting the ball squarely is the number one skill required of a major league hitter. If that declines, his skill as a baseball player has declined.

The data was already provided. But here is it is again.

Votto's career isolated power numbers was .241 coming into 2013. In 2013 it was .183. If you break it down it looks even worse. The stats back up what I saw.

[RedEye]

Hitting the ball squarely is the number one skill required of a major league hitter. If that declines, his skill as a baseball player has declined.

The data was already provided. But here is it is again.

Votto's career isolated power numbers was .241 coming into 2013. In 2013 it was .183. If you break it down it looks even worse. The stats back up what I saw.

That data point means very little by itself. It is one season in the acceptable range of variation. If the downward trend continues and stretches over multiple seasons, we might have something to talk about, but right now the case is pretty inconclusive. Look, I think RMR has already responded to this argument at length, so at this point, I am pretty sure no amount of counter evidence is going to sway you from your claim. I suppose we have reached the infamous "agree to disagree."

[RedLegsToday]

I wonder how much of Joey's decline is the fact that the Pirates pitching staff has drastically improved, and he didn't get to face the Astros "pitching" 15 times.

edit: vs. Houston, lifetime: .363/.441/.595

[757690]

I wonder how much of Joey's decline is the fact that the Pirates pitching staff has drastically improved, and he didn't get to face the Astros "pitching" 15 times.

That's something worth investigating. :thumbup:

[757690]

That data point means very little by itself. It is one season in the acceptable range of variation. If the downward trend continues and stretches over multiple seasons, we might have something to talk about, but right now the case is pretty inconclusive. Look, I think RMR has already responded to this argument at length, so at this point, I am pretty sure no amount of counter evidence is going to sway you from your claim. I suppose we have reached the infamous "agree to disagree."

25% decline in one season is not an acceptable decline. If he went from his career .314 BA to a 25% decline .236 BA, I think you wouldn't just write it off to randomness.

[RedEye]

25% decline in one season is not an acceptable decline. If he went from his career .314 BA to a 25% decline .236 BA, I think you wouldn't just write it off to randomness.

Depends on the surrounding statistics, as others have already pointed out to you at length. In this case, they suggest a dip in outcomes but not a trend toward overall decline. The comparison to BA is apples and oranges.

[RedLegsToday]

I wonder how much of Joey's decline is the fact that the Pirates pitching staff has drastically improved, and he didn't get to face the Astros "pitching" 15 times.

edit: vs. Houston, lifetime: .363/.441/.595

didn't want to re-edit that post again.

That line is in 297 pa's. The only team he has a higher OPS against in more than 12 PA's is the Mets (.338/.438/.684 in 162PA).

[RedEye]

That's something worth investigating. :thumbup:

And would be another possibility not ruled out by the stats you cited as well...

[HokieRed]

25% decline in one season is not an acceptable decline. If he went from his career .314 BA to a 25% decline .236 BA, I think you wouldn't just write it off to randomness.

The greatest Red, IMHO, of my very long years of watching the ballclub went from hitting .342 in 1962 to hitting .259 in 1963 (as long as BA is the term of the discussion). Back to .306 in 1964. So I'd say that 25% decline in one year was quite "acceptable." I don't mean to imply by this, by the way, that I think Votto had a "bad year" last year. I most emphatically do not.

[RedLegsToday]

As far as the Pirates go, Joey has a .991 career ops against them. this year, a very walk heavy 1.000 (.323/.500/.500).

Also, of note, he usually crushes the Brewers, but, did not hit particularly well against them in 2013. I don't know if there is anything to read into that, they're all such small samples that it ends up being pretty random within a single season.

[757690]

The greatest Red, IMHO, of my very long years of watching the ballclub went from hitting .342 in 1962 to hitting .259 in 1963 (as long as BA is the term of the discussion). Back to .306 in 1964. So I'd say that 25% decline in one year was quite "acceptable." I don't mean to imply by this, by the way, that I think Votto had a "bad year" last year. I most emphatically do not.

That's a really good example. Robinson was battling injuries in 1963, which lowered his skill level temporarily. When he got healthy, his skill level went back to normal.

Votto likely wasn't fully healed last season, and that my be the cause of his decline in skill. At least I hope so, since that would mean he's likely to get back to his old power next season and beyond.

One other note on this subject. The good news is that even if Votto did loss some skill in hitting for power last season for whatever reason, he adapted in Vottoesque form and made up for his lack of power by getting on base more than his career average. He did this the year before too. So the end result was similar overall production.

[RedEye]

That's a really good example. Robinson was battling injuries in 1963, which lowered his skill level temporarily. When he got healthy, his skill level went back to normal.


That's such an easy narrative. I'm sure the injuries could have contributed. But so could have other factors in his game. Or the game itself. It's really hard to draw one-to-one correspondences between outcomes and skills. I think that's the takeaway lesson here in our discussion.

[757690]

That's such an easy narrative. I'm sure the injuries could have contributed. But so could have other factors in his game. Or the game itself. It's really hard to draw one-to-one correspondences between outcomes and skills. I think that's the takeaway lesson here in our discussion.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Occam's_Razor.svg

[RedEye]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/Occam's_Razor.svg

A blunt instrument, unfortunately, when there is more information readily available.

My other response is... "Oh no you didn't!" LOL.

[The_Mudshark]

I wonder how much of Joey's decline is the fact that the Pirates pitching staff has drastically improved, and he didn't get to face the Astros "pitching" 15 times.

edit: vs. Houston, lifetime: .363/.441/.595

Hey now - Harrel and Peacock can ball!

[swaisuc]

That's such an easy narrative. I'm sure the injuries could have contributed. But so could have other factors in his game. Or the game itself. It's really hard to draw one-to-one correspondences between outcomes and skills. I think that's the takeaway lesson here in our discussion.

Sure, but if you go down that road you can pretty much explain away any amount of production or lack of production over any amount of time. If we're willing to now call 1000 ABs since the injury a small sample size and say that skill doesn't lead to outcome, then it doesn't matter if Votto's OPS was 1.100, .900, or .600.

You can't go down that road even if it's statistically defensible, otherwise who is to say that Joey Votto is a better hitter than Zack Cozart? We only have thousands of ABs and different levels of outcomes to say so.

[RedEye]

Sure, but if you go down that road you can pretty much explain away any amount of production or lack of production over any amount of time.

You could but I wouldn't. The specific conversation we are dealing with here involves a few hundred PA for Votto that did not differ appreciably from his career norms.

[swaisuc]

You could but I wouldn't. The specific conversation we are dealing with here involves a few hundred PA for Votto that did not differ appreciably from his career norms.

Sorry, I'm missing something then. Which few hundred PA's are we talking about? I guess I thought we were talking about the entire 2013 season or the time since the injury.

[RedEye]

Sorry, I'm missing something then. Which few hundred PA's are we talking about? I guess I thought we were talking about the entire 2013 season or the time since the injury.

It has been a bit confusing, but I thought the discussion had to do with the stats that 757690 cited earlier -- that Votto's % of runs driven in had fallen from 20% to 12% and that his ISO had diminished in 2013. There are different problems with using either as sufficient proof of a veritable decline in skill -- probably the former more than the latter.

Look, I'm not debating that Votto's ISO did not go down in 2013. It certainly did. What I'm debating is our ability to attribute that fluctuation to any sort particular cause for this -- and certainly of our ability to speculate about any particular skill change. Given what we know about hitters and their stats over time, I'm of the opinion that this dip could just as well be a random fluctuation of outcomes that is part of the game of baseball.