PDA

View Full Version : Why are some baseball players inconsistent by the month? Reasons?



Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:01 PM
Why are some baseball players inconsistent by the month? Reasons?



April
Chris Dickerson .205 .321 .341 .662
Brandon Phillips .188 .293 .319 .612
Joey Votto .346 .411 .568 .979
Johnny Gomes Minors
Wladimir Balentien .310 .323 .448 .771 Seattle
Ryan Hanigan .357 .438 .429 .867
Adam Rosales .500 .500 .500 1.000 2 AB
Paul Janish .357 .438 .429 .867
Laynce Nix .310 .355 .621 .976
Willy Taveras .262 .351 .338 .689
Jay Bruce .258 .338 .530 .868
Ramon Hernandez .246 .303 .344 .647
Drew Sutton Minors

May June
Chris Dickerson .271 .417 .396 .813 Chris Dickerson .333 .394 .429 .823
Brandon Phillips .352 .392 .682 1.074 Brandon Phillips .253 .325 .394 .719
Joey Votto .378 .541 .733 1.274 Joey Votto .321 .387 .500 .887
Johnny Gomes .375 .444 .438 .882 Johnny Gomes .327 .424 .636 1.060
Wladimir Balentien .209 .260 .328 .588 Wladimir Balentien .205 .279 .385 .664
Ryan Hanigan .314 .410 .392 .802 Ryan Hanigan .318 .400 .379 .779
Adam Rosales .241 .327 .356 .683 Adam Rosales .079 .178 .079 .257
Paul Janish .269 .345 .346 .691 Paul Janish .148 .179 .185 .364
Laynce Nix .242 .304 .484 .788 Laynce Nix .254 .299 .493 .792
Willy Taveras .269 .307 .333 .640 Willy Taveras .167 .167 .208 .375
Jay Bruce .212 .276 .487 .763 Jay Bruce .187 .292 .385 .677
Ramon Hernandez .312 .383 .419 .802 Ramon Hernandez .174 .283 .314 .597
Drew Sutton Minors Drew Sutton Minors

July August
Chris Dickerson .215 .292 .277 .569 Chris Dickerson .375 .459 .469 .928
Brandon Phillips .273 .314 .455 .769 Brandon Phillips .197 .254 .311 .565
Joey Votto .324 .352 .598 .950 Joey Votto .188 .291 .290 .581
Johnny Gomes .213 .304 .525 .829 Johnny Gomes .239 .286 .587 .873
Wladimir Balentien .095 .208 .238 .446 Wladimir Balentien .282 .378 .385 .763
Ryan Hanigan .297 .395 .324 .719 Ryan Hanigan .140 .218 .200 .418
Adam Rosales .273 .304 .545 .849 Adam Rosales .212 .305 .346 .651
Paul Janish .176 .333 .176 .509 Paul Janish .148 .207 .148 .355
Laynce Nix .175 .242 .263 .505 Laynce Nix .333 .367 .578 .945
Willy Taveras .250 .273 .271 .544 Willy Taveras .222 .236 .241 .477
Jay Bruce .138 .138 .241 .379 Jay Bruce DL
Ramon Hernandez .273 .350 .303 .653 Ramon Hernandez DL
Drew Sutton .071 .133 .143 .276 Drew Sutton .214 .267 .357 .624



Season
C. Dickerson .274 .369 .373 .742
B. Phillips .260 .320 .445 .765
Joey Votto .308 .388 .535 .923
Jonny Gomes .270 .351 .567 .919
W. Balentien .275 .370 .375 .745
Ryan Hanigan .275 .364 .335 .699
Adam Rosales .209 .293 .323 .616
Paul Janish .207 .285 .243 .528
Laynce Nix .254 .306 .470 .776
Jay Bruce .207 .283 .441 .724
R Hernandez .249 .330 .355 .685
Drew Sutton .167 .222 .286 .508
Willy Taveras .238 .273 .284 .557


Janish Minor League
2008 25 Louisville IL AAA .252 .324 .387 .711
2007 24 Louisville IL AAA .221 .278 .317 .594
2007 24 Chattanooga AA .244 .358 .330 .688

Sutton Minor League
2009 26 2 Teams 2 Lgs AAA .262 .382 .453 .835
2008 25 Corpus Christi AA .317 .408 .523 .931
2007 24 Corpus Christi AA .269 .351 .388 .738

Dom Heffner
08-22-2009, 02:04 PM
I always thought it was called average for a reason.

Nobody hits their season end line every month, do they?

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:09 PM
I always thought it was called average for a reason.

Nobody hits their season end line every month, do they?

I don't think so I don't know. I was just looking through them at ESPN stats, and I started wondering why some of the players seem to have the differences in their month to month, some slight, some significant. I really don't know why, other than an obvious such as injuries, fatigue etc. I thought that maybe others could shed some light on the reasons.

pahster
08-22-2009, 02:14 PM
Why are some baseball players inconsistent by the month? Reasons?


Injuries, mechanical problems, and stochastic error.

George Anderson
08-22-2009, 02:18 PM
It could be personal problems. Johnny Bench had a very subpar 1975 season which many felt his divorce that was on going thru during the 75' season was part of the reason why. Also I believe he injured his shoulder on a Gary Matthews tag of home during the 75' season.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:18 PM
Injuries, mechanical problems, and stochastic error.

I learned something new already, I had to look that word up. I had never seen that before in my life :)

sto·chas·tic [stə kástik]
adj
1. statistics random: involving or showing random behavior
2. statistics involving probability: involving or subject to probabilistic behavior
3. involving guesswork: involving guesswork or conjecture (formal)

Dom Heffner
08-22-2009, 02:20 PM
I just don't think the turning of the calendar effects most players.

Law of averages would say that you are going to have up and own months.

It's why it is called "average." You take all the numbers and average them together.

Of course with the case of the Reds- you have guys who don't have much talent- they can get hot for long enough to hold a job, but they aren't consistent enough to hit at a .300 clip the whole year.

The guys who can are superstars, but even they are going to fluctuate from any given time period.

Joey Votto OPsed at a 1.2 clip for the first part of the season- if he kept that up all year, he'd be a hall of famer. He can't keep that up, and it's just the law of averages.

I just don't see monthly fluctualtions as anything other than ordinary baseball.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:21 PM
It could be personal problems. Johnny Bench had a very subpar 1975 season which many felt his divorce that was on going thru during the 75' season was part of the reason why.

I recall that. It was a bit nasty. We could call that personal distractions and that sometimes even effect the greatest in the game.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:32 PM
I just don't think the turning of the calendar effects most players.

Law of averages would say that you are going to have up and own months.

It's why it is called "average." You take all the numbers and average them together.

Of course with the case of the Reds- you have guys who don't have much talent- they can get hot for long enough to hold a job, but they aren't consistent enough to hit at a .300 clip the whole year.

The guys who can are superstars, but even they are going to fluctuate from any given time period.

Joey Votto OPsed at a 1.2 clip for the first part of the season- if he kept that up all year, he'd be a hall of famer. He can't keep that up, and it's just the law of averages.

I just don't see monthly fluctualtions as anything other than ordinary baseball.

Each pitch from each pitcher is different, and each pitcher is different from month to month, and the individual swings are different per situation that leads to the compiling of the averages or stats?? I don’t know, maybe I’m thinking too much, right into an empty box?

I guess I see them sometimes as being very good, then other times I wonder who is wearing their uniform.

RedsManRick
08-22-2009, 02:37 PM
Why, when you flip a coin, does it not alternate heads and tails perfectly? It's called variance and it's part of every event in life. Monthly splits are essentially random, centered around the players true level of ability.

Yes, there will be patterns if you look hard enough, but those patterns are not predictive over time. In other words, how well a guy has performed in Augusts past doesn't tell you anything insightful about how he's likely to perform next August.

Dom Heffner
08-22-2009, 02:38 PM
I wonder this, too- look at Rich Harden. There are days he is the most unhittable pitcher in baseball and others he looks like me out there.

With Harden it's control- he stunk for a good part of the first half because he couldn't throw strikes. These guys are human- there are always going to be a certain number of starts where they dont have the best stuff. Some more than others.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:49 PM
Why, when you flip a coin, does it not alternate heads and tails perfectly? It's called variance and it's part of every event in life. Monthly splits are essentially random, centered around the players true level of ability.

Yes, there will be patterns if you look hard enough, but those patterns are not predictive over time. In other words, how well a guy has performed in Augusts past doesn't tell you anything insightful about how he's likely to perform next August.

I am not sure how to write or say this. But, is there a way to adjust players for that variance to maybe a more consistent core number? Kind of like saying for player X who OPS one month .1000, another month OPS .875, another month .925, then another month .773 and so forth. Is there a way to find out what they really are as a day to day player adjusted OPS? Or is that getting out there on the bizarre walk?

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 02:57 PM
I wonder this, too- look at Rich Harden. There are days he is the most unhittable pitcher in baseball and others he looks like me out there.

With Harden it's control- he stunk for a good part of the first half because he couldn't throw strikes. These guys are human- there are always going to be a certain number of starts where they dont have the best stuff. Some more than others.

The common answer that the analysist seem to give for the pitchers is mechanics and release points etc. It makes sense that the pitch of the pitchers and the swings of the batter cannot be the same each attempt, so the outcomes will be different.

Talent and skills ?

pahster
08-22-2009, 03:04 PM
I am not sure how to write or say this. But, is there a way to adjust players for that variance to maybe a more consistent core number? Kind of like saying for player X who OPS one month .1000, another month OPS .875, another month .925, then another month .773 and so forth. Is there a way to find out what they really are as a day to day player adjusted OPS? Or is that getting out there on the bizarre walk?

It sounds like you're just talking about their seasonal averages.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 03:09 PM
It sounds like you're just talking about their seasonal averages.

My question evolved as I read each of your comments. It came to mind, is there a way to tell what a player is, or since there are variances from time to time day, month, year, multiple years etc. Is there a way to boil down the numbers to a core number to say player X or Y is a certain numerical measurement, something more defining than the average.

Getting away from my orignal question in starting the thread, but, additional comments, provoke additional thinking and questions.

Scrap Irony
08-22-2009, 03:48 PM
This is something the Reds would be wise to research, as the team as currently comprised is heavily streaky (past dialogues with nate aside). I would think an above average offense is one with both streaky and consistent hitters.

RedsManRick
08-22-2009, 04:00 PM
I am not sure how to write or say this. But, is there a way to adjust players for that variance to maybe a more consistent core number? Kind of like saying for player X who OPS one month .1000, another month OPS .875, another month .925, then another month .773 and so forth. Is there a way to find out what they really are as a day to day player adjusted OPS? Or is that getting out there on the bizarre walk?

Absolutely. What you're asking about is a two pronged answer of basic stats.

The law of large numbers says that the bigger your sample gets, the closer it gets to reality. Big samples = better guesses. And because a players true talent does change over time, we give more credit to the most recent observations. This is how you go about making a single best guess. But that's still pretty imprecise.

So we have confidence intervals. They basically say, we're X% sure that the real answer is within a certain range of our best guess. As the sample size increases (given a certain of confidence), the range gets smaller. It never goes away completely, but it gets smaller as we include more plate appearances. Even after a player's entire career we can't be 100% certain about his talent level, but we have a really really good idea. It's that simple.

Let's pretend we have a player and don't yet have a good guess of his true talent level (as measured by OPS). As we look at his OPS by day, we see a range from 0.000 to 4.000. The average day is .775, but the range on any day is huge. His weeks range from .250 to 2.000. Again, the average is .775, but the range is still very big -- for all we know, his true sill is anwhere in that range. His months range from .600 to 1.000. Yet again, a .775 average month, but this time the range is getting smaller. Yet, we still don't know whether he's a star or a scrub. But when we look at their years, they vary from .675 to .900. Now we're starting to get the picture. In fact, his last 3 years are .900, .700, .800. Now, because talent does change over time, we weight the most recent observations more heavily. Studies put it about 60-30-10.

Do the math and our imaginary player comes out to .780. That doesn't mean he's exactly a .780 guy, but that's our best guess. And because we're using a good chunk of data, that range is now pretty small. So we could say that we think he's a .780 OPS guy and we're 95% sure the actual level (which, again we can never know with absolute certainty) is between .740 and .820.

One day samples tell you nothing, statistically speaking. One month samples tell you very little. Half seasons tell you a bit. Full seasons tell you a good deal and multiple years give you a really good idea.

The trick is to realize that there's nothing special about the calendar, just the amount of observations you have. The 25 games from May 1 to June 1 are no more or less important in identifying his true talent level than the games from May 15 to June 15. The month cutoffs are completely arbitrary as it relates to performance.

An easy, if quite simplified, way to think about it is that if you're trying to predict the next day, week, month, or year -- those OPS's are all going to be the same based on what you think the guy's true talent is -- the average of that range or of all of those possible ranges. But how confident you can be with that guess is based on how big your sample is. And your best guess of his true talent is based on a big sample of what he's done in the recent past.

The big takeaway however should be to simply stop looking at monthly splits. They just make it confusing and don't really tell us anything about what's likely to happen in future months, be it the next month or the same month next year.

PuffyPig
08-22-2009, 04:00 PM
Baseball is a very random game, and the difference between great, good and below average players is very little (as little as 10% separates a .300 hitter from a .270 hitter to a .240 hitter).

Luck and randomness can easily account for wide variances between a player's months. It's actaully to be expected. It would be impossible for a player to hit his average every month over a long period of time. What you might expect to see is more consistency in a hitters walk rate and K rate, but the rest is too random to be consistent.

RedsManRick
08-22-2009, 04:03 PM
This is something the Reds would be wise to research, as the team as currently comprised is heavily streaky (past dialogues with nate aside). I would think an above average offense is one with both streaky and consistent hitters.

I know this is a conversation that we've had many times around here, but nobody has yet that Reds players are any more streaky than any other players. It certainly may seem that away as we watch them, but that's because we're exposed to nearly every event, whereas we have more exposure to other players in their aggregate totals.

I won't dismiss the possibility that our players are streaky, but the human eyes and brain a horrible tool to assess streakiness -- we're not wired for it. So what is your definition of streaky, how do Reds players come out in that calculation and how does it compare to other players? What is the "average" level of streakiness across MLB?

fearofpopvol1
08-22-2009, 04:23 PM
I will say that...although there may no be way to actually prove it, Arroyo strikes me as one of the streakiest pitchers I have ever seen.

Raisor
08-22-2009, 05:36 PM
I will say that...although there may no be way to actually prove it, Arroyo strikes me as one of the streakiest pitchers I have ever seen.

Depends on how many pitchers you've seen in your life.

And I'm not being snarky. It really does matter.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 09:07 PM
Absolutely. What you're asking about is a two pronged answer of basic stats.

The law of large numbers says that the bigger your sample gets, the closer it gets to reality. Big samples = better guesses. And because a players true talent does change over time, we give more credit to the most recent observations. This is how you go about making a single best guess. But that's still pretty imprecise.

So we have confidence intervals. They basically say, we're X% sure that the real answer is within a certain range of our best guess. As the sample size increases (given a certain of confidence), the range gets smaller. It never goes away completely, but it gets smaller as we include more plate appearances. Even after a player's entire career we can't be 100% certain about his talent level, but we have a really really good idea. It's that simple.

Let's pretend we have a player and don't yet have a good guess of his true talent level (as measured by OPS). As we look at his OPS by day, we see a range from 0.000 to 4.000. The average day is .775, but the range on any day is huge. His weeks range from .250 to 2.000. Again, the average is .775, but the range is still very big -- for all we know, his true sill is anwhere in that range. His months range from .600 to 1.000. Yet again, a .775 average month, but this time the range is getting smaller. Yet, we still don't know whether he's a star or a scrub. But when we look at their years, they vary from .675 to .900. Now we're starting to get the picture. In fact, his last 3 years are .900, .700, .800. Now, because talent does change over time, we weight the most recent observations more heavily. Studies put it about 60-30-10.

Do the math and our imaginary player comes out to .780. That doesn't mean he's exactly a .780 guy, but that's our best guess. And because we're using a good chunk of data, that range is now pretty small. So we could say that we think he's a .780 OPS guy and we're 95% sure the actual level (which, again we can never know with absolute certainty) is between .740 and .820.

One day samples tell you nothing, statistically speaking. One month samples tell you very little. Half seasons tell you a bit. Full seasons tell you a good deal and multiple years give you a really good idea.

The trick is to realize that there's nothing special about the calendar, just the amount of observations you have. The 25 games from May 1 to June 1 are no more or less important in identifying his true talent level than the games from May 15 to June 15. The month cutoffs are completely arbitrary as it relates to performance.

An easy, if quite simplified, way to think about it is that if you're trying to predict the next day, week, month, or year -- those OPS's are all going to be the same based on what you think the guy's true talent is -- the average of that range or of all of those possible ranges. But how confident you can be with that guess is based on how big your sample is. And your best guess of his true talent is based on a big sample of what he's done in the recent past.

The big takeaway however should be to simply stop looking at monthly splits. They just make it confusing and don't really tell us anything about what's likely to happen in future months, be it the next month or the same month next year.

RedsManRick this is really insightful and helpful. Thank you for taking the time to show us this in some very good detail. With this team then we cannot fairly asses most of the players then? Would that be correct? Yet we would have a better read on perhaps some of the older players, though there is few of them on this team presently. I am wrong at this stage in their careers if I personally draw concluscions about them, is what I am seeing here and also sense intuitively. Again like I was doing last year, I am looking at too small of samples for the current group. Right ?

They will all have to have more AB/PA over time to tell then and to be more fair.

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 09:17 PM
Baseball is a very random game, and the difference between great, good and below average players is very little (as little as 10% separates a .300 hitter from a .270 hitter to a .240 hitter).

Luck and randomness can easily account for wide variances between a player's months. It's actaully to be expected. It would be impossible for a player to hit his average every month over a long period of time. What you might expect to see is more consistency in a hitters walk rate and K rate, but the rest is too random to be consistent.

This is very helpful too. What you are speaking about is something that I can't really see with an emotional set of fans eyes when looking at the team play, it is something that has to be researched and reviewed per player over a larger amount of AB/PA and time.

The guy could be hitting the ball very well and be making outs, which doesn't necessarily say that he is a poor hitter, am I understanding luck and randomness correctly? I was trying to look and see who is and who is not good with this team, but the whole story or truth, is not in the month to month is it?

Spring~Fields
08-22-2009, 09:25 PM
I know this is a conversation that we've had many times around here, but nobody has yet that Reds players are any more streaky than any other players. It certainly may seem that away as we watch them, but that's because we're exposed to nearly every event, whereas we have more exposure to other players in their aggregate totals.

I won't dismiss the possibility that our players are streaky, but the human eyes and brain a horrible tool to assess streakiness -- we're not wired for it. So what is your definition of streaky, how do Reds players come out in that calculation and how does it compare to other players? What is the "average" level of streakiness across MLB?

So if we are saying "streaky" or "inconsistent" we are trying to imply that the players are not performing up to our personal expectation then right? So I really cannot call them streaky or inconsistent, suggesting that these players are under performing scrubs. I don't really know that then do I, unless we can get a larger sample size on these players which would call for them to get more AB/PA.

How do we end up telling what we have on this team then? Can we find some valid hope in some of them being better or more than "we think we might be seeing now"? I mean I don't think it is uncommon to be wrong about a player, speaking for myself only, they do improve or regress. These guys right now mostly have small samples.

RedsManRick
08-23-2009, 12:06 AM
RedsManRick this is really insightful and helpful. Thank you for taking the time to show us this in some very good detail. With this team then we cannot fairly asses most of the players then? Would that be correct? Yet we would have a better read on perhaps some of the older players, though there is few of them on this team presently. I am wrong at this stage in their careers if I personally draw concluscions about them, is what I am seeing here and also sense intuitively. Again like I was doing last year, I am looking at too small of samples for the current group. Right ?

They will all have to have more AB/PA over time to tell then and to be more fair.

A few things:

1) We should differentiate between the concepts of predicting and projecting. Not that you've used these incorrectly, but they sometimes get used interchangeably in these conversations, which adds to the confusion. "Projecting" is taking a set of assumptions and looking at how things would play out given those. A prediction is choosing a specific projection that you believe is most likely to occur. Just an FYI.

2) At the major league level, we always have a body of work from which we can make some "best guess" about a player's true ability. Even with rookies, there are ways to translate their minor league numbers and use them to project major league performance. (e.g. a .300/.350/.450 line in AAA might translate to a .270/.325/.400 line in the majors) Admittedly, minor league translations aren't as reliable as major league numbers, but they're better than nothing. We had a pretty good idea that Votto was likely to be a better hitter than Adam Rosales.

That said, our estimation of a guy's talent level based on his track record (using something like the 60-30-10 method) is just a starting point. For a young guy, we might adjust our projections up from what his history would suggest because we know historically that young players tend to improve. Or we might adjust down for a guy who is aging and whom history tells us is likely to decline. But for any player, the most likely thing for him to do in the near future is perform at his talent level. So we look back at the last few years, weight them by recency, and that gives us our best guess for his current talent level.

I think it's wise to always to take our understanding of a player's true ability with a grain of salt. The reality is that there is a simply a lot of "noise", variation due to player talent changes over time (a guy legitimately improves or declines), varying opportunity (park effects or bad pitchers), and simply experiences of extended streaks of success and/or failure. The biggest mistake we make is is underestimating what really counts as a "small sample" -- particularly when what we're seeing confirms our predictions...

RedsManRick
08-23-2009, 12:59 AM
So if we are saying "streaky" or "inconsistent" we are trying to imply that the players are not performing up to our personal expectation then right? So I really cannot call them streaky or inconsistent, suggesting that these players are under performing scrubs. I don't really know that then do I, unless we can get a larger sample size on these players which would call for them to get more AB/PA.

Well, we should clear up what streaky means. Is Aaron Harang "streaky" as a hitter because he makes lots of outs in a row? I don't think that's what people mean. They mean that whatever a guy's average stats are, he gets them in runs instead of evenly distributed. Let's use a coin as an example.

We know that there is a 50% chance of heads and a 50% chance of tails on any given toss. When we say streaky in general, we mean that we get long runs of heads and tails. But what's funny is that the way randomness works, streaks are to be expected. If you were to toss a coin 10 times, you would not expect HTHTHTHTHT. That is actually an unusual occurrence.

We should actually expect to see something with some streaks, like HTTTHHTHHHT. "More streaky" would mean something like HHHHHTTTTT.

So people see one of our guys go on a cold streak or hot streak and start saying that we have "streaky" players. Well, yeah, I suppose so. But every single player in MLB is streaky by that definition. Every single player, regardless of how talented they are, experiences long streaks of relative success and failure. If we want to say that our players are more streaky than the average MLB player, we need to find a way to define just how streaky the average player is. How many streaks of what scale and length are "normal"? Because no player, whether he's an .950 OPS star or a .650 OPS scrub puts up a .950 OPS every day, week, month, or year. What's the measure of streakiness? Until we define that, it's just a silly claim based on observations -- and the human brain is wired to see patterns everywhere, even where they're not.


How do we end up telling what we have on this team then? Can we find some valid hope in some of them being better or more than "we think we might be seeing now"? I mean I don't think it is uncommon to be wrong about a player, speaking for myself only, they do improve or regress. These guys right now mostly have small samples.

Two things: firstly don't look just at the results a guy is getting, but how he's getting them. As you said above, sometimes you hit the ball well and it just finds gloves. Over time, those things even out, but it takes a lot of time. ERA is notorious for this as well. Sometimes you get lucky and strand lots of baserunners. You can have a shiny ERA for awhile, but eventually it will catch up with you (Justin Lehr anybody?) Find the stats that actually predict future performance. That's one reason why people like FIP. It's based on the things pitchers can actually control and filters out the things they can't. And it ends up being a better predictor a guy's future ERA than his current ERA is....

Secondly, stop looking at split stats other than platoon splits which have been established over at multiple seasons, the samples are just too small and the amount of "noise" too high for them to tell us anything.

Bottom line, look at what a guy has done the past few years, in aggregate and stick with it. Player's talent levels just don't change overnight. Sure, the improve or decline, but generally speaking, that's the best predictor we've got. This is why people were upset with bringing Hairston back. Yeah, he had a great year last year. But he had a very long track record of being a .700 OPS type guy and he didn't fundamentally improve any of his skills. He simply got better results for one season. This season? He's back at his .714 OPS.

Again though, minor league translations are important and where systems like PECOTA are so handy. They make this translations and do the math for us. PECOTA (and others) even account for the fact that young guys are likely to get better and old guys decline. Sure they're not perfect, but they're better than our gut guesses. Unless we have reason to believe a good projection is missing something which has fundamentally changed a guy's talent level, they're much better than we can get by trying to pick apart every little thing we see. The human eye is great at picking apart visual details, but the human brain is too easily influenced by what it has seen recently or personally experienced to make good calculations about things that have lots of noise.

It is possible that some of our current players are underperforming? Sure. Rosales has had bad luck on balls in play. But PECOTA had him for a .236/.300/.398 50th percentile (most likely) projection. So adjust his low BABIP and you're pretty much there and still in sub replacement territory. Nix, this is who he is -- decent power, low OBP. Taveras? No surprise. Janish, this was to be expected.

Make no mistake, anybody who projected more than a .500 record from this team wasn't using reasonable projections. Just look at all of the OBP black holes and it becomes quite clear that this team needed both EE and Bruce to have solid seasons and neither did. The rest of the guys have performed pretty much as expected. The two minor bright spots, Hanigan and Dickerson struggled to get regular playing time. Nix can't get on base, and never could. The bench was poor to begin with and now it's starting everyday.

These guys might have small samples in the majors, or this year, but we know roughly what we've got. And right now, it's not pretty.

Spring~Fields
08-23-2009, 12:25 PM
Thanks RMR.

bucksfan2
08-24-2009, 11:59 AM
I just don't think the turning of the calendar effects most players.

I think it has more of an effect than most. Granted it is just a day, it is used because it is an easy way to create a split.

But I think it has more to do psychological than anything else. If you have having an awful stretch of things, the turning of a calendar may be a way to put your bad month behind you. It may be a way to start fresh, turn the page on an awful month, and go into the next month with a renewed focus.

I look at is somewhat similar with golf. When you play 18 holes why does it matter when you make the turn? Why are some golfers able to turn a great back nine after a horrible front nine? Hole 9 and 10 count the same, but when you make the turn to the back nine you can star over fresh.

nate
08-24-2009, 12:30 PM
I think it has more of an effect than most. Granted it is just a day, it is used because it is an easy way to create a split.

Being easy to measure doesn't make it significant.


I look at is somewhat similar with golf. When you play 18 holes why does it matter when you make the turn? Why are some golfers able to turn a great back nine after a horrible front nine? Hole 9 and 10 count the same, but when you make the turn to the back nine you can star over fresh.Because they play better?

bucksfan2
08-24-2009, 01:10 PM
Because they play better?

What changes so much between hole 9 and 10? Its similar to the same thing that changes going from July 31st to August 1st. When you are able to put a bad month, 9, week, etc. behind you it enables you to start fresh. Monthly stats are easy to measure because there is a start date and and end date. Too often many cast aside psychological things because you can't measure them.

nate
08-24-2009, 01:26 PM
What changes so much between hole 9 and 10?

They play better. It's such a generic example that there's nothing to be drawn from the hole transitioning from single to double digits.


Its similar to the same thing that changes going from July 31st to August 1st.No, it isn't. We're talking in such generic terms with no real data behind it that there's absolutely nothing other than romantic notions to be drawn from it.

Let's introduce several hundred data sets and start analyzing them. Using the example of "I've seen many do ______" doesn't jibe with the idea of measuring consistency.


When you are able to put a bad month, 9, week, etc. behind you it enables you to start fresh. But what is "putting it behind you?" Is that an emotional thing or a performance thing?

Emotionally, I can feel better about my approach as witnessed by Jay Bruce the year saying "I feel fine, the hits just aren't falling" and still not be out of my "slump."

Performance wise, I can have emotional problems and still hit the cover off the ball. For example, Joey Votto this year before going on the DL.


Monthly stats are easy to measure because there is a start date and and end date. Again, convenience doesn't make an accurate measure.


Too often many cast aside psychological things because you can't measure them.This has nothing to do with saying calendar months are a poor way to measure consistency.

jojo
08-24-2009, 02:19 PM
Sample size.