Is Jason Heyward the real thing?

[coachx]

The difference is that we haven't seen where Heyward's career goes now that pitchers have adjusted. I think he will much more strongly resemble Justin Upton than Jeff Francoeur.

I hope he adjust quicker then Frenchy did too. If Wren adds a solid right handed hitting outfielder (like Carlos Quentin ) then Freddie may need to make Heyward a platoon outfielder and sit him vs. lefties until he can adjust.

Heyward's .167 BA and .255 OBP vs. Lefties are pretty ugly. We sure could use a Matt Diaz type to fill that role vs. lefties.

Edited July 28, 2011 by coachx

[KB21]

It's not Parrish's fault that Heyward can't hit the high heat and pitchers are not throwing low to him any more. The league has figured out he is a low ball hitter. The Braves are leading the NL in HRs in the month of July. I guess that is due to Chipper and McCann's "personal batting coaches."

I think Heyward will make the adjustment. I just have no clue how long it will take. Will it be this year, next year, 2013 ? Of course I'm hoping for sooner rather then later. Freddie Gonzalez has been batting him in the #2 hole trying to show confidence in him and give him his best batter to hit behind Heyward in hopes of leting him see the best possible pitches. Howver, Those 3 SO's while going 0-4 didn't help yesterday (& that was against right handed pitching).

On a positive note........it was refreshing to see Chipper roll off the disabled list and go 2-4 with a HR in the #3 hole. The guy can still get it done at 39 while playing 3B. He is still impressive. Chipper, Prado, Freeman, Uggla, and MCCann are all hitting pretty good right now.

The Braves actually out hit the Pirates 9 to 5. We got to get these base runners home. The Braves squandered scoring oppurtunities in Sunday nights loss too D. Willis and the Reds too.

A hitting coach may not be the reason a player can't hit the high heat, but he can certainly help a player adjust his swing to be able to hit that high heat. I don't think Larry Parrish can help his swing. Look at how many players have struggled with the bat this year. The only consistent hitter the team has had is Brian McCann, and he gets more coaching from Howie McCann than he does Larry Parrish.

Heyward's biggest problem right now is that his swing is too long and his head is flying out. He needs to cut down on his swing, keep his head in, and hit the ball where it is pitched. He needs to do what Freddie Freeman is doing. If the ball is on the outside part of the plate, hit it to left field.

[coachx]

ANY Braves rookie that gets approached by SI should just take off running...

~lw3

Freddie Freeman was actually on the cover of SI with Jason Heyward (made me invision Eddie Matthews and Henry Aaron)............................it has not hurt Freeman's swing one bit yet.

Its funny how when Frenchy and McCann were coming up it was Frenchy who was the first in the limelight but it was McCann who turned into the perennial allstar (much like with Heyward and Freeman). I'm hoping both Freeman and Heyward can reach their potential b/c this Braves team should have another 10 year dynasty on their hands if they do.

Edited August 5, 2011 by coachx

[coachx]

Article giving Freddie props for sticking with the hot bat (Constanza) and benching the cold Heyward.

http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2011/08/09/regarding-heyward-fredi-g-shows-that-letter-stands-for-guts/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog

I love stories like Constanza. A 27 year old career minor leaguer who got his chance late. Ya lnow, Dan Uggla's story is much the same. He did not get his 1st major league at bat until he was 26.

Heyward has pllenty of time to figure it out. Constanza is playing like his life's work and career depend on ever at bat.........which for a 27 year old career minor leaguer there is a very thin string he had to cling to. He is making his one shot count. I really applaud him for that.

[CBAreject]

Article giving Freddie props for sticking with the hot bat (Constanza) and benching the cold Heyward.

http://blogs.ajc.com/mark-bradley-blog/2011/08/09/regarding-heyward-fredi-g-shows-that-letter-stands-for-guts/?cxntfid=blogs_mark_bradley_blog

I love stories like Constanza. A 27 year old career minor leaguer who got his chance late. Ya lnow, Dan Uggla's story is much the same. He did not get his 1st major league at bat until he was 26.

Yes, we all love stories like Constanza, but Mark Bradley actually knows very little about baseball. I suggest you balance his unabashed, feel-good approbation of Fredi with this much more rigorous, quantitative, and fact-minded article posted on Capitol Avenue Club:

Constanza over Heyward

The fact is that Constanza has an artificially high batting average due to an inordinate number of bloop hits and bleeders that is not sustainable. Don't get me wrong, he may well turn into a .280 hitting, base-stealing major leaguer, albeit with almost no power and very little patience. However, that kind of player isn't as productive as Heyward is, even when Heyward is playing badly. Not only that, but hot streaks and cold streaks themselves are somewhat controversial in the first place. It has seemed easy for squawkers to shrug off "stat heads", but you should at least consider their rigorous analysis, since so much careful thought goes into it. In general, when one party thinks very carefully, analytically, and quantitatively about an issue, he is more frequently right than another who simply goes with his gut or makes decisions on a gestalt of emotions.

[AHF]

Costanza is a fun story. Heyward is the biggest talent on the team going through a miserable year that was still arguably better than Costanza's minor league numbers. I'm crossing my fingers that Heyward gets his head and body straight sometime this season and rooting for Contanza to keep blooping hits in the meantime.

[CBAreject]

Costanza is a fun story. Heyward is the biggest talent on the team going through a miserable year that was still arguably better than Costanza's minor league numbers. I'm crossing my fingers that Heyward gets his head and body straight sometime this season and rooting for Contanza to keep blooping hits in the meantime.

You know, I would agree with you if I thought the Braves' management knew how to interpret flukey stats, but they don't. Scott Proctor posted about a 3.0 ERA in his first 20 or so appearances. The Braves thought he was pitching well because they don't know how to look past results-based statistics like ERA. They pitched him in too many high-leverage situations, and it cost them a couple of wins (namely, the Baltimore game). The bloggers on CAC, who are skilled at statistical analysis, couldn't say enough times that Proctor was pitching terribly despite his ERA. They know how to appropriately handle a stat like ERA and they knew that Proctor's apparent "success" was coming mostly by good luck, which is unsustainable. Less educated fans would post replies with all the common retorts, such as "why are you hating on Scott Proctor" and "he must be doing something right...he has a 3.0 ERA!" It took several meltdowns by Proctor before his ERA regressed to expected numbers. Finally, the Braves released him today.

A great irony here is that all the people (including Braves management, apparently) who scoff at saberists for "looking at stats" are guilty of "looking at stats" themselves. The difference between saberists and the rest of the world is that saberists actually know how to handle stats, and they aren't misled by a pretty ERA or batting average. A greater irony is that those who oppose saberists will say "stats don't tell you everything", but in fact, it is the saberists who realize stats don't tell you everything. Their opposers are the ones who put too much weight on a given statistic, just as the Braves' management did with Proctor's ERA and Schafer's stolen bases, and just as they're doing now with Heyward's batting average.

So, the argument between traditionalists and saberists is essentially moot. They both look at numbers, and they both draw conclusions based on them. It's just that saberists are skilled at doing so and more likely to draw the correct conclusions.

[jhay610]

Looks like Constanza is going nowhere:

Fredi on the offense:

"It’s been clicking pretty good. Obviously when you’ve got Danny doing what he’s doing, and Freeman, Bourn and Constanza, you feel pretty good about it. And you feel McCann’s right around the corner and that’s going to make us even better."

Fredi on Constanza:

"He puts the ball in play. You hate to see guys like that, with that kind of speed, hit the ball in the air. Get him in there. He stole a base. Disrupt the defense and hope that offensively we can create some runs."

Danny Uggla likes Vrooom:

"It changes the game," Braves second baseman Dan Uggla said of the presence of Bourn and Constanza. "Even when there is nobody on base and they are coming up to hit, you are creating pressure on the defense just from their legs alone."

So does Tim Hudson [Huddy statistical analysis in bold]:

"I'd rather face Barry Bonds than somebody like him (Constanza)," Hudson said. "I want somebody up there who is swinging and trying to hit homers. Those guys have a tendency to swing and miss. Constanza is pesky. He's going to put the ball in play. A ball on the ground is more than half the time going to be a hit. It's the same kind of approach that Ichiro had when he first came over and had his legs under him."

[KB21]

Regardless of whether it is sustainable or not, as long as Constanza is going 3 for 4 and Heyward is going 0 for 5, you play Constanza. Particularily when he's making things happen when he is on base. When that tails off, then maybe you think of getting Heyward back in there on a regular basis. Personaly, I feel it would probably do Heyward more good to go down to Gwinnett for a while to work with Jamie Dismuke on his swing. Right now, he has a big hole that opposing pitchers are exploiting, and he isn't making the right adjustments. It's a shame that Atlanta has such a terrible hitting coach that they can't help him in Atlanta. Much like Kelly Johnson a few years ago, maybe Heyward needs to go down and work on his swing with the best swing coach in our system, Jamie Dismuke.

Last ten games: Constanza is 18-38 with 3 SBs and has scored 9 runs. Heyward is 4-24 with 2 runs.

[coachx]

Yes, we all love stories like Constanza, but Mark Bradley actually knows very little about baseball. I suggest you balance his unabashed, feel-good approbation of Fredi with this much more rigorous, quantitative, and fact-minded article posted on Capitol Avenue Club:

Constanza over Heyward

The fact is that Constanza has an artificially high batting average due to an inordinate number of bloop hits and bleeders that is not sustainable. Don't get me wrong, he may well turn into a .280 hitting, base-stealing major leaguer, albeit with almost no power and very little patience. However, that kind of player isn't as productive as Heyward is, even when Heyward is playing badly. Not only that, but hot streaks and cold streaks themselves are somewhat controversial in the first place. It has seemed easy for squawkers to shrug off "stat heads", but you should at least consider their rigorous analysis, since so much careful thought goes into it. In general, when one party thinks very carefully, analytically, and quantitatively about an issue, he is more frequently right than another who simply goes with his gut or makes decisions on a gestalt of emotions.

I applaude a managers who get it right by riding the hot hand. The numbers speak for themselves that Freddie has gotten it right here.

Heck, Heyward was 0-5 again last night and Constanza got 3 hits yet again. Costanza hit .312 and .319, respectively the last 2 seasons in AAA. They guy can flat out make contact and with him coming out of the left handed batters box with plenty of speed it will equate to a lot of hits. Baseball people love speedy lefties. He definately makes the infielders play on edge and rush their throws to 1st base.

I'm not saying Heyward is a bum and cannot come out of his slump. (Heck look at Uggla as an example of ice cold to red hot).

Edited August 11, 2011 by coachx

[CBAreject]

I applaude a manager who rides the hot hand.

This practice is considered foolish by people who understand statistics, but you're applauding Fredi for doing so. I feel like you didn't read the CAC article by the way this comment sounds, since the article commented on hot streaks...and how they are only relevant in hindsight.

The numbers speak for themselves.

Says a person who is almost hostile toward saberists. No, the numbers do not speak for themselves. You must know how to interpret them. This was the point of my last post.

Heck, Heyward was 0-5 again last night and Constanza got 3 hits yet again.

Sample sizes.

Costanza hit .312 and .319, respectively the last 2 seasons in AAA.

Which translates into a .280 hitter at MLB with no power and no patience (he almost never walks). The sum of all that is a sub-.700 OPS and not many runs created.

They guy can flat out make contact and with him coming out of the left handed batters box with plenty of speed it will equate to a lot of hits.

Contact is over-rated. The highest run producers in baseball generally strike out 150 times per season. It's not about contact; it's about solid-contact. It's about hitting line drives. Martin Prado took pains to cut down on his strike-out totals and it resulted in a lower batting average due to a higher frequency of weak contact. His K% certainly dropped, but it clearly illustrated that K's are not that bad an outcome.

Baseball people love speedy lefties. He definately makes the infielders play on edge and rush their throws to 1st base.

Speed is a great asset, but it never trumps patience and power.

I'm not saying Heyward is a bum and cannot come out of his slump. (Heck look at Uggla as an example of ice cold to red hot).

Heck, look at Uggla. And while you're looking at Uggla, consider what would've happened to his 31 game hitting streak if Fredi were benching him and playing Brandon Hicks because Hicks was putting up a tidy season at AAA and getting lots of bloop hits in the majors. It's hard to "get in a groove" when you're not playing every day.

[Guest]

This practice is considered foolish by people who understand statistics, but you're applauding Fredi for doing so. I feel like you didn't read the CAC article by the way this comment sounds, since the article commented on hot streaks...and how they are only relevant in hindsight.

No, that would be people who assume independent and identically distributed at-bats and then carry on with their analysis. How about taking a look at the assumptions with empirical evidence? Do we see evidence of game-to-game independence? People who really understand statistics ask this question:

http://sabr.org/latest/brj-hitting-streaks-dont-obey-your-rules

Good analysis says no, we empirically see more hot streaks than we should with the null hypothesis of independence between games. You should stop parroting a blog (Capital Avenue Club) who parrots a book ("The Book") in order to say Fredi sucks.

Keep out the personal shots here people.

Edited August 11, 2011 by AHF

[AHF]

Nice article, hawksfanatic. Thanks for the read.

[coachx]

Says a person who is almost hostile toward saberists. No, the numbers do not speak for themselves. You must know how to interpret them. This was the point of my last post.

actually majored in Risk Management where statistics and variance are studied at nausim. Like hawksfanatic has pointed out in this thread...........you tend to have a habit of ignoring variance.

Managing baseball is not just statistics. You seem to be of the belief that you should ignore cold and hot streaks and strictly manage the game as a statician at all times. I believe there should be a balance f mixing in the "gut" with the statistics.

I think you also need to account for variance in your beliefs.....as hawksfanatic has pointed out in other post.

Again, I applaud Freddie for going with his "gut." It seems obvious who is hot and who is not. I know you can't go against your anti Freddie agenda to give props where they are due. You seem to have the belief that Costanza should be sitting while Heyward plays every day. Is that really what you are argueing ?

In Heywards last 10 games he is hitting .167 ( 4 - 24 ).

In Castanzo's last 10 games he is hitting .474 ( 18 - 38 ).

All I can say is ride the hot bats baby !

Edited August 11, 2011 by coachx

[coachx]

No, that would be people who assume independent and identically distributed at-bats and then carry on with their analysis. How about taking a look at the assumptions with empirical evidence? Do we see evidence of game-to-game independence? People who really understand statistics ask this question:

http://sabr.org/latest/brj-hitting-streaks-dont-obey-your-rules

Good analysis says no, we empirically see more hot streaks than we should with the null hypothesis of independence between games. You should stop parroting a blog (Capital Avenue Club) who parrots a book ("The Book") in order to say Fredi sucks.

Good article................it really backs up the Dan Uggla's 31 game hitting streak. I think he was hitting .174 at the time the streak began.

When a MLB player is in the zone you can throw the stats sheets out the window. Hot is hot !

Right now Constanza is hot. Ride that hot bat I say.

Right now Heyward is not. He still needs to play a few times a week b/c he could break out of his slump at any time (like Uggla did). However, I would not bench a hot bat (Constanza) in order to get Heyward's bat in the lineup......it should be some one other then Constanza riding the pine when Heyward plays.....that is until his bat cools.

Edited August 11, 2011 by coachx

[coachx]

This practice is considered foolish by people who understand statistics, but you're applauding Fredi for doing so. I feel like you didn't read the CAC article by the way this comment sounds, since the article commented on hot streaks...and how they are only relevant in hindsight.

A manager who rides the hot hand is foolish ?

We must agree to disagree here.

Edited August 11, 2011 by coachx

[CBAreject]

Coachx, I don't read hawksfanatic's posts because I have him on ignore. He functions as somewhat of a sniper, only entering a thread in this other sports forum when he believes he can directly disagree with me. Otherwise, he is disinterested in the thread. Hence, the ignore.

I didn't tell you that I don't believe in hot streaks or cold streaks. I simply said they're controversial and for good reason. What Uggla did for the first three months of the season was not chance. He wasn't just "cold", but I have no problem with calling that a cold streak. He changed his approach and possibly his swing, and he was getting bad results. He may have been unlucky, too, and that factored into his psychology, which is important, too. Human beings are not machines, and psychology factors heavily into extended slumps. This is why you'd see more streaks than variance would suggest. The important point, though, is that variance explains the majority of streaks, and even for the ones it doesn't, benching the cold player does not generally help him right himself. How do you tell the difference? One way is with your eye, but what you'll learn by studying advanced baseball statistics is your eye lies to you far more frequently than you ever thought possible. It's actually better to look at peripheral statistics. You can see that a player is swinging at more pitches out of the strike zone or perhaps you'll see that a player is getting rather lucky or unlucky by their batting average on contact or on balls in play. These things help you see whether the player is actually hot/cold or just getting lucky. Until you spend a lot of time reading about sabermetrics, you don't fully understand how many things they can tell you. When you don't fully understand a field, it's easy to wholesale-discount it because you believe they're myopic in their approach. One thing your eye can tell you is that Constanza's hits have almost all been low-probability. When a player makes weak contact, he will generally get out, even if he is fast. Constanza's weak-contact seeing-eye singles are not evidence of a hot streak, but evidence of luck. Luck is not sustainable. The important point is not whether Jason Heyward is currently cold (he is) but that Constanza is not hot. Constanza didn't suddenly learn how to hit .400, even for a brief while. If you're going to "applaud" Fredi for playing the hot hand, you must have also agreed with the decision to pitch Proctor in high-leverage situations when he had a 3.00 ERA (despite an FIP that predicted he would crash to earth). That didn't work out well, did it?

None of this says you don't have the ability to understand statistics. I'm sure you do. The problem, I believe, is that you and many others on here have discounted "stat-heads" without understanding all that they do. Hawksfanatic (I saw quoted in another post in a different thread) said something like "Oh, if you ask a saberist which player is better between two with a .400 OPS, he'll say 'they're the same'". Take a moment and think about that. He's assuming he knows sabermetrics well enough to perfectly predict what any saberist would say. That's arrogant, and in fact, his assumption was patently false. OPS is insufficient to evaluate a player. It depends which position they play, how well they field their position, who is speedier, who runs the bases better, how much of that OPS is due to OBP vs SLG. Are there stats to evaluate these things? Yes, and the best stat for total player value is wins above replacement, which, though not perfect, is better than anyone can do with the naked eye.

But you seem to want to dodge my two questions:

1) did you even read the CAC article? I read yours.

2) if you believe in benching a player who is "cold", then what would have happened to Uggla if you had been managing?

*as a corrollary, if you believe in playing the "hot hand", then you agreed with letting Proctor melt down in high leverage situations those times

[coachx]

Coachx, I don't read hawksfanatic's posts because I have him on ignore.

He is a smart guy. I'm suprised he is one you would block. Here is a good article he posted.

http://sabr.org/latest/brj-hitting-streaks-dont-obey-your-rules

Here are his thoughts on variance that I think you fail to account for. This was a response to my post about Ross being asket to bunt with runners on 1st on 2nd. You thought Ross should have been able to swing away. I have never once heard you refer to variance in your statistical analysis.

But you are right to point out the fear of hitting into a DP is not unfounded and it really sparkd me to think about this moneyball idiom of "process > results" much more. There is something amiss at only looking at averages and then judging "only ye move which yield ye greatest expected runs shall ye choose". If I give you the option of choosing between two players, both of which have an OPS of .400 which should you choose? Ignoring the other stats right now, most sabermatricians (the not very good ones, and from here out I will always refer to those) will say "gee both have the same OPS, it doesn't matter who you choose!" In one context that is right, but that is a context that isn't realistic and is usually termed "risk neutral". If I go back to the hypothetical of two players with OPS .400 and then add on that player A's standard error for OPS is .020 while player B's standard error for OPS is .100, would that change your opinion on who to select? In less statistics lingo, you are 95% sure that player A's OPS will be between .361 and .439 while player B's OPS will be between .204 and .596. Anyone selecting player A is "risk averse" while those for player B are "risk loving". Note that in reality there isn't a truly correct answer, selecting A, B, or being indifferent are all acceptable answers they just indicate one's willingness to accept/avoid risk.

Now granted most of the sabermatricians are statisticians with poor social skills so its understandable they would not understand risk aversion, but to forget about variance is a sin! Just sitting around and making claims about "hey this process yields the highest expected runs so it must be taken!" ignores variance and if you are ignoring variance you don't understand statistics. So where does this fit in with the Ross instance? Well, in effect Fredi is trading away lower expected runs for more certainty (i.e. showing risk aversion). Sabermatricians are coming out of left field and screaming "oh see this is stupid, just look at expected runs!" But if you ignore what their in your face arguments mislead you to believe, its really a question of confidence intervals. You've got two scenarios, on the one hand you could be 95% sure that you will score between 0.25 and 1.75 runs and on the other you could score between 0.75 and 1.15 runs (numbers purely made up to illustrate a point). One has a lower expected runs scored, but you're more certain you will score a run. Usually risk aversion is best illustrated with an example of fire insurance, so for anyone more interested you can google that and I'm sure wikipedia will do a better job explaining it.

To be risk neutral the entire season will maximize your runs, but last I checked you want to win games and not necessarily score as many runs as possible. And last I checked, there is no reason that one must remain at a given risk level the entire game, much less season.

Edited August 12, 2011 by coachx

[jy23]

Something told me CBA Reject was a CAC reader. I read there from time to time, good stuff for the most part.

[coachx]

I didn't tell you that I don't believe in hot streaks or cold streaks. I simply said they're controversial and for good reason.

Actually this is what CBAreject said:

Quote by CBA reject from top of this thread:

This practice is considered foolish by people who understand statistics, but you're applauding Fredi for doing so.

You should read the article posted that specifically covers how statistics lose meaning when dealing with hot streaks. It totally contrasdicts your beliefs and was written by a "stat guy."

So to correct you.........you said those who belive in hot streaks are foolish by people who understand stats / you.

You also infered that anyone who disagrees with you must not be able to understand stats. Then you back track and claim you never said that. Well, you definately insinuated that anyone who buys into a hot streak (or being in the zone) do not understand stats. I'm left to simply chuckle.

You are calling Freddie foolish for starting a guy who has hit .470 since Freddie gave him a chance to play.

That tells me you think of your self as a stat expert and I am not. Even though I have a degree in field that analyzes and interprets stas and have worked 9 years in a field where losses and claims stats are analyzed to predict loss ratios and insurance premiums.

The problem, I believe, is that you and many others on here have discounted "stat-heads" without understanding all that they do.

I think the problem is that your one of those guys who think they are the smartest guy in the room.

There is more then one way to interpret stats.

But you seem to want to dodge my two questions:

1) did you even read the CAC article? I read yours.

Yes I read it. Thought the article that covers hot streaks that hawkfantatic posted was more accurate to this topic in my opinion. In fact I don't see a rational arguement that proves that article wrong.

2) if you believe in benching a player who is "cold", then what would have happened to Uggla if you had been managing?

I will just paste what I already said about this.

Exact quote from coachx from top of page:

Right now Heyward is not. He still needs to play a few times a week b/c he could break out of his slump at any time (like Uggla did). However, I would not bench a hot bat (Constanza) in order to get Heyward's bat in the lineup......it should be some one other then Constanza riding the pine when Heyward plays.....that is until his bat cools.

Of course there are some obvious differences in the cold streaks of Heyward and Uggla.

1. Its much easier to mix and match 3 OF positions...........there is only one 2B.

2. Heyward's struggles are physical - Causes are normal. He was injured plus he is a 2nd year player who's weaknesses are now being exploited. There is book out on how to pitch him . Heyward is a low ball hitter with a hole in his swing that does not let him hit the high strike. Now he has to patch up the swing that he has used his whole life and retrain his muscle memory. That is like telling a basketball player to change their shooting form in the middle of the year.

3. Uggla's cold streak seemed more mental then physical to most. He was on a new team with a big contract. He naturally put pressure on himself and was overly aggressive with poor pitch selection. For the 1st time in his career there was real pressure for him to perform. Instead of playing infront of 2,000 fans in Miami. He is playing in front of 30,000 fans and is playing for the most popular team in the National League. The difference in environment are huge.

4. Uggla is a 5 year proven veteran who's stats have been very consistent. Its not like this is the 1st time pitchers have figured out his weakness. Its not like he had a hole in his swing that kept him form hitting pitches in a certain location. Uggla finally snapped out of it and became Dan Uggla. He stopped swinging at 62% pitches. I believe he is now swinging at 40% of pitches since his hitting streak (according to the guys on the Braves Pre-Game radio shows). His pitch selection helped turn it around which is strictly mental.

I think managing a baseball team should go beyond statistical analysis. I persoanlly love the human element of sports. The part in the game where is no longer a science. but an art. We do not need computers managing baseball teams. There are parts of the game where I like managers who go with their gut. Hot streaks are one of those areas where I like to see them go with their gut when it means playing the hot bat over the cold bat.

Edited August 12, 2011 by coachx