Is Jason Heyward the real thing?

[CBAreject]

He is a smart guy. I'm suprised he is one you would block.

I don't block people for not being smart. I block them for being vindictive and/or haughty.

Regarding hawksfanatic's circular argument on Ross, he likely made that without reading all of my posts (which would be expected, since he is interested in arguing with me, not understanding me). I am not ignoring variance. Bunt analysis always considers two things, 1) the expected number of runs scored; 2) the probability of scoring at least one run. The second is not the same thing as a confidence interval, but it's actually more practical to use and easier to understand conceptually (BTW, I promise you Fredi is not thinking about 95% CI's). I clearly stated, more than once, in that thread that bunting in that situation reduced both the expected runs and probability of scoring at all. In some cases, bunting may increase #2 at the expense of #1, and in some cases, that is preferred, but in this particular case, it reduced both, which made it a bad play. Hawksfanatic ASSUMED that #2 increased in that case, but that wasn't true. Essentially this is his argument.

A) The play increased #2 at the expense of #1, due to variance

B) You said the play was a bad play

C) Therefore, you don't understand and/or are ignorant of variance

If A were true, C would also be true, but it's just not.

Now, if you'd read my posts, you would've seen that I already understood that concept and stated it plainly. But, you have caught the "let's disagree with CBA because he's pompous and writes effusively and we want him to be wrong" disease.

b] I have never once heard you refer to variance in your statistical analysis.

I refer to variance frequently in my posts, but I haven't generally used the term "variance". If I am implying that hot streaks are of little importance, I am invoking variance. If I didn't believe in variance, I would believe more strongly in hot/cold streaks, and I would say things like "ride the hot hand, baby!" Variance is not an advanced concept, nor are confidence intervals.

Since you have a penchant for bolding sentences you think really drive home your point (the nails in my proverbial argumentative coffin), please take a look at yourself here.

First you say:

"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."

But then you immediately contradict yourself by trying to prove Constanza is hot by using limited statistics (and poorly, due to small samples)

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 !

Then in your next post, you say:

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

So, which is it sir? Are we looking at stats or not?

All you've done is prove my point that we all look at stats, both saberists and anti-saberists. The difference is that anti-saberists like you fail to consider things like sample sizes, informative peripheral stats, and variance. Someone who quotes a 10 game sample size appears to be the one who doesn't get variance. Should I bold that?

Worst of all, the saberists on this side of the argument aren't even looking at the stats. We're watching the games and seeing Constanza post a .400 AVG on bloops and choppers, not line-drives. If you'd read that CAC article, you'd have seen he took his singles one-by-one to show that this apparent hot streak was just variance, not genuine improved performance. If managing baseball were about just looking at statistics, we'd all be playing constanza right now because his stats are phenomenal in 10 games. You're the one who wants to rely on that sample, not the saberists.

[CBAreject]

Actually this is what CBAreject said:

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.

Understand this critical difference. There can be genuine hot streaks and fluke hot streaks. There can be both. The problem is that MOST hot streaks are flukes. Therefore, it is foolish to mindlessly conclude that a given hot streak is not a fluke, because on average, it probably is. A better way to do it is to actually look at what's going on. Constanza's weak bloops aren't going to be hits every time.

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

Results justify the decisions, eh? I saw a guy push all in with a dominated hand in poker and win 3 straight times (e.g. AQ over AK). Did his winning mean he was playing well?

That tells me you think of your self as a stat expert and I am not.

I'm not a stat expert, but I know better than to wholesale discount an entire philosphy without being an expert in it. That's what you tend to do.

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

So what if I am? Why would that bother you so much? I don't care if you are smarter than I am. You may well be, but I can sure tell you I try a lot harder to defend my points than you do in this forum. Effort matters, too. Saying "ride the hot bats baby" and posting mocking emoticons, as many of you have done does not stand in the place of critical reasoning.

There is more then one way to interpret stats.

I agree, and I do not believe that I am the best at interpreting them or that my way is necessarily best. The problem is that you and others on this forum interpret them carelessly if at all. Try a bit, and I'll give you respect.

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.

Again, the fact that there is such a thing as a hot streak does not mean that all hot streaks are due to genuinely improved performance. In fact, most hot streaks are due to variance. To tell the difference, we have to actually watch the games and see what is going on. You're the one who wants to settle for looking at a .400 BA and assuming it's due to performance and not variance, yet you accuse me of "managing strictly by stats"

I think managing a baseball team should go beyond statistical analysis.

Who doesn't? All you've done is repeatedly characterize me as a faceless stat-head who thinks baseball managing only relies upon stats. If I thought that way, I wouldn't believe Bobby Cox was a fairly good manager (despite his relatively poor in-game tactical skills)

There are parts of the game where I like managers who go with their gut.

Fredi ALWAYS goes with his gut. You pretend as if he has some perfect balance of stats and feel. He ignores statistics, to his peril. He's blessed with a very good team, but he will likely cost us 2 wins or so per season over an average manager (few enough that people who don't pay attention won't notice the difference).

Edited August 12, 2011 by CBAreject

[Guest]

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?

This answer is extremely confusing, mainly because it sounds like someone just guessing at an answer. The "hot" and "cold" streaks argument is one that stems from the independent and identically distributed (iid) assumption. This tells you that the probability of drawing a hit for a particular at bat is the same regardless of what happened before. A player going in 1 for his last 100 versus 99 for his last 100 will still yield the same probability of drawing a hit for the particular at bat one is talking about. Now if you read the article I posted (from a Sabermetrics affiliated Journal), you would see that it tackles the iid assumption and shows that empirically this is highly unlikely. An iid process of mixing the observed at bat order should yield roughly the same number of 5+, 10+, 15+, and so on hit streaks IF the observed batting order is from an iid process. Surprise surprise, we see that the original order has significantly more 5+, 10+, 15+ and so on hit streaks. In the whole analysis of the paper, the variance of both processes is assumed to be the same and variance does not come in to play outside of hypothesis testing. The point is, variation doesn't explain hit streaks which makes your answer of "hey hit streaks are just variance!" extremely puzzling.

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.

When I claim to ignore all other statistics that implies ceteris paribus. Ever heard of ceteris paribus? Of course not, so here it is: "with all else the same". Take the OPS example and assume all else the same, so ignore your pointless tangent of "well uh you need to know X Y and Z!" You're just making up excuses and completely missing the entire point of that post because it really had to do with Risk Aversion. Variance matters, but you have to know when it matters instead of just taking guesses at it being the answer. If you want to understand Sabermetrics, you need to understand Statistics, Inference, and Baseball.

Yes I read it. thought the article that covers hot streaks that hawkfantatic posted was more accurate to this topic.

I was thoroughly confused with that article by the breakdown of Constanza's hits. They listed his 13 hits with such "objective" words as "barely", "pathetic", "bloop", and "should have been caught" (as if the scorekeeper should have called an error instead of a hit...). One uses statistics to avoid subjective opinions, but its clear the CAC blog is not objective right there, but they had to put a subjective spin on this instance. The real argument from CAC is that Constanza cannot sustain his current BABIP. I don't think many people will object to that, certainly he cannot sustain a close to .400 average for the rest of the season. However, that isn't the argument presented by Fredi for Constanza playing. The argument he plays is that Constanza is hot and Heyward is not so you ride the hot hand. CAC tries to use subjective analysis to say "well uhhh...hold on Constanza isn't hot he is lucky, just look at the hits I listed!" An appeal to subjective analysis from the so called objective sabermetrician, ironic isn't it?

I don't read CAC but I will venture to guess that Heyward is a sacred cow over there, kind of like what Marvin used to be on this board back in 2005 and 2006.

[AHF]

Thanks to hawksfanatic for a post that omitted the seemingly irresistable urge to characterize other posters. Stop describing eachother as ignorant or as people ignoring some key fact and just say the key fact that is omitted from the other's analysis. Stop worrying about the poster and focus on the issue.

On Heyward/Marvin - call me the first time Marvin gets a vote for Rookie of the Year, is an All-Star or gets a vote for MVP (as Heyward already has in his short career). I don't like that comparison, but time will tell if Heyward turns out to be as irredeemably flawed as Marvin has shown to date.

[CBAreject]

One more thing while we're on the subject of your contradicting yourself, coachx. A few weeks ago, you accused me of criticizing Fredi only in hindsight for his decisions that failed. You said that if Ross had GIDP, I would've criticized him for not bunting. You failed to defend that assertion, even after I asked you to--probably because there was no evidence to support that accusation.

Then, you come with this:

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

If I criticized Fredi only in hindsight, why would I be critical of him now? Were you wrong about that accusation?

[AHF]

Let me just throw this in as a Jay Bruce owner in fantasy baseball, players definitely get hot and cold and the streakiness of the player varies, with Bruce being one of the extremes for streakiness (thank goodness he finally got hot again recently). Those guys do a huge % of their damage for the season during those hot streaks. I'm not sure if it is mechanics locking in and falling out or what, but it makes those guys arguably more useful for fantasy than a "steady Eddie" type of player (since you can safety slot someone else in during the cold spells).

[AHawks89]

I've been trying to say this for a while...

[Guest]

Regarding hawksfanatic's circular argument on Ross, he likely made that without reading all of my posts (which would be expected, since he is interested in arguing with me, not understanding me). I am not ignoring variance. Bunt analysis always considers two things, 1) the expected number of runs scored; 2) the probability of scoring at least one run. The second is not the same thing as a confidence interval, but it's actually more practical to use and easier to understand conceptually (BTW, I promise you Fredi is not thinking about 95% CI's). I clearly stated, more than once, in that thread that bunting in that situation reduced both the expected runs and probability of scoring at all. In some cases, bunting may increase #2 at the expense of #1, and in some cases, that is preferred, but in this particular case, it reduced both, which made it a bad play. Hawksfanatic ASSUMED that #2 increased in that case, but that wasn't true. Essentially this is his argument.

A) The play increased #2 at the expense of #1, due to variance

B) You said the play was a bad play

C) Therefore, you don't understand and/or are ignorant of variance

If A were true, C would also be true, but it's just not.

My response wasn't a specific response to Ross (hence I said the numbers don't matter), it was a general response to how sabermetricians generally approach situational calls from managers. I didn't care to look up numbers because, well the numbers can be construed however you would like. I'm sure CBA is quoting the average MLB probabilities, but is that really what we want to look at? How about instead of analyzing Ross' career averages, we adjust for the pitcher he was facing. Might that be more reasonable? Or how about the latest 10 games? It can be argued many ways and guess what, one can construe the numbers to get the result they want. I wanted to avoid that issue by talking in the abstract. Also, I don't really care about the numbers because I am not trying to prove my opinion (kind of hard to when you don't have an opinion, ie trying to be objective).

It reminds me of a joke that is told with interchangeable parts but the punchline is always the same. A politician has hired a mathemetician, a logician, and a statistician. He wants to know what 2 plus 2 equals. Blah blah blah, it becomes the statistician's turn. The stathead shuts the door, locks it, turns the lights off and says "what do you want it to be?"

[Guest]

I don't like that comparison, but time will tell if Heyward turns out to be as irredeemably flawed as Marvin has shown to date.

I'm thinking back to the time when HS was very sensitie to anyone saying Marvin was a bust in 05 and 06. You just couldn't touch him without everyone getting their knickers in a knot. I'm thnking CAC is like that, you just can't say bad things about Heyward. I'm not saying they are the same type of player, its obvious Heyward is simply better than Marvin. The inability to criticize without people getting all pissed off is what I was referring to. Now I don't read CAC and don't care to, its just my guess from the 10 or so posts I have read.

[AHF]

I'm thinking back to the time when HS was very sensitie to anyone saying Marvin was a bust in 05 and 06. You just couldn't touch him without everyone getting their knickers in a knot. I'm thnking CAC is like that, you just can't say bad things about Heyward. I'm not saying they are the same type of player, its obvious Heyward is simply better than Marvin. The inability to criticize without people getting all pissed off is what I was referring to. Now I don't read CAC and don't care to, its just my guess from the 10 or so posts I have read.

That was a bit more complicated because you had several things going on. You had a group of people who thought Marvin was going to be a star and that no criticism was warranted. On the flip side, you had a group of people who were making huge negative generalizations about him without anything to back those up. In the middle, you had people all along the spectrum between "positive about his potential" to "frustrated he isn't showing anything more than slow improvement."

I don't think it was ever the situation the the Board was rising up and kiling anyone with anything negative to say about Marvin. It was that there were a huge range of opinions on him (including strong ones on the extremes) that made nearly any topic critical of Marvin a hot button back and forth where at a minimum the "kill Marvin" and "praise Marvin" crowds would go at it.

The biggest difference between Heyward and Marvin to me (other than the big difference in productivity) is the mental side (where Heyward appears to be disciplined, committed and competitive if you believe what is reported in the press). He will need that to bounce back from this year of injuries and sophmore struggles.

[coachx]

One more thing while we're on the subject of your contradicting yourself, coachx. A few weeks ago, you accused me of criticizing Fredi only in hindsight for his decisions that failed. You said that if Ross had GIDP, I would've criticized him for not bunting. You failed to defend that assertion, even after I asked you to--probably because there was no evidence to support that accusation.

Then, you come with this:

If I criticized Fredi only in hindsight, why would I be critical of him now? Were you wrong about that accusation?

I'm not playing silly games any more where we quote parts of paragraphs and lose all context in how things were said.

You are actually contradicting youself here believe it or not. I am not going to quote out each line where you do so b/c there is a much better use of time then doing that. I quoted your exact words before making the comments, you reference above, which plainly show my statement was true.

You seem to think I contradict myself b/c I say use stats in one circumstance and go with your gut in another. You miss my beliefs all together if that is your conclusions. I have been pretty clear that I believe you should look at both stats and human / gut feelings in situations. Especially when dealing with hot / cold bats.

You like stat sources that support your beliefs but there are other stat sources that support a different set of beliefs involving hot and cold streaks.

Muddy the water all you want. Its really a simplier subject then you make it out to be and there is enough room in almost in subject for there to be more then two trains of thought.

Edited August 16, 2011 by coachx

[lethalweapon3]

Time to go Standard & Poor's on J-Hey, and downgrade him to AAA?

~lw3

[Eddielives]

Time to go Standard & Poor's on J-Hey, and downgrade him to AAA?

~lw3

I think Heyward and the Braves are just going to consider this year a mulligan as far as his progress. The best he can hope to do for the remainder of this season is be a good bat off the bench due to Constanza's hot bat. Next year though, Jason will be right back in the starting lineup with the expectation very heavy on his shoulders. He can't forget that he's expected to be an all-star player for this team and anything less than 25ish hr's, 100ish rbi's and hitting around .300 next year will be a sign he isn't the prospect he was thought to be. And if he has the shoulder thing next year, he might just be a lemon because no doctor has been able to diagnose exactly why he has that discomfort.

[AHF]

I think Heyward and the Braves are just going to consider this year a mulligan as far as his progress.

Unless he miraculously works things out, that is also my view. He is going to need to rebuild his swing after it got so badly derailed with the shoulder injury. You have to cross your fingers and hope he will be healthy next season.

[Dexmethylphenidate]

He looks like he scoot back a bit on the home plate to adjust to the inside pitches... now he has problems catching with the outside sliders and high fast ball. He just need to get his spot back and hit the inside pitch better by getting a lot of practice.

With Constanza recent surge though it should help Heyward getting some rest and working on his swing so he can be a factor come playoff time.

[CBAreject]

I'm not playing silly games any more where we quote parts of paragraphs and lose all context in how things were said.

Please explain how context mattered in what I quoted there. You said that I only criticize in hindsight. That's pretty self-explanatory without context.

You are actually contradicting youself here believe it or not.

OK, I pick "not".

I am not going to quote out each line where you do so b/c there is a much better use of time then doing that.

Surprise, surprise. No evidence to support that prior claim.

You seem to think I contradict myself b/c I say use stats in one circumstance and go with your gut in another.

No. If you believe that, you're either not reading my posts or you're too angry at me and have made this too personal to consider that you may in fact be wrong sometimes. I've said you contradict yourself because you say "stats go out the window when a guy is hot" but then you use stats to prove he is hot in the next sentence. That is as contradictory as it gets. Those aren't "different circumstances". It's the same decision--whether to play player X, who is allegedly hot.

You miss my beliefs all together if that is your conclusions.

You may not like my effusive writing, but you have to at least pause for a second and think, "Gee, it seems like this guy takes his time to think things through". Do you really believe my comprehension is so poor that I've simply misunderstood your terse posts? Is that what Occam's razor would bear out here? They're not teeming with dense, conceptually complicated material, yet I typically dissect them line by line. It seems like you altogether ignore mine.

I have been pretty clear that I believe you should look at both stats and human / gut feelings in situations. Especially when dealing with hot / cold bats.

Your case was recapitulated above and it was contradictory for obvious reasons. Clear as mud.

You like stat sources that support your beliefs but there are other stat sources that support a different set of beliefs involving hot and cold streaks.

And you like to make claims without support. Which stats disagree with my "beliefs" on hot and cold streaks? As a reminder, I agreed that there is such a thing, and I agreed that they are not insignificant.

Muddy the water all you want. Its really a simplier subject then you make it out to be and there is enough room in almost in subject for there to be more then two trains of thought.

The fact that you are confused does not imply I am trying to "muddy the water".

[coachx]

No confusion here. Everything thing seems pretty simple to me. I'm not playing the lets repeat myself game.

Explain how context mattered ? No that is a waiste of time.

You state I'm contradictory and clear as mud. Thats fine but I strongly disagree.

I see you flip flopping all over the place on hot streak and cold streaks. In one post you say only idiots believe in them, in another post you say they are controversial, and in another post you say they are real.

I have been consistent in my statements......you are the one who has not.

There is a good article out on Heyward and Constanza but I can't paste links on this new version of the web site. If anyone could could google Heyward / Fangraphs / Wally Pipping and post the link its a pretty good read.

Edited August 19, 2011 by coachx

[Guest]

The link for coachx:

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/wally-pipping-jason-heyward/

I find it absolutely hilarious that the CAC blog has nothing on Constanza. And its obvious from what I previously posted that they are not being objective. I think it has been fairly clear that Constanza has been hot and their subjective "well uhh he's just lucky!" post is turning out to be horseshit. But you can't comment over there and they aren't going to bring up a subject they were blatantly wrong and biased about. So the ignoring of Constanza will continue to occur. I don't see anyone making statements that Constanza will replace Heyward in the long run, which is what the CAC blog was really attacking with in their post. Their secondary subjective argument has been proven wrong, Constanza isn't "lucky" right now, he's hot! When you don't take a subjective look at his at-bats you realize he is hot, but CAC failed to do that.

[AHF]

That article isn't all that favorable to Constanza or the decision to bench Heyward:

Gonzalez is playing a dangerous game with Heyward’s development. Slumps happen, and the only way to work through them is to play — as the Braves admirably demonstrated by allowing Dan Uggla to play through his slump earlier this year. No one views him as a permanent platoon player, but the only way to prevent that is to let him get the experience at the major league level, and make adjustments as needed.

He’s a very intelligent hitter, with a very advanced knowledge of the strike zone, and he’s going through what may well be the hardest time he has ever had in baseball in his entire life: it’s hard for a playoff team to swallow his growing pains, but he’s going to have to have them either way, and postponing the inevitable is often suboptimal. He has been saying the right things, expressing frustration with his slump while saying he understands why the manager has benched him, but the benching clearly isn’t helping him, even if the team has benefited from Constanza’s fluky performance.

Heyward has not been good this year. He hasn’t been punished by an evil stepmother: he has seriously regressed, and it’s not clear why. His falling plate discipline is the biggest indicator that he seriously needs to work on his approach, but his infield fly ball rate has spiked from 8.4 percent last year to 23.7 percent this year, and if you have watched him play in any game this year, you’ve almost certainly seen him roll over a ball and ground it to second base. It’s hard to know what to do with a young player who suddenly starts playing a lot worse. One option is the Moustakas treatment, where the player is assured by the team that he has a starting spot no matter what. Heyward hasn’t received that. He’s been bumped.

No one on the Braves is pretending that this situation is permanent. If and when Constanza turns back into a pumpkin, Heyward will probably be re-inserted into the lineup. That will probably happen some time shortly before the beginning of the playoffs, which the Braves are on pace to enter as the Wild Card. In the meantime, the Braves will have to hope that Heyward is able to figure out his problems despite reduced opportunities to do so.

[jy23]

The link for coachx:

http://www.fangraphs...-jason-heyward/

I find it absolutely hilarious that the CAC blog has nothing on Constanza. And its obvious from what I previously posted that they are not being objective. I think it has been fairly clear that Constanza has been hot and their subjective "well uhh he's just lucky!" post is turning out to be horseshit. But you can't comment over there and they aren't going to bring up a subject they were blatantly wrong and biased about. So the ignoring of Constanza will continue to occur. I don't see anyone making statements that Constanza will replace Heyward in the long run, which is what the CAC blog was really attacking with in their post. Their secondary subjective argument has been proven wrong, Constanza isn't "lucky" right now, he's hot! When you don't take a subjective look at his at-bats you realize he is hot, but CAC failed to do that.

CAC is very pro Heyward and I understand that but they have an agenda in their writing sometimes...they just disabled comments about a week ago bc of new comers disagreeing with their biased writing....still go on there from time to time to see whats what