Cafardo's manager ranking

[Eminor3rd]

If this was a craps table you would be right. But this isn't.

 

You've said yourself the hot hand is real and I don't think anyone doubts that. But to assume that a streak ends because of a matchup isn't the right play. You don't know when the hot hand ends so you ride it out until it does. The moment trumps the history in the majority of cases.

 

 

If there is evidence that this doesn't work, I'd be interested in reading it Eminor3rd

 

 

EDIT: Benching a player ends the Hot Streak every single time.

 

This is the best little summary I've found, which cites Tango's original research: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/strategy-...ust-the-streak/

 

Again, to be clear: No one is saying that players don't get "dialed in" for streaks. However, there is no way to predict how long those streaks last. A hot day does not beget another hot day. So if a player has been hot for three days, he is NOT more likely to be hot on the fourth day. So if you're deciding how to put the best team on the field for a given day, looking at recent trends instead of statistically significant career data will mislead you. Leury Garcia is Leury Garcia even if he's been hot, and Jose Abreu is Jose Abreu even if he's been cold.

 

EDIT: Here's a relevant snippet

 

The methods were simple. From 2000-2003, any five-game streak in which an individual hitter had greater than a .525 wOBA was included in a batch of “hot streakers.” And any hitter with a wOBA over 5 games of .195 or under was placed in a bucket of “cold streakers.” Note that a player could have had a 6-game streak or 7-game streak and still be included–their methods just select five consecutive hot games by a player, regardless of what happened in game 6.

 

Actually, what happened in game 6 is ultimately the interesting thing: if hot streaks and cold streaks are predictive, you’d expect that players in these crazy-hot and crazy-cold streaks would continue to be at least somewhat hot or somewhat cold in their next games. Here’s what happened:

 

Hot streakers

During the streak: .587 wOBA

Expected wOBA (just a 3-year average for the players): .365

Actual wOBA in game after streak: .369

Actual wOBA in five games after streak: .369

 

Cold streakers

During the streak: .151 wOBA

Expected wOBA (3-year average again): .336

Actual wOBA in first game after streak: .330

Actual wOBA in five games after streak: .332

Edited February 17, 2015 by Eminor3rd

[brett05]

You're asking to prove a negative. What you have yet to do is prove the positive, apparently because there is no evidence to support your claim.

I'm not the one saying there is evidence that points to this. I'm saying if it exists I'd like to read it. Geesh

 

So what would be the evidence? Showing the results of non-starters after two games of consecutive hits would be a part of it.

[brett05]

What empirical evidence do you have of this?

Not sure if this is serious.

[Dick Allen]

I'm not the one saying there is evidence that points to this. I'm saying if it exists I'd like to read it. Geesh

 

So what would be the evidence? Showing the results of non-starters after two games of consecutive hits would be a part of it.

I showed results. You didn't want to play anymore. You are the one making claims. Why can't you show results?

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not the one saying there is evidence that points to this. I'm saying if it exists I'd like to read it. Geesh

 

So what would be the evidence? Showing the results of non-starters after two games of consecutive hits would be a part of it.

So you're arguing it is true because you feel it - since you have no evidence it occurs. Others have shown you clearly that you cannot rely on a "streak" because, basically, you have zero predictability of when it will end.

 

Evidence would be anything statistical that showed streaks are predictable as to length. Anything would do.

 

[brett05]

This is the best little summary I've found, which cites Tango's original research: http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/strategy-...ust-the-streak/

 

Again, to be clear: No one is saying that players don't get "dialed in" for streaks. However, there is no way to predict how long those streaks last. A hot day does not beget another hot day. So if a player has been hot for three days, he is NOT more likely to be hot on the fourth day. So if you're deciding how to put the best team on the field for a given day, looking at recent trends instead of statistically significant career data will mislead you. Leury Garcia is Leury Garcia even if he's been hot, and Jose Abreu is Jose Abreu even if he's been cold.

 

EDIT: Here's a relevant snippet

 

 

Very good read. Thanks!!

 

My comment would be that for a bench type player a streak should be shortened to two games, not five. In general bench players are what they are, bench players. By the time the streak hits 5 games I think the streak is played out so to speak.

 

But I really liked that article. Thanks again!

Edited February 17, 2015 by brett05

[Eminor3rd]

I'm not the one saying there is evidence that points to this. I'm saying if it exists I'd like to read it. Geesh

 

So what would be the evidence? Showing the results of non-starters after two games of consecutive hits would be a part of it.

 

Also, if you want to go further in depth than the summary I posted (and don't feel like buying Tango's book), here's the Pizza Cutter (Russel Carlton) research that is commonly referenced: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=10170

[brett05]

So you're arguing it is true because you feel it - since you have no evidence it occurs. Others have shown you clearly that you cannot rely on a "streak" because, basically, you have zero predictability of when it will end.

 

Evidence would be anything statistical that showed streaks are predictable as to length. Anything would do.

 

 

I am not predicting the length of the streak. I am saying you play it until it ends whenever that is. Next game, next two games, etc.

[Eminor3rd]

Very good read. Thanks!!

 

My comment would be that for a bench type player a streak should be shortened to two games, not five. In general bench players are what they are, bench players. By the time the streak hits 5 games I think the streak is played out so to speak.

 

But I really liked that article. Thanks again!

 

You're very welcome.

 

To my knowledge, I haven't seen anybody do a study that controls specifically for bench players. I'm guessing the inherent small sample issues scare the researchers away

[witesoxfan]

Not sure if this is serious.

 

I'm dead serious. Why does benching a player who is "hot" simply end that hot streak? Are you implying that a guy who has been hitting well and then sits out a game will suddenly and unexpectedly not be "hot" anymore?

[brett05]

Also, if you want to go further in depth than the summary I posted (and don't feel like buying Tango's book), here's the Pizza Cutter (Russel Carlton) research that is commonly referenced: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article....articleid=10170

 

I like that one too. But again he's not focusing on the two game nor the bench player (Not sure but I am guessing most bench players do not get 250 ABs. But I liked both of the articles you shared.

[brett05]

I'm dead serious. Why does benching a player who is "hot" simply end that hot streak? Are you implying that a guy who has been hitting well and then sits out a game will suddenly and unexpectedly not be "hot" anymore?

 

 

It ends the streak. Not playing ends the streak. It's not harder than that.

[brett05]

You're very welcome.

 

To my knowledge, I haven't seen anybody do a study that controls specifically for bench players. I'm guessing the inherent small sample issues scare the researchers away

 

 

Probably true.

[southsider2k5]

In these cases, I am going to trust my managers perception to understand why a player is hot, do the match ups work, is there a history with a players, are there signs that they need to keep playing etc, versus putting myself into either the extreme of always starting a hot player, or going fully by statistics.

[witesoxfan]

It ends the streak. Not playing ends the streak. It's not harder than that.

 

That's too overly simplistic for me. Why does that end the streak?

[Eminor3rd]

It ends the streak. Not playing ends the streak. It's not harder than that.

 

But I'd argue the alternate approach can make more sense. Case in point: George Kottaras

 

Take a look at his numbers the past four or five years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=C

 

He's been a substantially above average hitter even compared to the LEAGUE, let alone compared to catchers, and yet he's never had more than about 200 plate appearances. Why wouldn't someone give him a full-time job?

 

The answer is because he's been used in a strict platoon, which is where he is best positioned to succeed. As recently as 2010, he was getting a third of his at bats against lefties, and he was terrible. Since then, however, he hasn't picked up more than a quarter, and usually much less, and he's been awesome. Just by his numbers, you'd think he would deserve much more time. If his manager kept letting him play because he was successful, he probably would have mediocre numbers. Instead, they've used him strictly when he was most likely to succeed, and the result has been an extremely productive part-time player.

[Eminor3rd]

In these cases, I am going to trust my managers perception to understand why a player is hot, do the match ups work, is there a history with a players, are there signs that they need to keep playing etc, versus putting myself into either the extreme of always starting a hot player, or going fully by statistics.

 

I agree with you, but not because the manager may know better when a streak is going to last. Instead, I'd argue that the things a manager sees that the statistics CAN'T see are related to adjustments and developments that cause changes in true talent. A streak is can be "real" when a player has legitimately improved, but the stats won't get that because they would treat it as a random streak for a long time until it happened enough for it to affect the career results. And by then, we'd already know the guy deserved more playing time, and so they wouldn't help us at all.

 

Also, the manager will know when he should throw Leury out there just to keep him fresh/sharp/mentally stable, even if it means he's a bit less likely to get a hit than the starter he would replace that day.

[brett05]

In these cases, I am going to trust my managers perception to understand why a player is hot, do the match ups work, is there a history with a players, are there signs that they need to keep playing etc, versus putting myself into either the extreme of always starting a hot player, or going fully by statistics.

I agree

[brett05]

That's too overly simplistic for me. Why does that end the streak?

I have no idea how to explain it to you.

[brett05]

But I'd argue the alternate approach can make more sense. Case in point: George Kottaras

 

Take a look at his numbers the past four or five years: http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playe...&position=C

 

He's been a substantially above average hitter even compared to the LEAGUE, let alone compared to catchers, and yet he's never had more than about 200 plate appearances. Why wouldn't someone give him a full-time job?

 

The answer is because he's been used in a strict platoon, which is where he is best positioned to succeed. As recently as 2010, he was getting a third of his at bats against lefties, and he was terrible. Since then, however, he hasn't picked up more than a quarter, and usually much less, and he's been awesome. Just by his numbers, you'd think he would deserve much more time. If his manager kept letting him play because he was successful, he probably would have mediocre numbers. Instead, they've used him strictly when he was most likely to succeed, and the result has been an extremely productive part-time player.

 

 

2014 he really didn't play.

2013 he stunk

2012 better left

 

In general he stinks. How many times did he play back to back games with a hit in three years? Without looking I am going with none.

[witesoxfan]

2014 he really didn't play.

2013 he stunk

2012 better left

 

In general he stinks. How many times did he play back to back games with a hit in three years? Without looking I am going with none.

 

That seems incredibly subjective. Why hits in consecutive games? By this theory, if a guy goes 4-4 with 4 homers, then 0-4, then 4-4 with 4 homers, he's not hot.

[Reddy]

Nothing super specific comes to mind. His handling of pitchers in game was pretty awful. He seemed to never really have a handle on that with that. He's also be prone to taking a hot guy out of the lineup because that guy wasn't a regular. I'm hoping he improves a ton this year. We'll see.

I'm glad you said that, because actually, his bullpen management has been some of the best in all of baseball

 

He did a terrific job using his relievers in ways that got the most out of their talent, while adapting to changes that he noticed over the course of the season.

 

To be clear, Ventura has not had it easy when it comes to his bullpen. There are 20 names on that list, including a few position players, but it’s clear that Ventura worked well with what he had.

 

It’s easy to look back, with all the information we have at the end of the season, and critique any manager’s use of his bullpen. While it might not be fair, because the managers didn’t have all this information at the time of these decisions, it does give some insight into which managers are more in tune with the performance of their bullpens. Or were, for a year. Where Fredi Gonzalez struggled to adjust to the variable performances put forth by his relievers, Robin Ventura was able to consistently put his best relief pitchers in the most high-leverage situations.

 

To see the actual statistical facts, check out the article. RV did as well as he could've last year with the bullpen we had.

Perfect Hindsight and Bullpen Management - Baseball Prospectus

[brett05]

That seems incredibly subjective. Why hits in consecutive games? By this theory, if a guy goes 4-4 with 4 homers, then 0-4, then 4-4 with 4 homers, he's not hot.

 

By definition it would be the end to the first and the beginning of the second.

[lasttriptotulsa]

I have no idea how to explain it to you.

 

Yea the reason you can't explain it is because it is a completely nonsensical bulls*** statement to begin with.

[southsider2k5]

I agree with you, but not because the manager may know better when a streak is going to last. Instead, I'd argue that the things a manager sees that the statistics CAN'T see are related to adjustments and developments that cause changes in true talent. A streak is can be "real" when a player has legitimately improved, but the stats won't get that because they would treat it as a random streak for a long time until it happened enough for it to affect the career results. And by then, we'd already know the guy deserved more playing time, and so they wouldn't help us at all.

 

Also, the manager will know when he should throw Leury out there just to keep him fresh/sharp/mentally stable, even if it means he's a bit less likely to get a hit than the starter he would replace that day.

 

Take a guy like Paul Konerko. I don't care how hot he was, I wouldn't send him out there against Tim Wakefield. Not only couldn't he hit the guy, it seems like every time he tried, he ended up in a two week slump afterwards.