dartsndeacs
THE quintessential dwarf
Also helps him do 3 games in the series
Also helps him do 3 games in the series
Imagine how fast the game would have been without the long half inning breaks.
faster than you skimming through page 42.
You must be Nostradumus. I only have 22 pages.
https://books.google.com/books?id=FrUYdXKZFZwC&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=twopage&q&f=false
RJ, if you are interested, go read Chapter 3, or just pages 71 through 80. The chapter says not even 60 PAs is enough to provide predictive value.
Also, chapter 2 disproves the "hot hand" theory though it says there is just a tiny bit of predictive value of hot and cold streaks for pitchers.
The concept that the hot hand doesn't exist in BASKETBALL is ludicrous.
Just because someone says something about 60 PA doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. If a guy is a .250 hitter but for some reason has hit .500 against a pitcher in 30 PAs and you don't think it's predictive, it's on you when he beats you. Conversely, if a .300 hitter is 1-20 against someone and you think he's going to hit that pitcher, good for you, I'll see in Spring training not the WS.
Just because someone says something about 60 PA doesn't mean everyone has to believe it.
First of all, I wasn't talking about a Hot hand in baseball. I've never talked about that until now. The only hot hand I've posted about is in basketball.
You can find examples to fit anything you want. Unless I missed it, he didn't show ANYTHING that disputed his concepts. To assume that none exist, seems a bit of a stretch.
Just because someone says something about 60 PA doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. If a guy is a .250 hitter but for some reason has hit .500 against a pitcher in 30 PAs and you don't think it's predictive, it's on you when he beats you. Conversely, if a .300 hitter is 1-20 against someone and you think he's going to hit that pitcher, good for you, I'll see in Spring training not the WS.
lol. like i said, anything to avoid being wrong. We were talking about batter vs. pitcher matchups, which is not the same thing as the hot hand.
Nor does it show a single player who continued to do well.
That is the fucking point! The study didn't cherry pick those players. It analyzed 300 samples of players that had >17 PAs against a pitcher from 1999-2001 and then >9 PAs against the same pitcher in 2002. Those players in the chart were the BEST against those pitchers, and none of them performed as you would expect in the following year. That same exact methodology, applied even to larger samples, shows that not even 60 PAs is predictive.
Again, my minimum criteria was 20 PAs, half those people didn't reach that.
It also didn't show people who were dramatically under performing against pitchers.
With our three hundred confrontation pairs, we get an average of 22 before PA and 11 after PA.
wOBA? A weighted stat? 1 HR in 10 PAs would change that number wouldn't it?
Straight numbers...not weighted ones.