Hotter Than Hot
Posted: May 8th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 51 Comments »
Thursday, we went to see Dr. Leonard Mlodinow — author of The Drunkard’s Walk: How Randomness Rules Our Lives — speak. It was, as those of you who have read the book already know, brilliant. He began with this experiment that I have tried to recreate in the sidebar. I’ll fill you in on that later.
One thing he spent quite a bit of time on was talking the hot hand in sports. He said that, statistically speaking, the hot hand is a myth. This is a very difficult thing to wrap our minds around. But he said study after study has shown that, basically, an 80% free-throw shooter is an 80% free-throw shooter after a missed free throw and also an 80% free throw shooter after a made free throw. A .300 hitter is a .300 hitter after a groundout to second as he is after a long home run where the “baseball looked like a grapefruit floating up there.”
In other words, there is no statistical evidence of someone actually getting hot. All the “hot hands” — the hitting streaks, the free throw streaks, the field goal streaks — are basically just the randomness of sports. Flip a coin a million times, and sometimes heads will appear hot, sometimes tails will appear hot, but it isn’t true, there’s an overriding reality.
He even pointed to this very interesting Cornell study which contradicts one of the most commonly believed notions about sports: That Joe DiMaggio’s 56-game hitting streak is a freak occurrence, perhaps the only truly freak occurrence in the history of sports. Stephen Jay Gould, the eminent evolutionary biologist and historian, wrote often about this, saying that while everything else could be explained by the noise of probability, DiMaggio’s streak was so improbable that it simply could not be explained.
But the Cornell folks did a simple simulation of every single baseball season going all the way back to the beginning. They did that simulation 10,000 times. These are people after my own heart.
And here’s what they found: A 56-game hitting streak or longer came up in almost exactly half the simulations. This is a reminder that it all depends how you look at probability. Yes, the probability of Joe DiMaggio getting a hit 56-games in a row is off the charts. But the probability of ANYONE in the long history of baseball getting a hit 56-games in a row — Ty Cobb, Hugh Duffy, Ted Williams, Joe DiMaggio, Duane Kuiper, on and on and on — is not off the charts. It’s closer to 50-50.*
*In the study, the Cornell people point out a great story: The physicist Richard Feynman began his lecture by saying that he just saw the most amazing thing — a car with the license plate ANZ 912 … the odds for that have to be off the charts.
I bring all this up because, of course, I am fascinated by hot streaks. A few years ago, I was very close to writing a book about George Brett’s remarkable 1980 season … and I still might write that book someday. I don’t think anyone was ever hotter than Brett in ’80. The certainty that hot streaks are more about probability than the batter getting into the mystical zone — Brett was a great hitter and, as such, was certain to have extreme hot streaks — doesn’t in any way lessen my interest in them. We all go through these things, hot streaks and cold, lucky runs and unlucky ones, days when everything seems to go right and, seemingly more often, go wrong.
And in many ways, it’s how we deal with those hot and cold streaks in our lives that makes us human. And determines whether or not we get a long-term deal or get sent down to the minor leagues.*
*You probably have heard that some fans are trying desperately to stuff the All-Star ballot box to get Washington Nationals minor leaguer Lastings Milledge into the All-Star Game. This blog heartily supports the effort.
So, I have thrown together a few of the hottest hot streaks in baseball history. I decided that the streak had to last at least 21 games — three weeks seems like a legit hot streak. I mean, sure, in 1954, Rip Repulski got two hits in 10 straight games and hit five homers in the stretch, but that’s just not quite long enough. Here are some awesome hot streaks.
Ted Williams, 1957: For 28 games in July and August, the Kid hit .522/.619/.957 with 10 home runs and, I love this, 13 intentional walks. You know, the Kid turned 39 years old later that month. So that means that two of the most feared hitters in baseball history include: A 38-and-almost-39 year old Ted Williams and a 39-almost-40-year-old Barry Bonds (who was intentionally walked 120 times in 2004).
Roberto Alomar, 1996: For 22 games, Alomar hit .476 … at the end of the streak on June 10 he was hitting .410 for the season. He had 14 multiple hit games during the streak, ending it with a streak of six straight multiple hit games. … Alomar hit .277 for the rest of the season.
Rico Carty, 1970: Here’s a fun little trivia question you can ask your friends — who had the highest single season batting average in the National League between 1950 and 1985? Or you can put it: Between Stan Musial and Tony Gwynn?
The answer is Rico Carty, 1970, when he hit a preposterous .366. Rico went 0-for-4 in the first game of that season. He then hit in 31 straight games — hitting .451/.530/.743 for that stretch. In a three-game sweep of the Cubs, he went 7-for-12 with three homers. In a four-game set in Pittsburgh he went 9 for 15.
Rico was hitting .436 on May 15. And what’s interesting, is he was STILL hitting .435 on June 4. He promptly went three for 25 to drop under .400, and his average dropped to as low as .348 in September. He then hit .622 for his next 11 games and finished the year with that .366 average.
Lance Berkman, 2001: Berkman has gone into some amazing hot streaks … none more than his 21-game hitting streak in ’01. He hit .471 for those 21 games, finishing it off in Kansas City by going 9 for 15 and leaving all of us to wonder how ANYONE EVER got this guy out.
To give you a sense of probability: Berkman was hitting .326 when the streak began, .365 when the streak ended, and .331 at the end of the year.
Joey Cora, 1997: For 22 games, Cora hit .495/.535/.763. He had four four hit games in that stretch … And that reminds me of perhaps the hottest streak I ever saw live:
Johnny Damon, 2000: In a 22-game stretch, Damon hit .490 and raised his batting average from .274 to .324 — but what was really amazing is that he had FIVE four-hit games in those three weeks. And he had SIX MORE three hit games. It was absolutely amazing.
To give you an idea:
Most four-or-more-hit games in a season (since 1954):
1. Ichiro Suzku, 10, 2004
2. Pete Rose, 9, 1968
(tie) Johnny Damon, 9, 2000
(tie) Dante Bichette, 9, 1999*
*Worth noting that Damon’s teammate on the 2000 Royals, Mike Sweeney had eight four-hit games that same year. Man, that team could really hit.
Damon also had 18 three-hit games that year. Never saw anything quite like it. Every bloop seemed to drop, every slow roller in the infield stayed fair, every line drive skimmed over the glove of the second baseman. it was preposterous.
Hank Aaron, 1959: He hit .468 with 9 homers in 22 games. It’s interesting … people often talk about how incongruous it is for Hank Aaron to be remembered as the Home Run King when he was not a titanic home run hitter. You know he never hit 50 homers in a season, and his home run pace (one in every 16 at-bats) places him 36th in baseball history behind, among other, Jim Gentile, Jay Buhner, Ron Kittle and Juan Gonzalez.
But Aaron had stretches of amazing home run power. He did lead the league in homers four times. He also hit two or more homers in a game 62 times (since 1954, only the Selig Era sluggers Bonds, Sosa and McGwire have pulled the trick more).
Most games with two or more homers in a game (since 1954)
1. Barry Bonds, 71
2. Sammy Sosa, 69
3. Mark McGwire, 67
4. Hank Aaron, 62
5. Willie Mays, 61*
6. Ken Griffey, 55
7. Frank Robinson, 54
(tie) Manny Ramirez, 54
9. Alex Rodriguez 52
10. Carlos Delgado, 49
*Does not include Mays’ 1951 or ‘52 seasons … he might have one or two more.
Loading ...
I don’t want to ruin the experiment, but I’m guessing the first and third questions are supposed to influence the answers to the second and fourth questions.
Fooled by Randomness by Nasim Taleb is another good book.
Joe,
Just a heads up…apparently today on Dennis & Callahan on WEEI in Boston, they called you out for being “one of those fanboy journalists” (when talking about the Manny thing)…got a response?
They only say things to get a rise out of people, but there demagraphics are not really the type of people who would recognize your name right away, so it was really confusing.
I can’t believe anyone thought Williams hit above .400 for his career. Tell me those people were just confused by the question.
Russ L: What were those two idiots talking about? Did Joe write defending Manny and I missed it?
I misread the first question. I read it as “in his career,” not “for his career.” So I answered yes, that he had an above-.400 season in his career. Then I realized my mistake. So if you want, you can can count it as one more “no” and one less “yes” for question one.
Great book, great post.
And incidentally, I think I like the Selig Era much more than the Steroid Era. It’s subtler, more nuanced. Very nice.
Mike:
I think they were referring to Joe’s campaign a few months back to get everyone to recognize what a winner Manny is.
Whatever, they aren’t worth the trouble…KKKallahan is probably jealous that The Poz writes for SI
“In other words, there is no statistical evidence of someone actually getting hot. All the “hot hands†— the hitting streaks, the free throw streaks, the field goal streaks — are basically just the randomness of sports. Flip a coin a million times, and sometimes heads will appear hot, sometimes tails will appear hot, but it isn’t true, there’s an overriding reality.”
I learned a phrase way back in my college days that I have used to explain many, many different things: “statistically normal deviation”.
Can I flip a coin and get heads ten times in a row? Sure. Can I get heads 100 times in a row? Sure. If you flip enough coins, you will get all sorts of results. Similarly, a player who hits .300 for the season is NOT going to have 3 hits in every 10 AB. Sometimes he will get none, sometimes he will get 10, most of the time he will get something in between — but at the end of the season, he will be hitting .300. Just as if you flip enough coins, the percentage of heads will get close to 50.
Someone (it may have been Bill James; I read it so long ago I don’t remember) once wrote an explanation of why there is no such thing as real “hot” or real “cold” streaks that stuck in my head ever since. By definition, a “hot” streak is a player doing better than would be expected (his average performance) — so the only logical conclusion of a “hot” streak would be a player batting 1.000 (or .000 at the end of a “cold” streak).
As Dr. Mlodinow says, an 80% free throw shooter is an 80% free throw shooter, a .300 hitter is a .300 hitter. The odds of there NOT being a “hot” or “cold” streak at some point are enormous — nobody makes 4 out of every 5 free throws, or gets a hit 3 out of every 10 AB. But, at the end of the day, the TOTALS will give you a true picture.
After all, it’s called “batting AVERAGE” — and that’s what “average” means. Take all your 2 for 21 streaks, and your 11 for 16 streaks, and whatever else, and you will get an AVERAGE of .300.
Found it; The Man wrote about the Manny for si.com this week. I believe I now can reconstruct what happened:
DENNIS: Did you read the Posnanski piece like we told you to?
FLASHBOY: Um, most of it.
CALLAHAN (sneering): What did he say?
FLASHBOY: Well, it was kind of nuanced. Obviously, after years of working with you two, that confused me. But there was a sentence near where I skipped to the end … lemme see. Yeah, here it is: “I don’t think it makes them bad people.”
DENNIS: (silent)
CALLAHAN (sneering): What?
FLASHBOY: Yeah, and before that, he says … yeah, here: “I don’t have any anger about it.”
CALLAHAN (sneering): (silent)
DENNIS: What does that even mean?
CALLAHAN (sneering): Fanboy.
DENNIS: OK, we’re back on the Dennis and Callahan Show …
Okay, am I a complete moron? What is with the reference to the “ANZ 912″ license plate?
The only thing that comes to mind for me is it follows 9/11 and we know what that stands for since that September day almost 8 years ago… ANZ???
HELP!
To Mark W.
The license plate itself signifies nothing, he’s just using it as an example of randomness we don’t pay any attention to, where as if Christian Guzman has a 20 game hit streak we are eager to attribute more reasons for it than there actually is.
Mark W: The point is that the odds of seeing that particular plate are really low, but no one is impressed by it since it’s just some random license plate number. But people ARE impressed when they see other, equally random things, just because there’s some arbitrary significance attached to them.
I think ANZ 912 is just completely random. It could have been any license plate. The odds of seeing ANZ 912 (or any other plate) are astronomical.
In other words, if you saw the plate AAA 111, you’d probably think, “what are the odds of seeing that?”. Well, the odds are the same as they are as seeing ANZ 912. But nobody ever says that when they see something random.
Same thing happens when you buy groceries and the bill comes out to an even dollar amount. Most people think that’s really rare, but it’s not any rarer than the bill ending in 68 cents (or any other number).
Mark-
It has no reference; it is a reference to nothing. It is just… random. The odds of any license plate with 3 numbers and 3 letters, in specific orders, are the “what are the odds of that?” to which he refers.
Athletes are not dice, random number generators or coins to be flipped. Actual human beings get “hot” and “cold,” especially when their health is considered. Hitters playing through pain are much more likely to have a “cold” streak, and if they do, it’s not just randomness, like it would be if a coin landed tails 4 times in a row. Hitters who have made adjustments to how the league has pitched them are likely to go on a hot streak, until the league adjusts back to their new strategy.
Sure randomness is a big part of streaks, but it’s not the ONLY factor. You’re never going to be able to isolate the other factors, like hitter adjustments, matchups and injuries, so statistical studies like the ones that have been done will always say it’s all randomness. That isn’t the actual truth of the matter, though.
Mark W: also, the odds of having that license plate number are literally one in millions.
every license plate is unique, so if you’re in New Jersey, the odds of having that plate are 1 in 8,600,000 (well, the population of Jersey is about that right now, not saying that every single person in the state owns a car, but you get my point).
so the odds of seeing that specific license plate are much lower than the odds of seeing Johnny Damon get a hit tonight.
To illustrate the license plate reference. Say there are 100 million cars in the U.S. If you went LOOKING for a license plate with “ANZ 912″, with no reason to think you would see one, and you did, that would be highly improbable. However, if you look at the next license plate you see and it happens to be “ANZ 912″, then there is no significance to it. It had to be something.
I understand the science behind there not being a hot streak. How any one ground ball or bloop (did the word “bloop” exist before baseball?) can change the results (much like the Royals April in 2003). But, there are times when chance has nothing to do with it. Jose Guillen last year had that one stretch where everything he hit was a rocket. The randomness there decided whether he hit .450 or .750 during that streak as even his outs were shots. The same with George during his 1980 streak.
Most athletes will at different times get into “the zone” where they know the they’re going to succeed at a greater rate than normal. Why this doesn’t show up in the study I don’t know.
I agree that much of it is randomness. However, an at bat is much more complicated than flipping a coin; I don’t see how anybody can compare them directly. The fact that there are .300 hitters and .220 hitters is proof that it’s not all randomness, talent, among other things, comes into play. “Luck” may be a large part but it’s not the only thing affecting the outcome of an at-bat.
For something as simple as flipping coins randomness is the only factor (assuming you’re not flipping poorly on purpose). But for something as complicated as an at-bat (especially a season of at-bats), talent, health, pitcher talent, pitcher health, and luck all contribute to varying degrees.
Joe, how do we get you to write the George Brett book next? Beg? Plead? Send money? Pre-order? Just say the word
Rogers Hornsby hit 400 for five years.
Thanks for the help guys…I guess I see more than a few vanity plates and this was beginning to confuse my lame brain.
Chris Needham probably thinks he’s being witty with his campaign for Lastings Milledge, but he’s only half-right.
I’m not sure I buy the whole “no hot/cold streaks” argument.
It assumes that “a .300 hitter” is a stationary process over some long period (i.e., has the same underlying likelihood of hitting the ball). That’s patently not the case over, say, a career. As an extreme example — obviously, as players get older, their skills diminish, and so “a .300 hitter” in his prime is not the same “.300 hitter” late in his career.
So if the process isn’t stationary over a whole career, what is the lower limit to how long a process is stationary? 5 years? 1 year? Who’s to say someone can’t be “hot” for three months?
Said another way — given a series of at-bats, one can explain it as random variation over a stationary process or as smaller variation over a non-stationary process. How to tell which is the case?
PS: D&C are morons, don’t pay them any attention.
Agree with #20, John.
Please write the GB book!!!
Bryan Adams, I was toying with a similar argument, but you expressed it much better than I would have.
selig era is awesome, i will forever call it this, thanks again joe
interestingly, johnny damon’s .335 babip in 2000 wasn’t even the highest in his entire career, it was .338 in 2005 and .330 last year
Athletes and “the zone” (Goetzo @18): which comes first, the feeling or the success? Does the athlete have a feeling, which then translates into a streak, or do a few hits get the juices flowing? The great athletes have uncanny concentration, but they employ that through hot and cold streaks, so I see that as different from “the zone”.
My take is that “the zone” is an artifact of a postive “statistically normal deviation” (Thanks David in NYC @9)… not the other way around. Although, I concede that it may be the opposite, and that players with higher averages include those who can access such zones more frequently.
A coin doesn’t gain confidence after hitting heads a couple of times. A coin doesn’t have a reaction to itself which would effect the next time it flipped. (“Way to go 1977D Penny! You really nailed landing on heads twice.” – Third Penny Person) Hot and cold doesn’t impact innanimate objects like dice, cards or coins. Hot or cold, feeling it or feeling lost does play into everyday drama we follow in sport.
Doesn’t the no hot/cold streaks simply assume that each at-bat is independent of the previous one? That assumption seems a bit simplistic to me. After all, it’s ridiculous to think that a coin gets on a hot streak. But, one good at-bat can lead to an increase in confidence, which leads to another good at-bat, etc. Now, whether any particular at-bat leads to a hit may be random, but I believe there are times where a .300 hitter can become a .400 hitter over a few month period.
In golf, there are a lot of stories about someone’s swing just “clicking”. I believe Tiger called his coach right before the ‘97 Masters and basically said, “I’ve got it.” I forget where I read it, but I think Watson mentioned having his swing click on a sand wedge he hit (sometime in the 70s). For the next few months, he was unstoppable.
so…er. what we’re saying here is that with a large enough sample size…and in hindsight…we can see that a .300 hitter is a .300 hitter.
yup. that’s amazing and insightful. thank god for the math.
at the same time…
there are so many variables in the actual living game of baseball…that the unexpected happens, and quite often.
or things that have never happened before (even granting all the individuals and games involved in the sport’s history) continue to happen, each and every season.
I’m not sure I completely buy the “no hot streak” argument either. We know that luck/randomness plays a very large role on the outcome of a batted ball. But there are plenty of physical, mental, and environmental subtleties that go into hitting a baseball. It’s not inconceivable that over a given time period a ballplayer, for a variety of reasons (temporary cessation of a nagging but not DL worthy injury being probably the biggest), can become better at making adjustments or is able to do everything right physically in order to temporarily increase his “true talent level,” which in my definition would be a hot streak. Having so many variables means that in most cases they’ll cancel each other out, leaving luck as the remaining factor.
Richard,
The argument isn’t that talent level doesn’t make a difference. It’s just that, over time, people will hit at their own personal talent level (whatever that happens to be), albeit with hot and cold streaks mixed in. Bobby Abreu’s a .300 career hitter, but if he goes 3-for-3, it’s not like his next seven at-bats will automatically be outs. Nor can you assume that if he goes 0-for-7, he’ll get a hit his next three times up. The season will consist of a lot of stretches where his average is well higher than .300 and others where his average is much lower, and that they’ll average out to .300 (assuming that’s his true level, and disregarding the vagaries of age.) The point of the study is that Abreu’s not necessarily a better hitter during a .400 stretch than he is during a .200 stretch. It just boils down to chance.
I’m not saying I fully agree with this, of course. There are factors that others have mentioned (injuries, confidence, etc.) that will affect a player’s performance one way or another. I think for confidence to kick in, it requires a bit of a pure-chance hot streak in a lot of cases.
However, I think there’s more to random chance than people want to admit. I’d wager that the vast majority of most hot (or cold) streaks are due to chance and then made better (or worse) to a much lesser degree by other factors that have to do with the player himself.
I’m a little skeptical about the “no hot streak” theory, too. I think an athlete can get into a frame of mind in which he has great confidence and executes perfectly. He does something, it works, he keeps doing the same thing, it keeps working, etc.
I know anecdotal evidence means nothing, but twenty years ago I used to play pickup basketball at the court on 79th Street in Prairie Village. (I’m no good unless you need somebody to hit an eight-foot undefended set shot.) One evening I hung around till dusk after everybody else went home and practiced free throws. I got into a groove, that left-handed wrist flip, and got into a pattern of doing exactly the same thing over and over. I hit more than thirty in a row, and I just knew every one was going in because I was doing exactly the same thing every time.
Justin,
I agree with what you’re saying, I probably just didn’t state it well.
I agree in that I think the most important aspect of a hitting streak is luck, or randomness. I disagree however with the idea that a hitting streak is purely luck and not affected by other factors. It seemed to me from the article that Joe was implying being hot or cold is solely based on randomness. So yeah, I do think that most of a hot streak is luck. But I don’t think that’s the only variable.
#16: “Sure randomness is a big part of streaks, but it’s not the ONLY factor.”
See, though, there’s the problem: mathematically, it’s been demonstrated that the factor that you can attribute to randomness is basically equal to the total variation.
There are any number of ways to test this. You can do self-correlations (does p(hit) for at-bat (n) vary if at-bat (n-1) was a hit or not). You can analyze clusters of at-bats (take every set of 10 at-bats and calculate how many sets have 0 hits, how many have 1 hit, how many 2, and so on. A completely random process would have the numbers of hits normally distributed around 3 (not exactly a normal distribution, because it’s a bounded discrete process, but you get the picture); if there were “streakiness” involved, the distribution would be flatter – i.e., more clusters of at-bats with more hits, and more clusters with fewer hits – than the predicted distribution). There are probably other ways that a real statistician could come up with.
Every time anyone’s looked at actual data for actual batters, it’s looked (to the limits of statistical accuracy) just like a random process.
#19: “The fact that there are .300 hitters and .220 hitters is proof that it’s not all randomness, talent, among other things, comes into play.”
No one said it’s “all randomness”. But by random chance, a .220 will occasionally have a period where he’ll get 8 hits in a week of 20 at-bats. He didn’t become a .400 hitter; he’s still a .220 hitter — because he’ll also occasionally have periods where he gets 2 hits in a week of 20 at-bats. The .300 hitter will have more 8-20 weeks (not to mention 9, 10, and 11-20 weeks) and fewer 2-20 weeks. But in both cases, the number of 8-20 weeks will be what you’d predict if you ran a random process with a 22% chance of “success” and one with a 30% chance of “success”.
#31: At-bats may or may not “really” be independent events, but they are statistically indistinguishable from them.
#37: You may be absolutely right about the statistical insignificance of anything besides randomness in regards to hot and cold streaks, I’ve never heard of any statistical analysis showing otherwise, and I’ve heard of many that confirm this. However, I think what is important to remember is that this doesn’t prove that there is no such thing as a hot hitter, or that the outcome of the previous at bat (or cluster of at bats) has no effect on the current at bat. What is proves is that there is no evidence supporting these hypothesis’.
I do firmly believe that randomness is the greatest factor in hot and cold streaks, but I do not think there is any evidence, mathematical or otherwise, out there that can convince me that it is all randomness (such as in a coin flip). Statistics work when they use a large amount of numbers, and the hot-cold streak statistical analysis’ that are out there certainly do use large samples. However, while the increase in the sample size adds to the legitimacy of the conclusion as a whole, it decreases the relevance of the conclusion in any particular case. It may be technically true to say that as a whole major league hitters have shown no statistical prevelance for hot or cold streaks, but this doesn’t mean that there is no such thing as a hot or cold streak.
For example, if you were to limit the statistical analysis that was mentioned in your comment to just, say, Manny Ramirez’s 2008 season you would probably find that there was a statistical relationship between at bat “n” and at bat “n-1″. This conclusion would not be very illuminating because it suffers from a small sample size and therefore is it much less likely to be proving anything beyond randomness. However, it would be very relevant if you are discussing just Manny’s ‘08 season. Regardless of whether it proves the existence of anything beyond randomness, it would be correct to say that at bat “n” was related to at bat “n-1″ in Manny Ramirez’s 2008 season. The more at bats you add to the sample the stronger the conclusion, but the less that conclusion can be specifically related to Manny’s ‘08 season. The problem with using statistics to prove a theory in this way (that hot and cold streaks are purely random much like flipping a coin), is that you are by necessity describing the macro scenario, which is fine as long as you don’t insist that is pertains to every micro situation.
It is the gambler’s fallacy that anyone is ever due for a win, or a hit, etc., however, when the statistics are constant, we can expect a range of outcomes over time. Our expectations over time are, of course, tied to our knowledge of the past and of the constants involved, so it is easy to say that person A over 15 years is a .300 hitter, and a .350 streak is as likely a statistical anomaly as a .250 streak. But streaks are based on the limits of our potential and beyond. Before 1990, would simulated statistical outcomes have predicted the likelihood that 7 of the top 10 multi-home-run-game hitters in a 55 year span would emerge in the final 20 years of that span?
Sure, it is easy to simulate statistics, but only because they are based on the things we already know. Cornell cannot run an accurate simulation without assuming things, meaning they are basing the limitations of human ability on previous data. So it really isn’t news that half of the 10,000 simulations resulted in a 56 game hitting streak, because it has already happened. The game, though, has clearly evolved from era to era, as pitching, number of teams, health of players, drugs, racism, changes to the ball, changes to the bat, changes to the mound, changes to stadiums, changes to the weather, changes to the field, changes to equipment, changes to our emotions, etc. all play a part in making the unexpected expected. Few things in baseball have been constant (the infield fly rule has only been here for 114 years), so it is impossible to assume that we know what the next 114 years will bring or that because something is likely to happen, it actually will. We have seen Roger Maris’ record broken 6 times in a four year span after it stood for 37 years, and we all know it wasn’t 100% due to statistical coincidence or likelihood. If steroids gave us nothing else, they let us know that sometimes, due to unforeseen changes in any one of millions of factors that can affect a game, you can expect the unexpected… a growth of confidence, an improvement in strength, or a “hot streak.”
Getting into a hot hitting streak is also HIGHLY determined by the opposing pitchers….What’s the saying in baseball about momentum being most determined by the next day’s starting pitcher? – or something to that effect.
has anyone taken every at-bat for a player during a single season and plotted them out on a graph chronologically, and then overlayed them with every other season of a long(ish) career, to look for some semblance of a pattern?
i would be curious to see something like that
It doesnt seem accurate to say that there is no statistical evidence of ’someone getting hot’. You are showing statistical evidence that what happened last at-bat (or the last 30 at-bats) does not impact the next at-bat. If the fastball just seemed to hang like a grapefruit the last 10 at-bats, that doesn’t mean it wont hang like a grapefruit for the next 10 at-bats or even for just the next at-bat….but it is completely different to state that the ball never hung there like a grapefruit, it was all just stastical variation.
In other words, that we can’t predict someone getting/staying hot doesn’t mean people dont actually get hot.
There are times when hitting the ball hard just seems easier than other times. A .330 hitter will have these times more often than a .220 hitter….and when the hot streak shows up and when it ends will all be random statistical variation, but it’s silly for anyone to say that it isnt there.
I find it odd that, of the top 10 hitters by average in baseball history, only 4 are also in the top 50 with regard to consecutive game hitting streaks. Joe Jackson, Lefty O’Doul, Ted Williams, Billy Hamilton, Dan Brouthers, and Babe Ruth do not make the list (all above .340 career).
Also, when you look at the top ten, 1941 to current, streakers, only Dimaggio, Paul Molitor, and Tommy Holmes hit above .310 for the season, and only Dimaggio, Molitor, Rose, Holmes, and Hal Morris were/are career .300 hitters. Benito freaking Santiago is in that top 10.
Just to back up some of my fellow math-heads out there. I also agree that athletes don’t get “hot” or “cold” in some bizarre, mystical, psycho-spiritual way. Sure, they have streaks, but mathematically those streaks are accounted for by randomness.
Obviously there are dozens upon dozens of factors that contribute to the success or failure of a hitter in any given at bat, and if we could quantify every single one of those, we might be able to tell what the effect of “feeling it” is, but the reality is that there is no evidence suggesting that being “in the zone” actually changes the results of a given at bat. Basically, the argument for “being hot” is the same as the argument for being a clutch hitter: it states that for some reason players actual talent level changes based upon a game situation (i.e. whether there are runners on base, or whether they got a hit in a previous at bat). I don’t buy it, myself.
Player talent levels can change, of course, but it requires sustained effort and practice, and ability is unlikely to fluctuate much over the course of a season – let alone a game. The reason great players in their sports like Albert Pujols or Tiger Woods or LeBron James seem to be “hot” so often, and deliver well in the clutch is because they’re just that good anyway. For every miracle finish or impossible hot streaks, there are plenty of cases when LeBron misses 8 three pointers in a row, or tournaments where Tiger finishes 6th, or days when Albert goes 0 for 5 and leaves 6 guys on base. Those things may be rare, because the talent level of those elite players is so high, but it does happen both ways.
I would guess, though, if you look it up, that no one has missed more last second shots than Michael Jordan…
[...] This post was Twitted by youareheas – Real-url.org [...]
I believe the best way to detect if the unit we are try to measure is random or not is to control chart it over time. If the points are within the upper and lower control limits established by the variation within the measurements we should be able to access if the behavior is random or if some other factor is the major cause of the result (ie level of confidence, level of health, is the girlfriend nagging them or not, …). I would like to see the hits per game averaged in weekly buckets for George Brett in 1980 to perform the analysis on. His performance that year is the definition of a hot streak if such a thing is possible. Average hits per game is probably not the best unit to measure, but it should provide some indication if a hot streak is possible.
Many many years ago, back when women smiled at me out of interest rather than pity, I attended a party with a friend who had a reputation as a fearless horse bettor. During the evening a loudmouth called him out along the lines “So you reckon you’re a gambler. I’ll toss you for a hundred bucks. You up for it.”
“I like a bet,” my friend told him, “but I’m not interested thanks.”
“Too scared, eh,” from the loudmouth.
“What I’ll do,” my friend offered, “is toss you for one dollar. If you win I’ll toss you for another dollar. If you win that as well, I’ll toss you for a dollar again. Then, if you win that third toss, I’ll toss you for the hundred. Five hundred if you like. You interested in that?”
Needless to say, the loudmouth sat down and shut up.
Lance Berkman had a much “hotter” streak last season than in 2001. In one 21-gm stretch in May, Berkman hit .506/.591/.922 with 7 homers.
You can expand it out to a 27-gm stretch where he hit .475/.555/.871 with 9 homers and 22 RBI.
I apologize if someone else covered this, but I figured I’d chime in. I’m a pretty smart guy, and I believe in all of the math that this fella did. I believe that in the long haul (10,000 seasons) that this guy’s math is correct. It is however, undeniably, lacking in that human element. A .300 hitter is essentially like a coin that invariably lands on heads 30% of the time. When that coin has landed on heads once per game for 55 games in a row, it feels no more pressure to land on heads than if it had done so only 2 games in a row. That pressure is just not quantifiable.
If we believe that a player can get down on himself, get too far into his own head, and have a really crappy string of games, then the opposite of that must also be true. Sometimes a player just sees the ball clearly. His muscles work smoothly, and it’s easier for him to hit the ball. Hot streaks absolutely exist, and to argue otherwise just doesn’t make any sense. You can make an argument that it all comes out in the wash, that a .300 hitter is a .300 hitter, and that’s true over the long haul, but for small sample sizes hot streaks absolutely exist. If baseball were purely random, then you or I could walk out there and hit just as well as the pros, and we all know that’s not true. As skill increases the odds of success increase, and there are absolutely waxings and wanings in the focus necessary to exercise that skill, and it’s these things that ABSOLUTELY lead to legitimate streaks in baseball.
Not to jinx it, but JOE MAUER, 2009!!!
.438/.525/.875 with 10 HR in his first 22 games of the season!
add in an 11th hr in 1 at bat on a day he was supposed to have off but pinch-hit in the bottom of the 9th.
11 hr in 81 at bats.