Batted Ball Distance and hot streaks

[Phantom]

Interesting article from Fangraphs fantasy department, which features data on two O's and one notable ex Oriole:

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/hrfb-rate-decliners-through-the-lens-of-batted-ball-distance/

Jimmy Paredes has become public enemy number one for me, as his silly hot streak has stolen Steve Pearce?s job. And since Buck Showalter is clearly ignorant of the research that hot streaks have no predictive value, he loves to play the hot hand. I have no idea where this has come from as his highest ISO at any minor league stop was just .174. And although the batted ball distance doesn?t match with the HR/FB rate, it is still clearly well above what Paredes has done in the past. We?ll just have to see how this one pans out.

Nelson Cruz has played his entire career in strong hitting environments. So naturally the assumption was that the move to his first pitcher friendly home park is going to take a huge bite out of his power. So far, Cruz has laughed at that notion as his HR/FB sits at a ridiculous 30.4%. Yet, his batted ball distance has actually declined by about seven feet! Given his low line drive rate, high fly ball rate and elevated IFFB%, one also wonders how his BABIP is sitting at .346. He appears to be the primiest sell high candidate in all the world.

Name Distance HR/FB

Nelson Cruz 289.99 30.4%

Jimmy Paredes 290.56 25.0%

Alejandro De Aza 255.51 20.0%

[Redskins Rick]

When I read the words ignorant and Buck in the same sentence. I move on and consider it something not worth reading.

[Phantom]

When I read the words ignorant and Buck in the same sentence. I move on and consider it something not worth reading.

Because he is infallible? Do you disagree with the statement that he plays the hot hand or the data that shows its (lack of) predictive value?

[Redskins Rick]

Because he is infallible? Do you disagree with the statement that he plays the hot hand or the data that shows its (lack of) predictive value?

No manager is infallible.

But, usually, sentences that has the words Buck and ignorant and just bashers.

I have no desire to bash the man who helped bring winning baseball back to Baltimore.

I believe one can question his moves and decisions, and stay respectfull and words like ignorant is not tasteful.

Buck has more than earned our respect.

[Yardball85]

Interesting article from Fangraphs fantasy department, which features data on two O's and one notable ex Oriole:

http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/hrfb-rate-decliners-through-the-lens-of-batted-ball-distance/

Name Distance HR/FB

Nelson Cruz 289.99 30.4%

Jimmy Paredes 290.56 25.0%

Alejandro De Aza 255.51 20.0%

I'm confused. So are you advocating playing the struggling Pearce over the red-hot Paredes?

[CA-ORIOLE]

Because he is infallible? Do you disagree with the statement that he plays the hot hand or the data that shows its (lack of) predictive value?

I think I'd want to see that latter and the particulars. I understand that such data has existed for many years, but I also think that managers may have a good idea of how guys are going, developing and matchup better than a data set. Whether Buck is effective at that type of strategy is certainly debatable. That this guy is upset about Paredes playing too much might call his logic into question a bit.

[Can_of_corn]

No manager is infallible.

But, usually, sentences that has the words Buck and ignorant and just bashers.

I have no desire to bash the man who helped bring winning baseball back to Baltimore.

I believe one can question his moves and decisions, and stay respectfull and words like ignorant is not tasteful.

Buck has more than earned our respect.

The author is stating that Buck is ignorant of a particular piece of information not that Buck is, in a general sense, ignorant.

If you can't understand the difference I will try and explain it to you.

[Phantom]

I'm confused. So are you advocating playing the struggling Pearce over the red-hot Paredes?

Assuming you think Pearce is the better player, yes. The time to sit someone is before they struggle, which is of course difficult to impossible. If you believe Pearce will turn it around, and you believe Paredes will regress, then it's a no brainer.

[Just Regular]

Because he is infallible? Do you disagree with the statement that he plays the hot hand or the data that shows its (lack of) predictive value?

Since it's in their fantasy section, I think the writing tone is more for the roto-audience. I don't think he thinks Buck is dumb, it's just that Pearce was everybody's fantasy darling going into the season and so far it isn't panning out, mostly because of Paredes - he's roto-whining.

Editorially, I wouldn't expect to see anything like that in their regular section.

[Aristotelian]

Wait a second. Pearce's season last year was the definition of a hot streak due for regression. Benching him for Paredes shows Buck's ignorance of data on hot streaks? Sure, Paredes' streak cries out as unsustainable, but he is the best option we got right now.

[bpilktree]

Assuming you think Pearce is the better player, yes. The time to sit someone is before they struggle, which is of course difficult to impossible. If you believe Pearce will turn it around, and you believe Paredes will regress, then it's a no brainer.

That makes no sense you play the guy that is helping you win the games now not hoping a guy that had one good year will get back to that this season. If you can predict how a player an play each season tehn why do we play the games just give out the championship and say lthis team is better on paper no need to play games we know how each guy will play.

[Redskins Rick]

Not sure benching is the right word to use for Pearce.

Buck has a bunch of interchangeable parts, he is going to play the ones that earn the right to play.

You can call it hot hand, next man up, whatever, not going to change how he manages.

[CA-ORIOLE]

The author is stating that Buck is ignorant of a particular piece of information not that Buck is, in a general sense, ignorant.

If you can't understand the difference I will try and explain it to you.

I think Buck is very attuned to sabremetrics and applies them in principle. That he doesn't apply certain things according to strict parameters and interpretations of some sabremetric followers becomes upsetting and annoying to them. Lough and Young playing time are examples. Implying that Buck should play Pearce over Paredes at this point based on Paredes minor league stats could be construed as fairly assinine. I'm sure he'd have had the same exact opinion 80 AB's ago. Managers have more information in addition to the statistics available to them than guys on a blog. Criticize Buck, fine, but calling him "ignorant" of things doesn't do much for this guys credibility imo.

[Yardball85]

Assuming you think Pearce is the better player, yes. The time to sit someone is before they struggle, which is of course difficult to impossible. If you believe Pearce will turn it around, and you believe Paredes will regress, then it's a no brainer.

I am in favor of getting Pearce more at bats, either at 2B, DH, or LF/RF, and I agree with you that he shouldn't be riding the pine. However, I am not in favor of those at bats coming at the expense of Paredes. He's helping us win ballgames now, and until he stops, he should continue playing every day.

[Can_of_corn]

I think Buck is very attuned to sabremetrics and applies them in principle. That he doesn't apply certain things according to strict parameters and interpretations of some sabremetric followers becomes upsetting and annoying to them. Lough and Young playing time are examples. Implying that Buck should play Pearce over Paredes at this point based on Paredes minor league stats could be construed as fairly assinine. I'm sure he'd have had the same exact opinion 80 AB's ago. Managers have more information in addition to the statistics available to them than guys on a blog. Criticize Buck, fine, but calling him "ignorant" of things doesn't do much for this guys credibility imo.

Not arguing that. Me I think the author was incorrect in his statement.

But he wasn't calling Buck stupid.