How or why?Streaky hitters are supposed to be more valuable than consistent hitters. If that's the case, most metrics are probably severely underestimating his total value.
Not disputing you; just curious to know.
How or why?Streaky hitters are supposed to be more valuable than consistent hitters. If that's the case, most metrics are probably severely underestimating his total value.
I can't find the article but it suggested the streaky player has a bigger positive impact on individual games than the consistent player when things are going well and not much worse of an impact when things aren't.How or why?
Not disputing you; just curious to know.
But why? I'm in the same boat as OCST. It's not self-evident why this would be true.I can't find the article but it suggested the streaky player has a bigger positive impact on individual games than the consistent player when things are going well and not much worse of an impact when things aren't.
Basically the player who gets 4 WAR in 30 games and 0 the rest of the way would end up impacting more games in a significant way than the player who put up a .025 WAR every game.
I haven’t read the article, so this could definitely be wrong, but my guess is that not that many games are so close that the .025 WAR has an affect on the outcome. OTOH, a streaky hotter might put up .2 WAR in a single game, which is more likely to be the difference between a win and a loss.But why? I'm in the same boat as OCST. It's not self-evident why this would be true.
That was their argument.I haven’t read the article, so this could definitely be wrong, but my guess is that not that many games are so close that the .025 WAR has an affect on the outcome. OTOH, a streaky hotter might put up .2 WAR in a single game, which is more likely to be the difference between a win and a loss.
There must be a way to model this. Take the extreme cases of two .250 hitters. Player A consistently gets one hit every game. (Assume 4 ABs/game.) Player B gets zero hits for 120 games, but 4 hits/game in 40 games. Which player produces more runs? (Assuming all other things equal, like Ks BBs and the proportion of XBHs.)I haven’t read the article, so this could definitely be wrong, but my guess is that not that many games are so close that the .025 WAR has an affect on the outcome. OTOH, a streaky hotter might put up .2 WAR in a single game, which is more likely to be the difference between a win and a loss.
This whole theory seems pretty faulty. A guy hitting the .250 consistently could be pushing a run across the plate if every time there's a hit, there's 2 outs and a guy on 2nd base. The guy beating the snot out of the ball could be hitting a lead off single and scratching his ass standing on 1st base the rest of the inning.There must be a way to model this. Take the extreme cases of two .250 hitters. Player A consistently gets one hit every game. (Assume 4 ABs/game.) Player B gets zero hits for 120 games, but 4 hits/game in 40 games. Which player produces more runs? (Assuming all other things equal, like Ks BBs and the proportion of XBHs.)
My guess is both extremes are suboptimal, but that max value lies closer to the streaky end than the consistent end.
I agree. You’d have to average out the situations in a simulation. Plug the A and B batters into an otherwise ordinary lineup and crunch the numbers over 150 or so games.This whole theory seems pretty faulty. A guy hitting the .250 consistently could be pushing a run across the plate if every time there's a hit, there's 2 outs and a guy on 2nd base. The guy beating the snot out of the ball could be hitting a lead off single and scratching his ass standing on 1st base the rest of the inning.
Context needs to applied to these extreme examples to provide content.
But why do they bring more value? So far this portion of the thread has been an exercise in argument by assertion. Why is it more valuable to hit 30 home runs by hitting 10 a month for 3 months out of the season than to do it by hitting 5 a month for all 6 months? How does this amount to more wins?I wonder if part of the reason that streakiness is more "valuable" than consistency is that streakiness brings with it power bursts. And those power bursts bring more value.
Observation: reading the sports page for daily MLB box scores dating back to my youth, big innings win games. By observation, about 70% of the time, the team having the highest scoring inning in the game goes on to win the game.But why do they bring more value? So far this portion of the thread has been an exercise in argument by assertion. Why is it more valuable to hit 30 home runs by hitting 10 a month for 3 months out of the season than to do it by hitting 5 a month for all 6 months? How does this amount to more wins?
My guess is that a guy on a hot streak can turn in a bunch of 3+ and 4+ RBI games that massively swing win expectancy (though I just vomited a little bit about using RBIs to make a advanced stat argument, so the WAR swings could also be used) whereas multiple single games of very low RBI/WAR games may not swing the needle much unless there are a bunch of 1-run games. I mean, there is at least an overall statistical consensus that a team's record in 1-run games is less predictive of future success than their overall RS record. I guess that having a player concentrate his production in fewer games may help turn the 50/50 scenarios into more definite wins. I feel like this is a situation where you would almost need to calculate a new state like xWAR (for every player) and then compare in to actual number of wins. If a streaky player was often involved in teams that outpaced xWAR over actual wins, you could maybe make an argument.But why do they bring more value? So far this portion of the thread has been an exercise in argument by assertion. Why is it more valuable to hit 30 home runs by hitting 10 a month for 3 months out of the season than to do it by hitting 5 a month for all 6 months? How does this amount to more wins?
I think this is more math than anything else. No sims truly needed. In fact, the relationship between fWAR to runs generated doesn't even really matter here. Let's assume 1 fWAR is equivalent to 10 runs.But why? I'm in the same boat as OCST. It's not self-evident why this would be true.