Rizzo

[Bull]

Its a given that there will be more ups and downs this season, but for the sake of discussion, which Rizzo do you prefer? (last year vs. this year)

 

.285 .342 .463 .805

.224 .315 .531 .846

[Soul]

More like last year versus this April.

[Guest]

Besides, I'm not sure how this explains why he's swinging and badly missing at absolute garbage for a worrisome strikeout rate. That's the biggest problem right now.

swinging strike %

2012: 9.6%

2013: 9.3%

 

swings outside of the zone

2012: 38.5%

2013: 30.6%

 

i'm not remotely worried about him yet; he's just been pretty cursed so far, it happens over a SSS

 

this reminds me of last year when people were panicking over Shark's demise (in June?) when he was still pitching really well, just with unsustainable poor results

 

his k% is up to 29%. i don't believe that you're really "not remotely worried"

update: Rizzo's had 1 K in the 21 PA since this post (coinciding with a 1.630 OPS) bringing his K rate down to 24%, a couple points off his ZiPS projection of 21%

 

now carrying an .850 OPS despite a .222 babip; he's awesome

 

i agree and that was never the point, but if you want to feel like you predicted 1 k in 21 pa, go ahead. his 29% k-rate was worth discussing at the time.

 

the point was that you always determine something is 110% going to play out the way you think it is, and are then unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. are royals fans still stupid for worrying about hosmer?

[scarey]

You shouldn't.

 

Some fans, it seems, have very weird ideas about what sample size means, and they severely underestimate how quickly you can start to find interesting things in the types of data we have available to us these days. "Interesting" meaning some non-zero chance that we're seeing real information and not noise in the statistics.

 

I think you have this wrong.

 

Some fans, it seems, feel it's weird for other fans to break down small sample size data to the Nth degree (IE getting worked up) regardless of if it showed positive or negative trends. Those fans find it even more weird when the fan who is "getting worked up" tries to justify it by jumping on a high horse and acting condescending as if he/she is some sort of pioneer for finding irrelevant data "interesting".

[Guest]

You shouldn't.

 

Some fans, it seems, have very weird ideas about what sample size means, and they severely underestimate how quickly you can start to find interesting things in the types of data we have available to us these days. "Interesting" meaning some non-zero chance that we're seeing real information and not noise in the statistics.

 

I think you have this wrong.

 

Some fans, it seems, feel it's weird for other fans to break down small sample size data to the Nth degree (IE getting worked up) regardless of if it showed positive or negative trends. Those fans find it even more weird when the fan who is "getting worked up" tries to justify it by jumping on a high horse and acting condescending as if he/she is some sort of pioneer for finding irrelevant data "interesting".

 

Trends spotted in small sample sizes might not mean anything, or they might sometimes. There's nothing wrong with trying to spot possible trends prior to reaching whatever x number (which can get quite arbitrary when you're getting close to it) it is that makes the sample size reliable, especially if the eye test also would seem to suggest something is going on.

 

I don't have any issue with Kyle's position on this.

[sneakypower]

i agree and that was never the point, but if you want to feel like you predicted 1 k in 21 pa, go ahead. his 29% k-rate was worth discussing at the time.

 

the point was that you always determine something is 110% going to play out the way you think it is, and are then unwilling to even entertain the possibility that you could be wrong. are royals fans still stupid for worrying about hosmer?

they're probably right to worry about Hosmer, he seems to have real, shift/defense/power issues

 

but there really weren't any reasons to worry about Rizzo, unless you had reason to believe his babip will always be heavily suppressed (i feel him being an all-fields hitter mitigates this concern quite a bit)

 

but were he even carrying just a .280 babip now, he'd be exceeding .900 with his OPS; he's awesome

[scarey]

You shouldn't.

 

Some fans, it seems, have very weird ideas about what sample size means, and they severely underestimate how quickly you can start to find interesting things in the types of data we have available to us these days. "Interesting" meaning some non-zero chance that we're seeing real information and not noise in the statistics.

 

I think you have this wrong.

 

Some fans, it seems, feel it's weird for other fans to break down small sample size data to the Nth degree (IE getting worked up) regardless of if it showed positive or negative trends. Those fans find it even more weird when the fan who is "getting worked up" tries to justify it by jumping on a high horse and acting condescending as if he/she is some sort of pioneer for finding irrelevant data "interesting".

 

Trends spotted in small sample sizes might not mean anything, or they might sometimes. There's nothing wrong with trying to spot possible trends prior to reaching whatever x number (which can get quite arbitrary when you're getting close to it) it is that makes the sample size reliable, especially if the eye test also would seem to suggest something is going on.

 

I don't have any issue with Kyle's position on this.

 

Except that according to lumafia, the eye test does not suggest something's going on.

 

Also, there's a reason for those numbers that Rob posted on statistical significance thresholds. To conclude that Rizzo has a mechanical defect in his swing based mostly on batted ball info when he hasn't even reached two-thirds of the stastically significance threshold for batted ball stastics is... silly, to put it kindly. When 3 changed batted ball outcomes can drastically change your data, it is careless to use that data to conclude anything.

 

Also, before you or Kyle tries to trot out the sentiment that he's only finding the data "interesting" again:

 

so I'm going to take it as true that he's developed some sort of mechanical hitch that he'll need to either consciously fix or just work his way out of.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

"I'll take it as true" isn't exactly getting it tattoed on your arm. It just means that it's a good working hypothesis until we have more information. And considering that it was more or less confirmed in the Tribune later that week, I don't feel particularly bad about it.

 

Rizzo watch: Anthony Rizzo hit two monstrous two-run home runs Friday after Sveum and hitting coach James Rowson studied some video and found a mechanical issue in Rizzo's swing.

 

"There were some things we saw on tape and (Rowson) took it to him and obviously it worked pretty well," Sveum said. "So hopefully it continues."

 

Rizzo credited the video for helping him have a big night after he struck out three times Thursday.

 

"I'm not going to get into specifics," Rizzo said. "But the finish was a little high, even on some of the home runs, which I didn't like. It was good (Friday). This is going to sound stupid, but the single in my last at-bat was probably my favorite one because that's my swing there — stay inside the ball.

 

"It was a good day overall for myself and the team. It sounds dumb, but looking back at the video, the swing is where I want it to be."

 

 

The rest of your post is just a continuation of your misunderstanding of what sample size and significance thresholds are actually telling us.

[scarey]

"I'll take it as true" isn't exactly getting it tattoed on your arm. It just means that it's a good working hypothesis until we have more information.

 

 

Now you want to make this a semantics argument?

 

I give up, the Black Knight has defeated me. Mercy ser.

 

http://i54.photobucket.com/albums/g109/scarey23/tumblr_lxynhha3S81rn95k2o1_500.gif

[Hairyducked Idiot]

^turns argument to semantics, then complains about being in semantic argument

[Guest]

For the hell of it, I figured Rizzo's xBABIP. It's .315.

 

What would that make his adjusted triple slash?

[sneakypower]

something close to .283/.364/.601 (excluding today's stats)

[Guest]

sexy

[Sammy Sofa]

something close to .283/.364/.601 (excluding today's stats)

 

I wanna get that pregnant.

[illiniguy]

something close to .283/.364/.601 (excluding today's stats)

 

I wanna get that pregnant.

You aren't man enough.

[Hairyducked Idiot]

Someone forward those numbers to Dale so he can explain to Anthony why he shouldn't be drag bunting.

[Sammy Sofa]

something close to .283/.364/.601 (excluding today's stats)

 

I wanna get that pregnant.

You aren't man enough.

 

Please stop being so weird.

[illiniguy]

something close to .283/.364/.601 (excluding today's stats)

 

I wanna get that pregnant.

You aren't man enough.

 

Please stop being so weird.

You look like the fat dork from Mad Men. I'm just letting you know you won't be getting lucky with anything that sexy, ever.

[Sammy Sofa]

Stan Rizzo is all burly, stoned-to-the-gills man, you psycho.

[illiniguy]

Stan Rizzo is all burly, stoned-to-the-gills man, you psycho.

Good point. Apologies.

[neely crenshaw]

You can look for hope in small sample stats, the problem is you don't know if that hope is real or imagined. These are based on long term data. In the short term you don't know if his low babip or LD% is because of poor luck or poor hitting. They generalize major league stats as every line drive or ball in play is the same. In reality you can hit "line drives" all day that are never going to hits-ever. They are not going to jump up to a normal MLB percentage because they aren't hit well. Unless you analyze every single ball hit, you can't judge whether the babip should go up...much like Stewart last year. I don't think Rizzo is in that category but posting these stats as "proof" things will change and everything is just fine with him is ridiculous. Things may be fine but those splits are meaningless in that argument.

I am more encouraged by his consistent contact and multiple hit games over the past week, than by low babip or his early OPS.

[Sammy Sofa]

Oh my God; please stop.

[Banedon]

You can look for hope in small sample stats, the problem is you don't know if that hope is real or imagined. These are based on long term data. In the short term you don't know if his low babip or LD% is because of poor luck or poor hitting. They generalize major league stats as every line drive or ball in play is the same. In reality you can hit "line drives" all day that are never going to hits-ever. They are not going to jump up to a normal MLB percentage because they aren't hit well. Unless you analyze every single ball hit, you can't judge whether the babip should go up...much like Stewart last year. I don't think Rizzo is in that category but posting these stats as "proof" things will change and everything is just fine with him is ridiculous. Things may be fine but those splits are meaningless in that argument.

I am more encouraged by his consistent contact and multiple hit games over the past week, than by low babip or his early OPS.

 

Please, stop "teaching" us about stats. We're all well aware of how they work. Honestly.

[Bull]

More like last year versus this April.

 

I think I acknowledged that things will change in time.

I'm talking philosophically. Which do you prefer, higher average, high OBP, or lower average, higher SLG and higher OPS?

 

I think even if this was permanent, I'm liking it. I like the more power less AVG Rizzo. That we might be able to have both is not germane to my question.

[UK1679666180]

I'm confused with this thread.

 

Begins with an incorrect assumption about Rizzo and too much movement before he loads, which doesn't matter as long as once his stride foot comes down that he's in a good loaded position to where he doesn't have to raise or drop his hands, which he doesn't do. If it's his timing mechanism like Sheffield or Nomar or where there has to be be movement for him to be comfortable, so be it.

 

His bat angle as previously mentioned is the likely cause, similar bat path to Adam Dunn will have likely led to his swing and misses more in '13.

 

He is too aggressive, he was too aggressive last year and his too aggressive this year, it is something that can be improved upon but he was only better than 15% at laying off pitches out of the zone last year. Combine that with the bat path creating a lesser chance for contact and his k rate will jump.

Edited May 3, 2013 by UK