Anyone know how streaks are modelled?

The Mighty Delfont · 04-20-2002, 04:54 PM

Well, it's late May, and Vladimir Guerrero is batting less than .220, with 4 HRs.

I've been waiting for his slump to end, but he goes game after game after game without a single hit.

Anyone have any info on how the game models streaks? More importantly in this case, how long will this last?

Even without Vlad, the 'Spos are winning, and Montrealers are starting to show an interest in the team.

That's one way in which I prefer this game over real life.

Steve Kuffrey · 04-20-2002, 04:55 PM

He may be having an "off" year, it happens even within the game.

beorn · 04-21-2002, 02:56 AM

I remember a somewhat heated discussion about this back a year or two.

There is a split between those who experience baseball as a player and those who are experts in statistics.

Statisticians will tell you that hot and cold streaks are mostly optical illusions. The player does not get better or worse during the streak; rather, random events naturally produce streaks.

In other words, if you repeatedly flip a coin five times in a row, there is one chance in sixteen that you will get all heads. There is also a chance in sixteen that you will get all tails. However, the important thing is that these are just random events, and regardless of those five coin flips, there remains a 50-50 chance that the sixth coin toss will produce a heads or a tails. A streak of five does not mean that the coin is hot or cold in the sense that it is now more or less likely to come up heads.

Baseball players will tell you that this is not the case with streaks in baseball. During a hot or cold streak, the ball looks different, the confidence feels different... so after hitting .500 for a week or after hitting.050 for a week, the player really is more (or less) likely than usual to get a hit next time he comes to bat.

Statisticians (Stephen Jay Gould wrote a great piece on this) answer that this is nonsense. When you analyze baseball statistics, you find that streaks are no more common or long than random events should produce.

I don't know who is right about baseball, but I do recall that there was heart-felt discussion in these forums about which way a baseball sim should operate. At the time, it was made clear that OOTP (2?) was unusual in that it modelled streaks as "real." A .280 hitter who got hot really did have better than a 28% chance of getting a hit in his next at bat. How much better? For how long? Under what circumstances does this kick in? Is this accurately labeled by the "hot" and "cold" streaks on our screen? Is this the same for each player, or is it an individual trait? Is this what is meant by the consistency rating? All interesting questions, to me at least, but I don't have the answers.

Henry · 04-21-2002, 04:11 AM

Well,
Once again Henry's gonna stick his 2 cents in LOL.

Hot and cold streaks have EVERYTHING to do with the humans involved. One of the problems AND assets of baseball is the ability to track everything. As a result, it's easy to look at the stats and say... "gee, these patterns fit normal law-of-average results, so there's no outside forces at work here". I guess on the surface that would be a logical conclusion - and MAYBE the reason you can argue that point is because the human element may be, in fact, random as well.

However, having played baseball, I can certainly vouch for the fact that some days are good and some are not - AND it has nothing to do with chance. When your not "seeing" the ball right, or your timing is off, or your not feeling 100% ... OR, when you can see the bat meet the ball, or somehow find a groove where the ball goes right where you throw it, or your feeling like superman today... those are human variables and have nothing to do with "chance".

Now, as I said, maybe over the long term you could argue that these human variable follow "law-of'averages" patterns.. but, here's why I think not...

If they did, a player would play relatively the same from the first day of his career to the last. there would be no justification for good years, bad years, 71 game hitting streaks, or Cy Young award years other than chance. If Dimaggios hitting streak was boiled down to a coin flip comparison - anyone could have done it - and Joe just happened to be the guy in the right place at the right time. Common.. do we believe that?

Do we believe that there is little to no variation between players? I guess not, becasue we know there are talent differences. Hummm.. that is a human variable. Does everyone feel the same every day of theor life? Of course not. Some days you feel great, others you fell lousy, and still others there are outside forces at work on your body and brain. What about injuires... are they random as well?

Think of it this way... if you had a batting machine and pitching machine throwing and swinging at the same spot each pitch... there would be no variation at all. The ball would be hit to the same spot every time - or would it? What about weather, a breeze or lack of one, the ball is hit on the seam rather than on the leather.... On the other hand, if you had the pitching machine set to random and the batting machine set to random, you'd probably never see a hit - and that too, would be no variation. But with human beings, you DO have variations and they are all human variations - not law-of-averages based.

I love statistics - but hate when everything in the game is reduced to them. They are the "results" of the game, not the initiators... but because we have to use them to program a game, we get caught up in seeing them as the input rather than the output of the game.

That's why, IMO, OOTP gives us the ability to simulate the baseball environment while REPLAY games do not. REPLAY games (Strat, DMB, etc.) are in fact using stats to create the outcome - thus the game is like a video replay. OOTP on the other hand creates the environment for all the same things to happen - but doesn't preconcieve the results. That's why there is room for things like clutch hitting, and leadership - because it mimics our understanding of real life and human emotions, and since it's not being measured against the accuracy of history, it simply adds human nature to the equation and removes the vanilla flavoring of simply recreating stats.

LOL... man I could write about this stuff forever

Don't get me wrong, I love stats and I love working with them to find new ways to measure reality, but once you cross the line where you expect baseball to perform per mathematical probabilities, it's my opnion that your expecting history to repeat itself - which in Strat and DMB is exactly what you want - but in OOTP is exactly what you don't want.

The Mighty Delfont · 04-21-2002, 05:48 AM

This is a very interesting discussion, but I'm afraid all I can think about right now is my star right fielder, who's now hitting .202. I understand the man could have an off-season, but please, not this far off.

I've kept him hitting in the fourth spot, thinking, "it can't last forever." I guess what I'm wondering is, can it last forever? Or at least, for the whole season? He's gone from being a guy who could challenge for MVP, to being a guy who's probably not even suited for AAA.

I'm all for modelling streaks in the game, I just can't take it that Geurrero's been turned into a scrub.

Henry · 04-21-2002, 05:52 AM

Delfont,

Depends... if his talent levels and ratings are the same as they were last year, then this is probably just a temprary thing... in other words, if he gets a hit on a roll of 1 and 2 on a six sided die, then it's just "bad luck" right now.

On the other hand, if his ratings and/or talent has dropped, then he might be looking at having to roll a "one" ...

04-20-2002, 04:54 PM	#1
The Mighty Delfont Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 11	Anyone know how streaks are modelled? Well, it's late May, and Vladimir Guerrero is batting less than .220, with 4 HRs. I've been waiting for his slump to end, but he goes game after game after game without a single hit. Anyone have any info on how the game models streaks? More importantly in this case, how long will this last? Even without Vlad, the 'Spos are winning, and Montrealers are starting to show an interest in the team. That's one way in which I prefer this game over real life. __________________ Long live the 'Spos!

04-20-2002, 04:55 PM	#2
Steve Kuffrey Administrator Join Date: Jul 1999 Location: S.E. TN - Georgia born and raised Posts: 17,036	He may be having an "off" year, it happens even within the game. __________________ Steve Kuffrey DABS Atlanta Braves - 2008 Eastern Division Champ *DBLC Atlanta Braves - 2011, 2014 East Division Champ, 2012, 2013 NL Wildcard Baseball Maelstrom-Montreal Expos-2013 Tourney winner, 2014 WC Team Sparky's League - Tampa Bay D'Rays Epicenter Baseball League - Astros 2014 The CBL Rewind - Phillies '95

04-21-2002, 02:56 AM	#3
beorn All Star Starter Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: near Rochester, NY Posts: 1,269	I remember a somewhat heated discussion about this back a year or two. There is a split between those who experience baseball as a player and those who are experts in statistics. Statisticians will tell you that hot and cold streaks are mostly optical illusions. The player does not get better or worse during the streak; rather, random events naturally produce streaks. In other words, if you repeatedly flip a coin five times in a row, there is one chance in sixteen that you will get all heads. There is also a chance in sixteen that you will get all tails. However, the important thing is that these are just random events, and regardless of those five coin flips, there remains a 50-50 chance that the sixth coin toss will produce a heads or a tails. A streak of five does not mean that the coin is hot or cold in the sense that it is now more or less likely to come up heads. Baseball players will tell you that this is not the case with streaks in baseball. During a hot or cold streak, the ball looks different, the confidence feels different... so after hitting .500 for a week or after hitting.050 for a week, the player really is more (or less) likely than usual to get a hit next time he comes to bat. Statisticians (Stephen Jay Gould wrote a great piece on this) answer that this is nonsense. When you analyze baseball statistics, you find that streaks are no more common or long than random events should produce. I don't know who is right about baseball, but I do recall that there was heart-felt discussion in these forums about which way a baseball sim should operate. At the time, it was made clear that OOTP (2?) was unusual in that it modelled streaks as "real." A .280 hitter who got hot really did have better than a 28% chance of getting a hit in his next at bat. How much better? For how long? Under what circumstances does this kick in? Is this accurately labeled by the "hot" and "cold" streaks on our screen? Is this the same for each player, or is it an individual trait? Is this what is meant by the consistency rating? All interesting questions, to me at least, but I don't have the answers. __________________ Commish of Dog Days Baseball Commish Pennant Chase Baseball League (PCBL) Commish and Blue Jays GM Extra Innings Baseball

04-21-2002, 05:48 AM	#5
The Mighty Delfont Bat Boy Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Canada Posts: 11	This is a very interesting discussion, but I'm afraid all I can think about right now is my star right fielder, who's now hitting .202. I understand the man could have an off-season, but please, not this far off. I've kept him hitting in the fourth spot, thinking, "it can't last forever." I guess what I'm wondering is, can it last forever? Or at least, for the whole season? He's gone from being a guy who could challenge for MVP, to being a guy who's probably not even suited for AAA. I'm all for modelling streaks in the game, I just can't take it that Geurrero's been turned into a scrub. __________________ Long live the 'Spos!

04-21-2002, 04:11 AM	#4
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Well, Once again Henry's gonna stick his 2 cents in LOL. Hot and cold streaks have EVERYTHING to do with the humans involved. One of the problems AND assets of baseball is the ability to track everything. As a result, it's easy to look at the stats and say... "gee, these patterns fit normal law-of-average results, so there's no outside forces at work here". I guess on the surface that would be a logical conclusion - and MAYBE the reason you can argue that point is because the human element may be, in fact, random as well. However, having played baseball, I can certainly vouch for the fact that some days are good and some are not - AND it has nothing to do with chance. When your not "seeing" the ball right, or your timing is off, or your not feeling 100% ... OR, when you can see the bat meet the ball, or somehow find a groove where the ball goes right where you throw it, or your feeling like superman today... those are human variables and have nothing to do with "chance". Now, as I said, maybe over the long term you could argue that these human variable follow "law-of'averages" patterns.. but, here's why I think not... If they did, a player would play relatively the same from the first day of his career to the last. there would be no justification for good years, bad years, 71 game hitting streaks, or Cy Young award years other than chance. If Dimaggios hitting streak was boiled down to a coin flip comparison - anyone could have done it - and Joe just happened to be the guy in the right place at the right time. Common.. do we believe that? Do we believe that there is little to no variation between players? I guess not, becasue we know there are talent differences. Hummm.. that is a human variable. Does everyone feel the same every day of theor life? Of course not. Some days you feel great, others you fell lousy, and still others there are outside forces at work on your body and brain. What about injuires... are they random as well? Think of it this way... if you had a batting machine and pitching machine throwing and swinging at the same spot each pitch... there would be no variation at all. The ball would be hit to the same spot every time - or would it? What about weather, a breeze or lack of one, the ball is hit on the seam rather than on the leather.... On the other hand, if you had the pitching machine set to random and the batting machine set to random, you'd probably never see a hit - and that too, would be no variation. But with human beings, you DO have variations and they are all human variations - not law-of-averages based. I love statistics - but hate when everything in the game is reduced to them. They are the "results" of the game, not the initiators... but because we have to use them to program a game, we get caught up in seeing them as the input rather than the output of the game. That's why, IMO, OOTP gives us the ability to simulate the baseball environment while REPLAY games do not. REPLAY games (Strat, DMB, etc.) are in fact using stats to create the outcome - thus the game is like a video replay. OOTP on the other hand creates the environment for all the same things to happen - but doesn't preconcieve the results. That's why there is room for things like clutch hitting, and leadership - because it mimics our understanding of real life and human emotions, and since it's not being measured against the accuracy of history, it simply adds human nature to the equation and removes the vanilla flavoring of simply recreating stats. LOL... man I could write about this stuff forever Don't get me wrong, I love stats and I love working with them to find new ways to measure reality, but once you cross the line where you expect baseball to perform per mathematical probabilities, it's my opnion that your expecting history to repeat itself - which in Strat and DMB is exactly what you want - but in OOTP is exactly what you don't want.

04-21-2002, 05:52 AM	#6
Henry Hall of Fame Join Date: Dec 2001 Posts: 6,498	Delfont, Depends... if his talent levels and ratings are the same as they were last year, then this is probably just a temprary thing... in other words, if he gets a hit on a roll of 1 and 2 on a six sided die, then it's just "bad luck" right now. On the other hand, if his ratings and/or talent has dropped, then he might be looking at having to roll a "one" ...