Noting small sample size does not make one a killjoy

73 Comments

Weird article at Grantland. In it Jay Caspian Kang takes issue with people who make note of small sample sizes. The example: Yasiel Puig. What he’s doing is amazing and, of course, we know that in all likelihood he will not maintain his blazing hot start. But pointing that out — by uttering the “annoying, almost guttural tic” that something is, indeed, the product of a small sample size — apparently makes one a killjoy:

When a phrase like “small sample size” becomes ubiquitous, the logic drops out. It’s no longer rational to temper anyone’s enthusiasm about Yasiel Puig’s ridiculous first 10 days with the shocking revelation that 10 days is just 10 days. The excitement over Puig comes directly out of what he’s done in his short stay in the majors, not from his long-term projection — pointing out his inevitable regression to the mean is largely beside the point. More importantly, it’s boring and needlessly depressing.

He notes that when he, himself, used to do that he was “a smug little bastard” and says that when sportswriters temper unexpected results with the “small sample size” caveat, they are engaging in the “bearish hosing down of expectations.” I’d be remiss if I didn’t menton that he cites something I wrote about Puig back in March as an example of those who can’t shake their presumably bearish, smug and boring “tempering impulses.”

All of which is baloney, of course. Kang defends himself in footnotes against creating a straw man argument (which is why he linked my piece) but he somehow didn’t think to protect himself from peddling false choices. Since when must one choose between enjoying something cool and acknowledging it won’t last? I am fully aware that Puig won’t finish his career with a .486 batting average yet, somehow, still think his start has been fantastic and enjoyable. It really is possible to think that, actually. Indeed, sometimes the greatest enjoyment one experiences comes when something happens even though you know it won’t last or is an aberration.

But if we know it won’t last, why point it out? Answer: because most people still persist in believing things like Puig’s amazing start will last. There is no shortage of mania whenever someone starts strong. And not just among common fans who are just going along for a ride. How many “on pace for …” articles are written in the early parts of seasons? How many in-depth features are written about players at exactly the moment they burst onto the scene? How many quicky biographies come out based on players with unsustainable starts? There are a lot of them. And I can tell you, those don’t spend much if any time at all talking about how this fun won’t go on forever because of regression and injury risk and the inevitable mathematics of the game of baseball.

So, sorry if me pointing out that Yasiel Puig may eventually have to make adjustments to pitchers who figure him out is bad form. Apologies for not riding the wave, blind to the fact that it will inevitable crash (relatively speaking). Pardon me if my bearish hosing down of expectations ruins your day. Because, really, almost all expectations about baseball players could use some hosing down.

Odubel Herrera went 0-for-5 with five strikeouts today

Getty Images
5 Comments

Did you have a bad day? It’s OK. We all do sometimes. It’s just part of life. Even ballplayers have bad days. Even the good ones.

Odubel Herrera is a good one. He’s only 25, but he’s already got two seasons of above average hitting under his belt. Dude gets on base. He could be a regular for tons of teams, so there’s no shame at all in him having a bad day. And boy howdy did he have a bad day today. He went 0-for-5 with five strikeouts in the Phillies extra innings win against the Rockies.

“I feel that I am making good swings but I’m just missing the pitches,” Herrera said.

Well, that is how strikeouts work.

Four strikeouts in a game is known as a Golden Sombrero. Players don’t strike out five times in a game very often so they don’t have an agreed upon name, but I’ve seen it referred to as the “platinum sombrero,” which seems pretty solid for such a feat. Six is a titanium sombrero or a double platinum sombrero, though there are references to it as a “Horn,” for Sam Horn, who deserves something to be named in his honor. Horn is like Moe Greene — a great man, a man of vision and guts — yet there isn’t even a plaque, or a signpost or a statue of him!

But I digress.

The last time a Phillies player did it was when Pat Burrell K’d five times in September 2008. The Phillies won the World Series that year, of course, so maybe this is an omen. [looks at standings] Or maybe not.

Anyway, get a good night’s sleep tonight, Odubel. Shake it off. Tomorrow is another day.

Rachel Robinson to receive O’Neil Award from the Hall of Fame

Getty Images
1 Comment

NEW YORK (AP) Rachel Robinson will receive the Buck O’Neil Lifetime Achievement Award from baseball’s Hall of Fame on July 29, the day before this year’s induction ceremony.

She’s the wife of late Hall of Famer Jackie Robinson, who broke the major league color barrier in 1947. Rachel Robinson created the Jackie Robinson Foundation in 1973, a year after he husband’s death. Rachel Robinson, who turns 95 in July 19, headed the foundation’s board until 1996.

The O’Neil award was established in 2007 to honor individuals who broaden the game’s appeal and whose character is comparable to that of O’Neil. He played in the Negro Leagues, was a scout for major league baseball teams and helped establish the Negro Leagues Baseball Museum in Kansas City, Missouri.

The award was given to O’Neil in 2008, Roland Hemond in 2011 and Joe Garagiola in 2014.