.

Right now at BJOL, the hottest debate is on Yasiel Puig.

The sabermetric "consensus," not to be confused with a scientific consensus, is that there is no such thing as a hot streak in baseball.

At BJOL, a reader asked --- > since baseball swings and pitching motions are so complex, what is so hard to believe about the idea that they could get out of whack?  Or that a player could have a streak of being unusually in rhythm?

James replied, yes, there's a kernel of truth in that.  He compared his own "athletic level," which is pool.   (Heh.)  On one day, he might clear a rack in 11-15 shots; on another day, "it might take 40.  Or more."  Further, he said, it is often due to mechanical differences, such as "sawing" the cue strike.

It's a pay article, so there's another chance to trade $3 per month for real baseball wisdom.  :- )   James makes an attempt to triangulate the degree to which a hot streak could be based on skill, rather than luck.  The attempt isn't a very strong one, especially by his standards, but it's an attempt, which (as usual) is the first such attempt I've ever seen.  It's more of a opening of the discussion than it is a "study."  Which is fine, of course; that actually promotes discussion better.

What is weird is that no sabermetrician ever noticed the fact that on some days, he can clean a pool table in 15 shots, and on other days, it takes 40.  It is a constant source of annoyance to me that (many) sabermetricians prefer to believe that all of baseball can be understood with algebra.  Many sabermetricians respond to this type of question, "Can a player get hot?" with a very emotional reaction.  You've seen blog authors who respond to input -- if based on anything OTHER than algebra -- with scoffing.

At SSI, we (you, I, Gordon and Spectator) don't take the idea personally, that we might not know everything.  Emanuel Lasker, world chess champ for 27 years, once said that if chess were ever solved, it would lose its value.   The fact that baseball is (too) complex (to be "solved") is part of its beauty.

............

James, by the way, firmly believes that Yasiel Puig is a .280 hitter, running in almost purely good luck -- that is, the gap between Puig's actual .397 AVG, and a .280 AVG, is driven 99% by luck, rather than by a hot streak.  In Puig's case, he doesn't buy the idea that Puig is locked into a zone.

James disliked the idea that Puig might have made the All-Star team.  He does like the idea of Boston's shortstop making it, though.  :- )  The Puig debate is a lively one over at BJOL.

Puig is probably a significant talent, but ... well, it's always been fun for me to watch a rookie come up and be the best player in baseball for two or three months.  Like, Mo' Dawg and Bat and Terry will remember Kevin Maas coming up in the second half and slugging .600, .700 for two months, and everybody figuring he was the next retired Yankee number ... whether Puig is a blue chipper, I got no idea.  Haven't read up on him.  

The 2013 HQ analyst calls him a "9D" player, long odds but definitely with a chance to be an All-Star.  Sounds like Cespedes, from the HQ description.  HQ also says he has good command of the strike zone, which is obviously not showing up in his MLB stats yet.

Last and most importantly.  What is the best joke possible about Yasiel Puig's name?

.