Page 9 of 10 FirstFirst ... 78910 LastLast
Results 161 to 180 of 193

Thread: MINORS FINAL THURSDAY 5/4 ... Allard reigns supreme

  1. #161
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    I agree with the last two sentences.

    But on the question of bust rates for high ceiling pitching prospects, I don't believe I've seen any work on that. I'm not asking you to do it or to point me to a study. Just saying I haven't seen anything on it. It is an interesting question.
    I agree, and I haven't seen any work, either. But I've always disliked using aggregate data to say something meaningful about one specific instance. You would expect the aggregate data to eventually show that prospects who are thought of as having more talent and being closer to ready will be successful at higher rates than those thought of as having less talent and/or being further away from ready. I don't find it particularly useful that it shows just that. It's informative, in the sense that there is an indication that the people who do this for a living are able to spot talent and determine potential on some level.

    But is it prescriptive in the sense that because all prospects who were ever ranked in the 40-50 range hit at a 40% rate, a prospect ranked 44 has a 40% chance to hit? I don't think so. You wouldn't expect the percentage to vary wildly from the historical data, but in any individual instance it is possible that the people who evaluate prospects are missing something. They will all tell you that there's no real difference between their 44 and 54 prospects. Over time, using enough instances, the guys ranked 44 will probably come out ahead, but once you narrow it down far enough, it doesn't really mean much, if anything.

    Is Ronald Acuna really a 50ish prospect with a likelihood that falls in line with past 50ish prospects? I have no idea. There's a chance he's a top 10 prospect who just hasn't had enough time to prove that yet. We all know he has a high ceiling. And he will either hit or not. What the % is on that, I don't know, and I don't think we can know that just based on his current prospect ranking.

  2. #162
    Sabermetric Slut
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Your Mom's Basement
    Posts
    29,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,721
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,744
    Thanked in
    5,837 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    Well, we do know that at some level higher-ceiling prospects are less likely to bust, using the logic that the ones who end up in the top 10 have the highest ceilings (combined with less risk). So using that same logic, it's not crazy to assert that the higher-ceiling prospect of two ranked ~50, for example, also has a lower likelihood of busting. We don't know that because the data doesn't parse it out, which is why I've always maintained that using prospect rankings and hit rates is a crude and incomplete measure.

    But it does follow logically. And obviously when a higher ceiling prospect does hit, he is more likely to perform better than a lower ceiling prospect that hits. So even if the bust rates were the same, the potential reward of having better pitchers is higher.
    I'm not sure I agree. In that range you can have guys like Newcomb who has crazy upside but 1 flaw that keeps them from truly being an uber prospect. And that 1 flaw is also a huge red flag for their likelihood to bust.

  3. #163
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    But I've always disliked using aggregate data to say something meaningful about one specific instance.
    What is the alternative? That's sort of the basis for statistical research--to reach general conclusions from individual observations. It is understood that there is forecasting error for each individual observation. But you take the best data you have and try to construct a useful statistical model.

    This does not preclude trying to improve on the data. The "high upside" argument strikes me as one that could be tested. You would have to go back and try to categorize prospects within certain ranges that were high upside and low upside. And see if the bust rate varies by group.

    Another detail worth teasing out is to look for "young" versus "old" prospects within certain ranges and see if the bust rate is different for the two groups.

    Already the data have been sorted by pitchers versus position prospects. You can also sort it along other dimensions, including the two I mentioned above.

  4. #164
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post

    Is Ronald Acuna really a 50ish prospect with a likelihood that falls in line with past 50ish prospects? I have no idea. There's a chance he's a top 10 prospect who just hasn't had enough time to prove that yet. We all know he has a high ceiling. And he will either hit or not. What the % is on that, I don't know, and I don't think we can know that just based on his current prospect ranking.
    The prospect ranking doesn't tell us anything with certainty. But it is a very good starting point for any discussion. I think 50 is probably a little high for Acuna given the swing-and-miss in his game. He is young for his level but not super young like Albies. I do like his defensive potential and the hints about his power potential. But he is not an uber prospect in the Chipper/Andruw/Heyward mold.
    Last edited by nsacpi; 05-08-2017 at 09:09 AM.

  5. #165
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    I'm asking the question of the posters who seem to think there is a difference. I was wondering what the basis for their belief might be.

    I'd assume that the thought is that wipeout stuff just has to make a pitcher more likely to succeed. That top 10 list of more successful guys is populated, I'm going to guess, by prospects with wipeout stuff who have demonstrated that they can harness it. And those would be the guys you would guess would have the highest hit rate.

    But whether more middling stuff guys who have succeeded at a high level have a better or worse success rate than big stuff guys who obviously have not quite put it together? Good question.

    But either way, the one study that was cited as gospel wouldn't exactly tell you anything about it.

  6. #166
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    The prospect ranking doesn't tell us anything with certainty. But it is a very good starting point for any discussion. I think 50 is probably a little high for Acuna given the swing-and-miss in his game. He is young for his level but not super young like Albies. I do like his defensive potential and the hints about his power potential. But he is not an uber prospect in the Chipper/Andruw/Heyward mold.
    Not yet. And I doubt he gets all the way there, but there are certainly people who love his potential and believe he can be near that level of prospect.

    Anyway, I'm not saying the aggregate data shouldn't be considered and used, just that I dislike using that as a definitive guide for the likelihood for any individual prospect to hit or bust. It is helpful to see a prospect ranked 80th and say, 'Historically, prospects ranked 75-100 have a __% bust rate.' It is not particularly helpful, IMO, to say, 'Because prospects ranked 75-100 have historically busted at a __% rate, then this prospect has exactly that % chance of busting.'

    I have seen plenty of the latter here, and I just don't like using aggregate data in that way.

  7. #167
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by smootness View Post
    I agree, and I haven't seen any work, either. But I've always disliked using aggregate data to say something meaningful about one specific instance. You would expect the aggregate data to eventually show that prospects who are thought of as having more talent and being closer to ready will be successful at higher rates than those thought of as having less talent and/or being further away from ready. I don't find it particularly useful that it shows just that. It's informative, in the sense that there is an indication that the people who do this for a living are able to spot talent and determine potential on some level.

    But is it prescriptive in the sense that because all prospects who were ever ranked in the 40-50 range hit at a 40% rate, a prospect ranked 44 has a 40% chance to hit? I don't think so. You wouldn't expect the percentage to vary wildly from the historical data, but in any individual instance it is possible that the people who evaluate prospects are missing something. They will all tell you that there's no real difference between their 44 and 54 prospects. Over time, using enough instances, the guys ranked 44 will probably come out ahead, but once you narrow it down far enough, it doesn't really mean much, if anything.

    Is Ronald Acuna really a 50ish prospect with a likelihood that falls in line with past 50ish prospects? I have no idea. There's a chance he's a top 10 prospect who just hasn't had enough time to prove that yet. We all know he has a high ceiling. And he will either hit or not. What the % is on that, I don't know, and I don't think we can know that just based on his current prospect ranking.

    I think the aggregate ranking can be a useful general tool for fans. I'm not so sure about organizations as I would hope they have better things to rely on then an aggregation of media and fan sites.

    For a fan, it is useful to know how often wrong prospect ratings are (to look at it one way) or to know how few prospects succeed (to look at it another way). Generally speaking, you can make yourself view prospects cautiously and try not to overvalue them. To me, if you can acquire a proven asset for a prospect then in most cases that seems pretty wise. The negative to rebuilds is you are doing the opposite which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense in some respects.

    But it is important to note that data is general. It can tell you averages. It can tell you trends. But by definition any prospect that makes it is beyond the average and we know some prospects will make it. And for any given organization there should be times when more prospects make it than in others and less in other times. If the mean holds.

    So at the end, an individual prospect is anecdotal and isn't really bound by the data. And if you have better snowflakes than usual then you should make a better snowman at that time -- and that's an awful analogy.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there may be data that says bunting in a particular situation is stupid and the expectation based on all major hitters bunting in a given situation is negative. But if the player at the plate is an excellent bunter, can't catch up to super heat and he's left handed and facing Randy Johnson then the general set of data might not be all that useful. That hitter has a success probability in that situation that is different from the case of all pitchers facing all batters.

    And some would tell you, but its the only data we have and over time it all comes back to the general set. And maybe the problem is that you aren't using a refined enough set of data. And maybe major league teams do. But fans are not.

  8. #168
    Arizona Fall Leaguer
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    128
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    25
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    51
    Thanked in
    30 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    I think the aggregate ranking can be a useful general tool for fans. I'm not so sure about organizations as I would hope they have better things to rely on then an aggregation of media and fan sites.

    For a fan, it is useful to know how often wrong prospect ratings are (to look at it one way) or to know how few prospects succeed (to look at it another way). Generally speaking, you can make yourself view prospects cautiously and try not to overvalue them. To me, if you can acquire a proven asset for a prospect then in most cases that seems pretty wise. The negative to rebuilds is you are doing the opposite which doesn't really make a whole lot of sense in some respects.

    But it is important to note that data is general. It can tell you averages. It can tell you trends. But by definition any prospect that makes it is beyond the average and we know some prospects will make it. And for any given organization there should be times when more prospects make it than in others and less in other times. If the mean holds.

    So at the end, an individual prospect is anecdotal and isn't really bound by the data. And if you have better snowflakes than usual then you should make a better snowman at that time -- and that's an awful analogy.

    I guess what I'm saying is that there may be data that says bunting in a particular situation is stupid and the expectation based on all major hitters bunting in a given situation is negative. But if the player at the plate is an excellent bunter, can't catch up to super heat and he's left handed and facing Randy Johnson then the general set of data might not be all that useful. That hitter has a success probability in that situation that is different from the case of all pitchers facing all batters.

    And some would tell you, but its the only data we have and over time it all comes back to the general set. And maybe the problem is that you aren't using a refined enough set of data. And maybe major league teams do. But fans are not.
    I think the point isn't that the "stats people" want to peg every individual prospect to a specific chance of success. The point is that you read these posibraves posts about the farm system, and what they seem to be expecting from it is a pretty significant deviation from the historical norm. There's nothing inherently wrong with expecting something like that, but if you do, you need to have some reason for it aside from just being a homer.

    You're right that individual circumstances can give rise to situations where looking at the average isn't helpful, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In your bunting example, sure a bunt might be more appropriate in that very specific situation, but it doesn't completely invalidate the premise that in general, letting a batter swing is better than bunting. That's the point of the data - you establish the baseline that applies most of the time, then if you think a specific case deviates from the baseline, you explain why.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to rawwr For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (05-08-2017), nsacpi (05-08-2017)

  10. #169
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    I think the point isn't that the "stats people" want to peg every individual prospect to a specific chance of success. The point is that you read these posibraves posts about the farm system, and what they seem to be expecting from it is a pretty significant deviation from the historical norm. There's nothing inherently wrong with expecting something like that, but if you do, you need to have some reason for it aside from just being a homer.

    You're right that individual circumstances can give rise to situations where looking at the average isn't helpful, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In your bunting example, sure a bunt might be more appropriate in that very specific situation, but it doesn't completely invalidate the premise that in general, letting a batter swing is better than bunting. That's the point of the data - you establish the baseline that applies most of the time, then if you think a specific case deviates from the baseline, you explain why.
    A couple of things:

    1. No, you really don't have to have any support to expecting more prospects than the historical norm to hit. It's called being optimistic. And it's pretty irrelevant all things considered, so maybe banging on these folks with your "historical norms" isn't a very productive use of your time.

    2. If you must bang on these people, please stop using pretty simplistic, flawed surveys that don't actually prove the point you are trying to make.

    3. If you must accept it realize there is nothing inherently unusual or uncommon about an organization having a better success rate than the mean over a period of time. It's being presented like it is something that only foolish people would believe will occur, but it does happen regularly. Is it likely? Perhaps not. But highly unlikely? Not really.

    4. In the end people are making this out to be some great debate, when in fact you seem to essentially arguing over two starters making it. Maybe its not really that big a debate.

  11. #170
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rawwr View Post
    You're right that individual circumstances can give rise to situations where looking at the average isn't helpful, but you can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good. In your bunting example, sure a bunt might be more appropriate in that very specific situation, but it doesn't completely invalidate the premise that in general, letting a batter swing is better than bunting. That's the point of the data - you establish the baseline that applies most of the time, then if you think a specific case deviates from the baseline, you explain why.
    As to this point, I tend to agree. Bunting can be counter-productive. But some folks who are smart people who have spent a long time learning about all these stats are not good with nuance and tend to want things simple. The numbers say this. Period. If you don't go by the numbers you are wrong and I'm happy to debate it with you, but you are wrong I am right because X.

    And though it might seem ridiculous, some of them would not accept the anecdotal situation as relevant.

    I do see the general proposition as useful and nothing to be dismissed, but I think many things are really more properly measured by individual subsets of numbers. And possibly those subsets are undefinable.

  12. #171
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    26,261
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    34
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    10,000
    Thanked in
    6,108 Posts
    In society today, there is this notion that more than one correct answer exists, and everyone's interpretation of a situation is valid. When everyone grows up getting a trophy just for showing up, it makes sense that everyone think they are "right" just because they have an opinion...no matter how uninformed that opinion may be.

  13. #172
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    i think the "optimists section" was created for people looking for a "safe space" to express optimistic views without fear of being contradicted...it is ok to be optimistic in the main section, but i think people need to realize that the main section is not a "safe space"...if you say something in the main section, it is fair game for both agreement and disagreement...n'est-ce pas?

  14. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to nsacpi For This Useful Post:

    jpx7 (05-08-2017), Julio3000 (05-08-2017), The Chosen One (05-08-2017)

  15. #173
    Sabermetric Slut
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Your Mom's Basement
    Posts
    29,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,721
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,744
    Thanked in
    5,837 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    i think the "optimists section" was created for people looking for a "safe space" to express optimistic views without fear of being contradicted...it is ok to be optimistic in the main section, but i think people need to realize that the main section is not a "safe space"
    It's important to feel safe.

  16. #174
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thewupk View Post
    It's important to feel safe.
    inciarte was safe! and everyone better agree with me on that one

  17. #175
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    7,772
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    270
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,491
    Thanked in
    1,150 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    i think the "optimists section" was created for people looking for a "safe space" to express optimistic views without fear of being contradicted...it is ok to be optimistic in the main section, but i think people need to realize that the main section is not a "safe space"...if you say something in the main section, it is fair game for both agreement and disagreement...n'est-ce pas?

    I think advanced numbers show that people who use phrases like "safe space" are 80% likely to be assholes.

    I am willing to go against the numbers here if you are.

    Although it is problematic you threw in the french.

  18. #176
    Expects Yuge Games nsacpi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    47,430
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2,704
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    11,384
    Thanked in
    7,533 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Southcack77 View Post
    I think advanced numbers show that people who use phrases like "safe space" are 80% likely to be assholes.

    I am willing to go against the numbers here if you are.

    Although it is problematic you threw in the french.
    I'm relieved you didn't quote odds higher than 80%...and grateful...i think...

  19. #177
    It's OVER 5,000!
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    6,431
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    173
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,579
    Thanked in
    1,044 Posts
    Well this discussion has taken a turn.

  20. #178
    Very Flirtatious, but Doubts What Love Is. jpx7's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    11,902
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    47,590
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    6,440
    Thanked in
    3,829 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by thewupk View Post
    It's important to feel safe.
    "For all his tattooings he was on the whole a clean, comely looking cannibal."

  21. #179
    Sabermetric Slut
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    Your Mom's Basement
    Posts
    29,668
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,721
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    8,744
    Thanked in
    5,837 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by nsacpi View Post
    inciarte was safe! and everyone better agree with me on that one
    I wish. I hate to be that guy but the rule does state the runner has to beat the the throw. The original call wasn't going to be overturned.

  22. #180
    Making Atlanta Great Again!
    #MAGA!

    Promises MADE, Promises KEPT!
    The Chosen One's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    School of Hard Cox
    Posts
    25,337
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    8,593
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9,752
    Thanked in
    5,746 Posts
    I gift the forum an optimist and realist/pessimist sub-forum and nobody uses it except nsacpi to debate himself. Sad!
    Forever Fredi


Similar Threads

  1. THURSDAY MINORS THREAD FINAL 8/23/18: Touki Reigns Again
    By rico43 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 40
    Last Post: 08-24-2018, 03:35 PM
  2. 8/18 THURSDAY MINORS FIAL.. Rain Reigns
    By rico43 in forum Rico's Reports 2016
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 04:20 PM
  3. 8/18 THURSDAY MINORS FIAL.. Rain Reigns
    By rico43 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 08-19-2016, 04:20 PM
  4. Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 12:20 AM
  5. 7/14 THURSDAY MINOR FINAL: MiLB profiles Allard; Povse wins AA debut
    By rico43 in forum 2023: Celebrating Our 10th Year Here
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 07-15-2016, 12:20 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •