Jeremy Reed

[whitesox61382]

Jackie, stop while you are behind. You are getting worked up because a majority of the responses in this thread disagree with your opinion and it is reflecting poorly on you.

 

"I don't consider 47 abs "an accurate number to make a judgement on"! What the f***?! I said"

 

While you didn't come out and say that 47 ABs is enough to make an accurate judgement, you do make the assumption that this sample combined with his minor league stats does make it possible to make judgements since he performed well in both cases. Do you deny this(if so, than please refer to your 1st response to me)? I took it one step further and said, not only is 47 AB's to small to make an accurate judgement, but minor league stats aren't a good indicator of major league sucess(stats). The obvious reason is that the majority of prospects never make the majors, so its impossible to come up with an accurate formula to project major league sucess(and accurately project their major league stats based on their minor league numbers). You have tons of career .300+ hitters in the minors that never make the majors or develop into decent major league players, and conversely you have tons of career .260-.270 hitters in the minors that develop into .300 hitters in the majors. The amount of deviation makes it impossible to use minor league stats as an accurate indicator. For some reason you don't understand this simple concept(make because you are more worried about trying to prove me wrong at any expense including ignoring simple facts like about).

 

"So next time, point out to me exactly what f***ing statement of mine you're referring to, and don't just assume you know what I'm talking about."

 

This is another one of your problems. At times I don't think you know what you are talking about. You also don't communicate your points well(maybe because you often backtrack, retract, and contradict previous statements of yours).

 

"That's how statistics is done. (One way or another -- I'm not going to go into Bayesian v Classical statistics until this basic distinction is understood.)"

 

This is another one of your problems. You are a stat geek who attempts to turn a simple concept such as stats, into a Harvard type debate. You are out thinking yourself. Furthermore, Bayesian theory of probability has no relivance to this topic and most of baseball for that matter. Probability can not be accurately used with minor league stats as far as projecting them into major league stats/sucess. For some reason you don't understand this.

 

"Statistically, your statement that "a career .330 hitter in the minors will be more likely to suceed in the majors than a career .230 hitter in the minors(and in most cases you will be right)" is inconsistent with your statement that minor league stats are "almost complete worthless". Look up Bayes law (or Bayes theorem)."

 

See the above paragraph. For every .300 hitter in the minors that makes the majors, there is a couple .250-.260 hitters in the minors that make the majors. With such a large deviation probability can not be accurately used.

 

"Can you "guarantee" that Freddy Garcia will be a particular type of pitcher? No player, minor or major leagues, guarantees anything. Or do you disagree?"

 

This is incorrect to some degree. A player that has hit .300 in the majors 4 seasons in a row is likely to do so the following year(see Maggs when healthy). This is one place where you can use Bayes theory. Sure there are some cases where this doesn't hold true(see Konerko last year), but there isn't as much deviation. With that said, you can't do the same with minor league stats. Why? Because the difference in talent from A ball, AA, and even AAA to the majors is extremely drastic. In the major league example, the talent level remains the constant. This is the simple concept that I am trying to get across. This is why a proven major leaguer is worth more the a prospect with a lot of "potential", and why this is a generally accepted concept among baseball elite, experts, analysist, ect.

 

Nice try with those two articles as well. Like I said, just because they ATTEMPT to accurately predict major league stats based on minor league stats, doesn't make it an accurate indicator. In fact, it proves my point more than it does yours. Look at the names in that 1st article. They attempt to project major league stats for the top propsects in the minors. You will probably not recognize a majority of the names on that list. Why? Because a majority of them either never made the majors or didn't amount to anything in the majors(or come close to their projected major league stats). This clearly proves my point. How can you accurately use minor league stats to project major league stats, when over half of the prospects never make the majors. This fact only makes it impossible to accurately predict major league stats using minor league numbers. Both articles acknowledge this concept in a round about way. You need to read that second article a little more closely. It says and I quote "the goal being to show". In case you didn't understand the quote that you quoted, it suggests that the writter is going to ATTEMPT to show that minor league stats can be used to accurately project major league stats. Attempting to prove something(that can't be proven) doesn't prove that there IS an accurate way to project minor league stats for the majors. Nice try junior.

 

"we didn't need to give him up to get Garcia. In fact, almost every single critic of the trade that I've seen has said the same thing."

 

Do you understand that you have to give up something to get something? Did you think that Seattle would take just garbage for one of the top pitcher in the AL? Quality starting pitching is the hardest thing to find. This is a generally accepted concept. Would you give up a .300/15/75 15 SB corner outfielder for a top of the rotation starter? I would, and so would a majority of the baseball world. Not only that, but Reed is far from a guarantee to post the above stats. Seattle is taking a gamble, and in the best case scenerio(for Seattle) Reed and Garcia would have similar value, yet you complain.

 

"Why bother, every time I make a clear point, it seems to be filtered out. The very next post is going to be, "You're an idiot. Garcia doesn't suck!""

 

Haha. Have you noticed that you are really the only poster in this thread that has supported your "clear points"? Maybe they aren't as clear as you think. Maybe this is a case of your being too stupid to realize how dumb you are(a saying and not a personal attack).

[ZoomSlowik]

Can we please cut the math out of this thread? It just doesn't really apply to anything. Baseball is not a mathematically predictable phenomena, there are just too many variables that can not be quantified. Things like learning a new pitch, improving pitch selection, learning how to hit to all fields, improving bat speed, and injuries can not be accounted for. This is probably why a good number of statistical study deals with probabilty based phenomena like a deck of cards or a die. Development of a young baseball player is highly unpredictable. If using math could be effectively used to predict success of young players, then there wouldn't be any debacles where young players are dealt before they could develop. The discussion is great, but can we avoid turning this into a math thread?

[jackie hayes]

ws61382, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false. You use terms like "likely", but then say probability and statistics don't apply. That's just nonsense. As for the articles, maybe you should read them "a little more closely". Actually it was the first article you were quoting, and it followed "the goal being to show", with the conclusion, "This is still true". Probably you couldn't understand the rest of the article, where he actually develops an argument, but I thought at least you'd get through this part (especially since that's the part I quoted).

 

You don't understand what you're talking about. You say everything's too variable for probability, then you claim there are "guarantees". You think that a prediction can be accurate only if it's exactly right. I can't believe how ignorant, how bizarre these ideas are.

 

I have been consistent, you have been clueless. As for the last part, f*** off. ('Oh no, not a personal attack...' ) What I got fed up with is the fact that I had to keep repeating myself (that I wasn't basing anything off 47 abs) b/c you can't work your mind around a very simple argument.

[whitesox61382]

ws61382, just because you don't understand it doesn't make it false.  You use terms like "likely", but then say probability and statistics don't apply.  That's just nonsense.  As for the articles, maybe you should read them "a little more closely".  Actually it was the first article you were quoting, and it followed "the goal being to show", with the conclusion, "This is still true".  Probably you couldn't understand the rest of the article, where he actually develops an argument, but I thought at least you'd get through this part (especially since that's the part I quoted).

 

You don't understand what you're talking about.  You say everything's too variable for probability, then you claim there are "guarantees".  You think that a prediction can be accurate only if it's exactly right.  I can't believe how ignorant, how bizarre these ideas are.

 

I have been consistent, you have been clueless.  As for the last part, f*** off.  ('Oh no, not a personal attack...' )  What I got fed up with is the fact that I had to keep repeating myself (that I wasn't basing anything off 47 abs) b/c you can't work your mind around a very simple argument.

Pot meet kettle...has it ever occured that you are the one that is clueless, that doesn't know what he is talking about, that doesn't understand what I am talking about? Of course not, because you are one of those hard headed guys who can't admit he is wrong no matter how many people tell him that. Have you noticed that almost no one has agreed or defended your points? Do you think that is coincidence? Yet there have been multiple posters who have supported and defended my points. Is that coincidence, or is it that you are too stupid to realize how dumb you are(or that everyone disagrees with you, but you feel that everyone is clueless and you are right no matter what).

 

My simple points are:

 

1) 47 AB's is too small of a sample size to make an accurate judgement.

2) Minor league stats can't accurately predict major league sucess or be used to accurately predict major league stats. This idea is supported by the simple fact that over half of the prospects BP, BA, sabermetric, and other sources make major league predictions for never make it to the majors(rules out the use of any type of probability).

3) Proven major league talent is worth more than minor league potential.

4) Quality major league pitchers are worth more than quality major league hitters.

5) I do think Reed will be a solid major league player.

 

This is my last post in this thread because Jackie is getting too worked up.

[YASNY]

Fine, it's "fair game", but it's also irrelevant to anything that was being discussed.  If you want to bring up a separate argument, don't make it sound like you're replying to anything.  ("No Jackie, you didn't all those things.")  I actually was saying "all those things" in this thread, and that's what I was defending.  You admit yourself that I'd been saying those things by saying that I "rehashed" my argument.

 

As for this other argument, that it's too soon to judge a trade (and I want to say again that I never judged this trade in this thread) -- by that logic, no trade should be judged (at all, you say) till the end of the season, and most trades shouldn't be spoken of for many years -- b/c there is some positive probability that someone involved in the trade might do something.  Sports fans on a sports fan site are not going to wait for the historical record, and there's no reason to do so.  The end result is indeed what's important, but it does not actually tell you whether the trade was good -- that is, whether one should expect the trade would work out well and was better than other potential deals, given what you knew at the time.  If we judged all transactions only by the end result, they'd almost all be bad, either because a throw-in played better than someone else that could have been thrown in, or because you could have traded for some at-the-time unknown player who had a breakout season.  If we only use the information that was known at the time, though, there's no reason to avoid discussing the wisdom of the Garcia deal right now.

 

But if you want, we can start that Bell-for-Sosa thread now.

Ok, whatever. I'm done.

 

 

But kudos for the Bell-Sosa trade remark.

[jackie hayes]

Pot meet kettle...has it ever occured that you are the one that is clueless, that doesn't know what he is talking about, that doesn't understand what I am talking about? Of course not, because you are one of those hard headed guys who can't admit he is wrong no matter how many people tell him that. Have you noticed that almost no one has agreed or defended your points? Do you think that is coincidence? Yet there have been multiple posters who have supported and defended my points. Is that coincidence, or is it that you are too stupid to realize how dumb you are(or that everyone disagrees with you, but you feel that everyone is clueless and you are right no matter what).

 

My simple points are:

 

1) 47 AB's is too small of a sample size to make an accurate judgement.

2) Minor league stats can't accurately predict major league sucess or be used to accurately predict major league stats. This idea is supported by the simple fact that over half of the prospects BP, BA, sabermetric, and other sources make major league predictions for never make it to the majors(rules out the use of any type of probability).

3) Proven major league talent is worth more than minor league potential.

4) Quality major league pitchers are worth more than quality major league hitters.

5) I do think Reed will be a solid major league player.

 

This is my last post in this thread because Jackie is getting too worked up.

What a stupid argument. You never show that my reasoning is wrong, you just say, look, noone's agreed with you, you must be an idiot. I think most people don't know much about formal stats, so they don't want to get involved in the debate. Unlike yourself, someone who knows less than nothing but still feels qualified to throw around "sample size" as if he was making some conclusive argument.

 

My responses to your simple points:

 

1. I agree.

2. No prediction will ever be dead-on (that seems to be what you mean by "accurately"), but there is some information in past minor-league stats just as there is some information in past major-league stats that can make predictions more accurate (better, not perfect). Predictions of this sort don't imply that a player will be promoted, they just take a stab at how well he'd do IF he were promoted.

3. Depends how much talent, and how much potential. "Talent" doesn't guarantee future "talent", just like "potential" doesn't guarantee future "talent". Anyway, that's not the issue. In a different thread I argued -- not that we shouldn't get Garcia -- but that we should have traded Crede instead of Reed. But he's probably "guaranteed" to break out next year.

4. Depends on the respective qualities. Also questionable on the face, b/c pitchers bear a greater risk (oh, sorry, stat term there...) of injury.

5. Your whole argument is that we know absolutely nothing about what Jeremy Reed will become as player, now you go and say that you do know something about the player he'll become. What kind of argument is that?

[southsider2k5]

Yeah, but the Sox will pay Garcia $27MM over the next three years, and the Mariners will pay Reed about $1MM over the next three years.  I lthink they could have bought some pitching with that money, maybe even Garcia.

Are you telling me that the Sox are going to be able to get a pitcher of that caliber on the free agent market for that price, without getting out bid by the pitching starved/high spending Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Orioles and company? Tell me you know better than that. Geesh Bartlolo Colon got 4 years at over $13 mil a year. And the Yankees weren't even pushing that hard. Doesn't that tell you something?