The 50 AB Sample Size
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 2:17 AM CDT
45 comments
I've heard repeatedly that Botts didn't "do anything with his chance."
Well, here's a couple of other people who didn't "do anything with their chances" either in a 50 AB stint when they were first able to accumulate 50 AB in a year, so obviously, they must suck, too:
Player A: .216/.293/.431 in 51 AB
Player B: .220/.317/.360 in 50 AB
Player C: .220/.291/.360 in 50 AB
Player D: .160/.236/.320 in 50 AB
Player E: .180/.196/.360 in 50 AB
-Player A was a 23-year old Adrian Gonzalez who was starting in 3 game spurts in April, July, and August.
-Player B was a 25-year old Jason Botts who was starting sporadically between May and July.
-Player C was a 25-year old Travis Hafner who was starting nearly everyday in an August callup.
-Player D was a 23-year old Mark Teixeira who was starting everyday at the start of the season.
-Player E was a 24-year old Alfonso Soriano who was starting in 3 game spurts in April, May, and September.
All pretty comparable with some slight differences in age. But all doing very badly in their 50 AB "trial."
Not only that, all the rest were starting somewhat regularly while Botts, who occasionally had 2 starts back-to-back, was usually starting every 5th day.
And on top of that, just remove his last 2 games, and you'll find that Botts was doing pretty well hitting .250/.358/.409.
This illustrates the problem with having such a small sample size: TWO bad games can make it seem like you "didn't do anything with your chances."
Am I arguing that Botts would be as successful as the other players he's listed with? No. But I AM arguing that 50 AB is way too small to doing any judging and concluding. Especially acting like 50 AB gives us a definitive handle on whether a player can play in the majors or not.
Frankly, Botts has not had a reasonable shot until last year where he was atrocious in August, but improving and decent in September:
August: .207/.288/.304 in 92 AB
September: .280/.372/.373 in 75 AB
Of course, this doesn't excuse his remarks that he made after being sent down this year. But frankly, if I were in the same situation as he is, in which I'd shown I had nothing to prove in AAA, and still I wasn't being allowed to get a real shot to play in the majors, I'd have probably made similar types of remarks.
in AAA
2005: .286/.375/.522 in 510 AB
2006: .309/.398/.582 in 220 AB
2007: .320/.436/.545 in 369 AB
In 2006, when we were 10 games out in 3rd place by September 1st, that should have been the time we were seeing what Botts could do. Not trying to give playing time to DeRosa to secure his next contract.
In 2007, when we were 16 games out in 4th place by June 5th or at least by July, we should have been seeing what Botts could do in the majors. Not playing players like Wilkerson, Hairston, and Sosa who were doing nothing whatsoever and wouldn't be part of the future.
In 2008 in a rebuilding year, we should have been trotting Botts out there every day and see if he could carry over his progress from September 2007 and spring 2008. Not bringing in a spare in Broussard who we know won't help out the team in the future.
Is Botts a major-league worthy bat? I don't know.
But the reason I don't know is because of the way the Rangers have been screwing with his development the past 3 years.
Not particularly because of what Botts has or hasn't done, though it is true that he hasn't lit the world on fire.
Think Showalter would have played Hafner over Palmeiro to see if he could hack it as a 26 year old DH? Given the Rangers' track record with Botts, I severely doubt it.
And that's over 300 games worth of data. NOT 50 ABs.
R
1 recs |
45 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Heh as zero defensive value and not that high of a ceiling
He HAS to take advantage of the chances given to him, brief or not. The bottom line is he had 4 chances to make a positive impression and each stint had an ops that started with a 6. Its not like every player who gets 50 at bats fails at it. A small sample size should lead to better than expected numbers (like murphy last year) as often as it does poor numbers, especially for someone who has seen significant time at the upper minor league levels.
Various players get more/better chances because they are top prospects, have defensive value, are needed to fill in for an injured player, or are young enough that struggling is more acceptable. Jason Botts has no such edge, and had to impress to stay on the field. He didnt.
I agree that he should have gotten more of a chance, but I dont think its an example of just terrible roster management or some great injustice, just a sad story for mr. botts.
And I know you didnt say he would be as good as those guys, but still, there are many examples of guy who had good minor league track records, were bad for a few hundred at bats…........ and never did anything.
Gerald Laird is my hero.
by DSheppard on May 8, 2008 2:56 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
I agree
generally with your statement. Particularly about zero defensive value.
OTOH, his “chances” weren’t long enough that you can’t really consider them chances, IMO. The fact is that his first REAL chance was last year. And that is generally because his defense is probably zero. But, of course, you could make the same argument about Hafner. How’d he turn out?
Also, as I stated earlier, take away the 2 last games in Botts’ “poor impression” for his 2006 season, and he has an OPS > 800. Instead of an OPS that starts with a 6. That’s the problem with “chances” which are so small, there’s such a swing from just 1 or 2 bad games, that trying to interpret that data as anything definitive is naive.
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 3:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
By the time Hafner
got around the same 300 ABs as Botts, he had turned in a .254/.327/.485 OPS 812 OPS+ 115 line for the tribe.
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 3:45 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Which
was nearly all gained from consistent playing time in the lineup.
Not only that, but Hafner got more ABs (291) in ONE year than Botts has had in THREE years (282)
And Hafner’s combined stats for those 353 ABs were .252/.327/.468 (795 OPS). Not sure why you’re ignoring his first 62 ABs when you’re basically combining all of Botts “chances” into one grouping.
And that .252/.327/.468 line sure predicted Hafner’s next few years, didn’t they?
2002-2003 – .252/.327/.468 (year 25-26)
2004 – .311/.410/.583 (year 27)
2005 – .305/.408/.595 (year 28)
2006 – .308/.439/.659 (year 29)
While this isn’t a legitimate exercise since Botts and Hafner are not the same player, let’s assume that Botts has a similar career path:
2005-2008 – .230/.325/.344 (year 24-27)
2008 – .289/.408/.459 (year 27) (rest)
2009 – .283/.406/.471 (year 28)
2010 – .286/.437/.535 (year 29)
That seems a pretty good ceiling, doesn’t it?
Now, there are certain specific legitimate concerns that Botts won’t reach that ceiling, but are you ready to say after 282 ABs spread across 4 seasons that we know he won’t even be close?
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 4:22 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Actually
Hafner got off to a slow start, and got sent down, and came back up in 2003.
If Botts had a 795 OPS, he’d still be up.
Yes, just seeing what he has done, and looking at his swing, I’m willing to say Botts won’t be close to Hafner.
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 5:07 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yes
And it was on Hafner’s 3rd chance that he did better than Botts. So, that means we should be giving Botts at least 1 more chance, if not 2.
And, of course, DJCahill is the be-all and end-all of all things baseball who’s never been wrong once in his baseball-watching life.
So, therefore, Botts is not worth giving major league ABs to, because DJCahill has already labeled him a AAAA player after seeing him for 282 (well, probably less since I doubt the great DJCahill, even with all his eagle eyes, has seen ALL of Botts’s) ABs.
I’m so glad that DJCahill is so great that he can tell the career futures of any player after 282 ABs. Maybe he should be working for the Rangers! That way, they’d never make a mistake!
Yes, folks, we should all lobby the Rangers to make the great DJCahill a GM for he can predict the future from 282 or less ABs! No more trading away Hafners or Adrian Gonzalezes or Harangs or Volquezs or Danks!
I can’t wait for the day!
R
by Requiem on May 9, 2008 7:24 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
BTW
if you were trying to rebut my “consistent playing time” argument, I don’t see what getting sent down has to do with it.
Hafner played nearly every day while he was up with the Indians, just as he was played nearly every day when he was up with the Rangers.
Botts only got that treatment last year.
But then again, I don’t really know why you brought that up anyways, but thanks for helping elucidate my argument for me!
R
by Requiem on May 9, 2008 7:28 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What about
the 300AB sample size?
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 3:12 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
It’s not like these 50 at-bats were the first 50 ever in the majors for him.
by Inkara1 on May 8, 2008 3:20 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
yep
botts is now now 27.
he can’t field either.
if you are a DH or BAD defensive 1b, you need to have a excellent bat to justify being full time at one of those positions.
he had 1 very small chance, 1 decent chance, and 2 good chances. he never really did anything with those.
Adrian Gonzalez is now 26. by age 24 he was an excellent hitter. he got his chance taking the spot of an average todd walker.
Travis Hafner by age 26 put up decent numbers for the indians in over half a season. the next season he became a great hitter. he came up late too, like botts. he didn’t have take as many chances as botts to catch on. in 2004 he replaced an elderly, unimpressive ellis burks.
Mark Teixeira ended up an excellent defensive firstbaseman. so good he moved a gold glover to the DH spot (raffy!) this at the age of 23. he ended up being one of the top hitters in club history. anyway…he was called up at age 23 and because he put up good numbers in the minors and was an excellent glove AND the team already had a pretty good lineup he got to stick around. he took advantage of his chance and was rewarded.
Alfonso Soriano couldn’t really field. the yanks called him up 3 times before he stook to the lineup. but he was age 25 on that 3rd callup. (3rd season, not sure about callups, not gonna look it up THAT much). his bat wasn’t good, and his defense was bad at a defensive position. but at age 25 he put up decent numbers for his position and was a base stealing threat. i also think i can put some faith in the yankees scouts and management for recognizing talent.
botts had had chances. other than a handful of games he’s given the team zilch. you’d think he would have gotten HOT in one of those chances. done something to make the team believe in him, but he didn’t. if he were a LITTLE better, and if he were versatile enough to play multiple positions maybe it would justify him having a roster spot. but you can’t do anything with him other than DH, a spot start in 1st and a desperation move to LF. neither of which he’s very good at.
send me nominations for the Hall of the Very Good
http://www.buchanan4pres2008.org/
NIXON: NOW MORE THAN EVER
by gossamer on May 8, 2008 7:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
This Botts thing
so reminds me of the days of Rob Bell and Aaron Myette when some Pundits were saying you just had to give them the ball for 30 starts in a season, despite them having 7+ ERAs.
I haven’t seen many folks in baseball getting 1000ABs despite sub 700 OPS, unless they have useful gloves, and I don’t see starters getting 30 starts very often despite 7+ ERAs. Most of the guys who perform that poorly get yo-yoed to the minors until they show something in the majors.
"Before I leave, I once again condemn the despicable buffoonery of D.J. Cahill." - Huck
by DJCahill on May 8, 2008 8:01 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
And of course
that’s what all these “Pundits” are asking for:
1000 ABs of a sub-700 OPS.
Care to actually discuss what us “Pundits” do actually want?
Or do you just want to keep attacking straw men?
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 4:28 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I addressed the
comparisons of players in a post farther down. Again, I was not comparing players talent-wise.
I agree with your analysis of the players talent-wise, though.
I disagree on the scope of the chances that Botts got, though:
2005 – he started in 8 games spread across 18 days with a lot of 2 game breaks in-between. I’d call that a miniscule chance.
2006 – he started in 13 games and various pinch-hit at-bats spread across 48 days with a lot of 3 game breaks in-between. I’d call that barely a small chance.
2007 – he started in 46 games spread across 61 days. I’d call that a legitimate chance
2008 – he started in 8 games and a couple pinch-hit at-bats spread across 25 days with 1 game breaks in the later part. I’d call that a little better than a miniscule chance.
That’s quite a bit different than 1 very small chance, 1 decent chance, and 2 good chances.
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Career
2005 – His first year on the 40 man and was a September callup. Very normal for a 24 year olds progression
2006 – Was called up as an injury replacement and played sparingly. Again very normal progression. Could Buck have played him more…sure but thats something you should ask him.
2007 – Was given every opportunity in spring training to beat out Sammy Sosa but couldn’t. Then was handed on a silver platter regular playing time August 1 and couldn’t produce
2008 – You mention 25 days. Thats true. But if you look at it this way he played in 11 games in a 12 game span after JD apparantly told Wash to play him. Playing time everyday for 2 weeks straight and couldn’t do anything.
He followed a pretty normal path or progression for a prospect. Especially one that was a 46th round draft pick. He never forced the Rangers to play him. David Murphy and Brandon Boggs have forced the Rangers to play them but Botts never did.
by bigsteve on May 8, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
"Was given every opportunity in spring training to beat out Sammy Sosa but couldn’t."
WOW…
Every opportunity huh? You know what he was hitting in ST that year, and when exactly they gave the job to Sosa, right?
I’m pretty sure even the Sosa crowd would admit that.
by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 5:06 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Sosa
you know what Sosa was hitting right?
by bigsteve on May 8, 2008 5:12 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Here you go:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=2792917
The gaudy spring training stats? Who knows? It’s early. It’s the dry air of Arizona. And even the scouts will tell you Sosa has been cheating on the fastball and struggling with the breaking stuff.
by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 5:23 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Botts
If you ain’t cheatin you aint trying.
Seriously Botts should have been cheating also if thats the case. I don’t care if Sosa cheated or not the fact is he produced.
by bigsteve on May 8, 2008 5:25 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
AWESOME ARGUMENT!
You’ve lost.
I’m sure you’re also a Bonds/Clemens fan?
by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
cheating
Don’t interpret the word cheating in my post the wrong way. Cheating on a fastball is perfectly fine with me as long as when you get one you punish it. I in no way endorse or approve of the other cheating.
by bigsteve on May 8, 2008 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I didn't interpret the word
I interpreted your little motto up there:
“If you ain’t cheatin you aint trying.”
by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 5:29 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hmmm
why is every time you post, bigsteve, I feel like you’re reinterpreting what I’m saying?
The point of bringing up the year-by-year countdown was to determine what types of opportunites Botts REALLY has been given.
I think the evidence shows that it’s different from what gossamer outline which was the entire point of my bringing it up.
But since you brought it up:
-I do agree with your interpretations about 2005 and 2006.
-In 2007, Sosa was given the job before spring training started, but likely would have been started over Botts anyways. So, I guess I generally agree with what you said in 2007.
-In 2008, Botts was played in 11 games in a 12 game span, but basically that’s broken down into 1 four-game span where he started every day and an 8 game span where he alternated starting and sitting (and pinch-hitting in some of them). Not quite playing every day in my opinion.
Interesting to note. I just don’t see what bearing they have on what I was discussing.
Also, would you say that Hafner, he of the career (795 OPS before his age 27 season) forced the Indians to play him every day before his breakout season? So, you’d be ok with yo-yoing him also?
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 5:17 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Hafner
Hafner didn’t force anything. But the Indians also did not have anyone else entrenched at the DH position and could have him DH full time. Too bad for Botts we signed Bradley. Bradley is playing unbelievably for us so far and with him in the DH role Bottshad to settle for limited playing time. He had played a total of 18 games at 1B in the last 3 years before this year so I can fully understand a manager not wanting to put him out there. And you stated he played 8 games in 25 days which implies he played very sporadically when in fact those all came in a condensed timeframe. He earned his callup in 2006 because of his performance in 2005. But then he didn’t capitalize on that opportunity as limited as it was. If he had forced the Rangers to play him and they didn’t I could understand people being upset. Just like if Murphy or Boggs were benched even though they are performing when given a chance. Botts never forced them to play him.
by bigsteve on May 8, 2008 5:33 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Line spaces
are better than big blocks of text.
"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."
- The D-tron
by Chase Irwin on May 8, 2008 5:34 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Look
I agree with you in that Botts didn’t capitalize on his opportunity.
That was not the point. The point was that his “opportunities” are not as large as gossamer claimed.
In response to other points, is it too bad for Botts that we have someone essentially for the position he plays full time for 2007 and 2008? Yeah.
But it’s ALSO TOO BAD FOR THE RANGERS AND US FANS if Botts can be actually be a productive player for 2009-2010, and we refuse to try to find out when we’re not in a position to compete.
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 5:41 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
How about
29 as a sample size, as in all the 29 other teams in MLB, even the shitty ones, obviously think Botts isn’t “a major-league worthy bat”?
by Rangerchick on May 8, 2008 7:40 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Yeah
I kind of expect others to overlook 3 years of bad Botts play, but not Req…
by JBImaknee on May 8, 2008 8:27 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Maybe I wouldn't "overlook" 3 years of bad Botts play....
if there WERE 3 years of bad Botts play:
.230/.325/.344 in 326 PA
Unless you’re telling me that 326 PA = 3 years of play.
How about these figures:
.302/.401/.542 in 1307 PA in AAA
I kind of expect others to overlook 2 real years of great Botts play, but not JBImaknee…
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 3:43 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
When he gets to
300 AB, I’ll let you know :p
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 4:46 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What do the other 4 players have that Botts does not?
Thats right, talent.
by SaltyGoesYard on May 8, 2008 7:53 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
+1
ENOUGH OF ALL THIS ALREADY! Can we please talk about something else. Good Lord.
Gig 'Em Aggies! 2010
At that moment, I wanted to throw my Blackberry out a window. I wanted to shut down this blog, unsubscribe to the NMLR, give away my tickets for this year, and burn all my Rangers gear. I wanted to forget that baseball even existed...And tonight, I'm sitting here thinking to myself, "I hope there's a game tomorrow."
~Adam J. Morris
by aggierangerfan00 on May 8, 2008 8:46 AM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Concur...
I know most won’t agree with you on this Req but I completely agree. Especially given the state of this team the last 2 seasons.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
by slc ranger on May 8, 2008 9:29 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
All of those examples
are players with much higher ceilings and were much more highly regarded than Botts. Apples to oranges to me. I don’t like the way Botts was handled, but come on.
...and curse Sir Walter Raleigh, he was such a stupid git.
by t ball on May 8, 2008 10:58 AM CDT reply actions 0 recs
There seems to be a common theme here.
People seem to think that I’m comparing Botts talent-wise to the players I highlighted.
I am NOT.
I’m saying that 50 AB is not enough of a sample size for us to tell much of anything AS CAN BE SEEN IN THE SAMPLES I HIGHLIGHT WHICH ARE COMPARABLE TO Botts’s sample.
It is the “anti-Botts” contingent which keeps pointing to the 50 AB season and using it as PROOF that Botts “showed nothing” in his stints in the majors.
With 282 ABs, at least you get a little better picture. But even then, Botts didn’t have consistent playing time except for 167 ABs in 2007, that I don’t know how much you can say about those other ABs, since it seems like it takes him time to adjust to each new level.
I have never stated that I thought Botts was a major-leaguer. But I HAVE stated that we don’t really have enough data to know one way or another.
Now if some of you guys would stop interpreting everything I say as “I think Botts will be the next Hafner/Teixeira/Adrian/Soriano” maybe we could have a real discussion.
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 3:52 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Well
I don’t buy the “takes time to adjust to each new league” bit as an indefinite excuse.
by brettgardner on May 8, 2008 3:55 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
What I don't get:
is how the “anti-Botts” crowd doesn’t understand our argument?
Nobody is saying Botts is going to be a good major leaguer. However, taking a chance on Botts is a better option than playing Broussard. I think that’s the main argument, at least from my POV.
by cmkelly29 on May 8, 2008 5:04 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Botts
Isn’t a better option than Cat and Shelton. Just isn’t.
by brettgardner on May 8, 2008 9:50 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
I think this post is a worthy attempt, Req
but consider your audience. I think you’re finding that several folks had already made up their minds a long time ago and refuse to reconsider.
For instance, Cahill’s convenient disregard of Botts’ 07 September, followed up by bench time.
"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."
- The D-tron
by Chase Irwin on May 8, 2008 4:58 PM CDT reply actions 0 recs
It's quite possible....
I’m just trying to elucidate what my position is on certain issues.
And this is to counter some slanted arguments, IMO, about Botts that I’ve seen thrown around.
I can totally see why many people don’t think Botts will always be a AAAA slugger:
- K’s to much
- has holes in his swing
- hasn’t shown anything in his “chances”
But I don’t think there’s anything we can say conclusively about him yet, and I’d really like to find out with more certainty.
But, of course, I don’t think the Rangers will compete this year, so I’d much rather try to figure out who’s going to be part of the core of this team for 2009-2010, then demand that a player who is notoriously a slow starter immediately produce in a rebuilding year.
R
by Requiem on May 8, 2008 5:24 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Right with you
"I hope it's a special dumb person hell so that I don’t have to meet up with you after I die."
- The D-tron
by Chase Irwin on May 8, 2008 5:26 PM CDT up reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
