David Pinto on Evan Grant's Michael Young Comparisons
Pinto feels that where Evan Grant's comparisons of Michael Young to other, similar players breaks down is that it doesn't take into account that Paul Molitor and other players similar to Young saw the second half of their careers coincide with a general league-wide increase in offense, which helped mask their decline.
about 2 years ago
Adam J. Morris
170 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
You mean Michael Young isn't as awesome as the media makes him out to be?
SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
Blasphemy!!
"Jurick Profar is tired of practice!! I wanna play I wanna play….waiting for march 12 to go to spring training! to kill some pichers:D:D I am Jurickson Profar son of judeska and chesmond.. And I was born ready! ready to play baseball!!" - Jurickson Profar
Except...
in this case, Pinto isn’t really saying anything about Young so much as he is the era he is playing in.
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 10:08 PM CST up reply actions
Well.
Pinto is saying that Grant is likely overestimating Young’s future performance, given the comps he’s using and the 1993 surge in offensive production.
Which...
is more indicative of the eras than it is of Michael Young, in this case.
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 10:17 PM CST up reply actions
It's indicative of a problematic analysis.
LSJ’s point isn’t so far off. Grant (and others using the same comps in the same way) is probably making a stronger case for Young than is justified by the evidence cited.
It absolutely is problematic...
However, I think the point Pinto is making is more about looking at eras as a tool of being objective than it is just saying: “Michael Young is overrated.”
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 10:27 PM CST up reply actions
I thought the point Pinto was making
is that when you consider period effects, Grant is most likely overrating Michael Young’s future performance. And so, in other words, Young probably won’t be quite as awesome as much of the media is predicting he will be.
I realize that’s slightly different than LSJ’s point, but it seems as if it was slightly different from yours, as well. Sorry if this seems like a difference without distinction.
Evan also stopped at just the right time.
The next modern day comps are Jose Vidro, Ray Durham, Edgardo Alfonzo, Carlos Baerga, and Jay Bell.
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
I think a lot of players are overrated by the MSM because of archaic stats.
I think it’s quite often less innocent than using stats to justify their opinion of a player (though, I do think that’s what EG was doing since he does have a notable love affair with MY).
So, in summary, I think everyone has a little bit of correctness going on here.
On an unrelated note
Boston v. Detroit from 1996, when Clemens strikes out 20 Tigers, is on MLB Network right now.
Justin Thompson is pitching for the Tigers.
by Adam J. Morris on Feb 28, 2010 10:05 PM CST reply actions
From flat ground...
or just long toss from 40 feet?
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 10:10 PM CST up reply actions 6 recs
Nomar was ROY in 1997, right?
So is he in this as a late-season call-up?
Too bad there’s not some user friendly data website that shows up if I Google “Nomar” that could give me all these answers and more.
Nomah and 3 ex Rangers for the Sox
http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/DET/DET199609180.shtml
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
just out of curiosity
what % chance do people think that FOTF has a chance of making the HOF?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
He would have to play until he was 40 and the Rangers would have to win the WS.
Twice
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
There are far better ways to estimate it than my just guessing, but I'm gonna say, like. . .
. . . 2-3%.
I'd put him at 10%
if he keeps up that BA and can play until at least 40 as well as does something in the playoffs. I don’t think he’d deserve it then, but I think he’d have the stats to justify it for some writers. I think he’s got about 2-3% of a chance to actually deserve making it, but that’s going to have to start off with him repeating his 2009 this season.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
I approached this a little more scientifically.
Bill James Favorite Toy has Michael Young as having a 21% chance of reaching 3,000 hits. Would it be fair to say hitting that mile stone is, at this point, probably his only chance of getting in to Cooperstown?
So looking at it that way, I’d say a 15-20% chance (or perhaps even higher than 20, allowing for a few other remote methods of getting in) is reasonable.
I find it a little crazy to think, though. . .
. . . that where MY’s career is, if played 5 times between now and eternity, one of those seasons will be considered HoF worthy.
i just dont think he is going to get in the HOF
does anyone think FOTF can still play in the field in 8 years?
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 1, 2010 10:23 AM CST up reply actions
see this is what i think it is
2% on the HIGH end.
he has to have a 2nd half of his career thats at least as good as tthe 1st half. and hes not a DH candidate at all…
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 1, 2010 10:21 AM CST up reply actions
Honestly?
0%
When Michael Young is up for election he’s going to run into the opposite of what candidates face nowadays. The BBWAA loves to vote for dudes with marginal numbers who were leaders of their team for a long while. Baseball writers eat that shit up.
By 2022, or whenever Young is first eligible, all of the BBWAA will be comprised of a lot of folks that can look past surface numbers like hits and know that “leadership” doesn’t really mean too much over a career.
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 10:24 PM CST up reply actions
we'll see
that might happen but I also think the future might judge the steroid era a bit differently than the “if we don’t know who juiced, we’ll just ignore it” mantra we keep hearing.
It's also possible that, 10-15 years from now,
folks will have finally gained some critical distance from the steroid hoopla.
hoopla?
christ.
if it turns out that 40% of players were doing steroids and 60% of the people you would like to vote into the HOF, people will be pissed
Hoopla.
Vishnu.
In 10-15 years, I’d like to think that many people (including, I hope, many of the whoevers-who-will-be-HOF-voters) will look back and see the “steroid era” clearly, for what it actually is/was.
most people don't just repeat the same thing
especially when they are offered a counterargument. the least you could have done is described what the steroid era “actually” is
I didn't notice a counter-argument.
And I didn’t introduce the term “steroid era,” here, so I don’t see why it falls on me to define it.
quit being so defensive
you said: see the "steroid era" clearly, for what it actually is/was
you obviously have a conception of what that is
so you're saying
that people will realize that there was no steroid era and that nobody was doing steroids? that can’t be right.
I assume you mean that people will realize everybody was doing steroids and that it’s not that big of a deal (which is the argument that I think most stat heads like to believe).
you could also think that everybody was doing steroids and it doesn’t help – which is kind of absurd.
and I counter with the possibility that it might be revealed that only some baseball players were using steroids, but more importantly, only some of the really good players. if that’s the case, then I don’t think it’s going to get dismissed.
Anyway, I don’t think your whole position was revealed by your use of “scare quotes.”
My position's somewhere in between.
I’m of the opinion that baseball players have always used whatever edge they could acquire ~ be it biomedical or other technology ~ and that the edges have varied in their actual effects.
I believe that steroids and other contemporary performance-enhancing substances can and will be seen as another link in a long chain, and that we have yet to see persuasive evidence of how much effect those substances have had, especially relative to the technologies used before. (And, of course, relative to the technologies yet to be revealed.)
I think that there’s a heavy stench of righteous indignation hanging over the issue right now ~ I mean, seriously, Congressional hearings? ~ and I’d bet that 10-15 years from now, much of that’s been blown away.
But I concede that I was probably being too flippant with the scare quotes. Sorry about that.
unless steroids get a nice PR bath within the next 10 years
(and it’s possible they might), they aren’t suddenly going to be thought of in the same vain as bennies were in the 60’s. I think steroids have permanently become an anathema in all of sports.
as to effects – again, the link could get disproven. but unless a study comes out, it’s going to be assumed that steroids did help.
which leads me back to the original point that if comes out that only some of the good players were doing steroids and enough good players weren’t, writers are going to want to distinguish between the two.
What it boils down to:
We disagree about what the future will bring for steroids and the other PES on the stage at the moment.
I don’t think either of us is going to convince the other, but I do see your counter-argument here.
yeah
i could see it happening your way too. I just think that statheads would like to dismiss steroids because it’s not something they can properly account for because of the uncertainty of who was doing it (i really don’t think the effect matters since it is a form of cheating and ethics is a standard in HOF voting).
I think statheads should be open to the possibility that humans can and might decide for themselves using circumstantial evidence who they think used steroids, penalize those guys, and reward the others
I openly concede that possibility.
But:
i really don’t think the effect matters since it is a form of cheating and ethics is a standard in HOF voting)
This is where I don’t quite get the righteous indignation. Taking amphetamines without a proper scrip was and is illegal. Introducing foreign substances to bats and balls and whatnot was and is against the rules.
Maybe steroids will continue to be exceptional, in the public’s and/or media’s view, but I can’t pretend that they’re not the latest link in a long chain.
i'm not saying that those other things
are not as bad as steroids. I just think because their use wasn’t so advertised to the public, they got passes. But given that steroids has exposure and is seen as such an abomination, we’re not going to suddenly go back citing past precedent. We’re obviously not going to kick Gaylord Perry out of the Hall. But I don’t think it’s a stretch to expect that other people won’t ever get voted in.
Again, I think we just differ
on how folks will look back on this 10-15 years from now. I realize I could be wrong ~ in fact, I think all of my posts have made it clear that I don’t think that it’s a lock that it’ll happen the way I would like to think it will.
Well fuck me
Sorry ab03 as I didn’t read your post all the way. Perry popped right into my head. I would think you would have to consider him in this debate. During his playing days, It was known to the entire baseball community that he doctored the ball. History will be the task master here. If the stats remain swollen in comparison to all other era’s, it will be imperative to compare those players only to their contemporaries, and vote accordingly. Under this scenario, Bonds would be a no doubter as he was clearly better than all the players of his era. What I’m saying is total stats will lose their luster with players from the era, but clearly there will be players who deserve induction. The Palmeiro’s of the baseball world is a good example. I believe he isn’t hall worthy because the reason he would be included would be from his total stats.
Your 2009 Snow Monkey Ambassador
There is also the possibility
That when MY becomes eligible, instead of the writers we have now and have had lately, or the next breed whose reliance is more on statistical performance and its’ derivatives, that (finally) a hybrid type like today’s better regarded GM’s will be dominant in the voting.
That would increase Young’s opportunity (given he keeps a fairly steady performance track through the duration of his current contract). But it would not insure his selection. I don’t believe stat-only nor eyeball only nor cred items (like 6 or 8 time AllStar, one or three time batting champ) will collectively or separately lock a player in – well maybe a Pujols. I think selection will be more limited than in the past, and take a less important role than it has been made out to be in the past, and only guys with good counting and production stats PLUS sparkling reputations will get in.
His chances? Too soon to really guess, maybe about 17% – one shot out of six. Not coincidentally, that’s about his remaining playing span in years – 6. He’d have to produce for 5 of those six to be highly considered.
I hope he is at least considered.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Feb 28, 2010 10:46 PM CST up reply actions
The whole...
Newberg family will have a vote by then. So that’s at least 5 votes.
by ghostofErikThompson on Feb 28, 2010 11:02 PM CST up reply actions
I think every player of 10+ years deserves to be at least considered.
I just doubt MY will deserve more than the time it takes to see that he has nothing HoF worthy.
Welcome back, Ed.
I don’t think any of the next breed of baseball writers will rely completely on stats.
Keith Law, Kevin Goldstein, Christina Kharl, Joe Sheehan and Rob Neyer don't.
For better or worse, on each case. I believe they all have votes now, right?
Hell, Sheehan seems to intentionally go against stats just to make BP more interesting or something, I swear.
Nope
As far as I know, Neyer and Kahrl are the only two of that group who are BBWAA members, and they just got in a couple years ago. You have to be a member for 10 years to have a HOF vote.
"Jesus, Spanish- our jobs aren't enough, now you want our words?"
-- Sterling Archer
I'm sorry, they don't have HoF votes for 10 years.
Law, Neyer and Kahrl are in the BBWAA, though. The year after the Neyer/Law hullabaloo they got in. I was almost certain Sheehan was, too.
Will Carrol I was getting mixed up with Goldstein. Carrol is also in.
Here's what Law has to say:
[Q:] What is wrong with sabermetrics?
[Law:] I think that the arrogance in the field has gotten worse with time, not better. I thought that as sabermetrics moved into the mainstream, its practitioners would soften – and trust me, I’m not painting all sabermetricians and sabermetric writers with one broad brush – but we haven’t seen that. Statistical analysis is critical to the successful operation of any ballclub. It is far from a complete solution. And we all know that you can argue with statistics by cherry-picking which stats to use, which is part of why I try to use stats only as secondary evidence when I’m writing, using first-hand observation before I rely on data.
that's all well and good
but i don’t ever remember him using his eye or anything else when he’s trying to make a case for a gold glove or mvp.
and the arrogance line is priceless.
He does.
I just don’t think it’s too a fault. And, most importantly, when he’s writing an article, he’s usually making an argument. And anecdotal evidence does not make strong evidence.
He’s more likely to bring that stuff up in chats and interviews where it has more place in a discussion.
Keith Law's prospect analysis is notorious for being very scouting-oriented for a guy who made his name at Baseball Prospectus.
He’s not as scouting-oriented as Baseball America, but still very much so.
If hit machines like Garvey, Buckner, Oliver didn't come close,
I don’t see how MY does. Unless he does what those 3 didn’t- 3000 hits. I think that will remain a magical number for voters.
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
if we are talking about young having 2 more good seasons
and that’s it, yeah, he’s not getting in. and if he gets 3000 hits, I think he easily gets in.
the real issue is the point of this post – what do you think michael young will do in the next 10 years
I do not think that Michael Young will get...
…1400 hits during his age 33-41 seasons. I’m not sure he will be collecting 200 hits/year at the end of his current contract, let alone 7 years from now.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 28, 2010 11:28 PM CST up reply actions
-Have a couple more solid seasons
-Regress
-Fall 2-300 hits short of 3000
-Retire
-Be remembered as a very good player
-Win 2 World Series as a member of the Rangers
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
Something like
190
190
170
160
160
150= 1020
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
And really:
200
200
190
180
170
150
150
-——
1240
That leaves him ~100 shy of 3,000 after a pretty damn good run through age 40.
i see no way he endshis career with back to back 150 hit yesrs.
Scout: He was a first-round pick right? Got a huge bonus?
KG: Oh yeah.
Scout: Well, he spent a lot of it on milkshakes.
by knockoutking on Mar 1, 2010 10:25 AM CST up reply actions
It was an exercise.
You could assume a career-ending injury, or a decision to go out on top, or whatever ~ not really the point.
that's not really regression
or my idea of regression. a pretty prolonged regression at the very least
this
190
190
150
85
125
55
I just made some stuff up. Point is that I think once the bottom drops, he’ll be done quickly
Fair enough.
That’s 795 hits, I think ~ which is only 200 or so off of what scoop16 came up with, so y’all aren’t that far apart.
If you took our median,
it would come out to the comps I made w/ Garvey, Buckner, and Oliver. Which is where I think he’ll end up. Basically a tier just below HOF.
'Waiting for a girl and she gets me into fights
Waiting for a girl we get drunk on Friday night'
Both your, scoop's and snark's examples
are all regression, just at different rates.
Freude, schoener Goetterfunken,
Tochter aus Elysium,
Wir betreten feuertrunken,
Himmlische dein Heiligtum.
As mentioned in the other topic, it's a dumb error. . .
. . . but also one I’ve made myself. It’s an example of why you should park and era adjust when you can.
I'm not sure Pinto's point is valid.
Given that the era in question is also known as the Steroid Era, shouldn’t we consider how much of a factor steroids played in the increase in offense? How many of the guys compared to Young fall under that type of suspicion?
I’m not sure there’s really a fair to way to compare the eras or effectively account for them. Yes, Grant failed to account for it, but can that task even be accomplished?
does it matter whether it is steroids or something else?
either way, that’s not the era that young plays in now
Yes.
Presumably, Paul Molitor would be an exception to the “steroids rule.” The league-wide adjustments should only be applied league-wide if all players are equally affected by whatever needs to be adjusted…. like say, all pitchers suddenly forgetting how to throw strikes, or baseballs suddenly being a lot softer.
Since only some, not all, players did steroids, you can’t adjust for steroids league-wide.
by NoNameOnCard on Feb 28, 2010 11:00 PM CST up reply actions
i see what you are saying
i thought you were making a separate point but you’re making the point i was making above – which i obviously agree iwth
Ha.
Didn’t even see that comment.
Summation of previous points: Statistically speaking, wide use of steroids could actually hide improvements made by players who didn’t take steroids.
by NoNameOnCard on Feb 28, 2010 11:07 PM CST up reply actions
There are an awful lot of confounders, there.
And I’m not sure how it augurs a performance surge for Young over the next 5-8 years.
That's the neat thing about life.
You can predict things all you want. But nobody knows exactly what’s going to happen in the future. If they did, what would be the point in living?
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
ok
i’m kind of on your side but really, this sweeps a little too broadly. you’re getting mad at people for using stats to make predictions? do you realize where you are?
I don't think Sarge Athos is being mad about it
Rather, is simply endorsing that Young is probably an anomaly among players in his ability to adjust – to pitchers, to situations, to game conditions. Not sure if that’s an “ability” that’s measurable, but you can glean from statistical summarization that he has not been depending on raw talent. So in any such observation, it may hold that Young doesn’t (and won’t) follow trend lines by age, by position, by power factors. That could make him pretty hard to predict.
Thinking about what I just typed, it’s funny that MY is considered a ’predictable producer", in the light that each season, even each series, he faces different pitchers with different stuff under different game conditions yet finds a way to come up with good LD% among other things that make him a hitter.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Feb 28, 2010 11:51 PM CST up reply actions
No I think it's evolved capability
He seems to work very diligently at things that would be shortcomings if not corrected. His talent would seem to be excellent hand/eye coordination, a big plus when you try anything in sports.
Case in point, when he came up, he could hit and hit for some power in three of the nine strike zone areas. Over time, with work, he got to the point where he was the poster child for using all nine strike zone segments, and for ability to go ‘the other way’ for hits.
Heh, ,maybe the mix of hand/eye skills plus intelligence on what to work on could be called raw talent, at that.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Feb 28, 2010 11:55 PM CST up reply actions
Your last sentence is what I'm driving at.
I think sometimes folks fall in love with “tools” at the expense of evaluating “talent”.
he is going to get old and slow down
i think lots of hitters have gotten smarter and better at their craft. but the bat slows, the strength dissipates.
I think the one thing you can say is that we can’t compare to older players because players are aging better.
I agree with players aging better.
There seemed to be more alcohol abuse before the 90’s by the players. It greatly shortened their careers.
I think of MY as Crash Davis in the majors. He just has knowledge and knows what’s coming. He does his homework and hedges his bet on experience and has a good feel of what the pitcher is going to come with.
He lately has done a tremendous job of situational hitting (except in the DP area. He always seems to hit into that DP more). This is mainly just observatory and is certainly debatable. I wish him luck on the HoF and unfortunately don’t have much faith in him making it.
I honestly think he would have to win two or three batting titles in the next few years, or help take the Rangers to a WS (or two). He needs some signature “thing” to get him over the hump and have people say “why not Micheal Young”?
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
I think the better aging
had a lot to do with PEDs. I will be interested to see if that holds up in the post-PED era.
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
That is a very good point.
I didn’t really take that into consideration. It probably is the main benefit of using PED’s in baseball. It’ll be interesting to see the average age in baseball today compared to 2020.
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
On second thought
it’s probably naive of me to say the Post-PED era. Most likely athletes have moved on to less detectable PEDs.
So, athletes may continue to play strong into their 40s, like Bonds, Clemens, Palmeiro …
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
What's so anamolous above Young?
wOBA by year:
02: .299
03: .342
04: .361
05: .389
06: .352
07: .347
08: .331
09: .386
That’s a normal-looking career arc to me with the exception of last year. What’s more likely: that Michael young changed his career arc or that he had a year where he was a little luckier than previous years? Even if it wasn’t luck (not a huge jump in BABIP), we need more proof than just 1 year to re-evaluate what we would project for him over the next 5-10 years, especially since we had a 4 year’s worth of declining data before that.
I think it’s possible that Young has bulked up as a decision to be more of a power-hitter in a traditional 3B mold (career high SLG last year), but even that will be in decline soon enough. I’m not saying he’s going to fall off a cliff, or even be a detriment to his team. I’m just saying I don’t think he’s performing at this high of a level into his late thirties and early forties. Surely you don’t need advanced statistics to see that as reasonable? This doesn’t even touch the subject of what position he’ll play as he ages. If he’s still playing when he’s 39-41, I think it’s much more likely as a bench bat than a full time DH.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 1, 2010 12:01 AM CST up reply actions 1 recs
The health could be an issue
but if you assume that he won’t have any minor/nagging injuries that he’ll try playing through, I think 08 is a bit of an anomaly too on the low end. If I had to guess, I’d say Young could easily fall in the middle of the past 2 seasons with a wOBA around .350. I’m not really disagreeing with your post completely, but I do think last year helped prove that the 2008 injury had more to due with his poor performance (.685 OPS in the second half that season) rather than him just getting ready to fall off a cliff with 2009 being some massive fluke.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
Who is getting mad?
I just think people get a bit too sure of their own prognostications when it comes to predicting something as random as future baseball performance. If it was really that easy, what would be the point of playing the games? It’s really not worth getting mad about.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
What's your point?
Nobody disagrees that we can’t perfectly predict the future with stats, in baseball or in much (if anything) else.
But the whole point of departure for this thread was Evan Grant’s prognostication about Young’s future, based on the performance of comparable players.
You’ve already beaten the stuffing out of the available scarecrows.
Was he predicting, or simply talking about possibilities?
I took his article to say that we shouldn’t just accept that Young will steadily decline in the 2nd half of his career as a certainty given the success of similarly situated players in the past. It is probably wishful thinking, but I think the point is well taken.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
You're drawing a very fine distinction there.
With all the comps and numbers Grant put out there, and the way he used them in his piece? I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have read his piece as prognosticatory. I can see how you might read it differently, too, but I’m having more trouble figuring out what you’re reading into my posts.
No doubt that EG is a MY fan.
He certainly hopes that MY’s career mirrors Molitor’s, I don’t think there’s any question about that. Knowing that, I guess you could call his article a prediction, so I can see your point as well.
As far as what I’m reading into your posts, I guess I’m not understanding what it is that you aren’t understanding about what I’m reading into your posts. Wow, that sounded confusing as hell. Now you’ve got me all turned around too.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
Heh. Sorry.
I was trying to suss out why (or maybe if ~ you tell me) you seemed to read my posts as arguing for the perfect predictive validity of stats, and/or some kind of dislike of or vendetta against Young.
Maybe I misread your reading. Heh.
Yeah, I didn't mean that.
I thought you and I were discussing the specific validity of Pinto’s methodology. I didn’t read anything in your posts as being either unfairly critical of MY or as taking the position that stats were infallible predictors of future performance.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
Ah ~ my bad.
I think I was having a hard time keeping track of which points were aimed where. (A few drinks last night probably didn’t help.)
Cool...
I’ll call PECOTA/CHONE/Marcel/et al and tell them to stop projecting. No need for a LSB player projection series this year, because we don’t know exactly what’s going to happen, so what’s the point? In fact, somebody call JD and tell him to just pick the nicest guys for the team, because since we can’t project a player 100% accurately, there’s no point in trying at all.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 28, 2010 11:47 PM CST up reply actions
just want to point out that pinto didn't really do the work
to prove that larkin, franco, molitor’s increases were purely era driven
I think that something like this depends on the individual player.
Is it possible that Molitor got better? Or that the other guys just got better? What evidence does Pinto have that their numbers were some magical result of the change in era? He certainly cites none in his little post.
Given the “general” decline in most players MY’s age or over, the odds are certainly against him, but when have they ever really been in his favor? When he first came up he was supposed to be a solid glove guy that couldn’t hit. That has proven to be errant on both sides of the equation.
Pinto makes a conclusory post that is devoid of any real analysis and many are jumping all over it like it has the most solid of statistical foundations. Unlike many, I really want to see Young have a solid second half of his career and get HOF consideration. Maybe he will, maybe he won’t. Maybe he’ll surprise some of his detractors. After all, most thought his bat was finished after 2008 and look how well he bounced back in 2009. If any player is capable of making adjustments and surprising people, it is MY. I’m rooting for him.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
"unlike many"
yeah, everybody that said michael young wouldn’t reach 3000 hits also wants him to tank tomorrow because we also hate the rangers and ranger players.
you have to remember, you’re the one who hates players and coaches on the team you root for
Meh...
I don’t hate the guy by any means, but he’s certainly not the savior that many Rangers fans make him out to be.
"The only good is knowledge and the only evil is ignorance."-Socrates
You're such a brave soul...
…rooting for Michael Young when no one else will. It must be difficult and I applaud your willingness to go at it alone with no one to support you.
Wait, what’s that? Everybody on this board would love to see Michael Young get 3,000 hits over the next 10 years and make it to the Hall of fame?!? Ya don’t say…
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Feb 28, 2010 11:48 PM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Heh.
I’d bet he’d be bitter for a while, but he’d come around and be banging away madly on his keyboard in GDTs as the countdown to 3,000 neared zero.
I don't think it would make me like him.
But I’d sure as hell like what it did for the team. I wouldn’t be so bitter towards his career as I expected to be when that contract was signed, at least.
If Young defied everything we know about the age curve
Suddenly went apeshit and repeated his 2009 season several times on his way to becoming a legitimate HOFer, I’d love it just as much as everyone else (eventually, anyway).
But as it stands now, Michael Young is just an average player who’s been with a bad franchise long enough to become a favorite with the local fanbase and compile some shiny-looking of surface numbers. And the the fact that he gets rewarded for that with Baseball Sainthood drives me up the walls.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 1:05 AM CST up reply actions
no you wouldn't
you bitch and moan every year proclaiming that his last season was a fluke and we should trade him while his value was high. don’t lie.
Well, this is kind of Grant's point.
Molitor did it. It can therefore be done. Why is it so off the wall that a player like MY could achieve the same statistical anomaly that Molitor did? What makes his chances so much smaller than other similarly situated players?
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
Are you denying that many LSB posters don't jump at every opportunity to be critical of MY?
Have I really been just imagining that for the last several years? Really?
My point was that Pinto posted something that was wholly conclusory without a shred of statistical analysis. Don’t you think it was a little weird that many on this thread just jumped all over it like it was gospel? I think it is fair to say that there are posters here that are prejudiced against MY just like there are posters who will defend him or be a little too “rah rah” when discussing him (me, for instance). That said, we all want to see the Rangers win a WS and if that means a player we don’t like puts up HOF numbers, I’d imagine we’d all find a way to live with that though, in MY’s case, I imagine it will be a bitter pill for some folks to swallow.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
Bitter pill- Only for a very small minority.
I take umbrage at your suggestion that a large number of us root against Michael Young.
I didn’t read Pinto’s article, nor was I commenting on it. I do agree that there is a very, very small chance the Young gets 3,000 hits or makes the Hall of Fame. That’s not a prejudice, that’s looking at the caliber of player Young has been historically and taking into account his age and making the obvious conclusions from that point. He hasn’t finished in the top 5 of AL MVP voting once.
I wonder if you are confusing sarcasm/displeasure of LSBer’s for the generic fan that overrates Young with actual dislike for the player.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 1, 2010 11:46 AM CST up reply actions
Oh, c'mon.
Who’s jumped all over Pinto’s post as if it has the most solid of statistical foundations? There’s no doubt he could’ve done a better job of supporting his point empirically. But that doesn’t change the fact that his point’s worth considering, and illustrates a problem with Grant’s own analysis.
How does it illustrate a problem?
It is an unsupported criticism. If you’re going to tear down an argument for lack of proper statistical analysis, it is incumbent upon you to show why the argument is wrong. Pinto didn’t do that. He didn’t offer a single number that shows that Molitor’s better numbers had anything to do with better power stats league-wide. Or did I miss that somewhere?
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
Pinto did, in fact, indicate why he thought Grant's argument might be wrong.
The counter-argument wasn’t thorough, but it also didn’t hinge on accounting for the trajectory of a single player’s stat. Personally, I’m not claiming Pinto has shown Grant to be wrong, beyond any doubt ~ just that there’s reason to doubt whether Grant’s comps are meaningful. Maybe someone else has gone farther than that, but I think I’ve missed it, if so.
The problem with Pinto's article is that it makes certain assumptions ...
without backing them up. It amounts to a “we all know” type of argument where he assumes we’re all privy to whatever proof he’s got in his mind, so he doesn’t write it down. Even if he is ultimately correct, his argument is flimsy. Maybe I’m an exception, but I would think a better foundation for his position would be in order before it is simply accepted as a realism. That’s really all I am saying.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
I think that Pinto certainly expected his readers to be familiar with
what happened to MLB offensively in 1993. That might or might not have been a good assumption, but he made it, and the facts about the offensive explosion are there.
Again, I agree that it would’ve been nice for him to go further in terms of an analysis, but his point is still an interesting one, and it does point out a problem with Grant’s analysis ~ a problem that, as philkid3 pointed out, is not Grant’s alone, and that’s discussed a fair amount in conversations about stats and comps and such.
It really sounds like we are in agreement ...
just that we are getting there from different starting points. I’d like to see EG and Pinto discuss the issue in greater detail. Pinto may have a point and it would be interesting to see if he can correlate Molitor’s better numbers to a league-phenomenon as opposed to Molitor finding a way to improve his game.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
I agree ~ we're more agreed than not.
I also think it’s possible that Molitor’s numbers stand, but that Pinto’s point does, as well. If Grant had stuck to the Molitor comp alone, that’d have been one thing (and a thing that’s been done before, a lot).
It was bringing in the other comps that seemed to get Pinto’s attention (and mine), and/but I do wonder what sort of analysis could back up Pinto’s points about the offensive explosion covering players’ declines or boosting their peaks.
Well
I’m going to crash for the night. Today’s articles, posts, and commentary have been some of the best discussion lately. It’s definitely appreciated. Have a great start to the week tomorrow.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lamp-posts... for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang (1844-1912) also -
"Telephone, n. An invention of the devil which abrogates some of the advantages of making a disagreeable person keep his distance."
~Ambrose Bierce
by Ed Coffin on Mar 1, 2010 12:02 AM CST reply actions
You too...
…good to see you back around, Ed.
If Brad Pitt is playing Beane who do you want playing you?
JD: Eddie Guardado.
by GhettoBear04 on Mar 1, 2010 12:03 AM CST up reply actions
Meh.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 1:05 AM CST up reply actions
lol
this just made me laugh.
By 2028, Mark Teixeira will be in the HOF.
"I am one of the biggest Texas Ranger fans out there but I'm also one of the smartest. Deal with it."
-The Outlaw
I just think when someone takes the time to announce they're not going to comment because they supposedly can't handle LSB's community anymore
They should probably you know, not comment anymore.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 1:20 AM CST up reply actions 3 recs
C'mon Jon
We’ve all had those days where you never want to see this damn place again. Was it a little douchy saying what he said? Maybe. I’m not really one to talk since I haven’t been around here near long enough, but we can all welcome the prodigal son (father) back right? : )
Besides, we’ve had some pretty good talks around here and I’m sure he’s just antsy to get back into them. Heh.
"grilled cheese punches like a bitch" -Gdawg
"i feel like k-rod after a save." -by reagan on Jan 23, 2010, that glorious day Hicks was out of our lives.
Yeah, we've all had those days
And on those days, most of us simply don’t come here, or simply avoid the discussions we don’t want to participate in.
Yeah, this site has elements that suck and sure, we like to bitch about it. But if you actually feel the need to get on here and tell us that just so we can watch you ride off on your high horse, we really don’t need you around. Even if you are Ed Coffin.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 1:54 AM CST up reply actions
newsflash, dipshit
most of us respect ed’s opinion.
by ab03 on Mar 1, 2010 8:15 AM CST up reply actions 2 recs
Great
Normally he is a classy dude, which is why nobody (including me) really gave him both barrels when he decided to give us all the finger a few weeks back.
But I don’t think we should suddenly fall all over ourselves to give him the Michael Young treatment because he decided to come back and pat us wayward kiddies on the head.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 8:25 AM CST up reply actions
You really are a jackass.
Ed has earned the respect of most everyone here by being level-headed and bringing a certain calm reflection to almost any debate. When a poster like him leaves, some of us are going to miss him.
If you left, on the other hand, well ….
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
You know
It occurs to me the parallels between this subthread and the thread’s subject matter are oddly stunning. I didnt really intend to raise this much of a stink originally, but now that I have I might as well go for it:
Ed is the Michael Young of LSB. He really doesn’t add much more than the average poster, but he’s generally a nice, carefully-worded old dude so everybody treats him like a savant.
This was his equivalent of third-base gate, and now everyone is going to try and gloss it over. I’m sure by the end of this subthread it’ll somehow have been spun into a positive thing.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 9:10 AM CST up reply actions
You really don't know when to quit, do you?
Take from an “old dude” … sometimes it really is best just to shut the hell up about certain topics. You’re not hurting Ed here, you’re just reaffirming the conclusion I made above.
"Ok, post your favorite moment of the Tom Hicks era
Mine is today when he sold the team." - t ball
I'm just making an observation/dispensing with a bit of opinion
I’m not really trying to hurt Ed. That’s obviously virtually impossible, given his status as an LSB hero.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 9:17 AM CST up reply actions
Good Lord
you take this stuff way too seriously
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
I think everyone is taking it too seriously
LSJ is like Wash in the aspect that he says a lotta stuff without thinking, and he won’t back down from hardly anything he says. Then other people freak out and there’s a huge tussle until everyone tires themselves out. Eventually both sides awake from their stupor and move on, thinking “gee whiz, that was silly.”
I kind of enjoy watching it, but I’d wager it’s the very kind of thing that got Ed a little frustrated.
It frustrates me
I just don’t post much. It’s tiresome wanting to read some insightful comments regarding a good front page or fan post and having to scroll through junior high namecalling whiney bs.
When you get to Ed, or NoNameOnCard, Brett, etc. you usually know you can stop scrolling and read some added value.
I understand its a fan blog and people are mentally invested…. but jesus what a waste of time. Like replying to Josey when he wants a reaction, I truly will never understand why anyone does it.
"Holland didn’t make that kid question his swing, he made him question his career path"
Eh, I was thinking last night.
Perhaps I just shoulda kept my opinions to myself, on this one in retrospect, but I’ll back my opinions here.
Morality you can fake. Fun you either have or you don't.
by LSJ on Mar 1, 2010 9:57 AM CST up reply actions
Well
That’s all I was trying to point out really. If you are correct in Ed being the MY of lone star ball, then speaking out against him is a kamikaze mission of sorts.
But don’t worry, I wasn’t trying to insinuate you don’t back what you say. I don’t think anyone here could possibly argue you don’t back up your opinions, heh.
by JimBonnick84 on Mar 1, 2010 10:29 AM CST up reply actions
rec
"I don't condone steroids or any other type of growth hormones or anything else, but I could care less, and, for the most part, I don't think the fans give a (bleep). The people that care about it are the people that probably don't like baseball," - Jim Leyland
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
In Association With
Big League Stew - MLB - Yahoo! Sports
- Get a grip: Reds’ Todd Frazier loses bat, still connects for home run (Video)
- Eric Hosmer redefines the Baltimore chop with infield double (Video)
- College player makes impossible over the fence catch to save tournament game (Video)
- Security!: Camden Yards guard collides with Royals’ Mike Moustakas
- The Juice: Nelson Cruz matches career high eight RBIs, Pujols stays hot in Seattle
