What if they all suck

[Centerfield]

All the young guys. Baty is kinda the poster boy right now. But Acuna's not far behind. Mauricio and Gilbert never recover. Sproat got knocked around in his first start.



Even Vientos looks lost. Alvarez is hurt.



They can't all suck right?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think they'll all suck, but it is possible that none of them become stars. I still have faith in Vientos. The other guys do still need to prove themselves.

[Cowtipper]

Define suck.



Are all going to reach Fernando Martinez levels of letdown-edness? Probably not. The Big Three (Baty/Alvarez/Vientos) have already had moments, so they've at least got their foot in the 'legacy' door.



I think the majority will have 'decent' careers. Letdowns relative to what they were expected to be (a la Wilmer Flores, who as you might recall was a wunderkind before settling into being thoroughly decent, though underwhelming [and a crybaby]), but not out and out bad.



Acuna is exactly 24 games into the major leagues, so to make any assumptions about him now are way premature. I suspect Mauricio will be the biggest letdown.



When it comes to Sproat, you just gotta wait and see. Vasil's done well in his brief showing for Tampa Bay this year, despite struggling mightily last year at AAA. Sproat, by the way, is all of two seasons and 122 IP into his pro career...and already at Triple-A, mind you...so he's another one where the worry is premature.



Really, I don't think the dooming in necessary or even worth tossing about right now.

[Edgy MD]

That is why you play the games. A lot of good players will not prosper at the big-level, mostly because a lot of other good players are dead set on stopping them.



If one guy fails, you hopefully wish him well as you root that the next guy does not, all the while knowing that it is better than even money that you are going to be disappointed.



The very best teams in football win about 80% of the time. The very best teams in basketball, about 70%. But the best teams in baseball win about 60% of the time. The likelihood that a top prospect becomes a top player is similarly skewed. It is a game with frustration wired into the framework.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: That is why you play the games. A lot of good players will not prosper at the big-level, mostly because a lot of other good players are dead set on stopping them. If one guy fails, you hopefully wish him well as you root that the next guy does not, all the while knowing that it is better than even money that you are going to be disappointed. The very best teams in football win about 80% of the time. The very best teams in basketball, about 70%. But the best teams in baseball win about 60% of the time. The likelihood that a top prospect becomes a top player is similarly skewed. It is a game with frustration wired into the framework.

This has nothing to do with the chances of prospects panning out. The best NFL teams have higher winning percentages because they play a relatively tiny amount of games. Small sample sizes. 17 game season. That's a little less than three weeks worth of baseball games. The best baseball teams have lower winning percentages than their NBA counterparts because the MLB season is twice as long and because there's way more luck in baseball than in basketball.



Small sample sizes and randomness. It's why Wilmer Flores can hit a HR every three games for about a 10 game stretch but will never maintain that pace over 162 games.



If the baseball season was three games long, the teams with the best records would have perfect undefeated records. If the baseball season was one game long, half the teams would be undefeated.

[Edgy MD]

It has something to do with it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

No it doesn't. And what's the evidence anyways that baseball prospects pan out at a lower rate (not that it matters here)? And for every high first round bust, there's a later round gem.

[Edgy MD]

As for "lower-round gems," that reinforces the point that highly rated prospects are less reliable bets to succeed in baseball. It does not dispute it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: As for "lower-round gems," that reinforces the point that highly rated prospects are less reliable bets to succeed in baseball. It does not dispute it.

So what? What the hell does that have to do with WL records? THAT was your point. And that was clearly the point I addressed.

Edited April 9, 2025 by Guest

[Edgy MD]

You are moving the goalposts here.



I return the thread to its creator.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: You are moving the goalposts here. I return the thread to its creator.

No you are. Its your specialty. But re-check my last post. I added a new last sentence while you were posting.

[Cowtipper]

On the bright side, Dom Hamel did pretty well in his first start of the year.



(Though he's hurt now).

[Centerfield]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher. Football and basketball are far less random than baseball. Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.



I think the fact that your best guy gets 4 ABs in baseball, but your best basketball player will take 35 shots is part of it. Also the relatively small amount of scoring. 3-0 in baseball is a lot harder to overcome than 3-0 in basketball.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65]
I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

[Edgy MD]

=Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65]
I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

[metirish]

I'm definitely worried about Mark

[Bob Alpacadaca]

=metirish post_id=189285 time=1744226426 user_id=72]
I'm definitely worried about Mark

[batmagadanleadoff]

Edgy MD wrote: =Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65] I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

I certainly agree.


=Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65]
Football and basketball are far less random than baseball.

[kcmets]

Not worried about Vientos at all. My guess is Baty is going to

be a really good above-average player elsewhere one day.



Baseball in the sky keeps on, bbbyyy...

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: =Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65] I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher. I certainly agree. =Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65] Football and basketball are far less random than baseball.

Indeed. This is certainly what I was trying to say.


=Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65]
Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=189258 time=1744220445 user_id=65]
I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

[Centerfield]

Some food for thought. This was much less random than I would have guessed.



NFL Super Bowl Participants.



Super Bowl 2025: 2 Seed vs. 2 seed.

Super Bowl 2024: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2023: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Super Bowl 2022: 4 Seed vs. 4 Seed

Super Bowl 2021: 1 Seed vs. 5 Seed

Super Bowl 2020: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2019: 2 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2018: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Super Bowl 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2016: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed



Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds, another 7 were 2 seeds. Only 3 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made the final game. Good teams win in the NFL playoffs.



World Series 2024: 1 seed vs. 1 seed

World Series 2023: 5 seed vs. 6 Seed

World Series 2022: 1 seed vs. 6 Seed

World Series 2021: 2 Seed vs. 3 Seed

World Series 2020: 1 Seed vs 1 Seed

World Series 2019: 1 Seed vs. 4 Seed

World Series 2018: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2016: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2015: 1 Seed vs. 3 Seed



Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds. 4 were 2 seeds. 6 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made it to the World Series. So a little more random than the NFL, but not nearly as random as I would have thought.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=189342 time=1744306816 user_id=65]
Some food for thought. This was much less random than I would have guessed.



NFL Super Bowl Participants.



Super Bowl 2025: 2 Seed vs. 2 seed.

Super Bowl 2024: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2023: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Super Bowl 2022: 4 Seed vs. 4 Seed

Super Bowl 2021: 1 Seed vs. 5 Seed

Super Bowl 2020: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2019: 2 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2018: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Super Bowl 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

Super Bowl 2016: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed



Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds, another 7 were 2 seeds. Only 3 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made the final game. Good teams win in the NFL playoffs.



World Series 2024: 1 seed vs. 1 seed

World Series 2023: 5 seed vs. 6 Seed

World Series 2022: 1 seed vs. 6 Seed

World Series 2021: 2 Seed vs. 3 Seed

World Series 2020: 1 Seed vs 1 Seed

World Series 2019: 1 Seed vs. 4 Seed

World Series 2018: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2016: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed

World Series 2015: 1 Seed vs. 3 Seed



Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds. 4 were 2 seeds. 6 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made it to the World Series. So a little more random than the NFL, but not nearly as random as I would have thought.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Not to beat a dead horse to death, but here goes anyways. I'll simplify this:



The NFL plays a tiny 17 game regular season. That means that each win in the NFL is worth 58 winning percentage points (.058). One divided by 17 is .058. Up until 2020, the NFL played a 16 game season. One win in a 16 game season is worth 63 winning percentage points (.0625). So one NFL win is worth about 60 percentage points.



An NFL team that got lucky by just two wins ... an NFL team that exceeded its Pythagorean Win Expectancy (if such a thing existed in the NFL) by just two games ... an NFL team that won two games that it should not have won ... would have a winning percentage that's about 120 points higher than what it should be. 120 points.



And that's why you have NFL teams finishing with .800 winning percentages. It's not the fucking prospects. Small sample sizes are unreliable: they yield extreme statistical results.

[Centerfield]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you.



I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this.



As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there.



But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought.



But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you. I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this. As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there. But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought. But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and theories into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size.

Edited April 11, 2025 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you. I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this. As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there. But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought. But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all. No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and ideas into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size.

And another thing: every pro was once a prospect. So if NFL prospects are supposed to be better, then that means that NFL players collectively are better than MLB players and that's why the best NFL teams have .800 winning percentages. Just crazy talk. They have .800 winning percentage because they play 17 games. If they could play 100 game seasons, or 162 game seasons, they wouldn't come even remotely close to having .800 winning percentages.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=189410 time=1744394223 user_id=65]


As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=189410 time=1744394223 user_id=65]
This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you.



I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this.



As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there.



But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought.



But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

Edited April 11, 2025 by Guest

[MFS62]

In all the sports mentioned, the teams with the worst records get to draft earlier than the teams with better records. And in all of those sports, there are only so may top tier prospects each year. So that is the only direct relationship I can see between a winning record and the potential for prospect success. Other factors, such as the quality of scouting, player development, coaching and injuries IMO have greater impact on whether a given player will be successful..



Later

Edited April 11, 2025 by Guest