What if they all suck

[batmagadanleadoff]

=MFS62 post_id=189422 time=1744396704 user_id=60]
In all the sports mentioned, the teams with the worst records get to draft earlier than the teams with better records. And I 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

[batmagadanleadoff]

Small sample sizes produce extreme statistics. Not only on the high end, but on the low end. The smaller the schedule of games played, the more extreme the winning percentages. If the NFL played a three game schedule, not only would you have undefeated teams, but you'd, just the same, have winless teams. What would you then say about the abundance of winless teams? That the NFL prospects are bad?



It's the sample size.

[MFS62]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=189424 time=1744396920 user_id=68]
And your point is ....? What?

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's the sample size. Nothing but the sample size. I checked out the MLB standings for the last five seasons as of April 19th.



Here are the best records:



4/19/2019

TB Rays - 14-6 .700



4/19/2020

No games - Covid-19



4/19/2021

LA Dodgers - 13-4 .765



4/19/2022

NY Mets 9-3 .750

LA Dodgers 8-3 .727

Col Rockies 8-3 .727



4/19/2023

TB Rays - 16-3 .842

Atl Braves 14-5 .737

Mil Brewers 14-5 .737



4/19/2024

Atl Braves 13-5 .727



With a small sample size, the best MLB WL percentages are well over .700 and some, closer to .800; in one case, well over .800. It's because they've played few games. Small sample sizes are unreliable because they yield extreme data. It's the sample size. Not the quality of the prospects, or luck or randomness or anything else other than the small sample size of games. Note that none of the teams listed above came even remotely close to maintaining their April 19 WL rates over the course of the entire baseball season.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far.



SD Padres 12-3 .800

SF Giants 11-4 .733

LA Dodgers 11-5 .688



Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games.



Chiefs and prospects.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=189588 time=1744577015 user_id=68]
Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far.



SD Padres 12-3 .800

SF Giants 11-4 .733

LA Dodgers 11-5 .688



Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games.



Chiefs and prospects.

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not sure who you're arguing against. I think you're just trying to entertain yourself.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I won't be doing this too much more often. So long as MLB teams continue to play games -- 162 games in all for each team -- those small sample sizes eventually won't be so small.



But now is a good time to check in on the best and worst MLB records. The teams with the best records have played exactly 17 games as of this writing and youse know what 17 games constitutes: It's the exact number of games an NFL team plays in its regular season. So here goes. The last figure represents each team's projected final WL record based on their current WL rates, respectively.



SD Padres 14-3 (.824) (133-29)

SF Giants 12-5 (.706) (114-48)

______



Col Rockies 3-13 (.188) (30-132)

Chi White Sox 4-12 (.250) (41-121)





Make of this what you will. From these baseball records, it looks like this year's NFL prospects are extremely good. And also extremely bad. I have no idea what this portends for the KC Chiefs in their first four games, though. But it definitely means something. One team will shatter the record for most baseball wins in a season and another team is gonna shatter the '62 Mets WL record for futility -- all in the same season. So something, something, something KC Chiefs.



This all reminds me of something else: yes, it's true that once in a while, the NFL teams with the best regular season records have winning percentages over .800. But just the same, the worst NFL teams have winning percentages under. 200. How do you explain that? Bad NFL prospects? Because the NY Jets never start out 4-0?

[Lefty Specialist]

Back to the original post, they probably won't all suck. Acuna seems to be coming around, as is Vientos. Alvarez is getting closer to coming back and has somewhat of a track record as a major league hitter.



Mauricio and Gilbert, too soon to say coming off injury. Won't know until later this year.



Baty would probably be better served with a change of organizations. Yes, small sample size, but every time he gets a chance he fumbles it. I think moving to second is part of the problem this year, but still. He has nothing to prove in the minors and can't seem to do anything in the majors.

[Centerfield]

So at the 48 game mark, there is a legitimate chance that they do, in fact, all suck. Or most of them anyway.



There are four Mets position players performing at or better than expectations. Alonso (.964 OPS), McNeil (.852), Lindor (.810) and Luis Torrens (.747).



Every other hitter is performing below expectations.



Soto doesn't suck. But an .815 OPS is more than a 100 points less than we were hoping for. Winker wasn't terrible, but his .738 OPS is less than we were hoping for. Alvarez and Baty round out the "not terrible but not good" crew with OPS of .703 and 702 respectively.



The rest of the guys have been awful. None of these losers have an OPS above .700: Nimmo, Vientos, Taylor, Marte, Acuna, and Siri. And they all play fairly regularly. 741 plate appearances between the six of them.

[MFS62]

=Centerfield post_id=193257 time=1747764653 user_id=65]
The rest of the guys have been awful. None of these losers have an OPS above .700: Nimmo, Vientos, Taylor, Marte, Acuna, and Siri. And they all play fairly regularly. 741 plate appearances between the six of them.

[Cowtipper]

I still have faith. They'll regress some, but they're still a low-90s-win team.

[Lefty Specialist]

I think Nimmo's still hurting and just playing through it. Baty had a brief moment where he was good for a few days, but seems to have sunk back into the ooze. Taylor gets the occasional hit and plays grade-A CF, so there's that.



I have a feeling Marte may be reaching the end of his string as a Met. Cohen's okay with eating salary when he needs to.



Vientos is personifying the sophomore jinx. He's not patient enough at the plate. Alvarez seems to be swinging for a 3-run homer every time up. Acuna started cold, got hot but then they seem to have figured out how to pitch to him, so he needs to adjust. His speed and defense are weapons, but the bat needs to improve.



Maybe this is who they are. The pitching has overperformed, but there are signs that's coming back to earth. Maybe the hitting will regress to the mean in the opposite direction.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=193257 time=1747764653 user_id=65]




The rest of the guys have been awful. None of these losers have an OPS above .700: Nimmo, Vientos, Taylor, Marte, Acuna, and Siri. And they all play fairly regularly. 741 plate appearances between the six of them.

[Centerfield]

=batmagadanleadoff post_id=193267 time=1747770673 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=193257 time=1747764653 user_id=65]




The rest of the guys have been awful. None of these losers have an OPS above .700: Nimmo, Vientos, Taylor, Marte, Acuna, and Siri. And they all play fairly regularly. 741 plate appearances between the six of them.

[batmagadanleadoff]

=Centerfield post_id=193289 time=1747779951 user_id=65]
=batmagadanleadoff post_id=193267 time=1747770673 user_id=68]
=Centerfield post_id=193257 time=1747764653 user_id=65]




The rest of the guys have been awful. None of these losers have an OPS above .700: Nimmo, Vientos, Taylor, Marte, Acuna, and Siri. And they all play fairly regularly. 741 plate appearances between the six of them.

[Cowtipper]

The Mets are still waiting for Manaea, Blackburn and Montas to come back. They were all expected to play meaningful roles. They're 10 games over .500 now ... without those three cogs.



I would like to see them replace Taylor with someone with more oomph. Taylor can stay on the roster, but he's starting too much.

[Centerfield]

My thinking is this.



Jose Siri plays regularly. He was the larger half of the centerfield platoon. Is your point that Jose Siri hasn't played regularly after breaking his leg? Then sure. We agree on that.



Siri is one of six players who were expected to be starters or platoon starters, who have performed miserably over the first 48 games of the season. That sample size is 741 plate appearances collectively. And I argue, that 741 plate appearances is a fairly significant sample size.



If you think Jose Siri should be left out of this discussion because his contribution of 24 PAs is too insignificant to be part of that discussion, then I don't know that I'd fight you vehemently on that. I think you throw his stats in with the others, but I can also understand leaving them out.

[MFS62]

=Cowtipper post_id=193293 time=1747781861 user_id=166]
The Mets are still waiting for Manaea, Blackburn and Montas to come back. They were all expected to play meaningful roles.

[Cowtipper]

Siri shouldn't be playing that much, either (when he comes back).



They need someone better than both of them.

[Centerfield]

The under .700 OPS club now includes 7 players regularly starting.



1. Brett Baty .692

2. Mark Vientos .674

3. Brandon Nimmo .674

4. Francisco Alvarez .661

5. Tyrone Taylor .657

6. Luisangel Acuna .642

7. Starling Marte .628



911 plate appearances.

[Edgy MD]

The offensive drought is real, but I thought the "they" in "What if they all suck" referred specifically to players still in development — young players in their options years and prospects in the high minors.

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Won't argue for the Mets underwhelmingness but the average OPS is barely over 700

[Centerfield]

Edgy MD wrote: The offensive drought is real, but I thought the "they" in "What if they all suck" referred specifically to players still in development — young players in their options years and prospects in the high minors.

Yes. I've admittedly shifted the definition of "they" with my most recent posts.



As for the young guys.



Jett Williams. Not sucking in AA. .905 OPS. 4 HR, 139 PA.



Drew Gilbert. A/AAA. .808 OPS. 4 HR, 144 PA.



Ronny Mauricio. A/AA/AAA. .784 OPS, 2 HR. 47 PA. But has been on fire during his first 3 games at Syracuse.



Brandon Sproat. AAA. 6.69 ERA. 1.431 WHIP. Kinda sucky.

[Edgy MD]

Let us not look past Carson Ben-Gay, currently providing fast-acting pain relief in Brooklyn to the tune of .310 / .421 / .516 // .937.

[kcmets]

I was just sorting the Team RISP for a minute, I know that

can be scary, and the Mets have the 7th worst OPS in the NL.

The Dodgers are best and their OPS is a whopping .272 points

higher. Can one say that considering the two teams have the

'same' record that the Mets are pretty damn lucky so far?

[Benjamin Grimm]

Going into this season, I thought the Mets would be a good hitting team with lousy pitching, but about a third of the way in, it's been the opposite.

[MFS62]

As the saying goes, water seeks its own level. By the end of the year, both the hitting and pitching will move toward their norms. I expect a lot of 5-4 games (either way) down the stretch.

Later

[Centerfield]

=kcmets post_id=193452 time=1747938472 user_id=53]
I was just sorting the Team RISP for a minute, I know that

can be scary, and the Mets have the 7th worst OPS in the NL.

The Dodgers are best and their OPS is a whopping .272 points

higher. Can one say that considering the two teams have the

'same' record that the Mets are pretty damn lucky so far?

[Edgy MD]

I was just sorting the Team RISP for a minute, I know that can be scary, and the Mets have the 7th worst OPS in the NL. The Dodgers are best and their OPS is a whopping .272 points higher. Can one say that considering the two teams have the 'same' record that the Mets are pretty damn lucky so far?

I gave Pythagoras a call, and he says that the 30–20 (.600) Mets' expected win percentage, based on runs scored and runs against, should be .644. The 31–19 (.620) Dodgers have an expected win percentage of .621.



Put another way, he says that the Mets have been unlucky, winning about 2.21 fewer games than they should have (or two games if you are not into hundredths of wins). The Dodgers have broken almost exactly even, luckwise, winning about 0.04 fewer games than their runs ratio would suggest, which rounds, of course, to zero.



There are, of course, different ways to frame the question of luck — both the Dodgers and Mets have been hit hard by the injury bug in the starting pitching category — but Pythagoras is a smart guy.



He asked if Norrin Raad was the one asking. He likes to call him "No-Win Raad," which is odd when you think that the pun shouldn't work once you translate to ancient Greek, but I said, no, it was you, and that Norrin hasn't posted in quite a while, and went by "Vic Sage" most recently.



He said that time flies and to tell you he said hello.