Chiefs and Prospects: Small Sample Size Theater

[batmagadanleadoff]

What We've Learned From the First Two Weeks of the 2025 MLB Season



Excerpt:

Year after year, the fact remains: Nothing makes baseball fans happier than overreacting to small-sample baseball before the season gets into full gear. [***] Everyone in baseball has played at least 12 games now. What have we learned, both on and off the diamond, that could mean something for the rest of the upcoming season? Here are the seven biggest MLB takeaways from the beginning of the season. [***] Pitching was supposed to be the Mets' weakness … right? The Mets have the lowest ERA in all of baseball. It would be easy to dismiss this because they faced the Marlins six times in 12 games, but Miami is actually the only team to score more than three runs on the Mets all season. Even better, the Marlins did it five times! Most expected New York's bullpen to perform well this season, but no one would have predicted that the starting rotation would also feature the lowest ERA in the sport. Even if your response is “But it's only 12 games,” it's notable because the rotation was supposed to be a major point of uncertainty after injuries to Sean Manaea and Frankie Montas in spring training. Starter Griffin Canning and reliever Max Kranick look like classic David Stearns diamond-in-the-rough finds. Tylor Megill's durability has always been in question, but for right now, he is healthy and pitching well. Meanwhile, Kodai Senga still has the highest ceiling on the team's staff. The biggest question right now is whether or not the pitchers can keep the walks down. All of the Mets starters have had their share of command problems. It hasn't caught up with them yet, because the Mets have the second-highest left-on-base rate in the league, but if the Mets keep giving out so many free passes, it will become a real weakness and runs will be scored in bunches. New York ranks 29th in location+, an advanced pitching metric that assesses pitchers' command. The most encouraging aspect of the Mets' start is that their offense ranks 20th in wRC+, and yet the team is 8-4 because of the pitching.

https://www.theringer.com/2025/04/11/mlb/what-weve-learned-from-the-first-two-weeks-of-the-2025-mlb-season?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-ushttps://www.theringer.com/2025/04/11/mlb/what-weve-learned-from-the-first-two-weeks-of-the-2025-mlb-season?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us

[batmagadanleadoff]

And the Rockies lose again. They're now 3-12 (.200) and on pace to lose 130 games. On pace? Did I just say "on pace"? My bad. I shoulda said that the Rockies will lose 130 games this season. That's how good the NFL prospects are this year. Oh, and those pesky KC Chiefs. There's a lot you can learn from 15 games.

[MFS62]

A "what if" short season article:

https://worldbaseball.com/if-baseballs-season-were-as-short-as-footballs-the-conversation-about-parity-would-be-different/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJsnbBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHgMJqNnWmIs0lK9jkW-W-XVr87RgGjl9v1j1CchW2KL3b7YlTAHFtvNEJhZW_aem_12E5MGii4nW0qV-wU4t5GQhttps://worldbaseball.com/if-baseballs-season-were-as-short-as-footballs-the-conversation-about-parity-would-be-different/?fbclid=IwY2xjawJsnbBleHRuA2FlbQIxMAABHgMJqNnWmIs0lK9jkW-W-XVr87RgGjl9v1j1CchW2KL3b7YlTAHFtvNEJhZW_aem_12E5MGii4nW0qV-wU4t5GQ



Later

[MFS62]

Speaking of how you can't project based on small sample size, I recall that the Mets drafted Dave Magadan after he hit seven home runs in the college world series.

They thought he would be a power hitter based on that small sample size.

He had several skills, but it turns out power wasn't one of them.



Later

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

Bullshit

[MFS62]

He hit 42 homers in 16 years. Not what is expected from a corner infielder.

The seven homers in that series was more than any he hit in any entire major league season.

Small sample size.

Later

Edited May 6, 2025 by Guest

[kcmets]

I've seen the Chiefs referenced a bunch of times in

other discussion and now it's here in a thread title.



What do the Chiefs have to do with anything? I may

just be thick, but the reference has flown right over

my glove and it's rolling around on the warning track.

[MFS62]

Kase, it started in this thread:

https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356https://phpbb3.leaptoad.com/mets/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=34356



Later

Edited May 6, 2025 by Guest

[batmagadanleadoff]

=kcmets post_id=191848 time=1746558730 user_id=53]
I've seen the Chiefs referenced a bunch of times in

other discussion and now it's here in a thread title.



What do the Chiefs have to do with anything? I may

just be thick, but the reference has flown right over

my glove and it's rolling around on the warning track.

[kcmets]

Thank you!



MFS, you're fired!

[metirish]

Thank you! MFS, you're fired!

FFS , I went through that thread MFS posted and the "chiefs and prospects" was mentioned on page 3 by Batmag , but it didn't connect to this



The above post makes sense

[MFS62]

=kcmets post_id=191851 time=1746559538 user_id=53]
MFS, you're fired!

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

=MFS62 post_id=191847 time=1746558635 user_id=60]
He hit 42 homers in 16 years. Not what is expected from a corner infielder.

The seven homers in that series was more than any he hit in any entire major league season.

Small sample size.

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

The thing is, I think that very often, people equate the terms luck and randomness. Luck and randomness are not synonyms. They mean different things. I think that the terms are frequently equated because so often, the two words appear together in the same sentence and so close to each other: luck and randomness. This leads to flawed or incorrect conclusions.



A pitcher who averages precisely seven strikeouts per start will have starts where he strikes out more than seven batters and starts where he strikes out less than seven batters. And this variance in strikeouts per start will not always necessarily be the result of bad or good luck. There are probably an infinite number of factors that would affect and determine how many batters that pitcher fans in one start, including the quality of the opponent, the weather, the stadium, the pitcher's overall health and well-being on the day of his start, his mental well-being, what he ate and drank in the last 24 hours, how much sleep he got, etc. etc.



The Dodgers are one of baseball's best teams, maybe even the very best team. And the White Sox are probably the worst team in baseball. But if the Dodgers and White Sox were to play each other exclusively all season long, 162 times, the Dodgers would not go undefeated. The Dodgers wouldn't win all 162 games. The White Sox would win their share of games. And the White Sox wins wouldn't all be attributable to luck. It wouldn't be the case that every time the White Sox beat the Dodgers was because the Sox got lucky or that the Dodgers were unlucky. There would be days when the Sox were simply better than the Dodgers. There would be days when Shohei Ohtani took the mound and didn't have anywhere near his best stuff. This happens. Baseball players aren't robots. There would even be some days when the Sox absolutely demolished the Dodgers without having gotten "lucky".



That's randomness.

[Frayed Knot]

=MFS62 post_id=191847 time=1746558635 user_id=60]
He hit 42 homers in 16 years. Not what is expected from a corner infielder.

The seven homers in that series was more than any he hit in any entire major league season.

Small sample size.

Edited May 6, 2025 by Guest

[roger_that]

.292/.391 over 2,500 PA over six+ seasons as a Met

I've always numbered the Mets' disappointment with Magadan among their many errors of judgment. Yeah, he didn't field as well as Keith (like anybody has?) and his hitting wasn't absolute top-rank, but he was a decent first baseman and they should have hung on to him and repaired some positions where they had terrible players instead. They have a history of making this mistake, failing to recognize some good home-grown players who fell short of star status, and getting rid of them because of their frustration.

[MFS62]

Granted. As I said he had other skills.

He had several skills, but it turns out power wasn't one of them.

But the topic of the thread is small sample size and my point is you can't look at 7 HR in the series and project or extrapolate anything accurate from it. (I couldn't find a link to support the HR series, either. That was from memory and the excitement i had when they drafted him because of what I'd read)

The purpose of my post was to give an example of small sample size, and no other purpose was intended.

Later

[Johnny Lunchbucket]

You specifically said the Mets were fooled by a 7 HR tournament performance and now you're backing out of those 7 home runs

[MFS62]

Johnny Lunchbucket wrote: You specifically said the Mets were fooled by a 7 HR tournament performance and now you're backing out of those 7 home runs

My interpretation based on what I read at the time. But the purpose of the post WAS to talk about sample size. And I did. At Least I used English instead of a curse word.

Later

[Frayed Knot]

But the topic of the thread is small sample size and my point is you can't look at 7 HR in the series and project or extrapolate anything accurate from it.

But there's no evidence that anyone DID extrapolate anything from it. Or even that the seven HRs even happened* for that matter.

Mags was drafted out of HS (12th round, Boston) but passed on signing to go to Bama where he had a Stellar college career: several time All American,

Alabama Sports HoF, College Baseball HoF, Golden Spikes winner (at a time when Clemens and Bonds and others were playing).

That he was drafted high following three great college seasons can hardly be seen as a surprise or a miscalculation and he went on to More than justify that pick.











* The most I've found from the '83 CWS is "The Crimson Tide went to the College World Series that spring ... but lost to the University of Texas, which featured Roger Clemens and Calvin Schiraldi. Magadan hit safely in his first eight at-bats, including 5-for-5 in one game, and wound up hitting .550 in the CWS."

[MFS62]

Yes. I'll say it again, that was my point, and the point of the thread batmags quoted, you CAN'T Extrapolate based on a few games.

I was just giving an example. That was the ONLY reason for my post.

If I had said, "You can't use the seven HR Magadan hit in the CWS to accurately project how many he will hit as a pro" and left it at that, we wouldn't be having this discussion.



Later

[Frayed Knot]

Frayed Knot wrote: But there's no evidence that anyone DID extrapolate anything from [a HR streak].

I'll say it again, that was my point ... you CAN'T Extrapolate based on a few games. I was just giving an example. That was the ONLY reason for my post.

No, that misrepresents what you initially said.

What you said was:

I recall that the Mets drafted Dave Magadan after he hit seven home runs in the college world series. They thought he would be a power hitter based on that small sample size.

And my point is that there's no evidence (and little logic) to support that conclusion and plenty to suggest that he instead earned a high draft position (32nd overall) based on a HoF-worthy three year college career and Not from a short term power streak (whether it existed or not).

[Frayed Knot]

=roger_that post_id=191867 time=1746573236 user_id=128]

.292/.391 over 2,500 PA over six+ seasons as a Met

I've always numbered the Mets' disappointment with Magadan among their many errors of judgment. Yeah, he didn't field as well as Keith (like anybody has?) and his hitting wasn't absolute top-rank, but he was a decent first baseman and they should have hung on to him and repaired some positions where they had terrible players instead. They have a history of making this mistake, failing to recognize some good home-grown players who fell short of star status, and getting rid of them because of their frustration.