The "Poor Hypothesis Theory of Baseball" and rebuilding the O's

[Birds08]

Why are you using the term neo-con? If you are taking a shot at neoconservative politics, I really don't think thats appropriate for a baseball board.

[RShack]

Why are you using the term neo-con? If you are taking a shot at neoconservative politics, I really don't think thats appropriate for a baseball board.

Don't invent a fight about your politics. I said I used it to refer to applying unproven theories that can turn out bad. Nothing more or less than that.

[geschinger]

I assume that I'm like a majority people and don't look at it in absolutes. I'm fine with having players over 30 in 2010 and even now to fill in even thoughwe aren't ready to compete.

I am in favor of trying to trade a player like Brian Roberts if the return is sufficent. I'm not in favor of trading him simply because he'll be over 30 in 2010. I'm in favor of trading him because he should be able to return value and I believe the odds are low that we can sign him to an extension that makes sense for the Orioles.

He may be a guy that can play into his mid 30s and be extremly valuable but would it be a smart risk for the Orioles to take? To me signing him to a long term deal at the salary he'll be able to command would be like playing blackjack and hitting on 17... It may work out fine but they aren't odds that I'd be willing to take. Therefore IMO it makes trying to trade him now the right choice if the right package is offered.

[SrMeowMeow]

Ironic that you should use this title just as I'm working on a term-paper on neo-conservatism

As such, I'd just like to say I don't think you're using the term correctly. I also can't see any other reason you'd use that term other than to get an argument. I have to say, just reading the title really turned me off your argument because of the unwarranted (and incorrect) assumptions you used right off the bat. And I'm not even conservative!

On topic, if I understand your argument and follow-up posts correctly, I don't think you're saying anything that more than a tiny majority of people here would disagree with.

You also should agree that if it's silly to say "we don't want players who will be over 30 because statistically they will be on the decline," it's also silly to imply that we should have some 30 and over players in 2010 for their own sake because WC teams have such-and-such a percentage of over 30 players.

I'll write more when I have a chance to look it over more thoroughly.

[RShack]

What term should I use to describe someone that refuses to admit that Minor League stats (when factoring in age, level, and park effects) is a great indicator of likely Major League success?

What term should I sure to describe someone that seemingly does not grasp the correlation between increased age and diminished performance?

You could describe them as somebody who looks behind superficial claims and appearances and overly-simplistic conclusions. That would be accurate.

[CrimsonTribe]

I assume that I'm like a majority people and don't look at it in absolutes. I'm fine with having players over 30 in 2010 and even now to fill in even thoughwe aren't ready to compete.

I am in favor of trying to trade a player like Brian Roberts if the return is sufficent. I'm not in favor of trading him simply because he'll be over 30 in 2010. I'm in favor of trading him because he should be able to return value and I believe the odds are low that we can sign him to an extension that makes sense for the Orioles.

He may be a guy that can play into his mid 30s and be extremly valuable but would it be a smart risk for the Orioles to take? To me signing him to a long term deal at the salary he'll be able to command would be like playing blackjack and hitting on 17... It may work out fine but they aren't odds that I'd be willing to take. Therefore IMO it makes trying to trade him now the right choice if the right package is offered.

This post hits the nail on the head. Good job.

[SrMeowMeow]

You are fan, you are a good fan that cares about his team.. otherwise you would not spend hours on a message board for a team that has not finished 500 in a decade.

You enjoy watching Roberts play, you see a guy that hustles, and you correctly see a guy that has not been part of the problem, and really has been part of the solution.

You are letting feelings get past mental judgement.

It is not a superficial claim to say that as players age, their peformance is MORE LIKELY to diminish.

It is not a superficial claim to say that as players approach their peak years, their peformance is MORE LIKELY to increase.

It is not a superficial claim to look at Roberts 2008 numbers, and see an 809 OPS, and acknowledge that it was the 2nd best year of his career.

It is not a superficial claim to look at the minor league performances of Cedeno and Patterson... to take in effect their ages, and minor league performance, and say they both have a great opportunity to post numbers similarly to Roberts in 2008, several years before their primes.

It is not superficial to state that Roberts is signed through 2009... so if you want him back in 2010, you are going to have to extend him... and likely give him at least a three year deal through 2012...

It is not superficial to say that if you are paying for him between ages 32, 33, and 34 you are likely paying for diminished talent.

He might be a Top 5-7 second baseman right now, and he might still be around that level 2 years from now... far more likely is that by 2010 he is a Top 15 secondbaseman.

Repped...your posts over the past few days have had the enchanting quality of being right all the time Keep it up.

[Birds08]

Ironic that you should use this title just as I'm working on a term-paper on neo-conservatism

As such, I'd just like to say I don't think you're using the term correctly. I also can't see any other reason you'd use that term other than to get an argument. I have to say, just reading the title really turned me off your argument because of the unwarranted (and incorrect) assumptions you used right off the bat. And I'm not even conservative!

Exactly. This theory could have been given any possible name in the english dictionary, but RShack chose to associate an idea with which he doesn't agree with a specific political ideology. Clearly trying to take a shot.

I don't want this thread to go off course, so I will leave it there.

[RShack]

Ironic that you should use this title just as I'm working on a term-paper on neo-conservatism

As such, I'd just like to say I don't think you're using the term correctly. I also can't see any other reason you'd use that term other than to get an argument. I have to say, just reading the title really turned me off your argument because of the unwarranted (and incorrect) assumptions you used right off the bat. And I'm not even conservative!

On topic, if I understand your argument and follow-up posts correctly, I don't think you're saying anything that more than a tiny majority of people here would disagree with.

You also should agree that if it's silly to say "we don't want players who will be over 30 because statistically they will be on the decline," it's also silly to imply that we should have some 30 and over players in 2010 for their own sake because WC teams have such-and-such a percentage of over 30 players.

I'll write more when I have a chance to look it over more thoroughly.

Let's not do this or the thread will get locked. I thought pretty much everybody agreed that we had a train wreck in you-know-where because some guys deployed a theory. If I used the wrong label for the theory, I apologize. The point was about basing actions on something that's just an unproven theory, that's all. So, let's just all pretend I said "Theory X that's just a theory and doesn't actually work", OK? Can we do that?

[Number5]

What term should I use to describe someone that refuses to admit that Minor League stats (when factoring in age, level, and park effects) is a great indicator of likely Major League success?

Certainly, in the absence of major league statistics, minor league statistics are the best (and only) statistics on which to project potential major league results. None of us, however, would consider minor league results as being more indicative of major league expectations than actual major league results achieved over more than an entire season. Would we?

Likewise, in the absence of positive major league fielding results, it would certainly be realistic to project any minor league fielding failures when considering any potential major league defensive results.

I would not choose any term to refer to anyone that would elect not to consider these pertinent facts, as name-calling is inappropriate. I would, however, certainly disagree with them.

[TinCup]

Its an over-simplification to suggest all of the rebuilding advocates are promoting the rebuild and linking same to players over 30. It just so happens that the players who have the most trade value, that can help you rebuild, happen to be near or over 30. Its called a "coincidence".

[SrMeowMeow]

Let's not do this or the thread will get locked. I thought pretty much everybody agreed that we had a train wreck in you-know-where because some guys deployed a theory. If I used the wrong label for the theory, I apologize. The point was about basing actions on something that's just an unproven theory, that's all. So, let's just all pretend I said "Theory X that's just a theory and doesn't actually work", OK? Can we do that?

You did use the wrong label, and I accept your apology. It's not a big deal.

TinCup: I disagree with you. There's an inherent assumption in what you're saying, because we have trade chips with plenty of value (our farm system, Markakis) but the assumption is that 'rebuilding' means we have to get young for old, which I'm pretty sure is rshack's point.

[hatepaste]

This is the opposite of what AM has said. He said that we have gotten the quantity we needed in the Tejada and Bedard trades and we are now looking for quality above quantity.

That's not quite what I meant. And this might be kind of hard to explain. I don't mean quantity vs. quality in regards to prospects against other prospects. I mean quantity (the prospects) vs. quality (brian roberts as an established major leaguer). Don't mean they are going after anyone that can pick up a baseball.

[RShack]

I got a new one for you RShack. How about you put forth your new theory when you actually see someone putting forth this other theory. Then you can pick a fight with an actual person instead of some imaginary group. Who is, or who are these people who expouse this neo-con theory?

Oh, come on... you know it's pretty routine to hear people say we won't be competing until 2010 and that's past BRob's prime and therefore we should trade him. It's a perfectly routine comment. Just because not everybody says it, that doesn't mean it's some paper tiger. It gets said all the time as part of the normal discussion here. You know that.

Why can't ideas be discussed on their merits (or lack of merit) without making it personal and pinning it on certain people. Why does it everything have to devolve into stuff that's personal. I'm not interested in going after people, it's the validity of the ideas that matter.

[geschinger]

Oh, come on... you know it's pretty routine to hear people say we won't be competing until 2010 and that's past BRob's prime and therefore we should trade him. It's a perfectly routine comment. Just because not everybody says it, that doesn't mean it's some paper tiger. It gets said all the time as part of the normal discussion here. You know that.

I don't think you are responding to the actual issue... The reason to trade him IMO is that to have him in 2010 it likely means committing to him for much longer than that at an salary commesurate with Brian Roberts' standing as one of the best 2b in baseball.

The question that has to be asked is, do you believe signing him to a long term deal that takes him into his mid 30s is a good or bad risk at the salary he'll be able to command? I believe many of those who would like to see a trade think that it is not a very good risk. That is not the same thing as wanting to trade him because in 2010 he will be past his prime.