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

[CrimsonTribe]

Whatever. If you wanna claim that people say one thing but really mean something else, that's fine. It doesn't matter at all whether it's the *entire* basis for an argument, or just one *factor* in an argument. Either way, it's a completely 100% bogus idea. Either way, the actual facts of baseball are in direct opposition to it.

The actual facts show that starting lineup of teams that get to the LCS are well stocked with guys over 30, to the tune of more than 40%. In addition, the starting lineups of teams that proceed from the LCS to the WS are even *more* stocked with guys over 30, to the tune of nearly 50%. Furthermore, the starting lineups of teams that get there repeatedly are *even more* heavily stocked with over-30 guys than that. These things are actual facts, which is the point I was making. You can spin it any way you want to, but facts are facts. (Or don't the actual facts matter anymore?)

What exactly does all this have to do w/ whether or not we trade Roberts? Can't we just acquire another 30-something player to fill our imaginary quota? I mean heck, we had 5 out of 9 players last year in their 30s. Where's our ring?

And what is the "bogus" idea that you keep shooting down? That we should trade every player over 30? Because you're right on that. It is bogus, but it's just a vast oversimplification that you've decided is the predominant sentiment of the OH when in actuality any real argument is a lot deeper than that.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Predominant does not mean sensible. It means most frequent or common. Since when is it somehow a strawman to disagree with a frequent and common argument? If we can have hundreds of pages repeating the same 6 ideas about BRob trades, why is it such a big deal to actually address an argument that is frequently made? Or is it fine to disagree, just so you don't actually examine it and look at the actual facts? Or am I just using the wrong facts? If I just limited myself to talking about OPS, would that be OK?

Exactly what is the pseudo-standard here? As long as you just repeat the same things that have been said for hundreds of pages, that's s fine and dandy... but if you actually examine the truth behind claims people actually make on a regular basis, it's a waste of time?

Maybe it is a waste of time. So let's talk about something really substantive... like, for example, what numbers do you project for Murton. Is that better? Or should I quote PECOTA?

Like was said, you are taking one reason given by some people and focusing on that (and either overstating by a lot the number of people making that argument or taking a lot of people's arguments out of context).

We agree that it isn't necessarily a good argument, but it also isn't the real argument; his contract and trade value are. So, focusing on this is like focusing on us trading Bedard because he was bad with the media. It's not relevant.

[Ruzious]

1. You don't know that. You might think that, but you don't know it. It's just another theory.

Why do you call his assumption that Roberts won't re-up a theory and not call your apparent assumption that he will re-sign a theory?

And the stats you came up with about age don't tell anything - in and of themselves. You're smart enough to realize that. When you're a team competing for the playoffs, you typically add some veterans during the season.

[RShack]

We're going around in circles. Since people get bothered when I use too many words, I'll try to keep it short:

Everything I meant to say can be found in posts #1, #26, and #43.

If after reading those posts, you think it's somehow specious, inflammatory, or irrelevant, well, I don't know what else to say.

I have no desire to turn this into a food fight by calling out individual people. When I say "some people" or "many people" that's exactly what I mean to say. If I ever mean to diss the entire board, I'll be sure to tell you. In the absence of that, you can assume that any such thoughts are in your head, not mine.

[ugadawg38]

I use the descriptor "neo-con" to refer to what happens when people have an unproven theory in their heads that makes perfect sense to them... and they think that's a good reason for using the unproven theory in Actual Reality. Other people tell them it's just an empty theory that completely ignores reality, but they don't listen and they act on it anyway. Then, later on, they're all surprised because their theory didn't work in the real world, just like lotsa people told them it wouldn't. The basic point is that, if you start with some unproven theory and start acting like it's correct just because it adds up in your head, what you can end up with is a mess.

I think that's what's happening in some quarters about the rebuild idea. Some folks say we need to get rid of guys who will be thirty-something in 2010. Their basic theory goes like this:

• By the time they're 30-something, they're past their prime. They're making money based on past performance, and their performance is likely to not be as good as it used to be.
• Therefore, they won't help and we should trade them now.

When I say the "Neo-con Theory of Baseball", this is what I'm referring to. Other people think this unproven theory is completely silly. The counter-argument boils down to this:

• Just because a guy is in his 30's, that doesn't mean he's not very good and very valuable. Who cares if most of his good years are behind him? If he's got good years left, then he's got good years left. Since he's been good before, you can still pretty much count on him to be good again. It's a *good* thing to have some good over-30 guys around, not a bad thing.
• Every player who's any good gets paid more money in his 30's because of how he played before. So what? It's completely normal. It's just how things work, that's all. It's not a bad thing just because your unproven theory doesn't like it. It's not like the O's are broke and can't afford it. It's not like the owner is a cheapskate. He's spent a fortune on bad teams, that's no reason to not spend money on good guys.

So, we have 2 basic points of view here. Which one benefits from the preponderance of evidence? Since the whole idea is that the O's are trying to successful, the relevant evidence would be "What do successful teams look like? Do they have 30-something-year-old players contributing to their success, or not?"

In an effort to answer this question, I looked. I didn't get complicated about it. Here's what I did:

• I just went to bb-ref and looked at whoever the teams have listed as their starting lineup. I didn't look at AB's or G's or birthdays or anything else. This was just a quick-and-dirty look at it. If you want to do a more complicated analysis, have at it.
• I counted up how many guys each team had listed with ages that were 31 or higher. (If a guy's age was 30, I didn't count him. The list is about "over 30", it's not about "30 and above".)
• For AL teams, the lineup is 9 guys because of the DH. For NL teams, it's 8 guys (the starting pitcher doesn't count).
• I just look at the WS teams plus the LCS losers. I didn't look at teams who didn't get to the LCS because who cares about not even getting to the LCS? Maybe you do, but I don't. (Personally, I don't even care about LCS, I just care about the WS, but I looked at the LCS losers anyway.)
• I only went back 10 years because if I went further than that, somebody would say that the conclusions don't count because everything is different now (even though it's not). Plus, lots of people like talking about "the last 10 years", so that's what I stuck to.

Here's what I found out about the starting lineups of the LCS-and-above post-season teams for the last 10 years:

• 2007: The WC champs had 6 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 2 of 8. The ACLS losers had 3 of 9. The NCLS losers had 1 of 8.
• 2006: The WC champs had 4 of their 8 guys over 30. The WC losers had 2 of 9. The ACLS losers had 2 of 9. The NCLS losers had 4 of 8.
• 2005: The WC champs had 2 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 2 of 8. The ACLS losers had 4 of 9. The NCLS losers had 4 of 8.
• 2004: The WC champs had 5 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 5 of 8. The ACLS losers had 5 of 9. The NCLS losers had 4 of 8.
• 2003: The WC champs had 1 of their 8 guys over 30. The WC losers had 5 of 9. The ACLS losers had 4 of 9. The NCLS losers had 5 of 8.
• 2002: The WC champs had 1 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 5 of 8. The ACLS losers had 0 of 9. The NCLS losers had 4 of 8.
• 2001: The WC champs had 8 of their 8 guys over 30. The WC losers had 6 of 9. The ACLS losers had 5 of 9. The NCLS losers had 3 of 8.
• 2000: The WC champs had 5 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 5 of 8. The ACLS losers had 6 of 9. The NCLS losers had 3 of 8.
• 1999: The WC champs had 4 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 5 of 8. The ACLS losers had 3 of 9. The NCLS losers had 3 of 8.
• 1998: The WC champs had 3 of their 9 guys over 30. The WC losers had 6 of 8. The ACLS losers had 4 of 9. The NCLS losers had 3 of 8.

If we slice and dice the numbers, here's what it boils down to:

• WS champs had 39 of 87 guys over 30. That's 45%.
• WS losers had 43 of 83 guys over 30. That's 52%.
• WS teams had 82 of 170 guys over 30. That's 48%.
• LCS losers had 70 of 170 guys over 30. That's 41%.
• Counting all of them, they had 152 of 340 guys over 30. That's 45%.
• Exactly one team had zero over-30 guys. They didn't make it past the LCS, and they haven't been heard from since.
• Exactly two WS champs had only 1 over-30 guy. Neither team has been back to the WS since.

Based on the evidence, if you want the O's to have a shot at being a good post-season team in 2010, then the whole idea that the O's should not have some over-30 guys in their starting lineup in 2010 is completely silly. If anything, it looks like the O's prolly should make sure that they have about 4 of them, give or take. Especially if they wanna keep going back to the post-season again and again. To say that we should be trading guys just because they'll be over-30 in 2010 is goofy. It's just a wacko theory. There is zero evidence to support it, and lots of evidence that shoots it down. Just because it makes sense in the abstract world of people making up theory-based arguments, that doesn't mean it makes any sense whatsoever in the real world of Actual Baseball. In fact, if you go by what the stats say, Actual Baseball doesn't work that way at all. You can look it up.

Good analysis! Very interesting read. I tend to agree with you that there is no use to trade a player who is in the thirties just because they are on the wrong side of 30. I think it is a relatively new thing in sports to consider people over thirty to be washed up. That being said..

1. Roberts is a free agent after 2009 and there is no guarantee that he will re-sign or that you will get a pick in the 20's or 40's as big bird has suggested in another thread.

2. There is no guarantee that the Orioles in my estimation will be ready to compete in 2010. Quite frankly the Sox, Yanks, D-Rays have much better farm systems from which to develop players and the Sox, Drays, Yanks, and Blue Jays already have better major league players on their teams.

3. To prove #2 incorrect a lot would have to occur such as Reimold staying healthy, Weiters hitting at a level that is more productive than a typical catcher (very probable in my estimation), Adam Jones becoming the uber prospect that he is (see Weiters), Loewen staying healthy and commanding the strike zone, and the rest of the young arms developing into effective major leaguers.

4. The need to sign Mark Texierra. I dont take this as a given. I know he is a local product but the yankees will also be in the market for a first baseman then and dont count out the Braves whom are very close to his college of choice.

5. Without the addition of Texierra I find it hard to believe that Roberts would agree to stay in Baltimore and potentially miss out on playing his prime years for a contending team.

6. That being said I think it would be in the best interest to either offer Roberts a long term contract now (if he accepts great for yall!) or if not trade him for serviceable parts that can help the franchise build.

I hope this is not taken as a shot at the Orioles. I find your organizations situation incredibly tough to be in. Yall play in the most top heavy division in baseball and that is not an envious position at all. The best way to do this though is through a full rebuilding and I think a full rebuilding means getting rid of all assets for pieces of a puzzle. Just my humble opinion.

[RShack]

Why do you call his assumption that Roberts won't re-up a theory and not call your apparent assumption that he will re-sign a theory?

That's not my assumption. If it was my assumption, it would be a theory too.

I have no idea what BRob will do after the 2009 season. Neither does anybody else.

Regardless, it has zilch to do with the point of this thread.

[Ruzious]

That's not my assumption. If it was my assumption, it would be a theory too.

I have no idea what BRob will do after the 2009 season. Neither does anybody else.

Regardless, it has zilch to do with the point of this thread.

So... if we could easily lose Roberts anyway after 2 years, what is the point of this thread - with regard to the O's?

Have you heard anyone say that Scott has to go because of his age? No, because we know the O's control his rights for 3 or 4 years. Age is just one factor. Years under control, trade value, team needs, and payroll considerations are also vital factors. But if someone is for a particular Roberts trade or a particular Sherrill trade, you just jump on the age factor - when it's really 1 of several factors.

[DrungoHazewood]

Whatever. If you wanna claim that people say one thing but really mean something else, that's fine. It doesn't matter at all whether it's the *entire* basis for an argument, or just one *factor* in an argument. Either way, it's a completely 100% bogus idea. Either way, the actual facts of baseball are in direct opposition to it.

The actual facts show that starting lineup of teams that get to the LCS are well stocked with guys over 30, to the tune of more than 40%. In addition, the starting lineups of teams that proceed from the LCS to the WS are even *more* stocked with guys over 30, to the tune of nearly 50%. Furthermore, the starting lineups of teams that get there repeatedly are *even more* heavily stocked with over-30 guys than that. These things are actual facts, which is the point I was making. You can spin it any way you want to, but facts are facts. (Or don't the actual facts matter anymore?)

So how does this compare to other teams? What percentage of bad teams are over 30? What percentage of 70-75 win teams are over 30?

What percentage of the overall contribution did the over-30s make on each of these teams? Maybe they were the really productive members of the team, or maybe they were just hanging on.

I'm asking because I really don't know.

In a vacuum, without context, just saying LCS teams have some % of their players over 30 is meaningless.

[RShack]

So how does this compare to other teams? What percentage of bad teams are over 30? What percentage of 70-75 win teams are over 30?

What percentage of the overall contribution did the over-30s make on each of these teams? Maybe they were the really productive members of the team, or maybe they were just hanging on.

I'm asking because I really don't know.

In a vacuum, without context, just saying LCS teams have some % of their players over 30 is meaningless.

That's ridiculous. Look, the logic here is not hard. It's pretty simple logic. If you try being logical it will make perfect sense. Let's take a different example that's not about baseball, and maybe it will become clearer to you. Let's say we're having a similar conversation, except it's about a different premise:

Context: Let's say that more-than-several people (some? many? a helluva lot? take your pick) have been saying that gas is getting more expensive and therefore everybody should sell their American cars and buy Japanese cars because the gas mileage of American cars sucks, plus the resale value of Japanese cars is better anyway. They say that you need a car that gets 25mpg on the highway or else you're screwed, so everybody should sell their American cars and buy Japanese cars. In that context, I start a thread. In that thread, the following occurs...

Me: Here's a list of cars that get good gas mileage. Look at the dang list. The list of good gas-mileage cars has *lots* of American cars on it. Not talking about their resale value either way, just their gas mileage. Saying that you need a Japanese car to get good gas mileage is silly... because it's just flat out wrong. The list proves it's wrong, so I wish people would quit with this stupid idea that if you want decent gas mileage, you need to buy Japanese cars.

You: Huh? What? You can't say that! It's meaningless!!! You have to look at all the American cars and trucks that get crappy gas mileage! Plus, you have to look at resale value too! Nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying that *some* American cars don't get good gas mileage!! Your list is bogus because it doesn't include all the American cars and trucks that get crappy gas mileage!!!!

Me: Um... Drungo... I'm not saying everybody should buy an American car. I'm not saying that *all* American cars and trucks get good gas mileage. I'm just saying that it's stupid and wrong to say that you need to buy a Japanese car to get good gas mileage.

You and RZ: That's meaningless. And since you disagree with us, you're dissing the whole board. So please stop dissing the whole board!!!!

Me: Um... what?

[DrungoHazewood]

That's ridiculous. Look, the logic here is not hard. It's pretty simple logic. If you try being logical it will make perfect sense. Let's take a different example that's not about baseball, and maybe it will become clearer to you. Let's say we're having a similar conversation, except it's about a different premise:

Context: Let's say that more-than-several people (some? many? a helluva lot? take your pick) have been saying that gas is getting more expensive and therefore everybody should sell their American cars and buy Japanese cars because the gas mileage of American cars sucks, plus the resale value of Japanese cars is better anyway. They say that you need a car that gets 25mpg on the highway or else you're screwed, so everybody should sell their American cars and buy Japanese cars. In that context, I start a thread. In that thread, the following occurs...

Me: Here's a list of cars that get good gas mileage. Look at the dang list. The list of good gas-mileage cars has *lots* of American cars on it. Not talking about their resale value either way, just their gas mileage. Saying that you need a Japanese car to get good gas mileage is silly... because it's just flat out wrong. The list proves it's wrong, so I wish people would quit with this stupid idea that if you want decent gas mileage, you need to buy Japanese cars.

You: Huh? What? You can't say that! It's meaningless!!! You have to look at all the American cars and trucks that get crappy gas mileage! Plus, you have to look at resale value too! Nobody, and I mean nobody, is saying that *some* American cars don't get good gas mileage!! But your list is bogus because it doesn't include all the American cars and trucks that get crappy gas mileage!!!! So please stop dissing the whole board!!!!

Me: Um... what?

So... you're saying you don't know?

[mefogus]

That's ridiculous. Look, the logic here is not hard. It's pretty simple logic. If you try being logical it will make perfect sense.

It is certainly related to logic, although one might say that it is ignoratio elenchi.

-m

[olehippi]

The only thing this thread proves is that what seems logical to one person may not seem logical to others.....

[RShack]

So... you're saying you don't know?

In the very first post, I said exactly what I did. For your convenience, I have copied it below. Please tell me what parts of it you don't understand.

So, we have 2 basic points of view here. Which one benefits from the preponderance of evidence? Since the whole idea is that the O's are trying to successful, the relevant evidence would be "What do successful teams look like? Do they have 30-something-year-old players contributing to their success, or not?"

In an effort to answer this question, I looked. I didn't get complicated about it. Here's what I did:

• I just went to bb-ref and looked at whoever the teams have listed as their starting lineup. I didn't look at AB's or G's or birthdays or anything else. This was just a quick-and-dirty look at it. If you want to do a more complicated analysis, have at it.
• I counted up how many guys each team had listed with ages that were 31 or higher. (If a guy's age was 30, I didn't count him. The list is about "over 30", it's not about "30 and above".)
• For AL teams, the lineup is 9 guys because of the DH. For NL teams, it's 8 guys (the starting pitcher doesn't count).
• I just look at the WS teams plus the LCS losers. I didn't look at teams who didn't get to the LCS because who cares about not even getting to the LCS? Maybe you do, but I don't. (Personally, I don't even care about LCS, I just care about the WS, but I looked at the LCS losers anyway.)
• I only went back 10 years because if I went further than that, somebody would say that the conclusions don't count because everything is different now (even though it's not). Plus, lots of people like talking about "the last 10 years", so that's what I stuck to.

Where's the mystery in that?

Now, if you want to go look at all the LCS-or-better teams and make the case that most or all of the over-30 guys who made up 45% of their starting lineups were really dead-weight hangers-on who didn't contribute much and weren't important to their team, you go right ahead. Good luck with that, but you can try. Like I said, "If you want to do a more complicated analysis, have at it."

[DrungoHazewood]

In the very first post, I said exactly what I did. For your convenience, I have copied it below. Please tell me what parts of it you don't understand.

Where's the mystery in that?

Now, if you want to go look at all the LCS-or-better teams and make the case that most or all of the over-30 guys who made up 45% of their starting lineups were really dead-weight hangers-on who didn't contribute much and weren't important to their team, you go right ahead. Good luck with that, but you can try. Like I said, "If you want to do a more complicated analysis, have at it."

Ok.

In 2006 players 30 or older had 45.5% of all at bats. That's 76,239 out of 167,341.

So on any random team, good, bad, or indifferent, you'd expect about 45% of offensive players to be 30 or older.

You found that LCS teams had 45% of their starting lineups over the age of 30. Therefore, this doesn't differentiate LCS teams from non-LCS teams in any way.

[CrimsonTribe]

Ok.

In 2006 players 30 or older had 45.5% of all at bats. That's 76,239 out of 167,341.

So on any random team, good, bad, or indifferent, you'd expect about 45% of offensive players to be 30 or older.

You found that LCS teams had 45% of their starting lineups over the age of 30. Therefore, this doesn't differentiate LCS teams from non-LCS teams in any way.

Don't let the facts get in the way Drungo. Look out for those facts. I'm telling you, they can get in the way. I've seen it before. Have you never dealt with facts? Do you not believe in facts? Is it that you don't want to believe in them? I'm just telling you, they can get in the way. Dunno. You should prolly watch out for them.