Taking a Flyer on Jason Botts?

[BaltimoreTerp]

It seems to me the people on the other side of this "debate" are just conveniently refusing to address the points they can't refute. Most of what I'm reading now are straw man arguments. It is a shame that we can't get some response to our main criticisms to your arguments. I think it is time for me to move on. Have a good one.

Look, it's very simple.

I want what is best for this team long-term. As of right now, we don't have answers at first base after this year, and DH after next. It won't be long after that when we will want those questions answered so that we can be a real contender.

Botts is probably not the answer, nor Dan Johnson, nor any other guy we could pick up for next-to-nothing. However, we should be trying to find someone who will be; this is the year for that. First place in April be damned. Clubhouse chemistry (real or imagined) be damned. Money be damned.

All I know is that Millar is NOT that answer, and so the discussion shouldn't be whether or not Botts is better then Millar right now, but how we should try and solve that problem.

[Mackus]

The chances that Millar will earn free agent compensation next year is higher than the chance that Botts will be a long term solution. Millar has zero chance to be a type B if we bench him.

I like this argument.

It actually is conceivable that playing Millar this year would be better for the future of the franchise than playing Botts instead.

I don't think either really will make much of a difference in the future in any circumstance, but I do agree that the odds of Botts being a useful player for us in 2010+ is less than the odds of Millar being a Type B and netting us a compensation pick.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The chances that Millar will earn free agent compensation next year is higher than the chance that Botts will be a long term solution. Millar has zero chance to be a type B if we bench him.

So what? We can trade Millar for more then the potential of the draft compensation of a Type B free agent. And finding a long-term answer at first base is far more important.

Regarding your second paragraph, you may want to do a little reading about statistics. If you'd like I can provide links to info about how using small sample sizes to predict future results become much more dependable when you have multiple separate "samples" yielding consistent results. Throwing out his numbers as if it was 275 at bats in one single season is just wrong mathmatically. A sample of 50, 25, 150, and 50 with consistent results from each "independent" sample is a much stronger correlation with future results. If his results from these four independent samples were all over the place, then you would be right to throw them out.

I'm not throwing them out. But again, in Adam Jones' now-three years in the majors, he has OPS's of .548, .700, and .687. 232 at-bats, broken up by year as 74, 65, 93.

Can we draw a conclusion from that?

Millar is going on a half-season of a .700 OPS, since last August. 292 at-bats consecutively. Can we draw a conclusion from that?

[BaltimoreTerp]

I agree with this sentence, but neither is Botts. I'm not into creating new problems (possible discord in the clubhouse, loss of respect for DT & AM by the other players) just because I want to look busy. If you want to discuss trading Millar or trading a young pitcher for a DH/1B/SS, I'm all for it. But this "solution" you're advocating is worse than the current problem. Our problem doesn't get solved in any form or fashion by benching Millar and playing Botts. It just potentially adds new problems.

How do you KNOW Botts is not the answer?

I KNOW Millar isn't the answer because he is 36, in apparent decline and is only signed through this year. You don't KNOW Botts is the answer.

[BaltimoreTerp]

See my statistics post to Terp. 280 at bats in one year is not nearly the same thing statistically as four independent trials like Botts has had. Neither case is a super strong correlation for predicting the future, but the first situation is of almost no value at all and the second has a decent correlation.

You didn't answer his question.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You seem to think you know a lot of things, but your logic tells me something else.

For instance, I agree that we can trade Millar right now for some value and, as I've written 10 times now, I'm all for that and then picking up Botts. We won't be able to trade Millar for a plug nickel once he is on the bench behind Botts because other GMs aren't stupid. Think about what you're saying. We have to trade Millar BEFORE or SIMULTANEOUS to plugging in Botts OR we're essentially writing him off as a loss.

But Millar isn't worth wasting an opportunity to solve a problem.

[RShack]

Look, it's very simple.

I want what is best for this team long-term. As of right now, we don't have answers at first base after this year, and DH after next. It won't be long after that when we will want those questions answered so that we can be a real contender.

Botts is probably not the answer, nor Dan Johnson, nor any other guy we could pick up for next-to-nothing. However, we should be trying to find someone who will be; this is the year for that. First place in April be damned. Clubhouse chemistry (real or imagined) be damned. Money be damned.

All I know is that Millar is NOT that answer, and so the discussion shouldn't be whether or not Botts is better then Millar right now, but how we should try and solve that problem.

The way to solve that problem is to evaluate potential 1B solutions based on a helluva lot more than their MiL OPS.

Don't you think the FO is mindful that there is a need at 1B? Are you claiming that AM somehow believes that Millar is his long-term 1B solution? That's crazy. You keep blurring together the Actual Fact that we have a hole to fill at 1B with some goofy idea that they should go getting players that nobody else wants because you see a MiL OPS number you like on the internet. You keep saying how simple it is, but it's *not* that simple.

[BaltimoreTerp]

The way to solve that problem is to evaluate potential 1B solutions based on a helluva lot more than their MiL OPS.

Don't you think the FO is mindful that there is a need at 1B? Are you claiming that AM somehow believes that Millar is his long-term 1B solution? That's crazy. You keep blurring together the Actual Fact that we have a hole to fill at 1B with some goofy idea that they should go getting players that nobody else wants because you see a MiL OPS number you like on the internet. You keep saying how simple it is, but it's *not* that simple.

I've evaluating based on what I can see. And that is a guy who destroys AAA but hasn't had a chance in the majors. I believe we should give that guy a shot because we don't have other options.

The fact that this is such a hard concept floors me.

[RShack]

I've evaluating based on what I can see. And that is a guy who destroys AAA but hasn't had a chance in the majors. I believe we should give that guy a shot because we don't have other options.

The fact that this is such a hard concept floors me.

The FO should not make decisions based on what you see on the internet. What if the scouts say he sucks? You think we should get him anyway because you found a number you like on the internet?

Do you really think we're gonna get to next year's ST and AM is suddenly gonna bang his forehead and say, "Ooops! We don't have a 1B-man! Sorry, everybody, my bad... I just didn't see it coming!"

The fact that your idea of rebuilding is that the O's should make personnel decisions based on your opinion of internet numbers is what kinda floors me ;-)

[BaltimoreTerp]

The FO should not make decisions based on what you see on the internet. What if the scouts say he sucks? You think we should get him anyway because you found a number you like on the internet?

Do you really think we're gonna get to next year's ST and AM is suddenly gonna bang his forehead and say, "Ooops! We don't have a 1B-man! Sorry, everybody, my bad... I just didn't see it coming!"

The fact that your idea of rebuilding is that the O's should make personnel decisions based on your opinion of internet numbers is what kinda floors me ;-)

1) Please stop saying "internet numbers". You are suggesting either inaccuracy or some other form of irrelevence, and it makes you sound like an old man resistant to change. Which I doubt you are (resistant to change, that is ).

2) This is MY opinion. I am going off of what I can see, which is not much. I'm not going to criticize MacPhail for not giving Jason Botts himself the chance, because he knows far more then I do. However, my overall point that we should be actively searching for an answer and Kevin Millar, no matter the situation, should not impede that search, is still valid.

[BaltimoreTerp]

OK, I'll bite

Lets see

Adam Jones

548 OPS at 20 years old in 74 at bats

700 OPS at 21 years old in 65 at bats

687 OPS at 22 years old in 93 at bats

Botts

663 OPS at 24 years old in 27 at bats

677 OPS at 25 years old in 50 at bats

661 OPS at 26 years old in 167 at bats

699 OPS at 27 years old in 38 at bats

The standard deviation is much larger in AJ's case which lowers the probability that the data can used reliability to predict future results.

Botts has four independent data points which obviously provides a stronger basis for correlation than three independent data points.

Botts has one independent sample size which is bordering on large enough to be valid by itself. The fact that this one larger sample's result track with the smaller sample's results further strenghtens the possibility that the small samples can be utilized effectively.

Now, lets discuss something that has nothing to do with statistics. The player's relative ages. Even if AJ's data reliably predicted his capability during those years, AJ should have much more chance of improving than Botts due to their respective ages.

So, I believe I have answered your question thoroughly. Care to acknowledge that your "comp" is not very good or very appropriate or refute my response?

1) Don't bring ages into this since you don't wish to with Millar.

2) I still don't get how four tiny sizes (well, three of four, especially when, in the Jones comparison, the three of them add-up to barely more then Jones' biggest sample) are more valid then one larger sample (say, Millar over 292 at-bats since August). Especially when he is spending the rest of his time destroying the pitching one level down.

[BaltimoreTerp]

OK, I'll try one more time:

You can pick one of the following two scenarios, but not both:

A

the chance to trade Millar for value this year OR to receive a comp pick for him as a type B if we keep him

OR

B

the chance to pick up Botts, start him, put Millar on the bench, and receive no value for Millar

You truly think scenario B has a better expected return for the team over the next five years? I completely disagree. Scenario A has a much better expected value.

But what is the chance of it reaching that value, especially the second part involving the draft pick?

And do the same thing, just take Botts out of it, and see if you have the same answer.

[BaltimoreTerp]

1) The ages are appropriate simply because AJ is obviously quite young and has a much better chance to grow than Botts. This is the same concept as Millar having a much better chance of regressing than Botts. And I have brought age into the conversation re: Millar. I freely acknowledged a 5% decline in Millar this year in my projection. You don't want to acknowledge that because Millar can regress 10% and still surpass the numbers posted by Botts thus far in his ML career.

2) I'm not sure how to explain it to you short of pointing you to statistic texts. I can't formulate the proof that supports this concept, but I can assure you I didn't make it up. I learned this in one of my statistics for eng courses at VT. I've applied it many times during my career.

Ok, I'll take your word for it.

I like baseball statistics, not real-life statistics (though I did take a class in it about six years ago )

[Miller192]

Wow, 14 pages debating Botts and Millar.

You guys should talk about Richie Bancells' footwear next.

[Mackus]

But what is the chance of it reaching that value, especially the second part involving the draft pick?

And do the same thing, just take Botts out of it, and see if you have the same answer.

I think the point is obvious if you know what expected return means.

The Botts' potential value times the odds of him reaching there is lower than the potential value of a trade or draft pick times the odds of Millar netting us that. At least in several people's here opinion. If you disagree, fine.

However, there is no chance of Millar netting us value (trade or pick) if we replace him with Botts right now. There is a chance of Botts being valuable for us in the future but us still playing Millar regularly now and getting value back for him in July or next June (spot start and PH Botts, use him as a role player, if he plays well, give him more time).