Challenge To All Statistical Gurus!

[Eli Eon]

You're starting with the wrong premise which is an individual player. Any individual player can play better or worse than projections both for a single season and longer periods. Stats deal with groups of players and the percentages that a single player will be better or worse based on his minor league stats.

I love how a very simply laid out challenge is not only not being accepted by anyone but the entire premise is being changed. All I am asking someone to do is put their money where their mouth is. I say predicting a minor league player successfully making it in the big leagues is a total crapshoot.

I was mocked, ridiculed, derided, and the subject of much condescending blathering crap because so far, nobody has been able to disprove what I am saying by having the gonads to use their own statistical methods of measuring a minor league player and predicting he will be a sucess in the majors. Ergo, it is indeed a total crapshoot and nobody is will to take my challenge. God, this is a funny place. TAlk about superficial! If you believe in something strongly prove it!

[Eli Eon]

Sadly enough I don't think we even have a guy in AAA or AA who might fall into that category. I guess you could expect House or Knott to have some reasonable ML success if given a chance, but they are older, and probably won't be given a chance, so they would'nt be good picks. I guess the best ML ready position player/real prospect we have that might fall into your example might be Reimold, but I'm not sure hes a good enough prospect to even be considered a can't miss prospect. Rowell might be another, but he's probably 3 years out.

A better challenge for you might be to allow some of the more minor league savvy people to pick Minor leaguers from other teams and track their progrees over the next couple of years.

Finally an intellectually honest (opposite of dishonest) poster who admits it cannot be done, and that it is a crap shoot. End of story.

[os1971]

Finally an intellectually honest (opposite of dishonest) poster who admits it cannot be done, and that it is a crap shoot. End of story.

Actually that is not what I said. I think it can be done with some reasonable level of accuracy (probably 50% or greater) once the player has had a reasonable amount of AAA time. I just dont thing the O's have a good enough farm system to be used as an example because they don't have any good prospects at the AAA level.

[JayGibbons31]

Finally an intellectually honest (opposite of dishonest) poster who admits it cannot be done, and that it is a crap shoot. End of story.

That poster was simply saying that we don't have anyone in the system that is ready to make the transition. There are prospects in other systems that are ready to disprove your theory quicker is all he was pointing out.

[BaltimoreTerp]

To all the people who believe that observation is more important then statistics, to the point of ignoring them altogether...

Which Oriole prospect that you have seen this season will be the next successful major-leaguer?

In doing so please post the stats of said player, both in the minors and (if applicable) in the majors, and explain specifically why the statistics have no bearing on how they will do.

If the observational abilities of you all are so great, this should be very easy, especially to prove all of us Billy Beane-loving, computer-obsessing stat losers wrong.

[Fan4Life]

I love how a very simply laid out challenge is not only not being accepted by anyone but the entire premise is being changed. All I am asking someone to do is put their money where their mouth is. I say predicting a minor league player successfully making it in the big leagues is a total crapshoot.

I was mocked, ridiculed, derided, and the subject of much condescending blathering crap because so far, nobody has been able to disprove what I am saying by having the gonads to use their own statistical methods of measuring a minor league player and predicting he will be a sucess in the majors. Ergo, it is indeed a total crapshoot and nobody is will to take my challenge. God, this is a funny place. TAlk about superficial! If you believe in something strongly prove it!

Isn't it possible the MiLB stats are only a guideline as to the percentage of a chance that a player will have success? For example, Markakis' stats may have given him an 80% chance to have a good-great MLB career, but there was still a 20% chance he could fail. So in that regard, as many have stated, the evidence can only give you an understanding of the odds a player wil be successful. In that same theme, if Luis Hernandez has never shown the ability to produce at the MiLB level, the odds, or percentage of a chance, that he could be succesful at the MLB level could be something like 15-20%. Which means he could have a good-great MLB career but the odds are very slim. In that regard you have to make choices as to who you are going to put your resources behind because you only have a limited amount of guys to play with. Because of that, you generally are going to play the odds that the player with 80% chance to be successful is a better investment than the player with 20% chance. And even in that scenario, you are likely to have some that fail even though their MiL numbers predicted differently, BUT, I don't think you woud have the same rate of deviation for players that didn't perform at MiL level yet went on to have good careers. So if you're trying to say MiL numbers cannot predict with certainty who wil succeed, you are correct. But given 10 chances to place the bet, you will win more times than not by using the past performance as a future measurement.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Finally an intellectually honest (opposite of dishonest) poster who admits it cannot be done, and that it is a crap shoot. End of story.

There's a surprise: he didn't say anything of the sort, and you manage to twist it to your view.

I'm impressed.

[Moose Milligan]

Wow, just wow.

Eli, is your #1 goal to piss off the entire board? You're doing a bang up job.

[PaulFolk]

Finally an intellectually honest (opposite of dishonest) poster who admits it cannot be done, and that it is a crap shoot. End of story.

Please look up the definition of "crap shoot." I don't think it means what you think it means.

If something's not an absolute 100% guarantee to happen, that doesn't make it a "crap shoot." A "crap shoot" implies completely random chance, with no statistical leanings affecting the outcome whatsoever.

Using your flawed definition of "crap shoot," it's a crap shoot whether Albert Pujols will be better than Brandon Fahey next season. It's a crap shoot whether or not Gary Coleman will be the next President of the United States. It's a crap shoot whether the sun will come up tomorrow.

But you'd have to be a fool to go against the odds.

[Eli Eon]

Actually that is not what I said. I think it can be done with some reasonable level of accuracy (probably 50% or greater) once the player has had a reasonable amount of AAA time. I just dont thing the O's have a good enough farm system to be used as an example because they don't have any good prospects at the AAA level.

Okay. I don't want to be accused of twisting anything you wrote. That is a fair enough answer. They have some high draft choices playing don't they like Majewski, Snyder and Reimold? I guess their stats aren't good enough huh?

I guess if Wieters hits 200 in the high minors he won't ever get the call up either eh?

[Eli Eon]

Please look up the definition of "crap shoot." I don't think it means what you think it means.

If something's not an absolute 100% guarantee to happen, that doesn't make it a "crap shoot." A "crap shoot" implies completely random chance, with no statistical leanings affecting the outcome whatsoever.

Using your flawed definition of "crap shoot," it's a crap shoot whether Albert Pujols will be better than Brandon Fahey next season. It's a crap shoot whether or not Gary Coleman will be the next President of the United States. It's a crap shoot whether the sun will come up tomorrow.

But you'd have to be a fool to go against the odds.

No, its a crap shoot whether Brandon Fahey will make it as a major leaguer. So far he has a shot which is a lot more than a lot of minor leaguers get.

[Eli Eon]

To all the people who believe that observation is more important then statistics, to the point of ignoring them altogether...

Which Oriole prospect that you have seen this season will be the next successful major-leaguer?

In doing so please post the stats of said player, both in the minors and (if applicable) in the majors, and explain specifically why the statistics have no bearing on how they will do.

If the observational abilities of you all are so great, this should be very easy, especially to prove all of us Billy Beane-loving, computer-obsessing stat losers wrong.

I would say Adam Lowen is my number once choice for making it in the big leagues right now. I don't have his minor league stats but I believe they weren't all that tremendous either. He just has the talent and I believe if he can stay healthy will develop it.

[Pedro Cerrano]

I would say Adam Lowen is my number once choice for making it in the big leagues right now. I don't have his minor league stats but I believe they weren't all that tremendous either. He just has the talent and I believe if he can stay healthy will develop it.

No. YOU need to tell US what unheralded O's MiL player will turn into a legit super-star.

Don't go using our former first-round draft pick as a crutch.

[Eli Eon]

Isn't it possible the MiLB stats are only a guideline as to the percentage of a chance that a player will have success? For example, Markakis' stats may have given him an 80% chance to have a good-great MLB career, but there was still a 20% chance he could fail. So in that regard, as many have stated, the evidence can only give you an understanding of the odds a player wil be successful. In that same theme, if Luis Hernandez has never shown the ability to produce at the MiLB level, the odds, or percentage of a chance, that he could be succesful at the MLB level could be something like 15-20%. Which means he could have a good-great MLB career but the odds are very slim. In that regard you have to make choices as to who you are going to put your resources behind because you only have a limited amount of guys to play with. Because of that, you generally are going to play the odds that the player with 80% chance to be successful is a better investment than the player with 20% chance. And even in that scenario, you are likely to have some that fail even though their MiL numbers predicted differently, BUT, I don't think you woud have the same rate of deviation for players that didn't perform at MiL level yet went on to have good careers. So if you're trying to say MiL numbers cannot predict with certainty who wil succeed, you are correct. But given 10 chances to place the bet, you will win more times than not by using the past performance as a future measurement.

It is a crap shoot period. Again, I could throw darts and be just as apt to hit the next sucessful minor leaguer to make it to the majors in the Orioles system against Drungo picking 10 people using stats.

[Moose Milligan]

It is a crap shoot period. Again, I could throw darts and be just as apt to hit the next sucessful minor leaguer to make it to the majors in the Orioles system against Drungo picking 10 people using stats.

Then go ahead, throw some darts and pick one.

I'll go with what Drungo has to say....