Challenge To All Statistical Gurus!

[Lt Melmo]

Ty Cobb proved himself on the major league field as did any HOF player. I would imagine most of their stats in the minors were good. However all minor league players with good stats don't become HOF major leaguers. So that is like saying, I saw the Mona Lisa and it is a great artwork ergo DaVinci must have been a great artist. Duh? Some players in the HOF never even played much minor league ball like Al Kaline who was drafted right out of high school and made it to the bigs almost immediately.

Nothing I said had anything to do with the minor leagues. I'm pretty sure there weren't any minor leagues when Cobb played.

And I definitely never said anything like the sentence I bolded.

What I was addressing was your assertion that you can only judge a player if you've seen them with your own eyes. That is essentially saying, "I'm going to ignore the fact that stats tell me Ty Cobb got on base 43% of the time because I haven't seen him get on base 43% of the time. I haven't seen him play, so I don't know if he was good. There certainly aren't ways of writing it down whether or not he was good, because that involves numbers and counting and those things scare me." You're implying that only people who have personally seen someone play can judge his talent. And that is stupid.

That's what I was saying. You can keep cherrypicking so that the argument fits your maniacal idea of logic, but if you at all want to try to regain your dignity I wouldn't suggest it. Oh wait, forgot, you're a Christ figure rebel who everyone is unjustly crucifying. Whoops.

*goes back to being sheeple*

[Mackus]

The point I am making is stats are pretty much worthless in foretelling the future major league sucess of a minor league player. Once they hit the majors anything can happen.

I don't expect you to acknowledge this because you're thing most stubborn person I've ever come across, but minor league stats are VERY WORTHWHILE in predicting major league success. To say otherwise is blatant ignorance.

You say good minor league stats don't guarantee good MLB stats, and certainly don't guarantee a HOF career. I agree with that. I will argue that terrible MiLB stats DOES eliminate and reasonable possibility of a HOF career and any realistic possibility of a successful MLB career.

How come you haven't responded to my challenge question? Find me someone with awful minor league stats that became a good MLB player.

[Eli Eon]

Why do you seem to think people are saying stats are right 100% of the time? Where has anybody stated this assertion of yours?

Are you ignoring people's statements or are you simply incapable of reading and analyzing English sentences?

No, you are not understanding what I am maintaining. This whole thing started because Drungo made a post on the Bynum thread that Bynum's performance at the major league level (hitting-wise) must be a fluke. I totally rebuked that statement as ludicrous and not supported by anything. Of course I get the argument of his minor league stats, blah, blah, blah.

So again I say that is meaningless when it comes to determining whether a player will suceed or not at the major league level. There is no way of knowing for certain until they are given the opportunity to suceed or fail. That is how this whole argument evolved. Right now Freddie Bynum is living proof that minor league stats are not reliable at proving major league sucess. So there, now do you get the point I have been espousing most of the day?

[bobmc]

Eli:

You've let your actual debatable stance (scouting reports are more valuable than MiL stats) degenerate into a pretty silly "challenge". I actually agree with you that scouts play a vitally important role in allowing FOs to look beyond the stats.

That said, to dismiss the statistical performance of players in the minor leagues.... just because.... your stubborness to assign any importance to that aspect of the development of the modern day ballplayer is what is getting you hammered.

Stats are a quick, easy, factual, black-and-white way to see if a player is having success on the field. The various tiers of the MiL system provides the framework to judge the players' achievements as he approaches the major league level. (Not even against current competition, but even historically). If stats were completely invalid as you suggest, why even play the games?

Again.... original premise is interesting... the value of scouting vs. the value of stats. The stubborness and internet bravado being thrown around is somewhat entertaining, but entirely trivial.

But I digress... back to the mudslinging.

I have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, I'll try again later.

Nicely put, Rob! Not to be demeaning, but the way you communicate, "you'd make someone a nice husband"!

[square634]

I don't say stats are completely invalid, of course not. They do track a players progress though the levels of the minor leagues. However, when it comes to predicting whether or not a player will make the successful transition to achieve major league sucess I say they are not worth much as it becomes a crap shoot with stats. Scouting and actual performance in spring training against major league competiton is far more telling.

So 30 at-bats in spring training, often against minor league talent since the established starters don't play much, means more than entire minor league seasons?

[DrungoHazewood]

Since I am getting kicked around like a pro league soccer ball on the other (Bynum) thread, I will lay out a challenge to anyone who thinks they are so certain that minor league stats will predict sucess at the major league level.

I want to know who (based on stats) in the Orioles minor leagues will be the next sucessful major leaguer? You cannot use Wieters as he has zero stats so far!

If stats are so reliable pick this one "can't miss" position player and if you end up being right I will bear a signature for a year that I bow to all stats gurus. If you are wrong, you will bear a signature that predicting a future major leage player based on stats is a crapshoot (like I bear in mine).

When I say sucessful, I mean a guy who once he gets called up remains on the team and stays in the lineup for at least two full seasons as a starter in the major leagues, or however long it takes to be tenured.

The challenge is laid! ( I am extremely confident you can't do it!)

Ha! You'd love that wouldn't you. I'm not falling for it - it's a challenge that can have no winners.

[Baltimoron]

Statistics are just data.

What happens next is largely a function of the intelligence of the individual attempting to use that data.

Surprised and so sorry to hear the data has not been very helpful to you,

Baltimoron

[DrungoHazewood]

No, you are not understanding what I am maintaining. This whole thing started because Drungo made a post on the Bynum thread that Bynum's performance at the major league level (hitting-wise) must be a fluke. I totally rebuked that statement as ludicrous and not supported by anything. Of course I get the argument of his minor league stats, blah, blah, blah.

So again I say that is meaningless when it comes to determining whether a player will suceed or not at the major league level. There is no way of knowing for certain until they are given the opportunity to suceed or fail. That is how this whole argument evolved. Right now Freddie Bynum is living proof that minor league stats are not reliable at proving major league sucess. So there, now do you get the point I have been espousing most of the day?

This post frames the issue with perfect clarity. It needs no further illumination.

[Eli Eon]

Nothing I said had anything to do with the minor leagues. I'm pretty sure there weren't any minor leagues when Cobb played.

And I definitely never said anything like the sentence I bolded.

What I was addressing was your assertion that you can only judge a player if you've seen them with your own eyes. That is essentially saying, "I'm going to ignore the fact that stats tell me Ty Cobb got on base 43% of the time because I haven't seen him get on base 43% of the time. I haven't seen him play, so I don't know if he was good. There certainly aren't ways of writing it down whether or not he was good, because that involves numbers and counting and those things scare me." You're implying that only people who have personally seen someone play can judge his talent. And that is stupid.

That's what I was saying. You can keep cherrypicking so that the argument fits your maniacal idea of logic, but if you at all want to try to regain your dignity I wouldn't suggest it. Oh wait, forgot, you're a Christ figure rebel who everyone is unjustly crucifying. Whoops.

*goes back to being sheeple*

Where in heavens name have I ever refuted stats supporting any HOF player? My God you people try to stretch what I post to ridiculous falsehoods! I am talking about stats to support something in the future, specifically whether a player will develop into a sucessful major league player.

[DrungoHazewood]

Ty Cobb proved himself on the major league field as did any HOF player. I would imagine most of their stats in the minors were good. However all minor league players with good stats don't become HOF major leaguers. So that is like saying, I saw the Mona Lisa and it is a great artwork ergo DaVinci must have been a great artist. No Duh? Some players in the HOF never even played much minor league ball like Al Kaline who was drafted right out of high school and made it to the bigs almost immediately.

The point I am making is stats are pretty much worthless in foretelling the future major league sucess of a minor league player. Once they hit the majors anything can happen.

This just shows you have a fundamental misunderstanding of this entire argument.

[square634]

No, you are not understanding what I am maintaining. This whole thing started because Drungo made a post on the Bynum thread that Bynum's performance at the major league level (hitting-wise) must be a fluke. I totally rebuked that statement as ludicrous and not supported by anything. Of course I get the argument of his minor league stats, blah, blah, blah.

So again I say that is meaningless when it comes to determining whether a player will suceed or not at the major league level. There is no way of knowing for certain until they are given the opportunity to suceed or fail. That is how this whole argument evolved. Right now Freddie Bynum is living proof that minor league stats are not reliable at proving major league sucess. So there, now do you get the point I have been espousing most of the day?

David Newhan was living proof too. How did that turn out? There is no way of knowing for certain, but I'd rather play the odds. Do you actually believe someone with a .600 OPS in AA has the same chance of being a successful hitter in the ML as someone with a .900 OPS in AA with all other variables (age, home park, etc) being equal?

[Mackus]

So again I say that is meaningless when it comes to determining whether a player will suceed or not at the major league level. There is no way of knowing for certain until they are given the opportunity to suceed or fail. That is how this whole argument evolved. Right now Freddie Bynum is living proof that minor league stats are not reliable at proving major league sucess. So there, now do you get the point I have been espousing most of the day?

I don't agree that Freddy Bynum will hit (over a full season's worth of at bats to a career's worth) particularly better at the MLB level than he did in the MiLB level, but for the sake of argument, lets say he will.

Why would a few handfuls of exceptions to the rule make the rule invalid? Nobody is saying a guy with poor minor league stats can never be a good MLB player. We are saying it is unlikely (and it is unlikely) but strange things happen all the time in baseball. Just because something is possible, doesn't mean it is likely, or that you should bet your money on it.

Freddy Bynum will most likely hit in the major leagues about as well as he did in the minors. Maybe he'll be one of the few to buck the trend (and his 200 or so major league at bats don't prove that yet, but I digress), but even if he is, it doesn't make another player with the exact same MiLB stats as Freddy any more likely to do the same thing.

Rules have exceptions. But you don't bank on or hope for the exceptions. You bet on the rule, and just take it as a lucky or fortuitous break when you find someone who breaks the rule (possibly like Jeremy Guthrie, although even his one good full season is a fairly small sample size and will need to be repeated before we know anything for sure).

[os1971]

I am not espousing it to be a crap shoot with scouts. I am espousing that using stats only as a prediction is a crap shoot.

I'm not really sure where you are going. Now we have to take scouting out of the equation? Would that mean that someone taking your challenge couldn't refer to scouting reports as well?

Just for curiosity I went back a couple years and gathered the top prospects for 2005. As you can see, a very high percentage of those players are making significant contributions at the ML level right now.

Now of course you can say the players abilities were well scouted, but it would also be a fair to say that each of these players probably totalled some fairly impressive minor league statistics while verifying that ability.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/features/04top10s/index.html

[The Wedge]

He reminds me of Dogberry from "Much Ado About Nothing."

[Eli Eon]

Ha! You'd love that wouldn't you. I'm not falling for it - it's a challenge that can have no winners.

Sure there is a winner. I have yet to get a challenger so I must have won. However, I don't care about winning, I just what someone, anyone on this esteemed Hangout Site to show me where stats of Orioles minor league players currently in the system will predict which player will have a sucessful major league career. Nobody, can do it. Ergo, my point has been made that stats in this situation (an interpretation or indicators of future success) are worthless tools.

They do have value as measures compared to other minor leaguers and individual progress, but when it comes to sole use as a measurement of future major league sucess they are of little value. In fact, no better than random selection as a tool.