BA's Carolina League Top Twenty

[crawdad]

You're taking this far too seriously. If you think you don't bring "bias" to the table when you look at things, then you're bringing more to the table than I even imagined. The point wasn't to point out any disingenuousness. It's to point out how difficult it is to see things objectively, especially when dealing with imperfect information and small samples.

Needless to say, it's not a dialogue I'll wade into again. Thanks for everything so far, though. I thought it was pretty enligthening. I hope the board did too.

Then phrase it next time in a far less confrontational manner.

[Lucky Jim]

Next time do not slander my scientific process. Claiming that I only consider information that supports me is an attack on my character. This is not about people being oversensitive. It is about being able to engage in a conversation by critiquing the idea and not the person who devised a process.

You've crafted a narrative that fits you pre-determination, and you've propped it up w/ what's available.

Your pre-determination: that BB wasn't a major league starter.

Your narrative: that BB wasn't a major league starter when he came up, but learned a curve ball and so became one.

Your support: the small sample of games in BB's rookie year.

Do you dispute any of that?

I wasn't slandering anything. Why wouldn't you choose the narrative that deviates least from your beliefs?

I was pointing out the problems I noted in my post just above.

[Lucky Jim]

Then phrase it next time in a far less confrontational manner.

Yes. The problem in this thread - and its current derailing - is almost certainly my tone.

It's one of two certainties we've uncovered: the paradigm-shifting force of BB's curveball and that my devil's advocacy is "slanderous."

[Stotle]

Your pre-determination: that BB wasn't a major league starter.

Your narrative: that BB wasn't a major league starter when he came up, but learned a curve ball and so became one became one.

Your support: the small sample of games in BB's rookie year.

Do you dispute any of that?

I wasn't slandering anything. Why wouldn't you buy into a narrative that doesn't deviate from your beliefs?

I was pointing out the problems I noted in my post just above.

Jim, you're a great guy to debate with (despite having too much "litigator" in you), but this was wrong, no matter how you spin it:

You've crafted a narrative that fits you pre-determination, and you've propped it up w/ what's available.

You mention Craw as a "savvy" poster, state that he looks for preciseness, then acuse him of creating a narrative to fit his pre-determination? Craw has never in discussion avoided evidence for the purpose of a narrative. Last year, he and I would have loved to believe that Cabrera had turned things around in April/May, but his pitch f/x analysis and my charting showed us that it looked to be more smoke and mirrors than anything. We would have loved to create some sort of analysis that woudl allow us to say "We think THIS is why Cabrera is now pitching so well." But there wasn't anything there to support it.

What Craw did here was use

1) what he and I have discussed through Bergy's MiL career (projection),

2) what he saw from Bergy's starts in April/May,

3) what he and I discussed re: Bergy's stuff in those starts and what we expected to happen and what he needed to fix,

4) what he saw from Bergy's starts in June/July/August,

5) what he and I discussed re: Bergy's stuff in those starts and what we expected to happen in the future

As extra info, he pointed to pitch f/x to confirm when he began throwing his curve. This isn't a scientific study, it's someone making a quasi-scouting assessment and pointing out what he thinks the difference maker has been.

I have no doubt that Craw could break down a bunch of stats to see what else has changed aside from the curve, but the fact is that the timing of the addition of the curve matches a turnaround, and also matches analysis that we set forth well before the curve was used.

Instead of acusing him of creating a narrative, maybe you could have presented something, anything, to explain the turnaround? His first pitch strikes were up, his strikes on SL % was up, whatever. That could have progressed a conversation. But you were content to frame his statements as if he had performed a study and then accused him of reaching a conclusion without evidence. That seems needlessly confrontational and adversarial.

Maybe it's an overreaction, but I know I feel the same way when someone decides they want to "exchange words" for no real reason, and starts accusing me of claiming to be smarter than the FO folks, or to know better than professionals and national publications. Having hard evidence and support is excellent when we are debating on here, but sometimes people have to be allowed to just have an opinion on the matter, no? Sometimes it should be enough to point to a correlation and say, "It looks like X because of Y." without being chastised for not accompanying the statement with a study of some sort.

Anyway, happy Friday.

[Stotle]

Yes. The problem in this thread - and its current derailing - is almost certainly my tone.

It's one of two certainties we've uncovered: the paradigm-shifting force of BB's curveball and that my devil's advocacy is "slanderous."

I mean this with as little disrespect as possible -- I can see why you were drawn to litigation. You verbally poke, prod, and needle with the best of 'em...

[wickedwitch]

I think folks who thought he would do well up here were focusing on minor league statistics like ERA. ... He was considered basically fully baked as a smart pitcher with average stuff.

No. You considered him a fully baked pitcher. I did not. I believed that someone who improved as much as Bergesen did in 2008 will probably make additional improvements in the future. I used the same reasoning for this season's prospect ranking.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are writing. From what I can tell, you are saying that Bergesen was going to probably be a middle reliever and anyone who thought otherwise was doing so based on poor reasoning, such as MiLB ERA. If this is how you feel, then I take offense to that.

I'm not amazing with projecting what prospects do. I don't appreciate having one of the few things that I got correct that others didn't dismissed.

[crawdad]

No. You considered him a fully baked pitcher. I did not. I believed that someone who improved as much as Bergesen did in 2008 will probably make additional improvements in the future. I used the same reasoning for this season's prospect ranking.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting what you are writing. From what I can tell, you are saying that Bergesen was going to probably be a middle reliever and anyone who thought otherwise was doing so based on poor reasoning, such as MiLB ERA. If this is how you feel, then I take offense to that.

I'm not amazing with projecting what prospects do. I don't appreciate having one of the few things that I got correct that others didn't dismissed.

It was the consensus assessment from the trade journals. That is what I mean. I am not in your head.

[Lucky Jim]

Jim, you're a great guy to debate with (despite having too much "litigator" in you), but this was wrong, no matter how you spin it:

You mention Craw as a "savvy" poster, state that he looks for preciseness, then acuse him of creating a narrative to fit his pre-determination? Craw has never in discussion avoided evidence for the purpose of a narrative. Last year, he and I would have loved to believe that Cabrera had turned things around in April/May, but his pitch f/x analysis and my charting showed us that it looked to be more smoke and mirrors than anything. We would have loved to create some sort of analysis that woudl allow us to say "We think THIS is why Cabrera is now pitching so well." But there wasn't anything there to support it.

What Craw did here was use

1) what he and I have discussed through Bergy's MiL career (projection),

2) what he saw from Bergy's starts in April/May,

3) what he and I discussed re: Bergy's stuff in those starts and what we expected to happen and what he needed to fix,

4) what he saw from Bergy's starts in June/July/August,

5) what he and I discussed re: Bergy's stuff in those starts and what we expected to happen in the future

As extra info, he pointed to pitch f/x to confirm when he began throwing his curve. This isn't a scientific study, it's someone making a quasi-scouting assessment and pointing out what he thinks the difference maker has been.

I have no doubt that Craw could break down a bunch of stats to see what else has changed aside from the curve, but the fact is that the timing of the addition of the curve matches a turnaround, and also matches analysis that we set forth well before the curve was used.

Instead of acusing him of creating a narrative, maybe you could have presented something, anything, to explain the turnaround? His first pitch strikes were up, his strikes on SL % was up, whatever. That could have progressed a conversation. But you were content to frame his statements as if he had performed a study and then accused him of reaching a conclusion without evidence. That seems needlessly confrontational and adversarial.

Maybe it's an overreaction, but I know I feel the same way when someone decides they want to "exchange words" for no real reason, and starts accusing me of claiming to be smarter than the FO folks, or to know better than professionals and national publications. Having hard evidence and support is excellent when we are debating on here, but sometimes people have to be allowed to just have an opinion on the matter, no? Sometimes it should be enough to point to a correlation and say, "It looks like X because of Y." without being chastised for not accompanying the statement with a study of some sort.

Anyway, happy Friday.

First, the Cabrera reference is inapposite. Unless you were claiming that Cabrera was a TOR starter. The point here was about how a pre-determination of Bergesen's value effects an understanding of an apparent change in value. The first instinct is to look for something that wasn't available before. Like a new pitch. I mean, it's basic stuff. Giuliani capitalizes politically on his "broken windows" policing technique because it coincides with lower crime rates and the public buys it because it's easier to see than other subterranean forces. Is it a component? Perhaps. Likely, even. But how big? Would we argue that "broken windows" was "world changing" and the reason why NY crime went from "bad" to "good"? Well, he did. And the public bought it.

Second, you've built a kind of strawman. I didn't attempt to knock down some tentative hypothesis. Compare these two quotes. First Craw's. Then yours.

Lets not get ahead of ourselves, Bergesen's coming out party was a product of utilizing a brand new pitch once he hit the majors. It was not a product of what he was doing in the minors.

It seems many scouts have a hard time distinguishing between genuinely good groundball out guys and bad ones. Next season will be a good indication of which camp Britton falls into. Bergie was a bad groundball out guy . . . but, again, he figured out a curveball and the world changed for him.

Sometimes it should be enough to point to a correlation and say, "It looks like X because of Y." without being chastised for not accompanying the statement with a study of some sort.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to say that BB was a marginal starter candidate with a (very) good sinking fastball who needed something else to maximize at the MLB level. And that it appears that the curve is playing that role. It's another thing to say that his success was "not the product of what he did in the minors" (i.e., not his sinking fastball) and that he was "bad" until his seldom-used curveball "changed his world."

I wasn't requiring a study. I was pointing out the extremity and certainty of those statements were problematic. And they remain so.

They treat Bergsen's projection/slotting as if it were more certain than it was. And they treat the relationship of the curveball to his success as more certain than it is.

I wouldn't even have responded to a statement that said what yours does - I've agreed w/ that point from the beginning. I think the curve was a significant factor.

I was merely trying to point out the ways in which we fill in the gaps where we don't have perfect, or even complete, or really even empirical, information, and the ways in which those attempts to fill in gaps are influenced by preconceptions. These are imperfect sciences, and we often scramble for ways to rationalize things that conflict with what we believe. But those attempts to rationalize are merely hypotheses. And should be treated as hypotheses and not certainties. When we treat them as certainties, then we ratify imperfect conclusions and create false certainties - in this case, Craw took a hypotheses and used it to retrospectively validate or make certain what was a mere probability: that a MiL BB wasn't going to cut it as a starter at the MLB level.

Finally, as for the bolded/ital'd portion, I've never done either, and I've defended both of you in those very dialogues. It's a little narrow-sighted to lump me into that category of anti-elitist posters. In fact, when I stopped posting it was due to the blow-back I received for taking up the mantle of anti-elitism in defense of a PitchFX post by you.

I only played this game today because I thought that it would be educational. I challenge my objectivity in my positions constantly. I try to be a hawk about it. Playing that role with others is no more disrespectful than what I do internally as part of my job on a daily basis.

I mean this with as little disrespect as possible -- I can see why you were drawn to litigation. You verbally poke, prod, and needle with the best of 'em...

Look, I'm not going to feel disrespected because you've sided (once again) with Craw. That's to be expected. Arguing with one of you is arguing with both of you. It makes it a challenge, if sometimes also a chore. But I'm being unfairly criticized here for a conversation in which I made no personal attacks whatsoever.

A discussion of the way in which biases intrude upon objective analysis isn't slanderous. It's not a personal attack. And it shouldn't be treated as such.

[Stotle]

First, the Cabrera reference is inapposite. Unless you were claiming that Cabrera was a TOR starter. The point here was about how a pre-determination of Bergesen's value effects an understanding of an apparent change in value. The first instinct is to look for something that wasn't available before. Like a new pitch. I mean, it's basic stuff. Giuliani capitalizes politically on his "broken windows" policing technique because it coincides with lower crime rates and the public buys it because it's easier to see than other subterranean forces. Is it a component? Perhaps. Likely, even. But how big? Would we argue that "broken windows" was "world changing" and the reason why NY crime went from "bad" to "good"? Well, he did. And the public bought it.

Second, you've built a kind of strawman. I didn't attempt to knock down some tentative hypothesis. Compare these two quotes. First Craw's. Then yours.

Do you see the difference? It's one thing to say that BB was a marginal starter candidate with a (very) good sinking fastball who needed something else to maximize at the MLB level. And that it appears that the curve is playing that role. It's another thing to say that his success was "not the product of what he did in the minors" (i.e., not his sinking fastball) and that he was "bad" until his seldom-used curveball "changed his world."

I wasn't requiring a study. I was pointing out the extremity and certainty of those statements were problematic. And they remain so.

They treat Bergsen's projection/slotting as if it were more certain than it was. And they treat the relationship of the curveball to his success as more certain than it is.

I wouldn't even have responded to a statement that said what yours does - I've agreed w/ that point from the beginning. I think the curve was a significant factor.

I was merely trying to point out the ways in which we fill in the gaps where we don't have empirical information, and the ways in which those attempts to fill in gaps are influenced by preconceptions. These are imperfect sciences, and we often scramble for ways to rationalize things that conflict with what we believe. But those attempts to rationalize are merely hypotheses. And should be treated as hypotheses and not certainties. When we treat them as certainties, then we ratify imperfect conclusions and create false certainties - in this case, Craw took a hypotheses and used it to retrospectively validate or make certain what was a mere probability: that a MiL BB wasn't going to cut it as a starter at the MLB level.

Finally, as for the bolded/ital'd portion, I've never done either, and I've defended both of you in those very dialogues. It's a little narrow-sighted to lump me into that category of anti-elitist posters. In fact, when I stopped posting it was due to the blow-back I received for taking up the mantle of anti-elitism in defense of a PitchFX post by you.

I only played this game today because I thought that it would be educational. I challenge my objectivity in my positions constantly. I try to be a hawk about it. Playing that role with others is no more disrespectful than what I do internally as part of my job on a daily basis.

Look, I'm not going to feel disrespected because you've sided (once again) with Craw. That's to be expected. Arguing with one of you is arguing with both of you. It makes it a challenge, if sometimes also a chore. But I'm being unfairly criticized here for a conversation in which I made no personal attacks whatsoever.

A discussion of the way in which biases intrude upon objective analysis isn't slanderous. It's not a personal attack. And it shouldn't be treated as such.

All fair points. I think Craw took more offense to your word choice in challenging his thoughts, and I agree I thought it was needlessly confrontational (the wording, not necessarily the "context").

This isn't my fight, and I generally enjoy debating with both of you. Just cause Craw and I do our debating via email instead of in the public doesn't mean we're lock-step all the time, but I understand why it would appear that way.

I think there is some overly sensative sentiments from Craw, some poor word choice from you and me butting in for no reason. Let's all just move on. Maybe we'll someday read an article/interview with Bergy or Kanitz and see if there is anything in particular he credits with his success this summer.

For the record, I don't think your use of "product of what he did in the minors" is correct, when discussing player development. Ditto witch's comment re: improving. I think development is generally a fluid process that can break in multiple directions, but there are certain skillsets, tools, characteristics that are generally easier to project or state with certainty. My personal opinion is that Bergy's arsenal is one of those skillsets, which is why it's so very easy for me to tie his success to his curve. But I understand why you might not buy into it, or why witch would express the sentiment that she expected Bergy to continue to develop. I'm not dismissing either of your points of view, I just happen to disagree in this case. And I'm sure I could be the one that's out in LF here.

[crawdad]

Again . . . because you seem far more interested in being defensive and not recognizing how you crossed the line and were slanderous. The only thing I can think of is that you are wholly ignorant about hypothesis creation and experimental design as it pertains to science. Otherwise, you would have chosen your words more carefully and understood what I was presenting was at no point a study of any kind. You may think you are being a devil's advocate, but you are not. You are being combative and insulting. You choose to ignore the ideas and instead abstractly critique the character of me and now Stotle. Your claiming that Stotle is sticking up for me paints us as having no desire for the truth, rather to support each other's ego against any attack on our standing. That is disrespectful as well.

So here is my view:

1) I have explained my original statement. Consensus opinion was that he was not the pitcher he is. I agreed. He came and performed as consensus opinion and myself thought he would. He then introduced a curveball and everything seemed to change as to where he fits on a team. I used colorful language like the world changing meaning that he would start games and probably make money. I'm not sure why there was a hangup here. I have explained this in multiple ways.

2) I informed you that I did not have time to run a proper study. I checked a couple things very quickly. I mentioned that this could all be a coincidence, but that in my opinion it would be an interesting coincidence.

3) Stotle brought up IP. You said the data was messy. I replied that IP is not really very messy. I then reiterated my position and informed you that his peripherals were not very interesting before that timepoint. That the only thing I can find is that curveball and that it seemed to affect the slider. You brought up the sample size is small. Of course, it is small and sample size issues are a concern no matter if there is significance. Significance is relatively and type I and II errors can always creep up. We are trying to discern conclusions from very tiny time points . . . which is why we are incorporating consensus scouting in the discussion.

4) Then you choose to insult me.

[crawdad]

Yeah . . . lets just move on. I think emotions are high and nothing much more useful is going to come from this.

[Lucky Jim]

All fair points. I think Craw took more offense to your word choice in challenging his thoughts, and I agree I thought it was needlessly confrontational (the wording, not necessarily the "context").

This isn't my fight, and I generally enjoy debating with both of you. Just cause Craw and I do our debating via email instead of in the public doesn't mean we're lock-step all the time, but I understand why it would appear that way.

I think there is some overly sensative sentiments from Craw, some poor word choice from you and me butting in for no reason. Let's all just move on. Maybe we'll someday read an article/interview with Bergy or Kanitz and see if there is anything in particular he credits with his success this summer.

For the record, I don't think your use of "product of what he did in the minors" is correct, when discussing player development. Ditto witch's comment re: improving. I think development is generally a fluid process that can break in multiple directions, but there are certain skillsets, tools, characteristics that are generally easier to project or state with certainty. My personal opinion is that Bergy's arsenal is one of those skillsets, which is why it's so very easy for me to tie his success to his curve. But I understand why you might not buy into it, or why witch would express the sentiment that she expected Bergy to continue to develop. I'm not dismissing either of your points of view, I just happen to disagree in this case. And I'm sure I could be the one that's out in LF here.

I'm not saying I'm not at all to blame, either. Look, no question, I can be a bull in a china shop at times. But to be honest, I only had this conversation w/ the two of you because I thought I was in a bull ring, not a china shop. I wouldn't waste my time arguing w/ you if I didn't think I was going to learn something from it.

There was never any disrespect intended. I've just learned you have to go harder after folks who can do things that you can't in order to learn from them.

[Stotle]

I'm not saying I'm not at all to blame, either. Look, no question, I can be a bull in a china shop at times. But to be honest, I only had this conversation w/ the two of you because I thought I was in a bull ring, not a china shop. I wouldn't waste my time arguing w/ you if I didn't think I was going to learn something from it.

There was never any disrespect intended. I've just learned you have to go harder after folks who can do things that you can't in order to learn from them.

That's all well and good. I don't mind mixing it up, but for me there are certain statements that trigger a switch from debating to attacking (in my case, overstating my points when it comes to player assessment). I'd guess Jon feels the same way about people directly questioning his scientific methods (as opposed to, say, his logic in formulating a baseball argument).

Anyway, moving on.

[Tony-OH]

Honestly, this thread has derailed into some boring court room drama where a couple lawyers try to out lawyer each other.

This is baseball guys...freakin' relax a little.