Two Myths I'm Ready to Debunk

[hoosiers]

No, what I want is for people who routinely make broad sweeping claims to do their own homework to justify those claims, rather than demanding that others do it for them. What happens here is kinda like saying "Most elephants like to eat ketchup. Everybody knows that, so it's up to you to prove I'm wrong."

What makes it especially nuts is that the topic-at-hand is stats, and stats is precisely where people in other fields routinely address important issues about what conclusions stats do and do not warrant. I don't know why it's so hard to get simple answers to basic questions here.

I hear you, dog.

I'm tired of seeing obvious phrases like "I believe in scientific analysis", "the guys who are more likely to succeed are the ones who actually succeeded in the minors", and "reasonable standard deviation". A monkey could see the obvious truths in these statements. No one here is disputing them!

The simple question is - how big is the deviation? What is the likelihood that Jon Knott actually hits his major league equivalent number? Rshack and I should not have to ask Clay Davenport anything because we are not the ones making the (IMO, reckless) assertions about the ease with which one can predict that a particular minor leaguer's stats will be replacement level or better.

[osfan83]

Sound to me like you don't know how to justify the claims you make, and instead of saying that, you tell me to ask someone else. I didn't even ask you to justify your if-fy claim, I just asked you to point me to an article. The article you pointed me to had zilch to do with the question.

Do you understand the question? If you do, are you claiming that it's about semantics or arcane stuff? Or do you agree that it's important?

You are asking him for the acurracy of the forcasting tool, and he is pointing you in the direction of one the the inventors of this tool so you can ask him how accurate it is. seams reasonable to me.

[osfan83]

I hear you, dog.

I'm tired of seeing obvious phrases like "I believe in scientific analysis", "the guys who are more likely to succeed are the ones who actually succeeded in the minors", and "reasonable standard deviation". A monkey could see the obvious truths in these statements. No one here is disputing them!

The simple question is - how big is the deviation? What is the likelihood that Jon Knott actually hits his major league equivalent number? Rshack and I should not have to ask Clay Davenport anything because we are not the ones making the (IMO, reckless) assertions about the ease with which one can predict that a particular minor leaguer's stats will be replacement level or better.

You clearly don't want to know how big the deviation is. If you did, you would ask the man who can give you the answer.

[hoosiers]

I understand that past stats & peripherals can show trends, reasonable expectations, etc. BUT, many people here take them as a certainty of what players will do.

Witchy

This very nicely crystalizes the points Rshack and I have been trying to make. Many things accepted as "certainty" are done so because they are presented as such.

It's not rocket science to try to sign the best minor league free agents as potential replacement level (or better) players.

Heaven forbid one should ask about the size of that standard deviation or the statistical predictability of the planned event.

[rolliefingers]

Sound to me like you don't know how to justify the claims you make, and instead of saying that, you tell me to ask someone else. I didn't even ask you to justify your if-fy claim, I just asked you to point me to an article. The article you pointed me to had zilch to do with the question.

Do you understand the question? If you do, are you claiming that it's about semantics or arcane stuff? Or do you agree that it's important?

1.) Find Clay Davenport's e-mail address

2.) Ask him how reliable MiL stats are

3.) Report back to us

[DrungoHazewood]

Rshack and I should not have to ask Clay Davenport anything because we are not the ones making the (IMO, reckless) assertions about the ease with which one can predict that a particular minor leaguer's stats will be replacement level or better.

Sure you do, because you're the ones questioning the methods, results, and accuracy. You and Shack are the ones who want the information.

I've been reading and studying MLEs for 20+ years and have a good enough feeling about them to generally trust them. I don't need to personally quantify the standard deviation of Jon Knott's projections to make myself confident in what they mean or don't mean. I don't know if there's a 50% or an 80% chance he'll nail his projection from this year, and I don't really care. I have a pretty firm idea of what kind of major league player he is, and that's good enough. That's all we have for Jay Payton or anyone, and when the differences are large I have confidence that most of Knott's curve is better than most of Payton's.

[hoosiers]

You clearly don't want to know how big the deviation is. If you did, you would ask the man who can give you the answer.

I believe it is the people standing by and bragging about the reliability of the forecasting tool who should be the ones who "ask the man".

If it were me, I certainly would not be advocating results of the forecasting tool to other people before clearly understanding it's reliability.

[Sports Guy]

Hoosiers...Do you think we should hand the SS job to Luis Hernandez next year?(assume Tejada is dealt or moved to third)

[BRobinsonfan]

I believe it is the people standing by and bragging about the reliability of the forecasting tool who should be the ones who "ask the man".

If it were me, I certainly would not be advocating results of the forecasting tool to other people before clearly understanding it's reliability.

Well.... what forecasting tool do you advocate? What method do you trust? Will you use statistics to justify that tool... or just "a feeling" you have?

[DrungoHazewood]

Here.

or Here

These don't have a lot to do with MLEs, but PECOTA forecasts both minors-to-majors and majors-to-majors performances.

[birdsncrabs]

Rshack and I should not have to ask Clay Davenport anything because we are not the ones making the (IMO, reckless) assertions about the ease with which one can predict that a particular minor leaguer's stats will be replacement level or better.

If I create a thread saying that I am going to debunk the "myth" of God, then the onus is on me to prove that God does not exist, not criticize the proponents that they have not proved that God does exists...

[BRobinsonfan]

Here's another good source:

http://krex.k-state.edu/dspace/bitstream/2097/149/1/GaryBrentJohnson2006.pdf

[Fan4Life]

But that's exactly the mistake: this is NOT primarily a semantic argument. It is a substantive argument about how people typically use stats around here. Saying it's "just semantics" is how people improperly dismiss something that matters a lot.

What happens around here routinely is that several people implicitly treat MiL stats as if they are reliable predictors of a given individual's performance, and then say they don't do that. But they do. Then, they play what *is* a semantic game by saying, "Hey, I never said it was 100% guaranteed".

They will say, and have, that they have never said it is/was a 100% given that MiLB stats are a reliable predictor of MLB performance, however, they do 100% of the time go with the guy that has the best MiLB stats... is it also possible that a guy with average to poor MiLB stats can out-perform another MiLB player with considerably better stats at the MLB level? Because this is where they ALWAYS go with stats when chosing who to give playing time to...

[Sports Guy]

They will say, and have, that they have never said it is/was a 100% given that MiLB stats are a reliable predictor of MLB performance, however, they do 100% of the time go with the guy that has the best MiLB stats... is it also possible that a guy with average to poor MiLB stats can out-perform another MiLB player with considerably better stats at the MLB level? Because this is where they ALWAYS go with stats when chosing who to give playing time to...

People don't always go that way...Age, park factors, scouting reports and things like that all go into the decision.

The being said, if everything else is equal and one guy is putting up better numbers than the other, of course you look towards the guy who has performed better...Isn't that just common sense?

[BRobinsonfan]

The being said, if everything else is equal and one guy is putting up better numbers than the other, of course you look towards the guy who has performed better...Isn't that just common sense?

And the silence from the other side is deafening!