Two Myths I'm Ready to Debunk

[Sports Guy]

Utley wasn't necessarily a better prospect. He was never ranked in the top 100 like Cust was until Utley posted his breakout season. And Utley had 28 errors in 2002 and a Field PCt of .918. So his defense was not up to par.

I was using Baseball reference's minor league stats. Utley did have 20 HBP in 2002 so his OBP might be off on Baseball Reference.

Your example is poor...You want to throw out the league factors but they are huge.

You are also throwing out positions which are important.

Now, with that being said, Cust has shown, this year, that he can hit with Utley at this level.

The difference is, Cust has had injury issues and he hasn't gotten the oppurtunity until right now.

[DrungoHazewood]

Now the key to my last post was to figure out the year-to-year variation of major league players and compare that to the Davenport minor league translations.

Luckily we have this data from 1991-2003, for all seasons with 200+ PAs:

Metric   R-Squared   Standard Deviation AVG       0.1761           0.031 OBP       0.3820           0.041 SLG       0.4171           0.080 

So last year's batting average is good, within one standard deviation, of predicting this year's batting average ±31 points. If batting average is distributed normally one standard deviation is 68%, so 68% of players would be within 31 points of last year's batting average.

[tywright]

Utley was 23 in 2004...He put up an 813 OPS, which was 67 points higher than he did in A+ ball...That is a good sign.

Utley also improved his BB and K rates as he moved from A+ to AA.

No question Utley was improving (I actually picked up Utley in my DEEP keeper league prior to his breakout season). The real issue was which player would you have taken in 2002 (only take into account the stats and not defensive ability). Cust would have been taken by a majority of GMs

[rolliefingers]

You really think Cust was a great player because he was in the PCL? He had much better seasons prior to 2001 and 2002 when he was in the PCL.

I was not taking into account defensive ability, just straight hitting stats.

I'm saying his hitting stats - while still good - were inflated because he was in the PCL. Utley's were suppressed because he was in the IL.

And in the real world, you do take defense into account. I can't believe it's taking a "stat guy" to point out that MLB isn't fantasy baseball, but here I am.

[Sports Guy]

Who would have thought that after seeing their minor league stats? Hmmm

Well, if you take into account his improvement in the minors and take into effect the park and league factors, it is possible that you would have thought this at the time.

Of course, Cust had a much larger sample size in the minors as well, so you had a better feel for him....If you push this example into the next year, when Utley had an OPS over 900, you feel differently.

Utley had almost 1100 pro ab's after the 2002 season was over....Cust had over 2100 ab's.

[rolliefingers]

The real issue was which player would you have taken in 2002 (only take into account the stats and not defensive ability). Cust would have been taken by a majority of GMs

There's simply no way that's correct. Cust can really only play DH, which rules out 16 or 30 MLB teams. There are probably a lot of AL teams who would have taken Utley over Cust.

Your argument is absurd.

[tywright]

Your example is poor...You want to throw out the league factors but they are huge.

You are also throwing out positions which are important.

Now, with that being said, Cust has shown, this year, that he can hit with Utley at this level.

The difference is, Cust has had injury issues and he hasn't gotten the oppurtunity until right now.

I was responding to your statement that if you take into account hitting stats, the one with the best stats wins out. Correct?

And Cust is hitting .255 with 142K's right now. Utley is hitting 84 pts higher with an OPS of .987 compared to Cust's .911 OPS. Cust is Rob Deer, Pete Incavilgia, etc. He can't match Utley's hitting ability

[rolliefingers]

I was responding to your statement that if you take into account hitting stats, the one with the best stats wins out. Correct?

And Cust is hitting .255 with 142K's right now. Utley is hitting 84 pts higher with an OPS of .987 compared to Cust's .911 OPS. Cust is Rob Deer, Pete Incavilgia, etc. He can't match Utley's hitting ability

Just stop. Please.

[tywright]

I'm saying his hitting stats - while still good - were inflated because he was in the PCL. Utley's were suppressed because he was in the IL.

And in the real world, you do take defense into account. I can't believe it's taking a "stat guy" to point out that MLB isn't fantasy baseball, but here I am.

Suppressed? You mean compared to the PCL yes, but look at his breakout year in 2003. Park factors didn't affect Utley. Let's start thinking in those terms.

[geschinger]

Who would have thought that after seeing their minor league stats? Hmmm

Utley's age and position made him a better prospect. If you take into account Cust's injury one could see that his MiL numbers meant that he'd likely have some success at the MLB level. After getting surgery on his wrists his MiL numbers went back up to what they were when he was putting up big MiL numbers (like those referenced in your comparison) and we've seen them translate pretty well at the Major League level this season.

[Sports Guy]

I was responding to your statement that if you take into account hitting stats, the one with the best stats wins out. Correct?

And Cust is hitting .255 with 142K's right now. Utley is hitting 84 pts higher with an OPS of .987 compared to Cust's .911 OPS. Cust is Rob Deer, Pete Incavilgia, etc. He can't match Utley's hitting ability

Cust is a much better on base guy than the ones you mentioned....His OBP is over 400 and his slugging is over 500 in an extreme pitcher's park.

Of course Utley is the better player and if you look at their minor league numbers as a whole, most intelligent people would have come to that conclusion as well.

What you are trying to do here is not make all things equal(referring back to my post that you originally quoted)....All things weren't equal because of experience and MiL ab's.

[Sports Guy]

Suppressed? You mean compared to the PCL yes, but look at his breakout year in 2003. Park factors didn't affect Utley. Let's start thinking in those terms.

Actually, it makes his 2003 season look that much more impressive.

[tywright]

There's simply no way that's correct. Cust can really only play DH, which rules out 16 or 30 MLB teams. There are probably a lot of AL teams who would have taken Utley over Cust.

Your argument is absurd.

In 2002? I don't think so. Cust already had 4 straight years of great minor league stats. NL teams would have stuck him somewhere. There's no question that Cust was viewed as a top prospect prior to 2002. Utley didn't break onto the scene until 2003. I know this because I followed his career intently.

[rolliefingers]

Suppressed? You mean compared to the PCL yes, but look at his breakout year in 2003. Park factors didn't affect Utley. Let's start thinking in those terms.

You're the only one arguing the point that Utley is a better player than Cust. Everyone else already knows that. Care to move on to a more relevant argument?

[tywright]

Utley's age and position made him a better prospect. If you take into account Cust's injury one could see that his MiL numbers meant that he'd likely have some success at the MLB level. After getting surgery on his wrists his MiL numbers went back up to what they were when he was putting up big MiL numbers (like those referenced in your comparison) and we've seen them translate pretty well at the Major League level this season.

Not in 2002...he was not a "better" prospect