What if they all suck

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you.

I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this.

As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there.

But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought.

But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and theories into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size.

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you.

I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this.

As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there.

But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought.

But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

No. You're not the one who brought up "prospects". And I wasn't addressing you when I challenged the "prospects" theory. But I dismissed your post-season chart because it had nothing to do with what I was writing. You inserted yourself into a disagreement I was having with Edgy, not with you (nothing wrong with that, you're always welcome) but then began to inject irrelevant data and ideas into the disagreement. And this is all about sample size.

And another thing: every pro was once a prospect. So if NFL prospects are supposed to be better, then that means that NFL players collectively are better than MLB players and that's why the best NFL teams have .800 winning percentages. Just crazy talk. They have .800 winning percentage because they play 17 games. If they could play 100 game seasons, or 162 game seasons, they wouldn't come even remotely close to having .800 winning percentages.

[batmagadanleadoff]

As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips.

This makes no sense. There's luck and randomness in sport and there's luck and randomness in football. For example, one of the most important football stats that correlates very positively to a football team's wins is how often a team's defense recovers the offensive team's fumbles. But whether the offense or the defense recovers a fumble is entirely luck. Pure 100% luck. But I never said that a sport or a football game was all luck and randomness. The current Chiefs don't start off 0-4 because for the past few years, they've consistently been one of the NFL's best teams, if not the best team outright. This doesn't mean that there isn't any luck and randomness in NFL. But again, this has nothing to do with why the best NFL teams have higher winning percentages than the best MLB teams. It's the number of games played that comprises their regular seasons. It's sample size. Nothing more.

[batmagadanleadoff]

This is such a strange conversation. You keep quoting me and then having this argument about prospects but I'm pretty sure I'm not having that argument with you.

I mean. You asked me about prospects, so I answered you a few posts ago. I think baseball prospects are harder to project than other sports. I don't really have more to say on that, nor do I even really feel strong about what I said earlier. I'm not sure why we're discussing this.

As to randomness of baseball games, yes. I believe baseball wins/losses are more random than other sports. And I think it's not just the sample size, nor even mostly sample size. If it were just sample size, then there would be seasons where the Kansas City Chiefs start 0-4, just like in coin flips. But they don't. They win every year, while good teams in baseball like the Mets and Braves start a combined 0-13 over the past two years. So I believe there's more to it there.

But then I did the Super Bowl vs. World Series comparison and I found that it wasn't nearly as random on the baseball side as I thought. I thought when I started I'd be able to show that the best teams make the Super Bowl each year, while the World Series is a crap shoot. But it ended up being much closer than I thought. It looks like even in baseball, the better teams tend to make it to the WS. So maybe baseball isn't as random as I thought.

But neither of these are my actual points. My actual point is that all our young guys suck. And Brett Baty sucks most of all.

I mean, this is just mind boggling. If the NFL played a three game schedule, the best teams would have perfect 1.000 winning percentages. And then what would you say? That NFL teams have 1.000 winning percentages because NFL players are bet ter and because there's little or no randomness in football? And how would you even determine that football players are better than baseball players? A hot dog eating contest? Tug-o-war?

[MFS62]

In all the sports mentioned, the teams with the worst records get to draft earlier than the teams with better records. And in all of those sports, there are only so may top tier prospects each year. So that is the only direct relationship I can see between a winning record and the potential for prospect success. Other factors, such as the quality of scouting, player development, coaching and injuries IMO have greater impact on whether a given player will be successful..

Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

In all the sports mentioned, the teams with the worst records get to draft earlier than the teams with better records. And I all of those sports, there are only so may top tier prospects each year. So that is the only direct relationship I can see between a winning record and the potential for prospect success. Other factors, such as the quality of scouting, player development, coaching and injuries IMO have greater impact on whether a given player will be successful..

Later

And your point is ....? What?

[batmagadanleadoff]

Small sample sizes produce extreme statistics. Not only on the high end, but on the low end. The smaller the schedule of games played, the more extreme the winning percentages. If the NFL played a three game schedule, not only would you have undefeated teams, but you'd, just the same, have winless teams. What would you then say about the abundance of winless teams? That the NFL prospects are bad?

It's the sample size.

[MFS62]

And your point is ....? What?

I'm agreeing with you.
Later

[batmagadanleadoff]

It's the sample size. Nothing but the sample size. I checked out the MLB standings for the last five seasons as of April 19th.

Here are the best records:

4/19/2019
TB Rays - 14-6 .700

4/19/2020
No games - Covid-19

4/19/2021
LA Dodgers - 13-4 .765

4/19/2022
NY Mets 9-3 .750
LA Dodgers 8-3 .727
Col Rockies 8-3 .727

4/19/2023
TB Rays - 16-3 .842
Atl Braves 14-5 .737
Mil Brewers 14-5 .737

4/19/2024
Atl Braves 13-5 .727

With a small sample size, the best MLB WL percentages are well over .700 and some, closer to .800; in one case, well over .800. It's because they've played few games. Small sample sizes are unreliable because they yield extreme data. It's the sample size. Not the quality of the prospects, or luck or randomness or anything else other than the small sample size of games. Note that none of the teams listed above came even remotely close to maintaining their April 19 WL rates over the course of the entire baseball season.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far.

SD Padres 12-3 .800
SF Giants 11-4 .733
LA Dodgers 11-5 .688

Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games.

Chiefs and prospects.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Time to check in on MLB's best 2025 WL records, so far.

SD Padres 12-3 .800
SF Giants 11-4 .733
LA Dodgers 11-5 .688

Looks like three teams are gonna win at least 110 games this season. The Pods are on pace to win 130. Wanna know why? Because this year, the young'uns are awesome. Bobby Witt and Paul Skenes already look like Hall of Famers, so naturally, the Pads are gonna win 130 games. It couldn't possibly be because teams have played just a tiny sliver of a molecule of games.

Chiefs and prospects.

And now, let's look at the worst 2025 WL baseball records, so far. Because small sample sizes produce extreme statistics, not only on the high end, but on the low end as well. Here goes:

Col Rockies 3-11 (.214)
Atl Braves 4-11 (.267)
Chi White Sox 4-10 (.286)

That's three teams on pace to win less than 46 games in the same season. The Rockies are on pace to finish 35-127 and shatter the '62 Mets record for futility. Wanna know why this is happening? Wanna know why the Rockies will certainly win no more than 35 games this season? It's because Brett Baty and young MLB'ers in general suck. It's not the sample size and that 15 games out of an 162 game season means very little. It's Brett Baty and the Kansas City Chiefs. Oh, those awful MLB prospects!

[Benjamin Grimm]

I'm not sure who you're arguing against. I think you're just trying to entertain yourself.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I won't be doing this too much more often. So long as MLB teams continue to play games -- 162 games in all for each team -- those small sample sizes eventually won't be so small.

But now is a good time to check in on the best and worst MLB records. The teams with the best records have played exactly 17 games as of this writing and youse know what 17 games constitutes: It's the exact number of games an NFL team plays in its regular season. So here goes. The last figure represents each team's projected final WL record based on their current WL rates, respectively.

SD Padres 14-3 (.824) (133-29)
SF Giants 12-5 (.706) (114-48)
______

Col Rockies 3-13 (.188) (30-132)
Chi White Sox 4-12 (.250) (41-121)


Make of this what you will. From these baseball records, it looks like this year's NFL prospects are extremely good. And also extremely bad. I have no idea what this portends for the KC Chiefs in their first four games, though. But it definitely means something. One team will shatter the record for most baseball wins in a season and another team is gonna shatter the '62 Mets WL record for futility -- all in the same season. So something, something, something KC Chiefs.

This all reminds me of something else: yes, it's true that once in a while, the NFL teams with the best regular season records have winning percentages over .800. But just the same, the worst NFL teams have winning percentages under. 200. How do you explain that? Bad NFL prospects? Because the NY Jets never start out 4-0?

[Lefty Specialist]

Back to the original post, they probably won't all suck. Acuna seems to be coming around, as is Vientos. Alvarez is getting closer to coming back and has somewhat of a track record as a major league hitter.

Mauricio and Gilbert, too soon to say coming off injury. Won't know until later this year.

Baty would probably be better served with a change of organizations. Yes, small sample size, but every time he gets a chance he fumbles it. I think moving to second is part of the problem this year, but still. He has nothing to prove in the minors and can't seem to do anything in the majors.