What if they all suck

[Centerfield]

All the young guys. Baty is kinda the poster boy right now. But Acuna’s not far behind. Mauricio and Gilbert never recover. Sproat got knocked around in his first start.

Even Vientos looks lost. Alvarez is hurt.

They can’t all suck right?

[Benjamin Grimm]

I don't think they'll all suck, but it is possible that none of them become stars. I still have faith in Vientos. The other guys do still need to prove themselves.

[Cowtipper]

Define suck.

Are all going to reach Fernando Martinez levels of letdown-edness? Probably not. The Big Three (Baty/Alvarez/Vientos) have already had moments, so they've at least got their foot in the 'legacy' door.

I think the majority will have 'decent' careers. Letdowns relative to what they were expected to be (a la Wilmer Flores, who as you might recall was a wunderkind before settling into being thoroughly decent, though underwhelming [and a crybaby]), but not out and out bad.

Acuna is exactly 24 games into the major leagues, so to make any assumptions about him now are way premature. I suspect Mauricio will be the biggest letdown.

When it comes to Sproat, you just gotta wait and see. Vasil's done well in his brief showing for Tampa Bay this year, despite struggling mightily last year at AAA. Sproat, by the way, is all of two seasons and 122 IP into his pro career...and already at Triple-A, mind you...so he's another one where the worry is premature.

Really, I don't think the dooming in necessary or even worth tossing about right now.

[Edgy MD]

That is why you play the games. A lot of good players will not prosper at the big-level, mostly because a lot of other good players are dead set on stopping them.

If one guy fails, you hopefully wish him well as you root that the next guy does not, all the while knowing that it is better than even money that you are going to be disappointed.

The very best teams in football win about 80% of the time. The very best teams in basketball, about 70%. But the best teams in baseball win about 60% of the time. The likelihood that a top prospect becomes a top player is similarly skewed. It is a game with frustration wired into the framework.

[batmagadanleadoff]

That is why you play the games. A lot of good players will not prosper at the big-level, mostly because a lot of other good players are dead set on stopping them.

If one guy fails, you hopefully wish him well as you root that the next guy does not, all the while knowing that it is better than even money that you are going to be disappointed.

The very best teams in football win about 80% of the time. The very best teams in basketball, about 70%. But the best teams in baseball win about 60% of the time. The likelihood that a top prospect becomes a top player is similarly skewed. It is a game with frustration wired into the framework.

This has nothing to do with the chances of prospects panning out. The best NFL teams have higher winning percentages because they play a relatively tiny amount of games. Small sample sizes. 17 game season. That's a little less than three weeks worth of baseball games. The best baseball teams have lower winning percentages than their NBA counterparts because the MLB season is twice as long and because there's way more luck in baseball than in basketball.

Small sample sizes and randomness. It's why Wilmer Flores can hit a HR every three games for about a 10 game stretch but will never maintain that pace over 162 games.

If the baseball season was three games long, the teams with the best records would have perfect undefeated records. If the baseball season was one game long, half the teams would be undefeated.

[Edgy MD]

It has something to do with it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

No it doesn't. And what's the evidence anyways that baseball prospects pan out at a lower rate (not that it matters here)? And for every high first round bust, there's a later round gem.

[Edgy MD]

As for "lower-round gems," that reinforces the point that highly rated prospects are less reliable bets to succeed in baseball. It does not dispute it.

[batmagadanleadoff]

As for "lower-round gems," that reinforces the point that highly rated prospects are less reliable bets to succeed in baseball. It does not dispute it.

So what? What the hell does that have to do with WL records? THAT was your point. And that was clearly the point I addressed.

[Edgy MD]

You are moving the goalposts here.

I return the thread to its creator.

[batmagadanleadoff]

You are moving the goalposts here.

I return the thread to its creator.

No you are. Its your specialty. But re-check my last post. I added a new last sentence while you were posting.

[Cowtipper]

On the bright side, Dom Hamel did pretty well in his first start of the year.

(Though he's hurt now).

[Centerfield]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher. Football and basketball are far less random than baseball. Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.

I think the fact that your best guy gets 4 ABs in baseball, but your best basketball player will take 35 shots is part of it. Also the relatively small amount of scoring. 3-0 in baseball is a lot harder to overcome than 3-0 in basketball.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

It's the main part, overwhelmingly so. And it's got nothing to do with prospects.

[Edgy MD]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

I certainly agree.

Football and basketball are far less random than baseball.

Indeed. This is certainly what I was trying to say.

Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.

Yes, and it happens in matchups of a similar sample size.

(Basketball, in fairness, has long had a deeper playoff pool, though this has abated.)

[metirish]

I'm definitely worried about Mark

[Bob Alpacadaca]

I'm definitely worried about Mark

I'm not too worried about Vientos because he's had success and it is still really early. If he's still doing this when the weather warms up, I'll be right there with you. Baty, however, is such a mystery. He gets another chance and falls right back into the things that got him demoted the last two times.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

I certainly agree.

Football and basketball are far less random than baseball.

Indeed. This is certainly what I was trying to say.

Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.

Yes, and it happens in matchups of a similar sample size.

(Basketball, in fairness, has long had a deeper playoff pool, though this has abated.)

And this has ... what to do with baseball prospects?

Answer: Nothing.

[kcmets]

Not worried about Vientos at all. My guess is Baty is going to
be a really good above-average player elsewhere one day.

Baseball in the sky keeps on, bbbyyy...

[Centerfield]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

I certainly agree.

Football and basketball are far less random than baseball.

Indeed. This is certainly what I was trying to say.

Number 1 seeds very rarely lose in the first round of the NBA playoffs. Happens in baseball every year.

Yes, and it happens in matchups of a similar sample size.

(Basketball, in fairness, has long had a deeper playoff pool, though this has abated.)

And this has ... what to do with baseball prospects?

Answer: Nothing.

I don’t know if this is directed at me. But if so, then I think that the randomness of baseball that makes it hard to determine win/loss also makes it hard to predict who will be successful and who won’t.

Basketball I think is the easiest to project. The tall athletic players with a specific skill set in college will make the best pros. When a number 1 overall is a bust, it’s a story in basketball. When that happens in baseball, it’s every other year. I think that’s why there are only 2 rounds in the draft. The NBA decided after the first 60 guys, it’s not even worth drafting. MLB has 20 rounds. And nobody blinks an eye when an All Star emerges from a late round.

The NFL has seven rounds. Despite having much larger rosters than MLB. Again, because prospects are much more projectable in football. The corner with blazing speed and ridiculous fast twitch reflexes is going to beat his slower counterpart every time.

Put it this way. If you had to pick a future all star. And you were given the number one pick overall of baseball, basketball or football, only an idiot would take the first pick of the MLB draft.

[batmagadanleadoff]

I think small sample size is only part of the reason win percentages are higher.

Of course sample size is only a part. And there are other factors. But sample size is the main part. And this has nothing, nothing to do with the quality or nature of prospects. The best NFL teams win 70, 80% of their games because they only play a very few number of games in the first place. A tiny number of games. If the baseball season was just 17 games long, like in the NFL, you'd have batting champs batting over .400 almost all of the time. And you'd have ERA champs with ERA's under half a run a game (0.50). Once in a while, you'd have an ERA champ with a 0.00 ERA. That's what a 17 game baseball season would yield. It's mainly because of the small sample size of games played.

I have a reasonable chance of flipping a coin that comes up heads five times in a row if I keep on flipping that coin for an hour or two. But I have, for all practical purposes, no chance of having that coin come up heads one hundred times in a row.

[Centerfield]

Some food for thought. This was much less random than I would have guessed.

NFL Super Bowl Participants.

Super Bowl 2025: 2 Seed vs. 2 seed.
Super Bowl 2024: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2023: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed
Super Bowl 2022: 4 Seed vs. 4 Seed
Super Bowl 2021: 1 Seed vs. 5 Seed
Super Bowl 2020: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2019: 2 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2018: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed
Super Bowl 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2016: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds, another 7 were 2 seeds. Only 3 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made the final game. Good teams win in the NFL playoffs.

World Series 2024: 1 seed vs. 1 seed
World Series 2023: 5 seed vs. 6 Seed
World Series 2022: 1 seed vs. 6 Seed
World Series 2021: 2 Seed vs. 3 Seed
World Series 2020: 1 Seed vs 1 Seed
World Series 2019: 1 Seed vs. 4 Seed
World Series 2018: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2016: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2015: 1 Seed vs. 3 Seed

Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds. 4 were 2 seeds. 6 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made it to the World Series. So a little more random than the NFL, but not nearly as random as I would have thought.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Some food for thought. This was much less random than I would have guessed.

NFL Super Bowl Participants.

Super Bowl 2025: 2 Seed vs. 2 seed.
Super Bowl 2024: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2023: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed
Super Bowl 2022: 4 Seed vs. 4 Seed
Super Bowl 2021: 1 Seed vs. 5 Seed
Super Bowl 2020: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2019: 2 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2018: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed
Super Bowl 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
Super Bowl 2016: 1 Seed vs. 1 Seed

Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds, another 7 were 2 seeds. Only 3 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made the final game. Good teams win in the NFL playoffs.

World Series 2024: 1 seed vs. 1 seed
World Series 2023: 5 seed vs. 6 Seed
World Series 2022: 1 seed vs. 6 Seed
World Series 2021: 2 Seed vs. 3 Seed
World Series 2020: 1 Seed vs 1 Seed
World Series 2019: 1 Seed vs. 4 Seed
World Series 2018: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2017: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2016: 1 Seed vs. 2 Seed
World Series 2015: 1 Seed vs. 3 Seed

Out of 20 possible participants, 10 of them were 1 seeds. 4 were 2 seeds. 6 teams that were not a 1 or 2 seed made it to the World Series. So a little more random than the NFL, but not nearly as random as I would have thought.

What does any of that have to do with prospects? What does any of that have to do with WL records? The top NFL teams win 70%, 80% of their regular season game because the sample size of games played in the NFL regular season is tiny. Small sample sizes yield wild statistical fluctuations and unreliable data. A baseball player gets a hit today and his batting average will go up 10, 20, maybe even 100 points. A few months from now, an everyday player gets a hit and his average ain't going up more than a single point. That has nothing to do with how good or bad the player is and everything to do with small sample sizes versus large sample sizes. There isn't a sound mathematician in the world who would ever hang his hat on a sample size of 17. But here, blowhards make bombastic proclamations about the quality of prospects being the reason why some NFL teams win 70%, 80% of their regular season games. And putting aside the issue of sample sizes, the idea itself is absurd and illogical. Good prospects? It doesn't even make any sense. IF NFL prospects pan out at a better rate than baseball prospects (they don't -- the worst that you can say about MLB prospects is that they need more time, more seasoning to blossom -- that they're not immediately ready to play in the majors) then they pan out for the worst teams just the same. The worst teams are the teams in position to draft the best prospects. How that contributes to the best reams winning 80% of their games is crazy talk.

And higher seeded NFL teams do better in the playoffs because there's also less luck in football than in baseball. And because the highest NFL seeds get bye weeks and home advantage, enormous advantages in football, far greater than a baseball home field advantage. But we're not talking about playoff results. You're off on a wild, irrelevant and meaningless tangent. If the NFL season was five games long, the best teams would have undefeated records. A sample size of 17 is practically meaningless.

This is all mainly about mathematics and the study of statistics. This has very little to do with how good teams are or how good players are or how good prospects are. Especially prospects.

[batmagadanleadoff]

Not to beat a dead horse to death, but here goes anyways. I'll simplify this:

The NFL plays a tiny 17 game regular season. That means that each win in the NFL is worth 58 winning percentage points (.058). One divided by 17 is .058. Up until 2020, the NFL played a 16 game season. One win in a 16 game season is worth 63 winning percentage points (.0625). So one NFL win is worth about 60 percentage points.

An NFL team that got lucky by just two wins ... an NFL team that exceeded its Pythagorean Win Expectancy (if such a thing existed in the NFL) by just two games ... an NFL team that won two games that it should not have won ... would have a winning percentage that's about 120 points higher than what it should be. 120 points.

And that's why you have NFL teams finishing with .800 winning percentages. It's not the fucking prospects. Small sample sizes are unreliable: they yield extreme statistical results.

[Centerfield]

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.