I don't understand something

[J_Cuz]

I understand that that may be many people in here's point but that was not the topic of this thread.

I've re-read it and have not at one time seen nor approached this as a keeper-based question.

The question was as it pertains to this coming season and the trends are not supportive that Wright is that much a better play for the coming season and also that Utley can not build upon his 05 season statistically.

But I accept that a younger player has more keeper value due to a liklihood of three year statistical projections. There is no argument against that point, but it is not correct in regards to draft slotting for 2006 exclusively at this point.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

I understand that that may be many people in here's point but that was not the topic of this thread.

I've re-read it and have not at one time seen nor approached this as a keeper-based question.

The question was as it pertains to this coming season and the trends are not supportive that Wright is that much a better play for the coming season and also that Utley can not build upon his 05 season statistically.

But I accept that a younger player has more keeper value due to a liklihood of three year statistical projections. There is no argument against that point, but it is not correct in regards to draft slotting for 2006 exclusively at this point.

I'm not surprised that you read and re-read and could not find this, because it's clear you see only what you want to see. On the very first page TB13 raised the question of value next year versus value over the next 5 years. He was arguing that even over the next 5 years, there is no reason to prefer Wright to Utley. Subsequently, all of us have addressed the next year question, where the emphasis of our argument has been the likely regression of Utley, and the 5 year keeper question, where the emphasis has been on the hitter aging trends.

[GotowarMissAgnes]

But Utley is 27 and not thirty.

It is not statistically nor logically sound to claim that since a spike is unlikely after thirty it is equally unlikely after 26, and therefore much more likely after 23.

It may be a bit more likely but this guy's logic of an ABSURD 95% v. less than 50% ration has no statistical value.

I hope you understand this.

NO ONE HAS SAID A SPIKE BEFORE AND AFTER 30 IS EQUALLY UNLIKELY. If you would read and discuss what people actually wrote, instead of making up things, we'd have a much more productive debate.

A 23 year old player like David Wright has a 95 percent chance for further improvement during the next several years.
A 27 year old player like Chase Utley has a 50 percent chance for improvement.
A 30 year old has about a 25 percent chance for improvement.

That's based on statistical analysis of player performance. Do a search on peak, age, and hitting in the Cafe. It's all been cited before. To claim it has 'no statistical value" is absurd.

[J_Cuz]

Your "statistiocal analysis" was done with crayons in the schoolyard.

My historical analysis of trends is the work of an adult , and I think that's whats upsetting the "sabermetric crew" in here who never made a dime at the track, casino, or an on-line sportsbook.

anyway you slice this it c omes down to pure, unadulterated gambling and I find it laughable how out of depth the people who are posting up empty stats vs. tried and true trends are in this area.

[J35J]

Wow, is this debate still going? Kinda reminds me of the useless thread with Omar v. Ozzie with, The Cow!

[J_Cuz]

[quoteJ_Cuz... have you ever taken a class on statistical analysis? .

Here's my school son,

http://www.nyra.com/belmont/

have you ever cashed in a heavy winner at the window?

have you even ever gotten your behind handed to you at the glass?

if so, were YOU paying attention?

<img src=/forums/images/smiles/kiss.gif>

lol

[HOOTIE]

Wow, is this debate still going? Kinda reminds me of the useless thread with Omar v. Ozzie with, The Cow!

Don't bring up bad memories.

[HOOTIE]

Your "statistiocal analysis" was done with crayons in the schoolyard.

My historical analysis of trends is the work of an adult , and I think that's whats upsetting the "sabermetric crew" in here who never made a dime at the track, casino, or an on-line sportsbook.

anyway you slice this it c omes down to pure, unadulterated gambling and I find it laughable how out of depth the people who are posting up empty stats vs. tried and true trends are in this area.

Why are you putting a sabermetric spin on it? History has shown the 90%, 50%, 10% odds for chance of improvement, at certain ages. The odds favor Wright. Doesn't mean Utley can't in the end over produce Wright, just that the odds are against it. And what exactly is your historical analysis? Stomping around horses?

[djacks]

A 23 year old player like David Wright has a 95 percent chance for further improvement during the next several years.
A 27 year old player like Chase Utley has a 50 percent chance for improvement.
A 30 year old has about a 25 percent chance for improvement.

If this info is what you are basing your side of the arguement on then why did you make this statement:?

Subsequently, all of us have addressed the next year question, where the emphasis of our argument has been the likely regression of Utley

If Utley has a 50% chance for improvement because he is 27, then why is it likely he will regress this year?

I think that the basis of this arguement has gotten lost in all the statistical crap that has been thrown around by both sides and I think it has led to a lot of misunderstandings. I've seen both sides of this arguement contradict themselves several times with their own comments!

Bottom line is this: You can use statistical evidence to support any theory but both Utley and Wright are individual players that are going to follow their own path and produce their own numbers, not what the system says they should produce. By GTWMA's own statement, Utley has a 50/50 chance of improving this year. But if you look at each player individually...EVERY player has a 50/50 chance of improving each year. I know you guys are trying to show the probability of improvement and that's something different than odds. I think that's where a lot fo confusion is coming from. The odds are 50/50 for every player...but the probability is based on the statistical history that is being thrown around. There...I've said my peace...Wright is the better long term keeper and probably the better option next year...but Utley is close for the next couple of years. Why? Common sense told me so.

Now...I'm going to go find a straw man to entertain myself with for awhile...know where I could find one GTWMA?...

[davidmarver]

J-Cuz...I don't realize how you can continue to miss the historical analysis that GTWMA has presented.

Utley and Wright had nearly equivalent fantasy statistics last year.
Wright has a 95% chance of improving his stats next season.
Utley has a 50% chance of improving his stats next season.

There is a fairly easy conclusion to make -- Wright is a better pick for next season -- yet you've missed it time and time again.