Erboes wrote:Look, LCBoy, most people rely heavily on last season's numbers and that is usually a mistake. If that is obvious to you I'm proud of you, but it may not be for everyone. Of those who wagered a guess only you didn't have him about the same as last season, and since you wanted to usher him into the hall of fame already I thought that I should counter it with some reason. If you want to get smart with me that is fine, Boy, but don't expect me to take it with a smile.
I guess you can't take a joke. I have not put him in the HoF just yet. But one needs to look forward, not backward. Given Blalock's age (22) last season his upside is high. How many 22 year-old third baseman had seasons like Blalock did? That's all I'm saying. And you didn't counter with reason. All you said was that you thought he'd be -$5 worse in 2004 WITHOUT giving any reason.
Remember, Blalock is at an age where a player is still improving. Many, many players at that age take sustantial steps forward in their production. It would be different if he was 28. After age 28 most players do not improve.
Har! Har, Har! (That is me laughing at your joke).
Reasons? I thought I gave you facts, but I'll try to use more of them to counter your fact laced "George Brett" post.
Fact 1. 67% of players do either +/- $5 of production from one season to the next regardless of age. Check it yourself if you don't believe me.
Fact 2. If he does fall either $5 over or under, he'll either hit less than about .280, 23 homers, and 80 rbi's with the duplications of his runs and sb's from last season or .320, 33 homers, and 120 rbi's or better. If he falls between these two extremes he will be one of the 33% who come close to their prior season's numbers. Since he's never approached this many homers in the minors, I'd take the gamble that he'd be a minus and not a plus.
Fact 3. Here's a list of players and you tell me what they all have in common:
These are all players who had substantial success at about the same age as Blalock who, at worse, never came close to those numbers again or, at best, have struggled to even match them. And these are just the names I came up after flipping through a magazine. Success at an early age does not mean you'll improve or even stay at that level.
Calling me out for not using facts is a bit funny after your "George Brett" and "many, many, players at that age take substantial steps forward in production". Well, gee thanks for the insight. I thought that was my point too, Boy. But here's a shocker for you too -- a lot of players at that age do not. Or if they do, it's not always a steady climb like you are suggesting.
For the rest of you guys, I apologize for my outburst. You can come to the defense of the guy if you want, but I for one am not going to take it from him.
Erboes wrote:Fact 2. If he does fall either $5 over or under, he'll either hit less than about .280, 23 homers, and 80 rbi's with the duplications of his runs and sb's from last season or .320, 33 homers, and 120 rbi's or better. If he falls between these two extremes he will be one of the 33% who come close to their prior season's numbers. Since he's never approached this many homers in the minors, I'd take the gamble that he'd be a minus and not a plus.
How are you calculating those values? A $5 change isn't very much; it's around the difference between Blalock and Rolen in a mixed 5x5 league. Give Blalock two more random steals, four extra home runs, and raise his runs and rbis to 100, and you're there.
Will he make it? Maybe, maybe not, but it's not a huge stretch of the imagination.
As to those 67%, I'm a bit surprised that that number is so low. If that's the case, and you also consider injuries and playing time changes, that sounds like an argument in favor of relying on last season's numbers for everyday players...
A $5 difference is pretty sizeable. The first example I came across is Abreu's'00 and '01 seasons.
My only point was, I don't think the odds are in favor of Blalock repeating last season's performance are good. He may do $5+ better or $5- worse, judging by the averages. I made the judgement that since he really wasn't as much of a power threat in the minors as he showed last year that it was unlikely he'd continue to increase his power numbers next season; hence, I'd place the bet that he'd do worse next season. Keep in mind, I am not saying it's a sure thing.
If you don't believe these figures by all means ignore them, but if you are the least bit interested in them go back a few years and look at the dollar values and see for yourself.
You might not find these numbers useful anyway, but using this as a basis it lead me to the discovery that over 80% of comeback candidates (as defined as players who are coming off a year that found their production drop by at least $5 from their norms) return at least to those norms and sometimes have their best seasons of their careers the following season.
I'm rambling now, sorry. In short, I don't think Blalock will return the money that you invest in him next season. I tried to give my reasoning, that is all.
Erboes wrote:You might not find these numbers useful anyway, but using this as a basis it lead me to the discovery that over 80% of comeback candidates (as defined as players who are coming off a year that found their production drop by at least $5 from their norms) return at least to those norms and sometimes have their best seasons of their careers the following season.
Wait a minute. Are you referring to one of your earlier threads where you looked at about 10-15 players over the last few years? If so, that was FAR from convincing (and certainly doesn't justify the claim that 80% of comeback candidates see a drop in production). There was too small a sample size, there were questions about how you selected the player data to be analyzed, and there were a lot of other factors that you were simply ignoring (including, if I remember correctly, the AGE of a player!). At best, all that could be said from the data analysis you presented were some very broad generalizations that may or may not have reflected some real underlying trend.
If I'm mistaken, and you are referring to a new study you've done my apologies. If you've posted this study of yours, why don't you link to that study so we can see it. Or, if it's based on the work of someone else, do you have a link or reference?
"The game has a cleanness. If you do a good job, the numbers say so. You don't have to ask anyone or play politics. You don't have to wait for the reviews." - Sandy Koufax
kentx12 wrote:Will he continue his success or have a sophmore slump "hinske"
Hank hit 211 his rookie year, 300 his 2nd, or sophomore year. We can rule out a 2nd year decline.
Sophomore slump is another media myth.
Happens no more then a sophomore improvement, and in fact only happens 35% of the time.
Smells Like Teen Spirit
Hall of Fame Hero
(Past Year: 455)
Joined: 12 Jan 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Pearl Jam country, right next door to Nirvana, Soundgarden, and Alice in Chains.