GotowarMissAgnes wrote:Why do people bother to use the phrase "unproven"? Guys with minor league experience are not unproven. Their minor league numbers either prove they are a hitter or prove they are not.
I'm not sure why anyone would doubt the Indians offense. They finished fifth in runs last year. They should be able to do that again, easily.
Hmm. I can't think of a better single word to mean "they did it one year in the majors, but have yet to do it consistently in the majors."
I doubt the Indians offense because many of their players fall into this category. I actually like a lot of their hitters, but the chances of most of them repeating or improving doesn't seem likely. But if it happens, you're right - they would be 5th best in the league easy.
The fallacy there is assuming that the only information that you have on these players is their one year in the majors. It's not. On many of these guys you have several hundred to a few thousand plate appearances in the minors that adds to their hitting record. And it's been proven over and over and over again that minor league hitting--appropriately adjusted for park, league, player age, and other important effects--are just as good a predictor of future performance as major league hitting is.
So, the question isn't "proven" or "unproven". If they've proven they can hit in the minors, they've proven they can hit in th emajors.
The question is whether some of their players hit over their head or were a little more lucky than usual last year or not. I think if you look at their full track record you'll see that you can expect similar performances out of most of their young hitters next year. Some may drop off, some may get better, but given their age and proven level of talent, they should be as good or better this year.
RAmst23 wrote:People say unproven even with minor league numbers because they are well... unproven. Many players can produce in the minors but fail in the majors. Also, very few major leaguers are consistent. That being said, hitters are more consistent than pitchers, and one good hitting team is usually a good hitting team the next year.
Yes, there are alot of question marks on the Cleveland team, but with so many players with huge upsides, if only 2-3 meet potential that line-up will score some runs. Counting on Gonzalez to be injury-free is a little too optimistic... the guy's career is most likely over.
No, minor league numbers are not unproven. Dozens of studies, began with some of Bill James' work from the 1980s, show over and over and over again that minor league numbers--appropriately adjusted--are just as good a predictor of future performance as major league numbers. There is nothing unproven about them.
unproven = adj : not proved; "unproved allegations"; "unproved assumptions"
I am pretty sure thats the exact word to use here, the fact is most of those guys have had either one good season or a good minor league career and have in fact yet to validate the ability to do it again this year. While I would argue that Clevelend has a huge upside and could very easily turn out to be a top notch offense if the keys work right. We must also agree that they could easily end up garbage. They are simply 'unproven.'
Who says I have to agree with that? The fact is that the thousands of at bats they had in the minors is proof. Guys who hit in the minors hit in the majors. The key is making sure that you understand the minor league numbers and make adjustments for the park, the league, their age, and other factors.
Once you do that minor league stats are just as good a predictor of future performance as major league numbers.
And if you look at Cleveland's players, they hit in the minors. there's no reason to doubt that it will continue.
well, the thing of it is that major leaguers generally have more years of stats for people to look at, so in a sense they're "more proven" than guys who have only had a minor league career + 1 year in the bigs. but v-mart is by no means "unproven".
"I don't buy everything I read,
I havn't even read everything I've bought"
"I find it more comforting to believe that this [life] isn't simply a test."
Joined: 16 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: at Morimoto's, eating $50 worth of sushi
Ya, I'm not buying into the Indians offense until they've proven themselves multiple seasons. And while we're talking Indians, isn't it about time we point out how average C.C. Sabathia is. He's a #3 starter at best, yet everyone talks about him like he's great.
George_Foreman wrote:well, the thing of it is that major leaguers generally have more years of stats for people to look at, so in a sense they're "more proven" than guys who have only had a minor league career + 1 year in the bigs. but v-mart is by no means "unproven".
I agree that more data = more proof, but there really is no difference in minor league versus major league proof, once you make the right adjustments.
And, since the predictive value of each year of data declines exponentially, once you have 4-5 years of data, anything else is gravy. And so, for most minor leaguers with a year or two each in A, AA, and AAA, you have more than enough proof to compare them to any major leaguer, no matter how long their career is.