teddy ballgame wrote:Ok, so basically what you're telling me is because Liriano isn't guaranteed to put up the insane numbers he has been, he's not worth what he's done so far?
Not exactly. What I'm telling you is that performance comes with degrees of surety. And, even if Liriano has better numbers for his number of starts than Santana, I would still take Santana in a heartbeat over Liriano. Because Santana has a stronger likelihood of maintaining his numbers. If you rate performances on a scale of 1 to 10, Liriano may be a 10 right now. But it's completely possible he ends the season as a 5. Santana, and other elite players, on the other hand, you're 80% sure they're going to be an 8 or better.
teddy ballgame wrote:Well, maybe that's one strategy, but that doesn't mean Liriano isn't worth Wright if they both keep up what they've been doing. Saying this trade is uneven because Liriano might not keep it up, for this year at least is like me thinking Wright will suffer a major injury.
No. It's completely different.
The probability of Wright suffering a major injury is probably about 3%. You can crunch the numbers on major injuries in the majors if you like, but my guess is that's pretty close.
The probability of a fireballing rookie pitcher coming in on a hot month and then significant cooling off for the rest of the season, I'm guessing, would be about 50%. Maybe greater.
So, yes. They're both probabilities. But discussing something that's a 50% probability as something that's the same as a 3% probability is either disingenuous or naive.
teddy ballgame wrote:There's no basis for that besides that it happened to someone else. Liriano isn't someone else, he's his own person, who will build his own personal history.
Sure. But Baseball Prospectus (and others) make a great deal of money comparing players to other playes and projecting year and career arcs. At the end of the day, yes, individuals are self-determinate. But they do fall into categories of probabilities which can be considered and weighed.
teddy ballgame wrote:Right now, he's been putting up numbers as good as any other pitcher in the league. To trade another young player doing pretty good, for a pitcher who has been pitching at a Cy Young level is not really uneven, especially for someone who was expected to do so, despite the risks that may be there.
Your whole stock market or whatever the hell that was basically showed me you expect Liriano to come crashing down this season.
No. What my stock market (or, actually, asset) example should have shown you is that all risks are not created equal. I don't expect
Liriano to come crashing down this season. BUT, he has a greater probability of coming crashing down than David Wright does. And since at their current performance they're about equal, that makes it a bad trade.
teddy ballgame wrote:If you believe that, then this deal isn't for you. If you don't believe that, then it's not uneven. I'd still take the Wright side of this deal, but to call it uneven just because you personally don't think Liriano will keep it up is ridiculous IMO.
No. It's not uneven because personally I think Liriano won't keep it up. It's uneven because a rookie pitcher who has been starting for five weeks has a greater probability of regressing to becoming an average starting pitcher than a batter who has one and one-third full seasons of consistent play under his belt has of regressing to an average major league hitter.
If you want to make it really basic, think if I offered you the chance to win $100,000. And I gave you the option: you can either win it by flipping a coin and calling it heads/tails correctly or you can win it by rolling a die and calling the number correctly. Of course you would go for the coin. They both have the same payoff: $100,000. But the coin gives you 50% odds of winning (1 out of 2). The die only give you 16 2/3% odds of winning (1 out of 6). Given equal reward, you choose the one that is less risk.
And that's all that this is about.