Need A Laugh?

Manager Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Posts: 93

and I will be listening to the scouts.

Manager Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Posts: 93

I like to use prospects as trade bait once they reach the Majors. Last year I had McCann and Francoeur that busted out in the big's, once they did, I moved them for some "more consistant" help. I've faired well picking hitting prospects. However, my problem is pitching. I got Duke in 2004 and it paid off this year. Looking back, the reason I picked Duke was his whip and era. I got lucky. This is the only time it has worked. Why are pitcher's so hard to project? Are there just not that many top prospects or (my opinion) do they get hurt more often? As of right now, who would be some pitchers you guys like, that have yet to reach the majors. I'm talking a couple of years away.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 7:53 am

twjtiger wrote:

Quote:

Even though projecting future performance of very young players is extremely difficult, there are obviously certain tendencies or statistical milestones that can be modelled, and then from those you have educated guesses.

My point exactly, he is just guessing, just like you me or anyone else who wanted to make a prospect list.

Quote:

Lets say that you want to invest $10000 in mutual funds or some other type of investment. Would you want to make your decisions based on the opinion of someone with many years of experience as a fund manager, or would you rather just look at a few financial periodicals or how the stock has performed in the last 6 months? Do you think your opinion on a particular company is just as valid as the opinion of someone who does that for a living? Seems to me like your opinion or my opinion aren't as important.

That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Have you ever spoken to anyone about putting your money in a mutual fund? Guess what, you get to chose what you want. Not someone else. If you let someone else tell you where to put your money, then you may end up like the people who were invested in ENRON. Do you know what it is called if a stock broker has better information about a company than the average person? That is insider trading and can land you in jail.

I think you have made my point for me. Yes my opinion on where I put my money is more important that a stock broker, who is just used to guide you. In the same way you could get caught up with some crazy stock broker (The guy at baseball notebook) and he could tell you to put all your money in this dot com stock, "it will soar" he says. Well guess what, dot com stocks plummetted, and now who's opinion is more valid. The broker who knew so much about the hot stock that everyone else is staying away from, or other people who form their opinions on the track record of a stock.

If I have to explain this, then it is over your head.

Yes, I'm sure it is over my head. Laughing

Actually, the only think I decided about the particular mutual fund that I have money in, is how agressive I wanted the fund to be. Once I made that decision, I leave it up to people much more knowledgeable than me as to what specifically makes up that fund. I deal with a company that has an extremely long track record, and is one of the most reputable in the field. I very much doubt that they would invest all of my money in a single company such as Enron.

I guess I'm just not very smart when it comes to what I do with my money.

Manager Joined: Dec 22, 2004 Posts: 93

Actually, I thought your metaphorical comparison was the point we're trying to get across.
Instead, ask twjtiger this....
If you want a Calculus problem answered correctly, who do you ask?

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:33 am

rotochamp1 wrote:

I mean lets put this in perspective, would you throw out the rotochamps projections if you did not agree on the order we put Johan Santana, Pedro Martinez, Randy Johnson and Roger Clemens? If we made those 4 guys all close in value, would you really have much to argue about? If the answer is no, then why get up in arms about someone ranking Zach Duke and Felix Hernandez basically equal on a prospect list?

personally, i think zach duke was rated way too low.

the luciani list is very thought-provoking. some of the things on it clearly seem crazy. but at this point i kind of like to see that, as long as there's *some* reasoning behind it. basically all i've been doing in this nutty prospect draft we've been having (which i think the rest of you will be hearing a lot more about fairly shortly) is digging up dozens of sources like this and kind of rubbing them together until a picture emerges. and the more points of view you can get in the pot, in my experience, the better.

of course my experience on this front is fairly small. we'll see how it turns out. but on several of these points i think he's on to something, relative to the other prospect guys. i already knew i liked pence and denker, for example. if denker does end up staying at 2B i'm going to be really pissed that i let RC2 have him.

and also of course for purely selfish reasons i love to see another source with billy butler in the top 5.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:41 am

twjtiger wrote:

When you are dealing with something that is as inexact as projections, then you level the playing field and everyone's opinion becomes valid. You just have to choose which one you want to listen to.

ok... so how do you choose that?

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 9:45 am

twjtiger wrote:

Quote:

Even though projecting future performance of very young players is extremely difficult, there are obviously certain tendencies or statistical milestones that can be modelled, and then from those you have educated guesses.

My point exactly, he is just guessing, just like you me or anyone else who wanted to make a prospect list.

Quote:

Lets say that you want to invest $10000 in mutual funds or some other type of investment. Would you want to make your decisions based on the opinion of someone with many years of experience as a fund manager, or would you rather just look at a few financial periodicals or how the stock has performed in the last 6 months? Do you think your opinion on a particular company is just as valid as the opinion of someone who does that for a living? Seems to me like your opinion or my opinion aren't as important.

That argument makes no sense whatsoever. Have you ever spoken to anyone about putting your money in a mutual fund? Guess what, you get to chose what you want. Not someone else. If you let someone else tell you where to put your money, then you may end up like the people who were invested in ENRON. Do you know what it is called if a stock broker has better information about a company than the average person? That is insider trading and can land you in jail.

I think you have made my point for me. Yes my opinion on where I put my money is more important that a stock broker, who is just used to guide you. In the same way you could get caught up with some crazy stock broker (The guy at baseball notebook) and he could tell you to put all your money in this dot com stock, "it will soar" he says. Well guess what, dot com stocks plummetted, and now who's opinion is more valid. The broker who knew so much about the hot stock that everyone else is staying away from, or other people who form their opinions on the track record of a stock.

If I have to explain this, then it is over your head.

#1 - Educated guesses are better than uneducated guess.

#2 - The information that stock brokers have is not better than what you could figure out if you knew how to do the analysis. But the reason you hire a stock broker is because you don't know how to do the analysis. So they generally do have better information than you, and that is not insider trading.

The same holds true for baseball players. An analyst does not use information that you yourself could not acquire, but you have to have both the time to acquire it (ie scouting the player in person) and also the ability to understand statisitical modeling and to build your own modeling engine.

Your arguement that the mutual fund comparison is not valid is so wrong. Yes you do get to pick the fund you want, the broker just makes a list of recommendations. Well guess what, you still get to pick the prospect you want to draft for your team, this list is just a recommendation. If you don't agree with it, don't follow it, but it doesn't mean that information used to build the list is not superior to the information you are using to make your decision.

So the key is, if you have access to the same information, and you have the knowledge to do the analysis correctly, then yes your opinion is as valid as any other "expert" opinion. But if you either do not have the same or superior information, or the knowledge of how to apply that information in CORRECT analysis, then your opinion is not as valid.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 12:00 pm

roland1 wrote:

http://www.attheplate.com/2006/06_rookied.htm

Here's a link that compares Baseball Notebooks' list to a couple of others.

Nice to have a bunch of lists to look at, but it's an apples and oranges comparison.

You have to look at not only the criteria that determine which players are eligible for the forecaster's list, but more importantly the forecaster's goal in making the list -- ie. what he is trying to say by making that list.

It's easy to say, here's my top 100 prospects list, then list them. And an awful lot of sources do this with little explanation of what the list means --

is the list:

(1) the top 100 guys you should target for your fantasy team this year? Next year?
(2) the top 100 best guys in baseball one, two or five years from now?
(3) the 100 young players with the best tools?
(4) the guys who will have the 100 best careers, at some point down the road?

Luciani's list, which people have explained previously in this post, comes from the perspective of example 4 -- over a career span that may peak in a year or two or ten years down the road. Also -- he projects what players will do in a neutral environment, so he isn't going to put a guy like Ian Stewart near the top as a result of factoring in his ballpark or a guy like Jarrod Saltalamacchia near the top based on his position eligibility.

If my keeper league is set up so that I can draft and retain a prospect for two years, I'm probably not going to take Daric Barton. Luciani wouldn't expect me to, because he sees Barton as peaking several years from now. I'd much rather have an Ian Kinsler, who's way down his list but has a good shot to be a starting 2B this year in a great park.

I read Luciani's lists with great interest for this reason -- he's usually bang-on in identifying guys, through statistical analysis, that might not be as good as the hype that comes from tool-based scouts claims they are. Luciani lists a few examples of guys he identified as such in the preamble to his list all of whom who were "can't miss" prospects that everyone expected to dominate -- and there were many more guys than that, believe me.

I've used his analysis to eliminate such guys from the lists made by other forecasters and have become the dominant source of useful prospects in my AL 4x4 keeper league. Here were the prospects I took on my reserve squad from last year: Scott Baker, Chad Orvella, Chris Shelton, Jairo Garcia, Ian Kinsler, Ryan Garko, C-M Wang and Barton. One miss (Garcia, and I was still able to trade him for help down the stretch), one guy I kept (Barton) and everyone else I used or netted me huge dividends in the trade market (or would have provided me a really nice base for 2006 had I not made a run.

What I'm getting at here is that prospect lists are just resources, and need to be used in the right context. And I'm much more likely to respect a source that actually provides a context, like Luciani's does, than one that simply says, "Here are the top 100 prospects. Enjoy."

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:02 pm

Where you guys are wrong is this. The stock market can be used to predict future performance. 99% of people dont lose money in the stock market, even if the stock dips a little, it will pick back up. The stock market is on an upward trend overall. Prospects on the other hand are not on an upward trend, and I would doubt that 50% of them ever live up to the potential that they have. Like I said, show me someone who is correct about these prospects all of the time, and I will listen and never question any thing they say, but until then I will listen to a variety of sources and form my own opinions about prospects.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 3:53 pm

roland1 wrote:

Why are pitcher's so hard to project? Are there just not that many top prospects or (my opinion) do they get hurt more often?

I heard an analyst on the radio a few years back (sorry, can't remember who) say it this way...

For every three top-level pitching prospects, one will turn out good, one will turn out to be not very good and one will get hurt.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:07 pm

rotochamp1 wrote:

Oh and if you think that is too good of a projection for Thames consider that Baseball Forecaster also sees the power. They say if he gets 300 At bats he would hit 20 HR. So that looks to be about the same production rate.

when the tigers game thames regular PT a couple of years ago he really did hit like that, too. i remember him putting up 10 HR in a month and a half or something ridiculous like that. then, that was it. he hasn't gotten another chance since. i'm not even sure what org he's in now.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:49 pm

twjtiger wrote:

Where you guys are wrong is this. The stock market can be used to predict future performance. 99% of people dont lose money in the stock market, even if the stock dips a little, it will pick back up. The stock market is on an upward trend overall. Prospects on the other hand are not on an upward trend, and I would doubt that 50% of them ever live up to the potential that they have. Like I said, show me someone who is correct about these prospects all of the time, and I will listen and never question any thing they say, but until then I will listen to a variety of sources and form my own opinions about prospects.

I just can't even bring myself to respond anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.... DOH!

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 4:52 pm

rotochamp1 wrote:

I just can't even bring myself to respond anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.... DOH!

come on dude, he's right. you have to listen to a variety of sources and form your own conclusions.

be reasonable.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:28 pm

OPEC wrote:

rotochamp1 wrote:

I just can't even bring myself to respond anymore. Its like hitting my head against a brick wall.... DOH!

come on dude, he's right. you have to listen to a variety of sources and form your own conclusions.

be reasonable.

I am being reasonable. I am not saying you should not use a bunch of sources of information to make decisions, that was never the arguement. The arguement has been the idea that all opinions are equally valid.

here is a sampling of the quotes I am referring to:

Quote:

Honestly I think that any person on here could put together a list of their favorite prospects right now, and they would be just as right, and just as wrong as anyone else.

Quote:

With that said, you are right, I have never watched most of the people on his list play, but all that means is that I, just like him, can have my opinion of player 'x'.

Quote:

RC1 you are taking my comments in a very different way than I meant them. Yes, I could do nothing but look at last years stats, never read what anyone else has said, and put together a prospect list. The list I make would be just a valid as anyone elses.

Quote:

If you expect me to believe that he has watched all of the prospects on his list for 100 games a piece then you are crazy. He has read what other people have said just like the rest of us. Now if he expects people to pay for that garbage then he cant write the same stuff that I can get for free at baseball america. I think he has an agenda with some of his rankings and statements he has made.

Quote:

At the same time I know that you dont have crystal ball to tell what the future will bring, so that means that your projections are just as valid or unvalid as any other nut job on the internet. The fact of the matter is this, the guy who wrote that doesnt think as highly of Felix as alot of other people do. That is his opinion, which he has a right to. However, the simple fact that he has come up with his own way of judging talent, in no way makes his opinion greater than yours, mine, or anyone elses on here.

Posted: Mon Dec 19, 2005 5:31 pm

I am done with this discussion, if anyone else wants to continue to wallow in the ignorance of it all, feel free, but I have to get back to the two months of not stop projection work that will result in a projection set that is just as valid as the one some nut job spent 3 hours on.