Youth Movement

[Warren Brusstar]

Free Felix plz, how long does he need to hit .400 at Iowa?

 

longer than he hit .210 in Chicago

 

Random sample fluctations don't alone explain this difference. Obviously, they have something to do with it. But Pie now has a demonstrated trend of struggling at new level before mastering it.

 

and i'd have more patience for letting him struggle through his major league at-bats if we weren't in a division race with an automatic out at catcher and pitcher already

 

Felix isn't an auto-out, especially if he gets platooned with Pagan. Use Jones' hot streak to ship him out(every little bit counts next year when we're signing A-Rod and Z) and let Pie claim what's his.

 

He was 7 for his last 56 with only 2 extra base hits before being sent down. In other words, before he was sent down, he was more of an auto-out than Jason Kendall.

[Elrhino]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

[Ding Dong Johnson]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

no, they'll likely have to "enjoy" something around the 780 range

[sethuel1]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

[Warren Brusstar]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

no, they'll likely have to "enjoy" something around the 780 range

 

1. I think he's likely to post an OPS v. RHP pretty close to his career OPS v. RHP of .825. I see no reason why regression to the mean isn't likely here.

 

2. That's likely better than what Pie would do.

[Elrhino]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

[CoolHandLuke]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

 

Gambler's fallacy alert! Gambler's fallacy alert!

[Warren Brusstar]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

 

Jacque Jones (with his career OPS of .825 v. RHP) is at the top of the list.

 

By way of comparison,

 

Lifetime OPS v. RHP

 

Jacque Jones - .825

Carlos Beltran - .840

Mike Cameron .757

Johnny Damon .797

Andruw Jones .831

Vernon Wells .779

Torii Hunter .778

Nick Swisher .778

 

I've not seen a single poster make the case that Jacque should EVER play against a LHP. But the notion that Jones is "crappy alternative" in CF against RHP is just wrong.

[Derwood]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

[Warren Brusstar]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

[Derwood]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

btw, his second half OPS is only 30 points higher than his 1st half over his career

[Cubfan_N_nebraska]

Moving back to the youth movement, I've been absolutely thrilled that the Cubs have been able to get production from the minor leagues this year. I'm thrilled that Cubs management has given them a chance rather than make stupid trades like giving up minor leaguers for Craig Counsell or some other hack that doesn't help the team.

 

Hill, Marshall, Guzman, Petrick, Marmol, Gallagher, Wuertz, Ohman, Fox, Pie, Fontenot, Theriot, Pagan, K. Hill, Soto and Cedeno is a lot of help. My apologies if I forgot anybody. There are probably others that could help as well, but let's hope that we get everyone healthy and keep this train a rollin'.

 

greatly put! I think the Cubs have the formula that can keep them competitive for years to come if they don't get stupid and go after wash ups!

[Soul]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

 

Gambler's fallacy alert! Gambler's fallacy alert!

 

Casinos make money because people simply lose more than they win?

 

They can't be building 'em like they are because everyone's raping the house, that's for sure.

[RynoRules]

Free Felix plz, how long does he need to hit .400 at Iowa?

 

In all seriousness, until Jones cools off. Jones is hitting .357/.424/.464 in July. The Cubs aren't going to hand Pie the CF job back unless and until Jones cools off.

 

In all seriousness, Jones wasn't hot when Pie was getting jerked in and out of the lineup, and up and down from the minors. To stick with the Cubs, you better be good quickly. If you take time to find your stride, you're out of luck.

 

You may or may not be right, but I think your statement ignores the context of the Pie / Jones situation and the franchise in general.

 

They are trying desperately to trade Jones. This is likely difficult to do if he is picking splinters out of his butt.

 

They also have a GM who is trying to save his job and a manager who wants productive players in the lineup b/c he wants to win now. Whether you or I agree with the "win now" strategy is irrelevant. It informs their decisions. Thus Theriot and Fontenot have survived, Pie has not.

[Elrhino]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

Yet, most people had no problem believing Michael Barrett was going to have a 2nd half regression to the mean when they were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks after Hendry traded him (and rightfully so).

 

I guess statistics only apply to annoited messageboard favorites and not messageboard villains.

[CubinNY]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

Yet, most people had no problem believing Michael Barrett was going to have a 2nd half regression to the mean when they were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks after Hendry traded him (and rightfully so).

 

I guess statistics only apply to annoited messageboard favorites and not messageboard villains.

two words: normal curve

 

Every player has a career arc.

[CoolHandLuke]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

Yet, most people had no problem believing Michael Barrett was going to have a 2nd half regression to the mean when they were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks after Hendry traded him (and rightfully so).

 

I guess statistics only apply to annoited messageboard favorites and not messageboard villains.

 

regression to the mean only means that we could assume that J.J. will perform in the second half as his career numbers suggest. So it is incorrect to think that he will hit better than his career averages in the second half just because he hit so much worse in the first half. That is not how regression to the mean works. And I know almost nothing about statistics.

[Warren Brusstar]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

Yet, most people had no problem believing Michael Barrett was going to have a 2nd half regression to the mean when they were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks after Hendry traded him (and rightfully so).

 

I guess statistics only apply to annoited messageboard favorites and not messageboard villains.

 

regression to the mean only means that we could assume that J.J. will perform in the second half as his career numbers suggest. So it is incorrect to think that he will hit better than his career averages in the second half just because he hit so much worse in the first half. That is not how regression to the mean works. And I know almost nothing about statistics.

 

Yes. That's what I said. That means he have at or about an .825 OPS v. RHP. From your CF, that's a substantial asset. (See my list on Page 2 of Players whose career OPS v. RHP aren't as good)

[Elrhino]

his .647 OPS vs. righties THIS YEAR is why he's not a great option

 

Regression to the mean. He's far, far more likely to produce in the second half at the level he's produced at over his previous 4000 at bats than he is to produce at his level of production over his last 200.

 

if only baseball were hard and fast as statistics would like you to believe

 

Yet, most people had no problem believing Michael Barrett was going to have a 2nd half regression to the mean when they were storming the castle with torches and pitchforks after Hendry traded him (and rightfully so).

 

I guess statistics only apply to annoited messageboard favorites and not messageboard villains.

 

So it is incorrect to think that he will hit better than his career averages in the second half just because he hit so much worse in the first half.

 

Funny, I could have sworn that was exactly what people were arguing when we traded Barrett.

 

Again, I guess things apply different to annoited messageboard heros vs. messageboard villains.

Edited July 20, 2007 by Elrhino

[CoolHandLuke]

fix your quotes, man!

 

and I don't really disagree with the sentiment that JJ will hit better in the second half, I am just arguing against your statement that claimed he will put up an ops close to 900 because he hit so poorly early in the year. It's incorrect.

[Amazing_Grace]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

 

Actually, the real reason casinos make money is that the odds of every game are stacked sometimes, more and sometimes less, in their favor. As an individual, you may have a 45-49% chance to "win" in a given game, and you can win with those odds when you play a few times if you get "lucky". However, over hundreds and thousands of plays, the percentages win out, and the casinos have winnings that reflect roughly what their chances of winning the games are.

 

If you believe that over time, there will be regression to the mean, you are correct. If you believe that this fact will favor you in casino games, you are wrong.

 

But none of that has anything to do with this discussion. Guessing baseball player numbers is less like gambling and more like picking stocks. It isn't totally dependent on random chance so you can make some predictions about what will happen. You can say a guy with a .700 career OPS over 7 big league seasons is unlikely to suddenly hit for a .900 OPS. Jones numbers will probably be better in the 2nd half, but how much better is an open question.

 

As for the Pie situation, it's the classic large market team problem with rookies. If they don't produce, they don't stick, because the large market team is usually trying to contend and usually has the resources to go out and get someone better. How many Yankee prospects hit under .250 their first season in the past decade?

[C.C.]

JJs career numbers said he wasn't going to stay that bad all year. If the Cubs suffered through the .630 OPS half of the season, they should be the ones to enjoy of the .880 half.

 

a post that captures why casinos make tons and tons of money

 

Casinos make lots and lots of money because their patrons don't understand regression to the mean.

 

Apparently, other folks don't either.

 

For a board that has so many posters preaching objective analysis, they sure are terribly subjective and biased when it comes to their anointed villains and persona non gratas.

 

Actually, the real reason casinos make money is that the odds of every game are stacked sometimes, more and sometimes less, in their favor. As an individual, you may have a 45-49% chance to "win" in a given game, and you can win with those odds when you play a few times if you get "lucky". However, over hundreds and thousands of plays, the percentages win out, and the casinos have winnings that reflect roughly what their chances of winning the games are.

 

If you believe that over time, there will be regression to the mean, you are correct. If you believe that this fact will favor you in casino games, you are wrong.

 

But none of that has anything to do with this discussion. Guessing baseball player numbers is less like gambling and more like picking stocks. It isn't totally dependent on random chance so you can make some predictions about what will happen. You can say a guy with a .700 career OPS over 7 big league seasons is unlikely to suddenly hit for a .900 OPS. Jones numbers will probably be better in the 2nd half, but how much better is an open question.

 

As for the Pie situation, it's the classic large market team problem with rookies. If they don't produce, they don't stick, because the large market team is usually trying to contend and usually has the resources to go out and get someone better. How many Yankee prospects hit under .250 their first season in the past decade?

 

As one dealer told me "Casino's make money because they have more money then you. "