03-05-2010, 03:52 PM
<!--quoteo(post=81711:date=Mar 5 2010, 01:56 PM:name=leonardsipes)-->QUOTE (leonardsipes @ Mar 5 2010, 01:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><!--quotec-->In the data I provided, 2008 stats did not seem much better than blind luck at predicting 2009 performance. We just take it for granted that stats are the best indicator of future performance. But how well do they work? They probably do not work better than human evaluation. Milb stat will be worth even less. 50 players hit at least .300 in high A ball (where Starlin Castro played most of the season) last year. <b>Both Eric Patterson and Andres Blanco had better stats in AAA than Castro did in high A. Stats are not the reason Castro is the hot kid in camp. It is because human evaluators have told us he is.</b><!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
1) Human Evaluation and stats are not mutually exclusive. Stats are nothing more than an accumulation of every at bat. Humans cannot see every at bat of every player all the time.
2) The bolded statement is preposterous. Starlin Castro is the hot kid in camp because his numbers at A ball, as a freakin' 20 year old kid, are excellent and the scouts like his skills. Eric Patterson and Andres Blanco are not the hot kids in camp because, while they may have put up good numbers in AAA, they are 27 and 26, respectively, and have not yet performed in the majors despite having the opportunity.
1) Human Evaluation and stats are not mutually exclusive. Stats are nothing more than an accumulation of every at bat. Humans cannot see every at bat of every player all the time.
2) The bolded statement is preposterous. Starlin Castro is the hot kid in camp because his numbers at A ball, as a freakin' 20 year old kid, are excellent and the scouts like his skills. Eric Patterson and Andres Blanco are not the hot kids in camp because, while they may have put up good numbers in AAA, they are 27 and 26, respectively, and have not yet performed in the majors despite having the opportunity.