Monday, March 18, 2013
If you thought I was down on Mike Trout
You probably shouldn't read Ron Shandler's article. Despite being a lot more down on Trout than Luke, I think Shandler's projected line(15-20 HR, .285 average, 25 stolen bases) is "patently nuts" to use the phrase du season. Of course, so do some other folks, including Rotoauthority's Chris Liss.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
Yeah, I think there are many issues with the article. My biggest one is invoking Bill James' plexiglass principle, where spikes in performance are followed by a decline. Of course they are generally followed by a decline, but it's the MAGNITUDE that is key.
Also, just assuming that a 20 year old who has had his best power season ever will never have another one like it seems a little silly. Do you know what Barry Bonds was slugging at 20? No? That's because he wasn't even in the majors yet.
Also, his point 9 really bugs me. It's basically "I don't believe in these data, so therefore any projections based on it are wrong."
Finally, Shandler's last point on top tier players not returning value- almost none of them do. Period. You expect to take a hit, value wise, on your top tier players. But they're much more consistent, and given that roster spots are limited, if you fetishize value to the degree it seems Shandler does, you'd end up with a whole lot of mediocre players and a bench filled with $4 players.
I just love how crazy this whole column is. I think, relatively speaking, I'm middle of the pack on Trout. I don't think he's going to hit 0.330 again (drop in BABIP, plus more balls in play thanks to fewer HR), but my goodness. Just becuase he probably won't match 2012's outrageously awesome performance doesn't mean he's not one of the three best fantasy players out there.
Shandler's article is chock full of logical fallacies, and was pretty frustrating to read. I don't think anyone is projecting Mike Trout to be a 10 win player again (you don't really ever project ANYONE to be a 10 win player), but 8 is still damn good and a good shot at being the best in the league.
Deleted this same comment above so I could subscribe to the comment thread.
Interesting stuff. Shandler's analysis is really screwed up, but I do think he makes a good point about being unlikely to get a good price on Trout right now. I imagine he would've gone for at least $50 had he been available to draft in our league this year, and that's a big risk to take on a guy with only 1 full season of Major League data. I think I agree with Schandler that you are better off spending the big bucks on a guy with a longer track record.
That said, 5 stat contributors are inherently less risky, as they have a higher floor. Trout could regress pretty hard, and be a 20/30 guy instead of a 30/50 guy, but still be the #1 fantasy player in the AL.
What is the definition of "upside?" I have no idea how Schandler can look at a guy who just hit 30 home runs, and say that he has an "upside" of 20 home runs. Shouldn't Trout's HR upside be at least 30, by definition? I guess I always consider upside as being the absolute maximum, and then I consider the probability of realizing that maximum as an entirely separate thing. Just because you think 30 HR is very unlikely to happen again, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be considered the upside.
Ironically, in this ESPN chat Ron Shandler quotes the often used analysis quip: "Once you display a skill, you own it."
I'm glad that I really didn't have to worry about any of this, being able to keep Trout for $19. He's got to at least earn that much value!
Post a Comment