Comments on: Community Projection: Richie Sexson

By: terry

terry — Sun, 11 Feb 2007 06:04:40 +0000

Bring something to the discussion or just read.

yes…you really weren’t just thinking that….your fingers were moving too…

I don’t think anyone is arguing the Pecota is destiny.

However, this thread does have some compelling arguments supporting the conclusion that Sexson is a lousy value given his contract and projected performance.

You be the judge concerning how damaging it is to have roughly 15% of payroll dedicated to paying one player twice the going rate for performance.

By: terrybenish

terrybenish — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 22:39:54 +0000

106. gwandung

Bring something to the discussion or just read.

By: terry

terry — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 06:10:48 +0000

hmmmm….using a structured system of projecting performance and relating it to salary to determine a player’s value verses worshipping at the alter of the homer,skirting the lack of a true system by discussing *the law of large numbers*, and seemingly ignoring payroll altogether….

While Poisson and Bernoulli are two of my idols (really, i so want to be them)and chicks do dig the longball, i’ll error on the side of the structured system maybe just this once…

By: kentroyals5

kentroyals5 — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:51:38 +0000

mmm, beer and baseball..i cant wait!

By: Steve T

Steve T — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 05:12:54 +0000

Yes, so a theoretical GM With A Working Clue Phone could put the Sexson money to better use, but the actual GM We’re Stuck With probably couldn’t. So there you go. Enjoy your 34 homers and try not to think about it too much after you’ve had a few beers. That’s approximately 10 minutes of cumulative happiness in what is otherwise going to be a long season.

By: The Unknown Comic

The Unknown Comic — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:54:20 +0000

#101 For the sake of objectivity, pretty much everything I have read on this blog has indicated that the Mariners front office is basically incompetent and at least in regards to Batista, Washburn and Vidro, they are way overpaid.

By: Ralph Malph

Ralph Malph — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:51:04 +0000

David Dellucci has 2,294 major league at bats. I think that’s enough to judge his talent level. That has nothing at all to do with the law of large numbers.

By: gwangung

gwangung — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:45:35 +0000

Why the law of large numbers is relevant to this discussion:

Each time an unknown or average baseball player comes to the plate, there is a certain probability that he’ll make an out, or hit a home run, etc.

Each baseball player has a certain amount of talent. The meaning of talent, at least in sports, is the amount by which a player’s performance probabilities deviate from the norm. How do we know what a player’s performance probabilities are? They reveal themselves slowly, over time, as the data points accumulate. The more times they hit, the more their observed performance rates converge with their true talent, which previously existed only in a platonic-form kind of state, somewhere only a scout could see it.

WHich is, of course, an overly simplistic model which ignores several factors. One of the biggest is aging and physical deterioriation. Which is what Dave is pointing out.

Or do you REALLY think that you can project this into age 45, 46 and 47 with absolutely no changes?

By: bermanator

bermanator — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:41:57 +0000

There’s a lot of grumbling over Sexson’s annual salary. Isn’t that only a problem if the $14 million would be spent wisely elsewhere?

As guys who constantly criticize the front office’s policies and practices for talent acquisition, what makes you think that getting rid of him would leave the Mariners in better short-term [i]or[/i] long-term shape?

By: asmario

asmario — Sat, 10 Feb 2007 04:37:52 +0000

Why the law of large numbers is relevant to this discussion:

Each time an unknown or average baseball player comes to the plate, there is a certain probability that he’ll make an out, or hit a home run, etc.