<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Opportunities for Improvement</title>
	<atom:link href="http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/</link>
	<description>Seattle Mariners and general baseball discussion with David Cameron and Derek Zumsteg</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Nov 2009 07:45:30 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: nathaniel dawson</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-3/#comment-252850</link>
		<dc:creator>nathaniel dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 22:01:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252850</guid>
		<description>#104

I would be very surprised if Lofton would hit any better than Reed would next year. (provided that both of them were to get significant playing time). His defense is also at least the equal of Lofton&#039;s, and because they are so similar as players across the board right now, bringing in Lofton when you already have Reed is just duplicating talent. Assuming Lofton would be a significantly better hitter than Reed this year seems like a stretch, considering that Lofton will be 41. Even if that were to be true, and you were to assume his defense is the equal of Reed&#039;s, the difference he would make as a backup player would probably be on the order of maybe a quarter win a year. 

Can&#039;t see how that&#039;s worth paying a couple million and losing a player off the 40-man as well.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#104</p>
<p>I would be very surprised if Lofton would hit any better than Reed would next year. (provided that both of them were to get significant playing time). His defense is also at least the equal of Lofton&#8217;s, and because they are so similar as players across the board right now, bringing in Lofton when you already have Reed is just duplicating talent. Assuming Lofton would be a significantly better hitter than Reed this year seems like a stretch, considering that Lofton will be 41. Even if that were to be true, and you were to assume his defense is the equal of Reed&#8217;s, the difference he would make as a backup player would probably be on the order of maybe a quarter win a year. </p>
<p>Can&#8217;t see how that&#8217;s worth paying a couple million and losing a player off the 40-man as well.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Breadbaker</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-3/#comment-252829</link>
		<dc:creator>Breadbaker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 Feb 2008 09:56:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252829</guid>
		<description>103:  You presumably mean &quot;apart from being able to contribute offensively at a major league level&quot;, right?  Subjectively, I&#039;ve always been a big Jeremy Reed fan.  Thrust into the centerfield job in 2005, accompanied by Rookie of the Year projections and getting off to a slow start, I thought he persevered well and seemed to improve as a fielder.  Since then, though, he&#039;s basically forgotten how to hit.  And by &quot;hit&quot;, I mean for average, for on-base percentage or power.  Kenny Lofton, 14 years younger, does all of those better than Jeremy Reed right now.  I find it hard reasonably to project that Reed is ever going to be as good as Lofton is right now.  I wish I could, because I not only have always liked him, I agree that it would be a lot better for the future of the Mariners if Reed were as good as he was supposed to be as the centerpiece of the Garcia trade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>103:  You presumably mean &#8220;apart from being able to contribute offensively at a major league level&#8221;, right?  Subjectively, I&#8217;ve always been a big Jeremy Reed fan.  Thrust into the centerfield job in 2005, accompanied by Rookie of the Year projections and getting off to a slow start, I thought he persevered well and seemed to improve as a fielder.  Since then, though, he&#8217;s basically forgotten how to hit.  And by &#8220;hit&#8221;, I mean for average, for on-base percentage or power.  Kenny Lofton, 14 years younger, does all of those better than Jeremy Reed right now.  I find it hard reasonably to project that Reed is ever going to be as good as Lofton is right now.  I wish I could, because I not only have always liked him, I agree that it would be a lot better for the future of the Mariners if Reed were as good as he was supposed to be as the centerpiece of the Garcia trade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathaniel dawson</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-3/#comment-252791</link>
		<dc:creator>nathaniel dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 08:03:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252791</guid>
		<description>Certainly no need to get Lofton -- we&#039;ve got Jeremy Reed still on the 40-man and able to do everything you could reasonably hope from Lofton, and probably more. Kind of a waste to sign and bring in what is basically duplicated talent for a higher price.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Certainly no need to get Lofton &#8212; we&#8217;ve got Jeremy Reed still on the 40-man and able to do everything you could reasonably hope from Lofton, and probably more. Kind of a waste to sign and bring in what is basically duplicated talent for a higher price.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nathaniel dawson</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-3/#comment-252789</link>
		<dc:creator>nathaniel dawson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 07:44:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252789</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;And here’s why your analysis is wrong - everything you’ve said in the entire comment deals with correlation of past results to future projections. You are, essentially, stating that that his historical outcomes should be our baseline for what he’s going to do going forward. By using results, you are including both his past skills (relevant information) and the influences of others (not relevant information) to try to determine his true talent level.

This is empirically a bad way to begin a projection. By using results instead of skills, you’re eliminating a good amount of the knowledge we have about a player and inherently building a worse projection than one that uses skills based analysis to project future performance.

Doing results based analysis is like riding a horse to work. It might get you where you want to go, but in the age of modern transportation, just take a car.&lt;/i&gt;

At the risk of using this quote out of context, I&#039;m not at all sure what to make of this statement. While I&#039;ve never heard you reject scouting type (skills-based) information, I&#039;ve always understood you to be more into stats oriented (results-based) analyses. And haven&#039;t we heard many times here that past results can be very indicative of the future?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>And here’s why your analysis is wrong &#8211; everything you’ve said in the entire comment deals with correlation of past results to future projections. You are, essentially, stating that that his historical outcomes should be our baseline for what he’s going to do going forward. By using results, you are including both his past skills (relevant information) and the influences of others (not relevant information) to try to determine his true talent level.</p>
<p>This is empirically a bad way to begin a projection. By using results instead of skills, you’re eliminating a good amount of the knowledge we have about a player and inherently building a worse projection than one that uses skills based analysis to project future performance.</p>
<p>Doing results based analysis is like riding a horse to work. It might get you where you want to go, but in the age of modern transportation, just take a car.</i></p>
<p>At the risk of using this quote out of context, I&#8217;m not at all sure what to make of this statement. While I&#8217;ve never heard you reject scouting type (skills-based) information, I&#8217;ve always understood you to be more into stats oriented (results-based) analyses. And haven&#8217;t we heard many times here that past results can be very indicative of the future?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-3/#comment-252785</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 06:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252785</guid>
		<description>Tell you what - why don&#039;t you get together with all the people who are absolutely convinced that I&#039;m biased against our players, intentionally talk negatively about them so that I can seem smarter, and serve to underestimate the abilities of the guys on the roster.  Then, when you guys figure out which bias I hold - for or against - come back, and I&#039;ll answer for that one.

Until then, I&#039;ll assume that since there are people who think I&#039;m biased both ways, I&#039;m doing okay.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tell you what &#8211; why don&#8217;t you get together with all the people who are absolutely convinced that I&#8217;m biased against our players, intentionally talk negatively about them so that I can seem smarter, and serve to underestimate the abilities of the guys on the roster.  Then, when you guys figure out which bias I hold &#8211; for or against &#8211; come back, and I&#8217;ll answer for that one.</p>
<p>Until then, I&#8217;ll assume that since there are people who think I&#8217;m biased both ways, I&#8217;m doing okay.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jeff Nye</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-2/#comment-252781</link>
		<dc:creator>Jeff Nye</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 04:10:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252781</guid>
		<description>I hear bees.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I hear bees.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: milendriel</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-2/#comment-252775</link>
		<dc:creator>milendriel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 02:53:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252775</guid>
		<description>Um, Felix is a 4 win player TODAY. Even if he never takes another step forward, he&#039;s still immensely valuable.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Um, Felix is a 4 win player TODAY. Even if he never takes another step forward, he&#8217;s still immensely valuable.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pgreyy</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-2/#comment-252771</link>
		<dc:creator>pgreyy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:31:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252771</guid>
		<description>92--You missed the original point that I was trying to make.

I&#039;m not saying that Felix isn&#039;t going to put it together or that I feel that he should already have.  I&#039;m merely pointing out that there&#039;s no way to be certain that he will.

Yet, even here on USSM where there is a strong faith in the ability of the right statistics to indicate beyond simple fan-based love how a team or player might perform, there are still times where the eternally springing hopes of a fan might be coloring outside of the statistical lines.

This thread began with a few areas where there might be optimism for improvement over the simulation results.  Two (ok, one and a half) of those suggestions involve Felix living up to what we seem to believe is his potential...to pitch like a Cy Young candidate and stay healthy.

The history of baseball is littered with young prodigies who never put it together...or who flashed briefly and then flickered out...or those who have constantly been on the verge of their expected greatness...or who fell into injurious decline.  Felix could be Kerry Wood.  Felix could be Mark Fidrych.  Felix could be Dave Fleming.  (Luckily, we know that Felix isn&#039;t Brien Taylor...and I&#039;m pretty certain that he&#039;s not David Clyde.)

Or, Felix could be Fernando or Dwight or Pedro...he could be Feller or maybe Nuxhall.  

But, then you read about Wally Bunker...and you realize that you simply don&#039;t know...and can&#039;t know, until it happens.  And only then will statistics help you predict whether or not it happens again.

My point was...it&#039;s easy to fall into the trap of overvaluing our own talent and their potential to generate the results we hope they will.  Is it statistically sound or simply a fan&#039;s desire to pin our hopes on a &quot;yet to occur&quot; breakthrough for this year&#039;s Felix? 

I was expressing my doubts and willingness to be cautious.  I&#039;ve fallen into the trap of overvaluing our talent before.  Because I&#039;m an M&#039;s fan, and we&#039;re not given much choice.

pg</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>92&#8211;You missed the original point that I was trying to make.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not saying that Felix isn&#8217;t going to put it together or that I feel that he should already have.  I&#8217;m merely pointing out that there&#8217;s no way to be certain that he will.</p>
<p>Yet, even here on USSM where there is a strong faith in the ability of the right statistics to indicate beyond simple fan-based love how a team or player might perform, there are still times where the eternally springing hopes of a fan might be coloring outside of the statistical lines.</p>
<p>This thread began with a few areas where there might be optimism for improvement over the simulation results.  Two (ok, one and a half) of those suggestions involve Felix living up to what we seem to believe is his potential&#8230;to pitch like a Cy Young candidate and stay healthy.</p>
<p>The history of baseball is littered with young prodigies who never put it together&#8230;or who flashed briefly and then flickered out&#8230;or those who have constantly been on the verge of their expected greatness&#8230;or who fell into injurious decline.  Felix could be Kerry Wood.  Felix could be Mark Fidrych.  Felix could be Dave Fleming.  (Luckily, we know that Felix isn&#8217;t Brien Taylor&#8230;and I&#8217;m pretty certain that he&#8217;s not David Clyde.)</p>
<p>Or, Felix could be Fernando or Dwight or Pedro&#8230;he could be Feller or maybe Nuxhall.  </p>
<p>But, then you read about Wally Bunker&#8230;and you realize that you simply don&#8217;t know&#8230;and can&#8217;t know, until it happens.  And only then will statistics help you predict whether or not it happens again.</p>
<p>My point was&#8230;it&#8217;s easy to fall into the trap of overvaluing our own talent and their potential to generate the results we hope they will.  Is it statistically sound or simply a fan&#8217;s desire to pin our hopes on a &#8220;yet to occur&#8221; breakthrough for this year&#8217;s Felix? </p>
<p>I was expressing my doubts and willingness to be cautious.  I&#8217;ve fallen into the trap of overvaluing our talent before.  Because I&#8217;m an M&#8217;s fan, and we&#8217;re not given much choice.</p>
<p>pg</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Carson</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-2/#comment-252768</link>
		<dc:creator>Carson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 17 Feb 2008 01:04:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252768</guid>
		<description>Crasnick&#039;s has an ESPN piece up right now that says:

&lt;i&gt;In a perfect world, Seattle&#039;s offseason additions will have a ripple effect. A stronger rotation will ease the strain on a bullpen that showed signs of wear in September. And Bedard&#039;s arrival should take some focus off Hernandez, who has somehow been classified as a tease for failing to pitch to his potential. When you&#039;re dubbed &quot;King Felix&#039;&#039; on the blogosphere at 19, there&#039;s not much room for a learning curve.

&quot;People were labeling him &#039;The King&#039; and saying he&#039;s going to be the next Dwight Gooden,&#039;&#039; Washburn said. &quot;Yeah, he has that potential and I think he&#039;s going to get there. But to expect that at 20 years old was a little bit too much pressure. It&#039;s ridiculous for people to be disappointed over what he&#039;s done so far. He&#039;s accomplished quite a bit already at this level, and he&#039;s only going to get better.&#039;&#039;&lt;/i&gt;

Uh. Who the hell is disappointed?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Crasnick&#8217;s has an ESPN piece up right now that says:</p>
<p><i>In a perfect world, Seattle&#8217;s offseason additions will have a ripple effect. A stronger rotation will ease the strain on a bullpen that showed signs of wear in September. And Bedard&#8217;s arrival should take some focus off Hernandez, who has somehow been classified as a tease for failing to pitch to his potential. When you&#8217;re dubbed &#8220;King Felix&#8221; on the blogosphere at 19, there&#8217;s not much room for a learning curve.</p>
<p>&#8220;People were labeling him &#8216;The King&#8217; and saying he&#8217;s going to be the next Dwight Gooden,&#8221; Washburn said. &#8220;Yeah, he has that potential and I think he&#8217;s going to get there. But to expect that at 20 years old was a little bit too much pressure. It&#8217;s ridiculous for people to be disappointed over what he&#8217;s done so far. He&#8217;s accomplished quite a bit already at this level, and he&#8217;s only going to get better.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>Uh. Who the hell is disappointed?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: msb</title>
		<link>http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/comment-page-2/#comment-252739</link>
		<dc:creator>msb</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 16 Feb 2008 19:16:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://ussmariner.com/2008/02/15/opportunities-for-improvement/#comment-252739</guid>
		<description>#94-- FWIW, Crasnick&#039;s actual line in the original piece Rotoworld referenced was: &quot;The Mariners also haven&#039;t ruled out the possibility of prospect Wladimir Balentien breaking camp as a bat off the bench, because they think they could get him enough playing time not to hinder his development. &quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>#94&#8211; FWIW, Crasnick&#8217;s actual line in the original piece Rotoworld referenced was: &#8220;The Mariners also haven&#8217;t ruled out the possibility of prospect Wladimir Balentien breaking camp as a bat off the bench, because they think they could get him enough playing time not to hinder his development. &#8220;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
