Nox

Is this actually how you think? I guess 20+ GMs should be fired for passing on Trout in 2009 then. Including the guy who actually drafted Trout (because he passed on him once). No, what you originally said was that he was atrocious at drafting. Period. No time frame. You have since tried to massage your angle into something defensible.

So by this line of reasoning, why does the Beckham pick deserve scorn? Can't we just say that they were unlucky that there wasn't a better consensus top pick that year? The only reason I focused on those top 3 picks was because you said he deserved more discredit for missing on Beckham than he did for hitting on Longoria/Price. Averaging those picks and comparing to the historical expectation of those draft slots was the quickest/easiest way to show that you were full of s***. What's there to dispel? You want to compare the draft records from 2010-2014? Why? We're only really in a position to evaluate the 2010 and maybe 2011 drafts. This isn't football when you can semi-reasonably do a retrospective within 2 or 3 years. Either one of these teams could have a guy popup from the 2012 or 2013 drafts and become 3 WAR contributors in the not too distant future. That could easily happen. And even if they Rays' drafting in this timeframe does eventually grade out to be below average to bad (it very well might), why should we allocate those substantially more weight to that than the franchise defining drafts of 2005-2010? It doesn't make sense at all to put this filter on the data when the general assertion is: "This GM is bad at drafting" ? If mentioning Bayes and the closely related notion of a prior encodes as "rhetoric" to you, we really don't have much to discuss. Don't mistake your ignorance for anything other than exactly that. You of all people are going to say that? I thought you were done with this discussion yesterday Mr. Joe Cool? I guess there was just too much recreation to pass up on for a Saturday in May.

What are you talking about? You divide by 3 because there are three players he's picked in the top 3. It's you know, an average? You then would compare that to what you'd expect historically for a top 3 pick. Those charts are out there on the net if you want to look them up. (Price + Longo + Beckham) / 3 > HistoricalAvgTop3 pick. Your reputation proceeds you. You've had some of the most laughable pro AA posts in this board's history. And saying a team that is ok at doing something is "atrocious" is not semantics. It's hyperbole and plainly wrong in this case. I'd take Kiermaier over anyone on that list other than Syndergaard. It's not particularity close either. Choosing 2010 is just so stupid. In fact, trying to actually pin down a front office's drafting true talent is a fools errand due to the lack of data for a particular GM. The only way to model it at all is a Bayesian approach with some weakly informative priors. To have a strong opinion either way regarding a GM's drafting ability is just not understanding the problem's technical underpinnings. Friedman is not "atrocious" at drafting. Dayton Moore is not some drafting guru. Nobody in the league falls into either of those categories, not even Ruben Amaro. They're all just guys doing their best to steer a process in a very noisy environment. Coming from the guy who thought the Rays under was an easy call pre-season when A) standard public projections had the over being one of the easiest plays league wide and Almost all Tampa action from sharps being put on the over this year. There's also the fact that I'm not even really a Rays fan. I've been a Jays fan my entire life and will continue to be so once the fat f***ing imbecile in charge is booted out.

When working at an investment bank like Bear Stearns, do you draft a player by buying puts? Shorting tobacco futures? Pressing a secret key sequence on your Bloomberg terminal? Please advise. Add those 3 players' contributions up over their team control, divide by 3 and he's still above the average for 3 top 3 picks. So I really don't know what you mean. Dana Brown was hired in part by your favourite team because "he drafted Strasburg". Wish I was joking.

That's mostly just lip service. I know for an actual fact they'd trade most of their top draft picks if they were allowed to do so.

Longo, Price, Cobb, Upton, Hellickson, Moore, Kiermaier etc etc Easily average since Friedman got there. Discrediting him for picking Longo and Price is really muddled thinking. They produced far above their expected performance based on raw draft production. But I guess we don't assign credit for that because...you're a giant homer? I dunno.

That's a large exaggeration.

I wonder how bad Friedman wants to trade Kershaw. Probably can't happen for alot of reasons though.

One of my worst sentences ever. Public shaming appropriate.

That's not going to happen. Arguing the merits of someone based on ERA/Pitcher Wins and homerism is not "passion in their own way", it's just ignorance. I have no reason to tolerate it, especially when they address a post to me.

No ********. Out best analytic guess has him at a 3.40 ERA/FIP/Whatever on that scale pitcher. That has nothing to do with prospect rankings.

Stroman by a little bit.

Ah, understood. That's not unreasonable.

I really hate threads like this. Both Hoffman and Osuna are really nice arms to have in the system. I like them both quite a bit. But when people start spewing utter garbage about them directly comping maybe the best RHP prospect in the game it just makes the board look awful.

Now + a season's worth of uncertainty = then Syndergaard = then Hoffman != Syndergaard

Jesus.

This board is honestly f***ing retarded. Syndergaard over both easily. 3.42 true talent MLB FIP as a starter. If you just read that and the thought of posting his line tonight entered your mind, please go drown yourself in the nearest toilet.

This is just referring to underlying GB rate skill then. It really just sounds like you're searching for a narrative.

The idea of someone consistently benefiting from luck is counter to what the term means in this context.

Oh? You don't say. You know what does the best job of interpreting the natural variance in the recorded outcomes? The tools that say Sanchez is as bad at pitching as you are at posting.

That is not what overfitting data means. You propose more independent variables than resulting data points (post filter). That's just silly.

"I don't often fit my data but when I do I overfit the s*** out of it."

Sanchez doesn't throw 98. He throws 94. Lots of guys throw 94. Also, we should keep in mind that his velocity has peaked and will start to slowly decline from now on. That's how that aging curve works. We have no reason to think Aaron Sanchez is any sort of outlier. GB rate, velo, movement....it's all just data that gets fed into a projection machine. And that projection machine is going to do a better job over the long run than our feeble minds.

That's a really dumb way to look at it. A good portion of the back of the rotation innings come from guys that don't qualify for the ERA title. Aaron Sanchez has performed before replacement level and projects to perform at replacement level going forward. That's all that matters.

His entire pedigree is based around scouting, something you've blasted many times on here. It's not an interesting question. ZIPs uses historical comps based on things like you described earlier (rates/age/velo) and it's the projection system that hates him the most (4.97 true talent FIP).