Jump to content





Bleacher Nation is on Facebook, and you should totally "Like" us:
 


Bleacher Nation is also on Twitter, and you should totally follow us:




Upcoming Calendar Events

There are no forthcoming calendar events

Today's birthdays

No members are celebrating a birthday today

Photo

Philosophical Question


  • Please log in to reply
31 replies to this topic

#16 Kygavin

Kygavin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Twitter:@kygavin
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 09:36 AM

One thing you also have to consider is age A younger guy with more potential but less likelihood is more valuable than a 25 yr old AAA guy with the same "stats" at least for me. Im assuming that just for the sake of things all 5 guys are the same age? So my list would be:

Carl-Potential to be a star is too important to me
David-Best mix of potential and likelihood, likely to be average/above average
Edgar-Looks to be a sure bet as an average player
Barry-below average but very likely to make the bigs
Albert- slightly below average/average

#17 Brett

Brett

    Administrator

  • Administrators
  • 3,638 posts
  • Twitter:BleacherNation
  • Facebook:BleacherNation

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:42 AM

Seems like each of potential and reachability are on a continuum, where neither is necessarily more valuable/desirable/rankable than the other. In some ways, then, to me, a guy with a super high reachability but low potential is similar in value to a guy with a super high potential but a super low reachability.

Feels like folks favor the latter, though.

#18 I Like Stuff

I Like Stuff

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:50 AM

I agree with what Bret just said. I don't think you can straight up rank someone higher because you favor Potential over Likelihood or vise versa. So someone like Carl in my opinion should be last because even though he'd is 8 potential he's not going to make the majors anyway (3 likelihood). If you could figure out an agorithim that only started to weight potential higher once the likelihood was a 4 or five then that might be the way to do it.

#19 Kygavin

Kygavin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Twitter:@kygavin
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:55 AM

I agree with what Bret just said. I don't think you can straight up rank someone higher because you favor Potential over Likelihood or vise versa. So someone like Carl in my opinion should be last because even though he'd is 8 potential he's not going to make the majors anyway (3 likelihood). If you could figure out an agorithim that only started to weight potential higher once the likelihood was a 4 or five then that might be the way to do it.


I know this isnt exactly how this works but a 3 on the 2-8 scale would give roughly a 2/7 chance of making the bigs (i think, this could be way off), so that gives you a roughly 28% of having a star if he has 8 potential. Id take those odds any day if youre gonna give me a 1/4ish chance at a star.

My logic is kinda "unscientific" but it made sense to me haha

#20 I Like Stuff

I Like Stuff

    I'm New

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 2 posts
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:10 PM


I agree with what Bret just said. I don't think you can straight up rank someone higher because you favor Potential over Likelihood or vise versa. So someone like Carl in my opinion should be last because even though he'd is 8 potential he's not going to make the majors anyway (3 likelihood). If you could figure out an agorithim that only started to weight potential higher once the likelihood was a 4 or five then that might be the way to do it.


I know this isnt exactly how this works but a 3 on the 2-8 scale would give roughly a 2/7 chance of making the bigs (i think, this could be way off), so that gives you a roughly 28% of having a star if he has 8 potential. Id take those odds any day if youre gonna give me a 1/4ish chance at a star.

My logic is kinda "unscientific" but it made sense to me haha


I get what you are saying here. My thought was that once the likelihood approached closer to 50% that they'd make the majors then you really start heavily valuing how you view Potential. But I get your willingness to take a chance on Carl anyway due to his mega potential.

#21 Kygavin

Kygavin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 177 posts
  • Twitter:@kygavin
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:26 PM

Again I think it depends a lot on what level the players are at but personally i value the potential to be a star higher than the probability to be average. I dont think there is a WRONG way to look at it just personal preference

#22 BluBlud

BluBlud

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • LocationNorth Carolina

Posted 01 February 2013 - 12:33 PM

Barry 29
Edgar 28
David 27
Carl 25
Albert 22
JayAndersonJr

#23 T C

T C

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 418 posts
  • Twitter:@tommyecook
  • LocationThe University of Illinois

Posted 01 February 2013 - 05:17 PM

I'd probably rank them:

David
Carl
Edgar
Albert
Barry

I always like overall potential, but a guy with a good chance to be a 6 (1st division guy) is probably a little more valuable than a guy with a really poor chance with becoming an 8, but its close. Also, anyone who's future potential is a bench guy (Barry and his 4) is barely a prospect at all, so though hes likely to become a bench guy, there almost no value there, compared to Albert, who though as unlikely to become a 2nd division regular as he might be, his best possible scenario is actually valuable.

Something that would probably make this question a bit better may be an inclusion of their floors. Is Carl's really poor chance of being a superstar coupled with a floor of a good regular, or a total, Delmon Young-esque bust? Thats a very important distinction

EDIT: I can't believe Im the only one to put Barry last. Even if he is super likely to be a 4 at the major league level, thats a pretty useless player

#24 Luke

Luke

    Bleacher Hero

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,082 posts
  • Twitter:@ltblaize
  • LocationMaryland

Posted 01 February 2013 - 11:15 PM

This has been really, really interesting reading.

There are two Cub prospects on that list. Only two. Barry and Carl.

Barry is roughly analogous to Dave Sappelt.
Carl is roughly analogous to Junior Lake.

But no one... and I mean no one... would ever rank Sappelt over Lake.

Here's the thing. One of the algorithms I've been working with ranks Sappelt as the No. 4 prospect in the farm system, and second among outfielders behind only Jorge Soler. My gut reaction is "Nonsense!" and yet I can't shake that formula. I like it. Other than the Sappelt exception, it generally seems to work.

I really don't think there is a right answer, but if there is, I suspect it has to do with giving more weight to Potential values that are further from median (so that an 5=x, 6=1.5x, 7=3x, 8=5x, for example) and turning Likelihood into a measure that crosses 0. But I really don't know.

It's interesting though.

And no, I won't be listing Sappelt No. 4 when my rankings come out.

#25 Mike Taylor (no relation)

Mike Taylor (no relation)

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 384 posts
  • LocationLouisville, KY

Posted 06 February 2013 - 04:56 AM

I can make a case for Dave Sappelt. He has one exceptional tool that can be used in the major leagues right away (crushing left handed pitching). You can put a lot more weight onto that tool then another, just ask Tony Campana. The fact that he is an average defender at the corners, above-average base runner, will grow into a little more power, and has some experience (already seen about 200 MLB plate appearances split with Reds and Cubs and performed around league average) makes him an excellent "prospect." He's a better, cheaper, younger, faster, Jeff Baker. You can always find room for a lefty-killer on a 25-man roster who is sufficient in all other aspects of his game.

I think Luke and myself had a conversation about Dave Sappelt when he was struggling in Iowa earlier in the season last year. He had an excellent year for the Bats in 2011 and deserved his call up. He gets traded, then finally sees everyday playing time and his numbers dip. Even though some would deem him a lefty specialist, the thing that is great about him is his consistent 9% BB / 12% K over all levels of play.

#26 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:33 AM

But no one... and I mean no one... would ever rank Sappelt over Lake.


Hell, there are people who rank Tony Campana over Dave Sappelt.

FWIW - Campana's career wOBAs (wOBA with SB) is .300 (.292 when removing PR events)
Sappelts is .296

Offensively, they have the same exact worth to a team.

#27 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,365 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:38 AM


But no one... and I mean no one... would ever rank Sappelt over Lake.


Hell, there are people who rank Tony Campana over Dave Sappelt.

FWIW - Campana's career wOBAs (wOBA with SB) is .300 (.292 when removing PR events)
Sappelts is .296

Offensively, they have the same exact worth to a team.

If you use Sapplet against lefties only though you would find something totally different. He is a faster more athletic version of Baker.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#28 hansman1982

hansman1982

    King Regent of The Calendar Trivia Empire

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,936 posts
  • Twitter:JoeHansman
  • LocationDes Moines, IA

Posted 06 February 2013 - 09:55 AM



But no one... and I mean no one... would ever rank Sappelt over Lake.


Hell, there are people who rank Tony Campana over Dave Sappelt.

FWIW - Campana's career wOBAs (wOBA with SB) is .300 (.292 when removing PR events)
Sappelts is .296

Offensively, they have the same exact worth to a team.

If you use Sapplet against lefties only though you would find something totally different. He is a faster more athletic version of Baker.


In that case, Sappelt's wOBAs against LHP is .375

#29 Cubbie Blues

Cubbie Blues

    The Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 3,365 posts
  • Twitter:@timhall76
  • LocationBloomington, IN

Posted 06 February 2013 - 10:12 AM




But no one... and I mean no one... would ever rank Sappelt over Lake.


Hell, there are people who rank Tony Campana over Dave Sappelt.

FWIW - Campana's career wOBAs (wOBA with SB) is .300 (.292 when removing PR events)
Sappelts is .296

Offensively, they have the same exact worth to a team.

If you use Sapplet against lefties only though you would find something totally different. He is a faster more athletic version of Baker.


In that case, Sappelt's wOBAs against LHP is .375

Which is a good bat to come off the bench that can play defense. Campana on the other hand is a good player to come off the bench to pinch run and ... well, I guess that's it.

"It's not the dress that makes you look fat, it's the fat that makes you look fat." - Al Bundy

 

"Ow" - Dylan Bundy


#30 Cubsin

Cubsin

    Bleacher Bum

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 78 posts
  • LocationO'Fallon, IL 62269

Posted 06 February 2013 - 12:45 PM

I ranked them Carl, David, Edgar, Albert, Barry. To me, an 8 is a potential HOFer, 7 a mulltiple-time All-Star, a 6 a first-division regular, a 5 a second-division regular and a 4 a platoon player or bench guy. I think you nailed "Barry" Sappelt - he's a younger version of Jeff Baker. He should be a valuable bench guy, but he's not hard to replace. But I don't see "Carl" Lake as an 8 potential or a 3 likelyhood. Lake's potential to me ranges from 5 to 7. At worst, he's a supersub who shows occassional flashes of brilliance. At best, he's a good but not great corner OF (Soriano, not Trout). I'd give him a 1 in 6 chance of being a 7, a 1 in 6 chance of being a 6, a 3 in 6 chance of being a 5 and a 1 in 6 change of being a bust.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Bleacher Nation is not affiliated in any way with Major League Baseball or the Chicago National League Ballclub (that's the Cubs).