NFBC Message Boards

2008-

'Skills are unremarkable. But in Pittsburgh, that is good enough for 500 at bats. Second half BPI fade tempers optimism for further growth
500 at bats should be worth $10-12 again, but little upside beyond that level'

2013-

'If healthy, up .280/40/100'

Again 2013-

'Paying full price for a repeat is likely a losing proposition'.

Let's start with the bottom line first. Classic 'Stuck in the middle with you' line. If not familiar with 'Stuck in the Middle with you', it is what every single prognosticator does with a player who has an exceptional season. Especially if that player has not had one before to match it.
And it happens EVERY time with hardly any exceptions. It is almost like they can't believe their eyes. Or that they saw a comet and the bet is they won't see another soon. They do this because it is the EASY thing to do.

The bottom comment was about Mike Trout. Whether Trout will or won't, has replaced the talk from two years ago on whether Jose Bautista would repeat his season.
I heard a guy today that said Trout won't even hit 20 homers or steal 30 bases. His reckoning was that he was lucky last year with hits and that pitchers will figure him out.
Now that, I respect. He may be wrong, but I respect that he's not 'Stuck in the Middle with you' like most soothsayers.
Mostly, folks see a rookie season like that and think it's too good to be true.
Not that Trout is that good.
Even though Trout was one of the highest prospects touted last year. Now that he's fullfilled that promise, folks start screaming recession.
I don't get it.
Either he is that good or he isn't. It really is that simple.
And you know what?
He is that good.

The top two lines were written about Jose Bautista and the writer of both lines is Ron Shandler or Ray Murphy or whoever writes the forecaster.
If anything it proves the writer is a Missouri/Missouri guy. Bautista showed for two or three years earlier in his career, that he was just an ok bat. And the writer followed through with that and predicted like stats.

In the 2013 write up, Bautista has some big years under his belt. Missouri/Missouri means that a player must show a drafter or prognosticator twice that he can accomplish a certain set of stats. Since Missouri is the 'Show-Me State'.
Only then, is that player given the correct praise. And that same thing is happening to Trout with the same writers. When Trout goes out and has another great year this year, these folks will come over to his side and claim they knew the talent was there the whole time.
It's just the way they roll.

Here's another-
'Do not pay for over 20 homers this year'

That was said about Chase Headley. Headley had a great August and September. It was like he 'got it'. Like Trout, another highly rated prospect and like Trout, he is being both 'Stuck in the Middle with You and Missouri/Missouri.
Even with the fences coming in at PetCo.
Somebody gave me the gift of the Forecaster last week. He said it was on sale at half price because it loses all value once the season begins.
Although it finds different ways to get there, the numbers are the same as everywhere else.
It seems that no matter the formula, it all comes back to 'Stuck in the Middle with you' or Missouri/Missouri.

Dough...one of the strange things about this game is that we watch these players from a distance and we try to understand them.

I was on Ian Desmond last year because I read that he'd had a kid and was happy. It popped up in a couple different interviews and I got interested and I bought in.

I remember hearing Bautista after his break out year and he talked about why it had happened. He had reasons. He talked about a changed approach that changed his attitude. I heard it on the radio but I remember thinking I could hear something in his voice that made me think there was something there.

In 2011 I remember listening to spring games on XM and all over the Tigers broadcasts there was talk about Verlander and his focus. Verlander himself I remember saying something clicked. I had Verlander on a lot of teams that year.

But I'm not mentioning the number of times I've fallen for "best shape of his life" stories and gotten burned.

Trout, I like what I hear. I read some stuff about him and growing up in New Jersey. Guy seems like he's born to be a ballplayer. He won't be as good as last year because that's once in a generation stuff. But he's a hell of a ballplayer.

I sometimes think when the folks who are really good at this roto game look at it, the first thing they think is, "is this guy any good?"

I like trying to listen to the stories. Maybe it's a suckers game. I'm not so sure though. I know that there's a skill in reading people. You called out Greinke this year I think and what do you know, the elbow is sore but the team says he'll be ready but he says he's not so sure.

We watch these guys from a distance. What can we really know about them?

Oaktown- You are going to rival Dough with your writings- Good stuff!!! We think alike in looking at players...

Shandler and others usually speak to drafting the skills. On top of those skills, right there at the top of the neck rests the head. And sometimes that head makes the skills less savory.
Do we know? these players?
Personally?
No.
But we do get glimpses into their personalities on the field and in interviews.
Yesterday, I watched Jered Weaver get torched in spring training. His body language read that he didn't want to be out there. After giving up three runs, it was easy to see that he'd give up more.
It doesn't change my thinking on Jered Weaver. It was a spring training game and he didn't have his best stuff. I don't think he would have reacted that way during a real game, but still, it is filed away for future use.
After those three runs, he didn't cover first base on a ball hit to the right side and then balked. If I were Managing, I would have had him get the rest of his pitches done in the bullpen. Sciosia, of course, knows Weaver, so I'm guessing leaving him in to get further torched was the right thing to do.

The first things I think about when thinking of Hanley Ramirez or BJ Upton is not the fantasy goodness of their hr/sb, but their sometimes lack of hustle on the field.
It doesn't place them on a 'never draft' list, but at the same time, when it is my turn to draft and I see their names at the top of the sheets, I feel honor bound to see who is underneath their names. Visual lack of hustle leads me to believe that that player doesn't want to win his game as much as I want to win my league. I hate that.

We get the feeling that Hanley or BJ would flip off the media after making four errors or striking out five times. At the same time, Justin Verlander is totally embarrassed by giving up five runs and Albert Pujols is seemingly apologetic for not coming through with the bases loaded.
Is it the Professionalism?
Is it the personality?
I don't think it's either in a fantasy sense.
In a fantasy sense, Verlander and Pujols want us to succeed as much as we want to succeed. In the meantime, Hanley and BJ are saying, "Screw you, you picked us!"

Ok, done with that personality rant.... One more thing about 'Stuck in the Middle with You'.
I do a little brain throw up when a player has a good/bad year and follows it up with a bad/good year and a drafter or projectionist says the next year will be 'somewhere in the middle'.
THAT, is the very definition of 'Stuck in the Middle with you'. That person is telling you he is too lazy to really delve into this player OR that he flat out does not know what this player will do the next year. It is the easy way out.
Any time this answer is heard, you should really dig into that player. If everyone is predicting, 'somewhere in the middle', a nugget can be uncovered. Or as the Yahoo Kid would say, "I found a Sleeper!"

Ok, two things about 'Stuck in the Middle With You.....
Almost to a man, experts are saying that Mike Trout cannot match last year.
And also to a man, they are saying that Bryce Harper will exceed his numbers.
Why?
Because simply, Trout set the bar so damned high. It is human nature not to expect the same tornado to strike the same area at the same time as the previous year. It goes against all laws of averages.
So experts say that he will not hit as many homers or that his average will drop. They love the word regression. In some small way, it makes them feel smart. But next year, they'll say" Who saw that coming? Another dynamite year!"
And you know what?
Regression is out the door. Replaced by Missouri/Missouri. Now that he's done it twice, it's to be expected.

Harper, at the same time is a darling of experts. He is sure to exceed his numbers. He has left enough room to exceed each number and prognosticators love him for it.
Even in the Forecaster, Shandler's last words in talking of Harper is, 'Unlike Trout, there's profit here'
What I'm wondering is...Did Shandler know that Harper would be taken in the same round as Trout?
I doubt it.'

Outlaw wrote:Oaktown- You are going to rival Dough with your writings- Good stuff!!! We think alike in looking at players...

Thanks Outlaw. Take that as real complement.

Dough, when I asked "what can we know about (these player)," I didn't mean that we can't know anything. I agree with you, that watching guys and body language and trying to know more about them than just BABIP and K/9 is really important. But I really did mean, "what can we know?" From a distance it's so hard to know if our sense of these guys really matches up. That's why I think watching a ton of baseball and listening to the radio and reading the news is so important. If a guy says "I'm in the best shape of my life," that's one thing. But if his coaches, his teammates, the radio guys that cover him all take notice that's when I start to get interested. I like hearing about guys whose story of changed approach or attitude somehow makes it across the ether as seeming genuine. There's a guy this spring that fits that category for me: Justin Smoak. Of the hot spring guys, he's one who is getting praise from a lot of directions. Something seems to be clicking.

Also a word on regression. Most people who use it use it wrong, I seem to find. It doesn't mean get worse. A Mike Trout regression doesn't mean he's any less talented than what we've seen with our own eyes. Regression is a statistical term that just means back to normal. Guys who have good years or bad tend to go back towards their own career statistical numbers. Players tend to go back towards baseballs established averages. So regression could be a goodish thing. Adam Dunn "regressed" to being Adam Dunn last year.

In the case of Trout, we're talking about some lofty baseball history. Regression in this case means just coming back to earth a little bit. Not regression in him as a player. Guy like him should get better as a baseball player. He will. But those numbers from last year are what statisticians call an "outlier." It's just something that doesn't happen very often. So the question is just how much do we expect from him? In my mind, there's only a small chance that he posts better numbers this year because only a handful of guys have ever put up better fantasy numbers ever. But it doesn't mean there's no chance. I'll draft Trout if I'm an early picker and he's there. I think he's a first rounder even with 80% of last year's production. I won't expect last year, but won't stop me from hoping.

One way of looking at this is that as Harper and Trout draw nearer in their draft ranking, it might just be a reflection of the fact that most people think Harper and Trout have equivalent talent level. You could make that argument, for sure. And if the talent is comparable, shouldn't they be drafted together?

Thinking of Trout and Harper as being a like player may be a mistake. When they're through filling out (as if 240 isn't filled out), they'll be different ball players. Trout will (has) take on Rickey Henderson type tendencies. The speed and willingness to win ball games by what he does at bat and on the bases.
Harper more similar to Reggie Jackson, in that his speed becomes secondary to his legendary power.
Both, still fantasy tantalizing.

Regression is a way back to the mean for prognoticators (shuddup spellchecker, I'm making a point!). They're very uncomfortable with a year like Trout's last year.
Or with a year like Bautista had a few years ago. Or even a year like Dunn's two years ago.
They like players like Jay Bruce with a natural progression (why do we always hear regression, not progression?) of more home runs and rbi the following year.
Those sort of years can happen to anybody. Watching Dunn come to the plate two years ago, his body language screamed that he'd rather be digging ditches than playing baseball. And it's hardly said, but if taking a pain in the ass voice (Ozzie Guillen) out of an easy going players head, it has something more to do with Dunn's problem, than regression.

Another funny thing about regression is that it hardly happens to pitchers. While Dunn can 'regress' back to his old stats, pitchers like Lincecum and Halladay have 'evidence' for their regression.
Falling velocity.
It's a tangible thing. While Dunn slinks up to the plate already envisioning another strike out, Halladay and Lincecum are in a fantasy court, charged with murder of their drafters. And the radar gun is the chief witness against them.
And if a pitcher has a big year, yes, I'm talking about you Fernando Rodney, they don't get near as much press as a hitter would.

This isn't to blame or cast doubt on prognosticators. They're doing their job. And it is humanly natural to assume that each player no matter how good or bad, will eventually return to their own skill level. At the same time, that doesn't help us much, does it?
We're in the business of trying to find a zenith or a nadir for the following year. Not a norm.

This isn't to blame or cast doubt on prognosticators. They're doing their job. And it is humanly natural to assume that each player no matter how good or bad, will eventually return to their own skill level. At the same time, that doesn't help us much, does it?
We're in the business of trying to find a zenith or a nadir for the following year. Not a norm.

What we do without prognosticators...the only ones I rely on are me, myself, and I and the guys on this board... like Dough, Mosatto, et al... there is more info on these boards than anywhere... anyone can find injury updates, roto snips opinions, but thats all just base information...

I like the comparison of Haprer to Reggie... Trout to Henderson I'm not so sure... Trout is a big man