NFBC Message Boards

'Once a player demonstrates a skill, he owns it'

This comment is attributed to Ron Shandler of Baseball HQ.
It is thrown in the face of fantasy drafters by radio 'experts'. It is quoted by writers. And last night in a draft, it was said to be a 'rule'.
It's bunk. It's smart sounding bunk, but bunk never the less.
The statement stands on it's own. There is no explanation of circumstances. No expiration date. And what are the qualifications? And define 'skills', willya!

Just three years ago, Alexie Ramirez won a Silver Slugger Award. He had done it before. Is winning a Silver Slugger Award a skill?
I jest.
An award is just an award. Granted, a player must have exemplified skills to win the award.
Just the same, do we EXPECT Alexie Ramirez to win another Silver Slugger award?
We don't.
The statement does not come with an expiration date.
Ramirez is older and losing chances to play ball altogether.

The statement, to me, was an excuse to draft a player on the rebound. And it sounded so smart that it was picked up by everybody that year.
It gives hope to the drafting of any player who once had an anomaly season.
Anomalies are all encompassed in the 'Owns it' statement.
Chase Headley has been taken by drafters ever since he had a great half season with the San Diego Padres.
To me, that season was a fluke. A season where everything fell into place for Headley.
The statement infers that Headley is still eligible to have another such year.
A year in which he showed every skill.
.286/95/31/115/17
He hit, he hit with power, he drove in runs, he stole bases.
Is it still in him?
By the statement it is.
By common sense, it isn't.
Headley had a great half year.
Can't we just leave it at that?
Since, he has never hit even 15 homers or stolen 10 bases.
He is what he is, is a better 'rule' for Headley than 'he owns it'.

What is the definition of a skill?
Hitting a lot of homers? Stealing a lot of bases?
Jacoby Ellsbury had a big power year, one year.
Does he still own that skill?
The comment says yes. His stats since, say no.
Instead of saying that Ellsbury owns the skill, backers of the rule will have an excuse for it.
Ellsbury was on PED's that year.
Hmm, just that one year?
Like Brady Anderson?
Sometimes, I like to think that the player does not 'own' the skill.
He merely 'rents' the skill for a bit.
We see it in short series. A player will come from nowhere to have a great World Series.
It is hardly expected again.
Tuffy Rhodes rented the skill.
Daniel Murphy, trying to own it.

Do we expect Gary Sanchez to have the same power skills as what he showed last year with the Yankees?
That is for each of us to decide.
His minor league numbers do not support it.
But if a slave to the 'rule', we have to think that Sanchez will indeed show that skill once again.
But, will it be this year?
Or next?
Or next?
You see, the comment does not have an expiration date.
Sanchez could blow the next five years as a hitter. Then in his sixth year, when drafters have given up on him, hit 30 homers, and the 'rule' will be supported.
No expiration date!

In the draft, the 'rule' came up about Jason Heyward.
Heyward has been an average below average since he displayed skills.
He hasn't driven in more than 60 runs in four years.
That year and his defense made him a rich man, indeed.
Do I expect his 'skills' to come back?
No.
Is there a chance they will?
Sure.
You see, the rule is like 'Dumb and Dumber'
"So, you're telling me there's a chance?!?!?!?"

If wanting to draft a rebound candidate, do it.
But please, don't throw, 'If he demonstrates a skill, he owns it' in my face.
It's untrue on many, many, many players.
And confusing as well.
Manny Machado stole 20 bases a year ago. Then stole none.
He has the skill to steal 20 bases.
Great.
But we can't draft a player EXPECTING 20 or 0 stolen bases.
We use common sense.
We think that if Baltimore's offense changes a bit and moves on from Trumbo and Wieters that they could need more athleticism on the bases once again.
Opportunity overrides skills in some instances.

Some players rent skills, never to be seen again.
Joe Charboneau, Headley, Kevin Maas...
Heck, Bill James, no really, Bill James in 1914 was 26-7 for the Boston Braves.
He was 11-14 for the rest of his career.
Players own skills, but they rent them as well.
But that doesn't sound as smart as "Once a player demonstrates a skill, he owns it"
So, I doubt that it'll ever be remembered.

My counter has always been once a player has shown he sucks, he owns that too.

Then there's the notion that no player has ever had his best season until he has it.

Or his worst.

Agreed Todd.
The statement should embrace all standards of a player.
Heyward has given us one good year.
Followed by four years in which drafters took him too high.
Do we rely on the trend? Or the statement?
I believe that most will rely on the trend or to what you said, that he is showing more skills of a player who sucks than one who will not.

Some players are like gold mines. They are drafted by players and those drafters strike it rich.
When other drafters attempt getting more gold out of the same mine, they find that it is mined out.
Can Heyward owners strike it rich again?
Sure. Llightning has hit the same place twice before.
At the same time, the common sense in me tells me that the last four years of Heyward IS Heyward.
Some players are just over rated.
Heck, just two years ago, Heyward and Trout were 1-2 in WAR.
Sometimes we just think more of players than what is really there.
And the 'owned skills' suggestion sometimes magnify those beliefs.