Monday Morning Minors

by Brian Durack on Jun 5, 2006 6:36 AM PDT in News

I saw something last week that I thought was quite amazing. Watching a minor league game, the home team won despite being one-hit. Thanks to an error followed by a double plus good pitching, they came out on top 1-0. A week later, the same team did the same thing, this time winning 2-1 thanks to just a double. How often do we see this at the major league level? Once a year maybe? What are the odds that it happens to the same team twice in the same week? I wonder if something like that has ever happened in professional baseball.

So the draft is coming up Tuesday. I'll level with you guys - I have no clue about any of the players. What I can tell you is that the draft is considered one of the weakest in years. There is no standout player, no consensus number one. How does that effect us? Well because of the Esteban Loaiza signing, we don't pick until the second round. 66th overall to be exact. While losing out on a first round pick isn't exactly a good thing, this may not be a bad year to have it happen in. Many people expect the A's to draft high-risk high-reward players - in other words a bunch of high schoolers again this year.

Third baseman Jeff Baisley came into the season as nothing more than another farmhand with low expectations. The 22 year-old was drafted last year out of the University of South Florida and spent the last half of the year in Vancouver, but didn't stand out. This year, after starting the season slow, he has erupted in Kane County. Over his last 10 games he has 17 hits and 21 RBI. For the season he is hitting .333 with 12 home runs and 13 doubles. 26 walks against 34 strikeouts are solid numbers as well, but it may also indicate that he needs to see more advanced competition.

I mentioned Shane Komine at the beginning of the season as interesting to watch... but I never said it would be pretty. Over 62 2/3 innings, Komine has a 5.89 ERA and has given up 8 home runs. In none of his 11 starts this season has he given up less than two runs and he has given up a home run in all but four starts. The right-hander had such a promising Arizona Fall League performance, but it is disappointing to see that it hasn't carried over to the full season.

Brant Colamarino has watched what little prospect status he had fizzle away last year and struggling in Sacramento after being hit with a demotion. He's back in Midland this year, but on Sunday the first baseman hit for the cycle, the second in the system this season. Somehow he managed to drive in just one run in all those hits, and somehow Midland managed to lose 8-7.

Keith Ginter is having a strong enough season so that a discussion about moving him up and Scutaro or Perez down is overdue. Perez has an OPS below .200 and Scoots isn't a whole lot better. Can you tell me Ginter won't AT LEAST match that? He's hitting .290 with four home runs and 12 doubles in Sacramento, with 18 walks against 32 strikeouts.

So do we make the switch to Ginter? Or do we stick it out with Scutaro and Perez?

Tweet Comment 52 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

all i have to say is

"We've never been in that position. We wouldn't know how to operate, I mean, do we get him a corsage?"-Beane on Big name free agents

by pbruins92 on Jun 5, 2006 7:16 AM PDT reply actions

LOL

I love that.

I'd actually like to see Ginter up, Perez down... but I don't know the details re: contract/roster statuses, option statuses, waiver-clearing-or-not statuses, etc. on either of them...

Putting the "fun" in "perfunctory"

by Poppy on Jun 5, 2006 7:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Eeny, meeny, miney, mo...

Beane: Bring out the Gint.
Macha: But the Gint's sleeping.
Beane: Well, I guess you're gonna have to go wake him up now, won't you?

"The sun don't shine on the same dog's ass all the time."

-Catfish Hunter

by kaweahkaweah on Jun 5, 2006 7:27 AM PDT reply actions

LOL

by Tyler Bleszinski on Jun 5, 2006 8:19 AM PDT up reply actions

Jeff Baisley

I remember reading about how the A's organization thought of him like they thought of Melillo last year, as someone who could break out in the system. Looks like he really has.

Larry Davis couldn't treat a cold-Tony

by ohad on Jun 5, 2006 7:59 AM PDT reply actions

He didn't exactly toil in obscurity in 2005.

Hitting home runs in Nat Bailey Stadium is like hitting second tier shots anywhere else.

And he hit enough to be notable. When he hits the Cali League, it could get nasty for opposition pitching.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Jun 5, 2006 9:34 AM PDT up reply actions

Add one draft pick for the A's

Shane Keough, a draft and follow pick from last years draft, an outfielder who is a switchhitter, has signed with the A's prior to tomorrows draft. Hollywood Oz has some info on his newly renovated again site, "Notes From the Nat." He covers the lower minors essentially with his info on newer players to the A's system.

Charlie Brown GO A'S WIN

by Charlie Brown on Jun 5, 2006 8:01 AM PDT reply actions

Your check is in the mail.

http://www.notesfromthenat.com

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Jun 5, 2006 9:35 AM PDT up reply actions

ain't this the same kid

that was one of the kids on "real housewives of orange county" on a&e?

Governator El-Slimebag

by greendatitiz on Jun 5, 2006 2:41 PM PDT up reply actions

This is a Classic "Regression to Mean"

Situation. Scutaro and Perez have been terrible. No argument there. And Ginter's hitting pretty well in AAA.

But leaving the defensive piece aside, which clearly favors the two players the A's have up now, history tells us that:

Scoot is more like a 690 OPS guy than a 469 OPS guy-- which is what he was until yesterday- so over the next 4-6 weeks, he could easily be a 750-800 guy as he is "progressing" to the mean;
And Perez can't exactly get worse, can he??

Given Bradley's return and the increased production out of Crosby, Johnson and Thomas recently, I'd be tempted to try to ride it out, and only if the team falls further behind and Scoot does terribly would I make the move to Ginter.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 8:09 AM PDT reply actions

Re: 1

I don't believe that's how regression to the mean works. Scoot is most likely to be a 690 OPS guy over the next 4-6 weeks. He's as likely to have a 600 OPS as he is an 800 OPS - which is to say, thinking that his 470 OPS means he's going to progress to the mean via 800 OPS is as good as Rex Hudler saying, "Finley is due, baby!"

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 8:31 AM PDT up reply actions

Au contraire

Scoot is likely to be somewhere near 690 by season's end. That's the mean.

given his start, that means his likeliest production the rest of the year-- assuming one-third at 469, and two-thirds at what it takes to produce a 690 OPS for the season-- is something in the neighborhood of 790-800.

And if this is a "reverse career" year, he's still likely to be at 700 or higher.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions

No, no, no!

Read up on the Gambler's Fallacy. You just gave a perfect illustration of it!

by matthias on Jun 5, 2006 8:42 AM PDT up reply actions

this is not dice or cards

It's a human being who has a track record.

not the same as flipping coins or dealing 52 cards.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 9:01 AM PDT up reply actions

If you assume he's, let's say, a .245 hitter.

And he starts the season hitting .325, he's more likely to hit .245 for the rest of the season and finish out somewhere around .265 than he is to hit .2255, simply to bring him back to the mean.

I mean, each at bat, he has a .245 chance of getting his hit, so there'd be statistically no reason for a dip in form below his 'ability'.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Jun 5, 2006 9:39 AM PDT up reply actions

again, with human beings

There are natural peaks and valleys.

I guarantee you that if you isolated every hitter in baseball that hit 200 points lower than their career OPS for one-third of a season... and were still in or reasonably close to their prime... as opposed to 37 years old and about to fall off the table

more than not would exceed their career OPS (as of the beginning of the year) in the remaining two-thirds. That violates your statistical law, but I guarantee you that it's accurate.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 9:47 AM PDT up reply actions

Why don't you do the research

and find out if it's true? I know I'm interested.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 9:52 AM PDT up reply actions

want to pay me??

I mean that's a gargantuan task.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 10:00 AM PDT up reply actions

Then don't make a numerical claim

if you can't back it up with, well, numbers.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 10:07 AM PDT up reply actions

can you??

I'll eyeball as many current players as i can... and report back, OK??

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 10:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Can I what?

I'm not making any claims here.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 10:15 AM PDT up reply actions

You guarantee me?

You CAN'T guarantee me, because you don't have any evidence whatsoever.

Look, what you're saying here is, if I fliped a coin three times and it came up heads every time, that the odds are it would come up tails on the fourth flip.

But I'm sorry, you'd be wrong. The chance of a coin turning out tails is ALWAYS 1 in 2. And the chance of a .245 hitter hitting a given baseball is ALWAYS 245 in 1000.

Just because he missed the last ten, doesn't mean, statistically, that he's 'due'. It means he has a 245 in 1000 chance of hitting the next one.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Jun 5, 2006 3:27 PM PDT up reply actions

Sorry, 'toon.

That's just not the way regression to the mean works.

wiki link

In statistics, regression toward the mean is a principle stating that of related measurements, and selecting those where the first measurement is either extremely high or extremely low, the expected value of the second is closer to the mean than the observed value of the first.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 8:50 AM PDT up reply actions

well....

790 is closer to 690 than 469-- right???

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 8:56 AM PDT up reply actions

Yes.

Given regular playing time, Scoot will likely not be a 470 OPS player, although age isn't exactly on his side.

He could hit 790 over the next few weeks. He could also hit 600. Both are equally likely.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 9:05 AM PDT up reply actions

I understand the statistical underpinning

My only point is that he's got a decent chance of doing better than his historical norm over the next 4-6 weeks-- why not roll the dice for a week or two and see if he can do it??

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 9:00 AM PDT up reply actions

And my point is that

he has as good a chance of doing better than his historical norm as he does of doing worse. That's what you're rolling the dice with.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 9:03 AM PDT up reply actions

I actually think you're wrong

In a one game or one at bat situation, sure.

But when a player has established X as his norm-- I would think he has a better chance of exceeding X when he has only produced at Y so far.

Again, we are talking about human beings, not dice or cards.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 9:20 AM PDT up reply actions

It doesn't matter whether

you think I'm wrong or not. You're not arguing with me.

It's not my business whether you have the opinion that Scoot will perform better or worse than his career norm. Maybe he will or won't because of several reasons. But don't call it "regression to the mean" and talk about statistics when

a) we're not talking about dice or cards, and therefore statistics don't apply
b) phrases like "I would think" make up the core of your argument

You're free to argue one way or another, but I am pointing out that your use of "regression to the mean" is incorrect. And that's not an opinion.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

Wow-- early in the week to get nasty

Let's be clear: "regression to the mean" is a statistical term that was hijacked by Bill james and others to point out that-- in baseball, as in life-- what goes up must come down, and vice versa.

I used that "principle" to observe that I thought there was a pretty good chance that Scutaro would have a nice stretch while Ellis was out.

You guys became stat police. Fine.

I have amended my claim-- and added that I think you are wrong to adhere so tightly to a formula that is based purely on chance and random events-- to say that, in the case of a human being that underperforms badly for some decent interval, odds are that he will then somewhat overperform for the next, somewhat longer, interval.

I can't prove it.. but you can't prove that I'm wrong, either. So I'll try later tonight to find all such examples in recent years that are not connected to old age or injury-- since Scoot suffers from neither-- and we'll see if anything significant can be found, one way or the other.

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 10:20 AM PDT up reply actions

Nasty?

I've been perfectly polite. I take exception to being called nasty and "the stat police."

If you're going to call something "A Classic Case of Regression to the Mean," I must be nasty and police-y to point out that the phenomenon you're describing is in fact, not what you claim it is. It is not a simply a term that has been "hijacked" by the statistical establishment. It is used in its purest mathetmatical sense in formulations such as ZiPS and PECOTA, as well as in Tango et al's "The Book."

Your opinion as to whether Scutaro will perform better in Ellis's absence is a fine and fair opinion, but not one backed up by regression. My counter to your opinion is that, if we are to believe in regression to the mean, then Scoot is likely to perform better than he has shown this year but not better than he has shown over the course of his career.

It is, however, big of you to take the time to research whether or not your theory is correct. I do applaud that effort and look forward to seeing what you find.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 10:31 AM PDT up reply actions

the bold

"you" and the "not an opinion" line went a little far, IMHO. Toward nasty, but maybe not all the way and you will "regress" to a mean of "civil".

oaktoon

by oaktoon on Jun 5, 2006 11:13 AM PDT up reply actions

Facts and opinions

oaktoon, way early in the thread, you (a) predicted that Scutaro would perform better than his career OPS over the next few months, and (b) stated that that prediction was "a classic example of regression to the mean."

salb said that point (b) was wrong. And it was. I don't see how it's nasty for anyone to point that out. Just look at any textbook definition of "regression to the mean" and compare it to your prediction about Scutaro. They don't match.

How hard would it be to just say "you're right salb, I misspoke. My prediction about Scutaro is not an example of regression to the mean. Thanks for correcting me." You're under no obligation to do that, but it would the most appropriate response IMO.

Or you could try to make a case that you were right, by demonstrating that your prediction actually is an example of regression to the mean. But I don't think you'll succeed in that attempt.

My suggestion is you restate your principle above as Oaktoon's Conjecture: "A player who hits more than 200 points below his career OPS for the first third of the season will more often than not hit above his career OPS for the rest of the season."

Oaktoon's Conjecture might be true or false. All it takes is a little research to find out. Personally I think it's probably false, but that's just a guess, and I'd be very interested to know for sure.

And even without knowing if it's true or false, I would have no problem with saying: the prediction that Scutaro will hit really well over the next few months is a classic example of Oaktoon's Conjecture.

by matthias on Jun 5, 2006 11:30 AM PDT up reply actions

You're right.

Upon re-reading, I should have bolded the I'm in that sentence. I was trying to point out that it's not me you're arguing with.

Can intangibles exist? Only the ones you can touch.

by salb918 on Jun 5, 2006 11:37 AM PDT up reply actions

It sounds to me like you guys ...

are arguing about two separate principles. Oaktoon's claim sounds like it is based on the statistical idea of trends, which as far as I know, a yearly batting average does not take into consideration. It sounds like he's really saying that Scutaro has just been 'cold', which is normal, and he'll get hot at some point. That is, the likelihood of an at bat at any point in time is not perfectly reflected in the overall batting average. (AB's are not independently distributed events with a likelihood = BA) There is a component of which the likelihood of a hit is determined by immediate previous success. How strong that is and how far back that goes is difficult to determine, but we all would agree that hitters do get in a groove when they are more (or less) likely to get hits.
SalB challenges this theory by saying that if he's hitting .170 now, he's not likely to hit .310 the rest of the year so that he has an overall average of .260 (or whatever). Also true, as he's most likely to hit .260 from here on, unless the trend component is currently creating a strong bias up or down from that historical average. Does last night's 3/4 mark the beginning of an upswing, or is it a statistical anomaly? Is the whole batting average an aggregation of statistical anomalies, and therefore the mean is essentially useless - a mode or median would be more useful?
Overall, I think both of you are probably right, but you sound like petulent children arguing.

by iceplant on Jun 5, 2006 3:28 PM PDT up reply actions

I agree

Unless the player is in his late 30's, I always expect him to finish the year close to his historic average. Therefore, I expect more from Marco and Perez the rest of this year. They both have quite a few good games coming up to reach their averages.

That being said, the biggest obstacle to Ginter being called up is that he is not on the 40 man roster. The A's would have to boot someone else to make room for Ginter. I dont see that taking place at all.

by Hang Man on Jun 5, 2006 8:36 AM PDT up reply actions

With Javier Herrera out for the year, and on the

40 man roster, would they have to add him to the major league roster to add him to the 60 day DL, which doesn't count against the 40 man roster, but that would start his arby clock. Isn't there some minor league exception to that?

by theblackpearl on Jun 5, 2006 9:01 AM PDT reply actions

isnt Perez out of options anyway?

I like the guy..he's with a new team..not getting any consistensy...I say put him in 5 days a week for the next couple and then make a decision.

RIP mAC dRe and biLL KiNg

by jme on Jun 5, 2006 9:03 AM PDT reply actions

Scutaro

He just went 3-4, hitting at least three balls solidly.

Keep him in for 4-5 games this week.

COME ON, OAKLAND, COME ON! June 19th - June 21st, 2006 ** Oakland Athletics @ Colorado Rockies **

by Colorado Fan on Jun 5, 2006 9:13 AM PDT up reply actions

I think defense is especially important

at second base. Think of all the double plays that the A's turn, and how important tight defense is for the A's pitchers and wins.

Of the three only Scutaro can be said to be decent defensively. I would keep him as the primary second baseman while Ellis is out. The fact that Ginter is not on the 40 man roster complicates any potential change, unless the A's want to risk losing Perez, who's out of options.

by OaklandSi on Jun 5, 2006 9:27 AM PDT up reply actions

I'd send Scoot down.

And it'd be all about money, to me.

Ginter is getting $2m a year. If you play him, and he hits .260 for a few weeks, you can trade him and someone, somewhere, will take on the salary (KC?).

If you keep him off the 40-man and don't send him up in a situation like this, let's be honest, you'd be better off waiving the guy.

"I smell like a meadow." - Yuniesky Betancourt

by Ozzz on Jun 5, 2006 9:43 AM PDT up reply actions

A's Farm System

Has anyone read how the A's farm system ranks against other teams. I know that we used to have a very deep farm system, that is until Swisher, Johnson, Blanton and Street were called to the majors. If anyone has any info I would be interested to know.
Thanks

They mostly come at night, mostly.

by crd04 on Jun 5, 2006 9:58 AM PDT reply actions

here's one site that rates farm systems

http://www.minorleaguenews.com/baseball/affiliated/farms/ALfarm.html

by OaklandSi on Jun 5, 2006 10:18 AM PDT up reply actions

geez...

we're tied for dead last in our division in terms of farm system...tied with tx but at least they can spend $$$ if need be on FA's...always knew the cerritos angels of artesia were solid, but didnt know the m's were ranked so high...

by money baller on Jun 5, 2006 11:11 AM PDT up reply actions

Wow, we rank lower than the SF Gnats on that link

The ratings must have been done when they still had Francisco Liriano...

by Instant Replay Umpire on Jun 5, 2006 11:39 AM PDT up reply actions

alot of the A's top 10-15 prospects have been

disappointing so far. either due to injury or just struggling. it seems like their lesser known prospects have played well and prospects over the last several yrs that have disappointed are starting to contribute at least

not doing well so far; injury or struggling:

barton
herrera
melillo
putnam
pennington
meyer
komine
powell
robnett
sullivan
snyder

doing well:

Buck
Windsor
Suzuki
Brown
Spanos
Morris
Fritz
Baker
Allegra
Baisley
Recker
Ray
Lansford, though struggling last 2 starts

Petit, could be SS/2b of the future, gg potential defensively. okay hitter, did well in low A last yr. i think he's similar to the M's SS Betancourt

Perry great in AA, hitting under .200 in AAA

Cassilla, is just okay but improved control

McCurdy, has been a bust so far, decent avg. around .280 in high A, not much else but hitting better than pennington at least

by rayver723 on Jun 5, 2006 10:55 AM PDT reply actions

Ray

His strikeout rate last year at Vancouver was absolutely ridiculous. And he's been pretty dominant for Kane County too, if he can get his command under control he could be special.

Also, no love for Brian Snyder in the post. After a terrible start (which is understandable after missing all of last season) he's hit 3 HR's in his last 2 games. And his walk rate is enough to make any stathead drool.

by pinkfloyd @ Athletics Nation on Jun 5, 2006 3:00 PM PDT reply actions

out of left field but...

anyone know what the song huston street comes out of the bullpen to is called?

"He has no equivalent." -Paul DePodesta on Jeremy Brown

by flipgatey3 on Jun 5, 2006 4:15 PM PDT reply actions

question for mathematical guys...

Reading the thread so far, it looks like perhaps Matthias, Oz or Sal B can answer this: I've been wondering if the A's are as streaky as they've looked, or if it's just random noise. In 17 out of the last 25 games the A's have had the same result as the game before that. Accordning to a binomial probability calculator, if the probability of a win is .5, the chance of a team having the same result at least 17 times is 0.05387607216835022, or right around the (inverse) 95 percent confidence level test. Do you think this is significant and we can conclude that the A's are a streaky team influenced by their self-confidence? Or is the sample size small and the result inconclusive? Or have the A's just been so bad that the probability of winnng has been significantly under .5?

by vk on Jun 5, 2006 5:19 PM PDT reply actions

any Far Side fans here?

Remember the "what dogs hear" cartoon?

The thought bubble in the "what monkeyball hears" version of this is "blah blah blah blah A's blah blah blah A's blah blah blah streaky blah blah blah blah blah blah A's blah blah blah A's ..."

</RevHaloFan>

Do you want to taste the rainbow? @('.')@

by monkeyball on Jun 5, 2006 5:23 PM PDT up reply actions