from Amazon
Monday, June 23, 2008
Which has more predictive value for a player: last year’s stats or this year’s stats so far?
The issue being sample size versus recency, of course. I don’t know off the top of my head, but I would guess it is last year’s stats. So, here is what I propose (as King of the World):
Take every article you read about who HAS the best offense, the best pitching, who IS the best player on whatever team, who should play, who should be benched, who should be sent down to the minors, who should be traded, who should be signed, who should not have been signed, who should bat where in the lineup, etc., etc. You will always see their 2008 stats as support for whatever statement or argument the author is making. Then substitute last year’s stats for this year’s stats since the former is likely at least as predictive as the latter, therefore it should provide better support for the author’s or writer’s arguments.
If you want to have even more fun, take full season stats from 2 years ago and combine them with the first half of last year. My guess is that these would also be more predictive of future performance than 85 games of 2008 stats.
I understand the fans’ and media’s obsession with current stats as a proxy for a player’s true talent, but an analyst should NEVER, EVER, EVER (did I say NEVER?) support an argument about how good someone IS or a team IS with current season stats. EVER.
Recent comments
Older comments
Page 1 of 344 pages 1 2 3 > Last »Complete Archive – By Category
Complete Archive – By Date