Longgone

What I'm saying is; that opinion has no basis.

Your theory has no basis.

I only see one FCL (a 9-4 loss in which Jobe pitched) and two DSL.

What are you talking about? They used to have two rookie Florida ss teams, now they have one, they've also lost the higher ss team that was in Connecticut. They've long had two latin teams, so they are down two ss teams and have contracted the total number of players.

Since creating RBI is proven not to be a skill possessed by certain players, but rather the result of circumstances, there is no reason to place more "value" on them.

Of course you need results to test your data, but that doesn't make the results themselves predictive. It's the same as always; you watch two hitters for the first time, one bloops two hits off the handle and the end of the bat and k's twice, the other hits four rockets right at the outfielders. One got results, but who would you bet on for the future? It's the same thing with process data, just a bit more sophisticated. You can't just look at results and come to a flat conclusion without looking deeper to see how randomness may have impacted those results.

I believe your skills, which surely fluctuate somewhat, and your opponents, will have an impact on babip, but over time, it's mainly random luck how the hits happen to roll out, and it will even out over time. But tell me this, do you truly believe results stats are more predictive than process data? Because that is what you were implying in your previous post.

BABIP is an indicator of future performance. It was always true that some players would be higher or lower based on speed, power and other hitting attributes. I think what surprises people is that periods of unexplained statistical variability are larger and longer than they expect, and they consistently overreact to smaller samples.

The FACT is, he's hit the hell out of the ball all year, he just hasn't gotten results. That's baseball. He's done his job, just hasn't gotten rewarded.

Torkelson has been hitting the hell out of the ball this year. You can't judge his future production based on traditional stats over a relatively short period.

They will take their highest graded player, whether bat, arm, hs or college.

I'd be happy with any of the top five. If they try to get cute and take someone from the second tier, I probably wouldn't be happy.

There seems to be a clear top tier of five. Taking someone from the second tier, just because you'd prefer a college bat, seems irrational.

I'd be more concerned about "He can't run or separate anymore."

That he makes the team for x amount of time.

Pay no heed, the whole discussion regarding low value positions is overdone. You don't draft positions, you draft individuals and what they can provide for your club compared to other options.

It already is a reality. You can't direct the ball into the gaps, you can only hit it hard, the rest is up to randomness.

Like everything else, it depends on the return.

Time.

No, he's already received a qualifying offer once. He's going to be tough to trade, as he's a rental if he opts out, but you'd be stuck with the contract if he gets hurt.

You'd never draft or not draft by a category. You do factor risk into your grading of individuals, so pitchers and high schoolers have that in their grading. After factoring for risk, if that is the highest player on your board, take him. If you consistently miss, get better scouts.

Not much to choose between Crews and Langford. Any of the top 5 are premium choices.

It was a "groin" injury, he only missed 7 games, and seems to be playing very well without any issues.

Langford is a solid defender, likely with the speed for center, he just hasn't played there much. Not drafting him for defense, though, premium bat, same with Crews. If you want defense, draft C!ark.

I understand this thinking, but Detroit isn't that deep yet. Injuries are a reality and competition is the lifeblood of the NFL.