Add new comment

Baseball people freak out all the time about "sample size" and "not drawing conclusions with limited data" and when you ask them how much data would make something rock-solid you wind up with a datapoint size that, in some cases, is larger than the peak of a player's career - or maybe even his whole career.
There are things that "stabilize" before other things.  Swinging K rate is a pretty quick stabilizer, IIRC. So you are allowed to draw "reasonable" conclusions from things that stabilize at a decent rate.  But if you'd like not to wait half a season in order to draw conclusions from what you're watching, maybe the statements need to be phrased differently.
"James Paxton is gonna be a Cy Young candidate after seeing that performance." That sort of statement makes the scientifically-minded have aneurysms.
"James Paxton will be a force all year if he can keep throwing 94-98 and use his cutter like that."  Better.  And truer.
"James Paxton threw a 94-98 MPH 4-seam fastball, a 90-92 mph cutter, and a curveball that was his third-best pitch on the night." Best for some people - just the facts ma'am.
But what use are facts without conclusions? Suppositions? Possibilities explored and looked for?
We know Paxton threw a great game.  We know the offense had a great series. We don't know if it's sustainable.  We don't know how many times this year Paxton will throw like that.  Maybe it's the only time, maybe he does it in 20 starts.
We know Ackley and Smoak and the like have not yet lived up to their expectations coming out of college.  We don't know what their ceiling is yet, or even their average expectation. We know what people who hit like them in the past have done with similar numbers to start their careers (spoiler alert: for the most part it isn't much to write home about) but those people are not these people. Jamie Moyer had a unique career.  Randy Johnson became the best LH pitcher of all time after being a disappointment through age 28.
# of wins after age 32:
Niekro: 237
Cy Young: 225
Spahn: 218
Moyer: 210
Big Unit: 199
Both those guys, Jamie and Randy, had "surprising" careers and few people would have ever bet that they would pitch that long and be that good. But in that moment when their careers shifted, in Moyer's age 33 season or Randy's age 29 season, could you see it?  Could you see the change?  Or did you need the next 200+ wins to explain it to you?
It's just three games.  Nothing has happened yet - except we went 3-0, all the kids flourished, and we looked like a competitor.
Now comes the next series, and then the next one. We'll lose 60 games this year - most everyone does. But if we keep winning more than we lose, at what point will what we are watching be considered to be valid?
I look forward to finding out, especially if the team keeps winning more than they lose and playing this way.
~G