Add new comment

My take on this is one I tend to agree with James' position.
The trend I see most often is a tendency to OVERSTATE the reliability of MLB production over time/context changes.
I've been specifically arguing that age related decline is substantially under-appreciated by the masses for a number of years, (but it seems like every year there some new 30-year-old slugger who nearly everyone is convinced will continue raking for another 6 years).
I think James' foundation position is built on a strong foundation of understanding not just the reliability of MLEs ... but as much (or more), on the understanding that MLB production "givens" aren't nearly as "given" as is generally accepted.
I think his point on Lopez is extremely telling. Jose puts up 104 and 103 OPS+ seasons at age 24/25, yet his subsequent crash and burn is pointed squarely at his minor league performance, with little pause to ask - "how off were the projections of what was to come based on his '08/'09 MLB production?
You'd think that the fans who had watched the following players (among others) would have a better appreciation for how "weak" MAJOR league projections really are:
Lopez - crash
Sexson - burn
Beltre - sputter and re-ignite later
Ibanez - FLAME-ON!
Guti - random disease
I'm reading James' point not as a claim that MLEs are unerringly accurate ... but that they are every bit as accurate as MLB projections are.
Looking no further than the Ms 2012 roster, Olivo, Ryan, and Ichiro were all substantially below their MAJOR LEAGUE production levels (and projections).
IMO, the over-selling of the reliability of MLB Veterans (TM) is really at the core of the James' gripe. After all the angst and ire and grousing about the Ms not adding a "reliable veteran" or two in 2012 ... it was, in fact, the "reliable veterans" that were the root cause of the hitting woes for the 2012 team.
In the final analysis, I tend to side with James. MLEs are more reliable than most appreciate *AND* MLB production is far less reliable than is generally appreciated. That combination makes the skew between "prospects" and "veterans" seem larger than it really is.