Posted by shobob on 9/27/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
My best guess is that it's a small sample size, and I should look forward to some regression to the mean.

Progression to the mean?

Posted by iain on 9/27/2010 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 9/27/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
My best guess is that it's a small sample size, and I should look forward to some regression to the mean.

Progression to the mean?

In a practical sense, yes, but not a mathematical sense.  It went away from the mean, so it has to "regress" back to it.

Unless you were just making a joke...can't tell in print.

Would this guy benefit more from a higher PC pitcher, or does the increased rating have the same effect on all?

Now you're all being mean.

Or being median. I can't remember which.

I think he would benefit more.   I look at it like this:   I give a man living in the streets $5 and it's a big deal to him.   I give Bill Gates $5 and he uses it to wipe his ***(of course, the bum may do the same thing but you get my point).    So, in my mind, decreasing AVG by 10% is a bigger deal if a guy gives it up at a .300 rate than it is if a guy gives it up at a .250 rate.    .030 > .025.

Posted by MikeT23 on 9/27/2010 11:08:00 AM (view original):
KC is a hitter's park that suppresses homers.   I think he outplayed his ratings there but they are what they are.   Austin doesn't suppress homers.    I think you can expect more 1.45 WHIP/4.75 ERA seasons from him. 

That's what I expected when I acquired him.  I hope to see something like that going forward.

Posted by mhulshult on 9/27/2010 11:13:00 AM (view original):

Posted by iain on 9/27/2010 11:09:00 AM (view original):

Posted by shobob on 9/27/2010 11:02:00 AM (view original):
My best guess is that it's a small sample size, and I should look forward to some regression to the mean.

Progression to the mean?

In a practical sense, yes, but not a mathematical sense.  It went away from the mean, so it has to "regress" back to it.

Unless you were just making a joke...can't tell in print.

I was kidding. 

See, your first post was missing the addition of Mr. Winky  --> 

Posted by shobob on 9/27/2010 10:52:00 AM (view original):
My catchers have 66 and 58 in PC, so I don't think the problem lies there.

Those are not good PCs.

Yes, those are "good" PCs.  They are not "great" PCs.  The positional recs have 50 for PC for catcher, so anything above that is "adequate", which I equate to "good enough"

Those PC's are definitely adequate, and I'm pretty sure that PC isn't all that important to begin with.

That's a whole 'nother debate.  I would think that anything under 50 could be called "not good" for PC

I don't think a PC in the 40's is a big deal.  But that's just me, and I value PC much less than most.

66 is not good for any category. It's adequate whether you're talking splits, power, etc. 66 PC is usuable with a decent bat. 58 for a backup with those offensive ratings is horrible, in my opinion at least. A guy with 20 power and 58 PC would never have a spot on my team because he doesn't do anything well enough to deserve a spot.

The PC authority has spoken