Another dumb question on stats (underperforming player)

[Qeltar]

Early in the season I made a trade for Wil Myers, who's a good player but not a superstar. He piqued some fan interest for my lousy team and I thought would provide some much needed offense. He's pretty quick too.

"On paper" -- based on his scouted stats and previous years -- he should be doing well. But he's not. In fact, since I traded for him, he's at the Mendoza line with 5 HR in 52 games for a whopping .596 OPS. This isn't merely bad. It's "why is this guy still in my lineup" bad.

So here's the question. Are the results on the field purely a function of stats and some element of randomness? Or is there some other element involved that determines performance and might have changed to permanently reduce his effectiveness? I realize that question is a bit vague but you guys probably know what I mean.

I do realize scouting isn't always completely accurate, but this guy just seems "off". Like, way off. I mean, he was never going to win any batting titles, but the "power outage" is hard to understand.

Maybe just a bad year? Maybe something else? I dunno. But it's July 31 and this may be my last-minute veteran dump.

(It's worth pointing out that I got SD to retain much of his salary, so keeping him for a few more years isn't a big issue contract-wise IF he starts producing. Otherwise, I'd rather play some kids in the outfield.)

Thanks.

[endgame]

Are the results on the field purely a function of stats and some element of randomness? Or is there some other element involved that determines performance and might have changed to permanently reduce his effectiveness?

Results are a function of many contributors: his ratings, opponent's ratings (pitchers and fielders), league totals, randomness aka luck, age, development, talent change randomness settings, morale, coaching, and more, each with their own marginal or greater effect at any given moment in time.

Stats and data guys will offer you more info. We all perceive and address various issues differently, we evaluate players and strategies differently, make judgments about our future actions differently. Even though the groupings may be similar, the individual will always, eventually, betray his uniqueness, if only in private. What am I saying? In this case, I'm saying my 'impression,' having followed a few of your posts and inquiries, is that you value your impressions highly; give them a great deal of weight above all else. I share some of that, so it's not a criticism, just an observation and, even that, just my own.

So many factors play into things, in my personal approach, it's just not quantifiable. Not that it can't be, just that I'm not interested in the work, nor do I have the skills prerequisite to do so. I think what you're seeing here is isolated performance along a continuum of time. Time you haven't given things yet, to develop, better present themselves, offer you more information and/or inspiration to color your impression.

Certainly, intuition and impression can be essential driving forces, dependent on one's style. Some won't offer an opinion on Wil until they've seen four to five seasons. Some, may decide in the blink of an eye, or a single scouting report.

At any rate, that's a meager attempt to answer your question, and an unsolicited assessment of how we make assessments. It's my nature. Apologies, if it's out of place or undesired.

Think your thoughts, gather your impressions. I'd only suggest that, unless it rears its head like a blazing torch pointing you in a direction, ride with it a bit. Measure its longevity and persistence. Then, act. Or gather data to support it. Or take notice of its changes. Sometimes evaluating your evaluations betray personal trends that can be helpful in future decisions or assessments.

Oh, and welcome. You seem to possess and active, reasonable, and approachable voice. That's a good thing for us, I think.

[Qeltar]

Appreciate your thoughts. And thanks for that last.

It's funny that you say I value my impressions highly. I do sometimes, like I described in another thread where I took a flyer and wasted half a year's MLB minimum salary promoting a guy who really has no future just because I "saw something."

Here I am actually struggling against my impressions, which were that this guy would be a great addition to the team. I am trying to reconcile ratings figures that say "average contact with above average power" against results of .199 BA and .131 ISO.

It doesn't make sense. But then I guess that happens in real baseball too, right?

At any rate, I'm going to have to hang onto him anyway as he seems to have almost no trade value.