The lottery ticket fallacy

[JP Hochbaum]

As I peruse this board I see many that disagree with how Epstein and Hoyer are going about rebuilding this team.

One thing that stands out that is utterly false is that what they are doing won't be helpful to the future of this organization because of the thought that draft picks or minor leaguers are like lottery tickets. That argument might have had merit in 2002 when our sole top 100 prospect was Corey Patterson or in other years when it was Bobby Hill or Brooks Kieschniek (sp?).... you get the idea.

But this type of building, of hoarding top 100 prospects has proven to be the most successful over time, and combined with shrewd FA moves here and there it will build a winner. Just take a look at our minor league system and realize that the Cubs have never had something like this, so comparing it to past Cub prospects is bunk because we never had prospects this good and so many that are this good. We are increasing our chances of success by doing this, not guaranteeing it, and that's what this strategy is about.

The Cardinals do this as do the Red Sox, and they have won 5 out of the last 10 world series, that is not a coincidence. The history of this method has been proven to have a higher success rate over and over again.

 

[patg006]

As I peruse this board I see many that disagree with how Epstein and Hoyer are going about rebuilding this team.

One thing that stands out that is utterly false is that what they are doing won't be helpful to the future of this organization because of the thought that draft picks or minor leaguers are like lottery tickets. That argument might have had merit in 2002 when our sole top 100 prospect was Corey Patterson or in other years when it was Bobby Hill or Brooks Kieschniek (sp?).... you get the idea.

But this type of building, of hoarding top 100 prospects has proven to be the most successful over time, and combined with shrewd FA moves here and there it will build a winner. Just take a look at our minor league system and realize that the Cubs have never had something like this, so comparing it to past Cub prospects is bunk because we never had prospects this good and so many that are this good. We are increasing our chances of success by doing this, not guaranteeing it, and that's what this strategy is about.

The Cardinals do this as do the Red Sox, and they have won 5 out of the last 10 world series, that is not a coincidence. The history of this method has been proven to have a higher success rate over and over again.

This has to be the single dumbest post I've ever read. And that's saying something, because Chris J and Waldo are in a constant 'anything you can do I can do better' like competition when it comes to the dumbest idea on this board.

The Red Sox and Cards have won a lot over the last decade because they've done BOTH.

Building the team with the farm AND free agents is the most consistent winner. That's not a coincidence.

It takes the right free agents, right farm guys, right team of 25, and a shit ton of luck and the right hot streak at the right time to pull it off.

But go ahead and tell me how Kansas City a couple years back with Hochevar, Moustakis, Gordon, Butler, Crow, and Cain--with only Butler and Crow living up to potential, is the secret formula.

I'm afraid to say 'you have the floor' because you've already dumbfounded anyone with an IQ of -17.

 

[chibears55]

I think the fall out is that a few on here think that most on here think this team is only going to be built on "prospects"...

the majority on here understands it takes prospects, trades, and FAs to make a solid 25 man roster..
its just that most on here are willing to wait and allow cubs management to build up the farm system before making major trades and FA signings without complaining about it, because no matter how much you complain on a message board, its not going to change what their doing like it or not...

it wasn't going to be a quick fix.. their starting year 3 , theres no doubt that their minor league system is much improved after the first 2 years.. now we wait and see how it all pays off at the major league level, and besides the kids coming up who they bring in via trades and FA this yr and next..

 

[beckdawg]

The people who say prospect often fail aren't wrong. I could dig up the study if people are interested but the numbers were something to the effect of 70% of top 100 prospects fall below 1.5 WAR/season in their career which makes them worse than an average player. Only 40% of pitchers ranked 1-20 had higher than that. Only 20% of pitchers ranked 21-100 had higher than 1.5 WAR/season. The good news for cubs fans? 60% of hitters ranked 1-20 succeeded. I want to say it was 30% of 20-100 but I might be off on that number.

So, saying prospects fail is perfectly valid. Where I would suggest that argument is wrong is in the fact that when those players do succeed the value they provide far exceeds what any FA can. With nearly any player you don't want their 30-36 years. You want their 24-29 years. To illustrate my point take a guy like Johan Santan. He's 23-29 looks like this

23 - 3.6 WAR
24 - 4.1 WAR
25 - 7.5 WAR
26 - 7.6 WAR
27 - 7.2 WAR
28 - 4.5 WAR
29 - 4.8 WAR

Since then he's been at 3 WAR, 3.4 WAR, 1.4 WAR and didn't pitch last season. It's a similar arc for any player you want to look at save for someone like Bonds or Clemens who've been tied to steroid use. And the problem with FA is you very rarely get someone in their 24-29 years as a FA. Additionally, trades are a way you can acquire that but you need prospects usually.

So, the way you do this is to attack in bulk. The cubs have 4 top 35 prospects as positional players. As such you'd expect 2.5 to work out. You can also make the argument the way the cubs have approached their prospects is smart. They've netted 4 high profile hitters who are more often to pan out than pitchers. They then attacked pitching in bulk with their later picks hoping that they can find people later in the draft who turn out well.

That isn't to say FA have no value. But in almost all cases, the best FA aren't going to be as good as the best home grown talent because players in their peak are better than players who aren't. FA's should compliment your home grown players not replace them.

 

[chibears55]

The people who say prospect often fail aren't wrong. I could dig up the study if people are interested but the numbers were something to the effect of 70% of top 100 prospects fall below 1.5 WAR/season in their career which makes them worse than an average player. Only 40% of pitchers ranked 1-20 had higher than that. Only 20% of pitchers ranked 21-100 had higher than 1.5 WAR/season. The good news for cubs fans? 60% of hitters ranked 1-20 succeeded. I want to say it was 30% of 20-100 but I might be off on that number.

So, saying prospects fail is perfectly valid. Where I would suggest that argument is wrong is in the fact that when those players do succeed the value they provide far exceeds what any FA can. With nearly any player you don't want their 30-36 years. You want their 24-29 years. To illustrate my point take a guy like Johan Santan. He's 23-29 looks like this

23 - 3.6 WAR
24 - 4.1 WAR
25 - 7.5 WAR
26 - 7.6 WAR
27 - 7.2 WAR
28 - 4.5 WAR
29 - 4.8 WAR

Since then he's been at 3 WAR, 3.4 WAR, 1.4 WAR and didn't pitch last season. It's a similar arc for any player you want to look at save for someone like Bonds or Clemens who've been tied to steroid use. And the problem with FA is you very rarely get someone in their 24-29 years as a FA. Additionally, trades are a way you can acquire that but you need prospects usually.

So, the way you do this is to attack in bulk. The cubs have 4 top 35 prospects as positional players. As such you'd expect 2.5 to work out. You can also make the argument the way the cubs have approached their prospects is smart. They've netted 4 high profile hitters who are more often to pan out than pitchers. They then attacked pitching in bulk with their later picks hoping that they can find people later in the draft who turn out well.

That isn't to say FA have no value. But in almost all cases, the best FA aren't going to be as good as the best home grown talent because players in their peak are better than players who aren't. FA's should compliment your home grown players not replace them.

good post...

 

[CSF77]

Part of the problem here is if you have a player that avg say a 4.5 WAR in his peak and after his peak in his 30's avg's a 3 WAR. While being over paid.

But the home grown gamble comes up and nets a 2 WAR.

In the end it is a 3 WAR vs a 2 WAR player.

So the arguement is in what is a owner willing to pay.

2 WAR production at less than 1 mil per

or 3 WAR at 15 mil

production wise 3 war will produce more than 2 war. That part is simple.

 

[CSF77]

I believe the best solultion for the Cubs is to let it play out.

Take 3B as an example.

Rigth now they have a platoon. Louis has been playing 2B in the off season to increase his versatility. He has played SS. His platoon partner can cover SS and 2B. Barney came up as a SS. Castro is putting on more muscle this off season.

Add to this they have Olt ready this year, Christian in AAA, Bryant in AA and Candi in A+

Not to mention they could just move Baez to 3B.

In view of the system depth it would be STUPID to lock up a long term solution just to pacify fans. They have system depth with legit talent.

Ya a few will fail out but some one will click.

The OF I feel is an area that could use a bat. Lake is talented but I'm not sure if he will become an all star type talent. Soler to be honest was worse than Almora in the fall league. He had a moment in that league that he looked like he could carry the team but after he just shut down. He put up some big question marks.

Almora looks the part but is still a few years out. At best he would start in Daytona and make the jump to Tenn. 2015 he would be in AAA. That is if he hits no snags. That to me is still too much of a gamble.

In view of every thing I am hoping they go after Choo. They need a lead off even if every thing pans out. They lack a 1-2 who gives OBA. Castro is not a good OBA player and the team would suffer in run production with him in that role.

 

[HurricaneDij39]

This has to be the single dumbest post I've ever read. And that's saying something, because Chris J and Waldo are in a constant 'anything you can do I can do better' like competition when it comes to the dumbest idea on this board.

The Red Sox and Cards have won a lot over the last decade because they've done BOTH.

Building the team with the farm AND free agents is the most consistent winner. That's not a coincidence.

It takes the right free agents, right farm guys, right team of 25, and a shit ton of luck and the right hot streak at the right time to pull it off.

But go ahead and tell me how Kansas City a couple years back with Hochevar, Moustakis, Gordon, Butler, Crow, and Cain--with only Butler and Crow living up to potential, is the secret formula.

I'm afraid to say 'you have the floor' because you've already dumbfounded anyone with an IQ of -17.

You are in no position to grade one's IQ when you have yet to provide a quality example for yourself. The Royals are a poor comparison because they operate in the middle of nowhere can't attract a marquee free agent even if they tried.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

This has to be the single dumbest post I've ever read. And that's saying something, because Chris J and Waldo are in a constant 'anything you can do I can do better' like competition when it comes to the dumbest idea on this board.

The Red Sox and Cards have won a lot over the last decade because they've done BOTH.

I am going to stop you here because they did do both, but they also started with a better farm system than the Cubs. We would have had to balloon our payroll to Yankeeville in order to field a playoff team. SO saying the Cubs could do both is false since they didn't have any farm system to speak of. It's a lack of acknowledging reality to say they could build an entire team on FA.

Doubt Ricketts could or would do that. Cub fans have to be realistic, we don't have Yankee money and couldn't get enough free agents to have been competitive enough.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

But go ahead and tell me how Kansas City a couple years back with Hochevar, Moustakis, Gordon, Butler, Crow, and Cain--with only Butler and Crow living up to potential, is the secret formula.

I'm afraid to say 'you have the floor' because you've already dumbfounded anyone with an IQ of -17.

Once the Cubs get those kind of prospects on the big league team they will be players in the free agent market. The Royals, at the time, didn't have money to go after free agents. Now they do because of a recent tv deal.

 

[patg006]

You are in no position to grade one's IQ when you have yet to provide a quality example for yourself. The Royals are a poor comparison because they operate in the middle of nowhere can't attract a marquee free agent even if they tried.

Coming from you. The guy who bet the cubs wouldn't lose 100 games in 2012 because he was SO sure in Theo?

You have zero knowledge and are an incompetent fan. From the cbs boards, you are 2nd to RCub--who should have his own special category.

The Royals have been frugal with money, and wont spend it because they're small market. When Shields is up, he's gone. Ervin Santana wants 100 mil, so he was given a 'see ya later.'

Clueless

 

[patg006]

I am going to stop you here because they did do both, but they also started with a better farm system than the Cubs. We would have had to balloon our payroll to Yankeeville in order to field a playoff team. SO saying the Cubs could do both is false since they didn't have any farm system to speak of. It's a lack of acknowledging reality to say they could build an entire team on FA.

Doubt Ricketts could or would do that. Cub fans have to be realistic, we don't have Yankee money and couldn't get enough free agents to have been competitive enough.

Teams who win do BOTH. If you're going to say the Yanks, Giants, Cards, Red Sox did it on only the farm, you're fooling yourself.

And that's so funny the cubs never had a farm before. Aren't we all excited about Baez and Vogelbach? Don't we feel Castillo is a great catcher? Aren't we trying to get top prospects for Shark? How did we acquire Travis Wood?

Prospects are lottery tickets. If Hayden Simpson turned into the next Roy Oswalt (who he was compared to during his tenure at Arkansas State or wherever he was from) you'd be singing a different tune.

You're deviating from your initial point--that prospects aren't lottery tickets. Now you say we have to see the payroll jump up to be contenders because of a bad farm.

You have proven nothing, and now DJ has opened his Special person mouth.

 

[ChiSoxCity]

Teams who win do BOTH. If you're going to say the Yanks, Giants, Cards, Red Sox did it on only the farm, you're fooling yourself.

And that's so funny the cubs never had a farm before. Aren't we all excited about Baez and Vogelbach? Don't we feel Castillo is a great catcher? Aren't we trying to get top prospects for Shark? How did we acquire Travis Wood?

Prospects are lottery tickets. If Hayden Simpson turned into the next Roy Oswalt (who he was compared to during his tenure at Arkansas State or wherever he was from) you'd be singing a different tune.

You're deviating from your initial point--that prospects aren't lottery tickets. Now you say we have to see the payroll jump up to be contenders because of a bad farm.

You have proven nothing, and now DJ has opened his Special person mouth.

It's an exaggeration to say the Cubs haven't developed talent through their farm system before. As has already been said several times, winning teams are built with a combination of homegrown players AND players acquired via FA and trades. The Cubs are focusing on their farm system because it is the CHEAPEST route to finding players. Fans have bought into this notion that the Cubs will contend with all of these prospects two years from now, which is total BS. Maybe if the Cubs spent some money and actually fielded a quality team, but they've done the exact opposite.

 

[beckdawg]

Fans have bought into this notion that the Cubs will contend with all of these prospects two years from now, which is total BS. Maybe if the Cubs spent some money and actually fielded a quality team, but they've done the exact opposite.

Why is it BS that they can contend with their prospects in 2 years? If you're suggesting they can't do it solely on prospects then fine I agree. But, within 2 years they should have a core line up of Bryant, Baez, Castro and Rizzo who all probably have the ability to be all-stars. That's not a stretch to suggest that those players can be that good. Their pitching in the 2 year range is questionable but also is 2 years away from now and a lot can change in 2 years. Also, Oakland just won 96 games with Colon as their "ace." They didn't have a single other pitcher over 2 WAR. Is it a guarantee that the cubs will contend? Of course not. Baez and Bryant may develop slower than you hope or never at all. But to say it's "BS" is taking a rather narrow view of things.

Also, why does it feel like no one ever bitches about the white sox and their spending. It's the same market. Here's a look at their off season spending over the past few years(this total includes entire length of the deal so 4 year $40 mil would show up as $40 mil not $10 mil).

2012 - $12,700,000(20th in the league)
2011 - $1,000,000(t-28th in the league)
2010 - $118,500,000(5th in the league)
2009 - $5,875,000(28th in the league)
2008 - $1,000,000(27th in the league)
2007 - $30,000,000(12th in the league)
2006 - $4,650,000(26th in the league)

compared to the cubs who've spent

2012 - $77,900,000(7th in the league)
2011 - $18,900,000(15th in the league)
2010 - $11,500,000(22nd in the league)
2009 - $25,800,000(10th in the league)
2008 - $88,425,000(4th in the league)
2007 - $55,700,000(5th in the league)
2006 - $297,550,000(1st in the league)

Only once in the the past 7 years have the white sox spent more in FA than the cubs did. And that includes 4 years of the "cheap" Ricketts owning the team. Only once in those 4 years were the cubs in the bottom half of the league in spending.

 

[JP Hochbaum]

Teams who win do BOTH. If you're going to say the Yanks, Giants, Cards, Red Sox did it on only the farm, you're fooling yourself.

I am pretty sure I confirmed what you said that teams that succeed do both. But the Cubs farm system is still in the farm, therefor they can't do both.

You're deviating from your initial point--that prospects aren't lottery tickets. Now you say we have to see the payroll jump up to be contenders because of a bad farm.

Lottery tickets are about a 1 in several million chance. Baseball prospects in the top 100 are about a 20% chance of being good WAR players. I have not deviated from any claim I made.

 

[brett05]

Also, why does it feel like no one ever (complains) about the white sox and their spending. It's the same market.

You didn't seriously just say this did you?

 

[Jntg4]

This has to be the single dumbest post I've ever read. And that's saying something, because Chris J and Waldo are in a constant 'anything you can do I can do better' like competition when it comes to the dumbest idea on this board.

The Red Sox and Cards have won a lot over the last decade because they've done BOTH.

Building the team with the farm AND free agents is the most consistent winner. That's not a coincidence.

It takes the right free agents, right farm guys, right team of 25, and a shit ton of luck and the right hot streak at the right time to pull it off.

But go ahead and tell me how Kansas City a couple years back with Hochevar, Moustakis, Gordon, Butler, Crow, and Cain--with only Butler and Crow living up to potential, is the secret formula.

I'm afraid to say 'you have the floor' because you've already dumbfounded anyone with an IQ of -17.

Liked because it involved ripping Chris J.

 

[Jntg4]

Why is it BS that they can contend with their prospects in 2 years? If you're suggesting they can't do it solely on prospects then fine I agree. But, within 2 years they should have a core line up of Bryant, Baez, Castro and Rizzo who all probably have the ability to be all-stars. That's not a stretch to suggest that those players can be that good. Their pitching in the 2 year range is questionable but also is 2 years away from now and a lot can change in 2 years. Also, Oakland just won 96 games with Colon as their "ace." They didn't have a single other pitcher over 2 WAR. Is it a guarantee that the cubs will contend? Of course not. Baez and Bryant may develop slower than you hope or never at all. But to say it's "BS" is taking a rather narrow view of things.

Also, why does it feel like no one ever bitches about the white sox and their spending. It's the same market. Here's a look at their off season spending over the past few years(this total includes entire length of the deal so 4 year $40 mil would show up as $40 mil not $10 mil).

2012 - $12,700,000(20th in the league)
2011 - $1,000,000(t-28th in the league)
2010 - $118,500,000(5th in the league)
2009 - $5,875,000(28th in the league)
2008 - $1,000,000(27th in the league)
2007 - $30,000,000(12th in the league)
2006 - $4,650,000(26th in the league)

compared to the cubs who've spent

2012 - $77,900,000(7th in the league)
2011 - $18,900,000(15th in the league)
2010 - $11,500,000(22nd in the league)
2009 - $25,800,000(10th in the league)
2008 - $88,425,000(4th in the league)
2007 - $55,700,000(5th in the league)
2006 - $297,550,000(1st in the league)

Only once in the the past 7 years have the white sox spent more in FA than the cubs did. And that includes 4 years of the "cheap" Ricketts owning the team. Only once in those 4 years were the cubs in the bottom half of the league in spending.

Your thinking is off.

Your view:
Cubs market = Chicago metropolitan area
White Sox market = Chicago metropolitan area

Reality:
Cubs market = 70% of Chicago metropolitan area + tourists
White Sox market = 30% of Chicago metropolitan area + all the people coming out just to see the historic U.S. Cellular Field (nobody)

 

[beckdawg]

Your thinking is off.

Your view:
Cubs market = Chicago metropolitan area
White Sox market = Chicago metropolitan area

Reality:
Cubs market = 70% of Chicago metropolitan area + tourists
White Sox market = 30% of Chicago metropolitan area + all the people coming out just to see the historic U.S. Cellular Field (nobody)

Fair enough but in 5 of the 7 years a large market team in the white sox have been in the 20's in league spending where as the cubs have been in the top half of the league even during the Ricketts ownership 3 out of the 4 years when they were dumping big salaries. All I'm saying is people act like the cubs are spending on the A's level when they aren't.

 

[SilenceS]

I don't like this thread because he tried to make it sound like an episode of "the Big Bang theory"