Does A Player Own A Skill Or Was It Just Sample Size?

by faketeams on Aug 6, 2008 7:00 AM EDT in Baseball

Once a player demonstrates a skill, he owns it. This adage is attributed to Ron Shandler at Baseball HQ and frequently used to project a rebound from a worse performance level to a better one - assuming that player has been at that better level as some time in the player's past.

I hear it frequently enough on various fantasy sports shows and podcasts that I conclude it to be an accepted piece of fantasy intelligence. What I wonder is how it jibes with the arguments of small sample size when applied to players who have had a particularly good stretch of performance.

Does the hot stretch of performance mean the player now "owns" the skill? If it does, doesn't that negate the small sample size argument?

How about a bad stretch of performance? Doesn't that mean he owns the ability to be especially crappy or is that just a small sample size argument against the players not being good?

The hamster on the wheel in my head just collapses whenever I try to reconcile the acceptence of the Shandler adage and my knowledge of sample sizes. Can this be resolved?

Poll

Are small sample sizes and players owning a skill once he demonstrates it irreconcilable positions?

Yes

4 votes

No

5 votes

9 votes | Poll has closed

Tweet Comment 3 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Finally

I was surprised the early voting was 2-1 against. This always burrs my saddle when i hear it. Perfect example would be Daniel Cabrera.

Sure he could pitch well for a stretch but who really believes he’ll do anything but damage your team given any larger sample size.

Fake Teams - a proud member of the SB Nation

by faketeams on Aug 6, 2008 11:09 AM EDT reply actions

Hmm

I think Shandler usually means a player owns a skill, given a sufficient sample size … like a full year or maybe just half a season. So it may be that the two positions are not irreconcilable.

In the short term, sure: Daniel Cabrera can have a brilliant month. But when has he ever sustained it for a year? That’s why you can’t say he’s really displayed the skills he’s alleged to have lurking somewhere inside.

Maybe it comes down to defining a nebulous area: When is a sample size sufficient enough to draw conclusions about the divide between a luck-fueled hot streak and true skill?

I tend to believe that a player needs several months of sustained performance before I’m willing to concede it’s “skill.”

by Xavier. on Aug 6, 2008 3:02 PM EDT reply actions

Shandler addresses this in his book.

Hope I’m not crossing any copyright line: “Once a player displays a skill, he owns it. That display could occur at any time – earlier in his career, back in the minors, or even in winter ball play. And while that skill may lie dormant after its initial display, the potential is always there for him to tap back into that skill at some point, barring injury or age. That dormant skill can reappear at any time given the right set of circumstances.
Caveat… The initial display of skill must have occurred over an extended period of time. An isolated 1-hit shut-out in Single-A ball amidst a 5.00 ERA season is not enough. The shorter the display of skill in the past, the more likely it can be attributed to random chance. The longer the display, the more likely that any re-emergence of that skill is for real. Typically, you’d want to see a consistent level of performance over at least a several month period.”

by fantasyguru on Aug 12, 2008 6:26 PM EDT reply actions