First of all, Zen, stop with the attitude, there's no need for it.
Not trying to give anyone attitude. Not seriously, anyway. I would appreciate, however, if Meff would at least respond to points I have actually made, instead of ones that... well I don't know... one he would like me to have made or something. It makes conversation difficult.
Maybe it's just semantics, but it seems to me that's exactly what he's doing. He's telling you how many 20 year olds have been above average hitters in the majors in the last 25 years. You can say that the probability is larger for Montero to succeed than most 20 year olds because of what he's already done (which seems pretty obvious, or we wouldn't even be having this discussion), but the bottom line is that only a few people in the last 25 years have done it, no matter how large or small you want to make the control group.
Well, right, but that kind of misses the point of how you rate a player's chances to perform sufficiently at the big league level. What are the chances that you pull an ace out of a full deck of cards? 1 in 13, right? What if you remove everything but Jacks or higher? Your odds are one in five now. (As you said, it seems pretty obvious.)
Yes, few 20-year-olds have had success in the majors. The issue is that we're not (or at least I wasn't) talking about success
in the majors at age 20. I was talking about an appearance
in the majors at age 20. And I even agreed that it wasn't likely for Montero to show up and succeed... the confusion here seems to be over what I said regarding the fact that it's just not as
unlikely as Meff's comparison makes it out to be. He's talking like it's still 1:13 to pull an ace out of the deck.
Sorry if you took offense to what I wrote, but I think you're not picking up on the point I'm trying to make here: by Montero breaking into the bigs, and being league-average, he would be out-performing Bonds, Pujols, etc. Sure, he's hit great, and opened the possibility that he could be a decent hitter this year, but it is still just that, a vague possibility. Here's a list of 20 YO who even in 250 PAs have been league-average. A total of eight. Do you want to risk the 2010 season on Montero being one of the 10 best players his age of the last quarter century (even when the prize is most likely a league-average ballplayer?)
Of course not, and I never said I did. This seems to be the misunderstanding here. For some reason, you think I'm saying that Montero should
be called up early, or that he will
be called up early and he will
be an All-Star out of the gate. I have said none of these things.
My curiosity is at what point would the Yanks consider that the best move? If Montero's mashing, and Posada goes down, I think they'd have to call him up, no? The likelihood of his performing shitty/average/above average at this level notwithstanding, would they not consider Montero the best move? Again, we're talking about hypothetical situations here, so some things are already taken as given. If
Montero is mashing. If
Posada gets hurt. If
Nick Johnson gets hurt or seriously underperforms.
In your post, you stated that you didn't want to lay him out as the next A-Rod, yet simultaneously state that "we should be comparing him to the A-Rods and Griffeys and Cabreras." I find that confusing. Also, shouldn't we also be comparing him to the Aramis Ramirezes, and Ivan Rodriguezes who were severely costly to their teams when they brought them up too soon? What about the Chad Hermansens amongst eons others who never did anything?
As I tried to explain above, I think you're missing the point of what I said and taking my statement of comparison beyond its intended meaning. The point was not to project his big-league career. The point was to project their ability to actually be a player who amasses enough PAs to qualify for the batting title (your initial benchmark, chosen for whatever reason). You said, "I guess the main point I'm trying to make here is that since 1985, there have been six seasons in which a 20 year old has qualified for the batting title." Using all 20-year-olds to judge Montero's chances is incorrect. The proper comparison at this point would be to all the other players who have advanced so quickly. The A-Rods, Griffeys, and Cabreras. That's a much smaller pool of players to draw from, and I'd imagine the players in that pool have a better chance of sticking in the bigs than the pool that includes any/all 20-year olds.
I don't think I've said once that he can't be a decent, or even great hitter in the Majors this year. But that list of guys who did it is chock full of guys who have played on a lot of All-Star teams, and quite a few who are even going to the Hall of Fame. Freaks. By stating that you think such a performance is likely, you are putting him up there with the Alomars, the Sheffields, etc. It is an argument by implication, and not a straw man. I'm just saying that the more likely alternative is the guys at 20 who spent a full year in Triple-A before putting it together, or even the guys who never did. It's a much bigger list.
Right, but the only problem is that I never stated that it was likely.
I only stated that it is not as
unlikely as you are making it sound. Sounds trivial, but I think it's kind of the crux of the misunderstanding here.