CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Not even close to true and you know it. Please quit being intellectually dishonest.
I don't know where you've read into it that the Reds invested in a facility. Dr. Kremchek did that. I'm not sure if the Reds use it at all, not that they would disclose that.
That it's not serious.
No. It's just a preference on the surgeon's part plus a certain "look" to the ligament.
Overlay, rather than replacing the ligament. (Probably.)
I'm sorry. I simply cannot comment, which is why I'd hoped to keep this "on baseball."
Let's stay focused on baseball, ok?
We don't have data, just anecdote. It would make sense that people would lose some velo over time, then make adjustments. Seems most that do that retain the ability to hit the big numbers, but not to do it consistently. There's some obvious exceptions.
There's a lot of middle relievers I probably couldn't name. If they don't get injured, they're a pretty anonymous bunch to me.
Supposedly, Glenn Beck is addressing a big group today. Kinda similar.
I won't speak for Dave at all, but if he's referring to people that say they can eyeball pitchers and tell you whether they're injury prone or not, I agree. If he's referring to biomechanical analysis of the type done by Dr. Glenn Fleisig and others, I disagree strongly.
I think the better example is if an MLB owner owned gambling assets. This occurred with the Nuttings in Pittsburgh and the Steinbrenners with horse racing.
“Baseball has always been held to higher standards, like with steroids,” Nutting said. “The gaming thing is an awkward and difficult situation with baseball.”
Stimulants will do that.
Either it's right, or it's wrong. You can't have it both ways in this instance. I'm hearing MLB might comment soon, so we'll see.
Nope. What worries me is that it doesn't appear Chris Lincecum does either.
Yep. I'd read Tue rehab for Wed, but he went last night and was fine. Downside of writing the night before - even though I fill in things with the best info I can, always going to be a bit behind in this format.
My guess is that there's some arthritis in there, maybe some minor cartilage damage. As far as I know, he's never had knee surgery -- correct me if I'm wrong -- but seeing chronic-type symptoms in his early 20's is just a bad sign, if not a specific one.
Yes, but they're represented. New substances are added by the HPAC, which has one lawyer from MLB, one from MLBPA, and a medical expert chosen by each side. I haven't seen who exactly is on the committee. To add substances, the HPAC decides and I'm pretty sure that it has to be unanimous. The only exception is if the federal government adds something to the controlled substances list. They use WADA's banned list as the model, which is where DMAA came from.
1) Is kind of in place now. NFL does it but hasn't changed anything there.
Best article I've read here in weeks.
Or, Youkilis could be a red-ass, not that there's anything wrong with that.
They're not breaking easily -- we saw how they broke and it looked "normal." What we've seen are them re-breaking and I can't come up with another solution than "came back too early." As I said on XM today with Jeff and Chris, my worry was he'd come back, try too hard to get back on his teammate's good side, and re-injure himself.
No, we only hear it when someone doesn't like them. Look at your friends from college (if you're my age) - how many of them look the same?
And no, I'm more like Terry Crews. Most people see the name on the marquee and think "who?"
1. Google it. Worth it to find and read Joe Posnanski's article on it.
2. Too early to tell.
If you want to get silly, I'd bet on Tommy John. If someone has the time, the search function is there.
Yeah, you can live a pretty normal life without an ACL. Would limit physical activity pretty hard. Rehab would also be very different, more aggressive for return to game.
I'm not saying he should have just taken it, but as I said above, it's the use of the cleats. Inexcusable in any circumstance.
133. Though that's probably high since I used the term "wood chipper" in today's and I'm sure I've used it other times.
The guy who owns it is a friend. Plus, it's baseball! I mean, I get to play tour guide for a group of people, see baseball, and I ended up making friends that I hope I stay in touch with. I don't want to sound like an ad here, but I really enjoyed the experience far more than I expected. I'm hoping that I can do it more next year. Ideally, we could have some local events -- not everyone can afford a tour like this or has time -- but tying in the tour to a Ballpark Event, a Q&A with a GM, or similar has some real value, I think.
Didn't work out too badly for Edinson Volquez, who had that mix ... about ten months ago now.
Google (or even site search) is your friend.
It's chronic, but a lax shoulder isn't really something that can be helped by a move. He hurt it last yr on a swing.
Nope. Just not much to add, so I haven't really covered it. Should be back for spring training.
Yes, but I'm told that because ablation targets different areas of the heart, it's tough to compare any two procedures, though they do the same basic thing. Also, the cardio demands of goalie and pitcher are very diff. It's something, but I'm loathe to put too much stock in comps for something like this.
It's possible, but unlikely. Most of this damage is insidious as I discussed with Martin, above. The change of mechanics from the hit makes some sense and probably didn't help, if it happened. Impossible to tell.
I wonder - is there an increased value of a pitcher's defensive play due to the avoidance of calamity? Think about how many times we've seen pitchers hit this season alone. If you come up with some of those highlight-reel plays where a guy gets his glove up miraculously, you probably just saw an injury almost happen.
Not as far as I know. That's as pure a traumatic injury as can be.
Don't know yet. It's significant, sure - any high grade sprain is - but it's too early to even tell the course of treatment, let alone the long term prognosis.
I'm a reporter, not a psychic.
You're right. I misread the option as '12 instead of '13.
The knee issue came up during the rehab, but was evidently a chronic problem.
I'm not saying they didnt say that, but the video makes it look as if his head hit.
Not commenting. Yet.
Read it again.
This. I think we'll hear "feared hitter" in the argument.
I disagree, looking at the video.
That's the thing - it surprises me that they don't. I've wondered whether it's video (or lack thereof) or just something where seeing a pitcher live for the first time is tougher. Someone needs to dig through and find out how Yankees do against guys they haven't seen (Interleague, rookies, etc.)
There's nothing to update and won't be until well into the fall, unless something goes wrong in rehab.
They usually come early, but it's more about beating traffic than anything.
I think it's the reverse of your conclusion, elm. I think the Yanks advance scouting is a real advantage for them and that in the absence of it, they suffer.
Nope, his choice. Nice that he's saved up.
This is more a Shawn Hoffman thing, but I'm guessing that the value of a playoff spot this year would be worth enough to cover Ordonez's contract next year, or at least the difference between dollars earned and dollars paid.
I've done that for years.
It's not funny. Just painful.
Last I saw, your 03 Jag doesnt have a commercial in heavy rotation, allowing for a broad metaphor.
Crowd was pretty normal for Cincinnati in demeanor. Into games at the big moments, more into Strasburg than normal opposition. Only time people really stood was at the end, when it looked like the Reds might have a comeback. Despite being down by six, most of the crowd stayed until Strasburg was out and even then, it wasn't a full stream to the exits.
To get the rights to that video, we'd have to increase the subscription price to about ... $40,000 per year. Don't see that on the horizon. Believe me, there's a LOT of things I'd like to do if I had video rights.
I'd be curious to see this. Data from the DL is rife with collection issues, so that's going to be the first big problem.
PLayers don't read BP. I could leave off the BP part ...
Couldn't have hurt.
You're right, Steph. More numbers in next column.
I'll have more numbers in the next column.
Good point. My original point is obscured by the trade implication. There's obvious reasons why Sheets is a target and Matsuzaka isn't. What I was trying to say is that Matsuzaka, this year, is better than Sheets, this year. By "trade target" I meant to imply success, but instead just confused the issue.
Also a good point.
That's a lot of plus. A lot.
Umm, that's what I said.
He's Brian Bannister, except with some wins.
Nothing but circumstance. Could be any team if people were insisting on being Chicken Littles, ignoring fact. I was wearing my Mets cap yesterday.
That's the thing - it's not decided. I could say what you said, but it has no meat on it, no confirmation ... no news value. So I don't. That's the decisions I make every day.
The WATG's are out ...
Where in Bloomington?
No, nothing new on Adams.
OK ... give your evidence for that statement, "Bunts."
There's an answer, but I'm not confident I know what it is. When I know, I'll write it, don't worry.
That is, we'll end up in much the same place we are now. I don't believe defense will ever adequately be expressed as a number.
I have often said that I think defense will end up as a graph, not a number. The collection and accuracy is the biggest issue. If we can "only say" that a fielder got to balls here, here, and here, that's something. Of course, there's going to be outliers and we still lack the knowledge of how much the positioning matters. At some point, if we could get accurate positioning, we'll be able to say "Jeter can go 20 feet to his left, 24 to his right, etc" and end up with a "Keeler chart" - a diagram of the field that would specifically show where "they ain't". Positioning could be adjusted based not only on tendencies, but to shrink those "Keeler zones." We'd learn if one rangy player could cover for a less mobile one. It's an interesting time, but I think if we continue to try and do this statistically, we'll end up in much the same place.
I think it's more presentation than calculation. QB rating is an impenetrable calculation that, when analyzed, barely makes sense. Yet in the NFL, people accept it and use it as a basis for comparison in normal conversation.
I think where things get iffy is when it gets past "reality." Park adjustments are real and easily understood, but people get iffy when they're added. Baseball has yet to find it's "compare players" stat equivalent to QBR, whether thats WAR, WARP, or Bloomberg's rating.
This. This this this.
Self-described "hardcore fans" are more likely to be like those other four guys than like you, Jeffrey. That's a broad population. Casual fans are even broader. My guess would be -- and this is based on some old focus groups -- that the breakdown would go higher than a 4/1 ratio. A significant amount of fans care about one team and one team only, barely registering the names of all but the best known rivals on other teams.
So what you're asking is for the ESPN's of the world to market more to the small population than the large population. That's just not going to happen. Places like ESPN *can* do things to market, but the broadest shows - the Sunday Night Baseball, the Baseball Tonights - are going to be marketed to the broadest audience.
I disagree. I have never, ever heard of an organization asking a player to do anything specific based on a stat. I have heard things like "less walks" or "more grounders", which are components that would lead to better stats, but "lower FIP?" Can't believe it.
Are you saying I'm not entertaining?
Command, not control.
Honestly, I'd rather people buy my dad's book for that info.
Ok, what goes in it?
"Why should I not ask 'what about ____'?"
"What is a WATG?"
"Why do you say 'a sprain is a tear'?"
"How do you determine ERD?"
"What is the formula for injury cost?"
"Why don't you make your database public?"
Very simply, no.
If you want links, they're already on the player cards.
No, nothing and no.
Yes. The content is property of MLBAM and cannot be used for commercial purposes. We charge a subscription fee.
Russell left for a position with a team. I personally wish he was here, though I don't speak for anyone but myself.
Radiologists will have their files handy. It's probably more than most, but I've never heard anyone express concern.
No, and I should have said this, but let me give you a sneak peek of tomorrow: "One guy I skipped yesterday was Joel Zumaya, largely because I wanted a lot of information before saying anything about it. I'm not sure I have the complete story here, but enough so that I can comment on it."
Already a WATG. Dude, at this time yesterday, I was on a beach with a mojito in my hand. Today, you get 4,000 words about as many injuries as I could get good, solid information on. Please forgive me if I missed one.
Pretty much calling out palmeiro there, no? I'm curious if that comment will get as much attention as lopes' did.
The mound changed.
Yep - my error. I'll get this fixed.
He's been DHing in some games but getting accurate info from an XST game is next to impossible unless I happen to know someone who's there.
No. Tendonitis is an inflammation of any tendon. It's really that simple. (Yes, the alternate but accepted spelling of "tendinitis" is out there. Kind of depends what program I'm in as to whether spellcheck jumps in.) It's decidedly not a garbage diagnosis, but a specific one.
That's what I've read as well. Remember, these are written the night before for the most part.
I'm not sure. It's interesting to see just how far the pendulum has swung. The pitchers we're seeing, for the most part, are ones that have come up in the "pitch count era." One thing I don't know is whether injuries are down at the minor league level. We know they're not down at the major league level.
It's possible, certainly. Even probable.
1) That's the story, but the timeline's a bit wibbly-wobbly. There's certainly the expectation that he'll come back to normal levels, but I won't speculate on what those levels will be.
2) There is no general thinking. No one seems to have any idea what this knee is going to do.
PECOTA makes it so easy to cherry pick. Sure, Millwood and Buchholz are on there, but the other eight -- crappy at best. The thing you should be looking at is the stars/scrubs chart, where the vast majority of the short and near term possibility for Zimmermann is in the "fringe" area. Zimmermann's never been healthy enough to live up to his potential and probably never will be.
Yeah, spelling it wrong is bad, but if I did it and two editors didn't catch it, you might think it common. And I'll temper my comment so I don't sound like an ass.
Different teams handle this in a lot of different ways. Not sure what the Dodgers did.
It's an opinion. I dont think much, at all, of Zimmerman, but I know some scouts disagree.
1) He was coming back anyway.
2) Unclear. There's a chance he goes to the bullpen, of course.
He got spiked (the needle kind) at halftime and played through it. He's likely to do the same for the next two games. His bigger worry is the shoulder that subluxed. He showed pretty major pain when lifting his arm, which could be real trouble. Not sure that Slovenia or Algeria are going to be able to really test him - neither has the pace to really crack the backfield. Anyone that gets close enough will be jacking it to either high corner. I'd anticipate that Howard would get the Algeria game off if they win v Slovenia. Hahnemann had a BRILLIANT season in England and is more than capable.
You think we'd actually have a play called a "boner" today without Daulerio dying from the giggles?
My lord - I had no idea this was possible. Which tells you something.
Yes, after his career, much in the same way that many NFL and NBA players are facing knee replacements down the line. Jackson's the only one I know has come back.
My point is that it's true that both contribute, but neither is SOLELY responsible.
I'd check back. You missed it :)
Let me get people to understand that a strain is a tear before we make it more specific.
Why is "strain" in quotes? It's a strain. A Grade I/II hamstring strain. Simple as that and yes, they have a recurrance risk.
Im not saying dont run, I'm saying there's times when not sprinting makes sense.
And no, reports say he doesn't wear contacts. Greg Maddux did it between starts, but he just needed to see signs.
See my article from yesterday which mentions this.
Full credit to you, sir.
One other question, specifically about the curve being in the zone. Since PFX gives a two dimensional result, where is that set up -- front of plate? I'm curious where -- early, late, etc -- Strasburg's pitch is crossing the plate and how much downward plane there is as it's over the plate/in the hitting zone.
I know this is semantics, but Strasburg's breaking ball isn't a pure curve. It's not a slider, which is how everyone had described it either. It's more of a slurve. Not sure what PFX says about that.
As for the "one seamer" - a description I REALLY don't like - I want to know why this is any different than a sinker. It doesn't appear he has a whole lot more pronation than normal, so he's not throwing it Brandon Webb style. Maybe it's more a "reverse cutter".
I have *NO* idea.
Very apt comparison. There's a story about Greinke calling his catcher out in the minors and saying some number. The catcher was Latin and didn't have any clue what he meant until after the pitch. He looked at the radar gun and Greinke had basically called his shot. Not sure if the story is true, but like any good story, it ought to be.
I don't write for ESPN.
Significantly different physical demands.
Dianagram: Official WATG Enforcer
Very nice idea.
I'm certain 29 other teams scouted him and that Baseball America existed then.
That. It's an outlier comp, to be sure.
That's all I'm saying -- not saying wrap them in bubblewrap or put up an L screen. Let's just try to find something that will make them safer.
My sources are often violating the rules.
Here's the update we dreaded on Sizemore: Microfracture.
Details are still spotty, but the Indians announced that Sizemore did have microfracture as part of his surgery this afternoon. He is done for the season and faces a long rehab.
Urban's very well-sourced. I dont have it yet.
Makes sense, but doesn't work with my notes system.
It's taken. Guitarist.
Good question, but unknown.
I dont think a plural will make their legal dept happier.
Umm, no. But I did smile.
O'Connor as a catcher? Are you discounting his desire to pitch and projecting him as a Posey-style conversion project?
Good point, Dave, but I think we have to say "consider the source." Is this a writer with a track record, a guy/gal you trust? Look, we all make mistakes, get played by sources, get misdirected, etc, but if my "all but done" mistakes were the rule rather than the exception and if I didn't stand up and own my mistakes, I hope you wouldn't trust me.
I'm curious - Roy Halladay, Dallas Braden, Armando Galarraga*. One had been really good, one has been injured, but which is Galarraga more likely to be like in his next three starts? Is there any evidence that a no hitter is anything more than a high pitch count fluke? Watching AG last night, I was impressed at how easy it seemed to be for him. Contrast that to Schilling a couple years ago where he wanted it SO bad that he ended up hurting himself.
Derek Jeter has four. Do you really want to base this discussion on the most flawed award out there?
This is a team that has Jamie Moyer (47) and Jose Contreras (39-ish) on one side and Antonio Bastardo (24) and Kyle Kendrick (25) on the other. I don't think we can read anything into age.
No, I'm standing with that one. The defense is the big difference, obviously. What I was going for is that Jackson and Griffey both had "bad" last decades of their careers. Look at their stats - would most have guessed that Reggie had more career SBs than Junior? No, because we've got images in our head - the mythology has overtaken reality. Painting Griffey as "The Kid" or as "The Clean One" is not helping us find the reality. The map is not the territory. They're not the SAME player, they're comparable players.
I stayed away from Mays - also comparable - because flat out, he was better in age-comparable seasons. Over a career, we're talking about more than a 100 steals, 30 homers, a 100 something RBI. There's a good Rickey Henderson season between Griffey and Mays.
Career WARP: Jackson 74.9, Griffey 74.3, Mays 161.3
And yes, Griffey and Jackson are very comparable players, says an independent arbiter: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/griffke02.shtml
BP will be tough since he doesn't have opposable thumbs. Fetch could be about eight weeks.
If I had something more than what's out there, it'd be in my column.
No, I think it's who the media/gen pop want to hit for it and ignore the rest. Used to think it was big name/small name.
If I had it, it would be in the column. #WATG
Pettitte is an admitted hGH user. Compare his treatment to even Giambi.
There's much, much better measures than velocity that could be used at the major league level. I really only look at velocity when there's a noted injury or when someone's coming back, like Lidge.
Bit of both.
He's not 100%. Question is functionality. Early returns look good.
Wrong way. Floating cartilage is a very bad thing, can lock up the knee. Microfx is a last resort operation and notably rare.
Has to be removed. Cant reattach it.
No, has to be collectively bargained.
Yeah, I'll have more on this tomorrow.
The boot shouldn't take a whole lot of compensation. It's a bit more than a shoe, but the fitting shouldn't create more problems. As for the plans, it sounds like frustration. Look at the Ellsbury situation and how he went from venting to singing kum-bay-ah overnight. It happens, especially when the agent injects themself into the process.
b) A bit, but its really more on the player.
An update on Kendry Morales -- he did not have surgery on Sunday due to swelling in the area. They expect it to happen this week.
Does the bowler? Why is a fielder a couple yards from the batsman?
Played catch this weekend.
Headfirst slides aren't "more dangerous" in terms of injury. The NCAA's monitoring of injuries shows this year after year, though participation includes softball where the forces and techniques are different.
Thanks for the tips.
Simon, a famous chipmunk.
I watched Jordan Schaefer play the other night and I'll guarantee that no one else in the ballpark knew he'd been suspended.
That's the thing - can't tell now. We can't see with just our eyes whether he really is out of whack. Need joint loads and aside from his video game stuff, he's never been measured like that.
I'd highly recommend the Real Sports piece and the book "Born To Run", which is the Moneyball of running.
I have a pair of Five Fingers, and they're interesting. I'm (obviously) not a runner, but the concept is intriguing. They do look goofy. Sterger calls them my "monkey shoes."
Yeah, I dont know what to make of it either. It's a data point, if nothing else.
Always working, but no.
No, it sounds wrong.
We don't have enough information to say what the course will be. I can speculate and make some educated guesses, but it's like saying "It might be a cold, it might be the flu, it might be bubonic plague." The symptoms, from a distance, all look the same at the start, but the treatment and expectations as well as the duration are all very different.
Only in the when it gets paid. According to Cot's, $5.5m of Beltran's $18.5m salary is deferred to a later date, plus some other clauses. The Mets are on the hook for both, regardless, but there's some complexities when a player with a deferral is dealt. When a player like Roy Oswalt, with no deferrals, is talked about, there's X dollars remaining on the contract. I knew with some of the nitpickers around here, I'd better differentiate.
It's impossible to see in motion. Pictures - whole different story, but even then there's a degree of error.
Ok - demonstration. Put your arm "straight out" (level with the floor). That's a 90 degree abduction angle. Now tilt your body the opposite way. The abduction angle doesnt change, but the apparent angle does.
It's a measurement of the line of the spine/bodyline and the humerus (bone of the upper arm). And it's an optimal range. Far outside that and studies suggest an increase in forces to the joint.
Working on this one, but dont have anything solid yet.
Oops ... my joke didn't make it past the editors. As written it was "The Twins have some trouble up the middle with their 2Bs on the roster being not 2Bs." Poor Hamlet joke.
I'm getting conflicting answers on this. Much of the "con" argument is centered on what the acidic effect might be on healthy tissue.
Shawn - do you think the Google TV announcement is going to be significant in this space?
I was unclear. I meant why did the bat get there in the first place? It was halfway up the line.
He didn't injure it sliding into second, but back into first.
You already have a second basemen between first and second too, so I'm not buying that logic. First basemen, yes, but if he's "halfway" the way the 3B is during a shift, I'd think he could get to the bag OR the pitcher could cover. Maybe you shift the RF up? The shift is becoming rote now rather than a real advantage.
"Availability" - is he available or not? It can go either way with that word, tho I see how you read it that way.
I noted that and there's no data either way. I doubt it's that big a deal, but if we get more of these, then yes.
And why never against righthanders?
Ever fouled one off the knob?
Um, no. That's completely untrue and counter to all logic. Money paid to a player doesn't suddenly go away and the Yankees don't sell more tickets because the Mets are injured. The player continues to get paid and the team gets no production. While there's no net "loss" in dollars - they were spent either way - the loss in production is what's truly lost and is reflected in ticket sales and wins.
I think you have to say aberration. I think the bat control is the bigger key. As Colin showed in his article today, it's possible to K a lot and still be productive. Adding a bunch of swing-and-misses to Mathis' game absent any power would be ... well, not good.
That's a question better suited for someone else. Getting someone ready to play baseball's outside my limited expertise.
Similar, but the function of both athletes is different and the weight is a major difference.
Both. They can do anything - Rollins could lead off every inning if they wanted. It's basically a scrimmage, so they can set up situations, as opposed to a "real" minor league game, where it's played by standard rules.
You're right, fireants. Bo's was the result of a known trauma - heck, that's probably one of the most re-played videos in the history of football. Necrosis is not the problem for Beltran.
Yes. Anyone that's had microfx surgery is dealing with that, albeit with a surgically altered tib/fib head.
YES! Very good comp.
It's worse, but we have no idea how much stress. There's fatigue, but there's a lot more than just that. Guys can throw BP all day but ...
... and if it was a guy like Bass, well, what's the harm, aside to a replaceable arm? There are times guys are just cannon fodder, no offense to Bass.
Vision's normal with glasses.
No, but I wouldn't purposely change someone that's been successful with those methods. I'd also take a hard look at a system that's destroying 1 in 7 pitchers.
I assume it's a Salter, but not sure. No experience with these - was surprising it wasn't closed at his age, no? Throwing arm, distal humerus.
That's my initial thought, other than the fact that Davis is hitting. My initial instinct is Francouer to CF, but no idea if that would work.
I dont think Beltran will be able to play CF at all. Or at least not for long. I could be wrong.
I think they're fine at C. No one seems unhappy with Cervelli. He's not Posada, but he's passable esp defensively. The IF? Tougher to replace, obviously, but you're right. Ramiro Pena isn't anything more than a warm body and a stack would expose them. An extended injury to Jeter or Rodriguez would necessitate a trade.
I just can't imagine this happening. I think we'll get a better idea this week when Beltran should be in the field somewhere for drills or even XST. If he's in CF, sell and sell hard.
No, but been watching it.
I dont think there's any evidence that this has happened in the past. It wouldn't surprise me, but there's no evidence that I'm aware of.
As to the Ed. Note above, its interesting in that in retrospect, it looks like Dubee/Lidge were saying it was mechanical at a time when it was clearly physical. Now, we're hearing virtually the same thing again. It's clearly a chicken/egg issue. What we *didnt* hear last year was anyone pointing out the mechanical flaws along these lines (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2007/11/solving_the_bra.php) I'm hoping our friends in Philly get a bit more detailed info on what Lidge is doing now, right or wrong.
Good point. Not the best stat AT ALL to use, especially when I've been railing about wins being used at all. Burnett was first to mind with comparable salary and I figured playing for the Yanks evened out the rehab time.
That aside, you're absolutely correct. My point, better said, is that the sudden resurgence of Zito in the public consciousness is more about perception of value relative to salary. I'm surprised the WARP value is that close.
It wasn't so much cherry picking as laziness.
He's actually not bad. I met him back when I was in Bristol and he was walking around in a suit and hair that looked like it feared a comb.
What I said isn't about Lidge at all. I almost never listen to what a player says, or at least I dont expect it to be accurate.
That's why I put the more or less. For the Yankees, I'm not sure they wouldn't clear the streets!
Just that. I dont see what's confusing -- should I name the players? Fox, MLBN, ESPN, and a couple locals.
I'd echo every point you made here, Shawn. Your experience with the app appears to be the exact same as mine in every respect, including battery life. (I have the wi-fi only iPad, while Shawn patiently waited for 3G.) Which reminds me, how is video on 3G as compared to wi-fi? Is there a quality or battery life difference?
As to the cards issue, I think MLB is taking an approach of simplicity. Just as with MLB Network, we're not getting anything in the way of advanced metrics or even advanced thought because they're not mainstream enough. The baseball-loving subset of the iPad owning subset is still a pretty small market so there's no need to further fragmentize it by confusing the majority of people.
There are some, but they tend not to be noted any more than the other specialists. Every team has an opthamologist, but I couldn't name any of them.
There's also an issue with PMR, but that's a discussion for another day.
Its still not going to stop someone from asking the WATGs. It's a fine idea, but ...
In theory, the new player cards should do this, but people will still ask.
It's definitely a consideration and why I'm unsure what the Twins will do. Mauer's obviously an asset they have to be careful with, but also desperately need.
Nope. It's on the list, but yet to experience any of the molecular gastronomists.
There's no translation needed. I said what I meant. Until *proven* otherwise, I'm going to continue to operate under the same known biases I have for years. I'll always err on the side of common sense and protecting pitchers always makes sense.
Like 300 pitches in 3 starts, something like that.
Im not really a hitting guy, but I can't imagine it would help.
I give my Fred McGriff style full endorsement to the above comment.
Quick reminder on WATGs: Please don't.
No new info on Hawpe, which is why he's not in today's UTK.
4/28 isn't good. Is it the accuracy -- bad throws, mechanics (correctable?) or is it the pitchers? At his size, if he's not a catcher, are we going to see Adam Dunn comps?
Nothing to get here. They're just waiting on the hamstring to heal up to the point where they're confident putting him back out there. "Better safe than sorry" isn't much of a story.
Understand. We just don't need to go there. None of them make it easy :)
Working on this one, but the line on the Mets and Royals staff was out of line. Yes, there's similarities with Wainwright, but trying to find out if they're of comparable severity.
Not terribly serious, but Tracy doesn't like to play a man down. Should be back at the minimum. Talked about this last week.
Bruised nerve, maybe an entrapment. Not unlike what Padilla has, but seems a bit more trauma-induced.
I dont see any sarcasm there.
I think ideally, it would look more like the cold weather "Elmer Fudd" hats. A very thin layer of some type of padding wouldn't prevent injuries completely, but could minimize them. A padded version of this (http://www.underarmour.com/shop/us/en/sports/football/mens/pid8000071-Skull-Cap/8000071-100) wouldn't be bad either and several players are already wearing them.
Good question. Only example of an injury I can think of from that is Jose Canseco. The risk is probably not high, tho you'll occassionally get someone who thinks they're Nolan Ryan or something.
Just normal progress. We'll know more as his throwing program gets closer to a return. Until mid-May, we're just guessing.
I have, closely. I've consulted with some people on this so don't want to speak too much on it. Glad he's doing better. I read recently that kids under 17 have 8x more concussions from one activity than any other -- that activity? Skateboarding. Last I checked, the pros there all wore helmets and pads.
Not dismissive, there's just not much to say about an ankle sprain. It is what it is and when he can move laterally without significant pain, he'll be back. I can only say that so many times.
Wow, that's Chipper. Instead of an MRI, he wrote his name back in the lineup.
A significant portion (especially in last two years) of suspensions were in the DSL. Those are young kids, very subject to a buscone forcing them to take their "vitamins" and testing positive. Most were popping on their first post-signing test. That's a structural issue, one that's in Alderson's new portfolio. If you take out those DSL suspensions, I think you get a much clearer vision of the state of drugs in baseball.
This is really a question for the MLBPA. Since they have people like Stan Javier on staff and since Ortiz called them on the carpet a bit last season, I'm guessing the communication in Spanish is at the very least adequate.
There's no such thing as an "MLB certified doctor" and you cannot require a player on his own time and dime to do anything, let alone consult from a list of approved doctors.
I'm also buying the argument that Volquez has been in the US for a long time without an issue. His English isn't bad.
I'll disagree with your point on infertility being an excuse. If it was valid, he could have gotten a TUE. He didn't make even the slightest effort with that.
As for your first point, I agree. I'm told that's one of the things Sandy Alderson is charged with in the Dominican, but that's going to be one of many issues that's going to be difficult, if not impossible to deal with.
That's no mea culpa, buddy. I have no problem at all putting out what I put out. Where I'd have been wrong is in saying "PED suspension incoming. Wonder who it is. My guess? Joe Blow." There's a BIG BIG difference between putting out solid information like what I did or what Craig Calcaterra did, and what WFAN allowed to happen on their airwaves.
No need to activate him. The suspension clock is ticking now.
He will serve the suspension immediately, while on the DL. He can do everything normally (rehab, etc) except play games, which he can't do until Game 40 or 45 (I forget which and don't have the JDA handy).
I don't think you can fault baseball for this. There was little inkling even in the reds clubhouse that this was about to go down. Did it leak a bit early? Yes. Im mnot sure how that could be better managed. I'm also not sure if you're suggesting that the process should be changed and if so how.
Has to have something to put on the Standard Form.
If he was taking a drug that was on the banned list for a valid medical reason, he could have applied for a TUE (therapeutic use exemption.) There are very valid reasons for TUEs - players taking ADD medicine when they have ADD, certain allergy medicines, even some players that need testosterone supplementation (Mike Lowell is one, post-testicular cancer.) That Volquez did not do this removes any excuse he may have. He violated the policy, period.
Just that. You can't say "If I plead guilty, would you give me 25 games?" The only defense is that the test was incorrect.
Ok, it's not HGH. There's no test for it. (Yes, I know, but ...) We don't know what it is, but it's on the list and he tested positive for it.
And yes, it appears he can serve it while on the DL. I'm not sure what the rule is there. We've never had this come up as far as I know. Sure doesn't seem right, though the cost to Volquez is the same.
I dont know if they're supposed to, but know they do. Easy to figure it out.
And no, suspension is based on the status on the date of test. The serving of suspensions is an open question. There have been a couple where it's been a big question.
Lumbar is worse - more weight on it. None are good. Seldom see any of the T's going, but not sure why.
I'm guessing no. The absorption rate on most topicals is significantly lower than the oral equivalent. Outside of forced modalities, there's very little usage of topicals.
Plus, Voltaren isn't approved for use on shoulders, so there's another big issue.
Harder on the manager -- one of those guys has a bad night, they'll get rung up for "not going to the lefty" or something. We know there's a platoon split and people get that. It's the book move, sure, but it's also the EASY move.
True. I think there's a better balance though.
Food poisoning, in the case of a guy so well known for the limits on what he takes in like Wilson, is likely just that.
You'd just have to dig through the archives. Written about it a lot.
I dont read it that way - if this is a "test" for the medical staff (which by the way is not new), then you're testing them on something that's not their fault. They get him ready. What he does on the field, if fully healthy, is on him and the coaches and to some extent the front office.
If he's sound physically, why would the training staff even be involved?
Then you're wrong on both counts.
Fact that it's been shown on video and that cj wilson has thrown it in MLB games doesn't convince you, then you're just ...
In theory, it could exacerbate the condition. They didn't have much problem with it during his rehab.
You're not even close to a clue, are you?
Erds are always best guesses.
Too new. Teams that have done it ib the past - it was discussed in moneyball - but never comprehensively. With the two teams now i know how one is using it but not the other. With the one i know, they have some good but proprietary results. Im not going to out either, but one has spoken of it a bit publicly. Im hoping to get them on record soon.
The question on both is comfort and consequence. Can they play without being in so much pain it affects what they can and cant do, and can they play without the type of swelling and pain Berkman has right now. The answer is yes, but requires a lot of maintenance, a lot of pain tolerance, and a lot of luck.
And yes, it's possible. We don't have any good long term microfracture guys in baseball, but there have been several Synvisc guys.
Two teams have their own equipment.
Ten have done it at some point, but never nearly all pitchers.
I think four, maybe five doing it right now in any capacity.
Need specific ticket. Please contact Dan Stahl for details, since we obviously don't know the specifics of their ticketing.
Late word that Jarrod Salatalamacchia has been placed on the DL. "Upper back stiffness" that's very near the area where the thoracic outlet syndrome surgery occurred. More details tomorrow.
I'll stand by that. I dont think it happens and if it does, I'm worried for the implications.
I spelled his FIRST name wrong? Holy crap ...
The latter. If you have an MLB.tv subscription, you can watch many more games in the At Bat app.
MLB.tv is Flash, but if you have a subscription to it, the password will get you all available games on iPad/iPhone's At Bat app. Those are delivered like the free game of the day, which I think is some sort of h.264 format.
At Bat = some video, all audio
At Bat + MLB.tv = almost all video, all audio
Then those developers like you will vote with your feet. And then we'll have competition and it will be good for everyone. In the meantime, the fundamentalist Cory Doctorow-style arguments will be countered with things like this (http://al3x.net/2010/04/05/ipad-openness-moderates.html). For me as a consumer, it's not an issue.
Yes. It uses the normal MLB.tv blackouts. Which sucks but is not the ipads issue.
The "monopoly seller" one is specious. Where do you buy your software for your laptop? I remember going to the mall and buying things at Babbage's or Circuit City. Is there an open market for the XBox or Wii? Yes, there's an approval process, but it seems that Apple's concept is being copied by everyone and that they've approved over 100k apps tells me it's pretty darned open.
No. I've been absolutely stunned how well everything on BP (and most sites, Flash excepted) have worked on the iPad.
This reply is from my iPad. More soon.
Wrists affect power and bat control. The former isn't really an issue for Andrus and his value is not in his bat, really. If you're focused on fantasy value, his BA could take a hit for the first few weeks of the season. The real concern is taking care of this early and not letting it become a chronic, Rickie Weeks kind of situation.
We've never found any compelling reason to do an app versus making sure our website was useable on as many platforms as possible.
Given what Verizon just paid for NFL exclusivity, $100m for EI rights seems reasonable. Dish might be a bit cash poor if the rumors of them going after Tivo are true.
We're probably years from this, but I'm curious at what point cable subs and non-cable subs (MLB.tv, Roku, iPad, etc) even out.
A) Why is there a giant BP cover?
B) Why is there Chip or Dale standing behind it?
Doesn't seem like it, but no comps.
I'm not sure. It's some sort of five man with a skip, but not sure exactly how it works.
If that's a real quote, it's interesting. As Gary referenced, there's a major study that shows a near 1 to 1 correlation between distance thrown and velocity. Dr. Axe has done a study showing that distance throwing is a great predictive tool for younger pitchers who may have mechanical or stamina issues.
I'm not sure we can call them chronic since they're in very different locations, but it is worrisome. All signs point to this being pretty minor.
I think that decision hasn't been made. Gorzelanny's more likely to succeed in the bullpen.
Forgot to add: part of that cost will be a $10 concession voucher. I'm not sure whether that works at Boog's BBQ, but this is not only going to be a fun event, but a good value and what should be a good game!
Biomechanical studies have shown this to be the case. There's significantly more forces on the arm, especially the shoulder. I wish I had some links to the studies, but most are older journal articles.
He's still yellow, but the risk is significantly lower.
Crap. No. I didn't have the repair in, which is my error. I'm going to re-run his rating. Thank you for catching this.
Certainly troubling. Last yr was a function of the record as much as the injury.
Wait and see. I didn't add anything to his because I'm just NOT sure. Things look promising, but ...
Not at all. The problem is the salary structure. Who did it hurt more to miss - Tim Lincecum or Carl Pavano? In dollars, it's not close, but in value, it's not close either. That's why injury cost is my preferred tool. Not perfect, but better.
Injury cost does that better than %.
Want to stick with that?
I'm not a fan of any individual team. I grew up a Cubs fan. I wore a Red Sox cap around yesterday.
Depends entirely on how he responds.
No, I'll be honest, this one's just beyond me. Gordon Edes has done a great job on this one and has more access to these doctors than I can. Once we get back to thinking about baseball with him, I'll have more to add.
We get it ... self-loathing Mets fan. You don't need to remind us over and over and over ...
They can cause additional damage BUT the body tends to not allow that to happen. It's very uncommon.
Different. Please check out my article on labrums in this year's Rotowire Baseball Magazine. It's an update on that article with a current "state of the art."
Yes, very realistic. He should have a "normal" off-season. If he was at the front end of the timeline like Volquez and others, he'd be ready to play in January ... but there's no games then and he won't go to Winter Ball. I'd expect him throwing competitively in ST next year.
There's a chicken and egg problem -- is he playing that much because he's durable or will that much time cause him to break down? We just don't know. Joe Torre should certainly understand as well as anyone.
No, I dont think so. You don't use your peripheral vision to pick up the ball. Maybe for a pitcher on the mound watching a guy over at first ... or a catcher.
Not sure. I dont think so. Correction is correction.
Don't have much beyond anecdote for parent-child. The lack of data is an issue. Pretty good apparent correlation, but no idea if that would hold up.
Slight. After a month, I could go a whole day without using the artificial tears, but bit more comfortable if I do. Seldom times where I think "my eyes are dry", but preventive care is a good thing.
Hopeless is a bit harsh but ...
I dont change the ratings -- though I sure think about it. Honestly, I dont think a simple strain really changes things that much. If he makes it back, it shouldnt linger much past opening day.
And thank you.
No, normal shift risk and he's played there some in the past. He'd likely be on the green/yellow line.
BP Demographics FTW!
Twitter is the new sports bar? If so, we have to figure out how to tip the waiters. Because that's what writers will be soon.
That's not my question -- it's why do we have Tony and Chris Gwynn or Jose and Ozzie Canseco taking such disparate paths? (The Canseco's are twins, to boot!) Why, with the Cansecos or the Giambis, where both are known to have used PEDs did one succeed and the other did not? More importantly, are any injuries caused by a genetic predisposition?
Mine's based on ability to go normal depth into game and normal velocity. I don't use FIP ever, but no analytics are in PIPP.
He faced an additional 50 batters while reducing his walk rate over '08. He held over the 195 inning mark, not just holding, but getting better which is a major positive. There's a lot of positives. That PAP - wouldn't have had him in the Top 50 five years ago, I'd bet. (I checked ... 81916 for Jiminez in '09. He would have been 12th in '04, between Doug Davis and Randy Johnson. In 2000, he would have been 55th, between Steve Trachsel and Jeff Weaver.)
Most of September '09.
I'd be curious to know the '07 and '08 levels. I'm not saying they were ever equivalent, but much closer. The real problem is that they could well be very equivalent now.
It's not a very telling stat. Injury cost is better if you want to compare dollar independent talent loss.
Argh - always do that. Shows why I need an editor.
More a question for KG than me, but I don't like seeing it. It's indicative of fatigue at best and breakdown of mechanics at worst. There's no injury there, so there's the chance it comes back.
Think this reduces the effectiveness of:
B) something like Ken's SOMA plan?
With MLB.tv and At Bat, you get every game on your phone. Without MLB.tv, just one or two a day. Think of the audio as a bonus.
Actually, it's the opposite with the Verducci Effect. Lots of research showing it's *not* there. I'd like to see more work on it, but people have lives.
Yeah, it is. I actually picked one of the more gentle, less bloody ones.
Infamous list? LaPorta's in camp and playing. Supposed to make his game debut today actually.
Tends to come back pretty well -- medium term issue more than long.
It's tough to make a one-to-one comparison. It's my understanding that someone with a thyroid condition would have contraindications for HGH therapy. (HGH is legally used for anti-aging.) It's not the reverse. That said, there's very, very little specific research in this area.
Tend. Keyword is tend. I would much rather have discussion here, like the Reyes comment below, than a bunch of "what about this guy?"
I'm not ignoring -- we're working on ways so I can get information out there. I think email, twitter, etc work well. Also, I do this EVERY day. If there's a big enough question, it gets addressed the next day.
It's what's to the left that will make them happy.
For a player like Storen or Strasburg, how much credit do you give to the development system? Those guys come pretty much fully formed and are the result of good (if obvious) drafting over coaching, development, and the other things we normally think of in PD.
You're right, in general, but you're focusing on looking at them. Looking at ANYONE is going to be wrong. I was guilty of this for a long time. Now, I think we have to have force loads before we can speak of it with any confidence.
I also think your point on changing mechanics holds true. Unless we have evidence -- data -- that the pitcher is taking loads above the norms, it's awful tough to tinker with a delivery that's getting good results.
We're getting a LOT closer to the point where we can get these. Don't want to tease, but I'm working on an article about this now.
More starts, more pitches. I like that they waited until he passed the nexus to turn up the dial, but we still don't know. PIPP likes players that establish themselves at the 200 inning level, which he's done 3 yrs now.
"Finally, while I appreciate questions in comments, I'm going to tend to ignore them this year. Too often, it turned into "what about this guy?" I'm not going to cover every single injury. I'm going to focus on the ones where I can add to the discussion." :)
I'm working on Pujols.
Yes, but it's slight and seems to depend on factors that make it very difficult to track. It's almost ALL additional risk of running into walls and there's some suggestion that turf-to-grass is worth it in the short term.
Yes. First, he's better than their 3B options. If you moved Morneau to DH (let's ignore defense) and get a catcher that is at least as good as Tolbert/Punto then there's no loss. On the other side, losing Mauer to the injuries common to catching is an immediate loss.
I'd start shifting him to DH about once a week, then twice, and by the time he's thirty, it would be about 50/50. I'd also TRY him at 3B, just to check. Maybe he can, maybe he can't.
You pretty much nailed it there. It's not like he doesn't have known issues or was in the last yr of a deal.
Working on it.
All of the above, plus WBC weirdness.
Linear weights? Umm, Farnsworth isn't very good. I don't need some stat to tell me that and neither do AL hitters. You also make the incorrect assumption that a team that's rejected a logical approach and has publicly ridiculed stats would be using an advanced measure to make this decision.
Just to be clear, this is not part of BP. Rob's discussing "Heater." We do not have rights to run box scores.
Well, if you can come up with a system that does that, you'll be ahead of me.
I think you're right. Can't find anything to confirm, but I remember it that way.
Data needs context. I've often said DL days alone are a terrible measure.
Might I suggest reading the TX THR, which came out previously?
It helps, but it's not a massive team adjustment. A guy like Jones was very close, but probably would have been green in TEX. Rios is an odd case and while green, I'm not real confident in that rating and almost wrote something on that. Ramirez's rating is a bit all over the place bc there's just no comps or confidence in where he'll play.
Ten years ago, never. Getting possible now.
McGwire missed a chunk of his career and eventually ended bc of it. The one I remember most clearly is Marty Cordova. I'm not near my database and I dont have the 90s, when it first got diagnosed properly.
And to be clear - I added the reference to the article without thinking "Hey, Michael wrote this ..." I'm a clod.
Sorry -- it was on Fanhouse, by Jeff Fletcher. Not sure what happened to the link. Probably my fault!
Yes, but let's remember ... there have been three GMs during the Baker era. (Hold on ... let me double check that ...no, just two - Krivsky, who hired Baker, and now Jocketty.) While we can say "where the heck were they?" it's Baker that is the constant. New ATC this year completes things - if he burns someone out (and I sincerely hope he does not) then there's only two variables, the pitcher and Baker.
I don't think the rules work. You hire Baker to be your manager, you know what you're getting. Either you want him or you don't and there's plenty of options.
Working on that. Problem is that Bruce himself doesn't know the details, I've been told. Most people, let alone players, don't really care about the details.
I'll argue that this isn't a cheap team. They're sitting on a $90m payroll and don't look competitive. You don't remake a team by plugging holes with the likes of Lyon and Feliz. At best, you do that when you have something coming, but aside from noting Bobby Heck's work, there's not really much coming in this system. It's not BARREN as it was a couple years ago, but saying this is a rebuilding club isn't correct. It's stagnant.
No - I'm just saying in comparison to what our troops are going through, almost ANYTHING is silly. And if you disagree with that, email me and I will refund you.
I've seen Drew since HS and he was a very good starter, but his stuff went to another level as a reliever. He's also very mature and media savvy, which I think gives him the "makeup" to succeed as a late-inning reliever. I think he could start, but would be more valuable as a closer.
I spoke too soon. Our own depth charts have Manzella listed as the probable starter. Eyeballing his factors, he'd likely be green.
I can't find anywhere that agree with you on Manzella.
On Oswalt, we'll see. I can see him quitting and playing with his bulldozer or going all Clemens on us and coming back. I think he'll have the ability to choose.
I agree it's something I'd like to do, or see. I just have no idea how to do it. There's so much that goes on that we have NO idea of that I just can't imagine it's possible. Look at the recent Khalil Greene issue - how do you measure something like that?
If I understand you, you're asking how well they assess risk?
That's one nut I've tried to crack for a while and have had no luck at all finding a way to do it. The Pirates offer a great example in Bobby Crosby. The Pirates know how risky he is, but at a low cost, he's worth a gamble. If he ends up injured, who do I "blame" for that? First, it depends on how he gets injured and how/if he returns. Can he be injured half the season and still return an ROI? We can answer the granular questions in retrospect, but I don't know of any way to get it consistent and meaningful. I'm *really* open to suggestions on this.
It's pronounced "True Average."
No, you misunderstand Injury Cost. Yes, having a low payroll will make the Dollars Lost low, but the injury cost looks at the true value of a player. Take for instance Tim Lincecum, who last year was the quintessential "underpaid" player. Had he gone on the DL for 15 days, the Dollars Lost would have been about 50k. However, his Injury Cost would have been about $1.3m.
Now, the argument you're probably going to make is "Lincecum is good and the Pirates don't have anyone that talented." If so, they're easily replaceable and therefore the Injury Cost should be low. That's *not* the fault of the medical staff and shouldn't be taken into consideration when evaluating them.
As for percentage, it was 8%, but I've found that number can be skewed pretty badly by one highly compensated player, so I don't like it nearly as much as Injury Cost. All that said, MORP is in the process of being re-done and since it is the base for Injury Cost, we're going to see some significant changes there.
Yes, but remember the vast majority of the issue right now is at the lower levels. Sure, Alex Rodriguez doesn't worry about a couple thousand bucks for HGH, but Joey Shlabotnick in the minors is sweating meal money.
The bigger issue is efficacy. HGH doesn't do much. There's some argument in the steroid underground of whether it holds muscle when someone is off-cycle, but if you can't take steroids and get away with it, there's little if any value in trying to hold those gains.
I'm telling you - no one is taking HGH. If they are, they're not paying attention. Patrick Arnold is selling 6-OXO (or whatever concoction he has next), not THG and definitely not HGH.
Given the rest of the division, he's pretty young!
Has to be some underlying reason ... hope Bruce, Paul, or Carrie ask that question.
Is that good, bad, or indifferent?
No no no ... the difference is that amphetamines were banned then and a lot of drugs that were NOT banned previously now required a TUE. If a player was taking adderall (for example) in 2006, he now needed a TUE. It's not completely a result of this, but I'd say mostly. As the policy has gotten more comprehensive, the need and process for TUEs is more necessary.
No, it's a coinflip. Which why they're ALL inherently risky. I hope I'm wrong on every player and wish I'd have a column where it went "No one got hurt."
Besides the contracts, you have to deal with the debt taken on to buy the team and the promised upgrades to Wrigley Field. I'm not sure the current payroll level will be sustained, so I'm not sure there's much they can add as contracts expire.
Love this Babe Ruth concept. Gives me an idea ...
Or that no one's taking HGH. Seriously, no one's taking it besides idiots. Expensive, hard to transport, easy to track.
How do you clean house with a bunch of aging players with no trade clauses? You saw how tough it was to deal Milton Bradley this off-season.
No, the numbers are the numbers. Of course, if you read my comment, you'll see why I write the comments.
Concern? No. I hate the "best shape of his life" thing, but it seems like he's actually just taking it seriously, eating right, doing all the things I should be doing. I think he just got lazy and fat and when his performance suffered, he went "oh crap" and started doing things right.
Are you referencing the Rugby Union test? If so, that's not a new test, just the first time in four years that it's caught someone. I've heard both sides being argued on its efficacy, but the key thing here is that it's a blood test. MLBPA's position is going to be tough here, but it's obviously much more invasive. There was another recent sport arbitration that brought this up and I was involved, so can't discuss.
New test? Link?
Re-write it for me.
The gen pop includes females, who are diagnosed at a lower rate than males. I'd also argue (slightly -- I could be convinced otherwise) that sports in general have a selection bias for ADHD. I think it's SLIGHTLY high, but I don't think it's alarmingly high.
I recently did a speaking engagement at a small college. The rate of self-admitted ADHD medication was about 10%.
I don't do relievers outside of closer and setup man. Everything else is far too variable to make any sort of reasonable risk assessment. As a setup guy, he'd likely be red coming off surgery.
No, but neither were Reyes' going into last yr. Looking at the bigger picture, they're only a slight concern.
You're right. I reacted to the attacks rather than my own mistake in thinking subtle worked on the 'net.
No, it doesn't, but I think the biggest is - is there any connection? We have no idea if he will age "normally" or if he's 'younger/older' than chronological. He's unquestionably unique, which makes comparisons impossible.
He'd be red. It was a tough call on which to run. I think anyone can understand Saltalamacchia will be red so he was less "interesting" to run.
Yes, what he said.
THIS. More of this please! Man, I should repost this at the top ...
It should be on the A's THR or an upcoming chat. Or an email.
Clarify: you don't get to disagree with facts. Facts are facts. Feel free to disagree with me any time you want. Any debate where someone can't stipulate the facts is doomed.
You don't get to disagree. Facts are facts. He's risky. Whether that risk turns into something negative remains to be seen.
For Hunter, it's that he bounced up and down without establishing himself. That's not a huge negative, but makes it harder to assess and therefore risky.
Andrus is in a small class and the number is a bit high. He's not risky as a person, but he's risky as a young SS. Not every teenage driver is a poor risk, but your insurance company is going to rate them that way.
Hunter's almost completely age. It also sees him as having a tough time establishing a role, which is a pretty big negative for a younger pitcher.
People have been bagging on me for my lack of math skills for a while and this post amped that up. I think math education is huge and I would have paid more attention to it if I'd known then what I know now. I'm sure I could go back, starting with the Algebra 1 I barely passed and build up to the kinds of things I see here and around the web. But a lot like learning Spanish, learning to appreciate classical music, dissecting the lyrics of Tool, and trying to figure out wtf is happening on Lost, it's unlikely to happen any time soon. So like many others, I'm left hoping that someone can explain it to me.
I'm not being anti-math when I say I don't have the skills. I don't have the skills to fix my car either, but I know enough to take it to an expert when it needs it.
Actually, he'd probably be green anywhere under 160 innings. There's some assumptions here that, in light of some of the Verducci Effect research, are going to have to be re-visited.
The system doesn't understand the difference and sees it as a post-surgical problem. I think it's a bit overrated, but as you see in the comment, he's still quite risky.
Michael's one of our great interns here at BP. He does a lot of the behind-the-scenes work on the Team Health Reports and I feel like he deserves a chance to get his work out there. I've given him a couple of these to handle this year, but it's the same ratings and I stand behind Michael's work as strongly as I do my own.
Yes, they're meaningless. Frank Jobe did a study years ago that showed the ligaments didn't take stress until over 75% effort. There have been other confirming studies since then. Warm up throws, long toss, etc, only slightly add to ligament stress, but add to muscular fatigue.
We did not describe the games. It's still right on the edge of legality.
Err. Then I don't agree with you. I need sleep.
Oh, then I don't disagree with you. I want something that just works.
Yes, I completely agree with what you're saying here. The iPad hides the stuff that 99% of people don't care about so that you can do 99% of the stuff you want to do.
Agree, but it's not either/or. It's beer AND tacos.
A would explicitly run afoul. You're describing a running, real time commentary on a game. Even a reasonable delay has some major questions.
B had major problems from the get go. Reading about a game days after it happens is kind of pointless.
With the caveat that I have friends at MLB.com and have done work for them, I have NEVER had these problems with them. I've had some issues with bandwidth and the occasional crash, especially with Flash. I'm very curious about this, since I know that the iPhone app and I'm assuming the iPad app (and they're two different things, if you haven't noticed) will be using h.264. If MLB.tv gave me that option like I now can with YouTube, I'd eject Flash the same way I did Microsoft Office once given a reasonable alternative.
My only concern is that watching more video will bounce me off the caps Comcast has instituted.
As for the GOTW idea ...
A) It's illegal. We'd be sued out of existence. "Express, written consent" and all that.
B) We've tried that a couple times. It was not a popular feature at all.
ESPN never, ever narrowcasted. That's a complete misunderstanding of their early business model. They took advantage of a giant niche early on, using cheap sports that would do a time buy and weird stuff (Aussie Rules football, strong man competitions) to fill the time. They were insanely profitable from the start and used their subscription fees to buy up things and eliminate competition.
And you mean Clay Shirky, who's made a career of being horribly wrong.
Umm, that's me at Football Outsiders.
It's not that I don't want to learn. I just have zero math skills. Seriously, I would love to be able to understand all the things BP and other places are referencing. I don't and absent a brain transplant, it's not going to happen.
Sure, got a couple million bucks we could borrow to develop and host that, let alone maintain it? Anyone remember the horror stories about the ESPN meltdown a couple years ago at the start of the season?
Let's say you pay a dollar for that game. Let's say there's ... 50,000 people just like you. If so, they lose money on that game. I'm GUESSING here -- and I know we have some TV people here -- but I think it would take about $150k per game to do a MLB/ESPN quality broadcast. Much cheaper if they're just going "SAP".
Written prior to that announcement. Doesn't change much, but makes sense.
I had a Newton. It sucked. Amazing for the time, but sucked.
Gambling's the third rail in baseball. I can't see any major outlet doing that.
Great points. As to the name, no, but neither did/does ESPN. Few to this day have any idea of what it originally stood for.
See my issue with this is needing to understand. Yes, I understand that with advanced metrics, there needs to be some explanation and trust at some level. Every article using SIERA going fwd can refer back, but doesn't need to go into that kind of detail as the original series.
But here's another two sentence comparison for you to imagine in Jon Miller's voice:
1) "Roy Halladay has a 3.74 SIERA, a measurement that seeks to use a pitcher's skills and remove luck."
2) "Roy Halladay is ranked the best pitcher in baseball right now, according to Baseball Prospectus."
Ha! You know, I didn't even notice when I posted it ...
On point four, the answer's no (for now.) Teams control their broadcasts, aside from national games, so they would have to be the ones putting together a secondary announcer team. I don't see that happening. My little experiment last year in Ft Myers showed that it's possible to do a sabr-friendly broadcast, but it's far different to do Single-A than MLB. The biggest issue holding back us doing more with games is rights issues. Use of video and audio is hellaciously expensive and restricted.
Unfiltered isn't edited at all.
"Whinging" is British. I just like how it sounds. The other mistakes are mine.
Funny, since the biggest complaint was that we'd lost the technical side over the years with the loss of Woolner, Click, etc.
B) No one's told me yet what a commercially viable BP app should be. I certainly don't have a good idea, but I'm sure open to it.
Yes, I think there will be a generational change. Jon's very savvy and a long time friend of BP. He was actually an original BPR contributor! But even there, Boog's always been very tentative with his use of sabr-stuff, bc he knows his audience.
My god, you're right. (As usual ... if this is Ron!) Why did that never occur to me? I must have been taking my title too literally.
Sorry -- that should be customer service. Normally, I have a program that when I type certain things, it fills them out. (It's called TextExpander and is a lifesaver or at least finger saver.) Kathy is phenomenal at her job and deserves a lot more credit than she gets, from BP and from it's readers.
Not one of the five starters expected on Opening Day.
I'm told he's the #8 on the board right now so ...
Given the ankle and the nerve damage, he'd be a red. He'd be facing a huge innings increase if he's in the rotation from day one, more red. He's kind of binary right now, so the rating would probably be a bit overstated on the ankle, but the workload alone would have him well into red.
It's pretty obvious by now isn't it? We should have a contest ... what would Will say about this very obvious situation?
I've said it before and I'll say it again - especially to people arguing that sabermetrics is mainstream - that you are the minority here. BP's audience isn't big enough to be a rounding error to ESPN. They made $8 BILLION in subscriber fees alone. That's just TV. No ads, no magazine, website, anything. BILLION. Their ratings and the ratings of MLBN are huge.
BP's pretty successful for a niche site and we're growing, but anyone who thinks this is mainstream isn't getting it. OPS was trotted out last year by ESPN as cutting edge and by and large, people rejected it as too complex. The challenge of the next decade is to take all the knowledge and find out what's usable to a larger population.
Its an MRI. Until we know more, not a whole lot to add.
What he said. (And better than I could have, thank you.)
Not in any rigorous way. It's a very superficial thing. "Oh look, pitchers with X increase tend to get hurt a lot." I didn't do regressions or any of the sharp knife kind of stuff. It's akin to saying "players that wear white shoes tend to get hurt." It makes sense, we can watch each year, but I can't tell you WHY it works. It's a very simple, rule-of-thumb kind of thing, not a statistically vetted formula.
Could you show me where I said that? A full study of this is something Matt Swartz talked about late last year and I hope it's on his (or someone's) to do list. I simply don't have the statistical chops for that. Back in '02, I found that 20% increases were a negative indicator and ran with it.
He would be with extended playing time.
Same things were said about seat belts and bumpers on cars. Same things were said about the initial batting helmets and even helmets in football. Looks funny? Yes, at first. Works? Apparently so. I'd think there's a market opportunity for a better looking but as effective helmet here, but no one seems interested.
Did you think Wright looked funny laying on the ground after he was hit?
As I said, lot more in the Mets piece I did in BP 2010.
Rodriguez looks risky, but is the changeup any less of a joint load than his heat? WE DONT KNOW. Maybe he's got "perfect" low risk mechanics that just look weird.
Seems that the Mets have again outsourced his care. I don't know much about them, but Vern Gambetta had such success the first time that I don't know why it wouldn't be him again.
No you may not.
I kind of put it in the THRs.
All days lost by anyone placed on the MLB DL. It's days, not games.
Hilarious on some level that you will have yours well before me!
The scope should cost him 6-8 weeks, but getting back to baseball ready makes it impossible for me to guess right now. What I don't want to see is Beltran pushing to be ready for opening day and re-injuring himself.
Hiring another Asst Trainer isn't going to create another opinion. That's the Head Trainer and doctor's job. I'd suggest you could specialize a bit more, but that would defeat the purpose of being able to attack problems where they occur with more man-hours.
Good question. I had to go back through the data bc I'd never thought to differentiate it, which seems obvious. It's a very small sample size, but I don't see a significant difference. Hitting style is going to be a massive variable here that I can't account for.
High green means almost yellow.
Mumbo jumbo, if you call explaining what those injuries are and what to do in those cases mumbo jumbo.
Exactly. If he was car, he'd be driving a few less miles.
They're SCHEDULED as ... NL East, AL West, NL Cent, AL Cent, NL West, AL East. There's a lot of play in that schedule and we're pushing to get them out early enough for most fantasy drafts.
And AFL injuries tend to be, umm, inflated.
No Maverick Lasker‽
Doesn't imply it. I've expressly said that.
Pure guess? Green. Young, athletic, no injury history than I'm aware of ... hard to imagine him as non green.
Also, its not that he gets hurt more in the field or less, its that the positional risk (once you get past the switchover effect, which is minimal for 3B to 1B) is less. His value is in his hitting, not his fielding, so you want to limit the possible risk there and accept the hitting risk.
Sorry - thought it was in the Glossary. GIA was a complex system that accounted for injury cost. Injury Cost is a vastly simplified version of what Tom Gorman was trying to do. GIA (Gorman Injury Accounting) has to be done by hand, team by team and was abandoned due to that workload.
Yes, the whole actuarial baseline is based on position and age. It's not the same as the defensive spectrum, but close.
Yes it is. Red, yellow, green. That makes sense even if you don't speak English. I'll just cease with high and low. That info isn't worth the aggravation.
Victor Rojas gets it as well. Look, we'd love to have a presence there or on Baseball Tonight. Fact is, they don't care about the small subset that is our market. Our readership pales in comparison to their ratings. Rob Neyer is read far less than Matthew Berry. So at heart, this is about them giving people what they want and the ratings have spoken. We'll focus on doing the best job we can here and doing the media that we can. You want BP on one of those shows? Get us another million readers.
No. The "low" and "high" refer to the underlying number. A "high green" would be close to yellow. A "low yellow" would be close to green. Not to pick on you, Stink, but I don't understand why this is hard to follow.
Bounce -- hit the 200 inning ceiling and "bounced" down. Lots of pitchers do that. Holding above 195 is one of the defining features of an ace and rare.
Disconnect -- many stats guys love his K rate and peripherals. I think he's going to remain a guy who doesn't pitch as well as his projections.
True. I was just throwing out first overall picks that didn't reach expectations. If I were to say Strasburg would pitch the Nats to the playoffs, but never play past 2011, would that be failure or success for $20m?
As someone writing Team Health Reports right now, I hope you'll forgive my take on the future ...
I do, but only for a small period. Is the last 8 yrs enough? Not sure. Its certainly not the same as any other period, but still there's a TON of unknowns. I don't know when a pitcher is sore, or had a bad cheeseburger, or is going through a tough time at home, or has anxiety, or when the manager is hard on him, or when his back is stiff from a hotel bed or long flight. I don't know how he recovers, how strong he is, or how much he really weighs. I don't know his genetic makeup, the condition of his shoulder on any given day ... and a million other things. That's why these are broad categories of risk, not defined predictions. You'll never hear me say "Joe BLow WILL get injured"; I simply don't know.
I dont have a really solid number. Minors-to-MLB innings translations are tough enough, so college-to-MLB is nigh impossible. I wouldn't hate 150, but I really have no basis for that other than educated guess.
Not that I'm aware. Flores is coming off elbow and shoulder surgery, so his S/T availability is a big question.
There's no Delgado in the THR.
The golf analogy is a great one, but while I too have always worried more about his back than arm, we have no idea what forces and stresses he's putting on his body. My biggest concern is that as Lincecum matures, he'll either gain weight or just "thicken up" as many do and reduce the flexibility that allows him to do that back arch. Clemens had his "tick-tock" flaw, but was strong enough in the core to overcome it. Maybe Lincecum is as well.
So what's the ... I don't know the proper math term ... the point where there's diminished return for increased K rate? My guess is somewhere around 7.
No, he's red. I have no idea what you're seeing.
Yes, but not specifically. More looks for shoulder/elbow for pitchers, legs for speed player, shoulders for power hitter. For things that heal, like bones or illnesses, it's removed after they prove they're back. (Jon Lester is a good example there.)
Are young pitchers suddenly not risky? Yes, it's obvious and yes, it's not tremendously instructive, but if you read the team reports, you'll learn a lot more than just the color.
As most know, I have a pretty good connection there, so I wouldn't say it's impossible, though my liver dreads the possibility.
Mazeroski over Clemente?? That one stuns me.
Age and innings.
A) It doesn't help much. Really much more confusing. This isn't strat-o-matic where a player is a 1-6/20 or something. All players could be injuried - this is a measure of RISK and that's by definition broad.
B) Because the baseline is proprietary (and not to me), putting out the numbers would make it very easily reverse engineered, so the good people that help with that would rather I stayed with the colors.
Yes, I dont have time to do it but we've done it or had people do it in the past. The trick of the system is that while individual players are binary (right or wrong), the bands work very well. Greens are hurt the least, yellows more, reds most. They fall almost exactly where they would be expected, which is the goal.
Of course, this also means that just under half the reds will be "wrong" which is where people misunderstand things.
Bands work well. There's a big long actuarial reason that was baked into the original system.
That comes in the writeups. I prefer the term "low yellow" or "low red" (low is better) for our color-blind friends.
This is the 8th year. I can't ever remember anyone as low as Greinke, esp a pitcher. Alex Rodriguez was pretty low - in the teens - a couple yrs ago and the next yr was one of the "blue" rating experiment and naturally he got hurt.
Minnesota is a distinct possibility for summer. It won't be a ballpark event.
You already get pretty special access, no? ;)
He's not so much suck green as he is a DH, where it's either pretty easy to stay healthy, or you're a player that's already pretty broken and DH is the refuge for your bat.
I'm hesitant to do much more with colours. We already have color-blind people that complain about the system as is. Y'all are smart enough to figure out the sucks.
The injury history is pretty clean - bone chips twice. He came back once and the operation itself is about as predictable as anything. Let everyone else worry and steal Santana in your draft.
I hope there's something big. Fact is, in the last decade, the usage has gone down rather than up. Research budgets have stayed steady -- at zero.
There's something new coming that I do hope to be able to talk about very, very soon.
No, I don't adjust for "phantom DL moves." I simply can't know in all cases.
Also, let me make this point that seems obvious. A 99% risk might have a healthy, productive season. Even a 100% risk, like Bedard, could be productive, but because the risk is defined in terms of the DL, we know he'll be on it.
Yes - there was actually a baseline of 80% in one category a couple years back. It was a bit of a quirk - there's not many catchers 35+ after all. I think there's a bit of a diminishing return above 50 percent, where the red is. Once you get to a coinflip, a 70% risk isn't much beyond that. Or take someone like Bedard, who we know will be on the DL this season. That's 100%, but it doesn't really tell us anything new.
I think so - haven't checked. Talked about it over at Dodger Thoughts, which is now part of ESPN LA.
Rivera's almost always red. He has a tendency to tire, take a couple weeks off, and come back and crush people. He hasn't for the last couple years, but the age alone is going to make him red.
Not until we see him in spring training.
Oops, yes. DET.
Good question - I dont have his data from Japan and don't have a translation for Japanese injuries.
Lot more on this when ARI comes up, but mostly, it's the fact that the increase came from a SP/RP mix in '08. The system handles that differently and may well be wrong.
The broken hand at the end of last year? The various injuries he's played through? The ineffectiveness when he does so? And that he's 29 now and might not be able to play through these things so well in the future.
A's are a very interesting case. but I'll save why for the writeup.
No, it knows the DL. If a player wasn't on the DL, it does one of two things - if he's young, it assumes he didn't establish himself. If he's older, it assumes he's declining and will see less playing time in the future. It's not perfect - the one thing I see it trip on is when a guy goes from a platoon situation to a full time gig. Or Skip Schumacher last season, which was a bit odd.
Yes. Already in the works for me.
For Toronto, or anywhere else, you can either: Lobby the publisher to send one of us or do it yourself. Organize a Pizza Feed or Ballpark Event and one of us will come. Jamey Newberg puts on a world-class event every year in Dallas.
I did an event in Toronto a couple years ago organized by a reader. I'll go virtually anywhere if i'm not losing money on the deal.
John -- the test can't be done at night, simply because baseball is a well lit sport, even at night. I'm not going to have balls fired at me in the dark!
I will say that there's been some small haloing, but that with the new waveguide procedure, that's been lessened. I've noticed a reduction in the negative effects in just a few days.
Wasn't a LASIK problem per se, but did get re-done this off-season.
Yes, he did.
Seriously dude, did you not read? And no, there are no accurate text-to-voice applications out there, at least none accurate enough to not require a full, line-by-line edit. Google Voice does pretty well - one recent test was 86%.
I enjoyed this one a lot more.
Do people really print things out? I dont get that in today's day and age, but ... yeah, I guess we should look into that.
That's *definitely* coming.
As for the push, we do have the newsletter, which does that.
Yeah that's been on my wishlist for about two years. I wish I had a good answer as to why not, apart from the pay wall being frustrating to some.
Ron self-pubs, which has plusses and minuses, but it's a whole different world.
I'm not the publishing point person here, but remember that the publisher's desire is to sell books and ours is to do what we do here. Those businesses aren't necessarily aligned. If the publisher did that, they'd rightly want a cut of the revenue here. No one's ever figured out how to answer that question at any of our various publishers.
Believe me, no one wants this as much as me. The formatting just doesn't work and a publisher wouldn't like us selling a PDF version the way Football Outsiders did last season.
Team Audit does a lot of this, but I'm with you on this.
I feel you here, but this is a problem of publishing. Maybe that whole Tablet thing will fix this! Honestly, I have a dream of the electronic "BP Annual Collection" -- all the players, all the comments, all the essays right there at a touch.
Not that one, but there's an internal team study that I've seen but can't discuss. It would not surprise me at all to find out that the "average" MLB player had freakishly good vision.
The Nike contacts? You know, I haven't heard *anything* about those in a couple yrs.
Good point, but isn't that an improvement?
One of the things I'll talk about in the next piece is that most LASIK procedures don't aim for vision correction, but for vision improvement. 20/20 is the minimum threshhold for a "successful" procedure. 20/10 is often hit, though not a majority. That alone blurs the correction/enhancement line for me.
Thanks, yeah ... so am I.
I'm going to agree but disagree here. You're right in the broad sense, just like I could just start wearing contacts if I wanted. Same result, but I hate how contacts feel in my eyes and I'm terrible at putting them in. Imagine a player who didn't like how glasses or contacts felt. This is as close to "normal" as can be had currently, intermediate steps or no.
Yeah, it's tiny. The problem, as I said, is in getting the data on who had it and when. Most of it happens in the off-season, so the date itself isn't so much the key, but less data = more sample size issues. Factor in aging patterns and all the other variables and its very, very tough. All we're trying to do here is establish that maybe there's an effect. We'll go more into the science of how it works and try to get a bit more of a "why" in the next couple pieces.
I'm going to disagree. I think Zduriencik would be a bit too thoughtful, pause before speaking to think it through first, and say things that require the listeners to think as well. That's good for discussion, bad for TV.
Phillips was exceptionally good at what he did. Speak quickly, say things that were easily digestible by the broad viewing audience, and seem confident. The fact that he was often wrong *means nothing*.
If you want to try this, go watch CNBC. Even if you know nothing about finance (and it's actually better if you don't), just listen to how they deliver rather than what they deliver.
This one hit the Giants number ... but not what we were going for!
Wow, and it was the 14th overall posting here. That's pretty impressive!
Ladies and gentlemen, your winner!
I think the key here is the ability of Jack to listen and more importantly, Blengino's social skills. The fact that Blengino has never been a stats attack dog and can speak to both the stats and scouts side is one of his more underrated skills.
I think that everything the Giants have done this off-season has to be looked at in light of the facts this article brings up. Sabean still deserves a lot of scrutiny for his look-back obsession, but he's also not going to be able to go get some of the guys he might have if he knew what the budget was.
I'm curious - can a player be traded after an arbitration decision, as normal, or are there restraints?
The problem is that strength does not translate directly into hitting. Just as the fastest players don't automatically become the best base stealers, the strongest players don't necessarily hit home runs. Both have a decided advantage, yes, but in a (flawed) study done a few yrs back, strength did not translate into better hitting. I would venture a guess that Dustin Pedroia is not stronger than Jason Varitek and certainly not twice as strong.
It was a bit more than "public shaming." He was told that the US Attorney General would prosecute. Not some rinky-dink Fed, but the Atty General. Tom Davis confirmed this on MLB.
Using controlled substances like amphetamines was against the law as well. Should we start addressing the 60's as the "Greenies Era" and the 80's as the "Cocaine Era"? The show "Jersey Shore", besides being an assault on Western society, glorifies "juice heads" who use steroids to keep their washboard abs. The law is obviously not much of a deterrent and to me, a moot point when discussing sport.
Did you ever think you'd see the day when BP would have "scouting guide" anywhere on the cover?
Everyone ... discussion is good, screechiness is bad. Let's have a substantive discussion here.
Well, it was illegal at the time to possess steroids. I would say "not getting arrested" rather than any guilt/shame might factor into it more.
Very different. Jones tested positive for andro, which was in the supplement "Ripped Fuel" and sold over the counter at the time. If he'd been in baseball at the time, it wouldn't have been illegal. Football? Same thing.
Of being a baseball? Seems kind of a low bar. :)
Unlikely due to formatting, says the resident Kindle lover.
It's a BP tradition.
I'm sure that ESPN would be happy to give us access to a couple writers making six figures for pennies.
Clearly, the site re-design is going to have to wait so it can be Tablet ready ...
If I had that copy of BP -- I think '01 -- I'd like to know how many of Keith Woolner's Hibert questions have been sufficiently answered.
Anything up to 2 min would be perfect. We'd like to get some variety in topics and voice.
Yeah, I've tried this a couple of times and it's just not there yet. Google Voice does this with messages and it's almost funny sometimes.
Getting paid? No. And with the hours of sound in the archives, there's simply no way I could do it myself. BPR is free and maybe someone who likes the show might want to check through the archives. You're welcome.
That's much more your area than it is mine! There is a great chapter on concussions in the Carroll Guide.
Still happens. Cedric Benson had one (hip flexor.)
I'd like to see it tried. There's simple ways to do it, but again, it's a matter of building up data and almost no way to measure it historically. Well, then again, you could hire Rickey Henderson to come in for a day and measure him. I bet he's still in shape.
There's no way to do this historically. I'd guess freakish eyesight isn't going to be measured by a normal test.
You'd know better than anyone! ;)
Actually, I'm prepping to have this surgery myself. I'm doing a lot of work around it to try and quantify the difference. I'm no major league hitter, but I'm going to do some drills to see the change in my visual acuity seeing balls, both in IDing pitches and using the colored ball trainers that a couple teams (Mets) have used. This one's coming in February-ish.
I think I already wrote that book.
Genetics is one of the most amazing things, especially since baseball offers so many examples. Ripkens, Gwynns, Giambis, and Cansecos -- you'd think they weren't really related if you just looked at stats and success.
20 years, minimum. I have a lot of questions where I'd need 1976 on.
That's one. Doesn't go back far enough to do much historical stuff.
Koufax yes -- go listen to the interview I did with Dr. Frank Jobe. I'd always thought it was a myth!
That's a REALLY interesting concept. I have no idea how to do it.
Blisters. I sense an impending email to Rany Jazayerli ...
No. "Guru" is a term I've never really liked. Honestly, I've never had a term I liked to describe what I do. "Injury Expert" came up as a term in '06 and seemed to stick, but there's issues with that. I *hate* the term "Senior Writer." Best I ever heard was "Medicine Man", which Bill Simmons coined.
That's good because I haven't written it yet!
You're right, it doesn't exist. I have a database that goes back six years now, but there's medical privacy issues with publishing. I know at least two other people that are doing similar projects, but as with some other things, I don't think BP could get away with things. (I'm not a lawyer, but I also couldn't afford MLB or MLBPA suing me.)
The problem is that almost no one collected the data. Rotowire has it going back as far as anyone, I think 2002, and I'd love to see them collect it. (nudge to Jeff and Peter.)
I was off doing things. Not an experiment, just interesting. I was speaking much more to the slow pace of change in baseball than not noticing something has changed.
Nope. Just reporting what's already being reported. In a big deal like this, I figured it would be good to open up a discussion about it. It's been a real moving target, so it's kind of fun to watch. Guys like Rosenthal, Heyman, and Stark are doing the real work here.
Too late: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.06/strikeout.html
I don't hate his motion - hear it was worse in college. I'd like to see him get a mo-cap and see how much force is there.
Yes, was a rough diagnosis, then lingered.
Lowell had the hip issue, Ramirez has had some wrist problems.
We complain about wi-fi every year, at every meetings. This one was pretty bad, but CK's right, it was the Marriott and not Indianapolis.
Dr. Mark Hopper, Scott Sheridan, Dr. Michael Ciccotti, Mark Henderson (R-L)
Mets weren't the worst by the measures we use to rate the best.
All great suggestions, fellow Indy enthusiasts, but I didn't include most of these because most people don't leave the hotel or a walking distance area of the meetings. As you know, news doesn't stop because you're hungry. I actually had to sit down and say "Is St Elmo's too far?" which for those of you that know the area will give you an idea of how insular the meetings are.
That's about a $50 cab ride tho.
I <3 Goose.
Agree on all, but few leave the immediate area. In Dallas a couple years ago, we left the hotel once and that was only to go to Jamey Newberg's event.
Shapiro's, mentioned above, is probably worth the walk. There's a lot of fast food in the area but nothing that bears a recommendation.
And you owe me a beer.
Ah possibilly. I saw "sausage" and immediately thought Clemm's. Try both!
Still does. One of my favorite pizza places uses their stuff. They don't ship, but worth a stop if you're in the area.
Very yummy. If it was closer to the meetings, it would have been in the recommendations.
I think 400-500 register.
Job fair would be one of those "darn good reasons."
400-500? I think your estimate is low there, MB.
And I'll say again, unless you have a darned good reason to go, there's nothing for you to see. No autographs, very few sightings of even GMs and managers, and the reporters will be working.
Honestly? Nothing. You'll see very little in the way of GMs, almost nothing of players (last yr in Vegas was an anamoly. I don't remember seeing a single player in Orlando a couple years back), and you can't get into the tradeshow. Unless you're really excited to see a beat writer up close but who'll be annoyed because he's working, there's absolutely nothing for you to do. Unless you're a working writer, there is NO REASON WHATSOEVER to come to the Winter Meetings. Even if you are, it's questionable.
I'm sure KG's on the Rule 5.
Always a minor league city. Indy's great for conventions bc of space and the layout of downtown. Indians did a great job selling the city. Downside is that the JW is a year behind - would have been the perfect home, overlooking Victory.
A couple notes:
1) People talk about me "leaving Carpenter off." There's only three slots, so I left a lot of people off.
2) Carpenter would have been my fourth, by a slim margin to Haren. Is calling someone the fourth best pitcher in baseball really that much of an insult?
Agree, which is why it was just one source I used. Beer and tacos.
I went back to him tonight and he still says that. He says: "Neither of those guys is very hittable so it's picking between Lyla and Tyra. You can't go wrong with either, as long as you're not facing them. Lincecum throws the same two pitches and guys feel like if they guess right, they can get around on him. Wainwright this year, it seemed like if you fouled one off you felt lucky. I didn't face Lincecum, but I was in on all the sessions, talked to guys who did, watched him from the bench. I also watch a lot of video to prepare, so you can tell anyone who thinks my opinion shouldn't count can go **** themselves."
Really? Where was this?
Also, I wrote this article before the awards were announced and was really surprised that Coghlan won. Not undeserved, but surprised.
I looked at Coghlan and discounted him quickly, perhaps too quickly. I just felt that McCutchen was better and that Hanson was a better "future and now" player than Coghlan. Looking at the numbers, I still can't say I'd have changed my vote.
I'm not sure of the formula for who votes, but I'm in the Cincinnati chapter (closest to my Indianapolis home) and Christina is in Chicago.
Torn flexor tendon. Pretty clear that was hidden as he was struggling. More interesting question is when it happened.
Impossible. There's far too many factors, too many individual differences to do that.
Share? You're joking, right?
We do days in-year. Take, for instance, Pat Neshek. Out part of last yr, all of this yr. Counts on both at the time. Things like this are one of those things that would be nice to do retro-actively, but simply can't be. Where do you count someone like Wang?
Good question ... maybe I can get Sean to do another of his cool-as-heck graphs on that.
We just talk about the potential winners. It really came down to the Phillies, Cards and Sox this year. All would have been deserving winners, but the Cards were hurt by their 3-yr avg, which was in large part the loss of pitchers. They take on a lot of risk, so if there was some sort of risk-adjustment that would be consistent and valid, they'd get a lot of points there.
Expected is too subjective, at this point. While I have a system that does this, it's hardly PECOTA-accurate. I think what would be a better measure is consistency. There are teams like the White Sox and Brewers that have been in the top ten virtually every year we've done this, while a team like the Pads have been up and down. I wouldn't say that means a staff is "good" or "bad" but there's value in consistency.
No, there's no consistent method to do so. We do a bit in subjective portion of the award, but really, while days and dollars lost aren't perfect, they are consistent and measureable.
That's a great question. Is Wang "luck" or "staff", since RB used him as an example. Wang broke his foot running the bases, so I think we'd call that luck. Then he had problems with his hip and shoulder post-injury, which I think we'd have to look at more on the staff. That shows just how hard it is to say whether something's "preventable" or not.
The award also has a three- and five-year average component to it. After we look at those five numbers, I sit down with six of my top medical advisors and see if we can come to a consensus, which was relatively easy this year. Schneider and the Sox got major consideration, no surprise since they won a couple years ago.
I'll make this a general comment and not just about Hardy. Halle Berry is gorgeous, but she's been divorced how many times? Someone once said "For every beautiful woman you see, there's a man that's sick of her bleep." Sometimes, having a player, teams see all the warts. They know if he works well with the coaches, plays nice on the flights, wears deodorant, and every little baseball thing he does, good and bad. It's why "change of scenery" deals work sometimes. A different voice or even just a new voice can help.
No, Mike. He was saying the RAYS should throw in an arm.
I know why you say this Sky and I respect that (and you), but this is a deal that isn't even going to get consideration from two very smart GMs. No one's going to use the valuations you're using here and for good reason. They're wrong.
That one's from Ken Rosenthal. You REALLY want to say he's not a credible source?
I dont think GM's do that. I think trade offers in baseball tend to be much like those in any fantasy league, but the games people think they play are overrated. The "noob" is not a new player or unrelated. If you have no information about someone and their preferences, then yes, you might lowball to try and gain info.
Think of it like a poker game. You know the guys you play with, but with a new guy, you have to start fresh. You can bluff him bc he doesn't know you, but you're equal. The thing is, Antonopolous is NOT NEW. He's a known quantity.
Teams have scouting reports on front office personnel. I know one team that keeps track of conversations, looking for biases, tendencies and such. Griffin is saying that Antonopolous is new and therefore different. He's not.
I continue to reject your premise.
But he's not new. He's been an AGM, was involved in the Halladay negotiations at the deadline. The premise he throws up there is false from the beginning. At worst, Anthopolous is going to get offers that are reasonable, as opposed to what Ricciardi was doing.
Yeah, you tell me how to link to one of MLB.com's videos and I'd be glad to.
Not that he's increased it - same thing he's been doing as long as I've seen him.
Remember that aside from applying force and spin, the rest of what a pitcher does is irrelevant. Much is wasted motion, though there's some value in timing and deception, of course. How a pitcher imparts force into the ball is largely irrelevant to what the ball does. "Good" and "bad" mechanics have nothing to do with the singular result.
Oversimplified, yes, but instructive? Also yes. Remember, the rotational forces are applied linearly.
Very possible. Problem with spit is that it dries up quickly and isn't really that slippery.
I just conducted an interview with Mr. Tuxen and the project manager. It should be up in a couple days. The camera angle is a huuuuuge thing. Very tough to reconcile it in your head.
Frederik Tuxen, the CTO of Trackman, the company doing FoxTrax, sent me this comment:
I hope we are not intruding on your dialog and don’t want this to come off as a corporate sales pitch, but we are really enjoying your discussion of rethinking velocity and want to provide you with some information about the technology behind FoxTrax +.
The speed at release and at the plate, hitter reaction time and all other data to come are provided by TrackMan Baseball. TrackMan™ is a 3D Doppler radar that tracks the ball’s movement from the moment it leaves the pitcher’s hand (X, Y and Z coordinates) all the way to the catcher’s glove - or in the case of a hit the complete ball flight until it hits the ground or is caught by a fielder.
TrackMan data includes the full 3D trajectory of hits and pitches, including location at the plate, spin rate and orientation of the spin axis, and much more.
TrackMan data is unique because it is pure measurements – no modeling or estimation involved. Because of the extreme density of our sample rate (48.000 samples a second) we can precisely measure the time of flight on a pitched ball, from the moment it leaves the pitcher’s hand to the moment it crosses the front of home plate. This is what FoxTrax + calls ‘reaction time’.
Looking at the data we collected on big leaguers over the past year, we have found that the primary thing that influence ‘reaction time’, apart from release speed, is how close to home plate the ball is released.
An average 90mph fastball takes .419 s to reach the plate. However, if the ball is released with the same 90 mph 1 ft closer to the plate the reaction time would only be .411 s. While a difference of only .008 s might seem insignificant – it is not. A swing that is off by .008 s can make the difference between a hit to center field or a foul ball.
Secondary things that influence the reaction time are spin rate and spin axis. A sinker or a cutter will reach the plate quicker and with less speed drop than a 4-seam fastball with the same release speed.
As Warren Spahn said, “Hitting is timing. Pitching is upsetting timing”."
Yes -- this is what I was trying to say. Time might end up being a more accurate way of showing what the pitch does rather than velocity.
Ok so the pitcher is essentially controlling force and that can be calculated. Is there a way to reverse this back to how much "force" is being exerted on his shoulder or elbow?
You misunderstand what I'm saying is the change - I'm not saying that there's any new understanding in the data, but how we deal with the data and use it to increase our understanding. I realize that the velocity isn't new to most people here, but I do think the increase in putting things together holistically is going to change things. I'm not even sure what the change will be but as with DIPS, something that appears simple changed how we think about things for the better, even if it wasn't what we initially thought.
Very key. I know PFX is very consistent in the distance and is calibrated regularly. Again, I know nothing about how FoxTrax works or how it compares.
Oh yeah, there was a kid locally that was hitting 80. No control and he had a better goatee than I did, but it was a legit 80 from 45 feet.
And it's the feet that's key here. If 70 looks like 90 or whatever from 45 feet instead of 60, then isn't it key to know how far a pitcher is actually throwing from? No one throws from 60'6. The foot's there, but the hand is ahead in almost all situations. Some pitchers are throwing from 55, some from 54 and that small difference might be huge.
Yes, but like Eric was talking about with pitch release -- what if Chris Young is closer, or Randy Johnson? What if Tim Lincecum is closer because of that long delivery? What if Steven Strasburg is further away, removing some effect of his 100 mph heat? Lots of questions we're getting to ask for the first time now.
Joe - interesting. Is that for any pitch, or just fastballs?
That's not surprising at all, but the change in how we think about it *is* surprising. Is it still right to think of any pitcher as having a 95 mph fastball? Do some lose less velocity? Does movement have a bigger effect? Think back to Kevin Goldstein's article on velocity - still true, but instead of one dimension, we're getting close to a fourth.
No, he is out until Spring Training with the L5 fx.
See above. There's no delay from game to my computer for PFX, so I'm guessing almost none to call b/s.
Gotcha. I forgot that part.
If it breaks, you go back to human. You adjust, just in the same way you do if an umpire gets ill or injured.
A lot of people also think there would be no home plate ump. There are still tag calls to be made, fair foul, etc, so I would think there could be a middle ground solution. Imagine a buzzer installed in the umps b/s counter. On a defined strike, it buzzes. If the ump thinks it's not a strike, so be it, but he'd better be able to defend that call later. Too many errors and he's not an ump anymore. Some umps would always defer to the buzzer, some wouldn't. Only downside I can see is that it might SLIGHTLY delay the strike call.
I also think thegeneral13 may have misunderstood what Eric means about perceived velocity. That's a batter's perception, not a change in the reality of a pitch. A 93 mph pitch is always a 93 mph pitch, even if a batter thinks it looks like 96.
This is going to sound really weird, especially for me, but Liriano needs to go back to his old mechanics. Even if he ends up hurting his elbow again, he might not suck while it holds.
Nice windblown homer for The Collector too.
There are lots of books that I've recieved and decided "no, this isn't that good" and didn't interview the author.
I don't like chocolate and no, swag has never influenced a single thing I've done here.
Possible, but hard to match because of the delay in symptoms.
I'm guessing it will be a decision between Beltran and his doctors. I don't think there's a delineated plan.
If I said a German Shepherd was more like a wolf than a poodle, would that make sense?
Maybe the weekend.
If I don't attribute it, it's my judgement/opinion. If you read, I don't say he's JUST a thrower, but a thrower MORE than he is a pitcher.
Nope, just different skill sets.
Never has been.
So the guess is he dumped the curve at Butcher's behest? Good stuff, Mike.
Physicals are kind of hit and miss, but yes, I'd assume so. If it had been bothering him, there was likely treatment and the record of that would be a trigger to check the wrist.
Pop could be a million things - tendon popping over, scar tissue, sheath, etc. Remember, we're taking a description of "feel" and trying to deduct something. Very hard.
Agree -- I'd love to see similar breakdowns as what KG did for percieved velocity, but (and I'll admit to knowing more about what's coming ...) only after all the factors are figured in. I'll try to be patient.
No and Smits was nothing like PF.
Very sure. If I shot 97, I'd be bragging.
It should, but since Gallardo won't be on the DL, it won't count anyway. The $/DL number is oversimplified, to be sure, but it's consistent.
I don't know where you got that idea. No, I don't - clear traumatic injury. I said that the work of a catcher is not going to help him heal.
Not much on Glaus, but anything is a bonus at this stage.
No info on Mateo - that's more one for KG.
Agree - it's much more multifactorial. I think some team could say "We're never bunting, ever" and see what happens. Granted, it'd probably be good to drop one down in real surprise situations just to keep the defense honest. I'd be curious if we could use a five-man infield in a GBP v GBH situation and if there's an advantage ...
Yeah, there's a lot of sharing, just because most of the medical knowledge either trickles down or comes up to baseball. The hip stuff that's all the rage is the result of the run on hip replacements and the knowledge gained there. Pitching injuries often show up in elderly shoulders as they wear out with time rather than exceed their pitch counts. Conferences like what PBATS, ASMI, and Kerlan-Jobe put together also help.
Try Footballoutsiders later today.
Hamstring. Out a while.
Back spasms, but I didn't get details in time for deadline. Out until the weekend.
He was a bit fatigued, so they're resting him. No big deal.
Usually a roster situation when its something like that. Unsure of the specifics here.
No. The software is miserable (though I'm open to suggestion) and you can ask Richard about the time and effort of hand transcription.
Sure, you go ahead and schedule that for us, Richard.
Downside of our back-end is that I can't edit the text. It made sense when it first went up and didn't anticipate putting it back up. Sorry for the confusion.
I think the free agent market and finances means we'll see more trades. Indy Winter Meetings look to be a very active one. Less distractions, more work!
Agreed - what you do for Pedro is much different than for Happ, or any young pitcher. Still, we don't know what ANY of them is capable of doing and recovering from in normal period.
I want to clarify my Rockies rotation comments. I was trying to say that if I'd presented it to a baseball fan in April, I dont think many would say "yes, this rotation will be playoff quality!" The order I put them in is an approximation of what I would have said based on perception on Opening Day. Jiminez is obviously one of the better pitchers in baseball this season and this wasn't a slight or misjudging of his talent.
Working on it.
Pins are removed. These screws are permanent. We have no idea how, if at all, it will affect his mechanics.
Ignore the Street section above -- things have changed since I turned this in. He'll have another side session Tuesday before he's activated.
It's all those things and more I'm sure. Maturity, mechanics, service time ... I think they handled everything very well.
That was a good question, so I had Dan Malkiel, one of the sharp knives here on the data side, look it up:
2007: 928 pre, 827 post
2008: 936 pre, 736 post
2009: 962 pre, 486 post (thus far)
Obviously there's no record on where players were hit, but ... honestly I don't know what to make of this data. The perception is certainly that there's more.
Yep. What baserip said.
Malarchuk, definitely. The Lions training staff did as well a couple years ago with a player that was paralyzed.
Did Collins ever face Chris Cates?
Yep - my only regret is that we didn't get you and John and Shawn more involved. Thing is, most people were there to see Neal and Dan, so I was ok with that.
The Pujols line was mine, as was the Jinaz line ... man, I guess I should have let you ask the second question! (Wasn't intentional. Just trying to spread it around.)
It was a great time, talking with everyone and meeting three of the BP Idol contestants for the first time.
No, pretty straightforward disc issue.
Not really, though you'd rather he not have had it. Keeps him cheap.
No reason to be sorry -- just confusing. I can't cover everyone (it's why I seldom talk about minor league injuries) so it was a more a "what am I missing here?" statement.
He walked off, but I haven't checked at all. Why is everyone asking about this guy? I don't mean to be harsh, but he's a 31-yo minor league lifer who's getting a chance on a bad team.
That is, yes, you have it correct and don't seem to be missing something. I think I've made this point, but the fanboy population isn't listening.
Oh, you wanted them? Tomorrow's UTK. Note that my delivery time has changed, so I'm going to miss some late night happenings and will pick up the important ones in my next column.
A) Blood doping is one of the earliest forms of PEDs. This isn't that, but close, so you can cheat with your own blood. Therefore I reject this argument.
B) While TJ isn't often done with another person's ligament, ACL surgery is now routinely done with a cadaver's Achilles. Again, I reject that this makes it performance enhancing.
That's the salary lost. I'm not sure prorated is the correct term, but in your usage, yes.
We have to go by what the Pirates set up, Brian. I mean, I'd like for everyone to get in free but ...
No, just that the Reds have been comical about not releasing any information on it beyond "wrist."
Nothing's working as injuries continue to go up. Few teams even talk about mechanics, let alone have their pitchers analyzed. Baseline MRIs? Maybe five teams. Anything beyond simple pitch counts? Maybe ten.
No. You *must* have the ticket, due to the food/drink special. There's no way for the Pirates to police that and they're already giving us a great deal.
Also, Jonathan Mayo from MLB.com has just confirmed he'll be attending, so this is shaping up to be one of the biggest BP events yet.
Last year at the end of the season, they had a 14% chance to reach the World Series, per Clay's calculations. So, they have a 14% chance (in theory) to use a player for a maximum of 3 games and a maximum of 30 PA up to that point. Thome is due $1.4m from the Dodgers and they dealt a prospect of some value for that possibility.
That's the rough equivalent of pushing into a Hold Em pot with pocket deuces.
You assume teams have insurance coverage for something like this ...
Really common. Pins are used. Doumit had that.
Yep, think that's exactly what I said about Zito up there. Thanks for reading.
Rule #1: If I have nothing to add, I won't say anything.
Giles was back in six months.
No, he was cleared to play without it. He was wearing one previously.
And I even forgot John Perrotto, who will also be there!
It's available in the Team Health Reports this year.
Sorry -- posted from the computer at my Dad's place.
Ok ... here's the story I just got and confirmed: Francouer was told to have the surgery now. He declined, said he'll play. Mets discussed whether to let him and decided that if he can perform, he can play. He'll be day-to-day with any day being the possible shutdown.
STill conflicting reports on this.
I'll take a minor surgery every five years vs changing the best pitcher in baseball's mechanics, thanks.
Just heard they intend to file an appeal. Not sure if that means full panel or Supremes.
No, I talk to people.
Didn't have someone on hand, so I don't have anything to add. I'm on the road - -literally just got home after dealing with a family emergency this week - so pardon me for being a bit behind.
I'm just saying that we can't measure things like confidence and "syncing" well with pitchers. We know it doesn't show up in CERA, but if the pitcher believes it, it's something. There's something to "clubhouse leader" too, but I don't think we can quantify it or should even try.
That's the interesting question. I do think they'll have a very quick hook with him, but until they know how Hudson can go, they can't have two pitchers challenging the pen. If you put Lowe between them, it's more reasonable, assuming he's always good or that he's going to bite the bullet if he's not.
Lowe/Hanson/Vazquez/Hudson/Kawakami would be ideal. What about Jurrjens? He's already in risky territory, so have him shadowing Hanson and Hudson (esp Hudson). Could use Kawakami instead of Jurrjens there, but I don't think he's as "worthy" of protection as Jurrjens.
Working on that one. Seems just the typical "Dang it that hurts" foul.
No really good comps.
I'm not sure of the math, but I'd think that players who get a lot of hits AND hit with power would be the type that would do this more often. Pujols is the obvious prototype. I'm not sure if there's any players that hit it up the middle more often. I guess the guy I'd think of here is Ichiro, maybe Derek Jeter.
Far different economy in the US vs DR.
It's usually just removal.
And if he hadn't been?
I'm assuming you still bat?
Command. You might get more movement, but you might not be able to put it where you want. There are guys who can get away with that (Rivera), but not many.
There's always arguments, esp given era changes in role. Safer to say "perhaps."
Yep, meant to say that.
Same as any injury, a doctor has to sign off on it. If a player is insured (and very few are) and is on the DL through the elimination period, sure.
Minor correction -- Duchscherer will make a rehab start. It will be in the complex league. Apologies for missing it.
Aside from payroll and stadia, plus adjustments for market (it's more expensive to do business in NYC than Milwaukee, for instance) are expenses for teams relatively the same?
Working on that one. No solid info yet.
Crap! Hate when I do that ... it's sprain.
Crap - hit enter and it submitted rather than lined down.
The confusion can exist because if a guy is about to hit an incentive that's big, a team can negotiate to have the other team take on part of that, like anything else.
According to one source, the standard is that incentives in baseball are all triggered. Once an event occurs (the 3d out in the 200th inning of a 200 IP incentive, for instance), the incentive is paid out at the next scheduled pay period. There is no pay or liability prior to the trigger.
The answer - confirmed by Joe Kehoskie (an agent) and by Jeff Euston (former BP Idol contestant and keeper of MLB contract secrets) - is that a no-trade clause takes precedence. It's essentially a "no move" clause if a team is blocked. If it's a limited no-trade, it's the same for waivers. In 09-10, Rios has a complete no-trade, so any deal or dump could be blocked.
They can't put him back on revocable waivers. They could place him on irrevocable (release) waivers.
If they work out a trade, they do take the contract, but maybe the original team takes on some of the salary or doesn't just pull him back if the claiming team really needs him.
Really good question. He does have a no-trade, so if a trade is worked out, he'd have to approve it. If he's just handed through waivers, I don't know. I'll try and find out.
Yes - the claiming team is claiming the contract. It's in force and nothing changes except who's paying. The player just tags along behind it.
Are more of these happening at home vs road? I honestly don't often check that.
Watching the video again, he never tested the leg and was limping - watch the right leg. It clearly gave during the warm up landing, but that's not where it should be taxed. As he's coming over it, the hamstring will tighten to keep the knee from hyperextending and ... it just never happens. I don't think it was there, or strong enough at that stage. I can't say definitively though.
Hard to say. At best, it was hanging by a thread, literally, and would have needed the same type of treatment.
Severe tearing. He always had scarring in there, which was an issue when they had him working on form with Vern Gambetta back in ... '03? The big question here is - what changed?
Oblique strain - he missed a long time last yr with similar. With Byrnes coming back and their record, they're likely to be very conservative with him. There's some reason to believe that the Upton's genetic weakness might be healing time.
Working on that, plus other guests.
You know, I originally wrote something similar, but pulled it since the Royals think I'm biased anyway.
Believe me, I've looked at it. Reyes is largely a function of it only looking back a couple years. We all know he had hamstring issues, but he's been healthy. With Beltran and Delgado, there was information in there that wasn't available at the time I did those - Beltran's knees, blame on me. I really underestimated the risk and didn't think it would degenerate this fast. (No one else did either, but doesn't make it better.) Delgado was the hip, but he played through it, no off-season issues, but ... well, we know how that story ends.
All in all, I didn't do that good of a job with the Mets, which means either the Mets are underperforming health expectations or my system is underperforming. We'll have to wait to the end of the season to get a full picture. My guess is a bit of both.
That's my guess, but I'll be honest -- I don't like it. I've used translated innings and it didn't work. I'm working on something now and have pulled in some of the sharp knives, the guys that can do the hard math to try and do a big, full-on look. It's not going to be soon -- need a full year's data. Maybe it's a BP2010 piece?
That's he a late bloomer?
I was told he threw off the front of the mound, but it does look like he's really accelerating things.
Some but I think the pen and that he's your ace is the big thing. I'd like to see a struggling ace come out and come back on a couple days rest more, but it's a psychological thing I'm told.
Yep. Pain. I just had this abdominal surgery and I'm telling you, it both hurts and is just annoying.
Ichiro on first, Lopez batting. Pop up behind second, went back to catch it and Vizquel lets it drop at his feet. Throws to second for the force, swapping a slower runner for Ichiro. Really heady baseball play.
Expected to, but don't have a confirmation.
Yes, it's legal, but it's still ... "Yes, he's fine. No, he can't play now."
Not broken. Day to day.
Yeah, Lithgow and baby have a ton of potential. Smits was great through the first half of the season, then was meh through the second half, going very one note in his performance.
And how's he played since?
Less experience with the demands of the sport.
Eh, I can kind of see that. We'll know a lot more with players like Alfredo Amezaga (as I pointed out a couple weeks ago) and Reggie Bush (similar athletic talent.) I meant his days as a superstar are likely over, not his playing career. That we just dont know.
Did I say that? Where did you see me saying that? I think the days of him as superstar are over, yes.
Nope. Know nothing about them. Knapp's had a sore arm lately.
You don't miss a game on 10/5.
Can we hook Ken up with a Fox or ESPN producer to ask "why not?"
No. With this and with Richard's selection below, you're asking me to stop, find the date, look up the team's schedule, count up the games missed, the games to the expected dates, and put them in. That's about five minutes for each player or about an hour added to each column. I think you'd rather me use that hour to get better information.
They have pointedly not announced it and with that, we have to accept their 6-8 week guess absent new information.
That's the problem -- there's no way of knowing and the value goes away. If you can't be back to play, it doesn't matter. Go home and watch the NFL on the couch. This stat, at it's heart, is about lost value. You lose nothing in November.
Not for most. Again, this is a behind the scenes thing mostly and I don't want to complicate it with scenarios that don't often happen. I'll deal with that in the text when applicable.
Its obviously different. I wish I knew why.
No, I'm trying to get it so it matches up with the dates in the Injury Database. We don't count days as much as days missed and it doesn't matter if you miss a Thursday in December. Also, some guys, like TJ, will be next year sometime. I'm really debating how to deal with that. "10/4+"?
You remember you said this when the first comment comes in that says "But you said that he'd be back on August 1!"
You love to over think things, don't you Richard? :)
Yes, but the V(alue) of the starter should always be higher for the starter. Quick example: Joey Votto is hurt with a hangnail and the team is deciding whether or not to put him on the DL. His immediate replacement would be Jonny Gomes.
If x=6, then the statement isn't true, so that means on the 5th day, the team loses the value advantage of trying to see if Votto can come back.
The equation doesn't work when the replacement has a negative VORP, but that just tells you the bench construction is messed up.
It is. Also just after the injury, bc "0" looks weird if I say "Jones gets his first start tonight after two months ..."
That's what I do now -- up or down, depending on the situation. Maybe a "target return date" might work better, though that's hideously inexact.
See the piece from Monday before ASG with all up to date numbers.
Problem is that DXL changes when the info changes, so a simple countdown doesn't work.
Thanks for the replies to this point. DXL "plus" anything isn't going to happen. It's simply too much workload. This is whether taking DXL away is going to bother anyone.
Bob - email me re: DMB.
I don't get it ...
Sorry -- painkillers gave me a bit of an east coast bias today. Wasn't able to stay awake to make calls. I'm working on Rowand.
Yes, I did ... typo on my part. The patellar tendon was used for Anterior Cruciate Ligament repair, though it is normally done with a cadaver graft these days. Nice catch, Tipman and my apologies.
Did I say anything differently?
Thanks all for the well wishes. I expect to be back next week. I scheduled it for that gap between ASG and trade deadline.
I don't think it's so much the Yankees or Wang as it is a lack of focus on the holistic approach to preventing pitcher injury. I blame the Yankees a bit more since they can't say they can't afford it.
I talked about this last week. I dont believe it and it goes against what they did last yr with Chamberlain. I think they're right to keep Hughes in the pen though. If he were to get in the rotation and get hurt again, they couldn't survive that.
Cramps can last but yeah, more like a mild strain that presented as cramp.
Schmidt -- I'll be honest, I'd tuned him out and didn't even notice until I was playing with the new MLB At Bat. I have no idea what to expect.
There's a mild increased risk of injury, esp for someone like Nieve or Livan. It doesn't ALWAYS make sense, but usually.
No way of predicting ... it's obviously affecting him, but toes are a bear. Ask Dempster.
Teams pay for medical care. It's essentially the same as any employer-based policy with the current/last employers liability as durable.
TEXTBOOK REHAB IN PROGRESS
I meant we'll know by next week if it's going to hold up. Sorry, wasn't my best sentence.
Isn't Gibson expected to be throwing reasonably soon? If so, smart to wait on both sides, right?
I don't think of Unfiltered as a sidebar -- tho I get why you might. It's the one place where we know everyone can read it, subscriber or not, and it stays on top.
Is there a difference?
I take it you've never been to Cleveland :)
The Cavs arena is in left field of Jac ... err, Progressive Field. There's also no "major" college. I think they're doing something like this in moving their Triple-A team to Columbus, where they can get a regional boost and Ohio State is friggin' huge.
Functionally, no. The relative vote totals would be the same.
No, it's bigger than that. We have announcers that will mention VORP, but there hasn't been a commitment to it. Watch any ESPN game this year and you'll get OPS, plus a full explanation of it. Takes what - ten seconds? I tried coming up with an equivalent for WARP and none of it sounds right in the Vin Scully voice I use to test things in my head.
No, really not. Well, it is for us, but imagine Joe Buck trying to explain either of those. There's about three announcers I know that might even have a shot at it. Could something like that be added to GameDay? Heck yeah. At some point, I think the graphics are going to come off the TV screen and move on to the phone/netbook.
That's why I'd LOVE to see a simulation of this. If anyone has some Strat or DMB chops, contact me and I'll put you in touch with Ken. I'd love to see that follow-up.
I agree, but I think its an adaptation of style versus "improvement." Brian always had the talent, I think, but as I said above, the more he can talk to people like me (and Richard, I guess), the more of a chance he has to be a sabermetric evangelist like a Rob Neyer.
Because you're still losing the player and because I don't want to say at the end of the year "You might win. Depends on how that pitcher comes back."
Well, yeah ... see the Blue Jays.
IC is based off MORP, so you're getting that.
Yes, though admittedly, that's a poor way of accounting. I'm very open to suggestions on that.
Yeah, it's not a criticism. I think you'd find it with more writing and a less pressurized environment. It's not a bad thing to be a great cover band.
Brian, do you think pitch-fx will help or hurt this kind of research?
There were no hard limits with this. "Reasonable."
I think it's long, but not overlong. I think Unfiltered posts should be something that comes up and has to be immediate or that don't fit into the normal work. So all in all, not out of place, which is what this was supposed to show.
Honestly, after reading this I had the same thought. I honestly want to see Ken do some "reviews" of telecasts after this.
It's the difference in days and dollars lost that I was pointing to there. Let's assume that a medical staff treats everyone equally and that along the risk curve, there's a potential for injuries in a certain amount and severity. If it happens to be three scrubs that get hurt vs three stars, the days lost will be roughly the same, but the dollars lost (and IC) will be significantly different.
I think medical staffs can reduce days lost, but I'm not sure they can prevent dollars lost other than by getting a bit lucky and by not having risky high dollar players. Mid-range on days lost and high on dollars lost is "luck" for lack of a better term or explanation.
- is down, + is up. Lower is better.
This all makes sense and I really like how he used the intro to draw us to the heavy lifting. I'm not sure the graphs do what Brian wants, which is visually explain what would take a lot of numbers and dry writing to do the same thing. I've talked about telling a story several times in the judging and Brian showed in the piece he did about the wood bat league that he can tell a story, but the key there is not to be an Isherwoodian camera, but to make the reader say "what's next?" A great piece of writing makes you wonder how you carry this out and raises questions at the same time it gives you answers. It takes you to a different place, in that what you knew is now expanded and you want more. Brian does this well, showing us what else he wants to work on. I'm left wondering if movement in the zone or patterns of pitches work in ways that change the basic conclusion here, all things that seem within the realm of what Brian can do.
People think I've been harsh with Brian throughout the contest, but it's only because I see so much potential in his writings. He's already a great analyst, but he could be one of the voices that goes beyond analyzing into teaching and proselytizing. There's absolutely nothing wrong with being a stathead who speaks only to the smaller audience that craves that type of content. I think Brian could be much much more, creating statheads and explaining the principles to those, like me, that want to learn more and just don't have the math in our heads to grasp some of it.
This is obviously influenced by a Nate Silver article, but this also reads like a Nate Silver article. Graphs, clear explanations that make sense to someone who never took calculus, and most importantly, a clear conclusion. Tim's been solid week in and week out throughout the competition and shows us all where he might goes if he wins the contest.
For me, Tim's been well-rounded as well as focused throughout the contest. He's always able to use his strengths, even when the theme didn't play to those strengths. The only thing lacking is that I never felt like Tim had a personal style; he's more like the band that sounds like a band you like. That's not a bad thing (think Nirvana trying to sound like The Pixies) and I think the timeline of the contest contributed a lot to that. Tim's work is original and I think the voice will come.
With the obvious caveat that Ken interviewed me for the article, I have to say that I really like that we went out and spoke with experts ... err, two experts and me. He comes up with an intriguing model and one I'd be curious to see simulated out. (I bet someone has tried this in Strat or Diamond Mind at some point.) There could be more work here -- maybe a team using this SOMA plan could come up with SOMA wins (change def to 3 innings instead of 5) or SOMA QS. I'd be interested to see what the final stats for a season would look like, especially saves.
Which all goes to say that Ken has come up with something here that really fired up my imagination. Yes, pitching and pitching patterns is something I've been interested in a long time, so YMMV. Even if it's not your bag, baby, there's still a lot here to like - he has a great process of thought, an original topic, a unique voice to his writing that he doesn't let go over the top as he did earlier in the contest, an ability to dial a phone and to work in outside input. It's not only great work, it's his best work of the contest.
Saw the item, but haven't read it. Makes sense on the surface - not exactly groundbreaking concept, but nice to see it studied and confirmed.
On Reyes, I have to think he can come back. This is less serious than the chronic hamstring problems at the start of his career.
*shakes fist* Deadline!
Then it was settled. Good.
Then why the "don't speculate" campaign by some of the same writers?
Possible. They're close and AAA has their ASG coming up.
He's tolerable -- not great, but minimum salary "hey maybe this will work" -- against lefties.
I wish I'd said this.
Without unmasking you, I'll say that you're clearly biased. You're as entitled to your opinion as anyone, but sock-puppeting isn't going to fly. I think Matt *is* an excellent writer and researcher and from Day 1, I thought he was the favorite to win this. I think he has a bright future.
But it's not like you're biased or anything, is it?
I was hired in large part because I had a radio show.
What straw man?
Isn't that what I wrote? One affects the other.
I don't remember Tartabull having that many small injuries.
Sweeney, no. Chronic back, was always going to break. Surprised he hung on as long as he did.
When you posted this, Soto was still in the Training Room. I am not Miss Cleo.
No new news.
I can't write about everyone and Robertson is a replaceable pitcher.
Nothing to say. He's a replaceable pitcher who's out a couple weeks.
Exactly - Weeks' was worse, plus his history of wrist injuries.
I feel like we have three great finalists. I'm sorry to see Matt go (and let me congratulate him on making it this far. He's done some amazing work) as he's been one of my favorites since the original submissions. That said, diminishing the other's work isn't going to put Matt back in the contest. I think the significant thing is that the vote totals (number of votes and views) was not out of the normal range. Voters took this theme as seriously as they did any other.
Fact is, we would have lost a good talent no matter who it was this week. I'm also convinced we're going to have a great winner, no matter who it is.
More people subscribe to the BP podcast feed than subscribe to BP Premium. ESPN podcasts are downloaded in the millions every day. Last I heard, Bill Simmons' BS Report alone had over 500k subscribers. Add in the ratings of sports radio, XM, etc, and yes, if you're not listening to this kind of content, you're in the minority.
You're in the vast minority.
I don't know. This would be someplace an accurate historical injury database would come in handy. There aren't many comps for those guys period, let alone ones that had a similar injury history, though it's an interesting question.
Maybe. I think Roddick is probably the purest "test case" in that he's American and I assume he's familiar with baseball pitching, unlike a European. He's also got the hardest serve among top players.
Which proves you haven't listened.
I'm still unclear if Twitter is on or off record and didn't have permission to quote.
I'll disagree. There's a punk band that has a motto of "Get in, rock, get out." That's what you have to do in radio. Do just enough to answer the question and get out of the way. A good host will ask a follow up when he wants more or better, you'll create a follow up by saying something strong. Tim was the closest to that this week, with Brian taking more of the "I'm an expert. Listen to me" tack, which works well up to a point.
I'm reminded of the interview with Don Fehr, where he said that terms did not mean the same thing between leagues. Matt was using a term from one "league" and using it in another. The problem is that almost everyone assumed the definition opposed to Matt's usage.
And one hour primer? No, that's ridiculous. I will note that not a *single* one of the remaining finalists asked for any tips.
The one criticism I'll buy here is that it seems to come late in the contest. There's two reasons. First is in the instructions - it's something of a pause before the sprint to the finish. Second, the time needed to schedule, record, and transcribe these makes it pretty tough to have done it before the Round of 4 or 5.
You can make the argument that a writer is never going to do a player profile, write about history, or any other subject, but the idea that a BP writer isn't going to do radio is just plain wrong.
Smith is an upcoming guest on BPR. Eggers has done regular appearances, including the major talk shows. Weingarten, I dunno.
My question should have been specific to sports media, where the ability to do multiple media (Stephen A Smith, Skip Bayless) trumps quality.
Special thanks to Richard Bergstrom for helping with the transcription.
Yes, I think this skill is critically important and is a big differentiator between a writer that can grow an audience and one that is stuck. I think if Bill James were able to approximate a good media interview, sabermetrics would have been pushed ahead by a decade. Rob Neyer wasn't given much opportunity to do them over the first decade of his career, but has been solid since getting the opportunity. In fact, find me a major writer that can't do radio *and* television.
There were a couple issues I have and the best way to explain it is to go back to Matt's writing. I've loved 90% of the stuff Matt has done, but my one consistent criticism is a lack of focus. I think Matt's mind works by going in a lot of directions, with lots of ideas. That's a good thing for coming up with great columns and the ideas to build them around, but Matt's almost like an 8-yr-old on pixie sticks here. He can't hold back, interrupts Mike time and again, and heads in directions he can't possibly talk his way out of, such as "collusion" or the throwing of names in aside from Howard. It's going to take a lot of coaching to get Matt to the stage where I'd be comfortable putting him in one of the rotations we do with Sirius XM, Boston, or El Paso. It's on the edge of disaster, saved only by the fact that there is some good raw information.
It shouldn't matter, but the first time through, I had to stop because the pronunciation of "Kniker" threw me. Tim's interview is solid and I really, really want to encourage everyone to listen to this rather than just read. There's some things that read a bit more awkward than they sound. Let's face it, live, unedited radio is going to have some awkward phrasings and places where you steer yourself towards something and make mid-sentence corrections. Worse, you stumble and get yourself back on track. The section on injuries to Aviles and Crisp really strikes me as decent when listening, but it reads ... well, not so good. I'd say the sound is the much more important thing here and hope the voters agree. Tim does a very nice job through the interview, hitting his stride and gaining confidence over the second half.
This was pretty weak for me. Ken equivocated a lot on things where it seemed like he just wasn't comfortable. He sounded very nervous from the introduction on and despite some questions lobbed right into his wheelhouse, he didn't knock them out. He kind of painted himself into a corner with the "good face" stuff, but even at the end, it was just ... it was material where I would have listened, were I dialing up 175 in the car, but I wouldn't have remembered it. Sometimes an interview can be like that, where you survive more than inform, but usually that's well after you've established yourself as a regular guest, one that can deliver week after week. Yes, I realize Ken's probably never done this before and that with practice Ken (and everyone) will get better, but it only clears a low bar for me.
Brian did a really nice job from this. Hardcore stats sometimes don't translate well to radio, but Brian (and Mike, in his fashioning of questions) did a good job in making them understandable. He didn't stumble too much, has a nice radio voice and cadence, and more importantly than any of that, he seemed confident. He knew his stuff - no surprise there - and got it out cleanly and relatively concisely. Very solid work here.
Nothing to add. The issues are the known issues.
And the first he's complained of dead arm in-season.
I think so, but don't *know* that. Seems reasonable.
Then you'll LOVE next week's ... wait. Not this week, but the NEXT week's theme.
No, actually we often get much more strict instructions, especially if it's for a partner. I had a recent deal with Puck where we needed to turn over a major analysis piece on a specific team in less than 24 hours. Think Jay Jaffe had much warning when ESPN wanted something on the Manny Ramirez suspension?
It just had to be related to the games played on Thursday. There was NOTHING in the instructions that said it had to be a game story.
My understanding is that while marijuana (actually the THC metabolite) lasts in the system for up to 3 months, but is below the testing threshhold very quickly. Even with the metabolisation Tony speaks of here or "contact high"/secondhand smoke, the testing threshhold should keep that from being too much of an issue.
Ken's got a unique style and no matter the topic, it's clearly his. When Sinatra sang a song, it was always Sinatra. The thing I noticed about this piece was that there's a lot of blue -- go look back, then glance at any of the other pieces this week. Look at his pieces from other weeks. It's not just links, but it's the use of names that's somehow dense than anyone short of Jaffe's Hit List. This is neither good nor bad, just noticeable. Kind of like this piece. It's neither good nor bad, just another piece with Ken's unique style. It's very much like Steven Goldman in that you love it unabashedly or it's just not for you, but you can always admire that the workmanship is there, even on short notice.
I like that we get to see a head to head comparison here. It probably shouldn't surprise me that Tony La Russa is the choice of two analysts that took this assignment and went after choices. It's notable that neither chose the same moment. It's much more notable that I can't tell where Brian made his choices about TLR's choices. It's neither better or worse that Tim used WinEx where Brian used pure rhetoric. Look at the graf that starts with "I would have let Rasmus ..." No offense to Brian here, but La Russa has 2,500 wins, so I would have liked to have seen something more than opinion. Again, I think the week's theme goes so far from Brian's strengths that it hurt him as much as anyone. He's a big thinker, the kind of guy who I would love to have writing pieces in the back of next year's book, working on his projection system, and such, rather than being a weekly columnist.
This is a nice game story. I'm really intrigued what Christina will think of this since she's more the game story maven. This popped up after Brian's article for me (it's random) and the structure and the analysis worked so much better for me. It didn't describe, but highlighted. He used a very solid technique in analyzing the decision points and didn't "overdo" it either. His descriptions were clear and concise, pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of his argument while making a persuasive case that he was right. Too many times, lesser analysts will assume the stats make their case, but I love seeing the persuasive, explanatory work to help it along. That he did all this on deadline is both impressive and perhaps a structure that could serve as a template for others.
I really, really don't like the way this article is structured. By the time I get to the lineups, I'm already hearing some corny announcer's voice in my head. He's announcer more than analyst and it makes me think he wrote this as he was watching. That was a gimmick that was tried and rightfully failed here years ago. This article just proves that even a good writer can't pull off a bad concept. There's a focus that comes to the article in the form of the pitching matchup and by the end, Joey Votto's role in the game. What Brian's done here is take a nice set of notes on the game, but I'd have liked to have seen him use these notes to write up an article afterward, spending more time and thought on the important issues.
This is clearly outside of where Matt's comfort zone is and as such, it's much more of a workmanlike piece than some of the others he's done. That said, it works on it's own and shows that he can actually focus on one thing. I think the deadline worked here to keep some of Matt's instincts to do a little of everything at bay. His focus on one thing, albeit a very all-encompassing look at one thing in the context of one player's quirk, really serves him well. We could probably look back at some of Matt's Phillies-specific work and see shadows there, but that's a good thing, building on the past, writing for an audience, and putting together a piece where, if you didn't know it came in on a deadline, you wouldn't know. This is a top quality piece in every respect - the writing, the thinking, and the execution of a difficult topic but "making it his own."
Friday UTK has a lot more.
Yes. Friday UTK has a lot more.
My column reflects my personality. I like hot chicks, especially ones that love baseball and look good even in an old Rays jersey. If it's not your style, I can respect that. Don't click the link then. And you certainly wouldn't want on my Twitter feed.
Elm nails it -- minor league innings don't count (in my version -- Verducci does count them), but I can't explain why the innings shouldn't count. Without them, it's a slightly more accurate predictor, but without knowing the why, it bugs me.
No, it was frickin' funny. A lot of it is that she SCREAMED it out in a barely attended game.
Not JUST on that, but I would be monitoring them closely all year long for any strength deficits and I certainly wouldn't have been working them as hard down the stretch.
Yep -- full credit to me for the error. He was originally out of the lineup, but was put back in. I missed that he was put back in and made an assumption.
Brian -- is there a way to simulate those next few batters given what we know (steal, pitcher, park) and come up with a range that would perhaps help know the value even more precisely?
I'd be curious to see a chart of park-adjusted steal "break evens."
Am I crazy or does that pic of Wedge look like Mike Hargrove?
And NFL and NBA tickets are so much lower? Good lord man, your points 2 and 3 are ridiculous.
1) I don't have that research, though I can remember someone -- Jay Jaffe? -- looking at it a while back. I've heard for months that Bill James was working on this, so I'm assuming that this is his study. Like a lot of things at teams, it's proprietary and not going to see the light of day.
2) "Rest" is different things for different people. Was he dancing, or sitting there with an actress? Was he standing at a bar or sitting in a lounge? For me, a vacation is sitting on the beach, but for you, it might be hiking in the Rockies. I'm not saying it's not news, but that it's pretty common behavior.
Not necessarily. Cascades can be stopped. It's up to Ned Bergert and his staff to do it.
Depends. Almost all between 3-5 hours before first pitch. If they're getting treatment, earlier.
Two things here: 1. The "cant fix Kazmir" tale is myth from what I can tell. Peterson did think he could fix Zambrano. (2) Peterson *isn't* at ASMI. This was two separate events, though connected.
Good question - haven't heard such.
About the same, it seems, but very small sample.
I appreciate the time and effort Richard puts in on this and his comments (though I seriously wonder what his employer might think.) That said and without giving anything away, he's never been in line with the voting with his rankings. Not once.
No, he had the ear infection and the stress-related issue. There were reports that they were somehow interrelated, but again, without knowing more, I can't even guess as to how one affected the other or not.
Everyone is on equal footing. Whether or not 72 hours or 24 hours or 72 days, the equality of the task makes this irrelevant. It'd always be nice to have more time, more data, more assistance, but I still wonder if everyone is using all the resources available.
As for BP writers being subjected to it. I can tell you that we are. Regularly. When Manny Ramirez got busted, you think we could tell our editors that "I need more time to do queries" or that we couldn't turn something around in 24 hours? No and our readers should expect the same.
You, sir, are apparently not an announcer for YES.
Not based on that, no. As above, I'll note that we still know NOTHING about this injury and the recovery as it applies to baseball.
No, I disagree with your premise here. Absent evidence and in the continued presence of symptoms, the final option is to go in and look around. Bedard last year is a perfect example. That said, yes, his season would likely be over, but this is not a done deal yet. It's an almost complete unknown.
See the Rodriguez article from today. We have NO idea what works for this.
Possibility? Yes. Likely? No. I told Matt when he asked that if Reyes had ruptured the tendon, there would have been no need for the PRP.
I would but Lohud was down for maintenance (and still is.)
The latter. The league has adjusted to him.
I really like how easily Brian broke down some really heavy statistical concepts into chunks. It took him a while to explain NRA, but by doing so slowly, methodically, and (!!) entertainingly, I was able to not only follow along, but barely notice that I was absorbing this. He gets a bit too dense for me (and yes, I'm dense on subjects like this) in the middle, but he couldn't keep going as slow as he had without ending up about 5,000 words. There's some wobble from the strong start but he ends with a strong conclusion that isn't just strong, but supported well.
I won't even start with the Win Shares stuff. We'll move on to the structure here, which just leaves me way behind. I had to jump back and forth with this, trying to follow along, to see what I was supposed to have gotten from the last graf, but missed somehow. At the end, I was like "B? Really? I know he was leading me to that, but I'm unconvinced!" He's leading me along, showing me the path, and yet when I get there, I'm not sure i'm in the right place. Tim's work has been so good week in and week out that I'm willing to trust him and ride along, but I just didn't think this one got where he wanted me to go.
This seems really, really long and again, I think it's the structure. Going decade by decade really lost me. I also have an issue with the height -- Pedroia's not 5'9 and while I understand that Ken (and PECOTA) have to go with listed heights and weights, to not even address it seems ... lazy? I like that Ken dialed back the cute to a nice level - he doesn't lose his personality anywhere and for an example, the 70's section is as Funckian a section as he's written, but because he tosses in the ellipse, it's both knowing and tight. Self-editing is as important as good editing, in the way that discretion is the better part of valor. Funck's becoming a Steven Goldman type -- stat informed, quirky stylist and will have his loyalists.
I really like the use of graphs. As with Matt's article last week, the graphs and dense writing make it seem longer than it actually is, but unlike Matt, Matthew stays focused on one topic and pounds it mercilessly until we get to the conclusion. This is really solid work and the kind of thing that he's shown he can do week in and week out. Knight's not the best pure writer, but he's solid enough to hold his own with people that are. He's not that stathead that Kniker is or the writer that Swartz is, but he might be the best "middle ground" in the competition.
I get that Brian does the heavy duty stats really well. Well, I get that those people that can understand it think he does it really well. I'm admittedly not the target audience for that. The problem here is that Brian's writing this week is so dry that I don't even want to work to try and get it. This reads like a first draft, an article that he mailed in, like he's done trying to win this contest because he doesn't think he can anymore. I'm disappointed because in addition to Brian's intelligence, he showed a real ability in the article about his experience with the local league that he never exhibited in any of the other weeks. It's there, but I think Brian is better suited to doing his kind of work - following the things that interest him and doing longer studies - rather than trying to be a weekly columnist.
I come at this a couple of ways. In the first, this seems like it makes sense. I can't do the math or follow the charts beyond buying in and saying "yes, I'll buy the ticket" here and where he takes me makes sense. In the other, I can just ignore the math and read this as a great article. Either way, this works. I want to see a live chart of this in this year's playoffs (assuming it passes statistical muster) and just the thinking behind this seems inspired. It's solid on every level by which I can analyze it. The only danger now is that Matt has lapped the field and might take his foot off the gas.
But see! You have to sprinkle in the humor. (Are you reading this Ken Funck?)
Eh, I've had a lot better. Heck my Hunter with a groiin iinjury line was funnier this week.
He was never out for injury. It was a famous point made by Boras in his signing with the Yankees.
Next week's topic is history. I don't have the full text that was sent, but I do know that Steven Goldman will be our guest judge this week.
Just click the "view anyway."
Agree with this, but there's no evidence that this is the case. It makes SENSE, but I can't say it is PROVEN.
Hey, like I said before, that's just my opinion and you're the one's voting (and subscribing.)
Back on my old blog, I did a series called "Cooking for Guys." Simple, tasty stuff that would impress the significant other.
Would you rather I spend more time on things that aren't in my job description? Look, I'm *not* a stathead and I realize that most of this, BP or not, is over my head. I'm interested when these great principles are explained in a way I can understand.
Know how statheads were annoyed that Moneyball wasn't that big of a deal, that they'd known about those concepts for years? Most of us didn't and the clear explanations made it possible for more people to get it.
Thank Tom -- he did this amazing article. Damned law school ...
Be sure to check out the slideshows. Amazing stuff.
There was an article done about Dr Andrews in ... Fast Company? ... that had some amazing stats, but I can't find it. This article (which I participated in) also has a lot of facts, though it's focused on Andrews as well: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=3024046
The one that I recall was "1 in 9."
Both. More often its a slow wearing down, like a rope getting jerked too many times. First it frays, then it ruptures. Occasionally it will just rupture, but that takes a really high force.
That's a pipe dream of mine ... not just old PECOTAs, but re-run old seasons. What would Roger Maris's '61 PECOTA have looked like? How would it have seen the decline phase of Hank Aaron? What did Nolan Ryan look like as a rookie?
Yeah, it's an interesting discussion.
Honestly, shouldn't be in there. It was a note I made and accidentally left in. Not inaccurate, but kind of out of context.
Funny -- my spider just found this: http://mvn.com/aroundthemajors/2009/06/nice-guys-dont-always-finish-last.html
I'd forgotten meeting Tyler at the event, but remember now. Amazing how far he's come in just a couple years.
Have you *asked* that question, Tim?
I completely disagree. Anyone can get a quote, but not everyone can get a good quote. But getting a quote? Yeah, pretty easy if you're flexible.
Yes, but what else was he doing besides pitching in games. Drills, side sessions, etc all count, even if we don't get a tidy totalling.
I think that's unfair, even if correct. Brian or anyone not on the beat would have a hard time tracing that information down and even then, getting the callback and the right quote is as hit or miss as they come. I can't think of the last time I saw a Player Profile or anything like it where the writer talked to the player, which is one of the weak points of the format for me. Yes, I realize that most players will give the cliches, but I think that's often for safety as much as it is disinterest. If a writer asks an interesting question that takes the subject somewhere he's not used to, he's not going to get to ask many questions.
I don't see that as a negative. I think a majority of these could be published on BP as a standard piece and no one would blink. That speaks pretty well to the quality.
I like humor. It's just that it has to be put in here and there or it's like a drunk uncle telling jokes at Thanksgiving dinner. Ken doesn't need to be over the top to show his writing off or to make a point.
Nope. Bastian's got the goods on this one.
More in UTK Monday, but yeah, I think he's likely done for the season. Tendon heals slowly, plus the timing (late Aug/early Sept), and the unlikely proposition of the Pads being contenders then? Why would you pitch him if there's any risk?
Matthew does a really nice job here with a couple things. First, he recaps what we all know about Guerrero without being flip or condescending. He uses a nice YouTube link (and good links throughout) and has a solid structure to it. At the end, I was nodding my head, but then wondered -- did Matthew hit all the points he was directed to? I almost went back, but you know what? I don't really care. He turned this into more of a mini-bio than a player profile, but I like that he bent the rules a bit (if he did.) That Jim Rice comparison really got me wondering - will we someday hear about how Guerrero was once the most feared hitter in the AL (and was he?)
There are some quibbles -- does Aaron Hill's return help or hurt Cecil's infield defense and I hate that chart from Brooks (love what Brooks does, but the up and down of that particular chart begs for some bands and differentiation, though the DCB is apparent and worrisome) -- but the positives far outweigh the negatives. Brian tells us why he noticed Cecil and then carries us through. It's a very slight narrative device, but the structure holds up due to some deft writing. I'd have liked to see a stronger conclusion, maybe noting that the injury concerns about Cecil may be hinted at by PECOTA. Overall, Brian's done a nice job with this and made me feel like I'd learned something about the player by the end.
This isn't bad, but there's nothing special here either. It's a simple recitation of facts, collected in one place rather than scattered, rather than a story that tells me why all the parts have come together to give the Astros this player. He really lost me in the "debut" section, going on and on, stringing together stats without a real narrative. The conclusion is nice, reminding us that Tyler really does have the chops to do this, but occasionally loses his way.
This is a really solid piece of work, maybe Tim's most readable stuff. I like that he didn't get too bogged down in the heavy stats that we all know are his strength and instead filled in the details around a nicely structured story. I think he gave a bit of short shrift to the "sandwich" problem - having Jacobs in front of him and Hosmer behind, but nothing's perfect. This isn't Tim's wheelhouse and he still nailed it.
This seemed a lot longer than 2000 words. Maybe it's the chart or the sheer density of Matt's work, or maybe it's just me. He's readable, even breezy, but then pounds the data in. My only real quibble with this is that he's all over the place with a chart for this, a short section on clutch, and a very short summary that I'm not sure does the best job summarizing because there was so much here. Quibbles aside, that stands up very well to the profiles we've published here.
Ken gets in his own way a lot, from the title to the needless Batman sounds. Look at the titles of every other contestant. It's almost at a point where he's a prop comedian -- if you don't like this joke, I've got another in the box, just let me get it. Honestly, the first time through I stopped reading about halfway, tried again and couldn't make it, and then in the interest of fairness and respect for Ken, I read it all the way though. There's a lot of good information here and yes, an editor would have sent this back with instructions, but that's not how this contest works. There's no "autotune" in this Idol. If I'm judging on talent alone, Ken's solid and could go far in this contest. If I'm judging on this piece (or last week's), I'm wondering if he makes it much farther.
I was really intrigued to read this one since I've seen McCutchen here in Indy for the past couple seasons. The problem is by the time I got to the chart, my eyes were glazing over. Brian's writing has always been better than this, especially last week (though I had issues with rehashing material.) This time, I think the time crunch worked against him. It's a recitation of facts and drier than a good martini. I'm unfamiliar with "Oliver" and without an explanation, I'm at a bit of a loss to see what I'm supposed to learn from it that a link to PECOTA (or ZIPS, or any established system) wouldn't tell me. Where I'm really lost is at the end. His last graf is just ... well, to call it out of nowhere isn't enough. The sudden "not as good as McLouth" without any basis tells me he either thinks we all know his argument or that he ran out of space to make it. This is by far Brian's weakest article of the competition in a week where I was really expecting him to shine.
They are required to be in counseling and to an accelerated testing program. A player could be violated for missing counseling, which would be the equivalent of a second failed test.
I try not to be too cute, but that actually started as a typo and I found it funny.
Though I don't really care for Wikipedia on most medical stuff. I actually have a book on all this stuff if anyone's a publisher ...
We have an archive here and a search function, not to be rude.