CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Great question! They got 56 percent of their picks right, mainly because they also picked more overs than unders. They did do worse than the informed pickers when you break it down--
-67 percent right on overs (compared to 68 percent)
-44 percent right on unders (compared to 49 percent)
but came close, which is confirmation of some things I wrote and makes me think more deeply about others. Thanks for asking this.
Hmmmm okay he was 19. I'll fix. Almost snuck it past y'all!
It'll depend on the next 365 days, but I'd have him at no. 2 or 3 right now
Next year's is a doozy, imo. Vitters is probably only no. 4.
Arrow typo; editor's fault. Fixed.
I don't have any research to prove this, but I watched a ton of Price in 2014 (he was my favorite pitcher to watch at the time) and he was a guy who works over the plate. (In fact, I just glanced at his Brooks page and he is throwing fewer pitches in the fattest part of the zone this year than he did in '14.) I can completely buy an argument that they just look more over the plate when they get hit. Also could buy the opposite argument!
Fixed! Abashed! Thanks.
I'd personally rank the offers like...
Would have accepted any of the top four.
Where would <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/player_search.php?search_name=Adrian+Beltre">Adrian Beltre</a></span> have ranked if eligible?
You're right! Blame me. Thanks for being that guy.
Thanks for this; fixed
Trout was otherwordly from almost literally Day 1. He was way better than he should have been as a 17yo in AZL, and as an 18yo in MWL. He was hitting something like .500 in his first few weeks of his first full season. I'm not willing to give PD nearly as much credit as I would normally. To paraphrase <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=18209">Mike Scioscia</a></span> on Trout: Only God deserves credit for him.
Okay, here are the answers:
The pitch to Belt is a strike. The pitch to Tulo is a ball.
Thank you, yes. That paragraph has been deleted.
Area Editor Makes A Dumb Mistake: Fixes It Upon Request.
This is corrected.
And now there is!
Here you go!
You and EMielke are spot on. Forgive the editor, please. Sentence has been removed.
I think there's a solid chance for later in the summer (maaaaaybe late June, or at least late July) if interest in the book holds until then.
I actually spent time researching this before publishing and concluded that most likely most are safe for 2016. I did eliminate Miami for that reason, not knowing whether Havana is really any better off than Miami is.
Thanks for reminding us! My fault.
It does appear to be a record, eclipsing the 2013 Mariners' and the 2003 Astros' 37 in two games. Here's since 2000: http://bbref.com/pi/shareit/DdfwG
Mhm, worth my following up on.
But since last September this happened?
You know, Ben and I have been talking about the decline in pitchers' hitting for years, as well as the challenge of measuring the true talent level of each era, and yet this way of looking at it never occurred to me. It's *somewhat* complicated by the fact that, even if pitchers hitting do function as something of a control group (because they're not hired for their hitting), there might be a sportwide trend toward them not taking it as seriously, not practicing it as much, not risking injury by putting full effort into it, not batting as much (and therefore not getting as much practice), not hitting as much in the minors, specializing in pitching earlier and earlier, and moving between leagues more often. But the point you make, especially re: expansion, is very compelling.
Thanks, updated this.
Wish I could help. I'm using Safari and they work fine. If we figure it out, I'll let you know.
Feels like a missed opportunity that we didn't know this when <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=59265">Khris Davis</a></span> was still in Milwaukee. "Kraft Brew" would have been like a four-layered nickname.
That is interesting! Wonder if that means anything. Can't think of why it would--"runs" is the currency in <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=SNW" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('SNW'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">SNW</span></a>, and I don't know how the manner of the run scoring would affect the pitcher's actual, as opposed to theoretical, chances of winning. But it's still interesting and still has me wondering, too.
Maybe we learned our lesson!
Good question! Everything freezes upon first pitch of April 3rd.
The primary reason is that we wanted it to be accessible to as many people as possible, and far more people buy the book than subscribe to premium access on the site.
My approach to this was simply opening the book, skimming along, and finding that I had about seven opinions on every page, so it wasn't hard to build up a little mental roster for my team. It was nice to have the projections right alongside the previous year stats, because it was easier to say "oh <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PECOTA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PECOTA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PECOTA</span></a> sees him getting better/worse" than trying to figure out exactly how I feel about a .280 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=TAv" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('TAv'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">TAv</span></a> in the abstract. But ymmv, and I apologize for it being a pain in the ass. First year jitters, maybe!
I can offer you this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=28507
True, but the Mariners said ACK! The Braves got only Minor contributions from their pick. The Giants, of course, ended up being Wheeler-dealers.
Philadelphia Royals and Kansas City Rockies are perhaps the two least debatable matchups on this list.
I approved your proposed St. Louis/Arizona switch, primarily for the AZ argument.
I am granting you the Seattle Rays. Very good one.
Thanks! It's a living document, and has been updated.
Ack, that's on me. In my defense, I wrote this because it was 1 a.m. and I'd been unable to fall asleep.
You found a little bug. Try now, it'll work.
This is exactly right. The simple explanation is that it's based on his comps, and what percentage of them improved on their baseline projections, which are also a weighed average of their past years' performances.
Ross is a darkhorse, which implies I think that he's not a *real* candidate. I'm guessing Gros would say two Mets (maybe three) have significantly better chances of winning the CY. They're real candidates, though, not darkhorses.(Sorry if I'm putting words in Bryan's mouth.)
Hmmm. Try this? Go to "manage your profile" page (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/manageprofile.php) and it should be there as "2016 <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PECOTA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PECOTA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PECOTA</span></a> Spreadsheet Digital Download"
Go to the top of this page; hover over Fantasy tab; and selected <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PECOTA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PECOTA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PECOTA</span></a> weighted means spreadsheet. Enjoy!
Well, I didn't look at correlations between misses 10 years ago and misses now. I looked over four- and two-year periods.
You probably don't need me to tell you this, because you're presumably a smart adult, but not everybody likes what you like and other people like things you don't. That's fine. I think we'd all really appreciate it if you'd restrain your urge to insult people, though. Thanks,
I just want to note that <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=70972">A.J. Reed</a></span> looks enough like <span class="playerdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/card/card.php?id=6">Lance Berkman</a></span> that I don't see how his floor can be any less than Lance Berkman.
Dang it! Okay, check back in not too long, I hope. I'll get it fixed.
Here's 2015: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/other/iba2014/index.html
Here are all years: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/iba/index.php?mode=history
Donaldson was left off 13 ballots. I think the best explanation of most of these votes is "lol what if I just do something stupid." But there are probably a few people trying to nudge the result toward their preferred candidate, hence the different no-ballot totals for Trout, Harper, Donaldson, Kershaw, etc.
Unfortunately no, because fortunately the book is already gone and printing and should be out in not long.
Do you mean is the order of the teams random? If so, no, these are in reverse order of last year's organizational rankings. The worst farm systems of last year first.
(They're in reverse order of last year's org rankings, in case many are wondering)
Is your name an Infinite Jest reference or just coincidence?
Dates no, but order sure: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/prospects/
It's reverse order of last year's Org Rankings, incidentally.
That can happen.
Derp, of course. I'm going to fix that.
You're right, a major oversight. It's been corrected and updated with revised <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=PECOTA" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('PECOTA'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">PECOTA</span></a> odds. Thanks for pointing it out.
Why are you saying what my viewpoint is? We didn't reply negatively to any of these comments. I wrote an article, chose (as always) a framing device, was unsure (as always) how that framing device would be received, and then happily let a bunch of you tell me you hated it. That's cool! Sorry!
To be clear, this was my take on the NLCS. The point wasn't to be funny. The point was the point.
Yes, if you go to the top of this page and hover over "statistics," one of the options will be Bullpen (Mis) Management, which has this data in various visualizations. Enjoy!
There aren't transaction analyses for draft picks or international signings, and rarely are there in-depth writeups at the time of them, period; we cheated to sneak Correa/McCullers in.
I figured if they wanted ties they wouldn't have multiple levels of tiebreakers in the league rules. The idea of splitting the pot was never suggested in either the loser's letter or appeal or the commissioner's email to me, which further led me to believe that it was not going to settle the matter. Had there not been a second tiebreaker, it would merit a lot of consideration.
Very solid candidate. Slower getting out of his seat, but faster w/ the fist; not sure how to weigh each of those.
There is no frame in which she is seen not staring into the sky; off-frame will always be a mystery.
It's just the shadowing on his arm; consistent with other shadows in the shot.
Is it still a problem y'all see? They're playing fine for me. If so, can you tell me which browser you're on?
He means BP staff, staff pre-season prediction. (He has shown his work in other comments, and BP staff consensus has missed nine of the past 10 AL East winners, often erring optimistically on Boston.) The amusing thing is that the years Boston did win the World Series, in 2007 and 2013, BP staff picked New York and Tampa Bay over them.
Pretty good movie, though.
Matt is incorrect. The hot seat has been replaced by the wobbly chair even in the Hit List; however, for the purpose of a joke, the old, unacceptable slang is acceptable.
Fixed. He is now referred to as Cordrey and Clooney instead.
The <a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/column/transaction_analysis/">Transaction Analysis</a> is up now, as a matter of fact. Enjoy!
I want to jump in and defend against the "we" slander here, so that people who don't listen to the episode won't be misled: The word "we" was used the same way that Ben and I and all writers use it: We, the observers of the game/player/team. "We will see if..." "we don't know yet..." and so on. There's no "we" in the way that fans use it to associate themselves with the team.
In 2013 Red Sox was Jonny Gomes, so not sure it is Napoli.
Thought about going all the way with this, comparing not to base/out states so much as each hitter's career performance, but put it off for another day (which will probably never come). So many complicating factors, mainly that players don't get <span class="statdef"><a href="http://www.baseballprospectus.com/glossary/index.php?search=IBB" onmouseover="doTooltip(event, jpfl_getStat('IBB'))" onmouseout="hideTip()">IBB</span></a>'d-to randomly; they get IBB'd to more in certain stages of their career, both because their performance level dictates it and because their performance level dictates where in the batting order they hit. Also, almost always they get IBB'd to against pitchers who will have the platoon edge on them; and they might get IBB'd to specifically because the pitcher in question matches up well with them, as a FB pitcher or a high-ball pitcher or whatever. It'd be possible to account for most of all this, but I'm also roughly 99.998 percent sure that whatever I found would be too faint (or entirely non-existent) to dismiss the likelihood that it's mere noise.
Unaware! Will banter about Reddick's contribution tonight.
Editors are the absolute worst.
I can answer that it's primarily the latter. The Royals' expected winning percentage, for example, has gone up only .003 (from .468 to .471) since Opening Day. Same with the Tigers (.514 to .517).
"through 3 games" here means through the first three games of the season.
All (or most, at least) of these moves had great reasons in the moment. We're not doubting that the GMs had good logic and good processes in place. This is a do-over because the moves *turned out* to be harmful, not because they were dumb.
Yeah, I think it's fair to allow the Cubs some sliver of trust that their explanations are made in good faith. I intended to make that point a little stronger: If they really believe the explanations offered, then I hope they're thick-skinned, good at ignoring us, and forgiving.
Apologies for this one; fixed
We believe it was but neither of us remembers when it was. Conceivable we might not have ever answered it.
I wonder if offense would go up or down in this arrangement. Whole bunch of big bruisers would be in the game, sure, but bats have always played; I'm not sure how many MLB-quality bats exist in the world who aren't currently in the majors. But if every position were to be manned by some no-bat Venezuelan shortstop or no-bat, elite-speed center fielder, defensive upgrade would theoretically be nutso. Hrm. I wonder.
Thanks, Garcia has been added to the table.
I think it goes without saying that Matt is clearly wrong about the DH, but we are called to love even the wrong among us. Indeed, none of us aspires to be wrong; to be wrong is merely to be afflicted with the lies of powerful forces, and to be pompously wrong is to be severely afflicted. For this, we should have sympathy for his state. I can and will continue to love him, wrong he might be.
This has been fixed
Whoa. This is going to be all I think about today.
Turner was eaten by the same bug that ate Henderson Alvarez last year. He's the only one we've heard of this year, and I'm confident we'd have heard of any others by now. The comment for Turner that was shipped over was:
Turner defines the term "post-hype prospect" and, as is the case with many of that breed on the pitching side, command of his two fastballs and swing-and-miss slider is the key to becoming some semblance of the player his top-25 prospect rankings envisioned. His ERA jumped two and a half runs in 2014, but his FIP shrunk. That's not the answer to everything, but you'd hope somebody mentioned it to the poor kid at some point.
And it is on his player page. Sorry!
Jeff's process tried to balance likelihood of use with the most generous projection we could give each team. So while, say, Write and Barnes are more likely to get an extended spot in the rotation, the projections for them are worse.
Generally speaking -- and this isn't to say that there aren't bad guesses in an exercise like this -- but predicting a seventh starter in March is very, very difficult. Like predicting who will be the left-handed bench bat if the team makes the playoffs. So as a blanket response, this is a estimate at the team's bestish outcome from its depth.
The other Highland Park, smart guy
A+. I can't even be mad at this.
Hm, should direct you to his email address, which is jwalsh at baseballprospectus dot com. I'll just leave this here for everybody and remove the link.
Yes; Probably; And, correct
Age 10. The one year I made the All-Star team (but as a second baseman).
I ran simulations on that same question in... uh, 2011 I think. Yes, 2011. The league won about 60 percent of the time, as I recall.
I was less interested in whether a guy underperformed his projection if it was in 50 PAs. But could have been wrong to do that.
You don't get credit for having barely-back-from-injury, velocity-down Jason Motte until he starts pitching well.
It looks like around $105 million, in fact. Likely below median.
Here are all the top 10s. Enjoy!
Sahadev is too nice to point out that he used many of these exact words in his submission but his overaggressive editor deleted them for reasons that made sense at the time.
To be clear, Taveras isn't being used to project a guy's 2nd year; but for a guy's age-22 season.
I mentioned Souza in a thing I wrote last week, thusly:
"If the category on Family Feud was “PECOTA’s Unrequited Love Interests,” the survey would quite likely say “old-for-their-league minor-league sluggers.” It’s certainly too soon to say Souza is only that, and PECOTA isn’t alone on seeing value where scouts generally haven't: As Dave Cameron noted when the Rays acquired Souza, he is a projections darling, so maybe PECOTA was just slow to catch up--especially considering that last year was his third in a row slugging at least .550 in the minors with a good batting average. Anyway, .350/.432/.590 in non-PCL Triple-A will do some things to a computer’s brain, even if it’s hard for us to believe Souza will outhit Victor Martinez, Bryce Harper and Josh Donaldson as PECOTA projects."
The playing time, of course, is easier to embrace if you buy the performance projection. We're constantly updating our depth charts, though, so consider the playing time part of the projection somewhat fluid.
Those and percentiles generally come later in the spring; we're ahead of schedule this year, but they're still a little ways off.
As I understand it, the Amazon date is basically just fiction, an estimate that somebody made a long time ago based on a guess. I think. Anyway, you can get it faster by buying it now.
In the Angels retrospective piece I wrote, I excluded Trout as an offshoot of Kotchman/Teixeira. I credit that line for producing Grichuk, even though Trout was technically the comp pick. I explain why in the piece, but, yeah. Anyway, not arguing! Your nomination is literally true and valid.
Here's the full list of players and their year-by-year WARPs and departures, along with the players they spawned:
We actually had Davis projected to be a reliever last year, so there's no extra year-to-year adjustment for him.
If so, they will be documented. But no, there haven't been. Still PECOTA.
Mhm, this is fixed, thanks
Not sure if I'm more troubled that Ben crushed you last year while I lost this year, or that the readers somehow favored me more than they favored Ben. That's insanity. Ben's so smart!
The difference pieces of a TA are submitted in stages. The fantasy impact part for this on is on the way.
It was a joke about football players.
This is amazing!
Ah, yes, 14:6. Fixed.
I am pleased with your comments :)
Intentional! A miscue usually manifests as, pro ejemplo, "This is where the fantasy piece will go, don't forget to put the fantasy piece here, blah blah blah."
I remember a bunch of it -- felt like selling low on Sanchez and buying high on Cabrera. Memories are weird, though. Maybe I'm remembering wrong.
It's coming, linked with the Masterson and Miley moves in a Red Sox Pitching Reload Extravaganza piece.
We have a masthead!?
appreciate it, fixed
To the first part, Nick wasn't listing every player in the middle of the order, but making a point about the caliber of mediocre hitter Arizona would otherwise be depending on to surround Goldschmidt.
Fair. I appreciate the feedback.
Players signed at 18 years old have to be on the 40-man within five years; players signed at 19 within four years.
Resolved. Thanks Mike.
Thanks, just cleared up the language. Appreciate it.
No totals line because there's so little actual salary data from his career that it hardly seemed worth it.
Not argumentative at all! The point is so good that I almost went into it but realized that it was going to add 1,000 words and a day of delay. I have thoughts, but they're not well organized, and I probably will write about the topic later this offseason. Your point is very good.
Apologies if I'm misunderstanding your comment, but these two sentences are in the article:
"PECOTA”s long-range projection for Stanton before the 2014 season—before he finished first in MVP voting among NL position players—was about 55 wins between 2015 and 2024. It’ll be slightly higher when we rerun the system this winter, I’d imagine. "
He went 40/8/11, not 40/11/8--the defensive component didn't clear 10, so that's why he was filtered out.
Formatting error, ignore the second table, there is no second table, there never was a second table, speak not of a second table.
The Lineup Card is never an exhaustive list and it's not always meant to be a serious list. It's just a way of having a bunch of different writers provide different answers to a prompt.
Didn't promise; noted only that I desperately needed to.
Oh good heavens, me neither. I would absolutely not bet on Cruz to play a full season. But if I were selling him...I'd sell that. If I were buying... I might let myself get a little irrational.
Point wasn't about available DHs but about change in number of total qualified DHs in existence. Point isn't all that clear. Point was made by a so-so writer.
Okay, give me a few days, probably
Like last year, I was disturbed by how my brain was trying to build a narrative for why Randy picked what Randy picked. Only for a microsecond, but the urge was there. We're so weak.
It's two small tweaks to who we told PECOTA the players would be -- Morse is higher in the lineup in this run, and Frasor, instead of Finnegan, is listed as the Royals' fourth reliever. Neither of those is very significant but, as you note, neither is the difference in the odds. But that's why the odds are not exactly the same.
SMH Craig, SMH
The Royals were favored to win the Orioles series
Could be! It's a blunt measure, to be sure. The Orioles were dinged pretty badly for not having three of their four or five best players (by PECOTA's measure), though. Don't think they would have been evenly matched against a healthy Baltimore team, so that's less a third-order vs record issue. But sure, nothing's perfect.
System considers third-order winning percentage more predictive than record, thus considers Royals worse than average team. Home field advantage also a factor.
reasonable explanation. Changed.
I think he's suggesting Belt could play left, as he has some in the past, not get benched.
(And banner will end sooner than that)
Sorry, ignore the banner, we had some miscommunication. Voting will end today.
This should keep you busy: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=24635
Very strong! B-Ref rates them +53 at their respective positions, but of course it's a different metric and the error bars on this whole conversation are huge. That trio could very easily challenge the Royals.
You're right! And thank you for saying the nice thing at the front.
I write a little fast, so sometimes I forget to explain why I'm saying something, but in this case I was responding to what I saw as people (smart people, even) doing the "I told you so" move after Ventura gave up the run. The "I told you so" move is always wrong (for the reasons you stated), but in this case specifically was also wrong wrong, in that it didn't seem to accurately reflect what had actually happened. So that's what I was getting at. Anyway, you're right.
Not a lot happens, transactions-wise, during the first week of the playoffs. We've four TAs since then, all of GM or manager hirings/firings.
LobStar of the week
It's funny, I was going to make a big stink in the article about how incredibly unoptimized this lineup is, but really other than Gordon it's not that badly ordered. The Gordon thing is bad. Really bad. He should be leading off. But otherwise, eight guys in a pretty good order.
Yes; some version of this gets published every October, seems like: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/97802528/calculating-the-risks-of-kershaw-on-short-rest
"Since 2004, starters on short rest are 5-5 with a 4.73 ERA in 20 starts in the postseason."
Of course, we'd assume those are all no. 1 or no. 2 starters that a team would ask to pitch on short rest.
PECOTA does not know he's on short rest. If you tax him a run of ERA, the Dodgers' chances drop to about 61, 62 percent.
Would have been fun!
should be Ishikawa in LF, is now Ishikawa in LF
Thanks, all updated now, I believe
We'll have 'em for the individual game previews
I feel genuinely betrayed by mikedee
A cream-filled cupcake is obviously a sandwich
Mercer, as the text CLEARLY says*
Selected the contract means he was added to the 40-man roster. Recalled means he was simply brought up to the active, 25-man roster from the minors.
My fault! Completely my fault.
a) That makes much more sense
b) but Fehlandt Lentini
c) and Campana is somehow only 9-for-17 at Salt Lake
Let's try... let's try 1929 and see if that one sticks.
Fine, it's changed. Maybe I'll change it back later.
I know I should probably fix it, but I'm scared that it means something.
Updated in the article
Glad you brought it up. Originally intended to, but payroll is a bit trickier because payroll often responds to winning; teams that expect to be good spend more, teams that expect to be bad spend less. You're right that it would have been a more complete look at it to figure out the right way to incorporate it here, but I was aiming to keep it simple. But you're right!
Something just broke; looking into it.
The articles on the Marlins/Astros and the Price deal (along with everything else) were published the day of. They were on the site, just not linked to on this roundup page. Thanks for reading.
It's a competitive balance B pick, so after the second round, not after the first.
Very good! Thanks, Matt
One other thing: These are based on simulations, so there will be some (usually very small) amount of fluctuation every time we run them. It looks like the Blue Jays' baseline was a little bit on the high side, that there was a statistically unlikely series of spins that skewed their baseline a bit. (For instance, their observed odds dropped when Felix Doubront got traded, while the other teams in the division improved slightly.) So part of the Blue Jays' drop might also be statistical regression.
(Note: This is an explanation, but it's not necessarily THE explanation and it's not necessarily that you're wrong. I'm looking into it, just in case.)
The system thinks that the A's and Tigers are more formidable postseason contenders, which is where the Blue Jays' drop largely comes from. As a percentage change, the Blue Jays' World Series odds dropped about twice as far as their adjusted playoff odds.
Some of you saw some very rough framing data in the fantasy section of David Price that was supposed to be removed before publish. It has been removed.
Yesterday's games are not included in this.
Idiot editor assigned it to himself, failing to anticipate that the next 12 hours of his life would be spent editing TAs and doing other TA-editing business. What an idiot.
It's coming, I swear!
He's actually striking out fewer than ever. It's still a lot. It's just fewer than ever. (And he has walked fewer before.)
Updated to include the Diamondbacks' take. I'm not sure why the player page doesn't pick up his articles, but my guess is it has to do with an apostrophe.
Of course he was; fixed now.
I think Edward's point is generally true, but not with Blyleven, whose buildup was not the typical "oh, guess we gotta act now" progression but a true change in how the world's writers came to view him.
True story, I came up with 29, one for every team but the Rangers, but of course a bingo board has only 25 squares so four teams were randomly excluded. Dee Gordon was to be the Dodger square.
Chrome on a PC or a Mac? Anybody else having the problem? I'm not, on any of the browsers (on Mac) that I've tried.
My favorite two minutes in the show's history
I'm convinced. Changed in the article.
AutoCorrect in action! Fixing,
Only articles since 2007 are free, is why.
This is a fascinating theory, but a question: Are you saying he threatened Aiken's eligibility by talking to Close, or by publicly disclosing it? If the former, it seems probable to me that he'd already talked to Close plenty (remember, nobody thought it was remotely likely Aiken would go to college). If the latter, then he didn't burn Aiken until *after* the deadline was passed, after it was too late to create leverage. You might argue that he did that out of revenge, but of course if he wanted to get revenge he could just phone NCAA and tell them about his convos. So the latter seems unlikely. Actually, both now seem unlikely. This theory fascinates me less now.
But am I wrong? Tell me where I'm wrong. I want to be fascinated by this theory.
Rendon was almost on it, because the Nationals have been talking him up as their team MVP already, except that (depending on your web site) he arguably has been the team's MVP this year. Same goes for Kinsler and the Tigers.
I *almost* gave you the benefit of the doubt, and I should have. Hate it when somebody assumes I'm wrong instead of joking. And, to be clear, my response wasn't intended to be snippy; just wanted to put a little biographical information out there, since we hadn't yet addressed De Paula in the article. Now we have, thanks to Jeff Moore.
He's 23 and striking out 11 per nine in High-A
Long-term probably yes, short-term probably no
Promise my next Bingo will be better. Made some real first-timer mistakes here.
I count one typo. What are you looking at?
Neither was on the active roster, is the reason for that
It won't be reprinted anywhere other than Fox, if that's what you're asking. That's Rob's (excellent) work but it's Fox's piece, Fox's property.
Holy cow. Thanks.
There it is! Update on tonight's show. Thanks!
Brian Dozier is using his brother as his pitcher tonight
Just don't forget, if you flip away during a commercial, to flip back back back back back back back
Cause that's how these things are done!
(Except that the IBBs would likely help the Angels, since managers tend to issue more intentional walks than are good for them.)
Excluding the eighth spot in the lineup, there have been 212 IBBs in the NL this year, and 213 in the AL.
Yeah, I don't know what it was like back in the day, but I know a lot of people with season tickets and they don't go to anything close to all the games. But maybe back then season tickets were more personal and less share-with-your-business-relationships.
I'm more of a "this is the first and greatest commandment, and the second is like it" guy, but yes.
Or at least tied for most wins.
No problem, it was sloppy, the writing and the editing, and I both apologize for that and thank you for pointing out the problems so they could be fixed.
I should have noted this, but the query was run Saturday night (except regarding the Rays), so the Red Sox were 4-3 since June 8 at the time, tied for best.
Yes, like Greg said! I suppose the article should speak for itself but I apparently didn't do a good enough job of making the point, which is that AA built this roster wonderfully a year earlier, and everything great that the Blue Jays are doing would have been just as possible in his wobbly-chair season. He done real good!
We do not ever want to hurt you, so one letter has been excised from that sentence.
Found a bunch of kids who weren't drafted but were distinguished in other sports -- Dave Winfield's kid currently playing college basketball, so and so's son played QB at Baylor, etc. Lou Brock's kid was drafted, didn't sign, but played NFL.
Odds of an American-born boy getting drafted are somewhere around 1 in 1,700, or a little worse when you adjust the denominator for Canadians and guys who get drafted multiple times
Travis' fringy arm removed, Gettys' ease and excelling inserted.
Oooh, I didn't consider the *next* inning.
I think the A's were projected to win low-70s in 2012. There's a decent case that if you can get even to that that you might as well test your luck and go for it.
That was nominated! I opted for Sabathia because Harang's doesn't look as bad (to me) on paper, though of course the results were more problematic.
Sadly, not legal
Right, like ClownHypothesis said.
Lefty winning percentage was higher in the 2000s than it had been for many decades. You're saying this supposed bias *just* started four years ago? Further, lefty winning percentage was highest in the decades when teams gave the most starts to lefties, so the opposite of this hypothesis.
I don't think the article misses that
Thanks, got it
Inside Edge does actually track secondary defense -- the plays that happen after the initial play, as you're talking about in (2). It just happened that in this case no secondary defense came into play on Castro in this game. Hopefully next month!
It's not the walks/lack of runs that makes the two I mentioned impossible; it's that they faced eight and nine batters in their outings. You can't have an inning with eight base runners and only one run.
but wait, how do I get Ellsbury wrong?
I'll never get Rick Porcello right.
Yeah, mostly what Ben said. It's admittedly a vague thing that we toss off more casually and evidencelessly in speech than we would in writing, but usually falls into one or more of three categories:
1. I expect him to get worse before I expect him to get better.
2. I don't see the breakout potential that other people do.
3. He was a top prospect but the excitement is gone.
Probably most commonly due to the player's general statistical profile, or a specific part of his statistical profile, but can be based on anything/everything we know about a guy.
I think it's the opposite. The later in the season, the closer to a conclusion, the more a win is "worth," though of course that's mostly an optical illusion.
Scoring will be updated periodically.
It doesn't project those steals I mentioned specifically when he's on first; I just used the ratio for total times reaching first so I'd have something to prorate.
Buddy, I'm with you.
70 wins is their mean projection
As do I!
Assuming his name wasn't misspelled by whoever picked him, the answer is no, nobody has Bo Schultz in the Reliever League.
Appreciate the feedback. We try to make the writing as useful for as many people and uses as possible. Comments noted.
It's the true talent winning percentage that the simulator assigned the team going into each simulation. (there's a tiny bit of fluctuation from sim to sim, but basically those numbers by each team are the same in all the tables.)
Dannnnnng you're right
Exactly one of them was a changeup.
They are at the top of the list. I docked them because Pineda belongs more accurately in the "oh my gosh we're relying on this guy's tendons etc" category.
Huh. I guess I'd better put the Mets in. Fixing!
Maybe they build their rosters that way because they can't get enough pitchers, but maybe they build their rosters that way because there aren't any other good options for that 14th spot. Maybe if you gave them something they could actually use, instead of a lousy extra pinch-hitter (especially in the AL), they would use it.
That's funny, I was lying in bed thinking "I need to add a couple extra-words to that sentence because otherwise Rickey..." but I was so comfortable so I figured I'd get to it in the morning.
Thanks for pointing that out, friend!
They're not generally available. It helps to have incriminating secrets.
Cripes, yes. Sorting this out.
They lose the bonus allocation; they get to keep the money itself, of course.
My apologies, I was still using B-Ref at that stage of the querying
Hope I didn't give the impression that there's any inconsistency there. I found your writing on the topic clear and consistent in drawing the distinction you note here.
WHOA! It lives. And I am acquitted of charges of having highlighted it and hit the space bar.
Really good comment.
Pretty awesome (accidental?) pun, tbwhite.
See my comment below.
It's not that. The Alvarez comment was written, edited and signed off on our master list, but then got eaten somehow before we sent it off to the publisher, either a tech issue or (more likely) something foolish like I highlighted it and hit the space bar or something. For non-interesting reasons related to how we work in the content management system, if this happened it wouldn't necessarily be something we'd catch, and we didn't; it now simply doesn't exist, anywhere in the world. Words lost forever, like Hemingway's Lost Suitcase.
I haven't heard any such issues for any other players, though by all means let us know if there are.
With one exception (Bogaerts, which is fixed) that's because the top 10 for the team hasn't been released yet
The Annual is out earlier largely because of the incredible work Parks, Mellen, Faleris, Anderson, and Moore did putting the 101 together as early as they did.
1 in 200 that a particular pitcher would. So, yes, I fully accept that somebody is going to put together a postseason performance this far out of line with regular performance, and that it isn't that significant. There are probably people out there with postseason performances even *more* impressive than Rivera's, relative to their established talent level. But it strikes me as significant that, coincidentally, this outlier in the postseason is also the best reliever ever; which makes me think (for confirmation bias reasons, probably; I'm readily admitting to being swept up by narrative here) that it isn't coincidence.
About $120M on their own guys. About ~$140M on the guys they traded for (Vargas, Kazmir, Haren, Teixeira, Wells, Bulger).
Was never published on the web, only in the book they put out. But every player on the list is named and numbered in my article, or should have been.
I'm going to go ahead and fix this
1 is less essential. 3 is most essential. Naturally, the Nate Silver Must-Read Scale is based on the Michelin scale
I guess it might have been easier for me to just shoot you a note
Brett Lawrie's arms flop is my personal favorite
It's just the angle you saw; Zobrist doesn't actually get close to him. Misses the tag by a foot, as the other angles make unambiguously clear.
It implies no such thing. If they had pitched to Bonds he might have produced 20 WPA -- being a great hitter might have been a 20-win skill, in that context -- but as it was they walked him and he produced 10 wins, solely by being scary. There is no statement here on whether the managers did the right thing or not.
This last explanation makes my day
it's unclear. It was called a strike. And there's no indication that the umpire was planning to call it a strike. So probably.
It was not a comment *informed* by GoT. It was exactly nothing except a GoT plot point. There is no defense for this behavior. "I didn't tell you who." Geeeeez. There is probably one toilet-related scene in the entire season, and now as soon as it begins I know the outcome. Nobody should listen to this podcast ever again, in protest.
R.J. was simply using an adjective to describe Renteria. An adjective that now everybody will have to guess at, as I have changed it to his (correct) first name. Thanks.
I personally was suggesting that his leadership was a response to the needs of the team, and that, separately, it would (profitably for him) be noted by the marketplace.
Yeah, that's Mike Scioscia's favorite move. I always thought Mike Scioscia and the Five-Man Infield would be a great name for a British Invasion band. A very, very, very, very, very specific situation, though.
Was all worth it for this comment
I don't think this is about progress vs reactionary. It's a very legit position to say that baseball that doesn't look like baseball isn't baseball. Rules have been made to outlaw things that don't look like baseball forever. Baumann's quite possibly right.
it's such a cruel world. You point out a mistake, I go in and fix it, and now nobody who reads your comment will have any idea what you're talking about. They'll think you're crazy! But I know you're not crazy. Thanks for pointing it out. Fixed.
(at least that's what I intended. Your point very much taken.)
I didn't say that there are no atheists in foxholes, I said that it's the philosophy behind that aphorism!
Your numbers and my numbers are the same numbers, phrased differently
early word from Texas is first base but too soon to say. Long offseason ahead.
I want to favorite this
It was blockquoted from the Transaction Analysis two years ago. (I see why it's confusing.)
well this is a bit embarrassing, but I live in your car
Hi, Houstonuser! As this is obviously important to you, I am happy to respond.
I would say there was not only another way to make the point, but there were (as noted) billions of other ways to make the point. I chose that one because it was an exceptionally clear way of making the point. The average person understands in a small number of words that playing the lottery is an irrational way of trying to have money, and that the few people who win the lottery have not shown a skill at making money. I felt no guilt about this example because lottery users are not a protected class of people. Indeed, they have nothing in common but a silly decision.
In conclusion: Playing lottery is stupid. I have played the lottery. I felt stupid for it. I was stupid for it. Don't play the lottery.
Could be! I thought Damon and Renteria had chances at 3,000 hits but not at the HOF. Somebody will break the auto-elect rule at some point, dunno if that'll be Andrus on either count. I like Andrus though! For what it's worth.
Love him as a player, and he'll be more valuable than some HOFers by the time it's done, but I'd guess there aren't many players in the Awards era who play five full seasons without a single MVP vote or Gold Glove award who go on to make the HOF
oh yeah meant to mention that
No insensitivity intended, any more than the name of the play itself intends, but your response is noted and appreciated. We try to err on the side of niceness, and will continue to.
Ooh, college sophomore equals 19ish years old, too young to go to bars or casinos, so it makes sense! Now the question is whether it was a joke or an honest effort recalled.
Yes. Got ~60 percent through Roth.
(fixed this, thanks for pointing it out)
he had a lot of appearances where he pitched more than one inning, is what we were saying
Wow, 11 of his HBPs in the regular season against RHP as RHH, in 115 PA. So, yeah, that's it all right.
Mistakes were made; corrections, too.
crud, I forgot
I said that!
Good case. Consider the point withdrawn. I'll give him more credit in the future.
There's probably problems with my logic, but if you think about life as a journey and not a destination then maybe, just maybe, I'm turning into a new-age loon.
That is delightfully trivial! Thank you for pointing it out, I have fixed it.
Apologies, glitch in the HTML. Enjoy!
yeah me neither
But the Tigers have had very little pennant race drama this year; few of the games Cabrera has played have shifted the World Series WPA as much as those that Josh Donaldson has played. That just means that the standards you describe, while not ludicrous, while not illogical at all, have nothing to do with making or not making the playoffs, and therefore don't bolster the Morosi-style argument.
I guess. I'm half pouting half in awe of Aceathon. Dan put together some different angles on this so I might do a separate post and link it.
oh my word
It's partially that I am, genuinely, a rude human being, and for that I'm sorry. It's also partially that I hear everything he says a quarter-second later than he says it, and you know how that is. But I'll try! I like to hear Ben talk, too.
you aren't implying that I used it incorrectly, right? Because I used it exactly correctly. I take "the exception that proves the rule" extremely seriously.
put on some oversized sunglasses and deliver these on tape and we'll talk
Victorino's not a bad comp. I would have probably said 2/26 or 3/36 and bumped it up to mirror Victorino.
To answer a question raised, it took me 93 tries, 65 tries, 30 tries, 62 tries, 83 tries, and 64 tries with a random number generator to get all eight teams a championship. So on average, 66 years.
One of the most interesting things about baseball is that J.P. Howell almost always falls down, after every pitch.
Well if a pitcher could fake a pitch home, then there'd be no basestealing. Up to you if that's a problem, but it would certainly change things. And if he could stand on the mound without the ball, then it would be possible for nobody on the field to know where the ball was at any given time, and Hidden Ball Tricks would dominate the sport which, again, AWESOME, but some people would disagree.
Eric Hartman. Friend of the show!
The other thing is that it's such an obvious balk when you point that out, and yet the home plate umpire (cropped out in the GIF above) makes no move at all.
Haha yes of COURSE, thank you. That's why it looks so funny. So basically he forgot how to do the thing. The irony here is that this way doesn't resemble a pitch the way the legal way does, so it's less deceptive than the legal way.
and also wow I hadn't realized how much he has turned his season around. Good gosh!
yeah I mean I don't actually think Prado is a bad return, just having a lousy season, overall. Had to say something! But basically I'm with you
it is consistent, yes, sorry
Can you explain the timing of when I will watch this? It's archived and can be watched any time, is that it? When did it take place?
this looks only at extensions signed within a 13-month time frame
(A previous version of this article occasionally misidentified the Cleveland GM. The mistake has been fixed)
I agree but in the meantime just tell us
This was intentional! Well, if they're sped up slightly that's not intentional, but the idea is that they'd be roughly what the hitter gets to see (except from a different angle, but also larger)
That's what I was trying to say!!
The second we hung up that exact thought was rattling around in my brain, humiliating me
I wouldn't draw anything from that; my GIFs turn into weird speeds sometimes. I don't know why/how.
Dravecky is a great one
Yeah, I think this is probably right. Really, everything is in place for the streak to be a massive, massive internet freakout, except I'm still hesitant for one reason: I'm just not totally sure anybody would care, emotionally, the way they seem to have cared in 1941. Lots of oxygen would be spent on it, but ... would people really, really, really care? I just don't know. If we assume that we would, then, yes, just absolutely massive.
I maybe could find reasons to quibble with some of these if I were feeling ungenerous, but 2) and 3) are particularly great answers.
that's such a wonderful typo that I'm not even going to fix it. Thanks!
This feels like the right place to put this:
In a piece complaining about Gardenhire's nickname for Thielbar, the originator writes: "It has also come to my attention that this name ISN'T "Meat Raffle," the perfectly great nickname I've given him that reflects his outstate Minnesota roots."
miss you, Veanie
it wasn't a line drive!
bugs aren't animals!
This is a common theme for most teams that contend on the cheap, but I'm not convinced in most cases that it's a skill so much as a "when we're winning it's because this happened" correlative
Oh man I'm so awful at this. The words of that paragraph have been changed now. Thanks.
A lot of valuable things come in the mail. I treat every day's mail as an event loaded with potential
Thought about doing that but decided "harder hit" is too subjective. But since you asked, what the heck. By my measure, harder-hit ball was:
1. Right (64 percent guessed)
2. Right (75 percent)
3. Right (70 percent)
4. Right (55 percent)
5. Right (43 percent)
6. Left (61 percent)
7. Right (89 percent)
8. Right (59 percent)
9. Right (61 percent)
10. Left (55 percent)
Overall: 63 percent of the guesses correctly identified the "hardest" hit by, by my subjective assessment. The only one that you collective failed to get was the one where both balls were hit exceptionally poorly.
Good question! Will update in the post.
That's why I said "basically"! I had you in mind.
You're missing one! This makes me suspect that you might be one off on all of these and, therefore, will end up getting... half right, like everybody else. (Spoiler: Everybody has been terrible so far, basically)
Ron Cey and Steve Garvey were also drafted that year, in the June Secondary, filling out the total.
The two New York teams got merged in the query. That entire paragraph has been deleted.
Someday, make your way to Death Valley. Some day in early spring, that is. It's the LA-to-Lancaster geography times 2 million.
Wednesday is certainly no. 1. You built a lot of goodwill with me by having Wednesday no. 1. My points of dispute:
Tuesday is worse than Thursday. Thursday sucks for the short schedule but it's often not noticeably short, and it's *always* a well dispersed schedule with early day games. That is, to me, the primary question in ranking days. Tuesday never has day games. Tuesdays the worst, except Mondays, which are only saved by the very occasional wraparound-series getaway day or the rescheduled-rainout day games and the extremely occasional Patriots Day game.
Saturday is worse than Sunday. Saturday might be worse than Thursday, but I acknowledge that's a matter of taste. Saturday is basically the only day of the week in which there are baseball games that I can't watch. This is infuriating. If the Saturday game of the week sucks or turns into a blowout, there is literally no good baseball to watch from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m., otherwise known as the three hours of the week when there should by rights be the most good baseball to watch. Furthermore, because of this silliness, teams load their schedules with night games so that, while I'm weeding my garden on a friggin Saturday afternooon, I can't listen to my local team play on the radio. It's just so obvious that this is wrong.
Sunday seems like a flawed day because action ends so early, but the Sunday Night Game is the only game of the week that all of us watch at the same time, which has a lot of charm, and it's usually a great game worth looking forward to. And the incredible flood of 10 a.m. games is so welcome considering how many of our H2H leagues are hinging on that day's action.
Monday the worst.
So I submit:
I got no email!
You got it! I can't imagine DeShields made the connection, but maybe this is the sort of thing that gets mentioned around the batting cages the next day and eventually gets back to DeShields. Unwritten rules so complicated.
As a person who spent years printing out BP articles to read on my lunchbreak, I can understand how some platforms aren't good for GIFs. But I find them useful. Super duper useful, more useful than words can be, both for illustration and for accountability. So GIFs it is. Hopefully there's enough content of all styles on the site for everybody to enjoy.
Yes, at times; No
Geez, my hugest apologies, that's the wrong table. The correct table is now displayed.
Every other person who read this article should be ashamed that they missed this glaring and obvious mistake. For shame, all of you except NYYanks826
Mark Trumbo is probably baseball's best raker
I think he's saying that's high -- that Hanson's 2+ projection for the whole season is very high considering Hanson's recent past. Answer is probably that PECOTA has a fairly long memory and knows that Hanson has been very good in the not-too-distant past, and doesn't know about his specific shoulder.
This is exactly right
Obviously we know that but in the year 3030 they have only confirmed the existence of a small number of animals. In the year 3030, it is believed that skunks were 60 percent of all non-human animal life. Very, very sketchy information is available about the past, of course.
I greatly prefer position appearances by pitchers
He is hitting a lot more ground balls this year than historically. I'm not prepared to give you an explanation yet, but maybe next week.
Right, sorry, didn't mean to suggest that he *is* the problem, much more interested in whether he will be turned into the problem, narrative wise.
Jacoby Ellsbury stole 70 bases in a season while Francona was there, which is the most any AL baserunner has stolen in a season since 1997
yes, ugh duh, curve not a change
And also to @huztlers: The question isn't why are stolen bases going down compared to 20 years ago, or 10 years ago, or even five years ago. It's why are they going down compared to 20 *games* ago. There hasn't been a sabermetric revolution in the past 20 games.
Honestly, not sure this isn't the answer, but it's sooo sudden and there wasn't even a hint of it really last year, and we haven't heard anything about it from players/managers, and it's leaguewide, so it's one heck of a sudden philosophical zig.
Brett Gardner is healthy this year; Jacoby Ellsbury is healthy this year; Carl Crawford is healthy this year; etc, so there are examples that go in both directions.
It's not a bad notion, but we looked at individual players from year to year (so, eliminating the effect of "disappearing" players) and most are stealing less often.
R.J. was only counting the super-secret ones that can be proven only theoretically by mathematicians. We've updated this piece to reflect the more conventional dozen.
(This post has been updated, long after you all stopped coming to read it, to correct the name of the acquiring GM.)
The colors are for the different results -- ball, foul, swinging strike, ball in play (runs), etc. Light blue and green are good, orange, maroon and dark blue are bad
I just grabbed the wrong pitch in the AB, it's fixed now. Thanks, John
Huh. How the heck did I miss that. Give me a few minutes...
First thing that comes to mind is the book Odd Man Out by Matt McCarthy. Part of it is that the players are all competing with each other for the next promotion, so if you feel that the club has more invested in your "competition" than in you...
Trade for the back half of small-market teams' extensions
I think it's in the middle. I don't know it for a fact, but if there are four teams bidding for one star player I would expect it would favor the player somewhat more than five teams bidding for two star players, and more still than six teams bidding for three. But it's debatable.
Thanks, Dave. Appreciate the extra info
I know I said we'll assume for this article that those numbers are real and representative, but if anything surprises you about those tables I would assume for real life that those numbers are not real and representative.
When I have a moment maybe I'll broaden the sample and do an Unfiltered on it
Yeah that was my fault, and now it's fixed.
Really enjoy this grammar correction, thanks again.
Sorry, they are not currently visible to the public. I believe they will be sometime
That's not a nitpick at all!
Like when a small child runs toward the ocean, then sees a wave coming and runs away
There's reason to believe Wynn's arm was sore
I'd argue that he is more famous for his acting role in The Princess Bride, but I'll fix this anyway
I'mma be writing about this
Struck me as low, interestingly enough
That was my assumption but there were indications in news stories that he was actually playing, so I couldn't say conclusively.
This is my wife's theory, too, that I loved baseball first and am just finding the profit in it after the fact. It makes some sense. If you're Type A at all, then you need to justify the all the time you spend and all the things you do as useful. I've found myself mentally spinning many of my entertainments into virtuous pursuits -- this show makes me more socially connected; this magazine makes me smarter; etc..
It was stolen from and unavailable at my local library :(
I had my wife buy me a used copy for Christmas. It was the 1999 edition, with the game-action art on the cover, and I think it cost $48 in good condition. I see now no used copies for less than $70, so it might be that the price fluctuates a bit. It's really, really great, incidentally.
Not for me. This requires research.
A baseball almost hit him, but then it didn't hit him. He laughed for about the rest of the game
Good points! Better way to look at it. Now I can stop thinking about that interaction so much.
It is fixed
An earlier draft mislabeled the Rangers' worst position as DH. It has been fixed.
Just went with the lowest/most negative WARP. No judgment calls were involved.
This has been corrected thanks to @KevinBassStache, who noted that I had Beltran traded a year later than he actually was.
Sample sizes; somewhat blunt categorization of baserunning acts; influence of manager strategy; influence of player's baserunning intelligence as opposed to speed.
Ben wrote about the Nationals' bad baserunning:
At first when I saw that you'd written a rap I was like oh nooooo but then I was like yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah.
Enough, but I'm a thousand years old so just like your grandpa I don't listen to anything new anymore.
Cleveland Fellers is spectacular, though perhaps less so considering that there was a guy in the Indians' team history named Feller.
Came very close!
It should have said "center of the strike zone," which is to say a combination of up down left right away from dead center. My apologies for the typo.
Excluding squeeze situations, there were four or five cases across baseball of two pitchouts being thrown in the same at-bat.
Perhaps. I could go either way, but when talking about such a small, small sample -- from one to 15 throws only per manager -- I lean toward the constant, rather than expecting true catcher ability to appear instantly.
Might be even better if I drink Nyquil every night but down it 16 to 30 minutes BEFORE we hit record
2016 was a reference to there being almost no doubt about Griffey. You are, of course, right about Ichiro, and I apologize for the unclear wording of that section.
Yeah I think I misfired on the ARod part. At least "higher level." I focused on the offense without really considering the no-duh position-and-defense factor. Sorry all!
What's the rule, if you know it? I didn't see a minimum-length requirement for a pitch but there's got to be something.
Not this year
Also won World Series. Causation proven!
Notably, Weeks' stolen base came on a non-intentional ball in the dirt that would have been a wild pitch had Weeks not been running.
Termites alone outweigh humans 10 to 1!
My dumb mistake sorry!
Yes, I would read all the rounds of this
About a 15-run disagreement about Hunter's defense
ERA+ takes a player's ERA, adjusts for ballpark, league and era, and states it relative to league-average. There are plenty of limitations to it, such as its dependence on ERA instead of a better stat, and I guess what you'd call scaling problems. Quick and easy and not *too* misleading is why I use it.
(I should say "real" as in they were really reported. I naturally have low regard for the actual accuracy of many reported rumors.)
It's not supposed! All the rumors are real and linked to.
Noting here that an earlier version of this story misstated the Red Sox bullpen performance relative to the rest of the league.
Thank you so, so much
Ah, thank you. I limited it to guys making more than $4 million in a year, which is how Meares slipped through the cracks/didn't qualify
Head down and run! Always use two hands! Remember how many outs there are! Etc etc
Yeah I changed my mind and agree with you. Watching Harper run the bases is one of the best parts of baseball right now.
It is a very strange moment for Castro. I give him loads of credit, though, for *acting* like the ball was in his mitt the whole time, as he reaches in as though he needs to take the ball out after the "tag". It's sort of brilliant, if totally unsuccessful.
I'm changing my opinion to this.
Oliver is what we in the BP offices call Randy Choate. It's a long story.
I ran across a column saying everybody should vote for Braun because this season PROVES he wasn't on steroids last year because otherwise he would have gotten worse. I tend toward your read on it, though.
I ran out of time :( but you're invited/welcomed/encouraged to keep going
Because not having Jonathan Sanchez leads to blessings upon blessings upon blessings.
Ben probably just found his topic for tonight
These have been fixed.
I don't believe it's a sports-watching party, though. I meant to get into this, but they are the only two people paying attention to the game, which is obviously already underway. Everybody else is in groups of two or three, usually gender-mixed, which makes me think this is much more a mixer than a sports party.
There are going to be more of these. Fixed.
And now it does, thanks
It's not perfect because it's good; it's terrible! It's perfect because it's exactly mlb.com's kind of terrible. This is really more an exercise in mimicry than art.
Well now that that's done I can get a reasonable night's sleep
An early version listed Trout as having 82 RBIs; he had 83; it's been fixed.
The misspelling was intentional
87 percent "keep"
The order is generated randomly I swear!
I ordered them randomly! I assigned each one a number, then drew numbers from a hat.
In which we make a factually incorrect statement about the extent of Justin Verlander's amateur career.
Totally agree. Can we make this permanent, Ben?
That's not minor at all!
Yeah, that's a derp on my part. It's fixed.
Yes, sorry, question I was answering with each of those was should they have done something more than they did.
Whoa. That's blowing my mind. I need to think about this.
Well sure I know that but there's nothing antique and old-timey about Barry Bonds.
I'm as upset that none of these reporters are writing about David Wright as you are. David Wright is having a great, great season, and he deserves not just MVP consideration but quite possibly the award. Come on, journalists, do your job! It's like that Edwin Starr lyric:
And it's headline news
And it's headline news
A-don't you hear me saying
(Extra extra, read all about it)
You better read about it
(Extra extra, read all about it)
I also spent some of the time I was working on this wondering about the replacement level pitcher. I have nothing to contribute to the question. But, like you, I wondered.
To provide the other side of it, though, Roger Clemens produced something like twice as much value as the rest of the 1983 first round combined. So the Braun/1993 comparison may not be about replacement level definitions at all; it may just be about the relative quality of Ryan Braun and the 1993 pitching prospects.
You're close. Run suppression is half the game. But the pitcher is only one (large) part of run suppression. You could think of it as the batters "stealing" a share of the pitchers' WARP by playing and getting credit for defense.
I love the sound of this crying baby! But, objections noted.
Corrections, Omissions and Errors:
Two umps! That's what really got me. I can sort of buy that there is an ump. But you don't have two umps working a game where a guy in a pageboy hat can just stroll up and declare himself the pitcher.
There is a very, very uncomfortable racial vibe going on in HSM2's baseball game, incidentally
Thanks, these have been fixed
BABIPs don't really (generally) go up much with runners on base. Leaguewide, it's about four or five points difference, and most players' BABIPs with runners on or with bases empty are within a few points after a long enough career. There are some outliers. Howard, of course, but also Omar Vizquel, Miguel Cabrera, Chase Utley. And, of course, it's totally 100 percent possible that Howard is just a fluke of percentages.
I think so! Angels outfield defense ruining Angels' outfielders defensive stats
Not even close. Blind BABIP test had 18, for starters.
Nailed the narratives!
Definitely fascinating, and I trust a Rockies follower more than myself to see these patterns. I can't wait until enough games have passed to try this piece again.
Over a long enough time period a small gain should show up, but probably quite limited. Colin mentioned this in his piece in June, when he pointed out that the extra pinch-hitting appearances would come from the bottom of the bench, not the better pinch-hitters, who were already being used.
This is discussed various places online, such as here,
but I'm still not sure I'm clear on it. It seems that wrought is two things: An archaic (but correct) past participle for work, as listed at dictionary.com: bit.ly/OOGobT
and an incorrect past participle for wreak. Wreaked, not wrought, is the correct past participle for wreak.
Oooh, that's an interesting theory! The flip side, though, is that they might have also assumed that whatever the Red Sox did with Gonzalez would benefit the Red Sox' interests, and that by allowing Gonzalez to go unclaimed they actually gave the Red Sox the flexibility to improve the team outlook.
Don't know. My understanding is the Dodgers could have been "stuck" with Gonzalez and, if indeed there was a claim, Beckett. However, it's possible trade talks had already begun/progressed by the time the claim was put in, and there was an understanding that the Red Sox wouldn't stick the Dodgers with Beckett. That's just me speculating.
Some nights, he looks like an ace. Just, well, just going to leave it at that.
This article has been updated to accurately reflect Ryan Ludwick's TAv ranks since June 1 and July 1.
Good question! It's a curveball.
You are both speaking gibberish!
No, you're right, and it's now been fixed in the article.
In September, he wouldn't be replacing anybody.
This is great
Rangers hit 100% in APRIL!!!
Thanks! I meant to look up Darvish for the piece and just plain forgot
Bunch fewer unearned runs, few more earned runs, useful innings eater.
Not to put words in his mouth, but I believe he is saying this is as good as Kafka, Faulkner and Austin rolled into one.
Everybody: I screwed up and Josh A pointed it out and I changed it but he's no fool.
Argh I hate myself and all that I do
This article has been changed. An earlier version misspelled
We regret the error.
They did! A few minutes later!
Somebody asked similar question about tigers. I personally think the charm of the pit is introduction of gravity, not the brutality that happens inside the pit. Reasonable people will disagree.
Sure, and I'd like a hoverboard, too. But it's only 2012. Let's be realistic!
It was an open-ended question. I think we more or less agreed to your point, by the end.
That's a great highlight.
You're the expert. I watched probably 15 or 20 of his to try to get a read on him and that was the only time I heard "take a good look"
This has now been fixed in the article.
My top three would probably be Sims, Cohen and (by a wide margin) Duane Kuiper. Duane Kuiper's get me revved up like a televangelist.
Thank you. The amount of "Baby" that gets said in these calls just makes me all around uncomfortable.
Yes, ok, thank you.
54.4 percent excluding no. 4
I don't off the top of my head; if I get a chance I'll add 'em up. But three people got seven and nobody did better. Tons of 4s and 5s. Mostly 4s and 5s I think.
Numbers, and which were left and which were right, were essentially random. No clues there.
I'm guessing you mean because Canada doesn't celebrate the 4th, which is a great time for me to mention that, three days ago, this headline ran:
Lawrie Produces Canada Day Fireworks
Yes. Scioscia ejected for arguing.
Not a bad idea. In 2010, Lee turned down a trade to the Angels because (at least we heard) he didn't want to move his family to the West Coast. Dunno if that still applies.
Gosh this unfiltered has filled me with sorrow.
The pitch after Alexei Ramirez got completely worked over, Wilhelmsen threw the curve again. Ramirez hung in well and hit it.
I am constantly on the lookout for the pitcher who is so nonchalant/confident that he turns away before the pitch reaches the batter. Tom Wilhelmsen didn't quite get there, but somebody will. And I will document it.
I thought so too, but pitchfx don't lie:
Sorry, I should have thought about that!
THESE GUYS SHOULD BOTH SPEND LESS TIME WORRYING ABOUT THE SOX AND MORE TIME WORRYING ABOUT MY STOCKS!
NO RUNS NO HITS NO AYERS
GOATEE? MORE LIKE GO TEA ... PARTY
OBAMA WON'T DO ANYTHING TO STOP KEVIN YOUKILIS IMMIGRATION
SO SICK OF HEARING OBAMA TALKING ABOUT YOUKILIS' CAP AND TRADE
Is it worth pointing out that there are ghosts in the crowd in the first two shots, but they disappear? Ghosts! Nobody seems to even notice them!
I almost made that GIF and included it! Bless your heart for sharing.
Good question. Remember now and don't touch them.
Hmm try now?
If it doesn't work for you, or anybody, here's a direct link:
There was nobody in 2000. That was only as far as I took the search.
The other day I heard an announcer say the pitcher had retired A-Rod, and I just assumed...
... actually, I'm surprised you're the first to catch it.
Er, "a few years in" is, in this case, pre-2009.
A few years in, PECOTA was still projecting Clement to put up 2.5 WARP; same year, projected Tulo for 2.8, Upton for 2.5, and Romero to be sub-replacement level. So it's definitely not like it was outlandish to expect really good things for Clement.
Behind the scenes dialogue --
Wait that wasn't intentional? I liked it. I wouldn't do it for every piece, but in this case I didn't think it looked goofy at all.
Based on Combs' comment, it would have been around 1992
oops, this'll be fixed
I am so grateful for you, friend.
R.J. has correctly pointed out that he looks like a spider, and like the giant mechanical spider in Wild Wild West. There's probably the base for a nickname there.
Yeah, ZiPS has had a crush on Trout since before the 2011 season. If I recall correctly, I think ZiPS projected Trout to be the best Angel in 2011, when he was just 19.
My own opinion: I'm not too worried about Pujols' seemingly accelerated decline, or, at least, I don't think there's a lot of evidence yet to suggest the normal aging curve doesn't apply to him. I think Pujols is probably one of the 10 best players in baseball right now, and Trout is probably one of the 30 best. That also means that if I'm off by just a little for each, then Trout would be, indeed, better than Pujols.
Thank you. Because I shamelessly rip off Grant
This seems like a topic much better suited for a full piece than a stupid throwaway line. Thanks for adding context, both of ya.
Eh, I suppose fixing this would be the right thing to do. Fixed!
I don't need to do a doggone thing.
This is a position I used to hold, and it is a valid position, but no longer one I hold. I don't think those are intended to be nicknames, because they're not descriptive. They're merely affectionate abbreviations. The ARod styling is, I would argue, no more a threat to nicknaming than is the tradition of shortening William to Billy or turning Bob into Bobby.
Ah, sorry for the confusion. Right, the slump didn't go back to the All-Star break; just the lack of walks did. Click on that link in the first sentence and I go into Pujols' second-half swing rate, unintentional-walk rate, etc. Clear change in approach starting around the All-Star break. But, yes, he raked in the second half overall, and I expect he will rake for the rest of this year, too.
He does one of those "ow ow ow ow ow" dances shortly after
This is a wonderful theory!
Thanks, cmac. It has been corrected.
The irony of this post is that I didn't do a very good job of describing what Adam Dunn did. (Clarifying it now.)
Which isn't to say you, evo, to whom I attempted to reply, are wrong or that I even think you are wrong. Walden might be terrible. He was terrible just 80 innings ago!
2.87 FIP, 3.15 xFIP are better than seven of the past 10 closers in the World Series.
I'll give you three minutes for your fantasy team if you let me tell you about every hand of Texas Hold 'em I have ever played
Super reasonable points
If you go to our stats page, we have up through 2011 under 'batter plate discipline'
Email I got this morning: "Thorburn is a warlock." So awesome at what he does.
Oh my gosh this is worse than I thought.
Correction: It's not!
It's brand new!
Blame me, not Matt, and thanks to those who have pointed them out so we could fix them.
Long Beach library system doesn't have it, either. Sadly, I tried to buy it when it was only $40 or $50 a year or so ago and figured I'd wait for one that was cheaper. And it just goes up and up and up.
Wow, it does. Either that or he's grimacing, expecting to be called out. Interesting.
"She tore a piece of sod from the field, brought it home, and kept it in a shoebox on the porch, watering and tending to it daily."
This single sentence has more plot than most mumblecore films.
Helpfully, Miss Manners has addressed this topic:
I eat it like a beaver working on a big tree: gnaw on the middle and work upward. I think what's notable about Sweeney is that he uses both hands. Most people don't use their free hand to support the banana. Mike Sweeney does.
So it is. Thank you.
Excellent nits. Very glad you clarified.
It was actually originally used for the broadcasters for two seasons before Boros got there. Based on the reports at the time, it doesn't sound like it was used by Martin.
Yeah, basically, and some other days, too.
I almost picked Listach, but discarded him for the reason you allude to.
Now that you mention it, the first time I heard 'em was when they were opening for Elliott Smith, so you're probably right.
It has come to my attention that, as of about nine months ago, robots can catch balls. The world is terrifying now.
I don't quite know why that comment made me think of this:
This is a valid point! I considered eliminating this game for that very reason, but ultimately I decided that home runs are no more exciting than the alternatives: long rallies, which are exciting because the values of a hit or an out go way up; or outs, which are exciting because they keep the game closer. But just because I decided that doesn't mean I'm not totally wrong.
The quote, in the context of the speech:
"We get to the hearing and Beeston and Gillick both presented us with an offer, and Caudill signed for $8 million for five years and made him sixth-highest-paid player in the league, and the deal worked out for everybody. Forty or 50 reporters were taking pictures when we left the room..."
Specifically, we added Boras' clarifying comments about the statement "the deal worked out great for everybody." An eminently fair point of clarification.
I wondered if that was the case. But Steve Boros wasn't just some ex-player like Scott Boras; he had managed the Oakland A's in 1984, which would have made them hard to confuse.
Just learned that Colon is Ben Sheets' No. 2 PECOTA comp this year
I don't know for sure, but we might have! I was trying to think of the most similar players to each of these guys, and Sheets definitely fits for Colon. Maybe Yusmeiro Petit. Eric Hurley, though he might have earned a lineout. Anthony Reyes. Less likely the better.
Tom Petty has some fine hand-clapping, too. American Girl, for instance.
I already had a hard enough time watching baseball without thinking of my grandparents doin' it.
The last word that comes to mind when I read this is 'insider'
I think it's pretty fair to call it a cheap shot at an easy target. I considered not writing about it at all, for that reason.
It's very rare. I've never seen one. I asked some other guys who have been around longer, and I heard that there was a guy who used to send stuff out pushing Dale Murphy, and a group supporting Ron Santo, though I think those materials were more modest.
It could be!
I can't take credit for making it up --
Would have been my number 4 in ROY
My spam filter will make a note of this change.
The crazy thing is how close Bonds came to that line a couple times. Obviously not the slugging, but otherwise, wow.
Very nice piece.
Why would you count all "save opportunities," including seventh and eighth inning ones? Those only get counted as opportunities if they get blown -- if Arredondo comes in w/ a one-run lead in the seventh and leaves with a one-run lead, then it doesn't get recorded as a save opp at all. It's not really a save opportunity because it can't possibly become a save.
Small correction -- Torre batted ARod eighth in the 2006 playoffs, so it couldn\'t have been subsequent to a 2007 magazine article.
Editorial review doesn\'t mean a whole lot. Editors at most regional papers don\'t know the subject matter as well as the reporter does, and they assume factual accuracy. An editor these days mostly reads for clarity and grammar, then posts the story.