CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
and i dont care if i think a hundred other articles are also best.
best article ever published on this site.
look at these guys, it's like they haven't heard of a literary hyperbole before.
Man has to awaken to wonder — and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.
trying too hard.
just let him hit.
this guy needs some adult supervision.
you can't assume that statistical randomness is replicated in scouting randomness.
very interested thanks for the heads up
It's a combination of overslotting and the IFA, mostly the latter.
4. Overslotting/draft quirk
this seems really regressed
more like there's more risk with vizcaino, see injury.
dat bone structure
love you steven
great stuff. can't improve without self evaluation.
Listening to your exposition of the hit tool, i can't help but think that the idea was formed in a historical process, where certain biases were formed and gradually challenged, leading to the subtlety in the system that can sometime be inconsistent. For example, i would venture to guess that the idea of the pure hitting tool completely separate from power is the relic of a historical conception of hitting as hitting safely. In reality though, it seems that pure power and pure hit tool are not totally independent, because the act of hitting and hitting for power is actually one single physical swing. If a guy is altering his swing to achieve higher average at the expense of power, is he losing some power or gaining hit ability? It seems like the clear cut distinction is simply a theoretical/interpretive decision made by the analyst. Would be very interested to investigate the history of scouting and see if scouts change their system or how do they incorporate changes in the game. It's not only modern stats, but things like different offensive level eras and pitcher usage etc.
the hit tool that you describe sounds similar to "the active power of hitting the ball, productively". stuff like taking a walk involve not hitting, and that's not a very visible physical skill that scouts can assess. i do think the way plate discipline is incorporated into the scouts' view of the player is historically contingent and can be revised for the better, informed by more modern ideas of player valuation.
#7 i assumed that previous experience isn't associated with cost, and that the success can be accurately valued.
i don't understand pictures if they are not pictures of numbas
okay, that's very fair.
seems like you consistently dismiss plate discipline worries if the guy "can hit." but obp has a lot of value, and i'm not sure if not quantifying the gains and losses in different offensive profiles is the right approach to evaluation.
get well jason
if they can afford to go overslot now that they've lost their highest pick, why can't they go overslot with that pick and arguably for even greater effectiveness?
learn english before posting
baseball history can go to hell if it doesn't acknowledge the business nature of the game and the attendant issues of economic justice.
guys right though
>implying ticket prices are dependent on cost rather than revenue.
can't evaluate these things without knowing financials for the two teams. seems like rangers are betting that a stretch of winnings seasons can establish a larger baseball fanbase and thus expand their business over there, while the yankees make bank with any successful lee season, so much so that they might be willing to eat say 3 bad years simply to have the 4 good ones.
that's not subjectivity, just different ways of measuring the same thing - player performance. it is possible to say which way is better.
what about those who did both? pretty sure your delineation is not perfect and those caught in the middle are not resolved.
you didn't like my hyperbolic reaction? :(
with jeter's recent demands, i'd say that the first order of business is to sign uribe or hardy and then trade for hanley sometime in the next few years
when viewing baseball as a human activity rather than in abstraction as a game, player vs nonplayer becomes an arbitrary distinction. both groups have done things and mean things "outside of the game."
The cy young question is interesting. i'm leaning towards "no" because it makes things more interesting.
seems like it's currently easier to find offense at 3b than 2b.
or the negro league guys
what about someone like curt flood?
There is no transcendental meaning to positive or good for the game. is it from the owners' perspective? from the fans? or does the interest of players or the game's social justice play a part as well? if so, how much?
that the idea of good for the game is up to debate is the best argument for enshrining influential but controversial figures.
when they get george in and still refuse admission to miller, it will be another glorious landmark in the history of the hall of fame.
1st point is valid, 2nd is not.
Writers still vote for the best story, and felix’s story is more attractive than mere stats. Usually, pitcher wins and team success etc seem to rouse the strongest hero worship in some people who happen to write about baseball, but it’d be wrong to assume that these are all that can invoke a cy young narrative.
Will the writers learn some math as a result of this…? A guy like felix who forces them to challenge old ideas is certainly contributing to some sort of reflection. I’d like to say that I hope they learn some math, but I really don’t care.
not that this is a bad thing at all, but voters tend to be more accepting of new ideas when it's done for an underdog kind of guy like felix. traditional narratives about winning suddenly don't look so hot when they are in support of a yankees pitcher.
lots of food references, must be anxious waiting for the podcast
the statistical argument would be that the postseason player exhibited his skill over a larger sample size.
yes, they have the opportunity, but when they actually do something good then it'd still count for something. you may disagree.
he wasnt in control of the fact that he pitched in the ws and soria did not, but he did pitch in the post season and performed well. that counts for something.
1. the argument is a benign call to improve defense metrics. this is at worst harmless.
2. given the lack of jeter bashing in the article, i'd say it's rather yankee friendly.
not all yankees fans are like that.
in the jeter case though, simple incredulity is enough, and well justified.
offer 12m for 2 and let him walk if not accepted.
how much useful tools does dee gordon have if he can't hit for a lick of power?
present at the scene and possessing the function of vision does not mean you were scouting him.
you are still better off reading detailed scouting reports.
This kind of touches on another issue, how knowledge in baseball is spread, and how quantitative methods can improve that. when people can actually be shown results of distinct approaches in numbers and actually identify who's doing it better with more clarity, they'll be motivated to do something and learn from the best.
meh, the 1st pitch was still 10 foot outside.
natl league pride!
please try to actually field competent teams before spouting league-ist rhetoric
lol a mests fan unable to understand math.
jaffe prophetic already.
patient selves? i'm looking forward to jeter grounding out to 2nd on the 1st pitch.
when i saw beast, i thought of arod
what about historical secret sauce performance?
One thing i don't see discussed very often is the idea of knowledge accumulation in the game, i.e. people figuring out better ways of playing the game over time and passing on that knowledge to future players, so that the game today is literally different from the olde days apart from the difference in talent.
although walking is not a tool, should it be though? it seems to be a consistent skill, or at any rate depends on a mixture of fairly consistent underlying attributes like approach and hardwired "feel" during an at-bat, so that instruction will only have limited effect on performance.
one could argue that scouts have new things to learn as well, like the value of the walk.
I'm not saying the hall cannot be a place of celebration, it's just that in celebration one does not need to celebrate a whitewashed and mythologized version of baseball history. negative aspects of the game's history as well as its development has to be acknowledged as well. the hall isn't some kind of production from a marketing department.
The HoF is full of not only "disciplinary" or moral judgments but also political/institutional biases. Significant figures in baseball history like miller are not in but crappy owners of red sox are "honored."
Since the HoF clearly sucks at passing proper and fair value judgment on people's legacies, why should it insist on the legitimacy of its moral judgments against rose etc. Just treat it into a "hall of significant figures in baseball history" and only record brute facts and honest stories. Let the fans and visitors pass judgment on their own.
I don't think bbtia's mvp voting is all that rational. it is what it is, and i don't really care for it.
steve was using the memo as a jumping off point to discuss the failings of the mariner season. you are talking as if steve took the memo more seriously than you did, which is most likely not the case.
old timer records like total wins are products of vastly different usage patterns. i don't really consider them records.
dimaggio's hit streak is kind of a gimmick as well.
this brings up an interesting question, what are the most performance/talent indicative records out there?
oh my goodness gracious! of all the dramatic things I have evah seen
why would they?
3 and 50
the competitive environment is utterly unimportant except for its being necessary for the continued operation of the whole industry.
The issue i care most about is the public subsidies and anti-trust exemption baseball gets, especially the former. I don't really see how teams get aid by lobbying the public all the while without releasing their financial figures to the public.
it's ridiculous to take ruth's numbers at face value given the low skill level back in the day.
dates are messed up
Except it's a legal monopoly and a cartel.
I'm talking about hard slotting and further measures of increasing team control over the amateur pipeline.
Their aim isn't to fix anything, it's to get what they want vs what players want.
How do you know it "works"?
From the players perspective, although amateur guys are not in the union, their talent is a direct replacement for the veteran players. If you make your replacement cheaper, that's simply undercutting yourself even more, especially with the recent trend of teams getting smarter about drafts vs FA.
this is the #1 issue for the players union.
For a guy like mo who relies on one pitch and has such a small sample size of innings pitched, but a substantial number of pitches thrown, I think going into the pitch f/x would be immensely helpful. A lot of what makes him dominant is the way he locates the cutter.
pedro, best ever
1. i am not talking about you, just the fans. more precisely, a certain segment of the fans with bias against bonds over and above what is usually accorded. all the personality factors etc that you cite cannot explain the supposed degree of negativity bonds receives relative to peers who also have similar personality flaws.
2. when i said i don't respect a team, i am not hatin on teams. i just do not give teams positive respect for playing along with a misguided sentiment amongst its customers.
3. my interest in the bonds business is not a sports interest. no matter what the media or some fans say about bonds, my opinion of him as a player will not change.
however, i care about fans reactions just like i care about say how people react to muslims in their neighborhood or something like that. i don't agree with the condemnation and such because humans are behind the condemnations and they are not being smart/correct/fair etc etc.
4. saying bonds cheated at the game seems to view him as a "baseball player." bonds however would say he was just improving his career, doing what he does but doing it better with some technology. i find any sort of judgmental attitude about "cheating the hallowed game" to be taking the fans perspective too seriously.
5. your response is largely reasonable. i just thought you misunderstood my points.
should i simply say, irrationally biased or something? j
I don't respect the teams for reacting to fans' distaste for bonds, because that distaste is unfounded.
decades are rather arbitrary. put lincecum on the "guys doing good so far" list or something
or...he might be fitting the blurbs to each team's fanbase. the reason for not mentioning lupica isn't really its lack of objective pertinence though. it's because lupica is such a huge tool that any mention of him stands to dignify his hackery.
oops, i did it again
imaginary communities and baseball. :)
really simple explanation for arod hate. he's perceived as self centered. in the narrative for sports as written by sports entertainment writers, baseball is about 25 guys working together in a magical competition to win some great prize that's supposed to be the goal of every athlete's existence.
this matches with how most fans engage sports. it is a kind of competitive, idealized drama, an act. fans treat athletes like action figures to play around with, and action figures must act their part: devoted to the things that exist in the fans' imagination, and avoid anything that intrudes into the magical kingdom of sports competition that fans live in.
arod doesn't play to please. he's not a good monkey.
What's betances' ceiling? how does he compare to guys like arodys in terms of projected stuff?
how much do you think lecrab could slug in double aa?
lebron would hit 45 homers and have an obp of .900.
problem with the rays deal is that they already have some good prospects within their system, so their replacement level would be high for anyone but trout and the catcher guy.
seems like you are using a linear expected value for prospects, but that would imply high ceiling, low probability guys and low ceiling, high prob. guys are evaluated in the same way. but premium guys are way harder to find than the average guys, and i think there should be an adjustment to take into account of the higher value of a high ceiling "hit".
hurr natural homers are more delicious and nutritious durr.
numbers reversed in the 2nd chart.
well, i think furbush has more projectable upside based on current cultural trends.
where does furbush rank on the all time great names list
Do you think J.Montero can play rf?
the body of work...rests on attributing that list of events to the manager. this is, let's be honest, a product of tradition, or if you prefer, the narrative of the manager as a helmsman and representative for the team. this is a nice story, but is it really reality?
and the better question is not whether it is reality, it is how much we should care about managers, or how should we care about managers. it seems to me that the better way of appreciating managers is to them as personalities, rather than as a list of accomplishments, tenuously connected. we all like stories of lou the person in baseball, and there should be a way to preserve his value to the annals of baseball without treating it as a statement of wins and losses gained.
it's not that interesting of an aggregate stat, you are better off looking at the distance table of all the homers. however, 400 is not on the small side. the conclusions you draw from this 400 number makes it seem like you think he could only hit homers around 400 feet.
anyway, i'm sure if you've invested half of the time and effort into the question as you've done in getting slightly mad with me, you would understand the problem.
look, it's 8 homeruns, and average distance is the wrong number to look at anyway. if he shows the ability to hit the long bombs (max distance), are you going to hold the shorter ones against him? how about the number of fly balls that don't even become homers?
your question is ridiculously framed.
are you serious
any chance of an emergency add-on for the cliff lee saga? would love to hear jason's reactions
since baseball is probably not going to be capped by then, strasburg's announcement would probably not be that dramatic.
Yea, maybe that's why he said so far.
Shortstop: Derek Jeter, Yankees. The production is matching the intangibles.
i have no idea why baseball's marketing is so fail.
the short story seems to be that there are a number of standards at work here, because the asg has taken on significance within different groups.
for players, it's a sign of accomplishment.
for fans, it is a sign of talent/status.
the fans, at the end of the day, want to be entertained. while the players and maybe management see the game as something more serious.
hence the disparate attitude toward strasburg and the asg.
the yankees should trade for upton, that's what i'd do
why is it ludicrous?
is it time to adjust the interleague variable. the results for this season isn't as stark as past seasons.
if the guy gets to that level, he probably has a nickname already.
stoneburner is a nuke in the dune universe. the theatrical rendition of which has a pretty impressive mushroom cloud to it.
The glory of the national league
4 of the top 5 in the al east. rest of baseball, are you even trying?
what staggers and stumbles are you talking about? nothing is being done.
this argument is silly as long as you realize the game is never perfect but it can progress and improve.
Well, personally the biggest issue here is that there is no review system in baseball. Clearly, in this individual instance, there is a demand for such a system, and this is as good an opportunity as any to bring up the issue of a review system.
If it's a meaningless, blown-out game, the discussion is still affected by context, except that context would underrepresent the importance of correct umpiring.
the outcome of the game is the sum of all events called the game. so obviously, by recording an out as a hit, the outcome has changed. you are really trying to make a value judgment in a sneaky way.
Jay will usually post the combined list immediately after the AL list.
It's not entertaining. It's incompetence. Incompetence on a public stage may attract attention, and even may seem interesting, but it is only "entertaining" by making a clown of the game.
If the call didn't alter the outcome of a game, then the kid would have a perfect game and there would be 27 outs instead of 28. The fact is, the call DID alter the outcome of the game. If you wish to argue that the perfect game isn't really an important "outcome," then just say that.
Then again, even if we accept the only interesting outcome is win and loss, then this call also has altered the outcome of the game. Because outs affect runs scored and affect who wins and who loses. That the winner is the same for this game is only incidental. A wrong call would obviously affect an "outcome" of win and loss one of these days.
iirc, the main argument in the two dogmas essay is an attack on the reduction of meaning into claims of empirical experience. similarly, this article is an attack on the reduction of baseball into simple outcome data
a lot of the problem is that when you claim outcome/process independence, you are likely to make totalizing claims based on outcome alone. instead of claiming to know something valuable about what's going on, you want to claim that based on these and these data, the situation is reducible to your model. however, this is obviously not the case. an awareness of process would mean that what we claim to know about baseball is limited to the "this is a valuable insight" variety. it encourages more refining of the analysis
dohoho .666 factor
gary matthews jr.
well yes, i didn't actually read the indian entry. my bad.
the hitlist factor is partially weighted by predicted performance, which relies on underlying factors like the k rate.
immigration law is a funny thing. it is a tool for applying prejudice, putting into practice the natives' self declared right to discriminate. yet, it is being discussed as a matter of negative effects on civil rights from expanded police power.
given the incredible track record of humanity's ability to take a critical stance upon their own interested actions, i'm certainly expecting an enlightened answer from the american people on the immigration question. one that properly honors the tradition of the nation that it so eloquently claimed in that old declaration thingy.
well, from his first few games, it seems that vazquez is liable to have at least one big inning per game. every game features a stretch where he can't buy a strike, and if he does throw a strike he gets hammered. it is very frustrating to watch for sure.
old school baseball is more qualitative than quantitative. they probably use scouting report on skillset, on the notion of "where the player is" as the basis of their decisions. of course, qualitative methods can only get you so far, especially in baseball where production comes in different modalities.
a point worth noting here is that vazquez had better stuff in spring training. aside from a physical problem, i don't know how you can have a drastic change going from spring training to the season of this magnitude.
psychological stress of real games? that reasoning doesn't have any explanatory mechanism linking stress with the inability to perform your delivery.
you can't mock managers' quotes to the press too severely. they are doing their job and putting up the best spin on the situation, etc etc
The only noteworthy aspect of the A-Mound affair was Braden's tantrum. Guy basically went nuts in a game and made a fool of himself. but obviously, braden won't sell pageviews.
I don't think melky will ever look good. Vizcaino on the other hand...
the problem with wpa can be illustrated by calculating the "wpa" of a series of coin tosses. let's say you make 4 tosses, and for each side, it takes 3 to win.
if you take wpa like a measure of player ability naively, you'd believe in the unbelievable clutchness of the 4th coin.
since i don't have the editing option, i'd just like to add that i know this is probably what the article is going for as well. just bringing the between-the-lines message to the fore, that's all.
oy, seems i missed the part about ifa signings.
while this is a good analysis of the source of the talent gap, i don't really think why teams that aim to improve would exclusively do so on the level of a draft. if, for instance, the competitive pressure is higher in the al, it would explain the draft business, as well as fa and other aspects of building a better club.
you could look at the international fa market as well. i think the most active teams are al teams, not sure though.
he's in the league to showcase his skills. obviously he would want to show off the ability to hit the ball.
how about taking games as the unit instead of innings, and count the number of 3 run or less games instead of scoreless.
how much of a difference exists between montero and someone like posada or victor martinez when it comes to catching defense and such? if the difference isn't huge, like 10 runs a season, i think the yankees will be very happy with him as a catcher, even if he is a bad one.
If you don't have "update player rating from real stats" enabled, chances are you are simply getting crawford as a bad hitting, no power prospect.
any insider knowledge of what sort of metric the teams and agents use when negotiating?
well, i'm not posing the fa class issue as an argument against howard's deal. i am only saying that it's an empirical condition that gives context to howard's deal, a context sensitive to particular team needs and the absolute amount of talent on the short term market. these are things that i think morp's scalar estimation of win value can't capture very well.
my concern with the scarcity bit is that a bad fa class costs teams in win-now mode far more than it does teams in rebuilding mode, or teams that don't have a particularly pressing need for fa talent immediately and can choose when to sign a player they want.
Yea, you can get photos for your coaches and managers as well. I was disappointed with the lack of a gene monahan photo though.
yes, price is scarcity, but i mean by scarcity something more specific here, something on the order of "how much talent is in upcoming fa classes" the baseball fa market is pretty limited, so i'd think there are large discrepancies across fa classes in terms of talent supply. because teams have different outlooks on their window of contention and so forth, the scarcity in particular fa classes and scarcity longterm affect teams differently. if it is the case that the upcoming fa class in the howard contract year is particularly sparse, then even though the longterm morp would not be affected all that much by the seasonal scarcity, a team with a pressing time window of contention would find that their own morp for that particular year is higher than usual. the inability to make decisions in the long term would mean the inability to follow the lower morp curve.
as for waiting for the market to develop, i don't think you should assume that the phillies are forced to sign him no matter what and thus eat all of the risk for high inflation. it is my assumption that howard is a pretty inefficient way of getting your wins for your money, so even if the general price of a win is hugely inflated in the future, you can still find some reasonable replacements at reasonable cost.
the point about scouting and athleticism is well taken. although attributing win value to on field performance is still an issue for the phillies. if they over value the rbi man in an rbi sequence, i do think that's directly attributable to bad stats. how they value rbis do matter, but yea it's not proper to assume that they value it in a dumb way. maybe they don't pay attention to stats at all and simply evaluate ability or something.
It seems that the pure dollar figure isn't what people are up in arms about, but the timing of the extension, and the number of years involved. They are ot waiting for the market to develop, and not waiting for howard's 2 extra years of evaluation time to yield data to minimize the eval risk. These seem like major gambling decisions on future market condition and the strength of the team's scouting and baseball knowledge.
As I've said elsewhere, one of the most important factors here is market scarcity. An analysis of what the phillies could expect to get on the FA market etc can help put the howard deal in context.
Also, Howard is clearly not being evaluated by advanced stats, and given what we know about the phillies, it's reasonable to assume that the phillies were paying for stats that are overvalued. This is simply a "sabr" judgment, because the stats phils use to value howard are bad, they suffered some loss on that front. If they could get the same production from the market, but represented in less flashy stats, I'd say they would most likely get a much better deal.
i think finding out "what they do pay" is a descriptive analysis rather than positive analysis. what they should pay is an analysis that relies on positive assessments of the various factors involved. normative is reserved for when the reasoning of a normative decision is in question. in this case the normative decision is quite thin, simply consisting of the concept of "sign it if it's worth the money!" but for something like distributive economics, quite a bit of substantial normative theory should be involved.
this is from general practice in ethics and political theory, not economics. seems like there is a disciplinary divide.
Seems to me that the marginal revenue model is really the key here. The phillies would need several things to break right in order for the deal to make sense:
1. howard produces within reasonable bounds
2. the rest of the team produces within reasonable bounds, so that howard's win added is applied when mr/win is high.
3. howard's contract does not prevent them from signing arguably more important pieces, at higher win/price.
4. general economic conditions are such that the revenue figures are as projected and inflation raises the price of a win.
also, we should take into account market scarcity. how many players of howard's caliber can be obtained, and the cost of doing so? if no direct replacement can be found, then the cost of replacing component production? it seems that they feel howard is on the same "tier" of franchise player as mauer, using bad indicators of performance like mvp awards and rbis. nevertheless, i think the main thinking for the team is that they don't think they'll get the same level of performance from the market or from their farm in the period, and they are trying to build an upscale team that can sustain high level of winning a la yankees/sox every single year.
the evaluation of the deal mainly depends on the market scarcity condition and their ability to actually resign the more efficient assets under their control. a big question here is whether the lee trade was in any way affected by the impending howard extension. if it is, then that is just a disaster.
I just got the game a few days ago and oh boy it is a black hole devouring my spare time. The level of depth in the game is pretty astounding. I especially like how you can choose to use various talent scouting scales, like the 20-80 instead of stars based, or tell your scouts to look for the infamous statistical performer rather than toolsy prospects.
Only complaint is that the ai trading scheme is a little out of whack. You can get a high ceiling prospect by simply trading away 10 absolute nonprospects. I don't think that's a realistic valuation when you take into account roster scarcity.
pecota heavily discounts some of the yankees veterans' performances. age may yet catch up with them, but without a physical report on their declining athletic abilities i'm not really comfortable projecting aging decline based on historical trends alone. history doesn't have the same technology.
math, you are doing it wrong.
with modern medicine and care, i don't think historic decline patterns remain valid. at least, there will be exceptions.
the clear flaw to the method is that it assumes all teams have only one goal in mind, to achieve the highest efficient return on their investment. however, clearly teams in different markets and with different operational goals have different normative aims. the marlins etc might just want to make a profit with minimal investment, while the yankees invest in stars, badly or wisely, to build their brand and thus business. at least recognize the gross simplification
I think a good addition to this analysis would be a more direct concern with efficiency. The implicit value of developing your own talent is that you can use them for far cheaper than market price. Not all auction market signings are made with the same value, so teams that are more efficient in spending their free agent money would do more with less.
excellent articles regardless
The article series next year could include the amount of money spent and players signed on the international market.
What sanctimonious attitude? How about your judgmental attitude on a complicated moral issue? You expect everyone who made the decision to use steroids to go to hell or something?
what a joyful outlook you have for other people. caricatures are enjoyed by the caricaturists
problem is, unless the league is run like a commune (bad idea), a salary cap isn't a fair solution. the unfairness there is between owners and players, a far more serious issue than a level playing field for franchises.
i mean, looking at the financial system of the game, the importance of a smart front office, and the questionable choices of certain owners, how much passion can there be in mere team loyalties except childhood attachment? root for baseball on the field, root for the game. teams are pretty hollow when you take a deeper look.
of course, rooting for sports teams is like casual nationalism and tribalism, but unlike nationalism, it is harmless and fun.
good article again. with the yankees, people tend to focus on the financial side, or talk about the organization's numerous advantages. all of these are valid concerns, but lost in this is the genuine talent and gameplay of the players. at least for one day, i think we should appreciate the baseball that was played before getting back to flaming.
small sample size says you are wrong. the yankees could have lost the series easily.
The ws mvp award is kind of a tack-on trophy to show great honor, it doesn't really displace the greater glory of winning as a team. i can understand why people feel that the award should go to the winner. theirs is not a judgment of player performance, just the instinct for the guy with the great honor.
also, great honor
THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE PHILADELPHIA BOURGEOISIE
+1 to you, good sir
Selig's response to the replay issue is downright theatrical.
“The more baseball people I talk to, there is a lot of trepidation about it and I think their trepidation is fair,” Ok, cite an authority, but "baseball people?" Is he expecting people to take this appeal to insider wisdom seriously?
i think jeter is doing this to send a signal to the team to play "tough" or more grinding. he started bunting from the beginning of the playoffs, ircc, in one of his first at bats. whether bunting and smallball is the right way notwithstanding, jeter understands them as such.
but of course, when comparing across teams, this effect should more or less affect everyone equally, or not?
a potential problem with the third time around data is that some starters, namely the bad ones, don't make it to the third time around.
Well, if you are going to credit the salary of morales, credit it to the "system."
im not saying all factors are quantifiable, just demanding that quantifiable factors at least be quantified if possible. don't list a bunch of stuff without qualifying for the size of each.
it's time espn stops calling their talking points "analysis," because analysis in baseball has to be quantitative and seize on the important factors first. sure, errors were dramatic moments in some games, but angels faced good pitching, while didn't manage to outlast the yankees in some games. the angels didn't really choke or lose the series, they just weren't good enough.
well, only fair that a toolish question gets the same kind of answer
thought about the phillies? who the fuck are the phillies, some minor league team surely.
i don't think any network "cares"
i don't think the variation in acceleration is the source of deception here, more like release and pitch movement. i mean, velocity is just a number, but our brains work with much more than a number. the hitter has to recognize the pitch, determine a certain area in which to focus attention etc.
terminal velo isn't any better than the initial velo in terms of representing true pitch speed. i guess with all the release point difference and the way different batters position themselves, measuring true veolcity will be difficult and depends on improved data gathering
mauer vs pujols turns on whether you consider positional value as a part of the player's talent, or something incidental.
half of their lineup plain sucked, and improvements weren't made at even very low marginal cost. that's about it.
"If Reggie Jackson was the player most readily thought of when you ask, 'who's Mr. October?', then Joe Torre is surely the managerial version."
it's not having the first pick, but having a higher pick than is normal
problem with investing in defense is that, based on anecdotal recollection, i don't think defense is as stable a skill as on-base ability. you see guys who were good defensive players early in their careers lose a step later on, yet still keep their reputation and inflated value.
you can't lose 2 games when you only play one disastrously bad game. and the hitlist equivalent, if you lose by 7 runs, you haven't lost by 30 like some viewers at home would want to believe.
it does, by according that payroll the performance it generated, in the case of dl'd players something like 0. your argument is that dl time should be excused as natural accidents. this is a debatable question, but like shawn said, injuries are a real problem that teams have to deal with, and whether that is dealt with successfully or not is a part of the gm's job. it is really hard to draw the line between aberrant and excusable injury plague and normal wear and tear.
while fluctuations like that are significant when they do exist, you have to show that there is a way to control the fluctuation to show a need to account for them in gm evaluation. otherwise you are crediting people for luck.
that's fine from an owners' point of view, but this is a site written for fans, presumably, and fans are interested in wins.
Since when is playing for the team that drafted you a sacred duty, the violation of which is a “slap in the face” to presumably all things wholesome and good? Must be a world in which players happily volunteer to be drafted and rejoice in their privilege of negotiating with that special one team that will value them for the same reasons that their mommies love them.
as a yankees fan, I don't want to see CC win the cy young. i'd rather see the team save his arm for the postseason.
what in the world are you talking about
should give the average signing % and also median signing bonus totals.
where were these informed people describing what happened to the rays as a unique "plan to success?
the angels seem to be getting their pitching in order. this is an ominous development for evil empire fans
given that so called groundball pitchers would probably want to get the groundball in most normal situations, their approach probably wouldn't change when it is a dp situation. perhaps comparing their gb ratios in dp situations with those in runner on third situations would better showcase the results of situational pitching.
you have limited resources, so you want to put your money in the most efficient options. of course cost is important.
they are stockpiling value by trading immediate impact for future upside. the talent level is only going up, and huntington seems to know what he's doing.
less expensive, more club control, and probably higher upside.
hm, is there plan to introduce a last-n game ranking to see the movers and shakers? could be a nice addition to the body of work ranking
he may have cited 2 bad stats, but more honest analysis does show that al > nl at least in strength across the board.
It would be interesting to look at a comparison of league strength in terms of individual player performance. To what extent does nl or al inflate individual stats. but I suppose the data available for such a comparison has too many noisy factors
im going to drop the mets show after the sheff arc
"that year, eight home runs were hit to right field, three to center, and 182 to left"
omg i sorry for snarky comment last time! i forgot to delete the last line of my post xD even though i felt bad about it afterwards. this is still the most interesting and best power ranking. ^_^
the point of measures like expected wins and underlying performance formula is the idea that actual records obscure more stable and baseline performance.
it is a reasonable direction of inquiry given the factor of luck, and the expectation that luck does not continue.
I dont think even baseball writers take wins seriously for relievers. It is the great showdown of irrelevant stats, saves vs wins.
sheff, meet the press
i didn't imply that it wasn't a factor, nor did i mean it too seriously. after all, what's a few % in the factor when it translates to maybe 2% higher chance of a title
since the separation between nl and al is well acknowledged, the hit list should at least take into account the crummy competition that impact a few of the indexes used for the composite. is the dodgers even the 3rd best team in the al east?
either way, not buying this ranking.
or leverage adjusted marginal annual revenue
annual is kind of a throw-in.
Leverage Adjusted MArginal Revenue
scaled marginal apportionment return tier
scaled-to-market assessment of return per team
not too satisfied with what t stands for, but both should acro to S.M.A.R.T.
cool analogy bro
well intended article that is lost on the public due to general inability to understand the idea that pay structures are partially the result of power/politics, or more plainly, human action under the purview of concepts such as justice and fairness. yes, strasburg is on the spot, but the general direction of the public discussion, zimmerman's comment being just an example, is that strasburg is "holding out" or holding in hostage a poor franchise. the leverage seems to be in the hands of the individual player, who after all does not own the identity of "The Nationals" under whose aegis fans align themselves. what is out of sight, and indeed out of mind, is the context under which that negotiation take place. the draft didn't descend from G_d or appear as Natural Law out of the olde country, it is the result of power play and history. the context is in other words not a given that is immune to judgment of fairness and justice. it may be the case that strasburg is being selfish, (as if he has an obligation to serve a bunch of people's devotion to a constructed entity remains a marvel of human nature) but perhaps his selfish fight for his fair value (after all, who wouldn't want to work as an indentured servant for a chance to gain the privilege of being dealt with fairly) isn't so damning in the proper historic context?
one of the more interesting things about sports is the persistent illusion of equating ownership and management with The Team, or rather, how easily the ownership and management claim The Team as a part of their rhetoric. since fans care about the team, and the front office etc are "running" the team, fans have a tendency to the team is a show, and both owners and players do play their part in driving it. nevertheless, let's take fans' interest as a given, how to assess conflicts between the two sides that impact The Team? taking this single deal in isolation, the only thing that affects the welfare of the team is the existence of conflict, that is to say, whether strasburg gets 10% of his value or 80% is irrelevant. then, to determine who fans should blame more, we'll have to rely on some notion of fair value, because the damning behavior here is one side being too cheap/too greedy, with the fair value point being the watershed standard. if the player demands more than his fair value, then he is greedy, and vice versa. it is ok if you subscribe to another school of labor ethics, like say the power-blind free market of lore thingy, but at the very least the idea of a fair field of negotiation should still be relevant. assessing the fairness of this structural set-up is the central problem of any responsible assessment of the strasburg situation, and this is sheehan's main point even if not explicitly outlined. it is however flying high above the head of many people too happy with the fairly headless sensationalisation of sporting salaries in the main stream media. the idea of the star athlete, incidentally, is another thing that must both be loathed and worshiped, by the same society.
keep up the great work.
you guys are missing the real substance of zimmerman's quote, the context in which he talks about the situation, the way he frames the problem as strasburg's higher demand and sense of entitlement. this is a common enough sentiment in the public's view of athletes, but it is also ironic to the extreme since it misrepresents the situation to the disadvantage of players like zimmerman. it is this "class traitor" behavior, to pull a phrase from the mythical past with real politics, that sheehan wanted to grill.
when i heard theo tried to pry away king felix, i was TERRIFIED but thankful that it didn't come to pass.
Statistical aggregations pretty much have to live with the outliers. Individually they can only be explained case by case, and taken as a whole the existence of outliers is almost expected. Look at the Netflix contest where a small number of “controversial” movies cause most of the headaches for rating algorithms that rely on statistical trends. This is not to say that there are no general explanations for the outliers on any level, but that they are expected, or require more information than is accountable in the system. I guess a general theory might be that there are areas of the game that are not large enough to affect the overall predictive picture, but do affect a small number of players disproportionally. for instance, variations in pitch repertoire like that of wang may have be analysed by a formula that is produced by fitting with the body of pitchers that do not pitch like wang. So the predictive era formula produced like this probably wont work for wang. Yet, there is nothing one can do on the macro level. No tinkering with the formulas save going into more detail and building things from a more fundamental level can help with the outlier cases.
If pecota is a tabletop, it may appear smooth to the eye, but take a scanning microscope to it, and one will see bumps and holes. However, there is really no way to observe the small bumps without zooming in, and thereby losing the original units of measurement, and even the original laws of physics. To complete the analogy, the naked eye’s view is the broad statistical trends, while case specific accounts do take into account the information that is introduced by zooming in with the microscope. By this analogy, there will not likely be a statistical solution to the problem of individual outliers, because the sources of explanation for them likely wont be statistical but mechanical/scouty (unless we invent a new set of base statistics that can take into account the mechanical/scouty points. This is however a dismal prospect)
refining the underlying metrics-runs-(wins) relationship that should be the macro level holy grail of baseball analysis
you've touched on an important and neglected topic here. good work
Since hughes is still on an innings limit, I’d think that his being in the bullpen is a temporary move, and he would be moved, or eased into the rotation just in time for post-season. this gives the team another option besides andy petite. Post season reputations aside, I like hughes’ stuff more.
well, the regular batter card that they show before every at-bat is not that big of a piece of real estate. i can see people accepting adding obp and slg, but that space can't be stuffed too full. i think it can tolerate 4.5 numbers, with 5 being really stretching it.
another problem is that triple slash stats are rates, and if we are to replace the triple crown numbers with rates to avoid crowding, sample size becomes an issue. we need something like vorp or some other counting stat to replace rbi, or something along those lines.
the mets are showing their regional cable company management roots. strive to be respectable with a few star signings, keep up the storefront and stabilize the territory. however, they have no real commitment to improving their lot, so there is no attention to detail and effort at improving operations/management that determine the quality of the majority of your roster spots. smart and diligent teams would have at least presentable replacements. in the cable business, some of your customers are stuck with you, whether it is because of the location of their home, or that special deal you have with attractive channels. whether you slack off in managing their customer service requests, signal problems, or the upload/download cap of bundled internet services, your customers are still there. energy spent on improving marginal services to these people is not rewarded. as long as you make deals with the big players, present some bullet point attractions on your ads, you have fulfilled the duties of a cable company.
in all fairness to fox etc, much of advanced stats is too complicated and/or disjointed to be used in a medium of entertainment. an “advanced” stat like triple slash has a problem: there are three numbers, none of which makes too much sense alone. people don’t really care about how complicated a stat is as long as they think it is credible, but it is almost physically impossible to present a spreadsheet of derivative stats to a casual audience interested in some relaxation. the best hope for an enlightened statistical presentation in telecasts would not come until a quality aggregator number (or possibly two) gains popular recognition.
Motion to replace sabermetric with scientific or something less niche sounding.
“clinical” baseball people often talk about physical/visual signs of pitchers reaching the limit while disparaging a purely numerical pitch limit. the question may be better served to will, but are there clear physiological signs linked with the pitcher crossing into risky territory. the follow-up question for an integrated approach might be, whether the physical/visible signs are clear indicators, or whether there is a certain numerical line that is not represented in visible or felt physical duress but still statistically indicates risk.
while what you said about the media may be true, it is not like steven has harped on this issue for long. a single article is not piling on. unless of course you are talking about the misfortunes and foibles of the Amazings. in that case, it is a pile of amazing mess indeed.
What mistake did Fisher make?
Excellent article. Although as we see more and more of these player evaluations that incorporate the business side of baseball, we are no longer assessing a question of player impact, but a question of marginal profits. The only interesting information for fans derived from answering the second question seems to be that, if a move is sensible on the ledger, then the team will or at least likely to make the move. But to make this information tangible, we should at least understand whether teams are adopting this approach of evaluation. They need not be following the exact model, but should be following a quantitative and marginal approach. If most of the teams are not doing this, then the sound assessment in this piece and others like it will likely only inform spectator GM/owner wannabes.
Was that bit about calculating the failure rate really necessary, since this is not a intro stats lecture.
ya, hotlink disabled for that site.
Not really. It is a stage to market your stars and create individual buzz. too bad baseball is too fluky and frankly not national enough to take advantage of the opportunity and make new stars.
I think the managerial attitude, number of players, or how players are used etc are all deck chairs. The more important change is in the amount of care fans show for the concept of the league rivalry. The traditional sense of each league being their independent entity capable of having rivalries is lost on the younger fan. I dont see it coming back any time soon.
I don't really mind this change. The focus of the game has been turned toward players, rather than the structural drama of the game that owners have more of a stake in. It is in line with how the game is being marketed right now.
pitchers are notoriously streaky, especially relievers. rewarding them for short seasons while discounting guys who put up stable performances every year (like mariano) is a bit of a rushed judgment.
but you have to remember that the teams are not similar scale business operations. the yankees for example has their own cable network, their own marketing agreements internationally etc. the business is run differently, under a different assumed revenue stream that is itself a variable in the plan. it means that it is a choice of the yankees to make their operations this large.
if you cap their share artificially, there will be no incentive for them to develop the new york market. existing entities like YES are not subject to baseball regulations by itself, so i don't see how that operation itself can be made to service baseball as a whole.
That suggests Rodriguez may be laying off pitches that he'd otherwise hit, and hit hard.
Could you expand upon this point? It seems to me that the more likely explanation is indeed a change in A-Rod's approach, but the reasoning there should be that he wants to still be productive while not hitting the ball.
Quantity numbers per se does not lead to the ideal of talent and performance. Rather, any emphasis on individual performance and feats will do. Case in point, racing sports (not vroom vroom left turn) where the performance is known by the title of fastest rather than specific times are even more vivid examples of how people respond to performances delivered under steroids or other enhancements, usually involving needles and introduction of substances not made on a farm. The attachment to specific quantities in baseball is just because athletic feats in baseball are measured in the historic context, which is a list of specific numbers. Why is 73 homeruns impressive? Because it is this much more than the next best; and it is rare to see totals this high. Still, even if baseball is a racing sport, as long as individual feats are celebrated and individual legacies etched in the history of the game, people who think steroids are unnatural or otherwise improper performance enhancements will still care.
I’m feeling prodigiously bored, so I will outline my theory of why people care about baseball roid-use. There is also a bit comparison against football and wrestling, but im not sure on that point.
This situation has its source in the ideal of athletic talent, of which athletic performance is the demonstration. Why are people amazed at individual athletes? Why are their feats impressive? The ideal of talent is the answer. Roughly speaking, let’s divide sporting events into two kinds, the talent centric and the community centric. The community centric events are meaningful because they are social performances, like how football evolved from rivalry games between villages. They are team centric and place value in winning as a collective effort. Individual performances are celebrated in team games, but whether it is marketing or the predominance of team-centered loyalties, the bulk of attention is dominated by the well-being of teams.
Then, we have individual competition, where players have individual legacies that stand above the game and dominate its history. The Olympics is the precursory example of this individual event, but individual legacies have a heightened place in baseball as well.
The talent-centric competition is inseparable from questions of “who is better.” This question can’t be satisfied by mere “numbers,” rather, people find qualitative answers more to the tune of the question. Your guy has to be Better, in the sense of belonging to a higher tier, having a higher status etc. Other arguments and facts are instrumental to proving this basic difference in, natural talent tier. Here, players are compared in abstraction of their preparation or other things that they do to affect performance. They are compared as abstracted containers of performance levels. There is really no good discursive conditions that this abstraction satisfies, but this is natural, because it is the unreflected and natural way people compare talents, a rough and unclearly defined baseline performance. The space of this tier system is natural talent. People may introduce work ideals into this space, and steroids are discounted as dishonest work there, but work does not produce “betterness,” it merely affects the fullness of performance of talent. Fans are still, in the end, awed by superior beings.
The two kinds of events have cross-sections obviously, but the division here is to explain the two sources of appreciation for sports, and only the individual one is severely affected by steroids. For American football, there is also the factor that the game is sold as a series of actions. It is like an action movie, with some sort of plot. The mode of appreciation for physical prowess is different there than it is in baseball, at least when it was not being marketed as a homerun derby.
The audience watches these talent-centric competitions to see, or worship the specimen. The quality of natural talent on the altar is best represented in the construction of Homeric gods. Physical elites are marvelous because their talent is natural-born, essential, preordained, etc. Even if you produce specimens from a lab, viewing that will be a different experience if the audience understands that what they are watching is a completely understandable human production. Seeing an army of The Hulk smash balls 700 feet may be marvelous, but the object of wonder is not the Person, but the technology and perhaps biology. If we understand the ideal of natural talent, and its operative importance in the appreciation of baseball players, certain types of vilification of steroids users is easy to explain. Steroids are seen as artificial additives to one’s natural talent. It raises the user to a level of elite status that is “undeserved.” the god has no godhood; they are not all that amazing, just “pretenders” unlike old timers to whom the ideals still apply. This explains why corrective surgeries, even though they achieve the same performance boost, are not vilified. They merely enable, not produce, the level of natural talent. The ideal of natural talent is undefiled there. Fans want to see natural talent, to worship specimen and be awed by them. This is a matter of taste, or rather, a choice of consumption. When it is denied, fans complain. However, this complaint is over a matter of entertainment, not any serious issue of moral gravitas.
This is a really animal spirit –ish situation. I don’t really care that much about fans having the correct point of view. However, the true vacuum of accountability is not found in the sporting arena, but outside in the peanut galleries. Fans think that they are entitled to call people harsh names etc, or rather, they do not think at all when they pass judgment. Merely that they have any sort of judgmental impulse is a reason for expression. So it is really useless trying to change the fans’ opinions on this kind of aesthetic judgments, just like it is useless to persuade the kids to not be so harsh to their mother’s mashed potatoes.
that is my reason against peds also, but i limit it to the non-pro level. for professionals, you could argue that taking roids is something they want to do, however misguided that may potentially be in terms of their long term health. having the option of getting extra money can be construed as a pro labor point, although the market context is certainly perverse.
nevertheless, this reason does not describe the majority of attitudes here and elsewhere. if someone holds this attitude, then there would be no reason to vilify individual players either, since they are more like victims or unwitting participants in a perverse cascade.
nice article. bonds rulez!!1 etc
While this is a fine descriptive account of why people feel steroids violate the sanctity of sporting competition, it is not a justification of indignation. Sports competition is a business of entertainment, and fans involve themselves in an obviously constructed IMAGE of competition. The athletes themselves are not mystical kids on a grand stage a la Joe D the kid or Willie Mays anymore, even though people still want to see them in that light. The question is, when it turns out that the reality of baseball is different from the ideal image of competition, do you think people have a right to complain and question the personal characters of players, or should they realize that their expectations were unrealistic.
The issue about the game losing appeal though, is a factual and serious matter. Though the fans should adjust their view of the game, that adjustment is unpleasant and makes the game less enjoyable. This however is a case of systematic mismanagement, not steroids itself, but the response and media presence of the issue. the furious response by the fans, although unworthwhile taken in face value, is still a serious fact affecting the game’s positions. Although, a more serious matter seems to be the game’s appeal to younger, ADD fans with no interest in the history and stories that baseball does so well to cultivate, the same factors that are most directly hit by steroids.
Well, the post would have failed its purpose if it wasn’t derogative, but since your specific objection was over the term moralist, as though it had special (derogatory) significance, it was my aim to dissuade you of this belief.
I used the awkward term moralist because this indignation is similar to other gut-level moral responses that people have. It is not the product of reflective thinking, so by some commonly accepted picture of moral judgment, it is a reaction of moral sentiments. I am not a non-cognitivist, so I’m not using the term in a derogatory sense.
Make a case for your anger or indignation that is based on sound and balanced moral principles, because the morality of the matter is not simple, nor is it an obviously grave matter. (it is a goddamn GAME, that dudes talk about as ENTERTAINMENT) The sort of “justificatory” arguments offered on behalf of steroid users are not positive justifications of the “it is a good thing to do” sort (though that is a possible, but misguided argument for different reasons that you probably imagine), rather, they are aimed at exposing the reasons for zealous condemnation of the users. For instance, pointing out that baseball has a long and sordid history of “unfair competition”, is not to say that steroids is completely neutral to fairness, but that it is not a singular or qualitatively revelatory case. In more descriptive words, baseball didn’t lose its fairness virginity to roids. The argument that baseball is a business and the money motive is significant is aimed at dislodging an inexplicably simplistic image of the users’ values and thought process, one that has them as unscrupulous defilers of the game’s rules. Given the proper economic context, it is at least understandable that certain decisions were made. Pointing out the steroid frenzy as a recent phenomenon has the double effect of putting the current anxieties in historic context, which would immediately show that the reaction is disproportionate, and also suggesting that the substance of the cases is not responsible for the agitation, but rather the structure of its discourse is responsible. That an issue is brought to attention is itself a significant fact affecting views upon it.
The moral sceptical side does not need to rely on purely critical argument either. There is a fairly easy picture to be drawn on the rough shape of the moral indignations. We say that these indignations are in response to not realities of the game, but to ideals. Ideals of natural talent and fair competition which sanctifies a player’s place in history by his achievements. Ideals of the natural way of work, against which steroids seem like a shortcut and thus unnatural, while the biological processes at work is hardly differentiated against nutrients or proper training technique on either mechanical or consequential grounds. Then there is the ideal of the pristine if not idyllic game, which is a causal and fun thing at heart rather than the reality of a competitive war of labor versus management. Fans do not want to confront their casual entertainment as a calculating place dominated by economic logic, a place that is uninterested in the fun and entertaining ideals of “competitive play” or “WINNING!!!11” that appeals to fans. When fans are presented with athletes as real persons, their ideal mode of digesting the players are disrupted. the players are seen as not playing properly, even though the standard by which that image is formed is itself a gigantic self serving fantasy.
The moralist's Bible...
1. It is wrong!
2. It is cheating!
3. It is horrible, the horror!
4. Goddamn the cheaters!
5. These are men of shady character, so of course they are cheaters!
6. Let me draw a diagram for ya, cheating makes them cheaters, and cheaters cheat! See how pretty this is?
7. They are also greedy villains, robbing the honest ballclubs and owners of their money!
8. I knew that guy was up to no good!
Yet we still do not have a rigorous understanding of exactly how much performance is accounted for by the PEDs alone. The recent big news names all seem to suggest that this quantity is large, but we also know that scrawny players and singles hitters take them too. If baseball wants to react intelligently to the historical legacy of this period, there needs to be an authoritative study done on how much performance baseball pros receive from the drugs.
It is just a story, which by its nature of being talked about gets people to posture.
i have to say about the homerun rate, sample size. im sorry, but it is too small.
but we must remember, pierre will never clog the bases. the dread!
career vorp is useful in comparing players with similar roles. a closer may be a better pitcher by ability, but given his role the vorp will be low. also does not take into account defense.
The Saga of Jerry Manuel is the most entertaining baseball situation in new york.
good show, enjoyed it highly
so the only way manny can prove his innocence is if he takes out prescription tabs for whatever male enhancement material he was taking.
i gather you see a steeper decline in 4/7 because of the spikes around pitch 20, but that could be situational, say getting into a jam. as you can see he dialed it up again later in the game for a few pitches, showing that he's holding something back in the regular ones.
Though something as significant as Yankee stadium isn't a good opportunity to adventurous innovation. It has all sorts of conventional inertia tying it down.
hmm no editing function? :3
when i have the box score in front of me, it tells me what happened, but not in a way that would excite me. events like a walk off homerun or a bases loaded jam are not meaningfully represented by numbers, which for all i know could be off by one or two and the impression of the game would not be affected. we then look for narratives for the game, or at any rate we look for material that can represent and participate in our excitement. the beat writer story happens to be very quick on the ball in this. it is the first thing that gets written or said on the game. the function occupied by the beat writer, whose story also runs in the next day newspaper, is to provide this first narrative. maybe it is even referenced by newspeople who do not have the time to watch the game itself, but still wants to write about it. sports center and such is a replacement, but only for people who watch it.
and the matter of media consumption is not like fueling a car or something. the decreasing return on further excitement is real, but it is not so drastic. if i watch some highlights, i probably would not want to read the game recap as much, but i would still read it with interest. when it is a high intensity game, i would probably read anything that touches on it. so for something like sportscenter to replace the game reporter, it is not enough that the former provides all the functions; it must satiate some needs to such an extent that people do not want to look at stories anymore. of course, when sportscenter is on, you probably drop the written story and watch it, but when you are on a subway train with a paper, you probably still reads the sports section.
in any case, i dont have a tv. so i wouldn't know what sportscenter would mean if people watch it 10 times a day.
let's take a yahoo box score for example, which has
\"real sports\" is a value judgement. maybe some people disagree with your idea of competition? in any case, i have no idea why you made a comment like this when nobody has even mentioned the overtime rule.
Great point, and one that seems to be ignored by BP when it comes to projections on historical comparables. It is reasonable to believe that advanced medical and training methods would extend careers that are worth millions. The concept of \"aging well\" is used often, but the conditions that lead to a player aging well seem vague or scantily described. It is mostly attributed to some natural, physical ability like being athletic, but maybe what the player did to his body is also a factor?
Of course, we would need sufficient data on modern aging to know whether there is something substantial behind the conjecture. How about a study?
I know statistics deal with long run trends and expectations, but i think for the yankees hitting one out of the park is more valuable, so that taking a chance, a chance that they could suffer, is more sensible for them. Their imported pitchers in the last few years were not guys with immensely high ceilings mostly, they could feel that it is time to just aim higher and write off losses as acceptable risk.
would like to see more articles on pecota, which is an evaluation and prediction methodology, discussing how well it has worked and how it can be improved etc.
The first line is a bit misleading, I am not arguing that taking steroids in MLB in 2003 etc is ok, but the type of energetic reactions are misguided. People do wrong things all the time, but reactions are of varying degrees. There is something particularly irritating when I see people treating steroid use so seriously as to write off entire careers, all in a reflexive second.
there is a basic moral rift between those who are seriously upset by steroid usage and those who see it on the level of pot. to form an overall judgment of the entire situation, both sides of the rift should be examined, with their basic motivation laid bare.
personally i cannot manage to be captivated by the \"cheater!!\" chorus. would someone make actual arguments, in proper form, to justify both the particular forms of reaction and their magnitude.
well, the most glaring hysterical behavior comes from reactionaries who scream \"cheater!!11\" etc, so a levelheaded response to the entire situation should address these shriekers first, as is proper.
and please quantify what \"it works\" means please.
The degree to which performance enhancement from PEDs are held to be illegitimate is not a clear cut question as some believe. Suppose we have a safe substance with common accessibility, and potency on par with any anabolic steroid, but that it is a cutting edge thing and some guys use it and some do not, due to differing networking. What would the rationale be for baseball to restrict its use, if at all. Players do things that both improve performance, and does so with efficiency. Should we value an ethics of hardwork in such a manner that we refuse to adjust to the reality of a new technology. Advantages of this form are widespread in society, yet they pass without remark save from radical quarters. I find any moral indignation towards people finding quick shortcuts more than a little hollow, given the uneven treatment.
Imagine however a different approach to this chemical. It is marketed and legitimized, as a performance booster that makes you successful. We have Barry Bonds doing advertisements on it, and A-Rod making endorsements after games. Is it difficult to imagine such a turn of events, given that we have a perfectly safe and legitimized substance? Of course, there will be great choruses of lament from all quarters over the \'ethical implications\', by which they mean a perversion of the ideal athletic themes of natural talent. The most heated sentiment generated will be one of historical comparison, not on performance, but on talent. That we watch sports to see amazing talent, to worship talent is the main reason why people feel that players, for perfectly understandable practical reasons, help themselves is such a moral wrong, because they mess up our little obsession with competition and natural hierarchy.
The regulation of steroids from a moral standpoint will never succeed on that sentiment alone. That sentiment may lead to commercial regulations to preserve the viability of a competition in providing such \"pure\" performances, but that endeavor is far short of a moral outcry. The current justification of steroids regulation is not a performance issue, it is a safety issue, and later turned into a pr issue to placate a public morality that is terrible at best. Although I do feel that steroids should be phased out of sports because of legitimate safety and perverse incentive and competition issues, it must be understood that this phasing out is in the service of the players, not to placate a \'spirit of the game\' that remains riddled with hypocrisy and ignorance.
Nevertheless, in terms of baseball history, going to jail is less of a black eye than \'CHEATER!!\' Not that going to prison because you made a choice with steroids is in any way less silly than treating ped use as cheating on the level of changing the nature of the performed acts, but people do care more about the baseball side of the matter.
guess what else they\'ve been for years.
jeter can\'t reach arod with a 10 foot pole even if he took roids
Owners would probably abusing this issue and leverage public opinion against the union.
roger on a roid rage with huge balls of fire
somehow convinced, you mean somehow overpowered?
Players are encouraged to be better and stronger, and that is all the motivation behind taking substances. It is not like choosing between robbing a store and working in the decision to make money, where one option is substantively different than the other. It is more like choosing between running mcdonalds and running a weed dealership, or running a family friendly brothel. The distinction between a taboo substance and a positive one like beer turns on the bankrupt notion of \'natural.\' Hey, because I don\'t understand the thing, it is obviously twisted and perverse. The very fucking reason steroids work is because they can interact with the body through natural processes. The amount of ambiguity contained in the word natural is so goddamn immense that I find it impossible to use the word with any moral force provided that one understands its shifting and conventional nature.
When we say taking steroids is cheating, there is a technical and a moral thrust. The technical thrust depends entirely on whether access is legitimate as defined by whatever rulemaking body in charge. If someone accessed a substance while others are prevented from doing so by their rule abiding decision, then it is cheating. It is on this institutional decision alone. The argument that steroids as a substance is cheating is too tenuous to merit a look. The moral thrust, which is the front that generates the entire fiasco in the first place, is nuanced and not well described by the shrill voice screaming \"HE CHEATED!!!11!\" The correct phrase in place of \"he cheated!!!11\" is, \"he is mispositioned during a regulatory transition!!!!111\" Oh damn, Bonds is such a dastardly perpetrator of failure to anticipate regulatory change! our world has gone tits up!
the media is a shorthand for media driven culture, not the people working in your local stations.
goddamn i love pujols. obliviously good.
maybe the nature of baseball as a spectator sport plays a part too, in that not only winning matters, but also the method of winning and moreso the appearance and impression of that method. two styles of play may produce the same outcome in efficiency, but the flashier one will be perceived better. the flashier plays will be accorded more credit etc.
people in the stands still operate by traditional perceptions of baseball aptitude. when you have a guy that makes a ton of invisible contributions like walking to first base, holding up the game by taking pitches etc, but he also makes the occasional high profile error and show visible signs of laziness, then the fan perception of the guy will not be a \"winning player.\"
an all hit no field player still retains much of his value given the proper roster, but to fans such a player is not a pleasure to watch. although offense is more marginally differentiated than defense, the players spend longer time on defense than offense, and the mistakes or ineptitudes in the former are more visible.
of course, we have not looked at how teams value fan perception of winning vs actual results, but perhaps there is something there. the biggest argument against it from actual behavior would be consistency over teams, but holding baesball teams to a consistent standard of judiciousness is just unrealistic
it is interesting to catch myself during the act of judging a personal story by impressions created in the sports scene. when the story first broke, the reflexive reaction was just \"aha! torre really does suck! blowhard!\"
i still don\'t know what the calm and intelligent response is. guy trying to sell a book amidst a charged media circus?
i just think that teams don\'t want to win. winning is a game that is paraded out to make a narrative for the fans.
most teams have winning as a component of running the business. all this chemistry bullshit is just cover for shifting scale of operation. they don\'t want to spend money in a recession.
the five year wait is interesting for players like bonds. how will voters mellow with time to the steroid era? i suppose they will be recalcitrant and rely on coachspeak.
saddle me up stevie
oh nvm wasn\'t reading
more research on the mechanics of hitting and pitching
it is also curiously colonial, coincidentally. europe has long raided the latin and african teams for talent.
you the arrian on tl?
lol. a pitcher that has an offense modifier is like, omghax.
i reckoned that i will never see the day when i smile to the phrase \"objectivist revolution.\" i have been proven wrong by objective reality! hopefully this phenomenon is contained in baseball analysis.
if bonds doesn\'t get in, shit will hit the fan.
poor owners can\'t stay in business!
err...meant to have \"absurdity of the whole charade becomes painfully obvious.\"
i hope the yankees sign bonds, just to see the reaction. it would be so violently chaotic that the absurdity of the whole charade, what with bonds playing the axe to mlb\'s raskolnikov.
at least they won\'t clog the bases