CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
Which means the Pirates could have Albert Pujols right now.
I think you mean "Porcello money" in the Matt Purke comment, not "Verlander money".
Actually, it's looking for the [not worst]^9.
My problem with the piece is that there was too much evaluation of the players’ abilities in general, even in places that weren’t really appropriate for a game report. This was most evident with Willy Taveras. Taveras is a bad, overrated player in an offensive role that he doesn’t deserve, so every reference to him in the report (aside from a “nice catch”) was either negative or damning with faint praise. Describing a positive action by a player doesn’t require repudiating an overall assessment of him, but it was hard to tell that here.
I loved the piece, but you're going to confuse fans who are wondering why the Braves used a fat Kevin Mitchell to pinch run (and attempt a steal) in the 11th inning of game 6.
It was actually Keith Mitchell.
Coincidentally enough, McLouth has *exactly* the same BA/OBP/SLG as Nyjer Morgan!
I think he's referring to that one day in July where Hamilton hit, like, 17 home runs or something.
The other thing about the laundry list is that it includes guys like Ron Mahay, Matt Thornton, and Jack Wilson. I'm not sure they have fantasy value now even in an AL or NL only league. I'm definitely not wondering what value they have if they get traded.
To me, that seemed to be the clearest indicator that the discussion was no longer about fantasy baseball. I liked the concept about the effect of trades and the potential to forecast them, but I'm not so sure about the execution.
Yeah, I had a quibble with the Dontrelle Willis section as well. A paragraph that begins "Is Dontrelle Willis for real?" should at least give some analysis or opinion on whether he is for real. Otherwise you're left with a conclusion that well, if he is for real you should pick him up but if he isn't then stay away from him. We don't really need a fantasy analyst to tell us that.
It kind of reminds me of Joe Posnanski's gripe about news magazine cover stories that ask a question "Will Obama win Pennsylvania?" without ever giving an answer in the article.
I should have made that clearer. Ideally an elaboration on Pujols's lack of relative value would be good, but in an article with a word limit it would come in exchange for leaving something out. And I like the stuff he did include.
I'm not sure an elaboration on Pujols was necessary. Articles about "who should be taken in the first three picks" are beaten to death in the fantasy world. The real work is in filling out the roster with quality players, and this artcile told you how to do that.
First of all, great article. It took things I try to do each season (usually unsuccessfully) and approached them from a perspective I wasn't considering, and explained it really well to boot.
But I do have one question. In calculating the position list you put Branyan at third but also put him at first because he was slotted there by the Mariners for 2009. Branyan isn't going to be drafted at both positions--you can only draft him once. And since he's likely going to be drafted as a third baseman, why should he be included in the 1B list at all? Including him in both spots treats him like two separate players for the analysis.
Branyan may be a bad example, since the position difference between first and third is close enough that he could be moved to first depending on how the draft proceeded. But what about guys like Russell Martin or Pablo Sandoval? Do they get included at third base even if they're never going to play there on anyone's team?
My problem with wOBA isn't the use of the metric, but that at first glance it looks to me like a translated version of on-base percentage (i.e. eqOBP) and thus ignores power. And there's very little in the first paragraph that explains that it's more than that. I had to read the comments and then click on the link in order to find out that the name comes from the fact that the *scale* is reflective of OBP. Knowing that the article is using a version of EQA rather than eqOBP changes the context of its analysis.
More to the point, this could just as easily be explained by psychology rather than game theory. If *you* gave up a home run in that big of a situation with that pitch, would you use the same pitch in *every* similar situation the next season? It's a milder baseball equivalent of a post-traumatic stress reaction.
Not to mention every player in MLB saw what pitch Gibson hit out of the park. It would be like a mini training video on how to hit Eck.
There are two ways to read Olney's comment:
a) "Based on the first three games at Yankee Stadium, we can expect 400 home runs to be hit there this year."
b) "Is 17 homers in three games a lot? Well, of course it is, but to put it in context, this rate, if sustained over the course of a whole season, would mean 400 home runs would be hit there this season. By way of comparison . . ."
This first, as you point out, would be an ignorant use of statisics. But the second way is a reasonable, if not optimal, way to present the information. But the sentence after the Olney quote was labeled a "mistake" without any supporting statements, and a later passage attributes a 250% increase as if Olney had calculated a park factor himself.
If Olney in another article called a player a "malingerer" or "clubhouse cancer" based on an interpretation of a quote when a more innocent interpretation existed, he would rightfully be excoriated by BP readers. Calling Olney's analysis a mistake isn't as strong a statment because it isn't a personal attack, but the logic still applies.
I agree. I think the "Player A/B/C" type analyses are overdone too, but when they're done properly the point is to filter out external information that you also know that may cloud your judgement on the player. But that purpose gets defeated when such player specific information is included that you can figure out each example by the end of the second sentence.
By the end of the paragraph you're trying to figure out whether you should be pretending that you don't know who the player really is.
Not to nitpick too much, but the Yankees ten run seventh inning was on Tuesday, not Wednesday.
I presume wonk\'s referring to Kinsler\'s sports hernia that ended his 2008 season. In fact, according to this Kinsler may not even be *allowed* to play by MLB:
If I remember one of Bill James\'s annuals correctly, there was a ROY vote in the 1950s where the BBWAA had a separate pre-vote discussion to determine the eligibility of a particular player. They decided he was ineligible, but there was a protest vote for him anyway. I believe that player was Malzone. If so, this was the opposite situation of Volquez--the voter for Malzone was well aware of his ROY eligibility when he cast the vote.