CSS Button No Image Css3Menu.com
New! Search comments:
(NOTE: Relevance, Author, and Article are not applicable for comment searches)
It seems to me that your theoretical link between wins and revenue fails to account for what we might call "enthusiasm stickiness."
The Rays had lousy attendance and revenues in 2007 when they massively overachieved relative to budget. The Red Sox in 2006 and the Yankees in 2008 had excellent attendance (both teams having collapsed in September after being in the race all year) and therefore, high revenues, in spite of finishing out of the playoffs.
It seems to me that the marketplace cuts these GM's a bit more of a break in terms of the primary goal of any team- turning a profit- than does this metric.
What, no Keith Olbermann? I think that was the funniest flareup in my ten + years of reading BP.
Tough to raise money for charity if you don't charge admission.
No Mike Lowell mention? I would have thought him the poster boy for year 2 declines.
You know, as a Sox fan, it pains me to say it but... what's the Yankees' record in that stretch?
Wow, guys with poor velocity don't make good major league pitchers. Spellbinding. Kevin's next article: people with low IQ's don't get selected for Mensa.
"...as long as the player is insured total privacy."
Outed players on the PED list say hello.
Bard has given up 11 runs in 33 innings this year. Four of them were in the past week versus Tampa Bay and New York, after a scoreless July during which he struck out 20 in 12 innings, and looked like the team's second-best reliever.
Sometimes, you need to find out what you have in a player. And sometimes when you do that, what you find out isn't necessarily to your liking.
It's funny how my post is rated below the viewing threshold, yet half of the comments in the thread are devoted to responding to my point. Hint to the webmasters: traffic is good. Controversy generates traffic.
Now as to Strasburg, a singular talent, and the exception that proves the rule. What is the rush to get this guy onto a prospect list? Is it some level of fear that the player is going to skip the minors entirely?
Realistically, if the player signs and plays this year, then he will have a track record that can be evaluated. If he doesn't sign in time, and instead debuts in 2010, won't he be very unlikely to make the majors that same year anyway?
There will be plenty of time for Strasburg to prove his mettle before we try to shoehorn him onto some prospect list.
Meantime, we have the existing prospect list, and again, most of the guys who fell on their faces are the guys who were ranked based on secondhand reports rather than on their track record.
Sorry if you find that fact objectionable.
No they should not be down on the player. Nice straw-man argument there. How about this: BP focuses on what they do well, statistical analysis. BA focuses on what they do well, and in fact better than BP: give us info from industry insiders.
BP cut its collective teeth ignoring the scouts and basing projections solely on numbers.
Alonso, Alvarez, Hosmer, and Skipworth all made top-100 status before they even played in an actual pro league. Really the only guy on this list who would have made a BP list back in the old "we scoff at the scouts" days is Lars Anderson.
I realize it's hard to leave the ballyhooed prospects off the list and risk looking dumb when someone goes celestial, and you are the only guy who didn't have him on your list. But maybe it's time to go back to the numbers, and let Baseball America feed us the scouting community's consensus.
Since you mention Ryan Kalish as a disappointment, I thought it worthwhile to note his progress:
May 16 .133 .212 .233
June 23 .289 .326 .322
July 7 .304 .407 .478
Failure to capitalize "god" is disrespectful towards the 95% of the people in this country who believe in God. Even if you don't believe in God, would it hurt to be respectful?
The part in quotes was said by a prominent liberal politican once, in an effort to bridge the divide between liberals and conservatives. If you want to parse words, take it up with him. He lives in DC now.
You know, I am not a religious guy, but if I were, I would find great disrespect in the failure to capitalize "god" in that last sentence. I seem to recall, Joe, someone once said that "we worship an awesome God in the blue states."
Well, I don't know much about Blanks, but I would bet that Lars Anderson is involved in any Gonzalez deal. Else, why trade for a 1B in his prime and block your best prospect (who is playing better of late after an awful month and a half)?
Plus, they are going to ride it out with Papi until mid June, I am sure. He's broken out of his slump and pulled into a tie with Julio Lugo for homers now, so clearly, all is well.
The Red Sox need a shortstop more than anything right now anyway. Yes, Joe, even more than they need a catcher.
...and a nice stateside debut for Junichi Tazawa (who) went 5 innings allowing 1 run on 4 hits and a walk. He had 7 strikeouts.
Can anyone tell me why I subscribe to BP and not to ESPN Insider?
I am surprised that neither BP favorites Josh Bard nor George Kottaras managed to make the cut. They can't both back up Jason Varitek.
Padresprof, that is awesome.
Respectfully, Will, I think a lot of us without medical backgrounds who read that thread learned quite a bit from it.
Here is a great piece on pitchers mechanics:
Jed Lowrie was awful in late August and September, after his injury. This is a stats site; check the numbers.
I don\'t get it; who is making money off of this \"incident?\"
I don\'t get it, why is it sentimentality run amok?
I think one can easily make a case that the Red Sox had a bad offseason in the free agent market. Lots of risk, and no sure bets. But sentiment was the guiding factor? Was it sentiment that led them to pursue New England native Rocco Baldelli? Maybe. But I don\'t see Cris Carpenter or Tom Glavine walking through that door. And what sentiment would they have had for players they never employed like Saito, Smoltz, or Penny?
Perhaps one could claim that sentiment drove them to sign Mark Kotsay, or Jason Varitek. OK, I would buy that.
But that\'s about it.
As to the players you actually mention in support of your misty watercolored memories theory, your argument makes little sense. Ortiz was signed three years ago to a club-friendly deal that ties him up at $12.5M a year through his prime, and Lowell was signed in the 2007-08 offseason after a healthy and productive season. Neither of them was signed this year, and both were healthy when they did sign in years past. So did the team ignore evidence of injury or decline and sign the players? No. They already had the players signed. Was it sentiment that led the team to keep those players, then? Or was their trade value minimized by their injuries?
Youkilis alone of the three was signed this offseason; perhaps that is where they were overly sentimental? But I don\'t know; the player had his best year at age 29, and his deal ties him up through his prime without getting into crazy money at any point. What is sentimental about tying up the guy who finished third in the MVP vote through his age 34 season?
Besides, you allude to a point that effectively undermines your argument: the team\'s pursuit of Teixeira. Acquiring Teixeira would have forced one of those three aforementioned players to be traded. It wasn\'t sentiment that caused the Teixeira deal to go south, it was Leigh Teixeira on one hand, and the Yankees money on the other.
And since we are on the topic... Who besides Teixeira would have upgraded the team at those spots? Nick Swisher? Please. Adam Dunn? Well, who is to say that won\'t still happen?
Overall, I think you are correct to observe that the Red Sox do have some serious risk of decline at a couple of key lineup spots. But to chalk that up to an excess of sentiment when the team a) seemed willing to discard one of the three players when they elected to pursue Mark Teixeira and b) didn\'t make all of these decisions during the time frame you discuss seems completely off point and erroneous.
Many were unhappy when Copernicus observed that the Earth revolved around the Sun. Still, unhappiness with the facts did not diminish their intrinsic worth. How much of this \"PED use was rampant and therefore affected all of the competitors the same\" argument is just wishing away the bad news?
The reality is that PED use did happen, and it affected the game. We cannot go back and undo that central truth. I agree with Mr. Sheehan, though, that the sportswriters who lionized Sosa and McGwire for \"saving the game\" must have turned a blind eye to the abuses occurring in their midst. Those folks deserve no plaudits for their newfound wisdom now.
But here is what people are missing in this discussion: professional sports test for drugs for all the wrong reasons.
Look at the NFL. Do they care about guys with fifteen concussions because Merril Hoge cannot abide the sound of his own children? Or do they care about putting Humpty Dumpty back up on the wall, where he may be admired for a fee?
Is this testing being done because MLB cares whether A-Rod gets cancer at age 45? Is it because they are worried that Mark McGwire will have renal failure some time when his days in the sun have long past? No.
They are testing because the league thinks the public wants to believe in the fairy tale of the hero pure of heart.
McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, and A-Rod made the sport millions. Hallowed records fell. Owners saw their investments multiply. But that wasn\'t good enough. Lancelot wasn\'t good enough, the heroes needed to be Percival the Pure.
So they league thought they could run some half-assed testing, proclaim themselves clean, and keep the gravy train rolling. Well, it didn\'t work out that way.
And it didn\'t have to be this way. What was the point of a press release to announce confidential testing? Why did there need to be a Mitchell Report? If players health, if the sanctity of the game was in jeopardy, why not cleanse your dirty laundry in private?
If players are violating criminal laws, then let the police and the courts deal with them. Why go out of your way to publicly sully your own people?
Preacher Bud thought they would burn a few witches so the congregation would know the rest of the choir was chaste.
Well, bubble, bubble, toil and trouble. Turns out the forest is full of witches.
Can you blame the congregation for gathering round the pyre to see who goes up in flames next?
So who decides what contributions are worthy? You?
One of the best ways of dealing with shameful comments is to expose them as such, not to suppress them.
Besides... I am seeing things like \"thumbs down to Olbermann\" getting dinged here. That\'s not especially vitriolic. It\'s just people trying to suppress an opinion they disagree with. That is censorship.
I have to agree with Drew 100%. If you disagree with someone, debate them and win the argument. Don\'t censor out the opposing viewpoints. Defeat them.
Certainly SportsCenter was never the same once Keith Olbermann left. And his inclusion in the \"Football Night in America\" halftime show has been up to his previous standards.
Look, we all have jobs, and hobbies outside of that. I watch baseball as a hobby, and I enjoy it with my liberal friends, and with my fellow conservatives. That we disagree on other issues, even on more important issues than baseball, does not detract from the pleasure that our shared hobby provides each of us.
People use Ann Coulter as Olbermann\'s polar opposite. Well, Ann Coulter has been to fifty Grateful Dead shows. How many who hate her politics share her taste in music? And what is wrong with that?
I think John Kerry is a pompous ass. But every year he rides in the Pan Mass Challenge to support the Jimmy Fund. So while I support almost nothing he does or stands for, every year I support him in that endeavor.
No person is pure good, and no person is pure evil.
If anything, folks should look at this as an opportunity to learn that there is good in every person, no matter how wrong we think they may be.
Well, if you can say that you were busily computing OBP\'s in the seventies and eighties, I would say that you were a bit ahead of most of us.
Nobody said people didn\'t walk. What I said is that walks were not recognized as valuable contributions like they are now.
Let\'s say that five years after your career is over, people suddenly change the metrics that determine a baseball writer\'s worth. Let\'s say that instead of Equivalent Average, OBP, and OPS, they now decide that you should have been focused on Batting Average, Home Runs, and RBI. Does this devalue your worth as a writer?
Rice in his prime did what people thought great hitters were supposed to do. He hit for average, foreswearing walks (I remember reports of DiMaggio knocking Williams for passing the buck when Williams would take a walk in a key situation). He hit for power. He knocked guys in.
When Rice played, this was how ballplayers were evaluated. If you want to go back and reevaluate the careers of others in the Hall of Fame based on contemporary standards, you will probably find that past definitions of greatness, and today\'s definition, probably do not fully overlap.
Back in the seventies, Jerry Remy was an All-Star. Today we know that .300 average was hollow, and the stolen bases were more than offset by the times caught stealing. But the player did what they asked him to do.
By the way, the \"counting stats built in a great lineup\" Rice accumulated were with Remy and Rick Burleson at 1-2 in the lineup. Back then, those guys put the ball in play, and could run. But we know now that Rice\'s counting stats would have been far greater had he had the benefit of some OBP guys in front of him. Don\'t we?
ditto the midseason Pecota idea
Yankees 8/170 11/16
count me in... hockey stats in juniors and college and minor pros absolutely project NHL production, much like MiLB production portends MLB production. What we need is a PECOTA for hockey.
Joe, aren\'t you the guy who has stated repeatedly that the Red Sox improved by trading Manny for Bay? That Bay had outperformed Manny\'s production for the Sox in 2008?
Is McCarver saying Manny is a lousy ballplayer? No. He is saying he is an asshole.
So is he? He moved his locker from the back of the room to the middle in order to increase press exposure, and he went from about zero radio intgerviews a week to a near-daily ESPN Desportes interview where he was given a platform to gripe against his employer.
Everyone knew he could still hit. So stats have little to do with it, although again, you are the guy who cites Manny\'s modest Boston 2008 stats to back your assertion that they improved by trading Manny and getting back Jason Bay.