Copernican Heresy! Down in the dungeon with you, say hi to Galileo.

Actually, I'd say that "Red Sox's" and "Red Sox'" should be pronounced exactly the same way. Contra your "Nobody," I pronounce it that way.

It goes for men too, of course--I hate listening to my friends tell me about their fantasy team. I only tolerate it because I know it gives me license to then bore them to tears talking about my own.

I don't relate to this problem at all. My discovery of sabermetrics in the late '90s augmented my interest in macro ideas around baseball, e.g., how do teams win, what strategies are advisable in what situations, etc. But it hasn't changed the way I root for the Yankees, or how much I enjoy doing so. Put another way, my understanding that Derek Jeter is not much of a defender doesn't change the fact that every time a ball is hit on the ground up the middle, I root hard for him to overcome his leaden feet and throw out the runner. An imperfect comparison: I understand enough about math and odds to know that there's no such thing as a "hot table" in craps, and that in the long run I am very likely to lose more money than I win. That knowledge doesn't stop me from putting down my money and hoping to come away a winner on a particular night.

These kinds of articles are a great way to avoid hubris. Thanks, Kevin, all of us are always too willing to remember our successes and forget about our mistakes.

Thanks, Mike. Based entirely on last week's article, I picked up Aaron Crow this week. Next thing I know, bang! he's a closer.

No amount of nudity could make a Verhoeven film watchable. Having said that, I loved this series.

I believe that what statistics the arbitrators are allowed to consider is negotiated as part of the collective bargaining agreement. It's not a matter of educating the arbitrators; they are told what statistics they may base their decision on and are not allowed to do their own research.

Since when do the smart owners run things?

I'd say this is pretty clearly the number one reason, and it is also one that has been mentioned many times. It's a nice though that loss aversion has more to do with closer usage than yeh save stat, but that conflicts with the fact that closets are pretty much always used in a 3-run lead situation, which does trigger the save stat but shouldn't trigger loss aversion.

I think you guys are being a little hard on Ben. This year clearly is a rebuilding year in Toronto, and he is simply (and correctly) observing that it's been quite a while since the Jays were winners in this division. Sure, this time Anthopolis' plan might work out. It looks promising. But the future isn't what Ben's writing about here. He's empathizing with how frustrating this longtime effort to reach the next level must be for you guys.

Yeah, I see that there's a ruler next to him that seems to indicate inches. I still don't get the reference.

I wish you hadn't said that...because I have to admit I still don't get the joke. Can somebody explain?

I draw a different conclusion from your first paragraph: get rid of the stupid bag-screening policy!

On the SSS issue, obviously you can't make any judgements based on one month's worth of stats. ButI think Steven devotes a good bit of energy in expanding the sample here, by incorporating minor league numbers, last year's numbers, long-term trends, etc. None of these guys are doing anything that's out of line with past performance.

Go Yankees!

Really the best interview I've ever read at BP. Totally fascinating. Thanks.

I think that's an oversimplification. Bannister has some understanding of statistics, and that's a similarity, but CJ's thoughts on biomechanics and strategy when facing a hitter are pretty unique.

Your main error is that you misunderstand how steroids work. Steroids help the body heal faster than normal. When you work out, you break down muscles, and when they heal, they build up additional strength. Steroids help them heal faster/better, which means they're a little stronger than they would have been, and you can work out effectively again sooner than you would have been able to. This means that, taken over a period of several weeks, while working out extensively, you can build up more muscle than you could have without help. It does not mean you can take steroids on Wednesday and suddenly start hitting home runs on Thursday. It's not like Popeye's spinach.

I think he's wrong, and I think win probability IS entertaining.

They're two completely different things. This is like saying "playing major-league baseball is MUCH more difficult than simply writing a bunch of articles." Nate isn't polling, he's evaluating polls.

I always thought the best curveball I'd ever seen was Dwight Gooden's in 1984-85. Strasburg's strikes me as the best I've seen since then.

Actually, the fact that "over the course of 3 years those things tend to even out" seems to at least arguably indicate that "those things" are not "real" slumps.

I'd certainly be interested in seeing such a "quality of pitchers faced" report on Wright, but I seriously doubt that, with the number of pitchers a player faces in two and a half months, the difference could be large enough to account for the huge increase in Ks Wright has this season.

Calm down--he said "We’ll assume for now that ANI will win the case—I honestly don’t know if that’s true." Shawn's just thinking out what the implications might be IF the NFL lost, which I for one appreciate. And I have to agree with Shawn on your last point. Can you really envision a situation where the courts lay down a decision on the NFL's antitrust status but then in another case they specifically decide to treat MLB by different rules because of the precedent of the 1922 Federal League case? I just don't see any possibility of that happening.

I'm not sure I understand the "break" numbers. They're recorded after only 10 feet of flight? So a pitch that is said to break 6 inches down has already broken 6 inches within 10 feet? Or are the break figures extrapolated, meaning they measure after 10 feet of flight and then calculate how much the pitch would break by the time it hits the plate?

Wakefield's a classic example of a guy who shouldn't be in the Hall of Fame, but should certainly have his number retired by his team. He's been the one constant on the Sox through one of the most successful periods in their history. I love guys like that for some reason.

We don't actually have pitch counts going back all that far though, do we?

Sadly, I didn't get to see the Strasburg game. What were Kaat and Smoltz saying?

Great article. Would have loved to see innings pitched or batters faced in the tables as well.

I could be wrong about this--I don't have the figures in front of me--but I'd think that the financial difference between a second-line free agent and a mid- to late-first-round draft pick was smaller then than it is now. When the choice is between signing a utility infielder for $4 million and having a potential superstar's rights for years for the same money, it's a no brainer. I'm guessing the costs were more closely aligned then.

Bob, I totally agree with you that the decreasing contact between reporters and players means that we, sadly, have fewer great stories like this. However, I don't think statistics have anything to do with this. Baseball has always been a game of statistics; heck, Rose's comment above is ABOUT a stat (4,000 hits). The main difference is that now we have better statistics. Having said that, I'd love to read a story like this every day. Keep 'em coming!

Nitpick alert: the blindfolded guy "whaled" on the cursor. I've seen that misspelling multiple times lately, so wanted to get the correction out there.

Yeah, your reference to MTV VJs just sold you out as well over 30 yourself. I don't think MTV has even shown videos in years (not that I'd know, I haven't watched it since the mid-'90s).

That's funny CK, I'm in the midst of that book also. I agree, somehow for me the history seems all the more magical for gaining an understanding of what is legend and what is more likely truth.

In any case, Will's point was obviously related to Griffey's overall career value to his teams, which was similar to Reggie's. Griffey was a CF, but most of the defensive stats out there have him as a mildly below average one for most of his career. Btw, I also grew up in NY in the '70s, and I remember Reggie for his wicked arm in RF, not for any awkwardness. But I bled pinstripes at the time, so I no doubt missed any negative factors.

From the perspective of "is he a prospect," his previous comment still holds. But from the perspective of this article, which seems to be "Will the farm help us this season?", I'd say it shows he's clearly not going to help anytime soon.

It should be fairly obvious that perfect games tend to have low pitch counts. Facing exactly 27 hitters, and no walks.

That minor league shakeup from a couple of years ago is still messing us all up. I know every time I see "Tidewater Tides" I can't figure out why I'm reading about someone who's not a Met.

Ok Will, so how much velocity loss would it take to concern you at the major-league level?

I second the question about the meaning of the "10 percent" number. 9-10 mph off a guy's fastball seems like an awful lot to wait on. Is that really what you meant Will? I'd start asking questions if a guy lost 3-4 mph personally.

I love how now that Tim Lincecum is struggling a bit he "doesn't look confident." These kinds of comments always seem to me a lot like the way ratings agencies downgrade companies--it's usually after something has publicly gone wrong, so that they are just confirming what everybody else already knows. Now if a month ago this scout had said, "I know he's getting great results, but I dunno, he doesn't look confident out there" and THEN he started to struggle, THAT would be useful and interesting information. I just think people tend to look confident when things are going well, and not so much when they're going poorly.

Has it been shown that the maple bats are actually more dangerous? I know people *think* that to be true based on some anecdotal evidence, but I thought they were doing some studies on that to determine whether it's really true. Anybody know the results of any of that?

Oh, to be clear, I don't think it's relevant to baseball at all. Just curious whether Will has any insight on it.

Will, speaking of "Must be the shoes," I'm curious if you have any feelings about the phenomenon of the Vibram Five Fingers shoes and the claim that modern more supportive running shoes have been detrimental to health. I have some friends who swear by these things; at this point I'm maintaining an attitude of "skeptical but open minded."

Kevin, your comment on statheads' reaction to "battler" is interesting. I've always thought of it as the pitching equivalent of describing a position player as "scrappy;" i.e., the pitcher's stuff isn't that great but he appears to be trying really hard. Does it mean something more than that?

Not enough was expected of him to make him a worthwhile target. It's standard practice for the NY media to pick a player for whom expectations are high, and blame him for everything that's not working on a team. Thus, the Mets' recent failures can be laid at the feet of David Wright; the Yankees' 9-year championship drought was variously assigned to Giambi, Randy Johnson, Kevin Brown and of course A-Rod, depending on the season.

I don't understand what your beef is here, Eric. Oswalt and the Astros agreed to the "no trade clause" when they negotiated his contract. That clause means essentially that they can't trade him without his permission. Of course it is true that this clause doesn't mean he can demand a trade. But it also doesn't mean he can't. Oswalt is as free as any other baseball player to ask his employers to trade him. And, again as with any other player, the 'Stros are free to accede to his wishes or ignore them, depending on their own needs. And who are these fans you speak of who are getting behind these sorts of moves? In my experience, when an athlete requests a trade like this, people slander him as a traitor and a wimp, though the player is just understandably seeking to give themselves a chance to compete for a championship. I certainly don't blame Oswalt for rquesting the trade. And, as you admit in hyour article, they really ought to trade him anyway. So what's the problem?

The Manuel comment is weird. First of all, there's not necessarily anything wrong with a guy Halladay's age going 132 pitches if he's not fatigued. But to say he's going to "start" monitoring his pitch count? Surely he's not saying he wasn't paying any attention to Halladay's pitch count before?

Kevin, this is one of the most interesting articles you've written. It's a different angle of looking at prospects than I've ever seen before, and it really brings out how important the development of a well-rounded game is to a prospect's long-term viability. Thanks.

Interesting article. A couple of questions: first, if the ratings for MLB Network are so much lower than for NFL Network, why would MLB be able to get higher subscription fees if the cable companies didn't have equity stakes? Also, given those equity stakes, you would think the cable companies would have an interest in putting the network into a prime channel space. Why haven't they done so? Finally--SSS alert of course, but in the last couple of months I've lived in Hollywood and on Long Island, and in both places my cable company had MLB placed in the same vicinity as ESPN and the other prime sports networks, so the bad placement isn't universal, anyway. Finally, you'd think Baseball Tonight etc. would eventually put a stats analyst on the show along with the ex-jocks, if only because it would only help ratings to have the players mock the stathead's ignorance.

True, but you could certainly do a modified shift. Move the 2nd baseman basically behind 2nd base, back the SS into the short OF, keep the 1B in the vicinity of 1st base and dare the guy to hit it through the hole on the right side. Of course, one weakness is that a grounder that got all the way to a deep SS might not get there fast enough to get the out at first, which isn't as big a problem when they play the 2B out on the grass.

Will, I can see how you would see it that way given the way people ask "what is his availability." But if you're making a simple declaration, I think you need to use "unavailability" here. As you say, he is either available or not. And the word for "not available" is "unavailable." :)

Not all of us follow twitter regularly, so I for one appreciate Kevin putting together this summary every day.

It really wasn't a bad play on Jeter's part. Jeter and Gardner both found their way to the ball, and it looked like Gardner called the Captain off at the last minute. In fact, I was impressed with the way Jeter managed the situation. He immediately dropped his glove and stood still to let Gardner make the play, rather than making a quick move when he didn't know exactly where Gardner was. Gardner was the one at fault, for making the call so late.

Great story, Jay. As a longtime Yankee fan, I feel exactly what you're saying about the new park. One nitpick: it was Jeter that Gardner nearly collided with in the sixth, not Cano.

The only "conclusion" in the article is that the abnormally high strikeout rate could be a statistical fluke; i.e., it would not be that statistically unlikely. That doesn't mean it definitely is a fluke by any means. Having said that, I've seen enough confident declarations by people who claim to see "obvious" changes in a player's swing or the quality of their at-bats turn out wrong when the player breaks the slump that I'll wait and see what the numbers look like in another month.

So wait, Milton Bradley is on the suspended list? I thought he was on the restricted list.

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply it would have made sense. Strikes me as classic Girardi overmanaging.

Christina, the blog format seems to be really working for you thus far. I'm really enjoying the renewed frequency of this year's TAs. Takes me back to the good ol' days when I could count on regular dosages of transaction minutiae. Please keep up the great writing!

In any case, if you wanted to see the teams ranked according to their overall record, they have this thing called "the baseball standings." You can find it in any local newspaper.

When I saw the report about Cushing on ESPN, I was flabbergasted by how they blithely reported that the positive test happened in SEPTEMBER, after which he was allowed to play the whole season. Nobody raised the question of WHY action didn't happen more quickly. I can only imagine the conspiracy theories that would come out if an MLB star tested positive in May but finished the season before any announcement.

I agree, Will, your aggressive tone is weird on this one. I mean, sure, there's no need for people to go all accusatory on the medical staff. But I would hope that the Giants' staff is asking themselves whether there was some way they could have detected the failure of DeRosa's surgery. And I'm not sure why you would urge us to point blame towards the front office when they were relying on the judgment of their medical staff.

Ah. That explains it! Steph to the rescue.

Re: the Yanks' use of Russo over Golson, is it possible that Girardi was thinking of putting Golson in for Swisher if he had gotten on, so he could represent the tying run? In addition to the weirdness of Michael Kay repeatedly referring to Russo as "Golson" and then repeatedly correcting himself, there is the additional oddity that ESPN's boxscore currently lists Golson as having been the pinch runner. Do these guys wear the same number or something?

Ken, I love your writing style in general, and I love the idea behind this story. One nitpick, the article badly needed you to give it a second read-through to edit the verb tenses. It's written mostly in present tense, but sometimes in past tense. Sometimes you switch tenses in the same sentence. It makes much more difficult reading. But other than that, keep up the good work!

Like a lot of older players, Ortiz has gotten off to a slow start Old players like this tend to fall off a cliff instead of slowly gliding into retirement These statements kind of remind me of stuff I hear tv announcers say where they sound reasonable, but I don't know whether they're really true. Has anybody done any studies to determine whether older players tend to get off to slow starts but then recover? And how are you defining old players "like this?"

I agree. It looks like the percentages are showing the % of the player's total contribution for each year of the deal. But what if, for example, the total contribution of the re-signed players is much lower than that of the players who left? It doesn't help the signing team much if most of the players' contribution came later in the deal if they're starting from a low baseline.

I'd ask everyone to look at what those methods are doing to American pitchers and wonder why we'd want anyone to change to that model. Will, I'm not sure what you're saying here. Are you suggesting that we should think about adopting the Japanese model of pitching over here?

I'm bummed that you looked only at guys who had the hot start, then fell off the cliff by season's end. I was interested to know how often the pitcher was able to hang onto the hot start. Were there any guys who were over 5.00 two years in a row and then had an April under 3.00? I'm sure there must have been some. Also, you'd probably get more guys from the '70s and '80s if you used ERA+ instead of ERA as a benchmark.

What!? I don't understand what you mean about Dane Cook. He is an EXCELLENT source of really, really bad comedy.

My vote would go to Bring Tha Noise. Rob Base wouldn't appear anywhere near my Top 100. Guess we have different tastes in hip-hop!

Is there any evidence that UZR was the culprit in Abreu's difficulties finding a job? I know his defense was discussed a lot as a roadblock, but many decidedly un-saber-friendly observers of the 2008 Yankees took note of Abreu's issues in right field, including the Yankees announcers.

Josh, it would be much more informative if you could take an example of one such endorsement deal and explain how your media strategy helped it. Surely you could change the names of the player and the company involved and give us some idea of how it works. Your story of meeting Buccigross is the best thing in this series so far, because it's a story with specifics. Also, I think your take on social networking sites is interesting. Of course you're right that a player hitting .330 anonymously is in a better position than a player hitting .220 with 5,000 followers. But that's asking the wrong question; what about two players, both hitting .300, but one has 5,000 followers and the other is anonymous? Wouldn't the one with the followers be in a better position from an endorsement perspective? And as to this quote--"the only thing fans tend to care about when following a specific player or prospect is his statistics or on-field contribution to his team"--speaking only for this particular fan, it is patently untrue. The guys I follow tend to be guys that I've heard stories about that make me laugh, or that show them to be goodhearted people. It's a particularly odd statement because if it's true, what's the point of all the traditional media publicity you're soliciting?

I don't think you can actually "gather more inertia." Isn't inertia when an object maintains its current motion without being acted on by any additional force?

Heisenberg. +5 for the Breaking Bad reference, -3 for misspelling it. :)

I totally agree. I find that niggling redundancy annoying too.

Wow. So the idea that a new pitch could be invented after 120 years of baseball you have no problem with, but after 150 years, that's impossible. And your evidence is that it appears to be an offspeed pitch without prominent break. Because of course all offspeed pitches without prominent break are the same pitch. Also, my understanding is that the knuckle curve does not "knuckle" like a knuckleball, but is called that because it is partially gripped with the knuckle. Just wow.

Matt, I'm not clear on what the percentages in the last three tables are indicating. Each row seems to add to 100%; does this mean you're showing the percentage of the total WARP generated by these players in each year of the contract? And if so, how does this relate to the projections?

I had Winningham on my Statis-Pro team back in 1987 or so. He must have had a great small-sample-size season the previous year, because I remember he was the best hitter on my team despite the fact I'd never heard of him. I batted him second all the time.

In my corporate experience, I'd say that high-level executives want to be able to go and sit in the expensive seats but don't want to pay for it. So they have their corporation buy the ticket, and they go through the motions of inviting some customer so it's all on the up-and-up. The corporate tax benefit just allows them to hand-wave the expense if anybody ever questions it. "Oh, it's a tax write-off." You'd be amazed how few people bother thinking it through at the level of detail The Situation does above.

What is Versus? A website?

I'm no switch-hitter, but I doubt the neural pathways for recognizing pitches from a lefty are all that different from the ones for a righty, assuming you're facing both from the same side. I'm sure there would be an adjustment period, but I don't think the adjustment would take long.

I guess I agree that the Indians weren't a dynasty, but in the article he didn't call them one. He described these teams' "Golden Ages." I would certainly say that era was a "Golden Age" for the Indians.

There's a whole lot to love about the new cards. However, I have three suggstions: 1. I second what PopTarts said above. I like to see the components involved in WARP, mainly because I am more skeptical of the defensive metrics than the offensive ones, so when I compare two players' WARP scores I like to see what kind of role defensive measurements played in any differences. 2. Again stated by somebody above, but I really miss the accounting of the number of games a player put in at each position. Will this be rectified when the new defensive stats are rolled out? 3. Wasn't there some sort of measurement previously of how good a comp each of the "10 most comparable players" are? And also an overall number indicating whether the comps are close or not close? That is an important number for me.

The essays have always been my favorite part of the book, and I admit I was disappointed this year. So add one more voice.

Add mine to the chorus of voices saying these articles have a lot of potential but not much payoff so far. You mention that "professionalism" is a big issue for you, but don't mention how it has been. Frankly, I'm not even sure what you mean by "professionalism." Same with "flexible morality." I don't really know what you mean by the term, since you don't explain how morality enters into your job, or how you can be flexible with it. I really don't think anybody is asking you to reveal anything confidential. For example, would a sentence like "baseball card contracts can mean tens of thousands of dollars a year for the average player" have been a violation? We, the readers, have no idea if that is the right ballpark or not, and it would be of more interest to us than more (admirable) sentiments about how much you care about your players. Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.

I'd add that if you've lifted weights, then you know that the best way to increase the amount of weight you can bench press is not to exclusively work on bench pressing, but rather to do an assortment of different exercises improving the general strength of your chest and triceps and shoulders.

As far as I can see,what's happening is that the Sox are letting former stars go. The voracious Boston media does their best to find out why, and usually somebody in the Sox organization eventually tells them. Then fans and the media make of it what they will. I'm not sure how, for example, Manny playing well in LA means that the Sox "turned out wrong" when they said Manny had become a clubhouse cancer. I'd say regardless of how he played later the question is still debatable. Same with Nomar. As for Damon, I think the Sox concluded he wasn't a good bet to be worth the price he was asking. Turns out he was, but that still doesn't mean it was a good bet. As for Bay, it does seem that a doctor questioned Bay's fitness, and as a result the Sox reduced their offer. As a result, Bay went elsewhere. It seems unlikely to me that the knee issue was made up, that the Sox had no reason for not re-signing him and just let him go for the heck of it.

His value right now is too low to make him worth trading. Play him, and hope he channels his 28-year-old self for a couple of months. If so, trade him to a contender for some value. If not, oh well, you weren't going to sniff the playoffs anyway.

Also to furthe back zzbillfitz, all the Sox fans I knew (and as a NYer I knew a lot; god there are a lot of Sox fans in NYC!) said they were glad to be rid of him because they were tired to be rid of him, and they all felt he had "quit." That doesn't mean it's true, and many of those fans have reconsidered that stance over the years, but I think it's deserving of mention that many, many Sox fans felt that way at the time.

The equilibrium point also changes because some hitters have a practice of nearly always taking the first pitch, whereas others frequently swing at the first pitch on the theory that the pitcher is trying to get strike 1.

I remember hearing this espoused by the pitching coach of one of the ML teams this year and thinking it was interesting. The idea was that trying to get strike 1 on the first pitch was too predictable, and that it was smarter to make sure you got strike 1 within the first 2 pitches. Of course, theoretically that would make the second pitch pretty predictable once you went to 1-0. It may have been the Yankees, since I watch them the most. I just don't remember.

Only you can join yourself, Steven. It should be "join Kevin, Jay, Clay, Matt and me..." Sorry to get pedantic. For some reason the rampant incorrect use of "myself" grates on me.

FWIW, I don't see the point of changing the name of a stat that already has a lot of history. Then again, I think there should be a federal ban on changing the names of ballparks.

I'm always amused by threads like this, that turn into a perfect illustration of the fact that everybody wants different things out of the site. I disagree with the idea that certain stats have not been accepted because they are too hard to calculate or people don't know exactly what they mean. Isn't "Quarterback Rating" the perfect counterexample? I hear Average Joes in bars comparing the ratings of different quarterbacks all the time, but how many people actually know how it's calculated? Hardly anybody knows anything beyond the fact that it somehow involves completion percentage, touchdowns and interceptions. In the same way, OPS involves a combination of times getting on base and total bases. This is not too hard for anybody to understand. I think the bigger problem is just a simple one of getting used to the scale of new measurements. For my part, my gateway drug was Rob Neyer, back in 1998. I was won over to the importance of OBP and SLG over AVG by his simple explanations (after all, it is really common sense once it's properly explained). So I started trying to pay more attention to OBP and SLG when looking at individual stats. But it was hard for me. When I saw a guy with a .300 average, I knew instinctively what that meant about the player's performance, because I'd been seeing those numbers for years. I didn't know how to benchmark a .340 OBP. I remember I went as far as to send Mr. Neyer an email, explaining my problem and asking if it would be appropriate to consider a .400 OBP and .500 SLG as somewhat equivalent to a .300 AVG. (He graciously responded, saying something along the lines of "yeah, close enough.") It took me a few years to really get comfortable with benchmarking the quality of OBP and SLG numbers. People born this century, with OBP on their ESPN broadcasts, won't have the same problem. As for more advanced statistics, while most of us at this site enjoy them, I don't think it's really necessary to have facility with VORP or EqA in order to have a basic understanding of how baseball works.

I don't think it's right to say that the Marlins' $3.5 million "injury cost" could have been used to pay other players. That $3.5 million is a measure of the money that went to pay players on the DL, correct? If those players were not injured, the money would still be spent, and therefore wouldn't be available to pay somebody else. Maybe I'm just not understanding the metric.

The interesting thing about the word "inconsistent" as baseball analysts use it is how often it is a euphemism for "consistently bad." It's amazing the number of times I see a player like, I don't know, Jack Wilson come to the plate and the analyst will say, "He's been great in the field, but he needs to find more consistency with the bat." And I think, "No. He's consistent."

I gotta be honest, I don't agree with Smizik at all. I don't disagree with any of the moves the Pirates have made lately. As oskinner said, fixing the Pirates has required tearing them up by the roots and starting over, and I think they've done all the right things to make that happen (trading away mediocre-to-good players who were never going to contribute to the next winner, building the scouting system up). Incidentally, the worst team in history was the early-mid-century Phillies. The Pirates may now have more consecutive under-.500 seasons than they did, but they followed up their 16 straight with one just barely over .500 and then immediately went under for another 14 in a row. I doubt the current Pirates franchise will see another 14, because their plan makes sense to me.

I realize the comment about hat sizes was probably a joke, but an increase in head size is not one of the side effects of steroids. Given the number of people who believe unquestioningly in some of the wilder steroid-effect stories, I just hate seeing references like that in a publication I respect as much as BP.

Yeah Jay please don't take my previous comment as a big negative, I love your JAWS articles. PS "Post Reply" never works on my computer for some reason. Anybody have an idea how to fix that? One reason I think it would be really interesting to see a "best of the no longer eligible" list is because we all know that at some point going down to the list you have to get to a player who is the next-best guy not in, but who definitely shouldn't be a Hall of Famer. I'd be interested to hear which guys you think got jobbed, and which guys you think are just the "best of the rest." As a couple of people mentioned above, the right level at which to start keeping people out is probably a level at which there are a bunch of guys packed together.

At some point it would be interesting to see this list done just with players who are no longer eligible for the BBWAA vote. Much as I respect the cases of Raines, Blyleven, etc., Jay, those of us who religiously follow your articles (or those of any other writer who takes on the Hall) have heard an awful lot about them. It would be so much more interesting to see a "best of the guys who never made it" list.

Sorry the "Post Reply" doesn't work on my computer, I'm replying to bflaff. I guess I see that issue along the same lines as any other prescription drug. When my doctor writes me a prescription for, say, vicodin, how does he know I'm going to limit myself to the mandated amount? Well, he doesn't. But that doesn't mean it's not a good idea to prescribe it in the first place.

-Increased recovery time from both injury and workouts, plus a 162 game schedule -Increase in muscle mass which, yes, helps you hit the ball harder and further OR throw harder and longer -Helps increase feelings of well being and confidence (not to be underestimated) I look forward to a time when the hysteria has settled down and we can admit that there's probably a steroid dosage level that can help keep athletes on the field while posing minimal side effect risks. Of course, we'd have to do actual testing to find out what the right level is, rather than just sticking to the "steroids = bad" script.

I'm not sure I understand this line: Of the five players to receive between 40 and 74.9 percent of the vote in their eighth year on the ballot, only Dawson eventually gained the BBWAA stamp of approval Obviously, a bunch of players have been enshrined after their eighth year on the ballot. So does this mean that those players all totalled less than 40 percent of the vote in their eighth year? And if that's the case, how is this bad for Smith's chances? (Since that would mean his eighth-year result is higher than that of anyone else who gained election after that point.)

Allow me to respectfully disagree. CK has a very distinctive writing style, and it's probably not for everybody, but count me among those who enjoy it.

Minor editing quibble: it's "a different tack'" not "a different tact."

Wouldn't it be cool if Sheehan replaced Gammons on espn? I know, I know, I'm dreaming.

Worst news ever. I can't wait to see where you end up Joe. I've read just about every article on BP since '99, but yours and Christina's were always the ones I read immediately, with excitement, as soon as they were posted. This is a great loss. No insult to the other writers on the site, but in terms of pure writing ability, it feels like a bunch of five-star talents have been gradually replaced by four-star prospects. Those guys are still worth going to the park to see, but it's hard to get quite as excited about it.

I do, of course, agree that you have the right to offer feedback on your subscription. But I disagree with the premise that the addition of some articles that don't interest you detracts from your experience. I like the movie reviews in the New Yorker, and I don't care for the column on dance. But I don't think my subscription experience would be improved by replacing the Dance column with a second column on movies.

It's entirely possible that this sort of article is less popular than, say, Joe's analyses. But what's your point? Does that mean BP should never run this sort of article? Surely there is room for m/ore than one type of content on the site. If this type of article isn't your cup of tea, no need to read it.

Christina, out of curiosity, is "future performance not being a factor" part of the official description of how you're supposed to vote, or is that your personal interpretation of the award? When I think of the meaning of "Rookie of the Year," I generally interpret it as "Most impressive rookie," which in my mind involves mostly in-season performance but with a little bit of "what does this performance portend for the future."

However you choose to define "best team in baseball in the regular season," it is not accurate to say the Yankees have been it for "almost every one of the last 15 years." If you want to look at regular-season wins, the Yankees have been the best in 6 out of the last 15 years.

To Richard's point, I often wonder why managers rarely put up the bunt sign on the first pitch and take it off on the second, or vice versa. It seems to me you would keep the infield defense off balance if they really weren't sure whether you were going to bunt or swing away.

I tend to agree that Thome should have hit there, but out of curiosity, if Thome got on and Blake then struck out, who would have been left on the bench to hit for the pitcher?

Another interesting question, following 3n2sports' comment: Are some pitchers deceiving hitters by throwing pitches that slow down more--or less--than the norm? Are hitters gearing up for all fastballs that leave the hand at 96mph the same, while some of them slow to 88 but others only to 90?

Yeah, re: Joe's point on the TBS box, during one of the games last week 4 straight pitches were shown to be way, way inside. Three were called strikes and the batter swung at the other one and fouled it off. The batter didn't complain or even look like he disagreed with any of the calls. That's when I knew the box was undependable. PS, the "Post Reply" button doesn't work for me for some reason. Anybody else experience that problem? When I click on it I just get a msg saying "Error on page."

I love the Yanks, and I can't stand the Lakers or Patriots. Think it might have something to do with the fact that I'm from New York? You'd be right.

If you got a free book by an author prior to interviewing said author, my response would be, "No duh." I mean, that's just facilitating research on the obvious subject of the interview. OTOH, if Peet's coffee (or whatever) said, "Hey Will, we'll give you a month's free supply for saying you're fueled by us in your next column," I do feel that should be disclosed. I'm not even sure why--it's not like I've ever bought any product because Will mentioned it--but I think it would be pretty slimy to just slip it in without disclosure of the relationship.

Tim, I am floored by this article. Probably my favorite of the entire competition, not least because you took a chance on a topic that's not necessarily everybody's cup of tea. Bravo. I am curious about why you didn't include the Yankees as one of the teams that has "embraced the RTS concept." I know they have had Yankees stores in midtown and downtown Manhattan for probably 15 years now; do these not qualify as "RTS" for some reason?

Sorry I'm getting here late, and I don't know if anybody will read this, but I have to second the comments here about context. I know I've brought this up before, but I have no idea who Chone Figgins is talking about, which makes the quote more frustrating than informative. Alex, if you're reading this, maybe it would be helpful for us if you could respond to questions like this in the comments? I realize others did provide probable answers, but it would be helpful if you could confirm here for those of us who are checking. Thanks!

I agree wholeheartedly with KG. The question of whether to bunt or not in those situations could easily sustain an entire article, taking into account the pitcher on the mound, the batter's bunting and hitting history, the probability of the following batter(s) knocking in the run, etc. And as Christina hints, you might end up with an interesting point about just how small these marginal advantages are. Though the instruction was that the article had to be tied to one of the games on this day, I'm not sure why almost everyone felt the need to do a "game recap"-type article. Surely it would have been acceptable to take one aspect or event in the game and address that, as Sheehan often does. For my money, even a writer as entertaining and colorful as Christina has trouble making a straight game story hold my attention (though, to her credit, she has occasionally done so).

I guess the Blazers' twitter feed does sound more personal than the Knicks' (is there anything the Knicks do well?), but both seem crushingly boring to me. Help! I'm old!

I look forward to the day when we stop being shocked by the *idea* of steroids, take the time to figure out what a safe dosage level for professional athletes is, and have those athletes take steroids to improve their recovery time under the supervision of an expert. You know, like we do with weight training, diet, etc. "There is no safe dosage level" is an incredibly unlikely answer, and with safety provided for, I see no reason why an athlete, who puts his/her body under incredible stress, shouldn't take something that helps them recover from that stress.

I dunno, her pitch looked like it had a lot of movement to me. Certainly the reaction of the observers indicated there was a lot of movement. As an aside, isn't quality of a knuckleball simply a matter of whether you can throw it without spin or not? I don't think you can make the movement happen beyond throwing it with as little spin as possible.

Great article, but several of the links ("this tendon" and the two links to Kris Benson's web page) don't seem to be leading where they're supposed to.

This is the only article I'm voting for this week, because it provided loads of interesting information, and did so clearly and concisely, and also entertainingly. Ken, I absolutely love your sense of humor and your cute turns of phrase (and I generally cringe at a lot of the jokey asides that get shoehorned into articles like this, so this is a real compliment). However, as others here have suggested, you need to scale back the number of jokes you're throwing in. No matter how good they are, it starts to feel forced if you go to the well too often. Other than that, really, really good piece.

I loved watching Mike Pagliarulo back in the day. Maybe my favorite thing ever was the way Chad Curtis would make a throw home by launching his entire body into the air and landing face-first on the grass. I saw him throw at least three guys out at home plate in his time with the Yankees in spite of his throw looking like a pratfall. Rickey Henderson stealing a base was a thing of beauty. El Duque's languorously high leg kick was fantastic to watch. Probably my favorite Yankee pitcher to watch from the 1996-2003 glory days. Ok, obviously I'm a Yankee fan. And after hearing that story about Swisher, kmdarcy, I think I might get myself a Swisher jersey. I was starting to really like watching him already, that cinches it.

I liked the writing style and there were some interesting points brought up. My one critique is that it was in need of some structure. For most of the length of the article I was thinking, "what is the point?" I think the point probably should have been "Many of the things we now know to be true about baseball statistics can be seen even at the lowest levels." And in classic Writing 101 style, that main idea should have been presented somewhere in the intro paragraph. There was a great article hiding within this meandering story. That earns my vote.

Oddly, I thought that each of the BP judges' comments sort of missed the boat on the article. I, too, was left with questions I'd like to see answered in the future--but c'mon, there's a word limit here and he did a good job of focusing on this one point and completing his thoughts on it. No, All-Star game appearances don't necessarily correlate to performance quality, but that wasn't the point here. The point was to say, "hey, if you see the AAA All-Star game, how likely are you to see future MLB stars?" I think that's an interesting question, regardless of the vagaries of the selection process. Finally, I find Christina's critical comment to be kind of strange. Yes, we've been hearing for years that the makeup of AAA rosters has changed in the last couple of decades, that it's no longer a place for prospects, but I've never seen anybody try and show any evidence for that premise. I found the article all the more interesting because I had been reading that for years, and here I'm finally seeing some (anecdotal) evidence for it. Matthew also gets major points from me because he's the only writer in the contest whose articles never make me consciously think about their "writing style" as I'm reading the article. His voice is natural and he doesn't generally get tripped up by overly flowery sentences or awkward phrases. Thumbs up.

This is a very interesting topic, but there wasn't a whole lot of substance to Brian's arguments here. I never knew that women played in the Negro Leagues--how did they perform? Knowing that would add some weight. You claim that the AAGBL players gained respect from fans, though you don't offer anything to back this up, and in any case it doesn't advance the argument that they could have played with the men. I saw the Silver Bullets play back in the day. I have no doubt that a few of them could have played for some low-level minor-league teams, but none of them had anything approaching major-league talent. In fact, I think if a major league team found a woman so good that she had a serious shot at the majors, they'd snap her up. Imagine the marketing possibilities--the Danica Patrick of MLB! (Ok, to hit that level she'd have to be very attractive as well, but I think any woman who could play at that level would draw a crowd.)

I agree the "Translations" schtick was too cutesy, but even with that caveat this was one of my favorites of the competition so far. Ken's stories are now getting my first "click" every week. I knew nothing about this, and now I feel both smarter and well-entertained. Thanks Ken.

Ditto to everything else, except to add that I'm not particularly blown away by the writing style either, which seems inexpertly cribbed from old newspaper articles. A lot of sentences seem to have been put together more because they sound intelligent than because they actually mean anything. Example: "For the Bucs, McLouth was the final piece – and the last star – left in one of the best outfields in the Majors last season." If he was the "final piece left"--awkward phrasing to begin with--wouldn't he necessarily also be the last star? And it would take a pretty expansive definition of "best" to include Pittsburgh's outfield in the category. I think Brittany needs to work on simplifying her language. This sentence would have sounded a lot better as: "McLouth was the last remaining member of the outfield with which the Bucs started 2008."

Tyler's writing style is kind of a mix of "accessible" and "awkwardly phrased." I agree with Will that he strikes me as a prospect with good tools who hasn't honed them into skills yet. I liked the graphs, mainly because they did a good job of supplying the necessary context for the players' hitting stats. I rarely see references to league averages when reading minor league players' stats, and I think including them is a big plus. I agree with the point about the quote from the scout/agent, a quick parenthetical aside explaining his connection, or lack thereof, to the player would have been helpful.

This read like a decent espn.com article. Which is to say, I'm sure it's good for general audiences, but it's not the kind of thing I look for at bp.

FWIW, I like "Player A, B, C"-format pieces. It allows me to test my biases by trying to figure out which player is which. Joe does these very well. However, I think the description of each went on a bit long. You need to get to the punchline faster, then get on with the analysis.

Wow. Had to look that up separately, just to be sure that site wasn't having one over on you Jay. I learned something new today!

Also, I recall that one of the changes to PECOTA last year was that it started taking draft position into account. Ramirez was not in the draft, whereas Wieters was a #5 pick. That may be affecting the projection as well.

My income was drastically cut back in the last year, so I had to reconsider all my regular outlays for, among other things, subscriptions. I kept only two: The New Yorker, and BP. In both cases, I wouldn't want to live without it.

Third! I love Kevin's scouting analysis (or, perhaps more accurately, analysis of the scouting), but I really appreciate the counterpoint of the completely emotionless stats perspective. (Note: I do realize Kevin incorporates the stats into his analysis as well.)

I'd just rather see all the teams in a bracket play each other, and I don't mind having tiebreakers come down to run differential, the way it does in the World Cup. I think it sucks to see the same teams play each other twice in 3 games while they don't face other teams at all. A matter of taste, I suppose. As for why I didn't complain before the tournament, that would be because I didn't know this was going to be the format.

The WBC format isn't perfect, but it is what it is. Is it worse than a round robin where 1 team is 3-0 and the other 3 are 1-2 and you have to use something like run differential to break the tie? Yes. It is worse than that.

How about the team with the best run differential advances automatically, and the other two play for the last spot? I think that a round-robin followed by a potential tiebreaker game is much better than this double-elimination format.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "that" prevalent. For example, the entire dance club industry is built around conspicuous consumption. Nobody goes to a club and buys $22 Cosmos--or, better yet, a table that conveniently comes with a $600 bottle of vodka--because it's a reasonable price. It's because it's an opportunity to spend a ridiculous amount of money conspicuously. Much of Vegas, at least in the big casinos, is designed the same way.

"...Definitely he could play in the big leagues right now..." Alex, who is the "he" that Kenny Williams was addressing in this quote?

It's pretty strange that they would introduce the topic of PECOTA on a show like that but not invite Nate to comment on it.

He\'s not ignoring the human element. He\'s just pointing out that it\'s demonstrably incorrect that Manny \"refused to play.\" He may have been a jerk, and for that reason it may well have been worth trading him, but he didn\'t refuse to play.

I agree theoretically that trying to get to third with one out there is a good play. However, Guerrero ran through a stop sign from his coach, who had a much better vantage point. Watch the play again in slow-mo (I did, several times). At the point at which Guerrero was on second base, Youkilis is already up and throwing; the third-base coach raises the \"stop\" signal a half-second later, with Guerrero clearly looking in his direction. Buck Martinez\' claim that he had \"committed\" to running to third notwithstanding, he could easily have stopped and returned to second base at that point. It was a boneheaded decision to ignore the signal.

Wow, I hadn\'t even thought of \"Salt in my Tears\" in years. Thanks for mentioning that, I looked it up on YouTube and sat there wondering where the time went and why such a great song would vanish.

Cano\'s just a classic BA-dependent hitter having a rough season. Batting average just isn\'t going to be consistent from year to year. Marc Normandin observed back in July that his BABIP was pretty low this year, so that probably accounts for most of the difference. Look, the guy\'s not going to hit .340 every year, but he\'s probably not going to hit .260 a lot either. Expecting something along the lines of .300/.350/.480 seems reasonable, and that\'s not bad but not amazing from your 2B. No reason to ascribe it to \"slacking\" though. From my observation, he seems genuinely frustrated and upset that he isn\'t performing better. Though none of us can possibly know what\'s going on in another man\'s head or how it might be affecting his hitting.

Alex, I love reading the quotes article every week. My one quibble is that you frequently don\'t include enough context in the description below the quote. The Seaver quote would be interesting, except I don\'t know what stadium he\'s talking about. Shea? Citi Field? Somewhere else? No idea. You should assume that people reading the article haven\'t heard the quotes, and give us enough context so that we don\'t have to fire up google to find out what they\'re talking about. Thanks again for putting these together every week.