1. R 2. L 3. L 4. L 5. L 6. R 7. L 8. L 9. R Since the location of the previous pitch was given, I tried to go by how much that pitch would have kept the batter off-balance. However, my expectations are that there is no pattern whatsoever, or close to it.

Yeah, one of my biggest pet peeves when it comes to the IPED thing is that most people expect it to work basically like Popeye's spinach.

1. I don't often comment on player's attitudes but a career swingman, 0-3 this season with a 8.64 ERA barely averaging 4 innings per start is incensed that his manager didn't let him go five? In Arlington? Just wow. What he should have said was "Thank you Jim, for giving me the opportunity of getting that first W on my record. Sorry I let you down." With 69 pitches after four, I can't think of another reason Tracy let him start the fifth to begin with. 2. I wonder what his reaction was when Adam Ottavino gave up a three-run homer on the very next pitch. 3. Ottoman's stats are just weird: 25IP, 25K, 10BB, 4HR, 32H, 24 runs allowed. Most of it is probably from a .375 BABIP, which is probably bad luck + Coors Field, but still...

Marge Schott was, by my count, the worst human being I can think of to be a public figure for reasons other than the fact that they were a bad human being.

Consistently?! BP, if I remember well, considered Garret Anderson overrated, then underrated, then back again, which means they've bashed then praised then bashed then praised him. I'm not sure how that fits the definition of "consistently." I've always felt the backlash at BP for their Angel analysis to be a bit unfair. They've praised quite a bit: aside from what Jay wrote up top, praising Scioscia for his bullpen skills comes to mind, in particular the fact that he would just take the best six arms available, no matter what their pedigree was or which hand they threw with. But the media had this love-affair with how "productive outs" were what was getting the Angels to the postseason, and you can't fault BP for taking exception to that.

I wasn't trying to compare the two contracts exactly. On one hand Pujols' contract has a lot more risk but on the other if you look at both in terms of 2012-22 money, A-Rod's contract is worth a lot more. My point was that ten years removed from A-Rod's 2001 contract and the $26 million a year barrier is still broken only occasionally. There's A-Rod's 2007 contract, and... I think that's it. It's normal to see either an increase in risk or monetary value, but if salaries were truly out of control we'd by in the $40-45 million range right now.

This is a free article, though. So in theory, it's not part of what you're paying for.

I'm still trying to get my head around the Texas Rangers being worth $150 million a year. Texas has, what, 10 million cable subscribers? If you split the market 50-50 with Houston (to keep the math simple), that means you value the Rangers at around $2.50 per subscriber per month. That's a LOT. I'm not even sure YES is pulling in that much. And that's for a franchise that until their recent World Series run had serious brand awareness issues in their own market.

In 2001 Alex Rodriguez signed what for the sake of simplicity we will call a 10-year, $252 million deal. Albert Pujols this winter signed for 10 years and $240 million. Let's just say the right side of the scale has been stagnant at best. Meanwhile total MLB revenue in the last 10 years has gone up, what, five-fold? I'm not going to rehash the whole salary debate, but suffice to say I do not think MLB player salaries are a problem.

Well, at ~$5M/WARP, he only needs to be worth 6 WARP over nine years to be worth the contract, which I think is well within the realm of even a bench guy. So yeah, what you said.

You have to be kidding me. So basically there exists four sets of rules: 1. Rule IV Draft for US/Canada/PR talent 2. Amateur Free Agent signing for Latin America minus Cuba 3. Cuba 4. Japan. Nice job, MLB.

I'm sorry, but if you just struck out Josh Hamilton on three pitches with the bases loaded and the game on the line, you have a right to celebrate. But what the heck was that "groundshaking" thing? Did the cameraman stumble or something?

Hey, it could have been worse: Courtney Hawkins could have tried to do a mortal.

Oh come on! I don't remember the last time I laughed so hard at a column. The present version of SCOUT if it's not useful is at least entertaining. Tell me you didn't have fun researching that piece. I personally applaud MLBAM's approach here. The key part of this exercise is figuring out what the viewers will consider useful or useless information, so you're betting off releasing early and getting feedback. And as someone pointed out, Pitch F/X was a gigantic mess when it first came out as well. For the Saltalamacchia AB, I think what SCOUT was trying to say was "it's a good thing Jason Hammel threw that slider in the dirt because if he misses and it ends up catching more plate than he intended that's right in Salty's wheelbase, so he's toast." Sometimes it's just the wording that needs work.

Well, if you're to believe the story the Wikipedia entry links to, he's actually taking it pretty well. He built the house they currently live in with his signing bonus, so it sounds like the arrangement is more choice than necessity. That said, Brien Taylor is probably the second most depressing career path of an African American in organized baseball after Alex Johnson.

Funny, I have no problem believing Oil Can was strung for most of his starts. That said, he gave the Expos two pretty good years and remains one of my favorite players ever.

Rickey didn't start bouncing around from team to team until late in his career when he started a similar "will play ball for food" campaign. If you forget his cup of coffee with the 1993 Blue Jays, he only played for two teams for the first 17 years of his career. Man, I forgot the man got to play until he was 44. It's not quite fair to throw in Strawberry and Ramirez as comparables because while they had issues --- well, Strawberry had issues; Manny was just a bit weird --- they were (as far as I know) pretty easy to deal with as teammates. Canseco managed to throw an entire industry under the bus for fun and profit, and just gives the overall impression that he was capable to screwing anyone over if he had something to gain from it. I second that that's the kind of player teams tend to avoid, unless they can contribute at a superstar level.

Yeah, Tim Raines used to do it all the time.

"Slight tangent—when did people start thinking along those lines? Was there ever a time when a season just randomly and unexpectedly ended?" Yes, it's called 1994.

Wait a minute... Alex Johnson didn't "accuse Ruiz of pulling a gun on him," Ruiz DID pull a gun on him in the Angels' clubhouse, a fact that was first covered up for fear that it would land Ruiz in trouble with immigration: http://bioproj.sabr.org/bioproj.cfm?a=v&bid=649&pid=0 It should be noted that Johnson and Ruiz were friends from their Cincinnati Reds days and when Ruiz got himself killed Johnson was one of the few MLB players to attend his funeral.

Was that strikeout pitch to Cano was anywhere near Duensing and Mauer wanted it to be?

When you say Calvin Griffith is the worst owner is sports history, you're referring to his stated reasons for moving the Senators to Minnesota, right? He's also the worst Montrealer in history, BTW. I always try to forget that he was born here.

Yeah, but: 1) It's not just that the ran into the triple-play, it's that they did so using a strategy that had more chances of backfiring (or not changing anything) than doing any good. That's the point Mr. Malkiel is trying to make. 2) The Mets' lineup might be punchless, but Francoeur is a poor contact guy that's probably their best power source. Although to be fair, if you include his time with the Braves, he has the most GIDP on the team, and it's not even close. 3) The middle of the lineup seems like the *worst* place to do something like this; you might as well just sit tight and wait for the power bats to knock them in.

This is pretty much why I thought dealing Justin Masterson was a mistake.

My personal preference order would be: 1) Add the date the injury occured 2) Leave it as is 3) Remove it entirely But I wouldn't be overly upset whichever option you took. Your actual description of the situation is more important to me.

I don't know if that has been said before, but I admit I "get" the Yuniesky Betancourt trade. I'm not saying it's a good trade by any means, but I can see how it came about. There's quite a bit written on Betancourt at ussmariner.com. In short, he's an immensely talented player that for some reason three years ago decided it wasn't worth it to try anymore. His work ethic and conditioning got progressively worse every year. That's why he's underperforming right now. Almost everybody at USSM agrees that if he tried hard enough, he could easily be an above-average shortstop. The team itself has tried to shadow him with players and coaches alike for years in hope of sparking his motivation, until they finally gave up on him. My point is, IMO it's not about failing to read the numbers, or even wanting to read them at all. It's about a team desperate enough with no credible shortstop at any level that hopes that if they can just "fix" the guy, he has the talent to become the best shortstop they've had in years. In other words it's a pure upside trade. Now if that actually happens, the Royals will manage to make all of us look stupid. Then again, I think the chances of that happening when it didn't happen with the Mariners in the last three years are pretty low.

Actually, if memory serves me right, a win for the Mets in that last game of the 2007 season would have pushed them into a four game playoff with the Phillies, Rockies and Padres. I seem to remember being disaapointed that the Mets didn't end up winning for that very reason.

SNLVAR takes opponent lineups into considerations, and also views each start individually, rather than contributions over the whole season. In other words, a single disaster start will cost you a bit less in SNLVAR than it would in PRAR or VORP. PRAR on the other hand attempts to isolate the pitching component from the defense. The FRAA of the defense is deducted for each pitcher, with an adjustment for how much they pitched and how dependant on the defense they are (based on balls in play). Lineups are not taken in consideration, however. Personally, I never saw the point in VORP for pitchers, as it has neither adjustment, but that be just me. All three are park adjusted, though, so that's not an issue.

Basically, Maddon has done with his relievers what the Red Sox tried to do in 2003, except that it actually worked out for him. I don\'t know what this tells us more about: Maddon, his bullpen, the Red Sox or 2003.

Argh, I meant to comment on the actual article that brought me here. Please delete. Thanks.

Basically, Maddon has done with his relievers what the Red Sox tried to do in 2003, except that it actually worked out for him. I don\'t know what this tells us more about: Maddon, his bullpen, the Red Sox or 2003.