I think Rivera just proves that sabermetrics still has more to learn. It's cute when we can use SIERA to predict that a very average pitcher will regress and sabermetrics was developed by looking at the whole, so our knowledge is going to be greater about the more usual cases. Having watched most of Rivera's career, there's no way that the stats we use can reflect his abilities. Even most of the hits he gives up aren't usual. Maybe you should have SIERA take into account all of the infield hits Rivera gives up on weak contact or the dozens of bloop hits on broken bat swings. They seems like line drives in the box score, but they won't score runs at the same rates as usual hits.

Not to be a jerk, but this comment reeks of amateur level of knowledge about peripheral indicators. ERA is a terrible indicator of future success. All of the indicators (factors directly controlled by Haren, BB, K, etc) show that Haren is even now pitching at a higher level than Lackey or Burnett did before they cashed in. Kazmir was never the pinnacle of health, while Haren has started at least 33 games each year in recent memory. None of your comparisons are remotely apples to apples. Read some articles and try again.

KG, would you leave Betances in A+ all season to build confidence/command or would you aggressively promote him if he resumes his success at that level? I would guess that the organization has set an innings cap for him this year - any guess at what that number is?

Actually, the first commenter failed to recognize that the projections in question were 2009, not 2010. His only counterpoint was Colby Lewis, which is a victory for Clay Davenport's work with adjusted league difficulties. I'd say that's a victory for Clay rather than PECOTA.* He assumed that PECOTA was just fine regardless of how many misses or by how much, instead of questioning it, so I'd say he's clearly part of the "unquestioning masses." *Clay has taken over PECOTA from what I understand, so it might seem odd that I'm basically criticizing him and praising him at the same time. I guess that's true but I just think he does some things better than others.

I don't feel obligated to tone down anything. My initial comment was just being amused at the playful joke that Tommy Bennett made about Matt Wieters failing to come anywhere near his forecast, which everyone has agreed was terrible in retrospect. My comment was voted below the viewing threshold for criticizing BP despite the fact it originated from a BP author, which continues a trend of other subscribers automatically supporting the BP brand without thinking. I find that incredibly depressing, and I'm not going to play nice just because people want to assume that everything is great because they'd rather not look into it themselves. While your take on PECOTA doesn't show as drastic of a difference between the systems, it still shows that PECOTA performed the worst out of the systems. Some criticism of PECOTA is warranted and hopefully that would lead to improvement. Overall, I'd say that the criticisms of PECOTA, the Baseball Prospectus brand, and other comments is more than warranted.

Yet another jackass who doesn't realize that I was commenting on a joke made by the author himself.

Agreed, the website in my mind is all about the written content. My personal preference was Silver and Sheehan, but it's fine by me if people stick around if they like the current cast of authors. My real complaint about PECOTA is more related to the annual, which is no longer as reliable a reference guide because the player comments no longer go out on a limb and the projections are less accurate. I actually thought that the decline in PECOTA was somewhat public knowledge. It seems like many people still believe it's working at the high levels it posted years ago. There's a reason why all of the favorable quotes on the cover of the annual are 5 or more years old.

Sorry, when dealing with idiots who mindlessly support things with no critical eye whatsoever, it's not worth the time to act like they deserve anyone's respect. Make a real point instead of bitching and I'll reply cordially.

If you check my link above, you'll see that PECOTA's accuracy is now so questionable that even using multiple tools, you're likely better off excluding PECOTA.

Actually, I haven't paid for BP in over 2 years. I got a 2 year subscription while Sheehan and Silver were still writing. It since ran out and I shot an email to Christina Kahrl to thank her for her contributions, but saying that I wasn't interested anymore overall. I was given a free 6 months to give them the opportunity to win me back. I promised to give them that opportunity, which is why I'm still reading these articles.

"Feel free to disagree, but you could look into it instead of just following along like the rest of the unquestioning masses" Obviously, you decided not to look it into it and just assumed that your uneducated opinion is correct. Typical idiot behavior and another sad decline, as this used to be a community of thinking people. http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/evaluating_the_2009_forecasts_chone_zips_fantastics_win/ As shown here, PECOTA in 2009 was about as accurate as just using 2008 numbers and by far worse than any other system. Now I've even done the work for you. Anything else, genius?

Actually, if you look at any of the articles comparing the projection systems (on other sites, Silver used to do them himself, when PECOTA was the most accurate) you would see that PECOTA is now one of the least accurate systems. PECOTA not only is less accurate compared to other systems now, it even has a lower accuracy than previous years. Considering that this change accompanied the loss of Silver from BP, this seems like it is NOT a coincidence. Feel free to disagree, but you could look into it instead of just following along like the rest of the unquestioning masses while I look for better content elsewhere.

"Wieters and his .233 TAv has as of yet been neither deadly nor accurate." Hahaha - great potshot at how badly PECOTA missed on this guy. PECOTA is just as bad as he is these days.

Referencing PECOTA to determine if a pitcher can contribute is basically a joke, right? The variance on pitchers is much higher than with hitting and PECOTA isn't what it used to be on top of that.

I saw how light in actual information and analysis this article was at the beginning and was able to correctly predict that I could scroll down to see: "A version of this story originally appeared on ESPN Insider" In other news, I now subscribe to the Joe Sheehan Newsletter so I can get in depth thoughts on the game.

KG, what are the knocks on Tyrell Jenkins that bump him out of the 1st round? How big of a signability concern is the Baylor commitment? I think the Yanks have been scouting him a lot...any chance they draft Jenkins at #32?

That doesn't take into account sacrifices or sac flies. I agree, though.

He's a left-handed pitcher in the Nationals organization.

Absolutely, Russo pinch ran because he was not the tying run. They wanted Golson to be the tying run. It made plenty of sense, and I wish Christina would have attempted to use context before offering criticism.

KG, where do you think is the best place for the Nationals to place the bronze Strasburg statue - just outside Home Plate Gate or inside the park by the Miller Lite Scoreboard Walk?

Where did Calvin Pickering place on his list of comparables?

Awesome, awesome, awesome. More of this please, KG! Looking forward to Friday's installment.

I'm amused that BP is now citing exaggerated expectations for Hank Blalock. They themselves rated him as baseball's #1 prospect at one point, so they have only themselves to blame...

As far as Mariano Rivera and PECOTA is concerned, I haven't checked the numbers but I would assume that PECOTA has projected a worse year than Rivera has produced every single year. PECOTA just can't wrap it's head around what he's able to do on the mound, much like it's issues projecting knuckleballers.

How is it possible that catcher is not a premium position?

I really hate these individual position rankings in the outfield. I realize that 10% of the people who do fantasy will find this helpful, but it's annoying.

I doubt he has a chance because the writers won't remember that he had an MLB career before this. 200ish innings scattered over 5 years didn't really establish a level to "comeback" to either...

I still don't see where the "surprise" comes in. The predicted PECOTA seasons are very close to what I'd expect from Lind and Cano. It's not just me. If you look at the Fans projections at FanGraphs, most fans believe that Cano and Lind with outperform PECOTA. Lind is predicted at .279/.340/.495 by PECOTA and .299/.366/.535 by fans. Cano .297/.338/.493 and .313/.346/.503 Who would be surprised? Certainly not me or most other fans. I completely fail to see the point you're trying to make. Surprise comes when a player reaches a new level of performance.

Mariano Rivera's chances at 300 wins looks poor. I wonder if he has a chance to make the hall.

Typical BP watered down for ESPN... Lind and Cano would be good surprises by posting seasons worse than last year? Ugh. You should put the ESPN Insider warning at the top so I'm not wondering all article why this seems like such a shallow analysis.

*Face palm*

Will, you caught me skipping to the the conclusion and reading the first sentence of the last paragraph first. Well played.

I'm skeptical as to how your methods could yield results. The first sample (min 20 starts) seems useless because of the sample bias that you admit to. I would suspect that the large majority of all players in the sample are hovering near the median, so it's no surprise in the slightest that the numbers are so close and don't indicate much. Perhaps taking the top and bottom quartile and comparing them would have yielded an interesting result. It seems like it would more sense to analyze how likely a pitcher that had breakout season (Piniero) is to retain his performance. Maybe I just didn't see where you might have mentioned it, but the most interesting thing to be about the numbers is that in all cases, the volatile pitchers out-performed the predictions and the consistent pitchers under-performed. A look into why that is would have been an direction worth taking.

Why exactly do these details matter? People use drugs to accelerate healing. Athletes using medicine to heal their bodies is a given, and steroids and HGH are just that. When McGwire was playing, these substances weren't even explicitly banned by MLB. It's sad to see people on their mighty moral high ground about something that was obviously happening. The decade late outrage is the real sham.

Since when are Prozac, Advil, and even aspirin not DRUGS? They all all DRUGS, even the ones that you can buy OTC. The base of your argument is a fallacy. You say that it's not arbitrary because the steroids that you don't like are "anabolic". What about being anabolic makes something inherently illicit? And what about HGH which is distinctly NOT a steroid, anabolic or otherwise?

What is it that makes use of steroids legitimate or illegitimate if they are legally prescribed? Cortisone shots are often used in sports. They are legitimately classified as STEROIDS. The only purpose of using cortisone is to get players back on the field, so if you're saying using other steroids for the same purpose is illegitimate, then why is using cortisone okay?

My mother got prescribed steroids to get over her knee injury, and the doctor seemed ethical enough to me. Clearly though you've already made up your mind, making further debate irrelevant.

The only thing that is needed for the use of steroids and HGH to be "LEGAL" is a prescription, which would be an easy matter for athletes to get. These are not illegal substances like cocaine or crystal meth. They are legally used by many citizens of this country and across the world. The arbitrary distinction is the one made by MLB to ban the use of these substances.

This is one of the best stat articles that I've looked at on this site for some time. You changed the way I look at player peaks.

I'm very glad to see this published. I had a real problem with the previous article because any conclusions based off a small amount of data from a single year are spurious. I would prefer if this study was expanded to take win cycles into account, directly in relation to market size, etc. I feel that would be more instructive and revealing into team success and how resources are best directed.

I feel exactly the same way... About this article.

I find it sad to see a Seidman article without at least a small graph or aside with stats, so I'll a small stat block. I find that the number of comments left by BP readers for an article can often be a good indication of how thought provoking that article is. Clearly there are exceptions, like the State of BP where they asked for feedback, or Sheehan's last article where people want to say goodbye. # of comments on previous Eric Seidman articles (# of those by BP staff): Dec 28, 2009 - 4 (2) Dec 18, 2009 - 5 (2) Dec 11, 2009 - 8 (1) Just a thought... any other thoughts on as to why these are coming up short on comments?

"I wouldn't be at all surprised if that slate draws a blank while Andre Dawson gets in, though I do think Alomar has a decent shot (early returns suggest reasons for optimism) and Blyleven may be nearing the tipping point." Wow, Jay. You can't predict it much more accurately than that without Doc Brown and a modified DeLorean DMC-12.

I loved Christina's take on this non-story. She said it all.

CK, I would be much more optimistic about the progression of the writing of Matt Swartz and Eric Seidman if they seemed at all receptive the litany of criticism that they are receiving about their writing abilities. I've read many of their articles and been left wanting for a legitimate conclusion or an interesting opinion, and commented as such. The few replies that I've received were essentially that "their work isn't going to please everyone." It's clear that it's not just a small sample that dislikes their writing style (or lack thereof) when a criticism like the first by Tarakas in this post gets a rating of an unprecedented +100.

I would like to see more of your work on BP, particularly on current events. I read The Pinstriped Bible often, and I generally prefer that to You Could Look It Up. The main reason for this is that I often talk to more casual baseball fans, and BP has offered me much less over the last year that I can use in casual conversation. Often Sheehan and CK were the only BP authors publishing articles that could be distilled in a few sentences and resonate with casual baseball fan. Generally,the works of Matt Swartz and Eric Seidman are either so esoteric, arcane, or unreadable that they don't provide any discussion among even my most stat-oriented friends. Your Pinstriped Bible work always takes on relevant topics to Yankees fans such as myself. This always gives me that much more ammunition to use when arguing against the inane misconceptions of many baseball fans. That ammunition was one of the best reasons to be a BP subscriber, and I would like more of that content for my money.

Steven, I'm REALLY sorry about calling you Kevin at the Yogi Berra Museum a couple of years ago.

Why don't you and Eric just work on your writing skills? We used to get the best of both worlds as BP subscribers. Now, you and Eric are bringing poor writing to the site, which was never a complaint until now.

I went back and read that Nate Silver article that you mentioned. This has led me to conclude why I am disliking the current BP "statheads" so much. They are not Nate Silver. They aren't even the poor or impoverished man's Nate Silver. I got spoiled on having Nate Silver, Sheehan, CK and a host of other great authors. Unfortunately, BP has lost a great deal of it's best talent over time. And over that time, the quality of free content on sites like fangraphs, etc has become better. It's becoming increasingly hard to justify spending any amount of money to be a BP subscriber... I'm sad to see Joe go. Much more sad than I would have been years ago, since then he was one of many great writers. Now he's one of just a few employed at BP.

I have been highly critical of the extremely statistical columns posted recently by Eric Seidman, Matt Swartz, et al. However, I LOVE statistics! Baseball stats are one of best things about the sport, from my perspective. It's just these recent articles often lack a conclusion. Let's take Matt Swartz's article from today as an example. He certainly is heavy on tables and statistics, but when you skip to the bottom, the conclusion doesn't provide a REAL analysis. Why did I just read the article when these stats can't be usefully applied? He only used one year of data, so he only took a snapshot of a moment in time anyway. Is this the advanced use of statistics that I should pay for? The only thing he really concludes is that it's easier to win by spending more money. We all know this is true, and it should have been a near assumption going into the article, NOT the lame "conclusion." This kind of article is an insult. Why not wait until you find something interesting to report from stats? I'm tired of reading articles that start with a possibly interesting statistical premise and end without anything relevant being gleaned. Joe Sheehan's writing was great, but not by virtue of being less statistically oriented. One of his best attributes as a writer was that he started from a place of strong opinion and went through a discussion of his original premise where he continually reevaluated those opinions in relation to the facts. I'm not sure if you'll find that helpful or not, but perhaps you'll see my point in there somewhere.

Christina, if you were leaving as well as Joe, I'd be indignantly asking for a refund on the remainder of my subscription. I wholeheartedly look forward to you spending a larger portion of your time on writing, which was the only clear positive that I gleaned from the changes for 2010 and beyond.

The BP writers have left double digit comments in this thread. They simply chose to respond to the softball comments that didn't get so much as a +5.

I can't say how disappointing it is to see a well reasoned and heartfelt comment by Tarakas ignored by the BP staff. Currently, his comment has a staggering +43 ranking, and zero BP staff have attempted to have a discussion about these concerns!

Amen to this!

The Pinstriped Bible is a great read. I check it all the time. Keep it up, Steven!

Thank you for writing this. I couldn't agree more. Joe and Christina's articles were the ones that I truly looked forward to the most. They use statistics intelligently, but purposefully to a specific point. I find that much of the "methodology" pieces start with a premise, and generally can't draw much in the way of conclusions. They seems like they're trying to emulate the incomparable Nate Silver, but Nate waited until the statistics were strongly indicating something to make an article out of it. I've criticized these pieces several times before as a commentary to how I feel like I'm starting to get less out of my BP subscription over time. With Joe gone, it's a major blow to my interest in this site. I don't dislike John Perotto, but his content is all to similar to the writing that I don't have to pay for from many many other sources.

I was about to post something about Raines and Trammell but R.A.Wagman beat me to it. As many others have noted, Raines is an especially easy call. His work on those '80s Montreal teams is outstanding, and the AL portion of his career props up his aggregate numbers. This seems like it should appeal to the HOF voters, but that hasn't been the case. What else do you want this guy to do? Kill a yak from 200 yards away...with mind bullets? One thing I'd like to add: Edgar Martinez and Mattingly are in, but no McGriff? Really, Mr. Perrotto? Mattingly was the superior defender, and Martinez the superior hitter, but if you're talking about the virtues of doing *both* of: playing the field (until he became a "sluggardly slugger" in his 30s - copyright Steven Goldman) and working productive ABs, then you have to put McGriff alongside those two - or eliminate all three from earning votes. Side note: On almost any other baseball website, I'd be sure to find impassioned defenses of Jack Morris and Lee Smith in the comments area. Not here. Thanks to the rest of the readership for being AWESOME. *golf clap*

Schlom, your comments are terrible, as usual.

They make me look pretty foolish by fixing things afterwards.

Glaus is only costing 1/4 of the saving (in guaranteed $), so I'd say they're not done spending that money.

Anyone who signs either of those guys to the contracts they're seeking will be foolish. Ca$hman isn't going to give it to them frankly because he's smarter than that, rather than budgetary concerns.

Mostly from misinformed Yankees fans. As a Yankees fan myself, I can tell you that the reaction to the trade was that we shouldn't have given up Melky and that we'd "regret trading him once he develops." It's just nonsense.

Adam, you beat me to the punch here. It's just as well, since I couldn't have said it better.

This deal for the Yankees is very similar to the deal that the Mariners made for Cliff Lee. The biggest difference is that the Yankees took on LESS payroll, since Melky Cabrera's contract is off the books. No one cried for the impoverished Phillies. The Mariners aren't big market bullies. This was a baseball trade, pure and simple. Oversimplifying every transaction of the Yankees to their revenue isn't productive or useful.

My subscription pays for these articles. As a consumer, you should be entitled to give feedback about the product you're receiving. More articles like this means I'm just getting less value out of my dollars.

I suppose that all depends on if the Tigers are willing to eat any of the money owed to Cabrera. He's making over $20M per season through 2015 and seems likely to be a DH by then. Adrian Gonzalez is on everyone's wishlist, which makes it seem unlikely. However, I'm sure the Padres would like a shiny new Arodys Vizcaino in a hefty trade package. Also, I'm sure that the Braves would prefer to keep Heyward - and prospects like Vizcaino would be needed to keep him out of such a deal.

This is an excellent retort to Joe's piece. Clearly this deal involved too many pitchers with V's and Z's aplenty because they got mixed up in the 2nd to last paragraph... certainly an understandable error. Dumping Vazquez's salary certainly didn't seems to be that big of sin to me. Those dollars can be used very effectively in this depressed FA market. That ~$8M seems like quite a boon when the likes of Nick Johnson and his over .400 OBP cost only $5.5M.

More or less, that's true, but articles such as this get significantly fewer comments than the editorials by Sheehan, Jaffe, etc that deal much more directly with individual team situations and viewpoints. Clearly, there's a lot less interest in articles like this.

That's an absolutely valid point. As you'd probably expect, I'd have no problem if more maverick owners like Mark Cuban (honestly, no pun intended) were allowed into the baseball fold. Why is Mr. Selig so afraid of these men? I'd like to think that the sporting league commissioner's job is, above all, to shape an already great product into the finest and most sought-after piece of entertainment on the market. Unfortunately for baseball fans your commissioner does not agree, and football has since passed our grand game as the preferred entertainment in this country.

You get popular by winning. The Mets are also in the biggest market, with the same advantages. If George had bought the Mets in the 1970's rather than the Yankees, the Mets would be the biggest team in baseball.

Did Melky Cabrera not make the Top 10, 25 and under list on merit or by accident? A league average CF seems like someone that would deserve a spot.

This seems to be a fairly well written and well argued article, but I'm missing the point as to why I should care. I don't mean that in an offensive way. I'm just saying that the article is written as if to be published in The Economist and not for an audience of baseball fans with rooting interests...

George M. Steinbrenner prioritized winning over everything except breathing. The result is a team that makes so much money that it can now afford to spend many times more than the average baseball team. As a Yankees fan, Steinbrenner is a greater hero to the Yankees than Derek Jeter, and he has my admiration. Fans care about winning, and the greatest gift than an owner can give to fans is to care just as much. Thank you, Joe, for yet another outstanding article.

Melky Cabrera is clearly not the best player the Yankees sent over in this deal. A 4-star prospect is highly valuable in the current state of MLB.

Sorry to nitpick you there, Jay. Good article!

Is Billy Wagner no longer left handed or did he not get an asterisk because he's not a LOOGY type?

I really have to agree with Sheehan on Pineiro. It's easy to get excited about a guy that has a big year like Pineiro had. If Pineiro loses his miraculous 2009 control and walks more than one guy per start, the results are going to be much different, especially with a K rate that is truly abysmal.

Why is BP publishing articles that essentially say the same thing on the same day?

I guess it sucks to have an owner that doesn't want to win and won't spend what they can afford. As a Yankees fan, I wouldn't know.

It has been systematically studied. The results are essentially random... The burden of evidence is on the wild claim that there's a quality that allows players to succeed by personality when we know that players get hot and cold all the time for no apparent reason.

He's not completely likable and he doesn't always say the right thing. He's awkward in his attempts to live up to his own self image. I hate it when people play arm-chair-psychiatrist, but I would guess that much of his awkwardness comes from being the child of a single mother. Lacking a male role model is something that significantly affects development and I think he's struggled to fill his undeniable role as a role model, as all star athletes are made out to be. His work ethic an effort on the field are not questioned, and they never have been. That's all I ask of my team's players. He gives it his all and that's enough for me.

Why bother mentioning the salaries of pre-arbitration players? Sure, you can get great bargains on players when they have zero leverage. Good performances by pre-arb players are ALWAYS going to be worth far more than they are compensated for. That's not exactly news, and certainly not worth discussing. The real bargains are when you sign an established players with the leverage to negotiate his salary and get performances that are worth far more. That would clearly be Abreu.

If you look at the games that the Yankees have played into extra innings, Girardi seems to be making it a point to neutralize any advantage in depth he might have by using all of his bullets early.

Will Carroll has been demoted to the sidebar? Oh no! I found his Mariano Rivera observation extremely interesting. Perhaps this can also explain why Rivera has not yet declined as he's aged. Can we use Pitch/fx to see if that cutter is getting more movement when he's not throwing as hard? Congratulations, Jay, on such a thorough analysis of superb quality. I can't imagine that there's a significant angle that you didn't cover.

Thank you so much for publishing this article so early in the day! It gives me far better coffee break reading than some lame blog. Usually I have to wait until after lunch to get my daily BP in. :)

My criticism here isn't about the quality of your work. The topic (umpiring) is just something that is of little interest to most baseball fans because they tend to be watching and talking about team and players, not the people who facilitate the games. I'd be just as bored if the article was discussing the differences in grounds crews, equipment managers, and ball boys.

You can call me whatever you want, but considering that I pay for the privilege of reading these articles, I feel entitled to comment when I don't think articles provide interesting analysis. I suppose I was wrong, considering that so many comments have been left (although I suspect that has much to do with Eric's quick replies, which is certainly commendable) - my interest in baseball has to do with players, not umpiring.

As an additional note on CC, the excessive off-days and days between series has significantly limited the number of starts he's had to make over the last several weeks. It's hard to imagine that overwork is a major concern.

I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment. Also, I appreciate that you named the few writers on the BP that still give the quality of analysis that I've come to expect. Kahrl, Sheehan, Carroll, and Goldstein are what makes a BP subscription worthwhile. I'm not trying to hate on Goldman, though. I love his work on the Pinstriped Bible.

That's what you get when BP goes all ESPN on us...

This article is so exciting. For my next big thrill, I'll do my taxes.

Idiots

An I the only one tired of waiting until the afternoon for BP to publish its articles? When I have time to take a coffee break in the morning while drinking coffee at work, that's when I really want to read some baseball. This is turning into an issue that will likely cause me not to resubscribe.

Stanton's obviously got some "Holy crap! Did you just see that?" power. Kevin, do you think the average will climb as he matures? Has his Contact rating always been low on the 20-80 scale? Have any ideas as far career comps?

It unfortunate that so few of us are more outraged by the leak than the PED use. The culprits won't be found because there isn't enough interest in finding them.

John - that Brett Tomko line is completely ludicrous, but I still love those Scouts' Views. You had a good mix of stars, prospects, and Quad-A guys this week. Also, I enjoyed the beat reporter-type Kouzmanoff blurb and *any quotes whatsoever* from Ozzie Guillen. Thanks!

I'm a little disappointed with the length of this article and the modest amount of analysis. Does the content have to be pre-1950 in order to get a long, interesting analysis?

To Will or any Tiger fans out there: What's the story with Miguel Cabrera's hand, and how long will he be out? All I read was that he was lifted from the game *during* an AB, which worries me...

Stanton's obviously a super-talented prospect, but he's not exactly destroying the Double-A Southern League through just over 100 ABs (his current .221/.315/.442 line is far from an embarrassment for his age, though). Montero is raking at Double-A Trenton, thus his inclusion on a "Great Leaps Forward" list.

John - The "Scouts' Views" sections of these articles are always the best part. I'll probably never talk to a scout at any length, so it's been great to get a professional's view on some players each week. I would humbly suggest you expand this section further. Thanks, and keep up the good work.

Ichiro's comments regarding a possible Ichiro-Pedro quote off: "I hope he arouses the fire that's dormant in the innermost recesses of my soul. I plan to face him with the zeal of a challenger."

Well said - I completely agree. In addition to the many positives you listed, McCann's control of the strike zone seems to get better every year. He's now walking more than he strikes out, and he's already been a superior contact hitter (with above-average power to boot). Based on the eye test, it seems like his defense is catching up to that dangerous bat as well. He's just an outstanding player, and worthy of more ink from the baseball press outside Georgia.

KG, do you think Pedro Alvarez is a Hanley-type case where he's bored in the minors? Would he be best served by aggressive promotions from the Pirates? Also, can you give me a pure guess on a Stubbs triple-slash in the majors? Thanks. Great stuff as always.

Will, thanks for the updates on Lidge and Jose Reyes. Do you think the Rangers put Frank Francisco back on the DL?

Will, Travis Snider went 2-3 with a HR yesterday playing LF against the Phils. Does the knee injury affect his baserunning and fielding more than his hitting? How do you feel Gaston should use him afield to maximize his effectiveness at the plate?

Bonifacio is hitting cleanup? Really?

Nate - very amusing stuff, and I appreciate getting a little more insight on the factors PECOTA accounts for when spitting out a projection. What about a Pedroia-sized Adam Dunn? Or possibly a Derek Jeter-sized Jimmy Rollins? A Chris R. Young-sized Roy Oswalt? I'd appreciate another article like this in the future with so many other "what if?" possibilities.

Will - regarding the comment on Andrew Miller...what is it about throwing across the body that taxes an arm more? Would "fixing" Miller's mechanics ruin what made him an effective pitcher in the first place? Also, are any/all of Hermida's injuries chronic? Is there any reason to believe he'll play 140 games one of these years? Good info on Nolasco and Lindstrom. Thanks as always.

Sarcasm?

While switching tabs in Firefox, I clicked the \"Inappropriate?\" button under the comment by user \"Russ\" by accident. If an admin is trolling this comment thread, please remove the \"flagged for moderation\" tag. His comment was not offensive and he should not be flagged for my mistake. Thanks.

It\'s Kevin Goldstein\'s prospect rankings. Don\'t sweat it though... I think that I accidentally referred to Steven as Kevin while talking to him in the Yogi Berra Museum in \'08.

I had fun meeting you all again on my third annual trip to the Yogi Berra Museum for the BP Book Tour. Hopefully, you keep coming back to chat - It\'s probably my only opportunity of the year to talk baseball with people who are more knowledgeable than myself!

Aren\'t you injured yet?? Go take a walk.

Sweet! Scrappy California Angel fan favorite Rod Correia is back! But seriously...thank you for giving the Giants\' rotation some attention, Christina. Considering that division and that ballpark, they should be competitive in nearly every game they play this year. With a Manny signing to ensure they actually put some runs on the board, would anyone not consider San Francisco the favorite in the NL West?

I don\'t know much about Hockey, but it seems like an odd sports to attempt to apply statistical analysis to. Football Prospectus was a bad idea in my mind and I disagreed with much they had to say in their annual to my benefit the last few seasons. Isn\'t baseball the only sport where the statistical analysis really gives you definite insight?

It was more of a rhetorical question. Basically, I\'m wondering why Will Carroll has passed off this series.

He also knew what playing CF was like because that was his position in Japan...

Who is Brad Wochomurka?

Given that this \"team\" has NO access to pre-arb players, it\'s not surprising in the slightest that the payroll is so high. In fact, it shows exactly why the Yankees have paid so much for teams that were clearly not elite over the last several years. If you want to field an affordable team, you have to develop much of the talent yourself - rinse and repeat.

This series is one of the weakest on the site so do whatever because I usually don\'t even bother skimming them...

Yep, there\'s no medical or performance reason for an athelete to take a diuretic other than to mask usage of a banned substance. So you can understand why they might be banned.

While the bullpen wasn\'t the problem for the Yankees in \'08, it doesn\'t mean that they couldn\'t have better utilized Britton. When the innings and opportunities afforded to guys like Hawkins, Ohlendorf, and Robertson are considered, it just doesn\'t make sense for Britton not to get a reasonable shot at contributing.

Clearly, there was something other than performance that dictated the Yankees usage of Britton. I think that his weight had something to do with it - perhaps he failed to make weight goals that the Yankees set for him and he ended up in the dog house. This is the only theory that I can come up with, since the Yankees gave legit shots to all kinds of minor leaguers in \'08.

I agree completely. It would be helpful if there was one intro and two sets of analysis.