Who thinks that Alfonso Soriano caught that lime?

Bernie actually broke 5% the first time (9.6%), last year. I don't think he had a realistic chance anyway, but I'm sure the number of big name entries onto the ballot this year had some to do with his getting knocked off in year 2.

Or you could make the writers use one of their 5 votes to remove an old vote. So in a sense, a writer is granted for "moves" each year instead of votes. With these, they could remove old votes or vote for new players.

I enjoyed this study and the points it makes, but as for the point of writers running out of room and hitting the limit before being able to check off Jack Morris, that assumes they're ranking them in order and won't deviate from that. I'd think that writers might make more of an effort to include someone if the player was close to making it, and if the player was running out of time. Both apply to Morris this year (and next).

Would writers even use the extra votes? From a lot of the published ballots I've seen, the majority of the ballots contained 4-7 names. They've said the average ballot contains about 6 names, and that hasn't really changed over time. Giving those writers 12/15 votes instead of 10 doesn't necessarily mean they'll use them. I'd have to think that the writers who used all 10 votes this year, and would use more if they were able to, are in the vast minority. I also agree with the 1st poster. If they voted players in, this wouldn't be an issue. At some point in the future, maybe even 15-20 years from now, the ballot will probably shrink back down to normal size, and then we'll be arguing that 15 votes is too many. I've never had a problem with the process. I actually think it works. My problem has been with the explanation given my some of the writers for their votes. MLB.com listen some of their writers' ballots, and one only voted for Morris with this explanation: "I've been swayed by evidence presented this year about his complete games and innings. Moreover, the Giants' postseason pitching last year reminded me of Morris' brilliant performance against the Braves in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series." So in other words, he's saying that the San Francisco Giants pitched well in the World Series this year, so he's voting for Morris. And I'm glad we can now find innings totals and complete games online, because apparently those haven't been available for the previous 13 years. THIS is the problem. Not the process.

For the record, I seem to recall Thomas saying that he felt much more comfortable when playing 1B. His career splits bear that out in a big way. As a 1B: .337/.453/.625 As a DH: .275/.394/.505 And he had 4,334 PAs as a 1B and 5,698 as a DH, so it's not a question of small sample size at 1 position. Of course, the bigger factor is that much of his time at DH came on the downside of his aging curve, so one must take that into account.

That link has nothing to do with the price of tomatoes in Honduras. He asked for proof that steroids aid performance. That link describes health consequences.

I actually played the same game with my friends last night using Dennis Martinez, Frank Tanana and even Rick Reuschel as the examples. He seems to be getting a boost from A) his 14 Opening Day starts, but Martinez had 11. (And Brad Radke had 9) B) Breaking the 250 win barrier (so he was lucky enough to be on a team with better hitters than these other pitchers) and C) His 10 inning Game 7 World Series start (or, 0.255% of his career). If you traded places between Morris and each of these other guys, we may very well be discussing Dennis Martinez today and how he shouldn't be considered a Hall of Famer because he was similar to Morris and Morris didn't break 5%.

He might be a lock by those standards, but who knows what the BBWAA is going to do. Between the writers who don't like voting for players their first time on the ballot, and the ones who hold grudges against anyone from the steroid era, no one entering the ballot is a lock. Then consider that 5% of voters didn't check off Babe Ruth or Willie Mays on their ballot.

I guess you're going by average season salary, so this doesn't quite make the top, but I remember Pat Meares being a "big" signing. From what I can find, it looks like that contract was 4 years and $15 million.

Plus, neither of the two guys who sat down to watch the game are wearing any baseball related clothing.

I remember the ending of the 1992 World Series, but 1993 is the first one that stands out. The funny thing is that I remember it because I *wasn't* watching. Instead, my dad and I were actually at a hockey game. But the hockey game was in Philadelphia, a game between the Flyers and first version of the Winnipeg Jets. There were 15 goals scored in the game, but as you can imagine the Philly crowd wasn't focused on that at all. So many fans had brought in portable TVs, and they kept showing updates of the game on the Jumbotron. Lenny Dyktra hit a big homerun and the crowd started to chant "Lenny! Lenny!" My dad and I were driving home after, listening to the radio while hoping to catch the end of the game on TV, when Joe Carter stepped to the plate.

That 24% want to dump Robinson Cano tells you all you need to know.

Indeed, but what about a start tip aside from refreshing the page?

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this here, but I'd love to see a study published on their own playoff odds. Just pick a day during the season, say June 10th, and see how accurate the odds are. A team with a 60% chance of making the playoffs that day should make it 60% of the time throughout the years they've tracked odds. We seem to have so many historic comebacks/collapses recently - A's this year, Red Sox and Braves last year, the Mets not too long ago for two seasons in a row. Either these feats ARE incredible feats with little chance of happening, or the model could use a few adjustments. I feel the model is sometimes a little too quick to bury a team or declare a team with a high probability of making the playoffs. Here are some examples from this season only: The White Sox had an 82% chance of making the playoffs in late May. That just seems too early, to me, for a team's playoff odds to be that high. The Dodgers were at 80% on May 22. The Angels were at 86% on July 2. Oakland was at 4% on July 13. Baltimore was at 8% on August 23. That's 3 teams with an 80%+ chance to make the playoffs that didn't. I'm not saying the model is incorrect. Baseball is just an unpredictable game. But I'd just love to see some analysis on this, because there have been just enough problems and changes in the playoffs odds this season to make me a little wary in believing them.

Clearly the Giants were made to forfeit the season because of Melky's suspension.

These same probabilities are also posted on MLB's official playoff probabilities page.

What about the postseason performances of the players on that list? I remember Oliver Perez being halfway decent in his 2nd NLCS start, and Jeff Weaver having a fantastic 2006 postseason.

Similar to ostrowj1's point - Couldn't you also find 2 teams that the Orioles completely bashed for a strong positive run differential? According to B-R they're +19 against Toronto and +14 against Pittsburgh. And when you break it down, they've had a positive run differential against 9 teams this season (some good, some bad) and a negative run differential against 8 teams (some good, some bad). So I don't know if excluding the 2 opponents against whom they've performed the worst really tells you much.

Apologies for the posting blitz, but 2004 was the year that included Palmeiro, who wasn't on the AS roster.

There was also the 2005 Derby that went with 8 different nationalities. One of them was Hee-Seop Choi, who was never an All-Star. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Major_League_Baseball_All-Star_Game#Home_Run_Derby

I may be wrong, and I'll have to do some research, but I do remember one Derby having a couple of players in it based on career homerun numbers (maybe Palmeiro) who weren't actually All-Stars.

I think that part can be explained by variance. The 83.9 wins is just an average of all the simulations. But it is possible that Boston wins 90+ games in a lot more of the simulations. (To get the same average, they're also going to have to lose quite a few games in some of the other simulations) If they're winning 90+ in more of the simulations than Baltimore is, which is extremely likely, then they're going to make the playoffs more often. For an extreme example, if you're winning 95 games in half of the simulations (and in all of those, you make the playoffs), and 65 in the other half, then you'll average 80 wins, and make the playoffs 50% of the time. Then team B could win 90 games half the time, making the playoffs 80% of the time, and win 70 games the other half. Then they'd average 80 wins as well, but make the playoffs 40% of the time. There are some things wrong here, but I'm not sure this is one of them.

And then again today (6/17). The Phillies odds are currently 12.2%, but yesterday their odds were 8.3%. The delta says -1.2%. 3 of the other teams in their division lost, which may explain why their odds increased, but the delta is still wrong.

I've been wondering about this too. The 1 day deltas have occasionally been the opposite of what you'd expect for some time. I chalked this up to, yeah, maybe the team won, but maybe it was a close win that didn't do them any favors. Plus the problems that they've acknowledged having. But with the problems solved, and Boston's chances almost having to go up after yesterday, I'd love to hear about this.

Not to mention it's simming the Marlins to have a total of 4.8 losses for the season, when they already have 14.

Actually, growing up, I'm pretty sure I was a part of that group.

It depends on how you're stealing the sign. If the other team's 3rd base coach has been touching his belt to tell the hitter to bunt all series long, and you notice it, I wouldn't consider that cheating. But if you have someone with binoculars and a walkie talkie... well yes, that is cheating.

I personally can't stand the "This player led the league in [category] during [random decade]" argument.

I guess we'll have to hope that they miss more!

I don't think they were *actually* calling Dickey a superstar. It was "knuckleball superstar". At least that's how I read it.

I think that's what a lot of people come here for in the first place and they're trying to cater to that audience. They used to post a fantasy article every week or two, but now they have multiple fantasy articles every day, at least during the season. It's also the off-season, so things may tend to go slower as there is simply less to analyze. Once free agents start signing, that should change. I don't mind a change to more fantasy content, as long as we don't lose the baseball research articles and discussion, because that's still what I come here for much more than for fantasy content.

How many Hall of Fame candidates actually have brochures sent out on their behalf? I had never heard of anything like this, so I'm wondering how common it is.

I meant to say that all seasons play out differently (obviously). Were they all the same, then we wouldn't need BP to forecast things :)

They'll spin it any way they want, but the truth is it's all about the extra money it brings. And since that's the bottom line, this change is inevitable. And it is sad to me, because you posted exactly what I was thinking last night. If there were already 1-game wild-card playoff games scheduled for today, then the games yesterday would have been next to irrelevant. To me, last night was one of the best nights I ever spent watching baseball, and they're planning to take that away. You can't give specific examples and say "Well this season would have been better if there was an additional wild card" because all seasons play out the same way. There are some where it might be more exciting, and some, like 2011, where the ending didn't need an excitement boost.

Never mind the Braves, scanning this list shows Lowe as ranked 2nd in all of baseball behind Kershaw. It just doesn't pass the sniff test.

That 0.7 WARP is a projection for the rest of the season.

I agree. I know there are other factors in play, and you'd hate to see your star player boosting another team in your backyard, but your responsibility is to make your team better. If the Yankees have the best offer, then that's the offer that you take. I know plenty of Mets fans and they don't consider the Yankees a rival. If that's the attitude of the Mets front office, then I think it says a lot about the state of the team, and I'd be very concerned about their priorities.

Yes, but you obviously earned yours.

They're innings - hits - runs - earned runs - walks - strikeouts.

I think you'd also have to note that players reaching major milestones like this are near the end of their careers, and their performance is on the downside of the bell-curve. What looks like a slump is probably just a reflection of their new performance level.

I also liked being able to see how the odds change after each day's results. I hope that comes back as well.

Excellent. Thanks for the reply!

Forgive me if this was already addressed. There is a lot of content on BP nowadays (which is good!), so I may have missed it, but I'm not sure I understand why you're using 1+ day/15+ days and 30+ days as a measure. It seems just about every player misses at least 1 game a season. Last year, only 2 players played in 162 games. Everyone should be a red for the chance of missing 1 game, so I don't think that's very useful. A measure that makes more sense to me would be 15+/30+/60+.

I'm a little intrigued. Can someone tell me how the OOTP series compares to Strat-O-Matic? Always been a big SoM fan, but this seems to have a lot more options.

That's the thing. You'd expect this if it was listing the top 20 comps, or maybe even top 10. The confusion is that these are the top THREE comps.

I completely understand the aged-related comps, and that when a 20-year old prospect has a comp of Willie Mays, they're saying that he's most comparable to a 20-year old Mays up to that point of Mays' career. NOT that he's going to have a Mays type career. What I DO question, is that there should be hundreds of comp possibilities. Thousands for the younger, minor league players. And with that consideration, it seems like the Mays, and the Kalines and the Younts are showing up at a higher frequency than we'd expect them to. Unless it just seems that way because we pause and pay extra attention when seeing "Willie Mays" on someone's comp list.

He's on the NL list for some reason.

At some point, there is only so much accuracy you can attain. Should they continually work towards a better system? Absolutely. But unless you find a projection system that is 100% accurate - obviously not possible - then a report of the accompanying variance of said projections is just as important, if not more so, than the point projection itself.

Nope, but now I know what my friend reads :)

A buddy of mine today pointed out that with Pettitte's retirement and Moyer's injury, no active pitcher has 200 wins. And then after Wakefield's 193, the next highest is Halladay at 169.

May also have to consider the overall decrease in offense last season. PECOTA may have over-estimated every offensive position at about the same rate as catchers.

I remember them commentating on TBS, and just confirmed it myself on B-R, that Cliff Lee has never pitched on 3 days rest.

And what else would you cut? He only mentioned batting average, but runs, RBIs, wins and saves all fall under the "not the best way to measure a player" category that is often preached here. Once you start using VORP, WARP, SIERA, etc. as categories in legaues, then you're going to lose the interest of the general public. BP readers make up a very small minority of baseball fans.

Impatient are we? The other NLDS series begins a day later than all the rest, hence the delay. I believe this is typical of BP if I remember from years past, and I'm sure it'll be up tomorrow.

Even the induction process states that voting should be "based on the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character." It isn't simply just leading any category. The fact that there are questionable characters already in the Hall shouldn't be a green light for more.

The problem with betting only on your team to win is that on the days you don't bet on your team, it's going to be interpreted as you think you're going to lose, and the gambling community would interpret it as such.

And after all that talk about how we shouldn't judge pitchers on their W's and L's.

Let's just wait and see what they tell us before we decide to stop subscribing. Check Will's twitter account, there are some hints of what he's dealing with on there. Could very likely be related to his absence.

I still see it there.

I forgot to add that that IBB column was just 2 columns away from the HR column, which is why you can easily make that mistake. (Another call for the ability to edit posts)

Enjoyed this article, but I believe this statement is an error: "Rivera has allowed just 61 home runs in his career—one that has spanned 1,132 innings. Since 1996, he hasn’t allowed more than seven home runs in a single season, and in five separate seasons he has allowed either zero or one home run." It seemed too good to be true, so I had to look it up. He's only had 1 such season since 1996, that being this one. If you're looking at the same statistics table I am (from his B-R page) then you get his IBB column. The numbers are always in the low single digits, so one can easily mistake them for HR allowed if you lose track for a second and don't look at the column headings. And indeed, he has five separate seasons of either zero or one intentional walks since 1996.

Lest we forget, the NFL is now being played without a salary cap, at least for the upcoming season.

Would that 77% also include spring training injuries? That would provide further context to your answer since it would expand the 100 day window prior to the AS Game.

While I agree that that part could/should have been edited out, I think these are the types of things we concede in order to have the articles up early in the morning.

I also agree with your second part. And that's the very reason that I still read mailbags. Because you just never know when an answer will give you an insight that you haven't thought of before, or maybe even a player you might not have considered useful before. I think they're helpful in that general sense.

I enjoy reading mailbags. The problem I often have with them is that they often consist of questions like "Would you keep X or Y" or "Would you trade A, B and C for J and K?" When one stops to consider how many different kinds of leagues there are, and that these kinds of questions can really only be properly answered by knowing the league setup, roster makeup of the rest of the teams, and the current standings, then they're often useless - to the readers, any maybe even to the person asking since the author doesn't have all the necessary information when forming an opinion. In one league the trade might be good. In another, not so. That said, I'd still end up reading!

What about a similar study about AL pitchers who have to sit on the bench while their team has a long inning at the plate? That could be interesting as well. Maybe anytime 7 or more batters come to the plate, or a half-inning that lasts 20 or more minutes (if you have access to that kind of data).

If the voter has studied his ballot, and honestly and truly feels that there are no Hall of Fame worthy players, and decides not to vote for anyone, then I have no problem with it. But it's the reasoning (Not a true first ballot Hall of Famer, etc. Give me a break) that I have the biggest problem with.

Unfortunately it's more likely to be - Instant replay allows for increased commercial breaks that allow us to see a handful more of the aforementioned "Men of a Certain Age" and "George Lopez Show" ads.

That is 2010 birthday. So he turns 27 next December 23. He'll be turning 26 this year.

I think I'd have to agree about the standard category statistics. While it goes against one of the big messages that BP tries to relay to it's readers, that RBI is not an individual stat, the fact remains that the majority of fantasy leagues use them. Of the 3 stats projected in these articles, only average is used in a standard 5x5 league. That means we're missing 4 other categories. And while a typical BP article would probably steer away from them, I think an article geared towards fantasy baseball purposes should try and find a way to include them.

Sadly, as we saw in last year's NL RoY voting, being an eligible rookie isn't always a criteria either.

The author also fails to point out that the difference between Yankees revenue and payroll, which I guess would be considered profit, is slightly under $175 million, a number that even with the 4th highest investment rate is a bigger profit than any other team. Though as Richard stated, there are so many more factors that go into calculating a team's expenses that we can only take these numbers with a grain of salt.

And Kendrick's.

Thanks, I felt like I am the only one who enjoys it when a mediocre starter steps up with a huge playoff performance. Like Jeff Weaver or Miguel Batista. Or when the last guy on the bench comes through with the game-winning hit? One of the things I love about this game is when the "little guy" comes through in a big moment. It's a team game, and I enjoy when everyone has a chance to contribute, even if it's only a little bit.

Joe D. - also for your argument is the fact that the NFL schedules are unbalanced every year. No explanation of NFL team year-to-year performance is complete without considering that. A first place team gets a "first place schedule", and ditto for a last place team. That makes season-to-season variation much more likely. A bad team can play a weak division and 2 other last place teams. So if teams can constantly be near the top despite these more competitive schedules, I'd think that can factor into an argument of competitive balance.

I believe the NFL may operate next season without a cap. I'm sure they won't lose any fans.

This is like the "Who had the most hits in the 90's" list. It's an arbitrary, meaningless period of time.

I don't think it's simply a matter of pitching to expectations. I'm not sure anyone who really understands analysis had very high expectations for Wright and to just a slightly lesser degree, Pavano. So one could easily argue that those two DID perform to expectations. But, there weren't a lot of FA pitchers to choose from that year. There was Clemens (who the Yankees were recently soured on at the time), Pedro, Matt Clement and Odalis Perez among the top starters with Wright and Pavano. Hardly a comparable to a 28-year old Sabathia in the bunch. In both years they signed a couple of the top pitchers, it's just that the quality at the top of the 2008 FA class was a heckuva lot better.

There's also a salary issue. Teams aren't going to offer what those vets are used to playing for, for them to spend three-fourths of the year in the minors. And those vets aren't going to play for that much less, no matter how much they love the game.

One also needs to consider context. If you're talking about who you think *should* win the Cy Young in a BP discussion, then you're not going to bring up wins. However, if you're talking about likely winners then you have to talk about wins as a measurement because, right or wrong, that's one of the main focuses of the BBWAA.

Thank you!

I realize the article is about Helton, and hence only including the top of the list is necessary to get the point across, but is there any chance you could post the bottom of the list? Players with the lowest AIR score? Thanks!

Wow, kind of puts Neifi's .267/.297/.375 career line into a new, even uglier, light.

You guys know you can opt out of receiving it, right? Just go to "manage your profile" and there is a drop-down box that's real easy to find.

Even if Will had said that Sizemore would miss 10 weeks minimum, it sounds like you were already in trouble. Whether Sizemore is out for 15 days or 2-3 months, you have the chance to pick up an injury replacement. It sounds more like you're frustrated that you could potentially lose the league because of Sizemore's injury. It's not like Sizemore will miss more time because of Will's article. The article isn't what is screwing you over. If there was one solid OF on the free agent list and you hesitated to pick him up because you didn't think Sizemore would be out long, and someone else picked up that OF, then that's bad managing on your part. Sorry.

I enjoyed your comment on Little League pitchers. What about the type of pitches that are being thrown? In LL, at least in the one I played in, you'd just have kids get up on the mound and throw. (I also remember a simple innings limit, nothing about number of pitches) There weren't any offspeed pitches, or even changeups. Just simply trying to get the ball over the plate. Now I'd be naive to think every LL experience was like this one. I'm sure there are a lot more competitive leagues, especially among older kids, where pitchers might try and throw something different. And they obviously would at the college level. But pitch type is just another thing to keep in mind.

I believe he is talking about the very end of that 1961 season. The last week or so of the regular season, and post-season. Mantle only had 6 at-bats in the World Series, getting only 1 single.

Right, I understand. I think the reason why most players probably tend to get numbers between 50-60%, is that the top extreme can go pretty high, while the bottom extreme has a floor of 0, at least in the counting statistics. Using the HR example again, if my player was hitting 5-10-15 the mean would be 10. But if it were more \"extreme\", something like 0-10-25, the mean would probably be in the 50-60% range. Though that doesn\'t explain your observation on Posey\'s card.

That\'s the concept of weighted mean. It\'s not always going to fall between 50-60%. Unless I\'m mis-interpreting how it works in PECOTA, my understanding of a weighted mean would be something like this: Player A has a 25% chance of hitting 10 HRs, 50% chance of 15 HRs and 25% chance of 20 HRs. The mean = (.25)*10 + (.50)*15 + (.25)*20 = 15 HRs. The issues you have noted would come up when the extreme ends are a little higher (or lower). Say in the case of Player A, PECOTA thinks that in a best base scenario, he could hit 30 HRs instead. Then you\'d have (.25)*10 + (.50)*15 + (.25)*30 = 17.5 HR. That\'s a very crude example, but I hope somewhat accurate. PECOTA is obviously going to be more advanced because it uses such a wider range of probabilities other than the 25/50/25 in my example.

I do agree with some of the comments here, but I would like to point out that the staff for Puck Prospectus is almost entirely different than the one here at BP. I\'m not entirely sure PP can be specifically blamed for some of the issues coming up here.

Similarly to that, the GS looks a little off. Joba is expected to start 44 games. I think that goes against the \"Joba Rules\".

Even these sketches have attendance at about only 25%.

I believe it was Jim Deshaies who campaigned for 1 vote.

All of those guys have appeared in only one game their whole \"careers\".

If no one thinks McGwire cheated then he wouldn\'t still be on the ballot.

Maybe it\'s because if they took him in the Rule 5, they\'d have to keep him on the major league roster. Trading for him means they can send him down without losing him.

Just for the record, Sabathia has had some awfully poor playoff performances of late. With an ERA approaching 8 (!) and a K/BB ratio of 24/22. I don\'t think it\'s out of the question for one to wonder how he\'ll handle the spotlight. This isn\'t Cleveland or Milwaukee.

The 4/$36M was describing Lowe\'s previous contract.

I respect your opinions and reasons for voting for each player. To me, that\'s part of the fun in the offseason, debating over Hall of Fame quality players. But I don\'t know how you start talking about a player with \"he was a decent but not great ballplayer\" (Baines) and then proceed to vote for him.

Yankees, 6/177, 12/2

I imagine hockey would have it\'s own site given enough demand. I don\'t think those who are against hockey (or another sport) updates being posted on BP the way the Crosby news is have to worry. As stated in the article itself, this is just a test to gauge how popular a separate hockey site might be. Another vote here for hockey!

Just curious, because I\'ve been seeing a lot of these comments bashing MLB, but what is the reason behind everyone saying it\'s a joke? They simply can\'t play games on these days, so you push it back to when you can. It\'s not unprecedented. If the comedy is the fact that they let Game 5 go as long as it did, then that I would agree with, but I have no complaints with how things are handled now unless I\'m really missing something.