The 'Godzilla Bellow' after every home run. Now THAT! is inspired! (of course, who knows how much of a licensing fee they'd charge you)

Wasn't me who dinged it. But looking at your comment, that had to be it.

Heck, I just feel like dinging the name 'Hoot Stromboli'.

I don't put the positive read into 'stop 16' that Sam does. Really, your first day in town and, as a bench guy no less, you screw over the local media? In combination with 'stop 1', I guess it explains to me why Branyan had trouble finding work. If you're going to be a jerk, you better be a real good player first.

"Reading (too) much into this" how?? What's the excess stuff that you see being read into it?

I believe Bill James (maybe Tom Tango, too) has concluded that the extra pitchers do help. Some. There's just plenty of guys who, matched up with the platoon advantage and putting everything they got into a dozen or two pitches, can get hitters out with reasonable effectiveness. Whereas there are just not that many Matt Stairs. Once the knees go, you can't hit well anymore either. So hitting wise, you either hit well enough to play, or you can't hit. No corresponding way to squeeze some type of use out of marginal hitters.

Interesting stuff. Thanks for looking it all up. :-)

Why would Cuban waste any substantive amount of money on a team he wouldn't be running??

Not that I'm suggesting it applies in Pettitte's case. But, the, ummm, 'women' draw voluntarily-retired players back into the carnival.

Hamilton is "close" to earning the 'injury-prone' tag?? What, if he winds up one tube over from the decapitated, upside-down Ted Williams, will that do it?

Regarding Bard, how unusual is it for a reliever to not come in 30% of the time he warms up? Sounds high to me, but has anyone monitored that? I'd think teams would be hesitant to give that info out.

Funny how we laud leakers when we agree with what they're doing ('whistleblower', I believe the term is), and they're the earth's lowest vermin when we don't like what they tell us ('shooting the messenger').

Oh, and for what it's worth (basically nada), it was not a 'chain of custody' issue, but an 'improper handling' one. We know where the sample was at all times, and under what conditions.

"a good-faith effort on the players' part to show their openness to battling the steroid problem" ARFARFARFARFARFARF!!!! Really, you BP guys slay me sometimes!

Horrible coverage of the 'Black Sox' scandal. Terrible. Landis proclaimed that knowledge of a fix or discussion of a fix, unless reported, would be grounds for permanent suspension from Major League Baseball. By which grounds Jackson (Weaver, too) was guilty as sin. If I knew my co-workers were dipping into the till but kept my mouth shut about it, once that's shown to be so (and not necessarily beyond all reasonable doubt in a court of law) I'd fully expect to be shown the door, too. Very properly so.

By the time Bonds was willing to play for $500,000, I believe he'd been out for longer than Manny now has been. And getting steadily closer to a 'guilty' verdict, with all the lovely PR effects that would've entailed for the ballclub.

I applaud counting in malcontent costs, especially on Sabrery sites like this. But the problem with clubhouse/office malcontents is not when you can easily get rid of them. It's when you can't or don't really want to lose their individual production, so you start making excuses for them. Pretend they're not really affecting those around them, 'who are adults after all, so it's part of their job to put up with stuff'. Manny's full expendability makes this, also, here a very tiny risk.

The financial cost of Manny is however much it costs to house and feed a player in spring training. My understanding is that the As don't owe Manny a cent of his salary unless he makes the team, and then still only once his suspension is complete. So, see if his bat speed is still there, and if so, flip him. If not, or if he acts up at all, out he goes at a cost of room and board for a few weeks.

So was such 'front-running' illegal? If Wilpon and Katz are shown to have reasonably expected that's how they were getting their investment returns, does that then make them liable? Oh, and thanks much for this stuff. :-)

It's fun to point out how ('other') people aren't as bright ('as I am'). If I don't have asthma, I personally am at zero risk of dying from it. And if I haven't smoked or have a congenital condition or indulged in some other obvious risk factor, I'm highly unlikely to develop asthma. That's the problem with so many of these cognitive studies showing how 'nonrational' we all are. Often they badly misframe the issue. Often they're 'hothouse artifacts', relying on experimental results which don't and won't translate into real-world behavior. End of tangential diatribe.

And 84 losses. But then their run and rbi metrics never add up, either. Leadoff hitters who drive in almost as many runs as they score.

Looks like Montero isn't loaded into PFM.

Dudes, what mulligan says. The app is aimed at 13-year-old girls.

If 'bankruptcy equivalency' forces a Wilpon sale, I can't imagine other than a New York-based franchise will create a bidding frenzy.

Yes, very good research. Thank you.

I'm assuming Boras didn't have to answer any questions at the convention as to how in the wide world the deal worked out "great" for Toronto. But then, when your job is advocacy, it's helpful to have the rep that you'll tell any lie, no matter what, no matter how baldfaced, so long as it's helpful to whomever's paying you.

That is no fun at ALL. NOW how am I going to feel smarter than everyone else? (bear in mind that if folks can't see I'm smarter than everyone else, it makes it much less fun)

Myself, I find it funny that the same writers we lambaste for not telling us in the 90s what they certainly knew but couldn't prove, we now lambaste for telling us things they know but can't prove. Not all that hilarious, tho'.

'Listed weights' as evidence of anything?? Now that's worth one heck of a good laugh.

Regarding jtanker33, I believe current research holds that toxic people do more harm than good, they adversely affect the productivity of most all the people around them. Environments free of such people are much productive overall. But I am out of the research biz now, so can't comment as to the extent or reliability of such research.

One job requirement for a backup catcher is that he accept his backup status with some amount of grace. Didn't Mathis scream bloody murder this past season when Scioscia moved Conger ahead of him for awhile?

I've been here long enough to remember the BP writers who railed righteously against those moral reprobates who dared to suggest that Barry was taking steroids. Dudes, you guys are the birthers for pretending it's not a legitimate, eight- or nine-figure issue.

Silly to cite Pujols' age without noting all the doubts about it.

I'm also worried about the notion that they have to sign someone famous in order to 'fill the new ballpark'. New ballparks are supposed to fill themselves the first few years. That's much of the point.

Baffled by the notion that Reyes is a "superstar". Last year he hit way over his previous norm, still played only 126 games, and only got in that many by shutting down his running game down the stretch. (until the very end; talk about a salary drive)

What 'timber' asks. Elijah Dukes has a rap sheet from here to Tacoma. What has Lueke done separate from the "alleged incident" (legally proven to some extent) in "this link"? I haven't looked that hard, but also haven't found anything. Oh, and "farouche" means 'sullen' or 'fierce' or 'socially inept' according to dictionary.com.

Ever since they invented the telephone, face to face meetings have been overrated. The 'winter meetings,' a la political summits, are mainly free PR for the participants and an excuse for the media to pretend something's going on so please pay attention to our ads.

So how does one scout "makeup"?

People pass along stories of what happens around them, so I'm confident management people in baseball do know how much input Angelos currently gives. And as can be inferred from desirable candidates not even bothering to interview for the position, Angelos continues to offer a whole lot of input. I believe the middle sentence of your second-last paragraph serves as a no-doubt homer to dead center. And I can't imagine Angelos would let Duquette fire Showalter.

"Lighten up, Francis!"

Don't think there's any "maybe" regarding it being more likely that the supply of GMs is much larger than the supply of good MLB players. Now that he's in place, Theo will have a far bigger impact on the Cubs' future than Starlin Castro will. But it's not clear that hiring him will be much or even at all more effective than poaching Ben Cherington, or making Hoyer a 'strong' GM, or hiring Kim Ng would have been.

He also understood, somewhat at least, the difference between building knowledge and assisting a decisionmaker. In the latter, no, large sample size is not always better than small sample size. If I'm a manager, I don't much care what Mark Teahen has done in his last 50 ABs against Buehrle. Players change. I much prefer his last 25 ABs. That's too few to get me up to a .90 confidence level? Well, welcome to my world, Sabre Boy. I make some decisions at .51 confidence level before moving on to my next task. You get me up to a .60 confidence level on some things, you've earned your pay for the week.

Much of Bill James' success, I always felt, was his approach. He'd briefly state his conclusion upfront, next show an example of how it worked that way or why it mattered on the actual baseball field, THEN show his work. With the Table up there, he'd show us why Mark Teahen is not a better choice to DH against Mark Buehrle than Billy Butler is.

All predictive work ought to have a baseline from which to proceed. What is the average hitter performance in each of the 9 zones?

Albert had some legitimate reason to stonewall regarding his calling the hit-and-run. Now that the Rangers know he has authority to do so, they can watch him for it. No reason beforehand to assume TLR grants his players such authority on their own.

Why in the world would anyone think Craig getting thrown out in the 9th was a botched hit-and-run play?? Figuring a groundout DP was more likely than a strike 'em out/throw 'em out DP, Tony sent Craig. It is of course self-evident.

And regarding 'saving' Theriot for later, if he were all that useful a hitter, he'd have been in the game already. Running is probably the one thing he does best now as a baseball player.

Tony took out his best reliever, after two batters, for his worst reliever, in order to get the platoon advantage. Against a hitter who doesn't have a big platoon split. Yes, it was a blunder. And I'm a TLR fan. Oh, and of course he should've pinch-run Theriot. You need 1 run to tie or otherwise lose, you put your best runner in there. I'm a TLR fan, and he made two blunders last night. In a game he projects to lose anyway, even making the right moves.

On the chance that they make the playoffs again next year, 'Move #1' is to cut Kotsay. I half-expected Roenicke to have him on the pitching mound for the start of Game 6. Which, well, wouldn't have worked out that much poorly than things did.

Has Bowden advised any other contender to trade for young guys rather than sign old free agent ones? Was surprised to see that there.

Ummm, 'credible' means 'believable'. You can't believe what you don't know about. So quietly pursuing the alternatives defeats any deleveraging purpose in doing such.

And it doesn't count saying, "hey, I have alternatives too, ya know! I do!! I really do!!!" I mean, don't any of you guys have girlfriends? (me neither, but just pay attention to your coupled friends)

The Red Sox have all the leverage until the Cubs make credible moves in pursuit of an alternative.

The feat of scoring first is more likely to reflect the top of the lineup rather than its depth, I'd think. Even more than that, the starting pitching.

1 out of every 500, then. Thanks, Derek!

Did you control for 0 Ks, Derek? Striking out 6 while also allowing 27 balls in play likely means you pitched a pretty darn good game. I'd love to see what the mean outcome is when striking out zippo while allowing 25+ balls in play. Which itself features a very flattering selection bias, in that if you get alot of bad outcomes on the early balls in play, they won't let you anywhere near 25 batters faced.

One could easily research the promise of such a hire. How well does previous MLB managing experience, previous minor league managing experience, previous MLB coaching experience, et.al., correlate with subsequent managerial success? I understand it would be time-consuming, and probably professionally stupid given that nobody's asked for it other than me. But it would also be the obvious place to start when seriously addressing the question of whether Ventura is a good hire or not.

Williams' overriding focus was to hire as unOzzie-like a manager as possible. And I sure can't blame him for that. Even though that also mandated hiring someone with no competing cred.

If Roenicke pinch-hits for Greinke in the 5th and the guy succeeds in getting on, then Fielder also gets to hit with men on. And gets Dotel out of there immediately, no way TLR lets him face the lefty Fielder with men on. Never mind the defense (which also made a few nice plays), Greinke was lousy. 0 Ks??? You let absolutely every batter put the ball in play, bad things are going to happen on some of those.

"Congratulations, ____________; you're the new Orioles manager. Win a World Series, and you'll be astoundingly happy till your acid trip is over. So what are you inheriting? A desktop PC on which you can Google for the Scarecrow's current whereabouts, then chase him down and retrieve the brain he stole from you. Which explains why you took this job."

"Congratulations, ____________; you're the news Angels manager. Win a World Series, and Mike Scioscia will graciously share a bit of the credit with you. So what are you inheriting? A phone line over which Mike will call you when he wants you. The End."

Like all of us, managers enjoy doing stuff far more than they enjoy not doing stuff. So most all tactically overmanage.

You mean like Roenicke had Weeks bunt?? When the force is on at third, a defense playing the bunt aggressively will get the out there quite often. And you've accomplished nothing other than made it more likely you'll lose.

Ummm, readers on a BP website don't generally question Bowden's advice. Isn't there a toddler somewhere in your household you could reason with instead? ;-)

BillJohnson, there's no analysis up there whatsoever. Some real nice history which I enjoyed, otherwise just a political jeremiad which you appreciate in accordance with how well your own political prejudices line up with Kevin's.

Dude, the 'Occupy Wall Street!!!' rally is thataway.

Sounds to me like you're arguing the Yankees should've had a starting-caliber 3rd baseman ready and waiting behind Rodriguez. Who are the other backup 3rd basemen on other playoff teams, and how do they compare to Chavez and Nunez? My initial guess would be 'darn similarly'.

McNamara 'fessed up that's why he had Buckner still in there? Wow. I's never heard that.

There's plenty of data waiting to be compiled on whether previous managing experience, previous coaching experience, previous any-of-the-things-Ventura-lacks correlates with managerial success. However you slice it, Ventura is an astoundingly inexperienced candidate. No one can claim 'knowledge' regarding that till they do or find some of the work mentioned above. But they're not supposed to form an opinion regarding something unusual?? Ridiculous. In my opinion.

This is very good stuff. Thank you!

Good stuff.

Looks like the thread has died out. But still figure I'll point out that The Economist now has an article all about this article. http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheory/2011/09/statistical-research-baseball

Leastwise are very, very likely to.

You understand Kemp and Kershaw can't help but regress some.

And Reyes? If you're going to buy into someone's decline phase, make it your own guy, at least. That Schwartz fellow pretty much proved that.

What Eddie says. Replacement level 1Bs just don't hit all that much better than replacement level 2Bs. Who cares what the average anything is when discussing replacing a starter?

Another "Wow!" vote.

At this stage of his MLB career, saying the Reds should let Edgar Renteria "leave via free agency" is like saying the Reds should let me leave via free agency.

By "mention" of the Yankees, I'd like to know what you mean. Overall topic? Team name mentioned in article? A Yankee player mentioned in article? If it's either of the latter, I don't know that that's significant at all.

Sorry, Derek, but your study buries the question underneath a broader but different one. I doubt Weaver ever figured, "lessee, Ralph's at career .260 versus Fernando, but Fred's at career .265; OK, in goes Fred!" When an individual matchup shows extreme results in a limited sample, is that predictive? That's the action issue. Looking at non-extreme results detracts from that rather than shines light on it.

Small sample sizes may be useless for sabermetric purposes. As actual decisionmaking aids, they can still be very useful. In a situation of uncertainty, you give me some evidence that A is so rather than B, that's darn useful. Of course Weaver's individual matchup data helped him. Some, certainly.

Regarding the 1st/2nd baseman comparison, I'd prefer some form of Runs Created cumulative stat rather than TAv. Then the proper way to proceed would be with PECOTA. Identify the Replacement Level starters each year, largely the cheap veterans on poor teams. Then see what they do (Melky and Francoeur sure did Replacement Level OF proud this year). But even more importantly see what PECOTA projected for them, as I'd posit that approximated what their teams expected to get out of signing them.

Thanks for the link, Lassaller. But though I found interesting stuff via it, it didn't answer my question. I still don't know what Colin considers replacement level performance to be for a firstbaseman, and why he thinks it's 'there', rather than a bit to the left or the right.

After a (very) cursory search, I was unable to find how you folks define 'replacement level'. But I am confident other web sites define it in a very bogus manner. James Loney is 'replacement level' at first base. Whatever MLB team punts it next year will start off the year starting him there, or some very close equivalent. Like Lyle Overbay the past few years. And his bat isn't all that much better than, say, Adam Kennedy's. Any 'replacement level' system that figures 'average starter's performance' in will badly understate the value of slugging first basemen. Because they're well above what's freely available. The performance gap between the 5th and 32nd best firstmen is just much bigger than that between the 5th and 32nd best secondbasemen.

I'll defer to PECOTA regarding it, but my suspicion is that Berkman 2012 is very likely to be closer to Berkman 2010 than Berkman 2011. He'll be an awful signing for whoever wins that bidding contest.

Commenting on these is much less fun when "Bowden's Bold Move" is rock solid.

You seldom extend a guy for 1 year. Just doesn't quiet any rumors, which is the purpose of this type of extension. Since I don't see the Mariners contending next season, I expect Jack Z. will be gone by October of next year.

I think I have Bowden figured out. He can only spell the word 'R-E-B-U-I-L-D' in the most obvious of cases (Cubs, Astros). But then, as wnalyd up there shows, real-life human GMs never really get the chance to rebuild. The vast bulk of the fans get impatient, such that if you don't have them winning by 'Year 3', you get axed, and your successor reaps the benefits while looking great record-wise in comparison to you. Bowden is advising GMs rather than franchises, and doing so pretty rationally. Looking at it that way, yeah, Jack Z should try his darnedest to sign Fielder. If the Mariners don't compete for a playoff spot next year, he's very likely gone.

Having just read his advice for the Cubs, I guess I'll apologize to Bowden for insulting him here. Although I do still think his Orioles advice is daft.

Interesting that Bowden's advice for the Cubs is massively different than what he offers the Orioles. Due to differing resources, perhaps?

Bowden thinks the Orioles should give up draft choices to sign uber-expensive free agents? I think I can stop reading his portion of these articles.

That's pretty stupid advice from Bowden. Badly overpay for a good-not-great pitcher who still doesn't project to move the team into contention.

And for the sake of elucidation, the "mounting media scrutiny" was in the process of determining that Griffey regularly fell asleep in the clubhouse during games. Which was causing tension between young players questioning it and old veterans defending him, while also revealing what little control Wakamatsu had of the clubhouse.

If they'd fired Z, they would've had trouble filling the position with any candidate with other options ("so I'm only gonna get 3 years to get it done, hmmm?")

I believe this is reason to keep Reggie Jackson away from my young hitters. Especially the ones with a chance of developing power.

I heard Mark Reynolds did try that adjustment during the first part of this season. And got the payoff we statheads would've predicted, fewer strikeouts and much less power. A very negative payoff.

And really. Continuing the trading spree would be a "bold move"? On the other hand, the note about waiting till Wilson and Buehrle clear out of the market is the type of expertise a guy with his background can usefully contribute.

I understand he's doing it for the ESPN crowd rather than us. Still. Jim Bowden listed as an author in a BP article. Whoa.

So then there'd be some ongoing inter-league play?

I think most all profesional statheads agree with Joe Morgan that Ripken's teams would've been better off with Cal playing 155 games a year rather than 162.

It wasn't Bill James "thought process" that led him to his conclusion. He researched it, and found a strong correlation between 2nd-half improvers playing better the next year and (equal overall record) 2nd-half deprovers (so to speak) playing worse.

For getting 3 out of 4 inarguably right, elcubano sure got alot of minuses.

Like bflaff1, I'd like to see non-Marlins evidence that other owners (and especially especially GMs) are actually tanking, rather than just 'it fits my theory and some of the facts that they are'.

The Brewers will lose money this year?? According to who?

Another issue re Heyward/Constanza. We all work harder when we think we'll actually be rewarded for successful efforts. So once your team is set, if the low-potential guy is actually outplaying the high-potential guy, he plays so long as that holds. Otherwise you will see the overall effort of your workforce/team go down.

I thought Pie, as a former center fielder, was supposed to be an excellent left fielder. Has he always been a butcher in left?

Closers 'close'. End of argument. A very simple, ergo powerful heuristic, never mind how wrong it is.

SGreenwell, resurrecting a speed receiver's NFL career at age 35 is one heck of an accomplishment. Even for just one year, never mind two.

"little margin for attitude". I like that one. Alot. Thank you!

Ergo what for Cameron Maybin? Amputate? A couple of aspirin and he's back by the weekend? Something in between?

I forget both the specific writer and the exact words, but it roughly went, "if someone wagers you a dollar that he can produce a quarter out of your ear, do not check your ear to make sure no quarter is currently in there, do not check his hand to make sure no quarter is already there, do not check his shirt sleeves to see if they're long enough to conceal a quarter; simply check nothing and do not bet, otherwise you will most assuredly soon be out a dollar". It was unthinkable that the Rockies would make their young, underpaid ace available. Until they actually did it. Something really, really smelled there. Bad.

Thanks on the Dean Taylor info.

It'd be interesting to categorize the 'Whys??' of the 'they did what?!?' ones. I'd suspect, for small market losing teams, most all fall into 'show the local media we're really trying!' fiasco category. Re Wells, seems to me Scioscia just wanted Napoli out of there. So insisted they trade him once anything of purported big-league use got offered for him.

Milwaukee Brewers' division: Prior to the '91 season, veteran GM Harry Dalton threw $$$ at Teddy Higuera, Ron Robinson, Ed Nunez and Franklin Stubbs, clearly going over-market for the last 3. Stubbs' agent compounding things by telling the local newspaper that Dalton had indeed been bidding against himself. All 4 bombed immediately and big-time, financialy hamstringing the small-market franchise for years. A few years later GM Sal Bando refused to offer a contract to franchise icon (and still well-playing) Paul Molitor, who really wanted to stay with the Brewers. Then bad-mouthing Molitor after he finally signed with the Blue Jays instead. The GM after that (I forget who) then gave Jeffrey Hammonds a huge free agent contract based off of one good year in Denver. And yes, everyone was aware of the huge home-park effects in Denver already.

What hotstatrat says. There's been oodles and scads of acquisitions that turned out awful throughout baseball history. Only the ones where everyone else said, "just what in the blue blazes are they thinking there?!?", and everyone else turned out to be right as rain, now those are special. From up above, I only see 5), 6) and 9) as qualifiers.

Further word on Ellsbury (such as "there is/isn't a chance this turns into a DL trip") would've been very nice.

If I recall correctly what an ex injury-guy on this site once wrote, older players don't get injured any more often than younger players. But they do take much longer to come back from those injuries.

Other than catcher - unsurprisingly ex-catcher Mike Scioscia's blind spot - were there any other holes Reagins could have filled? I don't recall any of the Replacement Level Killers being Angels other than Mathis. Their bullpen overall has been solid, too, hasn't it? So to buff up the Angels' pennant chance, Reagins would have had to bring in a very good player. Which I don't think was even available (no, I do not count Beltran; hitting far better than PECOTA figures he should, and anyone surprised by his now being on the DL hasn't been paying much attention the past few years). And to get him, Reagins would've had to move Trout, or perhaps shred the entire rest of the Angels' farm system. Reagins has handled the past few months exactly as he should. The off-season, well ...

Who's actually arguing that Thome doesn't belong in the Hall?? I've seen another such article on another 'stat' site and now this one. But neither quotes a single specific 'Ralph Important Guy' as saying that Thome doesn't belong.

Of course guys like Dibble and Wilbon and Kruk and et.cet., et.cet., et.cet., manufacture stories. Complaining about it is like complaining about their showing commercials.

I wasn't asking 'exactly how many games has Napoli caught'? But 'he hasn't really been a starting catcher this year, has he?' Ergo you're reply means 'yup, you're right, Richie'. (I get that a lot) Granted how awful the Angels' DHs have been, Napoli would've helped there, too. But from what I've read elsewhere, Napoli has little more business being a regular catcher than Prince Fielder has. He's just too awful at it.

How much has Napoli caught in Texas? I haven't followed it that closely, but my half-baked impression was 'not a whole lot'.

There is alot of irrational hatred of LaRussa here, which makes it silly to actually address. I'm curious as to where it stems from, tho'. On football boards I find an incredible amount of hatred of Peyton Manning, which I fully understand. It's substantially his first name. 'Pay-Tun', which connotes being born very rich. So the same people who used to boo when 'Money Incorporated' entered the wrestling ring hate Peyton Manning, too. With LaRussa, is it maybe his being a lawyer? Perhaps the Glenn Beck thing figures in some?

Ned is not "scared of going forward in 2012 with" etc., etc. He's properly concerned about the Dodgers going forward/backward/sideways in 2012 without Ned Colletti. If ownership doesn't resolve soon, he's captain of a ship stuck fast in the arctic ice. If it is resolved, he's gone.

I think I kinda agree with raygu1. Yeah the Robinson trade was horrible, but if he can't stick in center he just doesn't project all that highly. And on the positive side, Colletti actually got something for Furcal. I think Colletti actually does remind me of Sabean. Given a nice but not great base and not all that much of a budget, and told to WIN NOW! Building for the future will do him no good, as he won't be around for it unless he also WINS NOW! So of course he brings in veteran after veteran and hopes/prays. Little else you can do in that situation. Magowan (sp?) was kind/smart/patient enough to give Sabean another chance after their win-with-Bonds shtick didn't work. And now they have a flag and a good team to show for it. I doubt Colletti will get that chance, and am not arguing he deserves it. But I wonder how much of what you guys blame Colletti for is simply McCourtMcCourtMcCourt.

My understanding is that DePodesta's people skills were lousy. Not just PO'ing some dinosaur sportswriters, but fairly many others as well. Soft soaping players, agents, media, luxury box holders, fellow GMs, not to mention Mr. + Mrs. Owner, if a GM isn't at least decent at those things, he just can't and won't make it as a GM.

What blue-chipper did Wade turn down that any other team wanted to offer for Bourn? You've absolutely no way of knowing that the Braves would've caved and upped their offer. Given that no other team did, Bourn's worth was cleary established. Now if you want to argue that the Astros might just as well have hung onto Bourn and tried again next trade deadline, well, that I can see, and quite possibly agree with.

Consulting with Daddy is one thing. Having Daddy get in the way of all the professionals is insane. Daddy Rasmus is clearly doing the latter. I'm sorry if you hate LaRussa. I'm sorry if you have Rasmus on your dynasty fantasy team. Letting that blind you as to Pujols calling Rasmus out (did Albert ever call out Rolen, or Drew, or Edmonds?), or the incredible immaturity of Rasmus - obviously taking after his father there - well ...

Rats. BillJohnson beat me to it. By minutes. Oh, and did somebody actually defend 'Daddie Dearest'?? Goodness gracious.

Whitey Herzog was renowned for getting rid of players he didn't like. Ted Simmons. Gary Templeton. Keith Hernandez. If you didn't do what he wanted you to do, he was as quick as any manager to point the door out to you.

The Red Sox are a better defensive team than the Mariners???

Oops. Antonetti hasn't been there long enough to be in any trouble, has he?

And agreed that the Buccos are quite likely to make it 19 in a row under .500. At least this way they "tried" coughcough, while being bright enough to give up nothing that will impede their succeeding under actually promising circumstances a few years down the line.

Sounds to me like the Pirates have given up pretty much nothing but some money for Lee and Ludwick. If so, I applaud them. Doing the politically necessary thing while giving up nothing of particular worth personnel-wise.

Baseball Prospectus research has proved that winning just a little puts very few butts in the seats and bucks in their pockets. As Casey would've said, you can look it up.

Myself, these moves only make sense if Shapiro's seat is a lot hotter than he's letting on. A mediocre team is gutting its farm system. A la the Astros, except the Astros were a bit better and closer than these Indians are. And had little in their farm system anyway.

Most 'sport talk' places, when a young player and veteran manager clash, you'll hear people bash the player and defend the manager regardless of the details involved. Interesting how here it's the opposite. So many just waving away the red flags Rasmus has hanging from this, that and the other pocket. Clashing with a successful manager. Also ignoring the other coaches. Getting called out by Pujols. Demanding a trade all the way back in 2009. Topped off by 'Daddie Dearest'.

My understanding is that the biggest problem with the Trop is that it's a bear to get to, and only a little easier to get away from after the game. Isn't it over a bridge which separates it from where most everybody lives?

Bill James has pointed out that Major League Baseball is actually a very poor environment in which to try to grow up. If a ballplayer is still immature by age 25, it's likely permanent.

He's joking, everybody.

Okie-dokie, given the Hall angle, I can see why you're coming from where you're coming from. Oh, and a note of appreciation for how quickly you respond to comments in your articles. :-)

I'd vote for adding up their yearly WARP totals for the years the duos played together. Seems to me to be what people mostly mean when they talk about who the great keystone combos were. I mean, why should Ripken's 1983 greatness affect how highly we rate Alomar+Ripken 1996? I've little doubt the VC will put Concepcion in some day. A decent choice with lots of influential ex-teammates and plenty of post-season games. Heck, strikes me as a given. Bill James has Tinker/Evers rated much higher, as he's confident fielding systems are undervaluing Dead Ball Era defense/overvaluing Dead Ball Era hitting + pitching. I also recall reading somewhere that Tinker and Evers patched things up sometime after their playing careers were over.

Actually, a link coupled with a WARNING: is a darn good way to do it.

When they plexiglass their way back to 5th place next year, and also flounder around the following one, today's good will will disappear justlikethat. Just find the trade-cheapest 'name' player you can get, announce that you've traded for him "to teach us how to compete in a pennant race", and blather about how sorry you are to lose the greatly promising (non)prospects you dump for his sorry dessicated carcass. That way you address the political issues while suffering the least amount of damage to your actual legitimate long-term prospects.

Logically, since catchers compete with other catchers when it comes to WARP, career prime length ain't got squat (catcher reference) to do with why they seldom lead their team in WARP. Entirely a matter of their reduced playing time, compared to the other hitters. Have fewer at bats in which to climb above Mr. Replacement Player.

If you sell something you don't need today for $9 that you quite possibly could have sold tomorrow for $12, that is not a worthwhile deal. We'll know what the market really is by the end of it. By which time my guess is we'll see the Royals once again undersold. Can't you pick up a future LOOGy from anyone?

Research about a year ago from Bill James strongly indicated that regular and predictable roles really helped player performance. He never published any followup on that, my guess is that he now owes his research soul to the Red Sox company store. But have setup men as a group pitched significantly better ever since they became 'eighth inning guys'? If so, then managers are doing it right.

Re Braun, if the Brewers saw the disabled list as a possibility, would they have pinch-hit him last night?

How do you insert half a screw??

Thank you.

Jim Bouton spends the last few chapters of 'Ball Four' on the '69 Astros, as they fade and fall short in a pennant race.

How close do the Brewers' shortstop and 3rd base situations come to winning the booby prize here?

Convicting individuals leads to further information. Guilty individuals nevertheless getting off scot-free leads to the continuation of the whitewash. Really, that's Criminology 101.

If managers don't matter at all, they sure are overpaid then.

The stadium is a huge problem. Not that there aren't others.

Curling! ARFARFARFARFARFARF!! (no one tells me what to laugh at) Is that the one with the broom? A more macho (throwing something bigger) and team version of horseshoes or bocce ball?

A team like the Twins can't spend everywhere. Going cheap at backup catcher makes total sense. If Mauer's out such that you really need his backup, then the Twins aren't contending anyways. I'd argue the same for #5. A mid-market team just doesn't have the $$$ to stock the bench. They re-signed one starting pitcher and one slugger for the sake of depth. Unless you're one of the big-market boys, that's about the extent of what you can afford. I think it's an excellent analysis of what's GONE wrong for the Twins. In terms of 'this is what they DID wrong', I don't know that I buy any of it. Seems more like 'the Twins made 5 coin-flip decisions each of which came up tails.' Happens once every 20-30 years, and when it does, that season just goes into the crapper.

He was a disappointing bust because the organization he worked for abused him until he broke down. What, a guy can't be a bust unless it's his own fault??

+1 for Luke, -1 for Diana (my browser won't let me actually do it). Either there's nothing really wrong with it, and so Harper also gets to do it. Or it is wrong, and you don't 'earn' the right to be an A-hole by being better at something than other people. No more than you earn the right to not run out groundballs or take your turn with the press. Probably more important team-wise that a star sticks to the rules. Earl Weaver thought so. As Bill James has pointed out, when the guy making the most money starts cutting corners, pretty soon everyone starts cutting those same corners.

Bill James called Napoli an absolutely horrible catcher, though without offering what he based that on. So maybe ScottyB: smart, like Bill James.

Give a man authority, he's going to find reasons for using it.

"Pittsburgh is a great baseball town"??? What I recall, even when good (the Bonds and before then the Stargell years) their attendance was pretty crappy for a contender.

So how do we access it?

There are 2,430 regular-season baseball games played in a year. If an extra ump costs $1,000 per game - and with travel costs, pension, health insurance and so on my guess is that's quite conservative - you're looking at $2.43 million dollars. We'll neglect the actual technology costs just for the sake of simplicity. No company just yawns at a $2.43 million cost. Never mind whatever fraction that is of their overall expenses. Do any of you people actually work for a living??

What Tarakas says. Both paragraphs.

My observation is that departures from 'rational actor' outcomes are overwhelmingly linked to 'principal-agent' issues. In this case, a GM who zealously sees to the bottom line while losing ballgames by the bushelful may please the owner while also becoming incredibly unpopular with the customer base. And so still be jettisoned in order to appease those customers. Knowing this, he's gonna try to win at least some ballgames. Quite rationally so.

Great stuff. Thanks!

Next time you make a Bugs Bunny reference, I expect a link, Mister! What do you think interns are for??

Rats. Lost by seconds. My own fault for going with the other post first.

The Cubs offense must actually be quite the juggernaut if it was able to bail out Dodger pitcher Ted Lilly. ;-)

Yes, the very first study that I saw confirming cold weather hurts scoring was done on this very Web site. But I think Nate Silver hid it in his underwear and took it with him when he left.

It's just logically insane to suggest that letting the hitters make contact with the ball can be preferable to not letting them make contact with the ball. Billy Martin, in his sober moments, hated 'setup pitches', tho' not for reasons related to pitching deeper into the game. There seems to be some rule that, when a pitcher gets the hitter 0-2, the next two pitches have to be thrown nowhere near the plate in order to 'set the hitter up'. Maybe honestly try for a corner on 0-2, understanding that you'll then give up some 0-2 hits? Is this what Halladay does in order to work so deep into games?

Good stuff. Thank you.

As Brewer owner, Bud often spent money. Especially considering team record. He/his GMs just spent it badly. I believe MLB attendance is down this year, rather significantly. If that persists, we'll be seeing some salary deflation rather than inflation.

I don't get it. You mean they're that 'entertaining' defensively??

What I'm inferring/suggesting/screaming out loud tho' not all that loudly mind you is that "his plight" is dead wrong. Alexi lied and broke the law in return for money, one result of which was some real plights for however many of the people involved. There were actual victims. Alexi simply wasn't one of them, rather played his small part in the victimizing. I'm all for forgiveness, wiping Alexi's slate clean, and so on. An honest 'Yay!' for all that. But if I were one of the involuntary prostitutes in small part due to his actions, reading here about his "ensnarement" and "plight", I'd feel just a bit revictimized right now.

He "became ensnared in"?? How does that differ from he "took part in and made money from"? I mean, I'm glad he's doing restitution and all, tho' I'd feel even happier if we heard about that from sources other than his agent (for goodness' sake) and team. But those forced into prostitution and sweat labor were the ones "ensnared in" the trafficking. Not Alexi.

Leo Durocher in his autobiography credited some other Dodger, nondescript such that I forget who, with the "let's all wear it!" quip. Sigh. They always take the credit away from us small guys.

Oh, and thanks for the other "in progress" guys.

What Waldo says. Now that he's said it. Given that it's established that free agents that sign with new teams don't do as well as those who stay, I'm curious as to how Boras' leavers compare to leavers in general.

Excellent stuff, Vince. Outstanding stuff. Two questions: Do you see Tango's point as valid? If so, what will that do regarding 'Boras Outcomes'? I don't see Zito in that 'Boras Outcomes' table. Put it in there, and that +7.1 goes minusing downward bigtime. Any other 'in process' contracts in addition to Zito? OK, 3 questions. Lohse's 2008 season (200 IPs with ERA+ of 113) was worth $20.5 million?? Really???

No one has 'changed games' on the base paths since they started keeping clean balls in play. But on this site I guess there's little need to note this. If you're going to punt Beltran and FRod (for very, very little other than salary relief), do you think the Mets' remaining core justifies holding on to Reyes? Perhaps so, but it sure ain't self-evident.

It plays off a direct and famous quote of Billy Beane's, cpaddock. So no, they're not trying for 'gangsta cool'.

Yes, this is very good stuff.

What Edwin says. 3 recent years in St.Louis, the Cards are an institution there. If Albert is 2-3-however many years older than he claims, indeed signing him to a big bucks long-term contract would represent the huge gamble. Rather than applying the $200+ millions to other uses.

It ain't just you. I thought these things were edited??

Well, again, I don't see anything anti-sabremeticky in BillJ's post either. Again granted I don't know BillJ's history either, and am utterly guileless as to who/what (#6!) is. But whomever, it seems like he's making more fun of those guys than youse guys.

And guys. The longer it takes you to get Bedard in there, the worse it looks.

It ain't just you. Which perhaps means there's at least two of us paying insufficient attention overall. I likewise would've expected pitchers to show higher risk. Certainly in the '30-days' category.

Don't know what history CRP13 has. But I don't see any such attempted nailing in his particular post here.

Yes! 15-love. "You CAN'T be SER-ious!?!" (trying to sound McEnroe-ish))

Neither Glavine nor Smoltz were HoF locks either while still pitching through their primes. So yeah, I'll put Doc 2011 up there with Smoltz/Glavine 1995.

I'm confident "the rationale behind ... not putting (Bedard) in the skull and crossbones graph" is 'Oops!'

Hitter strikeouts are way less significant than previously realized, Louis. Everything else looks right, tho'.

Maybe the Cardinals are simply seeing what they really, really want to see. With the rest of us not having to deal with that visual handicap. Here, anyways.

Useful once in awhile to find out just how many people can't recognize a joke unless you put the Steve Martin arrow through your head. Up to 7, so far.

Assuming a year of health from Rolen is akin to assuming a year of health from Ted Williams.

Felix Millan. Two 'l's. And has a GM ever before 'fessed up that 'yeah, the public made me do it'?? Supposed to pretend they're impervious to that type of thing, aren't they? Oh, and "one" down. And you forgot the period after your second sentence. And now on to Christina. Optimally ought to put apostrophes around 'Big Apple'. And rather than Anne Boleyn, I would've cited Monty Python eating their minstrels among much rejoicing. You're beginning to date yourself. And I'll need a photograph to help you out with your shortcomings there. Unless you want me to just speculate.

Or perhaps not, I suppose. I guess Cobb retained his bad rep all the way through retirement.

The difference between +10 and 0 is ten runs. One ballgame, basically. Which, as one aspect of one lone player, is pretty significant. No opinion as to how reliable that +10 and 0 is, though.

What dianagram says. If Bonds behaves himself from here on in, 30 years from now folks will be talking about what an underrated clubhouse presence he was.

Thanks for the historical perspective, BarryR.

How To Keep Your GM Job While Rebuilding The Team Year 1: "We've signed Famous-Name Hitter (to a 1-year contract) to teach our young guys how to play the game right! Come see us play!" Year 2: "We've signed Famous-Name Starter (to a 1-year contract) to teach our young pitchers how to win! Come see us play!" Year 3: "We've signed Veteran Reliever (to a 1-year contract) to keep us in close games and give our young players confidence! Come see us play!" Year 4: (Ok, time to get serious. If you need one more year, you can throw the manager overboard. But that's your last bullet.)

Werth has all the makings of a 'DISASTER!' contract. 32 years old in May, coming out of a year well above his career norms. He'll start getting hurt again, lose his speed to play the outfield, no longer hit well enough to carry 1st base. In 3-4 years you'll be paying basically a good bench player $18 mill a year. And screaming for the Lerners to 'Spend More Money!' so as to put the team over the top. An awful, awful signing. Worthy of Daniel Snyder.

There's no defense for the Werth contract. No reasonable one. You don't spend $126 million dollars to show the fans 'we want to win!' Like concluding 'well, we perhaps ought to spruce up the bathroom some', and so bringing in a gold-plated toilet.

That "replacement" level is well below 19,000 per game, though. The Marlins are drawing that while on the cusp of contention. It's probably more around what the Marlins drew in their 'mailing it in' years, no more than 15,000 per game.

ARFARFARFARFARF!!! (can't =/-)(some kind of browser issue)

Maybe that's the politically acceptable and therefore optimally practical way to do it. Sign 'Big Names!' to 1-year contracts. Rinse and repeat till your youngsters are quality enough to carry you into contention.

Good study. Thank you. I've always wondered if there's SOME-thing to such pronouncements.

Interesting note about the "transients" thing from MW. Which also applies to the Florida teams, to the D-Backs some, perhaps? Has this phenomenon ever been studied? Not sure how you'd go about it, but am sure it could be usefully done.

Well, he's also saying it's his "favorite" thing, not the "most notable" thing, about Spahn. Chass gives us statheads plenty of stuff to ridicule, without also spinning stuff a bit on him. And some reason to ridicule, given his attitude toward us. But at this point I'm with worldtour. I think we've whacked him around enough for one day, particularly given that he's not that big a target anymore.

To give him his due there, it is about Spahn. He's suggesting Spahn 'pitched to the score' to gain those 91 victories.

So Garland both "up in the zone" and "down in the zone often", too? As opposed to those pitchers who work in the middle of the zone?

Reyes is all-red yet a "moderate" risk??

So Hellickson is all green 'cuz he has no major league injury history?? Dude, something's gotta change there. Some people are just gonna go off of the green-yellow-red.

There are so many problems with Quality Start as a useful measure of anything (run environment, defensive support, 'quality' vs. 'QUALITY!'), I can't see any point to it. Like calling for Ford to restart a line to build 2001 model cars because they're better than the 1991 models you still find out on the road here and there.

Wasn't Cobb huge for his time? Just thinking he at age 18 may have been more rather than less a "refined physical specimen" vis-a-vis Harper.

Yes, territorial rights are BS. Absolute BS. But as ScottyB alludes to, starting up a 3rd team in NYC, or a 2nd team in Philly or New England, would not be an easy thing. They'd have to penetrate the fan base of an established team, always a very difficult thing to do. Splitting cable and all other local revenue would both be very simple and go a long, long way to evening up resources.

Yessiree, the '4-Day Richie Rotation!!!' (you can tell how good it is by the extra '!'s) Your top 3 throw 45 starts a year averaging 5 IPs per start. (an occasional efficient 6, occasional pulling after 3-4 when they're already down by a decent amount)

If you let the starters go 5 innings rather than 4, they could still get the official 'W'. And with 40+ starts per year, you'd again get 20-game winners. I think that would effectively address the political issues. You'd also transfer some innings from your 5-8 'best' pitchers to your top 4.

I'm a Wisconsin boy, and I do not remember any Packers contraction talk at all. Not one bit. Maybe it was 'mentioned', and no one here took it the least bit seriously. Understood it was just posturing so as to justify spending taxpayer money. I guarantee no one here was the least bit worried about the Packers being contracted out of existence.

The 'Joba Rules' are an excellent example of why you should never try anything different. If it doesn't work, people will make fun of how stupid you were for years on end.

Nothing remarkable about the number of injuries the Phillies had last year. With a very old lineup, Utley already banged up, the rookie phenom out till May, I'd confidently predict the Phillies will suffer more from injury this year than they did last. If Utley only cranks out 115 games again, yeah, I'll predict the Phillies score fewer runs than the NL average this year.

PFM looks great. Operates great. Is technologically superb. And isn't, cannot be, one bit more effective than its underlying data base. In this case, the Depth Charts. Which, for one thing, project that 14 out of 15 last-place Seattle Mariner pitchers will finish with records over .500 That 15th one, the negatively-VORPed Lucas French, it projects for a .500 record. I'll grant you progress, in that previous year's Depth Charts were often horrible. The current one is OK. But it appears you ignore them unless/until something DRAMATIC! happens, a la with Wainwright. You've still got a few dozen clear errors in them, a la projecting 160 games out of Pablo Sandoval. Fixing the Depth Charts would accomplish something of substance.

I'm pretty sure the runs scored/allowed are based on schedule, ergo figuring W-L from them would also be.

I agree with Bill and dd; posting fee counts. OK, everyone vote!

So, going topically farther afield, but maybe I can get it answered anyway. Is a 4-Star prospect still worth more than a couple of draft choices? Very curious as to that, given that the question ('trade now' or 'ride out the last year') comes up so regularly.

Not to deify him - I haven't gotten along with him particularly well on his site ("Suh-prize! Suh-prize! Suh-prize!"; my Gomer Pyle imitation) - but James' research is remarkably good at moving from correlation to causation, as he understands that's the whole point. I'm also biased towards the Madden/Zobrist and Stengel/McDougald type of gambits, but his study, granting its intitiality (as it were), was powerful enough to move me from fan to skeptic.

Bill James recently did some research strongly indicating that regular work at one position/task strongly buffs up a baseball player's performance. Very strongly buffs up. James hasn't followed it up - I hear he has a day job now - but he particularly cited Gil McDougald as a player who, had Casey simply plugged him in at 3rd base, likely would've turned into a Hall of Fame 3rd baseman. Don't know if this particular part of James' work is in the public domain now. But I thought I'd mention it.

On the surface, it would indeed seem so that there are very few of these players.

And wasn't Carlos Gomez a '5 Star' prospect himself? If so, the Twins just got unlucky (or perhaps scouted poorly?). They accurately saw that Santana was not worth re-signing for themselves, and did the right thing (one Blue Chip is worth more than a couple of draft choices, isn't it?). They just wound up with 'one year Carlos Gomez centerfielder + one year Carlos Gomez 4th outfielder + one year JJ Hardy shortstop' rather than with 'Jeff Bagwell'. Happens with '5 Star' prospects.

One of your guys (Swartz?) did research showing that teams knew pretty well what they were doing in keeping 'player Fred' while letting 'player Ralph' leave, or trading him. Myself, I find not "little" but lots of reason just in your own article (years-ongoing "communication" issues, "violent delivery", overreliance on a slider which at one time they wanted him to stop throwing to maintain the health of his arm) for jettisoning Liriano while the jettisoning is good. If the Twins call me to find out if I have any interest in Liriano. my 'Spidey sense' goes off in 4-alarm decibels.

Teams with stud pitchers do not do particularly well in the postseason. That myth's been evidentiarily blasted from here to Katmandu. To eliminate off-days, you'd have to play the get-away games during the day. Else your players will be zombies by week 2. Then you lose most all the TV/cable money. The networks will pay squat, but little more than that, for daytime sports programming.

Last study I saw was on the Bill James site, which led him to the conclusion that team saves correlate quite nicely with team wins, which surprised him. A greater proportion of a good team's wins will be by 4+ runs than a bad team's, but a much less greater proportion (so to speak) than he had anticipated finding.

Nothing here at all as to how MANY saves we can expect from any guy. For example, I'd much rather have the Boston closer than the KC closer. I believe the latest research has backed up the notion that winning teams generate many more saves. Also, you sure about Nunez? I'd thought Hensley was closing ahead of him by the end of last season. Am I wrong? Or why do you think they're inclined to flip-flop them back?

My understanding is that these depth chart projections absolutely do NOT! project for a neutral park.

I'll go with PECOTA on the Reds. They had a remarkably healthy season last year, did they not? And just about the whole team had a good year, some W-E-L-L! above anything they'd ever done before or at all recently (Votto, Stubbs, Gomes, Rolen, Hernandez, Rhodes, Hanigan; can add in Arroyo, Cueto and Bruce there, too). Reds are Plexiglassing back under .500.

OK, I got it. Except that they should drop PA% and go with the misnomer, then. Just looks too silly otherwise. And we all already get the idea that batting higher in the lineup gets you more PAs.

You didn't hear the Angels hired Cal Ripken for conditioning coach? With Victor Conte assisting?

:-)))

I'm sure PECOTA figures Pierre stinks such that he'll be platooned. But the depth charts PT% are manual, are they not?

The Cardinals are very, very much an institution in St. Louis. So long as they didn't mangle that departure a la what the Packers did with Favre, I'd foresee some but not much short-term damage to the bottom line. Though now being 3+ years removed from St. Louis, I don't have a finger on the current pulse regarding Pujols.

Bill James concludes that steroids kept players young, I presume through their efficacy in rebuilding muscle tissue, and that they are pretty much out of the game now. (is that what HRT stands for?? never seen the acronym before)

Bill James has reached a set conclusion on why modern players have aged more "gracefully". Figure Pujols won't have access to that anti-aging 'regimen', and you got reason to put those projections down some. To that add the possibility that he's indeed older than he says, the possibility that of course he could (more likely) get injured in his 30s. Can't see how it makes sense to break the bank for Pujols other than marketing-wise, reap some $$$ benefits as passes various notable milestones. And given how close the Cards already are to 100% attendance, I'm not sure how much they have to gain there, either.

And that doesn't count as self-righteous posturing over self-righteous posturing aimed at self-righteous posturing. 'Cuz I actually let the last 2-3 times pass by without getting ticked enough to posture over it.

I'm part of neither the steroids nor morality "police". But goodness gracious you clowns are doing your best to drive me into it. Can't pass up even one opportunity to take a shot at them, can you guys? Never seen such consistent self-righteous posturing over other folks' alleged self-righteous posturing.

Lee had to sign with someone, and you knew it would be a contender. Greinke was not definitely going to be moved during the offseason, and no one particularly expected Milwaukee to get him.

PECOTA's first take on Latos was something like 95 IPs. Given how often the young 'uns get hurt, I'd guess closer to that than to a full 190.

Regarding catcher PT%, isn't Flores expected back sometime this season?

Given that PT% adds up to 100% at every position, no I don't see how Zobrist can wind up over 100 worth of PT%. And are you forecasting Zobrist to play every inning of every game? Even if the former is mathematically possible, I'm sure the latter would still have to be a prerequisite for it to actually take place.

Gonzalez is now in the tougher league in its toughest division.

I believe power and patience age relatively poorly, actually. Counterintuitive as it might seem, 20+ years ago Bill James began finding out that speedy players aged well, guys with "old player's skills" did not.

Pitcher W-L records, especially for bad teams, are in dire need of correction. Looks like you may have neglected to factor in their expected run environments, team-wise. Also perhaps a half-dozen PT% oddities, which I noted in their respective team depth chart comments.

Short 12% on catcher PT%.

D-Backs sign Branyan, according to reports.

Isn't Napoli expected to get some time at first base, too?

Granted forecasting saves here is a mess. But hasn't Farnsworth been publicly assigned setup duties? And isn't Howell expected to get closing duties when he's ready? Granted there that whoever gets it before him will have a shot at keeping it if he pitches well enough.

Overll, PECOTA's hit its outliers pretty well in the past. Like an NFL point spread that just looks wrong, then come the 4th quarter you find out that the line setters once again did know what they were doing. An article looking in-depth at the outlier predictions would be very interesting, tho'.

Personally, given LaRussa's stubbornness, I'd give Edmonds a bit more playing time at Rasmus's expense.

PT% looks a little high for Smoak. Oh, and about those pitcher W-L records again. Saves, too, this time.

PT% estimates a little too high for Tejada and not so little too high for Sandoval, no?

Seems like alot of innings to EXPECT! out of Latos given his age.

I'm thinking you may want to revisit that playing time estimate for Granderson. Do you really think they're going to platoon him that severely so as to get Andruw Jones into the lineup?

It appears many clubs have their pitchers' won-loss records a bit too high given where they're expected to finish as a team.

As with the Indians, the W-L records here look very far off what you should get with a losing ball club.

I assume the W-L records are goofed up, too? I presume you don't mean to project 11 out of 13 Indian pitchers to wind up with .500 or over records.

Unless he's gotten some Cal Ripken endorsed steroids, I don't think LaPorta going to have 100 PT%. I'm presuming this is a puny error. Do we report those here, or elsewhere?

Bugs still on the fantasy 'points' side. And I'm sure small ones still elsewhere. For example, PECOTA has Latos throwing only 91 innings, and it looks to me like PFM has him somewhere around 200 IP.

JoshT has me convinced. "Mr. Goldman, tear down this chart!" And enter Veeck into it for the Cubs.

I thought Weeks' defense was such that he's not "heavily" better than anybody at 2nd base.

Regarding the Pods' "ridiculous bullpen", aren't bullpens especially volatile? Even more so than defense? Both 'Plexiglass' and 'Late Season' factors prophesy a huge dropoff for the Padres. I'll put my money on them being right.

Sorta what dREaDS Fan said. Probably best to give us a schedule of inputs and tell us where you are regarding that, rather than even half-promising that you'll get to the end result by such-and-such a time.

While the historical record is daunting and undeniable, I think there are two factors which have changed. First, with the doubling/quadrupling of playoff teams (8 rather than 4 or 2), your pool of possible suckers is much expanded. All you need is one to think 'Pujols WILL! get us into the playoffs then win the World Series for us then happily re-sign with us!!!', and now you got somebody you can hold up. Second, I think there's more pressure on ownership/management today to win, particularly to grab for the brass ring anytime there looks like there's an actual chance at it. Ergo, I think the Cards will have a better shot at getting SOME-thing of real worth for Pujols than the historical record suggests. Of course, between the wildcard and a winnable division, I figure on the Cards hanging around at least close enough to contention anyway. And so sensibly keeping Pujols, especially given how 2006 worked out for them.

As to franchise value, this has amazingly little to do with how good the major league team is. Overwhelmingly market size, stadium coming in a far-back second, after which what cable deals already in place, et.cet., et.cet. Given the ownership egos involved, this makes perfect sense. Anyone with sufficient oodles of cash to secure managing partner for any ownership group will be certain he's great enough to turn around the club no matter what state it's currently in.

The Cards will only want to move Pujols if they clearly fall out of the division/wild card race. In such an event, the player involved always accepts a trade to a contender, so as to 'have a shot at the World Series'.

There was a 4-season gap between Buck's leaving the Rangers and their winning a pennant. Don't see where he deserves any more credit for it than does Frank Lucchesi.

Well, getting the taxpayers to pony up hundreds of millions of dollars for a new stadium helps for a year or three, too. After that they better start winning.

'Promotions' as in 'free stuff people think it'll be cool to have'.

Attendance will jump in Baltimore provided they play as OK as they figure to. Winning draws fans in general, specific promotions draw to that day's game. Nothing else makes a significant difference.

Nishioka is missing altogether, I believe.

What hotstatrat says. Except to add that it's absurdly unreasonable to expect a human being to recognize rather than attempt to fend off that kind of a reality.

No, a 36-year-old Guerrero will not sell any extra tickets. Hardly any, anyways. That hypothetical boat's been empirically sunk ever since Bill James was a baby sabermetrician. Just because the local media has a (any) story to hype doesn't mean a thing. Media's job is to hype things. More accurately, to HYPE!!! any and every story they can.

Any way of letting PECOTA know that Morrow and CJ Wilson are now starters? Among other things, then getting revised ERA and WHIP estimates for them?

People like Andy Pettitte. At some point either a roidster will make the Hall, or one already in will confess to it. Then Pettitte will be voted in due to voters seeing HGH as much less than roids, due to his postseason record and due to his being liked. I predict either his last year of eligibility, or his first as a "Veterans' Committee" candidate. Whatever suffices for such a Committee by then.

Will Garcia and Colon actually be keeping two conceivably-ready kids off of the spring training big league squad? I thought those spring training staffs were huge.

"Hi, writer Larry!"

For example, Bill James has concluded that steroids kept the old players young. If so, then PECOTA would overpredict the effectiveness of this coming year's old players based on those previous such seasons which can no longer be so chemically extended (or enhanced).

Of course going from a PED use environment to a PED non-use environment could affect the PECOTAs. Just as going from a dead-ball to live-ball environment could affect them, from 60% turf parks to no turf parks could affect them, and so on.

("active action"?? as opposed to inactive action?)

Well, some non-staffer should welcome him. Welcome!

She's said the opposite of "there's pixie dust there." Rather that she thinks there's something real there, but darned if she can see what it is. Given all the variables that have been examined, and found empirically wanting. So like you, Christina is also expecting some "outperformance".

If we're going to see "many new names" here, does that mean some of the old ones are now gone??

According to Jim Bouton (either Ball Four or his 'managers' book), Houk decided to fire Berra for mismanaging the ballclub when things looked bleak. When the Yankees rallied to win the pennant, Houk just went ahead with his plan anyway. Perhaps (politically) in part because Keane was available. Reportedly Keane was available because the Cardinals' had planned the exact same. Then tried to backtrack after winning it all. Knowing he'd been thisclose to the chopping block, Keane gave them a Christian version of 'screw you', and went off to manage the Yankees instead. Very much to his regret.

Why are 'catcher intangibles' hard to estimate nowadays? Way, way back Bill James would track a catcher's ERA allowed and roughly compare it to team ERA. Which left the problems of different pitchers caught, different batting lineups faced, and so on. Which was too big a data nightmare to sort through back then. But now? Wouldn't it be reasonably/well somewhat simple to estimate a catcher's expected RA given who he caught and who he and his pitchers faced?

Nice comedic try. But like you said, managers are just inherently funnier. GMing has improved much more than managing has, I'm sure in some part because managing is so much a 'people' job. Tho' the 'people' aspects of the GM job are also undernoted.

On a per capita basis, isn't San Pedro far and away the MOST!! baseball talent generating city? Who's in competition with it?

When you're in the entertainment biz, there's no such thing as 'their own time is their own business'. Leastwise the borders thereof come up pretty quick.

This kind of concern is not only premature, it's too premature.

In other words (regarding the draft pick), if a team with a draft pick a bit better than the Yankees had signed Soriano, the Rays would've gotten even a bit better draft pick. If a team with a much better pick than the Yankees (18 and on up) had signed Soriano, the Rays would've gotten a slightly lower pick. And if someone signed Soriano as their 2nd Type A signee, the Rays would've gotten a still-lower pick. So, overall, the Yankees still didn't help the Rays at all per se. They were getting the pick regardless. It might've been just a little bit higher or just a little bit lower, is all.

Assuming Soriano would've eventually signed with somebody, the Orlando Swamp Rays would've gotten the pick for him anyways. So how does the Yankees signing him as opposed to whomever else signing him affect anything from that end?

If the Cubbies crash while Garza pitches well, they can always re-move Garza. For a not-dissimilar package of prospects. Which is why I think the 'where are they now on the contention spectrum?' thing is overrated. So long as resources are fungible, just collect resources. Particularly outside of the AL East, where a .500 team can reasonably figure 'a good season may very well get us into the playoffs'.

In the 90s, reporters 'knew' about the steroids, and we now condemn them for being part of the coverup, because they didn't write about it at the time. But they didn't know because they had the BALCO records which they then returned to their rightfully owning company. They didn't know because the players stuck the needles into their butts in between answering questions. The reporters just 'knew' because they had eyes and ears, so darn well did know what was going on. So now such reporters are coming forward with what they 'know'. And being blasted for it here. Fine. But if you're condemning them for doing now what you also condemn them for not doing back then, well ...

The Yankees have "re-geared ... for a season or two" lately? A la the Rays this off-season? I don't get it.

Lumping all pitchers together hurts/would hurt all relievers, no? It being easier to pitch in short outings/relief, they statistically look better than they are, hence become type A when everybody knows they're really not that valuable.

Another question that Swartz or perhaps Seidman could examine. How much value-per-$$$ have Boras clients returned? Given Boras' expertise with managing the denominator part of that, I'd guess very low. But maybe he's good at identifying then seeking to represent players who figure to age well. Or perhaps that academy of his I hear about is an ongoing asset to his clients, so aids their future performance.

I remember hearing how Steinbrenner wrote off a race track or some such thing against Yankee profits one year. If Beeston is right (I suspect he was hyperbolizing), then there ought to be some more interesting such stories out there. Not that I have any idea as to how/if you could get at them, or confirm them. But as an accountant, do you know of any baseball-relevant accounting tricks of the type Beeston was alluding to?

So you anticipate Beltre will like hitting in Texas "almost as much" as he did in Fenway? So you expect his 2011 to be more similar to his 2010 (and 2004) than his 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005 (and 2003 and 2002 and 2001 and 2000 and 1999)? I'll be curious to see what PECOTA says. But this contract just has 'CLASSIC BUST!' stamped all over it. Every last element of it. A team not as good as it thinks it is in 'WE ABSOLUTELY HAVE TO WIN NOWNOWNOWNOWNOW!' mode. With money burning a hole in its pocket. A 32-year-old free agent coming off one single season head and shoulders above anything he'd done in the previous 5. And a roster with plenty of other holes in it. Outfield depth (Hamilton's fragility and the summer heat), starting pitching, questions at first base, dh and behind the plate. The Yankees have a huge advantage in that come every July, they're always buyers. Always have plenty of $$$ to buy pricey veterans from disappointing teams for pennies on the dollar in terms of talent exchange. The Rangers could also have put themselves in that position. Instead, they're far more likely to be peddling Beltre for pennies on the dollar. Maybe next season. Maybe this one.

Would seem to me that the Yankees - given their strengths everywhere else - are the one team that ought to be risk averse regarding the bottom of their rotation. Even mediocrity there would be an improvement on what they got out of it last year. Whereas this year getting two 'tails' flips on all-or-nothing bets might keep them out of the playoffs.

I'm guessing many of us will be curious as to the bottommost (bottommoster?) part of that super-cool 'AIR' chart. A link, perhaps?

Walker's "409 total bases" were not the most since Rice's 406 in 1978. They were moster. (if that 'Smarter Than a 5th-Grader' show calls for you, hide in the closet)

Not all of us use the site to revel in our intellectual superiority to the great unwashed unfortunately among us. Only most of us so use it. The preceding was based on the suspicion it was MY SIDE! you were calling stupid. If it was THEM! you were calling stupid, then +++++!

But their Hall of Fame careers are among the dead. As in, over. Unless you figure on their augmenting those prospects thru managing or broadcasting or whatnot. With 'The Onion' now getting into sports, maybe they can find a place for Rickey.

Make Tim and Rickey centerfielders, and you have a darn good match. Probably still just a touch short. Oh. And I suppose it ought to be 'was' in both cases. Grammar police ruling.

Parity defined as every sports fan other than one trying to frenziedly win an argument point defines it. Varying teams winning, year-in and year-out. If this doesn't fit whatever jargon you're using, then start off your posts with a glossary. Half of last year's NFL division winners finished last this year. Which isn't that odd, leastwise in terms of record variance. Can you find an NFL observer who thinks revenue equalization doesn't factor in to teams having much more equal shots? If you want to redefine parity so as to show you're smarter than the remaining 99.48% of us simpletons, feel free. But do so upfront, else I'll figure you're using the same language the great mass of us are using.

That's basketball Bill Russell, of course.

Gambling is less deleterious to the sport than an important rule followed by half and broken by half for the reasons Bill Russell noted 40+ years ago now. You just cannot offer any important player a sum anywhere near enough to making his lone contribution to throwing a game anywhere near a financially reasonable proposition for him. We'd need a very different financial mileiu for gambling to re-emerge as a significant threat. As you allude to in your final sentence, of course steroids helped the using players. They build strength, a very useful baseball attribute, and repair fatigued muscles, again very useful (especially for relief pitchers). Seriously arguing "gee, we don't if steroids helped much" is factually akin to saying cigarettes are good for you.

Of course more revenue sharing would lead to more parity. Feel free to make whatever other arguments against it you want. But of course a hard cap (and floor) a la the NFL would lead MLB in the direction of NFL-style parity.

ARod was not acquired in-season.

So how much hand-wringing is properly wrought, Christina? If you believe flat-out known steroid use is entirely irrelevant re the Hall, just say so. If you believe known steroid use matters some (how much, then?) re the Hall, but suspicion of steroid use is entirely irrelevant, just say so. If you're only against witch hunts, what level of evidence do you see as rising to justifiable? Confessed? (Bonds, ARod) Formally implicated? (Mitchell Report) Expert implicated? (Canseco saying "So-and-so did 'em, too!") "Everybody figures so ... " implicated? (Bret Boone; Clemens prior to his legal self-implosion)

Or put another way, it's OK when I and people thinking like me character assassinate. Because we've accurately picked out the appropriately bad characters. So therefore it's not really assassinating.

To take my own advice and be more specific, I read 15 paragraphs telling me why you stand where you stand. But I have only a vague idea of exactly where it is that you stand.

Your literary style of writing does not lend itself to all things and purposes, Christina. I think this article is supposed to tell me 'What Christina Believes Re Steroids and the Hall of Fame'. But I still don't have much of an idea on what you specifically do.

Theoretically, I suspect this means that defensive replacement level value may not be set low enough. Or perhaps it just has difficulty with the non-linearity of value concerning baseball 'events'.

I'll also defend Killebrew. Billy Martin, as able a baseball man as there ever was in his sober moments, played Harmon at 3rd base extensively as late as 1969. Ergo he was able to field bunts, get to balls, throw to first et.cet., well enough so as to get the job done. For a very good team that had other options.

I recognize that Edgar having 57.7 WARP compared to a similarly-WARPed 'Joe HoF 3BMan' means Edgar hit better than Joe did. But given that 8.5 out of 9 hitters also have to play the field, ability to do so even at replacement value has more than zero value. If you take up that DH spot due to defensive inability, that has some negative value, not zero value. Not much, I'd think. But there's some there.

Then why do we even have "Avg HoF 3B", "Avg HoF CInf", and so on, garsonf? If it's all just normalized to one WARP and/or JAWS, then defensive position should be meaningless. Anyways, in his 2nd paragraph above Jay calls JAWS position "dependent", not independent.

Who cares what '3rd baseman' or '1st baseman' or 'corner infielder' or 'hitter' (thereby including catchers and shortstops, for goodness' sake) standards Edgar meets? He was a DH. He's got to exceed those standards, and by a goodly amount. I understand you all like Edgar, and maybe want to show how cool and smart you are by appreciating an underappreciated. But he quite simply has to exceed regular standards. Make an argument for 'how much', then show that he meets that 'how much'. I understand that Edgar will get in someday, due to everyone liking him. Which is fine with me, as I'm all for rewarding congeniality. But all SABR articles on Edgar come across as slightly sophisticated fan-club paeans to him.

San Diego will be irrelevant. Unless Kyle Blanks whacks 25 homers, Harang makes 25 starts, and the bullpen hardly regresses at all. More likely none of the 3 happen than all do.

Very good stuff, Scartore. Thanks for sharing it!

Hill's and Lind's years were not particularly bad, excepting for their (fluke?) 2009 seasons. So no, I don't expect that much improvement from those 2. Certainly less than I would expect Wells and Batista to backtrack. I agree that the best one can reasonably hope for from the Jays is that they finish 3rd if either the Yanks or Rays really go down. Which is not the 'post-season contention' level the article posits. Which would keep an effective Dotel closing for the Jays.

The 'Plexiglass Principle' suggests the Blue Jays will go back down, not way up. They traded a starting pitcher for a rookie who's not a Heyward-type immediate prospect. Wells and Batista were IMMENSELY! over their heads last year. And why would you even use the phrase "at this stage" regarding the Yankees? Between now and August 1st they're the one team guaranteed to be firing alot more $$$$ at each and every problem they have or that injuries bring up. With Showalter now mending the Orioles, the Jays are far more likely to finish last than 2nd in that division.

Ummm, why should the Blue Jays be in contention? I don't see it at all. I'll cheerfully wager on Dotel losing the job, either due to age- or homer-induced ineffectiveness, or to being traded when the Jays fall out of contention.

Especially given Webb's ground-ball tendencies, wasn't bare Defensive Efficiency half-irrelevant regarding the D-Backs defensive impact on Webb? What was their groundball DER? I've also heard that extreme sinkerball pitchers age very, very poorly. Mr. Seidman?

Not that Spitgate (I'd guess the more recent allegations played a bigger role) didn't cost Alomar immediate election. But as shown by how far he falls short of the first-tier HoF 2nd basemen, there was legitimate reason to not make him a first-ballot guy. And for those of you who want to "Har-RUMPHHH! Har-RUMPHHH!" about the heinous immorality of using the 1st ballot in such a way, I don't care.

This read like an ESPN article. Sorry it was so hard for you to find a positon at which the Braves will drop off, but I can help you there. Gonzalez will be a bit worse. Prado will be a bit worse, and without supersub Infante to cover, there will most certainly be an overall dropoff at those two spots. Hudson will fall off some. Lowe will fall off some. Kimbrel, even if he does hold the job, will certainly not be as good as Wagner was. Given the volatility of bullpens, the bullpen as a whole can reliably be forecast to fall off some. Jurrjens is a medical risk, will undoubtedly miss some starts, at which time you're counting on TWO? rookies to reliably fill into the rotation?

The As ought to be on the cusp of contention for the next 5 years, in that division. I doubt that Beltre will ever return $13 mil for any of those 5 seasons. And will likely be a total millstone in 2 of those. Make do early on, then put that money to good use IF you're in contention come the time 1/3 to 1/2 the teams are trying to dump salary. Then get a Blake or Aramis or even an Uribe at a fraction of Beltre's cost.

I also don't understand the thinking re Matsui and Cust. With no need for pinch-hitters or double-switch guys, why can't you carry a platoon DH? Aren't we always (properly) railing against teams carrying 12 pitchers? A right-handed batter from whom you need nothing but hitting against left-handers ought to come very cheap.

Signing Beltre today means not signing someone else tomorrow. Like, say, extending Anderson. No way Beltre is worth anywhere near what you guys are suggesting. At this time a year ago, would anyone have been shocked by Kouzmanoff having a better offensive season than Beltre?

"Poetic license" has no place in history. Nor in journalism, unless so clearly labeled ahead of time. I've been reading these pieces, and defending them to others. But this is puffery along the lines of "How dare you say George Washington didn't cut down that cherry tree?? You inhuman monster, you!" So I'll skip 'em from now on. And yes, I'll keep the door from hitting me on the rear on my way out.

Looks to me like there's enough there to conclude that multi-year contracts for relievers are a bad, bad idea.

Well, I guess I'll throw some water on all this. If it was the "American thing to do" to join the military, then why did they bother with a draft? Military historians I've read state that Americans were much more patriotic in World War I. Pearl Harbor or no, come WWII, most who enlisted did so on the grounds that they were getting drafted anyway, so they might as well pick what they were going to go into. Many, many athletes and actors did go into USO units. The military itself encouraged it. Jimmy Stewart had to fight tooth and nail time and time again to get assigned to an actual combat unit (bomber squadron). John Wayne, for one, was quite happy not to go into service, Feller's example or no. Oh, and Eddie Waitkus was "lured" to the hotel room through the expectation of having sex with a groupie.

I count one 'sure thing' for the Twins (Morneau+Liriano with injury questions), the White Sox with nobody the level of Miggy and Verlander. But then, saying a projected 85-win team looks more like a .500 bunch to you is akin to saying a projected 9-7 NFL team in a weak division actually strikes you as more an 8-8 one. Not really that big a difference of opinion there.

Silly to argue that the union "grew" the game. Leastwise to state such as if it's self-evident. It didn't destroy the game as the owners way back caterwauled it would. But no more reason to see that union/growth correlation as causal than as associative. Marvin's an angry old man who certainly merits induction. But the more he grouses about it, the less sorry I feel for him.

So where are the numbers on how long "incredible BB/9" guys last?

Fine. How long do incredible "BB/9" rate guys generally last?

Given how good Red Sox pitching has been and that obviously all those were road games, not sure how poor .275/.301/.406 actually is. Particularly since they're including his 'wet behind the ears' years.

Nor was Glavine's control anything THAT! special. I don't get those two 'most comparables' at all. Just look up the absolute 'best control' guys, and project from that.

The pertinent phrase is called "Winner's Curse". See Wikipedia. I don't see why Lee should be particularly hard to project. How long do incredible control pitchers stay great? Maddux and Wells lasted forever, but how many similar guys are there that are now forgotten because they didn't? And glancing at Goltz's career ... man, it sure don't look all that comparable.

If I'm an owner, darn right I don't want to let in another owner who projects to spend extra resources on acquiring players. Attacks my bottom line in two ways; more competition in my own signing players, and fewer wins (ergo $$$) for me if he's successful. No point in whining about agents within a system doing exactly what that system rewards. If you care, address the system. However. And good luck with that.

So why do they seem (even) less likely to approve Jamie? I've found the uber-rich to be quite sexist; are you suggesting that's the case here with the MLB owners? Or are you just inclined to back away from that quick assertion? feel free to, if you want.

I don't want to stop reading this and thereby maybe miss an interesting quote. But no, I also don't want to wade through the PR garbage from agents and GMs I can get plenty of in the local media. What law says there has to be a quota on quotes?? If there are only 3-4 actually interesting ones, fine, do a 3-4 quote 'This Week in Quotes'.

Maybe it's just me. But even given the sparse off-season pickings, I'd rather not wade through pabulum from player agents and GMs talking about how great their new signings are. Not even when such stuff is given witty headlines. Or maybe you could segregate that type of stuff somehow? So I know not to go through there looking for actual good stuff?

I've no doubt that Jeter truly believes he is a 'Gold Glove' shortstop. If he was, then by Yankees standards he would be worth 6yrs./150 mill. Cashman, on the other hand, is bright enough to know that Jeter always has been and is a hacker in the field. My prediction is that Jeter will get a contract somehow overstating what the Yankees do give him. If they can do that in baseball.

I suspect that "toxic attitude" correlates with 'reduce his projection', and I know that "poor work ethic" sure the heck does. So either one in my opinion would be very much a projected 'performance' reason to move Upton. I know you're not a historian (specialist, anyway), but isn't it very odd to publicly mention you'll entertain offers for your young stud? (could Goldman weigh in on that?) I mean, they can mention it to other GMs without going public about it. Or perhaps with the internet news phenomenon now, they figure it'll go from the one mileiu to the other in a pixel heartbeat anyway, so might as well be upfront about it in the first place nowadays. Who's your journalism expert on the site?

I'll bring in the Big-Gun-Guru. 'Those who think the team's winning/losing should have absolutely nothing to do with it are ding-dongs' Bill James (paraphrasing lightly)

This is a bit silly, as many posters have noted. Agent007's post being the clearest explanation of 'why'. You can't give Votto .6 and Pujols .4, so if you accept that 'playing for a post-season qualifier' ought to carry some weight, than Votto clearly is the better choice. And so gets the whole vote. If you want to argue against 'team actually wins' counting, than do so.

Love that last story.

Guidry's peak is that low?? Oh, and wasn't Guidry still pitching alright when he retired? Ungently nudged by Steinbrenner into retirement 'cuz George saw no place for him in the Yankee rotation, but sure didn't want Guidry in anyone else's uniform either. What I recall, anyways.

The $$$ issue is not the inelasticity of demand for Yankee tickets, but the inelasticity of the Yankee budget. They can afford to pay Jeter whatever they want and have $$$ left over for whomever else they want, too. Now if all the Oldies fall over the cliff, then yes, even the Yankees will not have enough to buy their way out of that. But Jeter's salary will only be a part of it all, then. The problem for the Yankees will simply be playing a replacement-level shortstop for the next however many years. Until their fan base will politically allow them to bench Jeter. Which so long as his BA is above-average for a shortstop, won't take place.

I'd suggest that, due to the fishbowl they live in (or that can be reconstructed), we actually know quite a bit about these people. Now, if you wanna say "there but for the grace of God go I", or "walk a mile in his shoes first", or something along those lines, that I'd go for.

Well, I think it's established that Earl Weaver's disattributes as a human being went beyond 'not cuddly'. Bill James once wrote that most all highly successful managers were kinda rotten at the human being part. Helped them manipulate and, when needed, discard people. Not that I'm sure what this has to do with quietly confident or cacophonously nonconfident Orioles. But just for the record.

What's horrible about the writing?? And they're just interesting stories about past teams and events, nothing more than that. I agree they're very unlike past BP articles. Just don't read them, if you don't want to. Tho' Tarakas has nailed them historically. And NPB, thanks for the 'bag of leaves' anecdote. :-)

Making this free content would suggest that it's fairly typical of the stuff published on here, ergo subscribe. It's way better, which isn't a slight at anything else. But this isn't a humor site.

There are probably a dozen small, non-intrusive things baseball could do to speed up the game. (just send IBB hitters right to first, only one free pickoff/step off attempt per runner, no 'fake' pickoff to 2nd or 3rd without throwing, along with all you mention) Baseball clearly doesn't want to. So the problem isn't "what to do", but "convince baseball to do the friggin' obvious". I always figured hidebound 'tradition' was at fault. It just never occurred to me how much more baseball makes off of concessions the longer they keep us there. I think you may have nailed it.

Especially '18.'

:-)))))

What chris says. Absolutely the way to go.

What azy said, only stronger. Jurrjens possibly, who's nowhere near as productive as Fielder in the immediate term. The other 5 guys, might just as well try petitioning Commissioner Bud to give his home-town team 4 outs an inning.

Well, if we 'can check whether harder-throwing pitchers have more arm injuries', what do results show?

Good read, Bob. Thanks. Regarding the Bench strikeout, tho'. What I recall reading was that the strike pitch was knee-high on the outside corner. Bench wasn't fooled, at all, but chose not to offer at a pitch that he wasn't going to do anything with anyway, and thought might be a ball. I mean, how often at 3-and-2 do you then decide to intentionally walk a hitter? Ever?

Agreed re Sanchez. And are the Twins really truly crying "we can't afford our players!" after just one year of their new ballpark???

The GM is a very public position. Of course how he'll be perceived matters some.

How 'bout one of the numbers guys gives us a probability on that 18-57? Given the Yankees' excellence, I'm guessing random chance is still a strong candidate.

And all you saying "the NL's no longer that inferior grumblegrumble", how about some (nonanecdotal, please) evidence for that assertion? Hmmm???

Thanks again for another year of the 'Hit List'!