I'm 110% certain that it is not a mathematical problem to have a percentage over 100% (or 1.000).

Seriously? "SOX"? And confuse them with BOS?

"Whether Boston’s apparent decision to pay more for less is the right decision will depend on how Victorino performs." Really? That's the conclusion? That sentence flies in the face of BP analysis. We're supposed to be able to posit whether it's a good decision now, rather than to wait for the results and then look back with 20/20 hindsight. BP can do better than this.

Why would Lohse's playoff experience be relevant for the Royals?

What's with the GIF files? Have you ever tried to read an article with that going on in the frame?

I've been thinking about streaks and how they might impact playoff odds. Has anyone at BP (or anywhere else) done the work on the frequency of winning streaks? I've seen the fact that 'more work needs to be done' referenced a few times. It doesn't seem that hard. Do streaks happen more or less often than probability would suggest they do if a non-streak-considering binomial model were used? I raise it because it seems that 20%-chance events are happening more than 20% of the time. This year, BAL, CWS and DET are all going to see 20%-chance events happen over the last couple weeks. Only LAD and PIT are going to have 20%-chance events NOT happen. (Maybe OAK and LAA ... depending on where you draw the line.) And last year, we all know that STL, STL, BOS and TAM all had less-than-20%-chance events happen. So have we not accounted for streakiness? Teams get hot? Teams fall apart?

Yes, clearly something went awry today. The Cardinals are the same. I think they've been in the 60s and 70s for weeks, but the graph shows them dipping through the 30s all of a sudden. And then a big spike. Braves, OAK, BAL are all the same.

Exactly what I mean.

Cooper's injury is a 'diving back?' How does a back go diving?

If Robin Ventura gets all the credit in the world for taking inferior talent and getting them to play well consistently, why won't you rip Jim Leyland for the opposite?

Two questions. 1. Is there any evidence that there is "increased strain of starting games more often?" 2. Colin writes: "each additional inning pitched by a team’s starters per game resulted in a 0.072 increase in win percentage ... Typically, when a team has to use its relievers more frequently, those additional innings do not go to a team’s closer or any of its top relievers, but instead are soaked up by the team’s worst relievers." Which is cause and which is effect here? Isn't it that because a team is *already* losing the game, the worst relievers come in to pitch? So wouldn't we say that having a lower win percentage is the *cause* (not the effect) of poor bullpen performance?

As of this morning, Red Sox have lower expected wins than the Rays and lower chance of winning the division but way higher chance winning wild card and therefore higher chance of making the playoffs. This seems like an odd combination. Can anyone comment? Might it have to do with the particular teams left on the schedule? For example, if the Sox do well, then the Yankees do poorly (since the Sox and Yanks have many games left against one another) and that helps the Rays? Or something like that?

What are Thome's JAWS numbers?

Good to save words like "really really dumb" for situations like this. Don't feel bad about using them in this situation.

Adam - My mistake. I should have said that about fan interference (not about a traditional ground rule double). David - I'm sure that getting MLB to cooperate is hard and they don't want to get to anything controversial in this forum. Maybe find a former umpire or two who would be more open?

David - This is an interesting series of articles. Next time, it would be great if you could take it up a notch and push the umps on actual enforcement instead of just what's in the rulebook. Scotty and Bill have correctly pointed out that the neighborhood play is called all the time. I've got a couple more worth asking about (some of these brought up in earlier columns): 1. Why is a runner on first virtually always granted 2 bases on a ground rule double when it is sometimes very clear that he would have scored? 2. When was the last time an umpire disallowed a HBP because the guy didn't try to get out of the way? Why is it hardly ever called? 3. Was Andy Pettitte's move to first a balk? (I maintain that he balked virtually all the time.) If so, why wasn't it called? If not, why don't others make that move? 4. Why don't they make the batters stand in the batter's box? I'm talking about when some guys rub out the back line of the box and stand behind it? It would be a real scoop to get these guys to at least comment on these more controversial issues.

If most of these guys are above 0 on WARP, then doesn't it say that they added value? Or that WARP is set incorrectly?

Interestingly, the HOF website is pretty much silent on the criteria for getting into the HOF. It does say that the institution is dedicated (among other things) to " honoring those who have made outstanding contributions to our national pastime." Has Miller made a contribution? Absolutely. Has Miller made an 'outstanding' contribution? Well, that depends on your definition of 'outstanding.' If you interpret it to mean that it has to further the development of baseball and/or the public's commitment to baseball, then it's at least arguable. Personally, I agree with the posters who believe that free agency has detracted from the game (from the perspective of fans). Not only do we have overpaid players, but we have fewer players who stay with teams long enough for fans to develop strong attachments. If you root for the Pirates or Padres, for example, free agency means you're rooting for the uniforms only.

I'm with Festsgrber, Richie and klipzlskim. Eric's claim that nobody will *ever* approach 300 or 400 wins again cannot be substantiated. Not because of specific arguments about Moose or CC. But because we just don't know about the game 100 or 200 years from now. I think the most likely change will be medically. Maybe it's HGH. Or maybe someone mixes carrot juice with raisins and tofu and finds out that the blend acts like super-HGH and every great pitcher can throw on 2 days rest. There's no reason to believe that the trend to limiting innings will continue. Scott Boras IV could put a Wins clause into every major league contract. Overall, however, the article is right. We have to think about eras when thinking about achievements. It's just distracting that Eric would fall victim to missing his own point in assuming that the trends we see now will continue in the future.

I, too, am a fan of the BP projections. I have always been struck, though, at how fast things can change. Does it really make sense that a team's odds can move 20 points with a good or bad week? Clearly at the end of the season, but with this much time to go?

The problem with MLB is not that some teams make the playoffs a lot. It's that many teams start the season with very little chance of making the playoffs. Instead of citing that 10 WS have had 15 teams, look at the teams that have made the playoffs with stunning infrequency in the last 20 years. That's what is unfortunate about MLB. Compare that to the NFL and you'll find almost no NFL teams that can't expect to make the playoffs 1/3 of the time.

You guys might want to hire a better proofreader.

There's one more important point: there are still beat writers. In Denver and Seattle, the papers that went out are one out of two. There's still a Seattle Times. There's still a Denver Post. Even if the LA Times went out of business, there are still other LA papers with beat writers. Many cities can't afford two newspapers any more. We're still a ways from no-newspaper metro areas.