Thank you Ben for confirming what I suspected. By its construction, PWARP is fielding "independent", that it possesses some value, but that there are limitations. And as with all metrics it is an approximation for measuring the quantities desired. I have no problem with this interpretation. So as a metric, what is the error associate with it? It appears to be a systematic error thus affecting its accuracy. Given sufficient samples the random error should disappear. Or is it a random error - that eventually all FIP pitchers eventually regress toward the mean?

"Here's the dirty little secret about WARP." Yes some defensive metrics have become obsolete. However, it is easily possible to deconvolute the fielding metrics from the batting and running contributions toward WARP. And BWARP still seems to be a valid metric. On the otherhand, what is possibly more broken is PWARP. It has gotten to the point that one of the BP writers actively dismisses PWARP. It is very easy to locate examples where "worth" as defined by PWARP appears to be contrary to other more traditional, but acceptable, metrics. As a simple example: Barry Zito year ip W-L QS-BQS ERA 2010 199 9-14 19-1 4.15 2012 186 15-8 17-0 4.15 After a quick glance at the numbers and ignoring W-L, one would suspect the two years are nearly equivalent, but by PWARP, Zito was nearly 2 wins more valuable in 2010 than 2012. And at 7-0 with 5 QS out of 8 and a 2.44 ERA, Matt Moore has been nearly replaceable this year: PWARP = 0.3. Hopefully some food for thought.

I would pay to watch over the internet, but we do not have that option. Correct?

Either WARP, which we are told measures relative value of a performance, is correct and Mr. Parks is wrong thus making us question the value of his analysis, or Mr. Parks is correct, that for this comparison, WARP does not accurately measure the value of the performance, thus making us question value of WARP for any type of comparison. Of course both could be wrong. Ultimately, the value of a player is in his ability to generating wins. This is what WARP is suppose to measure. If we choose to accept the implications of this metric only when it satisfies our "gut feeling", then it has no value. And it was this form of arbitrary usage of such metrics that have been used by many to justify support for his/her favorite player. If Mr. Parks is correct, then WARP should be re-defined or modified so that it satisfies its intent - a measure of past performance, not a measure of potential performance as your research suggests.

Mr. Parks - your response implies you have no faith in the WARP measurement for pitchers. You may be correct. However it thus means WARP should be corrected if it is to continue to be a measure of value of a player to a team. And that BP should discontinue to use it as a metric in comparing pitchers. You might be amused to know that German physicist Max Planck once proposed a model and a fundamental constant, h. But upon being told implications of his model and constant, he expressed the same sentiments, "That's ridiculous!"

Data on BP using BP's metrics suggests claim is justifiable.

Been to a Rays game?

The vast majority of individuals inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame are from Major League Baseball. And MLB, first and foremost, is a for-profit form of entertainment. We watch the games, analyze the results and study it because it entertains us and for some, provides income. In the end, I fail to see why we should celebrate the performances of those who highly profited from or were possibly exploited by this profession. We should recognize that what counts here is entertainment. However, there is one important aspect to this year's slate of candidates that provides a serious benefit to society: it provides a wonderful example of the misuse of evidence based analysis, i.e., that which we deem the difference between science and the non-sciences. The arguments both for, but usually in opposition to those who are suspected of using "performance enhancing drugs" (the quotes are important) provide ample examples of HNTDS - how NOT to do science. Most examples of HNTDS are in the form of single-data point correlation equals cause, and "it is obvious", but some of the better ones are effect-is-entirely-due-to-one-source. In the field of science education, we have often spent most of our time educating students on techniques, such as how to pipette, draw force diagrams, etc., and little time on helping them understand what science is and how to conduct it properly. One reason is that easy to access examples are not plentiful. But this year, and particularly this year, we have rich source of examples of where people with absolutely no understanding of biomechanics, physiology and/or pharmacology are spouting on about both one time legal and illegal synthetic and natural fluids which they claim are the source or not the source for a few events that are overly celebrated. So thank you to this year's candidates to the HoF and those who have written about it. You have made an important contribution to the field of education and science - two areas we should be discussing and celebrating. (Of course while we entertain ourselves with a for-profit profession.)

No, no, no. Everyone knows the Sodfather was Jim Morrison... former third baseman for the White Sox.

Measure times to deliver, release, run, etc. With kinematic data, the cause should be easy to determine.

Congratulations Bobby - one of the least appreciated players in the past 15 years.

Nice to see you back. Always enjoy your contributions.

RB: Out of the 10,000 posts from you in the past 6 months, this one may have been the best.

Thanks - this make sense, but since I had known this fact, I assumed the downside was related to the date of return. Now it would be nice to know the success rate of Tommy John surgery for both pitchers and positional plays. What is the probability that Crawford returns to his pre-Red Sox days ability?

Why is the return of Crawford in April, i.e., opening day of 2013, rather than August a downside? Is it more likely he will not return until opening day of 2014?

Tony Gwynn had 2 of his most productive years as a batter when he was 37 and 38. More home runs those years than any other. Derek Jeter isn't really having one of his better years and yet there are calls for artificial stimulant testing. Don't remember anyone suggesting Tony was doing steroids. http://media.cleveland.com/startingblocks/photo/tony-gwynnjpg-ffb9bf873ca7948e.jpg

A follow up - it is not clear to me what leading team's line really tells me because it includes the wildcard calculation which I viewed as flawed (see comment below.) What might be more informative is to see the leading team's line for probability of winning the division. Then one could see how close the divisional title is to being settled. This would be particularly interesting for the NL East battle.

I suspected this might be the case, however I wasn't certain. A figure caption would have been helpful. Frankly, if there is a defect that is consistent among BP articles and products is that graphs / figures lack labeling and/or a figure caption. I hope in the future the second reader of will keep this fact in mind while reviewing an article. On the otherhand, the best addition to BP this year has been Daniel Rathman's "What You Need To Know". I try to read every one.

A thought. The wild card position has changed dramatically this year. Winning a wild card slot is no longer virtually equivalent to winning a division, hence wouldn't it make more sense to equate winning one of the 2 wild card slots with winning half of a divisional title? From this perspective, the 1 day "wild card" game is equivalent to two teams ending the 162 game season with identical records and thus having to play a 163rd game to make the playoffs. Once the 163rd game is decided, the playoffs begins with 4 teams per league. With this perspective, the total value of winning THE wild card playoff slot is 100%, not 200% as it is labeled now. And the probability of a team making the 4-team playoffs is more accurately calculated. The value of winning the divisional title is better reflected in the calculations. (The Rays chances of making the real playoffs are much worse.) It might be an idea worth pursing. If explained properly, then it would be helpful.

The divisional graphs are great. I understand them without a caption. However, what is plotted on the narrow graph below each of the divisional graphs?

You are correct - Trout was best in 2010. He slumped in 2011. Possibly a more interesting signing will be Trumbo. What will the Angels do about him?

Worth admission.

If a batter steps out of the batter box, he can be tagged out. Would be consistent with the other bases. Fewer human rain delays.

If a pitcher was able to break the light barrier, the balk rule would the least of our concerns. Causality would be violated and now we could know the results of the game before it happened.

The destruction of the stadium, etc. should not surprise anyone given that the pitcher provided the equivalent of a day and a half of America's energy usage in a single pitch.

A study worth reviewing. I would have expected Joe Maddon to be the first manager to be able to convince his starters of the advantage of a 4-man rotation. As the quality of starters from the Rays farm system begins to diminish, e.g., Archer?, and affect the mother team, we might see Merlot Joe make the switch? He could point to Bobby Cox who used a 4 man rotation in April.

I loathe the teams that simply take your money and make no intelligent effort to provide an entertaining product. For years the worst offender has been the Marlins. Most of the teams listed here have also hired bozos, wasted funds and refused to think beyond near racist philosophies (righthanders shorter than 6 feet can't pitch, don't draft players who live with their girlfriends, etc.) Jay makes a great point - the arrogance of manager is a great reason to hate a team. So is the sliminess of the owner and /or the cluelessness of the general manager. So given this list, I bet all have at least one individual that allow us to hate them. Some teams have three excellent reasons.

"During the game, Harper stole a base, slid head-first into first trying to beat out a groundball..." Hopefully they teach him that sliding slows down the runner and increases the chance of injury.

My apologies, my post was directed to painttheblack.

Your comments and tone are so completely antithetical to the principles of Baseball Prospectus, I wonder if it is a form of sarcasm. If so, be aware that sarcasm is usually difficult to identify in a forum.

Creating an ebook version of this text is probably the single more important decision made in the past several years. For the first time since 1997, I did not purchase Baseball Prospectus in 2011. Even us old folks can learn to forgo the large tomes. Of course this begs the question - will past editions be available for purchase? On a separate issue, while I understand Amazon does dominate the market of ereaders, it is important to promote industry standard epub version / non-proprietary based versions which allows one to transfer the license across multiple readers. I purchased my copy from Sony for less than some of the proprietary versions.

In the last 20 years, in my world the ultimate baseball test of a baseball fan is - Which is the better baseball movie: Bull Durham or Field of Dreams? If they answer Field of Dreams, they flunked. Field of Dreams had nothing to do with baseball.

+ 1 More evidence that if you want to understand the Humanities, then study Baseball.

FYI: For some time the Rays having been using the measurement of the ball's speed off the bat as the metric for a player's batting ability. It appears that MLB is finally discovering that baseball is an exercise in biophysics. When will the Rays lose their extra 2%?

Jerry Remy. Delightful analyst. Bad player. Who cares - he is one of us New Englanders.

Postseason.tv is both the best and the worst. But with enough connections, it is a delightful experience. Here is what works best for me: 1) Use gameday and connect to the local radio station. 2) Start another session and connect to Postseason.tv, but turn off the audio. (Where do they get these guys? Rays play National League baseball?) Select from centerfield. 3) Borrow or steal your daughter's laptop and start another Postseason.tv, but select behind home plate. This allows you to see multiple angles. 4) Take your tablet or other source and start another session of Postseason.tv. Select your favorite team's dugout. Pause it so that there is a delay between the other camera's action and the response by the team. This angle has become one of my favorite since I now see how Joe Maddon and his staff operate. The problem of course is delay. I use Nextdef, so the delay from audio to the video is noticeable.

Since the key is VALUE in MVP, Dan's contributed to at least 25% of the probability that the Rays would make the playoffs. (If we make the lame assumption that the O's were not inspired by Dan's talents, then the chance of the Rays making the playoff's went from about 50% to 75% or higher. Dirtbag simply added a couple more points.) Of course if we ignore such new-age philosophies which deny cross game connections and include how the O's were guided by Dan, Mr. Johnson took the Rays from 0.02% to more than 50%. What VALUE! Name another player that came close this year? Bautista? A total waste of lumber. Kemp? Lots of pointless homeruns. I'm starting an internet based write in campaign for MVP for Dan. Yes Dan Johnson for 2011 - the man who made his hit count.

I can't believe it! Not a single vote for Dan Johnson! No Johnson, no Rays. (And it was his hit that inspired the Orioles.)

Ummm, hero?

I fail to see how this movie will attract any audience other than those who like to look at Brad Pitt.

Fun article, but more importantly it made me think about how your were applying the 2nd law of thermodynamics which says that entropy - or the number of possible ways of representing the state of a system - "tends" to increase. If I were to say the number of possible option for the playoffs is the measure for entropy, then yes, entropy has increased. However, my view is to use the W-L record as measure of the entropic state of the system. Hence this season has suddenly moved in the opposite direction as described by the 2nd law - teams records are converging! And it is because of the violation of what usually happens over the course of the season where teams spread out in the standings (as measured by GB) that makes this season (one of the most boring in some time) suddenly become very exciting. Entropy tends to increases, but always! I guess it is possible for a burning house to put itself out and rebuild. But "who needs no stinking laws of thermodynamics?"

Silly fellow - Bell has the "closer" mentality, while Waldon clearly does not. (That said, the major reason I follow the Rays is Maddon and he has supported this argument. Sigh. )

For those who continue to follow this series, and I am starting to wonder why, this joke has become old.

Yes, but is the point to actually make the playoffs? I thought we were all aware of the great con based on the leaked financial documents of the Rays, Pirates, etc - that the lesser teams make more money if they stay out of the playoffs.

Interesting analysis, but I'm not sure why we should care what Rob Dibble thinks.

No way! The Angels work miracles! They have a chance to come back and win the AL West and .... never mind. It isn't September and what a boring season.

+1

Under what heading will we find this page? Statistics?

...who continues to find employment in baseball, now V.P. with the Royals.

...and better educated fans saw these failures immediately. This is in contrast with good signings that simply did not work out like Burrell with the Rays.

Absolutely agreed on Matthews! In SoCal, it was a battle of bad contracts: Matthews vs. Pierre. (And I read nothing into the "tone".)

Wasn't...even...close.

Jones was a Brewer? Nah- what we old geezers need to salute Jones for is being effective as an Athletic while in his 40's. That is what I will always remember Jones for. And in the 70's and 80's, 10 homers annually made you feared!

just ask the Rays.

Yes, but the question is, will anyone be able to see the D-Backs in October? As of today BP predicts a near certain no. P.S. RedTopCowboy - your posting is one of the most stimulating reader's comment I have read on BP's website in quite a while - and I'm not being sarcastic.

I would have said Matt Joyce - all 4 have TAv > .300

Yes, it is about bunting; however, it would be useful to analyze Joe Maddon's over use of bunting. It seems to the observer that Maddon is disproportionally successful at generating hits and not just outs. Are the Rays truly successful or is it an optical illusion? And if so, why?

These evaluations are valid if the conditions under which the player is performing has not changed. The story on Kotchman is that he has overcome some vision problems. http://www.tampabay.com/sports/baseball/rays/article1168725.ece Yea, well until he has 500 PA, Rays fans should be highly skeptical. And even then we should be skeptical given Jason Bartlett's 2009 season. Or does BP consider a fluke season equivalent to a breakout season?

Because it is late and sarcasm tends to be difficult to discern at this hour, is it fair to say that I can assume the reporting of trot times to hundredths of a second is for amusement purposes only? (Making the approximation values even more humorous?)

Yes, I am a professor at a small liberal arts college but of physics not statistics (though I use them often). My apologies, I misread your post and incorrectly assumed your interest in sabermetrics occurred post college. Ironically we both experienced a common set of revelations in a similar sequence. In my mind, baseball is a microcosm of humanity with sabermetrics playing the role of skepticism of the human observation. I have suggested teaching a course on the enlightenment through the readings of baseball.

Just curious, did you attend college? In my mind the number one goal of college should be to "train" students to be rationally skeptical. Sadly society possesses too many people who lack sufficient skepticism and thus subscribe to the view that their health can be improved by alternative medicines which have not passed controlled clinical tests, and that there exists vast government conspiracies to hide extra-terrestrial beings, to blow up buildings and to allow an individual, who doesn't quite look like all his predecessors, to hold of the office of the POTUS. But these same individuals show an irrational skepticism of the quality of vaccinations after decades of success at eliminating a host of horrible diseases because a former playboy bunny claims they should.

Looking at my comments I find typos, lack of agreement in tense and number - just poor grammar. I would mark myself down if I could. Since it appears that my wish of an edit option on this webpage is unlikely to be granted, I need to remember that one can't simply bang out a response in the morning on a half-cup of coffee.

The comments and analysis in this article is supportive of Michael Lewis's claim that what James really wanted to do when he published the Baseball Abstracts is to write. And since his writing was easily accessible to a population that lacked an understanding of the fundamental theorem of calculus, and even though others (Cook, Palmer, etc.) had produced models that were more statistically sound, it was James that people read. I agree with Tarakas. We should give James credit for popularizing statistical analysis. But like the efforts of Mendel, the German-Czech monk cross pollinating plants to make headway in the field in genetics, this area of research has moved on.

Who?

And Helton is hitting well, but it might not last. The scout also said that it is sunny out, but that it might rain. That good fortune is might be coming to you. But maybe it won't. Good stuff. Where do I apply to be a scout?

He isn't an outstanding player, but at least Morgan is fun to watch. Let me play scout for a moment, "Morgan looked worn out from all those plate appearances at the end of the season. His speed was down and he was stealing fewer bases."

Thank you - this at least gives me some raw data to work with.

Thank you, this tells me that there is an organization that does have some players, but the question I am asking is, what is the percentage of players in AA 21 and under? I am assuming that this is a standard metric people who study prospects could give me. Since the vast majority of prospects fail and only about 25% of #1 picks contribute much in the majors (from Jason Collette) I am hoping to find some percentages based on age and level. BP is a place one might expect such data.

I'm a bit confused about Beckham. How many other 21 year olds (or younger) are in double-A? How many other 21 year olds are above double A?

Yes, individual personal experiences color's our impression of a human. For me, Ramirez entertained me with his batting skills even when, and usually when, he was on the opposing team. Of course it is also dangerous to spend time discovering more about the quality of the humans we fondly remember - one often is disappointed with the results.

...and with several wins removed by the Ramirez retirement, the Rays chances are now in the standard range of "no chance"...

P.S. In my opinion, this was still one of BP's greatest articles. In the scientific community, it is felt by many that the difference between plain-vanilla science and paradigm shifting science is not in the results obtained, but in the questions posed. (Of course frequently those who have the intellectual skills to generate the significant questions often are ones smart enough to figure out how to get the %$#@ equipment to work and produce the results. )

I would argue that with the application of kinematic analysis (vectors, velocity, relative positions) to baseball that has been adopted several teams and scholars, answers for #1, #7 and more recently with information on release points and pitch trajectory, #11 are available to the satisfaction of many. There is so much data about hit trajectories, that finding the optimal set of locations for fielders can be assigned as an end-of-the-course project for an introductory programming class.

*Scouts' comments are for entertainment purposes only.

*Scouts comments are provided for entertainment purposes only.

Earlier in the season, Maddon stated that at this moment, he plans to close by committee. Hence whoever BP designates as the closer is irrelevant.

The PECOTA numbers to which you refer are his 2010 values. They have not uploaded 2011 values.

If Manny does as poorly for the Rays as he did for the White Sox (TAv of .286), he would still be a step up for the Rays. And apparently you don't remember that Johnson outplayed Pena at 1B last year. Yep, there is a chance this team will end up below .500. There is also a chance they win the division, or finishing last. And having the Jays end up 3rd is possible - but not very likely.

To the scout who has made a near measurable prediction - thank you. The vast number of reported comments by scouts are vague and vapid. I enjoying reading them like I enjoy reading a newspaper's daily horoscope. "Your thinking is all over the road and may be erroneous. Other than that, your week can flow nicely.." (Actual horoscope.) Popper would have a field day. The downside of this statement about Nick Markakis is that what I would define as a breakout year (the BP's mathematical definition), is probably not the scout's. I'll make it easy - 10% above the best year as defined by WARP.

Stephen says, "You mean 1 out of 4."

B.J. Upton - he drives fans crazy, but I love to watch him glide around the basepaths. I love the fact he plays so shallow. Yes, there is the occasional ball hit over his head, but like the 4th down in football, the hits removed out weigh the occasional to the wall line drive. And his arm - you never know the outcome. He is the most underrated Ray. (From the old school - Freddy Lynn: just for the swing.)

0th law: you are in the game 1st law: you can't win the game 2nd law: you can't even get close 3rd law: (...well, many don't consider a law, but if it is, in the end) everyone dies at the end of the game.

The most accurate statement one can make on this subject is that PECOTA is will be wrong on every player. You can trace this argument back to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Headly, Walling: fun players. So what makes a fun player? This question arises now that the player who brought me the most pleasure, Jim Edmonds, has hung up his spikes. Can we quantify fun? Nyjer Morgan is a fun player to watch. So was Al Hrabosky. If BP, as part of the freshness which I support, is going to post articles on how some folks use baseball as a vehicle for other pleasures (sexual, to participate in arguments), it might be worth spending some time generating a fun metric. Why watch baseball? Because for many of us the players make it fun.

The wording of a question is important. Neither of you were incorrect, you addressed different questions.

I read the article as stating, since WC teams do not appear to have a disadvantage in the playoff series, if we force them to use their ace, what is the probability that THE wild-card team facing a division winner, will win the series. The effect is minimal. The question is NOT what is the probability that A PARTICULAR wild-card team wins the next series. (One of my few complaints about BP is the articles frequently fail to clearly define every abbreviation, particularly on columns of data or results.)

Be he at bat or in the field, Jim Edmonds was the only reason I ever purchased an Angels ticket. In my book, Jim Edmonds made "the catch".

The PECOTA system generates underestimations of Longo's performance annually. Last year PECOTA predicted .264 (instead of the actual .294) and a WARP of 4.6 (not the actual 8.2). Maybe PECOTA doesn't like his commercials or his single-guy lifestyle. (PECOTA to Longo, "Looking into my crystal ball, I see many young ladies, STD and a paternity suit in your future.)

I like the new lines of research BP is conducting these days. This one looks rich for exploration. If I were a player, the question I would have is given the fact that I have produced X amount of WARP, or my TAv is Y, which group is going to help me sign the biggest contract possible (which can be defined several ways.) This information tells me that Boras signs big contracts because he represents top players. It does not tell me if I as a player could actually sign for more using a different group. I look forward to future articles.

(-14 and expanding)... Thanks for reminding me of the maturity level of too many of the readers of this website. I am amused.

I will be cheering the return of Jim Edmonds, one of baseball few "true entertainment" players - a delight to watch. " My prerogative right now is to just chill and let all the other overexposed blondes on the cover of Us Weekly (magazine) be your entertainment. " - Britney Spears

Speaking for myself, unless you know for a fact that Curt Blefary legally changed his name to Curt Blefary, jokes made about a person's attribute that are usually beyond a person's control are in bad taste. While it is possible to change one's name (or skin color, etc.) it is exceedingly rare and often requires a herculean effort. I suspect there are writers at BP who can attest to being the target of jokes because of other uncontrollable attributes. I bet they do not find the jokes humorous.

I think you should have added a ;) to your comment. It is unlikely the Rays would be willing to pay for his current contract and they would only do it to make sure they had a draft choice after he left.

I would like to second the motion that this article was interesting, educational and novel. Recently I have noticed a renewed freshness at BP (I was fortunate enough to sign on as a charter member.) However, I do have a request. It would be helpful if BP could insure that non-traditional abbreviations, metrics or statistics are clearly defined. For example, if players are compared using metric X, the article should state, within the article or via link, explicitly how X is calculated. This allows the reader a method for better judging the validity or relevance of X. To paraphrase Feynman, I only understand that which I have worked with. Thanks.

This is an interesting and useful article. I particularly find the information on future commitments illuminating. One further piece of information which might provide more details on the finances of a team is the average number of years a player on the 40-man roster has with a team before he can file for free agency. It has been reported that for the Rays, this number is 4.7 years, but it not clear if this number is unusually high. I look forward to future installments.

Thank you. But I'm not sure why cutting Pat was a mistake. There were enough data points to strongly suggest this guy wasn't hitting anybody - righties, lefties, the BP pitcher... nor going to hit anyone. It seemed to me that Maddon was exceedingly patient with him as he was with Pena and Bartlett long after the Pena showed no evidence of maintaining an adequate performance level and Bartlett had turned back into a replacement level player.

Friedman is incorrect. Signing Burrell was the correct move given the information at the time of signing. A mistake is when a decision is made for which the evidence strongly suggests one path and you choose another - say like assuming Gary Matthews Jr. and Juan Pierre are going to make excellent full time outfielders.

Oh it does - and I'll reiterate - a interesting topic to evaluate. I don't normally read the fantasy article, but you guys are making them difficult to ignore.

And I wish there was some way to edit a comment. I feel like an idiot misspelling the word "not".

One request - if the statistic is not linked in the general glossary, can it clearly explained somewhere in the article? While most of the % stats are described, I'm still now sure how oMs% is calculated. P.S. Qualls is a fascinating player - from one of the most consistently high-quality relievers in baseball to one of the worst. Yet I rarely read about the knee injury.

I still have hope that Maddon will forgo the great closer route and use the best pitcher fo the situation. But of course I still have hope for world peace.

I suspect the Rays had come to the same conclusion about Pena as Mr. Brown has even before the end of the semester. By the end, Pena had lost his position to a AAAA journeyman and a PTBNL utility infielder. I do agree that it is nice to see an factually based presentation. Normally I pass on fantasy-based articles, but if more are like this, my behavior will change.

We humans love to find patterns where no patterns exist and are terrible in creating randomness. I interpret Bartlett's worth (or lack there of) as one where enough GM's read the same data as we do - that Bartlett is weak hitting SS who plays replaceable defense. His value comes in the fact he stays healthy and had minimal competition for much of the season. To the Rays - his $4 million in arbitration is replaceable with an equally performing player at 1/10th the cost. It is not clear if the Rays are negotiating from strength or weakness. If there is a pattern, it suggests that some GMs still overvalue recent performance be it for one season or a playoff series (Uribe signing with the Dodgers.) However, the number of love-smitten GMs is decreasing with time.

The worst: Olympic stadium in Montreal - where fun went to die.

I am quite surprised that no one has commented yet on how the Cubs are paying 10 million dollars for a fringe player who, last year, was eventually replaced by a middle infielder at first base. No one should have been surprised should Pena produce little above replacement since he has steadily declined during the past 3 years. So is Maddux a smart executive or someone who is more inclined to overvalue players since he is not far removed from his playing days?

Hopefully Hamilton is familiar with Matthew 19-21: “Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moths and vermin destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20 But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where moths and vermin do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal. 21 For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also...." and Matthew 24: “No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money." (New International version 2010) Since his religion is truly that important to him, then these words should guide him through contract negotiations.

Just curious, why would the Marlins spend money on a free-agent of 10 million per year?

I have some sympathy for the arguments in this article. I too have wondered how models can use data from batting performance to make reasonable predictions for future performance in offense, but a player’s fielding performance appears to change radically on an annual basis. However, what caught my attention is the possible misunderstanding of the role of correlation in science and what distinguishes how science is conducted from non-science. One major demarcation between science and non-science is the ability to use a model to make a prediction, i.e., that models are falsifiable. Ironically, you appear to have made a case that we should be able to use the fielding values assigned to players to predict a team’s defensive efficiency ratio (DER). Consequently, it appears the models are testable and are modestly successful in predicting outcomes. Hence the field appears to have science-like elements. Now let me address the question of whether differences in the internal workings of the models differ mean that fielding analysis is not following western scientific process. The situation in fielding analysis is analogous to the situation in the early 20th century in atomics physics. At that time, there were many models for the hydrogen atom, though two eventually dominated, the Bohr and the Schrodinger models. Both models use the same set of input data (mass of an electron, mass of a proton, electrostatic force between the two constituents) and are able to predict values for the wavelengths of electromagnetic radiation emitted from high temperature hydrogen gas (with far superior precision that the fielding models). However, the internal workings of the models vary significantly, and there is very little correlation between the two models in characterizing the behavior of the electron within the atom. This lack of correlation does not mean that both are good science even though both rely upon non-derivable postulates. It is simply part of the process we call science. (And it continues to happen in all scientific fields, continuously.) So why is one of those models used repeatedly in analyzing problems at the sub-atomic level while the other is mentioned only for historical purposes? The reason the Schrodinger model won out was because it could make more novel predictions and could be applied to wider set of testable phenomena. The Bohr model has many of the features which are testable, but it generates far fewer testable predictions. So by this analogy, to continue the scientific development of fielding analysis, other possible outcomes need to be predicted. I as you correctly point out in your comments, but it was not as clear in the article, determining predictable defensive influenced "objective" outcomes is actually the problem. I use quotes for objective, since all data is subjective.

Another fine year for baseball and BP. Yet again BP provided the data for its readers to comfortably predict the outcome of the World Series. Yes, the BP Prospective Hit List told us the favorites for the NL and AL pennants - i.e., the lowest ranked teams in each league- Rangers for AL, Giants for NL. And given the fact that the Giant end the season 7 slots beneath the Rangers on the List, this World Series wasn't going to be close - a blow out by the Giants in 5.(1) So hats off the BP for knowing their stuff - especially reminding us how the misfits and castoffs of the Giants clearly had the better team chemistry, which was the primary reason for their success. /end sarcasm (1) For conformation of this prediction see comments the Oct 26 Preview of the series http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12317 )

Man I feel old - my first thought when I saw the title was: 1975 - specifically Game 6 I still get chills thinking of the come back from the dead homer by Bernie Carbo, the save the game catch by Dwight "a true Hall-of-Famer" Evans and of course early in the morning, Carlton Fisk pushing that fly ball the left field just fair for the home run.

Zobrist produced what should be expected (not the 7+WARP of the past), Bartlett was below expected, but compared to 2008, he wasn't much worse. And Pena has been on a 3 year slide. Hence I fail to see how we should expect more from Z, and the amount saved on Pena and Bartlett can be pocketed or put back into the farm system. Marc makes a good point in stating the Rays have cheaper, better solutions for many of these positions. Like the past 3 years, next year will be an exciting race of 3 (maybe 4?) for 2 playoff positions.

Every field has heroes who lacked "moral character." Einstein divorced his wife with whom he had 3 children to marry his first cousin while Erwin Schrodinger is said to have developed his wave equation when he took his mistress up into the Alps over the holidays. Pauli, unbelievably brilliant, yet was probably a compete ass. Some of his more well know comments include, "Not only is it not right, it's not even wrong." and when asked about a presentation by a recent Ph.D., "so young and so finished." Feynman frequented a topless joint and filled his first autobiography with some questionable opinions about the behavior of women. And yet I would have considered it a highlight of my life to spend an afternoon with any of them, discussing physics, the universe and how we conduct science. I am completely envious of your experience with Earl Weaver. The only other baseball people with whom I have a comparable interest are Billy Martin, John McGraw, Ted Williams and Marvin Miller.

No, but if MLB adopted a full entry single elimination playoff system to decide the champion, I would have bet all of my TIPS bonds on the Pirates - converting a safe bet for another... Whoops just went negative. (Any, I'm more of a QCD type guy.)

If we are into predictions, then Giants in 5 games. Why? Using BP's Prospectus Hit list (http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=12144), the Rangers were the lowest ranked team coming out of the AL and the Giants were the lowest ranked team coming out of the NL. So if #5 goes against #12, clearly it will be a blow out for #12. /end sarcasm. Easiest prediction for World Series: many "experts" will say that the team with the best chemistry won the Series.

It appears that there is a misunderstanding of criticism. If the uncertainty of the mean is a few percent, then any significant figure beyond 2 is superfluous. Hence the question from Reznick. (May I suggest that each article provide some measure of the uncertainty?) As someone in the sciences, I tend look for references. Seeing none in this article, hence my question.

reznick asks a legitimate question, how have you calculated the uncertainty in your answer and approximately what is that value? A back of the envelope guess estimate is between 2 and 5% (using 3 years worth of data). At least the comment that the 52% to 48% is a coinflip is justifiable.

Th: A's > Rays. Cahill >= Ryan. NL = AAAA. Qs? ;)

'Maddon says, "not all innings are created equal. Some are much more stressful than others." ' Are there any studies yet to suggest that intensity/stressfulness during an inning is a directly correlated to the future struggles in a pitcher? Could this metric employed by the Rays be the major reason for them to trade away Scott Kazmir even when it looked like Kazmir was improving?

One should not be surprised to see the Rays trade either James or Garza for a bat. And unless the last 2/3rds of the season produces a significant turn-around, Pena will be DFAed. (Is that really a verb?)

Relative to whom?

So nearly 80 years ago, Ryan, with a 0.6 WARP, finishes 9th in the MVP voting. In 2008, Jason Bartlett (1.8 WARP3) was voted the Rays MVP by the local sportswriters. Given all the scientific and technological advances in those 80 years, some areas of learning have not changed.

To help me put the concept of "vortex of suck" in perspective, it would help me to understand what a team should expect out of a position. For example: 1) Is there an average value for WARP per position? 2) If my team's fielder produced a year of 0 VORP, where is that in the percentile of an average field? (I think I once read this as bottom 20% - is the correct?) 3) Do average WARP / VORP value vary with position? Finally - just for fun, it would be interesting to see the "vortex of suck" financial value - the amount of dollars spent for a player lost WARP vs. the an average fielder at 50 percentile performance. (I understand that we are looking at the upper tail of a Gaussian distribution rather than the full distribution so the values are a bit skewed, but these number would help me see how much Navarro really cost my Rays.)

Any bets this was sarcasm?

Finally saw the delay in CC's delivery that is being described, i.e., the loading maneuver. Mr. Carroll appears to be correct that with the delay, CC now has more time to move his body closer toward the plate before he releases the ball. This may be increasing the speed of the pitch and probably decreasing the reaction time for the batter. It is unlikely it is actually accelerating his motion, nor does it increase the actual force being applied to the ball, however the release speed may have increased since more translational velocity has been added to the velocity he produces from rotating his arm. I do like the title - throwing his weight around because with CC's extra mass, he needs more time to get himself moving.

I'm having some difficulty understanding your argument. Are you saying that the speed of his pitch has increased because in addition to the tangential speed he is able to achieve in the rotation motion of his forearm about his elbow, CC now has added more translational speed because he has increased either his translational acceleration or the time it takes him to release the pitch? (I'm assuming you are not telling us that he has actually accelerated his motion, i.e., the same delivery within a shorter time period. Or maybe you are.)

You are correct in the interpretation of Newton's second law of motion. If this "loading" maneuver is increasing it speed of his pitch, it is coming through lengthening his stride. Lengthening the stride means a greater distance and essentially more time for him to accelerate his hand up to the desired release speed. Hence a more appropriate relationship is v = a*t where a is the average acceleration of the hand and probably is not affected by the pausing. The other appropriate relationship is that the batter reaction time decreases as release point is moved closer to the plate. (That said, neuroscience studies suggest that batters take cues about when to swing before the ball is released.) Anyway, CC's mass is irrelevant. Big guys don't necessarily throw harder, they are simply bigger.

Frankly Mr. Carrol (if that is your name), this is NOT funny. In short, it is a conflict of interest. How does this differ from an employer who receives sexual favors from an employee? Why can't you be more specific in the items and corporations who have paid you off? Has Oakland, Tampa Bay, or the Red Sox sent you potential income? Should not the determination of your pandering toward these organizations be based upon the analysis of your clients? (Okay, this may be a bit over the top, but let us be serious, this issue is no joke. Conglomerations pay for websites to promote their product - even if it is not a direct transaction. Why can't BP be more specific? Otherwise we have the situation with MLB.com. We read that MLB.com is independent, but no one accepts this view. )

I concur with the first commenter - more scouts' views! Where else can you get such great lines as - "Tracy told him to start getting hitters out ...and it's really worked," (no doubt the previous manager told the pitcher to serve up gopher balls), - "you hate to see a hitter strike out as much as he does because they are wasted at-bats", (as opposed to pop ups, bunts which lead to runners being thrown out, ground balls which produce double plays and any third out - all of which are "productive" outs), - "people aren't really going to appreciate his (Mariano Rivera) greatness until he retires" (because nobody else looks at the silly 'Reliever Expected Wins Added' webpage at BP nor looks up his statistics which shows that in his 15 years in baseball, he seasonal ERA has been below 2.0 a total of 9 times), - "This kid (J.R.Towles) is pretty good. I like the way he handles the pitching staff, and he is a decent hitter. I think he has a solid future." (which is enough for anyone to accept without question, even though at 25, nearly his prime, Towles has yet to generate a positive WARP.) Now that I have critiqued some of the comments let me say this - I also enjoy this section. It reminds me of reading the comics or listening to Jim Rome talking about baseball. It is a form of entertainment. With comics, it is about wit and humor. With Romie, the entertainment comes in predicting how long one can listen to him before he makes a completely asinine statement about baseball. I believe the longest stretch for Rome between goofball comments is 8 minutes.

Jay - I argued that the Rays' bullpen was not the cause of the Rays weaker than anticipated record, and you provided data to question my claim (okay, you kind of squashed it.) But in short - the bullpen really was not that terrible - it has been mediocre. It even has had a good month. Now can you provide the same data to confirm my opinion that the Rays bullpen, in the last few weeks, have been worse than the 2007 Devil Rays bullpen - the mother of all terrible bullpens? Thanks.

Jay - I argued that the Rays' bullpen was not the cause of the Rays weaker than anticipated record, and you provided data to question my opinion (okay, you kind of squashed it.) Could you also provide the same data to confirm my opinion that the Rays bullpen in the last few weeks has been worse than the 2007 Devil Rays bullpen? Thanks.

Mr. Goldstein, just as I do not consider the baseball field in Denver to be "insane", I consider the park in Adelanto to be a variation of conditions in which players much participate. Is this not a reasonable assumption? Or do you disagree? Consequently, what did the Mavericks hit away from Adelanto? If we are to compare "apples with oranges", how do the numbers di Segnore Liddi compare to the rest of the team? Using the the general adjustments on batting performance, could you tell us the WARP and EQA value of Alessandro Liddi when normalized to the environmental conditions in which he hits. I only say this because as an observer who cheers against the Mavs, I am always impressed with the athletic skills of Signore Liddi.

Are you planning on being more specific and providing thorough analysis?

Make that informative

Hmmm, looks like it might have been a wee bit of sarcasm in that post that I missed. Given that Jaffe has to deal with it weekly, I figured it must be legit. Touche' dude. What I find most interesting is that for Hit List, people complain about the lack of objectivity and in college football BCS, people complain about the presence of objectivity. "It is those damn computers who are deciding the bowl bound teams, not people."

Hmmm, I find them fun!!! The comments by Jay are simply more informational than the weekly scout's comments, which are similar to expressions one finds in a fortune cookie or the daily horoscope found in newspapers.

Louis, please refer to a recently released article by Jay showing that the rankings are strictly based on a strictly non-subjective formula that was created several years ago. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9439 While you may disagree with the formula, hopefully, this will show to you that Jay has no bias in rankings.

I agree that the time frame (bin size) is arbitrary. However, one wants to use a sufficiently large enough time line so that random fluctuations do not overwhelm the signal one seeks, i.e., the repeatability of a performance. Noise in the probability fluctuations decrease with trials (at bats, ip, etc.) I suspect a year-to-year is chosen for convenience, that is, for traditional reasons we start the clock at 0 in April. I have read that some signals are not observed if the bin size is 1 year (clutch hitting for example), hence they may appear if the time-line were stretched to 2 years. But then again, maybe not. :)

Thanks for the info. Is it possible to construct this information myself through your website or is personal requests for data part of my lifetime subscription? I agree with your analysis - I have been limiting myself to FRA (like) values. Yes, your 2009 Rays relievers are not the same as your 2008 Rays relievers. Of course you probably didn't suffer through the mind boggling 2007 Devil Rays relievers. (In many ways 2007 was amazing. No lead was ever secure - for either team. As Carl Crawford once said during a game in 2007 after the Devil Rays, being up 10 runs, suddenly were allowing baserunners to fly around the diamond, "Uh oh, here we go again.")

Thanks for helping me out on this. According to ESPN, based on 357 IP, Rays relievers have the lowest ERA in the AL at 3.65. (AL ERA is 4.55) According to your FAIR_RA, the Rays are 3rd. The problem in context. WXRL is a contextual statistic, like RBIs. (And when I looked at the data, say mid July, the numbers looked more impressive as June weighed more heavily.) On the other hand, their starters ERA are at 4.54 (like the Yankees and Red Sox) - about the middle of the pack. In the end, the Rays don't score enough runs given their hits/walks (660 vs 634: AEQR vs actual RS) and allow too many runs given their allowed hits/walks (543 vs 555: AEQR vs actual RA) resulting in a worse record than should be expected. I think what you really hit upon for the Rays this year is that they have simply choked when they need the big hit or when keeping an opponent from hitting a late inning dinger! Their relievers, like their batters, are just choking! (or maybe they are unlucky...nah) One request since I don't have the data. Like many on this website, I assumed that the 2008 Angels and their amazing 12 wins above their expected record using simply RA/RS would not be matched in 2009. And yet they are to 10.7 wins above expectation in third order analysis. Does Scioscia have a history of beating the system? Does his team regularly hit and pitch better in close games?

Jay - good points about the Rays. However, allow me to make a slight qualifier - Rays recent reduction in their probability of making the playoff is a result of the _very recent_ drop in the performance of the bullpen. Up to about 2 weeks ago, the Rays pen was better than average. (I don't know how to demonstrate this through your software.) The wheels recently came off Choate, Cormier and Shouse, until meeting Seattle and the Angels, were doing everything at near 2008 Rays level.

I believe the model for the hit-list uses only data from this season, not PECOTA data. If you uses Pct3 in the original playoff odds report, the Braves are 7th which is comparable to this list.

Pat, Feel free to stick with your original comments. R squared of 0.45 would be laughable, unpublishable, sophomoric, etc. in physics. In several social sciences, it would be "significant". ;)

"Steroids are illegal, like any other banned drug. " We can assume you are not an M.D. There is a high probability that you know someone who is or has been prescribed anabolic steroids. In many countries, you can buy them over the counter.

I argue that it is illogical to claim that the health implications of anabolic steroids is reasons we do not consider them as acceptable in sports Society is more than willing to accept and celebrate activities/sports which have far worse health implications than steroids. For example, people pay to watch individuals attempt to cause brain damage or death to each other (boxing, cage fighting, etc); in American football, the crowd cheers when a player places a hit on an opponent which causes the opponent to experience brief unconsciousness (more brain damage), and those who scale Mt. Everest are saluted even though their probability of dieing while descending is nearly 5%. There is a high probability that someone each of us knows is, or has been, prescribed a type of anabolic steroid. I find it ironic that sportswriters worry about the "side-effects" of these chemicals while making decisions about their own lives that generate the same, most common steroid induced side-effects: hypertension and increased production of LDL cholesterol. Have another bacon-cheddar cheese burger, T.J. Simmers (signed another annoyed LA Times reader.)

I agree that OPS is pretty easy to explain, however, if you think about it, OPS makes no sense. OPS is the addition of apples with oranges. There is no direct line between it and the rate of run production - it is used only for the purposes of correlation with offensive performance. (I believe 1.2 OBP + SLG is more highly correlated.) Funny, the public often can accept it, but my friend, who performs math circles around me, thinks it is stupid.

I'm wondering if the comments on this page criticizing the article reflect an ingrained view that single games can be predicted sufficiently well enough that people can predict winners with near perfect accuracy. Essentially, that the random element found within sporting events can always be argued out of the equation. We see this often in the writeups of individual games. For example - the reason the Rays lost 3 to 2 is because the team didn't come up with the key hit. Hence there are no clutch players on the team. So the goal of BP should be to predict the outcome of every game rather than giving us probabilities. That is why BP is always doing it the wrong way. "sarcastic :) "

And this calculation is essentially what Matt Swartz performs in his article: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=9263

The chart is exactly the answer to the question MOST GMs are asking - how much will this trade increase my team's probability of making the playoffs. The Dodgers, Yankees and maybe the Phillies don't need to ask this question, but most teams do. The next part is to ask - given this probability, does it make economic sense? Teams have to pay for him and evaluate the loss of potential income from the players they give up. And yes, this calculation includes the potential gain of moving through the playoffs to the WS.

Why are people blasting this person's opinion? I know many Ph.D.s in science who can not grasp WARP, VORP, etc. I discuss baseball with researchers who use math well beyond anything found in BP and who think that Joe Morgan is an oracle. Learning terms like VORP requires time and effort and for many of us, baseball is entertainment. Making knee-jerk simplistic Rome-anian comments are so much easier.

Could someone here calculate the increased probability of the Rays making the playoffs if Price or Kazmir is replaced by Halladay, please. Maybe a rough estimate can be calculated. Based on today's numbers, the probability of the team making the playoff is 46% using traditional/original modeling and 16% using the PECOTA version. Using this year's data, neither Price nor Kazmir are expected to provide any extra WARP for the remainder of the season, while Halladay's WARP3 - WARP2 value (his remaining additive value for the year) is 2.4. This means an extra 2 (maybe 3) wins for the Rays. Using original model, this means the Rays might average 93.3 wins vs. the Yankees 94.4 and the Red Sox 93.1. Now I am guessing their odds are around 70-75%. (This is where running the model would help.) Using the PECOTA version, they improve only a handful of percentage points. Hence we are stuck with the following - one model suggest the Rays might increase their chances by as much as a 30% while the other says they gain little. If their postseason take-home is dramatic (50% extra revenue? somebody must know this value), it may be worth it - if you think Zobrist and Bartlett are real and how they have performed this year is not simply good fortune. One note - returning Aki to 2nd and putting Zobrist in RF would be going backwards. The Gabes are better than Aki both at the plate and in the field.

I am confident one can because the number of IP is large and includes contributions from all the participants. Where it is less helpful is individuals who have pitched only 40 or so innings. Of course I would love to use a BP based statistic for teams, but I can't seem to find one. It is easy to find ARP and WXRL for individuals, but not for teams. If you can help me out, I would appreciate it. I'll say it again - the Rays problem has been starting pitching and their ineffectiveness of turning hits/walks into runs. (Last night was another example - 3 homeruns, lots of walks - 3 runs.)

If Joe picked the Mets to win the East last week, I begin to wonder if he deserves to be on this website. Looking at the postseason odds, using either current third order pct or the PECOTA pct, the Mets chances of winning the division is between 2 and 4%. In many fields of study, this is interpreted as - no chance.

Did you print Prospectus HIT LIST for the week ending in 17 July? I can not see the link on the website.

Sorry, that is SirVLCIV.

I interpreted SirVICLV comments as the following - if the Dodgers were in the AL East, their performance would be below .500

This is the second time recently that Baseball Prospectus thinks the Rays relief pitching have been a problem. Their relief core is second to Boston in ERA in the AL. What Rays have had problems with is starting pitching. When 3 of a team's starters (Kazmir, Price, Sonnanstine) have WARP1 values either negative or virtually 0, you have problems. However the true reason that the Rays record is worse than predicted using the AEQR and AEQRA system is the offense. The Rays put players on, but don't score (488 actual runs versus 526 using the team's hits/walks.) The question becomes - is it purely bad luck or is Joe Maddon's theory of running actually hurting the team?

From the info here and in the NYTimes articel, the data provided should be sufficient to supersede Shane Jensen's work on fielding (and pretty much reconfirm his results including the claim that Jeter is baseball's worst SS). He uses a somewhat similar technique, but must make some estimates given lack of data. For more details, see: http://stat.wharton.upenn.edu/~stjensen/research/safe.html

By adding the element of time, 2 cameras are sufficient to extract all the necessary information. Watching the fielder probably requires 1 or 2 more cameras. I suspect pattern recognition software is used to track the players. I did not read the NYTimes article, but I know that ball tracking information in 4-d (3 dimensions plus time) has been used in cricket for several years. This is how teams have placed their fielders. Baseball may just be catching up.

I have suspected that the Rays (and possibly some other teams), have used vectorizing of the flight of the ball, which the game tracking information provides, and not hit charts to realign their outfield defenses. By measuring both the eventually landing site of a hit and time of flight, from multiple years of data at the Trop, they have calculated the position for the outfielders which maximizes the probability of catching any flyball weighted on how much value the hit would have should it drop in. This has allowed them to bring their outfielders in to catch the more frequently occurring, quickly falling single and thus spend less time defending against the less frequently occurring long fly balls. [It also helps that air resistance is quite significant at the sea-level sitting Trop.] While this is fine-and-dandy, the down side is what happened earlier in the year where some very hard line drives where hit over Upton's head during key moments near the end of the game. Of course the team was crucified in the papers because "that's not the we do things in baseball." Kind of like not having a closer or why NFL coaches are too conservative on 4th down. There is a very recent article on evaluating defenses using HITf/x on The Hardball Times website. Finally, baseball is sincerely beginning to seek physics solutions to an applied physics problem.

May I suggest that next time before making such definitive statements such as "very biased", "ridiculous" and "typical East Coast" bias, first ask how is the list generated. If you question the results, then suggest that there may be problems with the formula in modeling the system. Often I wonder if the formula has problems. It is not uncommon for a team to have a 2-4 week against poor teams and yet increase in their weekly score. (Though this week there are not obvious examples.)

Christina - why no love for Gabe Gross? Between the two Gabes, they have contributed 2.4 wins (WARP1) based on 265 PAs. This make the two headed Gabes the 5th most productive player on the Rays roster (more productive then Pena). Using BP preseason estimates, Joyce is not ready for prime-time (an expected negative VORP). Joyce's performance at Durham, while pretty good, it is not much better than Reid Brignac - who has not demonstrated to have a MLB bat yet. While I agree that sometimes the Rays are too cautious with younger players, Gross is a more secure bet than Joyce at this moment.

Great response! I understand your point. My comment is a classic example of analyzing a team through probability and statistics - the "sabrmetric" approach - vs. analyzing a team via single game with one's eyes (I watched the game) - the "scouting" approach. No, I just wanted people to realize that virtually all teams are very likely to have long win streaks sometimes during the season. Is it a coincidence that the streak started just after the Rockies fired their manager? ... I think NOT! :)

11 wins in a row - even for losing teams, there is a remarkable high probability of this occurring in a 162 game season. This leads to a serious mathematical problem. If you continuously follow a signal and your signal has a probability of giving false positives, how many positives do you accept before you are sufficiently certain that the positives are real? This is an deadly serious question for those at NORAD. As for baseball - we can stop counting now - Rays 12, Rockies 3. And the Rockies played worse than a Single A team.

I think NOT!!! :)

Percy done? Many Rays fans would hope so. Not for the reason of ineffectiveness, but rather unwillingness to lose the weight over the winter and inappropriate behavior toward Ray fans. As for his "attitude" and "professionalism" that might have helped younger Rays relief pitcher, many now question this claim. Would not a true teammate travel with the team into the playoffs and the WS even if he were on the DL? Percy went home and pouted. At least Maddon kept him on a short leash. No, the real question for the Rays is Kazmir.

This play reinforces my view that good baseball can be seen, for far less money, with just as much enjoyment, in the minors. I've seen this "play" before in the California League. We applauded. What makes this a great play is because it occurred involving the Yankees. But if the point is that more aggressive running is starting to appear in MLB, I am happy to see it. With the exception of Maddon's Rays, MLB is pretty conservative compared to the California League.

I agree with you PeteyShoes about Kaz, but disagree on the issue of Percy. If anyone had a short leash last year it was Percy. Think of the number of times Percy was pulled because of "injury." Sometimes it was obvious..and sometimes, after multiple walks, it was not. Last year, as a closer, Percy was successful 28 out of 32 in save opportunities (comparable with most better "closers") and lost only 1 game. It is also clear that Maddon knows how to play the psychology game. He never makes negative comments about a player. Hence, I take what he says with a grain of salt.

Ummm, while I might not use the same wording, I concur with 18's opinion. The big question does not concern someone who will have limited opportunity to affect the outcome of the Rays' season. Maddon made that quite clear last year when, without hesitation, he yanked Percy from games the instant problems were detected. No, the big question is the starting pitching - can Kazmir and Garza stay healthy. Sadly, the expectation for Crawford is sufficiently low enough that should he go down, he is replaceable as we saw last year. However, an injured BJ or Longo would be devastating. I would like to know what is it about Balfour's past that makes him such a high risk pitcher this year? Does the modeling weight the type of injury when predicting possible outcomes? I would assume some injuries are more likely to repeat than others.

Pardon my ignorance; what is an RC? Also pardon my inability to edit my post.

Back in the late 90’s, a friend of mine and I attend a Padres game, sitting close to the field, directly behind home plate. During Ruben Rivera’s first plate appearance, he saw fastball, curve, fastball, curve, etc. until he struck out. So for the second time, we called out the pitches just before the pitcher wound up, loud enough for the other Padres to hear us. We guessed every pitch: fastball, curve, fastball, curve and eventually Rivera struck out. Possible moral of the story – it takes some brains to play baseball. P.S. The CF Reggie Sanders asked us how what we were seeing. And we could see manager Bruce Bochy shaking his head.

Good points. There has been little talk about significant playing time for Joyce. RF should be Gabe, Gabe and the occasional mystery fielder. This should mean an extra win (or 2?) for the Rays. The number one question for these sets of predictions: is Upton underrated because PECOTA doesn't include underweighting for an injured season. Finally, as RaysIndex.com is suggesting - Garza is prime for some problems this season. PECOTA appears to suggest more than poor performance. Injuries?

Forse calcio da Italia: Serie A?

Are you implying that those who threw spitballs or corked their bats were not \"cheating\"?

Hinske is Gross but with worse fielding capabilities. This may surprise folks, but consider the following: recently, Gross, Bartlett and Longoria have “looked bad” in the field while Iwamura has appeared to be a top fielder. This is a distorted image produced by the lens of the playoffs and its small sample size. Even BP staff members have been susceptible to its affect. If we examine the entire year, the first three are either above average or outstanding (Longoria), and Iwamura, while “sure-handed”, possesses one of the worst RZR scores for a second baseman in the league. (Last year, his defensive runs value was -10 in 118 games.) Smart analysts do not overvalue players based on playoff performance, hence they should not undervalue them either for the same reasons.