Dusty Baker, obviously.

Corbin's not a 2-start pitcher next week. He's pitching tonight, so his next start will be Wednesday at the earliest.

Hmm. 1st base, 2nd base, 10th base, home. No; wrong base.

"Felix Doubront (vs. MIN; vs. CLE)" Actually, by my read of the calendar, Doubront has DET and @TOR. Still a start?

Hmm, it's impossible to hit .174/.240/.304 in 6 plate appearances. The minimum to do that looks like 25. (I guess I could look it up, but it's more fun to calculate).

Kemp, likely to get jobbed in the MVP balloting, inexplicably cannot look to BP for solace.

The Brewers rank 2nd in total sac bunts (behind WAS), and 3rd in sac bunts by non-pitchers (behind WAS and STL). I was wondering if there might be some correlation with total baserunners, but if there is one, it's not strong, and MIL is still in 3rd after normalizing.

We've had three straight years now without a WC making the WS (and one of this year's has already been eliminated). Overall, 9 have made it vs. an expected number of 8, if everything were random (okay, it's actually a bit lower than 8, given that WCs never have homefield advantage). Also over the last three seasons, the only WC teams to make it out of the divisional round were NYY and BOS, the AL East consolation winners - not teams that would be seen as "weaker sisters" against their divisional round opponents. After just a few more years of data, the article sure looks like a pretty massive overreaction to small sample sizes.

"A pitch-to-contact hurler might get a batter to ground out on, say, a 1-1 count, but strikeouts require a minimum of three pitches." Sorry, but this just struck me funny.

It's hard to know how to evaluate all this data without a good assessment of replacement level. I look forward to that article.

Here's what jumped out at me in this article: Derrek Lee weighs 240+ pounds?! I mean, I know he's super-tall, but still.

Never never mind. My own stupid error. Everything works great. Boy, it would be nice to be able to delete one's comments here.

Sigh. Never mind, I can't, because you're changing the link name (the csv filename) every time you update.

I"ll add my sincere thanks for the download files. My homemade Excel-based software can finally automatically download RAW PFM data and interpret it properly without any work from me (like it already could with Baseball HQ and other data). Fabulous!

When might we expect to be able to download the raw data directly? And a suggestion: a hard link to the raw data (as opposed to a button we have to click) would be great, so members can automate downloading PFM updates. Thanks!

It would be nice to get a response to this, but I think the interim answer to your question is to do what I do: select every category and set the minimum dollar amount to show to something ridiculously low, like -$100. I think that will give you the whole data set. Sure would be nice not to have to do that, though.

You seem to have fixed it on the display, but when I download data into a CSV file, it's not fixed. If I have "H" included for batters, the column shows up listing H totals for both batters and pitchers. If I have it included for both p's and b's, I get two identical columns. This causes me problems as I try to work with the data, and it doesn't seem like this is the way you would want to present output.

I take that back. I see it after submitting parameters, but in the past I could easily download the full file. I know that was asked above, but the only answer I saw said it was there...and it's not.

I do not see a "Download CSV" button anywhere. Am I just missing it?

A lot of the questions in this thread would be cleared up if everyone just ran over to the glossary for a few minutes. "Improvement Rate is the percent chance that a hitter's EqR/27 or a pitcher's EqERA will improve *at all* relative the weighted average of his EqR/27 or EqERA in his three previous seasons of performance. A player who is expected to perform just the same as he has in the past will have an Improvement Rating of 50%." It seems pretty likely that Votto will improve over the average of his last 3 seasons, doesn't it? (Note that I'm not going to argue that this isn't a pretty non-intuitive way to define "improvement." Nor am I going to apologize for the triple negative in that last sentence.)

Seems to me that the team trading the veteran star is usually in rebuilding mode and really only has a couple of choices. 1. Make the deal for the best prospects they can get. 2. Hold on to him, offer arbitration, hope the player doesn't accept it, and take the draft pick. So if the chances of making good on the trade are better than the chances of making good on the draft pick, then the team should make the trade. And the reason for the trade really is to rebuild the team. The fact that it's hard to rebuild a team doesn't make that less true.

"Sure, the kid could stand to walk fewer hitters..." For so many pitchers, these are famous last words. Here's hoping Kershaw isn't one of them.

Mine just showed up from Amazon. Whoo-hoo!

The question being raised here is this: What are (and what should be) BP's core competencies? If developing advanced stats is a core competency, then BP needs to invest in that and make sure that the stats they develop are better than those available for free. This is difficult, since there's a lot of competition, requires a significant investment, and does not allow for any period of neglect. I personally don't care as much about who's doing this job or the details of the stats - I just want to know that the stats are sufficient to the task for which they're being employed. But this is a case where if you're not going to invest in being the clear leader, then you should consider getting out of the business. If providing informed commentary on current goings-on in baseball is a core competency, then BP needs to invest in writers who are informed, have a grasp of the relevant stats (wherever they may be developed), are good, engaging writers, have strong opinions, and are willing to write these kinds of pieces on a regular basis. This is what Sheehan did (and why he'll be missed), and what I enjoy most about BP. The danger here is that there are many many places throwing out opinion pieces, and you have to work hard to differentiate yourself, in BPs case by actually having brains. Currently, BP appears to be trying to be a one-stop shop for everything - we have the injuries guy, the prospects guy, the contracts guy, the transactions gal, etc. - and that's fine, but comes with certain risks. There's a huge advantage (to me) that I don't have to click around to multiple sites to get all my info. On the other hand, it's impossible to stay "the best" at everything when you spread yourself thin - someone with a narrower focus can eventually beat you out in any particular specific area. And of course you'll alienate people who come here with a particular focus - the stats folks, for instance - and don't find the differentiation they're looking for. It seems to me that some people want you to be "Science" and others want you to be "The Economist". None of us want you to be "Newsweek" or, God forbid, "ESPN The Magazine". At the moment, I'm not convinced BP knows what it wants to have as its core competencies. Hopefully, they'll sort it out. Either way, I'm here for the duration, as I have been since rsb back in '89. Good luck.

Wow, never mind, Torre let him hit in the 6th. Didn't figure on that one in a tie game.

Well, as it turned out, he turned in 6 very nice innings, with only one walk. He's due up in the bottom of the 6th, which should eliminate a potentially interesting decision about whether to bring him out to pitch the 7th.

Re: Dodgers/Cardinals One thing Torre has always done well in the postseason is pull out all the stops to win today, and worry about tomorrow's game tomorrow. And this team, with its bullpen, would seem very well-suited to that approach. I can't help thinking that most managers would have stuck with Wolf much longer in that game. I think you may be the one overthinking the Hudson/Belliard decision, Joe. They both put up .750 OPS's against righties this year, and over the last couple years, they're pretty close to the same guy with the bat in their hands. The Playoff Prospectus notes that Belliard rated out a bit better in the field than Hudson by some measures; I'd prefer Hudson in the field, but the difference probably isn't huge. So yes, he is playing the hot hand, but Belliard has hit just massively, insanely better than Hudson from August on. It seems a pretty reasonable choice to me. Plus, you have a good switch-hitting batter to bring in off the bench in any spot. I like your comment about how Kershaw's "going to show [his quality] tonight." Of course, we don't know that - just look at Carpenter last night. Kershaw's had plenty of starts this year where he couldn't find the strike zone with a flashlight and a map. Here's hoping today isn't one of those days!

Is any by any chance any news on Berkman's return date? Still early this week?

Interesting analogy, given that Top Chef has used almost exactly the same thing -- a cooking bit for the Today show -- as an elimination challenge.

Well, you may want him to win (and he may end up getting hired), but the competition is set up specifically so that that person (or the one who can't scout minor-leaguers, etc.) won't win. Unless a large contingent of voters vote on overall performance instead of this week's performance. And I think this is the week we'll find that out, as the leader coming in to the interview looks like the weakest this week.

It's different because this is not a normal hiring process: it's a gimmick. Baseball players aren't generally selected on their ability to every little thing well, and neither are writers, normally. But there's nothing normal about this process, so comparing it to standard hiring and selection processes is a fool's errand. BP is looking for a jack-of-all-trades, or at least they've implemented a process that will give that result. (Of course, they'll probably end up hiring/using several of these guys anyway).

Interesting. Gordon proposed exactly what I was thinking and got a whole bunch of minuses for it. (Carns68 proposed something similar). Oh well, I'll second the suggestion anyway: Have them write an editorial, an opinion piece, obviously on a baseball topic. Something appropriate for the Op-Ed page of the New York Times. I'd like to see them write about something they feel strongly about and provide the support for that argument.

Wow, you stole my comment exactly, including your vote count.

For me, this is the first Cartwright article where writing style and structure issues haven't gotten in the way. That said, I wholeheartedly agree with Will on this one (something else that hasn't been common during this competition). First of all, I wouldn't have pulled Carpenter in that situation after pitching only 5 innings, so I needed to see a decent argument for it. I didn't see that. And as it turned out, the Cardinals did score a run in the inning AND Carpenter pitched two more scoreless innings AND when he was pinch-hit for, the pinch-hitter failed. I know this is results-based analysis, but the way it played out makes it even more incumbent that Brian make a strong argument. Even now, I can't imagine that the difference between pinch-hitting or not in that situation had an impact on the likely outcome of the game that can be discerned from noise.

Wow, I (like many others) was blindsided by the BP response to this article. It's the second-to-last that I've read this week, and the first that I thoroughly enjoyed. To me, this is exactly the sort of thing Bill James would have written, with the whimsical choice of category, the decade-by-decade breakdown and the quick-but-effective metric that cuts to the heart of the issue without getting too fussy. Kudos!

For me, the fact that you used the Twins of this era really underscores the problem with the 50% baseline for each game. Those Twins won two World Series in 5 years without ever winning a road game or losing a home game. They were the poster children for HFA. No, I don't know what their home-road splits were during the regular season, but I do know that by the time game 6 rolled around in 1991, I fully expected them to win the last two games and the series. I just don't see how you can do even a simple preliminary study like this without at least incorporating the league average HFA.

Disagree. This piece was, quite simply, not very well written. I found it poorly structured and rambling. Editing won't fix that. My opinion of Brian is unchanged by this piece: he's got a lot to offer, but the quality of his writing is not up to snuff.

I found this piece to be really weak. We get a paragraph about women in the Negro Leagues - something I didn't know - but it doesn't mention any names, give us any idea of how they did relative to the men, or even give us a single anecdote. The whole article's like that - passing mentions to things like Ila Borders and the Silver Bullets, but with no actual information that would be relevant to the main argument.

The only comment I have that hasn't already been said is that I found the cutesie "Translations" a bit insulting, as if what CJ said wasn't clear or was intentionally misleading and therefore needed to be rephrased. Otherwise, I really did like the article and it got a thumbs-up. This is an amazing turn-around. I gave only one thumbs-up last week, and so far this week, I've thumbsed-up every piece I've read. Just 3 more to go...

The question was asked above, but I'll ask again. Isn't 'VOFP' the same thing, and I mean EXACTLY THE SAME THING as SGP, which has been around forever? If you're going to publicize something you've invented, it really behooves you to make sure that it really is something new.

And why he didn't get a waiver for it.

Oh, I am so not looking forward to breaking this to my Manny-worshipping 10-year-old tonight.

True. Crazier still: the OPS he put up in his *best* month (according to that article) is the same as the OPS Bonds put up for the entire 2004 season

There should be a truly great biography of Zack Greinke in our future - I hope the right author takes it on.

Park effects. If the Dodgers are scoring the same number of runs as the D-Backs, their offense is much better. Similar with the pitching.

A question: why did Mike Napoli's PA drop by 100 in the last update - was there news that drove this?

Wow, you didn't even mention the biggest thing you did: you standardized the names! No more 'Manuel Corpas' and 'James Hardy'! I can't tell you how much easier that makes it for me to compare my PFM-based rankings to ADP lists, etc. Thank you!

Oops, I meant 24th (for a 12-team league), although 20th is right for a 10-team league.

Wow, good job, and it's about time. This is how the original Excel-based PFM used to work, and it's (I strongly believe) the right way to do position-adjusted valuation. When you guys changed things early on in the web-based version, I got so frustrated that I ended up writing my own Excel-based version that properly handled replacement level. And yes, when you have 2 catchers, the top ones really are this valuable (because the 20th one, who has to be a $1 player, is really really bad).

I'm a bit surprised not to see Nelson Cruz in the top 20. Is it a playing time concern?