HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Too bad it was Karstens and not Wang.

The line drive broke Karsten's fibula. He'll be out for a while.

Cubbies with their first 3 game win streak. Is this the start of the REAL Cubs?

Orioles score a run that doesn't count in the third inning, and then after the umps check the rulebook later in the game, they re-add the run to the Orioles in the sixth.

Yeah.. that's bizarre :)

Have anything else on this? Was this a "did the out or score happen first" kind of thing?

SI

Veteran umpire Ed Montague took the blame for a run being added to Baltimore's total three innings after it appeared to be waved off in the Orioles' 7-4 victory over Cleveland on Saturday night.

The Indians played the game under protest after Montague, the crew chief, called the official scorer in the bottom of the sixth to add the third-inning run which scored on a sacrifice fly.

"There's going to be a tremendous follow up with this and we'll see if we can get it figured out," Cleveland manager Eric Wedge said.

The bizarre sequence started with Baltimore leading 2-1 in the top of the third. Nick Markakis was on third base and Miguel Tejada on first with one out when Ramon Hernandez hit a line drive to center field.

Indians outfielder Grady Sizemore made a diving catch. Markakis tagged up, headed for home and appeared to cross the plate before Tejada doubled off first. Plate umpire Marvin Hudson waved off the run.

Orioles bench coach Tom Trebelhorn disputed Hudson's call before the start of the fourth, and Hudson then conferred with Montague and the other umpires.

"We kicked it around and now I'm having a brain cramp on it," Montague said. "So I sent Bill (umpire Bill Miller) in, I said 'You know what, cause we're debating, you go in. Lets make it 100 percent sure."'

Miller checked the rule and said the run should have counted. Montague was vague about why it took until the sixth to make the change, saying "it kind of went on" with the umpires conferring with the managers.

"It was my screw up and we can't go off of umpire's error," he said. "What's right is right. We have to score the run."

Montague said he couldn't remember anything like it happening and didn't blame Wedge for his protest, which will be decided by commissioner Bud Selig's office.

Wedge protested the game because the change was not made immediately.

"I know the umpires have a tough job to do, but there is a process and there are rules," he said. "When the next pitch is thrown, that's it. The fact is the home plate umpire waved it off. I've never seen runs put on the board three or four innings later."

Baltimore manager Sam Perlozzo said Trebelhorn alerted him that the run should count.

"I told Sammy it's never too late," Trebelhorn said. "That's our run. I've seen runs put on the board after the game."

Least surprising line of the year so far:

Jeff Weaver

2007 Season Stats
SPLIT	G	IP	H	R	HR	BB	SO	W	L	Sv	P/GS	WHIP	BAA	ERA
Season	4	11.1	31	23	2	4	7	0	4	0	65.8	3.09	.492	18.26

It sill blows my mind that he left STL, or at least, the NL. I guess dude REALLY likes the West Coast. Doesn't surprise me that the Mariners signed him, though.

I couldn't be more happier for this jackass.

As much as people may have thought Weaver sucked, I don't think anyone was realistically expecting an implosion of this magnitude. Weaver isn't just bad right now - bad would be an ERA around 7.00 and a WHIP at or near 2.00.

No, Weaver right now is historically awful - you could probably pluck any random high-A ball pitcher right now and get performance at or better than what the M's have gotten so far from Weaver.

To think that Weaver would go from a decent half-season with the Cards including some pretty good pitching in the post-season to this...well, something's obviously not right in his head.

It's a small sample size. I bet he had 4 starts like this (or close to this) for the Angels last year. He's just a bad pitcher. Mind issues are only part of it. He's pitching in a tougher league against teams that have beat the crap out of him.

His worst 4-start stretch last year in terms of ERA was from April 28th to May 14th where he was at 9.58. His worst 4-start stretch in terms of WHIP was from July 17th to August 2nd where he was at 2.03 (this was his first 4 starts for St. Louis).

So what he's done so far this year nearly twice as bad as any stretch he had last year in terms of ERA, 1.5 times as bad in terms of WHIP.

I agree his stuff isn't all that good, but it's more than just that. I don't see any other evidence that he's pitching injured (though that certainly wouldn't shock) me - it just appears that he's battling a combination of bad luck and a fucked-up mental state. He was a serviceable pitcher last year in the post-season and for the last month of the regular season - to go from that to what probably ranks among the worst 4-start stretch in major league history is fairly remarkable.

Yeah, many people thought he sucked heading into this year, but almost nobody was predicting he'd suck anywhere near this bad thus far.

Tim Lincecum pitched another gem at triple-A: 6.0 IP, 3 H, 0 R, 0 ER, 0 BB, 14 K, 0 HR

His numbers on the season: 4-0, 0.29 ERA, 31.0 IP, 12 H, 1 R, 1 ER, 11 BB, 46 K, 0 HR

The Giants are getting good starts from their rotation, so there just isn't room for him to start for the big club. The bullpen has been pretty decent as well. How long will Sabean be able to resist bringing him up even without a real need?

Hey Edmonds, you suck! Mr. 18 mil man, try hitting the f'n ball for once!

Philip Hughes - 6.1 no-hit innings...and a hamstring injury!

Unreal. Out of the game.

I almost wanted to threadjack the HAHAHAHAHAHAHA thread with this information.

Well, first the no-hitter ends, then the shutout. About the only thing that could be better would be a 9-run comeback.

Yep.. the Yanks can't find a break. Not that I'm complaining much, but damn!

Actually, I'd settle for about 5 Rangers runs and 3 more relievers used.

They say out 4-6 wks.

Awesome. With a capital FUCK THE YANKEES.

Jesus... even I don't wish for injuries... not classy man.

I'm not wishing for injuries...they're just happening. And when they do, I'm happy they are hurting the Yankees' chances of digging themselves out of a hole. Sucks for Hughes, but frankly, I want him to fail as long as he's a Yankee, so not pitching works just as well.

And actually, it's nothing personal against (most of) the Yankee players. If Hughes somehow found himself traded, I'd root for the guy to be a HoFer. If he remains a Yankee, I hope he turns into a glorified Brien Taylor. I hoped the Big Unit sucked as a Yankee; as a D-Back, I hope he pitches another 5 years. If injuries are going to be a part of the reason the Yankees underachieve, bring them on. I won't cry foul.

I'm on par with Ksyrup. I hate the yankees more than anything ( I really hate their fans ) . While I don't root for injuries IF they happen I am glad it happens to a Yankee.

Now that Ortiz is pitching like the pitcher we thought he was, it's time for the Giants to crown his ass. He's back up to a 6.44 ERA, which is about par for the course.

Ortiz is a fat f$!k, I hate that guy.

dola

Yankees suck, go SOX.

Yeah, but if he stays in the Giants' rotation and continues to pitch poorly, then maybe the D-Backs will finally get something for the money they are paying him!

Brewers improve to 18-9. Anyone know what happened with Capuano? Only 3 IP.

I'll answer my own question:

"The Brewers announced Capuano had a contusion on his right calf and is listed as day-to-day."

What's with Gary Sheffield suddenly running the bases like Rickey Henderson? He's already got 5 SBs, which matches last year and 2004. He had 10 in 2005. He's on track for a 30/30 year!

Some ass was talking about Sheff on ESPNews. "Looks like a much different player since he was beaned". Such shit, he is batting .467 over the past 8 games and was hit on Monday. I guess he was ignoring the other 5 games.

I saw Sheffield's SB today, I was holding my breath he didnt come up lame. He hasn't had twenty stolen bases in 17 years, a gap like that would have to be some sort of off the wall record.

We should take up a collection for this guy...


Updated: May 2, 2007, 9:36 PM ET
After rash of injuries, Yankees fire conditioning coach

ARLINGTON, Texas -- The New York Yankees fired their strength and conditioning coach Wednesday following a rash of injuries to the pitching staff that has contributed to the team's poor start. Marty Miller was hired by the Yankees in the offseason as director of performance enhancement. "It got to the point where the perception is there's a problem here," general manager Brian Cashman said. Miller, 34, will be replaced on an interim basis by Dana Cavalea, who was Miller's assistant. "The knowledge that Marty had was certainly impressive," Yankees manager Joe Torre said. "Now, does that mean that because you know a lot about the body, it relates to baseball? That's what we don't know." Kurkjian on ESPN Radio Call it bad luck, but Tim Kurkjian says on The SportsBash he's never seen a starting staff so decimated as that of the Yankees. Listen The latest injury to New York's depleted staff came Tuesday night, when Phil Hughes carried a no-hitter into the seventh inning of his second major league start before a hamstring injury knocked him out of the game against the Texas Rangers. The 20-year-old right-hander, considered one of the top prospects in baseball, is expected to miss four to six weeks. Hughes was called up from Triple-A Scranton to fill a spot in the team's injury-ravaged rotation. Mike Mussina (hamstring), Carl Pavano (forearm) and Jeff Karstens (broken right leg) are on the disabled list. Chien-Ming Wang also missed the first three weeks of the season with a hamstring injury. He hopes to start Saturday after breaking a nail on his pitching hand in his most recent start. Yankees center fielder Johnny Damon, bothered by a bad back and sore legs much of the season, said Miller introduced conditioning tools that some players weren't accustomed to using -- but also agreed to bring in equipment that players requested. Still, Damon thought it was unusual that so many pitchers succumbed to hamstring problems, an injury more common for position players. "I think when you get a number of pitchers go down with the same problem, it opens up eyes and it makes you start thinking there might need to be a change," Damon said. The Yankees entered Wednesday night's game at Texas with a 10-14 record that left them in last place in the AL East. The slow start roused owner George Steinbrenner to issue a statement Monday rebuking the $195 million team for its record but also supporting Cashman and manager Joe Torre.

Dayton Moore makes a move that looks like the Royals of old all over again. Just a couple of weeks from stealing another year of service time from Billy Butler, he calls him up on May 1 to give a spark to a team with a struggling offense, who, oh by the way, is careening towards another 100 loss season. So, why deprive the team of him in his year 27 season in favor of maybe giving a little life to the team when he's 21? Stupid. Just stupid. Then again, so was giving Alex Gordon the keys to the starting third base spot a few days into spring training. Again, make these guys earn it a little at AAA before rushing them to the majors and proclaiming them the next great savior.

SI

Alex Gordon had the highest PECOTA projection of any Royal coming into this season. At a certain point, it makes no sense to keep your best players down (though yes, I understand the Butler point).

Bonds had an impressive night. 2-run HR early and then game winning bases loaded single in the 8th.

Yeah - I'm not sure how to react to a Giants team actually scoring runs in the 8th inning to win the game.

Giving Gordon the job out of spring training could cost them a year of his service, though. Letting him go down to AAA to start the year allows them to see how he does in AAA and delays his arbitration clock. As a small market team its not as simple as putting your best players out on the field. You also have to maximize the amount of time you'll have access to your players.

Which is great, except for 2 things if you're the Royals GM

1) I'm not running my team based on BP's computer model. It's not perfect.

2) See above- you keep him in AAA for 6 weeks of a bad season and you get him for another year when you're hoping to contend

SI

So Ryan Langerhans got traded again last night - second time in less than a week, this time to Washington for Chris Snelling. I'm guessing his drop of a routine liner to CF in last night's game factored into it. He played 2 games for Oakland, went 0-4, and got traded.

I find it hard to believe, in 2007, that the Yankees gave their strength and conditioning coach the title "Director of Performance Enhancement." :eek:

Break up the Brewers!

Granted, it's early, but 2007 has been the year I've been waiting for as a Brewer fan. After sitting through years upon years of losing with no hope, it's almost as if I need to pinch myself to wake up from this dream.

There is hope for all you fans of small market teams. Get yourself a good GM (Doug Melvin is awesome) and a good scouting director, and give yourself a few years.

Wait until Braun comes up.

Their pitching is what's holding them back. It will be interesting to see whether they can keep up their pace and if so, whether Melvin trades for some rental arms in July.

I was pimping the Brewers last year but it was a little too early for them. Probably the same thing with Arizona this year.

It feels weird, but the best young teams in baseball are Milwaukee, Arizona and Tampa. Not sure if Detroit is still young or not.

just wait until all their good young players becme free agents and the Yankees, Mets, Angels, Rangers, Red Sox, St. Louis and the Cubs steal them.

That is assuming they aren't traded for more prospects in their walk year and the whole process begins again.

The system in baseball is so fucked.

I sure do miss Suppan. Good for the Brewers.

{bitter}Yes, but many fans of those teams think it is their god-given right to succeed because, of course, they are better at business than the other teams and deserve to succeed, never mind being in markets 2x-5x the size of some other teams.

But don't worry, little small market teams, you can compete. Just look at Oakland and Minnesota. That's the only verse of that song we know, but we like to rant it over and over. We just like to gloss over the part where our teams can be run pretty mediocre and play even with excellently managed clubs.{/bitter}

Oh, hey, the Royals have won 2 in a row. Two straight starts of 7 innings, the second by Gil Meche. I'm really liking the giant chip he seems to have on his shoulder when he pitches, almost a quiet "I don't care if everyone else doesn't think I'm not worth that kind of money" pissed off where he goes out and retires 16 Angels between hits by Vlad.

He definitely has been an ace here, but the standards are pretty low. Still, I think most clubs would take 7 starts where all were 6 innings or more and only 1 had more than 3 earned runs given up for an ERA in the low 2's.

SI

I am a Mets fan BTW

I'm a Mets fan, too. I think the system may actually be getting worse. I know right now it seems like more teams have a shot at the playoffs, but both the Mets and Yankees have started to realize they have a big advantage in the draft and in foreign markets and I think it will really start to show in the next couple years. They can take chances on drafting guys with signability issues and throw money at them (Mike Pelfrey). Same for foreign players. Jose Tabata and Fernando Martinez are good examples there.

The best thing that could happen to small market teams right now is for Steinbrenner to panic and fire Cashman at some point. Cashman is dead-set using their financial advantage to build up the farm system and the Yankees with a deep farm system is a scary thought.

1) You're right - the Allard Baird model worked out so well for you guys. Clearly those stats nerds know nothing.

2) I do agree with the basic point, but the premise was that Gordon may not be a complement to the team - the general perception was that he would be the best hitter (and likely the best player on it). At that point, keeping him doing hurts the perception of a franchise far more than it helps.

2a) - consider the effect on Teahen if he had to make a mid-season move to RF instead of in ST.

I agree with all of this. My biggest beef with the system isn't that the big market teams can pay players more but that small market teams can't afford to keep the players they have developed.

Oh god, here we go again with the competitive imbalance thread. Do you lot realize baseball has had 7 different WS winners over the last 7 years? Seriously? Coming into this season, 24 of 30 teams could consider the playoffs a reasonable goal (more than say, the NFL).

And those winners are

Yankees- big market
Diamondbacks- broke up the team
Angels- big market
Marlins- split the team up ( same as 1997)
Red Sox- big market
White Sox- big market
Cards- big market

We have repeatedly seen teams sell of or trade good young players because they can not afford them. You can't really say there isn't an imbalance.

The Marlins are the most profitable franchise in baseball - their desire to break up the team has nothing to do with their need to do so, and everything to do with a slimeball as an owner. Pittsburgh sits on the revenue sharing money they make each year, as do other "small market" teams.

Of course there's some imbalance - there always will be. But goddamnit, I don't want an NFL-like league where teams cut perfectly good players because their salary cap numbers are too high, or the season is decided by rigging schedules each year to create crapshoots. baseball is far more competitive than most people like to believe - just because the PR operation is out of the 19th century (as opposed to the NFL, which does "slick" better than anyone), doesn't mean we ought to penalize the sport for it.

And here's the world series winners arguement. Its a very poor and flawed way of saying there is competitive balance. All it shows is how much luck is involved once the playoffs start.

24 teams with a shot at the playoffs is an incredible stretch. You're still going to see the same old teams in the end with maybe a new team or 2 coming from a weak division (NL central).

This isn't a comptetive balance issue in the sense of having a payroll of $200 million. Its actually much worse. Small-mid market teams best chance of competing had always been finding players on the foriegn market and drafting well. Now that the large market teams are using their financial advantages (which is a competitive imbalance that can't be argued) to work the draft and sign the top foreign talent, it takes one more thing away from the smaller market clubs.

this means nothing to a fan. They want to win and have a chance to win every year.

Well, not all of us fans are like that. There are some who recognize that you have you windows you build towards - 65 win teams should not be signing Jeremy Burnitz and Reggie Sanders, to take one example. Personally, I want the Giants to rebuild, to take one example.

And in the Marlins case, its a function of cheap owners which is hardly a baseball phenomenon (see the Bidwells to take one example, or the Clippers for most of the Stirling era, the last 4 years notwithstanding).

Look, I think there should be incentives for a team to compete, instead of getting free revenue sharing dollars to do nothing (see the Pirates as Example A, and the Royals for the longest time) - but baseball, despite all the naysayers, is in damn good shape. The Yankees paid $63 million in revenue sharing last year - how much more should they pay to subsidize the Loria's of the world?

http://members.forbes.com/forbes/2007/0507/040.html

here's a great explanation, fyi.

I've argued quite a bit about the need for baseball to do a better job of revenue-sharing in order to provide some balance to the wide disparity between a market like New York vs. a market like Kansas City or Milwaukee. It will be tough to do given that TV and radio deal in baseball are done on a local level and often those contracts are given to stations that are sister companies of the team itself, thus providing an opportunity for owners to cook the books on the true value of those deals.

All that said, what gets glossed over in these debates about "small-market" and "big market" is a reasonable definition of what really constitutes each. How exactly is Miami and the Miami region classified as "small-market"? The Miami/Ft. Lauderdale market is the #16 media market in the country (and ahead of St. Louis BTW), and it's the 5th largest urban area in the country by population. Just because the residents of the Miami region haven't capitulated to public extortion attempts to finance a new stadium for the Marlins doesn't mean this isn't a major market. If the owners of the Marlins, both Loria and Huizenga before him, were willing to swallow some yearly losses from time to time, they could've kept both World Series winning teams largely intact.

I don't think the actual financial system needs much of an overhaul. Like crapshoot, I like some sort of imabalance. Dominate teams are fun to root against.

The way teams acquire amateur talent needs to be, at the very least, looked at. Teams aren't allowed to trade draft picks because of an archaic rule based on the fear of teams trading away all of their draft picks and not being able to field farm teams. Putting a cap on ameteur talent signed in a calandar year and allowing teams to trade draft picks would be a good start. There's no reason a team sitting at the top spot of the draft shouldn't be able to trade down and sign a guy they can afford rather than drafting a player higher than he should be.



Interesting note: I remember Peter Gammons reporting a couple years ago when San Diego was sitting in the #1 spot and took Matt Bush because they could sign him that the year Jeter was drafted the Expos were sitting 3rd and had Derek Jeter as the top player on their board (ahead of Phil Nevin). However, they had no shot of signing him and he fell to the Yankees with the 6th pick.

OK, 7 starts into the season it may be time to start giving credit where credit is due - Meche appears to made some real improvements so far this season. His walk rate is significantly better - 1.86 per 9 innings so far this year vs. his previous career best of 3.04 in 2003. His groundball ratio is 2.17, almost twice as good as his previous career best last year of 1.11. Despite the much improved walk and groundball rates, his strikeout rate hasn't suffered much - down to 6.51 per 9 innings from his career high last year of 7.52, but it's still his 2nd best rate in his career.

If he can keep this up, he'll make that deal look good...

I'd give him a few more starts before we judge the first year of the deal as good, let alone a 5 year deal. But he's certainly off to the kind of start his GM was praying for!

Lincecum is likely to start on Sunday for the Giants on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball.

Freaking Rangers. Just what the Yankees needed to get rolling.

Sure, he needs to keep this up for another 3 seasons at least for the Royals to really get their money's worth. It's just somewhat startling to see how much improvement he's shown so far. Yeah, he's had some hot streaks for the M's in the past, but I don't think he's ever been quite this hot for this long. My skepticism of him is beginning to fade a bit.

Nice - should be fun to watch.

Luke Scott roolz, d00d!

Damien Easly is my hero!!!

Jayson Stark:


• The Giants are pitching well enough that they have no plans to call up phenom Tim Lincecum in the next week or two. But one scout who has seen Lincecum (31 innings, 12 hits, 46 strikeouts in Triple-A) asks: Why the heck not? "He should be the Giants' eighth-inning guy right now, and then close if [Armando] Benitez breaks down again," the scout said. "He's lightning." Lincecum zips through innings so fast, the scout joked, he has a chance to set a record -- "longest career with the least time on the mound."


Ortiz is still officially the SP for Sunday night's game.

This is good stuff:

Designated Hitter

May 03, 2007

Was the 1990s Home Run Production Out of Line?
By David Vincent

In the last five years, baseball fans have read and heard a lot of commentary from politicians and the media about what a travesty the home run totals have been since the mid-1990s. The average fan, having heard this mantra so much, has come to believe it is true. But is it?

In order to examine this question, we need a way to compare eras. Raw counting totals will not suffice. The method employed here is a "home run production rate." It is calculated not by dividing homers by at bats, similar to batting average, but by calculating how many circuit drives were hit per 500 plate appearances. The 500 plate appearance standard was chosen because the official minimum performance standard for individual batting championships as listed in rule 10.22(a) [in the 2007 edition of the rules] is 3.1 plate appearances times the number of games scheduled for each team. Thus, in the 162-game schedule, 502 plate appearances is the minimum, but that was rounded here to 500 for simplicity. The home run production rate will generate numbers that can be compared to other numbers that have some context for the reader, such as a 30-homer season by a batter.

Figure 1 shows a graph of the home run production rate for all major league players each year since 1919. One can easily see a gradual increase from 1919 to the present. The numbers in the charts do not represent the total homers hit in the major leagues for any one season but rather the home run production rate (homers per 500 plate appearances).


Figure 1 - Home Run Production Rate (1919-2006)

The fact that the home run production rate in the major leagues has increased steadily from 1919 to the present should not come as a surprise to many people. Many factors have affected the production rate, including rules changes, equipment changes and even some events outside of baseball. For a complete discussion of Figure 1, please read Home Run: The Definitive History of Baseball's Ultimate Weapon, from which the figure is taken.

Figure 2 adds a trend line to Figure 1 and this trend line shows the steady increase in home run production from 1919 through 2006. The movement of the rate line around the trend line documents the pendulum effect of the production through the years. The home run rate topped 10 for the first time in 1950 when it reached 10.7 homers per 500 plate appearances. It dipped below 10 in the next two seasons, but from 1953 through 1966 the production rate was above 10 each season. This time period is the bubble above the trend line about half way through the chart from left to right.


Figure 2 - Home Run Production Rate with Trend Line (1919-2006)

In 1994, the production rate reached 13.8 homers per 500 plate appearances, only the second time in history that the rate climbed above 13.0. From 1994 through the present, the production rate has been above the trend line with the exception of 2005. The highest point in the chart is 2000 when the production rate reached 15.0. However, it is evident from looking at Figure 2 that the period from 1950 through 1966 is further above the trend than is the period starting in 1994. Both periods follow time frames when the home run production rate was well below the trend line, further accentuating the explosion of homers in the following era.

As a side note about the last 13 years, Figure 3 shows the home run production rate from 1994 through 2006. The rate has held fairly steady through the period and, contrary to pronouncements by the commissioner, the production rate has not dropped in the years since Major League Baseball instituted its drug testing policy.

This is clearly shown by Figure 3 as the rate has held steady since 2001, slowly undulating around the 14.0 per 500 plate appearance line.


Figure 3 - Home Run Production Rate (1994-2006)

Another series of negative comments made in the last few years concerns the number of players joining the 500 Home Run Club. From August 5, 1999 through June 20, 2004, five players joined the club: Mark McGwire (1999), Barry Bonds (2001), Sammy Sosa (2003), Rafael Palmeiro (2003) and Ken Griffey, Jr. (2004). That is five sluggers in about five years. Let's compare the period from September 13, 1965 through September 13, 1971. In those six years, seven players joined the 500 Home Run Club: Willie Mays (1965), Mickey Mantle (1967), Eddie Mathews (1967), Hank Aaron (1968), Ernie Banks (1970), Harmon Killebrew (1971) and Frank Robinson (1971). Thus, more players (seven) joined the club in six years during the late 1960s than the five who joined in the first part of the 21st century. These 12 sluggers are the players primarily responsible for the surge in the home run rate in the 1950s and the 1990s. Four hitters are poised to join the club in 2007: Frank Thomas, Alex Rodriguez, Jim Thome and Manny Ramirez.

It is clear that the production rate of the late 1990s is closer to the trend line than was the rate during the 1950s. Perhaps the emotional statements at the beginning of the twenty-first century are overblown and misleading, since they are not based on factual evidence but rather on conjecture, and are more inflammatory than informative.

SABR member David Vincent, the "Sultan of Swat Stats," is the recognized authority on the history of the home run. He is the author of Home Run: The Definitive History of Baseball's Ultimate Weapon, published by Potomac Books, Inc.

Wow... a very nicely done study! Basically seems to show that all this bleating about cheapened stats because of steroids is a bit of bunk. The trend line for HRs has consistently gone up and it isn't just some sort of unprecedented shooting up because of the juice.

Eye-opening, isn't it? I'm sure there's a counter-argument to it all, but the comparison to the 1950-1966 period is compelling - both in the jump in HR rate and the number of 500 HR hitters that emerged from that period.

What's interesting is that in both circumstances (1950 and 1994), the HR rate dipped big-time in the few years prior, and that just made the "explosion" seem all that more drastic.

I guess that's about to change, according to Olney:

• The most intriguing minor league phenom in baseball is being summoned to the big leagues. Tim Lincecum's numbers are absurd -- 46 strikeouts in 31 innings, and one run allowed -- and the fact that he hasn't allowed a home run yet, in a hitters' league, is fascinating. You have to wonder if this is a Wally Pipp situation.

Read the rest of the thread, K. :D

I did. And Stark's column came out after kingfc22 posted his news, so I thought maybe it hadn't been made official yet. Now it has.

Someone tell Ozzie Guillen that Darrin Erstad has no business hitting leadoff, even if he did play football at Nebraska. I know he "plays the right way" and "knows how to win", but its nearly as bad as Leyland hitting Neifi Perez leadoff for stretch of games last season.

Angels got Weaver the same way, too, with him falling to 12 on signing problem rumors, despite being acknowledged as likely the best player in the draft (and certainly in the mix with Verlander and Drew, I think it was).

They also signed top prospect Ryan Adenhart to turn down college by throwing a lot of money at him (he was drafted in the 12th round because he was expected to go to USC), and we signed K-Rod, among others, from Venezuela. As an Angels fan, I don't deny we have some financial advantages over most teams, especially with an owner in Moreno who likes to take risks and is aggressive in business.

No business? I don't know about that. He has some speed. He's a good baserunner. He sees the ball well for contact purposes, and makes the right decisions with the bat when he needs to (when it comes to hitting in the ground or air, pulling or pushing, etc.).

All that said, yes, he is a bit too much of a free swinger and not patient enough for the leadoff spot. And it seems silly to have him there when you have Posednik on your team (who for all his hitting woes can certainly create more on the paths than Erstad).

I was always a little disappointed when we settled for Ersty at the leadoff spot, even in his better years. It was a relief in 2003-4 when Figgy finally established himself and we could actually put a true speedster at the top (although he also is too much of a free swinger).

dola, I basically only protest your statement on the grounds of your comparison to Leyland and Neifi Perez. I mean, come on, that's just bad. :)

Well, no one has said that he's definitely worth it. It's just that there are signs that it may not be as crazy as first thought.

SI

Yeah, see this seems to fly in baseball whereas in most other sports, this reasoning sounds, well, insane.


I think one thing that would go a huge way to making things more balanced would be revamping the draft. I've never understood why the union and the owners can't get together on this as the union would get more money to sign players already in said union rather than giving it to unproven schlubs while the owners, it would be much more fair, but that's fallen out of style with the owners in the last 5ish years again.

The draft needs 3 major changes:
1) Slotted salary compensation. No more "signability" crap- the worst team the previous year gets the best player or at least the best player that fits their needs (not that baseball really drafts for need as a ton can happen in the minors). No major league contracts. Nothing. The draft should not be another business mess- it needs to be competitive to help bad teams get better.
2) Trading of draft picks. It's just stupid that this is off the table. As stated previously, it's just archaic reasoning that keeps this from happening.
3) Global draft. No more $50M bonus to negotiate with Dice-K. If he wants in, he can come play with everyone else under the same rules. Everyone has to sign up, produce the same paperwork, and register with the same draft office. If you can't handle this, living in the Dominican, Cuba, Korea, wherever- then you can't play in the MLB or its minors. Simple as that.

SI

I'm not saying there's not value to PECOTA. But it's clearly not perfect and you have to use stat projections for what they are- projections that would be true if all people were animatrons. BP's projections are good, some of the best, but there's more that goes into it (see below).

Also, I think there's a bit of a gulf between using PECOTA projectsion and Allard Baird. There are other options so to say that's a false choice would be blantantly understating things.

To the other points, no matter how great a rookie is expected to be, how often are they the best hitter on the team? There's just a huge adjustment between the minors and the majors and putting the pressure to be the best guy on the team on top of that is probably unfair for anyone. Again, extenuating circumstances are these are people playing games not just statistical models.

SI

My only guess as to why Dayton Moore didn't hold off on Butler and didn't give Gordon some time in AAA is his relative lack of inexperience in the front office. He's was heavily involved in scouting and player development for the vast majority of his time in Atlanta and his first instinct is probably the best/fastest way for a player to develop.

Other than that, I just don't get how the General Manager for a team on such a tight budget could overlook the value of keeping a player for an extra year during his peak seasons.

If you look at the lineup he used there weren't any real leadoff types. Erstad has experience leading off, so he went the easy route. Saying Erstad has no business leading off is wrong, and I don't get the reference to football at Nebraska.

PING Dawgfan

King Felix still set to return vs Detroit next week?

Erstad has been one of the least productive hitters in baseball since '01. Putting your worst hitter first in the lineup is stupid regardless of whether he has leadoff 'experience' or not. Erstad's value has been defensively, he's been one of the best in baseball at two positions throughout his career. Thowing him in center for his defensive value wouldn't be the worst decision since the Sox have the bats to make up for his lack of offense. However, putting him in the leadoff spot over a guy like Iguchi will cost the Sox at least as many runs as he saves defensively.

The football comment is because you can't read an article about the guy that doesn't mention him bringing a football attitude to the game or something along those lines. He was a punter. Give me a break.

Giants were wearing Gigantes uniforms today for Cinco de Mayo. Pretty neat.

True, it was mentioned ever time they talked about him in Anaheim in the paper.

For the curious: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/st...cs/ps_odds.php

Tho, keeping in mind this is a simluation based on 3rd order winning percentage so it has to be taken with a grain of interpretive salt. To illustrate, I don't think we'll have 0 100 game winners or losers but if you look at the numbers below, that's what it shows.




Average wins by NL Wild Card: 92.9

Nope. He threw a bullpen session Friday, and the team decided later to post-pone his return again. He's now slated to return May 15th vs. the Angels.

The supposed reason for pushing things back again is that he's been "inactive too long". I guess that means they want to have him throw a simulated game early next week in Detroit and then some more bullpen sessions, I suppose to try and build up his endurance and arm strength.

I'm worried thought that this is just a cover for his elbow still hurting. I'm not going to feel good about his health until I actually see him out there pitching again for several starts in a row without showing obvious discomfort or relapse.

We'll miss you Carpenter. :(

out for at least 3 months (surgery), although I bet he's done for the year...

Pavano done for this year and next with Tommy John surgery. His contract is expiered after that so my guess is thats the last we will see of him.

Solid $40 million investment.

I think the reason it's not predicting any 100 game winners or losers is that it's actually showing the average number of wins over a million trials. A lot of teams probably won a hundred games in one or more trials - it's difficult to imagine the Red Sox averaging 96.7 wins without winning 100 fairly often - but nobody's quite dominant enough to average a hundred wins.

I definitely agree that you have to take it with a pinch of salt - I'm fairly sure the Yankees will manage a winning record, for instance. I just don't think the particular example you used is really that much of a problem.

Clemens to the Yankees, announced during the game from Steinbrenner's office.

I read that he had "very slight discomfort" in a recent bullpen session so they pushed his start back and will see how he does in a simulated start before activating him.

Fuck Roger Clemens. Money-grubbing SOB. I can't wait till the Yankees fail to win the WS this year and he has to go out without another ring. I'm glad the fucker didn't break Cy's record...he doesn't deserve it.

has anyone done a calculation of how much per inning the yankees will end up paying pavano? it'd make me laugh.

near as I can figure out from mlb.com he's thrown 111.1 innings for the yankees.

that's roughly 360k/IP

or 120k/out

HAHAHAHA

People are crazy if they think he's going to dominate the AL the way he did the NL.

Roughly twice what they will pay Clemens this year.