tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-233249272024-03-07T05:02:28.501-05:00mlb garbage: dispelling nonsense from columnistsJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.comBlogger98125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-83982226629098785762010-03-28T22:51:00.004-04:002010-03-29T00:38:49.082-04:00<span style="font-size:180%;">2010 Predictions, because someone has to be wrong</span><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL East</span></span><br />1st - Rays - They could screw this season up, finish 3rd, lose 3-5 major leaguers, and be just as competitive next season with their army of prospects coming up.<br />2nd - Yankees (wildcard) - I see regression all over the place. No way can Rivera, Posada, Jeter, and A-Rod ALL put up 2009 seasons on 2010 bodies; which is what it'd take to win the division. Vasquez's AL numbers won't equal his NL ones, but at least they're finally starting Hughes.<br />3rd - Red Sox - This division is a complete crap shoot, three 94+ win teams is possible. A downturn in corner power and a possible mid-season Beckett contract controversy may leave this team looking in from the outside.<br />4th - Orioles - 20-30 wins later we have the bottom of the division. Lots of intriguing prospects here, but still not ready to take a run at the mountain.<br />5th - Blue Jays - RIP Blue Jays for the next few years, will anyone in Toronto be watching by the time you turn it around?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">AL Central</span><br />1st - Twins - they were || to messing up and putting Liriano in the 'pen. Thome looks great buried in that lineup.<br />2nd - Tigers - if like 5 things bounce their way, they can win the division.<br />3rd - White Sox - how can a team appraise pitchers pretty well but hitters so stupidly? I love their bullpen.<br />4th - Kansas City - If only some intrepid intern could clean this roster up, it'd be a decent squad.<br />5th - Indians - Do they fire Shapiro this season? It'd be too bad, but maybe it's time.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">AL West</span><br />1st - Mariners - I suspect most sources will say Texas will win this division, and they very well might. However once Bedard comes back the Mariners have possibly the best Top 3 rotation in baseball, and a deceptively solid lineup. Record vs. the rest of the division will be key in the AL West.<br />2nd - Rangers - Best lineup this side of Yankeetown. If Harden ever throws 200 innings again, he'd be playoff-bound. And will Feliz's bullpen explosion last year translate to the rotation?<br />3rd - Athletics - will be much improved from last year's forgotten season, but still not close enough to contention again.<br />4th - Angels - If everything goes well for them, this pick will look ridiculous. But I see regression in the outfield, Pineiro != Lackey, and a bullpen controversy in the making with Fuentes.<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">NL East</span><br />1st - Phillies - Ho hum, to the playoffs we go. Halladay maybe has the best season since Pedro? Wait scratch that, best season since Greinke in '09??<br />2nd - Bravos (wild card) - I'm fawning over that lineup, and if Hudson bounces back the rotation will be pretty nice.<br />3rd - Marlins - Already 1 year behind their "win WS every 6 years" pattern, will need Hanley to get back on track in order to contend for the playoffs.<br />4th - Mets - they definitely win the "most boring roster" award; it looks like a fantasy team that someone stopped paying attention to 1.5 months into the season.<br />5th - Nationals - my bet on Strasburg call up - June 1st.<br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><br />NL Central</span><br />1st - Cardinals - least competitive division award goes to...<br />2nd - Cubs - their core is rapidly aging<br />3rd - Reds - I'm uber-high on this team in 2011-2013, especially if they get rid of Baker first<br />4th - Brewers - I will give them all kinds of Kellys and Westmorelands for just one fat Fielder<br />5th - Astros - zzzzzzzzz<br />6th - Pirates - get a fresh look at tomorrow's contender trade deadline-acquisitions, today!<br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;">NL West</span><br />1st - Rockies - This lineup won't be half-bad, even at sea-level.<br />2nd - Dodgers - If someone looks to dump an ace starter this season, Dodgers need to pounce like whoa.<br />3rd - Giants - for every intriguing young hitter/Lincecum, there's a smelly Rowand or Zito gumming up the works.<br />4th - Diamondbacks - if they had a full year from Webb, maybe a different story.<br />5th - Padres - Adrian's gonna get bored this year.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com11tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-9563287135925911232009-12-18T00:56:00.004-05:002009-12-18T01:00:53.879-05:00So I won't be making any more posts about baseball, but here's a chart of monthly global temperatures since I've been born.<br /><br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/Sysah7GiJpI/AAAAAAAAAMU/rdStPjs3_f4/s1600-h/temps.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 180px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/Sysah7GiJpI/AAAAAAAAAMU/rdStPjs3_f4/s320/temps.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5416452146946254482" border="0" /></a>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-2730323265687960532009-11-22T14:38:00.009-05:002009-11-22T16:23:47.615-05:00<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:x-large;"><b>Playoff Opportunities(?)</b></span><div><br />Mr. Zimbalist at the WSJ is one of a sizeable number of mainstream writers who, in the wake of the Yankees 2009 championship, have recently argued against payroll as the source of New York's advantage. By extension they also argue against the need for a salary cap-like system in MLB, something the other major American sports all possess. Instead, these writers argue alternatively that low market teams <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&page=rumblings091119">pocket revenue money</a>, that <a href="http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=4631950&name=gammons_peter">other teams outspend too</a>, or in the case of Zimbalist, that <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703683804574534021373434110.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">parity exists already</a>. In the case of the WSJ piece, in addition to a couple bailout/Geithner jokes we get this gem of Yankee justification -- since 2004 twenty of the thirty MLB teams have made the playoffs! Hurray for parity!<br /><br />He's right, technically speaking. Nine of the fourteen AL teams (64%) and 11 of the 16 NL teams (69%) made the playoffs in the past six years. Here's the list if you're curious:<br /><br />AL: Yankees, Red Sox, Angels, Twins, Oakland, Indians, Tigers, Rays, White Sox</div><div>NL: Dodgers, Mets, Cardinals, Braves, Phillies, Cubs, Brewers, Padres, Rockies, Diamondbacks<br /><br />That actually seems pretty good ... in isolation. Here's the NL parse:<br /><br />Dodgers - 4/6<br /><div>Cardinals - 4/6<br />Phillies - 3/6<br />Astros - 2/6<br />Braves - 2/6<br />Cubs - 2/6<br />Padres - 2/6<br />Rockies - 2/6<br />Brewers - 1/6<br />Diamondbacks - 1/6<br />Mets - 1/6<br />Wild Card spread: West (3), Central (3)<br /><br />The picture here is pretty rosy. Eleven teams have made the playoffs the last 6 years, and the spread is fairly even. I'm actually a little surprised that no NL East team has won the Wild Card the last six seasons since it's considered the most competitive division in the NL; the teams must cancel each other out via divisional play. All this aside, none of these teams have to contend with the Yankee leviathan until the World Series (besides the yearly interleague drubbing); so it's a little disingenuous to use the NL as evidence of parity if the argument is about the <i>Yankees</i>.<br /><br />Let's turn our attention to the American League.<br /><br />Yankees - 5/6<br />Red Sox - 5/6<br />Angels - 5/6<br />Twins - 3/6<br />White Sox - 2/6<br />Tigers - 1/6<br />Indians - 1/6<br />Athletics - 1/6<br />Rays - 1/6<br />Wild Card split: East 5/6, Central 1/6<br /><br />So, three teams in the American League (the Red Sox, Angels and Yankees) have won 15 of the 18 postseason slots available to them (83% -- they can't win the Central). The only AL parity that actually exists is in the AL Central, where four teams have made the playoffs from that division the last six years. <b>Oh, and guess which are the top three AL teams by average payroll during that period too?<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: normal;"><br /><br />Let's expand our sample size a little further and see if Zimbalist's contention works better on a larger timeline (I doubt it). Here's the AL picture in the wild card era, the past fifteen years.<br /><br />Yankees - 14/15</span></b><br />Red Sox - 9/15<br />Angels - 6/15<br />Indians - 6/15<br />Athletics - 6/15<br />Twins - 5/15<br />Mariners - 4/15<br />White Sox - 3/15<br />Rangers - 3/15<br />Baltimore - 2/15<br />Tigers - 1/15<br />Rays - 1/15<br />Wild Cards: East 11/15, Central 1/15, West 3/15<br /><br />Now I know that playoff appearances is kind of a silly metric for examining parity (something like winning percentage or run differential is superior without even wading very deep into the sabermetric pool) , but come on. Look at the top spot (and to a lesser extent the Wild Card breakdown). Seems fair to me! How any self-respecting journalist can use playoff appearances to argue that baseball <i>has </i>parity with a straight face is beyond me.</div></div>Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-60248197505527432532009-11-16T11:35:00.012-05:002009-11-16T12:36:14.145-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Double Edged Plate<br /><br /></span></div>Watching the world series I developed the impression that Yankee pitchers were more effective at keeping the ball on the outer and inner edges of the plate than the Phillies pitchers were. I investigated with <a href="http://www.brooksbaseball.net/pfx/index.php">pitch f/x</a> data. First, I defined my 2 "edges" of the plate. The pitch f/x strikezone stretches from about -0.8 ft to 0.8 ft in their coordinate system, so I defined the right edge (inside for righthanded batters) as -1.5 ft to -0.5 ft and the left edge as 0.5 ft to 1.5 ft (inside for lefthanded batters). During the entire series Yankee pitchers hit these edges with 55% of pitches to the Phillies 48%, suggesting that yes, the Yankees were more adept at keeping the ball near but not over the plate. To see if these percents are important, I then graphed opponent on base percent against percent of balls thrown to the edges for each game of the series.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGF7kmojAI/AAAAAAAAALM/YWJXtR2cGKA/s1600/edges_obp.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 231px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGF7kmojAI/AAAAAAAAALM/YWJXtR2cGKA/s320/edges_obp.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404748286305799170" border="0" /></a><br />As shown above, there was literally no correlation between hitting these edges and the offensive production of the opposing team in this series. This somewhat surprised me but then again I'm not taking into anything like count, type of pitch, stuff, so maybe it shouldn't have. Looking at the edge data however did reveal at least one pretty clear signal. In the series the Yankees pitchers hit the right edge 242 times and the left edge 245 times (out of 889 total), whereas the Phillies hit the right edge 272 times but left edge only 157 times (out of 886 total). The Phillies were much less balanced, as it seems they were trying to keep the ball away from the lefty power on the Yankees. The only game where the Phillies were balanced was game 1 where Cliff Lee hit the right edge 27 times and the left 31 times, which of course was an excellently pitched game.<br /><br />So was balance actually important in the series? First, I defined balance as the difference between right and left edges hit divided by total edges hit (the smaller the number the better the balance). Then I plotted this against opponent on base percentage in the series. The results are below.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGJIYA-cjI/AAAAAAAAALU/nGaFZxdn9g8/s1600/balance_obp_both.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 233px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGJIYA-cjI/AAAAAAAAALU/nGaFZxdn9g8/s320/balance_obp_both.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404751804799808050" border="0" /></a><br />Now there is a correlation, albeit a weak one. The point which appears to be somewhat of an outlier in the top left is the Yankee pitchers in game 1, which was probably due to Sabathia having great balance and then a small sample size of Yankee relievers giving up a ton of baserunners. If we just look at the Phillies pitchers for the series, balance appears to be very important indeed.<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGK_MtQxnI/AAAAAAAAALc/i6E_BgQfp2E/s1600/phillies_balance_opp_obp.jpg"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 320px; height: 233px;" src="http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/SwGK_MtQxnI/AAAAAAAAALc/i6E_BgQfp2E/s320/phillies_balance_opp_obp.jpg" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5404753846168766066" border="0" /></a><br />In any case, this correlation doesn't prove causation, but it is interesting to see how Phillies pitchers mostly pounded one side of the plate after game 1. Theoretically this just doesn't seem like a recipe for success to me, as it allows the Yankee lefties to sit on the outside corner (Damon's 2 out single off Lidge in game 4 and Matsui's 2 run single off Pedro in game 6 both come to mind).<br /><br />If anyone wants to investigate the data further, I uploaded it <a href="http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QH5116SC">here</a> (note: my if statements are in open office format, not microsoft)Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-75454677321896960622009-11-14T13:16:00.003-05:002009-12-05T21:17:06.189-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Game Full of Vacuum and Air Look the Same?
<br /></span></div><p></p><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"><a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/the-impact-of-leadoff-hitters-on-roster-construction">The argument</a> goes like this:</p><blockquote>Delving deeper, from The Book we see the leadoff hitter receives roughly 4.80 PAs per game and the 5th hitter only receives 4.34. Over 150 games, that means that the leadoff hitter receives roughly 70 more plate appearances. Over these 70 plate appearances, the amount of runs gained by switching a player from the #5 spot to the #1 spot who is 20 points of wOBA better is roughly one run. This may be erased by properly leveraging an on-base threat at the top of the lineup, but it certainly will not end up being significant to the point of a win or likely not even half a win.</blockquote><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I have a difficult time fully believing it. I haven't read the details of the simulations but it seems to me like we're looking at the situation in at least somewhat of a vacuum. I can think of several effects that make it important for a good hitter to be batting at the top of a lineup (in addition to having the most atbats).</p> <ol><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Puts starter in stretch: It's tougher physically to pitch from the stretch, the more time a pitcher spends doing this during a game, the better for the opposing team.</p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">Starter has to deal with baserunners: It's tougher mentally to pitch with a runner at first since there's simply more to think about, any amount of focus that is taken away from the hitter at the plate has to be positive for the opposing team. In the case of a big stolen base threat at first they're also going to draw more pickoff throws and possibly more fastballs/pitchouts to the batter at the plate.</p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">More pitches (short term): A pitcher who just threw 15 pitches to get out the 1 and 2 hitters is going to more tired while facing the middle of the order than one who got them out with 8 pitches.</p> </li><li><p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">More pitches (long term): Having the guys who see the most pitches bat the most often is going to get the opposing starter's pitch count up faster and get them out of the game. Also, the more pitches the opposing team sees, the better to time them.</p> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;"></p> </li></ol> <p style="margin-bottom: 0in;">I don't think any of these effects is huge (since the difference between a good/bad obp and pitches/plate appearance are both only about 15%), but they must make the lineup order somewhat more important than just considering total number of atbats it will produce, so some quantifiable effect is being missed in the fangraphs analysis. Anecdotally, Ricky Henderson having a 10 pitch atbat to lead off the game and then robbing the pitcher's attention has got to put that team in a much better position to win the game than someone making a quick out. I would like to find out how much of a difference this really all makes.
<br /></p> <meta equiv="CONTENT-TYPE" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><title></title><meta name="GENERATOR" content="OpenOffice.org 3.1 (Win32)"><style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } A:link { so-language: zxx } --> </style> Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-10527954134560474982009-11-06T14:23:00.007-05:002009-11-06T16:49:08.242-05:00<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Monetary Realignment</span></span><br /><br />As the only major American sport to fully embrace the free market (the largely ineffective luxury tax aside), a frequent discussion topic regarding MLB is payroll disparity. Both between the high and the low (think Red Sox/Mets vs. Pirates/Marlins) and the high and the absurdly high (Yankees vs. Everyone Else). While a salary cap is the ultimate solution, there is no sign that Selig would embrace such a measure; nor that there are even many owners behind it. The Yankees give enough in revenue sharing to cover the bills of the low-market teams; the high markets get the salary flexibility to generally compete against New York; and there is far too much interest in short-term TV/revenue gains to make MLB worry about the systemic damage near-zero competitiveness will do to 1/3+ of its franchises over time.<br /><br />So here's another avenue I pursued as a weekday diversion. What if we realigned MLB based partly on money? First, a look at the numbers:<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Avg Team Payroll, last twelve years (2009-1998, date of last MLB expansion)</span><span style="font-size:85%;"><br /></span><ol><li><span style="font-size:85%;">NYC Yankees $151,877,338.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">BOS Red Sox $107,635,951.92 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">NYC Mets $100,632,173.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">LA Dodgers $93,413,092.08 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">ATL Braves $88,513,588.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CHI Cubs $84,316,535.75 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SEA Mariners $81,486,898.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">LA Angels $81,007,832.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">STL Cardinals $77,536,459.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TEX Rangers $73,998,363.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SF Giants $73,004,887.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">HOU Astros $72,274,090.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">PHI Phillies $71,805,386.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">BLT Orioles $71,582,849.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CHI White Sox $69,609,277.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">AZ Diamondbacks $69,236,991.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">DET Tigers $68,282,048.00 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CLE Indians $65,302,489.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TOR Blue Jays $64,658,291.42 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CO Rockies $59,318,811.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CIN Reds $53,961,987.08 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SD Padres $52,990,266.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">MIL Brewers $50,342,928.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">OAK Athletics $47,262,457.58 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">MN Twins $45,407,544.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">KC Royals $43,619,569.42 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">WSH Nationals $40,843,305.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">PIT Pirates $39,368,957.42 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TB Rays $38,703,228.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">FL Marlins $33,454,107.75 </span></li></ol><span style="font-weight: bold;">Avg Payroll, last 6 years (2009-2004)</span><br /><ol><li><span style="font-size:85%;">NYC Yankees $197,888,942.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">BOS Red Sox $128,177,616.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">NYC Mets $116,908,463.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">LA Angels $107,318,109.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CHI Cubs $104,140,432.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">LA Dodgers $100,307,640.00 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SEA Mariners $96,710,247.00 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">PHI Phillies $96,286,106.50 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CHI White Sox $94,845,138.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">ATL Braves $92,196,560.00 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">DET Tigers $91,081,262.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">STL Cardinals $88,623,819.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">HOU Astros $87,402,221.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SF Giants $85,284,181.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TOR Blue Jays $71,321,083.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">BLT Orioles $70,995,994.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CIN Reds $64,333,087.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">AZ Diamondbacks $63,930,177.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TEX Rangers $63,889,646.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">MN Twins $61,139,756.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">OAK Athletics $61,123,095.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">SD Padres $60,682,365.00 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">MIL Brewers $59,523,027.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CLE Indians $59,012,633.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">CO Rockies $58,852,277.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">KC Royals $54,610,888.83 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">WSH Nationals $50,926,416.67 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">PIT Pirates $42,166,549.17 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">TB Rays $37,651,805.33 </span></li><li><span style="font-size:85%;">FL Marlins $34,450,479.33 </span></li></ol>*Keep in mind the Nationals moved in 2005 from Montreal to DC.<br />* Payroll Source: <a href="http://content.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/salaries/default.aspx">USA Today</a><br /><br />I examined both the 12- and 6-year period to check if any team(s) jumped up or down the list more recently. So, we can pretty clearly see where most of our 30 teams stand. There's still 4 in the middle that I'll get to momentarily. For now we have...<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Pulled Up By Their Bootstraps:</span> Yankees, Red Sox, Mets, Angels, Cubs, Dodgers, Mariners, Phillies, White Sox, Braves, Cardinals, Astros, Giants<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Too Lazy To "Better" Themselves:</span> Marlins, Rays, Pirates, Nats, Royals, Rockies, Indians, Brewers, Padres, Athletics, Twins, Diamondbacks, Reds<br /><br />This leaves 4 teams that could sort of go either way: the Blue Jays, Orioles, Rangers and Tigers. The Tigers have started spending a lot more money recently, so I'm inclined to promote them to the big show. While the Rangers have recently lowered their payroll some, this is mostly due to their owner's recent financial struggles; and considering their history and his <a href="http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/news/2000/12/11/rangers_arod_ap/">habit of spending</a>, I'm putting them up too. So that means the Blue Jays and Orioles join the unwashed masses.<br /><br />This leaves 15 teams in each conference, already an improvement on the currently lopsided AL/NL. I personally think the "3 division winners + 1 wild card" system is a bit sloppy on MLB's part, so let's try to refine that too. I'll put forward two alignment proposals: a 2-division per league method and a 4-division per league method. Please note that both suggestions involve expansion, but since it's been over 10 years and MLB's had big financial gains in recent years, baseball is ready for some more franchises!<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic;font-size:130%;" >Two Divisions per League Realignment:</span><br /><br />When it comes to this alignment, I tried to preserve two notions. First, I didn't want to lump direct regional rivals together, mostly for scheduling reasons as a 2-division league unevenly tilts towards the eastern part of the country somewhat if based on region. Second, since we aren't lumping teams together based on distance, I was able to preserve most of the "classic" local rivalries; and with only one or two exceptions NL and AL teams stayed together. Last, to balance it out let's add two new teams; please welcome the New Jersey Trumps and the Portland Proles (locations based on geography/revenue estimate).<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The Haves League</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Adam Smith Division</span><br />NYC Yankees<br />BOS Red Sox<br />LA Angels<br />DET Tigers<br />CHI White Sox<br />TEX Rangers<br />SEA Mariners<br />**NJ Trumps<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Herbert Hoover Division</span><br />NYC Mets<br />PHI Phillies<br />LA Dodgers<br />SF Giants<br />CHI Cubs<br />HOU Astros<br />ATL Braves<br />STL Cardinals<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The Have-Nots League</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Karl Marx Division</span><br />CLE Indians<br />BLT Orioles<br />MN Twins<br />TOR Blue Jays<br />KC Royals<br />TB Rays<br />WSH Nationals<br />PIT Pirates<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The FDR Division</span><br />CIN Reds<br />AZ Diamondbacks<br />SD Padres<br />MIL Brewers<br />CO Rockies<br />FL Marlins<br />OAK Athletics<br />**Portland Proles<br /><br />Thus baseball can finally have a balanced schedule. It would be 14 games against every division rival (98 games) and 8 games against every non-division league opponent (64), and we'll do away with the interleague nonsense (which is even more useless if we realign based on payroll since all the major cities now share the same league). Interleague Exhibitions are for spring training in my opinion.<br /><br />For the playoffs, we can either have the top 2 teams from each division go to the playoffs, or the division winners + 2 wild cards (even if the WCs come from the same division). With a 32-team league, I'd even explore sending 6 teams to the playoffs and give the division winners first round byes.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Four Divisions per League Realignment:</span></span><br /><br />With this alignment, I much more tightly grouped it by region; I preserved most of the classical rivalries but the old AL/NL distinction fades away. This alignment emphasizes divisional play the most, and is definitely inspired by the NFL's setup. Under this alignment scheme we add 2 teams, but in different cities to balance the divisional geography/revenue potential. Here we bring in the Mexico City Aztecs and the Indianapolis Mannings to our baseball family.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The Haves League</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Citibank Division (HL East)</span><br />NYC Yankees<br />NYC Mets<br />BOS Red Sox<br />PHI Phillies<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Ford Division (HL Central)</span><br />CHI White Sox<br />CHI Cubs<br />DET Tigers<br />STL Cardinals<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Haliburton Division (HL South)</span><br />TEX Rangers<br />HOU Astros<br />ATL Braves<br />**Mexico City Aztecs<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Microsoft Division (HL West)</span><br />LA Dodgers<br />LA Angels<br />SF Giants<br />SEA Mariners<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">The Have-Nots League</span><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Joe the Plumber Division (HN East)</span><br />TOR Blue Jays<br />CLE Indians<br />CIN Reds<br />PIT Pirates<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Union Division (HN Central)</span><br />MN Twins<br />MIL Brewers<br />KC Royals<br />**Indianapolis Mannings<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Wire Division (HN South)</span><br />BLT Orioles<br />WSH Nationals<br />TB Rays<br />FL Marlins<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">The Cesar Chavez Division (HN West)</span><br />SD Padres<br />OAK Athletics<br />AZ Diamondbacks<br />CO Rockies<br /><br />Using this setup we can still use a balanced schedule that is superior to the current one. Let's say 22 games against every division rival (66 games), and 8 games against the other 12 league opponents (96 games). That isn't too many more division games than MLB already has, and once again the interleague monkey wrench isn't necessary. This definitely balkanizes the league somewhat with so many inter-city divisional rivalries, but I feel that strong local rivalries are one of baseball's greatest strengths; especially since MLB's season is so long.<br /><br />For the playoffs, you can just simply have the 4 division winners go to FOXtober. If you wanted to expand the playoffs with the new 32-team league, again, just add 2 WCs and the top two division winners get byes.<br /><br />---------<br /><br />Both setups have their charms, I think I might slightly skew towards endorsing the 4-division format method, because I could see lots of those divisions being really tight and exciting year-long races; while a 2-division format is just a little more impersonal (although probably more balanced schedule-wise).<br /><br />Now, whichever alignment we "use," there are two other points to examine. We'd need a provision where if a team starts spending or not-spending money over a few years (say there's an ownership change), then the league is allowed promote the biggest spender and demote the new cheapskate. Secondly, as far as the World Series is concerned, we'll inevitably end up with a big market team facing a small market team. Is this fair?<br /><br />Well for one, this is somewhat already the case, half of the World Series matchups the past decade pitted a big-market team against a low-budget one (2008, 2007, 2006, 2003, 2001). Furthermore, with its current insistence on avoiding the DH, the NL has already essentially become the "inferior" league over the past 15-20 years, as first the better hitters and then the balance of the better pitchers have been transported to the American League. Plus with either realignment since there's no interleague, which teams are truly superior is more hidden as there are no matchups during the season to judge by. So will anyone really notice much of a functional difference?<br /><br />There are some other benefits as well. It ingrains the common storyline of "underdog vs. favorite," that runs rampant through the American sports landscape. Plus, since a 7-game series is inherently more random than a 162-game season, the low-money team is going to win a disproportionate share of championships. This not only helps boost the perception/illusion of baseball parity in the minds of the fans/media (as the MLB's current playoff system already does), but by giving this "50-50" chance of winning a title to the low-market teams, the Have-Not league will become more competitive relative to itself, much more so than in today's game. With teams like the Pirates only being outspent by $20-40 million instead of $100-150 million, suddenly every team has a greater chance of divisional competitiveness and championship dreams. Perception of opportunity leads to hope, hope leads to ticket sales.<br /><br />As for whichever unfortunate SOBs get stuck in the same division as the Yankees, those teams are already used to trying to keep up with their lavish rival, and will still be playing on a more equal footing than teams with a fraction of the payroll. Then again ... we could always just create a salary cap/floor that floats as a percentage of league revenues, but that'd be toooooooo easy...Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-22672637009313023532009-10-17T19:53:00.004-04:002009-10-17T20:25:17.457-04:00<span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">Chasing Manny</span></span><br /><br />While there are multiple reasons for the Red Sox's stumbles during the 2009 season (starter injuries, significant decline from some veterans, fatigued bullpen, arguable game-to-game mismanagement, etc.), my personal theory is that the Red Sox have not suitably replaced the dominant lineup presence provided by Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz during most of the Epstein Era. Obviously this is no mean feat -- there are few 1-2 hitter combinations like that in history -- and if the goal is "just" to be a playoff team 8 out of every 10 years then the Red Sox are doing fairly well.<br /><br />However, in many respects the expectations for a team with the salary and acumen of the Red Sox is to be a more significant playoff threat -- if not a routine title-contender. If so, the offense needs to be more imposing to succeed. Assuming that (1) JBay can maintain his career-best 2009 numbers for the next 3-5 years and (2) The Yankees or Mets don't cut in line to sign him first, keeping him is a major piece of the hitting puzzle. A full season from V-Mart (which also lets the Sox rest Tek's wobbly body more often, keeping him fresher) will also help cover some offensive vulnerabilities. The problem with these two players though is they're both in the nebulous 31 years-old range, still in their prime, but close to the age where many (but not all) ballplayers start to decline (esp. catchers). While the Sox are much stronger financially than almost all of their MLB compatriots, if the only real opponents these days are the Angels and Yankees, they can't risk long-term albatross contracts for short-term gain.<br /><br />What I feel the Sox need is an uber-bat, capable of hitting 40+ homers with the extra thrust of Fenway behind him. The problem is that our outfield is occupied already; presuming we regain JBay, Drew is here through 2011 and still productive, and while Ellsbury isn't a homer-threat there really aren't any CFs who are. Unless the Red Sox are convinced Papi has had it, they won't risk carrying two defensively-useless leviathans either. This means someone who can at least serviceably play the infield (sorry old man Thome or Delgado).<br /><br />Here's a list of possible suspects (I'm ignoring players who are under long-term deals or who are highly unlikely to be moved), with the benefits and hazards of each:<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Matt Holliday</span> (2007-2009: 0.400+ average OBP, hits the 40 2B range)<br />- He is more likely a fall-back option if another team steals Bay from the Red Sox. He's still young enough (29), a free agent this year, and he hits righty with power and patience. There are a number of alarm bells however. His power has dipped the past two seasons, it was Coors-inflated to begin with, and his brief stay in the AL was a bit of a roller-coaster. If we sign JBay, I doubt we'd take Holliday as a first-baseman, but if we lose Jason this is the quickest fall-back option.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 2.5/5 Heath Ledger Resurrections<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Ease-of-Acquisition meter</span>: 4/5 Dumb McCarver Comments<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Ryan Howard</span> (one of only two players to average 35+ homers 2007-2009)<br />- Howard is a free agent in 2011. Crazy power, decent patience, used to playing in media-heavy markets. Even if he doesn't ever reach his 2006 line again, he's still a major force and is only 29 despite being stuck in the minors for 100 years. He does face inferior NL pitching which must be factored in, and he already plays for a franchise capable of a few big contracts who have greater means to re-sign him.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 3.5/5 Heath Ledger Resurrections<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Ease-of-Acquisition meter</span>: 1/5 Dumb McCarver Comments<br /><br /><span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Carlos Pena</span> (2007-2009 averages: 37 HRs, 0.934 OPS)<br />- Pena is the prototypical prospect who figured it out "late" in his career. He's gone from an average power hitter with nothing else to offer to one of the best mashers in the league, raising his homer total while generally increasing his contact and patience. He's already proved himself in the AL East as well. While a free agent after 2010, he'll be 33 after signing, making him more of a short-term than long-term solution.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 2/5 Heath Ledgers<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">EoA meter</span>: 3.5/5 Dumb McCarvers<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Adam Dunn</span> (one of only two players to average 35+ homers 2007-2009)<br />- Full disclosure - I've been a fan of Dunn for a really long time. Routinely exorciated by dumb commentators for his K-rate, Dunn quietly put together one of the best performances of 2009, and you could set your watch to his 40ish homer rate (@29 he already has 5 seasons of 40 or more, in 2009 he "slipped" to 38). All this despite playing on the horrible Nationals (and before them the almost-as-horrible Reds). Oh, and don't even get me started on his OBP numbers. He's a free agent in 2010 (and will only turn 30 then), and perhaps the Nats will seek a trade if the ownership group wants to throw in the towel on next season. He's not a good defensive first baseman or OF, and maybe even a poor one ... but I think the bat makes up for it.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 4.5/5 Heath Ledgers<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">EoA meter</span>: 3.5/5 Dumb McCarvers<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Prince Fielder</span> (2007-2009: 43 HRs, 33 2Bs, 0.968 OPS)<br />- In my eyes this is practically the dream acquisition, a young player with uber-power and good patience. Obviously the biggest problem is that he is under Brewer control for a while still, and teams are often loathe to part with their cornerstones. But, if Milaukee decides that their playoff window has closed already (which it probably has), this is the kind of trade that could revitalize their farm system. It'd obviously mean no more Buchholz (plus more), but still, he's the best available young, impact bat (Braun is better but recently signed through 2015).<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 5/5 Heath Ledgers<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">EoA meter</span>: 2/5 Dumb McCarvers<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Adrian Gonzalez </span> (SLG and OPS has increased every year 2007-2009)<br />- This is the next-best youth option besides Prince Fielder. Ad-Gon is still only 27, has missed only three games total in 3 seasons, and puts up strong numbers for one of the worst teams and in one of the worst hitter parks (if all his games were on the road he would be on pace to hit over 50 homers in 2009). The Red Sox pushed hard on the Padres at the deadline to acquire him, and he must still be on their radar screens. The usual NL-hitter caveat applies, and unfortunately the Padres have him under control through 2011 if ... they so choose.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 5/5 Heath Ledgers<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">EoA meter</span>: 3/5 Dumb McCarvers<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;">Albert Pujols</span> (Hall of Fame numbers, arguably one of the best all-around players in MLB history)<br />- Pujols I say? <span style="font-style: italic;">Impossible </span>you say! Maybe I say. Almost surprisingly, Lord Albert is a free agent in 2011 (assuming St. Louis exercises the 2010 option), and while the Cardinals adore him, there is the chance with every free agent that he will switch teams. Provided he didn't Almonte the MLB, he'll still only be 31 when his contract expires. And while the Yankees have infinite money, TexMex is their first baseman for a long time, and they have to figure that Jeter and/or A-Rod will end up DHing someday. This puts Boston in a prime position to scoop up Pujols, and if he is interested in chasing the recordbook, an AL-team who could use a short-term 1B and a long-term DH who's park caters to righy hitters and is a perennial playoff contender could be the perfect fit.<br /><br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">Desire meter</span>: 100000/5 Heath Ledgers<br />- <span style="font-style: italic;">EoA meter</span>: 2.5/5 Dumb McCarvers<br /><br />The wild card in this is David "Papi!!!!!!!" Ortiz, who's batspeed decline is uber-documented. If he can regain his stroke, a lot of the offensive problems happily go away. I doubt though that we'll ever see the old Ortiz again, making the search for his offensive replacement even more important. There really aren't many options in the 2009 FA class (in fact, being able to hold onto Bay is our #1 priority); so much of our lineup is going to look like this past season's unless a trade is made (and for the love of god ... Pedroia 1st, Drew 2nd, Youk 3rd, JBay 4th, VMart 5th plz). If we have the money and the willingness to part with prospects, there are gettable players available, and maybe (emphasis on the maybe) a hall of famer or two. The next year or so is going to be really interesting in Sox-land, as virtually everyone but Youk, Pedroia and Lester is a free agent of some sort by 2009-2011.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-88075561459883544852009-09-06T04:00:00.003-04:002009-09-06T04:06:33.935-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">Research Idea<br /></span></div><br />I feel like players who move from the AL to NL midseason enjoy an irregular level of success (this feeling biased by Holliday/Lugo/Smoltz/Penny from this year). My idea is that playing against tougher competition for half a season makes you better through practice (if true this would have large implications, like players could get better if they practiced harder). I don't have any idea how to measure this though (as in what would the control be here?), how to measure specifically this (as in how to isolate the league change effect), or how to normalize for sample bias since you'd think players that other teams are interested in would be somewhat undervalued (ie unlucky) so far that season.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-21700803977595329822009-08-31T02:57:00.016-04:002009-08-31T04:35:41.613-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;"><span style="font-size:100%;">A Penny Saved Is 1 Too Many</span><br /></span></div><br />Reading fangraphs usually produces a catharsis from bad baseball reporting such that no writing occurs on this blog. You can therefore imagine my horror the morning of August 27th when over my cup of coffee I clicked to fangraphs only to discover <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/penny-released">an abortion of a post</a> ripping the Red Sox for releasing <a href="http://bostonglob.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/url-7.jpeg">Bradley Wayne Penny</a>. The jist here is that the Red Sox overreacted to a recent stretch of bad pitching and made a quick hook, overall Penny has been unlucky on balls in play and "ZIPS projects a 4.44 FIP from Penny going forward" so they should have held onto him.<br /><br />First of all, the Red Sox front office does not do anything hastily, if anything their thoughtfulness usually results in <a href="http://jason-varitek.com/articles/2004/img/normal_improperBostonian.jpg">hanging on</a> <a href="http://loogy.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/timlin.jpg">too long</a> (and sometimes <a href="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/0ctv7J7bvK7tv/610x.jpg">way</a> <a href="http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/06LdaRL1Dj8ky/340x.jpg">too</a> <a href="http://theghostofmoonlightgraham.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/julio-lugo.jpeg">freaking</a> <a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgc_cVVWTGY_ojewAVSy9hdHH1pWJy4DOqdODcuckAVM328E9ucr8NUMR_LJ_y1fN_0BWVhqHCBuaSATHUt63v71ceLzWtw-Mvl-I6yZVvvh2GkD7xrkAdR-89FzCMFsuBUECyy/s320/lugo.jpg">long</a>) based on past success. And secondably, I am having some difficulty locating this "recent poor stretch of results", not because Penny hasn't been terrible lately (he has, with a 5.93 era in July and a 8.31 eyesore in August), but because he really hasn't been good at any time this year to start with. His one "good" stretch in June consisted of him facing 3 NL East teams and not throwing a single pitch in the 7th (now I'll admit his 6 shutout innings against the Yankees was notable even in 55 degree weather, but that being his one scoreless start of the year kind of makes this a total outlier. additionally one must remember that I jinxed this game by betting my entire centsports balance against Penny).<br /><br />Let's also look at another measure of luck beyond simply webthumbing to FIP and calling it a day, that being situational pitching stats. The relevant (available) split is OPS with bases empty/runners on/runners in scoring position. Penny this year is sporting a quite remarkable .888/.771/.681, lopping 200 points of OPS off the opposition whenever he feels like it, evidently. A little research reveals that he has been up to <a href="http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/04/pitchers_can_be.php">this trick</a> before. My common sense alarm screams that Penny is pretty crappy and really lucky, but my scientific sense wonders whether he actually has this certain ability to up his game in tight spots. If this clutch ability is really possible (and any list that labels <a href="http://cardsdiaspora.com/suppanthumbs.jpg">Jeff Suppan</a> as <a href="http://www.cantstopthebleeding.com/C1882343933/E171827543/Media/1098846027_6056.jpg">clutch</a> and <a href="http://www.yankees2000.com/y2k/uploaded_images/johan-santana-4-787040.jpg">Johan Santana</a> as not, as the leverage index suggests, is probably suspect), then pitchers should be able to demonstrate the same ability year after year.<br /><br />So are those clutch pitchers from 2005-2007 still being clutch this year (and yes obviously I find it funny that 9 of the 10 unclutch starters are currently playing while only half of the clutch ones are still in the majors despite the un-clutch group averaging an older age at 32 to 35 or 32.5 without Moyer and Wakefield)? Penny certainly is, as illustrated above, Jake Peavy shows a strong reverse split (.603/.734/.941) as does Chris Carpenter (.539/.646/.674), Jeff Suppan is still better from the stretch (.984/.813/.877), and Jason Marquis shows no split (.684/.694/.754). Johan Santana, meanwhile, is now clutch (.752/.592/.566). From this sample it appears, as David Appelman and many others have already reported, there isn't any such thing as clutch pitching.<br /><br />That's a nice tight conclusion, but the cynic in me wonders if something else is going on here. Penny clearly shouldn't be able to suddenly pitch better than 100%, but what if the rest of the time he's only giving 80%? After all, one has to be pretty lazy to go from <a href="http://www.homeruncards.com/imagesrc/penny.jpg">this</a> to <a href="http://cache.boston.com/images/bostondirtdogs//BDD_BP_fort_21109_bgjd.jpg">this</a> while being paid tens of millions to perform physically, so perhaps Penny just doesn't care until runners get close to scoring? I can't think of any easy way to test this, so I am just going to have to assume it's right. In my defense, I wouldn't exactly be the first one to <a href="http://www.denverpost.com/rockies/ci_13219433">question Penny's work ethic</a>.<br /><br />In short, Brad Penny is neither unlucky this year or "quality major league pitcher." If he's been unlucky on balls in play, he has made up for it with lucky "clutch" pitching. He's earned his 5.61 this year just like he earned his 6.28 last year. The best things I can say about him is that he doesn't walk too many, and he might actually try when there's a runner on third... have at him MLB!Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-69464292449462650982009-04-10T11:14:00.003-04:002009-04-10T11:18:58.624-04:00<div style="text-align: center; font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">2009 Predictions – Now with twice the incompetence!</span><br /></div><br />AL East – Toughest division in baseball only getting tougher.<br />1. Yankees. Pains me to do it, but there’s just too much talent here. How are people actually predicting that they’ll miss the playoffs?<br />2. Red Sox (WC). Is anybody else scared by how critical the large father is to this season? And hopefully Lester is immune to the <a href="http://www.fangraphs.com/fantasy/index.php/verducci-effect-candidates-for-2009/">Verducci effect</a>.<br />3. Rays. Dream season last year, so a step back seems pretty likely. Still, it’s unfortunate that one of the 4-5 best teams (possibly best 3) teams in the majors will miss the playoffs because all 3 are in the same division.<br />4. Blue Jays. Careful Jays, you’re getting closer to O’s territory than Sox/Yankees. Watch out next year.<br />5. Orioles. The AL East is going to be really scary once the Orioles start to become relevant again (not that far off).<br /><br />AL Central – would all give the Jays a run for their money in the East.<br />1. White Sox. Why am I picking all the teams I dislike the most to win their divisions?<br />2. Indians. Search for the real Travis Hafner continues.<br />3. Tigers. Who wants to trade for Verlander?<br />4. Royals. That’s right, the Royals ride the coattails of sir Greinke to a non-last-place finish, meaning…<br />5. Twins. Mauer injury torpedoes the season.<br /><br />AL West – No longer the Angels’ division for the taking<br />1. Oakland. Significantly improved offense, and the perpetual crop of promising young pitchers. Of course, having made the prediction, they’ll probably deal Holliday at the deadline.<br />2. Angels. Too many injuries to their top pitchers. Tough to win the division with 3-4 #5 pitchers.<br />3. Rangers. Can we give them some pitchers, just for one season, just for fun?<br />4. Mariners. King Felix counting the days until he can get the heck outta dodge.<br /><br />NL East – Can the Mets collapse for a third year in a row?<br />1. Mets. It just has to happen this year, right? Still, that rotation is scary (and not in a good way).<br />2. Phillies (WC). The Hamels elbow situation is enough for me to bump them down.<br />3. Marlins. This team can hit a little bit. Watch out with Hanley in the middle of the order.<br />4. Braves. Top of the rotation is solid. Rest of the staff and lineup, well, not so much.<br />5. Nationals. Over/under on average IP per outing for starters: 3 1/3 (chicks dig the long ball). Would dominate at AAA.<br /><br />NL Central – I suppose somebody has to win.<br />1. Cubs. Seriously, Gritz? I suppose if this year is finally the year Big Z’s arm falls off, then they don’t win, but I don’t see it otherwise.<br />2. Cardinals. If Ludwick follows up on last year hitting behind Pujols, this team can score some runs. Then again, they do have a Molina…<br />3. Reds. Promising young pitchers and hitters + Dusty Baker = EPIC FAIL.<br />4. Brewers. Had their shot, and it’s gone. Where is Fielder going to end up after 2010, and who’s going to be stuck with a Giambi contract?<br />5. Pirates. Picking both the Royals AND the Pirates to not finish last? I oughta check my meds.<br />6. Astros. Cornering the market on players who were <a href="http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2009/03/23/beware-the-dugouts-of-march-the-houston-astros-2009-preview/#cont">good in 2001</a>. And they have Darin Esrstad.<br /><br />NL West – See NL Central comment<br />1. Dodgers. Chad Billingsley is going to become much more widely known really soon.<br />2. D’backs. Maybe Webb is much <a href="http://www.azsnakepit.com/2009/4/9/828336/brandons-arm-red-flag-nixed-webb-d">more fragile than he looks</a>?<br />3. Giants. Attack of the over-the-hill lefty starters.<br />4. Padres. Remember when I picked them to win the division last year? That was fun. Both Peavy and Oswalt could be dealt midseason – who wants to win the World Series?<br /><br />AL Wild Card: Red Sox, but neck-and-neck between Sox and Yanks.<br />NL Wild Card: Phillies (coin flip between Phillies and Mets, depending on the how many starts Hamels makes).<br />AL Cy Young: Sabathia.<br />NL Cy Young: Santana. Should have had it last year.<br />AL MVP: Longoria (outside the box pick).<br />NL MVP: Pujols (please?).<br /><br />Postseason:<br />AL: Yanks over Chi-Sox, Red Sox over A’s. Yankees over Red Sox.<br />NL: Dodgers over Mets, Phillies over Cubs. Dodgers over Phillies.<br />WS: Yankees over Dodgers.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-39361873931546484432009-04-06T02:21:00.001-04:002009-04-06T02:24:07.450-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Predictions....They're Gritztastically Unerring!</span><br /></div><br />AL East: Is it going to be a 2-team or 3-team race this season?<br /><br />1st: Yankees - Money > Skill<br />2nd: Red Sox - All your pitching are belong to us. I liked this team better when it had power hitters.<br />3rd: Rays - I'm really interested in seeing how Burrell responds to DHing and switching leagues.<br />4th: Blue Jays - Remember when Toronto had a good roster? They're just a Roy Halladay away from being the O's at this point.<br />5th: Orioles: Some good hitters, but that rotation is spelt U-G-L-Y.<br /><br />AL Central: Some can hit, some can pitch, none can really do both.<br /><br />1st: White Sox - It pains me, but they're the most solid of the bunch. Love that bullpen on paper.<br />2nd: Indians - This team would rock the socks .... of the NL.<br />3rd: Tigers - Remember when everyone thought they'd win the Series last year?<br />4th: Twins - Mauer is cratering fast.<br />5th: Royals - The best last-place team.<br /><br />AL West: Does Oakland unseat the Angels this year or next year?<br /><br />1st: A's - This year. Might still trade Holliday mid-season!<br />2nd: Angels - I'd pick them for first but a rotation with this many injuries already is in deep trouble.<br />3rd: Rangers - If I was one of their awesome hitters I'd be so annoyed at the lousy starters<br />4th: Mariners - Zzzz.<br /><br /><br />NL East: Four of these teams could probably win divisions in the NL Central or West.<br /><br />1st: Philies - better pitching depth will carry them to the end, will need to add offense<br />2nd: Mets - Fixed innings 8 and 9, but who besides Santana can handle 1-7?<br />3rd: Marlins - How many years until the Yankees give Hanley The Big Account and I have to stop liking him?<br />4th: Braves - This team needs to get out of the NL East.<br />5th: Nationals - most competitive they've been in a while.<br /><br />NL Central: Why are there still 6 teams in this division but 4 in the AL West!?<br /><br />1st: Reds - I know, it's bold. But this team has an intriguing mix of hitting and pitching.<br />2nd: Cubs - Harden might have the best 125 inning season in history against these weak NL lineups.<br />3rd: Cardinals - Chris Carpenter is an uber wildcard, this team could possibly win the division.<br />4th: Brewers - Not as sexy as they used to be.<br />5th: Pirates - Moving on uppppp ... to the second floor cellar.<br />6th: Astros - Does whichever contender make the trade for Oswalt win the World Series this year?<br /><br />NL West: Barry Bonds is still looking for work!<br /><br />1st: Dodgers - Almost didn't pick them, but taking Pierre and Jones out of the starting lineup makes that team a lot more competitive.<br />2nd: Diamondbacks - best top 3 rotation in MLB? If LA gets serious injuries AZ will take the title.<br />3rd: Giants - Lincecum and Lincecum and pray for Lincecum.<br />4th: Padres - Mr. Towers, I'd trade Buchholz and change for Peavy any day of the year. Call me.<br /><br /><br />AL Wild Card - Boston, but it's a coin-flip between them and the Yankees weighted against Ortiz's HR total.<br />NL Wild Card - I guess the Mets? Or Cubs. Why do we care about the NL again?<br />AL MVP - TeixMeix<br />NL MVP - Wright<br />AL Cy - C.C. "this left arm will self-destruct in 1.5 years" Sabathia<br />NL Cy - LincecumJohnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-88181530564954173902008-11-18T02:32:00.001-05:002008-11-18T03:06:33.300-05:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:130%;">How Many MVPs for Pujols?</span><br /></div><br />Through 8 seasons and age 28 he's got 2, so it's reasonable that he could finish with several, or second all-time to Bonds. But I think he could pretty easily already be tied with Bonds for the record of 7.<br /><br />2001: With 0 mlb at bats previously, Pujols finished behind Bonds, Sosa, and Gonzalez in the voting. Bonds and Sosa were both cheating badly. Gonzalez was either cheating or had one of the most flukey years of the 90s. Now it's conceivable that even without the drugs Bonds would have still outperformed Pujols, but Bonds is always at a disadvantage in awards voting due to his personality. This wasn't one of the years Pujols clearly got jobbed, but he certainly would have had a good shot at it given a clean playing field.<br /><br />2002: He only finished behind Bonds, so I'm giving him an honorable MVP.<br /><br />2003: Only behind Bonds again, another honorable MVP.<br /><br />2004: Pujols was third behind Bonds and Beltre (who put up one of the most flukey years ever). Without Bonds the vote would have been extremely close, Pujols outhit Beltre (in a better hitting environment), while Beltre had more fielding value. Another year he could have easily won it.<br /><br />2005: Barely won it this year, narrowly edging out Andruw Jones' career year. Given the performances on the field though, Pujols should have won this in a landslide.<br /><br />2006: Pujols outperformed Howard in every important offensive category but for some reason finished 2 in the MVP for the 3rd time. Honorable MVP the third.<br /><br />2007: An injury influenced somewhat off year kept him from running away with the award in June but he was still in the conversation at years' end. He was 9th in the voting, but would have been a better choice than the winner, JRoll. Out of the candidates I'd say only Hanley Ramirez and Wright clearly deserved it over him.<br /><br />2008: MVP the second.<br /><br />So that's 5 theoretical MVPs in his first 8 seasons, with 2 close calls and a top 5 finish in the other years. With so many years of consistent greatness, it's a possibility that his typical MVP type performance doesn't get as much attention as it should. Given the last several years of voting it seems Pujols has been handicapped by past levels of excellence. I hope this stops because it's a travesty not recognizing fully exactly what Prince Albert is accomplishing so far.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-90734170044174818562008-10-10T18:20:00.003-04:002008-10-13T20:03:53.287-04:00<span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2008 Guessing Game Follow-up</span></span><br /><br />AL East<br />1. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Tampa Bay Rays</span>: What? Even as the biggest Rays optimist on this blog I only had them at 3rd and predicted the most value coming from their hitters. Their lineup was actually pretty mediocre (9th in the league in runs scored, 7th in OPS) but the pitching and defense took an unbelievable step forward (2nd in WHIP, 3rd in OPS against.) Being 29-18 in 1-run games also helped.<br />2. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Boston Red Sox</span> - <span style="font-weight: bold;">WC</span>: Another year, another Pythagorean underperformance. Only by 2 games this year but it cost them the division. They addressed a key issue going forward by replacing Manny with the underrated (younger) Bay. And with the best run differential in the tougher league, they just might be heading for their 3rd title under Epstein’s Reign.<br />3. (2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">New York Yankees</span>: I called them missing the playoffs. Booyahhhhh.<br />4. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Toronto Blue Jays</span>: Their Pythagorean record says that in a kinder world they could have made the playoffs. Would Halladay have gotten serious Cy Young consideration then? Eh. Probably not.<br />5. (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Baltimore Orioles</span>: Baltimore. You were bad this year. But without the decent hitting you could have been historically bad. What were you thinking?<br /><br />AL Central<br />1. (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicago White Sox</span>: Heh heh, um. I guess I was a little off. Thanks for Game 163 though, those are always fun. Oh and stay classy Ozzie.<br />2. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Minnesota Twins</span>: 3rd in the league in runs scored? Huh. Their lineup wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be.<br />3. (2 - WC) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Cleveland Indians</span>: Power outage at the V-Mart. Carmona regression. Sabathia traded. Betancourt and Hafner missing, presumed dead.<br />4. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Kansas City Royals</span>: They crawled out of the basement but I thought the team would be better than it was. Greinke keeps making progress but the lineup was awful. I have a bad feeling that even when they make progress they’ll be the Blue Jays of this division.<br />5. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Detroit Tigers</span>: The polar opposite of the Rays this year. High expectations but their pitching and defense imploded.<br /><br />AL West<br />1. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">LA Angels</span>: Dear Angels. Please don’t ever change. Hugs & Kisses, Red Sox Nation.<br />2. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Texas Rangers</span>: So close to allowing 1000 runs. So close.<br />3. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Oakland Athletics</span>: OH MY GOD IT’S A FIRE....sale.<br />4. (2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Seattle Mariners</span>: Remember how Ben had them winning the division and then they said “Yeah right bitch!” and lost 101 games?<br /><br />NL East<br />1. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Philadelphia Phillies</span>: Lidge’s outstanding year and Moyer’s extremely old (also good) year are two things I did not expect.<br />2. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">New York Mets</span>: This was not a bad team. It was just slightly less good than it needed to be.<br />3. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Florida Marlins</span>: How crazy is it that the Marlins final record would have won the NL West?<br />4. (2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Atlanta Braves</span>: This pitching needs to get better in a hurry if they’re going to start their climb back to the top.<br />5. (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Washington Nationals</span>: Now if only the clowns in congress could bail out this lost franchise amiright??<br /><br />NL Central<br />1. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicago Cubs</span>: Even when the team was on autopilot it won games. Writing this after their Division Series sweep makes me wonder how many other teams were like this one: built for the long haul of the regular season but pretty flawed in the playoffs.<br />2. (2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Milwaukee Brewers</span> - <span style="font-weight: bold;">WC</span>: I predicted that the Crew’s pitching would be their weak point. Including Sabathia’s post-trade domination, the staff finished 5th in OPS-against and 4th in WHIP, ranks that seem alright for a wild card squad. The lineups OBP ranked 10th and 7th in runs scored.<br />3. (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Houston Astros</span>: Bad teams get streaky too. With a little luck and some vintage Oswalt they got sports-writers to inject some fake excitement into an already exciting NL wild-card race.<br />4. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">St. Louis Cardinals</span>: I called it right but they were a better team than I thought. A rain-out kept the Astros a game up on them. Also, Pujols is the MVP.<br />5. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Cincinnati Reds</span>: Bruce needs time to adjust. Bailey has looked awful. Volquez and Votto had good years though.<br />6. (6) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Pittsburgh Pirates</span>: This team was bad at everything.<br /><br />NL West<br />1. (1) <span style="font-weight: bold;">LA Dodgers</span>: I bet Torre gets Manager of the Year for winning 84 games in baseball’s weakest division.<br />2. (2) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Arizona Diamondbacks</span>: Terrible offense, but a really good pitching staff (2nd best WHIP in the NL, 3rd in OPS-against.)<br />3. (3) <span style="font-weight: bold;">Colorado Rockies</span>: Ok, a lot of regression this year.<br />4. (5) <span style="font-weight: bold;">San Francisco Giants</span>: Fred Lewis, Randy Winn, Bengie Molina and Tim Lincecum pulled the Giants out of the basement. To be fair though, it was a very deep basement.<br />5. (4) <span style="font-weight: bold;">San Diego Padres</span>: They narrowly missed the playoffs last year only to narrowly miss a 100-loss season this year. At least they’re consistently a game away from something.David Yhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00738324541671854292noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-77418753542998408772008-09-26T23:23:00.002-04:002008-09-27T00:35:38.610-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >Basestealing in the '08 AL Playoffs</span><br /><br />Something to pay attention to during the '08 SoxRayTwinAngSoxtober is baserunning/basestealing. In a playoff atmosphere managers/fans/media are much more focused on the play-by-play of a game than they may be in the regular season. Furthermore, all of these teams have some decent basestealers.<br /><br />(Steals, Steal %)<br />Red Sox: Ellsbury (49, 82%), Coco (20, 83%), Pedroia (20, 95%)<br />D-Rays: Upton (44, 73%), Crawford (25, 78%), Bartlett (20, 77%)<br />Angels: Figgins (32, 71%), Hunter (19, 79%)<br />Twins: Gomez (32, 74%), Span (17, 71%)<br />Ozzie Sox: O. Cabrera (19, 76%)<br /><br />Now, let's look at the team's respective catchers to see if we have any wizards or goats amongst us.<br /><br />(PB, CS/SBOpp, CSteal %)<br />Red Sox: TekMoney (4, 16/70, 23%)<br />D-Rays: Navarro (6, 28/73, 38%)<br />Angels: Napoli (7, 11/63, 18%) [500+ fewer innings than the rest, mostly due to injury]<br />Twins: Mauer (4, 28/77, 36%)<br />Ozzie Sox: Pierzynski (5, 21/112, 19%)<br /><br />I'm going to spare Kevin "Nation Wishes I Was Shoppach/Bard/Mirabelli/Mxlpxl" Cash and his Sisyphian grappling with Wakefield's knuckler to the side for this post. The league average CS% for this season is around 27%.<br /><br />So, assuming that the playoff matchups are going to be Red Sox-Angels and Rays-CentralDiv winner, is there anything to keep in mind watching these games? While Napoli didn't get to log a full season, he's going to be facing one of the best baserunning teams in the league, and he seems to be one of the weaker catchers in our sample when it comes to throwing out base-thiefs. A.J. Jerkwad for the ChiSox is going to face a similar problem if his team holds the division and faces the fleet Devil Rays. The league clearly knows that both catchers struggle with the long-throw, because both are run-against a lot more than their brethren (Napoli would have 111 attempts if he had Pierzynski's innings). So I would anticipate one of the narratives during the ALDS (if the faster team ends up winning) being related to some sort of barrage of base-running. Varitek is a fairly pedestrian base-thrower, but the Angels aren't nearly as crazy on the base-paths as they used to be.<br /><br />Conversely, Mauer and Navarro are above-average at throwing out would-be stealers (as comparison, keep in mind that I-Rod's basethrowing is not overrated, his career percentage is almost 47%!). That said, neither the Twins or the White Sox are as aggressive on the basepaths as one might have guessed, so Navarro may not have too many opportunities to flash his arm. However, one interesting ALDS matchup would be the Rays vs. Mauer, and if the Twins end up winning a close game (or losing one, for that matter), it might very well rest on a flick of their prized possession's wrist.<br /><br />In terms of passed balls, they're fairly infrequent, but if any occur during a playoff game it will be greatly magnified. Napoli appears in the greatest danger of falling victim (he would have almost twice as many passed balls as his peers if he faced a similar inning-load), and of course the estimable Mr. Cash will have a similar quandary thanks to his batterymate.<br /><br />Last, are there any juicy "speed vs. vigilance" storylines to wax poetic about? If Mauer faces the Red Sox or Rays, or if Navarro faces Boston in the ALCS, we could see some very close calls ripe for Sportscenter showings and instant replay debates.Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-65175158045175950862008-08-21T00:07:00.001-04:002008-08-21T00:33:55.554-04:00<span style="font-size:180%;">If Olney this was his first offense...</span><br /><br /><a href="http://insider.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3543901&name=olney_buster">Sometimes Buster forgets his place and actually tries to think</a>: "If the Reds are serious about reconstruction, here's the first thing they should do: Reconstruct the ballpark. Blow out the first 10 rows of seats in left and right field and make the place play bigger, for the benefit of pitching. As currently constructed, Great American Ball Park is as conducive to winning as Coors Field was in the 1990s, before the humidor."<br /><br />I'll actually just refer to <a href="http://mlbgarbage.blogspot.com/2006/03/musings-on-rockies-so-heres-deal-with.html">one of my first blogs</a>, where I pointed out that the Rockies always did well at altitude. I assume he didn't see the blog since he doesn't have internet access, because if he did he would probably know that the Rockies career home winning percentage is 0.548, while on the road it is 0.392. Clearly the detrimental affects of playing at altitude are in the inability to adapt to playing at lower altitude.<br /><br />The Reds are a completely different situation from the Rockies, as dimensions shouldn't affect play on the road. And why would a smaller park at home only hurt the Reds? Balls fly out of Philly and they've done fine in the new park. Does Petco park make the Padres automatic winners because it's impossible to hit a homer there? <a href="http://www.baseballrace.com/races/MLB-2008-NL_West-Normal.asp">Doesn't seem like it</a>. The Reds need better players (and probably better managing), they don't need to hit less home runs.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-68406131918663509532008-06-25T02:50:00.003-04:002008-06-25T18:22:25.959-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Optimal Baserunning</span><br /></div>I've seen a few stories lately on how the Red Sox are stealing <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/fantasy/baseball/flb/story?page=thievery080624">a lot of bases at a high success rate this season</a>. So far, led by Ellsbury, they're stealing at a pretty amazing 84% rate. Considering the breakeven point for hurting your team in the runs department is around 65% (this is the percent the defense is trying to keep the running team below), that looks pretty good. But I was wondering what is an optimal number for a team success rate? I can't seem to find this information anywhere, so I'm going to make it up. Let's assume there is a flat distribution of stolen base opportunities, ie the same amount of situations where a baserunner will be safe 0% of the time, 25% of the time, 50%, 100% and all points in between. The distribution is probably normal around the break even point in real life but flat is much easier to work with. Runners on base should be trying to go any time a steal gives their team an edge so they should be running in all situations where the anticipated success rate is >=65%. If the distribution of opportunities is flat, then a team which runs the bases perfectly will on average steal successfully (.35/2)+.65=83% of the time.<br /><br />I can't say whether the goal this season was to steal around 85% or whether it's just because the Red Sox suddenly have some guys who can run but are still relatively conservative (compared to other teams), but to me it looks like right now the Red Sox are taking the optimal advantage of the opposing teams' defenses. In a league where most other teams are stealing at the equilibrium rate where the net value added is 0 (in other words trying to steal as often below the breakeven point as above it), the Red Sox result looks like a pretty huge edge. It will be interesting to see if A. other teams start copying their optimally conservative/aggressive approach and/or B. if opposing defenses ever adjust to the fact that the Red Sox have been robbing them blind.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-75845276274393880782008-05-08T01:33:00.002-04:002008-05-08T13:47:35.726-04:00<p style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:180%;">Fire Bland of the Red Sox Blogging World</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>There are a lot of good blogs following specific baseball teams out there, but <a href="http://mvn.com/mlb-redsox/">Fire Brand of the American League</a> isn’t one of them (despite being endorsed by the suggestionable Peter Gammons).<span style=""> Sure I read them and asked them to link to my blog at one point, but that was mostly because at the time identifying some sort of brain function along with Red Sox talk was exciting. Now that I've been around the internet and seen actual good writing I see </span>it’s just kind of organized blandness frosted with half-ass research, as if there weren’t enough <a href="http://www.creditslips.org/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/04/internet_tubes_3.jpg">internet tubes</a> being filled with Red Sox game recaps, bone-headed opinions, and general blather already.<span style=""> </span>In what might (almost certainly will not) become a regular feature here on mlb garbage, I’m going to mlog (tube speak for meta-blog) their current front page blentries</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>Let’s see, meta recap of drunk mother who committed murder.<span style=""> </span>Nothing to see there.<span style=""> </span>Poll question about pitchers and ERAs (who has studied up on their1930s baseball cards???)…overplayed Old School clip…description of Kevin Cash that includes the word “dynamic”…game recap from Wakefield’s brilliant start because most people reading this blog probably had no idea that happened…insightful game 3 preview where Shawn says he thinks the Red Sox winning (and losing?) streak will continue if Buchholz allows 3 or less runs...I notice that the word analyze is in the blog tagline...let’s see moving on...some queer podcast shit (too long; didn’t listen) about Matsuzaka not officially qualifying for the incredibly subjective term “ace” (because he walks too many guys when he’s sick I assume)…</p> <p class="MsoNormal">ah here we go, the first attempt at analysis in 6 posts, a blentry entitled “I’m fed up with Julio Lugo.”<span style=""> </span>Of course this is a post most casual Sox fans could have filled in ala mad libs last May, but watch for the fun and exciting twist…Shawn actually was intending to write a Lugo-defending article, the irony!<span style=""> </span>Basically the challenge was for him to build a statistical case for <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> being a good player, but what he found was that <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> sucks.<span style=""> </span>Let me set one thing straight (and I hear the counter from politicians, business people, news people, and other idiots all the time), you can’t make stats lie.<span style=""> </span>Stats are information.<span style=""> </span>Information cannot be a lie, or else it is bad information, which really isn’t information at all.<span style=""> </span>What you can do however is analyze stats ignorantly, which is apparently what Evan set out to do in this entry in order to spark a debate on whether Lugo is in fact good or bad (because the tubes aren’t filled enough with debates on whether we landed on the moon or not).</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Now to confirm what any Fenway drunkard would yell at me, I probably would have used information from Lugo’s entire career (or at least the last few years), but Evan somehow manages to fuck up this trivial exercise by only looking at his stats from a month this season.<span style=""> </span>Ok fine we’ll analyze him stupidly.<span style=""> </span>Evan says that Lugo’s average is good (useless non-statement since even though batting average is information on how often Lugo has reached safely on a ball put in play so far this season, it tells us virtually nothing about how good of a baseball player he is) and he had a bad night last night (ok....), but he doesn’t walk much (conclusion is correct by accident but sample size is not ripe for conclusion-making) or hit for power.<span style=""> </span>Well lucky for Evan Lugo hasn’t hit any wind-aided pop-ups over the monster or inside the park homers so far this year so his conclusions are the same as would be reached from looking at more relevant information.<span style=""> </span>He even throws in some anecdotal information about <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> striking out to show us his scouting prowess.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">On to the fielding: Evan looks at fielding percentage (tells us little to nothing about his fielding ability), assists per nine innings (tells us how many ground balls Red Sox pitchers induce), and range factor (gives a rough estimate of how many balls Lugo reaches, perhaps the one statistic he has provided that tells us anything about Lugo’s baseball ability).<span style=""> </span>Of course range factor has always been pretty much the only thing you could use to defend <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city>, but he’s not covering as much ground as he used to.<span style=""> </span>So he sucks, we already knew that.<span style=""> </span>On the flip side if he had 5 more bloop hits this year he wouldn't suck (according to Evan).<span style=""> </span>This column has been a complete waste of Peter Gammons’ time, and that’s not easy to do.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p></o:p>Then he suggests <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> replacements.<span style=""> </span>He defends Lowrie by saying he’s been impressive so far (based on his few weeks of fill-in starts and not his 1000 atbat minor league sample), then he talks about other short stops in such a stupid way that my blood pressure is actually rising just by reading it.<span style=""> </span>For instance, he says the following about Furcal:<span style=""> </span>“The only danger sign? <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> career line: .288/.336/.342. Furcal: .287/.352/.412.”<span style=""> </span>Is he saying these lines are similar?<span style=""> </span>Because they’re not, at all.<span style=""> </span>Getting out my calculator (by which I mean my brain because this is so friggin easy), I can tell you that Furcal has about 85 points of OPS on <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city> here.<span style=""> </span>85 points of OPS. That is not similar. That's a big whopping, slap me in the face, are you kidding <a href="http://www.tinigrifi.eu/omg_wtf.jpg">omg wtf</a> <a href="http://i169.photobucket.com/albums/u231/cheezeguy/n725075089_288918_2774.jpg">lol wut</a> <a href="http://www.slapyo.com/wp-content/wrong01.jpg">you're doing it wrong</a> difference.<span style=""> </span>It is almost exactly the difference in career OPS between <a href="http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/2007/06/19/2003753725.jpg">Ken Griffey Jr.</a> and <a href="http://enrico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/12/15/rollllgeoffjenkinsrollll.jpg">Geoff Jenkins</a>.<span style=""> </span>It’s also the difference between <a href="http://thesituationist.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/david-ortiz-celebration.jpg">David Ortiz</a> and <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/blogs/images/sfgate/giants/2006/10/16/CORRECTION_NLCS_METS_CARDINALS_BASEBALL_STS102350x248.jpg">Shawn Green</a>.<span style=""> </span>Plus, Furcal has played in pitchers’ parks his entire career.<span style=""> </span>PLUS (I mean...what?) those are not even <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city>’s numbers!<span style=""> </span>I looked them up and <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city>’s numbers are .271/.334/.393, but I didn’t even have to look them up, because I actually follow the Red Sox and have an idea of how good Red Sox players are.<span style=""> </span>Even <st1:city><st1:place>Lugo</st1:place></st1:city>’s not bad enough to slug .342 over his career. <span style="">Who slugs .342? Luis Castillo has 24 homers in 13 seasons (and has only reached 20 doubles twice) and he has slugged .356. </span>I’ve had enough of this post.</p> <p class="MsoNormal">Moving on up…a poll on the future of Justin Masterson, as if anyone reading this blog has any clue on Masterson’s ability or proper treatment of pitching prospects…another trivia question about Fenway continuing the trivial nature of this website…same Will Ferrell clip because it’s lucky (excuse me I just dropped a couple IQ points)…and a wrapup of a heartbreaking Red Sox loss (because everyone wants to read about that again).<span style=""> </span><strong>Goat of the Game: Paps.</strong><strong><span style="font-weight: normal;"><span style=""> </span>Uhhh I’m not sportsologist but two infield rollers, an infield chopper, and a catchable broken bat flair makes the pitcher the goat?<span style=""> </span>Now that’s what I call <a href="http://www.ansoft.com/images/DistributedAnalysis.jpg">analysis</a>!<span style=""> </span>If we really are going to harp on Papelbon’s performance (and it was noteable that he only reached 96 mph once) doesn’t that make Francona the goat for using him back to back days with 4 run and 3 run leads in the ninth Sunday and Monday?).<span style=""> </span>Anyway enough of this.<span style=""> </span>Don’t worry Sox Nation, Shawn’s <a href="http://cache.bordom.net/images/f9cc829ae0b529241778cbc6134fbbcc.jpg">gut feeling</a> says Beckett isn’t giving up more than 4 runs tomorrow because pitching against Verlander will make him pumped (more pumped then <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/boxscore?gameId=280406114">when he went against Roy Halladay</a> I hope).</span></strong><o:p></o:p></p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-83997425929814196952008-04-24T14:00:00.002-04:002008-04-24T14:19:10.662-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;">Clay Buchholz Pitch F/X Data</span><br /></div><br />This is ultimately an exercise in an untrained eye having too much data to play with and drawing some uninformed conclusions. So with that out of the way, we’re off. The following plots show some of the pitch f/x data for Clay Buchholz’s first four starts of 2008. The gamelogs for these games can be found <a href="http://www.baseball-reference.com/pi/gl.cgi?n1=buchhcl01&t=p">here</a>. Most would agree that of the four starts, he had two pretty good ones (the two Fenway starts) and two mediocre-at-best starts (@TOR, @NYA). I’ve used symbols accordingly (filled symbols for good, crosses/hatches for bad). Colors correspond to date. Also, when looking at these plots, remember that the pitch tracking systems in place at various parks may have some inconsistencies in the calibration, so with this small sample size, it is possible that some outliers may not be statistically significant due to systematic errors in the measurement system. For an explanation of the pitch f/x data and system, <a href="http://mvn.com/mlb-stats/2008/01/14/a-pitchfx-primer/">here</a> is a good place to start.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUHEigw-IvaYBks7C3MChdvzwzCKGAJU5M9PvvnH09vo0hl1-w8irQe8HusVIWN5btXn2cgexGtAHBh0G2hra1SMAQBj_UbdcfBTWNy-fn4FIsRsTiX0ymhPAfCkPyZSFrlYffhg/s1600-h/Buchholz_2008Starts_Pfx-z-Speed.PNG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 382px; height: 384px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjUHEigw-IvaYBks7C3MChdvzwzCKGAJU5M9PvvnH09vo0hl1-w8irQe8HusVIWN5btXn2cgexGtAHBh0G2hra1SMAQBj_UbdcfBTWNy-fn4FIsRsTiX0ymhPAfCkPyZSFrlYffhg/s320/Buchholz_2008Starts_Pfx-z-Speed.PNG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192873435490594226" border="0" /></a> This plot shows vertical break (relative to a pitch with no spin) vs. pitch speed. The pitch type assignments are mine. This plot shows the separation between pitch types very well. Overall, it appears that Buchholz does better when he’s throwing harder, at least for his curveball and fastball (especially for his fastball). I guess that’s not too surprising. His curveball is interesting; he has had better success (apparently) when throwing it harder and with slightly less vertical break. What this plot doesn’t show you is where these pitches are located. Taken abstractly, it would seem to me that a slightly slower curve with more break would be better, but if those pitches are going into the dirt while the harder, smaller-breaking curves are dropping in for strikes, then obviously you’ll do better with the latter case – we’ve seen what happens when Beckett can and can’t throw his curve for strikes, so it’s probably not all that different here. The changeup is interesting – it almost looks like he’s throwing two distinct types of changeup, as the small separate cluster indicates. Those may be pitches that Buchholz is having trouble throwing (as John has suggested), though we really can’t assess that from this plot.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN6eSIxgDKKWgFrNrJHHBkxAUf3XuAU7E2Q6I1gcjxHsqn_5h3aT5Jn_hX60rxwz7AVnyfpjF561i5h-6kZztihvCUXuz540LZODvi_hDAS4zP5EbJ9VzJ483aPNqoxWypiRBrTQ/s1600-h/Buchholz_2008Starts_PFX-x-Speed.png"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 376px; height: 377px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjN6eSIxgDKKWgFrNrJHHBkxAUf3XuAU7E2Q6I1gcjxHsqn_5h3aT5Jn_hX60rxwz7AVnyfpjF561i5h-6kZztihvCUXuz540LZODvi_hDAS4zP5EbJ9VzJ483aPNqoxWypiRBrTQ/s320/Buchholz_2008Starts_PFX-x-Speed.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192873676008762818" border="0" /></a>This plot is similar to the previous plot, but shows horizontal break rather than vertical break. These plots are from the catchers’ point of view; positive horizontal break is to the catcher’s right. It’s pretty clear that Buchholz struggles when his fastball has too much negative horizontal break (in on right handed hitters). Not sure why this would be unless he’s throwing it too much over the middle of the plate and letting it come too far in on righties. He appears to have more success when his fastball is essentially straight (while a straight fastball isn’t necessarily a good thing, it appears to be a good thing for Buchholz, relatively speaking). His curve has a very interesting spread in horizontal break. There are sort of two clusters, one around 0 to +5, and one from 0 to -8 or so. According to John, Kevin Cash calls Buchholz’s harder curveball a slider, but that doesn’t appear to make sense from this plot; the harder curve balls break in on right handed hitters, which is the opposite of what a slider should do. Regardless, Buchholz appears to struggle when his curve does that (bear in mind that I’m oversimplifying to a large extent here by extrapolating from the fact that his April 16 start was “bad” to calling the results of all curveballs thrown in that start “bad”. There is obviously more to the story, but we’d need to get much more sophisticated in making plots like this to get into it at that level). Another potential point here is that his changeup is (apparently) almost completely absent from the cluster for the April 16 start. This begs the question as to whether that second cluster of “curveballs” aren’t actually “changeups” thrown slower and with less horizontal break. If so, this only appears to have happened in what was Buchholz's worst start, and might be one indicator of why it went so badly. I’m somewhat confused by these plots, enough so to wonder if I’ve mis-classified the pitches in this plot, as the breaks seem to be opposite what might be expected from typical curves and changes. I can’t really distinguish the clusters as well in this plot; what is really needed is a way to classify pitches by type in the pfx-z vs. speed plot and then plot pitch types by color in the pfx-x vs. speed plot. Stay tuned.<br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW1pd5EdoqBz4XPyA-fkVt0cFL746WhBHVGL9lE8xsvlhkB_HFwXWNxar4ZHqXvWnX4F9buHJ1_VBnvj4THHa8rIudNWTOOnJh_X3zCS_IuQdgvvfnBvw3jutsMifvx4o0YwUMyQ/s1600-h/Buchholz_2008Starts_ReleasePoint.PNG"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 374px; height: 377px;" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEiW1pd5EdoqBz4XPyA-fkVt0cFL746WhBHVGL9lE8xsvlhkB_HFwXWNxar4ZHqXvWnX4F9buHJ1_VBnvj4THHa8rIudNWTOOnJh_X3zCS_IuQdgvvfnBvw3jutsMifvx4o0YwUMyQ/s320/Buchholz_2008Starts_ReleasePoint.PNG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5192873791972879826" border="0" /></a> Lastly, a plot of release point from the catcher’s perspective. The only obvious outlier is the April 16 start at Yankee Stadium. The interesting correlation is that in Buchholz’s worst start, his release point was apparently inconsistent with his other starts, appearing to be more of a ¾ release than his more normal over-the-top. This is the only game for which I can find pitch F/X data for Buchholz at Yankee Stadium, so we have to consider that there might be some bias to these results, given that there is such a systematic offset. However, this bears watching for his next start in the Bronx, to see if his release point is consistent with other starts (in other words, to see if the difference in release points between that start and other starts is real, or if it’s a calibration problem with the tracking system at Yankee Stadium). Again, stay tuned, but it’s potentially an interesting observation that his worst results (only 2 strikeouts) may have come in a game where his release point was off. Disregard the three outliers in the lower left; this is probably garbage data. Buchholz does not throw sidearm.<br /><br />So, remember the small sample size caveat. Stay tuned for more – once I figure out how to plot pitch types by colors, we’ll be able to do a lot more, especially with the pfx-x vs. speed plots. What else do people see here?Unknownnoreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-26029153983854881972008-04-11T16:18:00.002-04:002008-04-11T17:16:48.429-04:00The Mets go 2-3 against division rivals but they move up 2 spots in the <a href="http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/powerranking?week=3">ESPN power rankings</a> because an outfielder with no ability to get on base, hit for average, or hit for power had a hot week?<br /><br />"Angel Pagan is a nice fit in the second spot in the batting order, hitting behind Jose Reyes."<br /><br />I suppose he does fit nicely at the top with his fellow out machine who also doesn't steal bases anymore either.Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-74046168957271918482008-04-08T20:28:00.000-04:002008-04-08T20:29:16.389-04:00Greinke's awesome. Deal with it.Beehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03873805274921313157noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-80076257248332878062008-03-29T14:30:00.008-04:002008-04-11T16:40:05.070-04:00<div style="text-align: center;"><span style="font-size:180%;">All the '08 Predictions You Can Handle</span><br /></div><br />Featuring MLB Garbage experts Pete, John, Ben, Dave along with "competing" sources Sports Illustrated, ESPN.com, CBS.sportsline.com, Baseball Prospectus, and Diamond Mind <o:p>(</o:p>ESPN and CBS aggregate standings based on power rankings).<br /><br /><a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/R_nBLFLbf0I/AAAAAAAAAEc/l0cf3_JLZv0/s1600-h/standings.bmp"><img style="margin: 0px auto 10px; display: block; text-align: center; cursor: pointer; width: 315px; height: 414px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_njVlTiwxs8A/R_nBLFLbf0I/AAAAAAAAAEc/l0cf3_JLZv0/s400/standings.bmp" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5186388842006675266" border="0" /></a>*wildcard<br />^tie for <st1:state><st1:place>AL</st1:place></st1:state> wildcard (beckett wins 1 game playoff ldo)<br />#tie for NL wildcard<br /><br />In conclusion, I think we can all agree that the Orioles and Giants will finish last.<br /><br />P.S. What was Diamond Mind smoking when it simulated the NL Central?Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com18tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-65467379447625953022008-03-27T21:31:00.003-04:002008-03-27T21:58:28.465-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;"><span style="font-size:130%;">My "Eh, good enough." 2008 Predictions</span><br /><br />AL East</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Boston Red Sox</span>: Probably another slugfest to the finish but they’re built for it. Expecting big years from both Mannys (Delcarmen and Ramirez.)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. New York Yankees</span>: The aging position players continue their decline. One or more of the young pitchers goes down. Morgan Ensberg hits like 15 home runs in a week in August just to make me nervous. This may be wishful thinking, but they miss the playoffs.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Tampa Bay Rays</span>: Speaking of wishful thinking. I wanted to make this call weeks ago. Now it seems like Kazmir may be more injured than we thought, Longoria is starting the season in AAA so they can control him another year and Troy Percival is still bad. But the defense is better, the lineup is still good, and Kazmir/Shields/Garza seems like a pretty sweet top of the rotation.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Toronto Blue Jays</span>: David Eckstein’s weak bat joins their already mediocre lineup and his terrible glove scampers behind a bunch of ground-ball pitchers. On the bright side John Gibbons will finally complete his mission to totally explode A.J. Burnett’s arm.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Baltimore Orioles</span>: This is not a prediction. It is a future yet to be.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL Central</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Detroit Tigers</span>: The back-end of the rotation and most of the bullpen makes me wonder. Then I remember the lineup.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Cleveland Indians (WC)</span>: Carmona could have a fine 2008. It’s just not likely. I don’t see them taking the division. But. The image of Lofton holding at third might be a little less painful when they edge the Wild Card like I think they will.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Minnesota Twins</span>: Ugh. I wanted to pick the Royals here. I really did. But their non-Livan pitching is pretty good. They’ll probably rest easy in third.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Kansas City Royals</span>: Big year for Greinke. Gordon starts stepping up. Jose Guillen probably doesn’t add much. Japanese reliever Yasuhiko Yabuta throws baseballs. Maybe this call will be wrong and I’ll be pleasantly surprised. How soon is now?<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Chicago White Sox</span>: Nah. I don’t think so.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL West</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. LA Angels</span>: Recipe: A pile of young pitchers. A pile of speedy but not very good hitters. A pinch of Vlad. Mix vigorously in a weak division. Dispense into a playoff spot. Division Series Exit.<br />(Note: I wrote this before Escobar went down but I stand by it. Swapping the O-Cab for Garland's league-average durabilityness is looking even smarter now.)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Seattle Mariners</span>: Every year it’s the same thing. I’ll predict a mixed bag for King Felix to stay on the safe side. Bedard helps but they’re just not making the playoffs.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Oakland Athletics</span>: I had this great joke about Nick Swisher but then they traded him.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Texas Rangers</span>: Saltyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL East</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. New York Mets</span>: (1) Wow this team is old. (2) Infield pop-ups are not exciting. (3) Wright was the MVP. (4) Zero depth. (5) None of this matters because of Santana.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Atlanta Braves</span>: In the wild card hunt but they’ll fall short. Good lineup though.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Philadelphia Phillies</span>: Hear that Rollins? Just mail your hardware to David Wright. The interblogs have spoken!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Florida Marlins</span>: Maybe people will start noticing Hanley now that he’s the only reason to watch this team.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Washington Nationals</span>: Welcome to Nationals Park, now presenting the Outfield of Broken Dreams.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL Central</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Chicago Cubs</span>: Cash dollars!<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Milwaukee Brewers</span>: A whole year of Braun will be sweet. But pitching is important too and there are way too issues there.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Cincinnati Reds</span>: Bruce and Bailey need some more time. Luckily in this division you start competing whenever you feel like it.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. St. Louis Cardinals</span>: Ugh. Just start Pujols’ surgery now.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Houston Astros</span>: The most hilarious “win now” team of this decade. They won’t even compete in the garbage division.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">6. Pittsburgh Pirates</span>: I tried to name as many Pirates as I could but I fell asleep.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL West</span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. LA Dodgers</span>: If Juan Pierre becomes an incredibly expensive pinch runner. If Kemp and Ethier play. If Andruw bounces back. If Kuroda has a great MLB debut and if Saito stays completely awesome.<br />The credit will still go to Torre.<br />Ugh.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Arizona Diamondbacks (WC)</span>: Billy Beane sold high on Haren. He is not a co-ace. But he’s still a big upgrade on Livan Hernandez and a good enough 1-2 punch with Webb. Progress from their young lineup and a breakout year from one or more should earn them the Wild Card.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Colorado Rockies</span>: Some regression, but so much of this team is young and only getting better.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. San Diego Padres</span>: I like them so I hate this pick. In such a tight division race they’re the ones left behind.<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. San Francisco Giants</span>: This lineup is a sabermetric <span style="font-style: italic;">night-terror</span>.David Yhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00738324541671854292noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-53710964539795894222008-03-26T14:53:00.002-04:002008-03-26T15:01:34.711-04:00<span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:180%;" >I need to blog more. Here are my division picks...</span><br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL East:</span></span><br /><br />1. Red Sox - Going to be a tight race yet again. The Red Sox owners should really capitalize on their product market, they don't do enough of that!<br /><br />2. Yankees - ALCS III: The Reckoning comin' atch ya! Fox is happy, baseball fans mourn.<br /><br />3. Blue Jays - Halladay prevented me from putting them 4th, but I really wanted to!<br /><br />4. D-Rays - Closer to almost-missing-the-playoffs than some may think.<br /><br />5. Orioles - Stop screwing around and sign Markakis long-term.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL Central:</span></span><br /><br />1. Tigers - Cabrera a beast, Willis a mediocrity. Offense is scary, the bullpen injuries are a tragedy.<br /><br />2. Indians - My boys from Cleveland didn't supplement their rotation like they desperately needed to. People who pick 'em first believe in Carmona, those who pick second don't.<br /><br />3. Twins - I really, really, really wanted to pick the Royals third. Offense is a little better on paper than I thought. People forget how deep the 'pen is.<br /><br />4. Royals - Will the real Zack Greinke please stand up? Gordon and Butler and pray for Beltran?<br /><br />5. White Sox - hahahahahahaha.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:130%;" >AL West:</span><br /><br />1. Mariners - Stop the Mariners bandwagon, I want to get off. How can the same team that developed King Felix and lunged for Bedard sign Silva and Vidro? Choose a side Seattle, we're at war (is that joke stale already? ... yes).<br /><br />2. Angels - I'm already pumped up over the prospect of reading all those articles about how Hunter brings a whole new kind of energy to a perennial playoff contender.<br /><br />3. Athletics - Whenever Cust is in the outfield can we play circus music over the PA? Finishing third isn't a tribute to Beane, but a recognition of how awful the Rangers will pitch.<br /><br />4. Rangers - Let's put the Rangers, Orioles, D-Rays, White Sox, and Nationals in their own division and not e-vite them to any of our parties. What's the pool on Bradley's trade date?<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL East:</span></span><br /><br />1. Mets - Santana 1, NL 0<br /><br />2. Braves - Best lineup no one talks about. Pitching will be adequate for a wild card berth.<br /><br />3. Phillies - Maybe they'll try Howard as closer this season.<br /><br />4. Marlins - A's-Marlins World Series 2011!<br /><br />5. Nationals - We can rebuild them, we have the technology.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL Central:</span></span><br /><br />1. Cubs - I know I shouldn't be, but I'm excited about seeing Wood close this year. Dempster must feel like he just got dumped after paying his girlfriend's way through grad school.<br /><br />2. Brewers - If your ace's shoulder is unreliable, get more rotation depth! Love the lineup.<br /><br />3. Cardinals - Pitching is pretty mediocre, but this is the Bad League we're talking about.<br /><br />4. Reds - Should be third but Baker is good for -5 wins. I'd love to see Adam Dunn in a Braves uniform.<br /><br />5. Pirates - They don't even get e-vited to my "don't e-vite" division! Likely 5th, but I needed a "risky pick" for the MLB Garbage water cooler.<br /><br />6. Astros - Trade Berkman and Oswalt and rebuild around Pence.<br /><br /><br /><span style="font-size:130%;"><span style="font-weight: bold;">NL West:</span></span><br /><br />1. Dodgers - One of these years when I pick them it'll be right. Let the younglings play already.<br /><br />2. Rockies - If they had made the grab for Bedard this would've been a very productive season.<br /><br />3. Padres - How can a team go from incredibly exciting to incredibly stale in only 5 months?<br /><br />4. D-Backs - If they can add a couple pieces to the offense they can win the division in 2009 and hold it for a while.<br /><br />5. Giants - *sound of toilet flushing*Benhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10041659732901806510noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-17332007392375594132008-03-26T07:19:00.001-04:002008-03-26T11:50:07.594-04:00<p style="text-align: center;" class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:130%;">Behold Another Ensemble Member!</span><br />(this one perturbed by brilliance)</p> <p class="MsoNormal">I usually say what I want to happen so this year I’m just going to say what will actually happen.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>AL East</span></u></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Yankees:</span> Barely the second best run differential in baseball last year and they should be better this year with the lineup returning and the young pitching taking over.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Red Sox:</span> Still marginally the best team in baseball I think but I can’t see Francona putting any effort into trying to win the division when a playoff spot shouldn’t be in jeopardy.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Blue Jays:</span> Probably closer to the Rays then the Red Sox, but good enough to contend in almost every other division.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Rays:</span> Man what if they still had a healthy Baldelli <i style="">and</i> Hamilton?<span style=""> </span>At least they’re going in the right direction finally.<span style=""> </span>Third place or bust in 2009?</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Orioles:</span> Last.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>AL Central</span></u></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Tigers:</span> Whether they’ll be an elite team depends on health of pitching.<span style=""> </span>Either way they should at least mash their way to the top of this division.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Indians:</span> Still having enough room for Cliff Lee in the rotation tells me way too much rests on Carmona’s success.<span style=""> </span>Probably 85-90 wins here, not enough for a playoff spot.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Royals:</span> What’s that, the Royals finishing in 3<sup>rd</sup>?<span style=""> </span>Oh yes, the Twins are that bad…</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Twins:</span> Santana would be pretty important on any team, on the Twins he was everything.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. White Sox:</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>They could be really, really bad for a really, really long time.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>AL West</span></u></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Angels:</span> Out of habit.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Mariners:</span> But 1<sup>st</sup> if they make a move for a good starter or run producer at some point.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Rangers:</span> Hitting’s getting better, pitching not as much.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Athletics:</span> If anyone over 25 plays well then they’re getting traded anyway, so last this year.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>NL East</span></u></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Mets:</span> With Santana, this isn’t even going to be close.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Braves:</span> Would have won the division with any luck last year, and that was with lots of minor league caliber guys giving them starts and without Teixeira and Mike Gonzalez.<span style=""> </span>I think the wild card is do-able.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Phillies:</span><span style="font-weight: bold;"> </span>The pitching still stinks.<span style=""> </span>The division has gotten better and will leave them behind.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Marlins:</span> Health of the starting rotation is very key because they’re offense just got traded.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Nationals:</span> This pitching staff is all different kinds of terrible.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>NL Central</span></u></span><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Cubs:</span> Their spending spree has propelled them right past the Brewers’ slow rebuilding process.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. Brewers:</span> So many possibilities with so many question marks.<span style=""> </span>I think what’s important is that there still isn’t enough pitching depth either way.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Reds:</span> Based on run differential they should have finished in third last year, and not much has changed.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Cardinals:</span> I would understand the pitcher batting 8<sup>th</sup> if he was Rick Ankiel… or cleanup in this case.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Astros:</span> Berkman and Oswalt must go now.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">6. Pirates:</span> Still dead, check back next year.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:100%;" ><u><span>NL West</span></u></span> (Starting random number generator…now)<br /><span style="font-weight: bold;">1. Dodgers:</span> As long as everyone plays nice, and someone gets a hit with RISP.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">2. </span><st1:place style="font-weight: bold;">Rockies</st1:place><span style="font-weight: bold;">:</span> Didn’t have the 3<sup>rd</sup> best run differential in baseball by complete accident.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">3. Diamondbacks:</span> Unless Haren brought a replacement luckbox they’re not gonna duplicate all the close game wins.</p> <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">4. Padres:</span> They had their chance, Hoffman blew it. Twice.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-weight: bold;">5. Giants:</span> Worst offense since the 2004 Diamondbacks, might not score 600 runs.</p><p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>Johnhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15490762182100049778noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23324927.post-86182123421677598212008-03-25T17:38:00.001-04:002008-03-25T18:46:45.782-04:00<div align="center"><span style="font-size:150%;">Pete's 2008 Take-it-to-the-bank Predictions</span></div><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:120;" ><u><span>AL East</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Boston Red Sox</span>: Jacoby returns to Earth, but Dice-K gets the wildness out of his system in Japan (please?). The lack of Curt Schilling until at least July adds an automatic 1-2 wins. Oh, and contract up, Manny!<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">New York Yankees</span>* (WC): I know, real original right? But honestly, is there any way the Sox and Yanks don’t finish 1-2 for the first time in like forever? They’ll have to find some new <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fdtn0Z4o8cM">objects</a> of Suzyn Waldman’s <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8m6CRBsWb3U">affection</a>, but dream as we might, Sterling and Waldman are still here to stay. Not here to stay, however, is Roger Clemens, lost in a quagmire of hearings about his B-12 use. Fellow juice guy Giambi is in his last year – enjoy it while it lasts, folks.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Toronto Blue Jays</span>: They’re saying Vernon Wells is back swinging the bat with a vengeance. I sure hope so – it’s not like they’re paying him well or anything. I don’t the Jays are paying him to get out-VORP’d (yes that’s a word) by Juan Pierre. The other reason to watch the Jays this year is their new shortstop – oh yes, the king of grit and scrap himself, one David Eckstein. Welcome to the AL East, big guy. Also, look for another big year in Fenway from famed sox-killer and Fu Manchu wearer Greg Zaun.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Tampa Bay <del>Devil</del> Rays</span>: They finished three games behind the Orioles last year, and that’s going to change this year. The Orioles just keep getting worse, and the Rays show at least some signs of life. One of these years, the crazy ridiculous group of power arms the Rays have in their system is going to make it to the majors, and then look out, Blue Jays: the Rays are a-comin’. The only sad part is that it looks like we may never see another healthy season from the Rhode Island Rocket, Rocco Baldelli.<br /><br />5: <span style="font-weight: bold;">Baltimore Orioles</span>: This year, the O’s finally reap the rewards of the chaos they have sown. The smart thing is to tear it all down and start over, but that was true 5 years ago too. Honestly, can we just drop all pretense and turn Camden Yards into a second home park for the Sox already?<br /><br /><span style="font-size:120;"><u><span style="font-weight: bold;">AL Central</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Detroit Tigers</span>: The Tigers and Indians will probably battle this one out. In the end, I say the Tigers take it with their ability to bludgeon all comers into submission. They scored 867 runs last year, the Yankees 968. Anybody else think that those numbers might end up a bit closer this year? Ordonez likely comes back to Earth, and maybe Granderson too a bit, but with Renteria effectively replacing Sean Casey and Miguel Cabrera replacing Brandon Inge, the rest of the AL better look out. If this is the year Bonderman finally puts it together (he’s still only 25 – remember when he was getting pounded like 5 years ago?) for a full season, this team is going to be scary.<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Cleveland Indians</span>: A few question marks here. They had by all accounts a great year last year, despite carrying some serious dead weight in Travis Hafner (and I’ll be honest, that was a sentence I never expected to write). Hafner will probably have something of a bounce-back year (but he better be careful, or he’s going to lose the title of best DH in the central to Billy Butler of KC sooner rather than later), but the real questions are in the rotation. Does anybody honestly expect a similar year out of Carmona? He had a pretty low batting average allowed on balls in play, walks a lot of guys, and doesn’t strike out enough guys. Expect a bit of a regression, which keeps them behind the Tigers but in the hunt for the wild card (but do you really see them edging out the Yankees for the last playoff spot? I don’t).<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Minnesota Twins</span>: The Twins are in something of a confused situation. They’re clearly (or are they?) aware that they’re not in the hunt this year, as they really don’t have much of a shot of catching the Tigers and Indians. This led to the trade of the great Santana and letting Torii "Mr. Intangibles" Hunter leave to sign a ridiculous contract with the Angels to be their second overrated free-agent center field import in two years. However, the Twins have not at all committed to the youth movement, bringing in guys like Adam Everett and Mike Lamb. Does not compute. What does compute is no better than a 3rd place finish.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Kansas City Royals</span>: Can we all agree to just give Alex Gordon a mulligan on last year? And to let Travis Buck face Hideki Okajima as much as possible? And to let Gil Meche keep whatever deal he’s signed with Satan? Oh, and I guess we can start the Billy “the next Travis Hafner” Butler watch now. Also, keep an eye on the Greinke Cy Young watch!<br /><br />5. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicago White Sox</span>: It hurts me to put them below the Royals. Well, no, it doesn’t really. It actually gives me great pleasure. Not just because their announcers are terrible (“You can put it on the board, YES!!!!”), but because their team is particularly offensive too. But seriously, how much more ignorant of their own mediocrity can they get? Baseball Prospectus had them cold last year for a 72 win season. They hit the mark dead-on, but only by outperforming their expected record by 5 wins. Apparently they haven’t learned their lesson, as they’re confident about the inaccuracy of the doom-and-gloom projections once again this year. To quote the immortal Baseball Prospectus, “It’s fine to have confidence, but it’s also important to recognize when those confident words represent little more than empty promises”.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:120;" ><u><span>AL West</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim</span>: They could pretty much cruise to the division title- nobody else in the division should present much of a challenge. Do we get to see another disappointing year from the new expensive free agent center fielder for the Angels? Even better, do we get to see the immortal Gary Matthews Jr. get paid $10M to underperform in a corner outfield role? He’s a weak hitter as a CF – he’s just a black hole as a corner outfield. Good luck with all THAT. But hey, don’t worry – the Angels lost in the postseason (mostly) because of their lack of some heavy lumber in the lineup. Torii hunter will solve all that, right? Oh, and Vlad’s another year older. See you in October (?).<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Seattle Mariners</span>: Monster years out of Bedard and King Felix. After that, well, better luck next year. Seriously, they dealt their one exciting young player (Adam Jones) to get Bedard, and then we have, uh… I guess Ichiro is fun to watch – he should pick up hit number 3,000 (between Japan and MLB) this year, if you’re into that sort of thing. And there is always J.J. Putz – can he actually blow the save in the All Star Game this time? Stay tuned!<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Texas Rangers</span>: Quick, name me 10 people off the Rangers roster, GO. Now, I guess it isn’t necessarily a damning fact that I can’t name their roster, but when I look it up and still can’t figure out half of it, then it’s time to worry. I guess they have a pretty good (if overrated) middle infield combination in Young and Kinsler, and a potentially decent catcher (at least with the stick) in Saltalamacchia, and the expectation of another mediocre year from Hank Blalock, but from there, I got nothin’, folks, which may beg the question as to why I’m picking them to not finish last. Good question.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Oakland Athletics</span>: Rebuilding year in Oakland, yadda yadda yadda. The rotation is full of question marks (when does Harden make his annual trip to the DL?), as is the lineup (when does Chavez make his return from the DL?). But no worries, the return of a washed-up Keith Foulke will be the difference, making sure they finish the year in the basement.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:120;" ><u><span>NL East</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">New York Mets</span>: Man do I not want to pick them to finish first. But I just don’t see it. Their rotation was held together last year with toothpicks and Elmer’s glue, and it still took an epic collapse in the last few weeks for them not to finish first in the division. They will probably get a bit more out of Pedro this year, not to mention the massive upgrade they’ll get as the great Santana runs roughshod over the NL this year. Bad luck for Jake Peavy – the competition for the NL Cy Young award just got a lot tougher. And they still have those guys on the left side of the infield, even if Reyes is perpetually overrated.<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Philadelphia Phillies</span>: Another team I don’t want to pick to do well, but they’ll probably end up right up there with the Mets. Who plays third for the Phillies, anyway? Must feel pretty inadequate when trying to live up with Rollins, Utley, and Howard. And oh yeah, they brought in Brad Lidge, allowing them to move the wife-beater back to the rotation. Despite the negative press, Lidge has pitched very well the past few years. But that bandbox in Philly is not going to help his tendency towards the big fly.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Atlanta Braves</span>: Sooner or later, they’ll make it back. But will it be on Bobby Cox’s watch? It won’t be the same watching the Braves without his trademark bench rocking, or the ever-present possibility of an ejection. But not to worry, they could always promote <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kf9E1zhnFec">this guy</a>, and the entertainment factor wouldn’t be affected in the least. What did you expect, some comments about the players? I’ll leave that to John. But hey, was that a Mike Hampton sighting in spring training this year?<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Florida Marlins</span>: Another year, another MVP award stolen from Hanley Ramirez. I guess you could argue for David Wright, especially if you factor in defense, but how does Hanley keep getting ignored? Anyway, so the Marlins traded away their entire non-Hanely offense, so things could get ugly in South Florida this year. The Marlins seem to have an inexhaustible supply of young pitching, but they can’t seem to keep any of them on the field. But, if things keep to the typical schedule, they’re due for another WS title in 2009, so they better get cracking.<br /><br />5. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Washington Nationals</span>: Do I spy a controversy at first base? In one corner, Dmitri “The Meat Hook” Young, in the other, Nick “Giant” Johnson. It’s a nice problem to have, but beyond that, they’ve got Ryan Zimmerman, the perpetual question of whether Wily Mo Peña finally figures “it” out, and not much else. I guess they probably have some pitchers too. Oh, and they apparently have a <a href="http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/was/ballpark/virtual_tour.jsp">totally sweet new home park</a>.<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:120;" ><u><span>NL Central</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Milwaukee Brewers</span>: Man, do I really have to say anything about the NL Central and West? I do? OK fine. I’ll be honest, I flipped a mental coin between the Brew crew and Cubs, and it came up in favor of beer. There are a bunch of young players to be excited about in Milwaukee (Prince Fielder, Ryan Braun, Yvonni Gallardo), but with Prince Fielder not expected to age well (to put it charitably), the window for this team isn’t particularly wide. I guess I’m allowed a cliché or two, so I’ll just say that the future is now for this team, particularly if they get more than the expected 80-100 innings out of Ben Sheets.<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Chicago Cubs</span>: I guess that Soriano signing wasn’t a complete bust after all. Check back in 6 years and we’ll re-assess. Big Carlos Zambrano is another year older, with another year of a ridiculously heavy workload under his belt (2nd in pitcher abuse points last year, 2nd in 2006, 2nd in 2005 (just ahead of Prior), 3rd in 2004, etc.). Somehow he keeps on handling it, year after year, continually proving himself to be the anti-Wood and Prior. Is this the year his arm finally falls off? The Cubs had better hope not.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">St. Louis Cardinals</span>: I seriously considered picking them fourth, just so I could talk about the Reds sooner. When your top hitter and pitcher are both dealing with serious elbow injuries, you know that something’s rotten on the planet Wormulon. Phat Albert is apparently going to try and play with a bad elbow injury which might require surgery at some point, dropping him from the consensus top rated fantasy first baseman down to third or fourth. And Chris Carpenter is still not recovered from his elbow surgery last year. Hopefully Rick Ankiel stocked up on HGH before getting outed, because this team is going to be hurting for offense (and defense and pitching). In more positive news, La Russa has staid off the <a href="http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/even-geniuses-sometimes-forget-to-put-the-car-in-park-246200.php">stupid juice</a> so far this spring.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Cincinatti Reds</span>: Ohboyohboyohboyohboyohboy! I have been waiting for this for the whole post. So, realizing that they were going nowhere after last season, the Reds somehow thought that the best solution would be to bring in a manager who commands “instant respect”. I suppose I can’t really speak Dusty Baker’s command of respect, but I can speak to his fundamental lack of understanding about the way to win baseball games. I have a hard time respecting anybody who thinks that walks are overrated because all they do is “<a href="http://www.firejoemorgan.com/2008/02/have-you-ever-noticed-this-about.html">clog up the bases</a>” for the people who can run. He also thinks that the late 90’s Yankees were great not because they drew a lot of walks, but because they hit well – according to Dusty, <a href="http://www.cubschronicle.com/wp/posts/2004/03/10/dusty-baker-on-walks/">they didn’t win by walking across the plate, but by hitting across it</a>. This is of course neglecting the fact that those Yankees teams were famous for working the count, taking lots of pitches, and putting tons of guys on. And it’s been proven a number of times that the more guys you have on base, the more runs you score, and the more games you win. But this seemingly simple bit of baseball logic is apparently lost on Dusty, as he doesn’t like guys up there taking pitches – he wants them hacking. Did you hear that? It was the sound of Adam Dunn’s career going over a cliff. Oh, and Dusty is a great handler of young talent, particularly young pitching talent (see Prior, Mark and Wood, Kerry). Let’s see how that works out for Homer Bailey. My only regret is not living somewhere where I can see more Reds games, because the theater is going to be fantastic, coming soon to a ballpark near you.<br /><br />5. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Houston Astros</span>: OK, Biggio is finally retired. Right? Can we move on now? <span style="font-style: italic;">Wait, oh my god there he is! Get back in your hole! You don’t play here anymore! Shoo!</span> OK, sorry about that. Seriously, the Astros have essentially wasted the last few years, held hostage by the inability to cut ties with Biggio as he strung it out a year and a half too long in his attempt to reach 3,000 hits. The Astros are going nowhere this year and for the foreseeable future, as Oswalt and Berkman just get older and a little worse each year. But hey, at least they have the option of moving on now, even if they choose not to take it…<br /><br />6. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Pittsburgh Pirates</span>: I’ll be honest, when I first drew up my predictions, the numbers weren’t coming out right, and I couldn’t figure out why. And then I realized I forgot about the Pirates. How is it fair that the NL Central has six teams, and the AL West only four? If they could relocate to the AL West, they could finish in fifth rather than sixth. Don’t tell them it’s still only good enough for last place. And what ever happened to Jason Bay?<br /><br /><span style="font-weight: bold;font-size:120;" ><u><span>NL West</span></u></span><br />1. <span style="font-weight: bold;">San Diego Padres</span>: I keep picking them to win the division, and they keep disappointing. Sooner or later, you would think that their great pitching combined with their cavernous park would work to their advantage and let them win this thing. Honestly, I wouldn’t be surprised if they finished in first or in fourth (didn’t we say that last year too?). Peavy will make his annual run for the Cy Young, and Hoffman gets the chance to blow a few more big saves. On offense, the loss of Milton Bradley to a torn ACL suffered while wrestling with his own first base coach hurts. Adrian Gonzalez will likely have a good year (how’s that for analysis?), but after that the well runs pretty dry. Why am I picking them first, again? Tradition!<br /><br />2. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Arizona D’backs</span>* (WC) : They outperformed their expected record based on run differential last year by a wide margin. So you might expect them to regress this year. But they weren’t content to sit on their laurels after winning the division last year. Staying aggressive, they traded for the latest Oakland salary dump in Dan Haren. Haren’s flyball tendencies will not play well in Phoenix, but the move to the junior circuit will help. It says here that adding Haren will help offset some of the “regress to the mean” phenomenon, keeping the snakes at or near the top of the division.<br /><br />3. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Los Angeles Dodgers</span>: Despite their possession of lots of great young talent at a multitude of positions, Dodgers management is doing its best to avoid letting them play. Ned Colletti seems addicted to mediocre but expensive veteran players (Luis Gonzalez, Nomar Garciaparra, Juan Pierre), which hurts the team in a number of ways: financially, performance, and player development, as these players cost more, perform worse, and impede the progress of the younguns. The Dodgers are in a great position, but are doing their best to fold a great hand. The duo of Colletti and Torre (not exactly known for his ability to nurture young players) is in a perfect position to do so.<br /><br />4. <span style="font-weight: bold;">Colorado Rockies</span>: But they made the World Series last year! How can they finish fourth? Well, as I said above, it’s entirely possible that they finish first. I for one just don’t see it. They got a lot of unexpected contributions from young players last year (see Ubaldo Jimenez, who really had no right succeeding in the majors when he was so bad in triple A), and let’s face it, how often do you see a winning streak as improbable as that? And I’ll be honest, <a href="http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060619/zirin">religion will only get you so far</a>.<br /><br />5. <span style="font-weight: bold;">San Francisco Giants</span>: They’re old, incompetent, run by an incompetent GM, and they cut ties with their only attraction over the winter. At this writing, the original juice guy is still unsigned, but it’s abundantly clear that he is no longer welcome in left field in San Fran. He can take his nonexistent range, media circus, and still lethal bat somewhere else, thank you very much. Oh, and how is that Barry Zito contract working out? The Giants really need to blow this whole thing up and start over, but show no signs of realizing it. Better luck next year.Unknownnoreply@blogger.com1