• The Steve Phillips apology tour begins:

    The Bill Lumbergh of the baseball world, Steve Phillips, went on the Today Show with Matt Lauer this morning and apologized for his sexual indiscretions that cost him the high-profile job as part of the three-man booth on ESPN's Sunday Night Baseball telecast----EPSN Story and you can find the interview on the Today Show website. In the interview, Phillips was quoted as saying that he "wanted to take ownership" for what he did; that he was "responsible"; etc. He also pulled a Mark McGwire-type answer in that he wasn't going to talk about the past. 

    All of this is fine. With Phillips, it's hard to tell when he's being "candid Steve" or "corporate-spin Steve". Only Phillips can know whether he's really contrite; whether he's really changed; whether he's going to be able to rebuild his life and career and keep control of himself when he gets another job.

    Phillips looked remarkably uncomfortable in the interview and I don't think it was an act nor was it an attempt to get people to feel sorry for him. But it's been a recurring part of Phillips's career as he nearly blew his job as the GM of the New York Mets when he was accused of sexual harassment for involvement with a Port St. Lucie Mets employee. The Mets let Phillips have a leave of absence and then return.

    To be so self-destructive that a man who'd risen to the GM seat of a big league club would put that job in jeopardy for a fling is either an ingrained issue or unbelievable arrogance. There are only 30 of those high-profile jobs available, and while some teams hire people who are the products of a fairy tale (see DePodesta, Paul); or maintain them for reasons no one can comprehend (see Moore, Dayton), to jump off the cliff and essentially fire oneself from that job with off-the-field behaviors is indicative of a deeper problem than just horniness and opportunity. 

    To compound the mistake by doing it again is inexplicable by any logic. Phillips went into broadcasting after the Mets fired him and was great at it. He'd again risen to a position----like the GM job----that many aspire to, yet few have the ability to achieve. Sitting in the booth on Sunday Night's ESPN game of the week and taking Joe Morgan to school on a regular basis had Phillips on the verge of superstardom, and he blew it because he couldn't control himself when a woman----any woman----was in the general vicinity. 

    I can totally get someone following his heart and doing something that may seem bewildering to many to reach that higher feeling. There's no shame in falling in love with someone else. It happens. But for Phillips to blow it all for little more than an a meaningless fling and ruin his career? Again? This wasn't love; it was a man who couldn't control himself.

    Now he's gone through the program to treat his issue and is back in the public eye trying to rehabilitate his image and career. Someone will hire Phillips as a broadcaster, presumably with an iron-clad, zero-tolerance policy in his contract; and I think he should get another job. It's neither my business nor my concern if a person is conducting himself in such a way away from his job as long as: A) he's not letting it affect his work; and B) isn't doing anything socially unacceptable or deviant.

    The one question about Phillips isn't if he's going to get another job, but will he do this again? You'd think the answer is obviously no, but he's screwed up so many times, how can anyone believe that he's under control until after the fact?

• Viewer Mail 2.8.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE arbitration:

I heard Sean Casey tell his arbitration story and according to the Mayor, it's a very brutal process. He came out very hurt. Of course, Casey was a good player, but not great (certainly not in the same league with Lincecum anyway) but still. He said they (the Reds) called him fat, slow, a base-clogger, etc and that it really hurt his feelings, but not as much as when they started ripping into his baseball acumen. That's what really hurt him.

Of course, that's Sean Casey. Again, not Timmeh.

And I gotta agree with you on the parity issue. I think baseball is just right having the same core of good teams, a strong mix of competitive teams and then your few scrapheap teams (Royals, Pirates) at the rear. The worst thing that could happen is that it becomes the NBA, where there are three good teams then 27 .500 and below teams. That would be awful.

    I still think the MLB Network is a waste of time. Most of the personalities are there because of nepotism and a phony persona with behind the scenes hypocrisy and stupidity; or are former players. I think people get far better stuff from me. But that's just me.

    With the arbitration hearings, I understand a guy being hurt by the proceedings, but these guys need to grow up a little. You have to realize that most big league players have been told how "special" they are; or are "different" from the time they're 12-years-old; and they get away with actions other, less prominent players wouldn't because of that perceived superiority. When they're faced with reality (and honestly, Casey was slow and a baseclogger; and his career arc is, um, dubious...) they can't take it.

    It's the same thing when a player goes someplace for money and little else and stands in front of the media with the song-and-dance about how <blank> was where he wanted to be from the start. It's business. Perhaps the proceedings would be better if the player wasn't there to begin with. That's what agents are supposedly for----to protect the player from such things; but I'd like my players to be a little more mentally tough to take a little criticism and answer back on the field rather than cry about it.

    With the parity, it's somehow sweeter when a team like the Yankees or Red Sox are bounced by a team like the Marlins. Things are fine the way they are; those calling for a salary cap are complaining because they're not smart enough to find ways to win as the Marlins and Twins do or have some Moneyball/stat-style agenda. Period.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE the salary cap:

Even with a salary cap, which would promote even more parity, there would still be organizations experiencing sustained success. Kind of like the Patriots, Colts, Eagles, etc, in the NFL. So not everyone would win between 75 and 85 games. There would still be teams that win more than 90 and lose more than 90 because they are terrible evaluators.

But I am all for some kind of cap to cut out the truly ridiculous spending.

    I'm not in favor of the supposed National Pastime limiting spending. You don't hear the Marlins complaining about their circumstances; but the Red Sox regularly do even though they're in the same stratosphere as the Yankees when it comes to paying out salaries. The money issue can be circumvented by being smart. 

    You've never answered my question of why you care so much about how much money teams spend; in fact, nobody's answered it; and don't say that it's because they filter the raised prices down to the consumer because they'd charge the same prices for food, tickets and memorabilia regardless of the team payroll. Why do you care?

• Would parity be good for the game?

    Ignoring the obvious insanity of the projections of the 2010 season that have come out so far, there is something interesting to talk about when looking at PECOTA and CHONE.

    There's a large number of teams that are expected to finish at or around the .500 mark. This could be seen as a positive aspect of revenue sharing that the playing field is relatively even despite there not being a salary cap; or it could be seen as not being in the tradition of baseball in which the survival of the fittest doesn't necessarily have to rely on money to compete and win.

    Would baseball be better with the teams so closely bunched together? On the one hand, it would be a greater gauge on the intelligence of various front offices and managers. Whereas Moneyball created the illusion that statistics were the future of the game and that "undervalued" attributes were the key to winning within a budget, there is a basis for examining how teams with lesser payrolls are able to continuously compete.

    The Marlins and the Twins for example have a way of running their organizations that has proven to be notoriously successful in comparison to both the giant market/big spenders like the Yankees, Red Sox and Mets; and also when pitted against the Moneyball advocates the A's, Padres and Blue Jays. Because they relied on their wits, scouting and stats, the Marlins and Twins have been able to compete on an annual basis. Logic says that once parity is so ingrained in the fabric of the game, those teams will still be able to put a decent team on the field. 

    But would it be as entertaining with that level playing field? 

    Isn't it more interesting when a team like the 2003 Yankees gets bounced in the World Series by the upstart Marlins? Or when the Cubs and Mets spend relentlessly to fill their holes and still wind up far behind teams that don't have the desire nor the wherewithal to spend in the same way?

    Of course when a team like the Yankees has the manpower and money to cover for their sins, they don't have to worry about a Joe Girardi gaffe being the difference between a playoff spot and third place; but if the playing field as affected by everyone being closely matched, the strategies of the men in charge would be all the more important.

    Personally, I prefer the game the way it is now. The Pirates are the Pirates not because they don't have any money, but because they're stupid. The Marlins and Twins win within a budget because of the systems they have in place; the Yankees win because they have endless cash at their disposal; they do some smart things and they treat their players right. The Red Sox use stats and scouting techniques, are aggressive and spend to cover their mistakes. The Angels have a set of core principles from which they never deviate on and off the field.

    Would the game be better if every team ended somewhere between 77-85 and 84-78 and no one could predict what was going to happen because it would always end up coming down to the last weekend of the season for everyone? I don't think so.

• The Tim Lincecum arbitration hearing:

    I mentioned former Athletics owner Charlie Finley the other day and whenever I think of the arbitration process, I think of him. There was an HBO special about the Athletics and Raiders of the 1970s and the A's players that spoke always had great stories about the way Finley went through the arbitration process. 

    Paraphrasing from memory, Finley would rip into Reggie Jackson saying things like: "We played in 162 games last year, and he was only in 159 of them; there were three days where we didn't have someone of his caliber." Or: "Yeah, he hit 36 homers last year; and yeah, he drove in 109; but he's a superstar. He's supposed to hit 30; and he's supposed to drive in 100. So, in reality, he only hit 6; and he only drove in 9. I just don't know what to do..."

    With Sal Bando, Finley would say: "Balls go by him on the left; balls go by him on the right; balls go through his legs...." and Bando said his wife had to grab hold of him to keep him from leaping across the table to get his hands around Finley's throat.

    It's with this in mind that I'm wondering what the Giants are going to say about Tim Lincecum to prevent the arbiter from awarding him the $13 million that the twice-running NL Cy Young Award winner is asking for. The Giants have countered with $8 million.

    That's a big gap.

    The Giants are undoubtedly going to mention his arrest for carrying pot, but that's not going to be a big issue. I'm wondering if the Giants are going to break out statistics to wonder whether Lincecum is going to be able to keep up his level of work in 2010 and beyond; if they're going to bring up his quirky exercise regimen and diminutive stature as a reason that he's not worth the money; and if this is going to affect the negotiations for a long-term deal in the future.

    One of the criticisms of arbitration is that it pits the player against the team in an adversarial atmosphere that can linger no matter who wins. Finley didn't care about that when he went into the hearing room; but one has to believe that the Giants won't want to go too far in criticizing one of the best pitchers in baseball. Both sides would be better off coming to an agreement before it gets too vicious to repair.

• Viewer Mail 2.7.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Jarrod Washburn and Johnny Damon:

Washburn said he might retire? Didn't Damon say the same thing before he started campaigning to be a Tiger?

    I think the big difference is that Damon can still play; he can still help someone. With Washburn, his stuff isn't there and if he did sign with someone, it would have to be short-term and inexpensive as a back-of-the-rotation starter. Damon is going to have to take a short-term/short-money deal because he's not going to get a multi-year contract; nor is he going to get a Roger Clemens-style deal to return at mid-season. Those days are over.

    Interestingly, both are represented by Scott Boras. I'm wondering what Boras can be saying to Washburn to assuage his aggravation over sitting out this long with much of anything coming his way. 

• Jarrod Washburn may retire:

    Yeah?

    So?

    As if it's a veiled threat or something, there's word that if Jarrod Washburn doesn't get a lucrative enough deal (or a deal) to join the Mariners or Twins and be close to his Wisconsin home, he may simply retire.

    Okay.

    And?

    To me, these types of statements coming from someone like Washburn strike me as announcements for people who like listening to announcements; for people who watch the Weather Channel for its entertainment value; or Sean Hannity fans----they need some background noise and it makes no difference what the noise is or what it's really saying.

    Washburn, who's lucky to even received the job offers he has considering how atrocious he was after being traded to the Tigers, wasn't that good before the trade; he's a journeyman who, for some unfathomable reason, attracted great interest in the past couple of years from teams that you'd think would know better (the Yankees for example). 

    Aside from brief spurts in 2008 and 2009 that made his numbers look somewhat respectable for the Mariners, he's been eminently hiitable; relentlessly below mediocrity. To be even more blunt about it, you'd do just as well piecing together his rotation spot with other journeyman and a decent Triple A pitcher. 

    Washburn's uninterested in pitching for the Mets? Who wanted him for the Mets to begin with? The Mets sure didn't. 

    The entire episode of "I may just retire" strikes me as an attempt to garner attention from a player that deserves no attention other than in an emergency or if said team is getting him for nothing.

    Did he want a farewell tour?

    Here's a farewell: Lotsa luck.

    There.

• Twins sign Orlando Hudson to a 1-year, $5 million contract:

    Orlando Hudson; Orlando Cabrera; Washburn and a couple of other remaining free agents are prime examples of what would've happened had Charlie Finley's brilliant idea been taken as something other than the rantings of a lunatic and implemented.

    Right before the free agency floodgates opened, Finley floated the suggestion to make every player in baseball a free agent at the end of every year.

    The other, less ruthless and cheap owners scoffed at the thought. What would the fans of the Orioles for example have thought of the possibility of losing Jim Palmer after one of his Cy Young Award years if George Steinbrenner offered him a bank truck? But Finley's idea would've flooded the market, forced players to take lesser offers to get their deals done early; or sat out and waited hoping to get lucky by January or February----as players are doing now.

    Of course the Palmer/Tom Seaver/Reggie Jackson-level stars would've gotten paid; but the lower echelon player who had use----the Sal Bando-type----would've been in the exact same situation that is now an annual rite of passage for Orlando Hudson.

    Instead of getting the 3-4 year deal Hudson would've gotten in the past, he's sat out until late in the winter and taken what he could get after sifting through middling offers from a couple of teams. This is what would've happened to a large chunk of players if there was no such thing as a long-term contract. It's only now that the owners are realizing----due to the economy and not any increased intelligence on their own----that if they hold their fire and don't panic, they can fill their holes just as effectively with the medium range player at a far lesser price than if they jump into free agency with both feet.

• More computerized projections:

    Here's CHONE's projections for the coming season----link.

    I do suppose anything's possible and as long as they're not altered every other day as PECOTA has taken to doing, then whatever regarding pre-season predictions. But if you check the link, you see that they have five teams going 81-81. Five. That's not that much different from having ten teams go 81-81; or fifteen teams go 81-81. Now that would be parity. 

    Nor do I understand how a team like the Indians, who won 67 games last year and this winter have signed Mike Redmond and no one else, can rise to 81 wins.

    And the White Sox? Under .500?  With that pitching staff?

    Obviously any prediction can technically be accurate, but when the computers and whatever else they use to come to the various formulations spit the final result, doesn't anyone think that it might be a little weird to have five teams break even? Think about it with a little realism rather than numbers; then answer the question.

• Viewer Mail 2.6.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Chien-Ming Wang:

I wonder if the Dodgers will sign Wang once he's cleared to pitch. Torre always liked him.

    The Dodgers have been so frozen in place because of the McCourt divorce that they've done next to nothing. I'm sure Torre would love to have Wang and probably two of the other starting pitchers who sat on the market for ages, but they're sitting around in limbo. Whether they'll offer a lucrative enough deal for Wang is the question and at this point, I'd say they won't.

John Seal writes two comments RE the Athletics and PECOTA:

Holy moly! The A's are now back in a two-way tie for second place in the PECOTA standings! DON'T CALL IT A COMEBACK!

Yeah, two comments in one day, sorry...but I caught an editing mistake in your Hot Stove Losers column. You wrote that the A's were 'going to take advantage of the market by focusing on defense', but mistakenly typed 'Jack Cust' instead of 'Coco Crisp'. Then you wrote that 'they needed run-producing bats' and mistakenly typed 'Coco Crisp' in place of 'Jack Cust' (plus I think you also hit delete after typing 'Kevin Kouzmanoff'). Maybe hire a proof reader to catch these things before they go live...I'm available at competitive rates!

    PECOTA's mid-winter pennant race is getting so exciting that we may need a computerized pennant race show to keep track of all the computerized fluctuations. I can't even picture the anarchy going on in the zombie hives.

    Dunno what's liable to happen in the event of a blackout. Would that be the 1994 for the stat zombie? 

    Sorry about the perceived mistakes, John; but as you know, my final word stays as is once I press "PUBLISH". Billy Beane's genius mind may work too fast for my hands to keep up.

    We missed out last week on another level. I was ready to unleash if the A's had held onto Willy Taveras; think how great the A's defense would be if he used his innovative mind to stick Taveras in right center and Crisp in left center. The only balls that would be uncaught would be the ones flying over the fence; but they traded for him just to dump him. GENIUS!!!!!

• In some cases, there's an excuse:

    And said excuse is a natural amount of stupidity that cannot be quantified (see the Pirates of Pittsburgh or shall we call them the Pirates of Penzance? The Pittsburgh Pirates are more of a comic opera if you ask me.)

    Apart from that, the number of teams that had bad/bewildering winters is long and remarkably entertaining. 

    Let's take a look:

Detroit Tigers

    They dumped the salary of Curtis Granderson because after three years of diminishing returns on his overpaid roster, owner Mike Ilich closed the vault and they had little else to bargain with; no one's taking the contracts of Dontrelle Willis, Magglio Ordonez, Jeremy Bonderman, Carlos Guillen or Nate Robertson.

    They dealt Edwin Jackson in that same deal after he pitched brilliantly for them over the first half and ran out of gas due to overwork; the main player they got in return from the Diamondbacks----Max Scherzer----won't be as good as Jackson; and they acquired lefty Daniel Schlereth, in whom I'm not impressed. The key to that entire trade for the Tigers will be the development of center fielder Austin Jackson, who they got from the Yankees.

    Despite their claims to the contrary, this wasn't a winter of replenishing a depleted farm system; it was a winter of dumping as much money as they could because of remaining bad contracts.

Cleveland Indians

    Their big move this winter was signing veteran backup catcher Mike Redmond.

    Yah.

Kansas City Royals

    Collecting journeyman outfielders is always a good idea, especially when the outfield is probably one of the few areas where the Royals didn't need much help (at least in comparison to their other trouble-spots).

    Rick Ankiel? Scott Podsednik? 

    For what?

    Ankiel is feast or famine and can't catch up to a really good fastball; Podsednik is useful for a contending club, but not as an everyday player and definitely not in center field; they've been said to be willing to deal David DeJesus.

    Why? I dunno.

    They signed Jason Kendall to be their everyday catcher which will only hinder their weak offense even more.

    Where's the bullpen help they desperately needed?

    This organization is a nightmare and the moves they made are befitting an expansion team, except an expansion team has an excuse----they're an expansion team!

    What's the Royals' excuse apart from being the Royals?

    Actually, that might be enough of an excuse. Never mind.

Texas Rangers

    The trade of Kevin Millwood brought back the talented, but recovering from injury reliever Chris Ray. They signed Rich Harden who's always hurt; and Vladimir Guerrero, who can still hit, but isn't the wrecking crew he once was. The Rangers had better hope their young pitching is ready or else they're going to fall back from their 87-win 2009.

Oakland Athletics

    Let's see if I understand this correctly. They're going to take advantage of the market by focusing on defense...and they kept Jack Cust. 

    They needed run-producing bats...and they signed Coco Crisp and pursued Marco Scutaro.

    They needed a veteran anchor for the starting rotation who could gobble innings and stay healthy...and they spent $10 million on Ben Sheets. 

    If this is the endgame of Billy Beane's Moneyball-crafted genius, maybe I don't want to be called a genius after all.

Philadelphia Phillies

    Arrogance breeds stupidity. 

    The Roy Halladay for Cliff Lee swap was a lateral/backwards move. 

    They needed bullpen help and signed Jose Contreras. They needed rotation help and didn't get it. They were in the market for a third baseman and signed Placido Polanco and shifted him from second base. They exercised Jimmy Rollins's contract option for no reason other than they didn't want to hear his mouth, which they're going to hear anyway. Lucrative contract extensions were doled on Carlos Ruiz and Shane Victorino and they've gutted the farm system. 

    The only positive thing they did to improve the club this winter was to sign Ross Gload; aside from that, the winter of 2009-2010 will be seen as having sown the seeds of the Phillies downfall. 

Atlanta Braves

    All they needed to become legitimate World Series contenders was a power bat for left field or first base. That's it. 

    Instead, they traded Javier Vazquez----who had value----for Melky Cabrera.

    They let Adam LaRoche----who never wanted to leave Atlanta either time he was jettisoned, first by trade to the Pirates, and now by indifference and/or apathy----sign with the Diamondbacks for one year and $7 million; and they rolled the dice on the oft-injured Troy Glaus to play first base.

    In the span of two days, they went from a National League favorite to a team with many positive attributes and drastic holes. Nice work.

Chicago Cubs

    They're sticking their fingers in the dam as other leaks spring and it's going to burst sooner rather than later.

    They got Milton Bradley off the team, but had to take Carlos Silva from the Mariners to do it. Signing Marlon Byrd and are trying to pass that off as a major improvement is the height of fantasy; and they brought in the returning from injury Xavier Nady. Their contract situations are still a mess; they're old and fading and a major collapse is possible.

    All they did this winter was make things worse in the long-and-short-term.

Milwaukee Brewers

    Doug Davis is a solid enough pickup for the back of the rotation on a short-term deal; but $30 million for Randy Wolf?

    Trading J.J. Hardy for Carlos Gomez was a salary dump and they've done little to make themselves more than an 81-81 team at best.

Cincinnati Reds

    Getting Orlando Cabrera on a one-year deal was a good move, but they needed a power bat for the outfield and didn't get it. No one appears to know exactly what the Reds are----specifically the Reds. 

    Are they trying to clear the high-priced pitchers Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo and Francisco Cordero? Are they trying to contend in a moderately weak division? Going back to mid-season 2009 when they traded for Scott Rolen, their decisions were curious if not odd.

    They traded for Aaron Miles. Yay.

    The one big win could (and I think will) be the signing of Cuban free agent Aroldis Chapman, but it's hard to see him helping them this year.

Houston Astros

    A three-year contract for Brandon Lyon? I'm curious, what good is a closer (especially one who can't close) on a team that won't have all that many games to close to begin with? It's like the tree falling in the woods...

    The trade for Matt Lindstrom was a good move; but they needed rotation help more than relief pitching and all they did was sign Brett Myers.

    They need to do a housecleaning, starting with GM Ed Wade.

Pittsburgh Pirates

    The Pirates, being the Pirates, do things that defy logic even to a lunatic. 

    Non-tendering Matt Capps was ridiculous; they could've traded him for something, anything. They have someone who should receive an opportunity to close in Joel Hanrahan...and signed Octavio Dotel. They overpaid for Brendan Donnelly; signed Ryan Church and traded for Akinori Iwamura.

    To quote Bill Lumbergh, "Grrrreaaaaattttt."

Los Angeles Dodgers

    Frozen in place because of the divorce proceedings of the McCourts, the Dodgers haven't done much of anything. They kept Vicente Padilla; signed Jamey Carroll and Reed Johnson. Big deal.

    They needed help for their rotation and didn't get it and I'm still waiting for an answer (aside from convenience of comedy and piling on) as to why the Mets have been such a target for ridicule and the Dodgers----whose off-season has in fact been worse----haven't received similar abuse.

Colorado Rockies

    Does Huston Street warrant being called a closer if, more often than not, he's closing the game for the opposing team? 

    Street was signed to a lucrative contract extension for 3-years and $22.5 million. Bad idea.

    They needed starting pitching and haven't gotten it. Hoping Jeff Francis is healthy is about all they have to hang their hats on.

San Diego Padres

    The Padres are collecting Hairstons. 

    We won't be able to get a gauge on new GM Jed Hoyer until he actually does something. He's been rightfully stringent in his demands for Adrian Gonzalez in a trade. Jon Garland's signing is a non-entity for a team that's going to lose 95 games.

• Viewer Mail 2.5.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE Tim Lincecum:

Hope you can squeeze in your thoughts on the Lincecum arbitration situation too next post.

The debate is running wild...

    I'll get to Timmeh in the coming days. The Prince is somewhat fried for a multitude of reasons...

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Drywall guy:

How to Hang Drywall is a pretty funny name for a blog.

    But it strangely serves its purpose. You have to respect someone who sees a hole and exploits it like an old-school Emmitt Smith. More than we can say for PECOTA.

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Kevin Gregg:

Actually, I was in shock of learning of Gregg's possible signing. Then I went nuts with the completion of the deal. I have faith on the Jays' GM, but...it's Gregg.

That's what I get for mocking my brother's Cubs.

    At least the Blue Jays aren't signing him with the thought that he'll be able to close for a contender as the Cubs had done when they traded for him. I'm not sure of the thought-process in signing Gregg either. The Blue Jays have other options to close and it's not as if they're getting Gregg all that cheaply.

    $2.75 million?

    For Kevin Gregg?

    With my damaged elbow, I could walk people and give up game-ending homers for a quarter of the salary if that's what they're in the market for.

    I'm ready to rock. Or to be rocked. Whichever.

• Hindsight will be the determining factor:

    Certain teams have made moves this winter that could pay off big or blow up right in their faces. With viable reasons for making their decisions----on paper anyway----these teams can't be called "winners" or "losers" this off-season.

    Let's take a look at those whose moves have been considered alternatively smart in some circles and bewildering in others:

Boston Red Sox

    We'll know relatively quickly whether this newfound emphasis on defense is going to pay off for the Red Sox.

    I don't think it will, but others are under the impression that their pitching will benefit so greatly from the acquisitions of Mike Cameron and Adrian Beltre and the shifting of Jacoby Ellsbury to left field that the lack of offense will be a moot point. 

    Rather than stand behind what they've done, a large chunk of the Red Sox off-season has been spent on a smear campaign aimed at Jason Bay and by defending (pardon the pun) this defense-first agenda.

    Methinks they doth protest too much.

    There's a lot of worry in Boston that this isn't going to work. John Lackey will slide into the middle/front of the rotation and I have questions about his durability after two straight seasons that were cut short with injuries. The Angels didn't seem all that bothered to let him leave.

    This whole thing could explode by May and cause a panic in Red Sox Nation.

Toronto Blue Jays

    I was teetering on giving the Blue Jays a win for their off-season based on little more than that they finally fired GM J.P. Ricciardi.

    New GM Alex Anthopolous managed to get something of value for Roy Halladay even though he had no choice but to trade him and very easily could have ended up with nearly nothing as the Twins did in their trade of Johan Santana.

    Getting Brandon Morrow for journeyman reliever Brandon League will go down as a huge win; and they also pried top prospect Brett Wallace from the Athletics for Michael Taylor, who had a brief stopover after coming over from the Phillies in the Halladay trade. (I'd have kept Taylor myself.) They also got formerly "untouchable" Phillies pitching prospect Kyle Drabek. 

    Why the Blue Jays are on the verge of signing Kevin Gregg is beyond me.

Chicago White Sox

    GM Kenny Williams made his moves for 2010 in mid-season 2009 as he took Alex Rios off the Blue Jays hands and traded for Jake Peavy. This winter, he signed J.J. Putz to be the set-up man for Bobby Jenks; and acquired Juan Pierre from the Dodgers.

Los Angeles Angels

    They let Lackey walk without much struggle and signed Joel Pineiro to replace him in the rotation, something I see as an upgrade. I appear to be in the minority in this belief.

    The Angels got Gary Matthews Jr. off the club and are paying his salary to do it; they smartly didn't overpay to keep Chone Figgins. Signing Fernando Rodney shores up the bullpen and they let the fading Vladimir Guerrero leave. The Angels winter could well come down to whether Brandon Wood can handle third base and put up something close to the power numbers he did in the minors.

Florida Marlins

    It was a different off-season for the Marlins than usual as they didn't dump any of their larger salaried players for a chunk of another club's farm system. In years past, not only would Dan Uggla have been moved, but so too would Cody Ross, Jorge Cantu and possibly even Josh Johnson. Now, it appears that all will be returning.

    I'm not sure if this is a positive.

    The Marlins had a habit of giving hungry youngsters a chance to play and reloading by trading their veterans----and it's worked. Because of baseball's insistence that the Marlins spend some of their revenue sharing money on players rather than pocketing it, they locked Johnson up and are keeping their other players for now. I'd prefer business as usual for the Marlins for the simple reason that it's worked.

New York Mets

    Everyone's winter whipping post/punching bag has been ridiculed endlessly for their seeming ineptitude. But was the winter that terrible for the Mets if you ignore the convenience of attacking them? They signed Jason Bay to bolster the lineup at a price close to what was their initial offer; and they refused to get into a bidding war for mediocrity in the starting rotation.

    They never had a shot at John Lackey; didn't want to overpay for Joel Pineiro and after those two, the dropoff/risk in starting pitching made it senseless to be aggressive. Were they supposed to surpass the Athletics guarantee of $10 million for the oft-injured Ben Sheets? No one wants Erik Bedard or Jarrod Washburn; and is Jon Garland an upgrade over what the Mets already have if John Maine is healthy and Oliver Perez can find the plate? 

    If healthy, Kelvim Escobar could be a big sleeper addition to the bullpen.

Washington Nationals

    The Nationals have done a lot of "stuff", but it remains to be seen whether that "stuff" will be seen as making a difference one way or the other. Jason Marquis? Miguel Batista? Brian Bruney? Matt Capps? For the Nationals?

    People are expecting a drastic improvement, but is it hard to improve on 103 losses? They look like an expansion team that made some noise in the winter and might improve by 10-12 games. You know what that means for a team that lost 100 games the previous year?

    They've refurbished their ramshackle dwelling----but it's still ramshackle.

San Francisco Giants

    The Giants still have the starting pitching that carried them to 88 wins last season; they've improved the offense (it wouldn't have been that hard to do) by signing Mark DeRosa and Aubrey Huff; and brought back Bengie Molina because Buster Posey isn't ready defensively.

    If they get something close to the pitching they had in 2009, their offense should be improved enough to win 3-5 more games; and in the NL West, that could be enough for a playoff spot. The Giants are more than the sum of their statistical parts.

    Tomorrow, the Hot Stove losers.

• The Blue Jays need Kevin Gregg why?

    Unless they're signing him with the intention of trading him for something at mid-season (and I don't know who'd want him), what are the Blue Jays going to do with Kevin Gregg?

    The Blue Jays have a load of young arms for their starting rotation and presumably, several of those that don't make it as a part of the fivesome can be shifted to the bullpen as a way of getting them acclimated to the big leagues. Such a move could be useful as they work to reconstruct Brandon Morrow, who I've always seen as a long term starter. (I'd give Morrow every chance to make the rotation.) 

    With Jason Frasor, Josh Roenicke and Jeremy Accardo out there, what are they going  to do with Gregg? They wouldn't really need Gregg if Gregg was actually any good! He's not good. He gives up too many homers (13 last season); and he's wild. The Blue Jays need to let their young pitchers pitch as they retool. Gregg hinders that and is a waste of time and money.

• Viewer Mail 2.4.2010:

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Chicken PECOTA:

Chicken Pecota! Why not? Some mushrooms, wine, lemon butter....and a whole lot of crow.

    There are plenty of crows in my neighborhood too. Maybe I need to do a little hunting.

Anonymous writes: Hey. I don't normally leave comments, but I just wanted to say thanks for the great information. I have a blog too, though
I don't write as good as you do, but if you want to check it out here it is. Thanks again and have a great day!

How To Hang Drywall

    A) At least Anonymous knows his place in recognizing the fact that he doesn't write as "good" as I do; and B) the difference between Anonymous's link and PECOTA is that someone might actually find some use in the instructions of how to hang drywall.

• Fate helps those who help themselves:

    Things have ground to a halt in the free agent market and there's not much left out there to begin with and since I have no interest in spending precious words discussing how terrible Kevin Gregg is, it's time for the assessment of the Hot Stove winners for 2009-2010. The incompletes/non winners or losers will be discussed tomorrow; the losers on Friday----unless something monumental happens.

    Monumental.

    Here are the winners in no particular order:

New York Yankees

    Even though they parted ways with the World Series MVP Hideki Matsui and let Johnny Damon walk, they acquired Curtis Granderson and Javier Vazquez for almost nothing; and signed Nick Johnson at a bargain rate. The Yankees didn't need much to maintain their position, but they filled all of their needs smartly and inexpensively. 

Baltimore Orioles

    The Orioles got Kevin Millwood for nothing to front the rotation and mentor their impressive load of young pitching; signed veteran bats Miguel Tejada and Garrett Atkins to short-term deals; and shored up the bullpen with Mike Gonzalez. The Orioles could legitimately loiter around .500 with a little luck and maturation from their young pitching. 

Minnesota Twins

    They acquired a power bat at shortstop in J.J. Hardy for the immature Carlos Gomez; they signed Jim Thome for a very low salary and Thome can still hit; and most importantly, they're clearing the one major issue they had as they enter their new ballpark, Target Field----Joe Mauer's contract. 

    I repeatedly said that Mauer was going nowhere; he was never going to leave the Twins and the Twins wouldn't let him leave. Still there were people who thought the Red Sox, Yankees or whomever had a shot at Mauer. Now he's closing in on a contract extension to stay. He was not leaving. Ever. 

 Seattle Mariners

    I'm still not as prepared as others are to call GM Jack Zduriencik a "genius" (we've seen it before with Billy Beane----how's that going?) but he is clearly smart and gutsy.

    I was iffy on the signing of Chone Figgins to a $36 million contract; they shouldn't have brought Ken Griffey Jr back since it was done on sentiment rather than anything baseball-related; but all of the off-season questions were rendered meaningless when Cliff Lee fell into the Mariners lap thanks to the Phillies stupidity. They also agreed to a long-term extension with Felix Hernandez to lock him up.

St. Louis Cardinals

    They kept manager Tony La Russa, which was imperative; and retained Matt Holliday, which was their main off-season player priority not just to protect Albert Pujols in the lineup, but to send the message that they were trying to win. Pujols's contract is up after 2011 and they have to prepare to pay to keep him even if he's willing to give a hometown discount, which he undoubtedly will. They lost Joel Pineiro, but Brad Penny can slide into the rotation neatly if he's healthy.

Arizona Diamondbacks

    Many disliked the trade they made sending a load of young pitching away for Edwin Jackson and Ian Kennedy. Everyone knows by now how unimpressed I am with Kennedy, but I think Jackson looked fantastic last season with the Tigers (he had a Dave Stewart-thing going on) before early season overwork sapped his stamina late in the season. He could be a big winner in Arizona and I wasn't all that thrilled with the pitchers they dealt away to get Jackson. Max Scherzer should be a closer and Daniel Schlereth didn't do it for me. The Diamondbacks also signed Adam LaRoche to a very team-friendly, 1-year, $7 million deal. 

• Viewer Mail 2.3.2010:

Isaac at A Baseball Thing writes RE stat zombies:

Well, maybe I haven't looked on the right places, but I dont recall ever reading at stat sites like Fangraphs any admission of being wrong, and I have seen that here multiple times, so Onix really needs to get his facts straight.

    Not to worry. I think he's still looking for his testicles after Beeeebzy got done with him. Then I kicked them across the room for good measure. 

    You've never seen them admit that they're wrong for a simple reason----they don't admit they're wrong. Some people see it as a sign of weakness if they acknowledge a mistake or inaccuracy when it is, in fact, the opposite. It wasn't the fault of the computer projections or their faulty theories, it was that the players didn't live up to their part of the bargain; it makes perfect sense. 

John Seal writes RE PECOTA:

Watching the PECOTA projections is almost as much fun as the baseball season itself. A few days ago, my A's were winning the West...now they've slumped to third. They just need to put together a good 7 or 8 game winning streak, and they can be on top again!

    I didn't realize that their "objective reality" is as much of a floating bit of random chaos as it is for non-stat zombies.

    You may be onto something, John. They've slipped up more than they know. We're discovering their endgame. I think they'd prefer to have a season without said season actually being played. That would complete the journey from a languid baseball game on a warm spring day in the sunshine to what they want it to be. Rather than an enjoyable diversion, it would be spent in a dank basement surrounded by people that look like like Nate Silver. Personally, I'd rather look at girls; but that's just me.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE J.J. Putz and the stat zombies:

Ya know, Putz looks like the type of guy who'd stab me in the back. I'm not surprised by his comments at all -- true or false.

As for the FoxNews/StatZombie retort... I think the line about Halladay sums it up nicely. Now, if you will excuse me, much maniacal cackling is required.

    For all we know he's telling the truth about the non-physical and the elbow pain, but if I had to guess, I'd say Putz told the Mets he was okay to pitch; and if he wasn't, that's on him. 

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE Putz:

I'm sorry about my absence, Boss.

The comments made by Putz remind me of a situation here in the Mexican Football League. Some guy by the name of Carmona was caught doping while he was playing on the National team, got suspended, then caught again in a local major league team. He was suspended for life, and now he sued the Mexican Football Federation, threatening to talk about all the dirt inside the national team. I believe Putz it's just angry at the Mets because he does not have a big contract to close, and it's February already.

    No need to apologize. It was handled.

    Every team has these dirty little secrets lingering around. The main difference is that the Mets have become such a running joke that: A) reporters are sniffing around for more stuff to use to hammer them; and B) February is generally a slow news cycle in baseball, so they have to find things about which to write because they haven't the talent, imagination or work ethic to come up with something original. (See Olney, Buster.)

    Can't think of anything for a column? Let's attack the Mets. It's gone from accurate questioning about the team's protocol; to cheap shots. Now it's ludicrous.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Sarah Palin:

The other day a guy called me the Sarah Palin of bloggers because my posts were so clueless. I was going to take it as an insult, but maybe he meant I should run for President. Hmm.

    The only way you'd be on a level with Sarah Palin is if you got a full lobotomy.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE PECOTA:

Paul,

Pecota beat you. It wouldn't be such a big deal if you didn't thrash it every chance you get. But when you are defeated, you instead attack "stat zombies" rather than admit that you were wrong. You made a few good predictions, it made a few good predictions. It won in the end.

And sure, It didn't know that Halladay might asked to be traded. But that isn't what it is trying to do. You think anyone solely uses Pecota? Anywhere? They would be so far behind if they relied on nothing else but a computer projection system. And to rely on only one? That would be even dumber.

    I'm not sure what's more disturbing Joe, that you sat there and calculated the numbers of who was "right" and "wrong" and who "beat" whom; or that you've been reading me for this long and still don't get it.

    For someone who tries so desperately to go beneath the surface (dismissing wins/losses; batting average; etc), you use the baseline result when it conveniences you. Counting up the accuracy or inaccuracy of a random prediction like the number of wins a team is going to have at the end of a long season is the same thing as saying that a pitcher who won 18 games is automatically a top pitcher without examining how he got those wins.

    Did PECOTA "beat" me with their win totals? Probably. Did they actually "beat" me? You tell me. I had four playoff teams right; they had three. I had teams doing well which PECOTA had at the bottom of their respective divisions; I nailed the Rays because what happened to them was impossible to quantify when looking at the numerical factors. If you take the full predictions in the context I intended them, then I "won".

    As loathe as you are to admit it, there are people who rely on the insipid PECOTA projections as their lifeblood because turning their back on the faulty system would send their entire lives into disarray as they might actually have to do some thinking and analysis.

    Plugging numbers into a computer program is easy; it takes no work other than typing; but is it right? It takes an analytical mind and some true knowledge about people and the game to do that and this is something the hardest of the hard core stat zombies haven't the capacity for. They're going down with the ship; they have no alternative. 

•  A recipe idea:

    I'm thinking of formulating a recipe called "CHICKEN PECOTA".

    It'll require rotting chicken; it'll be tough as shoe leather and taste like furniture polish; but a substantial number of tasters will insist that it's the best dish they've ever had because of computerized projection systems tell their tastebuds so. It's win-win.  

• J.J. Putz unloads on the Mets:

    Former Mets reliever J.J. Putz went off on a rant against his former club in an interview with a Chicago website----NY Times Story----in which he called the entire season a "mess from the very beginning" and claimed to have never even had a physical before the trade was completed. He also says that the Mets convinced him to pitch through the pain of a bone spur in his elbow.

    There are several levels to consider with this newest attack on the Mets. 

    If Putz didn't require surgery following the 2008 season, the injury couldn't have been that severe; but if he indeed went to the club with discomfort and the allusion by Putz is accurate, then there's no defense for that. In fact, it's inexplicable. 

    According to the linked article, players generally don't have physicals before trades are completed and even if Putz had taken a physical afterwards, what difference would it have made? The trade was completed; and if he said he was able to pitch through the bone spurs, then what was the club supposed to do? He was cleared to pitch in the World Baseball Classic, so one would have to assume he was healthy enough to pitch.

    The Mets truly need to take a look at their injury/medical protocol and reconsider how things are done. My question is why were there never these repeated allegations of cluelessness in 2006-2008 when the club was in contention and was one of the healthier rosters in baseball? But even with that, there's no way of defending the Mets if things were truly as disconnected as Putz says and it must be addressed.

    As for Putz, he was never happy as a Met from minute one. Had the club contended, stayed healthy and he was able to do the job he was acquired to do, it all would've been fine; but Putz wanted to close. All he did was whine privately about how he couldn't get the same buzz as a set-up man that he did as a closer. This would've been fine had he not been receiving and collecting his paycheck to do a job. If he was so badly injured that his bone spur was diminishing his velocity and control, how effective would he have been as a closer with that "buzz"? 

    Regardless of the contretemps with the club continuing like a hailstorm and the lukewarm defenses the Mets are providing for this latest media dissection of their operation, they had to perform their due diligence in acquiring a pitcher with a known medical issue, and they didn't.

    One question I have is why so many people are still ravaging the club for taking a more cautious approach toward players of questionable health after what happened last year? Did anyone really want them to outbid the Athletics for Ben Sheets with his injury rap sheet? Or make a move on Erik Bedard, who no one else wants either? Or Chien-Ming Wang, who's a worthwhile risk, but may not be ready to pitch in the majors until June? 

    What do they want? It's either/or. Roll the dice on an injured player and hope he's healthy; or play it safe, bide their time and see what happens as the season moves along. It's open season and there are few stories to write about. Nothing to write about? Let's dig for some more stuff on the Mets. 

• Viewer Mail 2.2.2010:

Onix writes RE PECOTA/Projection Systems and me:

2009 projections report:

PECOTA - avg. difference of 6 wins per team, 6 of 30 predictions off by 10+ wins

Prince - avg. difference of 8 wins per team, 12 of 30 predictions off by 10+ wins

Do you really want to hammer on PECOTA for its lack of accuracy?


I enjoy this site. It's like FoxNews of baseball sites. You keep harping on the one thing you get right (Marlins) and ignoring the many many many things you do not.

    I was prepared to fire back myself, but my troops beat me to the punch. Here they come. Duck.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes:

The Fox News of blogs. Hmm. I was going to say something about Ian Kennedy, but I need to ponder Onix's comment first.

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes:

Doesn't PECOTA harp on their big win too (the 2008 Rays)?

If this site is like Fox News then can I be Sarah Palin? In my rendition, she will not only be attractive, but SMART too!

Beeeebzy at Pretty In Pinstripes writes: 

This Onix fella's a friggin' GENIUS. Using Stat Zombieism to counter an attack on Stat Zombies? Genius. It's like fighting fire with a TI-83 graphic calculator.
His argument blew my mind.

And comparing this site to Fox News? Genius. I bow down to him because I am not worthy. I guess that's why he felt the freedom to share his statistical expertise on this site. Since he likens it to Fox News:

"The Special Olympics is to winners as FOX News is to experts. If you show up, you are one." - Jon Stewart

Onix showed up, therefore he is an expert.

How dare you question his number-crunching skills? You infidels!
So what if the only wood he's handled in relation to baseball is the pencil he uses to punch in numbers on his calculator. SO WHAT? Does that make him less knowledgeable about the sport than those who have had years of experience playing it? NO! Logically, according to an algorithm created by Baseball Prospectus, never having played baseball makes you more knowledgeable than former baseball players by a ratio of Infinity to 1.

While you all are busy following baseball games and gaining a deeper understanding of the nature of the sport, he's in a basement somewhere figuring out the 756208525072057th digit of Pi. So how dare you question his baseball knowledge?

We should all thank God for baseball experts like Onix. Without them, we wouldn't have ESPN.

Having said all of that, I doubt that Onix will appreciate the admiration for his analysis in my comment because, sadly, sarcasm is wasted on the stupid.

    I think the message is becoming clearer that if you wanna get at me, you're gonna have to climb over a lot of people. 

    I am, of course, duty bound to retort as well. 

    The Fox News of blogs?

    Since Fox News is essentially an infomerical for the radical right of the Republican Party and I'm an entity unto myself (or a natural disaster, whichever you prefer), it's barely worthy of effort to answer such an absurd allegation. If nothing else, the fact that so many people are still under the impression that I'm a Yankee fan should be a clear testimony to my objectivity; that I've defended people for whom I have little affinity the likes of Keith Law and Rob Neyer; and that I do use statistics in coming to my own conclusions.

    Since Onix is such an avid fan of my work, one would think they he'd know that I spent a week in November on a series called "20/20 Hindsight"----here's an example----looking back on the entirety of my predictions with more in mind than simply "right" or "wrong" when it came to the club's records. Is that in the Stalin-style that is a hallmark of Fox News?

    If anything exemplified that which is Fox News, it was during Election Night coverage in 2008 when Karl Rove was still trying to twist his numbers to find a path for John McCain to win and looked crestfallen and bewildered as if he'd just been rejected for a date by a blow up doll when Brit Hume interrupted Rove's mathematical creativity by informing him that Barack Obama had just been called as the winner in Ohio, essentially ending the story.

    Rove reverted to that friendless high school loser who parlayed his alienation and inability to connect with other human beings into a lucrative and powerful career manipulating people regardless of truth or convictions. His gaping mouth, flopping comb-over and head recoiling into his neck in humiliation was reminiscent of a turtle who was searching for a place to hide. 

    Keen student of my work that you are, have I ever backtracked on any prediction? Explained away a wrong conclusion by blaming someone other than myself? Offering a specious caveat to defend myself or a fellow believer of my way of thinking? Can the stat zombies say the same?

    It's also interesting to note that PECOTA changed their projections again!!!!

    Is this going to be an everyday occurrence? Without any acknowledgement of their vacillation and self-serving alterations aside from the wimpy, "well, the numbers are floating and not static"?

    Oh.

    Thanks for that.

    What you and the other stat zombies fail to realize, understand or accept is that these are human beings you're dealing with. One of the reasons that the Padres degenerated into such a train wreck as they took Moneyball to its logical conclusion; why the Dodgers were demolished under Paul DePodesta is that you have no comprehension of anything other than what pops out of your calculators; that when you send the message that the players are merely chattel to be shuttled around and dispatched as soon as one whose OBP is a shade higher; whose number of "pitches seen" is slightly higher than his predecessor, they'll be gone.

    This is just as faulty a way to build an organization as teams like the Royals who ignore statistics entirely.

    If you want to take a look at little more than the bottom line of a number of predicted wins as PECOTA does; if you want to focus on computerized projections to "prove" or "disprove" someone's accuracy, there's no way I can argue with you. It's similar to the repeated statement that I was "lucky" in my picks of the Marlins, Rays and Giants last year to win the number of games that they did and being close to right. There's no response if you haven't actually read my book. (And that's not a sales pitch----read it or don't, I don't care.) 

    Did PECOTA mention that Roy Haladay would quietly ask to be traded, for example?

    If you want analysis based on little more than what the numbers say, then you have no use for me to begin with, so it makes little sense to read what I write unless you're looking for a reason to attack me. That's fine. I'll print the comments, respond to, and debate with anyone at any time; and most likely win on my own merits rather than with some partisan-fueled, pompous, arrogant and condescending dismissal; or a simple ignoring of reality to push forth my agenda----sort of like the way Fox News does on their "news" network.  

• Will Ian Kennedy's Fortunes Change In Arizona?

    I've never been shy in repeating (ad nauseam) about how right I was in my 2008 assessment of Ian Kennedy. Not only did I say that he was nowhere near as good as the other young Yankee starters Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I said that of the three pitchers, he was most likely to either not make the club out of spring training; or make the club, get pounded and be sent back to the minors. 

    Because Kennedy was seen to be the most "polished" of the three pitchers, he was expected to have immediate success in the big leagues. While pitchers like Hughes and Chamberlain----who have far better stuff that Kennedy----occasionally need time to bridle their more evident gifts, a pitcher who has to rely on location and movement to dominate in the minors is going to use that experience to maintain his success in the majors. 

    At least that's the theory.

    The reality is that regardless of how "polished" and "poised" a pitcher is, he has to have stuff. He has to have it. And if he doesn't have it, then he's going to get punished. As did Ian Kennedy. In addition to that simple truth, Kennedy always appeared to be a tinkerer; someone who thought too much out on the mound. Thinkers tend to not be listeners; and so it was with Kennedy as things came apart in 2008 that there was always a minor mechanical tweak; a new wrinkle on a pitch; a floating reason why he wasn't dominating as he did in the minors; something that would be remedied in his next start. You need only look at his big league performance to see the end result of said hardheadedness and fiddling.

    It wasn't just Kennedy's horrific numbers that were the major problem in 2008. It was his notorious gift for delusional self-analysis that caused veteran teammates to look at him oddly as if to say, "what's wrong with this kid?" In a clubhouse with Derek Jeter and his enforcer Jorge Posada, who'd been through the wars, there had to be an air of bewilderment that Kennedy would...not....stop.

    Veteran players don't want to hear lip from rookies to begin with; but when that rookie is getting rocked all over the place and is still finding ways to somehow justify not only his performances, but his presence in the big leagues, it's only a matter of time before everything comes crashing down. The signs were there in 2007 when he had his impressive September call up; the signs that it wasn't going to be as easy for him as it looked.

    Mediocre control pitchers cannot be walking 9 hitters in 19 innings. In the minors, hitters are going to swing at pitches that are close to the strike zone; they're going to help a pitcher out; and the penchant for making a pitcher pay for making a mistake isn't as pronounced----that's why it's the minors. Any pitcher who's relying on something other than raw power in the minors and has some feel for what he's doing on the mound is going to have success. Everyone in the minors can crush a fastball; so when there's a pitcher who's got decent command of the strike zone and a serviceable breaking pitch, he's going to have success.

    It doesn't work like that in the majors.

    Kennedy rough big league experience was a symptom to the larger problem. In the majors, the hitters aren't going  to offer at pitches as a favor, especially from a rookie; they're not going to be tricked with cuteness. They're also going to hammer mistakes.

    It's a cycle. A young pitcher tries to get the close calls he got in the minors and the umpires (not immune to a little rookie initiation to send the message as to who's in charge) don't give the close calls. Once he doesn't get the close calls and starts to throw pitches that are nearer to the heart of the plate to get strike calls, and if he doesn't have the power fastball and devastating breaking ball or changeup to make a hitter miss, he gets creamed.

    Kennedy's stuff is not that good.

    No matter how many different pitches he tries to formulate; what he conjures to unlock the "secret" to success in the big leagues, it won't happen because he doesn't have the stuff. There's no escaping from that reality.

    You may ask how I know so much about this. Well, I know about this because I was the same way!

    During my unimpressive "career" in school and on the sandlots, I suffered from similar fantasies as Kennedy. I thought I was better than I was; I was always coming up with a new pitch; I was smarter than everyone else; I didn't listen; and most importantly, I had a big flapping mouth.*

*I've changed a lot, huh?  

    Would I have been better off not trying to throw an array of pitches that included a screwball, a changeup, a split-finger, a forkball, a sinker and whatever else popped into my addled mind? Of course. A fastball and a curve are more than enough to get hitters out before getting to the higher levels.

    It's sometimes enough to get hitters out in the big leagues.

    But only if he has the "stuff". And if he listens. And keeps his mouth shut.

    Kennedy doesn't have the stuff to be anything more than a back-of-the-rotation starter at best. He doesn't listen. He's too impressed with himself and his plans and schemes to fix what's really wrong on the mound and maximize his limited abilities; and he's never going to get anything done in the majors until he learns how to do as he's told and stop making excuses for why he's getting roped all over the lot.

    It may not matter though.

    Because he doesn't have the stuff.

    A pitcher can be nursed into a semblance of success, but only if he listens. Is Ian Kennedy ready to listen? Or is it going to take someone to do as I suggested in mid-2008----and I mean this----knock him around a little bit to get it through his head that he neither knows what he's talking about, nor should he be talking about it to begin with; that he isn't going to get anywhere until he starts following orders rather than re-inventing the wheel because of what worked in the minors. 

    We'll know soon enough whether Kennedy's struggles with the Yankees taught him a lesson. Pitchers and catchers report in a couple of weeks. If Kennedy comes up with another series of pithy and clever quotes of what he plans to do with the Diamondbacks, we'll know; we'll also know the end result; and it won't be good. 

• Reds sign Orlando Cabrera to a 1-year-contract:

    A 1-year contract at $3 million for a veteran player of Orlando Cabrera's resume sounds low before looking at how things have played out. Cabrera is one of those players----like Johnny Damon and Orlando Hudson----who has use, but is trapped in a purgatory of not wanting to take a giant paycut; nor switch positions to have a job. They have a certain stature in the game to be able to be somewhat inflexible and not have it appear as if they're being divas.

    It's this rock-and-a-hard-place circumstance that has Cabrera moving to his fifth organization since 2007. He's a good player, but not someone who's in heavy demand that he'll get an immediate job during free agency. He's a "chips fall" guy. Once the main names start to come off the board, teams take a second look at him; teams that might not indulge in the free agency game as avidly as others.

    That's how Cabrera wound up with the Reds.

    Does he help them?

    There's a movement afoot to anoint the Reds as possible Wild Card contenders this year. PECOTA has them (today at least) at 81-81, which normally would mean mediocrity; but if PECOTA's accurate (yah, right!!!), that would have the Reds hovering around contention for a playoff spot late into the season. 

    I don't see it.

    They have some solid enough starting pitching, but their outfield is one of baseball's worst; they're relying on the injury-prone Scott Rolen to stay healthy and repeat his comeback year from 2009; and Joey Votto's emotional problems would concern me.

    With Cabrera, the Reds are better today than they were yesterday, but that doesn't mean they're contenders, because they're not.

• Viewer Mail 2.1.2010

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE A Few Good Men and stats:

I know that you were quoting the movie. I haven't seen it in years, but I do remember the notorious first line.

Second, PECOTA is a tool, nothing more. It is an attempt at *something* not an attempt at *everything*

Third, something that I have noticed, is that the RIGHT statistics along with subjective analysis is the best way to approach the game of baseball. SO for example, if YOU took the time to understand things such as 'WAR' and wOBA, then you could use them, when needed or desired, rather than simply dismissing them most of the time. The point is, we all use statistics to some extent. Why not use the ones that are more accurate? Stats that take into account most facets of the game (WAR).

    Anything is an attempt at "something". We're getting existential here on PAULLEBOWITZ.COM.

    Your stat zombie is showing Joe as you're getting a little condescending and pompous and it's not flying here.

    To the best of my recollection, the only time I ever mentioned WAR in a posting was when was dragged into a Baseball Think Factory scrum that I had nothing to do with in any capacity. Aside from that, I've never even discussed it. Having never discussed it or wOBA, my admittedly rudimentary math/logic skills will yield the result that I've never dismissed either of them.

    Yes, I do know what they are and I do understand them. 

    I make my judgments how I make my judgments, whether you like them or not.

    PECOTA is a tool. Conveniently, the dogmatic creators and proponents of PECOTA are tools as well. It all fits perfectly as far as I'm concerned. 

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE the Mets:

I agree that the Mets did not need a wholesale make-over. They had really good players who got injured last year. Lots of overreaction going on.

    The overreaction is partially due to a piling on effect. Some of the criticism of the club is justified, but it's gotten so far over-the-top, I don't know how any reasonable person can take it seriously anymore.

    I get the impression that there's a genuine air of optimism around the Mets inside the organization. They're almost embarrassed to express it publicly because of the endless ridicule and PTSD from the disaster of 2009, but it's there.

    Because the Phillies and Braves have weakened themselves to the degree that they have; that the Marlins are always respectable; and the Nationals, while not being anywhere close to improved to the point that others think, aren't a punching bag anymore, the implication is that this will be bad for the Mets; I don't see it that way. I see it as an opportunity because other teams will be in the same morass as the Mets leading to an easier road to contention in the division.

    The Mets are going to shock more than a few people this year. Mark my words.

• You cannot do a full-scale rebuild in a big market town:

    That pompous, condescending clown Marty Noble offered the following as he answered questions from fans on Mets.com regarding the panic-stricken off-season:

A simple question: What would you have done this offseason if you were the Mets' general manager?
-- Russ J., Pequannock, N.J.

First I would have recognized that legitimately contending for a National League East championship in 2010 was unlikely, given the talent available in the free-agent market, the absence of a front-line catcher and questions involving Oliver Perez and Luis Castillo. And I would have acted accordingly.

But if contention in 2010 were the objective, I would have signed Matt Capps to set up Frankie Rodriguez, signed Jason Bay and made an early determination about Carlos Delgado. I would have opted to let him walk. Considering scouts' projections and the money the free-agent pitchers were seeking, I would have tried to sign one starter. My preferences, in descending order: Joel Pineiro, John Lackey (overpriced for a team with a suspect offense), Jason Marquis, Jon Garland, Ben Sheets, John Smoltz and Chien-Ming Wang. I would have pursued Bengie Molina, offering an option for a second year.

And I would have pursued trades for athletic Minor League outfielders.

I'm not sure all those moves would have been enough.

    This is pretty much why you never see a media genius running a club; why they can't run a club. The easiest thing in the world to say when a club has the struggles the Mets have had over the few years is "tear it down". This is what Mike Francesa continually said with his "break up 'da core" mantra; and this is what Noble appears to be saying in his response to that question. 

    I'm going to make this as clear as possible.

    Ignore the fact that none of these media members have any accountability; nor do they have the ability to run a club and recognize talent or lack of talent to begin with----push that to the side. The truth is that a team like the Mets; the Yankees; the Red Sox or any other club with a huge payroll and involved fan base cannot behave in the same way the Indians, Athletics, Pirates and Padres do. It can't happen.

    How would it look if the Mets were to suddenly turn around and tacitly (and inaccurately) admit that they have no chance to contend by doing as Noble suggests, signing pitchers who----aside from Lackey and Pineiro----wouldn't be much better than what the Mets already have or are coming off of injuries and have gigantic question marks surrounding them?

    If a club like the Mets, with a new stadium, coming off a horrible year and with a rabid and angry fan base, started in with a "rebuild" mantra; traded David Wright; Jose Reyes; Johan Santana; etc who's to say that what was coming back would even be worth the aggravation of doing it to begin with? If the Mets front office and scouting operation is under such fire because of the dearth of young players the minor league system is producing, are these "experts" expecting them to be able to do as the Marlins do and mine other clubs for their best prospects and have it work? 

    The Marlins are an exception to the "rebuild" strategy in that they do it again and again, are successful at it and win while doing it. The Indians have been able to deal their veterans and return to contention within a few years. Despite inept management, one would think that teams like the Pirates and Padres would've gotten enough bulk in their trades of veterans to formulate a team that could win more than 72 games; but they haven't. Nor does it hurt that teams like the above mentioned have fan bases that are willing to accept or don't care about such a purgatory of 2-3 years (or 20 like the Pirates) in which they can't expect more than mediocrity. Would Yankees, Red Sox and Mets fans accept that? In today's market in which every ticket sold is important? No chance.

    If you look at the patron saint of preemptive deals, Billy Beane, and you see that he's made some savvy decisions (Mark Mulder for Dan Haren); and other deals that blew up in his face (he got nothing of use from the youngsters he acquired from the Braves for Tim Hudson). Now that the Moneyball hangover is mercifully wearing off; that Beane is being scrutinized more closely for the work he's done instead of a false perception, it's obvious that his rebuilding efforts have fallen short, especially in the current incarnation of the Athletics. 

    Noble, Francesa, Joel Sherman and others come up with vague references for the Mets to make some "bold" moves; but what would the endgame be? Despite the struggles in recent years, are the Mets going to be so terrible that discussion of such a drastic reconstruction would be better than what they currently are? Could a team with the base of David Wright, Jose Reyes, Johan Santana, Francisco Rodriguez, Carlos Beltran, Jason Bay and Jeff Francoeur be expected to be so horrific that they all need to go?

    Then there are the other silly statements from Noble like Lackey is "overpriced for a club with a suspect offense"; what exactly are the Red Sox? Their offense isn't suspect? And the search for "athletic minor league outfielders"----what does that even mean? What is this obsession with athleticism? Drew Henson was athletic----the problem was he couldn't hit. Does Carlos Lee look athletic? Did John Kruk? The trend to search for "athletic" players is one of those floating terms that no one can define and has no practical meaning.

    If a team goes for improvement in the winter and sees no positive results from the decisions, then yes, at mid-season look to do something to bolster the future; but to simply clear the decks with the intent of somewhere, sometime contending in the future is ignoring the transient nature of acquiring youngsters to begin with. Sometimes they make it; sometimes they don't; and no GM can hit with every pick and assessment of prospects. What makes it worse is that the lack of accountability with these critics lets them say whatever they want without question regardless of non-existent expertise that just happens to have a high profile forum. 

•  Eric Byrnes vs Gary Matthews Jr:

    To stay on a Mets-centric theme for a moment, indulge me if you will in thinking about the difference between Eric Byrnes (signed by the Mariners days ago); and Gary Matthews Jr. (acquired via trade by the Mets a week ago).

    Putting aside what the respective clubs will be paying Byrnes and Matthews, is there is difference between the players and the evaluators that acquired them? 

    Byrnes and Matthews were overpaid for their results. Byrnes with $11 million coming to him (almost all paid by the Diamondbacks, who released him); and Matthews with $23 million coming for the next two years ($21.5 million being paid by the Angels). The money is irrelevant because that $1.5 million is chump change for the Mets. Neither player has performed well since signing their contracts; so what's the difference in perception?

    Has there been neverending ridicule of Mariners GM Jack Zduriencik for signing Byrnes for what will essentially be the same role as Matthews will play for the Mets? Similar to what's greeted the Mets in getting Matthews Jr. to be a stopgap/backup/emergency player in the absence of Carlos Beltran and if Angel Pagan falls on his face?

    Of course not.

    And why?

    Is it because Mets GM Omar Minaya has become a convenient scapegoat and target for writers to use for target practice and Zduriencik is considered the cold, calculating businessman as GM who uses scouting tools and stats to formulate his club?

    The reality is that neither player should be expected to contribute much to either team; but nor should they be taken as anything to be laughed at because everyone in both the Mariners and Mets organizations knows that they're only around because they're cheap and they might----however unlikely----serve a purpose.  

    It's another example of the perception that one organization doesn't know what it's doing and is savaged; and another supposedly does know what it's doing and receives a pass for making a nearly identical move that isn't going to make much of a difference in the club fortunes one way or the other.

• PECOTA's alterations:

    The adjustment of PECOTA from one set of predicted standings to another was odd enough; that they basically didn't acknowledge it as they changed it makes it curiouser. It's as if they're beginning to realize that their method of coming to conclusions is faulty on the surface as a rule and they're building a dam after their world has been decimated by flood waters from the overflowing river. 

    As much as the hard core stat zombies stand by PECOTA, they fail to acknowledge nor even realize that what PECOTA does is not analysis. It's numbers crunching. Nothing more. When taking a game that is played by humans and treating those humans as robots who perform in a certain way just because they've always done it in the past is a flaw they cannot comprehend.

    It takes no baseball knowledge nor analytical skills to look at a player as numbers on a pad. Anyone, whether they've ever watched baseball or know what a baseball is, can take the numbers that PECOTA relies upon and plug them into the algorithm (whether it's the "right" algorithm or not) and come up with a standings board. Is that something to be proud of even when it's close to being accurate? 

    One thing that Moneyball tried----and failed----to account for was the "human element". In fact, there's a chapter in the book with that very title. It's content is the story of Chad Bradford and how  a submarine style pitcher who in years past would've been little more than minor league filler became an important part of the A's bullpen and has fashioned a respectable major league career. Said "human element" tries to put a face on the numbers that were the genesis of the book----the "revolution" that Moneyball documented. 

    It's garbage.

    The human element is removed from PECOTA every time they come up with an excuse for their projections being wrong (from one day to the next apparently) as they claim as a caveat, "well, the player didn't reach his expected numbers". No kidding. That may be because he's a human being and can't be reasonably expected to do the same thing year-by-year, day-by-day because he's always done it before. 

    The real human element isn't found in Moneyball; nor is it found in PECOTA. The ignorance of Michael Lewis, who knows nothing about baseball, is clear as he tries to piece the puzzle together to defend his narrative against its inevitable downfall. The book is a farce not because it hasn't worked, but because it's not calculating the "human element"; in fact, it's trying to avoid it completely. 

    PECOTA and Moneyball advocates claim that they'd be better off if they never watched a baseball game to begin with and utilized objective factors rather than eyes and feel; and it's wrong. It takes no understanding, no knowledge, no nothing to plug numbers into a calculator or a computer and claim to know what one is talking about.

    If PECOTA's sudden adjustment in their numbers based on a supposedly faulty algorithm proves anything, it proves that. Remember, it was a human who plugged the numbers into the wrong formula to begin with, causing them to be redone.

    Do they understand that?

    Do they?

• Speaking of the "genius":

    Why is Billy Beane so intent on collecting no-hit, good-field outfielders?

    The Athletics are supposedly in "deep negotiations" with Gabe Gross.

    To do what?

    Gabe Gross is a fine defensive outfielder and, aside from a bolt from the blue hot streak shortly after he joined the Rays in 2008, has never been able to hit at all. What do the A's need him for?

    The A's are looking like a bizarre conglomeration of whatever's left available and Beane's reputation, still solid in certain circles, is saving him from an even greater number of bewildered looks at what he's doing. The team can't hit. They won't hit enough to account for the callow starting rotation even with a healthy Ben Sheets (an iffy proposition at best).

    If anything, there is an Oakland franchise that could use Gabe Gross for something----the Raiders. Gross was the starting quarterback for Auburn in college and the Raiders are hurting in that area. He'd be more use to them than he would be for the Athletics, that's for sure.

• Viewer Mail 1.31.2010:

Gabriel (Capo) writes RE PECOTA:

http://slidingintohome.blogspot.com/2010/01/pecota-picks-yanks-to-finish-3rd.html

This is the most I could do in a hurry. And they still bombed them. The A's in first is as unrealistic as the Jays in second.

Oh, and excellent Col. Nathan R. Jessep. 

    The link Gabriel provides sends you to the original PECOTA projections. Here are the refurbished ones----link. That's the thing about the internets, you can never get away from something you published no matter how hard you try. Ever.

    With the purposeful adjustment I made to the climactic scene in A Few Good Men yesterday, I never got a retort from Joe to let me know that he understood what I was doing. He might've thought I was simply yelling at him.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE Johnny Damon:

Sorry Damon fired off that last shot. I'm sure he wishes he could take it back.

    I can understand his hurt, but he needs to use some common sense. No one's to blame for his departure and shoddy job prospects other than Johnny Damon. Not the Yankees; not Scott Boras; Johnny Damon. Period.

Rob writes RE Damon, Randy Winn and the Yankees:

Hi, I just read your blog for the first time. Your attitude is refreshing among many Yankee fans and falls largely in line with my own. The reaction among Yankee fans to the Winn signing was really ridiculous. The sports shows didn't help matters by continually popping up side by side comparisons between Damon and Winn. This was really misleading. First of all Gardner and Winn will likely share playing time. The reality is that neither is directly replacing Damon. They may occupy his old field  position but in reality they are only replacing Melky Cabrera. Damon and Matsui we're replaced in the lineup a long time ago by Granderson and Johnson. Both are defensive upgrades in left field I might add.
   I also like those who say that Johnson can't hold a candle to Damon as a number two hitter. Johnson may not have Johnny's pop but getting 24 HR's out of you #2 hitter is a bonus not a prerequisite. A #2 hitter's job is to get on base and Johnson is among the best in baseball at that. As far as clogging the basepaths goes, Tex is not fleet of foot either and won't catch Nick if he has a headstart. Besides with Tex and a healthy
A-rod hitting behind him he may need to do little more than trot home much of the time.
  I think Cash did a great job this off season. Our pitching is deep, our lineup circular. He has also held the payroll in check to prepare for re-signing Jeter and Mo, not to mention next year's attractive free agent class (Carl Crawford please). Thanks for reading my babble...if you did.

    Thanks for reading. One thing I need to clear up that seems to be causing an unbelievable amount of confusion: I'm a METS FAN!!! I suppose it's a compliment that so many people believe that I'm a Yankee fan as it shows my objectivity when I write.

    With Johnson, his only issue has been health. Aside from his broken leg, there's always been some muscle pull or other malady that keeps him out of the lineup at a moment's notice. He's an inexpensive alternative to Damon and is an on-base machine. The Yankees did do a very good job this winter in filling their holes inexpensively and using necessary ruthlessness to cut the ties with Damon when he didn't want to sign for the initial contract offer.

    The whole Damon-Yankees thing might've emanated from a false belief on the part of the player and his agent that the Yankees adamant stance on not negotiating with him was a tactic rather than reality, and it cost him. A lot.

Kyle Johnson writes RE PECOTA:

I can't believe PECOTA didn't change their mind on the AL West predictions as well. I just don't see the Angels with the third worst record in the AL OR Oakland taking the western division.
WHAT-THE-HELL!?

    I don't truly believe that the people at PECOTA were sitting there and panicking because they were under such fire for their first projection. For what it's worth, I do believe that someone used the wrong formula.

    That said, the Angels have always been a club that's more than the sum of it's statistical parts; they win because they play the game the right way; rely on a deep pitching staff; and plug players into the right spots. Let me put it to you this way, without going into too much detail on my forthcoming book (I'm starting tomorrow): I wouldn't worry about the Angels this year and I wouldn't put much faith in PECOTA.

Michael Fierman writes RE Damon, Boras and Cashman:

"His abilities exceed the money that I have."

Honestly I think that was his way of throwing in Boras's face that in fact JD's abilities are not the ability level Boras is trying to sell. --just my take on it.

    I'm more of the belief that the Yankees set a price that they weren't----under any circumstances----going to go beyond for Damon. It was more coldblooded reality and money than any attempt to get back at Boras. The problem for Damon was that he didn't believe it.   

• Johnny Damon's anger begins to manifest itself:

    That didn't take long.

    The public facade of understanding and acceptance that the Yankees didn't value Johnny Damon's contribution to the club as much as Damon and Scott Boras did is gradually resulting in an anger that he's not going to get the big contract he expected. In fact, he's going to get a fraction of the Yankees final offer and he may have to go across the country to Oakland for a job. 

    Damon was classy in his initial interviews...until he popped out with the following nugget about Derek Jeter:

“I hope he is not offered a 45 percent pay cut.”

    Yah.

    Well.

    I have some news for Damon that might well come from Brian Cashman himself: Johnny, I work with Derek Jeter; Derek Jeter is a friend of mine. Johnny, you're no Derek Jeter.

    Did it occur to Damon that the Yankees offer to him was affected by the fact that they know they're going to have to pay Jeter after 2010 and need to save some space on the payroll? Or is he so oblivious to reality in his Boras-cage that he hasn't caught on? 

    Like Joe Mauer with the Twins, Derek Jeter is going nowhere. Ever.

    Johnny Damon----with his mercenary tendencies, high salary demands without leverage and reviled agent----was in no position to be so hardline with the amount of money he wanted. Blindly trusting the "process" as Boras and Cashman call it resulted in Damon leaving Boston when he didn't want to; and now the Yankees as well. The main difference is that when he left the Red Sox, he had a comfy and lucrative landing spot in New York; now he doesn't. Now he's about to land somewhere where everyone knows he doesn't want to be; somewhere where he'll either hope to be traded to a contender at mid-season, or to have a big enough year that he'll hope for a better economic climate and be able to cash in next winter with a large market club----like the Yankees.

    It's showing in his comments.

    This Derek Jeter silliness was the first in what will be a string of passive aggressive statements from Damon as he's poked and prodded by an all-too-eager press corps for something juicy to write about; something to create a fissure between the Yankees and Damon despite the "good terms" they're trying to maintain after this rejection.

    Who knows whether Damon has people whispering in his ear that he was done wrong by someone, be it the Yankees or Boras? Clearly, he's upset about the break, but he's more upset about the money; and even someone as spacey as Damon must realize somewhere deep inside that his trusted agent did him wrong; that he's screwed.

    It's understandable that he's going to utter these obvious messages. But he'd be better off either not doing the interviews at all or sticking to the generic ballplayer script that keeps them out of the papers or is more easily ignored. The Jeter comment wasn't opaque enough to explain away. What made it worse was that it was inaccurate and stupid. His handlers better rein him in because it's going to get worse as the winter rolls on.

• The change in tune from PECOTA:

    If you remember the 2010 PECOTA predicted standings from earlier in the week, they've now been changed. The bizarreness of the original predicted standings that had the Rays winning the AL East for example, was said to be because of a mistake in the algorithm they used to come to their conclusions.*

*Right there, the word "algorithm", should be a warning sign that they need to re-think how they interpret the game.

    My suggestion to the good people at PECOTA (and I'm being dead serious about this) is they would've been better off leaving their predicted standings as they were. Changing them now under fire is a sign of weakness even if there actually was a mistake in the algorithm. Their increasing panic will be even more evident at the decision to make the adjustment. Their method of assessment is dying anyway, why exacerbate it with desperation and alterations?

    And I'm still moving forward with my bombing campaign. There's no saving them now.

• My own contradictions:

    As concerned as I am about Tim Lincecum's small stature and his durability, it occurred to me after re-reading my posting from yesterday that I discussed the horrendous mistake the Dodgers made in underestimating the determination of Pedro Martinez to transcend his limited physicality and become one of the best pitchers of this generation----just as Lincecum is on his way to doing. 

    I'm still concerned about Lincecum's size; his quirky exercise regimen and whether he can maintain his stuff into his late 20s and early 30s; but as with Pedro, perhaps it's better to focus on the artistry of unique beauty he crafts with his natural gifts and ignore dogmatic and perceived limitations as the Dodgers did with Pedro----much to their regret. 

• Viewer Mail 1.30.2010:

Jeff (Street Boss) at Red State Blue State writes RE PECOTA:

Dear PECOTA,

You're full of shit.

The Oakland A's are gonna win the West with 87 wins? The White Sox will have a losing record? The Yankees will miss the playoffs?

At least two thirds of the above predictions are as sound as Carlos Silva is reliable.

Sincerely,
Me

    It's hilarious that they altered their projections. If anyone has a copy of the original somewhere, please send it to me. Are they hoping that we're still in the halcyon days of people simply accepting their nonsense as sacrosanct? Moneyball is over, my good stat zombies; the end of days is coming; and along with it, carnage and destruction.

Jane Heller at Confessions of a She-Fan writes RE PECOTA:

Go get those PECOTA people and make them recant - and maybe even watch a baseball game or two.

    They've already recanted. Forgive me if I don't accept their change-of-heart and react with sympathy. I know not the meanings nor the significance of the words "sorrow" or "pity". The die is cast.

Joe at Statistician Magician writes RE PECOTA:

Do you have proof that you beat PECOTA last year? Actual, wins and losses proof? Pecota looks off this year, no doubt, I don't disagree with that. I just want proof!

    YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE PROOF!!!

    Son, we live in a world that has walls, and those walls have to be guarded by men with skills; men without fear.

    Who's gonna do it?

    You?

    I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for PECOTA and hype up your out-of-context stats; you have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know.

    And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you WANT me on that wall, you NEED me on that wall. We use words like honor, code, loyalty. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. 

    I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to the stat zombies who alter their beliefs and perceptions based on what's convenient to try and save themselves; what's the safest and most expedient way to protect their faulty and collapsing revolution.

    I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Either way, I do not give a DAMN what you want!!!

    (You can find the "proof" you seek here if you scroll down and click the links under the bulletpoint "The Prince vs PECOTA". That should occupy you for much of the day.)

John Seal writes RE the Athletics:

Be gentle, big guy. You and I both know the A's aren't going to win the AL West...let me down easy, okay?

    Not a believer in PECOTA, John? I never pegged my West Coast spiritual adviser as a member of the stat zombie cult anyway----and I'm pleased.

    Why don't you join Twitter? You'll be able to enjoy my hilarious #fakebillybeanequotes and more!! Plus you get official, public recognition as a made member of the Prince of New York Family. Upward mobility is prevalent and based on quality of work and loyalty. I'm a benevolent Boss.