CubinNY

Yeah, we'll see Yeah, not holding my breath. Yeah, another response with yeah in it. Yeah, he's been right about everything else so far. Seriously, one of these times one of those idiots will win the lottery and something their "guy/source" tells them will come true.

yes.

He had a good ST last year too, IIRC.

Frankly, I think it is a travesty. It's like changing the name of Fenway or Yankee Stadium. Baseball is all about history. People won't like it, but it's not that big of deal either.

You can thank Adam Dunn for that. Dumbasses had him batting 6th.

lol, McFadden does not have near the agility and change of direction skills that Sanders had. He is the exception, not the rule. I mostly agree with truffle here, but Sanders had incredibly huge legs and ass. I think he still holds the squat record at OK state.

Lachiem, sean. He was a good ballplayer for a long time.

That's correct. They're too busy trying to go after democratic law makers in the South and West. I have a friend who works for the Justice Department (lower level lawyer) and another who works in the diplomatic corps at the state Department. Both are civil servants. Both are pretty conservative people, much more than many of their colleagues, and both are upset with they way things have been run for the past eight years. It's a big scandal inside of Washington. I don't know if it will boil over after the election or not. Nevertheless, I suspect that nothing will happen to Roger Clemens.

http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?EventId=78802342# Marmol's ears are the best.

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency. That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010. I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project). Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs. Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere. I absolutley have no idea where I heard or read this (and as such, may be talking out of my arse), but it seems as though I recall that someone (maybe it was Crany Kenney) was saying that this would help the sell because the new owners could buy the team for less (than if it had to buy both the team and the stadium), could get a reasonable lease from the state, and not have to pay to keep the ballpark operational. Unless there was some sort of a sweat-heart deal the owner of the Cubs would be in roughly the same shape as Loria. I really cannot see why anyone would be interested in buying the Cubs without Wrigley.

There's no question that they would outdraw the Sox.

That's the catch. The owner won't be paying for Wrigley, because it will be sold separately to the state agency. That's right. I heard the report (it was George Offman) and it basically said that if the the Illinois Sports Authority takes over the ballpark, they want the Historical Landmark restrictions eased so they can do a rehab on the place other than the areas that were mentioned in the post earlier. He said the plan was to gut the grandstand area and rebuild. He reported a cost of around $350 million and said it could happen as early as 2010. I didn't get the impression it would be like Soldier Field though where it looked like a new stadium. I was thinking it would still look like Wrigley, just new (kind of like the Bleachers project). Hmm, interesting. I thought selling Wrigley and the Cubs in two different deals was a ploy to get the price up of the Cubs. Next question, who would buy the Cubs and not Wrigley? That would seem pretty foolish unless the new owner planned to move them elsewhere.

It is strangely odd that they would be talking about this as they are pushing the sale of the Cubs. What owner would want to pay a billion dollars to buy the Cubs + Wrigley and then have to put in another half a billion or so to retrofit the park?

And they really swung and missed. Really the article wasn't funny at all, that was my point. It was very predictable, if that is what you mean. But so far they are batting near 1.000. That's the problem, it was too easy.

I agree. From my perspective the article was cringe worthy, but there are a lot of those this time of year. I don't think Bruce Miles injected much of his opinion in the article at all and that's the mark of a good writer. At least the article wasn't something like this http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/baseball/cubs/cs-080212-rogers-cubs-spring-training-preview,1,6584653.column

It is better than guessing, which is what all the math in the black box is for, but it's statistically impossible for it to nail player seasons across the board. If god told you in OPS terms exactly how good Matt Murton is, that doesn't mean he'll hit at exactly that level next year; there's expected variance in a given season. Sample size works both ways. I don't think anyone who halfway knows how projections work expects something like PECOTA to be exactly accurate. I think it would be much better to give ranges and confidence intervals. Something like, We predict Matt Murton's OPS will be between .800 and .850 with 95% confidence. We predict it will be between .825 and .850 with 70% confidence. We predict it will be between .700 and 1.000 with 100%. Nonetheless, if God told me what Murton's OPS was going to be, the first thing I'd do is seek medical help. If God was then wrong, the second thing I'd do is question his deity credentials. This is the problem I have with some sabermentricly informed opinions. If the model is wrong it it is the model that is at fault. If the model says such and such a player will perform at X level and the player underperforms or overperforms, it is the model at fault and not the player, unless there are special circumstances. A players "true" performance is what how he actually performs, not what PECOTA says he will do. The value of PECTOA lies in its ability to approximate a player's "true" performance. All you've probably ever seen from PECOTA is the weighted mean projection. In reality, they break it down much further than that. Look at Murton for example. http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/176/murtonjo8.png And that's merely a fraction of his PECOTA card. That's not what I'm arguing for. In fact, it is entirely the opposite. But really, I'm not arguing against PECOTA at all. I think it is an extremely useful tool. The problem lies not in the numbers generated but in the interpretation of the numbers.

I agree. To me the most important part of the ballpark is how the field will look from the stands. Frankly, Yankee Stadium sucks. The fans are too far away. I know I'm in the minority, but I like Shea a helluva lot more than Yankee Stadium. If you are on the field level at least you don't feel like you wasted money. Wrigley is great if you're in the bleachers (third row or higher) or if you are in the field boxes in front of the overhanging mezzanine. Anywhere else and you might and probably do, have an obstructed view. I never like the upper decks at Wrigley.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080223&content_id=2385630&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin You can't make this stuff up. Adam Dunn is in his condo/hotel room/whatever in Sarasota, curled up in the fetal position and in tears. Dunn will be sold for pennies on the dollar. I could see him in Yankee Pinstripes becoming a hero by the end of the season. Dusty's name should be Ytsud. He's that backwards.

Not that I think that it will happen anytime soon, nor am I sure whether or not that was a sarcastic comment, but at this point in spring training, I doubt that they'd wait to allow another sport to have their spotlight. Both teams would want to get the players involved in the trade into the swing of things with their new clubs sooner rather than later. We've been kidding around with 'not taking the spotlight away from' stuff ever since it was actually speculated (I think at OH) that the deal was done but we weren't announcing it to give something its spotlight - may have been the Fukudome signing. It was the hall of fame announcements. I sort of like the idea of getting Roberts. I wish it wasn't at the cost of Sean Gallagher though.

It is better than guessing, which is what all the math in the black box is for, but it's statistically impossible for it to nail player seasons across the board. If god told you in OPS terms exactly how good Matt Murton is, that doesn't mean he'll hit at exactly that level next year; there's expected variance in a given season. Sample size works both ways. I don't think anyone who halfway knows how projections work expects something like PECOTA to be exactly accurate. I think it would be much better to give ranges and confidence intervals. Something like, We predict Matt Murton's OPS will be between .800 and .850 with 95% confidence. We predict it will be between .825 and .850 with 70% confidence. We predict it will be between .700 and 1.000 with 100%. Nonetheless, if God told me what Murton's OPS was going to be, the first thing I'd do is seek medical help. If God was then wrong, the second thing I'd do is question his deity credentials. This is the problem I have with some sabermentricly informed opinions. If the model is wrong it it is the model that is at fault. If the model says such and such a player will perform at X level and the player underperforms or overperforms, it is the model at fault and not the player, unless there are special circumstances. A players "true" performance is what how he actually performs, not what PECOTA says he will do. The value of PECTOA lies in its ability to approximate a player's "true" performance.

The playoffs are a crapshoot, for the most part. Having a "leadoff" hitter wont change that. Having another very good SP might, but that's about the only thing. As presently constructed though, the Cubs are a slight favorite to make the playoffs, and then we have about a 12.5% chance once we get in, just like everybody else. I never said anything about getting a leadoff hitter. I wasn't really talking about Roberts, as I don't really want him. I'm talking more about shortstop and the rotation. I agree that the playoffs are a crapshoot, but relying on that when building a team seems like a bad philosophy to me. "Yeha, we definitely have holes, but we aren't worried about them. The playoffs are a crapshoot!" To me it makes sense to do the best you can to buold a team better than the opposition, not rely on luck. I think that Hendry really does want to get Roberts though. It's like Bruce Miles said, "it takes two". From the sounds of things, when we filter out all the speculation, MacPhail wants more than the Hendry wants to give. From my read, Hendry thinks they are good enough to compete within division so he's not willing to gamble. MacPhail thinks Roberts is worth some top prospects. It doesn't sound like much has changed since this rumor first got legs. We'll see who budges first, if ever.

The statement above is a lot of words that essentially means nothing, isn't it? I'm not exactly sure what "true talent" means though. What value does PECOTA if it cannot make accurate predictions? Or I guess I should say more accurate than other predictions. I'm convinced you didn't actually read the sentence. He was pretty clear. Thinking that PECOTA, or any prediction scheme, is a "crystal ball" is dumb. You then proceed to fault it because it's not a crystal ball. Chew on that for a while. It doesn't taste all that good so I spit it out. I'm questing what value PECOTA has if not for making predictions, since that's what it appears to be used for. If it's not any more useful than a guess based on past performance why does one need all the complicated math. I think it may be time to change the tampon. You're a little cranky.

Intrinsic skill level?

The statement above is a lot of words that essentially means nothing, isn't it? I'm not exactly sure what "true talent" means though. What value does PECOTA if it cannot make accurate predictions? Or I guess I should say more accurate than other predictions.

I endorse this post with the strongest possible recommendation. I would have liked him much better had he been a 19 year old instead of a 21 year old. In 171 IP in A and AA he's given up 199 hits and struck out 82. Those aren't good numbers. They look even worse considering the competition.