Diffusion

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true. Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league. What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league. ....... but not necessarily the most valuable. In my opinion, of course (and many others). I looked up "value", and one of the definitions talks about "importance". Which player was more important this year, Lee or Pujols? Maybe that's how you should look at it. Because being the best player on a team that finished 4th isn't that important to some people. So have we established then that Derrek Lee was the best player in all of the National League in 2005?

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP? That's the whole point. Nobody cares if you were the best player on a 4th place team. That's a shame for Lee, but it's true. Not just the best player on a 4th placed team, but the best player in the entire league. In the entire league, the best player. In league entire, player best. Best league entire player. Best entire player league. Derrek Lee. 2005 (apparently he wasn't this good in 2004). Jeez, it not complicated, even me understand, me not even Yank. Best player in entire league. What does the fact that the best player in the entire league played on a 4th placed team say? It says that the teammates of this best player must have been pretty rubbish. Beyond that it says absolutely nothing. Besides that he's the best player. In the entire league.

Actually I think that's the Player of the Year award. The MVP should go to the best player that propelled their team to the playoffs imo. That said, I'm taking nothing away from Lee. He should get the POY. But who remembers who the "Player of the Year" was in any given year? That alone tells you the relative worth of that award. It pales in comparison to the MVP. Is that the treatment that the best player in the league in any given year should get? Essentially forgotten because a lesser performing player had a happier set of circumstances beyond his control and took the big one, the MVP?

Well I personally believe that there should be one award for pitchers, and one for every-day players, and that there should be no overlap, and the way I'd vote reflects that belief, in that for "Player" I read "Everyday Player". I also believe that the "Most Valuable" should mean most valuable, the everyday player that contributes more to his team than any other everyday player contributes to any other team, and in the case of the Cy Young, I read "Most Valuable Pitcher". And, again, how I'd vote reflects my belief, screw the Baseball Writers and their terminology. So, for me... MVP = the everyday player that contributes more to their team than any other everyday player contributes to any other team Cy Young = the pitcher that contributes more to their team than any other pitcher contributes to any other team

Seems to me that Pujols SIGNIFCANTLY outperformed Lee in 2004 and he didn't cost 11.05M either Gah. I normally get over writing the year wrong after about a week of January.

Well, I can tell you that had Lee and Pujols swapped teams this year, and their performances had been exactly unchanged, the Cardinals would have won 1.6 more games, and the Cubs would have won 1.6 less games. Oh, and the Cards would have had a payroll $3.39m lower, the Cubs one $3.39m higher. But this really doesn't matter, apparently, because wins are valueless, money grows on trees, and Albert Pujols is a really fun name (Poo-holes, hehehehe), so he's obviously the most valuable, like, duh!

Congratulations! You were successfully chosen at random in our free prize draw and have won an original Picasso! You have a choice of two... Painting A Independently valued at $10.7m, currently hanging in a beautiful showroom with lots of beautiful furniture and a beautiful bed with a beautiful girl lying in it. Painting B Independently valued at $12.3m, currently hanging in Neifi Perez's dusty garage. To claim your original Picasso, please write to Free Prize Draw, 1908 Winner Avenue, New York and specify whether you would like to claim Painting B, independently valued at $12.3m, or would like to be psychiatrically assessed.

Suppose Aladdin looked at his crystal ball and said. "Your team is going to finish in 4th place this year. Would you like Player Y at $7.66M, or would you like Player Z, for the league minimum". You'd probably take Player Z. Does that make him "more valuable" than Derrek Lee would have been? I'd like to pay $7.66M to finish in 4th place, instead of $400,000. That's what a vote for Derrek Lee boils down to. Player Z doesn't cost $400,000. He costs $11.05m. Jeez, get your facts straight. Maybe Aladdin should have put you down for math classes. I'm really not sure what you're arguing any more. I'd like to pay $7.66m to finish in 4th place instead of $400,000 implies that you think that half of Jose Macias is more valuable than Derrek Lee. Or something.

In an imaginary world, yes. In reality, Player Y is playing for a 4th place team, and nobody cares if they won 1.6 games less. And in reality, the extra $3.39M would be fine if it were a one-year contract, but neither Pujols nor Lee have a one-year contract, and Pujols will live up to his contract every bit, or more, than Lee does. In an imaginary world, your response actually makes sense. But I have a limited imagination.

He's a fastball slider nothing else guy. He's not in the bullpen for the fun of it.

Imagine this. It's spring 2004 and you, the GM of Team A, are in the unfortunate situation of having no-one better than player X at first base. And player X is useless. In fact, he's the very definition of a replacement player: you need to replace him. Now, fortunately, one week before the season starts, two better options become available, player Y and player Z, and they're both desperately eager to sign with Team A, who they've both supported since childhood. Also, more fortunate still, Aladdin has granted you three wishes. He tells you that A) Player Y will give your team 12.3 more wins than player X in 2004, B) that Player Z will be worth 10.7 more wins than player X in 2004, and C) that he will personally pay for whichever player you choose, so money's not an issue. So, do you sign Player Y or Z? For those of you that said "Player Z please", now imagine that Aladdin is so angry with you for giving such a stupid answer that he's retracted his promise to pay for the players unless you change your mind. Player Y costs $7.66m for 2004. Player Z costs $11.05m. Sticking with Player Z? "I would like to win 1.6 less games and pay $3.39m more". That's what a vote for Albert Pujols over Derrek Lee boils down to.

Big buy low opportunity with Huff.

VORP doesn't include fielding.

Not so stupid that people should suggest trading Lee because he's had a career year and is at the height of his value. Very stupid that they should suggest trading Lee for someone in Chad Tracy that's had a career year and is at the height of his value. Brandon Webb would be a better idea if we had much better infield defence. Carlos Quentin would be a better idea if he'd put up his minor league numbers away from ridiculously friendly hitter's park. Lancaster, El Paso, Tucson - Neifi Perez could almost slug .500 in those parks. All in all, it's not an idea that hugely appeals to me.

I should hope it wasn't his point. You've quite deliberately tried to imply there that the only reason why the Brewers and Cardinals score more runs than the Mets and Marlins is because they have lead-off men with a high OBP. An offence involves nine men. The leadoff man is important, because he sees the most plate appearances, and I believe also the most plate appearances with the bases empty. Therefore it's imperative that he gets on-base as frequently as possible, and it's also preferable that he can cause things to happen when he's on the basepaths. That doesn't mean that he and his OBP or speed are the be all and end all, though.

Sure that has been suggested, but suggested by a moron. Id put no credence into that claim. Who? I'm just looking for a source, that's all. Bah, i give up. Could have possibly not been a link but some one something heard some idiot say on the radio.Thanks for checking. viewtopic.php?p=690919&highlight=tracy+marcus+giles#690919 and http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/sports_columnists/article/0,1299,DRMN_83_4067125,00.html Tracy Ringolsby is the name you're looking for. And, yes, he's an unreliable source. Not worth paying any attention to.

Under your test, no one could ever be PROVEN of doing anything knowingly without having some sort of device that looked into their mind. And even then I think you would have reservations about its accuracy AT THE TIME of the act. You have to infer intent from surrounding actions that the person takes. From those actions it is pretty clear that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. Just because a liar says he didn't do something doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else and say that raises doubt. It only raises UNreasonable doubt. BTW, he likely will not be convicted of perjury because they have no evidence that he was doing it BEFORE he testified(he tested positive afterwards), NOT because they have no evidence of intent. Prosecutors across this country get juries to infer intent from far more tenious cases than this. Maybe there's something wrong with your country then. Or your lawyers. Or your juries. Or all three. That wouldn't surprise me. What evidence of intent do they have? From what surrounding actions are you infering intent? And on what evidence are you calling Palmeiro a liar? Or is this more guilty until proven innocent suppositioning? Testing positive for drugs doesn't prove that you knowningly took them, and took them to gain an unfair advantage. The accepted legal standard of proof is REASONABLE doubt, not a "you can't prove Martians didn't build the Pyramids" level of doubt. And what, because Palmeiro failed a drugs test, you know and can prove beyond your reasonable doubt that he took them intentionally, and has been taking them intentionally for the last 12 years or however long it's supposed to have been? Look, it looks bad for Palmeiro, of course. The weight of evidence is against him, it is more likely than not that he knowingly took steroids and had for a long time knowningly been steroids, and then he finally got caught. But the weight of evidence isn't so compelling that a complete outsider such as yourself, or anyone here, has any right to go around calling Raffy "scum" or a "POS". You've already found him guilty. Where's the evidence? A failed drugs test and a leak you don't know the validity of? Great, he simply has to be guilty. You look at the way people react even to this story. What quite clearly happened was that he listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test. One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test". He might as well have done though for the reaction that this leak has got. All sense of perspective has been lost. You've got people lining up to put the boot in, with or without a good reason. It's ridiculous. And it's the same with the original situation that's led to this. What do you know about the leak regarding the substance? Can you vouch for the validity of that? Or have all you got to go on that Raffy didn't deny it? How much do you really know about the failed drugs test? My guess is you know sweet FA. But in environments like this, where everyone wants to vent and shout about steroids in baseball and how terrible they are and how terrible steroid users are and everything, possibility becomes "fact", and "fact" becomes fact, and before you know it you've built an open and closed case based on a bunch of likelihoods and possibilities, absolutely none of it that can be proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise. Now I'm not entirely au fait with the exact facts of the Raffy case, but enlighten me further if you feel the need.

Under your test, no one could ever be PROVEN of doing anything knowingly without having some sort of device that looked into their mind. And even then I think you would have reservations about its accuracy AT THE TIME of the act. You have to infer intent from surrounding actions that the person takes. From those actions it is pretty clear that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. Just because a liar says he didn't do something doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else and say that raises doubt. It only raises UNreasonable doubt. BTW, he likely will not be convicted of perjury because they have no evidence that he was doing it BEFORE he testified(he tested positive afterwards), NOT because they have no evidence of intent. Prosecutors across this country get juries to infer intent from far more tenious cases than this. Maybe there's something wrong with your country then. Or your lawyers. Or your juries. Or all three. That wouldn't surprise me. What evidence of intent do they have? From what surrounding actions are you infering intent? And on what evidence are you calling Palmeiro a liar? Or is this more guilty until proven innocent suppositioning? Testing positive for drugs doesn't prove that you knowningly took them, and took them to gain an unfair advantage.

I don't think this is anything like you're alleging. It sounds to me as though Raffy listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test. One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test". Now, obviously, if Palmeiro knowingly took steroids, even suggesting that they were accidentally taken via something else that another player gave him when he knows damn well that that's not the case, that's a very serious thing to do. But as far as I was aware, it hasn't yet been proven that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. While that looks likely, the possibility that Palmiero accidentally took something that wasn't what he thought it was cannot be entirely ruled out. And if that is what happened, do you not think Palmeiro is well within his rights to list all the substances and supplements that he's taken and have them test and at least ruled out? You've all already found him guilty, of taking steroids and of perjury. As far as I can tell, you must have all in the bathroom when Palmeiro took the big syringe labelled "STEROIDS" and injected it into his stomach and backside, you saw it with your own two eyes. Why do you think that Palmeiro isn't going to be charged with perjury? Because it can't be proven that he knowingly took steroids and then lied about it in front of Congress, there's not enough evidence. Well maybe you guys should step forward with your eye witness accounts of what happened, and then there will be enough evidence. Personally I think that Palmeiro did knowingly take steroids, and had been taking them for a while, and that he knowingly lied about it before Congress. I also think it is a terrible thing to do to even raise the possibility that one of your teammates was responsible for you failing the drugs test, if you know that that's definitely not the case. However, I don't know any of that. It's just what I think. Doubt continues to exist. And therefore the benefit of the doubt should too.

NL MVP -- Lee NL CY -- Clemens AL MVP -- Rodriguez AL CY -- Santana Simply put, they've been the most valuable hitters and pitchers this year. And I don't think any of them are particularly close. Lee: .338/.422/.669 Pujols: .337/.433/.619 Jones: .267/.351/.590 The only real difference between Lee and Pujols is that Lee has 50 points of slugging on Albert, and he plays better defence at first base. Andruw Jones shouldn't even be in the discussion, Lee is essentially a massive 70 points ahead of him across the board. Jones' glove in CF doesn't bridge the difference. Lee: 12.3 WARP Pujols: 10.7 Jones: 9.0 As for the NL Cy, Clemens has a 1.89 ERA in over 200 innings. Enough said. Clemens has also managed that while pitching in a pretty hitter friendly stadium. It's not his fault that whenever he's on the mound his offence gets shutout or his bullpen blows it, or whatever. All that said, while Clemens deserves to win the Cy, he didn't deserve to win it last year at all, so it'd hardly moan about the injustice of it if Carpenter won. As for A-Rod and Santana, I don't think I even have to explain those decisions. No-one touches them. Especially not Ortiz, a designated hitter in a much more hitter friendly stadium that hasn't even outhit A-Rod, who also plays an above average 3B. Santana, well, he's not been at his best all year but who else is there? Millwood? Colon? Buerhle? Give me a break.

I know, but it's still better than giving Clemens back to back Cys.

Oh boy, this is so much fun... Today Indians at Royals Sabathia vs Jose Lima Twins at White Sox Lohse vs Contreras Tomorrow Indians at Royals Millwood vs Mike Wood Twins at White Sox Mays vs Garcia Sunday Indians at Royals Westbrook vs Greinke Twins at White Sox Liriano vs Buerhle White Sox really have to make sure they win today and tomorrow against Mays and Lohse.

............ .256/.322/.319 Just say no. Well I said that it might be generous to give him that....:D Thanks for following through with the numbers, that's the point I was getting at. Lofton's '05 is way out of line from what we should expect. Sorry, should have made it clearer that what I wrote wasn't so much having a go as you as just trying to add to what you'd written. Anyway, I did some five-year trend things with Lofton's peripheral numbers, and a revised projection for his 2006 season could be... .268/.338/.371 So 2005 points to .256/.322/.319 And 2001-05 points to .268/.338/.371 But I'm worried that 2005 is too small a sample size and that the trends it implies aren't established (those trends being a massive power dropoff, and strikeouts edging upwards), but worried that the 2001-05 thing is understating his decline with numbers that aren't relevant any more. I'll go halfway. .262/.330/.345 That's my best guess for Lofton's 2006. Steer well clear, in other words.

http://kmbumb.people.wm.edu/roster/06agency.html

Here's a closer look at Lofton's BABIP numbers. Can you see a trend? 1991-95: .343 BABIP 1992-96: .345 BABIP 1993-97: .361 BABIP 1994-98: .346 BABIP 1995-99: .342 BABIP 1996-00: .334 BABIP 1997-01: .320 BABIP 1998-02: .301 BABIP 1999-03: .301 BABIP 2000-04: .291 BABIP 2001-05: .302 BABIP The reason for looking at things in five-year trends is primarily because it gets rid of sample size issues. A single slump or hot streak can throw an entire season's worth numbers. I think there are two plausible things you can project from here onwards. 1) 2000-04 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP has stabilised around .300 2) 2001-05 was out of line, and Lofton's BABIP can be expected to continue to decline as had been the case from 1993-07 onwards. Anyway, there's basically no case for using Lofton's career BABIP mark of .327 (that's updated through 2005) as a sort of baseline for 2006 projections. I think you're looking instead at a figure between .280 and .300, depending upon which of the two options above is true. Personally, I'm heavily inclined to learn towards the latter, option 2. Of course, the trouble with projecting a certain number is year-to-year variance. Saying that if Lofton played his 2006 season 10000 times he'd average a .285 BABIP doesn't mean that when Lofton plays his 2006 season once (as he will) he won't have a BABIP of .350 or a BABIP of .220. But it means that he's most likely to have something around .285, in my opinion. It doesn't mean that he can't have a .360 BABIP again, it doesn't mean that he won't, it just means that's it's not likely. What does a BABIP of .285 for Lofton's 2006 mean? Basically, it means that he's thoroughly useless as a baseball player, and we shouldn't sign him. Now really I should do the five-year segments thing to come up for a proper AVG/OBP/SLG projection with a .285 BABIP, but for now I'll just roughly translate Lofton's 2005 numbers... .256/.322/.319 Just say no.