Diffusion

Pedro has only thrown fewer than 186 innings once since the mid-1990s. He's always a little dinged up, but he pitches through it and definitely produces, no matter the circumstances. We certainly can't say the same thing about Prior. Yes, and Pedro Martinez is 34, has a 90% torn labrum in his pitching shoulder and is throwing in the mid- to high-eighties. Prior when healthy is one of the best three pitchers in all of baseball period, and he's 25. However big the supposed injury risk with him, there aren't 50 players in the game that should be owned over him.

Why?

Extremely easy call. Do it. Leaving aside that Weeks is just flat out a better prospect, there's also the fact that Weeks is one of only four second basemen in the game that can relied upon in the long term to do something more for your team than just not hurt you: Utley, Giles, Weeks and Kendrick. Jackson meanwhile plays first, a position where offence is extremely easy to come by (I mean, come on, you've already got Delgado, Giambi and Fielder), and he doesn't project to be much more than just an above-average regular. Yes, he has insanely good plate discipline, but he's not shown any signs of much more than doubles power. There's no superstar potential here. Can't say the same about Weeks. He could be the 2002-03 version of Alfonso Soriano, only with walks too. I wouldn't do Papelbon for Bedard. I wouldn't even think about it. I like Bedard, and who knows which of the two will have more value in the long-term, but as long as Papelbon's the closer in Boston, he'll be a lot, lot more valuable short-term. Right now he has to be treated as one of the most valuable closers in baseball, slotting in just after the top six of Lidge, Rivera, Rodriguez, Nathan, Ryan and Wagner, somewhere around Huston Street and Chad Cordero. And you wouldn't trade any of those guys for Bedard.

Magglio Ordonez is more overpaid than Derek Jeter .293/.347/.436 since joining the Tigers, earning $15m a year Numbers essentially similar to Jeter's, only Magglio plays RF. That easily outweighs the extra $5m a year Jeter's getting. I don't know if he's the most overpaid in baseball, probably not, but he tops Jeter Some other names that haven't come up so far to consider... Eric Milton, Russ Ortiz, Kaz Matsui

If the 32 year old Derek Jeter and 35 year old Pedro Martinez are on the list, why on earth not Manny Ramirez, Todd Helton, Bobby Abreu etc? It's clearly not a case of them being too old. Not good enough? Who are you kidding. The omissions of Prior and Aramis Ramirez in particular are pretty ridiculous, and I'm not just saying that as a Cub fan. Both are legitimate top 25 material, how they miss the entire 50 is insane. Prior's hardly too much of an injury risk when Pedro's on there. I'd have Beckett on there as well. Liriano too. Carl Crawford has a case. Chase Utley. On the whole, the list is too obsessed with upside and doesn't involve enough proven commodities. Upside's great but most stud prospects don't develop into stud major leaguers. Quite a lot are busts, others are merely decent major league players. The only prospects I'd have on the list are Felix Hernandez, Delmon Young, Justin Upton, BJ Upton and Francisco Liriano. The rest - Kendrick, Wood, Zimmerman, Chris Young, Hermida, Verlander - they've got no place on a list like this. Look at the top prospect list from years gone by and it's littered with would-be superstars that now would have absolutely no place on a list like this. I'm not saying that Kendrick etc. won't become very good major league players, but the chances aren't as high as they may seem, and the risk is too great to justify taking them over one of today's superstars, or even someone with similar talent that's already succeeded to some extent in the majors.

His ERA is 3.01 career currently for those curious. In order to get his career ERA to under 3.00, if Maddux throws 220 IP this year, he has to post do so with a 2.58 ERA or lower. That's a pretty tough assignment: the last time Maddux had a season that good was 1998. In other words, he'd be the likely Cy Young winner, as srbin insinuated. Sure. But it's a lot easier to think of it in terms of Maddux putting up a 2.58 ERA this year than him getting his career ERA to 2.99.

His ERA is 3.01 career currently for those curious. In order to get his career ERA to under 3.00, if Maddux throws 220 IP this year, he has to post do so with a 2.58 ERA or lower. That's a pretty tough assignment: the last time Maddux had a season that good was 1998. Or, in other words, he needs to throw 200 innings with a 2.70 ERA from here on out. He last did that in 2002.

His ERA is 3.01 career currently for those curious. In order to get his career ERA to under 3.00, if Maddux throws 220 IP this year, he has to post do so with a 2.58 ERA or lower. That's a pretty tough assignment: the last time Maddux had a season that good was 1998.

8th.

7 IP, 3 H, 2 R, 1 ER, 1 HR, 0 BB, 1 HBP, 10 K, 5 GO, 7 FO for Gallagher now Taking him to 19 IP, 14 H, 1 HR, 2 BB, 22 K, 0.47 ERA in 3 starts, 23 GO, 10 FO

Bullpen, Innings 7-9 25.2 IP, 11 H, 1 HR, 12 BB, 20 K, 1.05 ERA

WOW. I didnt know Pie's OBP was that much higher than his BA. I know this is only 52PA, but this is a really encouraging sign. Im impressed. Brownie on the other hand is really lmaking me scratch my head. That's helped alot by his HBP and intentional walk yesterday. But his BB/K ratio is very good and much improved so far. To be extremely picky, Pie's OBP is actually .418, Patterson's is actually .391, and Patterson's slugging is actually .585. Patterson has 46 PA and Pie 55 (not including sac bunts). But apart from that, the above numbers are correct.

With a little help from some programmer friends of mine I found a way to aggregate data from gameday casts. Ah. Gameday's strikezone is in my experience typically...how can I put this, erm, yes, that'd work...shockingly awfully bad. Basically pitches accurate to within about a foot, the umpire is always, always right, and if a player swings at a pitch, with the exception of stuff in the dirt, it was always going to be a strike anyway. Honestly, if you ever get the chance, try watching the game and Gameday alongside each other and you'll see what I mean.

Wow. Awesome. How are you doing all this? It looks like he's got a bit of a hole up and in around the hands (quite a few swings and misses up there), but that's nothing major, and that he's not comfortable taking outside pitches the other way (a lot of takes up and away especially and hardly a single ball fielded by the third baseman or left fielder). He'll need to work hard on that, because that's something that'll definately be exploited by major league pitchers. Apart from that, very encouraging. Any possible differentiation there between fair and foul contact?

And some of the pitching prospects with a good shot at the rotation in the NL Central are lefties as well: Houston: Troy Patton Pittsburgh: Tom Gorzelanny, Sean Burnett Milwaukee: Dana Eveland The Pirates could even with time field an all-lefty rotation. Victor Santos isn't going to last, and Ian Snell I think is headed to the bullpen long-term. There's Kip Wells who could ruin things, but who knows with him.

Great great work, BK. Show us Pie's strikezone if you've got that!

Prior. Period. Especially in a keeper league.

Lee can also run the bases, and should age better given his athleticism. I'm reasonably convinced Derrek Lee is for real, so I definately prefer his deal to Ortiz's.

2B Eric Patterson 1B Derrek Lee RF Miguel Cabrera 3B Aramis Ramirez CF Felix Pie LF Matt Murton C Michael Barrett SS Ronny Cedeno There ya go.

He knew he'd pitch like this?

Your only real weakness is that, if that's Delmon Young on your bench, you're one big outfield bat short (as opposed to two). I'm not a big fan of Jose Guillen. Try packaging Mora and Guillen together and getting the best OF you can get. Apart from that, your team is extremely solid, I'd say.

He didn't make the wrong decision at other times in this game, but he clearly did here. Which decision are you even talking about? The decision to bring in Williamson for the bottom of the sixth? The decision to bring in Eyre to replace Williamson? The decision to bring Eyre out to start the seventh having already thrown nine pitches? The decision to leave Eyre in after Hatteberg reached? After Kearns reached too? After Narron pinch-hit with Freel, a right-hander? After he walked Freel? There's nothing clearly about it. Bullpen management isn't an exact science, and so it's reasonably rare even with Dusty that you can say he flat out made the wrong decision. This isn't one of those rare occasions, unless you can successfully argue that a) Jerome Williams was definately available last night, that b) Dusty wanting to get as many pitchers as possible into a proper competitive game but with the pressure somewhat off was definately wrong AND that c) Dusty wanting to keep one reliever in hand (Wuertz, as it turns out) for flexibility in case of injury/meltdown was definately wrong. Go for it. Maybe there's not a better option that's healthy? Maybe it's better to have an eleventh pitcher even if you'd rather not use him than to go with ten pitchers? Maybe it had nothing to do with not wanting to use Williams and more to do with wanting other guys to get into the game? Maybe Jerome Williams wasn't feeling well yesterday? Maybe he's working on his mechanics or something and isn't quite ready for games yet? A little imagination really wouldn't go amiss.

I think that the Reds and Pirates have the least team chemisty, and that therefore they will finish in the bottom two places in the division!

You draw the line where it makes sense. I'm not worried about burning through relievers in short stints. I just don't see the point in extending Eyre unnecessarily. And where does it make sense? You're seeing this as a completely black and white issue, as if Dusty plainly intended to have Eyre go out there and throw an excessive number of pitches, and as if what's an excessive number of pitches is a matter of objective fact. But the fact of the matter is that Eyre came in with the bases loaded and no outs in the sixth inning, and within nine pitches he'd succeeded in retiring the side, allowing just the one run to score. At that point, Dusty had three innings left to pitch, and four relievers to do it with, plus Jerome Williams. Due up in the seventh, Hatteberg, Kearns and Valentin (a lefty that had already homered, a righty with somewhat dangerous power and a switch-hitter that bats better from the left-hand side). The decision then to stick with Eyre, meaning that he didn't have to effectively commit to using all of his relievers in the game, preserving some flexibility in case someone just didn't have it that day, can easily be defended. And then the inning went from there. Eyre allowed the first two hitters to reach, before retiring Valentin. That required of him 12 pitches, taking him to 21 on the night, and that point the Reds brought in Ryan Freel, a right-hander, to pinch hit. Certainly, Dusty could have made a switch there and then, or after Eyre had walked Freel on another eight pitches, bringing in either Wuertz or Howry to get the final two outs, but he didn't. And that he didn't quite frankly isn't that big a deal, and certainly isn't definitive evidence that he's a Scott Eyre abuser. Far more likely the decision was tactical, Baker wanting to keep a reliever in hand in case the game suddenly got close again, and who on earth are you to fault him for that? All I know is you'd be the first to jump all over him for bullpen mismanagement if he ran out of relievers, or if he put Jerome Williams in there and he blew things. Then he should have known that Williams is a starter with two bullpen appearances in his life who needs his four days of rest and his two hour warmup and so on. The term for what you've got with Dusty is an agenda. Oh give me a freaking break. When I first brought this up yesterday I said, I know it sounds nitpicky. I've added that nitpicky footnote in several of my posts in regard to this situation. Don't freaking tell me I'm talking about it retroactively. That's BS. You can play it whichever way you want. I've only seen your comments in this thread, but none of them were prefaced with nitpicking qualifiers. Even if they were, the very definition of nit-picking involves small and inconsequential matters, so quite where you're getting so hot under the collar here with your freakings over someone debating your nitpick I really don't know. Unless, of course, it wasn't the nitpick you're now very unconvincingly trying to dress it up as. Either way, if you weren't overreacting before, you sure are right now. Uh huh. Again, for something so trivial and inconsequential, which is what nitpicking's all about, these are very strong terms you're using. Stupid. Pointless. Absolutely no justification. Let's just say I'm glad you're in possession of all the facts, including every bit of information that Dusty had available to him yesterday as he made all his decisions, and that you're clever enough to have deduced so undisputedly and unquestionably what would have been exactly the right way to handle the bullpen yesterday that you can tell us all it with this much conviction. Strangely, just about every other single person in the universe thinks that bullpen management isn't an exact science. Oh, the ever popular fallback. Dusty himself uses this one a lot, usually when he burned through a guy unnecessarily a day before. I love the ever so juicy implication that Dusty and I walk alike talk alike. Yes, because it's absolutely impossible that anything could happen to anyone that might might make them day-to-day as opposed to requiring them going to the disabled list, especially when the club is a little short on starting pitchers. Which is, for the record, what Jerome Williams is, with all of two bullpen appearances in his entire professional career, as I pointed out above. Now, personally, I agree that it's much more likely that Dusty didn't think of using Jerome Williams, because he views him as a starter, as opposed to Williams never being a viable option for a reason beyond Dusty's control, but let's not pretend we know things when what we're actually both trying to do is nothing more than make the best educated guesses we can. Why is his track record not applicable? Who cares about the spirit of opening day. How about the spirit of not making the same mistakes you've made in the past? This is similar to all the "well it's still early, let's not worry" talk from the past couple years when the team looked sloppy, ill--prepared and uninspired. They talked all spring about being focused and sharp right from the start. Foolish managerial decisions are not justified because of the pomp and circumstance of opening day. It's not applicable because, as I've already explained, the situation yesterday was somewhat exceptional. We're not talking about a run of a mill situation when six relievers to get 13 outs unforeseeably turns into four relievers to get 12 outs. You can mock giving him the benefit of the doubt as much as you want to, you can parody my argument as you see fit, you can even talk about the pomp and circumstance of Opening Day if you're really off your rocker, but none of that's going to get you anywhere. What might is opening your mind to the possibility that, once in a blue moon, Dusty Baker might not necessarily have made completely the wrong decision and therefore, in that single instance, he wasn't the stupid, pointless fool you unfailingly take him for.

And he's not that good.