3finger

If the proposed deal goes through, the Yankees will have a payroll that is more than $100M more than any other team in baseball. What a joke. Thanks God for the luxury tax! \:D/ Selected OFs by OPS: Abreu .861 Damon .827 Sheff .811 Matsui .807 Bernie .754 Melky .745 Bubba .557 Abreu's number is probably a little park-inflated compared to the other guys, but he's still a big jump over what they have. Despite Matsui's heroic comeback efforts, there is reason to doubt he'll be able to match his pre-injury performance this year. Just ask DLee.

the answer right there on your chart. his G/F ratio is near superhuman. a pitcher, in order to sustain success in the major leagues, must either strike out a lot of guys or get a lot of ground balls--i prefer ground ball pitchers, they seem to be more durable as they throw less pitches and get a lot of poor contact (poor contact on early pitches is worse than a strikeout). it doesn't matter if you have a poor defense around you, if you get 3 ground balls to every fly ball, you're gtoing to be very successful--check maddux's ratios when he was in his prime. Maddux had good G/F ratios, but also had much higher K rates than Wang has been able to achieve. Also, does anyone know if G/F ratios are usually repeatable (i.e., can we reasonably conclude that Wang will maintain this level of G/F success in the future?)

If you define Maddux's prime as 1992-1998, his K/9 was 6.91 and his K/BB was 4.78. Definitely not what Truffle is talking about, he had a great K-rate during his prime. To the point of the thread, Wang will succeed as a 3-4 starter, but a groundball pitcher who doesn't get too many Ks will definitely be more at the mercy of his defense and balls finding holes. Maddux didn't have a great K rate, but it was certainly good enough, given his great control. I think Wang's career K rate is just so low (3.13 per 9 IP) that he cannot continue to have this same success in the future unless he figures out how to miss more bats. There are always a few examples of pitchers with low K rates that have some success, but the odds are a guy like Wang will struggle. He's already 26, so his K rate is unlikely to jump significantly, and his strikeout numbers in the minors were mediocre. Here are Wang's comps from baseball-reference.com by similarity score. Younger or more sensitive viewers should avert their eyes. 1. Oyster Burns (992) 2. Andy Replogle (990) 3. Ben Harris (989) 4. John McCarty (988) 5. Billy Gumbert (988) 6. Edgar McNabb (987) 7. Tom Carroll (986) 8. Tex Covington (984) 9. Bob Gilks (984) 10. Emil Frisk (984)

The Dodgers have a better shot in the division (6 out, 4 teams to beat) than the wild card but the point is still valid. I doubt they'll be shopping Betemit, who would indeed be a substantial upgrade over the sad assemblage of drek (Walker aside) patrolling the Cubs middle infield this year. I'd do the VORP comparison but it would just hurt.

but shouldnt that give even more credibility for Z? The fact that he has an 11-3 record alone should wow alot of voters. Brandon Webb is 11-3 also and his ERA is .76 lower than Z's and Webb's WHIP is lower as well (1.11 compared to 1.23). A team's record should not come into play when deciding the Cy Young. The award is handed out to the best pitcher in the league, not the best pitcher on the best team. Fact is, Webb has been a better so far this year. Webb also pitches in the worst pitcher's park in the NL (now that Coors Lite has been humidified into just plain Coors). My guess is that his park adjusted ERA blows away most of the competition. But if someone wants to hand Z the award based on his vaguely Carlton-ish effort this year (lotsa wins on a crappy team), I wouldn't be all that upset.

Who is this Sandberg and did he know Ryne Sandberg? The Mets announcers this weekend were saying Biggio> Sandberg because Craig could produce more runs then Ryno and I nearly blew a fuse. Hurts me to say it, but Biggio has a very good case for being > Sandberg. Blasphemer! RCAA Biggio 346 Sandberg 197 OPS+ Biggio 116 Sandberg 114 ABs Biggio (through 2005) 9811 Sandberg 8385 Biggio has had a longer and stronger tail-end of his career, helped by the fact that he didn't retire for a year and then come back.

fwiw, top 10 by RCAA: 1 Lou Gehrig 1247 2 Jimmie Foxx 951 3 Dan Brouthers 934 4 Roger Connor 732 5 Jeff Bagwell 680 T6 Johnny Mize 667 T6 Mark McGwire 667 8 Cap Anson 659 9 Willie McCovey 536 10 Frank Thomas 505 Mize did his damage with about 1400 fewer ABs then Bagwell. McGwire had about 200 fewer than Mize.

I agree it's not worth breaking the bank, or the farm system, to get Rowand. But "barely above average" is a lot better than "way below average," which is what we have now.

Selected shortstops by VORP: Gonzalez BOS 8.2 Uribe CHW 0.1 Crosby OAK -2.3 Perez CHC -4.9 Adams TOR -5.9 Everett HOU -7.0 Barmes COL -11.2 Blecchh! Neifi actually could be a (small) upgrade for Toronto and Houston. Colorado is deep in infielders and might bring up Ian Stewart to play short instead of making a trade.

We might be able to get him for Pierre and one or two prospects that arent pitchers... and cash If that were the case, the Cubs would have given up on FIVE prospects for two years of mediocre center field. wait no.. maybe Pierre the two pitching prospects we got for Williamson and cash can get us Crash. yes that would be 5 pitchers... but so what. Because its five prospects for two years of mediocrity. Why do that? Rowand is roughly equivalent to Pierre, which isn't good, and there's no reason to give five prospects up for mediocre players who won't make this team significantly better. Rowand is way beyond equivalent to Pierre, and he's not interchangeable with a dozen AAA outfielders. Adjusted career OPS: Rowand 103 Pierre 87 That means Rowand produces just above the major league average, and at a position (CF) where offense isn't always easy to come by. Pierre is putrid; there's no kind way to say it. You could easily replace Pierre with Generic Triple A Outfielder, but not Rowand. Rowand isn't the second coming of Hack Wilson, but he would be a significant upgrade over Pierre. Great attititude and face-to-wall affinity don't make a player good, but they don't make a player bad either.

I haven't seen any discussion of Dierker as a candidate, although I'd love to see him come to Chicago. I'm also gonna get his book -- looks very interesting. I'm a little worried about the PAP issue -- in Dierker's day good pitchers routinely went 7 innings, but it takes more pitches to get that far today. Still, the quotes from the book suggest that he thinks about these issues, which is more than we can say about many managers.

OPS 2006: Rowand 747 Pierre 678 Career OPS: Rowand 788 Pierre 730 Rowand would be a significant upgrade, but I think the Phillies are looking for good young pitching in return. Would Hill and/or Guzman be enough?

I wish Dusty would get upset at Cedeno over his .281 OBP instead of this play. I was at the game, and I believe this was the play where Nick Johnson performed a decent take-out slide. Tale of the tape: Ronny 6-0 180' Nick 6-3 224' Maybe Cedeno should have been in a better position to take the throw, but I can't blame him for avoiding contact in this case.

Ramirez' OPS with the Cubs the last 3 years: 2003 805 2004 951 2005 926 I think he'll finish between .850 and .900 -- a good season, but a bit of a disappointment compared to the last 2 years. Ramirez is still a very good player as long as he can stay healthy.

The column is here.