SaorsaDaonnan

Awesome.

:shock:

I'm putting one together. Anyone interested in reviewing film with me? CHECK BACK FOR FIRST DRAFT ~ 9:30 CT

sorry, nm

Who on earth said that? The same guys who said Brownlie threw a 97 MPH curve?

A few clarifications: 1) I said that baseball should consider instituting a league-wide rule immediately banning anyone convicted of domestic violence. I need to add that this should be considered only if convictions for domestic violence are generally acceptable grounds for dismissal. If this proposal is at variance with the laws that govern employee rights, forget that I mentioned it. (We might still argue that the law should be changed, of course. But whatever the law is, baseball can't try to make an exception of itself) 2) To be a little clearer than I was above: baseball should not run player counciling organizations; these matters should be left to professionals. However, MLB could require attendance of counciling sessions over and above those required by the law, as a precondition for readmittance to the league. Any sessions would have to be run by qualified authorities, not just people MLB hires from wherever. It might also be acceptable for baseball to make sure that players from foreign countries have a unit on domestic violence laws (and MLB regulations), given that domestic violence laws are very unevenly enforced in many foreign countries. (Not that we do a particularly good job of it here in the states...) 3) No clue where the union would fall on all of this. I can imagine it dragging it's heals on the mandated reporter thing, but I have a hard time imagining that MLBPA leaders want to have their names and photos in the newspaper as trying to protect domestic abusers.

Broadly speaking, I think you're on target. MLB isn't in a position to control these things, and as a business organization it is certainly not the appropriate authority to deal with issues of criminal punishment or rehabilitation. Those matters are the exclusive province of the law. However, although I do not support direct involvement on the part of baseball operations groups, I nevertheless feel that baseball ought to take steps to ensure that each team does what it can to ensure that no incidents occur on team property or in the prescence of team officials. Perhaps coaches, players, and other baseball employees could be made into"mandated reporters" in the same way that other professionals are required to report other unethical behaviors. It might be advisable to institute a rule immediately banning any player convicted of domestic violence from paid positions in the sport. Decisions-at-the-commissioner's-discretion, however, strike me as unfairly ad hoc, so I must oppose them. To summarize, MLB should not attempt to oversee or manage a player's counciling, nor attempt to supplement punishment doled out by the law. MLB should, however, do everything it can to report possible wrongdoing and do everything it can to support the process of rehabilitation for any player it does not decide to terminate.

The argument that Hendry should be judged primarily or even entirely by the teams' win-loss record is ridiculous. I propose an alternate criterion: A GM should be judged by the quality of his decisions alone. The quality of his decisions should be understood to mean the wisdom or merit of the choices he made, at the time he made them, with the information that was then available to him. Available evidence includes all data in his actual possession, all data which he might have obtained via procedures involving reasonable difficulty and cost, and all interpretive and evaluative material available to him through both the organization and the larger professional and analytic communities. Reasonable difficulty and cost should be defined as bounded by industry's best practices except in those instances where a preponderence of impartial and authoritative third parties can agree that industy standards are deficient or otherwise lacking. Built into my proposed criterion is the idea that the GM is responsible for the coaches, scouts, and other managerial and developmental personnel in the organization.

What's wrong with that? We should object to stupid decisions and praise good ones; a good decision in a bad game is still a good decision, and a bad decision in a good game is still a bad decision. Sure, the volume should change depending on whether we are currently happy or sad. And,yes, it makes no sense to belabor minor negatives when things are overwhelmingly positive. But none of that implies that there should be a ban on criticism when things are going well. It's perfectly legitimate to object to stupid decisions whenever and wherever they arise.

You're saying that the journalist is out of line for pointing out that Morgan didn't explicitly deny the rumor? How so? Once we decide to put the matter 'on trial,' we need to look at the evidence while making as few assumptions or interpretive leaps as possible. Although the 'common sense' way to read the statment is certainly to understand Morgan as denying Thorne's claim (see the first sentence of Morgan's 'testimony'), if one is working only with common sense one would not be seriously considering Thorne's accusation in the first place. I think we can agree, though, that it is very unlikely that Morgan was trying to avoid telling the truth yet also avoid lying...if Morgan thought that lying was morally wrong, he almost certainly would not have found it morally acceptable to participate in a fake-blood deception in the first place. If Morgan doesn't mind lying but is afraid of getting caught, he could have answered this journalist's question much more evasively. If Morgan knew that Thorne's claim were true, and wanted to protect Schilling et al, it's hard to see why he would have chosen the strategy he did. However, we don't hear the exact question Morgan was asked, and we don't know whether the journalist asked follow-up questions. If this journalist tried to push Morgan on the point but got nowhere, then maybe we should be suspicious. But if that happened, why wasn't it reported? So probably the journalist was too stupid to ask the obvious follow-up question. The journalist may indeed be stupid, but the point you quoted him making isn't. We don't have enough information to come to a strong conclusion. If you thought that we should just go for the straightforward approach, why on earth would you bother to examine the evidence for a conspiracy theory in the first place? [/i]

Warren, you may be right that the handwringing over Murton is excessive. However, I think your analysis misses something important. Your argument, I think, looks like this: 1) Murton and Floyd are equally productive 2) If two players are equally productive, a lineup with one of them is no more likely to win than a lineup with the other 3) If the team is no more likely to win with one lineup than another, it's completely arbitrary which lineup the team uses. 4) If it's arbitary which lineup the team uses, it's illogical to care which lineup the team uses. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5) So, it's illogical to care whether the Cubs play Murton or play Floyd. The big problem is 3). Why? Player development and salary issues are important longer-term considerations which must be weighed alongside short-term gains in wins. Suppose I grant you 1) and 2). Even if playing Murton doesn't mean that we're fielding a significantly better team, it might nevertheless be a much smarter decision because it helps us position ourselves for the future. 1) Whereas Murton is a long-term asset, Floyd is a relatively temporary player. Even if he did remain with the organization for a few years beyond 2007, Floyd would be unlikely to remain in a starting role. Murton, on the other hand, will be under the organization's control for years and likely will be an option for a starting role for most if not all of that period. 2) Over the next several years, Murton's health risk is, to say the least, not likely to be comparable to Floyd's. Nor is Murton as likely to suffer from reduced 'healthy' performance in the aftermath of injuries. Moreover, Murton can be expected to recover from (at least some types of) injuries more quickly. 3) Over the next several years, Murton is not likely to suffer from age-related performance dropoffs such as reduced bat speed or declining conditioning. 4) Over the next several years, it is likely that Murton will be physically able to perform as an everyday player. Floyd will not, even if healthy. 5) Over the next several years, Murton will come quite cheaply and at (more or less) projectable cost. Floyd, or players like him, will come at a cost that is much less predictable and probably not cheaper. 6) MURTON MIGHT (IS LIKELY TO) IMPROVE Playing Murton offers us a path to the future that is safer in terms of both health and dollars, less likely to require supporting role players, and significantly less at risk for sudden dropoffs. I need not remind you of the value of low cost, low risk players on a team with an already high payroll, an impending need to give a payday to a young ace hitting free agency, and facing uncertainties about future funding levels. Most importantly, Murton also has a respectable shot at becoming a good player. So, even if we could all agree that Murton and Floyd are 'the same player' right now, it would still be quite logical to insist that the team play Murton.

Todd Hundley Joe Girardi Robert Machado ...maybe one day we can forget... Edit: not, of course, that MacPhail was in his right mind...

You guys have it all wrong. Sure, Wade's not what he used to be. He doesn't have the stuff anymore. But just look at those stats from yesterday. 5 innings, 6 hits, 4 walks. Only 3 runs. The conclusion is simple: Wade's a grinder! Yeah, people don't think of him as a firey guy any more, but they sure did back when he could bring the heat. Back then everybody knew he had that TEXAS GRIT! Well boys, I've got news for you: texas grit don't just go away. See, it's just that it's quiter now, more professional. As he's gotten older, he's become more mature, become more a pitcher than a thrower. Sure, he can't bring it, but that just makes him better: this tough guy gets through it all without some fancy curveball or blistering heat. How does he do it? He bears down, it's all focus and determination. Wade-y never lets a pitch out of his hand that's less than his best. Focus and determination. Texas Grit. 10 baserunners in 5 innings. 3 ER. That, boys and girls, is what I call a grinder. And somebody out there probably believes this crap! :roll:

1) "If Sammy behaves like that, someone will get mad at him and hit him." 2) "I am going to have my pitchers throw at Sammy." I doubt Guillen gets in trouble for this; all he has to do is 'explain' his statement. Most of think he said (2), but he could easily claim that he meant (1). Whether that claim would hold water with DePuy or whoever adjudicates these things, I don't know, but the burden of proof may be high. A lot might depend on how blatantly the pitch was targeting Sammy. It's not hard to imagine him throwing out the following douchebag line: "You know, me an' Sammy we used to play together, that comment was me watchin' out for him an' warning him, now people are mad 'cause we Latinos watch each other's back" I need not remind you that we've seen him pull this kind of crap before...as though Latin solidarity has anything to do with the issue.

Because these weren't willing participants in a war. That doesn't make the soldiers' deaths any less tragic. They're both tragic, but I would say that a shooting rampage in a place of academia by a student is more surprising and shocking. Not that we "expect" soldiers to die by any means, but the idea of death is much more relevant in their occupational description than that of a student. I think this is a tough question. On the one hand, it's clearly wrong to suppose that a soldier's life is less valuable than a student's. On the other, it seems to me that it is, often though not always, less bad when a soldier is killed than when a student is killed. Unlike the solider, the student is defenseless and unsuspecting. Put it in 'military' terms: killing innocent civilians is worse than killing armed combatants, particularly when the armed combatants are trained, voluntary professionals serving in an official capacity as instruments of their nation's will. Emotionally, I want to add that it's worse if some of the victims are female. Whether that is a legitimate claim I don't know. It seems to me that the identity and purposes of the killer also matter. Certainly we would be less upset if the same number of students had died as an unintended side-effect of an enemy attack on a legitimate target. This attack is worse for three reasons: 1) defenseless, noncombatant people were purposefully attacked, 2) the attack was not designed to serve a broader goal, so the attack can under no circumstances be seen as a tragic excess in a partly-justifiable struggle, as perhaps some civil killings could be, and finally 3) the identity of the killer himself. I'm not aware of any reports of his motives, but at this time it appears that he was a lone actor operating for purely personal goals, quite possibily connected to depression, lonliness, disgust, ect. Had he killed these people as part of some quixotic effort to save something or somebody of even questionable value, his action would be more understandable though certainly no less acceptable. But every appearance is that he killed these people for the purely selfish purpose of satisfying his obviously distraught emotions, whether the goal was to show people how wrong they were to ignore or insult him or to inact some sick fantasy. So, I propose this: the tragedy seems worse to us not primarily because the result is worse -the death of one good, upstanding person is no worse than the death of another- but because the act was worse. I do not think the games should be cancelled. I agree that there should be a moment of silence. A controversial question may be this: shall it be 32 seconds,or 33?

Just give him a cheeseburger and he'll be fine. Well, this is in good taste... At least call it a cheeseborger

Dear Rob, In that case, I love you. Sincerely, SD

Um... This is absolutely correct, but I don't see how it helps Banedon's argument. He said that benching a guy for not running out a popup is fine if it is done early in the season, but maybe a bad idea if done later in the season. If you start factoring in the idea that benching one guy will improve the production rate of several players rather than just one, the value gained from benching Encarnacion increases. Let's put it in terms of team run production rates. Since team production rates get multipled by lots more PAs than individual rates, the amount of games needed to balance out the loss from benching Encarnacion would be smaller. As the number of games needed to balance out the benching decreases, the number of games that must be remaining in the season becomes lower. As the number of games that must be remaining the season becomes lower, the greater length of the time period in which the benching makes sense increases.

I don't get it. Victories aren't less important early in the season. So, what's the difference? Maybe that the marginal increase in run production rate exceeds the fixed loss from benching him only when multiplied over a very large number of games? But if the lesson is going to stick with him all season, isn't it reasonable to think it will stick for much longer...for as long as he's under Narron, at least?

:? Nice that they'll be wearing only the pinstripes at home, but too bad they didn't make the dark blue jersey/grey pants setup the away uniform. Even the blueberries were better than the greys... (PS can't change the avatar until Friday...I lost a bet)

std. 5x5 roto plus OBP (hitters) and K/BB (pitchers) added. 12 teams C Joe Mauer 1B Ryan Howard 2B Freddy Sanchez 3B Troy Glaus SS Jhonny Peralta OF Adam Dunn OF Pat Burrell OF Coco Crisp DH Travis Hafner SP Scott Kazmir SP Ben Sheets SP Matt Cain SP Dan Haren SP Dave Bush SP Scott Olsen RP Jose Valverde RP Rafael Soriano BN Jeremy Hermida BN Carolos Quentin BN Matt Murton BN Conor Jackson BN Tim Lincecom :D :D :D :D I'm thinking this looks pretty awesome. Sure, the team has no SB potential at all, and yeah, the saves won't be so great, but damn if that isn't a beautiful team

I'd like to join, but I think it'd be going outside my zone a little bit. Gotta stay aggressive! [Ever notice how G.P. never responds directly to questions, or how he encodes his teachings in terms of aggressiveness?]

Could the people who want to dump Wood please give a reason for doing so? I don't think I have understood your position... You see, all I can think of is that you want him gone because you are angry, upset, tired of being disappointed, annoyed by hype, ect. But those are emotions. Surely these posters aren't arguing that these emotions matter in a way that ought to influence decisions about player personnel. Right? Nobody could be that stupid, right?

Hm...I'll keep my mouth shut about the angles question, you and Mephistopheles obviously know more about it than I. But I still interested in the accuracy/precision question. In your earlier post, you said that we should be more concerned with average velocity than where Prior topped out. I originally thought you were making a conceptual point about actual velocity: that a couple outlying pitchers aren't going to have much effect on a pitchers' performance, whereas his the velocity he normally throws his fastball at will be much more important (albeit only one of many factors). Now I'm wondering if you meant, instead of that, to tell us that we shouldn't worry about outlyingly high measured velocity because the data is probably unreliable. Of course, these points are not incompatible...did you mean both? Also -and thank you for taking the time to explain this, if you choose to- I want to be sure that I understand what you're saying in the paragraph quoted above. It sounds like you're saying that, datum by datum you can't trust a radar gun, but that if it sees plenty of pitches it will average out to the right answer. In other words, that you shouldn't use a radar gun to say "this pitch was 87 whereas that one was 89," but that it [is] okay to think that a radar gun seeing, say, a hundred of a guy's fastballs, a hundred curves, a hundred changeups, ect, will reliably tell you what his acutual fastball speed is, and what his avg. curveball speed is, ect. Is that right? [/i]is

Perhaps we can understand A New Era's post as supporting UK's general line of thinking. UK, if I understand him, advances two points: first, that radar guns aren't reliable enough to be worth worrying over, and, second, that actual fastball velocity (as opposed to measured velocity) is only one of many parameters determinitive of pitcher performance. A New Era's main point seems to be that whatever the actual speed of Prior's fastball, it was lively and really fooling hitters. In saying this, A New Era is clearly agreeing with UK that we should worry about movement just as much as velocity. A New Era then adds that since Prior's command and confidence were much better, our overall assessment of his last outing should be positive. I support this line of thinking and (following common sense) would add that the reports of a much-improved curveball help Prior develop a fuller ability to change speeds and eye level. At this point it looks like there is a wide consensus that we should be encouraged about Prior's recovery as well as his better numbers. The real question isn't whether Prior is better, but whether A) Prior is likely to keep improving and B) whether he is good enough as he is, Although many of the above posts focus on the disappointment of learning that Prior was only in the high 80s rather than the lower 90s, surely the real reason so many posters remain downbeat is that they're worried that Prior isn't good enough as he is and are worried he won't improve. Since Prior's control and movement seem at least decent right now, it isn't unreasonable for worries to focus on his fastball velocity. If I remember correctly, UK has argued that command and movement are more generally important than velocity among pitchers with major-league stuff. Many of the posters who continue to be pessimistic about Prior's performances may be nervous because they think, contra UK, that good fastball velocity is one of the most important characteristics of a successfull major league pitcher. Another worry focuses on Prior's ability to adapt to a reduced arsenal; for instance, whether he will learn tostop throwing high middle-out fastballs on 2-1 counts. My own view is that UK (again, if I remember his views correctly) is right about pitchers in general, but that Prior will make the adjustments on a much longer timescale than we should be willing to be happy about At least for those of us who believe that good fastball velocity is comparatively important (whether to Prior or to ML pitchers generally), the question of radar guns reintroduces itself, not as a matter of evaluating how well Prior threw yesterday but as a question about whether, as Sulleymon believes, his velocity is continuing to improve. So, whereas the UK / A New Era posts seem to me like last word on how we should feel about yesterday, I believe that Mephistopheles' excellent points about the observation angles of radar guns reenter the picture. At this point I have a question about UK's argument: he is clearly arguing that one radar gun is very different from another and that few of them are very accurate. Is he also arguing that none of them are very precise? If so, the velocity issue may become a lot harder for us to discuss. One more thing: Sulley, could you explain what you mean by this? What does "organic" mean in this context?