ORS

Mod request.

Cam thinks F% is more important than zone rating stats because errors make him sad. I think making outs is the objective, so stats that quantify that are peachy keen. Discuss.

You can't be serious about the Lo Duca question? Pettitte used the same personal trainer as Clemens, who has already been linked to Radomski. Find me one such tie to a current Sox player.

No it isn't, you just haven't made one yet. Do you know what RZR stands for? It's Revized Zone Rating. One of the flaws in the original ZR was the inclusion of OOZ plays. RZR eliminates them from the ZR, and gives them their own category. I don't know where you are going with this, but it seems this information seems to have eluded you, so there you go. If this were an "all things other than F% being equal" discussion, then you'd have a point. Your first, I might add. That's not the case, though. You "prefer" F% to those other stats, meaning you place more value on the error over the hit. Linear weights of on field events doesn't agree with you. How you like them apples? Hey, thanks for dropping that bit about something that happens maybe twice in an entire season. And, I already answered that question. Honing up on those reading skills really seems like it's in order.

Name one who was likely to purchase PEDs from the Mets trainer.

Good I suggest you read it again. Oh wait, that didn't go so well for you last time since you completely missed the point. Here, allow me, example's last paragraph: Looks to me like he's saying getting to more balls is more important than being marginally more adept at handling them. Your interpretation of English may vary. RZR absolutely considers players making plays out of zone. RZR eliminates out of zone plays (OOZ) and creates a new category for them. I'm sure you are thinking, "But Lowell's OOZ plays dropped from 43 to 27. Surely that supports my position." Maybe, but let's look at who was playing next to him. In 2005 and 2006, Alex Gonzalez made 41 and 42 OOZ plays (conveniently they played together in 2005 so we have two years of data to look at), and Mike Lowell made 39 and 43. Looks pretty consistent. Lugo makes 55 last year. Lowell wasn't required to make as many OOZ plays because he was playing next to a SS with superior range. The difference between Lowell's '07 and '06 was the errors. He turned .765 of BIZ into outs in '06. Apply that to his BIZ chances in '07, and you get 237, 10 more than he recorded. He had 9 more errors. You are right, he won't need to look at his career RZR to know it wasn't as good as his best year to date. But that's irrelevant to what you are trying to suggest. Lowell was brought up as an example to suggest Crisp's defensive value might not hold up. The only difference in Lowell was 2.5x more errors. That means Crisp makes 3 less outs over a season. That's a marginal difference. JHB showed you the linear weight value of the events, and where I come from .75 = .75 is a logical concept. I understand why you rely on your preference for evaluation. It just doesn't hold up to any kind of analysis.

Quote the wrong post?

Oh, but I thought you were OK with it before the list came out? Make up your mind. And, I never said he was the best choice. As soon as he was announced as the lead of the investigation, I knew there would be problems with the perception of conflict of interest. Poor choice by Bud the dud. That isn't what I'm taking issue with in regards to your posts. He can still be a bad choice while remaining impartial. You've accused him of being impartial. That is what I take issue with. Now run along and enjoy your sponge bath with Howard Bryant. Seriously, do you read his stuff regularly? I wouldn't rush to jump into bed with that dolt.

If your concern over George Mitchell conducting the investigation didn't exist before the list came out, then it shouldn't exist now if you apply the list to what we know about his sources of information. Bottom line, this isn't the complete list. It's the list of those who were unfortunate enough to have their suppliers caught. That's it. It's kind of sad, really. A guy with Mitchell's rep and resume is going to get dragged through the mud all because of a rivalry. Pathetic. Grow the eff up, people.

And you never will be because you won't spend the time to look at the information. Your mind was made up before this list came out, IMO. The fact is, there were only a handful of sources of information, and these are the names associated with those sources. Where else was he supposed to dig? He followed the information available from those who were caught (Radomsky, the FL pharmacy, Grimsley, Balco). It would have been a waste of time to question anyone outside of those investigations because he had no leverage in getting their compliance with the investigation. "So, it appears a major source to the players was trainers. Hey, Mr. Red Sox trainer, did you sell PEDs to anyone? Tell me the truth, or I'll, well, I won't do anything because I have no evidence, so just fess up." vs. "Mr. Radomsky, I've been given the authority to grant you a pardon for your sale of controlled substances if cooperate with this investigation, interested?" Funny how that works.

I don't get the Kapler obsession. He'd just be another marginal name, another reason for those looking to find a way around this report to claim bias. Ever consider the primary sources of Mitchell's report? One is the former Met's trainer. I know that's not the Yankees, but it is NY, and he supplied Clemens trainer. Perhaps, and this isn't going out on limb, the reason prominent Yankees are on the list is through that connection considering Rajah went to NY immediately after Toronto. Look at the Yankee names. All of the non-Balco (one of the other sources in the report) were on the roster with Rajah. Coincidence?

Heed your own advice, why dontcha? Your Arod and Abreu obsession while extolling someone for having their own axe to grind is 100% ironical.

Well played.

That post is a bit inaccurate. Ortiz said he couldn't say for certain that they were steroid free, what with the Dominican being such an unregulated country. I know for you Yankee fans that Ortiz is the white whale similar to Kilo's desire to see Jeter on the list. Your obsession with discreditting him borders on the pathological. However, I don't see all that much similarity between his possible situation and Sheffield's. According to reports, Sheff got the advice to use this stuff from Bonds. I can't believe a professional athlete raised in this country would take anything from a trainer without first questioning its contents. The same can't be said for a kid in an underdeveloped country who thought he was consuming an over-the-counter supplement. It's apples and oranges.

Forgot that, good point. And, besides, this year's postroidal HR in the playoffs off him demonstrated Nixon's ownage of Rajah was real.

3 - 3 (Nixon 2-R HR erased too)

1. What did you expect, him to omit the "knowns"? 2. It would seem reasonable to expect those with connections to steroids in previous reports to be in this one, no? 3. I don't know who made the list, but my guess is formal/informal name usage was at the discretion of whoever took the time to post this. Could be real, could be fake, but it's proof of neither. It seems like a reasonable list to me. No surprises, IMO.

Here's the unofficial list that's floating around the message boards. Brady Anderson, Manny Alexander, Rick Ankiel, Jeff Bagwell, Barry Bonds, Aaron Boone, Rafaeil Bettancourt, Bret Boone, Milton Bradley, David Bell, Dante Bichette, Albert Belle, Paul Byrd, Wil Cordero, Ken Caminiti, Mike Cameron, Ramon Castro, Jose and Ozzie Canseco, Roger Clemens, Paxton Crawford, Wilson Delgado, Lenny Dykstra, Johnny Damon, Carl Everett, Kyle Farnsworth, Ryan Franklin, Troy Glaus, Rich Garces, Jason Grimsley, Eric Gagne, Nomar Garciaparra, Jason Giambi, Jeremy Giambi, Jose Guillen, Jay Gibbons, Juan Gonzalez, Clay Hensley, Jerry Hairston, Felix Heredia, Jr., Darren Holmes, Wally Joyner, Darryl Kile, Matt Lawton, Raul Mondesi, Mark McGwire, Guillermo Mota, Robert Machado, Damian Moss, Abraham Nunez, Trot Nixon, Jose Offerman, Andy Pettitte, Mark Pior, Neifi Perez, Rafael Palmiero, Albert Pujols, Brian Roberts,Juan Rincon, John Rocker, Pudge Rodriguez, Sammy Sosa, Scott Schoenweiis, David Segui, Alex Sanchez, Gary Sheffield, Miguel Tejada, Julian Tavarez, Fernando Tatis, Maurice Vaughn, Jason Varitek, Ismael Valdez, Matt Williams and Kerry Wood.

No, not 'nuff. Different positions. And, if you are going to determine when a player had a good year, you should compare his numbers to his career stats, not to others.

Ok, I see. Yet, I don't think it's a dire situation. They lead wire to wire and won the whole thing with the following occuring: Pedroia - Avg year, in line with MiLB performance Youk - Above avg or avg? Don't know, just hitting prime with moderate improvement each year Ortiz - Slightly above avg year, BA drove up OBP and SLG Manny - Worst career year by .070 OPS points Lowell - Best career year (similar OPS years, but more games, higher BA/OBP this year) Drew - 2nd worst career year, missed career avg OPS by .096 Varitek - Slightly above average year, lower than career averages, but consider catchers/age Crisp - Don't know what to call it, Jeckyl/Hyde since coming back from knuckle injury, looked like and up and comer before Lugo - Horrendous year, worst full season OPS by .050 points I see more reason to expect improvement rather than regression from that group going into next year. Three players at or around all-time career lows. Even if the bounce is moderate and they don't get back to norms, it's still a better team offensively. With Coco on the payroll, there is absolutely no need to go after another commitment in CF.

So, let me get this straight, in regards to their chances to repeat, you think the benefit lost in Ellsbury over Crisp is greater than the benefit gained in Santana over the 5th starter? Nutshell, that is your argument. I can't take that seriously. EDIT: If this is a total value discussion, I can see room for point/counterpoint. But you brought up "chances to repeat" and "making the playoffs". So, we are talking about next year only.

You are really missing the big point here. Ellsbury is the upgrade over Coco. He doesn't get traded, the job is his. Coco is only playing if they trade Ellsbury in the package for Santana. Thus, Santana is the upgrade. You don't think they make the playoffs with Santana added to the rotation and Crisp in CF?

Are you not familiar with how these things work? Collectables merchants approach the players and offer them $25K, $50K, $75K, etc to make a signing appearance for a prescribed amount of time. Are they supposed to turn that down? Remember, while many of them make more money than any of us will ever see in our lifetimes, scores more flash in the pan and are left to fend for themselves after their draft signing bonuses, league min salary, and appearance fees are extinguished. Ellsbury looks like he's in line to make big bucks in the future, but there's no guarantee. So, he should make every penny he can while he's earning the minimum to create some security for himself should he get injured and not be able to play ever again. If there's anyone to be upset at, it's the people willing to pay this, IMO. There's no market for it without idiots who scramble to pay insane amounts of money for something as worthless as a signature, or a used jockstrap, or toothbrush, or some other inane meaningless object.