Gom

I appreciate it. It's not that I don't understand, or appreciate it, which I do on both accounts. It's just with scientific analysis, you go into an experiment with a hypothesis. You have two things that can happen if it doesn't go according to plan. Either there was an error in the empirical data or the formula, or the expectations are wrong. I personally think that in the case of baserunning, there are too many variables that are not accounted for. Either way, I will take you up on your offer. Being a scientist by education, I always question everything. I like to learn..but also to argue. You, like my arch-nemesis, ORS , have shown you can hold your own. Kudos to you.

Wow...you guys actually read up in New England, huh?

Ok, for those of you that are fans of literature, this is a reference to what famous story? If you don't know it, you have missed out on one of the great works of literature of all time.

I agree. Think of something witty to say, somethimes 90% of the thread is sigs.

These guys are unproven and therefore cannot be seen as viable options, Jacko. Listen, my Yankee friend, our farm system has been s***. We had a dry spell for nine years. We got lucky in the draft and got Joba and Kennedy. Hughes was a no-brainer. Cashman is a terrible judge of pitching talent. We don't know about the kids yet, and that was all Oppenheimer anyways. Under Cashman's reign, we've had Weaver, Vazquez, Brown, Randy Johnson, and the return of the Rocket. Let's not forget his collassal error in choosing Pavano over Pedro, and his decision to let Santana go to the Mets for Kennedy, Cabrera, and a bar of soap. Last year he underbid for Matsuzaka, and overpaid for Igawa. Ted Lilly wanted to come back to the Yankees, pitches well against the Red Sox. We got Igawa. Lilly had a 3.83 ERA with a 1.14 WHIP. They would have cost about the same, but due to Lilly's salary instead of the posting fee, it would have been a small increase. So he saves money, and we get Igawa...he of the 6.25 ERA and the 1.67 WHIP. Lets not forget that Lilly threw over 200 IP. Instead, we watched the Red Sox hit 4 consecutive homers against Wright...and the bad pitching stories go on and on and on. His positives have been Moose. That's it. The likely fact is that most of these guys will not have successful major league careers. Marquez is a junkballer. Sanchez is an injury risk, so is Brackman, and so is Horne. Now, they may all pan out. How often does that happen? You're talking like these guys can come in now and be serviceable major league pitchers. Our rotation is as suspect as it's been in years. Hell, last year, going into spring training, our rotation was more stable. I've said this before, stop reading the press clippings. The Yankees pitching is much, much weaker than you'd like to believe, and our GM is the most overpaid and overrated GM in the game. That's one thing he and his managing lackey, Torre, have in common.

Taken from Baseball Injury Report. According to Dr. Morgan, Schilling is not only done for this year, but his career is likely over. Hats off to him. He helped end your curse. As a Yankee fan, I can't help but tip my cap to one of the top competitors and hated rivals in the game. Enjoy your retirement, Curt. You earned it.

ORS...you have a sense of humor? You may be human after all.

"Get current" from a fan of a team that waited 86 years between championships...lol. You really in your heart believe that the Yankee clubhouse is a steroid enclave and that the Red Sox clubhouse is the Church of Latter Day Saints? I have a couple of friends who work for the Yanks, and are downright shocked that Ortiz wasn't named, as well as Delgado. Look at Ortiz's numbers from Minnesota to Boston. Talk about a meteroic rise. Then throw in his irregular heartbeat [wow, where did that come from?]. How about the time he defended Carribean players taking steroids at a young age? Too many random coincidences. This isn't proof in a court of law, but where there's steroid smoke...there's steroid fire. Your championships are just as, if not even more, the result of star players taking steroids. Don't kid yourself. The athletes are just as dirty, the uniform doesn't matter. Most of the ballplayers in the majors, in fact, I'd say 99% of them, aren't as smart as I am, or even you. How many of them actually graduated with a real college degree? They have money, but outside of the game, that's it. The education level isn't there, they don't follow up on what this stuff will do to their bodies in the long run. Either that or they don't care. They don't have the education because they never had to. I wouldn't have had it either if I had a 99 MPH fastball. They've lived a life of priveledge. Things came easy to them compared to the rest of us. Women, money, fame. What they have over me is unbelievable physical skill in the game of baseball. This is all most of them will ever know. They'll be famous, but they are out of the spotlight when it's over. So they will do nearly anything to stay where they are, get better, etc. I don't think they're any better than me, or that I'm better than they are. Because they have such disposable resources, they lie, cheat, steal, do drugs, have money to literally burn on wine, women, and song. They have the money and fame to replace anything they lose with little consequence. Considering the life they lead, I'm not surprised they cheat. What annoys me the most about this steroid stuff is that it's on all teams. From the sure-fire HOFers [bonds, Clemens] to the marginal [Mota, Lawton]. It's everywhere. I wouldn't be surprised at anyone anymore. Not Jeter. Arod. Rivera. Posada. I wouldn't be shocked and surprised at all. In baseball, this s*** was known. You really think that only the Yankees were doing it, and the Red Sox sat there and watched? You think the Bronx Bombers were juiced up while the Monsters of Fenway played a good clean game, went home to their wives after the game, and went to church on Sunday? I have no illusions about the "purity" of the team I watch. Can you say the same?

You wouldn't want to corrupt a young, impressionable franchise. Putting him on a team of stars that wouldn't put up with his s*** would be the best option. He is a mercenary of the highest order [in baseball terms]. Now I agree that he would put fannies in the seats, but you don't want to corrupt the core. He'd be terrible for Tampa. They'd walk him all the time, and he'd be a bad influence on their young core. He'd be ideal for the Yankees or Mariners or Angels. Teams that are a player away are who need him more than the Royals.

You make valid points, my friend. The statistics are about as credible as Jayson Blair.

I agree with SITN, Jacko. It wouldn't hurt to have him, but it probably wouldn't help either. I heard Gammons say that the Red Sox don't want Lester and Buchholz to throw 200 innings. If Colon makes the team, he'll be that spot starter/long relief guy. If he can give them 100 innings, that 50 less for Clay and John. Great is a little strong, don't you think? That's like saying Roseanne is just a little big-boned.

You make valid points, I have to agree. However, do you really believe that baserunning is more or less as static as batting average as you claim? Like you listed, none of the top 5 in the AL in 2007 finished in the top 5 in 2006. I personally think BA is not the most indicative of a player's offensive value when used alone. In 2007, according to BA, Posada was a better hitter than Ortiz. Is there anyone in their right mind that would take Posada at the plate over Ortiz? When you agree to that, then I'll agree that Crisp is a better baserunner than Granderson. A player may just get lucky. Look at Posada. A career .270+ hitter, he hit .338 last year. Does anyone think he'll repeat it? There is variability there, much more than in fielding and baserunning. Baserunning and fielding tend to decline across the board as players age. Bonds, if he plays again, may hit .350 again. I don't think he'll steal 50 bases again like he has in the past. Why not? You tell me. Is everything that happens on a field quantifiable? I would say given all the variables, if able to quantify it, then the answer would be yes. Do we have a statistical model that can accurately determine baserunning? Not in my opinion. Too many variable that are not accounted for. The point is that the models do not account for enough of the variability to be taken any more strongly than a trend, in my opinion. This is not true of all stats, as offensive and pitching stats have been around more, studied more, advanced more, and are easier to quantify. Maybe we'll get there with fielding and baserunning, but we aren't there yet.

I had never heard of Colon coming to New York. I don't know where you got that from.

New York Roid Ragers, bitches! First pick. Bonds. Then Clemens. Then Giambi. Then Pettitte. Have to fit Big Papi in there somewhere. WHAT?!?

If Colon makes your staff...one of two things happened. 1) He was lights out, and you will have the best starting five in the last twenty years. or 2) Something terrible happened, like he gets it by default after Buchholz and Beckett go down with season-ending injuries.

Touche.

How do you quantify it? It's like throwing arm. Do assists necessarily show who's got the best arm? The best shortstops may have more errors than a lesser shortstop because they simply get to more balls. What's their respective speed going from first to third? The only real quantifiable number that has little/nothing to do with the rest of your team is base stealing. That is why I don't buy the analysis as being solid. There are too many variables that have little to do with the baserunner. Keep that list handy since I don't have access to BP. Let me know at the end of this year how consistent it is. It is my subjective opinion that a player's skill in baserunning doesn't vary all that much from year to year under the age of 32 [that's when they start slowing down in footspeed]. If there is a decent amount of variation, then the statistic is useless.

Here is where I will respectfully disagree. There are many factors that go into baserunning, and it is not accurately defined by current statistical models. Since I don't have the particulars of the statistical formula, who was in the top ten for the last two years? My point is that baserunning is a skill that doesn't differ from year to year until the player loses a step or two. In fact, I would guess that players baserunning improves as they learn the arms of the outfielders, the turf, etc. If the difference is significant, then I would say its a useless model.

LOL! Fair enough. However, I don't buy Crisp being a better runner than Granderson. The formula isn't fool-proof, and you guys know it. Stealing your quote of Sheehan, Jayhawk... Yes. Yes. Yes. I care more about winning than I do steroids. Look, I'm convinced a lot of these bulked up superstars have taken steroids, supplements, etc. It doesn't bother me, at least not anymore. Regardless of your personal feelings on Bonds [i for one, don't care for him, and would be upset if he EVER got in the HOF], looking at his cost, he's actually one of the biggest bargains. He's one of the top hitters in the game. He would take a one year contract. He would come at a very cheap price due to the steroid/perjury problems. He wouldn't even cost you a draft pick. Put him on the Yankees behind Jeter and Damon with that short RF porch, and he may hit 40 homers [30-35 is more realistic]. Put him in front of Arod, and he won't get the walks he did, but his average/HR/RBI will probably go up. I think it would be a safe bet to say that he'd post a .400 OBP. If he gives the Yankees the same BA/HR/RBI as last year, I'd take it in a heartbeat. The negative? A circus? Like New York isn't already a circus. Steroid controversy? We already have that. At this point, his pro's outweigh his con's significantly. The Yankees aren't a young team packed with rookies. They are a veteran team with many stars. Bonds won't faze them. Don't kid yourself, there are as many cheats in Boston as there are in New York. They just didn't get caught. The guy wants to win. He's still among the top ten hitters in the game. So yes, I'd take him in a heartbeat.

Amen brother. To tell you the truth, I'm surprised at how close I came on Santana. Guess I know my baseball. What I don't understand is that Bonds swings the balance of power. I'm getting tired of all this managing the clubhouse s***. GM's should manage more on paper, and let the manager deal with personalities. The Yankees were dysfunctional. The 2004 Red Sox were idiots. The 2002 Angels were too young. So were the 2003 Marlins. Enough already. Put the best collection of talent on a team, and let them fly.

Yes. I liked George, and I like Hank. I like owners who try to win, and don't manage their teams from a profit and loss sheet. Trust me, you're much better off. You'd be fighting for the wildcard if I was the GM this season. Check this post out, dated October 9th. http://www.talksox.com/forum/damn-yankees/9835-goms-plan-fix-yankees.html I goofed on Carlos Pena, I had thought he was a free agent. That being excused, lets see the following: 1) Hire Girardi. Holy s***, that was done. Pretty much everyone now likes the idea. 2) Sign Arod to an extension. I think I remember reading somewhere that it was also done. 3) I'll quote this one: Wow...considering that when all was said and done, the Twins asked the Yankees for Kennedy, Cabrera, and Marquez, a LESSER prospect than Horne, and that idiot Cashman said no... 3b) Trade Giambi. Easier said than done, but if you get Bonds, no reason to keep him. Unless he can play first. 4) Carlos Pena. Admitted error, and was the precursor to getting rid of Giambi. 5) Bring back Abreu at a discount. Brought back, not at a discount. Same difference. 6) Sign Bonds. STILL WAITING. 7) Trade Matsui. Going to the Giants for one of their pitchers, maybe the Mariners or Mets would have been interested...would have been valid, and still would be. 8) Resign Posada and Rivera. Cashman overpaid, but I wouldn't have, and they would have come back anyways. Admittedly, I would have given them the same money if it meant them staying. So, if I was GM, you'd be playing for the wild card. Bonds would be hitting in front of Arod, and the Yankee rotation would be Santana, Pettitte, Wang, Hughes, and Mussina. He gets paid millions, and I would have done a better job. Remember, I posted that October 9th.

Funny quote, but just more proof that you're not that sharp. His strong points were Coco was an average player. Yup...11th out of 14th in qualified players makes you average in OPS. I guess that means that Mike Mussina is a top tier pitcher. By this comparison, Farnsworth is better than Papelbon. It holds about the same amount of water. Let's not forget coming up with being a better baserunner [sic] than Curtis Granderson. Curtis was 26 for 27 in SB, while Crisp was 28 for 34. This has to be one of my favorite quotes. If you buy this, I NEVER want to hear how Jeter's Gold Gloves aren't deserved. Ever. I mean it. Ever. I'm the first one to rip Jeter's defense, but his Gold Gloves are closer to the truth than this other statement. Ok..maybe not, but close. Ok, maybe not even close, but you get the idea. Remember...when a cop stops you and unzips his pants...it's not a breathalyzer test. Please don't say I never tried to help.

Sadly true for us.

In all seriousness, welcome. Nice side story a700. Part of my reason for season tickets is I want my father to see a World Series clincher in person. My best baseball memory ever is [sorry Sox fans] watching the Boone game with my father and brother at the stadium on what happened to be my brother's birthday. It's a memory I'll never forget, and more so that we saw it together than the game itself. I just missed out, starting my season tickets in 2002. He's getting up there in age, not in good health, and only has a few more years at best, if that, so I understand where you're coming from.