Jayhawk Bill

Joe Torre used his better pitchers at the right time, in save situations, each of his last five years managing the Yankees (I didn't check before 2003). Despite having Jon Papelbon, Terry Francona can't seem to do that.

Dice-K? This is the best I expected when Boston signed him. He might well retain a sub-.300 BABIP--maybe .280--because he lives on the corners and throws such a number of differing pitches. Three reasons Dice-K might be better this year, besides luck: 1) Tek knows him, and Tek can call pitches for him better this year. 2) Pitch f/x is in universal use. The UTexas study showed systemic bias against Asian pitchers by umps, but they can't do that repeatedly with Pitch f/x in use. 3) Tito didn't blow out Dice-K's arm in the first half.

Dale Scott behind the plate tonight--I have high expectations for a fairly called game. Furthermore, Scott calls a wide strike zone, with only 3.02 BB/9 IP thus far in 2008. That works to both Matsuzaka's and Dickey's advantage, but Matsuzaka loves the edges--all of the edges--of the strike zone, while Dickey is simply wild. Matsuzaka has been dominating in his last four starts, allowing one earned run in 23.1 IP. Dickey has been OK in his last four starts, too--only 4 ER in 26.1 IP--but, again, Dice-K has been better. It's not just the starting pitchers, it's also the teams, and Boston was a better team thus far in 2008, a better team over the last ten games, and a better team last night. While anything can happen, Boston should win this game. If that doesn't come to pass, I'll skip a day of posting in shame.

The improvement of remaining Yankees pitchers from 2007 to 2008 is actually one valid metric for the efficacy of Girardi's ability. The pitchers' ability to pitch effectively in 2009 is another such metric.

Let's hope that Kevin Slowey is better from his infected finger nail. After allowing three runs or fewer in ten of his first twelve starts--after posting an 0.93 ERA from June 13-July 4--he allowed 11 runs in 9.2 IP in his two July starts. This is his first second-half appearance. Maybe he's healed...:dunno:

She? You mean Robbie? I just reviewed all 50 of Robbie's posts. Allegations of negativity are well-supported. It started at 6:10 PM July 19th: Since then, 21 negative posts and only a handful of upbeat stuff. :thumbdown Brght side: it turned around, perhaps, last night.

Heck, by the BR metric Batting Wins, Roger LaFrancois had a much better career--1.3 batting wins better. And Roger LaFrancois only had 10 MLB at bats...

.257/.329/.416 career, primarily as a third baseman. Mostly played for Seattle.

5) If Minaya doesn't win in 2008, it's rumored he'll be fired, and Manny Ramirez would offer the Mets more in 2008 than Fernando Martinez could. From the GM's perspective, it seems to look less stupid. :dunno:

I think that ESPN has been reading too many message board posts full of crazy things that start rumors. OK, Fernando Martinez, Mets' top 2008 prospect per BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7114 From before the 2007 season: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=5977 2008 AA stats: .287/.331/.414, FRAA +4 in CF That's much better as a fielder than he had been previously. MLE of 2008 AA stats: .258/.294/.390 Heck, he's just 19 years old. Peak projection in MLB using 2008 AA stats and his age: .284/.336/.449 On average, he's a quad-A starting outfielder or a great platoon/bench outfielder--but that takes into the average his chance of washing out. 2008 PECOTA projection for age 25: .264/.338/.394 He's grown this year regarding power potential. Best (not closest) PECOTA comparables: Bobby Abreu, Felix Pie. *** If Big Papi comes back, Manny is a defensive liability in LF...I can't see this as a one-for-one, but I can see Fernando Martinez as an element of a trade involving Manny. I don't see any trade unless Minaya is willing to overpay, though.

On a trivial note, the July ERA of the A's is 3.60 and that of the Nats is 3.70. I guess that 0.10 earned runs per nine IP could hypothetically constitute "much better." :dunno:

Please point out to me one game this season where the umpire's calls favored the Red Sox enough to swing the game in their favor, from a loss to a win. Boston has played 100 games. Do your research, check Pitch f/x records, and prove your point that the umpires occasionally favor the Red Sox. Once you do that, I'll listen. 'Til then, do your own research. I was until 2003-2005. After watching the Yankees comeback in 2005, I changed my mind. Thus far, Pitch f/x has supported my position that the games seem to be influenced by umpires fairly often. To the contrary, if he's losing every call on the inside, outside, and low, he's better off grooving them and hoping that his fielders do their work than he is walking every batter. Buchholz gave up 7 BB in 9.2 IP those two games--using the whole strike zone wasn't working. BTW, just to be sure, I googled stuff regarding this game: http://www.baseball-reference.com/boxes/CLE/CLE199204121.shtml Nobody seemed to call Matt Young "mentally tough" for losing an eight-inning no-hitter by allowing two earned runs via walks. :dunno: If an umpire takes away the inside corner, the outside corner, and the lower half-foot of the strike zone, where does one locate a pitcher's pitch? If you look at Ted Williams' hitting chart, take away the two outside rows and the bottom three rows and the only two good spots left for the pitcher (together an area of roughly ten square inches in the umpire's outside corner) are overwhelmed by the 38 bad spots remaining. I didn't allege that the strike zone was 3" x 3" down the middle. I checked pitch call locations--you know, data, not baseless assertion--and I found that the strike zone allowed to Buchholz was over a square foot smaller than the regulation zone of, usually, between 2.5 and 3 square feet, with the best places to pitch taken away. That's an extraordinary difference. Most readers would recognize that.

Bump. You know, I checked Pitch f/x records for Buchholz's last two games this morning, and there's a potential reason he sucked: he was squeezed. Against Baltimore, he didn't get a called strike in the bottom six inches of the zone nor in the outer two inches of the zone (where pitchers usually get an extra couple of inches, not two inches fewer). Nauert took away the bottom couple of inches and four inches on the inside of the strike zone. Buchholz was throwing what should've been strikes and he was getting balls called, and then he had to groove his pitches. Let's see what happens in a game called with a regulation strike zone or, better, an MLB-norm strike zone before we believe that his AAA stuff won't translate to MLB.

Good points, ORS. FWIW, Terry Francona is now at -6.3 D3. That's now the worst in MLB: even the Jays and the Mariners are better, including the stretches so bad that they fired their managers.

Pardon my being away. Good points.

If his game calling is worth 40 runs per year to Boston--a rough estimate I posted earlier--then his gamecalling was worth around $10 million in 2005, more today. Varitek's defense is average over the term of his contract. Unless his gamecalling is worth money, one must evaluate Tek by his hitting...we can measure defense, and Tek isn't great, he's just MLB-level.

Change 'em back.

FWIW, Lugo has played every position except C-1B in MLB. He played a little 2B in MiLB, too, along with a little outfield.

It's interesting that the link has already gone dead. It could just be system maintenance; it could be something regarding the New Jersey paper's fact-checking regarding something from Cape Cod. I'd be interested to read the story if the link comes back. It's back! Your link: Associated Press: http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g-o7vOb0S4jzeFKDv1olWuonDDZAD91P5TS00 There are two sides to the story. :dunno:

Over in the TalkSox forum, a Yankees fan posted this:

"Going to go on record" is a future tense phrase. If you take a moment to actually read this thread (which some of us do before posting), you will find that I have gone on record regarding Jason Varitek and the All Star Game.

Stats are like litmus paper, not bikinis. They evoke two responses: 1) Responses from individuals who either accept the stats or who refute the stats, based upon evidence in either case; and 2) Responses from individuals who, unable to refute the stats, try to discredit those who use quantitative positions in discussion, because they prefer an old-fashioned, emotional, "I can yell louder than you so I must be right" shouting match. Your response is the latter. You've already lost the debate. Here you struggle, confusing two opinions of yours with facts. You believe that his slump is a permanent drop in talent level that will result in his being released from the Red Sox; you believe that the support that Varitek's peers show for him is asinine (spelling corrected). Neither is fact. In particular, I'm not sure why you'd insult a plurality of the players who voted for the All Star roster as being asinine: most people who follow MLB respect players' opinions regarding who the best players are. You are certainly entitled to your opinions. Please understand that we may not all be so swift to jump from opinion to fact.