Jayhawk Bill

If one checks Beckett's Pitch f/x Game Logs, the crucial difference between his disaster on the 17th and his two previous outings was the average vertical break on his curveball. The average drops his two previous starts were 5.32 and 4.38 inches. His start against Toronto his curve was dropping only 1.95 inches. Everything else looked fine--velocity, other movement, proximity of pitches to the edge of the zone--so I'd suggest that the issue was with his curve. That said, to me a comment regarding tingling in the arm as a possible cause makes sense. Heck, it's tough to throw an MLB-quality curve when one CAN feel one's fingers--trouble from sleeping awkwardly could certainly cause what we all saw.

What I'm saying is that the Yankees fans have made a mockery of your rules. The Yankees fans' quotes are outside your rules repeatedly; mine at least attempt to follow your posted guidelines. You know this, I believe; go back through the thread if you find yourself in doubt. But you post, "If you don't want to deal with Yankees fans, and you shouldn't have to, this is a Red Sox board after all, then stick to the Red Sox related threads." Do your rules not apply in this subforum? Do your rules not apply if Yankees are involved? :dunno:

Quote all of the "you are" insults here, please, for the record. I wouldn't want a perception that you're a hypocrite to exist--just post a count, so that we all know that it's equal, as you attest.

Hmmm. I'd thought that "Just drop it" was a request to, um, drop it. But you say you're not requesting anything. :dunno: And I'm saying that the three-year pattern of trades isn't at all statistically likely, and that three more recent trades were lopsided enough that each generated controversy regarding why the other teams would do them. You consider it preposterous, but even Gom has accused an MLB team of collusion in this thread...it seems not to be so preposterous.

Then why did you claim it as fact previously in this thread if there's no proof? See, when I pointed out that every allegation tracked back to one Murray Chass article that couldn't be supported, you posted with considerable certainty regarding the alleged tampering: What's changed, Gom? If you mean that you have no proof regarding the Yankees' innocence, I concur. Regarding your bolded text, it's an interesting interpretation of what you define as "proof." I don't dispute that feedback could indicate how welcome or unwelcome my perspectives are here. "Proof" I was wrong, though, would tend to require research, not opinion, and I'd be surprised if anybody else took the time to duplicate my work, let alone to increase the sample size to, say, ten years' deadline trades. I'd also be surprised were that to alter the results much. Feedback from Red Sox fans can provide information on whether they want to read this analysis, as well as whether or not I'm wasting my time offering analysis on this site. You merely attribute the wins to Jeter's intangibles; I clearly define why it appears not to be random luck of trades. I don't know what people here would rather read.

Hey, you edited your post. See, this is why I quote full posts. This part that you edited to create is a gem. It's reasonable that Boston would've resorted to bribes, and there's way too much risk involved in baseball for the teams bribing? Your paragraph is self-contradictory.

Another Yankees fan heard from. For the record, though, if the issue is sample sizes, why are you requesting that I stop looking rather than requesting that I seek a larger sample?

To the contrary, it preserves your words in a post that you cannot edit. Choosing analysis of the years in question would be trying to predict the probability of an event from the data set that included the event, which is frowned upon in stats. Furthermore, trades more recent than 2001 often aren't yet done because players are still under contract and playing for the team that received rights in the trade. No disagreement here. In fact, it's pretty much what I've been saying all along, when you take out the anti-Yankee bias. Go on. Claiming it's cheating is just plain stupidity, and if you worked in baseball and made such a statement, it would probably cost you your job. Back to the example of 3 ABs. Your sample size is too small, both as your master and your control. If you understand what these terms mean, then you understand what I mean. Not true at all. This is where your argument falls completely apart. That's like saying 11 ABs is sufficient. You've got to look at hundreds of deals to figure this out, and even then, that's not enough. You've got to factor in so many intangibles, such as team motive, upcoming players, future free agent market, agent involved, etc. This is not as simple as a batting average, where you either get a hit or an out, and is easily quantifiable. Look at the Zambrano/Kazmir deal. Although I'm a Yankee fan, it was all over the papers here that Peterson, the Mets pitching coach, said he could fix Zambrano in "ten minutes" and that Kazmir was at least three years away. Based on his reccommendation, the Mets made the deal. Would you dare equate the Rays trade as "cheating". Gom, no analysis would satisfy you. We know that. Regarding the bolded text, I certainly agree. Nobody employed by MLB could make such a comment on the record, regardless of its truth. No journalist needing cooperation of MLB for contacts could write such a thing, either, lest their contacts refuse to communicate. That doesn't mean that it doesn't happen. Once upon a time nobody could write about steroids in baseball, either. We know how that turned out. Just because something cannot be said does not necessarily mean that it is untrue. I am logical enough to know that you won't accept any degree of statistical evidence as proof. That may have been my college; it may have been my personal reading; it may have been my knowledge of life, meeting many thousands of people, including hundreds of Yankees fans. I am, however, surprised that you choose this moment to insult all Red Sox fans on a Red Sox board. It's ludicrous that Yankees bribe other teams? Why did you accuse the Red Sox of bribing Seibu if such bribes are ludicrous? I merely submitted a possibility. Frankly, bribes sound more likely than the desire for revenue sharing dollars. Fixed umpiring sounds more likely, too--we already know that the NBA has had fixed referees. Ah, Jeter's intangibles account for 99.5% improbable performance by the Yankees. More to the point regarding the bolded text, I'm demonstrating probabilities that something is up with some external factor favoring the Yankees in the outcome of trades. You posted that you thought similar factors were possible for Boston with respect to the Drew signing and the Matsuzaka posting and signing, so you obviously believe that they're possible. I merely point out the improbability that no external factor is at work regarding the Yankees.

If we're looking at money, keeping Manny and releasing him in November would've freed another $7.5 million. But don't get me wrong--I'll happily defend the trade. It's just that Gom is posting here that Boston made its best deal despite accepting around $17 million in salary liability, even though it probably lost talent, and that he posted a few hours ago that dumping salary could reasonably guarantee winning trades. I don't for a moment expect Jason Bay to earn more wins than Manny, Hansen and Moss combined, either this autumn or, particularly, when Bay's one remaining year is contrasted against six remaining years each for Hansen and Moss. I don't see it as a reasonable expectation in a deadline trade. Gom is on record as believing it, though; I'm interested in his response.

Quoted for posterity. No, Gom, you don't get it. Your analysis is flawed. You continue to seek anecdotal evidence and special circumstances. That doesn't work--that's gossip. The way to prove that something is unusual is to find a baseline of what constitutes normalcy and to show deviation. There's a gut understanding of serious fans that normalcy of deadline deals is the exchange of veterans from cellar-dwellers to contenders for good prospects. That would suggest a pattern of short-term gain for contenders offset by long-term gain by cellar-dwellers. Looking at the numbers thus far, it doesn't quite work out that way. Certainly the pattern of veterans for prospects applies, but the long-term gain, as well as the short-term gain, slightly favors contenders in this sample. There's at least one potential reason: contending teams are almost always picking up salary, too. The performance of players acquired by contenders and also-rans almost balances over the duration of contract obligations, but the slight edge to contenders--heavily weighted to the two months following the trades--is probably offset by salaries. But even with the results of research favoring contending teams more than expected, the Yankees still stand out as outliers. I urge you to check the numbers yourself. Do some actual research. One example from 2001 that many readers here might remember is Urbina for Ohka. There was roughly a $4 million annual salary difference, and Boston got an added 0.8 wins in 2001 from Urbina but lost 13.7 wins in the long run despite accepting eight million additional dollars of salary liability. But that's one example. It's anecdotal. What I know is that many of the deadline trades appear to be salary dumps, and that it's a normal condition of deadline trades. Salary dumping isn't anything unusual; it's a rule. Claiming exception for the Yankees' success due to salary dumping is short-sighted. I consider one season's research far superior to anything that you've offered. But you keep claiming that the sample is too small. Here's the deal: small samples create high deviations, as a rule, because of their small size. That high deviation was an element of the analysis that showed the Yankees' dealings still to be unlikely at a high confidence level. Despite the comparatively small sample--and a month's trades across MLB isn't tiny--the deviation of Yankees' trades' success is so far from the mean that they're still incredibly unlikely. Gom, did you pass basic statistics? Your words suggest that you don't understand what you're talking about. Or are you so eager to insult that you ignore your knowledge in favor of bluster? The variety of proof I've just used is commonly used for proof of any number of things. Cigarette smokers suffer statistically shorter lifespans. Do you try to deny that cigarettes kill? But what I've shown, strictly speaking, is an effect that could be explained by a few things: 1) External factors (bribes, revenue sharing, etc.) causing teams to give Yankees better deals in deadline trades. 2) Differing strike zones for Yankees players, resulting in better stats for players with the Yankees than with other teams. 3) Derek Jeter's intangibles. There might be other factors--but the point is clear. Well, I use research to reach my conclusions. You, again, post numbers with no support. Oddly, though, you don't seem to understand that you have no basis...you criticize use of a multi-hundred cell spreadsheet as a reference, and you post your beliefs as if they were facts. Well, each society has its own standards. Perhaps here at Talksox research doesn't matter and the unfounded bluster of Yankees fans is proper etiquette. I credit you with this: Yankees fans are supporting you, even if they're repeatedly getting points objectively wrong in their attempts to show how very right you are. Red Sox fans: drop a post if you're reading this. If I'm demeaning myself, let me know. If you're interested in this line of research, let me know: I can enhance the size of the comparative database and track the 2008 Yankees trades, and by the end of the season, if things keep going as they are right now, we might have some interesting results at a MUCH higher level of significance than we have right now. Your call, Red Sox fans. I don't care what Gom thinks; I do care, and would like to know, what you think.

Possibly true, but I included the caveat that Borowski would have to show effectiveness in MiLB...and that would just get him to low-leverage innings for Boston in September.

OK, as promised. Using July 2001 stats on trades: Median current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.3 wins Mean current-year talent gained by contending team: 0.5 wins Standard deviation: 0.99 wins Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP): 22.6% Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a current-year win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 29.0% Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP): 29.0% Chance of a contending team making a trade gaining them more than a long-term win (1.0 WARP) or a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): 35.5% OK, let's go to the Yankees seven July trades* 2005-2007. Number of trades acquiring over one current-year win: Three, the Molina trade, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the Chacon trade. Odds of getting three or more such successes in seven trades: 18.4% Number of trades acquiring over one current-year win or involving a trade for nothing (cash or a minor league player never destined to play in MLB ): Four, the Fasano trade, the Molina trade, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the Chacon trade. Odds of getting four or more such successes in seven trades: 11.3% Number of trades with current-year acquired value being one-in-one hundred outliers, greater than three standard deviations from the mean: Two, the Abreu/Lidle trade and the first Chacon trade. Odds of two out of seven items being a 1% outlier: 0.02%, or roughly 1 in 492 OK, we're up to that 99.5%** certainty that something's awry. If one includes the Lawton deal--or, more importantly, if one includes reasonable projections of MLB results and includes the Marte/Nady deal and the Pudge Rodriguez deal--one can find other ways that things are unusual at the 95% degree of confidence or more. *** Proof? Few posters offer this degree of research and analysis to support their points. You think that 99.5% confidence isn't enough? Well, there are varying standards of proof. Some might demand more for certainty, but most would apologize for having insulted somebody for "having no proof" when 99.5% confidence was presented. We'll see what standards of etiquette apply regarding posters here at Talksox. * One deadline trade, the Matt Lawton-for-nothing trade, was an August waiver deal, and it shouldn't be included until August waiver deals are examined. August deals appear to differ from July deals. Inclusion of the Lawton deal would significantly increase the probability that something is unusual in Yankees dealings, but it technically shouldn't be included because of the difference in July non-waiver deals and August waiver deals. ** 99.797%

The fact that you consider getting MLB players for minor league trash as a losing deal for an MLB team is flat out hilarious and shows your bias big time.

September's 40-man roster is a wonderful thing. Betcha we see Borowski if he proves himself in MiLB.

Well, cheez, usually the folks who rant about demanding "proof" are far less reasonable than yourself... OK, you cited 3rd or 4th best in the AL. Let's look at leaders by VORP as of yesterday morning: [table]RANK | NAME | TEAM | VORP 1 | Lance Berkman | HOU | 66.2 2 | Albert Pujols | SLN | 58.9 3 | Justin Morneau | MIN | 40.4 4 | Kevin Youkilis | BOS | 35.0 5 | Conor Jackson | ARI | 32.8 6 | Mark Teixeira | ATL | 32.3 7 | Adrian Gonzalez | SDN | 32.3 8 | Prince Fielder | MIL | 29.4 9 | Miguel Cabrera | DET | 28.7 10 | Jason Giambi | NYA | 25.5 11 | Derrek Lee | CHN | 23.1 12 | Carlos Delgado | NYN | 21.3 13 | James Loney | LAN | 19.2 14 | Lyle Overbay | TOR | 15.2 15 | Adam LaRoche | PIT | 14.8 16 | Ryan Howard | PHI | 14.7 17 | Casey Kotchman | ANA | 13.5 18 | Sean Casey | BOS | 12.3 19 | Carlos Pena | TBA | 11.2 20 | Mike Jacobs | FLO | 11.2 21 | Joey Votto | CIN | 10.9 22 | Christopher Davis | TEX | 10.8 23 | Kevin Millar | BAL | 10.4 24 | Todd Helton | COL | 9.6 25 | Dmitri Young | WAS | 8.2 26 | Chad Tracy | ARI | 7.7 27 | Nick Johnson | WAS | 7.6[/table] The two superstars this year are Berkman and Pujols, but Youk should be near Morneau for third place in MLB once today's stats come out.

FWIW, Kevin Youkilis was 4th-best MLB first baseman by 2008 VORP this morning...he'll be near 3rd-best tomorrow morning.

First basemen. http://www.talksox.com/forum/talk-sox-forum/10525-youkilis-where-does-he-rank.html Most posters had Youkilis around tenth to fifteenth, plus-or-minus a few spots. I thought that he was around seventh-best, IIRC. That generated some controversy.