Jayhawk Bill

How would you calculate statistical results from this model? Wins seem very rare the way that you've structured it...maybe a one-in-ten shot. Avoiding a loss is tough in a deadline deal...getting a significant win is really pretty rare. If the chance of a SIGNIFICANT win is 20%, the chance of 6 in 12 is only 1.5%, or 3 in 200. If it's 10%, the chance of fewer than 6 in 12 is 99.95%...six significant wins at that level is extraordinarily improbable. What's the chance of a "win" in a deadline trade if there are wins, losses, ties and non-factors? :dunno:

Most individuals would interpret your post as meaning that you would be at the game tonight. I pretended not to understand that, and I posted a comment that suggested that I envisioned you as one of a group of 38,000 welcoming Jason Bay to Boston someplace--Fenway, Logan, USS CONSTITUTION, Bunker Hill Monument, The Common, The Esplanade, Old North Church, Government Center, or the reflecting pool at the Christian Science Center--and that, after that welcome, you might go to the ballgame. Cheez...back to stats...

Deadline trades are VERY different from off-season trades: 1) Greater scarcity of talent--injuries have depleted the ranks of veteran players by 5-10% by July, and others are obviously underperforming. 2) Greater definition of need--while it's easy to see one's team as set at the 16 key positions in March, it's tougher to do that staring at stats during the All Star Break. 3) Greater knowledge of the opportunity to win--it's pointless to trade for the current season if your team is fading out of contention, but it's worth a long-term talent loss to go from an also-ran to solid playoff contender if you're hanging tough in July. And... 4) We know at the deadline if the Yankees need more talent to stay in contention through September. Not if they weren't compensated for doing so year 'round...and the Yankees have the resources to look good in March every year, just from free agent signings. Maybe...do you have that metric? But even if that were true, it wouldn't be my point: my point is that the Yankees' performance in deadline trades since 2005 is suggestive of an external factor at work encouraging the transfer of talent from donor teams to the Yankees.

Ummmm...for the moment humoring you with your unsupported criticism "massively flawed," exactly which projections do you cite? Yeah, but scouts' projections are massively flawed. Back in '67, I remember lots of scouts projecting Tony C as one of the greatest power hitters in history. Funny, he never panned out. :dunno: Take a look at the overall accuracy of MLEs and BP minor league projections and I think that you'll find that they compete well with Baseball America's, which are scouting-based. Baseball America rarely misses a star (although they sure missed on Pedroia), but they often overproject players with tools. BP considers age and performance, as well as things such as handedness, injury history, and phenotype, to project average results. They miss more stars who emerge despite slow starts, but they're often closer, on average, to actual results. In Tabata's case (if that's to whom you're referring), this is critical. Tabata looks right now as if he'll be worthless based upon either his performance in AA or his attitude and weight problems. Yes, he has or had tools--but tools never translated into skills are worth little. It's your assertion, you back it up: where does it say that BA (or some other scouting service) beats BP? At 19 Tony C had 24 home runs in MLB... ...and those touting Tabata need to understand that many hitters who truly become great ARE already power hitters that young. A half-dozen guys besides Tony C had double-digit MLB home run totals by the end of their age 19 seasons. By age 21, tenth-place on the career totals list is Ted Williams at 54. Tabata can still be a good player...although personalities rarely change, and his is self-destructive...but if one looks at the odds, not the dreams and hopes, the picture is bleaker. FWIW, from before this catastrophic season, Tabata's Stars and Scrubs Chart from BP: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/pecota/images/TABATA19880812A_010.png This would now look worse. Or, rather, the SCOUTS' numbers go out the window and up the flagpole, so that they'll never miss a possible star. BP will continue to project mean results, and you've yet to show that scouts are more accurate.

Hey, I've gotten a ton of those shots directed at me for about three days now, too. Welcome to the club!

Cool! We'll discuss this issue without you. Thanks for your input!

Anyplace either the Red Sox or the Yankees play, the ballpark is filled. There won't be a Green Monster in road games, but it'll still be tough.

If you'll actually read the thread, you'll find that my first post mentioned that as the leading possibility. After I checked recent history for Cashman, I changed my mind. Although the Yankees have, by far, more money than any other team, many teams can afford either Marte, Nady, or both. The Pirates made the trade for roughly a quarter of the value demanded from any other team...as a part of a statistically improbable pattern (a point you avoid, Jacko), it stands out.

I've held off comment on this trade until now, but I agree exactly and completely with this post, RB. I could get into contract net values, marginal values of players to varying teams and such to defend my position, but you've nailed my conclusion. I expect that the players traded away by Theo will exceed the value of Jason Bay to Boston both in 2008 and over the duration of their obligations. I also believe that the trade puts an above-average RH power hitter into Manny's spot for 1.3 seasons while dealing away no other prospect who appeared to have a future in Boston, regardless of their long-term potential. Good, not great, trade. Stand by for criticism as Bay struggles in the AL East and as Manny destroys the NL West.

DNA evidence is "nothing more than a theory." All that it does is to create a certain confidence level of certainty. It's regarded as proof in our society because the odds of error are alleged to be so great, but it's not, at a certain exacting standard of doubt, "proof." OJ Simpson walked away free--before the jury would convict him, they wanted a higher standard than mere DNA evidence. The rest of the country pretty much knew that OJ was guilty, but that particular jury had a higher standard. If you've read my comments regarding umpires and Pitch f/x...all of them...you'll notice that I get much more concerned about recurring patterns of missed calls than single, very important missed calls. The reason for that is based in probability. An umpire can make a mistake, and some mistakes are game-changing. If an umpire makes four mistakes over the course of a game, and three favor one team, it's frustration but it's not necessarily evidence of bias, unless the magnitude of error is so great that the missed call is indisputable. If an umpire makes seven borderline calls--none of them third strikes or fourth balls--and if all seven favor one team, usually nobody notices. That's what gets my goat, though: a pattern of close calls going 7-0 for one team is statistically significant at the 99% level. Analysis of trades by sabermetric writers is still in its infancy, so there's a paucity of data regarding what would constitute a trend, and there might be differing descriptions of what constitutes a "win." Many of us, though, are lifetime fans, and we've seen the pattern of deadline trades: a contending team usually trades away prospects--talent almost unusable in their current season--for veterans, often veterans nearing the end of their contracts. The norm in these trades is that the prospects later exceed the value received from the veteran, but the leverage of the veteran's skills in the particular situation justifies the net loss of talent. What I do know, though, is that of eight trades made by the Yankees at the deadline in 2005-2007, there was this breakdown of results: 1) Three out of eight resulted in a significant long-term net talent gain as well as a short-term talent gain. 2) One resulted in a large short-term talent gain but a long-term breakeven. 3) Two resulted in the acquisition of a needed replacement-level player in return for a minor leaguer who never reached MLB, even for a cup of coffee. 4) One resulted in the acquisition of a needed replacement-level player for a veteran pitcher who had no current role, but who regained his skills the next season (in the NL Central with the Pirates) and who pitched moderately well in that location. 5) One resulted in the acquisition of a young, proven MLB player needed to fill a role, who remains a productive player for the Yankees, for a pitcher who pitched reasonably well for two months but who now appears washed up. The aggregate long-term gain from these trades is roughly a dozen wins. Given that contending teams normally lose talent in deadline trades, that in itself attracts scrutiny. More to the point, though, is that one struggles to find a losing trade. Does one count the Yankees trading Shawn Chacon away to the Pirates? His roster spot was needed--regardless of his future performance, is it fair to consider him as lost through trade, when the opportunity cost of that move was zero? Does one count the Betemit-Proctor trade, with Proctor now posting a 6.82 ERA in an NL West pitcher's park and Betemit still accruing value for the Yankees? What other trade could possibly be called a loss? I look at these eight trades and I see eight wins. There's no trade that, using hindsight, shouldn't have been done. For deadline trades that's very rare. Beyond that, I see three more trades this year that fit into this same category. The Pirates took a quarter of the value from the Yankees for Nady and Marte than they were reported to be demanding from other teams the very morning of the trade. The Tigers took a pitcher worth, at best, 40% of the value of their future HOF catcher, despite the paucity of good catchers this year. The Astros gave away a very good-hitting MiLB infielder for an aging pitcher whose ERA was worse than Mike Timlin's or Craig Hansen's. What are the odds of flipping a coin 11 times and winning all 11 tosses? What are the odds of rolling a seven or an eleven on eleven consecutive rolls in craps? See, both are tough: the first is more than a 2,000 to one shot; the latter is more than a 15 million to one shot. Brian Cashman, right now, appears to have won 11 consecutive deadline trades. The odds against that are very, very high, unless there's not a level playing field. It's not that any given trade is hugely lopsided that strikes me: it is that there's a continuing pattern of success that defies explanation, coupled with so many cases where Cashman's deal seemed, at the time, to differ from the market value of the players in question. But I mentioned, in the beginning, the analogy to DNA evidence. DNA evidence is overwhelming only if a jury understands what it is and how to use it. I look at the odds I just wrote and I see overwhelming evidence that something funny is going on. Others may not--but others may not understand binomial theorem, and others, like the OJ Simpson trial jury, may simply demand extraordinary standards before assessing guilt. You may consider my assessments just a "theory." I urge you to reconsider. Perhaps I'll try to determine a better baseline for the likelihood of "success" in deadline trades that I might further quantify this issue, but when the lowest estimate of that figure I consider at all reasonable--a 50% chance of success in a given deadline trade--yields a 99.5% chance that there's some factor at work that's out of the norm, I become pretty sure that something's up.

Kevin Millar: The sale of Kevin Millar to the Chunichi Dragons was blocked by the Red Sox by a waiver claim. Florida, Chunichi and Kevin Millar had all made the assumption that the waiver claim was a formality, but Boston blocked the sale legitimately. To avoid a Boston, New York or Miami bias, BBC: "Perfectly OK" is an accurate description. "Questionable" is, well, um, questionable. **************************************************** OK, show me a credible link that there was a kickback. See, I checked media and found nothing. I found plenty of blog assertions...this thread by TangoTiger is fascinating: http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/what_price_matsuzaka/ but in the end John Beamer points out that there's simply no evidence that such a thing happened. Lawyer John Schoenmeyer, commenting on the record regarding this deal, a legal issue related to his area of specialization, wrote: Pretty straightforward. http://jas-law.typepad.com/death_and_taxes/alternative_dispute_resolution/ Unethical? Provide your reference. Otherwise, as Schoenmeyer points out, The result of negotiations wasn't necessarily unexpected--there's no logic supporting kickback from a negotiator's perspective. ********************************************************* I read the Chass article, and I pointed out that all of the other derivative articles cited Chass, with the story drying up quickly when there was nothing to it. I did, however, take the time to review the three blogs that you chose to cite as references previously. Here's my favorite of your own chosen references: http://www.fanhouse.com/2007/03/06/did-the-red-sox-tamper-with-jd-drew/ Hey, you chose to cite that link, not me. Your unwillingness or inability to correctly paraphrase my actual words diminishes your credibility. Any moron who buys what? Your argument, unsupported in some places and "supported" by blogs you cite where they laugh at and insult the poster suggesting your position? Chill, Gom. You've got no case. You were better off not citing references than you are citing blogs where your position is ridiculed. Most importantly, you haven't yet even addressed the quantitative analysis of Yankees deadline trades, except to write a comment that "of course the Yankees gained value in the short term," overlooking the point that long-term results were included and cited. And, as an aside, you continue to violate Rule 4. You seem incapable of debate without insult...just as you appear to repeatedly regard your opinions as facts, despite lack of support for those opinions...just as you discount actual research with the line Your mind is made up: the Yankees could not possibly have cheated. You regard it as "common sense" that your opinion is simply right, regardless of fact. Gom, we're not surprised that you think that. We may, however, be amused at some of the semantic contortions you attempt as you try to squirm away from an ever-growing stack of evidence that you're probably wrong.

I can't reach BP Home Page or Unfiltered...have they crashed?

"Some Pittsburg paper" is the Beaver County Times, and it's John Perotto writing. He's a credible sportswriter. I wouldn't make that trade. :thumbdown

Bay's batting line vs. AL, 2008: .302/.345/.547 Bay's batting line vs. AL, career: .250/.312/.450

Mike Stanton's MLE for his 2008 MiLB stats, per BP, extended to 600 AB: .230/.294/.466, 36 HR, 85 RBI Peak value, again based upon 600 AB: .298/.397/.623, 49 HR, 114 RBI BP translations are pretty conservative...that's really impressive. I'd consider Manny for Mike Stanton, straight up. YMMV

Nah. What's the greatest number of games we can lose tonight? Three? Seven? Nope. Just one. Tomorrow morning we'll still be in a pennant race. Patience, gang.

http://mvn.com/outsider/2008/07/30/yankees-land-pudge-in-surprise-move/ :dunno: