Jayhawk Bill

Nice to know that you anticipate my posts! http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7881 Kyle Farnsworth 2008 WARP: 1.6 Ivan Rodriguez 2008 WARP: 3.6 Kyle Farnsworth 3-year WARP: 5.3 Ivan Rodriguez 3-year WARP: 13.1 Regardless of the duration of metric, Pudge is more than twice as valuable than Kyle Farnsworth. Both are impending free agents. :dunno:

Well, I started with a study of the last three years' deadline trades, I provided quotes from contemporary articles for several of those trades, and I found, upon demand, the stated market value of Nady and Marte the morning of the deal, and I pointed out that it was approximately 25% of the value provided by the Yankees. See, if one looks at the pattern established in nine separate trades, one comes to realize that it's not one inexplicable act by one team, it's a pattern. To the contrary. You established neither that Drew was acquired for below market value, nor that he did anything contrary to his contract. You merely cited an allegation by a single NYT sportswriter that, despite being cited elsewhere in the media, had no conceptual basis. Drew had an option. He exercised it. He got the best deal that he could: he didn't sign with Boston until over two months had passed. Kevin Millar? Bedding an entire team? Pardon my failing to see how any sort of rigorous logic would include a sentence regarding Kevin Millar in a paragraph about JD Drew. If you want to claim something illegal regarding Millar, post it. If you have evidence of illegal behavior regarding NPB dealings, post it. Gom, you're not supporting your points in the manner I've supported mine. Come back with a pattern of behavior in EVERY trade, deadline trade, or acquisition over a period of several years--the standard I used for my analysis--and post it. I'll consider that. Right now you're claiming that one Murray Chass article is equivalent evidence to the pages I've written, when any impartial observer would see otherwise. I see a certain lack of respect for your words in this thread from any posters excepting Yankees fans. Yeszir: Rule Four reads, See, Yeszir, I'm trying to make a point, and I'm being insulted with words such as, "Do me a favor and let the adults talk. Go play with your crayons." I need to know what the rules really are. If I can respond in kind, please let me know, so that I might engage Gom at the level that he's setting without fear of banning.

Preserved in its entirety for posterity. Let's review what you wrote: Again, no proof, merely blustery and insulting allegations, oddly mixed with acknowledgement, in many ways, that I'm probably right. But at the end you post: Two points: 1) Trying to point the finger at Boston wouldn't exonerate the Yankees in any way, regardless of the veracity of the allegations; and 2) Read the actual words of your story: See, there was no tampering charge determined against the Red Sox. The mouthpiece of the Yankees, Murray Chass, made an allegation, and it could easily have been investigated, but nothing was ever found to support the allegation. If one checks other articles regarding that, it all goes back to Chass, and the story then fizzles out. See, Gom, there's nothing fishy at face value about an outfielder exercising an option after a good season and signing for more money at market rates. There IS something fishy about teams giving away their talent repeatedly at below market rates. Thanks! I admire your faith that my logic would come through, posting your support for me even before I demonstrated the glaring flaws in Gom's position.

10) Rumors that Jason Johnson was recently acquired to allow Josh Beckett a few days of rest during August and September are not true. 9) Dustin Pedroia's testicles were recently determined to comprise 17% of his body mass. 8) Heidi Watney 7) Disregard the rumors that A-Rod was involved with Madonna--those rumors were designed to distract us from his true affections. 6) Exactly what have the Rays ever won? And how do you get tougher by removing the word "Devil" from your team name and by putting a ray of bloody sunshine on your team emblems? 5) Justin Masterson is swiftly learning how to play rhythm band in the bullpen. 4) Chris Carter is still hitting .667. 3) The less Curt Schilling plays, the less we hear him in interviews. 2) When we hear that we sent Manny Ramirez and cash to some other ballclub, it might just mean that we've covered part of his salary but it could also mean that we've cleared the backup catcher spot. 1) If all else fails, Larry Lucchino still has that deal-with-the-devil thing going on. :thumbsup:

You know, when I read that TheKilo had started a thread titled "Blow It Up," I originally had high hopes that it might concern the need to replace Fenway Park, the War in Iraq, fully-functional life-sized inflatable dolls, or some other topic more appealing than despondent cries of doom. Meh. Can't win 'em all.

Could be. :dunno: I see the Red Sox, of the three contenders in the AL East, as the best team, but I certainly see a less than 50-50 chance of winning as I type. But the season is not over, and a few bad games end neither our world nor our pennant race.

I really think so. I don't see an easy road back to the ALDS, nor do I see any guarantee. The Rays are young and talented; the Yankees are the best team that money can buy; even the Blue Jays may not yet be done. What I know is that this team has a whole lot of talent, and that in September it will have access to more talent, men like Van Every and Kottaras and Carter and Bowden. What I know is that this race is too close to call. What I know is that, regardless of what I write in analysis, I will root for this team for as long as they have a fighting chance for victory. And I know, too, that the Red Sox still have far more than a mere fighting chance. Let's not sell the team, TheKilo. Let's enjoy the rest of another great season. :thumbsup:

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

I waited a day, and I waited until I was sure you'd been online at Talksox. You're not planning to support your insult with explicit fact, Gom. See, Gom, the issue is that you cannot dispute what I'm writing. You're used to countering others' opinions with your bluster and bias, and on most sports forums it works. It may be rude to act that way when you're a guest at another team's site, but it's usually adequate to the level of discourse. This is different. I cite facts. You're failing to answer those facts. Yes, the insinuation is extraordinary--but extraordinary does not begin to mean "impossible" in an era where NBA referees are sentenced to prison for selling their impartiality. Furthermore, trades are business decisions, not directly part of the game, and even the MLBPA has accused MLB of collusion in its business decisions. Once upon a time, in the days of Babe Ruth, it was perfectly acceptable to sell away star players if it fattened the owners' pockets. The St Louis Browns stayed profitable by doing just that. Now there are alleged protections against such sales, but there are no public audits of the books of the privately-held teams or their owners that would reveal a pattern of monetary transfers...bribes...that parallelled these repeated absurdities labeled as trades. You cannot prove your point. I can quote journalists' and GMs' astonishment at many of the trades, and I can point out a pattern of unusually favorable results for the Yankees. The jury of the readership looks at these facts brought together, and it realizes that this last trade is not a single mistake but rather part of a pattern, and they come to understand that we cannot be getting the full story on why these trades happen. You respond with unsupported allegations of illogical posting. Here's the truth: your posts are illogical. Your posts are unresearched. Your posts are unnecessarily rude. And here the truth behind it all: your team, their owners, and their fans are spoiled by your resources and your past successes earned on a playing field far from level. Hank Steinbrenner, this month: Hank Steinbrenner alleging arrogance on the part of Rays fans...is there a better example of irony? But consider the moral implications of this quoted sentence: "It helps everyone when the Yankees are good." If Steinbrenner truly believes that--and one is challenged to conceive of why he would utter such arrogant words on record were he not to believe them in his soul--then he can be at this very moment excusing himself for whatever else it took besides prospects to acquire Marte and Nady. Were there any transfer of wealth unreported to MLB and the public, it was only for the good of MLB...not just the good of his franchise, the good of all of MLB. At least in his own mind. *** The Marte-Nady trade stinks, Gom. Any objective party, knowing all of the facts, comes to that conclusion despite the absence of the Pirates' owners explaining for ESPN and SI, on the record, why they sold two of their best players in a sale thinly disguised as a trade. Live with the disgrace, Yankees fan.

My task was to disprove "showing no bias," not to prove a regular pattern of bias. I selected one game and found bias. I didn't have to find a regular pattern of bias; furthermore, I readily conceded that bias seemed to be less in the postseason because of a shift in the risk-return calculus. It's tough to research before Pitch f/x and to find a pattern. Yes, there are game-changing calls, but it's tough to claim one call constitutes a pattern of bias rather than a mistake. Most of the Yankees-Guardians games last year weren't too badly called at the plate. I did find an exception. All it would take would be one MLB team calling into question the integrity of the game to jeopardize the entire future of MLB. Things are bad enough with an NBA referee going to prison for his officiating--can you picture the scandal that would result if it were found that Bud Selig had suggested to umpires that they lean in a certain direction regarding close calls? Can you picture how any sportswriter reliant upon his or her contacts would be ostracized were she or he to write of this pattern of bias? If this pattern of bias is to be corrected, it'll be corrected from the blogosphere, not from MLB, and not from the major media.

Yes, and, as I've recently pointed out, his peak value as a hitter--considering both his 2008 performance and his youthful age--was determined to be fifth-best among the position players on his AA team. Ellsbury's value exceeds that of any position player on most AA teams, let alone the fifth-best player...the fifth-best player considering age and future peak value...were age not considered, of course, Tabata would have been released given his terrible stats, his expanding waistline, and his cocky attitude.

Meh. I try to let you know about umpires, good or bad. :dunno:

Tonight's umpire is Bob Davidson. Boston is 4-0 in the last four games they've played with Davidson calling balls and strikes.

Yes, but, in fairness, 2004-2005 had disproportionate impact on that split. Matt Holliday in Fenway would be a similar batter to JD Drew, IMO. That's not what people think when they see his Colorado stats, but it's still valuable.

Cheez, to quote your own sig block, "Just because it's a rivalry doesn't mean you have to make retarded arguments." If the issue were the Pirates, one could take their trades and find a pattern of lost value in their dealings with all teams. You haven't done that--just as you've ignored or overlooked the nine playoff spots and two World Championships earned by the Pirates in the last 45 years. The pattern is that the Yankees have won a net of 12 games--roughly 120 runs of value--in their deadline trades from 2005-2007, and that this year they accomplished another trade where they completed a deal for roughly one quarter of the value of the two players received. For at least the third time in four years, other GMs are shaking their heads because the Yankees are getting a deal far better than the established market price for the players in question. Address the issue with the Yankees--don't try to insult the Pirates by making s*** up and consider it a credible position. *** Hmmm...the Yankees fans are getting blustery. I think that I've hit upon something.

BS. Let's check the game of last October 8th: [table]Team Pitching | Gifted Strikes* | Balls Called In Strike Zone* | Net Benefit Yankees | 7 | 1 | +6 Guardians | 3 | 6 | -3[/table] In this one game, this one umpire (Fieldin Culbreth) clearly showed bias. Point disproven. I concede that the margin usually seems slighter in the postseason, however. Two possible reasons: 1) A whole lot more people are watching the postseason, and bad umpiring is more likely to become a national issue. 2) The New York media market is already engaged right through the regular season and into the postseason by October--the benefits of favoring the Yankees then are less, just as the chance of getting caught is higher. * Graphic tools used...normal disclaimers if I'm off by a pitch or two.

Well, the opposing team is the Angels--wasn't there a Disney Movie that studied the positive sabermetric effects of Angels? And isn't their positive added bonus limited to regular-season games, just in case anybody was worrying?

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/detroit-tigers_21.html $13 million

Nice swing by Tek down the line for a one-hop double. Tek might do better in August/September.

Double play.

I can live with this "Manny being trying" thing

Only one more missed call an inning later, this one favoring Dice-K.