Jayhawk Bill

Leyritz's SUV: http://www.pagesix.com/files/gallery/281207_Leyritz2.jpg Further information: http://www.pagesix.com/story/exclusive+jim+leyritz+knew+his+victim I really don't understand why a guy who made over $10 million in his MLB career couldn't find the money for a taxi after drinking Grey Goose and tonic all night. Fredia Ann Veitch was a mother of two who made ends meet by bartending at a sports bar. She was driving home when Leyritz hit her when he ran a red light shortly after 3:00 AM this morning.

Why would anybody dispute the validity of PITCHf/x velocity stats? Josh Kalk is just using some utilities to consolidate the cumbersome PITCHf/x files. That's what example1 is using for a reference. Jon Lester's fastball's mean initial speed is 93.14mph. That's faster than the fastball of four out of five of the AL leaders in innings pitched; it's pretty fast for an average speed. *** Probably true. "Hard-throwing lefty" is a subjective term based upon the arbitrary beliefs of those who view MLB recreationally, and Lester isn't considered a hard-throwing lefty by most. As example1 points out, Lester does throw hard: his fastball is above MLB average for all pitchers, and many lefties make their living with odd deliveries and slow fastballs, so he might be faster compared to lefties. But that's merely objective truth. How Lester is considered can, and I perceive does, differ. :dunno: Which may be why he's one of four players rumored to be in the Santana offer.

Too kind. Thank you and back at you. That said, I'll continue to disagree with some aspects of your position. Yes, but we've made the case regarding comparable players as viewed from evaluation of their performance (and I'm sure that we'll return to that again). This is another metric, equally valid, perhaps even more valid from the perspective of baseball economists. There's a free market for free agent talent. Whatever value the market assigns to these pitchers is their true value with respect to others playing in MLB at the same time, every factor considered. The contract figures we're discussing for Santana would put him in the top 25 best-paid baseball players for several years to come. That's a distinct set of players whose performance can be evaluated, and that's why I did it. It takes several minutes to do each set: I grabbed the top 25 from last year, and then I randomly grabbed two previous years separated from each other far enough that contracts wouldn't recur, even if players did. I didn't try to grab last years of contracts, as you suggested: I grabbed two years far enough back that I didn't know how the numbers would turn out. I assure you that I'd forgotten that Teddy Higuera was ever once one of the 25 best-paid players in MLB; I'd also forgotten that he became a free agent after his 4.7 WARP season in 1990, and that over the next four seasons he'd make just over $13 million--in an era where the very top players made only around $4 million per year--to post a combined 5-10 W-L record. Higuera was being paid for his peak years from ages 26-29 when he signed his free agent contract after age 31, and he never regained his form. I wonder if Santana, in retrospect, will be considered to have flaws, too? After all, PECOTA heavily regresses to the mean, and Santana missed his 2007 PECOTA-projected ERA. Pardon, but you're not looking at this right. I suspect that you're picking the most dominant pitchers from my lists because you consider Santana to be so dominant. As they say in investments, past performance does not determine future earnings. You can't pick the players most dominant in their 30's: you've got to pick lists of pitchers comparably dominant in their 20's. Pedro Martinez doesn't show up on Johan Santana's PECOTA player list or his BR similar players list as a comparable. FWIW, Santana doesn't show up on Pedro's list at the same age, either. Pedro's BR list through age 28 has five HOF pitchers, Roger Clemens, Smokey Joe Wood, and three guys whose careers were ruined. Santana's list has ZERO HOF pitchers and just one HOF contender (Mike Mussina). Evaluated just on his past three seasons before 2007, though, as PECOTA does, Santana certainly did have some HOF comparables--but he had others, too. HOF: 1 Sandy Koufax 1964 2 Tom Seaver 1973 3 Steve Carlton 1973 7 Don Sutton 1973 9 Fergie Jenkins 1971 10 Juan Marichal 1966 12 Hal Newhouser 1949 17 Jim Bunning 1960 He also had one guy considered an excellent HOF candidate just three weeks ago: 6 Roger Clemens 1990 But he also had these comparable players, all of whom had trouble, mostly in their early 30's, that precluded or will preclude their reaching the HOF: 4 Mario Soto 1984 5 Camilo Pascual 1962 8 Kevin Appier 1996 11 Jose Rijo 1993 13 Luis Tiant 1969 14 Carl Erskine 1955 15 Billy Pierce 1955 16 Floyd Bannister 1983 18 David Cone 1991 19 Sam McDowell 1971 20 Javier Vazquez 2004 But let's remember that Santana missed his 2007 projection for ERA: he's possibly performing more like the bottom half of these pitchers than like the top half. I'd be in complete amazement. Through what should have been his peak years, Santana broke 10 WARP twice and 9 WARP twice more. Expecting him to do that five out of six years through the decline of his skills in his 30's is very optimistic. For the next four years, here are Santana's 2007 PECOTA-projected WARP scores: [table] Year | WARP 2008 | 7.1 2009 | 6.2 2010 | 5.0 2011 | 5.0[/table] The 2008 projections should be out next month--let's see how those figures change, given Santana's dip in performance in 2007. But expecting even three of those four to be 9.0 or higher seems excessive, let alone five of the next six. True. It is also possible that Santana will suffer a serious arm injury in any year. I previously quoted Nate Silver's 15% estimate per year for successful MLB starting pitchers. As another metric, 2007 BP PECOTA assigned Johan Santana a Collapse Rate of 23%. And all of this understood, I'd still pay Santana $17-$20 million for 5-7 years. It's just that, if one takes a long-term perspective, giving up too much talent for the chance to pay him so much may be counterproductive.

I think that we're overestimating the chance that Santana will perform up to expectations. Let's look at the pitchers included on the USA Today Top 25 MLB salaries list for 2007, adding Roger Clemens because he would've been included had he signed before Opening Day: [table] Player | Pitcher WARP Pettitte, Andy | 6.0 Clemens, Roger | 2.8 Martinez, Pedro J. | 0.9 Colon, Bartolo | 0.6 Schmidt, Jason | 0.2 Hampton, Mike | 0.0[/table] Let's set a 5.0 WARP as the minimum expectation for such a pitcher. For reference, on the 2007 Red Sox Josh Beckett (8.4), Jon Papelbon (6.6) and Daisuke Matsuzaka (6.5) would all have made that cut; Tim Wakefield (4.7) and Curt Schilling (4.6) would've just missed the threshold expected for these premier pitchers. As you can see, five out of six of the highest-paid pitchers disappointed by even this modest standard. More to the point, five out of these six pitchers sucked--Roger Clemens had a journeyman year, and the other four were all bested by Javier Lopez. Let's look back further to gain some historical perspective. First, 2000, a year with some outstanding pitching performances by superstar post-free agency pitchers: [table] Player | Pitcher WARP Martinez, Pedro J. | 14.6 Maddux, Greg | 11.5 Johnson, Randy | 10.4 Glavine, Tom | 9.1 Brown, Kevin J. | 8.1 Finley, Chuck | 7.7 Martinez, Ramon J. | 1.9 Cone, David | 1.2 Alvarez, Wilson | 0.0 Smoltz, John | 0.0[/table] Six out of ten of the high-priced pitchers didn't disappoint. Four of ten did. Let's look back another ten years to 1990: [table] Player | Pitcher WARP Clemens, Roger | 12.6 Higuera, Teddy | 4.7 Browning, Tom | 3.2 Valenzuela, Fernando | 3.1 Morris, Jack | 2.8 Gubicza, Mark | 2.2 Davis, Mark | 1.1[/table] Six out of seven disappointed. Over these three seasons, 15 out of 23 pitchers didn't live up to the modest 5.0 WARP threshold. Dropping the threshold to 4.0--worse than either Schilling or Wakefield last season--leaves 14 disappointing pitchers. Example1, you're discussing whether or not Santana would be the best starting pitcher for five more years. These numbers suggest that he'd be as good as or better than our current fourth starter for only two or three years--all of the pitchers in this quick study were considered to be among the few best in the game when they inked their contracts, and roughly two-thirds dropped to journeyman performance levels in the years included in the data set.

Mini-Bump I'd missed this article 'til now: http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1806&Itemid=49 It includes this breakdown of drug use violations by team, MLB and MiLB both included: [table]Mariners | 12 Rangers | 10 Mets | 10 Athletics | 9 Cubs | 8 Blue Jays | 8 Padres | 7 Dodgers | 7 Royals | 6 Rockies | 6 Reds | 6 Orioles | 6 Giants | 6 Angels | 6 White Sox | 5 Twins | 5 Cardinals | 5 Yankees | 4 Tigers | 4 Pirates | 4 Diamondbacks | 4 Brewers | 4 Braves | 4 Free Agents | 4 Phillies | 3 Nationals | 3 Guardians | 3 Rays | 3 Astros | 3 None | 3 Marlins | 2 Red Sox | 1[/table] This suggests that the Red Sox system is trying to encourage their players to avoid PEDs. :thumbsup:

Allegedly he strains them. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060629&content_id=1529632&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb St. Petersburg Times, Sept 5, 2007 http://www.sptimes.com/2007/09/05/Rays/A_keeper_Rays_can_t_c.shtml

OK...but lots of players have slumps, and lots recover. When you used the phrase "mental reclamation case" I thought that we were dealing with something in the Mark Fidrych/Jimmy Piersall/Jim Eisenreich/Ed Doheny spectrum, and I was surprised to find no mention of it on the web. At this point? Inadequate playing time for three years coupled with recurring hamstring troubles. He was rushed to MLB in 2003 because the Rays needed a CF and Baldelli was good enough to play at the MLB level. He kinda missed the stop at AA/AAA in his development (he had 166 AB at both levels combined before becoming a starting MLB player), and he's struggled a bit with plate discipline ever since. Notably his 96 AB batting line in AAA from 2002 was .292/.292/.469: he didn't draw a single walk in AAA that year. He did well for two seasons, but since an offseason injury that forced him to miss 2005 entirely he's had just 537 PA in two seasons.. Here's an interesting table: [table]Timeframe|BABIP 2003|.347 2004|.312 2006|.338 April 2007|.328 May 2007|.061[/table] Given the breakdown of his balls in play, I'd've expected Baldelli to get maybe six more hits last season, which would've left him with a BA in the .260 range. A MLB BABIP of .061 is just plain weird, especially given that he could only have expected a couple more infield hits than he actually got. If the hamstrings don't recover, he's a DH at best and a 60-day DL fixture (again) at worst. If the hamstrings do recover, .283/.329/.469 is Bill James's prediction for 2008.

I don't see a temporary lack of confidence as unusual for a guy who hit the Mendoza line thanks to a May slump last year. In April 2007 he was fine, and he was actually hitting better for power than he did in his early years--I think that he'll be back regardless, but I think that a long stint in AAA would be especially valuable for Baldelli.

First, if you've got information that I'm unable to find regarding Rocco Baldelli being a mental reclamation case, I'm eager to read it. A quick Google search revealed nothing of the sort, but I'm open to anything published in a reliable source. I did, however, find this article from last year where manager Joe Maddon praised Baldelli's leadership: http://tampabay.rays.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070415&content_id=1900210&vkey=news_tb&fext=.jsp&c_id=tb and other stuff praising his money management as a young player and some of his charitable donations. I know that he came from a lower-middle class family and neighborhood. I don't know of any mental problems. *** OK, now, that $10 million for a physical reclamation case bit? Absolutely. If I thought otherwise I'd never suggest that he could pass waivers to get to AAA again--accepting the 2009 option and the 2010/11 buyout is the "poison pill" that precludes other teams' chasing him. What I'm suggesting about Baldelli is that his particular upside, including the fielding range and throwing arm to play an excellent right field in Fenway, as well as his New England heritage, make him uniquely valuable to the Red Sox. Furthermore, most teams don't have $10 million to gamble, but over three years Boston does. Teams gamble on free agents' health all the time. The difference is that it's usually gambling on the assumption that good health will continue to be good. In Baldelli's case, it's a probable losing bet, but the upside is an All Star caliber player, not a journeyman. If he turns things around--and some other players have managed to avoid hamstring trouble despite previous challenges--his $23 million price tag from 2009-2011 looks like a bargain. I understand your concern with Baldelli's health. I suggest that, if he could be acquired for not too much from the Rays, that he'd be worth a gamble.

Thanks for the good words. Regarding his great sense on tracking down flies, despite horrible hamstring troubles in 2007 he was still a good CF defensively. Looking at his combined rate for in-zone and out-of-zone catches, his small sample of 162 innings would have ranked between Torii Hunter and Melky Cabrera (both a little better) and Grady Sizemore and Vernon Wells (both a little worse) among qualifying AL center fielders. That's pretty good company for a guy playing lame.

The Tampa Bay Rays had an Opening Day payroll of $24,123,500 last season. This season, they’re on track to pay $6 million--a huge chunk of their total payroll--to an outfielder who hit .204 with five home runs last year. Rocco Baldelli, Woonsocket’s favorite son, looked to be a future superstar well into his early 20’s. Drafted sixth in the 2000 MLB Draft at age 18, Baldelli seemed to have a promising career ahead of him. His first two years in MLB confirmed that: after his rookie year, his top comparable was Tris Speaker; after his sophomore year, his top comparable was Carl Yastrzemski. In the winter after his sophomore year, Rocco Baldelli tore his ACL to avoid injuring his seven-year-old brother while they played together in their backyard. Just before he should’ve been ready to return, he blew out his throwing arm and he needed Tommy John surgery. Baldelli missed 2005 entirely with those injuries. He returned in 2006, looking better than he had in his first two years, but he lost months of playing time due to elbow and hamstring troubles. Last year his troubles were limited to his hamstring, but he managed only 150 PA in 35 games, and for the first time his batting average didn’t approach .300—in fact, it barely exceeded the Mendoza line. If this story of injury-shattered expectations were not enough, the contract to which it led is bizarre. Near the end of his prolonged ACL/Tommy John surgery injury absence, Baldelli canned his agent, Scott Boras, and got the contract he negotiated for himself: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/tampa-bay-devil-rays_112131227267025321.html Obviously, Baldelli missed his 600 PA in 2006 and he played for $750,000 in 2007. What he’s still got coming are the salaries or buyouts of his last four contract seasons. The really weird part is that the buyout decisions come due in April of the preceding year, so Tampa Bay must either commit to the $6 million 2009 option or buy it out this April. And the thing is, Tampa Bay doesn’t have a role for Rocco Baldelli. Per the official Rays’ web site, Baldelli is currently slated to play right field. He’s never played RF at the MLB level, and using him blocks Jonny Gomes, but that’s the “official” plan. What’s missing is that Justin Ruggiano looks to be ready to play at the MLB level, and that he’s probably a .280/.350/.450 hitter in MLB, and that he’ll play at MLB minimum for three years. That leaves this lineup: LF Crawford CF Upton RF Ruggiano DH Gomes/Floyd 1B Pena That’s six names for five positions, with Gomes and Floyd the natural platoon combo to make it all work if everybody is healthy. Gomes can play all three outfield positions as a backup. I’d suggest that Rocco Baldelli is probably available in trade, and that, given his injury history and his moderately large contract, he’s got practically zero trade value. Were I the Red Sox FO, I’d investigate the chance of bringing him back to New England for a not-so-great prospect, exercising the 2008 option (making the total contract worth over $10 million), and sending him down to Pawtucket. He’s out of option years, so he’d have to pass waivers, but I don’t think that there’d be too much interest in a .204-hitting outfielder with a $10 million contract obligation. For Boston, he’d offset some of the dollars by being a huge draw in Pawtucket, and there’s a chance that he could regain his talent with regular, low-pressure playing time. The gamble probably isn’t worth the money for any other MLB team, but for Boston, given Baldelli’s hometown and Boston’s solid cash flow, it might be a chance worth taking if the Rays were willing to part with Baldelli for little in return.

Greenies are a PED. Should every admitted greenie user be treated as if they had used steroids or hGH? If I follow your logic, every MLB player who used greenies without prescription should have their records erased. That would leave an awful lot of white space where players' careers used to be listed over the past half-century. From an interesting piece by Mike Celizic at MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6642822/

As I've posted previously, I'd be delighted to see the Yankees trade away Hughes, Cabrera and change for Johan Santana. So I guess that we kinda agree? :dunno:

Thumper, your perspective is shared by many, but I've been waiting for wording such as this to reenter the discussion. I chose MVP shares as a metric because it's independent of standards of the game. Home runs go up and down depending on size of ballparks and construction of the baseballs. Strikeouts vary with height of the mound and the pattern of pitcher use. MVP shares are removed from all that: it's a simple measure of "Who's best?" whatever the current standards of the game. Here's the deal: Juan Gonzalez, in an era of PED use, rose to the top of the game to a degree that's always been indicative of near-automatic enshrinement in Cooperstown. Should he be excluded from the HOF because there are allegations that he juiced? Barry Bonds, before any rumor of PED use, achieved absolute-lock HOF credentials by the metric of MVP share. After such rumors--not proof under the Basic Agreement, excepting amphetamines, just rumors--he dominated his era and was, for four years, the greatest batter in the history of the game. Should the greatest hitter ever be excluded because of rumors? The only player who approached Bonds's level of excellence by MVP share who didn't make the HOF was Pete Rose--and Rose achieved, through his entire career, fewer MVP award shares than Bonds did in the part of his career before the "steroid era." *** An additional point: Pete Rose was banned from baseball--his name was never on the HOF ballot. The BBWAA never had a chance to vote for or against Rose. Should steroid users be removed from the HOF ballot, or should the voters have their chance? If they should be removed, what should the standard be: failure of a single test for PEDs, banning from MLB for continued PED use, conviction in Federal court of illegal PED use, or some other standard?

Bump. This is as good a day as any to discuss past presents to other teams. Cla Meredith didn't miss his 2007 PECOTA projection by too much--he was between the 25th and 40th percentiles. Note that his defense let him down badly: hitters facing Meredith had a .429 BABIP in May and a whopping .462 BABIP in June--that didn't last, and he posted a 3.11 ERA in the second half. He'll probably match up with the careers with other relief pitchers who enjoyed brief success despite their lack of strikeouts. Jim Willoughby comes to mind: he was highly regarded by fans in the mid 1970's, but he faded fast after Boston sold him to the White Sox in the Buffalo Head purge. Bill Castro, Rusty Meacham, and Randy Moffitt could be considered similar; although he was a starting pitcher, Cy Young winner Randy Jones was kinda similar. All of these guys put up very good ERAs until they lost a little bit off their fastball, when they suffered swift declines. Moffitt was effective at age 34, but the others were washed up around age 30, and even Moffitt posted ERAs over 7.00 at ages 30 and 32. I expect that Cla Meredith will be a good set-up man, earning a few saves, for two or three more years despite his trouble in May and June last year. If given a chance to close, he'll do a credible job unless he suffers again from shell shock as he did with Boston. I see an early decline for Meredith, though, somewhere around his later arb years if he's unlucky or soon after his first shot at free agency if he's lucky.

Of Manny's ten closest comparables per BR, only one had an OPS of over .975 for the rest of his career after age 35: Barry Bonds. BR suggests that Manny has 3-4 years and 413 games remaining at a batting line of .262/.375/.454. I've gotta say that those numbers don't sound unreasonable. There's one thing in Manny's favor: his last contract year, 2000 with the Guardians, was the best year of his career. He gained almost 50 OPS points over an MVP-caliber 1999 season. That suggests that Manny had the ability to "try harder," and that by improving some aspect of his lifestyle, in season or off-season, he could do better. 2008 is another contract year for Manny. I'm hoping that we see another 50-point (or better) jump in OPS, not another year of mid-30's decline.

Responding to your points: 1) I can't find a slow start for Bay...he's prone to June slumps, especially this past June. In any case, he won't earn $20 million per year...the point is that there are those recommending that Manny should be paid that much. 2) Most players do roughly as well in playoffs as they do in the regular season, level of competition considered. There are a few exceptions--Calvin Schiraldi comes to mind--but playoff experience offers little except the near-guarantee that a player who has previously thrived in October won't choke should he be there again. But that "since it's not my money" point I'd strongly disagree with. The FO has demonstrated that their team payroll is going to closely approach or barely exceed the CBT threshold every season. Twenty million spent on any player is probably twenty million not spent on other players. *** In any case, I'd misunderstood an earlier post that Bay was available as a 2008-2009 free agent. My bad--he's a 2009-2010 free agent. He'll make $5.75 million in 2008, and $7.5 million in 2009. He's available in trade, and the Pirates aren't asking for any outrageous price, but I haven't been suggesting ditching Manny, just not picking up the $20 million option. Feel free to change the player used for comparison.

I think that the key difference may be the word "starting" in one of the two quotes. Manny hit .296/.388/.493 last year, almost dead-average for starting left fielders. Bay's projected to hit .276/.374/.498--almost identical OPS--which is above-average for left fielders as a group...but it would be near average for starting left fielders. Over the past three years, by UZR, Bay has been either three or four runs over MLB average per 150 games defensively in left field. If Bay and Manny hit the same, but Bay is 40+ runs better on defense, then it's no contest regarding which player would be better. I've learned not to...I get ridiculed for it. I did a study regarding the 2004 season regarding Boston's winning percentage in games when Nomar was and wasn't in the dugout. Having Nomar present (whether on the DL or not) cost Boston about 100 points of winning percentage, IIRC. That's staggering. More to the point, it's statistically significant. Replacing a .321 hitting shortstop with a guy who hit 82 OPS points less and who had a Range Factor only 27 points higher shouldn't have made a 100-point difference in winning percentage. Neither should have having Nomar away from the team in rehab instead of traveling with the team. But both cases, combined, were true, and it was, again, IIRC, statistically significant. Nomar lovers despised the post. I saw the games--I saw the difference in "chemistry"--I quantified it. I was hated for doing so. One could study the case of whether Boston is better or worse without Manny, and if stats predict the difference, but I don't think that those who claim intangible benefit would be influenced by such a study. I further suspect that folks who do believe in stats would dislike the study...making it a no-win proposition to research it. Yup. I think that where people are struggling with that, TheKilo, is with accepting that Manny's value is decreased quite as much as serious defensive metrics suggest by his inability to play left field well for three consecutive seasons.

Some things never change... First, Bay is a free agent after 2008, so he appears right now to be available as a potential free agent after Manny's contract year. But what happened? Both his hitting and his fielding went down: that suggests that it's not PED withdrawal, where fielding is usually unaffected and occasionally bettered. There's only one mention of injury, though, knee tendinitis in September. That's not when his production collapsed: that was late spring. Check this custom split for Bay: First 56 games: .312/.382/.540 Last 89 games: .204/.291/.337 Bay's 2006 line was .286/.396/.532. The first 56 games fit. The last 89 look like Pokey Reese, not Jason Bay. One might blame the knee. Marc Normandin of BP is less kind: Strong words. My take: Jason Bay suffered a knee injury that affected his fielding and his hitting. A sharp mid-season drop is almost invariably due to injury, not age. He'll be back, but he'll never be at the peak he was, I'd expect...but a guy hitting near where Bay was hitting before June 2007 is a very, very good batter. Bill James projects .276/.374/.498 for 2008 for Bay: that's still an above-average batting line for a left fielder. *** Edit: For those who look to Manny's tiring out opposition pitchers as a component of his value, it should be noted that six of the other eight Boston regulars took more pitches per plate appearance than Manny did, and Manny took fewer pitches per plate appearance than he has since 2002 (as far back as I can figure out the stats). Even in a bad year for Manny, he's still near the middle of the pack in P/PA for MLB left fielders--it's just that Boston has an entire lineup of players who tire out pitchers. A declining Manny is still a good hitter. He's an average MLB starting left fielder with his bat (eighth of 16 hitters by GPA among qualified left fielders). He's just not fearsome any more...just not a $20 million hitter, let alone a $20 million player once his defense is considered.