That, SG is some very interesting stuff. Grazie.

I don’t know about most of you, but when the term ‘fluke season’ comes up, I instantly think of Brady Anderson in 1996

How about Luis Gonzalez circa 2001? Those huge arms (and the steroids that created them) cost us the world series.

I wuv the pie charts.  They’re so pretty, they’re hypnotizing me…

*thunk*

How about Luis Gonzalez circa 2001?

If you look at HRs and RBI, yeah, it could be considered a fluke, but looking at wOBA, he just missed my 15% cutoff.

The big jump was in 1999, and it probably had a lot to do with moving from Tiger Stadium to Arizona.

The biggest fluke season in the data I looked at was was Andres Galarraga in 1993, but that’s definitely the Mile High Stadium factor.

I wuv the pie charts.

I kept zoning out while trying to post them.  They really are pretty.

pie charts. hilarious.  never gets old.

Brady Anderson
Adrian Beltre
Luis Gonzalez….

you know, there is something else that people think of when they talk about these “fluke” seasons.  and seeing O’Neill listed here next to these guys has me thinking.

but i don’t really want to be the one to ask….

unusual career arc, played in a certain “era”, had many teammates who did certain “things”,  had what we’ll call “anger issues”...

not suggesting anything, just wondering why his unusually late peak is never even questioned.  flame away.

not suggesting anything, just wondering why his unusually late peak is never even questioned.

a) He didn’t look like a roid user.
b) I seem to recall a well-documented change in approach when O’Neill became a Yankee.  Lou Piniella supposedly wanted him to pull the ball and hit 40 HRs a year, and the Yankees let him focus on spraying the ball around.

I’m of the opinion that more players used PEDs than didn’t, so it wouldn’t surprise me to hear that anyone used them.  Except maybe Edwar.

a) He didn’t look like a roid user.

why not?  he was pretty big

i just meant to link that, feel free to edit that SG.

O’Neill also sort of fell of the table his last 3 years and was done by 38, which for a guy who looked like he kept himself in decent shape, is sort of young. Oddly, I don’t remember if O’Neill had any nagging injuries that forced him to hang up the spikes..

Interesting. It would be cool to see a) the opposite, for fluke bad seasons (with a PA min to rule out injuries, or prune by hand) b) multiple-year projections for fluke good seasons vs standard arc.

So, on the Batting Runs pie chart, how come Alberto Gonzalez’s 0% slice is so much wider than Pudge’s or Chris Stewarts 0% slices?

Interesting. It would be cool to see a) the opposite, for fluke bad seasons (with a PA min to rule out injuries, or prune by hand) b) multiple-year projections for fluke good seasons vs standard arc.

Yeah, I’m going to look at fluke bad seasons some time to see what it means for Cano.

So, on the Batting Runs pie chart, how come Alberto Gonzalez’s 0% slice is so much wider than Pudge’s or Chris Stewarts 0% slices?

This question should be in the dictionary next to the word pedantic.

So, on the Batting Runs pie chart, how come Alberto Gonzalez’s 0% slice is so much wider than Pudge’s or Chris Stewarts 0% slices?

it’s b/c SG has a Venezuelan copy of Excel

Great job SG, even though I have no idea what all the numbers mean cuz I’m such an idiot.

And yup, based on that picture, it looks like Paul was on the juice.

So, Damon, Giambi and ARod are really the only Yankees with significantly more batting runs than outs, with an honorable mention to Matsui. Ugh.

Oddly, I don’t remember if O’Neill had any nagging injuries that forced him to hang up the spikes..

I recall that’s exactly what happened to him in 2000 and 2001.

It may be worth noting that a significant part of O’Neill’s “ascendancy” in 1994 can be seen his his splits v. LH pitching. Prior to 1994, his most productive season v. LH pitching was in 1990: .259 .310 .406. In 1994, his splits v. LH pitching were: .305 .439 .571. I’m not sure whether that improvement can be attributed to not puling the ball, as SG mentioned, or whether some other factor(s) were involved. There were some reports at the time that the way Showalter selectively deployed him (not having him face the toughest LH pitchers) was a factor, but I have never seen any breakdown of the data to support that claim.

Monster post, SG.

you know, there is something else that people think of when they talk about these “fluke” seasons.

Really, people think Beltre was on steroids? And then what, he just stopped?

why not?  he was pretty big

He was big when he was drafted.

O’Neill also sort of fell of the table his last 3 years and was done by 38, which for a guy who looked like he kept himself in decent shape, is sort of young.

Most ballplayers don’t make it to 35. For a guy who was a good, but not great player, and wasn’t particularly fast, to hang on until he was 38 is a display of longevity, not of fading young.

Late career bumps in production have happened through out baseball, and they’re part of what makes the game fun and unpredictable. If you’re gonna throw steroids at everyone who doesn’t match the stathead prescribed aging curve, you’re going to suck a lot of fun out of the game.

I don’t see how steroids could explain an increase in batting average. How does being stronger correlate with making more consistent contact?

O’Neill’s highest HR season was in 1991 with the Reds (before his conjectured start of steroid use). He never hit more than 24 HR with the Yankees.

It seems much more plausible to me that a change in hitting approach explains a sudden upgrade in ability to hit the ball (which would increase his BA, OBP and SLG without necessarily increasing the power with which he hits the ball).

I think that picture makes O"Neill looke bigger than he was.  But yeah, like CP says, he didn’t really change that much physically over the course of his career. 

I don’t see how steroids could explain an increase in batting average. How does being stronger correlate with making more consistent contact?

I think I’ve read that steroids can improve eyesight, or maybe that was hGH?  Improved visual acuity would certainly help batting average.

If I get some time I’ll see if I can pull O’Neill’s hit location data from retrosheet to see if there’s a tangible change in his approach.

Great concept for a post.
I’m looking forward to the negative fluke seasons part though I expect the results to be the same.  (i.e. they’re not really that bad but its a harbringer of doom)

“How does being stronger correlate with making more consistent contact?”

I guess the argument could be that on steroids your bat will be quicker so balls you’d normally get blown away on, you might foul off.  Balls you’d foul off, you’d line for base hits, with a quicker bat you can afford to wait on a pitch a little bit more, etc.  I don’t know.  I haven’t studied it, but those are some of the arguments people have made that back up the theory that steroids can improve batting average.

I think I’ve read that steroids can improve eyesight, or maybe that was hGH?  Improved visual acuity would certainly help batting average.

It doesn’t even have to be that complicated. Steroids allows you to recover quicker. If you can recover quicker, and then feel less worn out physically over the course of the season, I wouldn’t be surprised if you got more hits because you’re wrists or your feet or your arms were more rested.

Paul O’neil set a career high in SBs at age 38. Must’ve been steroids.

Really, people think Beltre was on steroids? And then what, he just stopped?

yes, i have heard people imply this about Beltre. here is an example:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/27/opinion/main3650505.shtml

“Joe is trying to figure out how to deal with this new baseball landscape in his own way. I am wrestling with the question of how can I spend fifty bucks to attend a game next season with Joe and cheer for a third baseman, as yet unnamed by Mitchell or anyone else, who got a $64 million contract because he hit 48 homeruns in 2004, yet hasn’t hit more than 26 since. And a hundred more players with similar stories being told on the backs of their baseball cards”

If you’re gonna throw steroids at everyone who doesn’t match the stathead prescribed aging curve, you’re going to suck a lot of fun out of the game.

i wasn’t saying O’Neill did or didn’t do steroids.  i was just asking why no one has ever mentioned it before.

i thought the way SG laid out certain numbers and players was leading the conversation a certain way, and i wanted to know what SG thought.  but you’re 100% correct, just because a player has a funny aging curve doesn’t mean a damn thing by itself. 

i was reluctant to bring it up, well, b/c it’s Paul O’Neill.  i wasn’t trying to suck the fun out of anything, though i’m not sure there is any fun left this season…

i thought the way SG laid out certain numbers and players was leading the conversation a certain way, and i wanted to know what SG thought.

I frankly don’t care about the steroid issue, because I think just as many pitchers as hitters used them, and I tend to think the results they are credited with are overblown.  I certainly wasn’t trying to steer the conversation that way, although I guess picking Brady Anderson as the first example could make it look that way.

I don’t remember hearing much about Beltre being a steroid suspect, although I can certainly see it being discussed.

And I never really thought about O’Neill as a user, because I never really noticed a physical change in him, but I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility out of hand for anyone, except Mo.

Great post, SG

I wouldn’t dismiss the possibility out of hand for anyone, except Mo.

Jeter, too.  Too scrawny and no power.

Jeter, too.  Too scrawny and no power.

I’ve seen people suspect Jeter. He’s noticeably skinnier this year and his power has been down since they started testing. The douche at Was Watching hinted at it sometime last week, I’ve gotten into arguments at bars about it too with people who swear he’s been using.

I certainly wasn’t trying to steer the conversation that way, although I guess picking Brady Anderson as the first example could make it look that way.

my bad, i wasn’t trying to imply that YOU were steering the conversation that way.  just that it went Anderson, Beltre, and then someone brought up Luis Gonzalez.

i thought it was a reasonable question, but i am sorry i asked it.

The douche at Was Watching hinted at it sometime last week

and i was pretty irate at the way Lombardi casually made his insinuations.

of course, i was just asking a question as an anonymous commenter not authoring a blog piece like Lombardi, but at the same time i don’t really want to be a douche like that guy. 

i don’t see anything at all suspicious in Jeter’s performance.  the guy has been about as steady as you can be, with a career year at 25.  nothing odd about that.

Oh, random figures it out at 29 guy…Marlon Byrd!

Eff WasWatching.  I’m done with that one, for good this time.

Wow, thanks for the pie-charts SG!  Does help put it in context.

How does being stronger correlate with making more consistent contact?

It all depends on what effect - if any - you believe steriods has.  If you believe it helps a batter hit the ball harder, then it makes sense you could have a higher batting average.  I think we all agree that balls hit harder are more likely to become base-hits. 

I have no idea any more if any of this is true.  Ten years ago it was cut-and-dried; if you were one of the few who used steriods, your entire career was a chemical fantasy, and you were probably never better than a AA player without enhancement.  Now however, we KNOW that there weren’t only a few players using, and we SUSPSECT that the majority of players used something.  But we really don’t know for sure who used what, when, for how long, or what effect it had.  (sigh) Sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

More Random Pie Charts!

Where does this blog rank now after this pie-chart revolution?

Also, for anyone interested, I went to Yankee Stadium this Saturday, had a pretty good seat. Shot some pictures, and they are on flickr:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/27883938@N04/sets/72157606819327720/

Snacks Pontoon pitched pretty well, but the Yankees refused to hit. Kansas City, perhaps feeling guilty that they are ruining a gorgeous day for the Yankee fans, kept making errors that kept the Yankees in the game. After Mo was done pitching, I left the Stadium, and so missed Gardner’s walkoff prowess in the 13th inning.

J, you think 38 is ‘sorta young’ for a professional baseball player? Fuck the heck are you talking about?

anybody think we will see matsui tonight? I hope so.

Who gets the call on saturday? I think it should still be hughes over pavano. His previous outings were better than pavanos and pavano was at AA.

<i>J, you think 38 is ‘sorta young’ for a professional baseball player? Fuck the heck are you talking about?<i>

O’Neill looked like he kept himself in great shape. Is it sort of young in terms of being productive? Certainly not. But guys play until they’re 40 these days, especially guys that keep themselves healthy.

How many guys do we have on our roster that are over 38 or have contracts that take them past their age 38 season? Like 5? (ARod, Mo, Po, Mussina). Also, does anyone think Giambi will get more than 2 years on his next deal? That’ll take him to 38. Jeter will play past 38, almost certainly.

True that, but those guys are the exception, not the rule. 32 is the average retirement age for an MLB player.

I’d start Pavano. At this point, why rush Hughes if he was complaining of a “tired arm” after his last start?

How many guys do we have on our roster that are over 38 or have contracts that take them past their age 38 season? Like 5? (ARod, Mo, Po, Mussina). Also, does anyone think Giambi will get more than 2 years on his next deal? That’ll take him to 38. Jeter will play past 38, almost certainly.

All of those guys are/were much better ballplayers than O’neil. In general, great players last longer than good players.

All of those guys are/were much better ballplayers than O’neil. In general, great players last longer than good players.

Why do I get the feeling that if someone said “game time conditions are partly cloudy” that your almost immediate retort would be “no, it’s partly sunny.”

Let me get this straight: 38 was old for O’Neill because he was good, but it’s not for the aforementioned because they are great? Yeah, that makes sense.

Let me get this straight: 38 was old for O’Neill because he was good, but it’s not for the aforementioned because they are great? Yeah, that makes sense.

I think what he means is that a great player starts at a higher level, so when he begins to decline he goes great -> good -> mediocre.  Whereas a merely “good” player has one fewer steps toward mediocrity.

Pie charts are like cowbell.

Steroids don’t build muscle.  Steroids aid in recovery and allow a person to build muscle faster.  But you still have to work out to get the bigger physique.  Or, like some pitchers, you can just use it to recover faster and not end up looking like Rod Laver. 

HGH is the new PED.  Urine tests won’t catch it and I’m sure older athletes like the fact it can improve eyesight, even if your head swells like a watermelon in August.

38 was old for O’Neill because he was good, but it’s not for the aforementioned because they are great?

No, it’s old for anyone, but great players have more ability and skill. Since you, theoretically, lose your ability to produce as you get older, the guys with more to lose, the greater players, will be able to hang around longer since physical declines take place over years. This doesn’t always work, some guys just fall of cliffs (Bernie for example) or injuries get in the way, but in general, it’s true. O’neil didn’t have the talent to lose a whole lot of it and still be a productive player the way Giambi or Moose has. It’s a pretty basic concept.

Personally I would classify O’Neill as “very good” as opposed to just “good”.  I think he had two great years, four really good years, and two good years, as well as several years around average.  But yeah, Cowboy’s point holds.  O’Neill by age 36 was pretty much an average player.  ARod at age 38 will probably be putting up numbers that look more like O’Neill’s age 34 season.  MSM will lampoon ARod for it…

O’Neill probably could have stuck around for another year or two. But looks like his offensive skills were diminishing to a mediocre level.

age ops+
36 107
37 92
38 104

also, to follow up, the fact that O’Neill was done by 38 probably is a point against the steroid “theory” (more like a question than a theory).

he really peaked from 30-35, which is somewhat abnormal, but it’s not like he hit the most HRs of his career at age 39, like say, Steve Finley.

O’neil didn’t have the talent to lose a whole lot of it and still be a productive player the way Giambi or Moose has. It’s a pretty basic concept.

Right.  Basically, a player in his 30s would lose about a half win of value in every season.  O’Neill’s aging curve was a little weird.  Here’s how he rated by pBRAR as a Yank.

1993(age 30): 27
1994(age 31): 49
1995(age 32): 33
1996(age 33): 29
1997(age 34): 35
1998(age 35): 35
1999(age 36): 13
2000(age 37): 3
2001(age 38): 17

In general, a pBRAR of about 50 is an MVP-caliber season.  O’Neill peaked at age 31 and then stayed fairly consistent over the next four years in a range of 29-35 runs above replacement, but I’d agree that 1994 sticks out as a fluke rather than his actual peak ability.  Then he fell off by about two wins. If we use a 3/2/1 weight of his actual pBRAR over 1995-2001 to assess his ability instead of his value, his age curve looks like this:

1995(age 32): 37
1996(age 33): 34
1997(age 34): 33
1998(age 35): 34
1999(age 36): 24
2000(age 37): 12
2001(age 38): 12

So O’Neill did stay better longer than the typical player but was below average in his last two years (although still above replacement level).

“It’s a pretty basic concept.”

I wonder if it’s not more complicated, actually.  If the talent distribution is really smooth, then ok, it’s a lot of little advantages - but maybe there are real differences in how the best players perform at their level.  E.g., say that having alleles A, B, C make you a good player.  Maybe A-Rod or Pedro has A’, B’, C’, slight variants that put him a half-step ahead, and with age it’s a quarter-step, then nothing.  Or maybe he’s got D, which is just a permanent advantage, even when the half-step from youth is gone.

Isn’t the way the Brewers are treating Sabathia fucked.  The guy throws 111 pitches through 8 with a 6 run lead and they bring him out for the 9th so he can throw a career high 130 pitches.  I know he’s only a rental but still whoever gets him next year better beware.  Selig should look into the matter.  Oh wait.

Isn’t the way the Brewers are treating Sabathia fucked.  The guy throws 111 pitches through 8 with a 6 run lead and they bring him out for the 9th so he can throw a career high 130 pitches.

Eh.  20 years ago it wouldn’t have been a big deal.  I know we understand more about how pitch counts affect players now than we did 20 years ago, but most of the issues seem to be with players under the age of 25 being abused.  I think for pitchers over the age of 25 pitch count limits have gone too far.  There do need to be *some* limits, but I think 130 is reasonable. 

Now that I’ve said that Sabathia will have career-ending surgery next month…

but I’d agree that 1994 sticks out as a fluke rather than his actual peak ability.

also, don’t forget that 1994 was only 113 games.

that probably makes the numbers more vulnerable to random fluctuations.

Pauley was one of the best deals the team has ever made. Seems like he still hit 20 homers and had 20 SB’s his last year. I agree though he picked a pretty good time to retire. No one had to ask him to.

In response to yesterday’s concern about the Jeter matter when his contract is up what the team will face. Yes, if they wait till the end they may get a request for a three year or four year extension. Why not intercede and extend him two now? It might be cheaper and may be long enough to get to 3000. It might be better to be more generous now and save facing a more trying and expensive option later. Of course we don’t know that he would do it but it’s a thought.

Wouldn’t it be just like this team this year to score 15 Sunday and with a day off face Burnett and get 5 hits and maybe one run. BTW, Burnett is compiling a pretty good year. What again is the status on his contract?

Does anyone remember the last time Rasner was a winning pitcher? I don’t.

Don’t worry about CC, he may not want to play for us. It’s certainly not automatic.

Or maybe he’s got D, which is just a permanent advantage, even when the half-step from youth is gone.

No doubt that Giambi’s ability to see the ball so well because of his vision will give him an advantage as long as he’s playing. His eye sight will eventually decline, but I don’t think (knowing very little about eyesight) that’s a huge worry for the remainder of his playing career. Andintelligence can make up for a huge decline in physical skill, allowing a player to outperform what his physical skill set should provide, like in Moose’s case. Generally, athleticism or speed has been tossed around as something like your example of D. Fast, athletic players age better, for whatever reason and it seems to be a permanent advantage, whether a player can hit for power or or has a good eye or whatever. I don’t know how verifiable it is, but I’ve seen it written about before and it seems intuitive to me.

Wow, this a question Neyer just fielded in his chat:

“PhillR, NYC: Why do writers/voters such as yourself over value BA and RBI so much when they are very clearly not amongst the best metrics?”

I’m going to tell myself he’s a Mets fan, if he doesn’t realize Neyer is a key proponent of using advanced-metrics, and believes BA and RBI are - maybe not useless - but very over-rated stats.

Now that I’ve said that Sabathia will have career-ending surgery next month…

So the Yankees don’t get to sign him.  Phew.

Giambi is still a pretty fair hitter for power (but average is mediocre) and is good at getting on base. He’s a slow runner, injury prone and aging-thus more likely to be injury prone, poor range on defense and posseses a bad arm.

I wouldn’t see any case for resigning him at the option amount. In fact if Tex would be a Yankee, he would be a better option. If Tex wants to sign elsewhere and no other options exist, Giambi would be ok at far less money on a year to year basis.

Its not that 130 pitches is totally unreasonable but with a 6 run lead its just plain fucked.

What was his response, Mike K?

His eye sight will eventually decline, but I don’t think (knowing very little about eyesight) that’s a huge worry for the remainder of his playing career.

Since most of my family has poor eye-sight, I do know a little about it.  And I can say pretty confidently that…next year he could need glasses, or he may still have perfect vision when he’s 80.  Wade Boggs I believe get laser-eye surgery (1999), and I remember in the 80’s one of the big deals with him was he had (I think) 20/15 vision.  Genetics has a lot to do with it.  There are of course environment factors as well.  Everyone in my wife’s immediate family needed glasses by the time they were 30, if not earlier, and her vision is still 20/20, so who knows.

It seems intuitive to me that people age differently, even if they start with the same basic natural abilities.  For example, some people may lose muscle-mass faster than others.  Hopefully, ARod has the, “don’t start losing abilities until 45” gene.

What was his response, Mike K?

A lot nicer than I thought he’d be (remember the chat is in the context of who will win the NL MVP):

“We’re mostly talking about who *will* (or might) win the award, not who should. Last year *my* favorite candidates were David Wright and Hanley Ramirez, and neither got more than a sniff from the learned men who vote (I don’t). “

In prior years, Neyer would have been quite snarky.  I was looking forward to that actually.

Wouldn’t it be just like this team this year to score 15 Sunday and with a day off face Burnett and get 5 hits and maybe one run. BTW, Burnett is compiling a pretty good year. What again is the status on his contract?

3 years ago Burnett signed a 5 year, $55 deal.  he has an opt out option at the end of this year.

i see no reason why he won’t exercise that option as he will surely get more than $22M/2 this offseason.

i think it is safe to consider him as a free agent.

More on O’Neill, we can see an example of the difference between a decline from being a very good player versus a great player when we compare him to Gary Sheffield.

wOBA and pBRAR are the actuals, wOBAsk and pBRARsk would be an estimated skill using a 3/2/1 weight of the current season and prior 2 seasons.  So we can see that over the same ages, O’Neill’s skill level declined by about 27 runs, and Sheffield declined by 18 runs.  But league and position adjustments skew those numbers.  Looking at the wOBA decline between the two, it’s actually very similar.  O’Neill estimated wOBA skill dropped .059 points, Sheffield’s dropped .056.  But when you drop from .396, it’s a lot harsher than when you drop from .419.

This ignores defense, which closes the gap between the two considerably.

Its not that 130 pitches is totally unreasonable but with a 6 run lead its just plain fucked.

That was my first thought as well.  But I’m also too lazy to look up the particulars; was it a SO, what were his reliever usages in the last few days, what are the chances he’ll need to use several relievers in the next few days, etc.  I guess my main thing is I can’t get worked up about it.  If it were Sheets (who has been injury prone) or an under-25 pitcher I would.  But for a pitcher like CC, I’d rather see some managers try to reverse the curve.  I think it would be better for baseball.

Didn’t we all know a 15 run game would be coming soon as a prelude to scoring about five runs total in the next three games.  We need to beat either Burnett with Rasner or Halladay with Ponson assuming Petitte wins on Wednesday to even qualify for life support.

the difference between a decline from being a very good player versus a great player when we compare him to Gary Sheffield.

Wasn’t Sheffield almost certainly on steroids tho?

I wouldn’t see any case for resigning him at the option amount. In fact if Tex would be a Yankee, he would be a better option. If Tex wants to sign elsewhere and no other options exist, Giambi would be ok at far less money on a year to year basis.

I think that’s the thing.  If they can get Tex - for whatever the Yankees consider a fair contract - Giambi is likely gone.  If they can’t, he’s probably back; though I wouldn’t discount them giving Miranda a shot to win the 1B job.  I’m thinking the Yankees WON’T pick up Giambi’s option.  It probably needs to be picked-up/declined like 15 days after the World Series.  They likely won’t know yet about Tex.  So I think they’ll decline the option, pursue Tex, and if they fail to get him hope Giambi is still available (which he likely will be).

Wasn’t Sheffield almost certainly on steroids tho?

Probably.

though I wouldn’t discount them giving Miranda a shot to win the 1B job.

Miranda who has a .841 OPS in AAA? I feel pretty good about them not giving the job to Miranda. Ben Broussard is a better bet than Miranda, if they’re looking for someone from the AAA team. But I seriously doubt the Yanks are going into next year with anything but a name at first, they can’t afford the risk at a corner now that the middle of the field is riddled with question marks.

I’ve heard that Miranda is pretty god-awful against LHPs, whereas he’s murdering RHPs (too lazy to look up the splits right now).  Is he being platooned in Scranton?

Miranda who has a .841 OPS in AAA? I feel pretty good about them not giving the job to Miranda.

Check his splits.

Vs. Lefties: AB: 108, .213/.267/.306
Vs. Righies: AB: 215, .340/.440/.530

If Tex is too pricey, I’d seriously look at a 1B platoon of Nady/Miranda.  So Nady plays first against lefties and plays RF against righties.  Miranda plays 1B against righties.  Then the Yankees need to find someone who can play RF against lefties.

Excellent timing, SG.

the other problem is that Miranda can’t field, correct?

if they don’t land Teixeira, the guy they should go after (and perhaps they should go after him anyway) is Pat Burrell.

Burrell to RF, Nady to 1B.

i am very curious to see how much Burrell signs for.

i think he could be a relative bargain.  or not. 

but he’d mash.

Random thought: what sort of trade package might it take to get someone like Jeremy Hermida?

If Tex is too pricey, I’d seriously look at a 1B platoon of Nady/Miranda.

I think the Yankee front office is going to place a lot of value on certainty this offseason. I don’t know what his #s translate too, but I’d rather ease him into a job given his history than make him the guy to get 80% of firstbaseman’s ABs next year.

Burrell to RF, Nady to 1B.

I don’t think, bat am hardly certain, that Burrell has the arm for right.

I don’t think, bat am hardly certain, that Burrell has the arm for right.

I think Burrell’s arm is decent, probably average for a RF.

the other problem is that Miranda can’t field, correct?

I’ve heard that too.  In the times I’ve seen him play at Scranton I haven’t seen anything to make me think he’s a poor fielder.  At the same time, I haven’t seen anything to make me think he’s a good fielder.  I think the only thing that wouldn’t be considered a routine play (and I think he made them all) was a LD he snagged low and towards the line.  Not a hard play, but not necessarily routine.  Of course, I’ve only seen him play a few times.

Check his splits.

I didn’t realize they were so severe.  I also don’t think the Yankees signed him out of Cuba just to play in AAA.  Everyone here is correct that he won’t be option 1 for the Yankees - probably not option 2 either - but I also think they’d be more comfortable with him than maybe trying to move Matsui to 1B, etc.  I do like the idea of Burrell (or Dunn) for RF, Nady to 1st, or trying to find a decent OF who mashes lefties for a platoon.

I don’t think, bat am hardly certain, that Burrell has the arm for right

Burrell has decent assist numbers, though I don’t know how well they translate to RF.  The main thing of course is the throw to 3B; if he is making outs at 2nd and home with his arm in LF I think he can do that just as well from RF.  Cano’s strong arm could help.  Of course, another thing is they could sign Burrell to play first.  It’s been a number of years, but he has some experience there.  Of course, he’d have to want to play first.

With Nady and Burrell the lineup would become very right handed

With Nady and Burrell the lineup would become very right handed

Still got Cano, Damon, and Matsui, with Posada switch hitting and the Melky (1.000 OBP in AAA so far)/Gardner monster offering a couple of guys who can stand on the left side of the plate in case they can’t get a real CFer. I don’t think that’s all that right handed.

With Nady and Burrell the lineup would become very right handed

There’s some uncertainty for sure.  If Matsui and Posada are healthy, and I’m assuming Damon stays, three pretty good LH bats there.  Not to mention Cano, who I think is more like 120 OPS+ Cano than this year’s debacle.  Sure I’d rather have Tex than Burrell (not getting into $$ or length of contract), unfortunately the Yankees can’t get EVERY player they want.

With Nady and Burrell the lineup would become very right handed

substitute Dunn for Burrell and play Dunn at 1B and Nady in RF.

GMing is easy.

i guess my point was that there are other options beyond Teixeira.  of course, if Teixeira wants to play in NY, i wouldn’t really object.

Let’s be ambitious. Trade for Holliday. He can play the short RF in YS and he’ll make more contact than Burrell and the power differential won’t be significant (he’s already shown he can smack it out to the opposite field in our yard). We’ve got a lot of B and C+ arms in the system we don’t need to keep.

Hey SG, back to fluke seasons for a sec, out of curiosity, how many flukes were there, out of how many qualifying player-seasons? Do fluke seasons jump significantly (either in frequency or in how greatly players exceed projections) in the mid-late 90s when steroid era is supposed to have started?

Just wondering how fluky a fluke season really is.

Trade for Holliday.

I think the Rockies expect to compete next year.

We’ve got a lot of B and C+ arms in the system we don’t need to keep.

You’re not getting Holliday for that, even if you offer 50 of them.  Colorado probably asks for Joba.  Maybe you can talk them down to Hughes plus.

The Sabathia thing is interesting to me because I’ve seen people write that since CC is a free agent after the season, that the Brewers should use him as much as possible.  What can a player do to protect himself from abuse in this situation?  Does he just refuse to take the ball at a certain point?

Hey SG, back to fluke seasons for a sec, out of curiosity, how many flukes were there, out of how many qualifying player-seasons? Do fluke seasons jump significantly (either in frequency or in how greatly players exceed projections) in the mid-late 90s when steroid era is supposed to have started?

Just wondering how fluky a fluke season really is.

I’ve got 181 seasons where a player exceeded his wOBA projection by 15% or more.

Here’s how it breaks down by year:

I think what will happen is this.Giambi’s option will be declined.If Tex wants 20 a year(7 to 10 years) thats too much.Giambi is still a very good offensive player look at the charts above 11% of the runs 8% of the outs.Of the 7 “regulars"only Alex is better.Giambi should get 24 for 2 plus the 5 mil buyout plus he wants to stay.

If Tex wants 20 a year(7 to 10 years)

well, the key is if it’s 7 or 10.

7?  go for it. 

10?  pass.

93/94/95 - is that the official onset of the steroid era?  I’m guessing there were early adopters making the peak and then the mean shifted, or those who were going to use did.  This ought to correlate with precipitous declines for non-users, so you should see a lot of not fluky bad but still downgrade seasons around then.

The Bash Brothers were in full flower already during the A’s WS years, 1988-1990.

Davey Johnson, 1973.

93/94/95

93 was expansion, which would bring some less than Major League quality ball players into the league and probably cause a few fluke seasons of success among those who were talented enough to play in the bigs before. 94 and 95 were shortened seasons, which because of the more limited sample, would probably lead to more “fluke” seasons.

Other than those three, the big fluke seasons are all seasons in which offense spiked compared to the season before it.

A stupid non-HTML proficient person asks: how do you change the font colors in your posts?

Magic!

If 1994 had been a full season, some of those 23 flukes might very well have regressed back to non-fluke levels.

I don’t see how steroids could explain an increase in batting average. How does being stronger correlate with making more consistent contact?

Even if one naively equates steroids with power: the more power you have, the deeper the OF has to play, the more bloops fall in for singles.

HGH is the new PED.  Urine tests won’t catch it and I’m sure older athletes like the fact it can improve eyesight, even if your head swells like a watermelon in August.

hGH is snake oil.  It almost certainly does not enhance athletic performance in any meaningful way.  Body builders love it, but they don’t use it when training—they take it immediately before contests because it makes you retain water so you look bulkier and buffer.  Same reason that Clemens’ wife used it before her SI photo shoot (remember, even the biggest lies have some elements of truth).  The eyesight thing is based on a single anecdotal report from a guy clearly pushing an agenda; there’s no objective evidence that hGH improves eyesight.  And there is a new urine test for hGH; it will probably be fully validated within the next two to three years.

And now for something completely different:

<blockquote>“He’s not the villain he’s cast as,” Cashman, who signed Pavano to the contract, said Monday. “Carl Pavano has worked his butt off. He’s always tried. He just hasn’t stayed healthy. No one is trying to avoid him. When he’s healthy, he can pitch. He’s one of the hardest workers we’ve got. People don’t want to realize it or look at it, but that’s true.

“He hasn’t laid down on us, he just hasn’t been healthy. People lose their objectivity and make it things it’s not. The bottom line is, he’s had every intention of helping us, but between all the injuries, we’ve had a lot of stuff that hasn’t worked physically. When he’s healthy, he can do what few can do.”</blckquote>

For $40M, Pavano deserves every ounce of crap he’s ever gotten and a few tons more, but the one thing I never got was the response to the car wreck.  He tried to hide an injury because he didn’t want to interrupt his rehab.  Wouldn’t a coward or a malingerer have done the exact opposite and used it as an excuse to jump right back on the DL for the rest of the year?

The Sabathia thing is interesting to me because I’ve seen people write that since CC is a free agent after the season, that the Brewers should use him as much as possible.  What can a player do to protect himself from abuse in this situation?  Does he just refuse to take the ball at a certain point?

Part of it might be that CC doesn’t mind being abused. If he performs well, as has been demonstrated, it likely means more FA dollars. As well, the competitive spirit comes in play where he would want to complete games, or keep on pitching.

Limiting CC might actually be in the best interest of the Brewers, not CC. The small reward of having CC get a complete game with his team up 9-2 in the eighth, comes with the big risk of CC fading in his last few starts or in the postseason. 130 pitches by itself is not the end all or be all, but with a big lead heading into the ninth, and the Brewers thinking post season run, looking after the rotation is important.

Dang it!

Anyway, one other thing Yatt—steroids do build muscle.  Well documented in the medical literature, both with and without weight training.