Vegas Watch

14-22. Worst record in the AL. First baseman throwing his helmet at opposing pitchers. Fire McLaren!

"Charles Barkley Is a Dumbass."

Cliff Lee took the subway to Yankee Stadium before his start on Wednesday. He should just run for President at this point, really.

What would happen if you let a pitcher play CF? Oh, I see.

"Wait, let me get this straight, you proposed when it wasn’t even Felix day?"

Starting price for Super Bowl XLIII commercials: $3 million.

Congratulations to Brian Sabean, winner of the Worst GM tournament.

Forgot about this one last week. Gary Thorne actually thinks Jose Canseco is the Yankees' first baseman. He manages to make Steve Phillips look competent in this clip.

I like Vegas Watch's pairing in the "Suckiest Sports Blog" tournament. I'm pretty confident this blog is worse than We Are The Postmen, and thus will advance.

Continuing the series, a look at how SEC basketball is shaping up in 2009.

And that happened.

The dimensions at the L.A. Coliseum were pretty nuts.

I really can't get enough of the Meat Hook.

Actually, Jeff Brantley, Edwin Encarnacion is quite clutch.

PTI pulled a pretty good April Fools joke. The high five could use some work though.

A very interesting Bill James Q&A over at Freakonomics. A sampling:

Q: Has looking at the numbers prevented you from actually just enjoying a summer day at the ballpark? Have we all forgotten the randomness of human ballplayers? By reducing players to just their numbers can we lose sight of the intangibles such as teamwork, friendships, and desire.

A: Does looking at pretty women prevent one from experiencing love? Life is complicated. Your efforts to compartmentalize it are lame and useless.

Find me someone who tells stories better than Joe Posnanski. Please.

Rehab has really changed Yao.

After thrilling us with their AL predictions yesterday, ESPN released their NL team capsules today. They're all linked from the MLB Index (although the Rockies' link is broken; their preview is here). I don't really care about the actual previews at all, but the win predictions for each team from ESPN's analysts sure are fun.

These previews have predictions from Jayson Stark, Tim Kurkjian, Buster Olney, Keith Law, and Steve Phillips. I'll get to the more interesting specific predictions next week, but first some more general stuff.

Average Win Predction
This is not complicated. If all 30 teams play a full season, the average team will win 81 games. I don't think this requires any further explanation.

Kurkjian: 82.1
Stark: 82
Olney: 81.3
Phillips: 81.1
Law: 81

Congratulations to Keith Law. The only ESPN analyst who can add. Give that man a raise.

That money should probably come out of the paychecks of Kurkjian and Stark. I would like to see the process these individuals go through when making their predictions. I am pretty sure they look at the list of teams, arbitrarily assign a win total to each one, and that's that.

Here is my question: what's the point? Clearly, the guys who don't consider numbers at all are not good at this. Would it be that hard to add up your predictions and make sure that they're, uh, possible? Also: do they not have editors? If they do, do they not know how to add?

PECOTA Correlation
Law: 0.93
Kurkjian: 0.81
Olney: 0.80
Phillips: 0.80
Stark: 0.78

This is not rocket science. Law's predictions will most likely do very well. He clearly at least put some thought into this. The others will do about as well as yours or mine would do if we arbitrarily picked numbers for each team. I find it amusing that ESPN trots out these predictions like they mean something. They do not.

Standard Deviation
Phillips: 10.7
Olney: 10.4
Kurkjian: 10.1
Stark: 9.7
Law: 9.0

For reference, PECOTA's standard deviation is 8.4.

Phillips is so absurd. Here's my favorite little stat from all of these: he has 14 teams winning 88 or more games. Think about that for a second- that's one team away from half of baseball. Here is my prediction: Steve Phillips' predictions will not fare well in this post at the end of the year.

ESPN now has their AL team capsules linked on the MLB page. Each capsule has five anlalysts' predictions on how many games that team will win. For example:


88 Wins + Bedard = 92!! The man does have a history with this team, I suppose. It's the predictions of the first three that really surprise me. Law's "voice of reason" title has never been more appropriate.

Much more on these after the basketball this weekend.

I am watching the finish of the San Diego-UConn game. It's now going into overtime. This in itself is notable.

I would just like to point out how unbelievably painful Tim Brando's announcing has been down the stretch. Repeatedly referring to Klayton Korver as "Kyle" in the early game was bad enough. But this is getting out of hand.

Example 1: With 54 seconds left, San Diego's Rob Jones hit a jumper to put the Toreros up 4. Brando felt this was the time to tell us, "This ain't Carmen Sandiego!" Zing.

Example 2: After Thabeet cuts the lead to 2 with 44 seconds left, UConn fouls. Brando immediately compliments the Huskies for funneling the ball to a 59% FT shooter before fouling. A few seconds later, he realizes that this was UConn's fourth team foul, three away from the bonus. Oops.

Example 3: With 29 seconds left, UConn gets the ball back down 3. Adrien makes a layup. Brando informs us that the game is now tied. 3 minus 2 equals...zero?

Photo: Sportsline.

7:11pm update: We have the pleasure of listening to Brando for the Vandy-Siena game as well. He's going on and on about how the SEC is still looking for their first tournament win.

What conference is Tennessee in again?

It is a good thing Gary Parrish updated his bracket, because Lunardi hasn't. It says there's supposed to be an update today; hopefully there will be before I have to leave for the airport.

Xavier is down to a 4. Since when do you lose on the road to a bubble team and drop two lines? They should be flip-flopped with Notre Dame. You know what ND's best road win is? Villa-"8-9 in the Big East"-nova. Second best would be Seton Hall, I guess. Meanwhile, Xavier is 6-2 on the road in the A-10, with wins against UMass, Rhode Island, and Dayton. They also beat Indiana by 15 on a neutral floor. I find this to be completely unreasonable. Xavier really does need to get Lavender healthy, though. His ankle is far from 100%.

Louisville is finally up to a 3. They play @Georgetown tomorrow at noon. I would think that the winner of that game will be on the second line on Monday (the Hoyas are currently a 2).

There's a basketball game in Durham tomorrow night, apparently. It might even be on TV. The winner of that one has to be a 1. If Duke goes 14-2 in the ACC, including a sweep of UNC, they have to be a top seed. They were also 12-1 against the 35th most difficult non-conference schedule in the country, and that one loss came in OT on a 3 at the buzzer.

It doesn't really matter, but UNC has a great draw in this bracket. The 2-4 seeds in their region are Georgetown, Stanford, and Butler (Hibbert vs. the Lopez brothers on the second weekend would be fun, wouldn't it). Unless Carolina has to face a tough 8/9, that's pretty much a free pass to the Elite 8. And once there, their opponent cannot compare with some of the other 2/3 seeds like Kansas, Louisville and Duke.

I have a flight to Chicago in a bit, but if Lunardi updates his bracket soon I will likely write about that as well.

Update: Lunardi has updated his.

His top two lines are the same as Parrish, except for one- Lunardi has Wisconsin as a 2, while Parrish has Georgetown. I have no problem with this, and Georgetown has the opportunity to prove themselves tomorrow against Louisville. I do wonder how much Wisconsin's easy B10 schedule plays into this.

Xavier is a 3, and Notre Dame is a 4. So at least somebody is paying attention.

There is some disagreement on Butler. They are a 6 in Lunardi's a 4 for Parrish. Their #18 RPI splits the difference. Their #35 Pomeroy rank does not. They'll be overseeded regardless, but I'd go with 5 for now.

UConn is the opposite; 6th for Parrish, 4th for Lunardi. I am not a big fan of this team, but a 12-5 BE record, plus a win @Indiana, and their only non-con losses coming against Memphis and Gonzaga, deserves higher than a 6.

First of all, the line continues to drop; it's down to 12 now. There is clearly a lot of action coming in on the Giants. I looked through some posts over at Covers to see what the thinking is behind this, and this thread pretty much summarized the consensus:

"Giants will win hands down. You don't have agree or believe what I am telling you. The Giants are a team on a mission, playing without any pressure and having fun doing so. If you haven't notices, this is Eli Manning''s best situation. The guy plays better without any pressure. One last point, the Giants just beat the two best teams in the NFC on the road. The pass rush will get to Brady this time around. I'd say the pressure is all the Pats, not a good situation to be in."

I kind of have a hard time believing that Eli Manning will play well in the freaking Super Bowl because there won't be any pressure on him, but that's just me.

You can bet on absolutely anything in this game. BetUS has a line on which team will get called for the first holding penalty of the game (Giants are -135, Pats -105). I don't really know how to analyze something like that, so you can to over to BetUS yourself and check them out (under Sportsbook, Futures & Props, *NFL Super Bowl XLII).

BetUS, Bodog and The Greek all have odds on the MVP. Here are some of the favorites:


I know the betting public isn't exactly brilliant (see above quote), but I'd really like to meet the person that bets on Eli to win the MVP at +350. The current money line for the game at Pinnacle is Giants +435. The MVP has come from the winning team in 40 of the 41 Super Bowls. So how, exactly, is Eli +350 better than Giants +435? That line is absurd.

I was shocked to see Brady at -125 at BetUS, considering he was -350 at the same site last week. I'm surprised I'm saying this, but I think Brady at +100 at The Greek is a pretty good value.

Using the money lines at Pinnacle, the Pats have a 81.5% chance of winning the game. So we need to know how often Brady will be given the award if the Pats win. In 41 Super Bowls, the winning team's QB has won the MVP 21 times. So that's 51%. But few of those teams have had the "NFL's golden boy".

Brady has already won two MVPs in his three Super Bowls. Let's say he's 65% to win in the 81.5% of the time that the Pats win. If that's the case, he'll win 53% of the time overall, and +100 is a good bet. It's only marginally advantageous, but I'm very surprised that line is even remotely reasonable, especially after the ridiculousness at BetUS the last week.

Aside from Brady, I'd say Maroney at +800 is the best bet. I'd pretty much eliminate anyone on the Giants, since it's pretty unlikely they win the game, and the odds don't really reflect that. If Moss has a big game that likely means that Brady did also, and that's what people will notice. I'd be kind of worried about how much the Pats will run the ball in the warm weather, but Maroney will get plenty of touches late in the game if they're leading.

I'm not going to break down the rest of the odds, because I wouldn't really know where to start, but here they are:Photo: Newsday.

The Baseball Hall of Fame's 2008 class will be announced next Tuesday. With a ton of columns being written by BBWAA members explaining their choices, I thought it would be a good idea to look at some of the infallible logic that went into their selections.

All of these arguments are from actual, real life Hall of Fame voters. Don't forget this.

8. Dave Buscema, against Bert Blyleven

"And I can let the mediocre win-loss record go a bit because he played for so many poor teams and excelled in the postseason when given the chance … but ultimately I still would have liked to have seen at least a little better winning percentage and/or more Cy Young votes, an ERA title and more than one 20-win season in 22 years."

I can let the mediocre win-loss record go, but I'm not voting him in because of the mediocre win-loss record and the mediocre win-loss record. I like how we're looking at Wins and Cy Young votes separately, as they're clearly not related at all.

Buscema is a first-time voter. Welcome, you'll fit right in.

7. Dan Shaughnessy, for Jim Rice

"People who played and watched major league baseball from 1975-86 know that Rice was the most feared hitter of his day. Managers thought about intentionally walking him when he came to the plate with the bases loaded. "

This pretty much summarizes every Rice argument. He was feared, dangerous, dominant, etc. etc.

The fact that in 214 career PAs with the bases loaded he hit .302/.299/.483 with zero intentional walks isn't really helping the second argument.

It is actually entirely possibly that Rice was, in fact, the most feared hitter of his day; I was not alive in "his day". But if people actually "feared" Rice more than Mike Schmidt, they were not very good at allocating their fear.

Rice: 7754 PAs, 350 HR, .304/.356/.520, 133 OPS+
Schmidt: 7657 PAs, 440 HR, .270/.386/.545, 154 OPS+

Beyond that, if he really was the "most feared", I kind of doubt he would have been 33rd in IBBs during that period. At least he led the league in something over that span.


6. Jon Heyman and Mike Nadel, both against Bert Blyleven and for Jack Morris

Heyman:

"2. [in] Jack Morris. The ace of three World Series teams, it's an abomination he may never get in... 10. [not in] Blyleven. Stat gurus love this guy, and it's understandable. One of the great compilers of his generation, he's fifth all-time in strikeouts, ninth in shutouts and 25th in wins. There's no doubt he was a superb talent who played a long time. But he was rarely among the ultra-elite in his 22-year career."

Nadel:

"Blyleven won more than 17 games only twice in 22 seasons. John had a higher winning percentage than Blyleven but fewer strikeouts and shutouts. Jack Morris, a great clutch pitcher who had the most victories in the '90s, is better than both."

I went over Heyman's article last week. There are two main problems with the argument here; the thought that Blyleven was never among the "ultra-elite", and the obsession with Morris' "clutchiness".

Years with ERA+ above...
150: Blyleven 2, Morris 0
140: Blyleven 5, Morris 0
130: Blyleven 6, Morris 1
120: Blyleven 11, Morris 6

The fact that Morris has three 20-win seasons to Blyleven's one doesn't mean Blyleven was less dominant, or had an inferior peak. It means his teams scored fewer runs for him.

As for this whole clutch thing:

Morris, career postseason: 7-4, 3.80 ERA, 92.1 IP, 32 BB, 64 K
Blyleven, career postseason: 5-1, 2.47 ERA, 47.1 IP, 8 BB, 36 K

Blyleven pitched 45 fewer innings, that's the only aspect in which he's inferior.

These two aren't voting Blyleven in because he didn't pitch for teams with big offenses, thus not racking up big win totals. And Morris is getting in because of one game. It's absurd.


5. Bill Conlin, for Jack Morris

"Besides going 254-186, righthander Jack Morris won 20-plus three times, made 14 Opening Day starts and pitched one of the great World Series Game 7s of all time, the 10-inning, 1-0 victory over the Braves in 1991."

HoF credential #1: Pitching 240.2 essentially league average innings in 1992 (4.04 ERA, 102 ERA+) in 1992. The Blue Jays scored an impressive 5.56 R/G in his starts, so he managed to go 21-6.

HoF credential #2: Making 14 Opening Day starts. 100% meaningless. This includes 1989 (6-14, 4.86 ERA, 79 ERA+) and 1993 (7-12, 6.19 ERA, 70 ERA+).

HoF credential #3: One game.

Convincing.

4. Gerry Fraley, against Tim Raines

"Raines’ case was hurt by his reluctance to run in all situations, as Rickey Henderson did. Raines seemed at times too concerned about preserving his stolen-base percentage."

In his career, Tim Raines stole 808 bases, and was caught only 146 times, good for a pretty incredible 85% success rate. We are holding this against him. If he was caught 47 additional times, bringing him down to Henderson's 80.8% career success rate, maybe he'd warrant consideration.

This is the extent of Fraley's argument. There is no further mention of Raines in his article.

3. Phil Rogers, against Lee Smith

"I’m down to one this year, as Smith has been passed by Trevor Hoffman for the all-time save lead and my vote for Lee Arthur was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Lee."

Two years ago, Trevor Hoffman had 436 career saves, so Phil Rogers voted for Lee Smith to be elected to the Hall of Fame.

This year, Trevor Hoffman has 524 career saves so Phil Rogers is not voting for Lee Smith to be elected into the Hall of Fame.

Sorry, Lee.

Edit: OMDQ adds:

"I’m down to one this year, as Aaron has been passed by Barry Bonds for the all-time homerun lead and my vote for Henry Louis was based on his being the leader. Sorry, Hank."

2. Tracy Ringolsby, against Tim Raines

"The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman's five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don't see Coleman as a Hall of Famer."

In his top five SB years, Coleman stole 484 bases. In Raines' top five SB years, he stole 384. This is the only category in which Coleman outperformed Raines.

They were similar players in the sense that they were both fast, I guess. So maybe Ringolsby thinks the only thing that matters with guys who are fast is how many bases they steal? That must be it, since comparing Raines and Coleman as overall players is laughable.

Coleman, best 5 years: 3236 PA, .272/.330/.351
Raines, career: 10359 PA, .294/.385/.425

It's not close. In fact, in the comments of this post, tangotiger makes the amusing point that Raines' worst five years were easily better than Coleman's best five. Tim Raines is going to fall short of the Hall of Fame this year, and he has reasoning like this to thank.


1. Woody Paige, for Goose Gossage

"During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving."

Not much analysis needed here, beyond this. At least others were seemingly trying. Did you really expect someone else in this spot?

The Baseball Analysts (this post), BBTF (Fraley, Heyman, Buscema, Rogers, Conlin, Shaughnessy, Ringolsby), and Keith Law's blog were all vital to putting this list together.

I finally purchased the new domain name that we voted on like two months ago. As you may have noticed, you are automatically redirected to vegaswatch.net when you type in the old URL. All the Blogspot stuff (bookmarks, RSS) should still work; please let me know if they don't.

Shyster with a hilarious post looking at his 1973 Topps set. He goes over about 70 of the cartoons on the backs of the cards. A few favorites:

"Steve does volunteer dentistry work." You can just do that?
"Dennis enjoys attending sporting events." Given his job, I would hope so.
"Ron loves New York for its fine knishes." First draft: "Ron is a Jew."
"Gary is a freeswing batter." In 1973 Maddox was a Vietnam vet and was already a supernatural centerfielder, yet Topps decided to comment on his .293 rookie on-base percentage. Nice.

Tracy Ringolsby:

"The biggest debates for me were Tim Raines, who obviously was overshadowed by Rickey Henderson, but also if you take Vince Coleman's five top years, I would say he outperformed Raines, too, and I don't see Coleman as a Hall of Famer."

In the comments, Tangotiger helpfully points out that Raines' five worst years were better than Coleman's five best.

The top 40 sports figures of 2007.

After a brief hiatus, one of my favorite college basketball blogs, Rush the Court, is back.

Looks like Gossage is going to be voted into the HoF this year.

Yes, I am going to link to Carl on a weekly basis. This week, his locks of the century. The analysis of the UGA-Hawaii game is absolutely stellar.

Posnanski relays an excellent Belichick story.

An interesting look at SLG% on different pitches in different locations.

Rob Neyer and Keith Law don't get into the BBWAA, and thus don't get a Hall of Fame vote, because they don't attend enough baseball games. Woody Page is a BBWAA member, and get a HoF vote, for reasons that are entirely beyond me.

Now, Woody is asking for help filling out his ballot. In doing so, he's making it quite clear that he needs help in a variety of areas.

"Gossage — During a visit to Yankee Stadium in the late 1970s, I wanted to talk to Goose but was told he was cruel and gruff to reporters. I sheepishly introduced myself and said I was from Colorado, his home state, and he talked pleasantly for 30 minutes. We've been good friends since. I would vote for him even if he wasn't deserving."

Doesn't this violate some kind of rule? It should. I'm kind of amazed that someone, even a man who aimlessly yells on TV for a living, would write that they don't care if someone is deserving, they're voting for them because they're friends. How is this okay?

"Murphy — Got my vote, but he won't get in. He was two short of 400 home runs and hit only .265, but he won back-to-back MVP awards, made seven all-star teams and earned five Gold Gloves. He played 26 games for the Rockies in their first season, 1993, before retiring. I vote for Rockies. He was who a ballplayer should be. And he always remembers my name. I'm a sap.

"Andre Dawson and Tim Raines — I'm voting for them. Both are borderline. But I was amazed by, and wrote columns about, Dawson and Raines when they played for the Denver Bears. Dawson passed through in 1976 on his way to the Montreal Expos, and Raines was the 1980 minor-league player of the year as the Bears' second baseman. (Raines did have a cocaine addiction problem but overcame it.)"

Notice that there is no ellipsis. This is the entirety of his reasoning. "They're borderline, but they played for a local minor league team, so I'm voting for them." End of discussion.

Article II, Section I of the BBWAA constitution (as described here), "spells out four objects as its reason for existing":

"Subsection D: To foster the most credible qualities of baseball writing and reporting."

Credible is the first would that come to mind when reading this article, really. Back to Woody:

"Jim Rice — He has been shut out for 13 years, mainly because he primarily was a DH..."

Little known fact (definitely not avaiable with six seconds of research on B-R)- Rice played 1543 career games in the outfield, and 530 as a DH. There was exactly one year in which he played over 100 games at DH. So I really don't think the fact that he "primarily was a DH" is keeping him out of the HoF.

"Don Mattingly — Another former player, now a coach, who I became friends with, so I'm prejudiced. I like voting for friends.."

From the Posnanski interview with BBWAA President Bob Dutton again:

" Most of the criticism of this decision seems to argue that Rob and Keith know much more about baseball than many current members. That might be true."

Just maybe.

The BBWAA tries to take itself all seriously, and makes entry into its little club very difficult (well, sometimes). Which is fine. And it's somewhat inevitable that their members aren't going to be perfect, and may even have some questionable voting tendencies. But don't write an article advertising just how little you care- that makes it really difficult for anyone else to take your organization seriously.

Hat tip: BBTF.

This is brilliant (via FanHouse and BBTF):

"Reacting Wednesday to the blockbuster deal that sent power-hitting third baseman Miguel Cabrera and former All-Star left-hander Dontrelle Willis from the Florida Marlins to the Detroit Tigers — wrecking the Sox’ latest offseason plans — [Chicago White Sox GM Ken] Williams said: 'All this has done is put the Tigers in a better position to contend with us.'"

I suppose he is right, in some sense. But his word choice is quite poor; I would have used "destroy", "pummel", or "embarrass", rather than "contend".

The following is a list of the members of the BBWAA (from Wikipedia, so don't even think about questioning it's accuracy; although Wikipedia does say it's incomplete).

• Peter Abraham, The Journal News
• Dave Albee, Marin Independent Journal
• Maury Allen, New York Post, retired
• Dom Amore, The Hartford Courant
• Mel Antonen, USA Toda
• Phil Arvia, Daily Southtown
• Bill Ballou, Telegram & Gazette of Worcester
• Mike Bauman, MLB.com
• Ira Berkow, The New York Times
• Jeff Blair, Toronto Globe and Mail
• Barry Bloom, MLB.com
• Ron Blum, Associated Press
• Paul Bodi, MLB.com
• Hal Bodley, USA Today
• Thomas Boswell, Washington Post (non-voting member)
• Pat Borzi, New York Times
• Ed Bouchette, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Mark Bradley, Atlanta Journal-Constitution
• Steve Buckley, Boston Herald
• Don Burke, Newark Star-Ledger
• Jim Caple, ESPN
• Mike Celizic, MSNBC
• Bill Center, The San Diego Union-Tribune
• Murray Chass, New York Times (non-voting member)
• Gene Collier, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Bill Conlin, Philadelphia Daily News
• Ron Cook, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Jerry Crasnick, ESPN
• Ken Davidoff, Newsday
• Jose de Jesus Ortiz, Houston Chronicle
• Mike Dodd USA Today
• Mike Downey, Chicago Tribune
• Rich Draper, MLB.com
• Gordon Edes, Boston Globe
• Bob Elliott, Toronto Sun
• Mark Faller, The Arizona Republic
• Jeffrey Flanagan, The Kansas City Star
• Gerry Fraley Dallas Morning News
• Tom Gage, The Detroit News
• Peter Gammons, ESPN
• Pedro Gomez, ESPN
• Ken Gurnick, MLB.com
• Mark Gonzalez, Chicago Tribune
• Jerry Green, The Detroit News
• Tony Grossi, The Plain Dealer
• Paul Hagen, Philadelphia Daily News
• Jim Hawkins, The Oakland Press
• John Henderson, Tampa Tribune
• Lynn Henning, The Detroit News
• Jon Heyman, Sports Illustrated
• Jerome Holtzman, Chicago Tribune
• Jeff Horrigan, Boston Herald
• Paul Hoynes, The Plain Dealer
• Rick Hummel St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Bruce Jenkins, San Francisco Chronicle
• Chuck Johnson USA Today
• Richard Justice Houston Chronicle
• Dick Kaegel, MLB.com
• Ann Killion, San Jose Mercury News
• Bob Klapisch, ESPN
• Mike Klis, Denver Post
• Gwen Knapp, San Francisco Chronicle
• Michael Knisley, ESPN
• Dejan Kovacevic, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Doug Krikorian, Long Beach Press-Telegram
• Tim Kurkjian, ESPN
• Joseph Liao, World Journal
• Paul Ladewski, Daily Southtown
• Mike Lefkow, Contra Costa Times
• Bill Livingston, The Plain Dealer
• Seth Livingstone USA Today
• Bill Madden, New York Daily News
• Tony Massarotti, Boston Herald
• Sean McAdam, ESPN
• Hal McCoy, Dayton Daily News
• Dan McGrath, Chicago Tribune
• Paul Meyer Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Bernie Miklasz St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Scott Miller, CBS Sportsline
• Larry Milson, The Globe and Mail
• Jim Molony, MLB.com
• Carrie Muskat, MLB.com
• Bob Nightengale USA Today
• Mark Newman, MLB.com
• Marty Noble, MLB.com
• Jack O'Connell Hartford Courant
• Dave O'Hara, retired
• Buster Olney, ESPN
• Rob Parker, The Detroit News
• Jeff Peek, Traverse City Record Eagle
• Mike Peticca, The Plain Dealer
• Bill Plaschke, Los Angeles Times (non-voting member)
• Joe Posnanski, Kansas City Star
• Ray Ratto, San Francisco Chronicle
• Tracy Ringolsby, Rocky Mountain News
• Phil Rogers, ESPN
• Bob Rosen, Elias Sports Bureau
• Ken Rosenthal, Fox Sports
• Roger Rubin, New York Daily News
• Jim Salisbury, The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Alan Schwarz, Baseball America
• Chaz Scoggins, The Sun of Lowell
• Dan Shaughnessy, The Boston Globe
• Bud Shaw, The Plain Dealer
• John Shea, San Francisco Chronicle
• Joel Sherman, New York Post
• Claire Smith, The Philadelphia Inquirer
• Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
• Jim Sohan, Minneapolis Star Tribune
• Lyle Spencer, MLB.com
• Jayson Stark, ESPN
• Kit Stier, The Journal News
• Larry Stone, Seattle Times
• Joe Strauss, St. Louis Post-Dispatch
• Jim Street, MLB.com
• Paul Sullivan, Chicago Tribune
• T.R. Sullivan, MLB.com
• Dave van Dyck, Chicago Tribune
• Tom Verducci, Sports Illustrated

So these 119 guys are apparently qualified. Included on that list are sixteen Web writers, who were recommended for approval yesterday:

"Sixteen of the 18 nominations were recommended for approval: Scott Miller from CBS Sportsline; Jim Caple, Jerry Crasnick, Peter Gammons, Tim Kurkjian, Amy Nelson, Buster Olney, and Jayson Stark from ESPN; Ken Rosenthal from FoxSports; John Donovan, Jon Heyman, and Tom Verducci from SI; and Tim Brown, Steve Henson, Jeff Passan, and Dan Wetzel from Yahoo. "

Who are the two that missed the cut, you ask? Oh, nobody you've heard of. At least there's a good reason for this (from comment #90):

"One of the requirements for membership in the BBWAA is the need to be at Major League ballparks. Several members questioned whether Rob and Keith meet that requirement.

Some board members informally contacted folks at ESPN with this question and were told neither Rob nor Keith regularly attend big-league games and do not need to do so in order to do their jobs.

I can guarantee you that if my supervisors reported that to the BBWAA about me, I wouldn't have a card.

Also, this is how the system works. Newspapers designate candidates for membership. Reporters don't apply on their own. We followed the same basic procedure in adding internet reporters.

One difference: Candidates have always been reviewed each year by a chapter chairman, but since the internet sites were applying through the national office, they were reviewed by the national board of directors.

I've been in contact with Keith and Rob since the vote. Keith said he does attend games on a regular basis and expects to increase his attendance in the coming year.

If that's true, and I have no reason to doubt Keith, I hope ESPN confirms this and resubmits his name next year for consideration. If so, I would expect him to be approved.

I haven't heard back from Rob at this point, but if the view on his need was similarly misrepresented, I hope ESPN also resubmits him as a candidate.

Bob Dutton
BBWAA president"

Oh. Nevermind. Because attending lots of Tigers games allowed Gage and Hawkins to make such informed selections in this year's MVP voting, right?

Just another addition to the long list of votes pathetically screwed up by this organization, I guess.

Update: FJM chimes in:

"Mr. Neyer, Mr. Law: you are not "beat" enough to be beat writers for the BBWAA. You do not spend enough time smelling players' sweat and managers' chaw. Your brand of writing -- writing about facts, information, and data -- will not be tolerated within their ranks. Gentlemen: congratulations."

Update 2: More debate in the comments of Law's blog.

Update 3: Another BBTF thread.

I doubt I need to convince you that trading Lastings Milledge for Ryan Church and Brian Schneider wasn't a particularly bright move by the Mets. I think everybody pretty much agrees that this was quite silly- the worst trade the Mets have made since Rick Peterson convinced Jim Duquette that he could turn Victor Zambrano into Pedro Martinez.

Let's see how the great Omar Minaya is justifying this transaction.

"We see ourselves as a better team now. [The trade] fills two needs with players in the primes of their careers."

What an awesome quote. Brian Schneider's OPS+es, since 2003 (the first year he played over 100 games):

2003: 78
2004: 83
2005: 97
2006: 72
2007: 77

Schneider just turned 31. I'm gonna go ahead and say that 04-05 was the prime of his career (and what a prime it was). It is unclear what Minaya is getting at here. Brian Schneider is terrible- we all agree on this, right?

"I'm big on defense up the middle," Minaya said. And he considers the Mets' catching "situation" as good as "any in the game."

I honestly have no idea what this means. I understand that he is completely wrong, regardless of what he is getting at. But is he trying to say that Ramon Castro and Brian Schneider give the Mets a big edge at the catching position? He can't be, right? Maybe just defensively? That's wrong, too. I really don't know. I don't think the writer, Marty Noble, understands either- putting "situation" in quotes was a nice touch.

Oh, and speaking of the writer:

"Schneider's offensive production, while not eye-catching, is quite comparable to that of Lo Duca. Schneider has averaged 12.9 RBIs per 100 at-bats over the last three seasons. Lo Duca, playing his last two seasons with the Mets' more productive batting order, averaged 11.4 RBIs per 100 at-bats from 2005-07. Schneider, likely to bat eighth for the Mets, hit 20 home runs in 1,187 at-bats the last three seasons, and Lo Duca hit 20 in 1,402 at-bats. Neither played his home games in a park conducive to home run hitting."

RBIs per 100 at-bats. Now that is a stat I wish I had come up with. While we're doing three year averages:

LoDuca VORP (05-07): 16.3, 27.2, 9.2 (average: 17.6)
Schneider VORP (05-07): 16.0, -4.9, 2.4 (average: 4.5)

Oh, but we weren't talking about crazy stats like VORP; we were discussing run production.

The Mets are going to pay Brian Schneider $9.8MM over the next two years. If they are lucky, they will get replacement-level production from him. They are doing this by choice- in fact, for this privilege, they swapped a 22-year old OF with a projected .813 2008 OPS for a 29-year old OF with a projected .815 '08 OPS.

All of this information was readily available to them, and people are getting paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to make these decisions. Good work by everybody involved, really.

More on this trade: Law, R-D, ShysterBall, MLBTR.

I know I shouldn't look to Bill Simmons for competent baseball analysis. And I do not. But I was reading through his marathon chat yesterday, and couldn't help but notice this:

DJ (Cranston,RI): Hey Bill,thanks for making work go by a little faster...anyway, if you were Theo Epstein would you trade Buckholtz,Lester and Coco for Santana?

Bill Simmons: (1:26 PM ET ) In a heartbeat. That's not going to be nearly enough though.

I am quite confident that if Theo Epstein called up Bill Smith and offered this package for Santana, Smith would accept it immediately. I have not seen any scenario in which the Twins get Lester and Buchholz. He continues:

Bill Simmons: (1:52 PM ET ) I actually thought Buster made a great point this week about the value of Danny Haren compared to Johan - not only would he cost less to get, but he's locked into a reasonable contract for the next 3 years (something like $17m total) and he's a 220-IP horse. Maybe he doesn't have the ceiling that Johan has, but he'd be the Yanks's No. 1 starter. Actually, it almost makes more sense for the Twins to do a 3-way where they give up Johan but get Haren as part of the haul back, then Oakland gets a piece of the prospects. For instance, let's say they get Haren and Cano, the A's get Kennedy, Hughes and Cabrera and the Yanks get Johan... wouldn't that work for everybody?

No. The Yankees do not make this trade, Bill. They would be giving up Robinson Cano, Ian Kennedy, Phillip Hughes, and Melky Cabrera for Johan Santana. This would be completely insane. Brian Cashman would absolutely never even consider doing this.

Bill Simmons: (2:14 PM ET ) Here's the thing: if they landed Johan without touching anyone from the TOP FIFTEEN from last year's team, don't you have to do it? It's a no-brainer in my mind, although I'm not sure it would be a good trade for the sports of baseball as a whole.

This is really a fantastic way to look at this situation. When looking towards the future, it's important that Clay Buchholz and Jon Lester weren't even in the "TOP FIFTEEN" on this year's team. Extremely relevant.

And this trade would be fantastic for the "sports of baseball as a whole", specifically the Twins, Yankees, Indians, and Angels.

And then there's this, from ESPN:

"The Red Sox and Twins are discussing the framework of a Johan Santana deal that would have Boston sending four players to Minnesota in return for the two-time Cy Young Award winner, including center fielder Coco Crisp, pitcher Jon Lester and minor-league shortstop Jed Lowrie, the trio that would anchor the deal."

Hmm...something tells me that this is less than the Buchholz/Lester/Crisp trade that Simmons thought wouldn't be "nearly enough". Also, another slight detail:

"Red Sox prospects Clay Buchholz and Jacoby Ellsbury are considered untouchables in the Red Sox-Twins negotiations; similarly, the Yankees have indicated to others that they will not trade second baseman Robinson Cano or pitcher Joba Chamberlain."

Oops.

Photo: 1-800-Beisbol.

As the Rookie of the Year awards for both leagues are going to be announced sometime this afternoon, ESPN.com posted the picks of 20 of their writers. 16 picked Pedroia, which is not at all surprising- he's going to win easily. Jeremy Guthrie got one vote (from Keith Law), which is entirely defensible (his VORP was actually higher than Pedroia's, 38.2-35.9). So that leaves three people- one would figure they voted for some combination of the other pitchers; Bannister, Guthrie, Okajima, or even Matsuzaka.

All three of them (Howard Bryant, Phil Rogers, John Shea) voted for Delmon Young. I went to check where Young ranks among rookies in VORP. It took me awhile, as he's not on the first page- he's forty-second. Among rookies. He is behind Yovani Gallardo. As a hitter. Yes, him.

Dustin Pedroia: .317/.380/.442, 8 HRs, 50 RBIs, 7 SB, 39 2B, 112 OPS+, plays second base
Delmon Young: .288/.316/.408, 13 HRs, 93 RBIs, 10 SB, 38 2B, 91 OPS+, plays right field

I could almost understand doing this like ten years ago (almost). But today? Don't you have lack even the most basic understanding of on-base percentage and positional values to vote for Young? Or I guess just look at RBIs, and ignore absolutely everything else?

Dustin Pedroia: 35.9 VORP
Delmon Young: 5.7 VORP

VORP is a counting stat, obviously. So you would think Young would be helped by 681 PAs. Nope. They only help if you're significantly above replacement level. A 91 OPS+ from a right fielder doesn't qualify.

In any other profession, if you were this clueless, you'd immediately be fired. Not in baseball.

To this point, the playoffs have been fairly boring. Three sweeps in the NL, seven total ALDS games, and an ALCS that could end in 5. The best game over the past three weeks was probably the Wild Card tiebreaker between the Rockies and Padres, which isn't even technically a playoff game.

Coincidentally, this is also TBS' first year of broadcasting playoff baseball. It's not going so well- the NLCS got worse ratings than the final Little League World Series game.

Amazingly, the biggest ratings disaster of the postseason may be still to come. Tonight, the Indians try to clinch the AL Pennant in Game 5 against the Red Sox. With Beckett pitching for the Sox, they're favored to win. You can be sure that's what the people at FOX are rooting for. Regardless of how long the series goes, the World Series won't start until next Wednesday. That means if the Indians win tonight, there will be five days with no baseball before the World Series begins.

A Red Sox-Rockies WS would probably get better ratings than Indians-Rockies, so there's also that factor. Last year, the Series got a 10.1 rating, which edged out '01 and '05 as the lowest ever. A Rockies-Indians World Series after a five-day layoff would likely do even worse than that. Maybe that would cause FOX to reconsider this ridiculous, unnecessary off-day between Games 4 and 5 of the ALCS.

Photo: Over the Monster.

Here come the Yankees. They have the same odds (5:1 generally) as Arizona, even though they have to win two in a row just to get to the ALCS. Everybody agrees that they are not a good bet at 5:1.

I didn't end up writing a separate post about Torre throwing Joba for two innings last night, but I thought it was a terrible idea. He's doing the same thing Wedge did with Perez.

In commenting on a FanHouse post, I just completely convinced myself that not starting Sabathia tonight is ridiculous.

I don't think there's any question that starting Sabathia tonight gives the Indians a better chance to win the series. The Yankees are MUCH better against righties (their team SLG is 50 points higher against RHP), Sabathia (even on short rest) is MUCH better than Byrd (who got killed against the Yankees this year, 2IP 7R). And, as you said, then they have Fausto on full rest in game five.

Also, if they pitch CC tonight and win, it doesn't effect their ALCS rotation at all. Look at the ALCS schedule; it doesn't start until Friday. They could pitch Fausto in G1, then CC on full rest on Saturday. That's probably ideal.

Even iff CC pitches tonight, loses, then Fausto pitches G5, their ALCS rotation would be manageable:
G1: Westbrook
G2: CC
G3: Fausto
G4: Byrd or Westbrook on 3 days
G5: CC
G6: Fausto
G7: Somebody

I don't know who would pitch game seven, but I'm not really worrying about that at this point.

What's frustrating is that I know I'm thinking about all of this MUCH harder than Eric Wedge.

Before, I thought the only argument against throwing CC tonight was that it screws up their ALCS rotation. Now I think there is no argument.

Related: Just In Case [Fire Eric Wedge]

I would first like to say that I have nothing against Eric Wedge. I don't even really dislike him (well, I didn't until an hour ago). He seems like a nice guy.

With that being said, the following is the height of stupidity.

These are the Gameday screen grabs from Rafael Perez's two playoff appearances (click on them to make them larger).

To recap: in the 6th, his average FB was 91.75 MPH, with all but one of them being 91-93.

In the 7th, average FB was 89.5, with all but one being 89-90. Do remember, the Indians were up eight runs when Perez came back out for the seventh. This was entirely unnecessary.

Average FB in the 10th: EIGHTY SEVEN POINT FOUR MILES PER HOUR.
In the 11th: 87.3

He didn't throw a single pitch faster than 88 in either inning. This is the same guy who threw eight of his 12 FBs at 92 or 93 mph the day before.

FWIW, he struck out four guys on Thursday, and then only one on Friday. Faced six batters both nights (NYY is hitting .000/.000/.000 against him in the series).

I wish I had some kind of witty analysis, but I really don't. This seems like it's pretty blatant. Perez has been one of Wedge's main guys for about three months- he should know him pretty well at this point. He HAS to know what effect pitching two innings has on him the next d