big dog

What else would an agent say? Don't call we're not answering?

Whoever you would have taken a shot at appreciates you not knowing this.

Either that, or sour antipathy.

I didn't try to say it doesn't, though it probably reads that way. My point is that it might not, and there are reasons to think that they might not be perfectly correlated. For example, if they are really good at executing/moving players ahead a base because of coaching, but I don't call it at the right time quite so often, we might get more runs but somewhat fewer wins than the Pythag projection. Or maybe I'm really good at platooning, which isn't situational on a day-to-day basis. The Pythag projection doesn't usually show huge variations anyway, so I'm inclined to think that more runs (based on expected runs absent the manager) is important as its own measure. I have no belief that could be estimated with any degree of accuracy, though.

Interesting stuff, thanks. One concern I have about the Pythagorean projections is that it refers to how run differential translates into wins. I would think that a really good manager, someone who concentrates on matchups, uses the hit and run efficiently, etc., would also be able to generate more runs out of a given set of players. If a manager generates more runs, they ought to have more wins, even if they slightly underperform from a wins/run differential expectations. If you look at two above-average managers, the difference might come down to whose personal style best fits the ballclub. The wrong manager can wreck the whole thing, of course (see Red Sox recent history). All that said, though, as long as you have a good manager I don't think it's easy to quantify the value of the best, as you point out. That makes it easy to say we should spend the money on a stud pitcher instead, but managers almost never have Tommy John surgery and they don't cost a quarter of the payroll. So my conclusion is I'm glad I'm not a GM, I guess.

Yeah, my guess is he might like to try on some large-market challenges for a change. I used to enjoy buying used cars because they were a good deal. Now I sometimes buy new cars. I like them better. If it weren't my money, I'd always buy new cars. And it's not his money. He's 60 years old, he's gonna get paid. Why should he take the most money? I think he's going to take the best opportunity.

Nolasco definitely showed signs of being a serviceable AL pitcher after he got off the DL. Not what I hoped for, but still an upgrade. I expect he will be a solid 3-4 for a while. I'm not in a rush to trade him.

Hard to see the Yankees giving up pitching. Besides, they just buy players.

One thing I appreciate about Arcia defensively is that he always appears to be trying. He's not loafing, he doesn't give up on balls, he listens to the centerfielder. He tries to make throws he shouldn't make, but that's a lot better problem than having a noodle arm. I think he has the potential to make big steps as an outfielder and it looks like he cares enough that it might not be hard to get him there.

Yeah, after reading the other questions I'll withdraw my question about the best trade and replace it with this: Are you aware just how badly KTWIN sucks? And by "sucks", I mean "can't be heard more than 200 yards from the transmitter"? You know that, right? So why do you put up with it? Really, why? Because it sucks. OK, that's all.

The front office must get frequent reports from the minor leagues. Which players over the last 5-7 years have performed better in the majors than you expected, given those reports? Restricting your comment to other teams- what teams made the best trades during the 2014 season? You can define best however you think is appropriate- short-term, long-term, whatever.

If it isn't a leak, it's incredibly mysterious. Perhaps a hack by the Lovullo Fan Club.

They have certainly managed to take all the air out of their opponents. Hosmer and Cain are hot right now, and Moustakas has a half-season of HRs in 8 games. It's fun to see what momentum can do.

He was shocked to be traded and as NV said above, spent a lot of time complaining about how the Twins did things differently from the Cardinals (worse), etc. He showed up and said that he had "cried like a baby" on the flight to Minnesota. My recollection was that they were thrilled to get anything for him just to get rid of him.

Wow, that's a pretty quick dropoff once you get into the 60s or below. I was struck by Liriano, one spot above Mays. Liriano certainly had his bad years, but man, when he was good he was good. Peak years vs. average is always a debate in these kind of things. I would like to see Tom Herr even lower than 258, but that's a very good start. It's amazing to see how short the Twins careers were of some of the guys I cheered for when I was a little kid. George Mitterwald only played 4 years? It seemed like my whole life! Of course, it was probably when I was 8-12, so at the time it more or less was my whole life. Interesting table, I'm sure I'll spend more time with it during this looooooong offseason. Thanks.

I'm trying to remember if I've ever seen a run score from second on a wild pitch (with the pitch remaining in play, and the pitcher at least eventually remembering to cover the plate). That was pretty amazing. Hats off to the Giants, and bigger hats off to the Cards for fighting through that huge momentum swing and winning the game. And who put a quarter in Kolten Wong and wound him up, anyway???

Looking at those rosters, it seems like most years the group turns into 1-3 at least somewhat productive major leaguers. By somewhat productive I'm just thinking of more than a few brief appearances (my definition: Matthew Lecroy, yes, Tyler Robertson, no). The high is 5 in 1998 including Mike Lincoln (263 appearances in MLB). 2004 was a good year as well, or at least it was until Kubel tore up his knee (Baker, Crain, Bartlett, Kubel). Let's hope for at least 5 out of this group. It looks a lot stronger than the the others, especially recent years. 2008-2010 didn't work out too well compared to average.

And 5 post-season appearances with 4 different teams. Major league player or good luck charm? Either way it's paying the bills.

What's a Cameron Booser?

No unemployment compensation. No generous settlement. A one-year contract that expired.

Those of us who effectively are a box of rocks object to this discussion. It belittles us as dumb, when in fact we are merely extremely dense.

Yeah, me too, but more importantly what did other people think? In my case, I'm sure opinions were definitely mixed. Still true today, probably, but at age 53 I'm gradually winning a few people over to my side.

I remember a quote from the disastrous playoff series against the Angels (also known as The Week Adam Freaking Kennedy Killed The Twins). Gardy had gone out to the mound to make a pitching change, and there was kind of a disturbance among the group while they were waiting for the reliever to come in from the bullpen. As we heard later, what happened was Mint disapproved of the choice, and, while standing on the mound, said "Isn't Kyle Lohse still on this team?" Gardy chose to express some displeasure of his own about who got to choose the reliever and who didn't. Seemed to me like Lohse was the right choice in that situation, too, even before it blew up on us. I like Mint.

True, he's very good at reloading, but apparently his aim is somewhat off. Maybe he should quit shooting so often and try aiming more carefully. Man, I love that metaphor. Even if it doesn't work.

I personally thought the Lester/Gomes/Cespeda trade made sense. I didn't like the trade for the Shark and Hamels- I thought there was too much of the future traded away. It was certainly defensible, I just didn't care for it. I do have strong feelings that I don't like Beane's strat-o-matic approach to building a team, or at least not the frequency with which he shuffles the deck. As an article of faith, I think that chemistry matters, and you need a core group that sticks together a little while. Beane finds good parts, but he's always tossing them around and they never seem to gel quite enough. Wouldn't you find it hard to perform your best in an environment when you expected that most of you were only there until your boss could find a replacement that might be marginally better? As a fan, I would find it hard to root for a team that was a collection of shirts with various bodies moving in and out of them. It may not just be the stadium that is keeping attendance down. Winning isn't everything, especially when you don't win at the end of the season. There are a bunch of young guys on that team I could cheer for, but as an A's fan I would just assume they would be traded in a year or two anyway. I understand that's what happens in sports, and it's both necessary and fascinating, but it happens a lot more frequently with the A's and I don't see that as a good thing. Would I enjoy a WS champion team with a bunch of players who were new, and who I expected to be gone quickly? Sure, but not in a way that would make me want to go to more games in a year when half those guys were gone.