Tim McG

Dances with Bollweevils

Nightmare on Slausen Off-ramp

Dressed to Bill

[ahem] All jokes are repeated or copied from somebody else, Guys.

Have you ever noticed that the waiter who takes your order is not the one who brings your food anymore? What is that all about? And which waiter are you tipping, anyway? I think next time I go to a restaurant I'll just say, "Oh, sorry, I only eat the food. The guy who pays the bill will be along shortly."

The trio: Jack, John and Steve.

Steve Khan has done some seriously good Straight Ahead stuff along with the Fusion stuff. Not the least of which: Featuring Jack DeJohnette, John Patitucci, Ron Carter, Al Foster, Anthony Jackson and Manolo Badrena.

OK. Here are the rules: You get to list only one Spoof Movie Title per post. I'll start: Silence of the Pams

Actually, they predict very well. Its called Trend Analysis, and "stat heads" who looked at Zito's post-2002 numbers used it to predict that he'd have a mediocre season. He's been trending in the wrong direction for years, and it continued. So statistics do predict pretty well. The only possible non-statistical element I can think of that an agent would use is how promotable special players are, such as A-Rod, David Ortiz, and other "face of the franchise" types. That is a value that a player has that is separate (though related) to his statistics. But its a lot more tangible and definable than "heart of a champion" or "determination". Actually, team W-L can be related to individual stats, and this relates to your statement above that "statistics ... don't predict well." You see, Baseball Prospectus used PECOTA, an acronym for Player Empirical Comparison and Optimization Test Algorithm, to predict player as well as team performances. I am unable to find the page that predicted cumulative stats and W-L records for every team, but this page details the fact that PECOTA predicted that the Chicago White Sox would go 72-90 this season. What was their record again? Oh yeah. 72-90. So, individual stats can be related to team W-L records, and in point of fact, here is yet another example where statistics made damn good predictions. Agreed....for the most part.

This is unbelievably stupid and nonsensical, when every agent, player and GM look at statistics to determine what player to attempt to sign, what to offer them, what to offer an arbitration-eligible player, what an arbitration-eligible player asks for. Do you think that those arbitration hearings turn on discussions of "champion's heart" and "determination" and other such bullcrap? NO. They are in depth discussions of how a particular player compares to his peers, and what those peers are being paid. It is ALL STATISTICS that determine a player's worth. No, let's put it another way. How about if YOU identify ANY PLAYER that the statheads get "wrong". ANYONE. This goes back to what you have refused to answer all along: Name the player who is "great" whom the stat-heads do NOT identify as "great". I suggested David Epstein, because he is someone who's press far outruns the talent he has for baseball. You laughed. So WHO IS IT? You assert that the "possibility exists" - I am asking you to PROVE that stat-heads have been wrong about SOME PLAYER. Just name him. PLEASE. No one claims that stats define the outcome of a future game. The game is played, and anything can happen then. No one has ever asserted otherwise. What is asserted is that statistical analysis is the sole way to determine who is great, terrible, and in between. Can a great player have a bad game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah. Can a terrible player have a great game, week, month or season? Uh, yeah, sometimes they do. Sometimes a terrible player comes up big in a big moment (hello, Bucky Bleeping Dent), to which stat-heads say "BFD". Anything can happen when a professional ballplayer steps up to the plate at a given time. It never changes in the least the fact that Bucky Bleeping Dent was a piece of shit shortstop. The simple bottom line is that these "numbers" reveal far more about a player's skill (or lack thereof) and the likelihood of his continued performance (or lack thereof) than any appeal to "heart" or "potential". Yes, the outcome of individual games cannot be predicted. No one ever said they were. I don't disagree that statistics do reveal a player's past performance. No doubt. They just don't predict well. Dan, all I'm saying is there is much more to the puzzle than numbers. I'll bet you dollars to donut holes that any agent worth his salt is going to look for much more than the numbers. Numbers are only part of the player not the player himself. Team W-L is not directly related to individual stats. If that were the case, Nolan Ryan would have been to the WS 20 times. Guess what...he didn't go because the teams he played on sucked. True?

Cloud the real reason for a player's given success? So we're back to the "heart of a champion" explaining David Ortiz' post-season record, instead of his BA, OBP or slugging. That is just plain stupid. And his "real reasons ... for future bargaining power"? Tell me, is Boras going to tell teams that A-Rod has tremendous determination, instead of reminding them that he is the youngest player to reach 500 home runs of all-time? Again, that is just plain stupid. The fact of the matter is that the "stat-heads" PREDICTED that Zito would CONTINUE his marked decline in performance which started immediately after his Cy Young season of 2002. Just because a stupid GM is foolish enough to offer him 140 million dollars (or whatever it was) doesn't make him anything other than the mediocre pitcher he has been for several years now. Fewest pitches over 90 MPH in all of baseball Less command of his curveball = fewer pitcher's counts, more of his 85 mph 'heater' and more hits. And where do you possibly get off saying that according to his stats, he should have had a great year???? His ERA was 4.53, and worse than league average. His WHIP was among the worst of his career. His ERA WAS the worst of his career. Fewest stikeouts of his career and worst strikeout-walk ratio of his career. What part of the story of his suck-itude do the numbers NOT tell? Here is a newsflash: Stat heads predicted that he'd continue his decline. His decline did continue. What part of that don't you understand? Guess he lost his "heart of a champion" and you know how a big contract effects player's "determination". I can't believe that you are incapable of wrapping your mind around this simple concept. WINS and LOSSES are a TEAM STATISTIC. That's why they determine a team's playoff spot. Just because WINS and LOSSES are assigned to PITCHERS under arcane and oftentimes ridiculous rules doesn't make them a valuable way to evaluate PITCHERS. Which pitcher do you want on your team, starting every fifth game? Pitcher A: Has the heart of a champion, but he lost his stuff about two seasons ago. Still has that great determination, though. 2007 record: 18-13. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement. Allows almost two batters to reach base per inning. Walks more hitters than he strikeouts. Scouting report: Pitcher A makes the most of what has become mediocre stuff. Often gets shelled but usually hangs around long enough to get the win if his team scores enough runs. Pitcher B: No known "intangibles". Likes to party, too. 2007 record: 10-16. 4.50 ERA, which makes him a league average pitcher by that measurement. Allows just over 1 batter to reach base per inning. Strikes out 3 batters for every walk issued. Scouting report: Pitcher B has the proverbial million dollar arm and ten cent brain. Often makes hitters look foolish with his five pitch repertoire, but last season too many fly balls landed in the bleachers, and he also suffered from a lack of run support. Great stuff, doesn't seem to win very often though. Can you possibly get it through your thick skull that Pitcher B is the superior player? My point: 1. Statistics make poor predictors and determiners relative to player worth. 2. Team statistics do not coincide with individual statistics....player value/worth was the original point. Still, not the same thing. 3. So the StatHeads get it right once in a while. All that proves is the possibility exists, not the certainty. Dan, why play the game if the numbers are all that matter? You simply cannot discount the intangibles of the game and the fact those are human beings down on the field, not numbers. Heart matters. Enthusiasm matters. Potential matters. Numbers only reflect the recorded past performance and that is all they do. StatHeads try to will more out of those numbers then is realistically plausible.

Eternal questions: Can you cry under water? How important does a person have to be before they are considered assassinated instead of just murdered? Why do you have to "put your two cents in".. but it's only a "penny for your thoughts?" Where's that extra penny going to? Once you're in heaven, do you get stuck wearing the clothes you were buried in for eternity? Why does a round pizza come in a square box? What disease did cured ham actually have? How is it that we put man on the moon before we figured out it would be a good idea to put wheels on luggage? Why is it that people say they "slept like a baby" when babies wake up like every two hours? If a deaf person has to go to court, is it still called a hearing? Why are you IN a movie, but you're ON TV? Why do people pay to go up tall buildings and then put money in binoculars to look at things on the ground? Why do doctors leave the room while you change? They're going to see you naked anyway. Why is "bra" singular and "panties" plural? Why do toasters always have a setting that burns the toast to a horrible crisp, which no decent human being would eat? If Jimmy cracks corn and no one cares, why is there a stupid song about him? Why do people drive on parkways and park in driveways? How can you draw a blank? Why do people ask "What's up?" when you're feeling down?

Amen aloc! That's why I prefer listening to the radio over watching a football or baseball game on TV. On the radio they talk about the game. On TV they talk about the replay. that's 2 of us. i love radio for sports, too. That makes three. The radio is awesome especially since it frees me up so I can go do other things instead of having to sit in front of the tube. The bad news is you can't mute the commercials.

If that's the case, then you shouldn't be remotely concerned if Matt Cain ever wins 20 games. Beyond that, informed opinion recognizes that traditional measures like W-L are not worthwhile measures of a pitcher's ability because they are virtually completely out of the control of a pitcher. A pitcher can't control whether his team gives him a lot of run support or very little. And no one would argue that one pitcher who goes 18-16 with an ERA of 5 is a better pitcher than one who went 6-17 with a an ERA of 3.35. The simple fact is that "statheads" recognize Cain as a fine young pitcher. His ERA is strongly above the league average, his WHIP is very good and his strikeout-to-walk ratio is outstanding. And the statheads don't have to appeal to "heart of a champion" or "determination" or even "bad luck" as an explanation for his lack of wins. They know that he was surrounded by a poor offense, and they don't hold it against him, because they are smart enough to recognize that wins aren't a decent measure of a pitcher's ability. Measures that a pitcher actually controls, like WHIP and strikeout ratios, are. Your other factors ("The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played") Tend to even out over the course of a season, and when we're talking about statistics we are talking about season and career numbers, not individual results in individual games. Of course things even out, but the numbers simply cannot predict that eventuallity and tend to cloud the real reasons for a player's given success for the moment and for future bargaining power. Barry Zito is another prime example of how stats do not tell enough about a player relative to his percieved value. According to his stats, he should have had a great year. Instead, he just plain sucked. Why is that, Dan? The numbers don't tell the whole story. As to W-L records, I think it just a little more than an overstatement to say I should not be interested in that concept. It is how we determine a team's playoff spot and eventual WS berth. Not the same thing as ERA, OBP or the rest.

Dan, All I'm saying is the numbers simply do not give you all the information necessary to determine a player's ability and value to a team. Take for example Matt Cain. According to the numbers he should have been a 20 game winner. His ERA was excellent. What the numbers don't tell you is he would often fall behind early in the game and then get chased for the loss often well before the 6th inning. The numbers do not take into account the weather [rainy, windy, cold, etc] on field decisions [manager took the pitcher out, left him in too long, errors caused the loss, pitcher was arm tired, etc], the mindset of the team [up or down day, dugout dust-ups, manager got tossed, etc] or any number of player/manager related and non-measurable events and conditions which drive the game as it is being played. I live for the subtleties of the game, not the recording of the numbers found the next day in the paper or a website.

My daughter was about 7 when she tripped and fell off of the curb while playing with the neighbor kids. Fractured leg and in a cast. I was devestated. Good news? This too shall pass. Welcome to Parenthood.

Here's a news flash for you, Dan: Numbers only count, they do not predict nor do they measure the intangibles of this game. I defy you to prove otherwise.

Eddie Stanky? I'm dyin' here....

What is that? Is a good number high or low? Forget it Russell....numbers only tell half the story. No, they tell a very large portion of the story, and numbers like OPS+ tell more than traditional measures like BA, RBI or the like. OPS is On-base percentage plus slugging. OPS+ is a normalized for park and league effects. 100 means you are an average player. Less than 100 is below average, more than 100 is above average (if you see a number for ERA+ fora pitcher, its the same deal - 100 is league average, less is worse than league average, more is better than league average). To put Rodriguez' 147 in perspective, go back to the quoted article: Are any of those players earning 30 million plus? Are any of them likely to ask for it in the near future? Cabrera is the only one clearly in his prime, or entering it, and he will never approach what Boras is asking teams to pay A-Rod. Do numbers/statistics show motivation? Heart of a champion? Determination? Attitude? In game situations like sacrifice bunts or sacrifice flies? Bad calls by the umpires? Momentum? I could go on..... Has A-Rod shown the heart of a champion? Determination? Let me guess - you think that David Epstein is some fantastic player, right? Tell me you do, because he's got tremendous "heart" "determination" and a killer "attitude". So you tell me that Epstein is the kind of guy that every team should dream of having. Go ahead, tell me. Or, tell me the player who you think best shows "heart" and "determination" and "attitude". The rest of your list is game specific events that have nothing to do with statistical analysis. StatHead, right? Dan, if all you relate to is numbers for your evidence of an excellent baseball player then you have just proven my point. Epstein....? That is the hill you choose to die on? Yer killin' me here.

Next on the horizon is a 'live" recording called The Suitcase featuring Anthony Jackson and Dennis Chambers.

Steve Khan, after a long absence, has gone back to the studio to record his own projects once again. The Green Field 2006 This album features bassist John Patitucci on bass and drummer Jack Dejohnette. Classic Steve Khan much like Crossing or Got My Mental Borrowed Time 2007 Randy Brecker [Flugelhorn], Bob Mintzer [bass Clarinet], Bob Mounsey [Keyboards], Mandolo Badrena [Percussion]. If you like great Jazz guitar, you need to listen to these offerings by Steve Khan. Trust me on this one. Tim

Yer killin' me, SoulStation.

What is that? Is a good number high or low? Forget it Russell....numbers only tell half the story. No, they tell a very large portion of the story, and numbers like OPS+ tell more than traditional measures like BA, RBI or the like. OPS is On-base percentage plus slugging. OPS+ is a normalized for park and league effects. 100 means you are an average player. Less than 100 is below average, more than 100 is above average (if you see a number for ERA+ fora pitcher, its the same deal - 100 is league average, less is worse than league average, more is better than league average). To put Rodriguez' 147 in perspective, go back to the quoted article: Are any of those players earning 30 million plus? Are any of them likely to ask for it in the near future? Cabrera is the only one clearly in his prime, or entering it, and he will never approach what Boras is asking teams to pay A-Rod. Do numbers/statistics show motivation? Heart of a champion? Determination? Attitude? In game situations like sacrifice bunts or sacrifice flies? Bad calls by the umpires? Momentum? I could go on.....

Steve Buscemi Joe Bucci Bucky Pizzarelli Bucky Dent Joe Buck Buckwheat

What is that? Is a good number high or low? Forget it Russell....numbers only tell half the story.