Single-handedly winning 2 WS has to take a lot out of you.

wynette look elsewhere

Varitek is justified: He's ancient.

[quoteBoras, though, contends, "One bad offensive year at 36 doesn't mean he'll never hit again." As examples, the agent cites Bob Boone and Carlton Fisk.

Boone batted only .202 at 36, but hit .295 at 40. Fisk batted .230 from ages 36 to 38, but hit .293 at 41 and .285 at 42.

That's 2. Out of how many catchers who played the game for awhile and fell off a cliff when they got old?

"Fell off a cliff" is one of those phrases that's snuck into baseball commentary and won't die even though it doesn't hold up to objective data.

Any group of players, even if they are old and coming off a bad year, will play to their projections the following year. Even catchers. In Varitek's case, that's .230/.330/.380 or so, bad but about average for a catcher. If you have additional knowledge (injury, terrible conditioning) that might tell you that a specific player shouldn't be part of that group, and you downgrade the projection.

As far as I know, this does not apply to Varitek, who takes pretty good care of himself.

As far as I remember, "fell off a cliff" is a Baseball Prospectus phrase applied in an article about Tim Salmon. Who most definitely did not - he rebounded from a terrible 2001 to give the Angels 2 more good years.

I sincerely doubt trading Paul Konerko would reduce the Sox's payroll.

Speaking of which, does anyone realize Tim Salmon was a HoVG player? A 128 lifetime OPS+ and above-average defense over nearly 1,700 games. Only one bad year during his prime (the aforementioned 2001). I have him as deserving the AL MVP in a very tough 1995 field (Belle's 50 homer/50 double season, Edgar Martínez's finest year, a whale of an offense-defense combination from John Valentin, Thome's first monster campaign when he could still play a mean 3B, McGwire's 39 homers in no time at all, Frank Thomas being Frank Thomas...) Salmon was just as good as some guys who get batted around (mistakenly) in Hall of Fame chatter, like Fred McGriff or the actually-elected Kirby Puckett.

Salmon was just as good as some guys who get batted around (mistakenly) in Hall of Fame chatter, like Fred McGriff or the actually-elected Kirby Puckett.

I think so. I always thought he was great and hoped the A's would find room for him in 2002.

As far as I remember, "fell off a cliff" is a Baseball Prospectus phrase

You can't possibly believe this.

If by "BPro phrase" he actually means "well-traveled American idiom," then he's right.

"Fell off a cliff" is one of those phrases that's snuck into baseball commentary and won't die even though it doesn't hold up to objective data.

Any group of players, even if they are old and coming off a bad year, will play to their projections the following year.

I always thought "fell off a cliff" referred to the bad year. The "fell off a cliff" is relative to past performance. They may play to their projection, but the projection includes a healthy dose of the terrible year. They are not expected to return to past performance.

Whereas, if a young player has an awful season, say Nick Swisher, you'd expect that, if there is nothing physically wrong with him, he should have a good chance to return to previous levels.

AL MVP in a very tough 1995 field

all those guys, and Mo Vaughn still won!

Damn, I just wrote yesterday that Freddy Sanchez fell off a cliff, in the parlance of our times. I feel like I'm in The Big Lebowski when the Dude repeats a phrase that he heard a little while before.

So ARom's argument is that maybe we need something better to describe Tek's career trajectory? Perhaps a metaphor in the rolling down a hill genre? How's this:

... Jason fell down, and broke his crown, and Heidi came tumbling after!

Any group of players, even if they are old and coming off a bad year, will play to their projections the following year. Even catchers. In Varitek's case, that's .230/.330/.380 or so, bad but about average for a catcher.

Yeah, that sounds like it's worth $10M/yr.

Yeah, that sounds like it's worth $10M/yr.

It is if you count the intangiblezzzzzzzzzz.

Schilling: "People don't know that he (Varitek) twice last year had a serious viral sickness. He was completely wiped out on two different occasions."


I'm pretty sure that I knew of at least one of these incidents if not both.

I believe that Ed Delahanty is really the only player who fell off a cliff.

Of course, after returning from his April flu, he had his best month of the season, so I guess it didn't completely wipe him out very well.

When was the second flu? Varitek hit like a pitcher in June, July, and September. Was it a magic virus that took a month off in August? Did the April virus simply take a month off in May? If Varitek contracted magical, arbitrary viruses, it suggests that he might have some super-freaky immune system, which would likely be predictive unless doctors find a cure for Varitek's Disease.

#16 made me laugh out loud. It's not really funny of course. Trajic.

Less nite games in August, Dan. Better for Tek's cicadian rhythms. He's not really a nite person.

When was the second flu? Varitek hit like a pitcher in June, July, and September. Was it a magic virus that took a month off in August? Did the April virus simply take a month off in May? If Varitek contracted magical, arbitrary viruses, it suggests that he might have some super-freaky immune system, which would likely be predictive unless doctors find a cure for Varitek's Disease.

Or maybe, the viruses hurt him at certain times during the season, and ordinary stretches of bad hitting plagued him other times. Nah, that couldn't be it.

Or maybe, the viruses hurt him at certain times during the season, and ordinary stretches of bad hitting plagued him other times. Nah, that couldn't be it.

So, when was the other sickness?

After contracting the first virus, Varitek had about a week of bad play and then his best play of the season. So the first virus couldn't have totally wiped him out for very long. And if the viruses didn't actually wipe Varitek out for very long, then they're a poor reason for his steep decline.

You might attribute Varitek's mid-season struggles to his divorce (and the unpleasantness surrounding the whole situation). Yet he never really recovered from that, and was horrible in September and the playoffs.

IIRC, there was a period where a bunch of Red Sox players were hit by virii. That may have been the first time that Masterson was called up to make an emergency start.

That said, I think that marital troubles often impact player's performance more than some bug; unless the player's name is Enos Slaughter.

Less nite games in August, Dan. Better for Tek's cicadian rhythms.

He only hits once every seventeen years?

After contracting the first virus, Varitek had about a week of bad play and then his best play of the season. So the first virus couldn't have totally wiped him out for very long. And if the viruses didn't actually wipe Varitek out for very long, then they're a poor reason for his steep decline.

All I'm saying is that the viruses could be a contributing factor (as well as his divorce) in his steep decline. The simple fact that they don't account for all of his lousy production in 2008 does not mean they weren't a factor in his crappy 2008. Then again, he might just have lost enough bat speed to make him a new, crappier hitter.

Yeah, that sounds like it's worth $10M/yr.

If he were a first baseman, no, of course you wouldn't pay $10 mil for it. Even a shortstop.

But a catcher? Really? The average AL catcher hit .258/.322/.393 last year. I guess you could argue this is really Varitek's fault for making Red Sox fans forget what league-average catcher production looks like, but seriously.

Okay, smart guy. I meant circadian rhythms. Forgive me for goofing something up on an internet messageboard between answering phone calls and e-mails at work. And SOSH, give it up. Dan advocates an autistic version of sabermetrics, which works well in the aggregate but sometimes breaks down on a case-by-case basis.

Year and a half virus? Sounds like he's been hanging with Magic too much.

Okay, smart guy. I meant circadian rhythms. Forgive me for goofing something up on an internet messageboard between answering phone calls and e-mails at work. And SOSH, give it up. Dan advocates an autistic version of sabermetrics, which works well in the aggregate but sometimes breaks down on a case-by-case basis.

Ah, I see you favor the massive retaliation strategy of debate. Good on ya.

We'll never know if or how much Varitek's illnesses might have cost him at the plate, but if he can indeed bounce back with .230/.330/.380, as AROM suggested, then that's probably the Red Sox best option, barring a trade for a young, long term catcher. I just don't see Ross, Brown, Kottaras or any other FA as being as likely as Varitek to put up something like an 85 OPS+.

Ah, I see you favor the massive retaliation strategy of debate. Good on ya.

Oh, I'm just sick and tired of work intruding on my valuable BTF time. But I'm working an alternative as we speak.

As far as I remember, "fell off a cliff" is a Baseball Prospectus phrase

You can't possibly believe this.


If by "BPro phrase" he actually means "well-traveled American idiom," then he's right.

Perhaps he meant that BPro made the term popular with statheady types. Rob Neyer did not coin the phrase "turn into a pumpkin," but he did make it a stathead's favorite.

Perhaps he meant that BPro made the term popular with statheady types. Rob Neyer did not coin the phrase "turn into a pumpkin," but he did make it a stathead's favorite.

Thanks, that is what I meant. The phrase may go back forever, but the Salmon article is what's led to the phrase popping up everytime a 30+ ballplayer has a bad season.

But a catcher? Really? The average AL catcher hit .258/.322/.393 last year. I guess you could argue this is really Varitek's fault for making Red Sox fans forget what league-average catcher production looks like, but seriously.

League average production is worth 10 million these days, in fulltime play. The only reason a league average catcher would not be worth that much is because catchers don't play every day. So 7-8 million is about right.

Thome's first monster campaign when he could still play a mean 3B

If by "play a mean 3B" you mean "stand there to the shortstop's right holding a glove", I'm totally with you on that. Thome was never better than crappy as a defensive third baseman.

Don't get me wrong...at the time, I thought they should have left Thome at third and dealt with the shoddy defense. In retrospect, a lot of his ensuing offensive production seems to have been directly related to bulking up at the expense of flexibility, which means he'd probably have been an even worse third baseman had they left him there.

And as good as the Indians have generally been since Thome moved off third, they still haven't found any kind of long-term solution there. Matt Williams only lasted one year, Travis Fryman was very good twice and very horrible thrice, Aaron Boone was a complete clusterf**k, and Casey Blake was never anything more than a placeholder.

I remember thinking in '95 that I'd have voted for John Valentin for MVP, but Albert Belle had a hell of a case too.

But a catcher? Really? The average AL catcher hit .258/.322/.393 last year. I guess you could argue this is really Varitek's fault for making Red Sox fans forget what league-average catcher production looks like, but seriously.

I'd be willing to gamble that a Kottars/ Brown platoon could put up something close enough to that line (with better defense out of Brown's part) for the league minimum. The $7-10M Tek is "worth" as a FA can be better spent elsewhere.

Dan advocates an autistic version of sabermetrics, which works well in the aggregate but sometimes breaks down on a case-by-case basis.

You're just mad Brady's injury killed your fantasy team!

Varitek hit like a pitcher for 3 months and badly for a 4th month. He apparently had 2 illnesses, and after coming back from the first one, he played his best ball by far of the season, so how do those 2 illnesses provide reasons for his bad season?

You're just mad Brady's injury killed your fantasy team!

I think that I now have the youngest team in that league. I was trying to figure out how many points Jerome Harrison scored for my bench last nite, but I don't care for Yahoo's interface. But it is free!

(I finally looked up the boxscore and figured it out.)

And as good as the Indians have generally been since Thome moved off third, they still haven't found any kind of long-term solution there.

Hey, it took the Cubs 30 years to find a replacement for Ron Santo.

Varitek hit like a pitcher for 3 months and badly for a 4th month. He apparently had 2 illnesses, and after coming back from the first one, he played his best ball by far of the season, so how do those 2 illnesses provide reasons for his bad season?

So, are you arguing that Varitek's illnesses could not have been a contributing factor in his shitty season?

If a steady diet of strange was bad for a ballplayer we would have heard about it before this

The phrase may go back forever, but the Salmon article is what's led to the phrase popping up everytime a 30+ ballplayer has a bad season.

Are you sure? That phrase has been generally used for a long time. I doubt that one BPro article popularized it, since BPro itself is not all that popular.

The most common use for it that I remember was in discussing what happened to Dale Murphy and how it affected his hall of fame chances -- a conversation that was taking place about a decade ago, and before Tim stumbled.

BPro was the first place that I read the term wishcasting, FWIW. But I think that it is/was a term of the art in one of their writer's day jobs.

I believe that Ed Delahanty is really the only player who fell off a cliff.

Too soon.

This is my favorite BTF post, possibly ever.

Kind of sad the E.I.B. phrase didn't take off. It would have been useful this political/financial season.

You're just mad Brady's injury killed your fantasy team!

Killed my fantasy team, and I didn't even draft Brady. Stupid Randy Moss.

Hey, it took the Cubs 30 years to find a replacement for Ron Santo.

It took the Mets 40 years to find a SS.