Sure they win baseball games, but for how long? Billy Beane's #### worked pretty damn well (except in the playoffs) for 6-7 years. The Indians, Rockies, and D-backs will likely be successful for the next several years. The teams look pretty good right now, which is a great accomplishment in itself, but I think an interesting test will be how they try to sustain the success over the long haul, Schuerholz-style. Once you've built a winning team, and built a fan base that is accustomed to winning, how well do you retain the fans' favorite players while incorporating younger players?

how they try to sustain the success over the long haul, Schuerholz-style.

Hardly anyone ever did that before, so should it be the standard for judging an organization? Certainly, the expanded playoffs make that more reasonable than it would otherwise be.

how well do you retain the fans' favorite players while incorporating younger players?

That's the biggest problem for a smart organization. Look at the Diamondbacks: best record in the NL, but couldn't draw flies because the fans weren't excited about their players, and were mad about the old crappy players the team had gotten rid of to make room for the players that were actually winning the games. Then there are the Dodgers, who would rather make Bill Placske and Joe Sixpack happy than win games. Only when the fans favorite players are genuine superstars who should be kept past arbitration and the team can afford to do that can a team actually win and have the fans satisfied. That's not going to happen very often, either, because fans often hate the genuine superstars for not being even better, while the players they love are barely above replacement level.

They've won thus far, but if they don;t win the World Series, then obviously their strategy is a failure, just like Billy Beane and they need to find speedy productive out players who have veteran leadership.

< / Joe Morgan>

Hardly anyone ever did that before, so should it be the standard for judging an organization?

Oh, I don't think it should be the standard, I just think it'll be interesting to see how they try to do it.

The Red Sox front office is sort of working through this, to a lesser extent. They had to make difficult decisions with superstar/fan favorites Pedro and Damon, decisions which they took a good amount of heat for, and they wound up in third place last year. Right now it looks like they arguably made the right decision in both cases, but I know last year those decisions looked like horrible mistakes.

The Dbacks actually will have a lot more financial flexibility in 2-3 years, when many of their young players will become arb-eligible. For one, their deferred payments will be finished after 2009 or 2010; this year, they paid out $25m or so on top of their $65m payroll to players no longer with the organization. Those $25m/year could go toward player retention. Additionally, they've got a lot of expensive players coming off their books. Green's $6m and Livan's $7m are gone after 2007; Russ Ortiz's $8m and RJ's $10m or so are gone after 2008 (even though they'll pay RJ $4m in 09 and 10).

The combination of a) no more deferred payments; b) big contacts coming off the books; and c) farm system that (hopefully) continues to produce cheap young players, should allow the Dbacks the flexibility to keep their stars for quite some time. There really is no reason why the Dbacks cannot maintain a $75m-$80m payroll for many years, and remain competitive with it.

The Red Sox front office is sort of working through this, to a lesser extent. They had to make difficult decisions with superstar/fan favorites Pedro and Damon, decisions which they took a good amount of heat for, and they wound up in third place last year. Right now it looks like they arguably made the right decision in both cases, but I know last year those decisions looked like horrible mistakes.

They still signed frakknig Lugo.

The problem with the Dbacks is that, because of their preturnatural success this year at beating Pythagoras, they'll be tempted to stand a bit pat in the offseason, and not try to remedy their obvious deficiencies.

I knew this was Cameron just from the lead-in. Smart guy, but his rhetoric is so pompous I have a hard time readimng him.

I disagree with number 7. I think that's a large part of the point of the article. For one, the DBacks stand to gain some of those runs back in terms of player development. Young, Drew, Montero, and Quentin can all at least reasonably be expected to perform better. A full season of Upton will help, too. Plus, I think it is very likely that the front office will try to improve the pitching staff through free agency or trades, but not do so in a way that prevents them from keeping their own guys in a couple of years.

The Red Sox front office is sort of working through this, to a lesser extent. They had to make difficult decisions with superstar/fan favorites Pedro and Damon, decisions which they took a good amount of heat for, and they wound up in third place last year. Right now it looks like they arguably made the right decision in both cases, but I know last year those decisions looked like horrible mistakes.

They re-signed Varitek. Also, it isn't as if replacing Pedro with David Wells and Matt Clement was a resounding success either.

I disagree with number 7. I think that's a large part of the point of the article. For one, the DBacks stand to gain some of those runs back in terms of player development. Young, Drew, Montero, and Quentin can all at least reasonably be expected to perform better. A full season of Upton will help, too. Plus, I think it is very likely that the front office will try to improve the pitching staff through free agency or trades, but not do so in a way that prevents them from keeping their own guys in a couple of years.

As Emeigh posted a few days ago, the 1984 Mets also were outscored and won 90. They had a lot of young guys and then got better, not worse. I think that is quite likely for the DBacks. My guess is some of the young guys do a little better, and they win 87-92 next year, but with a more normal Pythag.

I'm in a fog today for some reason, but I seem to recall Bill James having some indicators about which teams are likely to improve. RS/RA was only one of them. Others included team age and AAA records, if memory serves.

THT on the indicators

Regarding the DBacks, I don't think anyone believes they'll be closer to this years Pythag record than the actual record, but that does not mean this team was really a 90 win team. The 1984 Mets are a good comp - a young team that won more games than they should have and closed that gap by improving as they aged.

But can they play small ball and manufacture runs?

They don't need to. They can import them from China at a fraction of the cost.

I knew this was Cameron just from the lead-in. Smart guy, but his rhetoric is so pompous I have a hard time readimng him.

Yeah, but some saberist had to claim the four LCS teams are "Moneyball 2.0" franchises, so it might as well be Cameron.

fans often hate the genuine superstars for not being even better, while the players they love are barely above replacement level.

AUGIE!! AUGIE!! AUGIE!!

The problem with the Dbacks is that, because of their preturnatural success this year at beating Pythagoras, they'll be tempted to stand a bit pat in the offseason, and not try to remedy their obvious deficiencies

I believe you're severely underestimating the brain power of the Dbacks GM and his assistants. They are painfully aware of their over-performance compared to their pythag this year; they also know very well what it means for next year if they stand pat, especially on pitching.

I'm actually convinced the Dbacks will do their best to acquire one dependable middle of the rotation starter, probably someone who can give them 200 IP with at least 100 ERA+, hopefully someone better. That could be someone in his last year of the contract (Garland, e.g.) or a free agent looking for one year deal with the right team (Schilling, e.g).

Right now, they have 3 starters in 08: Webb, Davis, Owings. They also have RJ, who is a question mark, and two guys who may or may not be ready for the rotation, in Edgar and Petit. I don't expect anything from Eveland or Murphy, and see them as relievers. The Dbacks like what they see from Nippert in the pen, and will leave him there.

Aside from that, Scherzer and Greg Smith need another year in the minors, Anderson and Parker need 2 or more years, and Brown, Green and Vazquez are most likely relievers in late 2008 or 2009. So the Dbacks do need another dependable guy to take Livan's spot and hopefully give them better production than Livan.

Their every day lineup, however, is more or less set, with the main questions being who keeps the 3b job (Reynolds or Tracy), where they trade Quentin, and when CarGo is ready to take the every day job away from Eric Byrnes.

Yeah, but some saberist had to claim the four LCS teams are "Moneyball 2.0" franchises, so it might as well be Cameron.

Well, 2 of those teams did employ BTFers and a 3rd employs Keith Woolner. Now, I don't see any names in the Rockies front office that I recognize as a saberist, but I don't know every saberist.

Well, 2 of those teams did employ BTFers and a 3rd employs Keith Woolner. Now, I don't see any names in the Rockies front office that I recognize as a saberist, but I don't know every saberist.

I'm not sure if he still works there, but the Rockies might have a guy that would qualify as a saberist if that just means he checks site like this and BPro on a very regular basis.

EDIT: Doesn't seem to work there anymore.

I can see Boston and Cleveland, but it's a stretch to say Colorado and Arizona are where they are because they were more Moneyball than the Mariners or Devil Rays. I could question your connection anyway, since the Cardinals have employed a BTFer (among others) and there's no way they got where they were in 2006 (or 2007) because of Moneyball.

The term Moneyball should be relegated to the ashheap along with terms and phrases such as "meme", "bring teh funny", "kicking the tires", "conflate", and "play baseball the right way."

Sure they win baseball games, but for how long? Billy Beane's #### worked pretty damn well (except in the playoffs) for 6-7 years. The Indians, Rockies, and D-backs will likely be successful for the next several years. The teams look pretty good right now, which is a great accomplishment in itself, but I think an interesting test will be how they try to sustain the success over the long haul, Schuerholz-style. Once you've built a winning team, and built a fan base that is accustomed to winning, how well do you retain the fans' favorite players while incorporating younger players?

The big thing that will differentiate these teams from the Beane/Wolfe teams is how much the invest in their current group of home grown stars, coupled with how wise they invest. Once can argue, that the Beane/Wolfe teams both underinvested and didn't choose the right areas to invest in, to complement the areas where they have continued to be extremly successfull.The result is a roped off upper deck.

The 1984 Mets are a good comp - a young team that won more games than they should have and closed that gap by improving as they aged.

Not that I disagree with the comp but the Mets did add Carter for the 1985 season, replacing an OPS+ of 68 in 84 with an OPS+ of 139 in 85. I don't think the D'Backs will be able to improve their roster to the same extent, they didn't get much out of RF or SS this year but as talented as Drew and Upton are I can't see them improving as much as the Mets did at catcher from 84 to 85.

The term Moneyball should be relegated to the ashheap along with terms and phrases such as "meme", "bring teh funny", "kicking the tires", "conflate", and "play baseball the right way."

And "to be fair..."

I believe you're severely underestimating the brain power of the Dbacks GM and his assistants.

Seriously. Dude went to Haverford.

The term Moneyball should be relegated to the ashheap along with terms and phrases such as "meme", "bring teh funny", "kicking the tires", "conflate", and "play baseball the right way."

One of these "terms and phrases" is at least hundreds of years older than the others...

One of these "terms and phrases" is at least hundreds of years older than the others...

It should still be relegated. What's that mean, anyways? Running the bases counterclockwise? I was tempted to put the construct (adjective)-y Mc-(noun, often compound) in there, too.

The term "Moneyball" is practically an empty signifier, open to be used for whatever rhetorical purposes the author wants.

As long as the object has something to do with - low payrolls, context-neutral regressed statistical evaluation, statistics of any sort, "objective" analysis, distrusting scouts, trusting scouts as purveyors of baseball information, using statistics to find players with weird skills, using statistics to prove scouts wrong, drafting and developing cheap players, spending money on cheap contracts, it goes on - the author can refer to it as "Moneyball" and then draw the same conclusions they'd draw if they hadn't used the word.

It should still be relegated. What's that mean, anyways? Running the bases counterclockwise? I was tempted to put the construct (adjective)-y Mc-(noun, often compound) in there, too.

He means "conflate". It's a very useful word, with a specific meaning that is often necessary in discussions of any complicated topic.

It seems like a fancier way to say confuse. Come to think of it, I had this discussion with someone else a couple of months ago and he took your position, Matt. I suppose it's like calling male bonding homosociality. Maybe I should be less averse to specialist language.

THT on the indicators

I checked the link and... is the first indicator misstated or am I misremembering? I thought it was the teams which underperformed their projection which improved the following year (because teams that underperform often are the ones who have simply been unlucky in one-run games). The THT article seems to be saying it's the other way around, that teams which outperform their projection do better the next year. Which is it?

It seems like a fancier way to say confuse.

It doesn't really mean "confuse" though.

If I'm talking about male bonding when I really mean male homosexuality and not male bonding, then I've confused the two concepts. If I'm talking about male bonding as if it's the same thing as male homosexuality, as if there is only one concept at stake and not two, then I've conflated the two concepts.

Conflate does not mean confuse. I'll play amateur lexographer. While there is a similarity between the words to confuse has connotations of mixing together while conflating has to do with melding together so that if you confusing two things you are mixing together their various parts while if you are conflating two things you are bringing two things which are different together.

Thus you are conflating the meaning of conflate and confuse, you are not confusing them.

Maybe I should be less averse to specialist language.

It's not specialist language. It's language Period. There is a war going on over the use of words and the linguists with their pernicious relativism are on the side of the devil. It's not a battle between two interpretations of language but rather a war between the idea of language and the inarticulate signals of beasts.

Which is not to say all words or phrases have value. Everytime I hear/read "skill set" I want to punch someone in the face.

Robert, I think that Burley got it wrong. From Rich Lederer's look back at the annual Abstracts:

James discusses the "Johnson effect" (named after Bryan Johnson, a Toronto journalist) and the Law of Competitive Balance in the Chicago White Sox section.

The Johnson effect states that when a team wins more games than it could be expected to win in view of the number of runs scored and runs allowed . . . that team will tend to decline in the following season. When a team wins significantly fewer games than could be expected in view of its runs scored and runs allowed . . . that team will tend to improve in the following season.
James also determines "that there is a Johnson effect which applies to the creation of runs. . .a larger and more powerful than the Law of Competitive Balance" (which suggests that all things in baseball tend to be drawn toward the center).

Not that I disagree with the comp but the Mets did add Carter for the 1985 season, replacing an OPS+ of 68 in 84 with an OPS+ of 139 in 85.

The Mets also added Dykstra, HoJo, and Rick Aguilera for 1985, plus Sid Fernandez moved into the rotation full time. They added Teufel and Ojeda in 1986.

So I'd be very wary of sitting around saying, "Oh, our young players will be better next year," and thinking that solves the problem. For one thing, as much as their hitting is likely to improve, their pitching is likely to decline. Four of the five key members of that vaunted bullpen posted ERAs at least a run lower in 2007 than they had in 2006 (the exception being Doug Slaten, who barely pitched in 2006). I'd expect a bit of regression to the mean there.

It's not specialist language.

Maybe jargon is the term that I'm looking for. Strike Two?

Maybe jargon is the term that I'm looking for. Strike Two?

By my way of understanding I would say the following.

Jargon is when the specialist invents words unnecessarily in order to create a specialized realm of discourse within which they hold power through their control of arbitrary signifiers. The mark of jargon is that the meaning of the words is arbitrary and self-referential within that domain. It's purpose is to exclude non-specialists from the conversation. Jargon is thus the enemy of discouse and is the mark of a technical specialty but not the mark of education.

The use of language in the way I am referring to it aims to use specific words in order to convey a distinc meaning and associated connotations, that a similar word would not. The purpose of the word choice is to fascillitate conversation by allowing the speaker to access more nuanced levels of meaning in order to more accurately communicate what they intend to mean. Generally speaking the use of these "similar" words involves connotations of meaning that are rooted in the language as an organism. Thus it is inclusive insofar as all people who communicate in language participate in that organism. In this manner I don't need a dictionary to understand what "conflate" means, I need only think of the picture it creates in my head which is formed through a lifetime of living within a language. Thus the use of language is the mark of an education that is, or should be, accessible to all.

>> But can they play small ball and manufacture runs?

> They don't need to. They can import them from China at a fraction of the cost.

I got the runs once after eating at a China Garden...

Okay, Gaelan. I just don't think I ever saw the term conflate before I frequented BTF and it seemed like the type of word that was putting on airs. Now, I don't have any post-baccalaureate education and the school that I went to was a smaller state school, but I still consider myself a fairly intelligent and fairly well read (at least when I was younger) guy.

Okay, Gaelan. I just don't think I ever saw the term conflate before I frequented BTF and it seemed like the type of word that was putting on airs. Now, I don't have any post-baccalaureate education and the school that I went to was a smaller state school, but I still consider myself a fairly intelligent and fairly well read (at least when I was younger) guy.

I appreciate all of that and I certainly wasn't trying to be pretentious or condescending. At root my point is that the use of certain words isn't to "put on airs" but rather to say something specific. Now, of course not everyone is going to know all words regardless of how educated they are. However, everyone is able to learn the various meanings, uses, and connotations of words so long as language continues to be used in a proper and precise manner. We should emphasize the subtle distinctions of language that allow us to express the subtle meanings of life and resist the temptation to reduce words to their simplest common element.

EWK, see if he'll accept cant.

Nah, SSA. I don't say it often, but I appreciate folks like Gaelan and MCoA. They help me cover gaps in my education. Plus, they're able to verbalize some of my thoughts on the limits of statistical analysis of baseball. I'm not nearly as well skilled in rhetoric as they are.

Ah, but I am trying to be pretentious and condescending. So let me object to Gaelan's use of 'self-referential'. He said: "The mark of jargon is that the meaning of the words is arbitrary and self-referential within that domain."

Now, if I read this correctly then I take it that the meaning of a piece of jargon is one that refers to itself - i.e., to the meaning of the piece of jargon. I don't think this is what Gaelan meant to say. Consider a word the function* of which is simply to refer to its own function. Then we get a word that means the same thing as: "this word means what it does" where 'this' refers to the word in question.

*I mention the function of a word rather than its meaning in order to avoid messy problems about the sense/reference distinction. Perhaps it would have been better to say that the word refers to its own referential property.

We should emphasize the subtle distinctions of language that allow us to express the subtle meanings of life and resist the temptation to reduce words to their simplest common element.

But why? If there's one thing that we know from linguistics it's that languages -if they're living- are in constant flux, and resistance of popular simplification in this and many cases will ultimately prove futile. The people who speak and write the language will continue to confuse the words conflate and confuse until conflate has -just as Bamberger suggests- either disappeared from the standard lexicon or through years of misuse conflated with the other term and become strictly synonymous. At some point it might regain its separate status or speakers will invent or borrow a new term to take its place. I say let it go and let's see what comes of it.

Dan O'Dowd? Seriously? One year ago today, weren't people wondering why the hell he was still employed?

But why? If there's one thing that we know from linguistics it's that languages -if they're living- are in constant flux, and resistance of popular simplification in this and many cases will ultimately prove futile. The people who speak and write the language will continue to confuse the words conflate and confuse until conflate has -just as Bamberger suggests- either disappeared from the standard lexicon or through years of misuse conflated with the other term and become strictly synonymous. At some point it might regain its separate status or speakers will invent or borrow a new term to take its place. I say let it go and let's see what comes of it.
Page 1 of 1 pages

First, I'll say that I'm not a linguist and have no special expertise in this area. Everything that preceded or follows is completely made up by me. Nonetheless ...

While there is a sense in which this is true it implies that the meaning of a word is entirely tied to its usage. This is demonstrably false. The meaning of a word is directly tied to the symbolic meanings of its root words and component parts. This is what allows words to have connotations that go beyond the immediate significance of a sign. In the case of conflate you don't need to be a philologist in order to see that conflate is related to inflate and hence has layers of meaning that are not captured by other, apparently similar, words.

So while it is true that language changes it doesn't do so in either an arbitary or a random manner. It does so in terms of an organic relationship to past meanings. If we disrupt this relationship we rob language of its richness and depth.

I tend to agree with a lot of what Gaelan has so eloquently said here. Although normally mild mannered about the evolving state of English, some types of misuses of words and terms really irritate me. A specific example is the adaptation of the word "strafe" (to machine-gun from a plane) by gamers to mean something completely different, i.e. "sidestep". I couldn't believe this the first time I saw it in game instructions and it still annoys me to this day. It also immediately made me lose a small amount of respect for gamers and their ilk. It is an example of jargon run amok.

47.

It wouldn't be the first time a root and its components get twisted into a different meaning altogether. I think in this case, the trouble lies in the fact that these words are very intertwined phonetically and in their root definitions. The root of conflate means "to fuse" which though different from the root of confuse "to perplex," it's pretty clear where the people will jumble this eventually. It just shares too many phonetic and orthographic traits with confuse that should prove its downfall in the next couple of centuries. Luckily, my response was a little tongue in cheek and conflate in Standard English should be safe for both of our lifetimes.

The Johnson effect states that when a team wins more games than it could be expected to win in view of the number of runs scored and runs allowed . . . that team will tend to decline in the following season. When a team wins significantly fewer games than could be expected in view of its runs scored and runs allowed . . . that team will tend to improve in the following season.

The Johnson effect is driven mostly by extreme teams - teams with 100 wins will (a) almost always outperform their Pythagoras and (b) almost always decline, while teams with 60 wins will (a) almost always underperform their Pythagoras and (b) almost always improve. If you look at the teams most comparable to the Diamondbacks (as I keep writing), those teams generally stay at about the level of their actual performance rather than regressing toward their Pyth.

-- MWE