If he’s dumb enough to trade you Frank Robinson for Milt Pappas, that’s his problem, not yours.

I so wish this example had the names Mike Napoli and Vernon Wells in there instead.

Definitely one of the better Bill James Mailbags. Although the habit of running a letter and then just saying "OK" to indicate that he agrees with it is something I have trouble getting used to.

If you put all 30 teams into one league and said that the only champion was the team that had the best record in the regular season, I doubt that the best team would win any more often.

I find this statement puzzling. He clearly means "best" in the sense of true talent, but it seems pretty obvious that the team with the best record is going to be the best true-talent team more often than the winner of an eight- or ten-team single-elimination tournament.

[3] Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't know how better to evaluate teams.

30 teams. 174 game season. 6 games against every other team: 3 home, 3 away.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't know how better to evaluate teams.

"Come watch the MS Excel World Series, where 30 spreadsheets duke it out for supremacy! Follow the riveting action as we take a weighted, age-adjusted average of each player's last three and current seasons and project team WAR totals!"

(The MS Excel World Series recently supplanted the Pythagenpat World Series.)

He ain't the bible, folks.

[Stan Javier] may be the best outfielder in the history of baseball who was never a regular.

I was a big fan of Javier with the A's and Giants in the '90s. He did a lot of things well, and though he was never a star, he was a guy you were happy to have in the lineup. I thought of him as a "regular" with the Giants, but I see that he never started more than 103 games in a season for them.

Any thought about James's statement here? Is he overlooking someone obvious?

David Murphy fits that bill nicely, although he'll almost certainly be a regular this season.

With the Red Sox, sometimes I have an idea to help the organization, and I KNOW that it’s a good idea, but I can’t get people to buy into it.

Details woud be interesting. Maybe he'll write a book.

Details woud be interesting. Maybe he'll write a book.

Maybe that 3-man rotation he suggested a few days ago. I get the feeling that he's more of a wild ideas guy than a hard boiled analyst at this point. I'd be more interest to see what he'd do as a consultant with a team more likely to implement some of his more off the wall suggestions, like the Rockies.

David Murphy fits that bill nicely, although he'll almost certainly be a regular this season.

Gary Roenicke doesn't compare to Javier in terms of defense or base-running, but he had a 117 career OPS+ over 1064 games, yet never had more than 477 plate appearances in a season.

His buddy John Lowenstein had a 108 OPS+ over 1368 games and could run the bases a bit (128 career SB -- though he was also caught 78 times). He might be disqualified under the "never a regular" condition, though, as he was pretty "regular" (132 games started) in 1974.

Lowenstein was never a regular because he couldn't hit lefties - lifetime .197/.255/.271 against them. Part of Weaver's genious is that he took players like that, and used him strictly against rightes, where he could do damage, and simply didn't bother trying to get him to hit lefties. He had platoon partners to do that.

Reed Johnson might be in the conversation ( best non-regular OF ).
Also depends on how you classify someone like Oquendo

My first thought was Tony Phillips - twice in his 18 year career he started over 2/3rds of the games at one position, the rest he was either a part timer or the super-utility guy.

In 1991 started...35 at 2B, 33 at 3B, 20 in LF, 17 in RF, 17 at DH, 10 at SS, and 6 in CF
In 1992 started...50 at 2B, 34 at DH, 29 in RF, 19 in CF, 14 in LF, 12 at 3B, and had 4 innings at SS

Over those 2 years he had a 120 OPS+ (279/380/412), played 305 games, scored 201 runs (led the league in 92). Talk about the ultimate team player - here was someone who could've been saying 'give me a steady position' but instead thrived while being shuffled all over the place. His next 3 years were also all over a 120 OPS+ covering age 32-36. Sparky Anderson loved having him on the team I'm sure.

Hmmmm ... with the assistance of PI

Sixto Lezcano maybe. He got a lot of starts in 2-3 seasons but otherwise not. Bake McBride was kinda similar. Another Weaver-ite, Rettenmund, had only one season over 400 PA, a 123 OPS+ and 19 WAR. Manny Mota is famous as a PH but also got 40-60 starts most seasons and put up a 112 OPS+ with 16 WAR. But I'm not sure any of them beat Javier who really did last forever for a bench OF.

I wonder if he would still think Javier was so great if he realized that all of those OBPs he was quoting were actually his SLG...oops.

I'm sure it was Paul Abbott's career year.
But you can't quote Abbott's anomalous Win Loss record to make that point when the subject is the team's anomalous win loss record.
That's begging the question

For some reason Brian Jordan jumped to mind despite not being qualified at all. Best outfielder to have only four seasons of 140+ games, maybe. In three of those seasons he got MVP votes. He played 15 years.

I was always a big fan of Gary Redus, who qualified for only two batting titles and played as many as 130 games only once. Redus kept materializing on teams I followed – the Phillies and later the Rangers – and did a heck of a lot of good things for a guy who hit .252 lifetime. Not sure if he really qualifies. He was a RHB who was often sort-of platooned, cutting down his playing time considerably, even though his platoon differential wasn't extraordinary (.723 RHP, .784 LHP: or is that extraordinary?)

I suspect your answer to this question will be tinged by what teams you followed. If there was some brilliant nonregular for the 1949 St Louis Browns, I'm probably not going to know his name. Or for the 2012 Arizona Diamondbacks, for that matter.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't know how better to evaluate teams.

I think he's factoring in not just teams' luck during the season but also the luck/chance involved in players getting injured, having unexpectedly better or worse seasons than you'd expect, etc. That at least fits with his effort to knock down the Mariners or to separate them from the late 90s Yankees, whom he thinks would have been great 98 times out of 100 (or something) if you played the season over and over in APBA.

On those terms, I see his point but it's really a point about team construction not performance. Some years the best-constructed team gets some injuries and bad luck and comes in third. Whether you want to call that the best team though depends on what you're asking.

Jim Dwyer - 107 OPS+, never had 300 PAs in a season.

Russ Branyan - almost 200 HR, only once reached 400 PAs.

Cliff Johnson - 125 OPS+, only once reached 400 PAs.

Other good part-timers: John Wockenfuss, Greg Colbrunn, Dave Hansen, Glenallen Hill, Dave Magadan, Jerry Hairston Jr.

Rance Mullinkis? He finished his career with a 272/354/407 line (107 OPS+), splitting time between third and short. But, despite a 1300 game career, he never got over 450 PAs in a season.

I'm sure it's just a bad word choice, but I winced when Bill said Rickey Henderson and Branch Rickey were of different nationalities lie Stan Javier and Stan Musial. They not only share a nationality but a region; both were born in the Midwest.

Besides, Bill's facts seem wrong. I've read Rickey was named for Ricky Nelson, not Branch Rickey, right? Nelson is his middle name.

First guy I thought about was Gary Redus, who was very good for the Pirates and pretty good overall... he was like Bizarro-Lowenstein, in that Redus smacked lefties and couldn't hit righties. Redus played even less often than Javier and had better numbers.

I wonder how James defines "a regular"... but Tony Phillips definitely seems to be the super-est of all the subs.

randy bush
john vander wal

but bernie carbo has to be up there

we had a reliever last year who wanted to start. It was a complete bust, and he had a lost season.

I now this is supposed to be Bard, but my first thought when reading this was that it referred to Aceves.

Crispix, I never interpreted BJ's OKs as agreement. Just letting you have your say. Very neutral.

Phillips was awesome, but he was pretty much a regular in his 30s wasn't he? He led the league in walks twice - hard to do that as a part-timer. I get he played all over the field though, not at just one position.

#25 Redus actually had pretty normal platoon splits. 61 points of OPS (actually a smaller than average platoon split). He rarely played regularly because he had (among other things) chronic hamstring problems. (Chris Dial and I have discussed Redus fairly frequently in the past. Redus failed to turn into the player you could have hoped for in part because he lost a big chunk of his speed to an early injury -- and was rarely fully healthy after that)



Since it may be of interest: From an old study of mine. Career platoon splits.


Diff is OPS on the better side - OPS on the weaker side
OA is overall OPS

Looks like the switch-hitters at least avoided platoon splits. Not really. It's just that the mix of switch hitters who hit better against left and right respectively is such that as a group they
produce broadly the same numbers versus left and right.

Here's how they break down at the career level



EDIT: To be clear, by definition there are no switch hitters with a reverse platoon split. Only 29% of switch-hitters have an OPS differenc eof 25 points or less between their strong and weak side.

I'd be more interest to see what he'd do as a consultant with a team more likely to implement some of his more off the wall suggestions, like the Rockies.

The second he suggested that instead of running the bases after games, little boys be allowed to shower with the coaches, he'd probably be gone.

What?

See the thread(s) awhile back in which James was takinig up for his buddy Posnanski & said buddy's slurping idolatry of Joe Paterno by saying that when he was growing up in the Midwest, boys showering with grown men was the most natural thing in the world, & therefore accounts of Sandusky's after-hours locker-room depredations understandably could never, ever, ever have raised any eyebrows.

Bill James doubles down on the Joe Paterno defense

At the 14:10 mark Gottlieb asks James, “have you ever showered with a boy? Do you know anybody who has showered with a boy?” James says “Yes, that was actually quite common in the town I grew up in. That was quite common in America 40 years ago.”

It was common 30 years ago, for males of all ages to use a large communal shower before going into the YMCA pool. I don't know how things are done today. We don't belong to a pool, and I've got 2 daughters, so if we went to one it's my wife's problem.

I did have to give my feline son a shower once after he knocked over some paint and got it all over his fur. I was fully clothed though, more than that, I had battle armor and thick gloves on. He still had all his claws at that point.

See the thread(s) awhile back in which James was takinig up for his buddy Posnanski & said buddy's slurping idolatry of Joe Paterno by saying that when he was growing up in the Midwest, boys showering with grown men was the most natural thing in the world, & therefore accounts of Sandusky's after-hours locker-room depredations understandably could never, ever, ever have raised any eyebrows.

I was a young boy 35 years ago, and I never saw, or even heard of adult males showering with boys.

It was common 30 years ago, for males of all ages to use a large communal shower before going into the YMCA pool. I don't know how things are done today. We don't belong to a pool, and I've got 2 daughters, so if we went to one it's my wife's problem.

It's still somewhat common at community pools and YMCAs, probably those with older showering facilities. It happens primarily by accident, as a young boy enters the communal facility when an older man is there, or vice versa. These are places with wide-open bathrooms, with other pool users and staff members regularly walking through the facility. Frequently, one or more of the individuals is in full bathing suit.

It was never common for a lone male to be showering with a young boy at 9 p.m. in an otherwise locked-up university athletic facility. That wasn't common ever, except maybe ancient Greece.

Honkie Kong (#14) - I would classify Jose Oquendo as one hell of a backup shortstop. Actually, I'd class him as one of the top shortstops in baseball, at least defensively. It wasn't his fault he was on the same team as Ozzie Smith, with a second and third baseman (Tommie Herr and Ken Oberkfell) who had very similar skills, were entrenched, and didn't have Jose's flexibility. Offensively, he had no power, although he hit for decent averages and took lots of walks, so he was actually a quality hitter. I also classify Oquendo as the single greatest waste of talent in the 1980s. There weren't six teams in the game for whom he would not have been the starting shortstop, and he'd have been the starting 2B or 3B on those teams, and on several of them, he would have been the best leadoff man despite a lack of running speed. The Mets tried calling him up when he was a teenager because he was the only guy in the organization who could actually play infield and wasn't already starting. He didn't hit, because he was too young, so the Mets just sent him back down to the minors and forgot about him. Whitey Herzog, who had been in the Mets' front office, had not forgotten Oquendo. He liberated Jose from New York to the Cardinals, gave him one minor league year to get himself settled in, and then promoted him, only to find that he had no spot for him to play. Oberkfell finally left 3B, but only to make way for Terry Pendelton, whom Whitey thought could hit for reasonable power, which he could - in the Launching Pad, not Busch Stadium.

Classifying Jose as an outfielder at all is wrong, even if that's where he played the most games. He played wherever someone got hurt, but, in the absence of Herr, Smith and Oberkfell/Pendelton, his primary position would have been shortstop, then 2B, then 3B. Herr, Smith and Oberkfell didn't get hurt all that much, and I think that Whitey made one of his few mistakes playing Pendelton ahead of Oquendo. - Brock Hanke

I find this statement puzzling. He clearly means "best" in the sense of true talent, but it seems pretty obvious that the team with the best record is going to be the best true-talent team more often than the winner of an eight- or ten-team single-elimination tournament.

Maybe, but the problem with determining who "the best team" is at the end of the season is that the season is really long. Even a soccer style system, where everyone plays a full round robin and you give the trophy to the team with the best record at the end doesn't identify "the best team" (though the difference between the top 1 or 2 teams and everyone else in most Euro leagues is so vast, this kind of gets masked). It identifies the team that had the best season, even if they weren't really the best team at any given time. More likely, it identifies a really good team that didn't have any major injuries.

I've always though it impossible to create a system that will produce a consensus "best team" ever time. Sometimes there will be a "best team", and sometimes (most of the time?) that team may win the championship. But as long as your system produces a team that everyone can agree deserved to win the championship, it should work. That's why college football's system has always seemed lacking, especially in comparison to college basketball. The best team may not win the NCAA basketball tournament, but no one ever says they didn't deserve to win the championship.

Yeah, I don't get it either. I don't know how better to evaluate teams.

I think he's factoring in not just teams' luck during the season but also the luck/chance involved in players getting injured, having unexpectedly better or worse seasons than you'd expect, etc. That at least fits with his effort to knock down the Mariners or to separate them from the late 90s Yankees, whom he thinks would have been great 98 times out of 100 (or something) if you played the season over and over in APBA.

On those terms, I see his point but it's really a point about team construction not performance. Some years the best-constructed team gets some injuries and bad luck and comes in third. Whether you want to call that the best team though depends on what you're asking.

There is also expected spread. If one team is, "true-talent" 10 games better than the 2nd place team, they'll usually win. But if it's only one or two games then, even over 162 games, the 2nd place team is going to tie or finish a game ahead a lot of the time. I think a lot of us who favor "best record" wins fail to acknowledge that there isn't a whole lot of difference between a 99-63 team and a 97-65 team.

What I think you get with fewer divisions and wild-cards is a much reduced chance of an 85 or 88 win team beating a 99 or 102 win team over a short series. I mean, if a 98-64 team beats a 101-61 team in the world series, I don't know how many of us get upset about it. It's when the 86 win wild card wins that the current system looks wonky. With a regular season only championship, you don't have that problem. You also don't have that problem with no interleague. If a 90 win AL team beats a 100 win NL team in the World Series, with no interleague one simply concludes the AL was a tougher league, even though the World Series doesn't prove that.

It was never common for a lone male to be showering with a young boy at 9 p.m. in an otherwise locked-up university athletic facility. That wasn't common ever, except maybe ancient Greece.

Yes, this is the key here. After hours. An empty locker room. Nobody else there. The kid's parents not there. And not a locker room like the YMCA that was open to the general public or to people with a membership.

And what is the point, exactly? That when McQueary went to Paterno with an eye witness account of child sex abuse Paterno would have been justified in thinking, "Pshaw, showering with a boy was actually quite common in the town I grew up in. That was quite common in America 30 years ago.”

It's when the 86 win wild card wins that the current system looks wonky.

But again, with injuries, trades, call-ups, etc., that 86-76 team playing the playoffs might look significantly different the team that actually played the bulk of those 162 games. I think you'd definitely see a lot less action around the trade deadline in a regular season championship league. Probably wouldn't even need a trade deadline.

But again, with injuries, trades, call-ups, etc., that 86-76 team playing the playoffs might look significantly different the team that actually played the bulk of those 162 games. I think you'd definitely see a lot less action around the trade deadline in a regular season championship league. Probably wouldn't even need a trade deadline.

Oh, sure.

I did have to give my feline son a shower once after he knocked over some paint and got it all over his fur. I was fully clothed though, more than that, I had battle armor and thick gloves on. He still had all his claws at that point.

Is there video of this? I remember trying to bathe the dog in the bathtub. He didn't care for it and shook water all over me, my wife and the bathroom. All subsequent baths were given in the driveway using the hose (in warm weather). Surprisingly he didn't really object to this, he would stand there placidly while we shampooed him and then rinsed him off with the garden hose.

jpj

we have multiple house dogs and the wife bathes them down in the basement in the winter. she sings silly songs to them the whole time and they just stand there with sad expressions on their face. but they stand there.

i handle the bathings when it's skunk related.

My high school coach would occasionally--not frequently--come in and shower in our communal locker room. But we were 16-18 years old, not 9, and all in there together. I never remember it making me either comfortable or uncomfortable or any more or less so than being in there with all the other guys on the team. I can't conceive of comparing something like that--which didn't strike my protective parents as odd--to what McQueary reported. Ray is correct that it is the alone and private nature--and the age of the kid--that makes the situation so bizarre even compared, I assume, to the Kansas of Bill James' youth.

Is there video of this?

Sorry, but no. It was in 2001 or 2002. Before every phone had a video feature or Youtube. Besides, I would have needed at least 7 hands to properly handle him. Having only 2 I could not have held a camera. I was single back then so I didn't have anyone else to hold a camera.

The cat is still around, active, trim, and in good health. He learned his lesson and I've never had to bathe him since.

FYI, I only tried to answer the question as to backup OF. I also assumed James was talking about all-around skill/value. A lot of the guys mentioned above were good hitters but not necessarily good at other things. For example, I thought of Vander Wal too and he was a good bench hitter, especially in his prime (then he was mostly strictly a PH which is hard on the OPS). But Vander Wal has only 5 career WAR and somewhat negative WAA. Javier had 23 WAR and 7 WAA in 5800 PA. Granted, half that WAR and nearly all the WAA came in the years when he was around 500 PA but that's still a much better player than Vander Wal.

Javier also contributed everywhere according to WAR. +50 on the bases is very impressive in 5800 PA. +13 on Rdp, + 37 in the field, essentially 0 dWAR which is roughly an average defensive CF. That really is a great bench player.

I think he's factoring in not just teams' luck during the season but also the luck/chance involved in players getting injured, having unexpectedly better or worse seasons than you'd expect, etc.

That's all true but you don't even need that. Even if God tells you a team is a "true 600 WP" team, the sampling variation (i.e. randomness) on that is quite large in a 162 sample -- one SD is about 6.5 wins. Obviously two teams' records aren't fully independent if they play each other but, quick and dirty assuming they are, the SD on the difference in victories between two teams is 9. So even if the true difference is 5 wins (pretty big gap between best and 2nd best team), the lesser team would still win more games about 25-30% of the time.

In the grand scheme of things, 162 is still a quite small sample. You'll notice that political polls tend to shoot for around 1000 respondents ... that's because that's where the 95% confidence interval (+/- two SDs) is +/- 3 percentage points. At a sample size of 162, that 95% confidence interval is about +/- 8 percentage points or +/- 13 wins. A 162 season isn't anywhere near long enough to determine the best team with much accuracy.

(Again, those numbers assume each team's record is independent of other teams' records which is not true. Technically it is also assuming they played the same schedule and their chances of winning each individual game were constant. But controlling for those things isn't going to make much difference. Just look at some of the pre-season standings simulations for an idea of the variation when those things are taken into account.)

BATHING THE CAT

1. Put both lids of the toilet up and add the required amount of pet
shampoo to the water in the bowl.

2. Pick up the cat and soothe him while you carry him towards the
bathroom.

3. In one smooth movement, put the cat in the toilet and close both
lids.
You may need to stand on the lid.

4.The cat will self agitate and make ample suds. Never mind the
noises that come from the toilet, the cat is actually enjoying this.

5. Flush the toilet three or four times. This provides a
"power-wash" and "rinse."

6. Have someone open the door to the outside. Be sure that there are
no people between the toilet and the outside door.

7. Stand behind the toilet as far as you can, and quickly lift both
lids.

8. The cat will rocket out of the toilet, and run outside where he
will dry himself off.

9. Both the commode and the cat will be sparkling clean!


DISCLAIMER: In no way do I advocate the cleansing of felines in toilets.

My high school coach would occasionally--not frequently--come in and shower in our communal locker room. But we were 16-18 years old, not 9, and all in there together. I never remember it making me either comfortable or uncomfortable or any more or less so than being in there with all the other guys on the team.

I played HS baseball, and no one ever showered in the gym. We all just went home. I mean we were going home anyway, why change out of your uni at school?