It is most likely an aberration. It is most likely that his strikeout/walk ratio will return to historic norms in 2012.

Boy, it's going to be awkward when Bill James and Nick Punto run into each other at the Red Sox Holiday Party later this year.

I like how people write in to Bill James with questions that have nothing to do with baseball, i.e. what do you think about all the presidential candidate debates? I mean, James gives a nice, not-uninteresting answer, but I just can't imagine why somebody cares about his opinion on such things...

Don't forget about Jim "Mudcat" Grant on those '67 Twins.

The 1967 Twins got 162 game appearances (not all of them relief appearances) out of pitchers named “Jim”—Jim Kaat, Jim Perry, Jim Merrit, Jim Roland and Jim Ollom… I don’t find anybody else going over the 200 mark.

I am embarrassed for all statheads everywhere. Mr. James overlooked Jim "Mudcat" Grant who was also on the 67 Twins. That brings them up to 189 appearances.

Also Kaat alone probably pitched more innings (263) than all those Matts combined. All told the Twins got 787.2 IP from guys named Jim. That's over 50% of team innings.

I assume the record for % of team innings pitched is held by "Will" as Will "Whoop-La" White threw 680 of the 1879 Reds 726 innings.

EDIT: And I've made my own mistake as the 1879 Reds also featured William "Blondie" Purcell's 18 IP. So that's 698 of 726 innings by "William".

Jacoby? I dunno; might be Jacoby, Braun, Kemp, Longoria. Brett Lawrie, maybe.

"Hint hint brass...hint hint.."

If he's the real thing (even 85% of last year), and you let him walk to the Yanks in two years....

Old Hoss and Charlie Sweeney combined for 899.2 of the Grays 1036.1 IP in 1884. Thats 87% of their innings pitched by Charlies.

The question was about guys named "Jim", not "Mudcat".

I can beat you all: Asa Brainard pitched 79 of 79 innings played by the Washington Olympics in 1872 (the Olympics played only 9 games in the National Association that year).

Everybody's forgetting Kim Jong Il's 90 scoreless innings for North Korea at the Barcelona Olympics.

Everybody's forgetting Kim Jong Il's 90 scoreless innings for North Korea at the Barcelona Olympics.

Kim Jong Il was also a fabulous golf player, I read.

Unfortunately the Pirates went from having Bob Purkey and Bob Friend in the rotation, to having Bob Friend and Bob Veale in the rotation, to having Bob Veale and Bob Moose in the rotation, never having more than two at once. Then as soon as they brought in Bob Johnson*, they traded Veale to the Red Sox.

* the Bob Johnson who was traded for Art Shamsky and then missed the 1968 season after being drafted into the military, not Indian Bob Johnson or the one who looked like Steve Buscemi in lipstick.

I dunno; might be Jacoby, Braun, Kemp, Longoria. Brett Lawrie, maybe.

One name kind of sticks out in that group. Is Lawrie really thought of in that class? or even close?

The Indians spent several years with Pauls Shuey and Assenmacher getting about 130 combined appearances, but never added that final piece. Same deal with Steves Reed and Karsay.

186 appearances from Mikes for the 2002 Dbacks.

Seems like the Cubs every other year have a pitching staff full of pitchers that start with the name Effen

Still. ..and this is one of those points that a lot of people are just never going to get. . .it is not the main purpose of Win Shares to make distinctions between single seasons. If you’re arguing about, let us say, who to put on an All-Star team, then there are a thousand things you can look at it pursue that argument. Saying that “This player has 27 Win Shares and that one has 25”—OR saying that this player has 6.9 WAR and that player has 6.3—is something of an effort to end the debate, in that these measures SUM UP all of the other measurements. It’s not particularly helpful in that way; it’s not really appropriate to try to end those debates by citing a master statistic that overrules all of the other statistics, and it’s not terribly persuasive. That’s really not the value in Win Shares.

Amen Bill, Amen.

I like how people write in to Bill James with questions that have nothing to do with baseball, i.e. what do you think about all the presidential candidate debates? I mean, James gives a nice, not-uninteresting answer, but I just can't imagine why somebody cares about his opinion on such things...

This is an example of how people misunderstand the true genius of Bill James. To me, he isn't just some baseball statistics savant. He is a naturally sharp, inquisitive guy, and a fantastic writer, who happens to specialize in baseball. Thus, I can see why someone would care for James opinion on non-baseball things.

Sportswriters offering, and being asked, their opinions on non-sports topics (chiefly indie music) has become a bit of a trend however.

Can't believe this Hey Bill Q&A went uncommented upon:

5 things I noticed watching Moneyball: 1. They couldn't find a picture of Bill James where he didn't look like a 70's porn star? ANYWHERE? What would Bill's 70s porn name be? I'm thinking, Orel Gomez. (...)

Asked by: soprismb

Answered: 1/21/2012

1. Slick Sword.

Is Lawrie really thought of in that class? or even close?

Lots of people see him as close to Longoria. I'm not sure I do, at least not yet - I'd like to see where he is at this time next year.

-- MWE

Lots of people see him as close to Longoria. I'm not sure I do, at least not yet - I'd like to see where he is at this time next year.

One big difference, and I know a lot of people poo-poo this, is that Longoria's makeup (work ethic, competitiveness, professionalism) is raved about while Lawrie has a rep of being a jerkoff.

Also, Longoria is an excellent defender while, apparently, Lawrie has yet to turn his tools into good defense.

He reminded me of Braun. Not big but wiry strong, not a good defender at 3B yet and, from the AB's I've seen he hits the ball hard a lot.

What is James's case that NIck Markakis is not somebody who stagnated after a promising start?

Lawrie has a rep of being a jerkoff. Also, Longoria is an excellent defender while, apparently, Lawrie has yet to turn his tools into good defense.

Lawrie's reputation has turned decidedly for the better since he was traded to the Blue Jays- there's no doubt he's very cocky, but he's reportedly gotten along well with his teammates both in the minors and with the big league team; he also worked hard in the minors on his fielding and greatly improved his plate discipline.

As for Lawrie's fielding, I'd say that while his arm is average and his hands are somewhat wooden, he displayed great range at third, which resulted in great advanced numbers: 15.7/150 UZR and +14 DRS (which would work out to ~+40 DRS/150).

Needless to say, one can't read too much into a third of a Major-league season, but all the signs are positive.

I recall that Lawrie was told to work on his defence in spring, then did so to a very strong degree. Then he was told to work on his pitch selection at the plate and the change was drastic then he was called up. He seems very coachable, at least in Toronto, and very determined. I see him as more of a George Brett type in the respect of a guy who will run through a brick wall and be very emotional but also very professional and determined to win at all costs even if it means he'll spend many, many days on the DL over his career.

A big advantage with Lawrie is the Jays have 6 years of control left. If I was them I'd be looking at trying to get Lawrie to sign a Longoria type deal by spring training as in a year it might cost a heck of a lot more.

Is Lawrie really thought of in that class? or even close?

ZiPS projects him to a 119 OPS+ at age 22 which puts him behind only Hosmer (and I assume Stanton) among age-22 guys projected so far. Longoria at 22 put up a 127 so that's not far off. Defense of course is another matter.

On the question James got, are we including their current contracts? Because Longoria is the #1 choice if that's the case. You've got him (worst-case) at 5/$39 but it could be as little as 2/$13 so you're protected in case of injury. I suppose the next 6 years of Lawrie will be cheaper but that's it. The next 5 years of Braun will cost only $55 but then you're on the hook for at least 4/$78 -- which will probably be just fine. Kemp at 8/$160 is clearly the worst deal of this bunch.

I'd forgotten James was still with the Sox. I find the notion of Ellsbury as the guy you'd build around pretty silly. Now if he puts up another couple of years like last year then he's in the conversation but then he's 29 by then. His career OPS+ before last year was 92 so I'm thinking that 146 is not here to stay. Or did he find Manny's stash of magic beans?

Lawrie does seem to have some special pop in the bat. Without even glancing at GB/FB rates, I get the feeling he will hit a lot of hard FBs in his career.

One big difference, and I know a lot of people poo-poo this, is that Longoria's makeup (work ethic, competitiveness, professionalism) is raved about while Lawrie has a rep of being a jerkoff.

Lawrie wasn't on my radar until the Jays got him from Milwaukee, so this comment seems completely off the wall to me. I was very impressed with every single aspect of his game as displayed in his ML time last year. I don't know if its because Toronto is a hockey town, but he has a chance to become the most popular Blue Jay ever, even if he just puts up average to slightly above average numbers. He is the anti-Rios, and I can pretty much guarantee you that there isn't a more competitive player in MLB than Brett Lawrie.

I think lawrie has a bright future but he can't be included with those others yet. You can literally bank on the production from all of those others (except Jacoby). You can't from Lawrie but a year (or 2) from now, I would not be surprised if he is in on the conversation.

but he has a chance to become the most popular Blue Jay ever

Hmm.

1. Roy Halladay
2. Joe Carter
3. Dave Stieb
4. Tony Fernandez
5. Carlos Delgado
6. Roberto Alomar
7. Kelly Gruber
8. Ernie Whitt
9. Tom Henke
10. Jimmy Key

I know, it sounds crazy, but if he can couple his style of play with decent numbers, he will be HUGE in Toronto. I'm not saying he's going to end up being a better player than anyone on that list (well, hopefully he'll be better than Gruber and Whitt), but that's not my point. Don't forget, he's also Canadian, which is a major deal to many Jays fans. The biggest star among Canadians to have ever played for them was a 39-year old Matt Stairs.

Halladay is obviously a great competitor, but he's fairly reserved. If he had put up his CY numbers and behaved like Carlos Zambrano, he would have been much more popular (I'm not complaining, BTW).

The most popular player in Toronto Maple Leafs history is probably Wendel Clark, and it was 95% based on his take-no-prisoners style of play. The guy was a LW and scored 50 points in a season only once, in the height of the high-scoring 80's and early 90's. As long as Lawrie can stay reasonably healthy and put up OK numbers, he will be a star in the Wendel Clark mould.

Thanks for all the thoughts on this. My first thought was that Lawrie may be a little premature but it's very interesting James looks at him like that. My second thought was: Tulo?

Don't forget, he's also Canadian, which is a major deal to many Jays fans. The biggest star among Canadians to have ever played for them was a 39-year old Matt Stairs.

I beg to differ, Lawrie needs to best the accomplishments of Paul Quantrill.

Welp, someone asked him about it:

Hi, Bill--I notice that you've mentioned Brett Lawrie a couple of times this winter as a young player you really like. He's certainly supposed to be good, and he played pretty well in his brief call-up, but I've usually seen him on a list with a lot of other prospects and rookies like Ackley, Hosmer, Moustakas, et al. Is there something particular about Lawrie that makes him stand out for you? You'd really consider building a team around him? Thanks.
Asked by: markbern
Answered: 1/26/2012

I couldn't give a good argument why Lawrie would be listed above those other guys, who were all very impressive; Lawrie just seemed to me to have everything going for him. I meant to do an analysis of those guys, Trout, etc., but I haven't gotten to it.

My question is, how can there be a "very cocky" Canadian? That's just crazy.

The question was about guys named "Jim", not "Mudcat".

Yup, that is apparently the criteria, as Bill also maintains that the first baseball "Kevin" was Kevin Collins in the mid-1960s, even though Chuck "The Rifleman" Connors' real first name was Kevin.

I like how people write in to Bill James with questions that have nothing to do with baseball, i.e. what do you think about all the presidential candidate debates? I mean, James gives a nice, not-uninteresting answer, but I just can't imagine why somebody cares about his opinion on such things...

Bill frequently writes about topics other than baseball these days. You probably know that he wrote a book about "popular crime." And in addition to some dabbling in other sports, he often gets into issues of history and politics. He virtually never discusses current issues or specific real-life politicians (although he was not a Rick Perry fan...), but comes at it in more of a how-should-society-be-organized type of way. So he does have an interest in the subject, which would make it a pretty natural question to ask him in that sense. Of course, millions of other people also have interest in the subject, so whether that interest is worth anything is an open question ;)