oh, kevin makes a reasonable comment to draw us out, then makes with the flaming. That's a trolling rope-a-dope, right there. Well played.

Well, those same people must have viewed the statistics through pinstripe-colored glasses and missed the outcome of the post-season.

no matter what color glasses you look through 120 > 112. And by the way, as nice of a season as Dusty is having this year, it is still not as good as Cano was last year.

Pedroia plays in a joke of a park. RC/G isn't park adjusted.

Well, is 5.8 (RC/G) > than 6.6 too?

you're rewarding Pedroia for playing 21 fewer games? I love it. Brilliant. Just masterful trolling.

As for Nady, he's 29 and having a break out year. People who have breakout years at age 29 often regress to the players they were at age 27 and 28. No guarantees, but I'll take the under on his projection for next year if you're expecting him to be a lot better than that.

Well, his "improved" plate discipline from the time of the trade has already disappeared, but his power has jumped this year though, for the second time in two years, I don't know how reliable that is in terms of being a repeatable or projected skill.

Tabata had a so-so season last year and he lost a lot of buzz he had before. IMO, the Yankees were considering Kennedy as a near-untouchable (probably based on his short MLB performance and forgot to consider sample size).

Goldstein had them both rated as 4 star guys. If the two of them were involved, then they were considered too much to give up together (and in February, when the Mets got them, they looked right and now they look terribly wrong). I haven't seen you show anything that proves or even that Kennedy alone was holding up the deal.

Sigh, I am not doing this, Cano was better than Pedroia last year. this year Pedroia has been better to date.

You are telling me Adjusted OPS is not adjusted? they should have named it something else then, because that is misleading.

23. kevin Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM (#2629078)

Ellsbury created 8.4 runs/27 last year as a rookie. Sizemore's best is 7.8.

That ZIPs OBP you put up for Ellsbury is absurd. With his speed and bat control, he'll at least do a .390.

Sizemore never came close to doing anything like what Ellsbury did in AA this year.

Also, while Sizemore has great speed, Ellsbury is even faster.

Ellsbury is as good as Sizemore.

36. kevin Posted: November 30, 2007 at 12:06 PM (#2629137)

No. I think [Ellsbury]'s a .410/.450 type. That puts him in the Sizemore neighborhood as well.

You know, trolls die if you don't feed them.

No, I won't. He's not as good as Sizemore. He's not a .410/.450 type. You were wrong. It happens.

You know, trolls die if you don't feed them.

This one doesn't die, he ebbs and flows, and convinces enough people during his down time that he has something worthwhile and valid to say that he'll always find someone to talk to. As for me getting involved, yes, I should know better. It's too bad, this was a good thread for a while.

And next year, we'll be having this same conversation about Sizemore and Ellsbury and you'll be wrong again then too.

No, I won't be. I'll be right. Ellsbury is Kenny Lofton. There's nothing wrong with that. Lofton had some great seasons (1997, notably) and Ellsbury might have one of those in him. But Sizemore is another category altogether. You can moan about wrist injuries or talk about Cano and Pedroia all you want. Sizemore is better than Ellsbury. A lot better. Period.

And next year, we'll be having this same conversation about Sizemore and Ellsbury and you'll be wrong again then too.

He does stick to his guns, you have to admire that-

I LOVE how the same many who was convinced that Ellsbury = Sizemore based upon 127 MLB PAs (that were out of line with Ellsbury's mles as well) then says this about Kennedy:

IMO, the Yankees were considering Kennedy as a near-untouchable (probably based on his short MLB performance and forgot to consider sample size).

Tabata had a so-so season last year and he lost a lot of buzz he had before.

He hit .307/.371/.392 in the FSL as an 18 year old.

Cano last 28 days: .330/.370/.532
Pedroia last 28 days: .340/.387/.454

Anyway, 2007-2008, 2Bs 600+ PAs:
Cnt Player OPS+ PA
+----+-----------------+----+----+----+----+
1 Chase Utley 142
2 Ian Kinsler 122
3 Dan Uggla 119
4 Brian Roberts 118
5 Placido Polanco 116
6 Dustin Pedroia 112
7 Kelly Johnson 111
8 Howie Kendrick 111
9 Jeff Kent 108
10 Orlando Hudson 107
11 Robinson Cano 105
12 Mark DeRosa 105
13 Brandon Phillips 103
14 Ron Belliard 102
15 Aaron Hill 101
16 Mark Ellis 100
17 Rickie Weeks 99
18 Mark Grudzielanek 98
19 Kazuo Matsui 93
20 Luis Castillo 92
21 Jose Lopez 88
22 Freddy Sanchez 87
23 Tadahito Iguchi 85
24 Aaron Miles 84
25 Ray Durham 82

That Pedroia is a better all-around baseball player than Cano is indisputable, and not worth arguing.

Ellsbury and Sizemore are similar in that both are prone to Mancrush Overrations, but the similarity ends there. Overall, Sizemore is a much more valuable player (though Ellsbury is better suited as a leadoff-type).

The problem with Kevin's arguments is that he mixes reasonable ones (Pedroia was better than Cano last year) with unreasonable ones (Ellsbury is as good as/is likely to be as good as Sizemore).

Its seems pretty clear to me that OPS+ overrates Cano's offensive contributions, while simultaneously underrating Pedroia's. OPS+ overrates players who's primary contribution is slugging, while underrating those who's value is based more in getting on base. OPS+ ignores basestealing. OPS+ ignores grounding into double plays. All of which is relevant here.

These sorts of things are the reasons why Pedroia created more runs per games than Cano did last year, by a greater amount than can be explained by differences in the parks in which they played. Pedroia was just better.

Pedroia was just better.

Their EQA was almost identical (.275 to .277), Cano played in more games and Cano played better defense. No metric that accounts for playing time and defense will give the edge to Pedroia last year.

Kevin's a good troll because he picks his numbers and his arguments well, they're cleverly dishonest, he know which #s to hammer on and which ones to downplay. The people he's arguing with know he's full of ####, but unless you take a comprehensive look at everything, it's hard to know how deceitful he is.

Cano cannot bunt, is a below-average situational hitter, he is prone to excruciating defensive lapses, and he doesn't steal or run the bases well.

Seriously, this isn't close - Pedroia is a far, far superior player.

These sorts of things are the reasons why Pedroia created more runs per games than Cano did last year, by a greater amount than can be explained by differences in the parks in which they played. Pedroia was just better.

2007 warp1: Cano: 8.7, Pedroia: 6.5
winshares: Cano: 21, Pedroia: 19

I had Cano as being slightly better in 2007 (off + def)
Dial had Cano at 25.8 (OPD) and Pedroia at 19.1

Pedroia was just better.

Says you, maybe he was, they were certainly close enough, I think Cano was a little better in 2007, of course Pedroia is MUCH better in 2008- and if you are trying to figure out Cano's and Pedroia's 2007 TTL- then 2008 (and 2006) should be taken into consideration.

but unless you take a comprehensive look at everything, it's hard to know how deceitful he is.

It's not so much deceitful, as he is unable to control his inner fanboy- he saw Ellsbury play at a very high level last year, and sample size and track record be dammed- that was Ellsbury's TTL. Other people do that too, Hee Seop Choi's .270/.388/.495 line with the Marlins was his TTL too as far as some were concerned, the rest of his career be dammed.

Someone is being intellectually dishonest again. I have a feeling that little k could spin an argument that the Sox have been a more successful franchise than the Yanks over the last 100 years.

Starting in 3...2...1...

It's not so much deceitful

I think it's deceitful in that he knows what's true and what isn't but argues against the truth any way in the hopes of convincing someone who doesn't bother to look everything up that his lies are fact. He's purposefully spreading misinformation, I consider that deceitful.

Am I exceedingly venomous toward Cano? He was my third-round pick on my fantasy team, following Johan Santana and Alex Rios. Yep, I got some venom.

You want venom?
I once bid $30 on a 24 year old 3B coming off a .300-34-112 year, he hit .234-18-71 for me, I cut him, but like an idiot got him back at $28-
I traded him while he was hitting .219, on pace for 5 homers and 40 ribbies (his low point was actually .218)...
He IMMEDIATELY went on a tear- 26 hits in 47 ABS, finished the year .272-27-106...

re kevin:

I realized the other day that I grudgingly respect Kevin's mastery of schtick and trollery. He's part sincere and part put-on, and mixes them together so adeptly that it's extremely difficult to tell where the former ends and the latter begins. Also, he generally uses impeccable spelling/grammar to accompany his unconscionable howlers & argumentative style, which is a big plus for trolls. I suspect that if I met him in real life I'd get along with him. At the very least I would thank him for his service to our country.

re Hank Steinbrenner:

I keep waiting for Hank to do something stupid and self-destructive along the lines of his old man's most famous moves. I keep hearing people here and elsewhere chortle at him whenever he opens his mouth, as if an owner expressing a partisan opinion in favor of his own team is somehow a crime. And yet, I agree with NJ, who says that the Steinbrenner whelps have done an excellent job so far. Hank has a classic NY tabloid style (you know, the booming-voice "cigar-chomping owner" thing), but on the evidence it's mostly for show: the team hasn't made any stupid moves driven by him.

As for THIS statement...how on earth can the people who get on Hank for his other statements attack him for this? He's actually conceding that the Yanks are probably not going to make it this year. He's doing so reasonably, blaming injuries instead of threatening to fire Girardi and/or Cashman and dump all his players. He's being sensible and measured. The opposite of the reputation he apparently inherited from his father. And yet now we're making fun of him for THAT?

There's just no pleasing some people. I personally have hated the Yankees with a white-hot passion for years, a hatred which has only recently mellowed into indifferent disdain, and yet I think the Hank & Hal tandem deserves praise for the way they've handled the PR and ownership duties of a uniquely "public" franchise in their first year at the helm, especially since that first year has been extremely difficult and disappointing given prior expectations.

I'm more basing it on how unbelievably athletic Ellsbury is and how he projects going forward.

186. kevin Posted: December 03, 2007 at 10:20 AM (#2632014)


[Ellsbury]'s already turned into Sizemore.

I'm more basing it on how unbelievably athletic Ellsbury is and how he projects going forward.

And that he wears a Red Sox uniform.

Anyway, I think the Cano people in the great Cano v. Pedroia debates were using a similar line of logic. Cano was seen as the more athletic one based on his raw power and tremendous swing, while Pedroia has always been underrated by scout types due to his perceived lack of athleticism. The thought was that going forward, Cano had more upside than Pedroia. It hasn't worked out that way.

I think it's deceitful in that he knows what's true and what isn't but argues against the truth any way in the hopes of convincing someone who doesn't bother to look everything up that his lies are fact. He's purposefully spreading misinformation, I consider that deceitful.

In my opinion, it isn't a "looking up" thing. I've never had reason to mistrust Little K's numbers - post #112 is a good example. But I think he has a pre-made point and only quotes (and believes, though this is crawling into someone's head, which I try not to do) numbers which support this point, and ignores the rest.

Knowing the strengths and weaknesses of the numbers within his argument is essential when you feel that he's misusing them.

would be nice to hear the opinions of people who are not boston/ny fans about the pedrioa vs cano debate

and also about the sizemore/ellsbury debate

also from people who can manage to not mind that it is kevin who is the one who is pimping the sox guys

- and yeh, would be interesting to see how kevin is in real life. guess that at the meetup guys being guys they didn't TALK so can't nobody say what kevin is like. except he looks better without the stache

I enjoyed the Pedroia > David Wright nonsense. Of course, those are coupled with Cano > Reyes nonsense as well.

That's why I'm so hard to argue with.

You're hard to argue with because when people post hard #s that you don't agree with, like in #135, you simply ignore them.

I do my homework first, not after.

I don't doubt that.

The pre-made point is first formed by reviewing the numbers and considering other things that might not be represented by the numbers.

It's (I think) the "other things" that people disagree with. It certainly appears from my perspective that "wears a Red Sox jersey" or "wears a Yankee jersey" figures into your calculations far more heavily than most of us think is proper.

You want venom?
I once bid $30 on a 24 year old 3B coming off a .300-34-112 year, he hit .234-18-71 for me, I cut him, but like an idiot got him back at $28-
I traded him while he was hitting .219, on pace for 5 homers and 40 ribbies (his low point was actually .218)...
He IMMEDIATELY went on a tear- 26 hits in 47 ABS, finished the year .272-27-106...

Who could've known at that point what Eddie Mathews would become...

That's why I'm so hard to argue with

Well if the goal is to out-debate you for the benefit of 3rd parties- you are not hard to argue with at all. (although DMN has trouble doing it).

If the goal is to change your mind, well you're not hard to argue with, you are impossible.

"Y'all" is a much more useful contraction than anybody seems to want to give it credit for.


On edit: Also, I think at this point the Ellsbury thing is a reasonable Exhibit A for excessive fanboyism. Ellsbury seems to be a magnet for that.

That wasn't the argument

of course it was. But please, change it now.

Has it ever occurred to you that it is you (all), and not me, who is the more biased opponent, and that it was your (all) excessive fanboyism, and not mine, that caused you to miss the obvious fact that Pedroia is the superior of Cano?

Which has what exactly to do with claiming that Ellsbury was the equal of Sizemore this season, a claim so outlandish that you are now backing off it with talk of "how he projects"?

Would a Yankee be given such generous praise based on a month-long call-up and then such generous projections based on the nebulous "unbelievably athletic" definition?

Has it ever occurred to you that it is you (all), and not me, who is the more biased opponent, and that it was your (all) excessive fanboyism, and not mine,

Since I'm not a Yankee fan, and I know a lot of the other posters are not either- no.

It's kind of ridiculous of you to accuse me of irrational exuberance in a Cano/Pedroia comparison debate when it turned out I was right and you (all) were wrong on that one.

This is, of course, misleading. This current argument about Cano/Pedroia began when you wondered how so many people could have been so wrong about Cano versus Pedroia. People pointed out that there was a reasonable case that Cano was actually better last season (when the original arguments began, I believe). Even if you could show that Pedroia was better, it was not by a very big margin. In fact, they were comparable. You acted as if to even think this last season was lunacy.

Your obvious fanboy exuberance shows up in the Ellsbury/Sizemore comps. You actually wrote that Ellsbury was already Sizemore's equal last year. And, of course, this season you've been very wrong.

Has it ever occurred to you that it is you (all), and not me, who is the more biased opponent, and that it was your (all) excessive fanboyism, and not mine, that caused you to miss the obvious fact that Pedroia is the superior of Cano?

There is such a thing as being right and alone. And I think to stick to one's guns when one knows that he's that way deserves credit.

But there's value in the ability to consider that you may not be correct anymore, and one good sign that this may be the case is general disagreement with your point among people whose intelligence and opinions you value.

I'm not trying to tell anyone that they must change their valuation of the opinions of certain others. And I'm not trying to say "4 out of 5 dentists agree" means that the point is valid. But I'd like to see one of these dentists turn around and say, "I was wrong there; don't know what I was thinking" on occasion.

would be nice to hear the opinions of people who are not boston/ny fans about the pedrioa vs cano debate

and also about the sizemore/ellsbury debate

also from people who can manage to not mind that it is kevin who is the one who is pimping the sox guys

There is no sizemore/ellsbury debate without Kevin. No one else thinks Jacoby is ready to go Grady on us.

As for Pedroia/Cano, that debate will likely go on for several years, or at least until one is shipped out of his respective town.

As for Pedroia/Cano, that debate will likely go on for several years, or at least until one is shipped out of his respective town.

Hey, was that whole Jeter-Nomar debate ever settled?

Go back and reread the thread

Which one? You liked that a lot in 2005-6

10. kevin Posted: May 09, 2007 at 01:26 PM (#2359457)
Pedroia- 101 OPS+
Cano- 88 OPS+

15. kevin Posted: September 22, 2005 at 07:59 AM (#1634733)
I don't know how you could rate Ramirez ahead of Pedroia at this point. He way outperformed him this year and the small age difference does not come close to making up for that.

20. kevin Posted: September 22, 2005 at 06:10 PM (#1635690)
***

I suppose you could make that case. But the difference in tools is small. Ramirez may be faster and have a better arm but Pedroia has shown more power (despite being smaller) and has a much more advanced approach at the plate.

27. kevin Posted: September 23, 2005 at 07:14 PM (#1638340)
I don't think many people agree with that.

Well, I don't care what other people think. Not when I've seen with my own two eyes.

And there is really no way that you could consider Ramirez a stronger prospect than Pedroia right now. Not when Pedroia dusted him while playing alongside him.

Hey, was that whole Jeter-Nomar debate ever settled?

We actually had a (civil, as I recall) discussion of this issue in the off-season. I think the general conclusion is that Nomar was generally, but not always, better during the period immeditaly after both came up but that Jeter is the "winner" by virtue of staying healthy and effective long past when Nomar began to break down.

Also, I tend to be out in front of the conventional wisdom on Red Sox players because they are the team I follow and so I am more intimately familiar with the full spectum of the information on them than for players of other teams.

Actually I believe this, when I was doing my quote mining expedition I noticed that as far ago as 2005 you were talking up guys like Murphy and Lowrie and Ellsbury...

I keep waiting for Hank to do something stupid and self-destructive along the lines of his old man's most famous moves.

Maybe this up there with the worst of Big George, but intimating that he's going to sign CC at all costs in this article will probably cost him a good $25 - $35 million down the road, and opens his team up to getting played like a pawn to drive up the price offered by a second team.

I ignored them because I don't trust WARP and the Winshares numbers

Of course, Dial and JPWF's #s are listed too.

adjusted for playing time, support the view Pedroia was better.

You make it sound like Pedroia's piss poor start to 07 had nothing to do with being benched so often at the beginning of the season. Or that actually playing in the games is irrelevant.

I think the general conclusion is that Nomar was generally, but not always, better during the period immeditaly after both came up but that Jeter is the "winner" by virtue of staying healthy and effective long past when Nomar began to break down.

So...Jeter's better.

So...Jeter's better.

No, Jed Lowrie is better. He clearly has more power than Jeter (go ahead, compare their 2008 SLG, I'll wait), and Peter Gammons told me he has much better range too. Plus, he's a *rookie* - which means that he gets bonus points.

I see a peak somewhere between Barry Larkin and Alan Trammell, only with better range.

He clearly has more power than Jeter (go ahead, compare their 2008 SLG, I'll wait), and Peter Gammons told me he has much better range too. Plus, he's a *rookie* - which means that he gets bonus points.

Now this is an impenetrable argument. I have been beaten before I even got started.

So...Jeter's better.

(Clap-clap-clapclapclap)

I try to not let myself be overly influenced by numbers tht are produced by a player who is new to a league but pay more attention to track record.

That's just a lie. See post 121. The contradictory evidence is in this very thread, on this very page, in plain sight of everyone and you still try to pass it off as fact.

EDIT: And before you suggest it, because it is your tactic to simply delay being proved wrong long enough for the thread to die, there is nothing in Ellsbury's minor league track record to suggest he's better than Sizemore.

CP, you're being obnoxious. Think before you post.

Typical of your trolling, when trapped in a corner, start calling names. I mean, we've been down this road before Kevin, none of it's new, in fact it's old and tired. Honesty every now and then would be nice.

Cowboy Popup Posted: August 13, 2008 at 02:47 PM (#2901525)

He clearly has more power than Jeter (go ahead, compare their 2008 SLG, I'll wait), and Peter Gammons told me he has much better range too. Plus, he's a *rookie* - which means that he gets bonus points.

Now this is an impenetrable argument. I have been beaten before I even got started.

Oh, sorry, you were talking about Nomar vs. Jeter. Oh yeah, Jeter is totally better than that guy. He plays in the NL now - that's all you need to know about him.

kevin's posts read to me like a conservative talk radio show - through out a few facts or reasonable points on an issue, then come out of left field with an "Ellsbury=Sizemore!/Obama is a muslim!" type of statement - followed by ignoring rational criticism of said statement or using the "what I really said was this, not that" defense. I realize that doesn't really jibe with kevin's actual politics, but, much like the talk radio guys, he gets the fish to bite.

CP, you're being obnoxious. Think before you post.

And we've hit the "kevin attacks the poster instead of the post" part of the thread. I think that means it's time for me to go.

161 -soshu

thanx

well, ellsbury will never catch grady in the hotness department. and looks like grady had accomplished a lot more than ellsbury by the same age. seems to me that ellsbury got a long way to go to reach grady levels. and as for ellsbury's callup numbers, like shrug. bbref is littered with names of callups who never hit like that again.

i'm wasn't believeing that JR towles is any ted simmons/mike piazza because of last september

- as for cano/pedrioa, i got no dog in that fight neither

Actually, Lowrie reminds me of that really good second baseman the Giants had a few years ago. What's his name?

Deivi Cruz?

kevin's posts read to me like a conservative talk radio show - through out a few facts or reasonable points on an issue, then come out of left field with an "Ellsbury=Sizemore!/Obama is a muslim!" type of statement - followed by ignoring rational criticism of said statement or using the "what I really said was this, not that" defense. I realize that doesn't really jibe with kevin's actual politics, but, much like the talk radio guys, he gets the fish to bite.

Jesus, I was just thinking about that myself. I hope this thread is it for me, Kevin pretty much showed that anything that reads as sincere thought is part of his act to make him seem like a more reasonable character. Once he builds up enough good will with his faux-reasonability, he pushes his trolling agenda.

Ellsbury Age 23 AA .452/.518/.644

Wow, in 73 ABs too! AMAZING!!!

Second, will you try to get things straight? I never said he's better than Sizemore. I said he's comparable to Sizemore. It's really annoying and deceitful when you do that, put words in my mouth.

You're right, you didn't say he was better than Sizemore, that's my slip up. I can admit that. You also didn't say he was just comparable to Sizemore, you said:

23. kevin Posted: November 30, 2007 at 11:30 AM (#2629078)

Ellsbury created 8.4 runs/27 last year as a rookie. Sizemore's best is 7.8.

That ZIPs OBP you put up for Ellsbury is absurd. With his speed and bat control, he'll at least do a .390.

Sizemore never came close to doing anything like what Ellsbury did in AA this year.

Also, while Sizemore has great speed, Ellsbury is even faster.

Ellsbury is as good as Sizemore.

That's it, I'm finished with the Meta business, thank you for ruining yet another Yankee thread, I hope one day I have the good sense to ignore your obnoxious ways of passing the time.

Actually, Lowrie reminds me of that really good second baseman the Giants had a few years ago. What's his name?

Deivi Cruz?

No one remembers Robbie Thompson anymore.

thank you for ruining yet another Yankee thread

I thought he actually livened this thread up.

I try to not let myself be overly influenced by numbers tht are produced by a player who is new to a league but pay more attention to track record.

That's just a lie. See post 121.

It's not necessarily a lie, perhaps he tried to not let Ellsbury's initial numbers unduly influence him, but was blown away by Ellsbury's athleticism...

No one remembers Robbie Thompson anymore.

And why would they? The Giants were no fun to play as in RBI Baseball.

No one remembers Robbie Thompson anymore.

And why would they? The Giants were no fun to play as in RBI Baseball.

I wouldn't know. Video baseball peaked for me with Atari. You could play with one man or three!

I thought he actually livened this thread up.

You'd feel differently if he showed up to a Mets thread and pulled this #### all the time.

It's not necessarily a lie, perhaps he tried to not let Ellsbury's initial numbers unduly influence him, but was blown away by Ellsbury's athleticism...

Except that he cites Ellsbury's numbers, in the Majors and in AA, as his reasoning, not his athleticism. He mentions his speed, which is clearly not the same thing as athleticism, but there's really no reason to believe, other than Kevin's revisionist statements today, he was blown away by his athleticism a year and a half ago. If he really thought that, he should have said it. He's certainly proved a willingness to have said something like that. But he didn't, because he's as full of #### today as he was back then and as he's been since he started posting on this board.

Ten posts ago the guy cited 73 ABs from AA as an example of when Ellsbury's track record suggested he was going to be as good as Sizemore and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt?

Ten posts ago the guy cited 73 ABs from AA as an example of when Ellsbury's track record suggested he was going to be as good as Sizemore and you want to give him the benefit of the doubt?

But he hit .452!

It's like when David Newhan was hitting .430/.476/.667 after 120 AB in 2004. Now, I haven't checked his stats in a while, but it's clear from those numbers that he's been nothing less than Ted Williams with a lesser walk rate since, right?

You'd feel differently if he showed up to a Mets thread and pulled this #### all the time.

Perhaps... we get a few Braves fans popping in, but you're right, none of them are like Kev...

Kevin reminds me of quite a few Yankees' fans actually (Not BBTF Yankee fans mind you, but mainstream Yankee Fans)

Apropos of something, Robinson Cano has been just brutal in the Twins game today. He has made/caused a bunch of miscues, the majority of which will not be statistically tracked in any way.

At least that won't hurt your fantasy team, Coop.

Robbie Thompson is the Yankees bench coach.

Ummm... unless, of course, the Red Sox had ALSO hit in the clutch, in which case the Yankees would be even FURTHER behind.

source: according to BP stats page, the Red Sox have underperformed their estimated runs scored (EqR) by 41 runs. The Yankees by 21 runs. The Rays, OTOH, have overperformed by 31.

That's completely wrong, the Rays have underperformed theirs as well. Less so than the Red Sox, moreso than the Yankees.

"As for Nady, he's 29 and having a break out year. People who have breakout years at age 29 often regress to the players they were at age 27 and 28. No guarantees, but I'll take the under on his projection for next year if you're expecting him to be a lot better than that."

Nady's BABIP this year is sixty points above his career average. Just wanted to throw that out there...

At least that won't hurt your fantasy team, Coop.


I'm not sure. We have 267 categories. I think one of them might be "Boneheaded Plays."