This would have been a hell of a rebuttal, if not for the fact you invented my calling Matsui a "bust" in order to shoot it down.

You called him "far below his expected career". Zop is arguing that he was exactly as advertized. If you want to say "far below his expected career" is not the same as a "bust" then fine. I would say it's a reasonable synonym, but at that stage you are only arguing semantics, and not substance.

And yet, Seattle did everything except hold a parade when Johjima opted out of his contract.

The contract Johjima opted out of was not his initial contract, it was an extension. The initial 3/17 contract was a clear win.

I've lost track of why you're arguing with me. I said Japanese players have been overrated; you say "below average." That's another distinction without a difference.

I don't think the sample is large enough to reject the null hypothesis that the difference is just random variation.

Also, do you actually agree with the implications of the numbers I laid out? Darvish projects significantly better than Dice-K. If we take NPB talent as being historically slightly overvalued (about 10-20%), then Darvish, accounting for his superior numbers and salary inflation, would be deserving of a contract about 6/120 or so. So, if by "Japan has been overrated", you meant, NPB players have underperformed their salaries by a small amount and the best NPB players should get ~$20M contracts, then I don't think my numbers added anything but a little further clarification to the discussion.

I tend to think that "overrated" implies a much larger difference that what we see in the aggregate analysis of NPB->MLB salaries and performance.

My take is that the aggregate isn't going to tell us very much, because the variance between players is so high. As I said, the degree to which NPB as a whole is "overrated" isn't really the point. Some NPB players make excellent MLB players, and some don't, and it's not entirely clear from their statlines which will be which. I'd be happy with the club dropping over $100M on Darvish if they think his stuff and command will translate, and I'd be happy with the club staying out of the sweepstakes if they think it won't. The question with NPB players isn't whether they're over- or under-rated in the aggregate, but whether the particular skills of the particular ballplayer will translate.

You called him "far below his expected career". Zop is arguing that he was exactly as advertized. If you want to say "far below his expected career" is not the same as a "bust" then fine. I would say it's a reasonable synonym, but at that stage you are only arguing semantics, and not substance.

Nonsense. I specifically said Matsui had a "great career," which is hardly a synonym for "bust." My point was, and remains, that Matsui was not remotely "Godzilla" in MLB — i.e., a big-time bopper who won HR titles. I thought that was self-evident, but I guess not.

My point was, and remains, that Matsui was not remotely "Godzilla" in MLB — i.e., a big-time bopper who won HR titles. I thought that was self-evident, but I guess not.


But no one expected him to be. At the time, the saber folks and the NY media advertised him as a .300-30-100 type, which is exactly what he ended up being. No one thought that NPB numbers, particularly power numbers, translated directly to the States - unless you thought Tuffy Rhodes was a 50HR guy - and so no one expected 45 HR a year. They expected line drive power, good plate discipline, and great durability. Godzilla was -exactly- the player he was predicted to be. Which is why he was so popular in NY (until his knees went in his mid 30's).

Re: Darvish, I wouldn't be surprised to see his posting fee reach Matsuzaka level. Remember that you only have to pay the posting fee if you sign him. If you think Darvish has the potential to be really good, but don't want to take the risk of signing him yourself, you could overbid on the posting and low-ball him on the contract offer to keep him away from another team that would have otherwise been able to get him.

A 3-2-1 weighing of Matsuzaka's last three seasons in Japan gives me a 2.59 RA, 2.29 ERA, 2.59 FIP. In MLB he's had a 4.39 RA, 4.25 ERA, 4.16 FIP. The same 3-2-1 weighing for Darvish gives me a 1.81 RA, 1.59 ERA, 1.88 FIP. Even if he were to suffer the same drop in performance as Matsuzaka did in terms of RA/ERA/FIP ratio you're looking at a line of 3.08 RA, 2.94 ERA and 3.02 FIP.

Obviously numbers are just a part of it. Matsuzaka's biggest problem was the huge spike in his walk rate. On average, Japanese pitchers moving to MLB see a walk rate increase of around 5%. Matsuzaka's more than doubled. I don't know if that was because he benefited from an advantageous strike zone, or less disciplined hitters, or any other reason. If Darvish is seeing similar benefit then he may struggle as much or more.

Darvish has supposedly got a bit more velocity than Matsuzaka and is about five inches taller so he has some physical edges.

I think the biggest concern with Darvish is workload, and adapting to the differences in MLB (larger ball, different days of rest for starters). I think he'll be pretty effective otherwise.

I'd be happy with the club dropping over $100M on Darvish if they think his stuff and command will translate, and I'd be happy with the club staying out of the sweepstakes if they think it won't. The question with NPB players isn't whether they're over- or under-rated in the aggregate, but whether the particular skills of the particular ballplayer will translate.

Agreed. I hope they strongly consider Darvish, and don't just do a kneejerk "Dice was a bust, so we are staying the hell away". As long as they do a proper analysis of the situation, I'm happy to defer to their judgement, since they are in a far better place to evaluate him than any of us.

The contract Johjima opted out of was not his initial contract, it was an extension. The initial 3/17 contract was a clear win.

It might have been a win per WAR, but the front office only grudgingly gave him the extension at ownership's request, and then the f.o. literally jumped for joy when he opted out and went back to Japan. Clearly, WAR doesn't tell the full story in this case.

Also, do you actually agree with the implications of the numbers I laid out? Darvish projects significantly better than Dice-K. If we take NPB talent as being historically slightly overvalued (about 10-20%), then Darvish, accounting for his superior numbers and salary inflation, would be deserving of a contract about 6/120 or so.

Darvish looks like the best NPB player of the past decade, but 6/$120M seems wildly inflated for a controlled player, and his workload has been beyond scary. I doubt there's another 25-year-old pitcher in professional baseball anywhere who's thrown more pitches than Darvish, and if he comes to MLB, he'll be asked to make more starts on less rest. The stats are great, but there are red flags galore.

The question with NPB players isn't whether they're over- or under-rated in the aggregate, but whether the particular skills of the particular ballplayer will translate.

Of course. The aggregate is simply a rough representation of the success rate of NPB players who head to MLB.

---

204 -- Matsui averaged 20 HR per year with the Yankees, not 30 HR.* I don't understand why you insist on making a dishonest argument when the numbers are so black and white. Matsui had a great MLB career, but he didn't match the "Godzilla" expectations.

(* He averaged 25 HR in the five injury-free seasons, but again, that's not "Godzilla" power in MLB, especially on the Yankees, and especially in and immediately after the HR-happy PED era.)

but 6/$120M seems wildly inflated for a controlled player

Note that it is possible for the player to bail, sign a one-year contract in Japan and come over as a free agent the year after. So there is a limit to what hardball can be played in the negotiations. And Japanese players can say no, the A's failed to sign Iwakuma after bidding 19 million for him last offseason.

204 -- Matsui averaged 20 HR per year with the Yankees, not 30 HR.* I don't understand why you insist on making a dishonest argument when the numbers are so black and white. Matsui had a great MLB career, but he didn't match the "Godzilla" expectations.

This is the first I have ever heard of the high expectations on Matsui, it would be nice if you could substantiate that point.

Note that it is possible for the player to bail, sign a one-year contract in Japan and come over as a free agent the year after. So there is a limit to what hardball can be played in the negotiations.

Darvish is under control in Japan for 2012 and 2013. He couldn't come to MLB as a free agent until 2014.

This is the first I have ever heard of the high expectations on Matsui, it would be nice if you could substantiate that point.

I guess we were reading different reports in the 2002–03 offseason. I was living in N.Y. back then, and I distinctly recall him being described as a big-time bopper, i.e., "Godzilla."

Let's go to the sources, shall we?

NY Daily News, March 31, 2003:

"It will be fascinating to see how Matsui, Japan's best player, fares in the majors. The Yanks raved all spring about his compact swing, saying there wasn't much for pitchers to exploit. Matsui displayed patience and some power in Tampa, but he's still got to learn big-league pitching. How will he react if a pitcher throws close, which isn't part of the baseball culture in Japan?

SCOUT'S REPORT: "I'm very impressed with him. He really fits in with that team. They've always had great chemistry and he seems to continue that. I'm looking forward to a good year from him. He could play center field, too, and give Bernie a break. I see him hitting about 25 homers. His swing is made to take advantage of the short field in Yankee Stadium. I don't think he'll hit the ball out to left or left-center, though."

NY Post, March 30, 2003 (Joel Sherman)
Two questions arose consistently during spring training: What do you think Hideki Matsui will do and what do you make of the Mets?

. . .
So what about Matsui? I see a 2002 Anaheim Angel: Tough at-bat, fouls off good pitches, excellent eye, able to hit a mistake with authority, hustles on the bases and plays solid defense. In other words, a championship player. If I must be pinned to numbers, a .285 batting average, but more important a .370 on-base percentage and a .470 slugging percentage to go along with 25 homers and 90 RBIs.

Here's another one:

NY Post, December 19, 2002(George King)

If Hideki Matsui's asking price is too high the Yankees are prepared to turn to Cliff Floyd.

. . .

Even though Matsui, the preferred choice when the process began, would bring additional revenue through marketing deals, there seems to be a division within the Yankees' offices about him.

. . .
The question facing the Yankees is this: For all of Matsui's numbers in 10 Japanese seasons - he hit 50 homers and batted .343 with 107 RBIs this past year for the Yomiuri Giants - he is an unknown commodity in America. While scouts who have seen him play predict he will be productive in the States, there are doubts he will be the power hitter he was in Japan because of larger ballparks and steadier diet of high-octane fastballs.

211 -- Great. Two stories out of probably hundreds. And stories from after Matsui started playing in the U.S., rather than the hyped-up stories from 2001–02.

Anyway, I'm tired of talking about Matsui. Even if I switch him to the "fabulous success" category, it still doesn't change my overall position in #184. I'm really astonished my two-sentence comment inspired all of this.

Two stories out of probably hundreds. And stories from after Matsui started playing in the U.S., rather than the hyped-up stories from 2001–02.

Anyway, I'm tired of talking about Matsui. Even if I switch him to the "fabulous success" category, it still doesn't change my overall position in #184. I'm really astonished my two-sentence comment inspired all of this.


But you said:
"I guess we were reading different reports in the 2002–03 offseason. "

Way to move the goalposts. So even though the Yankees didn't expect him to hit 40 homeruns, and the NY media didn't expect him to hit 40 homeruns, Matsui is a failure for not hitting 40 homeruns, because someone at some point between 2001 and 2002 said that he would hit 40 homeruns in MLB. Gotcha.

If you don't want people to focus on stupid false statements in your posts, don't put stupid false statements in your posts. It's like "intellectual-dishonesty" abstinence, and unlike the kind of abstinence you're told to do with your willie, this type works.

If you think Darvish has the potential to be really good, but don't want to take the risk of signing him yourself, you could overbid on the posting and low-ball him on the contract offer to keep him away from another team that would have otherwise been able to get him.

Be careful with this. If a club negotiates in "bad faith" there is a mechanism in place for Selig to re-award the bid to the second place team. I can't imagine how low ball the offer would have to be for the Commissioner to say "Team X is not spending enough here." However, if the team wins the bid on November 15 with $40 million then immediately offers $24 million over 6 years and for the next 30 days doesn't budge that's going to put a lot of pressure on Selig. The team is going to have to at least make it look good.

Way to move the goalposts. So even though the Yankees didn't expect him to hit 40 homeruns, and the NY media didn't expect him to hit 40 homeruns, Matsui is a failure for not hitting 40 homeruns, because someone at some point between 2001 and 2002 said that he would hit 40 homeruns in MLB. Gotcha.

If you don't want people to focus on stupid false statements in your posts, don't put stupid false statements in your posts. It's like "intellectual-dishonesty" abstinence, and unlike the kind of abstinence you're told to do with your willie, this type works.

Hey, look, another internet tough guy who hides behind an alias. Awesome.

Anyway, you might want to take a quick look at Matsui's and Floyd's numbers from that period before you post what you think is a "gotcha." The fact the Yankees preferred the unknown commodity Matsui to the known commodity Floyd suggests they expected Matsui to outperform Floyd by a wide margin. That didn't happen:

Floyd, 2003–05: 8.3 WAR, $19.5 million
Matsui, 2003–05: 7.4 WAR, $21 million

Hey, look, another internet tough guy who hides behind an alias. Awesome.

Hey, look, another guy who isn't smart enough to de-google his internet presence. I can only assure you I am just as abrasive to unintelligent people IRL as I am on the internet. And you're unintelligent.

And the article cited above discusses how the Yankees were equivocating between Floyd and Matsui and told Matsui that they wouldn't raise their bid and would go with Floyd instead if Matsui didn't accept. Matsui signed. And then Matsui and Floyd produced similar value for a similar price. Doesn't that suggest, rather, than the Yankees had correctly pegged Matsui's talents? Which is shocking - who would've thought that a profession front office would correctly estimate the value of an asset they were investing million of dollars into (well, I guess it is shocking after the IgawaDisaster, but that seems to have been the exception rather than the rule).

But you're Joe Kehoskie, Smarter Than The Guys Who Run The Team And Repositor Of Knowledge About Expectations, so you know best. And have the freedom to streeeeeetch the truth in your posts. Got it.

Just to be clear, 6/120 includes the posting fee. I count Matsuzaka as 6/103 even though he only gets paid $52M over six years.

It might have been a win per WAR, but the front office only grudgingly gave him the extension at ownership's request, and then the f.o. literally jumped for joy when he opted out and went back to Japan.

Yes, because Johjima's third season with the Mariners was terrible, and the extension was a failure. The initial contract, the one I said was a bargain, was a bargain.

The fact the Yankees preferred the unknown commodity Matsui to the known commodity Floyd suggests they expected Matsui to outperform Floyd by a wide margin.

No, it means they expected Matsui to outperform Floyd. They were wrong, because Floyd's contract was even better than Matsui's, but that hardly speaks to the question of whether the NPB stars received fair contracts in MLB. Matsui's contract was a bargain.

I mean, really, two data points? By the same token, the Red Sox must have thought that Matsuzaka would be better than Barry Zito to sign Dice instead of Zito for a $100M contract. And indeed they were right, as Matsuzaka has put up 8.9 WAR compared to just 3.8 by Zito.

Hey, look, another guy who isn't smart enough to de-google his internet presence.

Right. God forbid people actually attach their names to their opinions. That's so ... 1996.

And you're unintelligent.

Obviously. I wasted my time with you.

---

Just to be clear, 6/120 includes the posting fee. I count Matsuzaka as 6/103 even though he only gets paid $52M over six years.

Right. That's what I had figured.

Not to get into boring ethics of Internet discussion, but what's the big deal about pseudonyms?

If someone's going to go in for a spot of name-calling, what's the difference if they do it under a pseudonym? It's not like you're going to figure out where he works and then follow him home and talk to his father and then realize his father's abusive and he lashes out because of his home life and then get thrown out of the house by his mother and have an awkward heart-to-heart with his father on the front stoop and walk away not really knowing if you learned anything or did the right thing.

You're just going to be able to figure out where the person works, probably, and maybe where they went to school. What's that to anyone?

It's not like you're going to figure out where he works and then follow him home and talk to his father and then realize his father's abusive and he lashes out because of his home life and then get thrown out of the house by his mother and have an awkward heart-to-heart with his father on the front stoop and walk away not really knowing if you learned anything or did the right thing.

Someone's been watching Louie.

But you're Joe Kehoskie, Smarter Than The Guys Who Run The Team And Repositor Of Knowledge About Expectations, so you know best. And have the freedom to streeeeeetch the truth in your posts. Got it.

Wow, talk about stretching the truth. I'm just another shmoe on the internet offering my two cents' worth, but without hiding behind an alias. You're the one grossly misrepresenting comments and inflating Matsui's career numbers to fit your argument. (You know, like claiming he averaged 30 HR with the Yankees when, in fact, he averaged 20 HR.)

Not to get into boring ethics of Internet discussion, but what's the big deal about pseudonyms?

I have no problem with people who use a pseudonym while maintaining basic civility and honesty. But it's lamer than hell for people to hide behind a pseudonym and then blatantly misrepresent others' comments, hurl insults, etc. This "creepily obsessed" guy went from zero to nasty in his first comment while also blatantly misrepresenting my Matsui comments. It's like he was outraged by his own fabrication, like some sort of lunatic.

I'm saying I don't see why that would be different if his handle were Boris Q. Zoppopopolous.

EDIT: I've gotten into my share of overheated debates on the Internet, with both pseudonymous and the ostensibly nymous interlocutors. I've never seen a meaningful difference between the two.

EDIT2: Anyway, could be just a different set of experiences. Don't actually care about the topic. Carry on.

I'm saying I don't see why that would be different if his handle were Boris Q. Zoppopopolous.

Study after study has shown that people act differently online when acting anonymously. That's why 99 comments sections out of a hundred are cesspools.

I really have trouble stopping. Last comment.

I agree that anonymity can cause people to act differently. My question is why it matters if name-calling comes from a pseudonymous or ostensibly nymous poster. I don't understand calling someone out for being pseudonymous. If he'd said the same thing under his real name, the situation would change not in the slightest. Your problem is with what was said, regardless of pseudonymity.

Study after study has shown that people act differently online when acting anonymously. That's why 99 comments sections out of a hundred are cesspools.

So what? Anonymity is perfectly acceptable here and it's a nice and polite place for the most part.

I don't understand calling someone out for being pseudonymous. If he'd said the same thing under his real name, the situation would change not in the slightest. Your problem is with what was said, regardless of pseudonymity.

I don't want to start going in yet another circle. The studies on people's anonymous vs. non-anonymous behavior speak for themselves. I agree BBTF is a "nice and polite place for the most part," but it seems to be trending more anonymous and more nasty. BBTF aside, does anyone really dispute that the overwhelming majority of comments threads that allow anonymous posting are essentially worthless cesspools? And are we really supposed to believe all those tough guys are going around spouting racist and homophobic and sexist comments in real life? Please. 99 out of 100 are nothing more than spineless keyboard warriors.

There are times when anonymity makes sense. But there's really never a time that incivility and dishonesty have to be part of the package.

Joe, I'm going to take MCoA's advice, and bow out after this post. But I think it's worth pointing out that civility is a 2-way street, and attaching your name to a post doesn't give you a carte blanche on the matter. And based on the tone and attitude you displayed even before zop arrived, I was entirely unsurprised that somebody reacted poorly. I'll leave it at that.

Joe, I'm going to take MCoA's advice, and bow out after this post. But I think it's worth pointing out that civility is a 2-way street, and attaching your name to a post doesn't give you a carte blanche on the matter. And based on the tone and attitude you displayed even before zop arrived, I was entirely unsurprised that somebody reacted poorly. I'll leave it at that.

I posted comments #184, #192, #195, and #197 before "creepily obsessed" arrived at #199 and started this tangent by falsely claiming I called Matsui a "bust." I don't see anything in the four posts I just listed that came anywhere close to uncivil, dishonest, etc. If you see it otherwise, please explain.

Gonzalez's complaints about night games were taken out of context:

“I know I am taking a little bit of heat for the scheduling part, but that wasn’t something I did on my own,” Gonzalez said. “The writer came up to me and said, ‘Has the schedule been tough on you this year?’ I said we played a lot of getaway night games. I said it has been the most grueling season physically for me.

“That was my answer to the question and the question was prior to the collapse, so I answered the question I was asked. It was written after the last game when we didn’t make the playoffs and it was mentioned in a way as I was complaining of the schedule. I wasn’t. I was just answering the question of how hard it was on me. It was tough and it was really hard on my body.”

This makes Pete Abraham look even worse after his attempt to use this and completely innocuous god quotes to smear Gonzalez.

Ortiz won the Roberto Clemente Award today, so clearly he's one of the good guys.

The Red Sox have let go strength and conditioning coach Dave Page and assistant trainer Greg Barajas, according to multiple sources.

Possible that one of these guys was the leak about the clubhouse disfunction?

Obviously the team has had conditioning and injury issues the last few seasons, so it isn't really surprising to see these guys let go, but it does make you wonder, and since this is the thread for rumor mongering...

I know one person who will be excited to see that Abraham is reporting:

Baltimore also will interview former Red Sox GM Dan Duquette.

And now that he's been fired, Page is leaking all kinds of stuff. So yeah, seems like he might be the guy who talked to Hohler.