Drinking Buddies

Glenn Dickey has this nugget in his article today:

My favorite Lon Simmons story is the one he tells about his early days on the Giants' broadcasting team. Russ Hodges told him, "When the Giants lose, the rule is that we drink after the game to drown our sorrows. When they win, we drink to celebrate victory. The only time we don't drink is when there's a tie."

Then, there came a time in Philadelphia when the Giants and Phillies ran up against the city's blue laws and a tied game had to be halted in the 11th inning because of the curfew.

In the broadcasting booth, Hodges turned to Simmons and said, "Tonight, we break a rule."

Blogging is Gathering Steam

Yahoo!'s running an article about a study from the Pew Internet and American Life Project. The result of their study? Blogging Still Infrequent It's an interesting article that seems to downplay the prevalence of blogging in general, but it also points out, "That survey [in May '03] found only 2 percent of users keeping blogs, although a preliminary analysis of follow-up surveys from early 2004 showed the figure increasing to about 7 percent."

Two percent to seven percent? If I was writing this article, I might feature that 250% growth more prominently. I think the message from the study is clearly that blogging is gaining a lot of momentum.

Take a look at A's Blogs alone. I launched my site in November, but didn't post anything about the A's until 12/2/2003. AthleticsNation's first post came on 11/7/2003. Baysball, now part of the all-baseball family, originally launched (as far as I can tell) in 3/03. Barry Zito Forever (BZF) launched with their first post in August of 2003. Elephants in Oakland is a dinosaur by comparison, with his first post coming way back on 8/1/2002.

So, you've got one site launching way back in late 2002, one in early 2003 and three in late 2003. To me, that's the beginning of a trend. But the Pew study is right, however, that the (growing) number of A's blogs is still quite small when compared to the total number of A's fans on the internet.

The Great Deliberative Body

An excerpt from the third book in Robert Caro's phenomenal LBJ series, Master of the Senate:

“The use of the Senate,” Madison said, “is to consist in its proceeding with more coolness, with more system, and with more wisdom, than the popular branch.” It should, he said, be “an anchor against popular fluctuations.” He drew for parallels on classical history, which, he said, “informs us of no long-lived republic which had not a Senate.” In two of the three “long-lived” republics of antiquity, Sparta and Rome, and probably in the third—Carthage (about whose governmental institutions less was known)—senators served for life. “These examples . . . when compared with the fugitive and turbulent existence of other ancient republics, [are] very instructive proofs of the necessity of some institution that will blend stability with liberty.” Thomas Jefferson had been in Paris during the Convention, serving as minister to France. When he returned, he asked George Washington over breakfast why the President had agreed to a two-house Congress. According to a story that may be apocryphal, Washington replied with his own question: “Why did you pour your tea into that saucer?” And when Jefferson answered, “To cool it,” Washington said, “Just so. We pour House legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.” The resolution providing for a two-house Congress was agreed to by the Constitutional Convention with almost no debate or dissent.

And to ensure that the Senate could protect the people against themselves, the Framers armored the Senate against the people.

...The Senate had been created to be independent, to stand against the tyranny of presidential power and the tides of public opinion.

Should it come down to it, I would hope that the Senate will do its job and put this silliness behind us.

And as far as the Fourteenth Amendment is concerned, it doesn't look like the states have a right to amend their constitutions to prohibit same-sex marriages either.

Section. 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

More Penguins

This version of the penguin game is a little more gruesome. My best is 692.

DePodesta's Baseball Pedigree

I have a problem with the coverage of Depodesta, and it's not Bill Plaschke's fault. Don't get me wrong - I'm not going to side with Plaschke on the issue. I'm all for Aaron Gleeman's trashing of Plaschke.

Gleeman points out,

DePodesta played both football and baseball at Harvard University, where he graduated with honors. I certainly could be wrong, but I suspect that means DePodesta played two more collegiate sports than Plaschke did."

Having read Gleeman and innumerable other articles about DePodesta last week, I was surprised to hear a friend (and former college baseball player) tell me that DePodesta never played baseball for Harvard. How could everyone, from the "mainstream media" to Gleeman, be so wrong about this? Wasn't it more likely that my buddy had erased his senses with the seven scotches he threw down?

Well, it turns out that the media's got this one wrong.

A search through The Harvard Crimson's Archive for "Depodesta" (1990-2004) turns up only three articles. Each article points out his actual athletic experience at Harvard.

DePodesta's age may raise eyebrows, but another surprise is his high status in baseball having never played for a varsity team in college. He pitched on the JV squad for a season before [blowing out his shoulder] at the end of his freshman year... DePodesta did letter in football while at Harvard for three years before stress fractures in his legs shut down his football career as well. - "Oakland's 'A'-List"

and

The move makes the 31 year-old DePodesta—who lettered in varsity football for three years and played one year of JV baseball while at Harvard—the third youngest general manager hired in big league history. "Harvard Alum DePodesta Named New Dodgers GM"

and

[Peter] Woodfork, 26, becomes the latest young Ivy League alum to enter the executive ranks in the majors as he joins [Theo] Epstein, who graduated from Yale in 1995. The growing list of recent Harvard baseball players includes Paul DePodesta ’95, a former JV player who is now the assistant general manager of the Oakland A’s, former captain Mike Hill ’93, who is now director of Player Development for the Colorado Rockies and David Forst ’98, who played alongside Woodfork in the infield and now works with DePodesta as an assistant to Oakland General Manager Billy Beane. - "Former Harvard Infielder Hired by Sox"

To say that DePodesta played baseball at Harvard is to distort the facts. But does that mean he's going to be a bad General Manager? Absolutely not. Does it mean he's a nerd? Of course! He went to Harvard! (Having played football, however, makes him a little less nerdy.)

I think Paul will be successful with the Dodgers, but he did not play college baseball.

Chavez?

Will Carroll thinks the A's have locked up Chavez:

Chavez and Blalock both sign for five years at vastly different amounts. I'm not sure why Blalock took the offer, but it's cost certainty for both parties and $15m isn't chump change. Chavez's seems pretty fair and ends speculation that he'll join the Yankees next season. It's also something of a shift for the A's. I'm curious to see how this will affect the re-signing of the big three.

I haven't been able to confirm this rumor anywhere else, but Will says he's posting a more detailed account on Baseball Prospectus. (I guess I should stop holding out and just buy a subscription already, huh?) Anyway, I'm waiting with bated breath...

If this deal goes through, it may leave the A's with the following question: "If you can only keep one of the Big Three (Hudson, Mulder, Zito), which one do you keep?"

I'm a Mulder man myself. What about you?

2004 American League Predictions

My 2004 American League Predictions - Based on 2003 Win Shares
(as of 2/20/2004)

With Spring Training right around the corner, 2004 Predictions are starting to fly. Baseball Crank (AL West and AL East) and Phil Rogers are two who have started the inevitable onslaught of prognostications. Well, here are my two cents:

My idea was to take BaseballGraph's 2003 Win Shares and move each player (and his win shares) to his new team. This redistribution would allow me to "predict" the 2004 standings. Obviously, there are huge failings in this system, so let's address a couple of them.

1)The assumption that an individual will exactly reproduce his 2003 performance is preposterous. Some players will be better this year and some will be worse. I hardly even have to say that. So, when you finally see my projections, just consider them as a baseline.

2)Teams needed an average of 1,440 innings from their pitching staff and 6,250 plate appearances in order to make it through the 2003 season. Those numbers are likely to stay about the same in 2004, so I've adjusted playing time for a number of players in order to match "guesstimated" usage and to meet the team-level requirement of roughly 1440/6250. (I actually tried to make each team's 2004 total within 5% of their 2003 total for IP and PA.) When doing so, I've just pro-rated a player's Win Shares based on his "adjusted" playing time.

3)I didn't nail each team's 2003 IP and PA totals with my playing time adjustments, so to make the comparisons even, I fudged the last few percent (up or down) to 100% of last year's total. This really doesn't have a huge overall effect, but it does compensate for the fact that you're not going to get Win Shares from plate appearances that don't happen. Consider this adjustment #1.

4)My projections are mostly optimistic - a best-case scenario in terms of health for most players. So, when I summed up the wins for each team (after adjustment #1), the league total is about 2,520 wins. The problem here is that thirty teams each playing 162 games and winning half of them works out to 2,430 wins. In order to correct this, I've adjusted each team's win total down 4% in order to make things add up. (Call it a final adjustment)

5)In some cases, I'm projecting a full season based on only a few Plate Appearances. Using small sample sizes like that to project perfomance over the long haul is clearly a big mistake, but I'm willing to live with it. After looking through the results, I don't feel like there are any truly eggregious errors.

So, without further fanfare, the American League Projections:

Team	League	Division	Adjusted Wins	Adjusted Losses
SEA	AL	West	87	75
OAK	AL	West	86	76
ANA	AL	West	85	77
TEX	AL	West	69	93
NYY	AL	East	117	45
BOS	AL	East	103	59
TOR	AL	East	89	73
BAL	AL	East	85	77
TB	AL	East	67	95
KC	AL	Central	87	75
MIN	AL	Central	79	83
CWS	AL	Central	76	86
CLE	AL	Central	65	97
DET	AL	Central	61	101

Remember, this is based on 2003 performance only, so it's just a baseline. And you'll note that I have the American League finishing a combined 46 games over .500, which would have to be the result of really beating up on the National League in interleague play. Since the National League was 22 games over .500 last year, I think we'd all be surprised if the American League made such a large reversal. Regardless, I feel like my projections will be directionally accurate. Detroit may not win exactly 61 games, but they will definitely be one of the worst teams in all of baseball, yet again.

With that in mind, here are the playoff contenders as I see 'em...

------------------------------

NEW YORK, 117 Wins - Projecting a team over 100 wins makes me a little nervous, so predicting 117 makes me feel light-headed.
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
G Sheffield	678	678	35	33
A Rodriguez	715	715	33	31
J Posada	588	588	28	27
J Giambi	690	690	28	27
D Jeter	542	650	21	21
H Matsui	695	695	19	18
K Lofton	610	610	18	17
B Williams	521	521	13	13
M Lamb	42	100	7	7
E Wilson	147	300	4	4
M Cairo	290	290	3	3
J Flaherty	116	116	3	3
T Clark	280	100	2	1
D Bragg	181	181	1	1
R Sierra	336	100	1	1
T Houston	103	50	1	1
A Boone	654	0	0	0
E Almonte	111	0	0	0
J Girardi	26	26	0	0

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
J Vazquez	230.7	230.7	21	20
K Brown	211.0	211.0	20	19
J Contreras	71.0	200.0	19	18
M Mussina	214.7	214.7	19	18
M Rivera	70.7	70.7	17	17
P Quantrill	77.3	77.3	11	11
T Gordon	74.0	74.0	11	10
J Lieber	141.0	180.0	9	9
F Heredia	87.0	87.0	9	8
S Karsay	88.3	50.0	6	6
G White	46.7	46.7	4	4

The key, as everyone already knows, will be the health of the pitching staff. If Kevin Brown, Lieber and Contreras each goes down, the Yankees will have a tough time replacing those innings. Then again, the Yanks could afford to lose 45 win shares and still win 100 games - They could replace both Jeter and Posada with players contributing ZERO win shares and still make the playoffs. This team is that good. It will take a collapse of epic proportions for a team this talented to miss the playoffs.
------------------------------

BOSTON, 103 Wins - The only real additions from last year's squad are Schilling, Foulke and Bellhorn/Reese. These moves make the Red Sox a better team, but they're nowhere near the Yankees.
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
M Ramirez	679	679	28	27
N Garciaparra	719	719	25	24
B Mueller	600	600	24	23
T Nixon	513	513	19	19
J Damon	690	690	18	18
J Varitek	521	521	17	16
K Millar	618	618	16	15
D Ortiz	509	509	15	15
E Burks	228	150	3	3
M Bellhorn	307	200	2	2
B Daubach	219	219	4	4
G Kapler	247	247	4	4
D Mirabelli	176	176	2	2
P Reese	120	400	6	6
A Hyzdu	75	75	1	1
T Shumpert	99	99	1	1

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
K Foulke	86.7	86.7	21	21
P Martinez	186.7	186.7	20	19
C Schilling	168.0	200.0	18	17
B Kim	122.3	180.0	20	19
D Lowe	203.3	203.3	12	11
T Wakefield	202.3	202.3	12	12
M Timlin	83.7	83.7	8	8
S Williamson	62.7	62.7	8	8
A Embree	55.0	55.0	5	5
B Arroyo	17.3	80.0	9	9
J Shiell	23.3	23.3	1	1
E Almonte	11.3	11.3	0	0
N Bierbrodt	43.3	43.3	0	0
Re Garcia	18.0	18.0	0	0
R Mendoza	66.7	40.0	0	0

There aren't too many wild assumptions in there, so I feel pretty good about this projection. The Red Sox should win the wild card with ease, but they're not in the same league as the Yankees. A lot of people had the Sox as a favorite in the AL East before the A-Rod/Soriano trade, but the trade didn't make a huge difference in the Win Share projections. The Sox have been behind the Yankees all along in my book. They'll be lucky to even sniff a lead in the AL East after the All Star Break.
------------------------------

SEATTLE, 87 Wins - Adding Raul Ibanez, Rich Aurilia and Scott Spezio to your starting lineup doesn't sound like the best way to upgrade your team, and the numbers prove that out. The Mariners won 93 games last year, but will only win about 87 this year (according to the projection).
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
B Boone	705	705	30	29
I Suzuki	725	725	23	22
R Winn	660	660	21	20
E Martinez	603	603	20	19
R Ibanez	671	600	14	13
J Olerud	634	634	15	14
R Aurilia	545	600	14	14
S Spiezio	581	400	9	8
B Davis	269	269	7	7
D Wilson	337	337	7	7
R Santiago	507	100	1	1
W Bloomquist	220	175	2	2
D Hansen	159	159	3	3
P Borders	15	15	1	1
W Gonzalez	73	73	1	1
Q McCracken	226	226	1	1

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
J Moyer	215.0	215.0	18	17
E Guardado	65.3	65.3	15	14
R Franklin	212.0	212.0	13	12
S Hasegawa	73.0	73.0	13	13
J Pineiro	211.7	211.7	13	13
F Garcia	201.3	201.3	8	8
G Meche	186.3	186.3	8	8
J Mateo	85.7	85.7	7	7
R Soriano	53.0	53.0	7	7
R Villone	106.7	80.0	4	4
M Myers	36.3	36.3	1	1
K Jarvis	92.0	30.0	0	0
A Looper	7.0	7.0	0	0
J Putz	3.7	3.7	0	0
A Taylor	12.7	12.7	0	0

Their eight best positional players (hitting and fielding combined) are Bret Boone, Ichiro, Randy Winn, Edgar Martinez, Raul Ibanez, John Olerud, Rich Aurilia and Scott Spezio. Average age in 2004: 33! These Mariners are much more likely to get worse than get better. On the whole, the Mariners should be right in the thick of the AL West hunt, although I suspect they'll fall short of the AL West crown. They're just too damn old.
------------------------------

OAKLAND, 86 Wins - Big losses in the forms of Keith Foulke and Miguel Tejada are going to cost the A's about 10 wins overall in 2004. I see the A's dropping from 96 to 86 wins.
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
E Chavez	654	654	25	24
M Ellis	622	622	18	17
E Durazo	645	645	17	16
E Byrnes	460	400	13	13
S Hatteberg	622	500	11	11
M Kotsay	541	541	14	13
B Kielty	509	600	14	14
D Miller	400	400	10	10
E Karros	365	200	4	4
B McMillon	175	175	5	5
A Melhuse	86	200	9	9
J Dye	253	300	2	2
F Menechino	109	109	2	2
M Scutaro	91	91	2	2
B Crosby	14	600	7	7
M Edwards	6	6	0	0
E German	4	4	0	0
J Grabowski	9	9	0	0
G Koonce	8	8	0	0
M Watson	25	25	0	0

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
T Hudson	240.0	240.0	23	22
B Zito	231.7	231.7	18	17
M Mulder	186.7	200.0	18	17
M Redman	190.7	190.7	11	11
C Bradford	77.0	77.0	9	9
C Hammond	63.0	63.0	7	7
R Rincon	55.3	55.3	6	6
R Harden	74.7	170.0	9	9
A Rhodes	54.0	54.0	4	4
J Duchscherer	16.3	80.0	6	6
J Mecir	37.0	37.0	1	1
C Harville	21.7	21.7	0	0
M Ramos	13.0	13.0	0	0
B Reames	1.3	1.3	0	0
M Wood	13.7	13.7	0	0

I have the A's with the 5th best pitching staff in terms of Win Shares, but only the 22nd best team in terms of hitting Win Shares. It's no secret that the A's will struggle to score runs, but I'll consider any contributions from Jermaine Dye and Bobby Crosby to be gravy. This system has very low expectations for the two of them, so anything they do will help the A's exceed my projections for them. Barring injuries, the A's will be in a dogfight with the Angels and Mariners to the end.
------------------------------

ANAHEIM, 85 Wins - The Halos were big mover is the offseason, acquiring Bartolo Colon, Kelvim Escobar and Vladimir Guerero. Those acquisitions make a big difference in this projection.
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
G Anderson	673	673	25	24
J Guillen	534	534	20	19
V Guerrero	467	600	23	22
T Salmon	621	621	17	16
B Molina	430	430	16	15
A Kennedy	510	510	14	13
J DaVanon	382	150	5	4
D Eckstein	517	517	11	10
T Glaus	367	600	15	14
C Figgins	270	150	4	4
D Erstad	284	600	7	7
S Halter	393	250	1	1
J Molina	123	123	2	2
A Amezaga	120	120	1	1

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
B Colon	242.0	242.0	17	16
B Donnelly	74.0	74.0	12	11
K Escobar	180.3	180.3	12	12
S Shields	148.3	148.3	12	12
J Washburn	207.3	207.3	10	9
F Rodriguez	86.0	86.0	9	9
J Lackey	204.0	204.0	8	7
T Percival	49.3	49.3	8	7
B Weber	80.3	80.3	8	8
R Ortiz	180.0	80.0	2	2
A Sele	121.7	50.0	1	1
D Turnbow	15.3	15.3	2	2
C Bootcheck	10.3	10.3	0	0

After "career" years from a lot of players in 2002, the Angels bottomed out in 2003. They only won 77 games, and got disappointing seasons from Glaus, Ramon Ortiz and Jarrod Washburn. If those three players can improve their game a bit, the Angels will be tough team to beat. I don't see the Angels as prohibitive favorites this season, as seems to be the popular notion. As I alluded to before, it's a toss-up between the A's, Mariners and Angels, making the AL West the most interesting pennant race in the AL.
------------------------------

KANSAS CITY, 87 Wins - The Royals are 8 games better than anyone else in the AL Central, based on their players' 2003 seasons.
Position Players:

Player	2003 PA	2004 PA	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
C Beltran	602	650	30	29
A Berroa	635	635	16	15
M Sweeney	463	600	19	18
J Randa	566	566	14	14
B Santiago	434	434	13	13
M Stairs	357	400	14	14
A Guiel	401	401	11	11
D Relaford	557	557	11	10
J Gonzalez	346	450	13	12
T Graffanino	281	281	9	8
K Harvey	524	600	8	7
K Stinnett	207	207	4	4
D Brown	143	143	2	2
A Brown	16	16	0	0
G Dawkins	3	3	0	0
D DeJesus	10	10	0	0
J Patterson	25	25	0	0

Pitchers:

Player	2003 IP	2004 IP	2004 WS	Adjusted WS
D May	210.0	210.0	17	17
J Affeldt	126.0	126.0	12	12
B Anderson	99.3	99.3	12	11
C Leskanic	52.7	52.7	8	8
M MacDougal	64.0	64.0	9	8
D Carrasco	80.3	80.3	6	6
R Hernandez	91.7	91.7	6	6
S Sullivan	64.0	64.0	6	6
J Grimsley	75.0	75.0	4	4
K Snyder	85.3	85.3	4	4
K Wilson	72.7	72.7	4	4
K Appier	111.7	111.7	3	3
M Asencio	48.3	48.3	3	2
J Gobble	52.7	52.7	3	3
N Field	21.7	21.7	2	2
C George	93.7	93.7	2	2
M Venafro	19.0	19.0	1	1
R Bukvich	10.3	10.3	0	0
J Cerda	32.3	32.3	0	0
J Dawley	7.0	7.0	0	0
R DeHart	4.0	4.0	0	0
D Reyes	12.7	12.7	0	0

You'll notice that only one of the Royals pitchers threw more than 130 Innings in 2003. I don't really know what to make of that, but it can't be good. I think the Royals are good enough to win the division, but I also think the other teams are not. I have the Twins ranked 18th (out of 30) in both hitting and pitching Win Shares, and I just don't see how they're going to make the playoffs.
------------------------------
Sorry About Your Luck - The Blue Jays and Orioles could be good enough to win the AL West or AL Central crowns, but it'll take a miracle for either of them to sneak into the playoffs from the East.
Coming soon, the National League.