Its fascinating to me how Damon has really become superfluous to the Yanks, thanks to Melky. I still think it was the right move at the time to sign Damon. Now its too bad Torre won't make him the 4th OF, because that's about where he belongs in terms of merit.

Though now that you mention it, I'd enjoy seeing another pair of Duncan Bombs tonight, too. So I'm good either way.

My goddam email is screwed up, so I am liable to blather especially blathery here this evening. You're warned.

YANKEES
Damon DH
Jeter SS
Abreu RF
Rodriguez 3B
Matsui LF
Posada C
Cano 2B
Phillips 1B
Cabrera CF
Wang RHP (10-5, 3.44)

Exhibit A: Edwin Jackson. Exhibit B: Josh Fogg

I'm sure there are others that escape my memory at this time.

"Damon is snapping out of his funk and provides this team with a spark and energy that 5 Shelley Duncans couldn't do."

Weren't all the Yankees (and Cashman too) raving about some sort of "infectious spark" that Duncan provided? Of all the reasons to argue for Damon playing, it comes down to being energetic?

10 "I am really liking the direction the team is going lately." I'd be worried if you weren't.

http://tinyurl.com/25bh5z

You have to register (give them an e-mail address), but it's free.

13 IP 1 ER 4 BB 17 K

I don't even know how that's possible

I appreciate Alex getting free passes. It doesn't cost an out, but it allows him a better chance to hit #500 in the Bronx.

Maybe we're just really, really good. Rob absolutely blasted that to the opposite field.

For the big club.... hope weeping saw the double to left... ;-)

And Cano = .296!

Ah, one worm bites the dust.

Votto's next but he's four year's older, plays 1B, and hits for less power.

Man, I feel sorry for these pitches the last few days... I don't want to jinx it, but hopefully after this outburst, the team doesn't do another crapout like vs. Colo & SF & Bmore...

That's, um, acceptable.

Why pull the starter? Royals are going to get shelled this game, why burn the bullpen more than you need to? Just let the starter throw his 100, get as deep (hah, manner of speaking) as he can, then move to the bullpen, no?

15 IP 1 ER 5 BB 21 K

;-)

I would like to see if Mats could play 1B. That would give us great flexibility, especially if Andy returns to being AAAAndy. It leaves the DH position as a 'rotating rest' position. I don't know if he could field the position, but Matsui at $13m is not that much of a downgrade compared to Tex at $15m.

But it is the flexibility that really appeals to me.

Dang Dumbo, tuck those badboys under you hat.

"If that is the case, we would take care of him," Torre said before Tuesday night's game against the Royals in Kansas City.

"We'll make sure we don't abuse him," Torre said. "Not that we willfully abuse people, but you know, when panic sets in during a game, man, throw them all out there."

Honest, yes?

Really?

108 Not when you have to trade Kennedy to get them (in your mind)...

It reminds me of little league. We always had these guys who could throw super hard but had no idea at all how to pitch. Then there was little old me, who didn't throw as hard but could basically pound the strike zone. Every year, the coach would become enamored with the newest hard thrower. I'd be playing second base watching these guys pitch and it was maddening. About 3 games in, they'd let me pitch and lo and behold I could get people out even though I didn't throw 60.

Ugh. Joe is killing our chances for a 20-run game, the bum.

Or maybe Torre understands that giving away outs just makes the game go by faster and was sick of it being only the 4th inning 1.5 hours into the game.

But he had great "stuff"! The more I watch, the more I'm convinced that command and control are more important than any raw stuff. I honestly think the a lot of the difference between Mo and pitchers like Kyle are that Mo has amazing pinpoint control. Even with that cutter, when he misses over the plate, he's hittable. If Kyle could bore that 98mph fastball in on hitters hands all the time, he'd be unhittable.

The Tribe is down to their last ups, still trailing 1-0.

Odd indeed.

BTW, I'm just happy that Phillips seems to be able to bunt.

Not about the win, that's in the bag.

140 A five run lead is very big. (With our bullpen it doesn't seem like it, but statistically it's huge.) So really it doesn't matter much either way. But my point was that although the sixth run doesn't help you much, the eighth or ninth will be even less valuable. So you may as well play for one or two, if the only point is to maximize your expectation of winning.

To take an extreme case: suppose it's tied in the bottom of the tenth. The marginal value of runs declines very steeply after one. So you play for one.

While run expectancy may in a given sitiation (let's say 1st and 2nd, nobody out in the sixth) may suggest that it's better for the player to swing away (based on all of the cases of that exact situation going back X number of games), the manager has to determine if it's better the specific batter to bunt or swing away (do you 'waste' Jeter or A-Rod by having him bunt? Can Giambi be expected to bunt? Do you really want Cairo or even Phillips swinging away? etc.)

Unit: I might be done

Yep, that Cashman, what an idiot.

We were all agreed that WHEN it is needed, any player should be able to bunt. I like the move. We get a run and Andy has a successful bunt under his belt.

Remember, a lot of Torre's moves are about player confidence as opposed to statistically correct moves. And I can't argue with that. This game is played by people.

150 Actually I liked your suggestion that it was Game Situation Bunting Practice. The Phillips one today, I mean. Or wasn't that you?

Since the game would end at 1 run scored, there is NO reason to score more. But there is ALWAYS at least some incentive to score additional runs in any other situation except the bottom of the 9th (or later).

Consider this extreme example:

Let's say you have a large lead of X runs in the 7th inning that yields a win expectancy 90%, but the marginal value of additional runs declines very steeply with each additional run, so that 1 run yields a win expectancy of, say, 92% but 10 runs gives you 95%. It seems to me that the practical difference between winning 90 and 92 percent of the time is negligible, so wouldn't it make more sense to play for the REALLY big inning, which even though it provides diminishing returns, still might give you a more significant chance of victory?

That's my emotional/visceral response to the condition, anyway.

I love baseball!!

It's very hard to judge these things intuitively. For instance, to have a 90% chance of winning, the 'large lead' you need in the seventh inning is: three runs. The visitors win nine out of ten games that they lead by three going into the seventh. If they don't score, it goes down to 88%. If they get one, it goes up to 94%. There just isn't much room above 94%, so extra runs after that are worth very little. So you play for one or two.

How much are will paying Viz?

Thanks Billy.

197 Yep, and I'll tell you something else, 193...

I was thinking about how I'd test it, too. How about this. Look at every game in the past decade, say, in which a team scored nine runs. Now in that set look at the High Homer subset, in which the team hit at least two, and the Low Homer subset, in which the team hit none. Now check those two subsets of teams, counting, for each team, how many times in the season they score at least five runs. Which subset scores higher on this measure?

You, sirs, though I come to this board late tonight, and a bit in the bag due to corporate entertainment requirements, have reinforced my belief in the Banter. Any baseball blog that carries any sort of discussion of NP-completeness has my interest.

There be mathematicians in them these woods, and that does my heart proud in this game of Baseball.

I think, though, that Weeping, et al desire not only teams that score runs, but score them consistently (i.e. they are rarely shut out or score few runs). In that case, one could set a minimum threshold--let's say four or five runs. Then look at all teams over a given period and count how many times each team failed to score the "low score" threshold, and see if that percentage correlates to whether the %runs by HR. In other words, ignore the high end (since presumably Weeping would complain about a team that slugs 14 runs one day but gets shut out the next) and focus on what type of team consistently scores a minimum threshold of runs more often.

http://www.simpsonizeme.com/

You've got to hit it very late at night though or else you get error messages cause the site is overwhelmed.

It works and the results are very cool.

The second thing is pretty much what I was trying for, but instead of % by HR I was also using a threshold for that.

And my bet, actually, is that the High HR teams will be more consistent. You?

Also, the "consistency question" does not involve only runs scored, but how those runs are distributed.

Hey, I actually think this is all bunk, as you suggest in 202. I'm just trying to think of ways to get at answering the question as it might be posed by those who posit that "HR teams" (read: all or nothing teams) are have less reliable offenses.

It's probably rooted in the same reason I hate heavyweight boxing but I like welterweights. There's a perception that one requires nothing but brute force, and one is reliant on some sort of polish and skill and finesse and gentlemanly carriage.

Or sumpthin'

Farns with a five run lead. Let's send Joe flowers or something encouraging. Tea.

To what does this refer?

Finally, he (et al) seem to think that batters, if properly coached and possessing the proper attitude) should be able to hit just about any pitch in the zone hard, so long as he doesn't try to pull the outside pitch and puts the ball in play, especially with linedrives.

In this scenario, HRs are pleasant happenstances most of the time.

Hey, maybe no Mo tonight, looks like.

Hey, I was a grad student not that long ago, be nice!

Bullshyt call, ump...

Okay, let's play another, I'm warmed up. Fortunately, 2, my email got fixed, or I would have been insufferable.

Shut up.

252 Wow, someone else who knows that book. Un petit d'un petit/S'etonne aux Halles.

Boona's Nachos.

Good win, sorry I missed it.

Roll on, roll on.

Regarding the homerun/linedrive yada yada yada -thing, it suddenly occurs to me that perhaps this all boils down to the fact that, as a young child, I was traumatized by Dave Kingman and Steve Balboni and absolutely awestruck by Don Mattingly.

What a revelation he was.