"...if the A's must have Phil Hughes and Ian Kennedy, Haren won't land in The Bronx."

I wouldn't trade Hughes or Kennedy for Haren. I'm willing to give up a premium package for Santana, a genuine blue-chip stud. But Haren's a good pitcher who's had one great year, and I wouldn't trade any of the prize prospects for him.

The same goes for the money as for the player package. Haren may be "cost-controlled," but not nearly as much as Hughes or Kennedy.

If you're going to overpay, overpay for the very best.

"Under the release plan, Pavano would get the $11 million he is owed for the 2008 season and the $1.95 million buyout he would have coming to him..."

That's not a "release plan," it's a "contract." They don't have any freaking choice but to pay him.

Meanwhile, the Yankees DFA'd Bronson Kiheimahanaomauiakeo Sardinha. Not much of a ballplayer. Hall of Fame name.

He'll be back. He's like a horror movie villain. He'll be back by the end of the year for no good reason and they'll offer him arbitration and he'll accept it.

I am doing some research in to "Stats" and it is very confusing. For 1), there are different formulas for a number of stats. 2) Many compare to 'adjusted league average', which in turn uses Park Factor. However, BR calculates THEIR PF differently than the PF used in the 'accepted' MLB database.
3) And when trying to 'equate stats' in different eras. Just a made up example:
Babe. (1925) OPS = 1.000
Bonds (2000) OPS = 1.000

When adjusting, Babe's OPS+ is WAY higher then Bonds, because the league average was much lower in 1925. Relative to his peers, Babe was WAY better. But if his peers were crappier pitchers and fielders then in 2000 (and all White to boot), Babe's OPS of 1.000 was much easier to get then Bonds' OPS of 1.000 (assuming that Bonds faced better pitching and fielding).
Of course, this doesn't account for ballparks and other factors, but still.... IMHO, comparing leagues in different eras can be misleading because it 'assumes' that the players of each era are equally talented.

I can not find where EQA has any adjustments relative to league or park, but is adjusted by team wins! Team WINS! So if Tony Womack plays on the Yanks, and they have a team .600 WPCT, Tony's EQA is increased by 8.5%. Does this make sense?

Conversely, if Miggy Cabrera's team has a .400 WPCT, his EQA is DECREASED by 8%

So Tony(EQA)= .240, adjusted = .260
Cabrera(EQA)= .350, adjusted = .323
Difference....... .110 .............. = .063

Is this a VALID adjustment what-so-ever????

While I do respect these sabermetric stats, there does appear to be many problems, ESPECIALLY if different stats are taken from MLB vs BR vs BP (or anyone else that has their hands in the stats soup).

MLB REALLY needs to standardize the sabermetric stats, so we at least have a single system where the stats are relative to themselves.

And PARK FACTOR is all screwed up.
Unless there are PHYSICAL changes to a park, shouldn't the PF be static? Why should batting in the Stadium be different in 2006 then in 2000?
IMHO, Park Factor be calculated on some formula involving 1) amount of foul territory, 2) depth of outfield walls, 3) Vision factors (domes, sun, etc) 4) AstroTurf
5)?? (can you think of anything else?)

In 1940, the Stadium had a 96 PF.
In 1945, the Stadium had a 105 PF.
Make any sense to you?

Not be me. Due to the random nature of baseball, more runs just happened to be scored in 1945.
That's a 9% difference. That's a LOT of difference when calculating + stats (or ANY stat that uses PF)

In 1949, the PF was 100. In 2001, the PF was 100.
Make sense? Do you know how much bigger ther park was in 1949?
Anyone think there may have been fewer HRs and more doubles turned into flyouts in 1949?

To me, PF is totally BOGUS in the way it is calcualted. A park has a certain geometry that either hurts or helps (or is 'neutral') hitters. That 'factor' should NOT change unless the geometry is changed.

Of course, my issues are ONLY with Stats that are 'adjusted'. But these are just the Stats we rely on more... aren't they?

4 As I posted on the last thread:

PF is based on the runs scored by the home and visiting team that season, so it is a historical stat, not a static metric. Thus, one has to look at PF over the long term, to see how a stadium plays relative to the league in general.
It's like a HR hitter, if a guy slugs 50, 50, 50, 50, 35, and 50 HRs, the HR stat is not screwed up just because one year doesn't seem to "fit." So too, in most seasons Yankee Stadium has played as a pitchers park, but not every season.

====

As for OPS+, it can only measure performance relative to the league in an empirical manner. Until some type of "White Only" factor can be determined with a high degree of accuracy, it simply will be up to us to debate subjectively whether or not Babe's excellence relative to his crappy all white peers should be discounted more or less than Bonds chemically enhanced performance relative to his athletically superior and racially diverse peers.

Obviously if Lou Gehrig 1932 were transplanted via time warp in 2007, he probably would not be able to compete with even mediocre players. But so what? No one serious assumes that players from different eras were equally good/talented/athletic; they only argue that players in different eras were as good or better (or worse) against their own competition. Moreover, we might even suspect that the great players in any era, if they lived their whole life in the current context--with modern diet and exercise regiments, sports medicine, tougher competition, etc., they would be bigger and stronger, and better. In other words, Gehrig 2007, if he had been born in 1975 or so, would simply be a better than player that Lou Gehrig 1932. Similar, take Bonds 2005 and transport him into the 1930s, take away modern workouts, sports medicine, and, er, enhancements, and he would be a lesser athlete. He probably would still have enough native talent to dominate his competition, but would not be able to compete his 2007 version.

You seem to have a fascination with proving that Bonds is a great player, in fact one of the greatest (if not the greatest) of all time. Does anyone actually dispute this?

3 It's a shame he got hurt earlier in the year. If he was healthy he could have made the difference versus Cleveland. LOL!!

4 , 5 I'd also add that PF, like OPS+, is entirely empirical. How would you go about deriving it from the physical characteristics of the ballpark? I don't think there would be any way to say X amount more foul territory results in Y% fewer runs, or some such. How would Yankee Stadium's foul territory behind home plate compare with Oakland's down the lines? How many runs difference? The only way to do that would be, well, empirically.

There may be any number of reasons a park factor may change over time. One huge factor might be the work of the grounds crew, which we can't measure directly at all. Or perhaps the winds change slightly because someone put up a building across the street, or LaGuardia changed its air traffic patterns. Differences in the overall offensive environment of the game might play better in one park than another.

Instead of trying to figure out what the park effect should be given the physical characteristics, it makes much more sense just to measure what the park effect is.

7 what was the point of your meandering diatribe?

7 Well said.
8 What else we got to talk about? ARod? Santana? Torre?

5 and 7 OK... agreed. Here is what I've found and some conclusions.

PF in OPS+ is basically used to try and neutralize stats between players in the AL or NL ONLY. I confess this is somewhat esoteric, as there is not usually more then a 1 or 2% difference in Average League PF between the 2 leagues. Keep in mind, in computing Team OBP and Team SLG, NL Pitchers numbers are NOT considered.

Since PF is basic a product of runs scored and runs allowed, home and away, if we IGNOR Interleague games, the AVERAGE PF of the ENTIRE NL or the ENTIRE AL should be 1.0000. Correct? While individual stadium PF will vary, NOT counting Interleague, PF does NOT effect a League Average, as it will always be 1.

So... it's only relevance comes into play in InterLeague games only? And... I agree, while run scoring is somewhat random on a day to day basic, over the year and multiple teams and games, it the best method we have.

My question is: What other STATs take into account PF?

I'm confused on the whole Pavano thing; If he's cut from the ML roster (DFA, right?), doesn't have have to pass thru waivers, where any team could claim him? How do the Yanks get to sign him to a miL contract the moment after cutting him?

If this sort of thing can be done, why doesn't it happen more often to avoid losing a guy you need to stash in miL thru waivers?

10 Are there waivers in the offseason?

9 Good questions--don't know the answer.

10 A player doesn't have to clear waivers if the team is simply releasing him.

8 Jeez, it was shorter than the two I was responding to - and I thought it addressed the issue at least marginally.

Tough crowd.

How about we talk about how Brian Cashman all of a sudden has a penchant for mediocre middle relief? First Ron Mahay and his inspiring 3:2 K:BB ratio, now LaTroy Hawkins, who has struck out less than one tenth of the batters he's faced in the last two seasons. Yeah, yeah, $3.75 M for one year isn't all that much, but if he sucks, he's stuck on the roster all season. If Ross Ohlendorf sucks, you can send him to the minors and call up TJ Beam. Or Humberto Sanchez. Or JB Cox. Or Alan Horne...

Please, Cashman, don't sign any mediocre middle relievers. The kids will be fine. And above all, don't sign someone like Mahay just because he happens to pitch with his left arm. A good righty > a mediocre lefty any day.

There are waivers in the off-season. Andy Phillips had to clear waivers, remember?

Pavano...if it's the end of his contract, he doesn't have to clear waivers. He's a free agent, and can sign with any team.

The Yankees are probably assuming that no one else wants to sign Pavano. Probably a good assumption. He had TJ surgery. Realistically, it takes a pitcher 18 months to fully come back from TJ surgery. With Pavano, it could be longer. If he ever comes back.

Pavano is probably thinking the same thing. The Post article said that he needs some place to rehab his arm. Signing a minor league contract would give him that.

Oh, and ESPN is reporting the Yankees are signing Hawkins:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3147959

14 Yeah, Hawkin's numbers are pretty crappy. As for Cashman, well.... it's like looking for a dance partner at a fat farm. You only have so much to choose from.

Is Jeremy Affeldt any better? Lots of walks. Is there any FA RPs worth getting?

At least Hawkins seems like a nice guy. His biggest claim to fame seems to be that he's the only Rockies player who came out to help when some of the Coors Field grounds crew got trapped under the tarp during a wind storm. The visitors' dugout emptied (it was the Phillies), but Hawkins was the only Rocky to lend a hand. (Yes, that was the Rockies, the supposedly most moral and Christian team in the league.)

15 Phillips had to clear waivers because they wanted to assign his contract outright to SWB. He had the right to refuse the assignment, and did.

Pavano's not at the end of his contract; it's got one more year. But they released him, which doesn't require any waivers. What it means is that he's a free agent, but the Yankees still have to pay him. He could sign with another team for minimum salary, and the Yankees would have to pay him the rest.

17 I just don't see whhy it's such a foregone conclusion that the Yankees HAVE to sign a free agent reliever. What's wrong with the guys we've got? We've got a great pitching coach and a closer with a great record of turning around the careers of other relievers. Let's face it, after Fransisco Cordero was signed, none of the other relievers were any better than Kyle Farnsworth.

Mo
Farnstantinople
The Dorf
Edwar!
Alby
Britton
Karstens (the long man)
Kennedy/Mussina (loser of SP audition in ST)

Is that really such a terrible bullpen? Chances are, at least one or two of the kids will stick, and the others can be replaced by Alan Horne or Humberto Sanchez mid-season.

I really hate the Hawkins signing.

20 I don't disgree. Are you going on record saying the BP is complete as is, and we need no trades/Fa signings?

I think Horne is slated at a SP next year (Moose gone, maybe Pettitte gone). They might not want him in the BP. Sanchez MIGHT be ready, depending on how he heals from his TJS. Edwar needs another pitch. He's either good or gets creamed. And you forgot Veras?

I think the Hawkins signing is a sign that Vizcaino is definitely not coming back. If they didn't sign Hawkins, then they would have pushed harder for Vizcaino. Perhaps Vizcaino's second-half arm problems scared them off. They might think that Hawkins' arm is sounder.

Hopefully, he'll turn out better than the last Hawkins the Yankees signed--Andy.

19 Yeah, that's what happened with Craig Wilson. Atlanta signed him for $2 million, then released him early in the season. The White Sox signed him to a minor league contract, paying him only minimum wage with the Braves covering the rest.

He ended up having season-ending shoulder surgery. Which may explain why he never hit that well, for the Yankees or the Braves.

4 OYF, if you haven't already, read "Baseball Between the Numbers."

As far as MLB standardizing the "SABR stats" MLB didn't develop them, so why should they standardize their definitions. I'm not aware of any department within MLB that is responsible for standardizing statistical definitions, and if there were one, they'd probably screw everything up.

22 I think it's a sign that they don't want to sign mediocre relief pitchers to long-term contracts. Vizcaino is going to get at least three years. Hawkins was willing to sign for just one.

And in other news, Hawkins is awful. I don't get this signing.

I assume Pavano is being cut to make room for Hawkins.

But who's next? The Yanks still have to add A-Rod and Mo to the roster.

4 As other's have pointed out, Park Factor is simply a reading of how a park has played in a particular season, and not a benchmark designed to compare real results to expected outcomes. The Hard Ball Times has been developing a park factor system that takes into account dimensions, temperatures, altitudes and wind speeds (among other variables). Other attempts to address the problems with 1-year factors have been to use multiple year data sets as well as to break out factors for different outcomes and different types of players. I also share you uneasiness about park factors, but ultimately think using them provides a much more accurate picture than not (for example, I'd rather adjust Coors field stats inefficiently than not at all). What I always thought would make sense would be to do the following using a computer simulation: (1) for the HR component, define a series of swings (ball exit speeds and trajectories) and run them at every ball park (using defined variables culled from years of data, such as average wind speeds and game time temperatures) to determine what percentage would leave each ballpark. (2) For the non-HR component, devise a simple ratio based on the square footage available in and out of play. I am sure a lot of other components would be needed, but that might be a good starting point.

As for OPS+, I don't share your skepticism (beyond the park adjustment component). With era and league adjustments, all you are trying to do is compare a player to his peers. So, while Babe Ruth's generation might not have had as many athletes, it's also true that the players didn't have the same amenities to maximize their talent (e.g., weight training, not having to have off season jobs, charter air travel, etc.). Also, while the Babe faced a limited talent pool, it's also true that there was less competition from other sports as well as fewer jobs available. Because the number of variables in each era is so large, I think it's much better to compare players in different eras based on how they performed relative to their peers.

Hawkins signing isn't awful. The Yankees lost their 2nd and 3rd best relief pitchers last year (Viz and Joba). Hawkins has been somewhere between average and outstanding every year since 2002. K rates are declining, but he still walked <3 per 9. Worst case is he completely bombs and you cut him without losing anything. Best case is he pitches to a 140 ERA+ again and more than adequately eats up Viz's innings.

There's no proof yet that Dorf, Edwar, etc. are ready for the major leagues. The best relief arms (Melancon, Cox, Sanchez) might not even pitch this year. Signing Hawkins is just covering your ass.

Any longer than 1 year and it'd be bad. But it's not.

I don't care for projections, but here is SG over at RLYW's for Hawkins as a 2008 Yankee:

4.11 ERA, 66 IP, 67 H, 6 HR, 19 BB, 40 K.

That's pretty sweet for way below market value.

League average last year was a 4.47 ERA.

20 I don't think the Hawkins signing is as bad as you think. While I agree that the Yankees need to entrust some young arms with meaningful innings, I also think the bullpen needs a solid, reliable veteran. That's what Hawkins has been (at least) since 2002. Also, while many have focused on Hawkins' low strikeout rate, I think they need to look at his low walk rate. If anything, that's what the Yankees bullpen sorely needs… a pitcher who doesn't have a good chance of walking the ballpark (see Bruney, Farnsworth, Edwar, Villone and even Vizcaino).

If it was a long-term deal, I'd agree that Hawkins should be passed over, but I think he will be useful. I like him better than Viz anyway, but in a perfect world, the Yankees would shed Farns and go with Viz and Hawkins as the veteran component in a bullpen of young set-up men.

31 Farns has one year left on his deal. Viz will probably get 3. Plus, letting him go would yield the Yanks a draft pick.

32 Do you really think Viz would get three years? I was thinking 2 years/$6mn, which would be the same price as Farnsworth for one year. You make a good point about the draft pick, but it would be at the end of what is already shaping up to be a long supplemental round.

32 According to the Elias rankings, Viz just missed being a Type-A free agent. Too bad...it would have been nice to get the compensation then. Someone would definitely do it, but why would you sign a middle reliever like Viz if you were going to lose your first round pick? You'd think he'd be limited to a team that already lost its pick.

25 Matt Guerrier 72.040 A
26 C.J. Wilson 70.732 B
27 Luis Vizcaino 70.201 B

33 We'll see. According to Pete Abe, Vizcaino's agent is telling people several teams have offered him 3 years. He may even get 4.

I'm a big Matsui fan and I'm surprised by the lack of expressed disappointment (or any discussion) over his possible trade. Do you all feel that his knees are shot, making him just another weak fielder, and we've gotten the best out of him?

36 There has been a ton of sentiment killing the deal here.

36 I like Matsui, and I think he's still a decent fielder. At least in left field.

But the Yankees have too many veteran players who are approaching their DH days. If they can get a good return on one of them, I can't get too upset.

I'm also not sure Matsui would agree to go anywhere. He's been equivocal in his public statements, but that might just be Japanese reticence. He's proved he can be tough when it comes down to business.

36 I just figured nobody thought he'd actually be moved.

I'd move him in the right deal. But am I the only one that wouldn't settle for a relief pitcher not named Street?

36 I just figured nobody thought he'd actually be moved.

I'd move him in the right deal. But am I the only one that wouldn't settle for a relief pitcher not named Street?

I'm the biggest Derek Jeter fan I know, and even I thought this LoHud comment was hilarious:

"GreenBeret7 - go back to rooting for the sox. How dare you question Jeter. Jeter was playing on one knee for most of the season and playoffs last year.
Oh, you are so knowledgeable sitting in front of your computer, stuffing your face with poptarts, and typing with your pudgy fingers venom against the greatest player of our lifetime. Knock it off."

I appreciate the feedback.
24 I know that. But even with the Saber community, there are different formulas and approaches for the same stat. I meant MLB could 'adopt' certain Stats so we could all compare apples to apples.

The OPS+ formula for a Players is:
OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP(adjusted) + SLG/lgSLG(adjusted) - 1)

Does this mean that Ortiz's OPS+ is adjusted by the exact same factors as ARod's (or for that matter, any Player in the AL)?

If Ortiz has a higher OPS because Fenway is generous, how does that (OPS+) formula equal one players OPS to anothers?

Am I missing something?

42 OPS+ uses the park factor adjustment. It is basically comparing how much better Ortiz was compared to the average hitter playing half his games at Fenwway, versus how much better Arod was compared to the average hitter playing half his games at the Stadium.

43 I don't see that. Do you agree that in 42 I posted the OPS+ formula? The PF is factored in the LgOBP and LgSLG variables... but it is applied the the LEAGUE average... not a particular Team/Park.

In the OPS+ formula above, if in the SAME Year, ARod and Ortiz have the same OBP and same SLG, don't they both have the same OPS+?

JL25and3 - What you wrote about park factors and measurements made sense to me.

44 For a complete explanation of how B-R computes OPS+, check out the link below. I think where you are going astray is in thinking that one league adjusted OPS is used for both players. Instead, a separate figure is used based on the schedule that each played.

http://tinyurl.com/7oq56

Hawkins is not a bad gamble for a one-year contract. Since 2002, when he became a reliever:

Year, INN, ERA+, WHIP

2002, 80, 210, .097
2003, 77, 243, 1.09
2004, 82, 167, 1.05
2005, 56, 113, 1.46
2006, 60, 102, 1.46
2007, 65, 140, 1.23

His age and creeping WHIP are worrisome, but overall his performance has ben pretty solid for a reliever. Maybe they squeeze one more year of 1.2 WHIP and 120 or 130 ERA+--that's not so bad.

47 Also, if you remove his performance against the Yankees from his 2006 numbers, that season begins to look like the others.

I have also seen an OPS formula using:
OBP(1.6)/lgOBP(adjusted) to give more weight to OBP.
This is because OBP includes WALKS but SLG does not. For example:
Player A: 100 PAs: 30 singles, 20 BBs, 50 outs
Player B: 100 PAs: 50 singles, 0 BBs, 50 outs
These 2 players have VERY similar performances, except 'B' might move more runners over because he has 20 singles instead of 20 BBs. BUT....

(A) OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG: 30/80=.375 OPS=.875
(B) OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG= 50/100=.500 OPS=1.000

So player B looks MUCH better then Player A, but his actual 'production' is NOT that much better. So the SLG part of OPS 'penalizes' a player for getting BBs.

The formula for OPS might be better if it was: OBP + SLG + (0.3(BB/AB+BB))
So Player A would be:
OBP: 50/100=.500 SLG: 30/80=.375 (0.3(20/100))=.060 OPS=.935

Not as Good as (A) OPS=1.000, but better then 0.875

Actual data: 2005
Ortiz:: .397+.604=1.001 OPS, OPS+:158 PF=1.027
Hafner: .408+.595=1.003 OPS, OPS+:168 PF=0.88

So Hafners OPS+ is 6% higher while Ortiz's PF is almost 16% higher. However, half of a players OPS (AWAY Games) should NOT be adjusted, only the Half at Home. So that 16% becomes %8%... so that seems pretty close.

(from the link you gave me)
Using the formula:
PRO+ = 100 * ( OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)/BPF
would make more sense as the players PF is directly in the equation... although Hafners OPS+ should be closer to 15% higher then Ortiz's. However, half of a players OPS (AWAY Games) should NOT be adjusted, only the Half at Home.

"Using these adjusted values compute what the league average player would have hit lgOBP*, lgSLG* in a park."
Take OPS+ = 100 * (OBP/lgOBP + SLG/lgSLG - 1)

ahhhhhh... I'm not sure but I THINK what he is doing is NOT using a players ACTUAL OBP but:

1) Calculating his Runs Created
2) Multiplying RC by (players) PF
3) BACKcalculating H, BB, HBP, TB needed to create the Adjusted RC.
4) Using these backcalculated number to create and adjusted OBP.

That's what I missed. I didn't get that the OBP and SLG numbers is his formula were not Actual, but adusted.

HOWEVER, all these adjustment factors, which we are applying to OBP and SLG are either RUNS (traditional method) or Runs Created (hibred method).

Does this mean we ASSUME that RUNS (or Runs Created) is directly relational to OBP and SLG? (I think not)

In the formula: = 100 * (OBP(adj)/lgOBP + SLG(slg)/lgSLG - 1)
Rather then adjusting OBP and SLG then way he does, how about using
Player OBP/((Park OBP + LgAvgOBP)/2) / LgAvg OBP) and
Player SLG/((Park SLG + LgAvgSLG)/2) / LgAvg SLG)

47 The guy is walking more then 4 per 9 IPs. Also, don't relievers have better ERAs (and ERA+s) then starters? The ERA+ numbers look very good for a starter, but what about for a RP?

I think one of the key things that a lot of people miss when comparing eras is who played then and who plays now.
In Ruth's era, the NBA wasn't even born, the NFL and NHL got started about that time, but weren't considered to be much more than pro wrestling to most of America. The only real pro sport in North America was baseball. It was also one of the very few cheap entertainments available.
So everybody had a team. There were minor league teams and semi-pro teams in nearly every city in the country. And the played a lot-200 game schedules weren't unheard of in the PCL (for example.)
Add to that the fact that there were only 16 teams in the major leagues, and the competition for jobs was pretty fierce.
I have no doubt Gehrig would be a great hitter in this era. Ditto Ruth, Cobb, and Speaker. Hornsby and Wagner would be regarded in the way Arod is. These were great hitters and great players no matter what era.

53 There are very few sports or other athletics (field and track) where old records hold up. As time passes, training and conditioning practices, as well health education and medicine continue to improve. People of the present have better tools and technology then people of the past.

I think between all minorities, as well as international players, the pool of possible players is many times greater then in Ruth's day. Look at how many great non-white players we have now. How about modern vs 30's scouting practices?

My guess is you are correct that raw talents like Gehrig, Ruth, Cobb, Speaker, Hornsby, Wagner and the best players of the past could compete today. But what about the average and poorer players? There were the pitchers pitching against these great guys, and fielding against them.

With all with know about the science of pitching today, could pitchers of the 30's really be as good as todays pitchers? Look at the glove the 'all White' players used in the 30's. Do you really believe defense was as good back then?

They had no MRIs or other diagnostic equiptment. How many guys played injured? We will never know, but I can't believe the overall level of play in the 30's was as good as it is today.

If we move Honus Wagner to now, doesn't he get to use the same trainers, video, light bats, clean baseball, etc. that players use now?

I know that the color line made a big difference. I believe the NFL and NBA alone make up for that difference. Add about 150 other sports (skateboarding is a big money deal, as is beach volleyball, surfing, skiing (etc), Jai Alai, and so forth. Add to that the great number of kids who just aren't into sports at all (a much higher percentage than in the 1880-1940 era.)

I think another factor is little league-instead of a bunch of kids getting 20 or more ABs playing other kids, nowadays you don't even have any place to play unless your on a LL (or similar) team, and there's no way you're getting half that many ABs. (not to mention the fun having been sucked right out of it by idiot parents.)

54 Sure. But the stats he, and other 'oldies' put up, were against a lesser league. That's why I think it's real hard to compare players, using stats, across different eras.

55 That's why adjusted numbers are so important. Comparing Ruth's OPS to Bonds' is not as meaningful as comparing how each performed relative to their peers, who shared the same advantages and disadvantages.

It's not really fair to take Babe Ruth of 1920 and think about how he'd fair in the modern game. You have to assume that he'd have adapted to the modern times. Similarly, if we transport Bonds back in time (assuming he was allowed to play) we'd have to wonder how healthy he would have stayed without his space age workouts (enhanced or not), thin handle/light weight bats, video technology and comfortable cross country travel.

36 Thank you. I was skimming along, wondering the same thing.

I'm quite fond of Hideki, despite the fact that he drives me to distraction with his dribblers to second, and yet I'm really not that keen on keeping him. If he stays, great. If he goes, so long and thanks for all the fish.

He's an awfully solid player, though, and certainly someone who could help the team in a reduced role, so he better not be given away.