Glavine And Thomas Call It A Career

Good morning Fackers. While we wait for Johnny Damon and Chien-Ming Wang to officially become former Yankees, two of my favorite non-Yankees of the past twenty years officially became former Major Leaguers over the past two days.

Despite not having played at the Major League level since 2008, neither Frank Thomas nor Tom Glavine had officially announced their retirement. That changed Thursday, as Glavine took an advisory job with the Braves, patching up whatever differences he had with the organization after they callously cut him during his rehab last year.

Later on Thursday, word broke that Frank Thomas, who last played with the A's in 2008, was calling it a career. The Big Hurt confirmed that at a Chicago press conference Friday morning, where the White Sox announced they would retire his number 35, a nice step following his acrimonious departure from the organization after the 2005 season and subsequent pissing match with GM Ken Williams.

Both Glavine and Thomas were excellent all-around athletes. Glavine's fondness for golf has been well documented and for a pitcher, he had some pretty good years with the bat, earning four Silver Slugger awards. He was also a very good hockey player, selected by the Los Angeles Kings in the fourth round of the 1984 NHL Draft, ahead of eventual Hall of Famers Luc Robtaille and Brett Hull.

Thomas, like Bo Jackson before him, was a two sport athlete at Auburn, doubling as a tight end on the Tigers football team before an injury derailed his football career. I, like Aaron Gleeman at Hardball Talk, and Joe Pawlikowski at RAB, was a fan of the Big Hurt despite him not playing for our favorite team. Joe went so far as to imagine what it would have been like had Thomas come up with the Yankees instead. Unfortunately, the closest we ever got to that was his turn as the unnamed rookie in Mr. Baseball, whose emergence prompted the Yankees to ship aging Jack Elliot off to the Land of the Rising Sun.

Both Glavine and Thomas were active off the field as well. Glavine has long been an important and involved member of the Players Association and was one of their central figures in the '94 strike. Thomas was perhaps the most outspoken player when it came to the issues of performance enhancing drugs in baseball, was one of the few witnesses not to embarrass himself at the 2005 Congressional Hearings, and was the only active player to willing cooperate with the Mitchell Report investigation.

But above all, what both will be remembered for is being one of the premier pitchers and premier hitters of the 1990s. Both should be part of what promises to be an outstanding 2014 Hall of Fame class.

'Tis The Season For Analysis And Reason

Good morning Fackers. One of the positive things about the slow news cycle that we are going through in the baseball world at the moment is that it gives some very smart writers the chance to do long-form pieces that don't get done when the offseason news is reaching its peak. While some may yearn for the heat of the hot stove, a whole lot of writing and thought gets expended on the the same signings and trade with a relatively small amount getting added to the discussion. Without many rumors flying, some have been using their time well and posting tremendously interesting analytical pieces that have in some cases taken on a life of their own.

Joe Posnanski recently cranked out 5,000 words comparing the Baseball Hall of Fame with the Baseball Think Factory Hall of Merit. Larry from Wezen-ball explored the illogical nature of the voting process for Cooperstown. There was an interesting discussion yesterday about putting a third team in New York which began with a piece on SI.com by Tim Marchman, and was picked up by Craig Calcaterra of Circling the Bases and Kevin Kaduk of Big League Stew (among others) before Marchman responded to the responses. Dave Cameron of FanGraphs discussed the diminishing value of a marginal win for the Yankees which was further explored by River Ave. Blues and Rob Neyer. Cameron's colleague R.J. Anderson used a quote from Peter Gammons to explain the Time Value of Money as it relates to Jason Bay's contract.

Perhaps the best example of this analytical collaboration are the Mike Silva Chronicles that Tom Tango is currently posting over at The Book Blog. Silva is notoriously suspicious of advanced statistics while Tango is responsible for creating a great many of them and inspiring still more. Recently, Silva compared the necessity for the newly-created stat wRC+ (just like OPS+ but based on wOBA) from FanGraphs to "Cool Ranch Doritos, New Coke, or a colorful cover for the iPod". Tango replied in the comment section, "As I keep saying on my blog time and time again, summary opinion without evidence is the very definition of bullsh!t. And Mike’s statement here is pure bullsh!t."

What might have spiraled into a war of words has instead turned into something productive. Tango agreed to answer ten of Silva's questions about advanced metrics, ranging from the accuracy and utility of UZR to the concepts of replacement level and win shares, pulling back the curtain a bit in attempt assuage some of the doubts that many have about newer stats.

Although these two guys are coming from ends of the statistical spectrum, they are meeting at an important common ground. One of the reasons old school baseball thinkers like Silva distrust advanced metrics is because they doubt their accuracy. The people who understand these measures the best understand their limits because they created them. It could be argued that the people who use UZR and WAR without understanding their blindspots are just as bad as those who refuse to acknowledge their utility at all.

Even if you aren't a stathead, I'd recommend stopping by The Book Blog and taking a look at Silva's questions and Tango's responses. They did five questions yesterday and I believe the next 5 should be coming soon. Although the names of some of the newer stats make them seem vague and complex, I think you'll find that hearing someone explain what they are and why they were created while simultaneously acknowledging their limitations to be quite interesting.

Vazquez Trade Reactions

We posted our initial take on the deal earlier this morning, but here is a collection of what else is being said around these here internets about the acquisition of Javier Vazquez:

Will from IIATMS looks at what this might mean for the Yankees' defense. Aaron Gleeman from Circling the Bases asks a similar question.

Ben from River Ave. Blues revisits Vazquez's last time in the Bronx.

Craig Calcaterra correctly guessed that it was Vazquez this morning, posted a quick reaction to the deal and as a Braves fan, explained why the deal wasn't so bad.

Joel Sherman was the first to name Vazquez as the target this morning and has an in-depth breakdown of the trade. He also explained that the Yankees valued a starting pitcher over a left fielder and are still looking to keep their payroll under $200M, meaning LF will likely be filled on the cheap. They are also planning to deal either Chad Gaudin or Sergio Mitre before spring training.

There are over 200 comments on the BBTF trade dedicated to the trade as well.

And some quick quotes, taken completely out of context:

Dave Cameron, FanGraphs: "The reaction to this deal on Twitter has not been kind to Atlanta, with most people concluding that the Yankees got Vazquez for peanuts. I’m not so sure."

Joe Posnanski: Sigh. The Yankees traded for Vazquez to be their NUMBER FOUR starter. And the Royals signed Jason Kendall to be their starting catcher.

Keith Law: "At this point, the Yankees now have a rotation close to that of the Red Sox, and they could very well enter 2010 a better team on paper than they were at the same time before 2009.

Peter Abraham, Boston Globe: "You knew this was coming. Once the Red Sox signed John Lackey, there was no way the Yankees would go into next season with a rotation of CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, Andy Pettitte and two question marks."

Jonah Keri, via Twitter: "To be fair to the #Braves, any time you can acquire dryer lint for one of the best SP in baseball, you gotta do it.

Tyler Kepner, via Twitter: "Yanks use 6 prospects to get Granderson and Vazquez, yet keep Hughes, Joba, Montero, Melancon, Romine, McAllister. Not bad."

Ben Kabak, River Ave. Blues: "As much as it strengthens the team’s rotation, it also weakens their outfield. The leftfield situation currently looks like a Brett Gardner/Jamie Hoffmann platoon, which doesn’t exactly inspire confidence."

Rob Iracane, Walkoff Walk: "Let it be known that this guy (points to self) would rather have dismissed Nick Swisher, who cannot field his position, run the bases, or dress like a grown-up. But hey, Vazquez strikes out batters like it's his job (note: it is his job) so as a Yankees fan, I am pleased."

Satchel Price, Beyond the Box Score: "Considering what the Phillies landed for one year of Cliff Lee, arguably a superior pitcher, at a cheaper salary, I think that Atlanta got a pretty solid return for Vazquez, even if it doesn't include the impact bat that Atlanta sorely needs."

Kevin Kaduk, Big League Stew: "It's often been said that Vazquez is a pitcher that throws best when the expectations are low and his stats do back that up. "

Josh, Jorge Says No!: "Make no mistake about it though, if Vazquez can give the Yankees 200 IP with 190+ K's, and a 3.75 ERA, then there is no reason why he won't be able to win 15+ games with the Yankees the way this team is constructed."

Programming Note

Both Matt and I are pretty busy this afternoon and, in the interest of full disclosure, won't have anything new posted until tomorrow morning. It doesn't happen too often around these parts, so we wanted to give you folks a heads up.

In the meantime, feel free to check out the slow motion train wreck that should have already been unfolding over at Deadspin involving Daulerio's threat to publish every tip about improper sexual relations concerning ESPN employees ever emailed to his tip line. And to think, none of this would have happened if Steve Phillips was a better talent evaluator.

That or take a look at this chart and jump to conclusions in regards to what it implies about Joe Girardi's managerial ability (via BBTF). Or check out Lisa Swan's takedown of Tom Verducci and try to explain how CC Sabathia was responsible for the Indians losing Games 6 & 7 of the ALCS to the Red Sox in '07 despite not actually pitching in them. Or try to figure out how on earth our buddy Craig got a freaking death threat over at NBC for talking about the Mariano Rivera incident yesterday. (Hint: You'll never figure the last one out.)

Okay, or just make fun of this whippersnapper who was photographed during Game 3.

Wait, I think I know that kid!

Alright I gotta get outta here before I make fun of more Angels fans under the age of 10. Two in one day is probably enough. Catch you later on.

ALDS Previews Galore

We'll be back shortly with our own unique brand of preview, but wanted to gather up some more in-depth looks ahead at the series first.

- River Ave. Blues goes position by position.

- Replacement Level Yankees Weblog uses wOBA, pERA & pFIP to make some projections looking just at the postseason rosters of both teams. They already looked at the Twins and today tackled the Yankees. Brilliant concept and great execution. Well done, fellas.

- Will from IIATMS looks at the Twins' Pitching vs. the Yankees' hitting.

- The Yankee Universe explores at the pitching match ups and examines the Twins' bullpen.

- The NYT Bats Blog calls it a "mismatch". I see no need to tempt fate like that.

- Aaron Gleeman goes in-depth at Circling the Bases.

- David Pinto does the same at Baseball Musings.

- The Sports Section at New York Magazine looks at each Yankee star along with Joe Girardi.

- And finally, here's some talk about the shadows that can play a part in late afternoon games, especially in the postseason. The sun won't be the element giving the teams the most problems tonight, though. That would be the wind.

You'd better read those because there's going to be a quiz on them later!

A Rare October Call Up

Good morning, Fackers. Let's start the day off on a positive note.

Our friend Jason has some big news:

It's About The Money, Stupid has been selected by Rob Neyer and ESPN to be a charter member of what will be a new blog network on ESPN.com known as ESPN.com's SweetSpot Blog Network! IIATMS has the distinct honor of being the sole blog representing the New York Yankees in this network throughout the 2009 Playoffs, and hopefully into 2010 and beyond.

The network won't officially launch until Monday so there's nowhere to direct you to just yet, but I will of course provide that info once it become available. Check out the post linked above for Jason's reaction. He's justifiably excited and those guys at IIATMS should be in for a fun ride.

ESPN.com is a pretty lofty place for a blog to ascend to and let's hope that they do the blogs in that network justice and feature them prominently as they should. There's a lot of interesting insight and analysis be churned out by hobbyists like Jason, Will, Tamar and Brendan and ESPN has the chance to elevate blogs as a whole by placing them in front of baseball fans who don't really visit them or understand the concept... yet. Who knows how assertive they'll be on this front, but there's hope.

A good amount of you probably haven't been around long enough to be aware of this, but Fack Youk also sprouted underneath of the Rob Neyer/Shysterball/IIATMS blogging tree to some extent. Jason was one of the first bloggers to take interest in our site, allowing me to do a couple guest posts to promote this operation early on and linking to us more than one could rightfully expect over the past 9 months. Craig was more than generous with his advice when I first started doing this back in December, and has been kind enough to point people to the site in the past as well.

In short, those guys did more than their fair share to introduce our site to some of you. They offered a helping hand up onto the already crowded stage of baseball blogging and it's good to see some of that good karma coming back around. Whether it be Craig getting absorbed by the Hardball Times and NBC or Jason now appearing on ESPN.com, it's cool to be able to recall the simpler days of reading them on Blogspot, you know, back before they were big internet celebrities.

Congrats, Jason. Enjoy the ride.

Monday Afternoon Linkdown

Okay, we're all working our way through a rough Monday, so here are some links just in case you need any more excuses to put off doing work.

-----

I don't care if the Yankees have never blown a 6 game lead in the division in the history of the franchise. The Mets did it in 17 games two years ago and if recent memory serves me correctly, the Red Sox did something else historically unprecedented and terrible to the Yankees a few years before that. You know what they say about chickens and hatching.

Awww, poor Youk. Need a nap, buddy? “The bottom line is that everything is blown out of proportion when we play the Yankees. To be honest with you, it’s very tiresome.”

Check out the questions PeteAbe got Yogi Berra to sit down for. Does anyone not love Yogi?

Lisa Swan from Subway Squawkers spends some time knocking down the myth that A-Rod isn't clutch over at The Faster Times. She also reminds us of when "the MT curse" almost made a modicum of sense.

Mark Teixeira for President MVP!

"...when I have to talk, I’m not good at that. You all know that.” Guess who said it...

Crazy Yankee Chick is auctioning off one of her paintings of Yankee Stadium and donating the proceeds to the American Cancer Society.

No Maas has an update on this year's first round pick and subject of some older posts on our site, Slade Heathcott.

Here are some assorted sources of Soxenfreude.

Craig from Shysterball/Circling the Bases pulls together some thoughts on the fuzzy realm of sports psychology.

-----

Be back a little later with the preview.

Winning Against Winners

Perhaps you've noticed that the Yanks have struggled against the better teams they've faced this year. You'd be on to something, because they are only 24-29 against teams with winning records. Maybe you think that is a bad thing since those are the teams they are likely to face in the playoffs. Would you be wrong? (h/t Shyster @ CTB)

This actually isn't a bad sign at all, though. In fact, it's the mark of a champion. In recent years, winning the World Series has had nothing to do with being good against good competition. Five of the nine champions this decade posted losing regular-season records against opponents that were .500 or better, including the 2008 Phillies (43-46).

Conversely, teams that excel against tough opponents tend to flop in the postseason. Not since the 1995 Braves has the team with the best record against .500-or-better competition won the World Series that same season. The Los Angeles Angels keep demonstrating this: They dominated such opponents in 2007 (.594) and 2008 (.605), yet lost in the first round both years.

Our pal Craig goes along with this theory and throws out an admittedly "untestable yet moderately-satisfying hypothesis" comparing baseball teams to marathon runners. He proposes some interesting ideas, but I'm not buying the original premise of the article.

First, let's point out the sketchy logic from the quote above.

1. I wouldn't say winning a World Series has "nothing to do" with how teams play against good competition. Five of the past nine champions is A) a limited sample size and B) only one Game 7 (in 2002) away from saying 5/9 had winning records against opponents that were .500+.
   
   
2. Why would the author, Darren Everson, break it at 2000? What happens when you go back from 1995-1999? Every single World Series Champion had a winning record against winning teams during the regular season. So from 1995-2008, nine out of 14 have fit that mold. Kind of undermines the point of the article, huh? Don't let the facts...
   
   
3. "Not since the 1995 Braves has the team with the best record against .500-or-better competition" - Eight teams make the playoffs and one can have the best record against +.500 competition. Do you know how many times the team with the best record overall has won over that span? One (and a half). The 1998 Yankees (114 wins) and the 2007 Red Sox who, along with the Indians, won 96 games that year.
   
   
4. "The Los Angeles Angels keep demonstrating this..." - By doing it twice in a row? Not much of a trend when looking at 14 years of data, is it?

One further point that I would like to add is that by definition, the entire league plays under .500 ball against teams with winning records.

Starting with 1996 (so as to include only 162 game seasons) 191 out of a possible 386 team seasons have ended with winning records. In total, those teams are 17,321 - 13,611, which equates to a .570 winning percentage. So on average, teams can expect to go 35-46 if they play 81 games against teams with winning records. That makes .500 against those teams look pretty good, right?

Is it imperative that a team plays well against winning teams during the regular season? No, but if you take an objective look at the data and go a little further back, it certainly appears to be a good sign.

Cheering For Dummies

Via the Shyster over at his NBC Circling The Bases gig, the guys from Freakonomics have a some complaints about the chants at Citi Field last night, and it's not the one you'd expect to hear from a middle aged guy who took his family to a game:

A pattern quickly emerged. The many Yankees fans regularly broke into their thunderous cheer: “Let’s go Yankees!” (clap-clap-clap-clap … clap-clap). If you are a Yankees fan (we are; but we do not hate the Mets), this was a sign of what might be called prideful hubris, or maybe hubristic pride: we can come into your stadium and rock it very, very hard.

How’d the Mets fans respond? Succinctly. In the space where the Yankees fans did their rhythmic clapping, Mets fans shouted “Yankees suck!”

>8

This pattern was repeated all night. What surprised me is that neither side found a way to improve their effort.

The problem with chanting is that it is, by definition, the lowest common denominator. The more clever or unique the fewer people are going to jump on board with you. If the chant isn't immediately recognizable, it won't spread. Conversely, when someone starts up with "Let's go Yank-ees" invariably, at least a few people will tag along.

As for "Yank-ees Suck!", is it my imagination, or did that only used to be the domain of Red Sox fans? I've heard the chant break out at concerts in the Boston area or pretty much any other public setting where more than 50 drunk people are gathered together. Now the de facto anti-Yankees chant throughout basically every place the Bombers have visited this year.

Regardless of the hollow inanity of "Let's Go Yank-ees" or the falsehood of "Yank-ees Suck" I'm afraid they are here to stay. Aside from "Hip-Hip-Jorge" and other player-centric chants, this is what stadium cheering has been dumbed down to.

Miscellaneous Friday Linkaround

I've got a lot of browser windows open but don't have a specific post in mind. As a result, here is a collection of some of the better stuff to come across my Google Reader over the past day or so. This should get you through the afternoon.

Jeff Pearlman, weighing in on the Artie Lange-Joe Buck brouhaha:

That’s what the Lange-Buck collision fascinated me. It was the coming together of two disparate beings—one who sees bullshit in everything and takes joy in exposing it; the other who sees poetry in everything and takes joy in elongating it.

Men like Buck fancy themselves as oral symphonies. Men like Lange fancy themselves as oral rot. Men like Buck take their worlds very seriously. Men like Lange do not. Mike like Buck view humor through a very, very, very narrow prism—self-depreciation, but only to a very slight degree. Mike like Lange view humor without boundaries.

I think he nailed exactly why it was so captivating: You couldnt get two more polar opposites that the uptight holier than thou demeanor of Buck and the irreverant assclownery of Lange. I'd like to think we bring a little of both to the table.

-----

Can someone's defensive seasons really fluctuate this much? Or is it just an indication that the metrics are still extremely flawed? Neyer has some thoughts as well.

-----

Joel Sherman, on A-Rod and Phil Mickelson:

Someone enlighten me why the New York fans love Phil Mickelson, the Alex Rodriguez of golf, but don't like Alex Rodriguez, the Alex Rodriguez of baseball.

I'd love to. If Phil Mickelson played for a theoretcal New York golf franchise called the Longballs or something, people would hate him. It's easy to root for the underdog when the U.S. Open only comes around once in a while. New York fans have no ownership of Mickelson's failures. When he blows it on the final hole at Winged Foot and refers to himself as "an idiot", we can laugh as the lovable loser. When A-Rod strikes out to end the game, it offends the fans ina much more personal way, because his failures are projected directly on them.

-----

Remember Len Berman?

-----

Drew Magary's column in Penthouse regarding badassery (URL obviously NSFW, but the page isn't graphic):

There’s no official definition of badass in the Oxford English Dictionary. This is a pity, as badass is one of those universal ways of categorizing the American male species. Everyone employs the term, and its meaning is more or less collectively agreed upon. Like douche bag or asshole, the word badass instantly evokes a recognizable male archetype, one that is impervious to rocket-propelled grenades and enjoys banging waitresses while skydiving.

>8

Do they live up to every romanticized notion of what we think a dude should be? No, they don’t. Think about it. Would a badass ever sit at a desk? No. Badasses do not sit at desks. Badasses get up and do shit. Would a badass ever use a BlackBerry, typing away at those tiny fucking keys like a dipshit princess? No. A badass might use a regular cellphone, if only for angrily shouting instructions to people (“Dammit! There isn’t fucking time! The Russians have the package!”). But never a BlackBerry, that’s for sure.

The column reads a lot like his better Balls Deep columns from Deadspin, except he doesn't try to bring it back to sports. I'm sure some people like Drew for all the creative swearing and dick jokes, but even after to you peel all that back, he's always making connections and genuinely insightful observations on human nature.

-----

If you can't guess who these two pitchers by the end of the second paragraph, God help you...

-----

Tom Brady flipped his kayak in the Chaaahles and and had to be rescued by a woman.

When they got near the couple, they realized Brady was not in his kayak, but in the water. Leeds helped pull Brady into a motor boat.

"I actually asked him why he fell in," she said. "He said he was racing one of his friends. It was Tom, Giselle and his friend...so he was racing his friend."

Leeds asked him if she could take a picture with him. She said Tom said, "Of course, you saved my life. ... I talked with Giselle. We talked about how beautiful the weather it was," Leeds said.

And by "motor boat", I'm assuming that Tom Brady shoved his face in between her breasts when he was being rescued. And that Gisele... how deep! "Hey I just saved your husband from drowning...". "Yeah, it's beautiful out, isn't it?"

OPS w/RISP

Over at Circling the Bases, Matthew Pouliot's stat of the day yesterday was team's OPS with runners in scoring position. Overall, the Yankees ranked 18th, but in realtion to the total OPS, they had the third largest lag in the league with .53, behind only the Diamondbacks and the Nationals (those numbers have obviously changed as of today).

I think as fans, we have all at a certain point been frustrated with the Yankees' recent inabilty to get "clutch" hits and drive runners home, so I decided to try and get some historical perspective on this. 

Using Baseball-Reference, I took it all the way back to 1989 and charted the team's OPS, OPS w/runners in scoring position and winning percentage.

Here are a few things that jumped out:

• Between 1989 and 2007, there were only three years in which the team's OPS w/RISP was lower than the team's overall OPS. However, that was the case last year and is so far this season as well. Is this more than a small sample size fluke? Is it a trend developing? 
  
  
• Total OPS has a fairly strong correlation to winning percentage, with the expection of this year. 
  
  
• Take a look at the increase in total OPS from 89-94. Sure, the team was getting better winning percentage-wise, but can you think of another thing that was starting to happen throughout baseball at that time?  
  
  
• Interestingly, the 2009 Yanks have almost the exact same OPS as the 1998 team (.817 to .818), however in '98 that number with runners in scoring position was .860 compared with .793 this year.
  
  
• That .860 figure is not the highest on the list. That would be the .862 belonging to the 2002 Yankees, who scored almost 100 fewer runs that the '99 team due to a lower total OPS. 

Any other observations?