Tuesday Afternoon Linkstavaganza

Happy 139th Birthday, Major League Baseball. You don't look at day over 125.

Via the WSJ, it seems that Derek Jeter has a pretty small strike zone in relation to his height when compared to a few other Yankees and Mets. The zones are based on just one year of data and without looking at a wide cross section of the league we can't tell where they fit in, exactly, but it's interesting anecdotally.

Today, Mark Teixeira donated $100,000 to Harlem RBI. Much of the money will be used to provide tuition assistance, SAT prep and counseling for kids who want to go to college. He said:

I started talking to them during spring training and I was blown away. One thing I'm passionate about is education and this is allowing kids to get an opportunity to go to college and use every tool at their disposal.

Carlos Beltran has also donated $255,000 to the program since 2005.

Joe from River Ave. Blues examines Nick Johnson's quest to start hitting.

Guess what, Jason Gay... I'm not going to start rooting for Boston because "a Yankee championship means more when Boston is competitive". The Rays aren't going anywhere so the sooner the Sox are dead and buried, the better. And while you claim to have come up with "Schillingfreude", but we've been celebrating Papenfreude and Soxenfreude for a long time around these parts. You've been placed on notice, sir.

However, I will acknowledge that Dave Roberts is suffering from lymphoma and wish him a full and speedy recovery. In his honor, Joe Posnanski put together the 10 most famous steals of all time.

In addition to catching up with their top 30 preseason prospects, Pending Pinstripes highlights some of the better offensive performances throughout the system in April.

John Sterling's home run call for Randy Winn is a loser.

If you scroll down to #5 here, you'll see that the Yankees were not the first team to use Kate Smith for inspiration. But at least she was still alive when the Fliers did it.

Speaking of Philly, while the baseball blogosphere was briefly titillated and entertained by the dude who got tased at Citizen's Bank Park last night, Tim Marchman puts the use of that kind of force into proper perspective. Craig Calcaterra agrees.

Larry from Wezen-ball's Tater Trot Tracker was featured in USA Today, just a mere step along his path to world domination.

In case you've had your head in the sand for the past 24 hours, the Yankees are skipping Javier Vazquez's turn in the rotation in Boston. It seems like a good move to give the guy some time to collect himself and save him from the hostile environment of fackin' Fenway Paaahhk. If that doesn't cure what ails him, I don't know what will.

Tom Verducci pines for "the crack of the bat". That was almost an awesome pun but I don't know of any bats made of evergreen wood.

Think the NBA Playoffs are less random than the MLB's? Tango says think again.

Also over at The Book Blog, Tango tries to clear up some misconceptions about Win Probability Added and Win Expectancy. David Pinto points out a flaw in the kind of WPA charts we use in that they all start at with 50/50 odds despite the fact that one team usually has a better chance of winning. Sure, but that opens up a Pandora's Box of other variables that could be taken into account on a batter-by-batter basis.

Rob Neyer answers some questions from his mailbag and while debunking the idea that a certain rule that was was said created for Jackie Robinson, talks about how much intuitive sense the regulations of the game make. If only the original statistics were as logical.

Here's a nice piece about the 12 year old girl who threw back-to-back no-hitters in Little League and was taught how to throw a knuckleball by Joe Neikro. We linked to the story about the no-no's when they happened but this is a more complete profile of Chelsea Baker.

Blue Jays fan Navin Vaswami - he of the "baseball road trip of a lifetime" - stops in Philly and admits that Roy Halladay is probably in a better place now.

Theo Epstein had some strong words for the play of the Red Sox thus far, calling it"unintelligent, undisciplined, uninspired" and threatening changes if it doesn't turn around. That's pretty much like the principal coming into the class room and telling the kids that the all have detention if they don't shape up. It probably won't happen, but it might get them to sit up straight.

Dustin Pedroia: Motivational speaker (via BBTF).

Oh you thought you know how much of a slimeball Redskins owner Daniel Snyder was based on how he runs the Redskins? Look at what he did to Six Flags.

"First Basemens"? Yeah that's Nada Word.

Back with the preview at the usual time (5:00).

Another Point Of View On Damon

Good morning Fackers. While the great left field/Johnny Damon debate rages on, it's a far cry from last year at this time when the pilot light had all but burned out on the Hot Stove. After a gluttonous pre-Christmas spending spree that saw the Yankees land CC Sabathia, A.J. Burnett, and Mark Teixeira, we were all fat and happy. There was some talk about whether Nick Swisher or Xavier Nady would be the right fielder, or whether Melky Cabrera or Brett Gardner would be the center fielder, but for the most part we were sitting around waiting for Spring Training to start.

The biggest topic of conversation at this time last year centered not around the team for the upcoming season, or even the previous season, but upon the manager that had departed the team more than a year prior. As news of Joe Torre's and Tom Verducci's The Yankee Years began making the rounds, much of the chatter centered on the dirt Torre dished on his twelve years as the Yankee manager. Inside stories that had previously not been discussed much, if at all, garnered newfound media attention. One such story was about Johnny Damon, and I was reminded of it yesterday.

In the morning, Bob Klapisch of The Record had a story suggesting that Damon might just retire if he doesn't receive a suitable contract offer. Klapisch cited "a friend of Damon" who said "Johnny is in complete family mode right now", implying that retirement is a real possibility. The Klapisch story inspired a score of other blog postings on the topic, and was later refuted by Dave O'Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, who tweeted that a friend of Damon (presumably a different friend than the one Klapisch consulted) stated that Damon is not considering retirement.

I'm inclined to believe O'Brien's friend of Johnny, and think that whatever friend Klapisch spoke to (Jon Heyman maybe?) is just trying to apply what little leverage Scott Boras and Damon have left after grossly overestimating the market for his services. But if there is some validity to Klapisch's speculation it wouldn't be the first time Damon has considered retirement. And if we take The Yankees Years at face value, the results weren't very pretty the first time.

During the 2006-7 off-season, Damon allegedly did not work out at all. As he may be now, he was very much "in family mode", and reported to camp out of shape and somewhat disinterested in baseball. Early in camp he approached Brian Cashman and Torre, stating he was contemplating retirement. He left camp for a few days to ponder his future, but eventually returned. But his late start hampered him. It took him some time to round himself into shape, leading to nagging injuries and poor performance throughout the early part of the season.

Torre further speculated that Damon still wasn't completely committed to playing baseball, and The Yankee Years suggests that a disinterested Damon lost much of his characteristic enthusiasm in the clubhouse and on the field. It further states that Damon's performance and attitude drew the ire of several teammates, notably the "old guard", including one unnamed teammate who approached Torre "near tears" suggesting that Damon had to go for the good of the team.

I'm not suggesting that all of that is the gospel truth, but in general terms, I'm willing to believe it's mostly correct. Verducci has direct quotes from Damon about the situation at that time, and nothing in his statements denies out and out that this was an issue. Damon's current contract situation, or lack thereof, makes it something of a different kettle of fish this time around. But there is some precedent for an uncommitted Damon reporting to camp, and if The Yankee Years is to be believed, I don't think that's an experience the organization wants to relive.

Another thing to consider are comments made by Brian Cashman early in the off-season. Speaking in general terms about free agents, Cashman speculated that not only do players not want to take pay cuts, but that they're less likely to take them from their previous team. It's an easily understandable theory, and if correct, I imagine the potential is greater for such a player to be a malcontent when returning to his previous team than it is when joining a new team. Buster Olney speculated that such a thought process might have played a role in the Yankees' December negotiations with Damon.

None of this is meant to disparage Johnny Damon. I'm of the opinion that he would be helpful to the 2010 Yankees, and if Jerry Hairston's comments to Jim Bowden on XM last night are to be believed, the Yankees are still in on him. However, virtually all of the discussion regarding Damon and the Yankees has revolved around salary - and salary is likely the biggest issue on the table. But, if the recent past is any indication, when it comes to Damon there may be more issues to consider other than if there's enough loose change in the couch cushions to pay his salary.

Best Of Luck Peter Gammons

As we mentioned very briefly yesterday, Peter Gammons has announced that after more than twenty years he's leaving ESPN at the conclusion of the Winter Meetings. Shortly after the initial announcement, the predictable news broke that Gammons will be joining both MLBN and NESN.

First off, I have great respect and admiration for Peter Gammons. Many Yankee fans loathe the man for what they perceive to be blatant pro-Red Sox bias. Frankly, I don't see it. I find it akin to the anti-Yankee bias many find with Joe Buck or other on the national stage. Are we that accustomed to John Sterling, Suzyn Waldman, and Michael Kay blowing sunshine up our ass that we can't stomach anything that's not definitively pro-Yankee?

Regardless, this isn't about other baseball journalists. I find Peter Gammons to be exceedingly genuine, and I think he's one of the best, if not the best ambassador the game has. Yes, I do find him to be somewhat Red Sox centric, but I don't consider it a bias, and I don't think it negatively impacts his work. Part of what appeals to me about Peter Gammons as a baseball analyst is that I find him to be genuine. That he's a fan of the game and someone who truly cares about baseball at large is evident in his work. Much of that is because in many ways Peter Gammons is still the kid he was growing up in Massachusetts as a big Red Sox fan. Even as a national baseball journalist, that's still part of who he is. And I wouldn't have it any other way. I'll take Gammons' slight bias as part of his character anyday - far better than the wooden delivery of Ken Rosenthal, the smarmy-ness of Jon Heyman, or even the smooth professionalism of guys like Tom Verducci and Buster Olney, who I actually like. Gammons is a fan who was fortunate enough to become one of the top journalists in the game. Isn't that what so many fans dream of doing?

Whatever your feelings on Gammons, this is a huge gain for MLBN. Let's face it, ESPN is becoming an absolute joke. It's about who's "now" or "next", or having an LA studio so Snoop or the Jonas Brothers can narrate the Top Ten each night. With Gammons gone now, Olney is the only baseball TV personality there I repsect. Most baseball fans have spent the past year raving about how good MLBN is, especially in comparison to ESPN and Baseball Tonight. This only further solidifies that position. ESPN is shifting more and more towards entertainment; MLBN is legitimate baseball analysis.

Yes MLBN has an advantage as a single sport network, and yes MLBN is not without their share of on-air morons, but I'll take MLBN over BBTN any day. In grabbing the likes of Costas, Verducci, even Rosenthal, and now Gammons, MLBN is truly making a mark for themselves.

Best of luck to Peter Gammons in his new endeavors. I certainly look forward to seeing him as part of the MLBN.

Partial Postseason Prognostication

With only a week remaining in the MLB regular season and only two races still undecided - the AL Central and NL Wild Card - we're seeing more and more articles seeking historical trends that predict postseason success. Last week, we linked to Lisa Swan's article about strong Septembers and Flip Flop Fly Ball's chart displaying the correlation (or lack thereof) between the having the best record during the regular season and winning the World Series.

Well late last week and over the weekend a few more of these pieces popped up and here are three of them (all via BBTF):

Similar to the chart at FFFB, Tom Verducci sorted the last 9 World Series winners by their regular season record and found an almost perfectly even distribution of League Championship pennants and World Series Victories. One championship came from each of the top 7 seeds and two came from teams seeded 8 or higher, such as the 2006 Cardinals who had the 13th best record in the league that year but still won the WS.

It's a pretty rough measure for a couple of reasons. The first, which Verducci points out himself, is that the teams don't play balanced schedules so teams get as much credit for the record in the NL Central as they do in the AL East, and so forth. Secondly, in 2006 for instance, four of the best 5 records came out of the American League. As a result there was an artificially higher chance of a low seed winning a pennant and a World Series (which happened with the Cardinals) since three of them were on one side of the bracket.

----

Next up, Dave Cameron wrote a piece for Wall Street Journal's website which showed that over the last 7 years, the teams that won the World Series have had a relatively small amount of meaningless games leading up to the postseason.

Dave quantifies "meaningless" games as ones that were played after their team has locked up a postseason berth either by winning their division or securing the Wild Card, but doesn't count ones that factor in the race for homefield advantage or are played against potential postseason opponents. Those certainly are played with a higher level of effort and urgency that the ones the Yankees are about to play against the Royals, one would assume. As Rob Neyer points out, 7 years is also a pretty small sample size.

----

Lastly, we have a piece by Lincoln Mitchell in The Faster Times which would seem to fly directly in the face of the half-baked theory proposed by Jeff Pearlman that we took issue with last week. Mitchell attempts to identify the team with the best two starters each year and concludes that since 1995, that club has won the World Series only twice.

There are problems with this methodology as well. ERA+ is not a bad measure but it certainly is not conclusive in determining the team with the best two starters when the postseason rolled around. Furthermore, if we wanted to do more of a complete assessment, we would rank each team's top two pitchers, or better yet give them a score on a scale of, say, 1-10 which would more accurately display the difference between each duo. In some years the top two hurlers for the best team might get a "9" and the next best team only receives a 6, but a straight ranking wouldn't convey that. Once the scores were determined then we could look at the results and see how they correlated with postseason success. Then we might have a better picture of how having two dominant starters predicts playoff series victories.

----

Do you notice a theme developing here? These methodologies are all pretty incomplete. A huge part of the problem is that baseball is littered with variables, there is no control group and you can't just create situations and run them over and over. Of course it's much easier to point out the deficiencies of these findings than take the time to complete the analysis.

All of these writers are admittedly taking a "quick and dirty" type of approach to their analysis and that's completely understandable. At one point, I started a post that was similar to Lisa Swan's about finishing the regular season on a high note (but I wanted to look over the last 10, 15 and 20 games as opposed to the final month) but as soon as I figured out how many tedious calculations I was going to have to do and how much time it would take me to do even a couple years worth of analysis, I scrapped it.

Another factor that makes it difficult to go more in-depth is that, ideally, you want to have a point when you are done with your research. These pieces were written for online outlets where time is always of the essence. You don't want to spend a bunch of time and at the end of the post have to say, "Through all of this research I determined that there is no noticeable correlation in the data."

And this brings me back to a piece that we looked at back at the end of August by Jay Jaffe of Baseball Prospectus. Jaffe brought up the research conducted by Nate Silver and Dayn Perry that lead to the creation of BP's Secret Sauce and applied it to this year's playoff picture. The difference here is that the Silver and Perry went into their research testing all sorts of variables and determined that strong defense, a pitching staff with a high K/9 and strong closer all had high correlation to postseason success. The Secret Sauce is the closest thing we have to a scientific study of what teams are "built for the playoffs" and it's still fairly incomplete.

In all likelihood the Yankees will take the long ALDS, so we still have over nine days before the first postseason pitch is thrown. We're to see more attempts at unlocking the postseason code and they'll probably be pretty interesting. But I highly doubt any of them are going to take the time to shift our thinking with a truly in-depth study of what October baseball really comes down to. Let's just try to enjoy the fact that the Yanks can coast home, throw out their B and C line ups and take things as they come.