Thrifty Red Sox Finally Land Another Third Baseman

In what can only be described as another brilliant bargain basement signing, the always-frugal Boston Red Sox signed Adrian Beltre to a one year, $9M contract with a $5M player option for 2011. The deal, which also includes a $1M buyout, comfortably lifts the scrappy small town underdogs over the luxury tax threshold.

Beltre apparently came down a bit from his initial contract demands of 5 years and $65M which was analogous to me applying for a job and asking for the corner office, a secretary and a wet bar. He settled for a temp job in a cubicle with easy access to the water cooler. However, what the deal sacrifices in luxury, it attempts to make up for in flexibility. It offers Beltre the chance to redeem himself coming off a miserable year in which he hit .265/.304/.379 and played in only 111 games, missing significant time due to a... um... well... how do I say this... an injury.

The Sox are banking on last year being an anomaly and Beltre's defensive abilities being all they are cracked up to be, which is to say pretty damn impressive. His average UZR/150 over the last 4 years has been 12.3, which makes up for the fact that his on-base percentage over that same time period has been .321.

While Beltre supposedly turned down longer deals worth more money from other teams let's wait and see how it turns out before declaring it a "steal" or anything of the sort like I sarcastically did in the first paragraph. Fire Brand of the American League lists his home/road splits over the last three years to show that his production was suppressed by playing in Seattle:

2007: (H) .264/.319/.426 (R) .288/.320/.538
2008: (H) .230/.303/.400 (R) .292/.349/.512
2009: (H) .250/.283/.364 (R) .279/.324/.393

But do you notice another trend? His slugging percentage has been declining over the past three years regardless of where he was hitting.

Oh, and there's also the small consideration of Mike Lowell's contract which the Sox will either have to eat or exchange him for a player equally as useless/overpaid. They could hold on to him but given that both he and Beltre are right handed, there's no platoon option. I suppose he could be a fall back DH if Ortiz struggles again, but that's a waste of a roster spot.

The signing of Beltre certainly makes the Sox better next year, but how many teams can afford to replace a player that was making $12M this coming season (and who should be able to play come opening day) with a guy who is making $9M?

The spendthrift ways of last season have been jettisoned in favor of big budget acquisitions in Boston this year. Apparently the items on the sale rack weren't all they were cracked up to be.

Happy Trails, Shelley Duncan

(Forearm bash to The Sports Hernia for the picture)

Shelley Duncan elected to become a free agent a while back and he signed a deal with the Indians yesterday, according to Chad Jennings. Jennings also wrote a great feature on him over the summer when he was still working for the Scranton Times-Tribune that you should check out. This is our send-off post to a guy who might have been over-appreciated by Yankee fans, but deserved it.

Shelley Duncan waited a long time to make his Major League debut. Six years and three days after being signed, to be exact. We wasn't much of a prospect of that point, but his big, looping swing produced some huge home runs (and some embarrassing strikeouts) for the big league club and his infectious enthusiasm endeared him to any Yankee fan who was paying attention.

Duncan came up on July 20th, 2007 and did his best Shane Spencer impression, emerging from the AAA and surprising people with bombs into the left field seats. He hit 5 HRs in his first 8 games as a Yankee. Those included two blasts in a 21-4 blowout of the Devil Rays and a pinch hit shot in a 16-3 victory over the White Sox in which seven Yankees went yard but A-Rod, who was stuck on #499, did not. It's not that he put the Yankees on his back by any stretch of the imagination. He just happened to be there when things started going right.

The Bombers were sitting at 49-46 when Duncan made his debut and they promptly began a six game winning streak one game later. Although none of his 5 home runs were game-changing and the league caught up to him after his hot start, he served as a sort of mascot for the revitalization of the Yankees that summer on their way to a Wild Card berth. He showed up at the right time, forearm bashing his way through the dugout with reckless abandon.

Maybe that's why Shelly Duncan attained such a cult following among Yankees fans. Because there isn't any other rational explanation why a fanbase would adore a guy who is pretty much the definition of replacement level.

It's not as unusual for a high school draft pick to spend six years in the minors, but if a college player is going to make it to the Majors, it usually occurs faster than that. Duncan might be the definition of the fabled "AAAA player" - a guy who can mash International League pitching but struggles as MLB learn his tendencies. He might be the perfect example of Yankees fans overrating their prospects. But if you were watching that team in 2007, he surely left an impression on you, and that's not an easy thing for an unheralded minor leaguer to do while wearing pinstripes.

As Jennings explained last night, the only two left fielders on the Indians' depth chart above Duncan have combined for 34 home runs in their minor league careers while Duncan hit 3o last year alone. Progressive Jacobs Field seems like it would be a good home park for Shelley as well, with a tall (19') but fairly close (325'-375') left field wall that might find itself in front of a few of his high fly balls.

Even with the semi-vacancy in left field the Yankees have at the moment, he still wasn't going factor into the equation, despite winning the International League MVP last season. Hopefully he'll get the shot he's earned with the Tribe.

The Indians visit the Bronx for a four game set starting May 28th. Hope to see you there, Shelley.

What About Paginski?

Here's an interesting thought experiment from the Orioles Blog Camden Crazies (via BBTF):

This idea came up when discussing the possibility of the Yankees signing Matt Holliday on Twitter:

Doesn’t make sense for NY to spend that money on him now. The could put me in LF and still maybe make the playoffs.

Which begs the question, just how many wins could I cost a team if I played a full season? Any guesses, before I try to figure it out?

Seems easy enough to figure out. Same procedure would be used as when evaluating any other player. Take a guess, and then let’s work it out.

First off, the stipulation was that I would get 600 plate appearances in left-field, but I think it’s the case that if I had to play in the field all the time I wouldn’t actually make it to 600 PA. So instead, I’ll go easy on myself and just DH for the season.

The author, Daniel Moroz, is very conservative in projecting his offensive contributions, giving himself a .050/.100/.050 line for the season. Much of that comes from the assumption that if you just kept your bat on your shoulder, you'd work the occasional walk.

Click through to find out just how many runs and wins below replacement a .150 OPS is and to see whether or not the Yankees could hypothetically make the playoffs with him at DH.

It also reminds me of the following classic New York State Lottery commercial:



"Paginski" in the commercial was only batting .027 and he was also costing him team lots of runs with his awful defense at third base, meaning the Designated (Anti-)Hitter Moroz probably isn't the worst player in imaginary baseball history.

The moral of the story is that even the worst major leaguers are several orders of magnitude better than the average person watching from the stands or their couch at home. Although Joe Schmo would probably walk more than Bengie Molina, Yuniesky Bentancourt or Jeff Francoeur.

Is Javier Vazquez Unclutch?

Throughout his career it has been intimated that Javier Vazquez has the stuff of an ace but the track record of a back of the rotation starter. He has excellent peripheral numbers (3.45 K/BB), a better than league average ERA (107 ERA+) and averages well over 200 innings per season. Above average performance and lots of innings should be a winning combination, but Vazquez has always seemed to underachieve when it comes to his won-lost record. His four postseason appearances haven't been pretty either.

Plenty of Yankee fans are worried that he doesn't have the make up to pitch in New York. Vazquez bombed in the second half of his only season with the Yankees and served up perhaps the most infamous home run in Yankee history. But all of that was more than 5 years ago and the latter was the result of one pitch. Ozzie Guillen ran him out of town in Chicago after calling him out for not being a big game pitcher, but Guillen was supposedly responsible for ousting Nick Swisher too and that worked out pretty well for the Yankees.

Does Javier Vazquez's performance get demonstrably worse under pressure, or has he been a victim of marginal teams and bad luck? Is his reputation as someone who shrinks as the expectations grow deserved, or is it the conflation of a few unrelated events?

As I attempt to take a deeper look into these questions, I'm going to go back to something Tom Tango said during his Q & A with Mike Silva last week. In the process of justifying FIP as a useful statistic, Tango pointed out that there is a strong correlation between the best pitchers in the league over a long period of time when ranked by FIP and ERA.

Those familiar with the two stats might take that for granted at this point, but it's fairly remarkable considering all the things that FIP totally disregards that factor into ERA: singles, doubles, triples, runs allowed, etc. What's more intriguing, he contends, is what the significant gaps between FIP and ERA over the long term can tell us:

Tom Glavine’s career FIP is about 0.50 runs worse than his career ERA. This signals that Glavine does something extra, either he can sequence his events better (leaves alot of runners on base for example), or he has better control on his balls in play. And Javy Vazquez’s ERA is about 0.30 runs worse than his FIP, which signals something different, that perhaps he gives up alot of doubles, or doesn’t sequence his events well, etc.

Overall, two-thirds of pitchers will have their FIP and ERA be within 0.20 runs of each other, and almost all will be within 0.40 runs of each other.

That’s the power of FIP: that it’s designed to tell you one specific thing, and it tells you a second, perhaps even more important, thing.

So what's that thing? That's the million dollar question.

One interesting fact is that Vazquez has been extremely consistent in under performing his FIP throughout his career. He's only had an ERA lower than his FIP twice in his 12 professional seasons and only then by the slimmest of margins.

Even in his career year with the Braves last season, his FIP was lower than his ERA (his low FIP was one of the reasons Keith Law included him on his Cy Young ballot). I think we can agree that this not just the result of random chance: there is something about the way that Vazquez pitches that causes him to have an FIP lower than his ERA.

So what is it about Vazquez's pitching that could be causing this? Let's look at the career FIP/ERA differentials for Vazquez, Glavine as well as Andy Pettitte:

Above, Tango says that almost all pitchers will have an FIP and ERA within .4 of each other, so keep in mind that we are looking at two outliers extreme outliers here in Vazquez and Glavine. This is the main reason I chose to include Pettitte, who is closer to the norm.

If you're a Yankee fan, I bet you're a little surprised that Pettitte's differential is closer to Vazquez's than Glavine's. Pettitte has the reputation of being able to bear down and pitch better when it matters and seems to induce a lot of double plays, both of which would lower his ERA but not FIP. But the numbers indicate that he's not as great at controlling his outcomes as many assume.

As Tango mentioned above, one thing that might inflate ERA independently of FIP is giving up a lot of doubles. (Numbers are normalized over 200 IP to account for different career lengths):

Vazquez and Pettitte give up more two-baggers than Glavine does, but four over the course of 200 innings doesn't seem like enough to account for a shift in 3/4 of a run in ERA. Furthermore, Vazquez and Pettitte give up doubles at a nearly identical rate, but the latter has an FIP significantly closer to his ERA. There's something else at work here.

The other possibility that is mentioned above is "sequencing". Maybe Vazquez gives up hits in a way that hurts him. For example, starting an inning with a walk before a double often results in a run scored and a man on second. Conversely, a double before a walk likely means men on first and second without a run scoring. Vazquez gives up his fair share of home runs as well, and they are obviously more harmful with men on base (something that doesn't show up in FIP but does in ERA).

A quick and dirty way of teasing this out of the data is to look at a pitcher's stats with men on base. The numbers below are shown in tOPS+, which compares a pitcher's performance in a given scenario to his performance in other situations. (A score of 100 means is a pitcher is average in that situation while anything lower means they were better and higher means they were worse)

One caveat: the bases loaded data is by far the smallest sample size of the bunch. Vazquez has faced 163 batters with the bases loaded while Glavine and Pettitte have 428 and 237, respectively. That said, there is a major difference between Vazquez and the other two (particularly Glavine) when it comes to their performance with men on base and especially with the bags packed. And those situations are the ones that separate FIP from ERA the most.

Now let's look at how each pitcher performed based on the score of the game, again using tOPS+:

The smallest sample size in this case is "> 4R", but even for Vazquez that includes 811 plate appearances. Pettitte has the most favorable distribution, pitching his best when the game is close and his worst when it is out of hand. Vazquez, however, is just about average in tight games but much better when the lead or deficit is greater than 4.

Now let's put the last two items together. Baseball-Reference's Leverage stats take into account the occupancy of the bases as well as the score of the game, as does FanGraphs Clutch stat:

This tells a slighty different story about Pettitte but affirms what's becoming a trend for Vazquez - he doesn't perform as well in high leverage situations as he does in lower ones.

Does WPA agree?

Yes. It appears that Vazquez has not given his team as good of a chance to win as either Pettitte over Glavine over the course of his career, but this is to be expected to a certain degree because WPA is tied more closely to ERA then FIP. In a sense, we already knew this.

=====

So what do we make of all this?

=====

It's tempting to use these stats to claim that Vazquez can't handle pitching in New York. His data seem to trend very uniformly (remarkably so) from good to poor as the leverage increases. However, why didn't he cripple under the weight of the New York media in the first half of 2004 when he had a 3.56 ERA in 118 2/3 IP and won 10 games?

To say that he can't handle New York not only gives too much weight to a small sample size but requires a jump that conflates the pressure of in-game situations to be analogous to the demands of pitching for one franchise or another. Does the weight of overall expectations have the same effect on performance that increases in in-game leverage do?

Well, maybe. As 'Duk from Big League Stew pointed out in September, Vazquez's best seasons in terms of ERA+ have come with teams that were out of contention and his worst years came with teams in playoff races:

Three of his top ERA+ years came in the anonymity of Montreal and one came for the 2007 White Sox, who went 72-90. This year's ERA+ of 139 equals his career-best with the 2003 Expos, but while the Braves stuck around as a potential contender for longer than expected, they didn't occupy striking distance space for long.

Meanwhile, Vazquez's worst ERA+ years — with the exception of his first two seasons — all came with contenders: the '04 Yankees, the '05 D'Backs and the '06 and '08 White Sox.

So what is he doing wrong? As we saw when trying to identify some differences between A.J. Burnett's good and bad starts last week, it's extremely difficult isolate any one underlying factor or find a specific reason that Vazquez's numbers go bad as the leverage of the game increases. Javy's K/BB ratio slips from 4.34 to 3.26 to 2.57 as the leverage rises from low to medium to high. His batting average, on-base and slugging percentages all ascend with the gravity of the situation as well.

Even if you grant that Vazquez gets worse under pressure and will pitch worse just by virtue of being a Yankee, he's still likely to be better than league average and throw more than 200 innings. It would be extremely difficult to do that and not add significant value to a team regardless of how his performance is distributed by leverage.

And of course, there's a big difference between "hasn't" and "can't". I'm willing to say that Vazquez certainly hasn't pitched well under pressure in his career, but not that he can't. He clearly had a great year in Atlanta and some of that has been attributed to an improved change up, giving him a second pitch to miss bats with in addition to his curveball. FanGraphs shows that his curveball was what stood out last year, but his change up looked to be improved as well.

It's certainly not impossible that Javy has a good year and surprises his doubters (and even some of his supporters). Vazquez might be frustrating to watch at times in 2010, but the beauty of the situation is that our expectations for him shouldn't be that high to begin with. Not too many teams have the luxury of acquiring a very good pitcher and hoping that he's just average.

Cone Done Gone?

(Unflattering screengrab via The Sports Hernia)

Good morning Fackers. Over the weekend, Bob Klapisch of the Bergen Record passed along a rather pessimistic update concerning David Cone's tenure as an analyst for the YES Network:

It appears Cone’s short but brilliant run in the YES broadcast booth may be over. Sources say Cone is out after a heated disagreement with network executives.

A spokesman confirmed via e-mail: “David’s contract is up. We’d love to have him back, but he’s in the process of evaluating his various options. … He may not be back based on what he decides.”

Cone’s skill and confidence grew appreciably in the past year. Like former-Met teammate Ron Darling, he had a graceful way of explaining baseball to casual fans, but also was immersed in cutting edge sabermetrics.

Michael Kay said, “I’d come into the booth five hours before a game and Coney would already be there, buried in the computer, looking up stats.”

Kay then added, "Ha. Stats..."

Of course, this isn't the first time a disagreement between Cone and the Yankees has prevented him from doing broadcasting work. He was a part of the YES Network when it first launched in 2002. However, when he attempted a comeback with the 2003 Mets instead of the Yanks, George Steinbrenner told him that he would not be welcome back with the organization. (Cone's 2003 lasted all of 18 innings and included 13 ER, so The Boss probably should have thanked him). Eventually a truce was reached and Cone replaced Joe Girardi when he made the jump from the press box to the dugout.

When Cone first reappeared on air back in 2008, I didn't really like his work. He doesn't have a great broadcasting voice and anytime there is a new person in the booth, it takes some time to appreciate their insights. However, I wholeheartedly agree with Klapisch's assertion that Cone was better this year.

Cone both cited advanced statistics and let his personality shine though in 2009. He frequently referenced FanGraphs.com (which most certainly endeared him to statistically-minded Yankees fans), spoke of his secondary education (which supposedly took place at an Irish Bar on the Lower East Side) and gave out his phone number on air.

If Cone does leave YES, odds are he'll end up at the MLB Network or ESPN. However, the most likely position for him there would be a studio analyst. If Cone wants to be in the booth, YES might still be his best option. For those who have come to appreciate the presence of the former hurler during Yanks games (including Matt and myself), there's still some hope that he could return for 2010. From what he's said on-air, it's clear that he loves New York and in talking to other fans, it seems like New York would love to have him back. Let's hope it all works out.

Happy Yankee Day!

(Picture via)

Over at the Replacement Level Yankees Weblog, Sean McNally continues a tradition he started over at Baseball Think Factory: declaring January 3rd "Yankee Day":

Why? Simple, the two most significant events in the history of the franchise are credited to have occurred that day. In 1973, George Steinbrenner paid CBS $10 million for the Yankees. Adjusted for inflation that’s roughly 2.1 million dollars* in 2008 funds. Just absurd.

Going back into history, Baseball Reference cites Jan. 3, 1920 as the day the transaction sending George Herman “Babe” Ruth to the Yankees was processed. I’ve since seen it elsewhere credited to dates in December, but since that doesn’t fit with my narrative, I choose to ignore it.

* I think he might have done the calculation backwards. If you go to the Government's CPI Inflation Calculator it gives the figure as $48.7M, which makes sense because $10M was worth more in 1973 than it is now.

The Yankees played their first game ever on April 26th, 1901 so I suppose that would be the franchise's birthday. I'm sure a few of their World Series victories have piled up on the same days in October, but it's unlikely that two more important (or at least symbolic) events share the same anniversary.

Curse or no curse, the acquisition of Babe Ruth changed the balance of power in the American League for years to come. In his 15 seasons with the Yankee, the team went to 7 World Series and won 4. He got on base in 48.4% of his plate appearances in Pinstripes and slugged 659 of his 714 career homers wearing them. Over that time, his OPS+ was 210. By comparison, A-Rod's best single season was 176. That tells you more about the offense production during the 20's and early 30's than it does about Ruth vs. Rodriguez, but the Babe was so far ahead of his peers that it's almost impossible than anyone will ever be better.

The Babe was probably the one thing most responsible for turning the Yankees into the preeminent franchise in all of sports initally, but it was the Boss who did the most to bring the Bombers back to glory.

Consider that Bud Selig had bought the Seattle Pilots - an ostensibly broke team on the fringes of the Major Leagues - just three years prior to George Steinbrenner's acquisition of the Yanks for $800,000 more. Selig wanted a team that he could move to Milwaukee, so it's not like he was in danger of buying the Yankees, but it goes to show that $10M was an incredible steal, even back then. While the Yankees have won both because and in spite of Steinbrenner and he certainly had his flaws as a person, it's hard to imagine the Yanks under the control of someone with a stronger desire to win than The Boss.

Almost everywhere else around the MLB and other professional sports leagues, owners are content to run their teams as if they were a business, considering profitability to be their number one concern. Even as the Boss has faded into the background, the organization has continued to put the emphasis on assembling the best team possible, even if it means spending hundreds of millions of dollars on blue chip free agents.

With a brand New Stadium and another World Series trophy, the Yankees aren't short on cash. But there are plenty of other teams who would have rested on their laurels this offseason instead of making aggressive trades and finding undervalued free agents with lots of upside. Although The Boss is no longer making the decisions, we have him to thank for the borderline irrational desire to win that makes the Yankees who they are today.

Happy Yankee Day, indeed!

Yankees Top Twenty Prospects

New Year's is a time to look ahead at what the next 365 days will hold. To that end, John Sickels released his Top Twenty Yankee Prospects list on New Year's Eve. I don't necessarily agree with all of it, but Sickels is pretty sharp when it comes to all of this, and different people value prospects in different ways.

Here's the list:

1. Jesus Montero
2. Austin Romine
3. Manny Banuelos
4. Zach McAllister
5. Slade Heathcott
6. Marc Melancon
7. Gary Sanchez
8. JR Murphy
9. Kevin De Leon
10. D.J. Mitchell
11. Wilkins De La Rosa
12. David Adams
13. Corban Joseph
14. Adam Warren
15. Neil Medchill
16. David Phelps
17. Andrew Brackman
18. Jose Ramirez
19. Jeremy Bleich
20. Bryan Mitchell

Not ranked, but receiving honorable mention, was Brandon Laird. Laird made other news last week, as he, his brother Gerald, and a third individual were all arrested following a fight at a Phoenix Suns game. Perhaps Laird will spend 2010 with Rick Vaughn playing in the Penal League.

College Football Friday: Bowl Game Edition

After a week plus of relatively mediocre bowl games, we're entering the homestretch for college football season. By this time next week the mythical National Champion will be crowned. The big time bowl games start in earnest today, with a day long slate of worthwhile match-ups to help you while your hangover away.

Outback Bowl: Northwestern vs. Auburn, 11 AM ESPN - Northwestern had a nice season for themselves at 8-4, but the Big Ten hasn't fared too well against the SEC in recent years. Either way, both these teams are probably better than the Sunday tenant of Raymond James Stadium.

Capital One Bowl: #12 LSU vs. #13 Penn State, 1 PM ABC - Probably the best non-BCS game remaining on the bowl slate. Joe Paterno ushers in his 86th New Year's Day on the face of the planet by taking on a very tough LSU team. And, just in case you're interested, Erin Andrews will be covering this game.

Gator Bowl: Florida State vs. #16 West Virginia, 1 PM CBS - Speaking of ancient football coaches, this will be the final game for FSU head coach Bobby Bowden. It's a shame that the legendary coach is being forced out in this way, but his time has clearly passed him by. As a consolation prize, FSU vaulted over more deserving teams (Clemson, BC, Miami, UNC), and received the Gator Bowl nod. Hopefully it'll be a nice send off for Bowden, as he gets to coach his final game in Florida and against the school where he spent ten years prior to getting the FSU job.

Rose Bowl: #8 Ohio State vs. #7 Oregon, 4:30 PM ABC - The Granddaddy of Them All. This one just isn't the same without Keith Jackson calling it. The Buckeye seniors have not won a bowl game in their collegiate careers. This is their final chance, but they'll have to beat a very good Oregon team that managed to take the wild wacky PAC-10.

Sugar Bowl: #3 Cincinnati vs. #5 Florida, 8:30 PM FOX - Does anyone want to coach this game? Cincy head coach Brian Kelly left to take the Notre Dame job last month. The Bearcats will be led by offensive coordinator Jeff Quinn, but this will be his last game on the Cincy sideline as he will be Buffalo's head coach next year. On the other sideline Urban Meyer resigned last Saturday, then un-resigned Sunday saying he would take a leave of absence instead - except no one knows how long that will last. In the interim, offensive coordinator Steve Addazio will lead the program. Addazio's last head coaching experience came more than 15 years ago at the Connecticut high school that Brad Ausmus and Brian Leetch once attended. Addazio got the nod by default, as Florida defensive coordinator Charlie Strong will depart to take the head coaching job at Louisville following the Sugar Bowl.

That aside, we get the treat of listening to Thom Brennaman call this one. As you may recall, Brennaman paid an inordinate amount of lip service to Tim Tebow during last year's BCS Championship Game. I can only imagine what he has in store for Tebow's final collegiate game.

Enjoy the games Fackers.

NHL Winter Classic

Good morning Fackers. And Happy New Year. Hope you're hangover isn't treating you too badly.

While the baseball news is dwindling down as we enter the dead period leading up to spring training, today is a day for laying on the couch and watching other sports. The NHL's third annual Winter Classic will take place at Fenway Park this afternoon as the Boston Bruins host the Philadelphia Flyers. The U.S. roster for next month's Winter Olympics will be announced before the game.

The Bruins goaltenders, Tim Thomas and Tuukka Rask, have had custom masks created for the classic. Yesterday, Puck Daddy linked to a picture of Rask's mask. In the event you're too comatose to click through today, the mask features a Bruin busting through Fenway's 406 Club, with remnants of a tattered Yankee jersey in its teeth. Didn't know that the Yankees played hockey, or that the Finnish Rask was such a hockey fan. Thomas is likely to start today, so it's unlikely the Rask Mask will see any action.

Puck Daddy also has an interesting look at how Fenway has been transformed into a hockey park for the Classic.

Puck drops at 1 PM on NBC. Be sure to give it a look; very cool to see an outdoor hockey game.

2009: A Retrospective

We have thus far steered clear of anything reflecting on the year or decade as 2009 has drawn to a close, but we finally cracked on December 31st. Perhaps it's out of some sort of preemptive nostalgia but from where we sit right now, 2009 seems like a pretty special year in a lot of respects. I think that we owe it at least one post.

Here's a look back at the year that was through the eyes of this blog:

When the year began, we were worried about Derek Jeter's poor 2008 but he rebounded in ways that no one was predicting.

We bid adieu to the Giambino.

We questioned the clutchiferousness of CC Sabathia, but he happily proved us wrong when it mattered most.

A-Rod was A-Fraud then A-Roid. He admitted some stuff, made some faces, and then admitted some more. He was injured and returned (with a bang). He copped a feel. He went from choke artist to clutchmaster. He and Kate Hudson came and went. An entire post could be written just about his year - and it already was.

Andy Pettitte returned and returned again.

The Yankees played pool.

The New Stadium opened to mixed reviews, but we eventually came to embrace it. Literally.

After a long offseason the Yankees got off to a slow start and some of the more fragile among the fan base lost their minds.

Nick Swisher pitched.

We saw the worst of it in person. Frustrations mounted but rock bottom wasn't that far down. Two games later they returned home, went on a 9 game winning streak and reclaimed first place in the AL East shortly only to give it back to the Sawx. It took a while, but the Yankees put them to bed too.

There were baked goods.

Damaso Marte went missing.

Melky hit for the cycle.

We were introduced to Slade Heathcott.

The Yanks kicked ass and took names in the second half of '09, going 51-22 after the All-Star Break. No team was safe from the fury.

Derek Jeter climbed "the Yankees' Mount Olympus".

The regular season was almost gone. And then it was.

The Twins tried. The Angels attempted. The Phillies failed too.

#27

We bid farewell to Hideki Matsui and said hello to Curtis Granderson.

Javier Vazquez and Nick Johnson brought things full circle.

On a personal note, 2009 was an eventful one for me as well:

Dave did not look at it. But Doris did.

We got "extremely" drunk in Boston and New Jersey.

We hit up the Big East Tournament and met some interesting friends.

I had some second thoughts and made some first impressions. I got fired and time turned elastic. I enjoyed myself. For a moment, I was a legend. Then I moved upstate.

Matt and I heard some joyful noise.

We lost some heros, innovators and great Yankees this year. We parted ways with a radio host, a singer and a beat writer (but those guys aren't dead). Gone are the likes of Melky Cabrera, Austin Jackson, Ian Kennedy, Hideki Matsui and most likely Johnny Damon. Here now are some old familiar faces and some we don't yet know very well.

The New Stadium isn't so new anymore and we aren't getting any younger ourselves, but there is plenty to look forward to in 2010.

Happy New Year.

'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.

Brian Bruney: Bearded Optimist

Few tears were shed among Yankee fans when Brian Bruney was flipped to the Nationals in December in exchange for the first pick in the Rule 5 draft, which eventually became Jamie Hoffman. It seems that the feeling is mutual. Despite being traded to a team that has lost 100 games two years in a row, Bruney told MLB.com's Bill Ladson that he's happy to be a National (via MLBTR):

MLB.com: What was your reaction when you found out that you were traded to the Nationals?

Brian Bruney: I feel good being a National. I think there is a better opportunity for me there. I'm going to enjoy helping a team that hasn't been a winning franchise. We are going to be the 25 guys that make it a winning franchise.

MLB.com: It sounds like you are excited to be a member of the Nationals. Why?

Bruney: It's a new journey. It's a new challenge. You have to continue to challenge yourself. It seems it's going to be a lot of fun. When you expect to win every night like we did in New York, I don't know if the winning is as fun as when nobody expects you to win. You are the underdogs every night and you prove people wrong. I think that is a lot more fun. That's the part I'm looking forward to --- being on a team where nobody expects us to do anything. Hopefully we'll put some wins together, get on a roll and play good baseball for six months. We'll see where it goes.

To be fair, Bruney's bit about the expectations of winning as it relates to being on the Yankees sounds pretty similar to something I wrote after the Vasquez trade, but let's see how much fun winning is when you only do it 60 or 70 times a year.

Bruney: I can finally grow some facial hair after four years. That's great. That was one of the first things I thought about. When I was traded, I said, "Wow, finally, I can grow a beard."

"Yeah, fuck winning World Series, I'm gonna grow a beard!" We kid Bruney because we love him. Actually, we don't. But the man is a renegade, and the fact that he is going to a terrible team is probably better for his career.

Later on in the interview he makes it clear that he wants to compete for the closer job with newly-acquired free agent Matt Capps. He clearly wouldn't never have been given the opportunity on the Yankees and if he can finagle his way into a set-up or closing job for the Nationals, it will help with his arbitration value and his price on the free agent market when he eventually gets there. He's shown some flashes of brilliance throughout his career, so maybe he could actually win the closer's role over Capps. And as Fernando Rodney proved last season, you don't need to be a good pitcher to save games.

Is Vazquez A One Year Rental?

Good morning Fackers. It's been a week now since the Javier Vazquez trade. Aside from the non-sensical talk of "he can't pitch in NY!!!11!1", "home run Javy", and the focus on the small role he played in a team wide failure that resulted in the greatest post-season collapse in baseball history, the post-trade talking point that I'm most tired of is the presumption that this is a one year pick-up.

Yes. Javier Vazquez is only signed through the 2010 season. Yes, Cliff Lee, Josh Beckett, Brandon Webb, and others are slated to hit the free agent market following the 2010 season. Heck, maybe the Mariners are willing to shop King Felix at that point, or the Royals Zack Greinke. But at this point there's no telling who will be shopped or who will sign an extension by this time next year.

What we do know is that by this time next year, Andy Pettitte will be 38, a free agent, and doing the will-he-or-won't-he retirement dance for the fifth consecutive off-seeason. CC Sabathia will have one year left before before he has the right to opt out of his contract, and A.J. Burnett will be nearly 34 years old and either coming off his third consecutive injury free season or facing health concerns for the umpteenth time in his career.

So why do we just assume that the Yankees are going to let Vazquez walk? Sure the draft picks would be nice, but so would a pitcher who could give you 200 above average innings each year. Maybe the club wouldn't want to commit even a three year deal to the then 34 year old Vazquez, especially considering that he'll have about 2,700 ML innings on his arm by then.

But presuming that 2010 is the last year of Andy Pettitte's career, allowing Vazquez to walk would leave the Yankees with two openings in their rotation. One would go to the loser of this coming spring's Joba/Hughes competition. The other? If the likes of Lee or Beckett fail to hit the market or land in the Bronx the next tier of free agent pitchers is no better than Vazquez, and the same is likely to hold true for any of the in-house options (McAllister, Nova, Bleich).

I'm not saying the Yankees should sign Vazquez at the conclusion of next season. But before we presume that this will be another one and done stint in the Bronx, I think should consider some of the pitching situations the Yankees may be facing at this time next year and let the 2010 season play out.