Who is to blame for the Dodgers' shrinking lead?

The Dodgers haven't continued toward a pace of winning 100 games on the year, and many are blaming the bullpen, but that might not be accruate.

Consider the following splits before and after the all-star game:
Casey Blake
1sthalf: .285/.364/.486
2ndhalf: .255/.333/.426

Russell Martin
1st half: .258/.373/.314
2nd half: .264/.328/.352

James Loney
1st half: .281/.350/.402
2nd half: .265/.342/.368

Manny Ramirez
1st half: .385/.487/.669
2nd half: .264/.365/.424

As for Manny, one thing is clear: the Dodgers should have signed Adam Dunn. Dunn is in his prime and can be reliably counted on for 40+ homers (and 150+ strikeouts). Dunn seemed to be a viable option when negotiations got funny this offseason. Now it could be that Manny is just not having fun playing baseball anymore. It could be that he hasn't been able to have sex in months because the banned substance was treating his sexual dysfunction well. It could be that he needs to take a whiz in left field and he doesn't have the Green Monster for that anymore. Or it could be that Manny is getting old, and while he's had his burst of glory earlier this season, the Dodgers might have signed a guy that can deliver a .850-.900 OPS for the year rather than a guy who delivers a 1.100 OPS. That's not bad, except that it makes him a monumental waste of money.

I admit to screwing this up, but I should have remembered that anyone can be hot for a couple months, but the players are still human, and humans become less athletic in their late 30s. Or Manny could have just hit a bad spot.

But even if not all Manny, let's take a look at the other three guys. Casey Blake has always been a first half guy, but he shouldn't be hitting high in the lineup. Orlando Hudson always starts strong offensively, and fizzles after about May or so. Furcal will either be awesome or suck. Martin isn't even walking anymore, and the Dodgers should think about where they're going to get another catcher if he doesn't have anything left. James Loney has the curious scenario of losing power every year he's been in the majors. September is always his best power month, but he'll have to do quite a lot to get back up to speed. And by up to speed, I mean make a case to be tendered a contract next year.

Matt Kemp and Andre Ethier right now are the Dodger offense. I'm glad we have them, but we need for Blake, Hudson, Furcal, Manny, Martin and Loney to hit the damned baseball too.

Manny being Banny-ed

"Did you know that you can fool the breathalizer test by chewing on activated charcoal tablets?"
"Well, maybe we should change our slogan to "If you must drink and drive, suck charcoal."
"Won't the police ask about the charcoal in your mouth?"
"There's not a law against charcoal."
"Yet."
- Thank You for Smoking

Manny Ramirez tested positive for drugs in violation of the MLB policy. The most useful bit of information to be found in this ESPN story:

Ramirez and his representatives were prepared to appeal the synthetic testosterone results, intending to argue he had taken a steroid precursor known as DHEA, according to two sources. The drug is akin to the now-banned substance famously known as Andro, but it is not on baseball's banned list. (emphasis added)

Baseball had geared up to dispute the argument, and a Ramirez appeal was scheduled for last Wednesday. MLB's legal team intended to use expert testimony to cite evidence it believed showed DHEA could not have been the cause of the synthetic testosterone.

This makes for a nice messy and technical legal dispute, and while it's kind of messy, it is legal, interestingly enough. But the story gets more interesting:

However, in the days before the hearing, the union turned over Ramirez's medical records -- and they turned out to be a boon for MLB.

Within the records was a prescription written for the drug human chorionic gonadotropin (hCG) -- No. 55 on the list of banned performance-enhancing substances in the policy. The drug is mainly used for female fertility issues, but it is best known among male steroid users as a substance that can help kick-start the body's production of natural testosterone, which is stymied when using synthetic testosterone (aka steroids).

That stuff probably looked like this, innocently enough. And while sources indicate that there were problems with his testicles that let him to use the drugs, he failed to get a proper medical exemption. Players can get a Theraputic Use Exemption (TUE) under the drug policy, as is stated here:

1. A Player authorized to ingest a Prohibited Substance through a valid, medically appropriate prescription provided by a duly licensed physician shall receive a Therapeutic Use Exemption ("TUE"). To be "medically appropriate," the Player must have a documented medical need under the standards accepted in the United States or Canada for the prescription in the prescribed dosage. A urine sample which is found to contain a Prohibited Substance will not be deemed a positive test result if such sample was provided by a Player with an effective TUE for that substance. A Player with a TUE for a Prohibited Substance does not violate the Program by possessing or using that substance.

2. A Player seeking a TUE must notify, or cause the issuing physician to notify, the IPA of the existence of the prescription. Whenever requested to do so by the IPA, the Player shall provide, or cause the issuing physician to provide, documentation
supporting the issuance of the prescription. If the issuing physician is not duly licensed in the United States or Canada, the IPA shall request that the Player provide such documentation. The IPA shall notify the Player and counsel for the Association of any request for documentation. Following his/her review of such documentation and, if necessary, consultation with an expert in the area covered by the prescription, the IPA shall determine whether to grant the TUE. The IPA shall report that determination to the Player and to the Parties and, in the event of a denial, forward to the Parties the documentation received and all other material reviewed in reaching that determination. (See Section 9.C.1(c) below.)

3. A TUE shall be effective from the date the Player notified, or caused the issuing physician to notify, the IPA of the existence of the prescription involved, and shall not be effective for any use or possession of a Prohibited Substance prior to that date. A Player who is determined not to qualify for a TUE may not challenge a determination that he violated the Program by contending, in connection with a "no fault or negligence" defense or otherwise, that he believed he would qualify or had qualified for a TUE; however, a Player is not otherwise precluded from introducing evidence of medical treatment in support of such a challenge.

We don't have a lot of time. And it's going to be a lot harder because you're gay now.
- Deleted scene from Team America: World Police

Ramirez is probably most upset that his doctor did not inform him that he was using a banned substance. It is also possible that he has stopped taking the substance recently, and as a result is crying a lot more. But seriously, my guess is that Ramirez was prescribed a brand name of the drug, not the generic name, because that's what doctors prescribe to you, and if he asked a couple more questions or if his doctor told him, he might have been ok (it's also possible that his doctor was a Giants fan). In any event, Manny is planning on suing the doctor, because doctor mistakes do happen.

So what we know is that Manny was using a suspicious substance that was legal, and an illegal substance for a legitimate medical reason that he didn't get approved by MLB. It is likely that upon realizing that he could not get an exemption from it, and it certainly could not be a retroactive exemption, that he gave up and figured to do his time. It would appear that Manny's failure to perform due dilligence in taking care of his own personal, er, ball team has caused him to let his baseball team down.

Brian Wilson must not be a Forgive and Forget Christian

Wilson was upset that Casey Blake mocked his gesture which he frequently does at the end of games, which is apparently in honor of his faith and his late father.

The Dodgers won't face the Giants again until Aug. 10 in San Francisco, but Wilson told reporters in that city that he has "a pretty good memory."Wilson didn't deny that Blake's gesture could intensify the rivalry between the clubs.

"It could be a catalyst if you want to look at it that way," he said.

"There's always something to fuel the fire. You're always looking for some excuse to get riled up."The incident so upset Wilson that he wouldn't speak to reporters about it Sunday and had to be consoled by teammates.

Asked whether Blake's actions surprised him, Wilson said, "In this day and age, everyone's got some meaning behind what they do. Whether a guy crosses home plate and points to the sky; he's not just pointing to the clouds, right?"

Well, when you consider that Barry Bonds always went with that last example, you kind of wonder. It could be that one is attempting to appear pious, since that's what you assume when someone points to the clouds. But really, there is plenty of genuine persecution of Christians in the world, and it is an insult to those who genuinely suffer, and to other members of the faith, to claim that merely being offended or mocked amounts to persecution. Particularly in the case of Blake and Wilson, where this was not about religion, it was about mocking a closer and getting in his head.

Scouting Without Looking - Russell Martin

One of the biggest puzzles for the Dodgers this season, last night's walk-off walk notwithstanding, is what happened to Russell Martin offensively? Right now, he's hitting .198/.301/.247, compared to Brad Ausmus' .462/.500/.538. Granted, that could be part of his plan to go deeper into the season by making playing Ausmus look appealing, but the unavoidable fact is that Martin isn't hitting worth shit. Looking at his Fangraphs page, these are the numbers that stand out:

K%, HR/FB, IFFB%, FB%, CB%, ZSwing%, Swing%, OContact%, FStrike%

Based on those bits of information, here's what I would say:

To start off, Martin has been fooled a lot more, going for pitches out of the zone that he can't get, yet not going for good pitches in the zone. As a result, he's striking out more than he ever has (about 10% more of his ABs), and he's not getting the kind of hits he would want yet. A lot of that has to do with the fact that he's inviting pitchers to throw first pitch strikes more with his patient approach, and he should swing at that pitch down the pike on the first pitch, at least every so often to mix it up, especially when pitchers are throwing you a lot more first pitch strikes. He's 1 for 8 on balls in play that he's made contact with on the first pitch, but he's a career .316 hitter on those pitches.

Of course, part of that could just be a bad first month, but after the All-Star Break last year, he hit .260/.371/.336, relying heavily on his plate patience, and it would appear that pitchers are exploiting that now.

Why I Hate Blogging

I have about as many drafts as I do posts, which pop up everytime I open Blogger. It's annoying - blogging is more work than one would imagine. I like to have link-happy posts with in-depth analysis or something like that. But that's not easy, as it turns out. So that's what happens when I go months without updating.

2009 NL Predictions on Feb 6, 2009

NL East:

Mets
Phillies
Braves
Marlins
Nationals

The Nats landed Dunn, but that will not help much. Picking up Ben Sheets and Orlando Hudson would have been good moves, but the club is committed to building from its farm system. More Dukes and less Kearns would be nice too. Too many players couldn't hit - the pitching staff was subpar, but that offense could not get anything going. The Phillies will not win the division, and I blame it all on Chan Ho Park. He will give up 50 homers in 2009. The Braves signed Derek Lowe, but we should remember they're down Tim Hudson.

NL Central

Cubs
Cardinals
Brewers
Astros
Pirates
Reds

The Cubs kinda stagnated with their club, the Brewers fell, and nobody else really seemed to do anything this offseason. St Louis should get a healthy Carpenter back at some point, and that will give them the edge. Unless Pujols needs TJ surgery.

NL West

Dodgers
Giants
D-Backs
Rockies
Padres

Paul Depodesta's impact can be seen as San Diego keeps acquiring players that would have fit well with the 2005 Dodgers. Orlando Hudson will be missed in Arizona, and Randy Johnson will be welcome in San Francisco. Arizona, LA and SF have decent rotations, but if RJ is healthy and Zito maintains his 2nd half form along with Cain and Lincecum, the Giants will be tough to score on, at least. Although Edgar Renteria will be a defensive downgrade from even 104-year-old Omar Vizquel. This also assumes, of course, the Dodgers sign Manny.

Postseason:

Dodgers over Mets in 5
Cubs over Phillies in 4

Dodgers over Cubs in 6

And watch this fall on its face.

Jayson Stark on Manny

The accusations against Ramirez are that he dogged it during July before the trade, sinking his value. He must have been really awful right?

Yeah, .340/.447/.627 awful.

But that's the whole month; what about from the all-star break to the trade?

He hit .351/.467/.622.

He was actually a little better for that part of July.

Now let's read what Jayson Stark wrote.

For a man who decided his personal net worth was more important than an entire franchise and all the people who played with him, covered for him, depended on him?

Sheez. How sad is that?

"It really bothers me," one GM said this week of the Manny-mania lovefest that has unfolded in L.A. "What he did in Boston was criminal. Now he goes there, and everything's OK? No, sir. It doesn't change the fact that how he got there was criminal."

Remember, .351/.467/.622 is criminal. You want my guess as to which GM said that? Brian Cashman. Let's remember that Ramirez has made trade requests every year since 2004. Let's also remember that his performance in Boston was still quite good and useful.

OK, here's why you should care: Because this could easily morph into a giant problem for every franchise; for the entire sport, in fact.

If Manny Ramirez wanders into the free-agent market this winter and gets anything close to the four years and $100 million he believes he'll get, think about the message that would send, the precedent that would set.

First of all, does it piss anyone else off when MLB deemed synonymous with the entire sport of baseball? There are other levels, other leagues, other countries which play, and Japan won the WBC.

Secondly, if Manny Ramirez gets a 4 year $100m deal, I'll laugh. Because that would mean someone would take a chance on him being $25 million good at age 40, when we could expect a .295/.385/.455 line. Given that there's still a reasonable chance that he could have some more injuries (which were actually not all faked). On the line about Ramirez making up injuries, though, the Dodgers do that all the time with their bad players. The most recent example being Andruw Jones:

TORRE SAID there's some thought of putting AndruwJones on the disabled list to make room for the return of Nomar Garciaparra. "That knee is still sore," Torre said of Jones. "We'll see what the doctor has to say."

Ten minutes later Jones was spotted in center field trying to catch a fly ball -- hurdling the 3 1/2 -foot white fence used to hold back fans before the game, and looking like an Olympic hopeful.

Besides, the Dodgers would only accuse their young players of faking injury. Like Tony Abreu. Who really was seriously injured, and still is. Maybe Manny and LA are a good match.

But seriously, if you want to pander to Red Sox fans, that's one thing, but let's face it, Manny is a good player, and all three of these teams had good reasons to make the move. LaRoche wasn't getting playing time in LA and Pittsburgh needed a 3B. Bay is not only a good hitter but also a good defender, and is signed to a nice cheap contract; not a bad haul. Manny is a very very good hitter. It worked out all around, and Pittsburgh got a few other players too.

What the hell is going on with DeWitt over LaRoche

The problem with Dewitt at 2nd is that Torre likes him too much to try LaRoche, which is really mroe a problem with Torre.

The Dodgers optioned LaRoche to AAA, even though he could have taken more time on his rehab assignment. LaRoche is hitting .154/.354/.385 after 5 games in Vegas, with 4 walks, a single and a homer. All I need to see is a couple extra base hits to see that his power is still there, and then I figure you call the guy up. Torre hasn't seen enough of LaRoche, and he's had a couple of injuries. He's also not a proven vet like Nomar, so he doesn't get the pass there.

Torre makes Grady Little look like he can cleverly manage a pitching staff. The way he burns through relievers and yanks starters too early is a bit mind-numbing. Deciding to bullshit around with Martin at third, especially with a piece of shit like Gary Bennett as the backup catcher is terrible too. Granted, that one is more Colletti's fault for trading Navarro for Mark Hendrickson, but hey.

The best explanation I have is the Dodgers think that Dewitt's stock is really high right now and they're looking to trade him. That, and they want to make sure the thumb injury doesn't kill LaRoche. Still, though, a good manager and GM should put the best team out there, and that's not happening if LaRoche is healthy but in Vegas.

No Surprise

Juan Pierre had his agent call Pierre and demand more playing time. From Gurnick

General manager Ned Colletti said he received a call from Pierre's agent asking for clarification of his role and Colletti said he delivered a message that the better Pierre performed in the opportunities he had, the more playing time he was likely to earn.

The better Pierre performed in the oppurtunities he had? An 8 year major league career will tell you the type of player Juan Pierre is. Signing him for 5 years was a horrendous disaster, and Colletti refuses to admit that he might have been a little bit shortsighted. And stupid. Ethier had a great year and then a weak September when injured. Dave Roberts was available - you could bring back a popular ex-Dodger who's a similar player, and you could bench him too. Kenny Lofton could have been re-signed - especially when you knew Jones was a free agent the next year. But Colletti chose Pierre for 5 years, and was completely surprised by a relatively informed fan base who could figure that batting average doesn't matter without walking or power, unless it's like .330 or someting.

But let's remember, Pierre did not lose the starting job until after Spring Training. Why? Because Joe Torre made the decision, because he's the $4million manager and Colletti wanted to pass the buck and wash his hands of the situation. And Torre, the $4million manager, doesn't have to make a decision in February. He's not supposed to look at video or statistics or scouting reports in the offseason, he's supposed to see them in person. So naturally he based it off of Spring Training. But I'll give Torre some credit - he tried Kemp and Ethier in center field - if Pierre's arm was keeping him in left, why not see if the other guys can play center?

But seriously, the current regime is not going to make judgements based on reasonable assessments.

The only thing dumber than pre-season predictions

Is a Bill Plaschke column. Especially when he gives good players a hard time.

What seemed like clubhouse defiance is now calm confidence.

That deer-in-the-headlights look has become an unfettered focus.
That is the ADD style of Plaschke. defiance does not match with deer-in-headlights. That would me more like Jeff Kent, who is a very old man. Or Grady Little, who is gone now.

Besides, Chad Billingsley is the one from Defiance (OH).

Matt Kemp will pay his own way?

The Dodgers' season depends on it.

Their unwillingness to deal him prevented them from obtaining this winter's top traded pitchers -- Johan Santana, Erik Bedard or Dan Haren.

No, those packages all took like 5 players each. Santana also came with a $140 million extention. Seattle gave up essentially Kemp, Beimel, Greg Miller, and two top A+ ball pitchers, to give the Dodger equivalent. Besides, the Dodgers don't have that great a weakness in starting pitching. They need an offense. They scored 85 fewer runs in 2007 than 2006. 85! That's half a run a game. Adding a single pitcher won't bring the team ERA down by .5 unless he posts an ERA of like 1 for 200 innings.

The Dodgers believe that by keeping his cannon in the middle of their lineup, Kemp would blow enough smoke to shroud the hole at the top of their rotation.

What? Here's the top of the Dodgers' rotation last year:
Penny - 151 ERA+, 33 GS
Billingsley - 138 ERA+, 20 GS
Lowe - 118 ERA +, 32 GS

Here's where the decent starters were
Randy Wolf - 97 ERA+, 18GS

There were 59 games started by other starters. Two other starters at an ERA+ of 100 would have been an improvement, but no dice. No other starter pitched as well. Hiroki Kuroda could stay healthy and have a 4.5 ERA and that would help the rotation a lot. Loaiza and David Wells sucked.

Now Matt Kemp has to save the season.

No. Now Joe Torre has to play the right players (bench Nomar and Pierre for LaRoche and Ethier), Ned Colletti has to put the right players on the roster (Kershaw, McDondald, Wade, LaRoche), and Rafael Furcal has to hit for his career averages (ie SLG more than 400).

He can save it with his bat, capable of at least 20 home runs, at least 80 runs batted in, at least an on-base percentage in the mid-.300s.

He can save it with his arm, which is right-field strong, and his feet, which are 20 stolen-bases fast.

Who told Plaschke about OBP? And seriously, mid .300s? That's a huge variation, from like .330 to .370. Kemp can definitely help with his ability. This is true. It is also obvious. What else does Plaschke suggest? He's got a list, so I'll number them.

(1) Will he show up at the park early for extra work? (2) Will he stay late for interviews? (3) Will he win the praise of veterans who will judge him as much on his hustled groundouts as on his home runs?

Question 1 migh be relevant, especially if he works on something useful like recognizing pitches out of the zone. The 2nd one is entirely irrelevant, and Plaschke needs to realize he isn't helping the team by being a columnist, but that's not his job. The 3rd one doesn't matter, it's just a question of how much of an asshole Jeff Kent will be.

The veterans thought the kids didn't respect winning. They thought they didn't respect the game.

The veterans quietly complained about everything from late clubhouse arrivals to dumb baserunning errors to smiles after losses.

Jeff Kent doesn't smile after a win. What the hell. Taking losses in stride and not getting bogged down? Making the same mistakes veterans make? What jerks.

Quick! Make some predictions!

Well, this will be a challenge, because one has to guess which players get playing time, who gets injured, who plays freakishly well, who loses everything, etc. But might as well jump out before everyone else. Even though Kyle Lohse is still unemployed.

National League - AL review to come later.

EAST
Mets
Phillies
Braves
Marlins
Nationals

The Mets have a bit of a weakness at 2nd base, but other than the September collapse of Jose Reyes, they should own the division. Pedro looked like himself in September, at least by the numbers, and adding Santana should make that the best rotation at least in the division, if not the league. John Maine, Oliver Perez, and either El Duque or Mike Pelfrey will fill out the rotation, probably quite successfully.

Philadelphia still lacks a lot of pitching depth behind Hammels, and in the absence of Aaron Rowand's career year, their offense will have to put in a little more effort to keep being awesome.
Atlanta is missing Andruw Jones and Kotsay is an injury risk, as is Chipper Jones, which is a shame. A full year of Chipper would be huge for Atlanta. The Braves do have the potential to outdo the Phillies if their offense keeps up, particularly with Renteria now in Detroit. Healthy years from Gonzalez and Soriano will also vastly help Atlanta, although Joey Devine would have been huge for Atlanta. Smoltz and Glavine are both older than dirt, though, so you never know there, and I don't think Mike Hampton will ever be healthy again. He probably forgot what baseballs look like.

The Marlins had an ugly year last year, but they should be getting Olson back from injury. They are down Cabrera, but they got Maybin, who will fill the centerfield hole - yeah, the Marlins look like they miss Juan Pierre. Their power-hitting middle infield, though, is still quite young.

The Nats made some nice acquisitions with Dukes and Milledge, but that doesn't change that they might actually start Christian Guzman at short still. On top of that, their pitching staff has some upside but is far too injury prone to inspire a lot of confidence.

Central
Brewers
Cubs
Cardinals
Reds
Pirates
Astros

At the very least, I'd say there's a split between the top 3 good teams and the bottom 3 bad teams.

The Brewers have had a lot of key components, they just seem to be able to overpay someone every year. Jeff Suppan last year, now Eric Gagne. Sheets in a contract year should be thrilling, and Capuano will be trying to rebound from a poor injury-riddled season where his opponents' average against jumped up from .260 to .280. Not to mention Braun, Fielder and Weeks are offensive forces that aren't making outs all over.

The Cubs won the division last year, and yes, Zambrano's ERA was half a point higher than his career mark. Who knows. Lou Pinella isn't terribly stupid, but I don't see two years in a row. Even if Ted Lilly is that good.

The Cardinals have room to improve, like having Carpenter pitch, but the problem is that won't be until July. Mulder might be alive, but we won't hear from him until May, and what will he pitch like? Mulder has not been effective since 2005 (sort of like Jeff Weaver). Glaus for Rolen is a lateral move, except Glaus might have more power left. Both will spend half the year on the DL. Izturis will make more outs, defensively and offensively, than Eckstein.

The Reds have Dusty Baker managing. Homer Bailey, the hope for their future, should pray that Baker gets arrested and tabbed as Barry Bonds' real supplier, preventing him from forcing Bailey to throw 140 pitches 3 games in a row. Baker will also despise Adam Dunn from clogging the bases with his three true outcome awesomeness.

The Pirates should get improvement from Jason Bay - not sure what happened there. Adam Laroche should probably knock a couple more out too. I still don't hold but so many high hopes for Pittsburgh, but we shall see.

The Astros are the stupidest organization in baseball. Tejada is an ok acquisition, except that he's getting old and isn't as good, and probably used steroids. Why they couldn't wait another day for the Mitchell Report is beyond me. But more importantly, their pitching is no longer a strength beyond Roy Oswalt.

WEST
Arizona
Colorado
Los Angeles
San Diego
San Francisco

Brandon Webb is good. Micah Owings is good. Randy Johnson might be healthy. But the Diamondbacks on top of that said, hell, let's get Dan Haren. The team is very dependent on its young core, with the reigning old dudes being crazy-haired Eric Byrnes, crazy bald man Kirk Gibson, and grumpy old coot Randy Johnson. That might put the D-Backs over the top.

Sure the Rockies got really hot at the end of last year, but they're good. Cook doesn't strike people out, but he's a groundball machine. Morales and Jiminez are up-and-coming. But let's not forget the superstars on the team: Matt Holliday, Troy Tulowitzki, and Todd Helton. Helton is like what Kevin Youkilis would be if he were 35 and not fat. They have the same beehive goatee thing too.

The Dodgers have upside that's dictated not just by their young players, but by Joe Torre. Hopefully, Torre won't do anything stupid like play Pierre over Ethier or play Nomar over Laroche. Additionally, they have all kinds of question marks like Kuroda, Jones, Furcal (who was still awesome defensively last year), Schmidt, Kuo, Brazoban, and Jeff Kent. They could potentially be a first place team, but nothing is certain.

The Padres plan to kill Jim Edmonds by making him run around their giant centerfield. Mark Prior has not pitched effectively since 2005, but he's worth a shot for $1,000,000. Randy Wolf has a nice curve and good K rate, and PETCO will keep the ball in the park, but he's still an injury risk too. I'm still optimistic that Hoffman will implode spectacularly around July or so.

The Giants have no position players. They overpaid for Aaron Rowand, who will still be better than anyone else on their team at hitting a baseball. Losing Bonds will make certain that the Giants don't get out of the cellar.

Shut Up Plaschke

Seriously, the Dodgers signed Andruw Jones to a 2 year deal and Plaschke insists they keep Pierre now as a regular. But he's not joking.

The Jones signing was smart and efficient and will help folks -- including owner Frank McCourt -- forgive the terribly large contract and burden that Colletti placed last winter on Juan Pierre.

One mistake down, one to go.

Wait, what the hell? Did Plaschke just surprise me? I'm speechless! This actually would suggest the Juan Pierre signing was a complete and utter failure, and that Colletti has fixed a horrible mistake.

But that doesn't explain the rest of the article:

Now it's time to repent for the giant error that was Jason Schmidt.

Ha! I get it; Schmidt used to play for the Giants! That's so clever! So what should we do?

Colletti needs to use the outfield surplus created by the signing of Jones and do everything within his power to acquire a No. 1 starting pitcher.

Um, that means trading the good outfielders, who are about as good offensively as Jones.

When asked about his team's needs, has Joe Torre mentioned anything but pitching?

Joe Torre doesn't know who's on the goddamn roster. Hell, he probably has to ask what team he's managing every so often. Further, the Dodgers had a team ERA+ of 109 last year, which was a bit above average, and they had 3 good starters in Lowe, Penny and Billingsley. Penny with his sub-3 ERA* had a lot of people impressed, but then again, so did Jake Peavy. But Penny did finish 3rd in CY Young voting, if you think that matters. And Billingsley was superb, and he wasn't even in the rotation the whole year. Joe Torre said that because the Yankees always had problems with shitty pitching the last few years - they paid $10 million a year for Carl Pavano! Their bullpen had 2 good pitchers, and they traded one of them for Wilson Betemit. What Joe Torre doesnt' realize is that he now has a team with problems on offense, namely Juan Pierre, Nomar Garciaparra, and last year, Rafael Furcal.

The Dodgers' field personnel love Baltimore's Erik Bedard, an aggressive hard thrower who was third in the American League in strikeouts and fourth in earned-run average.

He is a left-handed version of John Lackey, only five months younger.

No, because he's far more injury prone, and his walk rates were far too high until about the last year and a half to fully qualify him as an "ace."

Also still available is the pitcher everybody loves, Minnesota's Johan Santana, and the Dodgers could still apparently sneak in and acquire him.

The Twins got Joe Nathan, Francisco Liriano and Boof Bonser for NATHAN PIERZYNSKI! HE ISN'T EVEN A GOOD BASEBALL PLAYER. FOR SANTANA, IT WOULD TAKE LIKE MARTIN, KEMP, BILLINGSLEY AND BROXTON!

Either pitcher would cost them Matt Kemp.

And like 9 other players too!

But either would put them in the playoffs. And, as Jose Lima would tell you, who knows what could happen then?

Yeah, you could be on a losing team because you traded away all your good players. And it would really suck if you failed - ask the Texas Rangers if trading for Carlos Lee was worth it. And there's more.

You say he won't be any better than the combination of Kemp and Andre Ethier? I say, in a post-steroid-era season in 2006, he hit 41 homers with 129 RBIs, so get real.

Ok. Let me humor you. I'll even compare 2006 for Jones to 2007 for Ethier and Kemp rather than 2007 for Jones. I'll even consider that RBIs matter. Kemp and Ethier combined for 23 HR and 106 RBI last year. If you pro-rated that for full seasons, though, say 550 AB each, and you combine for 35 HR and 158 RBI. Regardless of your HR to RBI conversion ratio, I'd say that's pretty good. But seriously, why do you have to compare Jones to a combination of these two, or even one of these two? Why not just put Ethier in left, Jones in Center, and Kemp in right? But Plaschke says this of Jones:

His position lets Juan Pierre become Juan Pierre

Someone who isn't good enough to be a starting centerfielder? Seriously, what is Plaschke saying here? How does getting displaced from his position put Juan Pierre in a position to succeed?

No, no, the Dodgers will not and should not trade the short-armed center fielder. Just because he was overpaid doesn't mean he lacked value. Did everybody somehow miss that he was second in the league in stolen bases and led the league in sacrifice bunts?

He had value as a bench player, but because he was overpaid meant that he was going to be used as a starter. Every day. By Ned's orders. And stolen bases are awesome for fantasy baseball, but in real baseball they don't matter as much, especially when you get caught. Pierre did steal successfully over 80% of the time, so on the whole his speed was a bit of an asset. But sacrifice bunts are what pitchers do on offense. Come on, that's nothing to be proud of - he got out on purpose more than anyone. What actually happened is that his speed has gotten worse and that's why he's no good for center anymore, and that's why his bunt hits percentage was down.

The Dodgers need to keep Pierre's speed and bunting ability at the top of the order. Goodness, it's one of the reasons Jones agreed to play here. But at least now, Pierre can move to a safer left field and be viewed for what he is -- a complementary player.

Yes, and he can complement the team very well as a late inning defensive replacement or pinch runner. But if Ethier and Kemp are better ballplayers, they should play ahead of him. End of story.

* - Penny actually had an ERA of 3.03 to end the year, but his ERA was under 3 for the better part of the season.

What went wrong

MSNBC, the TV network that brought you Don Imus, has more dumbasses to spew out garbage. Here is Michael Ventre:

The Dodgers have been out of the NL wild card race for some time now, even though they have yet to make it official. It’s like knowing that somebody is quitting a job soon, because they’ve been packing up their belongings, taking three-hour lunches and generally slacking off. All that’s missing is the memo.

As a matter of fact, they were in the race until their rotation collapsed after Randy Wolf joined the esteemed group of veterans on the Disabled List, they traded a useful young power hitter for a 30 year old middle reliever and were then forced to rely on Shea Hillenbrand as an everyday third baseman, a position at which no other team in baseball would even think of playing him because of his demonstrated inability.

This “geezer-punk” assemblage has lost five in a row at a time when the San Diego Padres, making a run at the division title, have won seven straight. The Dodgers just suffered their first-ever four-game sweep by the Rockets at Coors Field. So naturally, the already cranky tricenarians and quadragenarians who creak around the clubhouse in search of their lost youth are becoming more cantankerous by the minute.

They lost like 12 in a row last year. Streaks happen in baseball over a 162 game season, especially when you have to rely on Esteban Loaiza and David Wells in your rotation. Besides, doesn't this just suggest that the veterans are assholes?

Most of the responsibility for winning has been entrusted to kids who haven’t yet learned how to win. In the context of a competitive division that includes the likes of the Diamondbacks, Padres and Rockies, that’s almost like conceding defeat in spring training.

This is among the goddamn stupidest things I've read. For two reasons:
1) The Dodgers' minor league system is very good. As a matter of fact, the Dodgers won the AA championship in 2005 with many of these players.
2) "Knowing how to win" is a worthless empty bullshit phrase used by reporters who don't know a goddamned thing about baseball. It's easy to know how to win: you score more runs than the other team! End of story!
3) The Diamondbacks have been winning with a bunch of young kids, quite successfully. Randy Johnson started 10 games for them. And even then, they have given up more runs than they've scored, and they should really have a losing record.

These players know how to play baseball. They would not have been drafted if they didn't. You are a worthless human being.

The Dodgers received some early love from pundits as division winners on the basis of their starters. But they’ve been spotty, the bullpen has faltered, and the sticks have been wildly erratic. It isn’t one statistical category that has caused the team’s downfall, but rather those “things you don’t see in the box scores,” especially team chemistry. More often than not, these have been dead men walking.

Nice. Claim that whatever is going on cannot be measured, therefore bringing you into the realm of the irrational where you cannot be disproven.

Now call me a stupid kid, because I'm a senior in college on scholarship double majoring in Math and Economics, but there are statistical reasons for the Dodgers' problems:

Slugging percentage: .404 (14th of 16 in the NL)
Caught Stealing: 47 (most in NL!)
HR: 121 (15th of 16 in the NL)
Walks: 492 (12th of 16 in the NL)

Last year, as a team, the Dodgers were 3rd in the NL in walks, ending the year with 601. The odds of the Dodgers racking up 109 walks in 7 games are, well, 0. But even with the same power problems and virtually the same team batting average, they at least slugged .432 as a team. Let's look at some other problems

Rafael Furcal 2006: .300/.369/.445 (good numbers)
Rafael Furcal 2007: .270/.333/.355 (bad numbers!)

Nomar 2006: .303/.367/.505 (good 3-hitter numbers)
Nomar 2007: .284/.329/.372 (bad 8-hitter numbers)

So in addition to $20 million worth of payroll playing worse than the previous year, the Dodgers were dead men not walking. Hahaha. I'm a writer now too!

The recent dustups caused by Lowe and Kent, as well as a recent complaint by Gonzalez that he can “see the handwriting on the wall” and therefore doesn’t expect to be back next season, and some anonymous chatter that manager Grady Little has lost his players, only underlines the reality that tension exists.

Luis Gonzalez was signed to be a stopgap veteran because Matt Kemp was believed by management to need some seasoning in the minors. It was apparent by May that Gonzalez was not necessary on the Dodgers.

The McCourts have gone the cheapie route, and in doing so, they’ve created a team with no real identity and a hazy future.

This is incredibly stupid. The Dodgers have the 2nd highest payroll in the NL, behind the Mets. Also, the Cleveland Indians have a $61 million payroll, and they just clinched a playoff spot today. As for an identity, how about their all-star catcher Russell Martin? Ever heard of him? Dumbass.

It wouldn’t be so bad if such an approach bore fruit, but it hasn’t. The Angels have worked kids like Howie Kendrick, Reggie Willits, Casey Kotchman and Maicer Izturis into their plans, but they’ve managed to amass a giant lead over second-place Seattle in the AL West. They did that by building a superior pitching staff, and by making sure that the veterans who are at the heart of the lineup – Orlando Cabrera, Vladimir Guerrero, Garret Anderson, Gary Matthews, Jr. – are all at or near their primes. The Dodgers, conversely, populate their roster with fantasy league scraps.

This is also hilarious. The Angels pitching success has been due to young pitchers through their farm system. Bartolo Colon had one good year in Anaheim. Further, Anaheim took some time to be successful - they've basically been rebuilding since 2004, after they followed their WS title with a losing season. Orlando Cabrera is an average hitter, as is Matthews. You can see some numbers here, like the ages of players on their pitching staff, many of whom came up through their farm system.

And again, it takes time for a farm system to develop. The Dodgers did not have a good system or good drafts until 2002 turned things around. It wasn't until last year that those players came up into the majors, because White drafts high school and junior college players. Further, these players have several years before reaching their physical peak, so there is that to consider as well.

The coming weeks will tell a lot about the direction of the Los Angeles Dodgers. Right now they’re going down. That’s clear. But will Kent stick around next year (he has that option)? If he does, will the Dodgers get him some experienced help so he can realistically go after that elusive World Series ring? Or will it be more of “Daddy Day Care”?

Jeff Kent is not anyone the Dodgers desperately need. He is far more of a drain on the Dodgers defensively than Nomar was in Boston. He makes stupid baserunning mistakes, and can't run that well either. Kent is really best suited to being a 1b/dh right now, and if he wants a title, he should go to the Yankees. The Dodgers' young players are not as good as they will be, but they need to play regularly, and getting players like Kent out of the way will go a long way in helping that.

Free the Dodgers - Trade Kent

This means we can trade Jeff Kent.
In the wake of a barely-show-up loss Thursday in Colorado, a fifth consecutive defeat that essentially ended their playoff hopes, quiet Jeff Kent quaked.

Using words like "perplexing" and "curious" and "bitter," he took veiled shots at Manager Grady Little and direct shots at the Dodgers' kids.

"You can use all your fingers on your hand and point around," he told the media in Colorado after the 9-4 loss. "There's many things that have happened that are perplexing. Many things that have happened that are curious."

When asked if those things included Little's daily lineup and decisions, Kent said, "Everything."

This also, apparently, includes the younger players on the team, about whom Kent said, "I don't know why they don't get it."

Jeff Kent is no doubt furious over Matt Kemp's baserunning mistakes. God damn it, Jeff Kent should be making those mistakes! And aggressive mistakes are unacceptable - suddenly spacing out is much better.

This is your veteran leadership. There's a reason Jeff Kent has a reputation as a terrible teammate - he is a terrible teammate.

Kent is watching his chances for a world championship disappear. Gonzalez is mourning his chances at 3,000 hits (he's still 501 short). Garciaparra just wants last season back.

"I'm running out of time," Kent said. "A lot of kids in here, they don't understand that."

You selfish son of a bitch. You're not the most important dude on the team. You're actually washed up, and you're not going to be all that useful much longer. If anything, Grady Little should have shut you down the rest of the year so your option didn't vest. Hopefully, with nobody but Carlos Pena on the free agent market at first base, we can ship you out for something useful. Enjoy being a Yankee, you bastard.

Giving up on 2007 officially

So, what was your opinion of Kingman's Performance?

I'm raising the white flag. Unofficially, I did it as soon as Colletti revealed his true level of idiocy in signing Juan Pierre. But now, after losing a doubleheader to the goddamned Rockies, I'm giving up.

I was furious when Colletti signed Pierre, because Pierre had Kenny Lofton's defense and less patience at the plate. He steals bases and admittedly he did have a good percentage this year, but still, he's not worth $9 million per year. Not when you have Matt Kemp, Andre Ethier, Delwyn Young, Jason Repko, and Jayson Werth already there. Sure, get Gonzalez, but Pierre?

But getting off a rant, let's consider this: The Dodgers are currently 79-72. With 11 games left, the best they can possibly get to is 90-72. The Padres are leading the Wild Card at 83-67. If San Diego plays .500 ball, which is realistic but slightly optimistic, they can go 89-73. The Dodgers, then, could at worst go 10-1 if they want to have a chance at the postseason. I don't see it happening. As much as I'd love to be wrong, I'm more interested in how late their draft pick will be now - I know it will be before 22.

Me vs Stark, part 3

Jayson Stark on Underrated Players

What could be worse than the overrated list? Probably the underrated list. Let’s see what we have here.

No. 1 -- Roy Oswalt

Could somebody please explain why this guy isn't considered the National League's Johan Santana?

Let’s look here:

Oswalt career ERA+: 141
Santana career ERA+: 143

Pretty good comparison, there, but here’s where we see a difference.

Santana: 9.54 K/9, .220 Opp. BA,
Oswalt’s career: 7.49 K/9, .253 Opp BA

Santana is a much more consistent strikeout pitcher than Oswalt, which means that people hit the ball much less against him. It’s also worth noting that Oswalt is 2 years older than Santana.

Oswalt is a two-time 20-game winner. He leads all active right-handers not named Pedro Martinez in winning percentage (104-50, .675). And he's the only active pitcher who can say he has never -- never -- had a season in which his winning percentage was worse than .625 or his ERA was higher than 3.50. Yet not only has he never won a Cy Young Award -- he's finished in the top three only once. Ridiculous, isn't it?

Wins don’t mean anything. Steve Traschel won 15 games last year and sucked, and Randy Johnson won more games last year with an ERA of 5 than in 2004 with an ERA of 2.60, because run support gives pitchers wins. The run support happened to be unevenly distributed in such a way that Roy Oswalt was in line for a win more than Clemens. You’ll notice that Clemens had more no-decisions than Oswalt, and also that Oswalt had more losses than Clemens – basically everytime he didn’t have an excellent start.

A couple of years ago, I asked his catcher, Brad Ausmus, how many people -- if I polled 10,000 Americans -- would have any idea Roy Oswalt was (at the time) coming off back-to-back 20-win seasons.
"That would depend," Ausmus chuckled, "on whether anyone on our team was among the 10,000 Americans."
OK, I retorted, suppose nobody on the Astros was among the 10,000 Americans?
"Oh," Ausmus said. "Then none."

What the hell does this prove? First of all, Oswalt was hardly a low-profile unrecognized pitcher. He was in the World Series in 2005, and if people don’t recognize him from that, it’s probably because FOX is so bad at broadcasting baseball that people would rather not watch the World Series. But the point is that Oswalt was recognized as the NLCS MVP, and he was also an All-Star in 2005 and 2006. I don’t think he can legitimately claim anonymity. But really, you don’t determine popularity by asking someone whether they think someone is popular, unless you’re a retard.

Your honor, and members of the all-underrated jury, we rest our case.

Case dismissed based on poor evidence. I would have said something about leading the NL in ERA and K/BB in 2006, or how he’s pitched over 220 innings each of the last 3 seasons, or how he threw 8 shutouts in 2005, or something that is a useful statistic.

No. 2 -- Trevor Hoffman

It's always fascinating how one month -- October -- can twist the perceptions of
players in every conceivable direction. So we're going to toss all postseason
stats into the dumpster and compare only the regular-season careers of two great
closers.

Good idea.

Closer A and Closer B have both had long, distinguished careers. Closer B is
considered a cinch Hall of Famer. Closer A still has folks debating whether he's
Cooperstown-worthy or not.

Wait, you caught me off guard at first. Didn’t you say we weren’t talking about careers now? Well, I guess you get to just ramble on whatever the hell you want, so we are now.

Yet Closer A has converted 89.5 percent of his lifetime save opportunities, struck out 9.8 hitters per nine innings in his career and held those poor opposing hitters to a .207 batting average and .264 on-base percentage.

So Closer A beats Closer B in every one of these categories. Closer B's figures: 87.9 percent, 8.0 strikeouts per 9 IP, .214 average, .270 on-base. Why, then, would anyone think that Closer A might not have Hall credentials as worthy as Closer B?

Easy question. Because Closer B is Mariano Rivera, the Greatest Postseason Closer Who Ever Lived (34 saves, 0.80 ERA).

Closer A, on the other hand, is Hoffman, who once went eight years between postseason save opportunities through no fault of his own.

All right, you used some somewhat useful statistics. They seem similar enough, though Hoffman has a higher career K/9. The reason people think more of Rivera than Hoffman is far simpler – Mariano looks more legitimate on the radar gun. When you throw a mid-90s cutter that breaks more bats than anything, you’ve got good stuff. Hoffman throws a Greg Maddux fastball and
a 72 mile an hour changeup. He's had some success, with that stuff, but it must also be remembered that he plays in a huger park with worse hitters facing him.

Now obviously, I'd have to be a major goofball to argue Hoffman has a better Hall case than Rivera. But that doesn't mean Hoffman hasn't been criminally underrated. Here's the best way to put their careers in perspective:

Mariano Rivera has a career ERA+ of 195, and Hoffman’s is 149.

They have basically the same number of blown saves in their careers -- 58 for Hoffman, 57 for Rivera -- except Hoffman has had 70 more opportunities.
In other words, Rivera would have to go two seasons without blowing a single save just to say he had the same save-conversion percentage as Trevor Hoffman. So can we please give this man his due already?

Well part of the save percentage thing is because Rivera spent more time as a setup man to John Wetteland. When you’re a setup man, you don’t get saves, you get holds, but if you screw up, you get a blown save.

But if you want to talk about what’s going on right now, Rivera’s in a funk and the Yankees are sucking so much they don’t get to him, but Hoffman looks like his stuff his getting weaker. In the interest of full disclosure, I hate Trevor Hoffman, and everytime I see him pitch I really think he’s going to blow it. He gets by on way too much luck, it seems sometimes.

No. 3 -- Hanley Ramirez

We liked playing that Player A versus Player B game so much, let's try it again.

Yay.

Player A is a National League shortstop. He is averaging a .303 batting average, 129 runs scored, 76 extra-base hits and 52 stolen bases per 162 games in his career. Player B is also an NL shortstop. He's averaging .288, 114 runs, 60 extra-base hits and 61 steals per 162 games.

Steals numbers but no stolen base percentage? At all?

Player A is 23. So is Player B. So which one would you start your team with? If
I didn't tell you the names, I'm betting you'd take Player A, right? But now
let's reverse that. Let's say I had never shown you those numbers. And then I
asked if you'd rather have Ramirez (aka Player A) or Jose Reyes
(Player B). Then what?

Well then I would say shame on you for a poor comparison. You have two 23 year old players. You are comparing one player’s performance starting at age 22 and one starting at age 20. Do you really not see anything wrong with this? To be fair, you should either include Ramirez’s minor league numbers and adjust them down to estimate what he would have been in the majors, or just disregard Reyes from 2003-2005. Then you could compare Reyes and Ramirez in 2006, and see then that Reyes was marginally better (OPS+ of 118 vs 116, SB% of 79% vs 77%).

Admit it. You'd take Reyes. Heck, to be honest, I'd probably take Reyes myself. But does anybody who doesn't own a teal cap know Ramirez's numbers are actually better? Dubious. Which sums up his underratedness just about perfectly.

The people who think Ramirez’s numbers are better are the ones who don’t understand player development, or are intellectually dishonest and want to throw together a list. Besides, why would you want to mark someone as underrated when they’re already a well talked about player – Ramirez won the NL Rookie of the Year award last year! You could talk about how the Red Sox thought Alex Gonzalez would be better than him, maybe, but that might not be so happy for some people.

No. 4 -- Jake Peavy

Is there a more fun pitcher to watch in the entire National League than Peavy?
If there is, he's at least on a list that's shorter than Tim Kurkjian. Well, of
course it is.

I could make a list that’s shorter than Tim, even if he’s a 3 foot midget. But hey, he’s good. Unless, of course, you think hitting home runs is fun to watch, or you like crazy antics. Then Jose Lima, who gave Juan Pierre his first big league homer, is definitely your guy.

Since 2004, if we compare the Padres' strikeout machine to all NL starting pitchers with as many innings pitched as he has, he tops the whole league in strikeouts, strikeout ratio, WHIP and ERA. And if you enjoy swinging and missing, Jake Peavy is your man. The only NL starter who has induced that with greater frequency than Peavy (27.3 percent), according to our friends at Inside Edge, is the Phillies' Cole Hamels (27.9).

Yeah, he’s a good strikeout pitcher. He led the league in strikeouts one year, and he led the league in ERA one year, but still no Cy Young. But his ERA crept over 4 last year, so you could ignore him then.

Yet Peavy is probably only about the 15th-most-talked-about pitcher in his own time zone. And anybody with that kind of greatness-to-pub ratio is a lock to make a list like this.

A bit of hyperbole there, but true enough. And forget his time zone; West Coast Pitchers will easily slip under the East Coast radar.

No. 5 -- C.C. Sabathia

You know what might be the biggest upset of the year? That Sabathia didn't get
one vote in our recent "Which Pitchers Would You Pay to Watch?" poll. Heck, I'd
pay to watch him.

Was it one of those online polls? Was it something where you could check multiple boxes, or did you have to pick just one? If I could pick just one, I’d pick Santana. But seriously, those kinds of polls are pretty useless because they suffer from voluntary response bias. But of course, you already knew that.

He's already the first left-handed pitcher since Andy Pettitte to start his career with six straight seasons of double-digit wins.
He has won more games (88) than any active pitcher under 27. And the Elias Sports Bureau reports he's just the fifth pitcher to debut in the last quarter-century and reach 1,000 strikeouts before turning 27. (The others: Roger Clemens, Dwight Gooden, Pedro Martinez and Kerry Wood.)

Um, that’s nice, but he also started younger too. He was thrown into the rotation in 2001, and never pitched in relief in the majors. Johan Santana was pitching at least some of his games out of the bullpen until he was 24 (the next year he won a Cy Young award). In fact, that’s about the only reason for such numbers with such an arbitrary statistic. Besides, Jake Peavy will do that later this year. Wait till Hammels has been around a while, too. I’d also count on Felix Hernandez doing it.

But the real reason C.C. is on this list -- aside from that snub in the pay-to-watch survey -- is simple: He's only getting better. He's striking out more hitters (9.05 per 9 IP) than he ever has. And he's walking fewer hitters (1.6 per 9 IP) than he ever has. And that's what aces -- especially underrated aces -- are made of.

You forgot to make that point with Peavy. Also, getting better is not what aces are made of so much as it's what players that haven't reached their prime are made of. You also forgot that
Hoffman is over the hill. Further, you're using small sample size data again talking about the current season. Talk about the previous season too, or else you'll use really bad data.

So yes, you are retarded.

No. 6 -- Carl Crawford

Joining the Devil Rays isn't exactly the same thing as joining the witness protection program. But it's close enough in Crawford's case.

Has anybody noticed that this guy has become the first player since Rogers
Hornsby to increase his batting average and home run totals five years in a row?

Has anybody noticed that the only other players since 1900 to match his 2006 numbers in batting average (.305), stolen bases (58) and home runs (18) were Rickey Henderson and Joe Morgan? Has anybody noticed he's on pace to become the only player besides Ty Cobb to reach 1,000 hits, 300 steals and 100 triples before he even turns 28?

Yeah, actually, people who pay attention to baseball, particularly fantasy players. People that steal bases are widely pursued in the fantasy game, and he hits for average and even a bit of power too. It also makes sense that a guy who starts in the major leagues really young is going to have higher totals in his counting stats, and that young players will improve until their prime.

Yeah, didn't think so (outside of those 29 general managers who would love
to trade for him). Well, we sure did blow his cover, didn't we?

ESPN - If you're dumber than we are, it's news to you.

No. 7 -- Placido Polanco

Polanco and his double-play partner in Detroit, Carlos Guillen, probably both should have made this team. But if I'd included everybody who deserved to make it, we would've blown a hole in cyberspace.

If by “blown a hole in cyberspace” you mean “pick someone who’s a much better baseball player” you would be correct.

So why Polanco? Because, when I was mulling over this list and brought up Polanco's name, one scout's instant reply was: "He should be your captain."

This is why you drive me insane. You go by scouts’ OPINIONS to determine who is underrated. DON’T YOU SEE HOW STUPID THIS IS?!

Players like Placido Polanco operate so far below the radar screen, you need a submarine to keep track of them. But since he arrived in Detroit on June 10, 2005, and got his chance to play every day, he has struck out less (only 49 times) than any player in baseball who has been to the plate as often as he has. And the only AL players with higher batting averages than his (.317) since then are Derek Jeter, Joe Mauer, Victor Martinez and Vladimir Guerrero. Ever heard of them?

Yes, but let’s see what else they do with those batting averages, with the magical EQA stat, and for simplicity’s sake I’ll just pull down 2006 numbers.

Jeter: .343 BA, .308 EqA
Mauer: .347 BA, .314 EqA
Martinez: .316 BA, .293 EQA
Vlad: .329 BA, .306 EqA
Polanco: .295 BA, .234 EqA

This rather clearly shows that Placido Polanco was not nearly as good as the other 4 guys listed there. Just like Juan Pierre isn’t as good as Albert Pujols. Striking out less means little, except that your batting average can rise a little bit because you have more balls in play.

The best way to describe Polanco, though, isn't with any number. It's with that word, "winner." He's one of those "glue" players. He glues your team together with all those little things he does. And the 2006-07 Tigers are a walking testimonial to that. Then again, so is his inclusion on this prestigious list.

The best way to describe that last paragraph, though, isn’t with any assumption of intelligence on the part of the author. It’s with that word “retarded.” It’s one of those “empty” paragraphs. Doing all the little things is nice, but they are just that, little things. Winning is all about scoring more runs than the other guy. The guys who do the big things are the guys that really get you there, anyway. Polanco did help by playing good defense at second base, which is important to a staff of pitchers that pitches to contact, but it's absolute BS that he's underrated, particularly as he's ahead of Brian Roberts in the all-star voting.

No. 8 -- Kevin Youkilis

When a guy has been a star in "Moneyball," and then becomes an everyday player
for the Red Sox, you wouldn't think it would even be possible for him to be a
candidate for an all-underrated anything team. So for Youkilis to make this
squad, it might have to rank as the greatest achievement in his whole career.

I’m not sure how much hype Moneyball is worth, but the Red Sox are a bunch of media whores.

But in case you haven't been paying attention, this fellow has turned into much more than just "The Greek God of Walks." The only AL first baseman outslugging him is Justin Morneau. Nobody beats him in OPS, batting average, runs scored or multihit games. And one AL executive wanted to make sure we noticed what an underrated defender he is -- so now that he mentions it, Youkilis hasn't made an error at first since last July.

His patience at the plate alone is a great asset – he could be quite useful still with just a .260 average or so if his OBP will end up at .360-.370. Nice that he hasn’t made an error, although it’s worth noting that he seems to get to balls pretty well too, thus a Rate2 of over 100. The problem with the other stuff you’re citing is that they’re statistics from May, which are useless. Wait until after you can drop your OPS by .100 in a week.

Nevertheless, he still gets overshadowed by just about every position player around him, and by half the other first basemen in the league. And you'd be amazed how often "overshadowed" translates to "underrated" when you're writing columns like this one.

True enough, but it’s not even the league – it’s his own team. In All-Star balloting, Youkilis is not even on the ballot, because David Ortiz goes in at first base in such situations. He also won’t get the RBI opportunities because he was the leadoff man (now he’s the 2 hitter behind Julio Lugo, who should be a 9 hitter for the Royals).

No. 9 -- Joe Nathan

What Johan Santana is to the front end of Twins games, Nathan is to the back end. Since the day he arrived in Minnesota in 2004, he's been kind of the Mariano Rivera of the Great Lakes. But has anybody caught on to that -- except the hitters?

Everyone who plays fantasy, especially people in a 5x5 Roto league, know that Nathan is really really good.

Nathan has converted 92 percent of his save opportunities (blowing just 11 saves in 143 chances). He has punched out nearly two hitters (301 altogether) for every one who has gotten a hit (155). And his WHIP (.97 baserunners per inning) beats any closer's in his league since then.

True enough. Wow, this guy is a hell of a lot better than Trevor Hoffman, and he doesn't have as many years going back to make himself look better. Maybe he should be moved up and Hoffman dropped.

I was tempted to put his side-wheeling set-up man, Pat Neshek, on this team instead. But Joe Nathan is one of the most unpublicized, unhittable, totally dependable closers on earth. And nobody knows it. But with any luck, they do now.

Yeah, people still think Trevor Hoffman is more overrated, like you, dumbass. Hoffman, who Superdumbass Phil Garner used over Billy Wagner in the allstar game because of his reputation, resulting in the NL losing the game. Gee, lefty who throws 100 or righty that throws 88?

No. 10 -- Travis Hafner

Hafner's Indians compadre, Grady Sizemore, would have been awarded this final roster spot if he hadn't fouled up his underratedness by making the cover of Sports Illustrated. And even Hafner was a borderline call, just because his nickname(Pronk) has gotten so much attention.

Borderline? Getting attention does not make you overrated, it’s how good people perceive you to be. You’re a retard, Jayson Stark.

Yeah, America has heard of him. Yeah, America knows he can thump a little. But most of America still hasn't comprehended how good he is. Heck, I rated him the third-most underrated DH of all time in the book.

Um, ok.

Who owns the best on-base percentage (.420) and OPS (1.019) in the whole American League since 2004? The Pronkster. Who's the only hitter besides Albert Pujols to have a .300 batting average, .400 on-base percentage, .500 slugging percentage and 100 RBIs in each of the last three seasons? The Pronkster.

Yeah, he’s had the highest OPS+ in the AL the last few years running. Turns out he’s really good.

So what am I saying? That this fellow is a masher in the same stratosphere as Pujols, David Ortiz, Vlad Guerrero and Manny Ramirez. Except they hog all the "SportsCenter" time, while Hafner just monopolizes the All-Nickname Team. And that, ladies and gentlemen, may be the ultimate prescription for underratedness.

Yes, so that’s why he’s freaking 10th on this list? That’s reason to put this guy on the top! The
Dude also has never been named to an All-Star team. EVER!

Me vs Stark on "Overrated"

Let us begin with Stark’s description, sparsing out a couple paragraphs that are irrelevant:

Overratedness -- like underratedness -- is all relative, remember. It's about perception. It's about illusion. It's about myths. It's about assumptions we tend to make about all kinds of players -- assumptions that sometimes turn out not to match up real well with a condition best described as "reality."

Sounds good so far; in fact, I think I’ll hold on to this part for later.

So the question I kept aspiring to answer as I wrote my book -- and as I wrote this companion column -- was this:

How does the perception of this player match up with the kind of player he really is (or was)?

I think there’s a difference between over/under-rating and completely misperceiving a player. For example, calling Juan Pierre a good leadoff man when he’s usually in the running for the league lead in outs understands the kind of player he is, but gives him too much credit.

Oh. And one more thing we need to get straight before you start typing those "are-you-some-kind-of-knucklehead" e-mails: I'm really not the Ultimate Czar of Overratedness and Underratedness. I'm just the guy who wrote the book.

NO! I thought you ESPN guys knew everything!

Your opinion is as good as mine. Maybe not as exhaustively researched. But you sure have a right to it. So I don't pretend to settle these debates. I just start them. Simply providing a valuable public service by allowing you, the American sports fan, to do what you enjoy most about sports…

I may not have interviewed as many scouts as you have, probably because I don’t have the media credentials you do, but you’re right, this is essentially the starting point of a debate. Not really what analysis is supposed to do, but it’s a good way to pimp your book.

OK, here they come -- the 10 most overrated active players in baseball. Some of these players made it into my book. Some didn't. On the other hand, some guys who were in the book didn't make this list. The difference? The book was mostly about assessing careers. This column is more about where these players stand on the illusion/reality meter right now. Got that? All righty then, here we go:

Does this mean you’re going to make judgements based on small sample sizes? Or are you going to just say that you’re only looking at active major leaguers to see who’s overrated?

Now let’s see what he actually says:

No. 1 -- Barry Zito

As I said in the book, "overpaid" isn't always the same thing as "overrated." But it definitely works in Zito's case.

Please don’t refer to your book. Try to make your article explain itself on its own.

Not that it's some kind of disgrace for any team to say it employs this guy. Never misses a start. Logs those innings. Snaps off those picturesque curveballs. Leads the league in likability. And we admire him for all of those qualities.

Yes he does. Zito is a good pitcher with cool looking stuff. And the fact of the matter is that pitchers that give you 220 innings are really quite valuable, because that means fewer oppurtunities to take advantage of the bad part of your bullpen. Starters that go deep into games are important to have.

But should he really be the proud owner of the most humongous pitching contract in history (seven years, $126 million)? For all those who think that answer is yes, better peruse these facts first:

Zito for $126 Million is not nearly as bad as Kevin Brown for $105 million. Zito will be 34 at the end of his deal, while Brown was 34 when he signed his deal. But as we all know, the market sets the prices for the players, and the degree to which a GM is desperate enough to possibly overpay someone will affect where he goes. That's not to say Zito isn't overpaid, but his durability does make his contract more bearable. Zambrano will get more money next year anyway.

Since his Cy Young season in 2002 (23-5, 2.75 ERA), Zito has a higher ERA than Carl Pavano, a lower strikeout rate than Mark Redman and a lousier WHIP than Odalis Perez. And his current 32-30 strikeout-walk ratio (143rd among the 155 starting pitchers with at least 20 innings this year) tells you he now does more nibbling than chef Paul Prudhomme. So why is this man making $18 million a year again?

Answer this one by one.
1) This is true, but is very misleading, particularly because the two seasons where Pavano had a number of starts in double digits, he was pitching in the NATIONAL LEAGUE in Dolphin Stadium. Dolphin Stadium has always been a pitcher’s park, but the Oakland Coliseum played like a hitters park in 2004. A good way to control for this is a stat called ERA +, and there you see that Zito’s has always been over 100, which is good; during his one off-year it got up to 4.48, but the adjusted league average was 4.68. Pavano had one year with an ERA + over 100, and his poor performance with the Yankees doesn’t factor in since he’s only started 19 games for them, but his ERA was in about the 4.77 range last year, a much more useful comparison.
2) This is false. From 2003-2007, Zito has pitched 955.3 innings and struck out 653, making his K/9 6.15, while Redman struck out 443 over 748.7 innings, making for a K/9 of 5.33.
3) Now this is true and quite interesting. Perez had an all-star season in 2002 and beat Zito in WHIP that year too. Part of that is because of the league differences, but up through 2005, Odalis might have possibly looked preferable, particularly if he had run support (which he didn’t). Of course, Perez also clearly had some luck going for him, as he had a lower rate of hits in those years where he had a low ERA. Now he’s become hittable, and his WHIP has gone way up. And for what it’s worth, Zito has a much stronger mentality that Perez, and was able to get out of those jams much easier.

Overrated? I would agree he is at least to some extent, but it's only his contract that could put him at the top.

Now, we move onto:
No. 2 -- J.D. Drew

Nobody denies that Drew has massive talent oozing out of his eyebrows. You can tell because he entered this season as one of only 13 active players with a career slugging percentage over .500 and an on-base percentage over .390.

Yep, he’s pretty good.

But now the bad news: Those other dozen players have made a combined 70 All-Star teams (and all have made at least two apiece). And Drew has made, well, zero.

Are you retarded? If anything, All-Star appearances are a measure of perception. Fans vote for all-stars! If a player is that good, but hasn’t made an all-star team, doesn’t that suggest he’s underrated?! If the All-Star game was objective and smart, maybe, but there’s no way in hell that AJ Pierzynski is better than Pronk.

It sure is funny how all that talent has added up to just one 30-homer season, only one 100-RBI season, a .180 lifetime average in seven postseason series, no All-Star at-bats, nearly 400 games missed with a massive assortment of injuries and a $14 million a year paycheck. Let's just say this guy is realllly fortunate the Red Sox's great start has obscured his messy .169 average since April 21 -- because so far, the occupants of Fenway have been shockingly patient with him.

WRONG! Lifetime .180 average in 5 division series! He’s actually a lifetime .233 hitter in 7 postseason series. That still sucks, but don’t you have an editor? But that’s a terrible point because it’s basically a month’s worth of playing. Besides, for that matter, Derek Jeter hit .168 in 108 PA in April 2004, so don’t give me small sample things.

I already told you that allstar games don’t mean anything. We know that, and the “this time it counts” thing is a bunch of bull. The lack of 30 homer seasons was due to health concerns, sure, but don’t correlate a player’s performance with RBI. Derek Jeter only had 100 RBI in one season. Drew might be overpaid, but you said overpaid doesn’t necessarily mean overrated. And we know the Red Sox are fair-weather fans, but do you really think they’d look at a date as arbitrary as April 21 to start tracking his performance? The reason you picked it was that he hit .375/.456/.479 up until that point. If you have to manipulate facts to agree with what you say, then you’re probably not a reliable source.

3) Andruw Jones
I'm not going to devote a lot of space in this column to Jones.

I’m not going to devote a lot of space to discuss what you said, because JC Bradbury said it better at Sabernomics.

No. 4 -- Juan Pierre

Speed guys aren't automatically overrated. (See Reyes, Jose for more details.) But for years now, we've been getting way too worked up about players whose mere ability to bring their legs with them to first base can make a pitcher want to call his therapist between pitches. And that brings us to Pierre, a fellow so likable, it pains me to put him on this list. How can you not like a guy who loves baseball so much, he beats the grounds crew to the ballpark?

Well, ok, I’m gonna agree with you that Pierre is overrated offensively, even though he put on a hell of a show for me when I was there.

But I've been listening to GMs (mostly American League GMs) gripe for so long that Pierre is as overrated as any player in baseball, I'm finally ready to concede.

Wait a minute, you’re going to base who’s overrated on what other people say? Can you think of why this is stupid?

It was easier to argue the other side in 2003, the year Pierre and the Marlins won the World Series. That year, Pierre walked 55 times, struck out only 35 times, got 204 hits, reached base more than any leadoff man in baseball and led the league in steals.

So every leadoff man sucked in 2003. None of the other info in that paragraph means a whole lot of anything to me.

But leadoff hitters with .303 on-base percentages, who are on pace to walk 31 times in 748 trips to the plate -- i.e., the Juan Pierre presently playing out the first season of his five-year, $44 million contract with the Dodgers -- they're overrated. When Pierre reaches first in the late innings of a close game, he's still a game-changer. But think how much more often he would reach first if he actually walked three times a week instead of once.

Don’t give me on pace, because that always changes. And of course, he needs to get on base more to be effective. He is overrated, but not because someone told you he is.

No. 5 -- Bobby Abreu

Boy, do people love arguing about this fellow. Who can blame them?

The folks who only peruse Abreu's numbers don't just wonder what he's doing on this list.

They wonder when he's getting inducted into the Hall of Fame. How multitalented is Bobby Abreu? Well, he does happen to be the only active player with a .300 career batting average, a .400 on-base percentage, 200 homers and 250 stolen bases. And his .909 career OPS tops the OPS of Sammy Sosa, Chase Utley, Derrek Lee and many, many, many other famed batsmiths out there.

Those are very good numbers.

But there sure are a lot of people who watched him in Philadelphia who think Abreu is the poster boy for an unquantifiable division of the All-Overrated Team -- players who mysteriously seem to be less than the sum of their spectacular numbers.

When people battle me on this guy, I always sum it up this way: As great as Bobby Abreu can be, he lacks that all-important Derek Jeter gene. There is no voice in his head, screaming: "This ball has to be caught." Or: "That runner on third has to be driven in." In Philadelphia, where he was the centerpiece of the franchise, that one flaw showed up way too glaringly. Now, in New York, as the Yankees flounder, they're getting aggravated over the same stuff. Funny how that happens.

No, that actually sounds more like he’s underrated, because while reliable numbers suggest he’s good, people doubt it. In fact, some idiots actually suggested the Phillies were a better team without him. Your methodology is to suggest that the true value of a player is not in his numbers, but what people think of him. You probably tell your kids to always give into peer pressure, all the time. But seriously, do you actually buy this crap? This ball has to be caught – sure, I can understand not playing hard enough to do that. But that runner on third has to be driven in? I don’t care where you are, but particularly if you’re in the middle of the lineup, a walk is much better than a sac fly, because then you didn’t lose an out, and Arod or Ryan Howard, as the case may be, can hit a 3 run bomb.

No. 6 -- Brian Giles

Remember back when Giles was a perennial 37-homer, 100-RBI, .600-slugging walk machine in Pittsburgh? What happened to that Brian Giles?

He moved from PNC park to PETCO park. PETCO is an enormous pitchers park with a park factor in the low 90s, which means it’s a very strong pitchers park. If you actually look at it, you see that there are no power alleys, and it’s farther to right-center than to center field – 400 feet is a long way for a ball to travel! If you look at PNC, though, you notice that it’s only 370 feet to right center, and the outfield doesn’t stick out funny in right like it does in PETCO. Further, NL Central pitching, even back in the early 2000s, wasn’t as good as 2004 and later NL west pitching, even if he is on Jake Peavy’s team. The Rockies have the humidor now, after all.

That one-time .600 slugging percentage didn't even make it to .400 last season --and has submerged below .350 in 2007. And that quick, 37-homer bat mostly ropes balls the other way now -- leaving us with a guy who has as many homers this year as Kip Wells (one).

Not to suggest that Brian Giles isn't still a really useful player. Still cranks out tough at-bats and walks 100 times. Still gaps 35-40 doubles a year. But there's a difference between a star player and a useful player. And it's a difference that can propel a guy right onto an overrated list just like this one.

It also makes sense that in a large ballpark, he’s not going to try to hit home runs nearly as often. And it also makes sense that he’s not as good at age 36 as he was 5 or 6 years ago. Even with that, park factors and all, it is clear that Giles has deteriorated from age and injury (only 134 games in 2003). As for overrated, maybe on account of the fact that he hits 3rd for the Padres, but other than Adrian Gonzalez, nobody else on that team should be anywhere near the 3 spot. He hasn’t been named an all-star since 2001, and he doesn’t really get that much press outside of the NL West.

No. 7 -- Alfonso Soriano

When I did a quick all-active overrated poll of my friends in the baseball business, I was amazed at how many of them nominated Soriano. But wait. Remember, back in the Barry Zito section of this extravaganza, where we kicked around the similarity between "overpaid" and "overrated"? Well, the size of Soriano's paycheck has obviously gotten some folks' attention, too.

Again, you’re doing polls to decide who’s overrated? You might not get why this is dumb, but here’s why. Polls are a measure of how people are rated. What you’re trying to do is to determine value objectively compared to subjective values tainted by biases, allegedly. What you’re actually doing, though is taking biased information and then using that as evidence. Bad bad bad.

Is he a man with a spectacular array of talents? Of course. But here's how he wound up in this group: Last season, when he was driving for those Super Lotto dollars in Washington, he was a 46-homer, 41-steal, 95-RBI, .911-OPS kind of dynamo. This season, his first in Chicago after cashing in, he's on pace for a 16-homer, 29-steal, 37-RBI, .800-OPS kind of year. And when you sign on the dotted line for eight years, $136 million, people tend to notice that. Why is that, anyhow?

Because you’re looking at a small sample size. If you want to, you can even say he was distracted by playing center field at first. Soriano is a good baseball player, and if you were going to overrate him, it would have been 2 years ago. Back then, he was a guy who didn’t get on base a whole lot and played really poorly at 2nd base, not just with errors but in general. Then they discovered that he’s got poor instincts but really good speed and a really good arm, so they moved him into the outfield, where that kind of stuff actually matters (what the hell do you need an strong arm at 2nd for anyway?). Now he’s gone from worst defensive 2B in the game to gold glove outfielder (see his Rate2), and note that he threw out 22 guys last year. The Cubs paid him too much money and he’s not going to look but so good at the end of that contract, but for the time being, he’s a very good baseball player.

No. 8 -- Richie Sexson

Sexson and Adam Dunn fit into a category of overratedness I figured I'd better get to in this column someplace: Guys We Love Because They Can Pulverize A Baseball About 900 Feet.

Yes that’s part of why we like them. Adam Dunn is awesome because he gets on base a lot and makes an absolute mockery of the statistic called batting average.

But Sexson wound up winning this not-so-coveted spot for a couple of reasons: (1) He's the 10th-highest-paid player in the whole sport this year (at $15.5 million). And (2) he's hitting only a buck-77, with more strikeouts (32) than hits and homers combined (30). At least Dunn -- while he hasn't done that Ichiro impression he was forecasting -- is at .258, with 11 homers and seven steals, in between the whiffs.

Strikeouts are not that much worse than other outs. While you lose the opportunity for advancing the runners, which doesn’t always benefit you or else people would sacrifice all the time, you also lose the chance for a double play, and you force the pitcher to throw at least 3 pitches, often many more. Strikeouts are one of the three true outcomes, and Dunn, much more than Sexson, is the Three True Outcome player. Adam Dunn strikes out a ton, but he’ll also walk a ton. And over half his hits have been for extra bases the last few years. Dunn was an all-star once, the only Red in 2002 (every team has to send someone). Sexson is overpaid, sure, but overrated seems a stretch.

No. 9 -- Bob Wickman

Whoa. Almost made it through this whole list without including a closer. Can't do that. If the save is the most overrated stat in baseball -- and it is -- then we need somebody on this team to embody that.

A good call here. Yay! Clap Clap.

A scout nominated Wickman, and I'm still not sure if he belongs. But what the heck. He, Mike Gonzalez and Rafael Soriano have gotten massive credit for the salvation of the Braves' bullpen. But like the hitters who make all those outs against Wickman, I often ask myself: How the heck does he do it?

Good question. Lets see how you master it.

His WHIP this year is a messy 1.73 baserunners per inning. He's averaging nearly 20 pitches an inning. And he has handed out as many walks as strikeouts (10). But he has walked that tightrope and survived to tell about it. The saves (6-for-8) are there. So life seems good. But it definitely isn't as serene up close as it is from afar. Does that make him overrated? Hey, it does now. He's in this column, right?

Come on. You’re using small sample size data again! You had a Danys Baez “breaking ball” smack down the middle of the plate, and you told Olmedo Saenz to bunt. So now I have to pick a reason why what you said was awful. Does that make him overrated? What makes him overrated is that the only reason people think he’s any good is that he’s gotten saves before and he has experience. Because throughout his career he's had bad peripherals, and because people don't pay attention to the number of blown saves he has. That he has 6 out of 8 saves does not mean the saves are there; 75% is a horrible horrible save percentage for your closer, as most of the blown saves on your team show up from your 7th and 8th inning relievers.

Overrated-Underrated Dumbnitude

I have long thought that the word stupidity sounds, well, too smart, so that's why I came up with dumbnitude, which just sounds harsher.

Jayson Stark decided that he was going to start the conversation with his list of who's overrated and who's underrated. It's one thing to discuss the contents of these lists, but it's the methodology that really drives me nuts. Nonetheless, I'll at least post his top 10 overrated and underrated players, with my commentary on whether or not they belong on the list, and if they should be higher up or lower down. In a future post, I'll describe what I think a bit further.

OVERRATED
1) Barry Zito (maybe, but the most overrated?)
2) JD Drew (don't think so)
3) Andruw Jones (no, because I read this)
4) Juan Pierre (why doesn't he top the list?)
5) Bobby Abreu (no, wrong list, though he has had some odd struggles the last couple years)
6) Brian Giles (wrong list entirely)
7) Alfonso Soriano (he used to be the type to top the list, but now, I'm not sure he belongs on it)
8) Richie Sexson (no, don't think so)
9) Bob Wickman (yeah, he's a fat dude that gets saves. yippie)
10) Jeff Suppan (yeah, he just finds run support and defense)

UNDERRATED
1) Roy Oswalt (no, everyone knows he's good and that Houston's offense just sucks)
2) Trevor Hoffman (hell no, people overrate him now because of his past; I don't know how he still gets people out)
3) Hanley Ramirez (he won Rookie of the Year last year, try again)
4) Jake Peavy (yes, should be near the top if not at the top)
5) CC Sabathia (yes likely)
6) Carl Crawford (no, people know he's the best player on Tampa Bay)
7) Placido Polanco (wrong list actually)
8) Kevin Youkilis (yay, you got something right)
9) Joe Nathan (probably, probably in the right spot too)
10) Travis Hafner (definitely, in fact he tops the list. Why the hell hasn't he been an allstar yet?!)

So here's what I'll actually discuss:
1) Analyze what Stark says about Overrated Players
2) Analyze what Stark says about Underrated Players
3) Attempt to derive what analytical methods Stark uses
4) Create my own analytical methods
5) Create my own top 10 Overrated List
6) Create my own top 10 Underrated List