So I'm listening to the Pandora while working and I'm thinking to myself, "Bajeebus! There are some great bands that went way off track in their later years." Usually a member leaves (or dies) and things go awry from there - Van Halen, Genesis, Pink Floyd - but in other cases nothing changes except time - Rolling Stones, AC/DC, REM. The same goes for a lot of solo acts - Paul McCartney, Billy Joel, Billy Idol, Ozzie, etc, etc. Those might not even be the best examples but the rule seems to hold: some of the best music comes from an act's early years and some of the worst, from the later years.

What I'm wondering is, who would You put up there as an example of solid from start to finish (or at least present)? What musicians have been good enough to evade the fade in their later years and avoid the embarrasing "Did they really make that" albums?

Personally, I would have to put Radiohead at the top of that category. You may not like them, but I do. Their crappest album was release number one. Everything since has been solid and, unlike some bands (RHCP, Foo), they are not just coasting on a formula.

So list Your examples and make a case. A couple of notes to consider:

• "But they always sucked!" is not a reply that really counts.
• This not a Rush thread.

I thought for certain that someone would have created a post about the on the field photo day. I guess I was the only one there. Anyway, I'll create this post and anyone who wants can dump their photos here.

It's possible that I should be creating a FanShot for this, but I don't like those things. Does anyone ever look at them?

On a side note, this is the second time I have to write this entry because the UI designers at SBNation have something to learn... gad friggin jableemafashikkin creppafekkle flippity crap!

Continue reading this post »

Steve Wang, an associate professor of statistics at Swarthmore College has used Chernoff faces to illustrate the tendencies of MLB managers. It's very easy to see who the meddlers are (Bochy, LaRussa, Scioscia) and those who are not (Leyland, Tracy). Just one more thing I found through FJM.

Link to graphic from the New York Times

Neat story about how Brian Bannister is trying to use stats and pitch f/x to improve his game. He seems to be approaching it realistically and with some intelligence.

There's also a couple of little nuggets in there about BABIP. Bannister had a somewhat low BABIP last year and apparently Zito did as well. Last year's leaders for BP members. For those that are not members, the top five are:
Orlando Hernandez .228
Chris Young .246
AJ Burnett .262
Brian Bannister .264
Barry Zito .264

It's suggested by Bannister that good curveball pitchers might have better BABIP than expected. Well, Zito has done pretty well with BABIP over the years:

2000. .238
      
2001. .288
      
2002. .251
      
2003. .244
      
2004. .299
      
2005. .249
      
2006. .287
      
2007. .264

Now the low BABIP didn't necessarily mean success for Zito last year. I just found it interesting because I thought BABIP should average out to .270 to .280. I also think it's fantastically interesting to hear a player talk about stats in this way. It's a decent little read. Passan wrote it, but don't let that stop You.

I hope Bannister has continued success. Here's to more players approaching the game in a similar manner.

BP has a Q&A with Ned here

The article is available only to subscribers. Here are a couple of tidbits:

Q: You've received some criticism for not being aggressive enough in giving your younger players an opportunity...is that fair?

A: If we believe that a player is completely prepared to take over a big league position full-time, for a full season, we'll do that...If we have some doubt, we like to have a veteran in that position--especially in a big market--until we are more certain that the young player is ready. If you provide a young player with the position prematurely and the speed of the game and the pressures of the big leagues exceed where that player is at, at that point in his career, then we have done an injustice to the team and to the young player. And finding out that we've overestimated a young player 50 games into the season is a very difficult point of the season to make an adjustment.

Q: When spoke to BP in 2003, one of the things you said about player acquisition was, "A big thing we look for is overachievers." How do you define an overachiever?

A: Stats tell a lot of the story, but not all of it. Sometimes you become enamored with players, and it can be for different reasons. Some might not put up big numbers, but they grind and they figure it out. At the end of the day, the most important statistic is whether or not you won. You might have a player who went 0-for-4, but twice he moved a runner to third base and both times the runner scored on a sacrifice fly and the team wins the game 2-1. You don't see it in the box score, but he helped you to win that game. You need players who can do that. The overachiever always has something to prove.

Speaking of 2003, here's what Ned had to say about the use of stats in player evaluation way back when he was with Sabean.

Q: What role does statistical research play in the Giants front office?

A: It's part of what we take into consideration, along with scouting reports, and how someone uses their ability. How a player approaches the game, how he approaches life, far outweighs what the stat line looks like. When you see a minor league pitcher called up, you trust your development people and your scouts. How the pitcher's numbers were accumulated isn't as important as talent, makeup, how he pitches in certain situations.

At the end of the day, You have to wonder if Brian and Ned share a brain. Knowing what's in Ned's brain, how much does this tell us about Brian? Make Your own conclusions.

Finally, instead of a poll, here's a question:
How many MLB ABs do Nate, Rajai and Fred each get in 2008?

Continue reading this post »

Ehh, I haven't been here before.  What is intro copy.  Confused...technical.error.  Continue to below....

Poll

If Liriano stayed with the Giants, he would have...

20%

...been just as good. Your just stirring up $#!t.

9 votes

41%

...been brought up for a limited time and eventually traded for a marginal, over-priced reliever.

18 votes

13%

...never made it past AAA.

6 votes

6%

...busted out his shoulder/elbow/knee and required surgery.

3 votes

16%

Who is this Liriano you speak of???

7 votes

43 votes | Poll has closed

Continue reading this post »