monty57

Also, with Gallardo, people have to remember how much more risky it is to offer a long term contract to a pitcher than it is to a position player. Absolutely. However, I'd rather take the risk of 8 years/$40MM on a "sure thing" young pitcher who, of course, could get hurt during the contract than I would spend 4 years/$40MM on an average 33-year-old who, of course, could get hurt during the contract. The money is going to get spent on pitching one way or the other. Gallardo is going to start to get expensive in arby, so I'd rather see them try to buy out a couple of FA years, knowing that if he stays healthy he's a pretty good bet to be a good pitcher. Again, I wouldn't offer these to everyone, only those that are selected to be "core players" that you want to build your team around. Hopefully Melvin has learned his lesson and will go year-to-year on non-core players. It's far from an exact science, but it's probably easier to figure out that Braun and Prince were going to continue to be good than to predict that Hall or Hart would continue to play above expectations. If we continue locking up the cream of each crop, we can add a lot of continuity and cost certainty to the team. Of course, not everyone will sign the extension, but don't let that deter you from offering, and don't "settle" for making an offer to the second tier simply because the top player wouldn't extend. If a player doesn't sign, then you have to plan for maximizing your value from that player (i.e. how long to keep him before trading him). Is there any proof that Fielder was never offered a Braun type deal? I think there's an assumption that he wasn't offered an extension earlier in his career when it's possible that he was but turned it down. I believe he was offered an extension, but if I recall correctly, it was offered at the end of his arby years, so Prince knew that he was going to make a boatload of money in arbitration. Therefore, a lot of the risk was off the table for him. That's why I argue that the extension has to be done while there are still arby years left. The tradeoff is that the team takes on the risk of the contract and the player takes a risk of losing out on some possible money down the road. When Braun signed his contract, he knew that his other option was to make around $400k for the next two years. By signing the contract, he knew that if he got hurt or flamed out he was still guaranteed $40MM. In other words, if Braun hadn't signed the contract and had gotten injured in his second year, he would have had to have gone out and found a "real" job. When Prince was offered his extension, he had already played through his league minimum years, so he didn't have nearly as much risk. And, of course, not everyone is going to sign an extension no matter what. That's a perfectly acceptable decision by the player, and may be how Prince wants to play it.

I agree ,TheCrew07, and I advocated pretty hard for them to offer Prince a long term deal back then (before players like Braun, Tulo and the rest started signing them). It's also why I think that if they don't sign Prince to an extension now, there is no chance he's signing an extension. Right now, he has two years that he could get injured before he hits free agency. Every day he plays that risk goes down a little bit. I don't think we'd get much of a discount if we sign him now (although there should be some "risk discount") but I don't think there's much chance of extending him if we don't do it now. Although I think we could afford him, I think it's looking more and more like we'll be trading him mid season this year or next offseason. I am definitely on board with you about extending some of our top talent in the "next crop" before they get to arby. I've been blowing that horn for years and was really happy when Braun was signed. The chance to sign Gallardo to a long term, cheap-ish contract is coming to an end. Once the player hits arby, the player's risk goes down significantly, so the extension gets more expensive. That's why you only offer the extensions to truly special players (Lawrie and Escobar come to mind) and do it early. Maybe if we do trade Prince, we'll add another player or two who is "truly special" and will deserve to be offered "Braun-type" extensions. To me, it would be far more palatable to get six to eight years of one or two good players than getting one more year of Prince and a couple of extra draft picks.

TLB, iirc, it was the A's complaining about what the Brewers gave Keith Ginter. I may be wrong, and there may be other cases, but for some reason that one came to mind. rluz, I pretty much agree with your assessment. I think much of it psychologically is that in order for teams like the Brewers to have any chance of competing with the big money teams is for the system to favor the team over the player. If the system starts to sway back more in the players' favor, I think there's some fear that the Brewers hopes are gone. Also, some people (not just sports fans) get really upset when a person makes more money than they will ever hope to make in their lifetime. We see it in sports and other forms of entertainment, as well as in the corporate world. Americans in general like to root for the little guy and then rip them apart when they become successful. Of course, there are other factors such as players the teams have to pay bonuses to who flame out and never play in the majors, and complementary minor league players that have no chance of making the bigs, but are paid simply to field a team so that the good minor leaguers have a team to play on. I guess that's why the union accepts making players "pay their dues" for their first few years before they get a chance to hit it big in free agency. A system like the NBA or NFL wouldn't work for baseball. I'm trying to look at things in a relative fashion. Corey Hart is probably not grossly overpaid at $4.8MM (although it's more than I would've thought he would have received in year 2 of arby), but I think he will be overpaid in 2011 if offered arby. In my mind, he's not a horrible player, just below average for a MLB RF. Relative to other players, that means he'll still make seven figures unless he continues to regress. However, the Brewers will be locked into paying him more than he's probably worth if they offer him arby for 2011, so I hope they'll have options that are around Hart's talent level or better for less money, which is possible in players such as Cain and Gerut or even Gamel.

we can't count on getting a 3-4 starters, most of our position players and a good portion of the pen out of the minors. I wouldn't want to do a deal over 4-5 years for Prince, so here's what I see over the next 4-5 years: We've got Braun in LF with Gomez, Cain, Schafer, Davis, Katin, Gindl and Richardson to fill the other two spots. Plus we've got Hart and Gerut for another year if we want them, and Gamel may get moved to RF. Gamel & McGehee are both here for five more years at 3B. Escobar is here for 5 more years at SS. Lawrie (seen as a "can't miss" prospect) at 2B. Lucroy, Salome and Kotteras at C. Plus there are a lot of others in our system that can fill in. I don't see a big problem fielding position players to fit in around Fielder from our system. Wolf is here through 2012 with an option for 2013. Gallardo and Parra here through 2013. Davis has an option for next year. So really, we're looking at one starting pitcher to step up next year to replace Suppan/Bush, and one more to step up the following year to replace Davis. Money will come off the books when Wolf goes, so if we can't find one more SP from the minors, we could use Wolf's money on a new free agent. I hope they're able to work out an extension for Gallardo to keep him here longer. Of the mass of SP we have in the minors, I would hope that at least some of those that don't make it as a starter will at least be able to help in the pen. On top of that, we have Villy through 2012, Stetter through 2013, with guys like Axford and Braddock who should step nicely into the MLB pen for many years. So yes, I think it is quite feasible to believe that we could put a pretty good team around Fielder, simply from players currently in our system (major and minor league). When you also consider that salaries will be coming off the books during the next 4-5 years (Suppan, Hall, Weeks, Hart, Zaun, Bush, Hoffman, Hawkins, etc.) and we ought to still have some flexibility to fill in some holes along the way. If Prince/Boras are willing to work out a 4-5 year extension, I think the Brewers can do it.

I didn't want to get into this argument but it is completely out of hand. First to label Hart a below average right fielder is wrong. Take a look around the league and see what is out there. In the NL maybe you are looking at Pence, Upton, Hawpe, Werth, Ethier. In the AL you have Markakis, Ichiro, Dye, Abreu. Hart was in the class of some of these guys prior to having a down year that included an uncommon injury. To say he is below average because of this is just wrong. In 2009, Corey's .753 OPS was 20th out of 26 MLB RFs with 400+ plate appearances. In 2008, his .759 OPS was 16th of 23. He had a great season in 2007 with an .892 OPS and had a .796 OPS in limited playing time in 2006. Since his one big season, he has been below average (the 50% mark). In fact, he's pretty much been in the bottom third. Now, if you're talking about defense, I'd say he's about average, as his good speed make up for his not always getting a good jump on the ball. I don't really have a problem with him defensively as a RF, especially since he played 1B most of his life and wasn't moved to OF until the low minors, so there's reason to believe that he could continue to improve defensively. Overall, I'd dub him a below average MLB RF. I agree that all teams have average-ish players, and I'm fine with Hart on the Brewers. I think he'll be overpaid next year (his final arby year), so I hope some of the minor league OFs are ready to play in the majors in 2011. I also think that Gerut at least as likely as Hart to regain former glory if given the playing time.

As I said earlier... if you don't like the system, argue for change in the system. I can't blame a player for listening to his agent who correctly felt that he could win the case. Using your court system analogy: If you are in a bad car crash and the insurance company says they'll give you $200,000, but your attorney says he is certain you can win a case and get over $1,000,000, what are you going to do? Are you greedy if you listen to your attorney, or are you simply believing that the person you hired to help you make these type of decisions knows what he is talking about? I'm with you in the belief that Hart is a below average MLB RF. I also agree that the MLB system isn't perfect, but it actually is put in place for the benefit of the teams, not the players. There should be a more level playing field for small & mid-market teams, but in the grand scheme of things that has very little to do with Corey Hart. The end result of this is that the Brewers have shown that they are willing to go to arbitration, Hart gets additional money this year, and I believe he won't be a Brewer next year because this decision, along with the arbitration system's method of guaranteeing pay raises for arby-eligible players, means that Hart would have to be significantly over-paid by the Brewers next year if they offer arby. I don't dislike Hart, and any "bad feelings" I have for him (as shown in earlier posts in this thread) are a result of his poor play since late 2008, not because the system in place for him means that he'll get paid more than people in most walks of life. The Brewers are in a situation that Melvin felt that offering Hart arbitration was the best option for this season, knowing that he'd be paid over $4MM whether the Brewers won or lost. Lorenzo Cain getting hurt and Brendan Katin refusing to take a walk probably helped him make this decision. I think the biggest negative effect this will have for the 2010 Brewers will be if they decide to play him every day no matter what because of his contract, rather than playing the player who gives them the best chance of winning, which may well be Jody Gerut or even Jim Edmonds.

Melvin has been quoted in several places stating that at some point he wanted to adress a contract extension for Prince. That was pretty closely followed by a featured article on milwaukeebrewers.com where Prince said he's focusing all his attention on playing, and doesn't want to get into contract discussions. Prince was amicable about it, but to me it shows that Prince isn't ready to sit down to discuss a contract extension. As I discussed in a previous post, I think that if he doesn't sign an extension now, the Brewers lose most of their leverage in signing him to anything close to a "team-friendly" extension, and Prince wouldn't gain much by signing an extension vs. testing free agency. Prince has every right to choose the FA route, and if that is his choice, then the Brewers need to maximize his value to the team.

Logan, what I was saying is that if we just get comp picks for Fielder, they won't help us for quite a few years. We would have a lineup with Fielder in it, and the next year we'd have relatively the same lineup without Fielder in it. That will hurt. If we can't afford him, we won't be able to afford a free agent who will be as good as him, so we will downgrade. If we cannot extend his contract, I would much rather trade him and get something that will be able to help us continue to compete. What we would get for him in trade should keep us a contender. Draft picks would (in my opinion) make us take a step back for a couple years. Prince is a very good offensive player. His presence alone makes the offense better. Losing him for future consideration (draft picks) will hurt our offense. It appears to me that he is going to test free agency, so the Brewers need to maximize Prince's value to the Brewers, which is probably to either trade him at the deadline this year or during next offseason. Not being defeatist, just realistic.

It seems like there are a lot of arms coming up in the system that are 0-2 years away from MLB that could help fill out the pitching side of the roster on the cheap. That's the main reason I'd like to see the Brewers extend Prince -- I think there are enough spots that will be cheap (including position players) for the duration of the hypothetical contract that the Brewers could function well. - TooLiveBrew I guess it all really comes down to what sort of payday Prince is looking for. If he's looking to do a somewhat shorter contract now (say 4-5 years), with the mindset that he'll be in line for another monster payday when he's about 30 (a stance which could very well make him overall more money over the course of his career), it might be very doable for Milwaukee. If he and Boras are going to be dead set on looking for a blockbuster 8-10 year deal once he hits free agency, then the Brewers should probably say, "Good luck in your future endeavors." -Invader3k These two posts sum up pretty well what I feel about whether the Brewers sould sign Prince. But it takes two to tango. Prince's dismissal of any contract talk after Melvin said he wanted to look into it tells me that there is basically no chance he'll sign an extension prior to free agency. For the Brewers to get any kind of leverage in talks, they would have to do it now, when there is still some injury concern risk for Prince. What I mean by that is Prince could get hurt this season and lose out on lots of money. If he isn't worried about that risk (as is obvious by the fact that he doesn't want to discuss an extension), then the Brewers' main bargaining point is off the table. All they can offer right now that another team can't (other than paying a lot more than they have to) is that they can take the injury risk off the player by bearing it themself through a long-term contract. It's sort of like life insurance. If you want to shift the future risk to the insurance company, you have to take some money out of your pocket today. If you aren't concerned about shifting that risk, you and your family will have more money... unless you die. Braun, Tulo, Longoria, etc all accepted less money now for more security. Prince didn't, and it doesn't look to me like he will. Neither is right or wrong. That said, I think our front office is now going to have to start looking at contingency planning. What is the best way to get our value out of Prince. He will be a Brewer for at least part of this year. Should we trade him at the deadline if we're out of it? Should we trade him next offseason? Or, should we keep him into next season knowing that if we're in the race we are basically going to get nothing but a couple picks for him. If that's the case, we'd probably go into rebuild mode, as we'd lose his bat and the picks wouldn't help for years in the future. Add in that we'd probably "go for it all" in Prince's last year and trade prospects for a stopgap, and it could really hurt. In other words, I think we have to start preparing ourselves for this to be Prince's last year as a Brewer before he's traded .

It's hard to call someone a "greedy pig" who's offer "was recognized by most" to be "more than generous" when the arbitration panel voted in his favor. Be upset with the system, which does pay the players far less than they're worth for the first few years of their tenure. Be upset with Melvin for offering him arby if he didn't think he was worth the money. Or, be upset with stupid, big market GMs whose overpaying drives up arby numbers, but Hart obviously wasn't offered too generous a contract if the arby panel voted in his favor. I don't think he's going to be even an average RF this year, but I can't be mad at him for listening to his agent, who advised him that he felt he could win an arby hearing, which he did. As I've said previously, my feelings are that Hart will continue to be an average-at-best MLB RF (offensively and defensively). That has no bearing on whether he should attempt to play by the rules put in place by MLB to attempt to get paid as much as he can. Anyone, in any walk of life should try to do what's best for them and their family. Using your earlier analogy, that underperforming employee would be dumb to say "you know what, boss, what you're offering me is too much. I suck, so therefore I should take a paycut." If you take your emotions of your feelings of Hart as a player out of the equation (which I'm trying to do myself), I hope you can see what I'm driving at. Hart won. Unbiased arbitors agreed in his favor. How can he be dumb or greedy for going to arbitration when he won?

Even though I hated the White Sox back when the Brewers were in the AL, I always respected Thomas as one of the players who openly advocated stronger drug testing in baseball. If it hadn't been for other players juicing, Thomas' numbers would have looked even better in comparison, and there would be no doubt that he should be a first ballot HOF.

I don't bear any ill will towards Hart. However, prediction services project him to be an average offensive RF, and I think those services are being generous, as he's been in the bottom third of RF for two years. This arby hearing assures that no matter how poorly he plays this year, he will make around $6MM next year, and if he turns it around and plays well, he'll demand $7-8MM. $6MM is too much if he's a .750 OPS RF. $7-8MM is probably (we'll see how the market goes) too much for him if he has a decent year. While I understand those who feel he should be cut on the spot, I highly doubt it will happen. I'll cheer for Hart this year and hope he can turn it around, even though I suspect Gerut could do at least as well as Hart if given a full season to play. I just feel that this decision makes it much more likely that he won't be offered arby after the season. It also probably assures that Hart will see full-time duty in RF, so my hopes for a "soft platoon" of Hart/Gerut are probably done, at least to start the season.

While this is surprising, it appears Hart played his hand wisely. I doubt he gets cut this season, as the Brewers would still need to pay him nearly $1MM and then sign someone else to play the position, or leave it in the hands of Gerut/Edmonds, which bears some risk. I do think this will increase the likelihood that Hart isn't offered arby next season, as he will now probably make close to $7MM in 2011. Even if he hits at the .785 OPS the projection systems are calling for, he is not worth that price. If he does play well, and hits for an .800+ OPS, he will probably shoot for $8-9MM if offered arby. I just hope some of our minor league OFs take big strides forward this season so they'll be ready to replace Hart next year. Maybe he'll get off to a hot start and someone like Cain is playing well at AAA, and the Brewers will be able to trade Hart for something useful at the deadline.

My first choice would be to sign him to a 4-5 year deal. Since that's seemingly more and more unlikely, I have to agree with Invader. I really don't want to see us only get comp picks for Fielder. We've seen with CC, Sheets, Linebrink and others that comp picks don't necessarily mean an extra #1. If Prince is not going to sign for a few more seasons with the Brewers, I think the best move will be to trade him. Whether that's this season, next offseason, or at the deadline 2011 will really be determined by how the team plays this year. As an added note, the situation with the NY Mets, which is being talked about in another thread, really bears warning. My desire to see Prince signed is after a cursory glance of the franchise's make-up. Mark A. and Melvin need to crunch the numbers pretty hard to make sure that signing Prince wouldn't put us in a situation like the 2010 Mets, who seemingly will go into the season without a proven 1B or Catcher and not much SP due to the fact that big contracts at other positions have them at their budget limit.

Agreed, End. They're not out of money, they're out of budget room because the contracts making up the current roster are too big to allow them to fill all their positions of need. That should be a pretty big call for some management changes in the front office. Good lessons to be learned by GM's of what not to do.

That's reassuring on Heether. For some reason, I thought Heether was gone if he didn't make the Brewers. I hope you're right on Edmonds and Schoeneweis. I'm probably over-worried of the "Macha influence" in picking the opening day roster.

How is Heether being declined a shot? 1) Gallardo 2) Parra 3) Bush 4) Wolf 5) Davis 6) Suppan 7) Hoffman 8) Hawkins 9) Coffey 10) Stetter 11) Vargas 12) One of Villy/Schoeneweis/Lofgren/Narveson 13) Fielder 14) Weeks 15) Escobar 16) McGehee 17) Braun 18) Gomez 19) Hart 20) Gerut 21) Zaun 22) Lucroy/Kotteras/Treanor/Salome 23) Counsell 24) Edmonds 25) One of Inglett/Cruz/Gamel/Heether/Iribarren Note that I did this quickly, so I hope I didn't forget someone. Since they'll likely want 5 OFs and Edmonds is the only true OF of the bunch, and the fact that he's a veteran with a good history, I think he makes the team. This leaves one spot for the final five to get the backup utility IF bench spot. Gamel is almost assuredly going to AAA, so there is a battle between Inglett, Cruz, Heether and Iribarren for the 25th spot on the roster. I'm not certain of this, but I believe Heether and Iribarren would both be lost if they don't make the 25 man roster. We could keep Heether as a backup IF/OF, but I don't see them dropping Edmonds unless he is completely lost at the plate and in the field during ST. Therefore, the signing of Edmonds probably means the end of Heether. Iribarren plays 2b/CF, so if they keep Edmonds, Inglett and Cruz are both more verstile as backup IFs. I expect Edmonds gets the 5th OF spot and either Inglett or Cruz gets the 25th man spot. Therefore, signing Edmonds and Schoeneweis could mean that we lose 15-18 combined years of service out of Narveson, Heether and Iribarren in return for possibly making the team slightly better this season (Schoeneweis could be a better option out of the pen this year than Narveson, as Narveson is a starter, and Edmonds is probably a better backup OF this season than Heether, who is really an IF). Again I ask, is it better to continually sign veterans for one-year deals in bench roles, or is it better to keep our "controlled" prospects for that role? We will probably be better this year if we let Iribarren and Heether go, but I don't think it will make us better for the future, and it definitely hurts our ability to control costs. Spring Training hasn't even begun, so a lot can happen over the next month and a half, but it's looking like we're beginning to trend towards jettisoning "average-ish" prospects in favor of similarly skilled veterans.

I don't want to speak for JohnBriggs, but what I believe he meant was that there are only so many innings to play in Spring Training. Instead of seeing if someone like Zach Braddock is ready to play, his appearances may be limited because Schoeneweis gets the call. Maybe we lose Iribarren and his 5-6 years of service because a veteran player who we'll have for one year outplayed him in the spring. Maybe this is good, maybe not. It really depends on your view of players like Iribarren. Would you rather have Iribarren on the bench this year and being a part of the system for the remainder of his "controlled" years, or continually sign veterans to one-year deals? Many of the 30-something brigade Melvin has recently signed will play significant roles in 2010 (Hoffman, Zaun, Davis, Wolf, Hawkins, Counsell). I'm not against these signings, and without re-hashing a "what could have been" thread, we did need to address pitching and catcher this off-season. It is interesting that Melvin is choosing to bring in a lot of older players, when it appears to me that Macha prefers older players to younger ones. As it sits right now (10 days before pitchers and catchers even report), my guess is that not only will Edmonds make the team, he will take significant PT away from Hart and Gomez, and Gerut will be almost completely forgotten... and that's regardless of how Edmonds is playing. I believe that Iribarren (and possibly Heether) is as good as gone from the Brewers, which is too bad, as he seemed to show that he could at least be a MLB bench player. I hope that what Narveson did at the end of last season will make Macha forget that Schoeneweis is "more experienced," and Narveson will beat him out for the final pitching spot, and we don't lose 5-6 years of a somewhat promising pitcher for one season of a mediocre middle reliever. Competition is generally good, and I may be over-reacting, but Macha left a bad taste in my mouth last season, and I worry that we're converting from a team that relies on our prospects to play a major role with the Brewers (which I think is necessary for a small- mid-market team) to one that favors one-year veteran FA signings.

Peterson seems to be a coach that players either love or hate. If Shoineweis really is a "Peterson guy," then maybe he will accept a AAA assignment. If so, then I like this pick-up for mid-season bullpen help.

Yes, it's kind of an odd situation. The team has to explain why the player doesn't deserve more money, which means they have to rip into the player's bad points. Pretty much the opposite of what a team wants to do with a player they've spent years developing. I know I've been down on Hart in this thread. I don't think he'll win the case, but I met his family in Arizona during Spring Training and they were very nice people. I don't wish ill on Corey. I hope he takes this experience and uses it as motivation to play very well and regain his past form.

My biggest concern is what this could mean for Narveson. Are we willing to give up five years of a decent pitcher in Narveson if Schoeneweis has a good spring? I'd have to believe someone would claim Narveson off of waivers. If we had a bunch of guys with options, I could see the stockpiling of good arms in AAA, but many of these guys either make the MLB team or are gone. If two guys are relatively equal, I'd hate to lose the one we have under control for a number of years so that we can have an older player for one year. Like I said when Edmonds was signed, on the surface I like seeing Melvin add talent to the roster, but I worry that Macha has a lot of say on who makes the team. My worry is that he will choose the older guy for one year over the younger guy for multiple years. Now, if some of these guys that are being signed will accept a role in AAA as insurance, it makes more sense. If they are singned simply to add more congestion in the competition for the final bullpen spot, it doesn't make much sense.

But what are you considering that is non-quantifiable? You aren't adding any extra information that I see, just blind speculation. You might be right but you haven't offered up any evidence to support your theory that pitchers "have figured him out". Because the evidence you seek is what is what's non-quantifiable. The only evidence you believe to be pertinant to any discussion is information that can be viewed in a stat line. Seeing every pitcher work him the same way, with the low & away slider strike three as the knockout punch, showed me that the pitchers had figured out how to get him out. The Brewers coaches of course realized this, because they have eyes, and anyone who watched the game could see what the pitchers were doing to Hart, even if Microsoft Excel had not yet figured it out. During last offseason, it was widely reported (and Hart said this himself) that the coaching staff told him to take more pitches to try to lay off the low & away slider. The changes made Corey late on fastballs (again, he said this himself in interviews). The pitchers realized this and blew fastballs by him. I know, that doesn't show up on a stat line, so it has to be "blind speculation," but MLB pitchers are going to blindly speculate Hart right out of the majors. I don't know what proof you would require. Pitchers all work Corey the same way, and he himself has admitted he lost power because taking more pitches has caused him to get tentative and behind on the fastball. Maybe this isn't purely non-quantifiable... Hart's had two straight .750ish OPS seasons. Or, if we want to use Ennder's arguement, he was so ridiculously God-awful at the end of the 2008 season after the pitchers figured him out that he turned a decent season into a nightmare in a month. I really hope I'm not right. I hope Corey figures it out. Macha's answer has been to let him swing away this season. I guess his thought is that someone who gets on base around 30% of the time, but can hit 20 HR is better than someone who gets on base at a 10% better rate with 60% the HR. I worry we'll see Sept 2008 again, but that's just speculation.

Okay, maybe not "Basic pricipal of math," but "basic mathematical knowledge." Taking an average of three numbers is going to be extremely volatile, and likely to be skewed if any of the three numbers is far off from the other two (around here it's known as small sample size). I wouldn't say the 2007 numbers shouldn't be included, but there needs to be an asterisk next to them. I agree that this is not a situation where median numbers should be used, but I thought the real estate example could show how basic averages can be thrown way off. Basically, all I'm trying to say is that what works in some situations doesn't work in all situations. I never said to throw a year out as an "obvious outlier," I'd say that current statistical analysis uses far too many aggregates and tries to apply them to every individual situation, leading to many cases (I believe this is one) where the charts are wrong. In Hart's case, there seem to be circumstances that have changed from point A in 2007 to points B & C in 2008-9. Most likely the circumstance is that baseball consists of many moving parts, each acting on the other (correlations). Pitchers have figured something out about Hart, and he is struggling mightily to correct it. He may be able to, he may not. Some players adapt more readily than others. Since this is probably a mental challenge, and therefore not quantifiable, statistical analysis has to assume it doesn't exist, or at the very least, take multiple years to determine that a problem indeed exists. If Hart has another .750 OPS season, the previously referenced projections will put Hart's projections at .750, but as long as the .895 season is in the three-year range, they will project him higher. Hart could lose a leg tomorrow, and these projections would still show him as a .785 OPS player for 2010, and unfortunately, I believe there are people who would argue that he's likely to do it based on these projections. Insurance actuarial tables are probably as close as anything to what SABRmetrics is trying to achieve. If someone is trying to buy life insurance, and he's right smack in the middle of the "healthy" charts, he'll get a certain rate. If he comes back two years later and there is a significant negative material change in his physiology which began two years ago, he will not get the same rate. Something has changed and the actuaries account for it. If they don't consider this material fact, the insurance companies will lose a lot of money. MLB teams have to consider material changes. If they don't, they will lose a lot of money. People trying to make a name for themselves on public domain websites have nothing to lose by putting out a formula that disregards non-quantifiable attributes. Heck, they may even get people quoting them. I think actuaries would put a lot of "risk premium" on Corey Hart regaining his old form. I believe most MLB GM's will do the same. Fortunately for Corey, the arbitration system virtually assures him a pay raise (if he's offered arby) and his first arby year was during a period where a reasonable GM could still believe that he just had a down 1/2 year. I'd bet that if he has another .750 OPS season, he won't get offered arby next year, and he'll be paid less in 2011 than he will be this year. Instead of using aggregate stats of every player from the dawn of time, is there somewhere that compares "like players?" In other words, can you find other players who have followed similar career paths to Corey Hart to see how their careers turned out? To me, that seems a more logical path to take. Again, more numbers are not always better.

I guess sometimes you can learn something by actually watching the player to determine why he's had a significant drop off in production rather than simply reading stat lines and inputting them into a formula that suppposedly works for every player simply because it's made up of the aggregate stats of every person who's ever played the game. Seemingly, those who don't care about things like mechanics, but simply look at the numbers feel that Hart will do fine. Those that have watched him have some worries. Personally, I'm worried about both: -He has terrible plate discipline and swings wildly at bad pitches. His walk rate was up last year mainly due to the fact that Brewers' management told him to watch more pitches. This increased his walks, but unfortunately, he couldn't catch up to a fastball while doing this, so his power dropped off. Now they're telling him to go back to his wild swinging ways. This could get him back to where he was a few years ago, but is likely to see him looking like he did at the end of 2008 after the pitchers figured him out. -The projection line really seems to forget one basic principle of math... that averages are greatly skewed by one number that is significantly higher or lower than the rest. This is why the housing market uses median numbers rather that average numbers. One million dollar house sold skews the average price if all the other houses are $65,000. In Hart's case, one .895 OPS season skews the fact that he's been a .750 OPS guy for the past two years. The difference between a .750 guy and a .785 guy isn't that great, but saying it's expected (over/under) for him to be a .785 guy seems a stretch. That would mean that it's as likely that he hits .820 OPS as it is for him to hit .750 again. I don't believe that's the case. He's capable of .820, but more likley to hit .750.

AJAY, the Yankee / Red Sox division thing was a joke on my part, not part of the article. I do agree that revenue sharing (particularly local TV revenues) would be the best way to get rid of the salary disparity. Soon we'll get all of our TV through the internet, and in a shrewd move by Selig, all internet revenues are shared, so this problem could work itself out.