November 23, 2009

Who is Shyster?


Order Now


The Hardball Times Baseball Annual 2010 is now in development and will ship in mid November! This year's book will feature articles by THT's staff as well as Bill James, Rob Neyer, Tom Tango and Craig Wright. If you use this link to purchase the Annual, you will be in the first group to receive it and you'll be supporting THT.
Roll mouse over dates
Daily Posts
February 2009
S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28




Player Search:
Plus our Statistical Definitions

Monthly Archives



Or you can search by:


Gear up for baseball season with Chicago White Sox tickets and New York Yankees tickets. LA Angels tickets, Houston Astros tickets, and Atlanta Braves tickets are hot sellers! You can get Boston Red Sox tickets, San Diego Padres tickets or Chicago Cubs tickets for your favorite baseball fan. Coast to Coast Tickets has the best MLB tickets like Minnesota Twins tickets, LA Dodgers tickets, Milwaukee Brewers tickets, New York Met tickets and St. Louis Cardinals tickets.
Find premium Chicago Cubs tickets and other Chicago tickets at JustGreatTickets.com.
Chicago Cubs Tickets
Chicago Tickets



Creative Commons License
All content on this site (including text, graphs, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Most Recent Comments

Shyster's Daily Circuit


Baseball. Blogging. Whenever.

Friday, February 13, 2009

I love random spring training stuff.


The best thing about the major league season are games which are, in and of themselves, meaningless. Wednesday night tilts between teams only marginally in contention, about 17,000 fans enjoying a beer and a game on a nice summer night. We can enjoy them for their own sake without worrying about WHAT IT ALL MEANS, and go to sleep most nights without thinking about difficult things which angry up the blood.

Spring training reporting is a lot like that inasmuch as it is the season when articles that kind of meander around fifteen different subjects and make no real points start popping up everywhere. Reporters are crawling around spring training trying to get their sea legs back and find something to write about, and no matter how silly the results, I always find enjoyment in them, especially at the end of a week like the one we've just had.

The Mets are going to win the World Series because their pitchers like to play golf together? Great. Bring me more. Some guy has four different gloves he's breaking in? Can't get enough. There will be dozens of these kinds of stories over the next few weeks, and I'll enjoy every single one of them no matter how silly they are.

I like important stuff just as much as the next guy, but please, for a little while, deliver us from meaning, baseball. That's your greatest glory, and we thank you for it very, very much.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 2:00pm

It’s funny because it’s true


I probably need to put an end to all steroid-related snark on this blog, because I'm never going to be able to do it better than this.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 1:15pm

Money is fungible.  That’s why they call it “money”


This morning I posted Jorge Costales' response to my anti-Marlins stuff, and now Will Wilson has a response to Jorge's response, taking specific issue with Jorge's argument that the Marlin Money was designated for entertainment-related purposes to begin with:

Governments (politicians) earmark specific revenue and expenditure streams in order to artificially restrict the universe of available decisions. "We can't dip into that pot of money for the XYZ program. That stream is entirely devoted to ABC." It doesn't have to be so; it is only a bookkeeping fix. In reality, money is money is money.

If this "designated revenue" earmark is only reason that the city of Miami would build a stadium as opposed to, say, fixing sewer lines or roads that need fixing, then by all means change the revenue designation. This is a wealth transfer to the "entertainment-related" industry, plain and simple.





Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 12:30pm

Restoring purity?


From an article with the headline "Next generation must restore baseball's purity":

THE DAY after Alex Rodriguez's disillusioning steroids admission, local top baseball prospect Jason Castro was at Canyon Middle School speaking to a group of about 200 youngsters about the importance of education, the rewards of hard work and the dangers of poor associations.

He was talking to the same kinds of kids, presumably, whom A-Rod now says he wants to advise and help now that he's rediscovered honesty, accountability and his conscience.

Sorry, Alex, but you've had your chance and you blew it. Please leave it to the young guys now, OK? If the sanctity of Major League Baseball is to be restored, it'll be the next generation of players, not the ever-growing cast of tarnished stars, that does it.

Emphasis supplied. And now some definitional assistance:

Pure: (adjective) 1. free from what vitiates, weakens, or pollutes; 2. containing nothing that does not properly belong; 3. free from moral fault or guilt;

Sanctity: (noun) 1. holiness of life and character; 2. : the quality or state of being holy or sacred : inviolability

Restore: (transitive verb) 1. to give back; return; 2. to put or bring back into existence or use 3. to bring back to or put back into a former or original state

Someone please point me to a single time in the game's history where purity and sanctity existed, and if you can't, please explain to me how a state of affairs which never existed can possibly be "restored."

The steroid era has brought about enough problems which need to be fixed as it is. Why make the job harder by setting the goal so unreasonably and unprecedentedly high?

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 11:00am

Selig’s Statement


Lost in yesterday's let's-strike-Barry-from-the-record-book silliness is the fact that Bud Selig did make an official statement on Alex Rodriguez yesterday:

On behalf of Major League Baseball, I am saddened by the revelations concerning Alex Rodriguez's use of performance-
enhancing substances," Commissioner Selig said. "While Alex deserves credit for publicly confronting the issue, there is no valid excuse for using such substances and those who use them have shamed the game.

"What Alex did was wrong and he will have to live with the damage he has done to his name and reputation. His actions are also a reminder to everyone in baseball -- under our current drug program, if you are caught using steroids and/or amphetamines, you will be punished. Since 2005, every player who has tested positive for steroids has been suspended for as much as 50 games. Eradicating performance-enhancing substances from the game of baseball has been my first priority over the past decade and it is important to remember that these recent revelations relate to pre-program activity."

He seems to have walked things back from those off-the-cuff comments to USA Today, which is a good thing. I guess the lesson here is never let Bud just riff, because he's going to say something stupid if he does.

This statement, in contrast, is not stupid. He (a) reminds those calling for blood that this related to the pre-suspension era, implying that the critics' hopes for suspensions or what have you are misplaced; and (b) notes something which all of the reasonable pundits -- myself included -- have neglected to acknowledge, which is that Rodriguez was wrong to use steroids. Whatever you say about the testing and the union and the blowback and the implications for the future and history and everything else, I think we can all agree that, in an ideal world, no one would be using steroids to enhance performance. No we don't live in an ideal world, but unless you're just a hopeless cynic, I don't think you simply abandon efforts to attempt to attain the ideal. That should be the Commissioner's job, anyway, at least as long as he's somewhat thoughtful and realistic about it. Maybe that's asking too much of Bud himself, but there are a lot of smart people in Major League Baseball who probably spend a lot of time reigning him in.

There's no perfect way to wrap up this saga, and there's certainly nothing that Bud Selig can say that will put an instant end to a long-term problem. But he can remind people that this was a past transgression and that there has been what most people understand to be a reasonable testing regime in place for several years now. History, as messy as it can be, will eventually sort itself out. To the extent there is further discussion about steroids in baseball, it should focus on things like making the testing better, adapting to changes in the doping world and in the legal supplement world, and tackling the big picture philosophical issue of what does and what doesn't constitute illegitimate performance enhancement, because advancements in technology are only going to make this issue thornier.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:15am

Comment of the Day


I've slagged on the Marlins' stadium across a dozen posts by now, so it's probably time I grant some equal time. Here's a comment on my post about this from Wednesday, from the guy who probably knows more about this deal than the dudes who are going to vote on it later today, Jorge Costales:

I suspect that this will not change minds, but the type of public funds to be used for the stadium are tourist-based taxes and are specifically designated for entertainment related purposes. So the stadium is competing with arts and convention centers, not the type of infrastructure improvements you note or the police services noted in the comments. In fact, today’s Miami Herald editorial endorsed the stadium deal.

Further, I won’t bore you here [I intend to bore you with other points], but in my blog I point out how favorably the stadium deal looks in comparison to other smaller market team stadium deals. Really, what’s the point of allowing figures related to NY stadiums being used to analyze our situation?

I am for the stadium being built, but am no fan of how Marlins management have publicly portrayed their finances. I concede and believe that the economic arguments typically made for retaining sports teams in a city are exaggerated. Although, I do think that the value of having major league teams in a city with a tourist-based economy is too easily dismissed.

I am practically a lifelong Miamian and grew up in the [called Little Havana] neighborhood where the stadium is to be built--the former [and beloved] Orange Bowl location. But my support is not purely sentimental, although it is that too. It’s not a main argument, but this stadium will revive a neighborhood which could have been expected to decline otherwise--score one for the have-nots.

I believe a case can be made that this stadium deal is one where the local governments are doing the right thing out of necessity, not conviction. While the location is a compromise, I think it will work out beautifully due to the issue of traffic, which I assure you is a close 2nd to rainouts for us Marlin fans. Dolphins stadium [and its 3 exits] has long been a nightmare to get out of when the crowd is above even 20,000—fortunately that has been rare recently.

While some can legitimately wonder if it’s the right location, the recently passed federal stimulus bill unquestionably makes it the right time. Soon state governments will be awash in Federal dollars in search of legitimate public works projects. Many non-legitimate projects will no doubt be funded. The stadium is part of an overall plan designed to improve the type of infrastructure concerns raised in your post. As a result of the stadium process being dragged out for years and unforeseen economic circumstances, this stadium deal now represents a perfectly timed opportunity for Miami to improve in ways which would have been unimaginable even 2 years ago.

Any resentment I may harbor against the type of MLB owners who profit from these type of circumstances, pales in comparison with the good which I believe may come to my city from all these bizarre circumstances coming together.

I will now put away my violin/bongos.

Jorge, by the way, maintains an excellent blog on the subject, so if this stuff interests you, by all means check it out.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 9:45am

Clemens takes the loss


Last year, when Roger Clemens first filed suit, I noted that one of the reasons why defamation lawsuits are suckers' games for the PR-conscious is that so often the outcome is determined by things other than whether the actual statements at issue are true or false. There are many exceptions and nuances to defamation law, and there's a huge and often impossible-to-meet burden of proof when public figures like Clemens are involved. The result: oftentimes even lies, if properly-intentioned or uttered in a certain context, are deemed acceptable under the law.

I'm fine with this, of course, because these exceptions and nuances are what help protect free speech. However, if you're a high-profile defamation plaintiff they can be dangerous, because the general public -- about whose opinion you are concerned -- is very likely to view even a procedural or technical loss as vindication of the allegedly defamatory statement. Put more simply, when it comes to public opinion, it's about wins and losses, and even if a loss is due to something other than who was or wasn't actually lying, the public will deem the loser the liar.

This is what Roger Clemens is about to find out:

A U.S. District judge in Houston dismissed most of Roger Clemens' defamation lawsuit against his former personal trainer Brian McNamee Thursday, agreeing that the court did not have jurisdiction to hear most of the case and that McNamee's conversations with George Mitchell were protected by his immunity deal with the government.

Judge Keith P. Ellison agreed that because McNamee accused Clemens of using HGH and steroids while he was in New York speaking to Mitchell and then repeated the accusations to SI.com reporter Jon Heyman, who is also in New York, the Southern District in Houston does not have jurisdiction.

No, the suit is not totally dead, but given that Clemens has learned another hard fact of defamation lawsuits in the past year -- that bringing one often brings one more bad publicity than having let the original defamatory statement lie in the first place -- he would be well-advised to cut his losses and quit now. He's Roger Clemens though, so he'll probably just rub some Icy Hot somewhere, bark at his lawyers and continue fighting on. We need people like that in this country -- you never know when we may be invaded by the Martians or something -- but it won't be a good thing for him personally.

Anyway, assuming things do end here, Clemens is way, way worse off than he would have been had he never started this business to begin with. Despite the fact that nothing in this court's ruling actually establishes that McNamee was telling the truth about Clemens, Clemens' loss on technical grounds will forever be treated by the public as confirmation that he was the liar. And maybe he was the liar -- I'd say the odds are in favor of that -- but if he didn't file this suit he could have at least gone through life informally telling people his side of things and working quietly to rehab his public image.

Such a tack would have been tantamount to a no-decision in which he pitched poorly but no one really blamed him for the ultimate outcome. Those things are forgotten and, rightly or wrongly, aren't held against a guy by the fans at large. Now? There's a big L next to his name, and people will always consider him to be the loser, even if he had no run support and the runs were unearned.



Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 8:15am

Andy Oliver sticks it to the NCAA


An Ohio court reaches the perfectly reasonable conclusion that an NCAA rule which effectively prohibits a 17 year-old kid from responsibly consulting professionals when trying to determine the course of his future violates the law:

In a landmark decision, an Ohio judge today ruled in favor of Oklahoma State lefthander Andrew Oliver in his lawsuit against the NCAA. Erie County judge Tyge Tone ruled that the NCAA cannot restrict a player’s right to have legal help when negotiating a professional contract and ordered Oliver’s eligibility to be reinstated.

Oliver was originally ruled ineligible by Oklahoma State (under NCAA pressure) on the eve of OSU’s 2008 regional opener for violating the NCAA’s "no agent" rule as a high school senior, when the Twins drafted him in the 17th round and his advisors contacted the organization on his behalf.

This ruling should come as no surprise considering that the NCAA is wrong about pretty much everything it does. If the rule in question applied to non-athletes, it would prevent a computer science prodigy from speaking to a career counselor before enrolling on an academic scholarship. I have this feeling that such a thing wouldn't be tolerated nearly as long as scores of stupid, self-serving NCAA rules have been tolerated, mostly due to the bogus cult of amateurism it fosters and exploits.

In any event, good for the fine courts of the Great State of Ohio for getting this one right. Let's hope it holds up on appeal.

Mike A. at River Ave. Blues -- who kindly shot me a copy of the decision -- has a take here. He's less pleased about this than I am due to what Scott Boras or someone might do now that this rule is gone. I haven't thought about that aspect too deeply, but it's not as though Boras hasn't been in the living room of every top high schooler anyway, so I'm not sure how this changes anything.

Also, check out The Common Man's take. He believes that the Rule 4 draft may be in peril.

Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 7:30am

Today at THT


Things to read as you realize that there are some things in life you never would have noticed if they had not first been pointed out to you:

  • Dan Turkenkopf has a big piece of BABIP, DIPS, and CQA. This is where I'd normally insert a cute little joke or something, but that would require that I first understand Dan's article, and though maybe I should be, I'm not ashamed to admit that I don't.


  • In honor of Valentine's Day, Richard Barbieri's This Annotated Week in Baseball History takes a look at players with the last name "I spent $300 on dinner and shelled out for roses and jewlery too, so you're damn RIGHT I expect to be invited up for coffee." Wait, that's not right. He looks at players with the last name Hart. My apologies.


  • Finally, over at Fantasy Focus, Alex Zelvin looks at how to handle double headers in Rotohog (short answer: there is no hope beyond suicide and the warm embrace of death) and there's a mailbag. Pfun Pfact: There has not been an actual piece of U.S. Mail sent to an internet writer or publishing concern since 1996, thus rendering the term "mailbag" a hilariously anachronistic misnomer!. In this way, "mailbag" is not unlike other internet terms such as "editor" and "truthful"!


  • And it's not a softball, Jason. It's, um, an ancient example of a "bat and trap" ball, which shows you just how historically-reverent we here at THT truly are!

    Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 5:50am