now

That's pretty illuminating. Here are some further numbers crunched from yours: Selected MLB % MLB Tot rWAR Avg rWAR Avg rWAR HSP 14 8 57% 14.8 1.1 1.9 HSH 21 10 48% 148.8 7.1 14.9 CP 17 9 53% 153.2 9.0 17.0 CH 10 9 90% 77.7 7.8 8.6 The last two columns are averages from the first two columns respectively. The clearest results are the phenomenally high "floor" represented by college hitters; the abysmally low "ceiling" with high school pitchers; and the best overall outcomes, from draft to WAR, with HS hitters and college pitchers. Still, these are relatively small samples I suppose, with results heavily skewed in WAR by a few stars.

Sounds about right. In our era a guy like Tony Perez probably just squeaked in; back then he would have been a shoe-in. Ken Singleton I suppose came close?

Exactly what I was thinking (and hoping to see in this thread). Or rather, to add to the past version, having a present and future version. How about, to get the ball rolling for the futures, starting with the top bonuses (reported today by Melewski): C - Basallo 1B - 2B - Prieto 3B - Sanchez SS - Hernandez, Arias LF - Gonzalez CF - Tavera RF - Feliciano, Sosa DH - RHSP - LHSP - Ortiz RHRP - LHRP -

Wow, bad luck! I started following in earnest around 1960: the beginning of an unbelievable 25-year run of success (ending basically in 1983). Oh well, at least there have been a few highlights along the way, in those next 40 years!

Watching the underrated 1983 WS (from YouTube). A lot of Hall of Famers in play! Palmer, Ripken, Murray, Schmidt, Morgan, Carlton, Perez (plus Pete Rose). I was going to ask, Does anyone know which WS has the most HoF-ers? Quora sez: Not only was that series underrated, hard-fought till the Game 5 clincher; that Oriole team also featured a deep rotation, an ironclad bullpen, and a lineup and bench full of role players, greater than the sum of its parts. Not to mention, 15 holdovers from the 1979 WS losers--five years later, still hungry for reDEMPtion. (Here's lookin at you too, Eddie Murray, breaking out with 2 HRs in the finale).

Yeah, those two aside, from 2020; but in 2021 the reports seemed heavy on contact, bat-to-ball, and low K rates.

It seems to dovetail with out recent draft emphasis on contact batters with a high hit tool, more than power-heavy.

Virtually all my favorite online writers now are on Substack.

Must have been that he was a "crafty" righty (unlike Gausman).

Have to agree with all of this except the bit about a 5-year shortstop. Can't see that happening with any of the pretenders in house, in terms of having the full SS package of glove and bat. (Though if it does, great!). BTW I like Kelvin Gutierrez for a solid dark-horse season.

If I remember correctly, during the playoffs an announcer was crediting their dominance not to velocity but to variety (in stuff, angles, pitch selection, delivery, etc.). Or was that another team? I believe it was Tampa.

Good luck on that tease. Since it's pretty clear Buck's pitchers were better than Hyde's, and thus likely to leave fewer on base, as the data shows. I bet a simple correlation of starter ERA difference, relative to these numbers, would pretty much settle it. Heck, that might even be close to the 4.75 to 6.00 ratio indicated here, straight up.

Is everyone assuming Means is going to be a bona fide #1-2, two or three years from now? Somehow I'm not that confident.

I had a similar problem a while back (with Wordpress sites at Hostgator) and support steered me to a good free solution, which was to reroute those sites through Cloudflare.

Yeah, good points. The way he worded that statement ("hitting development is harder to do and good ones are harder to find") was confusing.

... and really good that final September. Until that playoff game, thrown into a relief role.

Keep in mind that development has to occur within different constraints between pitchers and hitters. So if it's "easier to develop pitchers" in a narrow sense, remember also it's harder to keep them healthy. Conversely, not sure if I buy the statement "good [hitters] are harder to find." When you factor in injuries, I would guess they end up easier to find; at least, reliable ones you can count on, going forward.

That's a pretty simplistic formula. Wouldn't it be possibly even reversed in weight, if you factor in the higher leverage (not sure what statistical term I'm thinking of here) of the later innings? Assuming of course that leverage works that way--higher, as the chances to flip a lead diminish.

yup all I could think of was the Showalter signing... I was like, really?

Who'da thunk?

On the other hand, the post-Buck Skanks didn't turn out too shabby.

Those stats match what the eye test told about his good quality of starts... way better than the rest of the pretenders. So it was mystifying why he was summarily released like that. Here's hoping he gets back in the mix somehow for '22.

40 pages and counting... hmm. We may be over the offseason, but the OH is still going strong!

umm... "playoff experience"... ??

Would be a great fit if you don't mind spending for declining production. Not like we have a shoe-in prospect for SS.