dc.

Would have done that deal in a heartbeat, maybe even five mil more...

It's just a benchmark - all players offensively are compared to the same "made up player" and for defense it's the same made up player by position. Pretty much, they pick a starting stat point and number of "runs" that player contributes. It really doesn't matter what that number is as long as it's consistent. It's also not a fully "standard" stat - so different sites/groups set that baseline at different levels, but roughly the same. Baseball Reference, my preference, uses a composited league average for their replacement player every year (so in a year when everyone hits more homeruns, 50 HRs has a little bit less value). They also use an 'average' but it's still not WAA because league averages don't represent an average player - average players are better than league averages. Baseball Reference says that team full of "replacements" (aka 0 WAR players) should win 48 games in a season (294 winning percentage). And if you add up the WAR on a team, it should give you the team's actual (or pythagorean) record - so a team with a combined +17 WAR would have won about 65 games. Anyway - it's all over the place but the numbers add up pretty accurately the way they use them and measure them, so I trust it.

Hey there... Don't point out what no one else is noticing. Don't drag me into your karmic hell. I ain't going!

Mallet!!!!!!?!!!!

I think we've all had the thought in passing at least... But I'm still struck by the number of actual catches taking place by our receivers. I know some will argue us because of Mallett, but I mean just on actual catchable balls in general...

Mallett great throw. Aiken great catch. Thread the needle. Announcers: be careful in this two minute still, don't throw a pick, that last one was too close. Do I understand the sentiment? Yes. Does Brady or Manning get the same warning, though? I also get that Mallett is not either of those guys by a long shot... But sad that both announcers immediate thought is "well, you got lucky on that one... wouldn't try it again!"

I was going to comment on how unfair that our receivers learned to catch... Think it has a chance to stay a catch, but doubt it

Haha - not just a lot of IFs, but man... isn't that what we do every single year? IF Tillman has a career year - again. And Ubaldo does. And Gallardo does. And Miggy does. Well, golly - we'll have Four #2-3 starters on this team! Maybe we should just actually buy/develop/find ourselves a legit guy who doesn't need a career year and a lot of good mojo to have a true #1 season. Again - if Gallardo is what we get and what we bet on... then, we're betting on a staff with no leadership to create a magic out of a bunch of middleweights. And we'll get some of it. Here and there. Maybe one guy will have a great year. But we'll get a lot of 5.2 starts and a looooooong bullpen.

Some are trickier than others, but a quick rundown: WAR = wins above replacement, RAR = runs above replacement (WAA and RAA are alternates based on "above average") RAR compares stats put up by a player to the hypothetical stats by the AAA (or back-up MLB) player that would replace them if they weren't on the team. Because a guy like Manny Machado hit X HRs more and Y doubles more etc etc... the stats (really, really in depth accounting of how much those numbers all matter in terms of probability of run-scoring), they get a score. +17 for example would mean that player created 17 MORE runs for their team than "replacement." WAR pretty much turns RAR into "wins" added or lost. I forget the exact calculation, but a certain number of extra runs, of course, hypothetically means a certain number more wins. These numbers can also be done for defense (technically becoming "runs saved" - +17 is 17 runs a player stopped from scoring based on good D) and then of course they can also be negative. A -1 RAR means that player contributed one run fewer to his team than a random replacement could have. WAR is more cited than RAR. As a general rule, a WAR of more than about 3 is pretty decent. ESPN's top 50 WAR last year (offense only) takes you down to about 3.5. Below that is pretty average. 0 is pretty worthless. If you cross 6 you are an MVP candidate. If you cross 8, you are having an all-time great season. Barry Bonds' 2001 campaign got a WAR around 12. Mike Trout in 2013 got a 10ish, best seen in a decade. Trout, in other words, won the Angels 10 games that a replacement wouldn't have. As a wrap-up... WAR is (probably over-used) as a metric now to sum up what you got from a player. When Cleetz says the Yanks got what they expected... he's just saying they paid for a WAR of about 4 and have been getting it. Maybe not in the same way (more power, less avg or so...) but they're getting the wins. Only thing I would question in that analysis is... how much does that much WAR cost today? If you can get a +4 WAR from a first basemen for less money, then the market has actually moved against the Yanks and that contract. Just because it would be interest to bring around to Davis... in his two good seasons, Davis had a WAR abour 5.5 and 6.5 - good for top 5 among 1B in the league. In 2014, he fell to a very average 1.8, but still more than one might expect given his struggles. But it pretty much means in 2/3 seasons, Davis has been on par with the likes of Votto, Goldschmidt (crazy 9 WAR last year!), even Cabrera. Meanwhile, Adrian Gonzalez has been a very consistent 3.5-4.5 WAR. Even Pujols has been only about a 3-4, with his great year this year. So, Davis perhaps deserves numbers in that realm?

Oy. Gallardo is ... fine. But I say that in all the worst ways. I'm sure he's actually exactly who we'll wind up with, but he's just going to be another in a long line of 3/4 (he's not a2/3 in my mind and as he ages) that we'll be selling to the fans as a" game changer." But at 15m a year he'll look exciting. Just another year of 5.2 inning starts from every guy in our rotation. And then we'll wonder why our rotation isn't really locking things down and why we're just an inch off the rest of the division.

Again, we'll just diverge here. Joe threw a pick. Lee dropped a ball. Steve threw a pick. Field goal missed. All coaching to blame. Just can't agree.

I guess we just have different visions of both acceptable performance and a coach's blame... Not sure how Harbs cost us that NE game.

I think the longer CD sits on this market... the better the odds are for the O's. Seems to me, more and more, like Duquette is calling Boras' bluff... "You think you'll find more elsewhere? Good luck." Meanwhile, read some stuff about O's going after Denard Span. Injury questions, but he's exactly what we need to lock down the other OF spot... but O's are apparently very weary of going beyond one year. I get it, but sometimes you have to take small gambles. Three years cannot be seen as the end of the world. And ... WHERE'S THE PITCHING?! Kazmir was just taken at a bargain, I'd argue. 16m per year. Chen will get at least that for an extra 3 years. How are we not in that game?

Hard to say "done nothing since" - we had a pretty darn solid 2014 campaign... ? Meanwhile, Harbaugh and Trest will both get another chance with no question, at the very least because of injury this year. Pees really does have to go though.

I don't really agree that people were saying "who's there?" when Billick was canned. And he had a longer grace period post Super Bowl. I'm in Spens camp. Not saying Harbs is anything incredibly special, but just can't see the "failure" that some others see as being his to own. And can't see us getting lucky in another shot in the dark replacement - haven't we all been complaining about the FOs inability to scout talent the last five years?

Who exactly would you replace him with?

You shouldn't be able to recall a Christmas like this... the last week was almost all record breakers and by a good bit. I think I heard the old record on Christmas Eve was like 64 and it was 65 at midnight that morning, reached over 70 during the day. Same thing on Christmas. And I LOVE that Chris Farley sketch.

PS- the Post gives free subscriptions for ed workers? How do I get that? I have just been fighting their paywall and sneaking around it (again, twitter seems to help) for years!

It's not, but I never seem to get busted by their wall. I access many by twitter, so maybe that's why?

Same thought here.

Sigh. Would have been nice if CBS could have at least turned on their own little "flag" notifier during that play... Fire someone

CBS needs to lower Bart Scott's stool.

Thank you, Tuck

Simon's writing has been on my read list forever - both Homicide and The Corner. One day. One more reason to check it out... Meanwhile, showing of Homicide - the city still uses the "big board" on homicides shown in the TV show. Still white board, red and black pen. Crazy to see the pic in this story. And a lot of red this year of course.

Yeah, I mean, I love the signing and the player in general... And I love these first two drives worth of his play. Though, wondering where the balanced playbook is coming from... Feel like I haven't seen this symmetry in the pass and run in a long time. Seems to be giving the Steelers fits in coverage