Well, you know, the moment of a man's death is not always the best time to talk about him, from an analytical standpoint.    Maybe that's a moment to let the emotional people rule the day?  

You'd have to think it would help, wouldn't you?

But the end of the steroid era, which has resulted in hitter's numbers going back to normal, has been accompanied by another sudden INCREASE in strikeouts.    Pitchers certainly used sturroyds; in fact, I have been told that in the minor leagues it was MOSTLY pitchers who used steroids.    I don't know if that's true, but I've heard that.    I think we have to believe that some of the unusual pitching performances of the 1996-2003 era were steroid-aided.   But I don't think steroids were GENERALLY responsible for any of the increase in strikeout rates; in fact, I would suspect that they probably held DOWN the rate of increase in strikeouts, since a stronger hitter has less need to sell out early to get the bat speed that he needs.   

It's just a very high standard.     Yes, we're reluctant to sign players who are only going to DH, and frankly, sometimes we're wrong to worry about it.   But players move leftward on the defensive spectrum as they age, so you always have lots of candidates for DH, 1B, LF, therefore what you're looking for is candidates for shortstop and center field.   If a guy starts out at the left end of the defensive spectrum, he's going to have to hit a ton to have value.  

Daniel Bard.   Bard is trying to make the same transition, with the same background.    I doubt that there are enough pitchers who have successfully made this transition in the last 20 years to generalize about them.   You'd need at least 15-20 successful cases to study; I kind of doubt that there are that many.  

The bats account for a lot of it.   The bats we use now have harder surfaces and thinner handles.  The general theme of the last 100 years is that we constantly increase bat speeds at the expense of bat control.   Bat control reduces strikeouts, but bat speed increases the batting average when the ball is in play. 

Calvin's only 35 now; maybe he'll make it work yet.    He's a good example: I dunno how many others there are.

It is very, very difficult to guess how often the Justice system misfires, and then more difficult to guess how often it misfires due to Cause A, Cause B, etc.    I wouldn't use the term "public" perception; it is the perception of the jury that counts, not the perception of the public.    But if you behave badly in other aspects of your life, this will tend to jump up and bite you in the ankle when you are on trial for murder.  

Crawford has very little in common with Juan Samuel. 

It doesn't mean anything to me one way or the other without more context.   

Generally but not precisely.    In Win Shares I made after-the-calculation adjustments to FORCE the totals to add up to three times the teams wins.   In Win Shares/Loss Shares I don't make those after-the-fact adjustments, so they don't add up to precisely the team total.

He hasn't used the name "Applegate" since 1962.  

Yeah, and people who believe those things shouldn't be criticized for challenging conventional wisdom.   But I think it's very unlikely that steroids were not the main cause of the explosion in home run numbers. 

I don't believe there has ever been such a player.   But the presumption of Hall of Fame status for a 3,000-hit player is not immutable.   If there was a player who played 3200 games and had 3,000 hits but a .280 average and not really good other numbers, he wouldn't be elected, and he shouldn't be.  

Don't know anything about it.   I never read "Moneyball", for one thing.   A player with the Fielder-type body style has to overcome a lot of resistance.   Cecil Fielder was a 31st-round draft pick who refused to sign, was taken by the Royals in the old secondary draft.     He hit .322 with 20 homers in 69 games in the low minors, and the Royals traded him to Toronto.  He crushed the ball for four years in the Toronto system, and they sold him to Japan.   People just didn't believe he could play, based on his build.   There's a high skepticism attached to that type of a body.   

There is data on the effect.   You've overstated the effect, but I think a .500 team is a .600 team when they're well-rested and a .350 team when they're tired, which is an extremely significant effect, far beyond anything you would find in baseball.   

I think so, yes.    But, you know. .it is pretty late in this discussion to be bringing clarity to it.   

1)  If Luke Skywalker had been Jeremy Lin, he'd have finished off the empire in the first movie.    2)  If Sherlock Holmes had been Jeremy Lin, he'd have nailed Moriarty for Jaywalking.   3)  If Jeremy Lin had played for us in the '72 Olympics, even that British official couldn't have given the game to the Russians.   4)  My calculations are, it will take 2,746 years for global warming to create another player as hot as Jeremy Lin.     Dust off those old Chuck Norris jokes. . . . ...

Yeah, but one of the reasons it is very hard to calculate replacement level is that players actually play BELOW replacement level--for everybody; even the Red Sox and Yankees will have players who play below replacement level for 15 or 20 games before we decide we've seen enough.   Sometimes a team like 2003 Detroit will just let it ride with a player who is below replacement level.   On that team you had Adam Bernero (1-12, 6.08 ERA, 17 starts), somebody named Gary Knotts (6.04 ERA, 18 starts), and three other pitchers who pitched over 100 innings among them with 6+ ERAs.    It's not clear whether these players were actually at or below replacement level.  

It was .44 in the NL, .23 in the American League.